Neil Tyson is beyond cheesy. He's a pendant and gives the wrong idea of what acting intelligent is to youth. [1] It's a sign of immaturity and a desire to appear profound.
[1] https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/704330815321210884?lang...
[1] https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/704330815321210884?lang...
You call Tyson "a pedant" because he tweeted saying "Leap Day" was a bad word choice. But you are also saying the post you replied to shouldn't have the word "cheesy" so doesn't that make you a pedant as well?
Sure, your point is not simply that the word "cheesy" is bad - you're going a bit more in-depth and trying to make a bigger point (specifically that Tyson is harmful). But Tyson is not simply trying to feel smart by saying he doesn't like the name "Leap Day" - he's also trying to make a bigger point (specifically, he's teaching/reminding us that our concept of a year is based on our planets orbit, not an arbitrary number).
Similarly, you comment that Tyson "gives the wrong idea of what acting intelligent is" but did you notice that you said "intelligent" instead of "intelligently" despite the latter being correct? Aren't you giving the wrong idea of what acting intelligently is to the youth by making gramatical errors that the fragile youth may mimic?
Looking at someone under a microscope, as I have just done right back at you, is not the best way to judge them. Your typographical error will not hurt "the youth" just like Tyson starting a tweet off in a clickbait style with "The Leap Day is misnamed" won't hurt us either.
Tyson was called a "pendant" not a "pedant." A "pendant" as in "symbolic token."
Also, I think the nit pick about the use of "intelligent" is incorrect. You can "act intelligent" as in "act like someone who is intelligent" and you can "act intelligently" as in "take actions that are intelligent." The original post's use of "intelligent" works with his use of "pendant."
"Symbolic token" isn't at all interchangeable with "minority" in this context, so I'm not totally sure what you mean.
Cheesiness is an affectation. If someone's "cheesy" they lack originality or individuality. They use canned, inauthentic phraseology in an attempt to appear a certain way. So a "cheesy scientist" would be someone attempting to appear very "sciencey" without substance. This is the sense in which a "cheesy scientist" could be considered a "symbolic token" or, loosely, a "pendant" representing the category "scientist."
I agree "pendant" is a bit of an odd choice, but in the sense I just described it's not ridiculous.
Also, I wouldn't make this argument about Neil Tyson, this is just how my brain put together sdf's argument.
As for your last paragraph, I'll admit that I am not great at English and I don't understand its rules, so I'll assume you're right.
Disregard that example and take this one instead: the comment used a source and gave it the number 1 instead of 0. Someone could argue that using 1 instead of 0 "gives the wrong idea of what acting intelligent is to youth" with some pedantic argument like "everything must be zero-based because think of the children/youth, we need to set the right example for them". What I'm arguing is that such an argument, just like an argument about a gramatical mistake, is weak at best. It doesn't provide much insight, it doesn't provide any solution, it just whines
I think basically I assumed grammatical/syntactical correctness and a weird argument, and you and others assumed the reverse.
I hope sdf clarifies because I'd actually guess I'm prone to making this kind of communication error (if I'm in error, of course).
The behaviour he displays -- and is admired for -- seems overly destructive for no benefit. You may disagree.
As for the part about his responsibility, that part sounded like a no true scotsman argument (not sure about the spelling/capitalization of that, sorry). But also, couldn't someone argue that you, as a member of this community, have a similar responsibility to not put down Tyson? Aren't you contributing to the problem of hurting the perception of academics? Honestly, this is what got me to reply to your original comment. Seeing someone say Tyson was cheesy seemed light-hearted, but your comment felt like an attack on Tyson IMO
I don't see how his comments are more destructive than yours. But you are right, the question of whether his comments are destructive or not is subjective.
Would you argue that someone on Hacker News has the same responsibility as, say, Donald Trump? I wouldn't.
In either case, pegging his amount of 'academic smugness' (or whatever you want to call it) at the level of 'destructive' seems way overblown.
Even if he has his bad moments (who doesn't?), I really struggle with the suggestion that he, in his capacity as public figure, is having a net negative effect on science education, academic interest and intellectualism.