You know who I hate? Particle physicists.
lol ok before i got to the third paragraph i was getting SO UPSET, no lie. but, uhh, this is a really good point!Seriously. What’s with them and their “Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle”? If they’re so uncertain about it, why do they call it a principle? Heisenberg was friends with a bunch of Nazis, which should tell you something about what particle physics is really about. Maybe it was important back in the 40s when they were working on the A-bomb—but do we really still need particle physics? Particle physicists are just people with thick glasses who talk self-righteously about esoteric crap because they can’t get a date.
I’ll stop there. Doubtlessly, you think I should just shut up because I obviously have no idea what I’m talking about. Not only do I not understand particle physics, I haven’t even tried to understand it. Everybody agrees that my talking trash about something I haven’t bothered to understand reflects poorly on me and on anybody who takes me seriously. At least, everybody agrees when I’m talking about particle physicists.
Feminism is a different matter. For whatever reason, people don’t think it’s worth doing research before spouting off about something in the humanities. We hear it all the time. “Feminism is stupid and dated because men aren’t all evil.” For misstatements of fact, that’s right up there with “Mountain Dew is great for birth control.” Then there’s “Feminists are bad because [I can’t be bothered to do my research and have no idea what I’m talking about].” Seriously. If you don’t get what feminism is about, check Wikipedia or something. If that’s too much effort, fine. But why pretend to speak with authority on something you know nothing about?
though i would add: i actually don’t think it’s limited to the humanities; i’ve heard so many people talk about how they “don’t trust statistics” and i’m like, you know who will be the first people to tell you about the untrustworthiness of statistics? ACTUAL STATISTICIANS. for real, my stats professor told us in the first week of class: “you can twist around statistics to say literally anything.” but! if you don’t know anything at all about statistics except the gross misrepresentations of it you find in the media, then a) duh you won’t trust statistics, and b) - and this is the more important part - you won’t be able to tell which statistics are more trustworthy than others.
this also happens to a certain extent with sociology and psychology, because the things that tend to get a lot of attention in those fields tend to be either inane or things that seem to back up pre-existing biases/prejudices/cultural ideas, and then people assume that no one is doing anything real and/or worth talking about those fields, and it’s maddening.
in conclusion: fuck, wikipedia is actually likely to give you a better picture of a lot of things than the mainstream media is.
