Comment by corinroyal | Hacker News Reader

Comment by corinroyal | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

It does not take "balls" to speculate wildly. Any grifter can do it, whether they have a uterus or not. Sensationalism is always easier than evidence-building.

> I think having people with courage to stand up and argue against the consensus is incredibly important.

I agree it would be nice if Loeb tried that. So far he hasn't made any arguments, just bloviated.

And what "consensus" do you imagine Loeb is your champion against? Tarter is a pioneer carving out a new discipline, not the latest head of some ancient SETI cartel started by Aristotle. Any "consensus" is tentative at best. To hear Loeb speak, you would think it were he who started searching for techno-signatures forty years ago--with Tarter in a dominatrix outfit and a whip waylaying him at every step.

He yelled over her, refused to let her speak, misrepresented her arguments, and tarred a diverse research community with a broad brush. Nobody made him show his own ass on Zoom. That was his choice.

By contrast Tarter was polite, gracious, and statesman-like. She defended her colleagues clearly and let the clown dig his own grave. Never interrupt your enemy when he's making a mistake. If I were one of the researchers she were defending, I would be proud to have her up there representing me, and certainly glad I wasn't the one who was asked to find time in my research schedule to act as some narcissist's punching bag for an hour so he can build his social media viewership.

Loeb is just another science grifter who pumps up bad ideas with hot air in order to make some post-truth money off rubes who watch Joe Rogan--where making wild and evidence-free claims made with a flourish of performative masculinity beat decades of careful research.

First of all, it does take balls. Look at the response he's getting - he is ridiculed, flamed, called a grifter, and bullied. And he put his reputation as a professor and academic on the line. He had risked his career to do this.

AFAIK he did make some arguments about both oumuamua and those other interstellar objects. His claims aren't "evidence free". He has insufficient evidence and I'm not convinced, but without people willing to pursue evidence out of their comfort zone, science can't make discoveries.

Despite 40 years of research, Tarter risked nothing. She never put her reputation on the line. Neither did her colleagues. You can't get funding for something you yourself aren't willing to take risks on. Their cautiousness and lack of confidence and aversion to taking personal career risks reflects on their own confidence in the subject, and any person that would've considered funding them reads those signals and acts accordingly.

He's the first to have taken a personal risk, and taking a personal risk is the only way to convince others to follow you with monetary risk. "performative masculinity", also known as having balls and self-confidence and taking personal risks, is a precondition to getting others to follow you because you can only lead by example. Women can do it just like men - but it is usually a masculine trait.

If you're a feminist and you still don't get how men are more successful in some areas, you could cry about masculinity, but maybe you should learn from them that what it takes is taking personal risks and leading by example, and getting over your personal risk-aversion. And if you can't grow some balls and get over your personal risk aversion, at least have the decency to appreciate those taking personal risks to further a common cause. How the hell is Loeb her enemy in your twisted mind?!

For every man you see at the top, there are 10 men at the bottom whose personal risk failed. Most likely, Loeb will be one of them. I'm actually going to bet on that. While Tarter will continue with her comfortable job with mediocre funding, or maybe bigger funding thanks to Loeb. He'll be the one with a ruined career, not Tarter. So easy to cry "toxic masculinity" when he's in the spotlight, lets see whether Tarter will wish to swap places in 10 years after he's failed. Then tell me with complete honesty which action was the harder one to do.

That's exactly toxic feminism. Pure envy towards the men taking the risks that you couldn't muster the courage to take. Next time, take the risk yourself or be grateful to those that have the courage to take risks that benefit you. Women can be just as brave, look at Greta Thunberg. I don't believe her either by the way (you can look my post history about climate change), but she did have more effect than many "evidence-builders" and she also took a greater risk, and I appreciate that.

I hope you find your way back to righteousness, brother. I hate to imagine the impact of this line of thinking on your soul.

You're the one who's instinctual association was to a dominatrix. It's your viewpoint of oppression and domination that's clouding your judgement.

Maybe one day we'll live in an AI supported paradise and you won't need to take risks.

Until we get there, it's going to be men's shitty role to take risks. I appreciate everyone who takes risk, men are just programmed for it.

And they need this dumb incentive carrot at the end. They need to see those few men at the top who made it to want to take their risk. You shouldn't hate them for it.

You have one sperm out of millions reaching the egg, while the egg's risk is that nothing will come. Until our society devolves into the women artificially inseminating themselves while being supported by robots in paradise, the real risk to society is that men stop taking risks. The least you can do is have some compassion for the fools.

I was so stupid...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com