j_wtf_all_taken

For which part of that commend did I get the downvotes? Seriously interested to know so I can write more of that.

But its true? This research organization doesn't have to beg for short-term or 3rd party research money?

Also, I'm really pissed and also I'm kind of convinced that its too late anyways to try to convince someone who says stuff like that that they're not right. The only thing that can still be done is trying to keep more people from getting sucked into that black hole. The best way to do this seems to be to de-platform these people. The 2nd best way? No idea. Did I mention I'm pissed?

I mean, do you really believe well-researched, weighted, deliberate, thought-through arguments still help? Wouldn't climate science then have succeeded in convincing people? Maybe 20, 30 years ago. But then some people decided to start systematically lying instead of facing reality and lots of people decided to believe those lies and not face reality, and here we are.

> and why are you taking it up with me

Don't be sad. For grown ups its normal to live with objections. You'll learn.

> How is natural behavior relevant to the discussion

Original post: " Perhaps a particular chimp or gorilla was having a really bad day and just went out looking for a fight." that implies natural behavior.

Well he IS a wild chimp attacking people, right?

Sorry chimps, that was mean.

Give it five minutes and you'll contradict yourself.

And you have enough knowledge on the subject matter so this can be seen as an educated guess, or are you just throwing some good-knowing words around to see what sticks?

The first sentence is: "Forest clearing has forced hungry chimps to raid villagers’ crops."

So it doesn't seem that's their natural behavior. So how's that relevant? Oh wait it its, just exactly the opposite of what you said! Nice.

> I don't see why small encounters that result in one or two deaths would be totally unexpected.

And if you, in your grand wisdom, don't see it, it cannot be the case. Yeah.

Because they don't want to randomly attack people for no reason, other than you?

Yeah and you don't know how the research organization works that produced that research, so ...

Except you're the one who's lying ...? Weird.

Yeah and when its commenters throwing around arguments that just don't apply here they're doing everyone a disservice.

How is the behavior of some random humans relevant here?

People lie. People who care more about getting their PhD and less about the actual research. Cause they don't have the integrity to not cheat. If you care about the actual research, why cheat.

And still if researchers would only care about getting funding, they'd all "prove" that them fucking democrats eat children cause man, would they get donations by them QAnon people.

And of course if you have a distinguished researcher in a field voicing a clear and educated guess/opinion, its worth much more then any random person commenting here ...

> Perhaps a particular chimp or gorilla was having a really bad day and just went out looking for a fight.

Do chimps and gorillas do such things?

So because you don't know, it is impossible?

Funny how all the people criticizing the science behind that article didn't do proper research themselves.

The Max Planck Society is a research organization with a steady, long-term funding through the German government that is organized in a bottom-up manner, meaning the directors of the various institutes can do pretty much whatever the fuck they want and decide about everything important in that organization. There are dozens of institutes doing research in virtually every research field. And yeah, lots of Nobel prizes. They really don't have to follow some political lead or short-term trends.

Just, you know, fyi (the other fyi, yes).

Yeah, bullshitting was always the easiest way to get people's attention. Specifically if the bullshitters believe their own bullshit, I mean, they're sooooo confident in what they're saying, the gotta be right, right?

Just seems like a human weakness, always believe the person that appears the most confident, no matter what they say. And a bullshitter will say anything that people like because they need positive feedback because they're so convinced that what they have to say is pure greatness, and they don't even realize that they just always say whatever gets the most applause. And man, these people are good in that specific respect (and literally nothing else). They perfected their bullshit to a degree that its really really hard to see through it, at least it will take time. And then the next bullshitter comes along and one's fooled again because fuck they're good.

And yeah now we got a system called social media putting those people on steroids. Its not like that didn't happen every time we invented a new way of communicating. But every fucking time we believe this time it's different and people are better now and all that shit won't happen.

And of course then you get in a competition between those bullshitters, so they have to turn the heat up more and more to beat their fellow bullshitters. And what gets the most heat? Well, hate and fear and division and polarization of course. And now we are where we are and have to deal with fucking QAnon bullshit.

Faith is fine (in god, democracy, veganism, open source or a political party - whatever). Blind faith (= ideology) is a problem.

Its still there, its just buried under all the other crap.

As more and more people generate content, more and more bullshit exists. Unfortunately, Google etc. - despite all their big announcements - can obviously not keep up filtering out that bullshit. We drown in bullshit.

Where's the semantic web that was promised? I wonder if we're still paying for the mistakes that were made with the whole XML stuff ...?

> The US still have a better academic culture but the chinese are catching up.

Science is about truth. Dictatorships are about appealing to the dear leader. That's why China will never catch up to free and open countries.

Yeah cause we're right about that

So doing good is a bad thing now? Not the whole world follows the US approach where only making money seems to count. Luckily.

> Not sure were you have your numbers.

They're made up.

> The fact that I was a top student in high-scool is irelevant to my current job where I underperform.

Maybe spending less time on HN will improve your job performance?

Kansas

But that's the thing, they don't cause too much trouble, so "yet allow for immigration from countries that almost never cause problems" means let's continue doing what we're doing.

> but shutting it down for a period or restricting heavily might be worth it due to the potential risks that exist long term (...) by doing so you will also keep the far right wingers at bay

So that means that the people in Germany that would vote for right-wing parties are the problem, not the immigrants themselves, no matter how well they behave. I agree with that.

There's assholes everywhere, in any group, so also there's immigrant assholes. Not letting immigrants in doesn't help with the assholes problem.

The thing is, in Germany the people voting for the far-right party are actually doing fine economically and so are their friends.

I do agree that parts of the economy are not working properly. And still we can't seem to get ourselves to vote for different politicians that might do something about it. Yeah that means stuff changes and change and new things are scary, but not fixing those things would be worse.