Comments by "Trazyn" (@Trazynn) on "Big Think" channel.

  1. 0:24 "They're in within their rights to react how they are going to react. So you can't be surprised or insulted if someone doesn't like a thing you said"
    43
  2. I'm really glad Big Think has so many diverse views and not just one narrative. The thumbnail isn't helping though. Just a shot of the video would draw much more viewers.
    16
  3. Samb1600 In that quote he's explicitly saying comedians CAN NOT be surprised or offended by the way people react to them. He's literally telling certain people (comedians) how they should respond right after saying that people are within their rights to respond however they like.     If you state that people are free to respond however they like then that ALSO applies to comedians. Comedians are COMPLETELY free to be surprised or insulted by their audience's reaction. They're free to blame it on political correctness just as much as the audience is free not to find them funny. 
    2
  4. Samb1600 jesus how far up your own ass must you've crawled to be able to spout so much drivel with so little substance?
    2
  5. Samb1600 Projection. Let me hear it once you've actually found a point to share.
    2
  6. Samb1600 Oh that's so generous. I'll gladly take it. Brief summary. You asked for what quotes troubled people. The quote I gave was already an obvious contradiction to which you could only vaguely retort that I must be either intentionally or unintentionally interpreting it on bad faith.  Now here's the deal. You and mr "comedian" both are unable to explicitly formulate what exactly is the real issue here. Because in doing so it would become immediately apparent how much of a double standards game you both are running.  Comedians that are outraged at political correctness or offended by their audience's reactions have the same rights as the audience has with their response. BOTH sides are free to be as outraged about everything as can be.  "Ah but that goes without saying" you might think. Exactly that's why he isn't saying it, and that's why you can't say it either.  Because the MOMENT you say that comedians can be as outraged at the audience as the audience can be outraged at them you concede that you have no real point at all.  You both rely on smoke and mirrors to rig the game against comedians. Through constant implication you hope that people follow you in accepting all the premises you're not formulating because these premises would be rejected the moment you speak them out loud.  And well, I guess the rating of this video gives a good sense of how persuasive this disingenuous strand of reason really is. Sleep well.
    2
  7. @PhantomGanon1 I think you misunderstood the meaning of the quote. What 'Orwell' meant is that scientific education shouldn't be increased by adding more facts to learn, it needs to be increased by adding more curiosity and fascination for your surroundings as well as a higher respect for the way science enriches our lives.
    2
  8. +Samb1600 This quote, it's a complete contradiction: "They're in within their rights to react how they are going to react. So you can't be surprised or insulted if someone doesn't like a thing you said"
    1
  9. He actually had me going at the start.
    1
  10. start=star
    1
  11. @PhantomGanon1 Then again, now I've read his quote again Orwell probably just friggin hated exact science.
    1
  12. It's tribalism. People are afraid to let go of this identity with all it's batshit crazy ideas. They think that either they'll be outcasts in the community or the community itself will disintegrate. That's what they're afraid of. Its not without reason that Congo is 95% Christian. It's a failed state and people are clinging on to the last shred of cohesion they got. Not realising that the soldiers that raid their villages are praying to the exact same god at night.
    1
  13. Granted. What I'm saying is that it's jut another nail in the coffin of the theory. And now I'm thinking about it, it's also a nail in the coffin of any advanced ancient extraterrestrial race. Life needs a second generation start in order to have the right elements. Our universe is only 13.7 billion years old, that means that our sun is one of the very first second generation stars in the universe which suggests that we're one of the earliest forms of intelligent life in the universe.
    1
  14. BUULSHIITTT
    1
  15. I'll go with proto-life, self replicating cultures, that may have been possible. But for fully fledged intelligent life there simply isn't enough time. Our solar system is too young for that.
    1
  16. An intelligent being 3 billion years ago, IE when Mars was still 1,5 billion years old? That's THREE billion years before the Cabrian explosion (IE when life started) on Earth happened.
    1
  17. Those quotes aren't relevant to the dialogue.
    1
  18. I guess Bigthink wanted 'the other side' on as well to appear balanced at all. Too bad they utterly filled in finding someone as eloquent.
    1