Science is incapable of ever being truthful because every scientist is an amoral wannabee friend of Jeffrey Epstein. These nerds literally take lessons in school to learn how to beg for patronage to do research. Of course their studies usually end up being about managerial bourgeois praxis like using skull shape measurements to categorize workers. That’s what personality psychology is about at the end of the day, Brave New World style eugenics with humane empathy for wage slaves.

    • SteveHasBunker [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 years ago

      I’m gonna disagree with the “it’s totally harmless” line. It is for like 90% of people into it, but I’ve also seen the other 10%. It can be a gateway into other pseudoscientific thinking, I’ve seen a lot of astrology people get into anti-vax shit. And on a more interpersonal level some start taking it so seriously it starts affecting their relationships, like they can mediate any conflict with a family member or friend without a discussion of their astrological sign to the point their loved ones get fed up talking to them about it. I’ve seen breakups happen over this.

      And beyond that, as I mentioned above, I think it’s obnoxious and rude to demand everyone you know have a discourse with you about something they believe in but other dont. We wouldn’t hesitate to call this out if it were Christians injecting Jesus into every convo or STEM bros demanding to know everyone’s Briggs-Myers or IQ, but for whatever reason people demanding they know your sign before they talk to you gets a pass.

        • SteveHasBunker [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 years ago

          Hun?

          I mean yeah my evidence is all anecdotal but I promise you I ain’t lying. Maybe I’m just in an area with a bizarrely high amount of people who take astrology ridiculously too far, but if you go on astrology YouTube and Twitter you’ll probably find some figures to back up what I’m saying. They probably won’t be the most popular ones but they’re out there.

          • vertexarray [any]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            4 years ago

            wait so you’re appealing to imaginary evidence, come on. if you’re going to talk about figures you should provide them.

            edit: for future reference I assumed he meant figures as in statistics and this argument would have been a fifth as long if I hadn’t misread his comment

            • SteveHasBunker [he/him]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              4 years ago

              I really don’t know if any organizations that gathers hard statistics on things like “how many astrology nerds are weirdos who take it too far and are obnoxious about it.”

              We’re putting anecdote against anecdote here. The “it’s totally harmless” camp doesn’t really have any hard data to back up their assertions, it’s all just anecdote for them to. I don’t know why the counter claim needs a doctoral thesis to back it up.

              • vertexarray [any]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                4 years ago

                If you’re going to claim there’s evidence and then run that back I reserve the right to assume you’re not arguing jn good faith lol

                • SteveHasBunker [he/him]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  4 years ago

                  I openly admitted my evidence was anecdotal and anecdotal evidence is what I provided. Also my claim was in response to another claim that “it was totally harmless” and that guy didn’t back it up with any evidence so why do you go hound him for some.

                  And this all circles back to my main question, why do so many on the left seem hell bent to defending the valor of astrology? I didn’t advocate outlawing it or being mean to people who were into it, fuck I said it was harmless 90% of the time. I just said I didn’t think it was 100% harmless and that was enough to get some debate bros jumping down my goddamn throat.