A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.
Rules
This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.
Image text
Red pill:
Let people who pretend to know nothing about vaccines decide who can get what vaccines
Blue pill:
Let people who pretend to know nothing about guns decide who can get what guns
Red pill:
Let the weapon industry dictate gun policy
Blue pill:
Let big pharma dictate vaccine policy
this is stupid edginess for its own sake
I think we have a society that prefers listening to money over discussing things with experts / researchers who focus on their field
Ok, I agree with this statement, but I don’t think the meme delivers this message in a clear or succinct way.
The original message is more like "think for yourself" / "respect people's rights" but I was trying to explain how my argument isn't just dumb edginess
Let me know what you initially thought after seeing it?
What I initially thought was "damn, someone does not know how to use this meme format at all."
How are the concepts of 'think for yourself' and 'respect people's rights' an absolute dichotomy?
Oh yes the experts at the gun industry...
This is just bad memeing my friend.
What is a gun expert to you? A person with a lot of guns? Or does it require like an engineering degree. Because the only firearms engineer I know absolutely supports sane gun control.
I assume your goal with this comment was to annoy me, and you succeeded. Does that make you feel better about something wrong with your life? It's really sickeningly fucked up. I hate you and most humans for treating me this way.
What is a gun expert to you?
If I had used the term "gun expert," I would be asking what makes you think my definition of it is any different from the normal definition you'd get from looking up "gun" and "expert" in a dictionary.
People weirdly ask me questions like this when I'm using terms correctly, to try to imply I'm using the term incorrectly, but get out of having to actually explain the train of thought enough for it to hold up to scrutiny.
Since I didn't use the term "gun expert," I have to address all of the above, plus add that it's weird how you're injecting the whole question at random.
A person with a lot of guns?
It's especially weird that this is your first suggestion. Is this what you get by looking up "gun" and "expert" in your dictionary?
I guess people with a lot of guns probably have some expertise in them, typically, but why are you asking me and framing the question so weirdly?
Or does it require like an engineering degree.
Again, weird suggestion, bizarrely bypassing the obvious solution of consulting a dictionary.
Because the only firearms engineer I know absolutely supports sane gun control.
Don't blame your firearms engineer friend for your decision to waste my time with nonsense and annoy me, unless they were involved. Like, do you live in a world where "supporting sane gun control" is code for giving all your friends some batshit insane dictionary? I don't think your friend gave you some insane dictionary that supports the shit you typed here, and if they did, that's still got nothing to do with their position on gun control.
Anyway, "sane gun control" is gun control outside of the US, or gun control achieved through a constitutional amendment in the US. If your friend supports the unconstitutional gun control we have in the US, that's not sane, and I don't recognize them as the kind of expert who should have any say in who can have what guns.
discussing things with experts
This you?
If you're asking who I discuss things with: I'm happy to discuss things with everyone I have time for, which is typically everyone, period. However, it seems like experts are being driven to a level of isolation where I don't get to talk to many of them myself.
If you're asking if I'm an expert: sure, I have expertise in many topics.
The pills need to be opposed decisions. Not the same thing with a different industry.
Yeah, it would be good if at least one of the two parties wasn't just "the corporatist party"
Well in that case, the image is based on the false dichotomy that doesn't exist of the parties' policies. Most dems don't want to remove all guns. They just want to keep guns out of crazies' hands and some want to limit availability of particular things so any subsequent mass shooter has a harder time just endlessly popping off shots like the Vegas shooter... They do not fail to understand guns.
Ontop of that, vaccines are a very strange thing to put in opposition to guns. I know what you're trying for, but it is again based in ignorance. Vaccines are a universal good. There is a reason, a good reason, vaccines are required in order to go to schools. Whether the pharma industry works off of capitalistic practices is a wholly separate thing. Just because big pharma is a piece of shit capitalist enterprise should not reflect poorly on vaccines themselves.
Replying to the second paragraph you added after my reply:
Ontop of that, vaccines are a very strange thing to put in opposition to guns. I know what you’re trying for, but it is again based in ignorance. Vaccines are a universal good. There is a reason, a good reason, vaccines are required in order to go to schools. Whether the pharma industry works off of capitalistic practices is a wholly separate thing. Just because big pharma is a piece of shit capitalist enterprise should not reflect poorly on vaccines themselves.
What are you talking about? What does any of this have to do with the context where you're replying?
I am not OK with how my access to vaccines is unjustly restricted, putting me and my loved ones in senseless danger and violating our constitutional rights, because Democrats go along with Republicans on that whenever the money says so.
I am not OK with how my access to guns is unjustly restricted, putting me and my loved ones in senseless danger and violating our constitutional rights, because Republicans go along with Democrats on that whenever the money says so.
It seems like your edit after my reply was intentionally designed to make me look anti-vaccines or something?
And you got upvotes while my thread went from overall positive score to me getting buried in downvotes - that seems like maybe it was because of you making people think I was against vaccines or whatever you're implying here
~~How the fuck can you people sleep at night while treating others like this?~~
The edit was to cover an additional point I noticed. Why are you reading so much into it? You're being downvoted because you've put an attempt at a political meme into a science sub, expecting a science community to agree with politically charged topics.
Now you're jumping to conclusions about why, because surely most people don't disagree with you!
Just chill out dude. You'll have a much better time here and IRL.
I really wouldn't be surprised if the reason it went from above 5 to below minus 5 was because your edit made me look anti vaxx, even if you didn't do that on purpose (I edit comments a lot too so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on that)
~~How the fuck can you people sleep at night while treating others like this?~
Dude. You're reacting like someone murdered your mother to people down voting your meme, that's not normal. Go touch grass.
Ask yourself why you just took the time to gaslight a stranger on the internet about what they're reacting to.
And again, how do you sleep at night while treating others like that? What kind of person is like "you know what would be a good use of my time and this stranger's time? Lying to them about an obvious verifiable thing that just happened in writing, just to mess with them mentally"
Dude. Touch fucking grass and delete your account. Clearly you don't have the mental fortitude to deal with social media without having some kind of break down.
This isn't an insult, this is genuine advice. Getting this upset over the reception of a meme you posted is neither normal nor healthy.
I get this irrationally upset when I do badly at online competitive games. And that's why I decided to stop playing them completely years ago. Maybe you should make a similar decision about posting on social media.
Not reading all that. See previous reply.
Just kinda proves my point, tbh. See previous reply.
Copying and pasting:
Not reading all that. See previous reply.
Ask yourself why you just took the time to gaslight a stranger on the internet about what they’re reacting to.
And again, how do you sleep at night while treating others like that? What kind of person is like “you know what would be a good use of my time and this stranger’s time? Lying to them about an obvious verifiable thing that just happened in writing, just to mess with them mentally”
Every reply you make like this literally just further reinforces and strengthens my point.
You're not mentally suited for social media. Just stop, your mental health will thank me.
Weak gaslighting attempt. Might work better if you tried on nostr, I think I take people there more seriously overall because they're at least willing to talk where neither side can be banned
I like that you're complaining about gaslighting whilst literally gaslighting me about my intentions. Just stop. I'm going to block you now anyway, for your own good more than mine.
People disagreeing with you and telling you your meme is shit is not psychological abuse, and it's objectively fucking insane to claim it is.
Are you willing to double check what you just said and admit you're wrong, or are you just trying to gang up on me with cult mentality?
This is how much holding your hand through it I'm willing to do, even though I feel like I'm probably wasting my time:
This is a level of hand holding I'm not willing to do without more feeling that it wouldn't be a waste of time:
Edit - fuck it, I don't want to come off as an asshole or disrespect you too much. If you want me to refute you with evidence, just let me know if you prefer text or video format (I think it would be easiest to find a good video or two about this)
lol I'm not wrong.
I gave you the benefit of the doubt over whether your reply edit was manipulative on purpose, but I'm back to thinking it was, because you still haven't even answered me asking if / how you double checked your original statement about Democrat gun experise
Seems like you only ever replied in this thread in bad faith
It doesn't take an expert to think, "if they have to reload more often and cannot have easy access to tweaks like bumpstocks, they won't be able to shoot as much lead."
This isn't rocket science.
I asked if you double checked your statement, not if you felt like rephrasing how you think it's OK to violate my rights
If it was OK to violate my rights by limiting me to guns that don't shoot many bullets or something, that would still not justify what's happening in the real world, where I'm entirely banned from owning any gun at all and also from using many vaccines
Even if you didn't do stuff like ban vaccines and entire gun ownership, it still wouldn't be OK to do stuff like limit me to shitty guns in a country like the US where the people are supposed to have the right to overthrow the authorities in an armed militia
Reiterating point 1: think about how bad of a person you are for making me spend this time typing this, taking the topic so fucking far from the question of how you double checked your statement
I don't think you've seen The Matrix
I have, but I haven't read the third eye yet
No your meme makes no fucking sense. You are an idiot and I am blocking you, have a shitty day
The meme makes sense. I won't have a shitty day for you so instead of asking you to have one for me I'll just say have fun in your denialist echo chamber
Seems like it should be red-pill = science based, informed decisions. Blue pill = weird, ignorant, gut responses which deny reality.
I wish!
Also yes, the meme format is misusing the "red" and "blue" pills as political stand-ins. You're right
Also yes, the meme format is misusing the "red" and "blue" pills as political stand-ins. You're right
Excuse me, is you're name Claude? Because you drop that "you're absolutely right" like a bot.
why do the colors swap between panels?
Panel 1:
A lot of Republicans who are happy with their current gun access are scared of Democrats taking it away, and a lot of Democrats who are happy with their current vaccine access are scared of Republicans taking it away. Both sides notice each other having insane reactions when asked to defer to real experts on these topics.
Panel 2:
I'm not OK with how my access to firearms is unjustly restricted, violating my constitutional rights in the US, putting me and my loved ones in senseless danger, because Republicans go along with Democrats on that whenever the dollars say so. They don't see the problem with denialism when they're doing it themselves.
I'm not OK with how my access to vaccines is unjustly restricted, violating my constitutional rights in the US, putting me and my loved ones in senseless danger, because Democrats go along with Republicans on that whenever the dollars say so. They don't see the problem with denialism when they're doing it themselves.
Edit: rewritten to reflect my personal situation
"Pretend to know nothing" or "actually know nothing"?
The people actually making the decisions are pretending to know nothing when they present people who actually know nothing as their public speaking people.
But also, sometimes the public speaking people are just pretending to know less than they do themselves.