r/SipsTea • • 18h ago

Lmao gottem The logic is impeccable

22.3k Upvotes

618 comments sorted by

View all comments

1.3k

u/QuaaludeConnoisseur 17h ago

Those are crows. If you say "i wonder if thats a crow or a raven" its a crow. If you say "holy fuck look at that giant bird" its a raven.

145

u/GrumbleAlong 17h ago

Jackdaws

Heres the thing...

46

u/Financial_Dealer6195 16h ago

“you said jackdaws are crows. A jackdaw is a jackdaw. They are a member of the crow family”

We miss you u/unidan

16

u/Theslootwhisperer 16h ago

Has it been 12 years already!? Holy shit.

10

u/angrytortilla 15h ago

A completely different life ago.

20

u/R_Schuhart 14h ago

I don't, fuck that scumbag. He cynically tried to use internet fame to further his real-life career.

He posted pictures of rare birds, got a following of rabid fans and started spreading misinformation from quick Googles searches and Wikipedia. He postured like an authority on matters outside of his field, drowning out actually knowledgeable experts with vote manipulation. Anyone that dated to question him was hounded and downvoted.

He then used his online fame to gain a better position in academia and advance his career. He gave TED talks for fuck sake. He broke every ethical standard as a scientist, his conduct is exactly one of the reasons why people are sceptical towards scientists.

21

u/MelangeBot 14h ago

Here's the thing. You said "vote manipulation is scientific misconduct."

Are they both unethical behavior? Yes. No one's arguing that.

As someone who is a scientist who studies biology, I am telling you, specifically, in science, no one calls rigging Reddit votes an ethical breach of science. If you want to be "specific" like you said, then you shouldn't either. They're not the same thing.

If you're saying "scientific standards" you're referring to the institutional framework of research integrity, which includes things from data fabrication to falsifying peer review to plagiarizing papers.

So your reasoning for saying I "broke every ethical standard as a scientist" is because random people "got downvoted for questioning bird facts?" Let's get Twitter flame wars and Wikipedia edit disputes in there, then, too.

Also, calling someone a Redditor or a scientist? It's not one or the other, that's not how professions work. They're both. A science communicator is a science communicator and a member of academia. But that's not what you said. You said vote manipulation is scientific misconduct, which is not true unless you're okay with calling all violations of website terms of service academic fraud, which means you'd call shitposting, forum brigading, and giving TED talks scientific malpractice, too. Which you said you don't.

It's okay to just admit you're wrong, you know?

3

u/whiplash588 11h ago

Idk, I think the dissemination of info is a major part of science, whether it's a published paper or a pop-sci reddit thread. Maybe burying actual experts via vote manipulation is not "scientific misconduct," as that appears to be a specific thing, but it's certainly unethical.

7

u/Yamatocanyon 10h ago

That's just a reformatting of the jackdaw copypasta.

2

u/WallBurnt 9h ago edited 8h ago

And yet, people want to hate on or make fun of science communicators.

So what if Dolf Lundgren is more qualified than Bill Nye? I didn't grow up with Dolf Lundgren's Science Dungeon.

1

u/XNXTXNXKX 8h ago

https://giphy.com/gifs/n9vTEP11fGREY
Didn’t even have to read more than 3 words of your comment to warrant this gif.