It's great that he was finally charged, but can we talk about how great the Kennedy Center Honors were instead?

No, 'e'z a tulip!

Well said, mye. Well said.

That didn't happen at my theatre, so probably the projectionist (is that what they are really called? It's such an odd word).

The police boycott of this movie is a bit [redacted], considering one of the few [redacted] is [redacted]!

I saw it yesterday, too, and thought it was awesome, even though some parts were tough to watch. The only technical hiccup was that there was a small fiber of some sort on the projector, but I tuned it out after a minute or so and it was only visible against the white of the snowy scenes. Alas, I arrived a little…

Whether science conflicts with belief in a god really depends on what your conception of "god" is. Some things we have learned using the scientific process certainly conflict with some beliefs held by practitioners of certain religions, but yeah, you cannot really say that science conflicts with religion generally.

Science has been a cultural identifier and seen as a kind of secular religion for much longer than Nye and Tyson have been around. In some ways that dates back to at least the Renaissance and has more been framed that way by evangelical or Catholic groups attacking the legitimacy of scientific output than by…

Well I think that makes the distinction more worth fussing over, but that's just a difference of opinion I guess.

Louis Farrakhan plays violin?

Probably mostly oblivious. From what I understand, the 50s were peak years for obliviousness.

As a fellow scientist, we absolutely need people like Tyson and Nye (neither of whom I consider smug, unlike Dawkins) who can translate science into elementary terms. I taught an intro bio lab at a fairly well-respected university this past semester and I couldn't believe how many students didn't understand how…

Exactly, but it is not actual objectivity, and is in fact a form of bias against whichever side is presenting the facts more honestly.

Some crazy idea Reagan had about using satellites to blow up missiles.

"You can get across that shit in three hours!?! Well, fuck."

I gave a generous donation to the Human Fund.

There is a difference, though. Think about that bit John Oliver did about media balance where he had a conversation about climate change with 97 scientists who believe climate change is happening and 3 who don't. In your normal "balanced" debate on CNN or whatever, they will have two people on, one representing each…

This was discussed pretty thoroughly in the comments to that article, but the problem with it was that it confused objectivity (presenting factual information and aggressively questioning both sides) with balance (giving both sides equal airtime and letting each have their own "facts" to avoid appearance of bias), and…

I'm sorry, but that article about Jon Stewart and objectivity was awful. It equated objectivity with balance and passivity on the part of the news media, and completely ignored that Jon repeatedly argued in favor of a more objective style of debate.

It's a thousand-way tie.