Debate with Mr. Academic, PhD

Based on many twitter debates with academics.

The sky is blue.

Do you have a source for that?

No, but I can see that the sky is blue.

You’re not very educated. Here are 100 academic papers that you should read.

Thanks, but that’s not necessary. The sky is blue.

“Blue” is a social construct. Colors exist on a spectrum.

Yeah, I know. The sky is still blue though. The word “blue” is a useful abstraction, even if there is a color spectrum.

You obviously haven’t read the vast literature on social color theory. I feel sorry for someone with your lack of education.

I don’t need to read a vast literature to know that the sky is blue.

LOL! The sky is black at night. You would know that if you had more life experiences.

You know what I mean. The sky is blue during the day, when there are no clouds in the way, etc.

I guess you’ve never heard about eclipses, lol.

Eclipses are rare events. Exceptions don’t falsify general statements.

To prove that the sky is blue, you’d have to show that every photon coming from the sky is blue.

No, that’s not what “blue” means. You’re shifting the goalposts. “Blue” means that more light in the blue part of the spectrum is coming from the sky, so we perceive it as blue.

Ha, try putting on purple glasses! You are so bigoted you think your perspective is the only valid one. Blind people have a more valid perspective on color, because they don’t have vision privilege. You need to read the vast literature on standpoint theory.

Even if I wore purple glasses, I would still see the sky as a color that corresponds to the label “blue”.

The sky is an illusion anyway, because the light is coming from the sun, not from the sky. The sky is just a social construct. It doesn’t exist.

That’s tactical nihilism. You know what “the sky” means. Light in the blue range gets scattered by air molecules, while other colors pass through. That’s why the sky is blue.

Says the YouTube scholar, lol. Did you get that from a YouTube video or Wikipedia? Here are 100 papers on the philosophy of science that you must read before continuing this discussion.

No, I don’t need to read your vast literature. Dropping citations is not an argument. It’s a combination of fallacies: appeal to authority, appeal to complexity, shifting the burden of proof, and Gish gallop.

Oh, you’re one of those “fallacy” dude-bros. You must have a huge inferiority complex.

I must be crazy for talking to a pretentious jackass like you, lol.

Oh, so now all you have are insults. What happened to your “rationality”?

You’re just playing debating games. You insulted me, so I reciprocated.

To prove that the sky is blue, you would have to put your argument in the proper format with supporting citations, have it peer reviewed and published in a serious academic journal, not on your blog, lololol. Obviously you can’t meet academic criteria internet bro-dude.

Oh look, I found someone who actually did that. Here’s the link:

That’s pseudoscience. Try real science for a change:

What makes your link better than mine?

Your link is racist sexist pseudoscience. Try educating yourself and maybe you can become a better person.

I don’t think I could ever be as educated as you.

Obviously, lol.


  1. "Dude, this blog is for intelligent people. I don't know why you're here. You're not going to understand most of it."
    - Blithering Genius January 31, 2019 at 9:07 AM

    1. I'm glad you took the time to read comments on other articles.

      The context you're missing, however, is a 20 comment exchange on another article, in which he was insulting me over and over and ignoring my points, etc.

      The comment you quoted was me responding to him returning to my blog to rant yet some more. I don't have infinite patience.

      I offered him a voice debate too. I'm happy to have rational debates, but that's a two way street.

      So, your insinuation of hypocrisy is a fail. But thanks for trying.

    2. For reference, 2 days before making the comment you quoted, he made this comment on an earlier article:

      "And anyways, to be fair, I'll have to start ignoring you since you support hurting me, and forcing me to participate in your evil twisted Canadian continent-wide system. It's frightening how you don't even realize how cruel and evil you are - you don't even see the gun you advocate to be held to my head. You're insane."

      After telling me he will ignore me because I'm sooo evil, he returns 2 days later to continue ranting at me.

      That's the context of the comment you quoted. When people insult me, I do reciprocate.

    3. You're a bit defensive, this article is an absolute shitpost and doesn't really fit the content of the original quote, hence me jokingly bringing it up. That's all.

    4. oh, okay -- it didn't look like you were joking around

      this post was directed at certain people and I assumed you were one of them

    5. but yes, that quote, in this context, is funny :)

    6. Now this is funny. It explains exactly why I for the most part dislike academics, am wary of the term "intellectual" and don't like to apply it to myself. They all do this when you make any truth claim. They're all advocates of "rigorous science" which, from what I've gathered, is just a euphemism for postmodernist obscurantism. I hate all the counter-intuitive shit they come out with. Academia is a fucking racket.


Post a Comment