Neil Degrasse Tyson Triggers Twitter

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: Klassified

I am sure the bereaved families will take a lot of comfort in reading that.

Twat.

I'm sure those statistics will not comfort the families whatsoever. Nor should they be comforting. I've lost a family member to senseless violence. I was angry at the perps. I still am. I've also lost one due to suicide. I felt no less angry. My mother died due to medical incompetence in 1959. I felt no less angry.

What I do understand is that where humans are gathered together, senseless acts of violence and/or negligence are going to happen. It has been that way as far back in history as you want to go. Long before firearms arrived on the scene, or even a sword.

That Neil put things in perspective is not a bad thing. Could he have softened his approach? Sure, I'll concede that, but where is the outrage for the other senseless acts of violence going on in this country, and indeed the world, every day?

It's only when the media decides when and why we should be outraged that the pitchforks come out.

Feelings, nothing more than feelings,,, ,

Everyone sing with me!

originally posted by: shooterbrody

your guestimate as to this number?
40% of voters would be mine

Maybe 10-15% at best, it's only the wacky fringes that tend to make the most noise.

a reply to: Klassified

He's not wrong, but in today's climate, you keep things to yourself, or expect to be attacked by half the country (minimum).... why any celebrity speaks today on anything blows my mind, becasue everything is twisted/manipulated for political agendas... And I love how Neil Tyson came out to apologize due to the pressure/blow-back and now liberals are like "see, even he apologized, he knows he's not right".... No, not close, he's apologizing due to the craziness of the left. He's conforming, nothing more, but we know how he feels by the data points he shared...

I wish he would have stood his ground, but the lunatics on the left would never allow that to happen... You need to be a "Level 100 Zero F*cks given" to be able to pull that off.. Neil is level 3..

a reply to: jhn7537

He's not wrong, but in today's climate, you keep things to yourself, or expect to be attacked by half the country (minimum).... why any celebrity speaks today on anything blows my mind, becasue everything is twisted/manipulated for political agendas... And I love how Neil Tyson came out to apologize due to the pressure/blow-back and now liberals are like "see, even he apologized, he knows he's not right".... No, not close, he's apologizing due to the craziness of the left. He's conforming, nothing more, but we know how he feels by the data points he shared...

Good points.

I wish he would have stood his ground, but the lunatics on the left would never allow that to happen... You need to be a "Level 100 Zero F*cks given" to be able to pull that off.. Neil is level 3.

I'm sure he has seen enough celebrity careers go up in flames at this point that he doesn't want to join the club. I would like to have seen him stand his ground as well, but it would have been costly, and may yet cost him in the long run.

originally posted by: Secretrooster

originally posted by: Klassified

originally posted by: Secretrooster
He does have a point. The one thing he doesn’t have is compassion. Bet he’s never posted about flu death statistics without also comparing it to mass shootings.

Strictly my opinion, because I don't know Neil personally, but I don't think it's that he lacks compassion. I think it's that he doesn't appeal to the knee-jerk emotional response of the media's sensationalism and the ensuing emotional roller-coaster afterward.

I’m only judging from the tweet and I think that he lacks compassion and sincerity. Is he sincerely concerned about the causes of death he listed?

Why do you think he lacks compassion? Is it because he's not wringing his hands and saying, "Oh, dear, how terrible!"? That's his point, I think. Compassion is unfettered emotion. It doesn't deal with the facts. He is, and you don't like that.

To be fair.. It genuinely seems twitter is very literally permanently offended.

Yet, its an amazingly influential driving factor in our society. Thats totally great, no issues there at all..

Of course, focusing on the actual problems is echewed in favor of kneejerk calls for gun bans. Which, of course, creates a situation where the two outcomes are either 1) nothing actually happens or 2) rights are eroded or eradicated.

Its incredible how our sense of scale can go so very, very wonky if we are inundated with constant coverage of a given subject. "Not watching the news" is totally impotent in avoiding the influence as well. Its like the gas in the engine. Sure, huffing that gas directly is going to have the most impact, but one doesnt need to come into contact with gasoline at all to be run over by a car.

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: Secretrooster

originally posted by: Klassified

originally posted by: Secretrooster
He does have a point. The one thing he doesn’t have is compassion. Bet he’s never posted about flu death statistics without also comparing it to mass shootings.

Strictly my opinion, because I don't know Neil personally, but I don't think it's that he lacks compassion. I think it's that he doesn't appeal to the knee-jerk emotional response of the media's sensationalism and the ensuing emotional roller-coaster afterward.

I’m only judging from the tweet and I think that he lacks compassion and sincerity. Is he sincerely concerned about the causes of death he listed?

Why do you think he lacks compassion? Is it because he's not wringing his hands and saying, "Oh, dear, how terrible!"? That's his point, I think. Compassion is unfettered emotion. It doesn't deal with the facts. He is, and you don't like that.

He said nothing about hopes and prayers. nuff said.

originally posted by: Secretrooster
He does have a point. The one thing he doesn’t have is compassion. Bet he’s never posted about flu death statistics without also comparing it to mass shootings.

No compassion? I would say describing the acts/deaths as "horrific" shows much compassion.

But I have a very serious question for you: Could not your response also be considered to be lacking compassion for the hundreds of deaths he cited?

I am not saying that you lack compassion. Not at all. Rather, I'm wondering how we find that proper ratio or balance of facts and emotions in any debate or discussion.

Compassion can motivate and inspire... but answers and solutions must be based upon facts and truths.

I've been fairly offended and perplexed over NDT's wishy washy comments, from his negative views on UFO's, on up to his latest twitter feed.

a reply to: odzeandennz

Those things occurred long before guns were invented.

Actually, only the flu and suicides happened before guns were invented. And flu deaths were much higher -- so a much bigger problem -- before the invention of the gun.

He's stats only shows that we have enough to worry about. We don't have room for something not needed. It's like saying why not kill a few more people because of the flu...

I would say it's more like saying, "Yes, gun deaths are preventable, and there are many other preventable causes of death that actually kill more people, but don't receive the attention warranted -- much less this much attention."

I appreciate his observation because it gets right to the root of our problem: Do we care about people dying needlessly? Or just people dying needlessly by psycho mass murderers?

Which is the truly compassionate position?

originally posted by: odzeandennz
Yea, he's comparing senseless acts of violence not needed, to every day events...?


Those things occurred long before guns were invented.

He's stats only shows that we have enough to worry about. We don't have room for something not needed.


It's like saying why not kill a few more people because of the flu...

Did we miss the handgun homicide statistic in there? Car accidents happened before guns were invented?
Also he's just talking in the USA, he's not even considering how many die to violence of some form on a daily basis worldwide. In the grand scheme of things, according to the WHO, on average close to 16,000 people die each day in the world due to violence. A figure that comes at around 5.8 million people per year.

If we're just looking at intentional death (homicide and suicide), the most dangerous country based on deaths per 100,000 people we have...Greenland? The rest of the top 10 makes sense, but Greenland? Apparently massive suicide problems there. We have South Korea at 16th, also mostly due to suicide (still a shocker). China at 30th, suicide. Japan at 35, also due to suicide rate, apparently the folks in Asia like to kill themselves? The United States comes in at 46th on the list, which doesn't surprise me, right at about the middle of the road.

If we look at homicide in general it's mostly South American countries, until you get to Greenland at 19.2 per 100k, which means I need to read up on Greenland because apparently it's rough out there. As opposed to the USA at 4.8 per 100k, which is still an unacceptably high number in my opinion.

Interestingly enough

In Greenland, the right to private gun ownership is not guaranteed by law

yet still homicide rates are almost 4x higher. It's the least densely populated territory in the world, yet somehow the roughly 56k people that live there find a way to kill each other and themselves significantly more often than any other country. It's wild when you put it into perspective.

a reply to: Klassified

Truth

a reply to: discourse
What part of "horrifically lost 34 people" do some people not understand? The man addressed the tragedy as well as the facts. I think member Boadicea made some good posts in this thread. They get to the crux of the matter.

a reply to: Klassified

Here is the pattern emerging:

In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act - and if you are a truth teller, then you are also a Russian asset, a white supremacist, a racist. [pick at least one]

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: Klassified

Here is the pattern emerging:

In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act - and if you are a truth teller, then you are also a Russian asset, a white supremacist, a racist. [pick at least one]

Yes, Mr. Orwell nailed that one.

originally posted by: odzeandennz

originally posted by: Klassified
Mr. Tyson had the gall to state facts after he recognized Saturday's shootings as "horrific"...

Celebrity astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson got an earful Sunday on Twitter after an ill-advised tweet in the aftermath of Saturday’s two horrific mass shootings that left at least 29 people dead.
The killings don’t really matter in the big picture, DeGrasse Tyson seemed to say, it’s just that darn human empathy that makes them seem so bad.

How dare he appeal to logic and common sense, instead of the strictly emotional response the media embraces in the face of tragedy. Calling them "horrific" and a "loss" is not enough Neil. You should be calling for the nation wide confiscation of guns.

Oddly enough, there are some well known people in recent history that did just that. I wonder why they aren't lauded as great leaders? Couldn't be what happened after they got everyone's guns, could it?

Link to article

Yea, he's comparing senseless acts of violence not needed, to every day events...?


Those things occurred long before guns were invented.

He's stats only shows that we have enough to worry about. We don't have room for something not needed.


It's like saying why not kill a few more people because of the flu...

Funny.... isnt what Neil is saying more like:

- why not give the same amount or more focus to such things as keeping people safe on the road.
- prohibit firearm sales because people with guns kill too.
- help stubborn or poor people who might not survive a flu getting the shot that could save their life.

He's right... the amount of focus mass shootings get is disproportionate.
Really... you guys shouldnt nees mass shootings to see your own gun laws are #ed up. You are the only western country where these things happen on a regular basis... yet you wont ban guns?!?! Makes no sense...

originally posted by: Secretrooster
He does have a point. The one thing he doesn’t have is compassion. Bet he’s never posted about flu death statistics without also comparing it to mass shootings.

Compassion and 7 bucks will get you a coffee from Starbucks

a reply to: flice

We don’t want to give up our rights . Does that make sense?

a reply to: Klassified
I was so happy reading this this morning. Go Neil!!!!!!!