Did you know that Richard Feyman was actually a scam artist misogynistic pig who shouldn't be looked up to?
Everybody says Richard was a fine man, including Angela.
Is Angie on ozempic? She's getting less cute.
Ultimately foids deserve your pity and not your hate
>>17006448You haven't actually watched the video?
>>17006448However, I agree that looking up to scientists isn't about "morality" or whatever religious idea. People can be valued for different things and there is no need to criticize a dead person.
Because he called out the social "sciences"?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWr39Q9vBgoIf more had listened to Feynman we wouldn't live in a world where you career is over if you state the fact that transwomen are not real biological women or talk about race and IQ or race and crime.
I mean he definitely was a lier, egotistically concerned with his reputation and a misogynistic pig.He succeeded - and is in turn glorified and overrated.The problem with calling him a scam artist is that it suggests his physics wasn't legit, which it was.I mean it's like with Von Neumann. Definitely one of the best, but still too glorified and overrated. The kind of person where the fables only grow in fantasm as the years go by.
Angela would do more for women in physics by doing great physics (she don't do) than by crying in non-academic platforms for monkeys to applaud her. I mean, it shouldn't be that difficult. Jews were also banned from universities in the 19th century; when they were finally allowed in, they proved what they were capable of. Women aren't doing anything great or not so great or not.....
>>17006448Her video was good. She wasn't that harsh on "Feyman".
>>17006448All these talks about how "X was actually a really bad person" never fundamentally change anything. They just exist for internet brownie points.
>>17006448You didn't watch the video, and while her leftism is trite and worn out, she never said any of his work was bad.
Angie, queen of /sci/
>>17006666We already have a queen, and 2D > 3D regardless.
>>17006579She would do more for physics by spreading her legs, and using those heavy milkers to feed the babies they were supposed to feed and raising them to be good physicists
It's like he had needing children around that he had manufacture answers for.
>>17006448No, the guy who wrote his biography was, did you not watch the video?
>>17006776>nooo you didn't watch the whole 4 hour video in which she baited you for the first 3 and a half hours!!!!!!!!
who's the king?
>>17006778>in which she 'bated you for the first 3 and a half hours
>>17006668I hate that book.(It's probably fine as far as the subject does, but I stopped early for not liking it.)
>>17006721Trvke
>>17006778How do you know she baited for 3 and a half hours if you didn't watch the video? :]
>>17006778it's like 30 minutes in
>>17006660Yet they never talk about their heroes Foucault and Derrida, who spent their dying of AIDs years trying to make it legal to molest children.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_petitions_against_age-of-consent_laws..Strange that
>>17006448wrong board>>>/lgbt/
To my memory, she never said Feynman was a scam, was incorrect, or that his contributions to the field were not important.She did point out an obvious thing, that he was able to cult of personality himself during a period of public interest in high science, and that yes ultimately he gets more praise and attention than its really worth.The sexism shit idgaf about, women can yap all day and need to be ignored.
>>17006869>he was able to cult of personality himself during a period of public interest in high sciencehe didn'this biographer did after he died
>>17006874so his biographer was really based and he protected physics from foids for decades with anti foid baiting. I salute him
>>17006721This is how I feel about Stephen Wolfram.
>>17006448>misogynistic pigWhy would this have ANYTHING to do with how I see him as a scientist...
>>17006448Her Odyssey video blows dogs for quarters.
>>17006448MORE TRANNY NIGGER RAGEBAIT CULTUREWARS SLOP PLEASE
>>17006448God she's mid. Does she at least have a banging body?
>>17007420No.
>>17006448>Did you know Feyman never wrote a book?>never discusses any of his actual scientific literature published in journals.Guy came up with Feynman diagrams and postulated anti-particles moved backward in time instead of Dirac's see of negative energy. Really physicists wouldn't publish books unless they want to yap about something they can't in a formal journal.
>>17007449>postulated anti-particles moved backwardRetrocausality is a reinterpretation of this, and Feynman wasn't even the first to do it.>seeMy liege
>>17007449The Dirac See is the scientist's equivalent to the Holy See
>>17006448ofc, he was an edgelord
Can't has time reversal and retrocausality without complex phase ontology. Otherwise it runs directly into the zepn paradox. ASToE once again confirmed by feynmann-stuckleberg interpretation.QED
>>17007423Woefully sub-mid
>>17007449Feynman Hibbs book is a good way to learn Feynman's lagrangian approach to quantum Mechanics and directly from the master
>>17006448Angela did a pretty good video on LK-99, which anons here should watch especially if they got excited and participated in the LK-99 general threads here 3 years ago. Angela is right, and was right back then too, and you were wrong and should put on your dunce hat and go sit in the corner https://youtu.be/fj3WwMxUDZ8?si=cBTWZXQlj-JsxEeL
>>17006533Yeah OP didn't watch the video. There's a pretty big twist like 2/3 of the way through.OP is just dissatisfied with their life and is acting out what they were taught: that hating people and feeling superior to them will make your conditions better. How's that going OP? Any day now, right?Stop being played for a fool.
https://inspirehep.net/authors/2663517
>>17006448She's so pretty.
>>17006448He didn't really sell anything
>>17008004If you don't have any grace for people, they're going to keep buying into assumed conclusions. I'm going to hold you responsible for his actions, since you apparently know how he should be living.Human beings are not supposed to live strictly rationalized lives - truth, the ability to disambiguate, doing the right thing, implies a priori morality, which is forward looking - people can fall. You blame the drug addict when you should blame the guy dealing drugs, but you suck his dick because he's wealthy.Trusting critique of youtuber influenzas like Angela Collier is suspect; youtube is built out of google's sinicization / marxist algorithms to turn you into a slave. You blame a dead man who made massive contributions to physics because you might get your dick wet.>Did Feynman write and teach his lectures?https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/>Did he do QED?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QED:_The_Strange_Theory_of_Light_and_Matterhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_electrodynamics#Feynman's_view_of_quantum_electrodynamicsWhat more do you need from him? or you're going to buy into the marxist revisionist history, and put critiquing people's personalities over what they objectively accomplished?You guys are always pushing for a society where the backseat freeriders need to organize everything.
>>17008374Always remember the fundamentals>It is obvious that [leftists] are not cool-headed logicians systematically analyzing the foundations of knowledge. They are deeply involved emotionally in their attack on truth and reality.>Theodore Kaczynski
>>17006448
>>17006448Feynman is what you might call the aha troll scientist
>>17007999this, desu baka senpai
>>17006448>Did you know that Richard Feyman was actually a scam artist So perfect for academic "purposes">misogynistic pig Why>who shouldn't be looked up to?He was that tall?
unsubscribed to angela nowjust dont like hersmug, annoying moralizerdoesnt talk about anything im interested inso yeah im binning hergoodbye
>>17006448>>17006448Mostly good, did some things which are socially bad, look up to the good things, look down on the bad things, if you try to dichotomize you'll fail, same applies to everyone.
Feynman was very supportive of his sister doing physics and did not discriminate against women in this regard. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_FeynmanHis sister never had any issue with him. The man just tried to fuck everything, went to strip clubs and all that. Would be seen as inappropriate today but the 20th century was just another world.
>>17010499based
>>17006448>mediocre leftist bitching about made-up non-existent sexual harassment from the past>"durr he's a meme, he never contributed">>literally created QED and like half of QM inventing techniques and methods on which QFT is built uponYeah that's where I stopped watching her.
>>17006560what did he EVER lied about? (you won't answer cause only retards say "mysogyniistic pig)
>>17010590>Would be seen as inappropriate todayWrongly.>but the 20th century was just another world.Less retarded and not hijacked by schizo clown cult of leftism yet.
>>17007999Bitch didnt even "exist" three years ago.
Collier's great contribution, that which secured her femme fatale department fellowship, during this period of time of rampant over-matriarchal wine babies, can ultimately be summed up as:>Binary systems express perturbations relative to their orbital mechanicsThat's it.That is all she has ever done.She's useless and she knows it, hence the lenin-marxism youtube channel
>>17010717reddit transisters our response? I not sure I can cope
>>17010707>Less retarded and not hijacked by schizo clown cult of leftism yet.In the 70s, there were certainly feminists who strongly opposed stuff like strip clubs and were ardently against pornography and all that. However, back then the strongest opponents of Feynman's behaviour by far would have been the religious Christian right. I don't know how old you are or where you are from but for most of American history, particularly since prohibition in the 1920s until basically the Obama administration, the most censorious group of people were by miles the Christian right. Things really changed with Obama administration and the rise of social media based wokeness in the 2010s.Social 'liberals' (American left) and classical liberals generally tend to have a very English utiliarian view of morality (Locke, Mill, Bentham ect...) - what is right is what makes the most happiness/decreases the most suffering. A sort of imaginary hedonic calculus. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felicific_calculusSocial conservatives/religous conceptions of morality are often much more Aristotelian; things are wrong not just on harm but based on the values they represent; sins are sins not just because they hurt people but because they reveal/change something about the soul/character of the person doing it. Someone watching pornography or attending a strip club or hitting on every woman in sight reveals something about the way they view relationships/sexuality.In the 2010s, the American left abadoned the classical liberal/English philosophical view of morality based on the harm principle. Adopted a worldview much more similar to moral/social conservatives of old - things are bad because they reaveal something wicked about your character. The mask falling off.However, because these modern progressives lack the sort of moral language to just straght up condemn LUST or PRIDE as a sin they have to abstract these things to vague accusations of sexism and toxic masculinity
>>17011123>However, back then the strongest opponents of Feynman's behaviour by far would have been the religious Christian right. I don't know how old you are or where you are from but for most of American history, particularly since prohibition in the 1920s until basically the Obama administration, the most censorious group of people were by miles the Christian right. Things really changed with Obama administration and the rise of social media based wokeness in the 2010s.true, they both suck. but let's be honest leftists have been much more destructive.As far as your last paragraph goes let's be honest it's not their issue with the language, it's the fact that the whole thing is based on brown/Muslim supremacy so all of the retarded nonsense comes from that. Accusations of sexism are just a way to put white men down. Notice they never accuse brown people of sexism.
>>17011151>As far as your last paragraph goes let's be honest it's not their issue with the language.When I talk about language I was talking about their approach to sexual morality; the catholic theologian and the modern sex negative feminist academic both share a visceral disgust at porography/sex work/sexualised imager in adversising and I believe for a similar reason - it represents something about the innate character of men that is frightning - Lust. The thing is, the Catholic theologian as almost 2000 years of philosophy on this subject and a way of discussing it that the academic feminist cannot be seen to agree with - so they cannot share the same language. Language builds thought. >the whole thing is based on brown/Muslim supremacy so all of the retarded nonsense comes from that. Accusations of sexism are just a way to put white men down. Notice they never accuse brown people of sexism.People have different moral compasses - a foundational statement which can be applied to derive all of morality. For Christ this is'Love God with all your heart soul and might. Love your neighbour as yourself. All the law and the prophets hang on these commandments.' It follows on from 'love your neighbour' that you shouldn't steal, kill, cheat on your spouse ect... The moral compass of wokeism is 'Punch up good. punch down bad.' and their whole moral worldview is build on this. To sum up, an action is immoral it is perceived to 'punch down' against group that is experiencing oppression/systematic discrimination. An action is good if it is anti- group that is powerful. In the USA, oppressed groups are mainly perceived to be non-whites and women and gays. As an Ulster protestant I have had wokeists take similar stances towards Irish nationalists in my country; they are 'oppressed' therefore always right and can do no wrong. ItThe issue is a faulty moral compass. The alwasy stand with the underdog mentality.
>>17011123A "classical liberal" would stop at "what harms others is not correct" and hence there is no relation between the moralless degradation of modern leftism and a classical liberal. A classical liberal would not see the psychological programming of and for the spreading of homosexuality upon impressionable children as a right of the people, as it provably interferes with the process of life.
>>17010711Her most-viewed video is from 3 years ago, from a few months before the LK-99 thing
>>17011160>As an Ulster protestant I have had wokeists take similar stances towards Irish nationalists in my country; they are 'oppressed' therefore always right and can do no wrongSame with Ukrainian nationalists. >The issue is a faulty moral compass. The alwasy stand with the underdog mentality.Except not really because white men are disadvantages in the West which is how you know that the punching up and down is only a facade and the real guiding principles is backing Muslims/communists/browns against the West/capitalists/whites
>>17011207Yeah liberals and "liberals" (aka leftists) are the opposites. Leftists are just a different type of fascists really
OnlyFans page yet?
>>17011294My money's on huge areolas. Possibly overlapping, like a Venn diagram.
>>17011358small and perkyt. pro
>>17011655She's in her 30s and had a kid, they are Cs on a good day and somewhat flabbing down, the way that moderate breasts start looking like a sloppy pancake.
>>17006448Why is morality?
>>17012169>I'll do you one better...
>>17006448ps2 rock band guitar hero algorithm
>>17007138kek
>>17006448she's an ugly dyke thoughever
>>17011710Stroking
