Boaty will live on, kinda, sorta.
Boaty will live on, kinda, sorta.
Was waiting to see how they would respond to their social media nightmare...
Democracy has failed us
Grownups are poopyheads...
In reply to Furious_E:
That's twice this year!
I'm more intrigued by who was the one guy who first suggested Boaty McBoatyface?
It's a pretty obscure name choice but he/she managed to gain some amazing "bandwagon" status.
It has gone so far as to have made Blank McBlankface a wildly popular meme.
I'm surprised they named it after David Attenborough after he said that sending food to starving people is barmy (fancy British synonym for "bullE36 M3" as it applies to an idea) with the implication that it would be better to let them starve:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/10316271/Sir-David-Attenborough-If-we-do-not-control-population-the-natural-world-will.html
Also, as a Twitter user pointed out, that is an unmanned ROV and should be called Droney McDroneface.
Boaty McBoatface should be saved for a dinghy or liferaft. Especially because piling onto it in an emergency would be hilarious.
Ha, called it. C.O.L.B.E.R.T. all over again.
GameboyRMH wrote: I'm surprised they named it after David Attenborough after he said that sending food to starving people is barmy (fancy British synonym for "bullE36 M3" as it applies to an idea) with the implication that it would be better to let them starve: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/10316271/Sir-David-Attenborough-If-we-do-not-control-population-the-natural-world-will.html
So he isn't allowed to have an opinion that doesn't line up with the PC party line? From what I've learned of the gentleman, he's very educated and well considered but has endured enough hardship that he doesn't give a E36 M3 if he offends the PC police.
can we get David Attenborough renamed Boaty Mcboatface?
KyAllroad wrote:GameboyRMH wrote: I'm surprised they named it after David Attenborough after he said that sending food to starving people is barmy (fancy British synonym for "bullE36 M3" as it applies to an idea) with the implication that it would be better to let them starve: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/10316271/Sir-David-Attenborough-If-we-do-not-control-population-the-natural-world-will.htmlSo he isn't allowed to have an opinion that doesn't line up with the PC party line? From what I've learned of the gentleman, he's very educated and well considered but has endured enough hardship that he doesn't give a E36 M3 if he offends the PC police.
If by "PC police" you mean "People who find the idea of letting starving people starve to death for environmental reasons disgusting, which is most of the planet BTW" then yeah, he isn't allowed to have those opinions without receiving our scorn in return.
I suspect he would suggest that people do something to curb population growth so that we may avoid the unpleasantness of mass starvations. What do we do? Pro-actively address the root problem, or ineffectively throw money at the resulting crisis?
1988RedT2 wrote: I suspect he would suggest that people do something to curb population growth so that we may avoid the unpleasantness of mass starvations. What do we do? Pro-actively address the root problem, or ineffectively throw money at the resulting crisis?
Serious answer, some of both. Throwing money at the crisis isn't ineffective, it saves starving people.
What he's suggesting is like saying that helping hurricane victims is "barmy" and we should focus on reinforcing/relocating buildings and reducing carbon emissions instead. Helping those victims won't do anything about future hurricanes right?
Maybe there is still hope for Schoolie McSchoolface. Or John Cena Elementary School.
1988RedT2 wrote: I suspect he would suggest that people do something to curb population growth so that we may avoid the unpleasantness of mass starvations. What do we do? Pro-actively address the root problem, or ineffectively throw money at the resulting crisis?
But reading the article, he didn't. Just saying that we should stop feeding them. Seems kind of harsh.
I understand the idea that there are too many people for too small of spaces, but it is what it is- should we let them just suffer and die now that they are alive? Or send them food while we figure out something to do?
Suggesting that we stop feeding the poor in areas where there's not enough food isn't far off of just killing them all off quickly to avoid suffering.
JohnRW1621 wrote: It has gone so far as to have made Blank McBlankface a wildly popular meme.
I'm pretty sure it came out of Friends years ago, actually. Wasn't clever then either. I suspect most of the X McXface enthusiasts are probably younger than the show.
and this is why people have no faith that they have any say in anything... they already had the name picked out, but they just wanted to let the public think they had some kind of a say in it.
it's a boat: why does it matter if it has a silly sounding name?
novaderrik wrote: and this is why people have no faith that they have any say in anything... they already had the name picked out, but they just wanted to let the public think they had some kind of a say in it. it's a boat: why does it matter if it has a silly sounding name?
Kinda like when GM had the "Tame The Name" contest for the Pontiac G8 ute they were going to bring to the US? El Camino was the winner by a huge margin but GM decided to go with G8 ST instead, which wasn't even in the top 3 on the ballot. "Tame The Name"? More like "Tame Is The Name". And then they didn't even end up selling the damn thing here.
novaderrik wrote: and this is why people have no faith that they have any say in anything... they already had the name picked out, but they just wanted to let the public think they had some kind of a say in it. it's a boat: why does it matter if it has a silly sounding name?
That’s why In November, I’m going to pencil in “Delegate McDelegateface”.
GameboyRMH wrote:1988RedT2 wrote: I suspect he would suggest that people do something to curb population growth so that we may avoid the unpleasantness of mass starvations. What do we do? Pro-actively address the root problem, or ineffectively throw money at the resulting crisis?Serious answer, some of both. Throwing money at the crisis isn't ineffective, it saves starving people. What he's suggesting is like saying that helping hurricane victims is "barmy" and we should focus on reinforcing/relocating buildings and reducing carbon emissions instead. Helping those victims won't do anything about future hurricanes right?
Well, the painful truth is that the simplest way to reduce humanity's carbon footprint is to reduce the population......and it seems his viewpoint is to not cheat natural selection. Cold hearted from a moral perspective, sure. It's not really a surprising stance however, just about anyone who believes in natural selection also believes in this to some extent.
NickD wrote:
I must admit, whomever voted up the "Adolf Hitler School for Friendship and Tolerance" need to be handed troll of the year awards..... God help everyone if they realize that the Robert E. Lee Memorial is surrounded by the Arlington National Cemetery.....
JohnRW1621 wrote: I'm more intrigued by who was the one guy who first suggested Boaty McBoatyface? It's a pretty obscure name choice but he/she managed to gain some amazing "bandwagon" status. It has gone so far as to have made Blank McBlankface a wildly popular meme.
Apparently it was a British Radio Personality.
WOW Really Paul? wrote: Well, the painful truth is that the simplest way to reduce humanity's carbon footprint is to reduce the population......and it seems his viewpoint is to not cheat natural selection. Cold hearted from a moral perspective, sure. It's not really a surprising stance however, just about anyone who believes in natural selection also believes in this to some extent.
I believe in natural selection as a part of evolutionary theory but strongly disagree with it as any kind of guiding framework for humanity. Evolution and social darwinism are no more related than thermodynamics and witch-burning. The entire point of a civilized society is to keep us safe from natural selection.
Besides, letting people starve because they live in the site of a famine isn't a good example of natural selection because the selection process isn't based on any genetic advantages, it's just a random die-off. Having people fight bare-handed to the death over bits of food would be a better example, in this case the process would select for better fighters.
Better yet, they should fight bare-handed to the death against the people who believe in natural selection as the solution to the problem 
winner keeps all the loser's food...
while nothing should be named for hitler ever, that is hilarious.
GameboyRMH wrote:WOW Really Paul? wrote: Well, the painful truth is that the simplest way to reduce humanity's carbon footprint is to reduce the population......and it seems his viewpoint is to not cheat natural selection. Cold hearted from a moral perspective, sure. It's not really a surprising stance however, just about anyone who believes in natural selection also believes in this to some extent.I believe in natural selection as a part of evolutionary theory but strongly disagree with it as any kind of guiding framework for humanity. Evolution and social darwinism are no more related than thermodynamics and witch-burning. The entire point of a civilized society is to keep us safe from natural selection. Besides, letting people starve because they live in the site of a famine isn't a good example of natural selection because the selection process isn't based on any genetic advantages, it's just a random die-off. Having people fight bare-handed to the death over bits of food would be a better example, in this case the process would select for better fighters. Better yet, they should fight bare-handed to the death against the people who believe in natural selection as the solution to the problem
It kind of is though. It wasn't that long ago, relatively, that we moved in tribes that followed the food. We used our feet to take us where food is. Seems like that's kind of a basic idea to have. God does that sound cold and heartless, but to be fair, I don't think we should have warning labels on things like gasoline or aerosol cans either.
But there is also another, more better context of "not sending money to starving people" and that is "send actual food to starving people". Throwing money at problems ensures they'll never be fixed. Almost none of the money that is supposed to fix the problem actually gets there, and usually breeds greed and segregation, which are bigger problems. But it gives the people that send money warm fuzzies, which is all that matters.
"The entire point of a civilized society is to keep us safe from natural selection." Wow. That statement says a lot. The whole point of civilized society is to stop or control evolution. That is an interesting thought.
Sorry if I kind of floundered there, I'm actually appalled that Boaty McBoatface, with over 10 times as many votes didn't win. But yes, if it is actually a drone, it should be Droney McDroneface, it's only fair.
You'll need to log in to post.
