MAGAThread XIX: Hambergers, Noble Prizes, & Disinfectant

[Rusozak]

Does the Nobel prize actually matter in any way? Obama won it for being black and not being George Bush, last year they were seriously considering giving it to Greta Thunberg

The shittiest one is when the fucking European Union won the Nobel prize

Nah. The worst was Kissinger.

The EU at least has to record of no major war in Europe since 1945.

Is the bar really that low? "Here's an award for NOT starting a world war."

[Borderlands of Rojava]

Nah. The worst was Kissinger.

The EU at least has to record of no major war in Europe since 1945.

Is the bar really that low? "Here's an award for NOT starting a world war."

Someone should give me an award just for not shooting somebody.

[Kowani]

Nah. The worst was Kissinger.

The EU at least has to record of no major war in Europe since 1945.

Is the bar really that low? "Here's an award for NOT starting a world war."

To be fair, the EU creates institutions to avoid war. It's not a passive "do nothing."

[Fartsniffage]

Nah. The worst was Kissinger.

The EU at least has to record of no major war in Europe since 1945.

Is the bar really that low? "Here's an award for NOT starting a world war."

Do you know anything about European history? Massive wars were the norm. We haven't had one since the EU. That is a good thing.

[Sanghyeok]

Is the bar really that low? "Here's an award for NOT starting a world war."

Someone should give me an award just for not shooting somebody.

[Chan Island]

Nah. The worst was Kissinger.

The EU at least has to record of no major war in Europe since 1945.

Is the bar really that low? "Here's an award for NOT starting a world war."

Considering that avoiding war was one of the primary reasons it was set up, we can credit it for successfully sticking with that mission statement.

[Gravlen]

Does the Nobel prize actually matter in any way? Obama won it for being black and not being George Bush, last year they were seriously considering giving it to Greta Thunberg

The shittiest one is when the fucking European Union won the Nobel prize

I mean, they were equally seriously considering Thunberg as they will be seriously considering Trump. There were no inside leaks suggesting that Thunberg was on any kind of short list, even though bookmakers gave her good odds.

[Cannot think of a name]

Does the Nobel prize actually matter in any way? Obama won it for being black and not being George Bush, last year they were seriously considering giving it to Greta Thunberg

The shittiest one is when the fucking European Union won the Nobel prize

Nah. The worst was Kissinger.

The EU at least has a record of no major war in Europe since 1945.

Well, you guys kind of tuckered yourselves out with the years leading up to 1945...

[Jerzylvania]

So, Scientific American has done something unique in it's history. They have endorsed a candidate for POTUS.

Scientific American has never endorsed a presidential candidate in its 175-year history. This year we are compelled to do so. We do not do this lightly.

The evidence and the science show that Donald Trump has badly damaged the U.S. and its people—because he rejects evidence and science. The most devastating example is his dishonest and inept response to the COVID-19 pandemic, which cost more than 190,000 Americans their lives by the middle of September. He has also attacked environmental protections, medical care, and the researchers and public science agencies that help this country prepare for its greatest challenges. That is why we urge you to vote for Joe Biden, who is offering fact-based plans to protect our health, our economy and the environment.

[Ifreann]

Nah. The worst was Kissinger.

The EU at least has to record of no major war in Europe since 1945.

Is the bar really that low? "Here's an award for NOT starting a world war."

Given the prior history of Europe, yes.

[Bombadil]

So, Scientific American has done something unique in it's history. They have endorsed a candidate for POTUS.

Scientific American has never endorsed a presidential candidate in its 175-year history. This year we are compelled to do so. We do not do this lightly.

The evidence and the science show that Donald Trump has badly damaged the U.S. and its people—because he rejects evidence and science. The most devastating example is his dishonest and inept response to the COVID-19 pandemic, which cost more than 190,000 Americans their lives by the middle of September. He has also attacked environmental protections, medical care, and the researchers and public science agencies that help this country prepare for its greatest challenges. That is why we urge you to vote for Joe Biden, who is offering fact-based plans to protect our health, our economy and the environment.

To which Trump retorted: “I don’t think science knows actually.”

[Jerzylvania]

So, Scientific American has done something unique in it's history. They have endorsed a candidate for POTUS.

Scientific American has never endorsed a presidential candidate in its 175-year history. This year we are compelled to do so. We do not do this lightly.

The evidence and the science show that Donald Trump has badly damaged the U.S. and its people—because he rejects evidence and science. The most devastating example is his dishonest and inept response to the COVID-19 pandemic, which cost more than 190,000 Americans their lives by the middle of September. He has also attacked environmental protections, medical care, and the researchers and public science agencies that help this country prepare for its greatest challenges. That is why we urge you to vote for Joe Biden, who is offering fact-based plans to protect our health, our economy and the environment.

To which Trump retorted: “I don’t think science knows actually.”

"I don't think science knows actually" he said smugly when confronted by Californian politicians over Climate Change and it's effect on the extensive western fires.

I'd imagine Trump would show the same disdain for Scientific American as he does The Atlantic if he feels the need to comment on it. Maybe something like "Believe me, that fake American science magazine should look out because they're failing at partisan politics, this I can tell you."

[Valrifell]

I think it's overall a bad move by reputable science publication like Scientific American to endorse a candidate. While science advocacy is always good, it's bad to feed into the partisan divide over science. That's only going to further drive Republicans away from listening to scientific experts, since their institutions come off as liking Democrats more.

Which would serve to further weaken climate response but also funding for the sciences by the government in general.

[Northern Davincia]

Does the Nobel prize actually matter in any way? Obama won it for being black and not being George Bush, last year they were seriously considering giving it to Greta Thunberg

The shittiest one is when the fucking European Union won the Nobel prize

Nah. The worst was Kissinger.

The EU at least has a record of no major war in Europe since 1945.

Kissinger was a great man, leave him be.

[Heloin]

Nah. The worst was Kissinger.

The EU at least has a record of no major war in Europe since 1945.

Kissinger was a great man, leave him be.

When Kissinger won the Nobel peace prize, satire died.

[Northern Davincia]

Kissinger was a great man, leave him be.

When Kissinger won the Nobel peace prize, satire died.

Satire is dead, and it is we who killed it!

[Jerzylvania]

I think it's overall a bad move by reputable science publication like Scientific American to endorse a candidate. While science advocacy is always good, it's bad to feed into the partisan divide over science. That's only going to further drive Republicans away from listening to scientific experts, since their institutions come off as liking Democrats more.

Which would serve to further weaken climate response but also funding for the sciences by the government in general.

Bah. We're at the crossroads. You should support scientific freedom of speech. As for most republicans on Climate Change, they seem like they're from "the show me state" yet always manage to keep their eyes closed. Wack, but not environmentally woke.

[Ifreann]

I think it's overall a bad move by reputable science publication like Scientific American to endorse a candidate. While science advocacy is always good, it's bad to feed into the partisan divide over science. That's only going to further drive Republicans away from listening to scientific experts, since their institutions come off as liking Democrats more.

Which would serve to further weaken climate response but also funding for the sciences by the government in general.

Republicans are perfectly willing to listen to experts. Their own experts from their own think tanks and foundations, who'll find reasons for them to do the shit they wanted to do anyway. Every single Republican politician knows full well that climate change is real and a catastrophic threat to America and the world, but they have the Heritage Foundation giving them excuses to deregulate fracking.

---

Nah. The worst was Kissinger.

The EU at least has a record of no major war in Europe since 1945.

Kissinger was a great man, leave him be.

Kissinger is still alive.

[Sanghyeok]

Kissinger was a great man, leave him be.

Kissinger is still alive.

Shame.

[Ifreann]

Kissinger is still alive.

Shame.

Even Satan has standards.

[Aureumterra]

When Kissinger won the Nobel peace prize, satire died.

Satire is dead, and it is we who killed it!

Satire died when people started getting offended at every little "microagression"

[Liriena]

I think it's overall a bad move by reputable science publication like Scientific American to endorse a candidate. While science advocacy is always good, it's bad to feed into the partisan divide over science. That's only going to further drive Republicans away from listening to scientific experts, since their institutions come off as liking Democrats more.

Which would serve to further weaken climate response but also funding for the sciences by the government in general.

Yeah. Given how Republican voters are very much a "follow the leader" crowd, the scientific community coming out against Trump could almost immediately birth a whole population of fanatically anti-intellectual right-wingers.

Mind you, I still think that they're doing the right thing as a matter of principle. Biden is not even remotely close to the sort of American leader needed to tackle climate change, but he is absolutely the harm reduction candidate.

[Liriena]

Satire is dead, and it is we who killed it!

Satire died when people started getting offended at every little "microagression"

k boomah

[Sanghyeok]

Shame.

Even Satan has standards.

If I was Satan I would take him. Who doesn't want strategic bombers and carpet-bombing in hell?

[Idzequitch]

To which Trump retorted: “I don’t think science knows actually.”

"I don't think science knows actually" he said smugly when confronted by Californian politicians over Climate Change and it's effect on the extensive western fires.

I'd imagine Trump would show the same disdain for Scientific American as he does The Atlantic if he feels the need to comment on it. Maybe something like "Believe me, that fake American science magazine should look out because they're failing at partisan politics, this I can tell you."

In 2016, everyone was talking about fake news and alternative facts. In 2020, we will soon talk about fake science and alternative evidence.