What is Veeky Forums's opinion on Luboš Motl?
>highly talented theoretical physicist
>lost his job for political reasons
>became a professional shitposter
I honestly wouldn't be surprised if he posted on Veeky Forums. In his blog he calls colleagues he disagrees with "imbeciles" and "crackpots".
Other urls found in this thread:
scottaaronson.com
motls.blogspot.com
twitter.com
Love his blog. I read it all the time. I don't always agree, but he's always entertaining. Yes, he knows his physics too.
I don't think he posts here much. He does a lot of work at the stackexchange and similar sites though.
>lost his job for political reasons
I thought he lost his job because he's utterly insufferable.
>lost his job for political reasons
ok, what happened?
I see Aaronson write
>in the wake of the well-known Luboš Motl debacle at Harvard
in describing hiring committees as blog-shy/looking to avoid controversy
scottaaronson.com
but it isn't well known to me, or presumably others outside of certain fields.
I suspect that asking for an unbiased rundown is asking for something that doesn't exist.
Google turns up a lot of posts by butthurt academics over the issue and I'm not willing to read all the shit available.
Give me a one paragraph rundown if you can.
motls.blogspot.com
Anyone that disrespects Tao-senpai must be castrated, immediately.
lol, goddamn, the aaronson post is an april fools joke - does that include the reference to Motl or just every other aspect of the post
He insisted in free speech and didn't want to give in to the anti-scientific censorship of "political correctness".
So what exactly did he say that got him fired or forced out?
Pls provide the source that touched of the shitstorm.
He lost it because he's an asshole, none of his colleagues wanted to work with him and, when it came down to it, it was better for Harvard to cut him loose.
Veeky Forums won't let me post the link, but go look at what Sabine Hossenfelder has to say about Lubos. You can't be an academic and publicly dismiss papers because they were written by a woman. Like it or not, your reputation is important, and saying stuff like that will damage your reputation.
>You can't be an academic and publicly dismiss papers because they were written by a woman.
If you're going to dismiss papers then you'd better do it by making counter arguments on the substance rather than ad hom attacks - right?
>You can't be an academic and publicly dismiss papers because they were written by a woman.
Lubos has never done this. He dismisses papers all the time, because he thinks the physics is "total crap", not because of the sex of the author.
His blog is pretty funny. I'm convinced he posts on this site somewhere, otherwise we wouldn't have this:
>My involuntary celibacy has made me more aware of how our society works. By not wasting energy on sex like an animal, I had more resources available to raise my intellect. Did you never notice how virgins are smarter than non-virgins? Newton, Nietzsche, Erdös, Dirac, Motl, the list goes on. I have joined their ranks as one of the most supreme intellectuals of our time.
He must post on he sounds like the typical robot.
Lol
he's right you know, im a few short months from achieving full wizard status.
Ahahahah. Found the cuck!
I actually found that on /r9k/, I browse it ironically from time to time. Only Lubos would place Lubos among those names.
>>My involuntary celibacy has made me more aware of how our society works. By not wasting energy on sex like an animal, I had more resources available to raise my intellect. Did you never notice how virgins are smarter than non-virgins? Newton, Nietzsche, Erdös, Dirac, Motl, the list goes on. I have joined their ranks as one of the most supreme intellectuals of our time.
danger and play is what women are and want [they want play = safe danger] and men want women, but only because women are the ultimate danger and play thing. This is nice, but you can reach a life beyond this.
once you understand that men are not meant to be as good hedonist as women, you first acknowledge the superiority of women at the hedonistic life (which is just called life by men and women) and you see the misery of hedonism, either the direct hedonism of the woman, or the nihilistic fantasy of the delayed hedonism [hedonism of the will] of the man [the one that men advocate for, the one about engaging yourself into challenges after challenges, seeking merit, pursuing your passions, being relevant or even worse, being an intellectual, in one word still clinging to entertainment (typically to attract women sooner or later) to better turn away from their impotency at the hedonistic life..] created by men once they get beat by women.
Once you see the game as well as the noneffective masculine life, you lose faith in hedonism. At this point, you either see the solution or not {Nietzsche did not see it, or rather he did not claim explicitly that he saw it]: you strive to do the exact opposite of hedonism (either the masculine one or the feminine one): first you stop being nihilistic, in accepting what you are (it is crucial to be sincere about the starting point], meaning a worm, and in stopping to analyze the past to get a better future (= the strategy of men, which remains inside hedonism (even though they claim that it is not, and in practice is is clearly not), but even more nihilistic than the feminine hedonism, once they are beaten by women] and in stopping to take what you desire, feel and think seriously [=the hedonism of the woman, and the fueling of this hedonism by men].
Women are wrong for having faith in what they desire, in thinking that this is relevant to ones life
they are a bit wrong to let men spend their life trying to serve women.
Men are wrong to try to play with women, which is just serving women
men are wrong, after being defeated, to be resentful towards women
men are wrong to think, after being defeated, that the solution is to be even more nihilistic than women in dwelling in hedonism of the will
The lack of efficacy of the masculine life leads to a narcissism (contrary to men), but without egotism (contrary to women), a more equanimous and benevolent stance towards what is desired, felt and thought. At this point, you stop looking at hedonism of the body [=the feminine hedonism], turn towards hedonism of the soul [what religious call it], spirit, consciousness [what buddhists call it] [=the hedonism of the mild ascetic, the hedonism that most men fail to see and the one that women love to think that they embody (women love to think that they are not as egotistic as they are, that they embody a humanist stance)] and then you understand that even this is doomed to be disappointing, so you refuse it until you stop caring about this one too.
you lost me at the first square brackets
Luboš pls go
I know heaps of insufferable pricks, dickheads, cunts. If they are good and publish they keep their positions.
He's a caricature autistic virgin.