Need to make a primal scream without gathering footnotes first? Have a sneer percolating in your system but not enough time/energy to make a whole post about it? Go forth and be mid!

Any awful.systems sub may be subsneered in this subthread, techtakes or no.

If your sneer seems higher quality than you thought, feel free to cut’n’paste it into its own post — there’s no quota for posting and the bar really isn’t that high.

The post Xitter web has spawned soo many “esoteric” right wing freaks, but there’s no appropriate sneer-space for them. I’m talking redscare-ish, reality challenged “culture critics” who write about everything but understand nothing. I’m talking about reply-guys who make the same 6 tweets about the same 3 subjects. They’re inescapable at this point, yet I don’t see them mocked (as much as they should be)
Like, there was one dude a while back who insisted that women couldn’t be surgeons because they didn’t believe in the moon or in stars? I think each and every one of these guys is uniquely fucked up and if I can’t escape them, I would love to sneer at them.

  • zogwarg@awful.systems
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    From a brief glance at the CTMU it fits into:

    • not even wrong
    • not that deep
    • cloaked in really unecessary jargon

    It’s fascinating to see people re-invent the same bad eschatology, it’s like there’s crazed compulsive shaped hole in the heart of man or something.

    • carlitoscohones@awful.systems
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      Wikipedia tells me that Langan says that he can prove the existence of God, the soul and an afterlife, using mathematics … I feel like there’s gonna be some bad Bayes in there somewhere.

      • blakestacey@awful.systemsOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        From what I recall from the halcyon days of science-blogging, it was more bad Gödel than bad Bayes, but a dose of the latter would be unsurprising.