, 247 tweets, 20 min read Read on Twitter
You: Star Trek science is silly
CERN: we stared at antimatter and are pretty sure reality is fake
academia: we're concerned about your humanities field, it's speculative and not rigorous
top physicists:nothing is real, according to theory
STEM nerds: no, I don't need to listen to you explain how Derrida didn't mean that the author is dead
Also STEM: the cat is a metaphor,idiot
STEM: we provide training for real world problems,unlike women's studies,which invented "patriarchy"
STEM:half of everything is Dark Matter.
humanities: We created "intersectionality" for when people are discriminated against for multiple reasons
physics:ridiculous! quarks tho
I'm not saying physics is bullshit. I just think that it's highly ironic that the "hardest" field is the one that has the weirdest theory
For non academics, I'm kind of mocking science and tech fields for their tendency to look down their nose at humanities for using theory
We come up with concepts like "episteme" (society's idea of objective truth) and "privilege" and they think we're vague and bullshit
Meanwhile, physics is all like"first of all, time is relative and there's at least two kinds of matter that we know are there but can't see"
All of which seems to be true but i honestly think it's much easier to explain ideas like "men historically have more power than women"
As compared to "yeah the faster you move the slower time goes, just for you"
"ok, here at the National How Serious is Your Field Board (NHSYFB) we are ready to hear arguments"
My field: "recent research has looked at how popular media hides messages that look benign but might be prejudiced"
NHSYFB: sounds fake
Physics: ok to understand this new hypothetical submicroscopic particle, you have to understand that reality isn't real
NHYSFB:tell us more
Me: some allege my field has political biases, but actually we teach public speaking, an important skill employers want in capitalism
Physics: ok but can you tell us how hot it was exactly .00000000001 seconds after the Big Bang?
THE GOVERNMENT: besides understanding why people do things, what do you do that deserves money
MY FIELD: we also understand why groups act
THE GOVERNMENT: ok so physics, what do you need grant money for
PHYSICS: we want to crash microscopic things in to one another very fast
GOVERNMENT: if we fund your research, what will the results tell us?
HUMANITIES: how did you guys get taken over by literally Russia
GOVERNMENT: that is so abstract and stupid. Physics, same question
PHYSICS:we can decide exactly whose acid trip delusion is actually right
POLICE: we are making a watch list of humanities professors, they seem liberal and might be on drugs
PHYSICS: so there's this cat going fast
GOVT: ok, philosophy and comp sci. What's a cool theory most people don't know?
PHILOSOPHY: so this guy came up with the idea that everything is something called a"monad" and mostly we're just confused by what that means
COMP SCI: so we created a language where everything is a monad and we use it to run everything but we don't know how it works
"Women's Studies vs biology, go!"
Women's Studies: we spent several centuries talking about it and we think gender is a lot of things
Biology: that except different things
Women's Studies: our theories are often misused to invalidate trans people
biology:same, mostly together with ours, even tho they contradict
Women's Studies: we think gender isn't something you're born with but is caused by socialization and ideology
Bio: Actually it's several chemicals and a lot of random chance and especially is related to a kind of microscopic object we discover in1960
GOVERNMENT: historically people haven't used your explanations of why gender is a thing
WS: it's because it was politically convenient not to
BIO: people have known about chromosomes since Adam and Eve!
Government: what problem has been most challenging for your field to try to address?
Communication: how do we prevent another Hitler
Physics: why even are there things
GOVT:who in field's history was very wrong but you still use as a cautionary tale
PHYSICS:we used to think space was full of goo
GOVT:those are confusing answers,explain
COM:like Hitler was bad but people thought he was good at words
PHYS:we thought space was slimy
WS:we struggled with finding a way to say sexism isn't natural but people's gender is real
BIO: this one time every biologist in Russia had to say that genes weren't real
GOVT: are your fields actually promoting partisan politics?
WS:if rights are up for debate
BIO:the most important issue is bees
GOVERNMENT: communication and physics. Do you have political biases?
COMM:kind of but we teach being good at talking
PHYS:yes, pro collision
GOVERNMENT:so your political stance is generally just that what people say matters, communication?
US: yes
GOVERNMENT: and physics, the value you most inculcate students with?
PHYSICS: what would happen if different kinds of things hit other stuff
GOVERNMENT: what will major inur field know in 4 years
COMM:how can you change people's minds about things
PHYSICS:we might be in the Matrix
GOVT: some of your ideas seem really unlikely
COMM: we don't literally mean that everyone who ever wrote anything is deceased
PHYS:all of our complex ideas make sense. Like, imagine there's these two cats and we send them each into space and then they turn around an
GOVT:your field seems to split hairs a lot
COMM:precision in language is needed for clarity
PHYS:like, we don't actually mean the cat exists
GOVT: but this wall here is real, right?
COMM:by most meanings of real, yes. Someone had to put it there for a reason tho
GOVT:that's trippy, I doubt it. Physics! Is the wall real?
PHYSICS:hypothetically you could walk right through it if the atoms move right
GOVT:if someone misuses what you teach, what happens?
COMM:the Holocaust
PHYS:the Holocaust but literally everyone dies this time
GOVT:who created the first surviving book your field still uses
COMM:Greek dude who thought women had less teeth
PHYS:yeah him
GOVT:is your field racist?
COMM:if we take a hard look, we probably are
PHYS:only if you don't know that white men are just better
GOVT:how many nazis do you have to cite for your worldview to make sense
COMM:not really any
PHYS:most of them
GOVT: ok brass tacks. Are you trying to say nothing is totally true or false?
COMM: there's several points of view
COMM: I mean like if you shoot someone with a bullet, they're really going to die
PHYS:hold up though, only if you share their point of view
COMM: that's a stereotypical misconception, we perceive things differently but like actual things can be true
PHYS: not if they go real fast
COMM: honestly, you can use our theories to explain people's actions without measuring their speed
PHYS: we can't do that
PHYSICS: anyway, we need your money so we can prove that this very small thing is real by hitting slightly bigger things together
COMMUNICATION: we can teach you to say things so people understand
PHYSICS: again, the cat is very important but also completely not real
COMMUNICATION: we sometimes use the Matrix as a metaphor for social problems
PHYSICS: we may all be in a computer, I mean who knows right?
PANEL:it really feels like you're full of it. Like,you realize Elvis is dead yes?
PHYS:from some points of view he wasn't ever born
PANEL: ok yes people disagree but on some level there is a right answer yes?
COMM: we think so
PHYS: well how fast is it moving?
GOVERNMENT:why is gender?
COMMUNICATION:I guess because weput gender related names on things
PHYSICS:gender depends on if you're going fast
GOVERNMENT:what difference is there between my friend Alex and I?
COMM:well you're white and he's not so society makes things easier for you
PHYS: you are getting older way faster than Alex because you aren't going anywhere
PANEL: wut
PHYS: when you drive your car you age less
PANEL: why do you use such complicated terms and examples?
COMM: "white privilege" is more specific than "racism"
PHYS: I think you're fundamentally misunderstanding us. We aren't talking about a cat or any kind of animal when we say "cat"
COMM: "death of the author" means that if someone says a thing, and you take it one way, since you're not psychic their ideas don't matter
PHYS: like, ok, you could theoretically actually use a cat, but the place where that's misleading is you can't actually be a cat
COMM: the author of any given text may currently be alive-
PHYS: for people traveling close to our speed only-
COMM: but we can't read minds
PHYS: Like the car would make more sense if it was a zombie cat. Like, a cat without any self awareness. It could be a dog. Or a baby
COMM:saying the author is dead isn't a moral assessment,just means we know what we know
PHYS:shooting the cat isn't cruel bc the cat is fake
COMM:physics friend.Maybe you should use an example thats less complicated and homicide related
PHYS:hah, you losers can't even build bombs
COMM: I'm just saying, from our point of view people find it a bit creepy that you jump to "what if we're deciding whether to shoot a cat"
PHYS: look, we study things that are objectively real, not "feelings," and anyway we kept saying the cat is objectively not real
COMM: I think I get the basic point of your metaphor, but Aristotle might advise it has a problem with its pathos, emotional impact
PHYS: you just made up that word
COMM: like you're talking about observing things in a lab being hard bc you influence them without trying
PHYS: right! Now you understand! Like, we're scientists, not cats
COMM: yes, go on
PHYS: so if we hypothetically had a lab with a cat
COMM: no, we get it. The cat is the subject of observation, and you find that to know the status of the subject you have to affect the thing
PHYS: yes, precisely
COMM: we have that issue too with human subjects. We find we can sometimes influence people by accident
PHYS: yes but that is because your field is just making everything up, whereas we literally mean that if there was a cat, but the cat was fa
COMM: for instance if we wanted to study a chatroom, we'd worry both about the validity of our results and also ethics
PHYS: again, this isn't an ethical issue because there isn't a cat
COMM: there are ethical questions not about cats
COMM: like the issue is inseparable anyway. If you don't tell people you're in the chatroom, you might still subtly change them
COMM: you definitely have to get consent from anyone you study, but even if you didn't your point of view matters
PHYS: not at this speed
COMM:we're pretty sure that we have biases regardless of our speed
PHYSICS:first of all the cat is not biased, second, the cat is not moving
COMM:we are just trying to say that you could use an example of literally what you actually mean, like a lab with particles
COMM:like we sometimes use metaphors, but when we say some things we just mean literally that
PHYS:no you don't get the metaphor
COMM:we have this idea,"mean world syndrome," which literally means that people who watch cruelty on TV think people are mean
PHYS:that is hard to understand
COMM:whereas this quantum thing is easy to describe without any weird terms
PHYS:no, it's not
COMM:so bear with me, let's say you're in your lab
PHYS:is the lab real?
COMM:yeah, in like a building somewhere
PHYS:but is it real
COMM:so let's say in your lab you get a lot of money to stare at very small things
PHYS:I mean I can picture that
COMM: so your whole cat thing is just about how some very small things only show up when you do something that also makes them do something
PHYS: yes, sort of like a cat, that has a gun -
COMM: but like that's pretty simple, no metaphors needed. Your research influences itself
PHYS: but as a hard science, we are talking about real things
COMM: yes, like particles in labs
PHYS: right, which are like -
COMM:and similarly when you say that your speed affects what is true for you, you mean that someone in a lab in say, Iraq, might get a diff-
PHYS:yeah but you're missing the point, the reason people in Iraq would get different results is because first of all they're moving a bit s
PANEL:ok so like conservatives say both of your fields are hostile to religion and traditional values
COMM:it's true that politically your average Communication professor probably leans left, but our field was partly invented by a saint
PHYS: unlike the subjective humanities, we just say true things that happen to be exactly what someone on 10 tabs of acid would say
COMM: people from different countries and backgrounds see things differently
PHYS:and if you go very fast, it looks REALLY different
COMM: the same facts are true in any case, but the framing of them matters
PHYS: literally nothing is true and probably nothing is real
PANEL:COMM is nihilistic&immoral
COMM: it only looks that way because of how much you accelerated when we shoved you out the window
PANEL:we are concerned that men's issues are ignored - how might you address that
COMM:we use the term "intersectionality," which means "more than one thing about a thing can matter at the same time"
PHYS:made up
PHYS:we work based on actual reality, not abstractions
PHYS: incidentally,stuff could only exist if there was twice as much of it, somewhere
COMM:just because intersectionality is complicated and sometimes unconscious doesn't mean it's not provable
PHYS:we operating on the assumption nothing appears to work they way it looks, BUT, there's a lot of invisible shit that makes it work
COMM:for instance,a lot of gender focused scholars used to talk about gender in a particular way but then we saw trans people felt different
PHYS:our explanation is defy
right,so long there's "dark matter" that is completely undetectable
COMM: patriarchy?
PHYS:no one has ever seen a patriarchy, you are so biased
PHYS:it's important to know there's also antimatter, but it all exploded probably
COMM:you're misrepresenting us. We are saying that patriarchy is a term for a system where things usually but not always favor men
PHYS:when we use the word "spin," we never at any point mean that anything is rotating
COMM:when we describe feminism with "waves," we mean that there were three specific time periods where feminists did things
PHYS:when we say "wave," we mean that things are kind of like waves in an ocean or electricity or something, but they also are not like that
COMM: you could argue that certain thinkers we call "second wave" feminists resemble later -
PHYS: everything is both a wave and not.
PANEL: common sense tho?
COMM: sometimes common sense is political
PHYS: common sense is bullshit, thats why the antimatter is hiding
PANEL:what does spin mean? This is common sense, I bet communication uses a weird metaphor and physics says it means rotation
PHYS: actually
COMM:so "spin" is when someone puts a different angle on something. As if people were first looking at something from angle A, then rotated
PHYS: the term "spin" at no point ever refers to even perceptual or metaphorical rotation, we just needed a word so that's it
You: explain "spin" as a physics thing, not in general
Physics:like the kind of physics for slow things or the kind for very small things?
You: I just want to know what the four letter word "spin" means to physicists
PHYS: I need to know if you mean big physics or slow physics
You: being very small and being slow are not actually opposite
PHYS: yes but objectively, very small fast things are just weird
You: fuck it.Communication, what's "spin"?
COMM: different ways to understand facts
PHYS: there r 3 physics,they're all true but also false
You: How can you have so many different theories but claim to know things?
COMM: each theory gives a part of the truth
PHYS:so we have the Newtonian theory, Einsteinian theory, and quantum theory
COMM: if you ask a neo-Aristotelian, a Marxist, and a postmodernist a question they will look at the same facts and give different answers
PHYS: all three theories say the other two are factually wrong, but they are all true
COMM: ok so we are not claiming to be experts at what you study
PHYS: what you study is so easy we can solve it with math
COMM: we're just suggesting if your students took our classes they might be able to help people understand
COMM: no see, you don't have to be, that's why we look into the best ways to talk about stuff
PHYS:how dare you pretend to know our secrets
COMM:can't help but observe that you're several thousand times more funded than us, but we have yet to see a physics derived speaking method
PHYS: that is because communicating is so easy that to spend our precious brain cells on it would be a waste of our glory
PHYS: really, we can do your field while asleep
PHYS: I don't get why you people are so obssessed with the cat thing
Spin (communication): "providing a biased interpretation of an event or campaigning to persuade public opinion"
Spin (physics): "spin (physics) redirects here, but spin (classical physics) is at this other place"
Spin (physics): [we call it "spin" because a wrong person who was wrong thought particles spun, but actually, nothing is spinning]
I still mainly am hung up on how you get people who say things like "hah, you believe that some BEING made the UNIVERSE haha lol" >
> and then when you're like "well, I mean,I kinda think so but what do you think" and they're like "we don't know, everything might be fake"
And then you're like "to be clear, I think the Torah is a kind of truth but don't think every thing in it is a literal fact"
Then they point and giggle and are like "I bet you think Schrodinger actually meant something having to do with a feline animal"
And then you're like "actually no, I figure that Schrodinger was talking about a really complex idea and used a story to make a point"
And Dawkbro is like "yes, exactly, the cat is just a metaphor that could have been phrased better. But hey, Leviticus says some wrong things
"actually, the vast majority of Jews agree that there's cases where not just the Torah but even rabbinic commentary are misleading"
And they're like, "look, do you believe it's true or not?" And you're like "like, the part about stoning gays, or the part about [thing]"
"here you go, moving the goal posts"
"So, why are you torturing cats?"
"okay, fair, so it's also a metaphor when you say going slower makes you are more?"
"No, I actually literally mean fast people age less"
"That seems hard to believe"
"Yeah but you believe shrimp are evil"
"No, I don't actually"
"Then why do you support theoocracy?"
Me, in my office writing a grant for one of three that could ever slightly apply:
"with careful analysis and observation a board-overseen study of consenting participants could help understand lingering trauma's effects"
"specifically, I suggest that because of strong anecdotal and statistical evidence for the dangers of online harassment, >
"> studying said harassment can give future targets a better understanding and preparation. >
"to do this study properly, I would need, in addition to my salary, some software for recording interviews and to hire a statistician"
"therefore, I humbly request a sum of $10,000 over the next 3 years, in the hope of undermining hate groups"
Meanwhile, my colleagues in physics:
"Based on recent theory, the universe shouldn't exist. This may or may not be the case. >
"> really, no one can say for sure if anything exists, but I have designed a study that, if replicated, >
"> could shed light on whether there is a very, very tiny thing that works a certain way
"to determine if this small thing may potentially exist, I want to construct a stadium sized radioactive gun that shoots invisible rays"
"luckily, my colleagues have already received funding to build a gun and found this particle exists in normal conditions on Earth, probably"
"it is imperative, however, to determine if the Deetz-Adams micron also exists in objects near a black hole at relativistic speeds"
"for this reason, I request a sum of $79,000,000,000,000,000 for prelimary examination of the feasibility of a radioactive gun in space"
If I were incredibly lucky I might someday get a low six figure grant to answer questions like "how might spies have learned from GamerGate"
But for just a nine figure sum you could get a preliminary answer to what happens when you shoot two very small things at each other
Even better, you explain, it's a misconception that your proposed experiment could turn the planet into a black hole
I mean first of all, from some points of view we're already a black hole
Second, you're pretty sure that you won't turn us into a black hole, even more sure than you used to be that things exist at least a bit
Third, your experiment is ethical, unlike my study. You only have a .0001% chance of blowing up everything.
I meanwhile have about that chance that I might hurt someone's feelings, which is why depending on my university, >
> I may need an ethics review to get a professional opinion on whether I can ethically mention myself or that might be too risky
I'm not making that up incidentally. My institution doesn't do this but some universities require researchers to undergo ethics reviews to >
> write a paper mentioning themselves or quoting something that the author wrote, because that could affect the person somehow
Like, you have to do a risk benefit analysis of potential problems that you could cause yourself by mentionig yourself
IRBs that require this point, probably justifiably, to the slippery slope that allowed things like Tuskegee and MK ULTRA
Meanwhile, OVER IN LIBRARY SCHOOL, you can write a program and market it as an operating system for assassination robots
I mean, yes, hypothetically, you might be paid by the Pentagon to research very neutral theoretical scenarios
How are you to why they'd pay you several million dollars to use math to identify people in a desert who might be politically dissident
This isn't hypothetical btw. A good friend was in cognitive science. project was pure science and had no human subjects, so no ethics board
Why would they need to worry about ethics? The Pentagon was hiring them to write what amounted to a Dwarf Fortress like simulation
who KNOWS why the Pentagon would, specifically, want a simulation that models "desert tribal culture" and identifies unusual acting entitiea
They also had a few other quite arbitrary specifications that they could have wanted for like, 5000 possible reasons
Minor innocuous stuff like "hypothetically, we could populate this model with actors who we observed by flying over head"
That was just something you could do. I mean, the program had to specifically address that use case - I'm sure there was a good reason why
There were no ethical concerns, as no one had stated that they personally intended to do something like install the simulator on a plane
There was no reason anyone would infer that the Pentagon mightwant to use the model to, say, just randomly, identify people to fire bombs at
Even if, HYPOTHETICALLY, some evil person were to take this innocent code and put it on an unamnned machine or "Reaper"
I mean, just as one possibility, someone down the road might think that the simulation could decide where to put a "Hellfire munition"
Most likely that was totally not in any way why the Pentagon was paying people to do this pure pursuit of knowledge
Meanwhile, if I talk to someone, they theoretically could become upset by a question I ask, and we know where that went in WWII Germany
My mom also worked in military funded research.
It didn't make her popular with her colleagues when she said ridiculous things
like "maybe the reason the military is paying us huge bucks to study spatial cognition in very specific contexts might relate to weapons"
Why would anyone make a ridiculous leap to a particular context where the Pentagon would be very interested in thought processes
like thousands of reasons the local group of people with guns would want to know about decision making specifically for a flying entity
I mean, who doesn't sometimes wonder "if I was in a very thin upper stratosphere layer and my friend from Russia was moving at 832 km/hr>
> at exactly what angle, time, and speed would I alter my course to make sure that, to pick a random example, I got to my friend
Like, specifically, there's hundreds of reasons to want to build a algorithm that would tell you how to be in precisely the same place >
> as your hypothetical, very aerodynamic friend who left, say, Eastern Russia maybe 20 minutes ago and were headed for, say, Langley, VA
To suggest that the reason for wanting a computer program that gave an answer to that exact question was not "pure science" is just paranoid
How would I be in any way responsible if code I wrote were without my knowledge installed on a robot and that robot ran the code
And even if I were writing the code with a flying robot in mind, those entities in the desert could represent anything
If my program gets fed in a list of data about entities in a desert, and generates a list of "entities that are acting suspicious,"*shrug*
OBVIOUSLY I would not imagine in my wildest dreams someone might take that list,tell some robot I've never heard of to "kill" anyone
No, I'm just a neutral researcher who answers questions dating back to the dawn of time
like "which of these people in a large desert is most likely to be in some way acquainted, specifically, with a guy named Osama bin Laden"
"you're religious? Hah, I heard some religious people hate queer people"
"Not to pry, but how is your cat"
"I don't know"
"so you promise me you're not actually aiming a gun at a cat"
"I can't guarantee that. Not without knowing how fast both you and my cat are"
THE DEAN: ok so it's time to decide who has done a good job and gets to stay forever even if they like murder people, and who is fired NOW
DEAN, continuing: it's simple, you need to prove you're discovering things that help New Jersey somehow
DEAN: so to begin with,Ellie. You say you created an "analysis" of "how" "online" "harassers" "hurt" "people" and how to "stop" "them"
DEAN: Ellie, these concepts are really removed from the day to day life most of us deal with. I mean who knows any women, or uses "internet"
DEAN:now, on the other hand, Dr. Professorinen from Physics, I see you recently paid your salary for 10 years and are building a giant laser
DR. PROFESSORINEN: indeed, I got grant money from the NSA
DEAN: just as a formality, can you say specifically how your research helps NJ?
DR. PROFESSORINEN: since the dawn of time man has wanted to make tiny things go very fast
DEAN: yes, but what do YOU bring to the table?
DR. PROFESSORINEN: there is an ancient Finnish proverb, which roughly translates to the following
"a smart man asks 'what happens when you shoot a subatomic piece of matter at some antimatter'
"but a REALLY smart man asks, 'what if the particles were also radioactive'"
DEAN: thanks to your courage we know at last
ME: so you're not going to acknowledge that I got $50 from a private foundation to buy a tenth of a plane ticket
DEAN: not really, no
ME: Shit. I mean,I kind of gathered concrete facts about psychological warfare
DEAN: yes, but Marko here can blow things up with a laser
DR. PROFESSORINEN: not just any laser. A radioactive laser
DEAN: what would each of you say you'd like your students to leave your class with
ME: a working knowledge of influence in society
DEAN:how could "persuading" people be helpful for a "job"
DR. PROFESSORINEN: conversely, my students need to know reality is likely fake
ME: you know I spent these past six years being really circumspect anytime I did anything that might be not... Respectable
PHYSICS GUY:I regularly give interviews to the media where I say exactly what my colleague here would say if she was on acid.Hypothetically
ME: seriously do you know how much I avoided saying shit to the media like,"really, reality is like,a giant energy field,if there was a cat"
SCIENCEGUY: I mean, reality IS a giant cloud of energy, similar to an imaginary cat
OUR BOSS: ok man give me a hit. Ellie, gtfo,you're fired
At press time the Physics Department stated "what if there were, like, a dimension where time was an illusion? Aliens probably live there."
However, Dr. Professorinin's colleague Dave Scienceberg noted that most physicists thing aliens are constrained by time, just like us
"While it is certainly possible that, like,aliens are from time instead of space, most of our models suggest they probably have linear time"
Marko Professorinin's first project upon promotion to Associate Professor is a study of whether time is a flat circle
I guess what I'm saying is, seriously, OF COURSE they'd make a spore drive.
Like literally the biggest challenge for me in getting tenure is that students often find my class confusing
"Professor, why are we talking about gun control and liquor laws? That's just random"
STEM: we bought a quarry because we had extra cash
"Ellie, we can't just pay you to leave students feeling confused by questions like 'rhetorical methods'. >
"today's undergrads are concerned with concrete, applicable issues like "seriously, how the fuck does anything exist"
"students say your lectures are 'disorganized' and 'random', whereas STEM offers concrete solutions, like giant particle cannons"
"social constructs" like"being a good person who speaks well" are bygone relics when for just 900 your salary we could prove nothing is real
And really I'm an embarrassment, courting controversy telling impressionable reporters"if someone says they're a Nazi,they often hate Jews"
focus on jobs and the economy by saying things to reporters like "the most likely conclusion is that our universe is a computer game"
YOU:in your professional view, what are Trump's chances for reelection
ME:I'm no statistician but likely higher than 50% bc of tampering
PHYSICS: we don't even know who Trump is, but the answer is anywhere between 0% and 99.99999% depending on both your velocity and his
ANOTHER HUMANITIES SCHOLAR: respectfully Ellie I think you overstate Trump's chances and the power of tampering
ME: maybe you're right
PHYSICIST 2: unlike my colleague, I believe what we should be asking is "why is Trump not made of antimatter'"
PHYSICIST 3: in the name of science, we've built a trump mannequin and another one out of antimatter and blew them both up
ME:what were the results
PHYSICIST:there was an explosion
ME:yes but how do you answer the question
ME, trying to explain power dynamics: "okay so like, do you go the speed limit? Explain why."
STUDENTS: "yeah sometimes"
ME: why
THEM: cops
ME: but like, most of the time cops won't be around to ticket you
STUDENTS: but they are sometimes
ME: right so that's why we obey laws
PHYSICS: postmodernism is ridiculous. Science is universal, not subjective, except for things that move ever
ME:we refined our understanding to reflect changes
PHYSICS: we have 3 frameworks and all of them only work if you add invisible dark energy
Missing some Tweet in this thread?
You can try to force a refresh.

Like this thread? Get email updates or save it to PDF!

Subscribe to Tifa Roosevelt
Profile picture

Get real-time email alerts when new unrolls are available from this author!

This content may be removed anytime!

Twitter may remove this content at anytime, convert it as a PDF, save and print for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video

1) Follow Thread Reader App on Twitter so you can easily mention us!

2) Go to a Twitter thread (series of Tweets by the same owner) and mention us with a keyword "unroll" @threadreaderapp unroll

You can practice here first or read more on our help page!

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just three indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member and get exclusive features!

Premium member ($3.00/month or $30.00/year)

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!