Oscar the Science Person
@oscarisfedup.bsky.social
Franco-Gallois. Arsenal FC. UNC-Chapel Hill alum. Currently based in Cardiff. Previously Paris.
Studying BSc in Physics; Looking to specialise in Quantum Computing.
Studying BSc in Physics; Looking to specialise in Quantum Computing.
Winnie the Pooh and Putler
They look adorable
They look adorable
January 26, 2026 at 6:10 AM
Winnie the Pooh and Putler
They look adorable
They look adorable
Yeah, I'm good. Thanks though.
January 19, 2026 at 7:22 PM
Yeah, I'm good. Thanks though.
You’re hiding behind labelling me a 'racist’ and shitty memes because you can’t defend race-based silencing.
Go ahead: defend the position.
Go ahead: defend the position.
January 19, 2026 at 6:41 PM
You’re hiding behind labelling me a 'racist’ and shitty memes because you can’t defend race-based silencing.
Go ahead: defend the position.
Go ahead: defend the position.
Your claim: ‘white people should shut up about MLK / be blocked.’
My response: race-based silencing on MLK Day is irony.
Now defend your claim on the merits: why is dismissing people by skin color acceptable here, without hiding behind ‘antiblack’ as a shortcut.
My response: race-based silencing on MLK Day is irony.
Now defend your claim on the merits: why is dismissing people by skin color acceptable here, without hiding behind ‘antiblack’ as a shortcut.
January 19, 2026 at 6:04 PM
Your claim: ‘white people should shut up about MLK / be blocked.’
My response: race-based silencing on MLK Day is irony.
Now defend your claim on the merits: why is dismissing people by skin color acceptable here, without hiding behind ‘antiblack’ as a shortcut.
My response: race-based silencing on MLK Day is irony.
Now defend your claim on the merits: why is dismissing people by skin color acceptable here, without hiding behind ‘antiblack’ as a shortcut.
MLK day and race-based silencing. The irony writes itself.
January 19, 2026 at 5:44 PM
MLK day and race-based silencing. The irony writes itself.
For anyone that may be knowledgeable on this, can anyone explain what the BTC sticker on the back of the cop’s helmet means?
January 8, 2026 at 10:23 AM
For anyone that may be knowledgeable on this, can anyone explain what the BTC sticker on the back of the cop’s helmet means?
Calling him a tool implies he is still somehow useful. Pete Hegseth is a piss bucket with shitty neo-Nazi tattoos.
January 3, 2026 at 9:47 PM
Calling him a tool implies he is still somehow useful. Pete Hegseth is a piss bucket with shitty neo-Nazi tattoos.
That’s not remotely the same as declaring contested constitutional conclusions like “bypassing Congress” or “illegal act of war” as settled fact in a breaking-news lede. You’ve found one word used as common descriptor; you haven’t shown reporters issuing unqualified legal verdicts.
January 3, 2026 at 3:37 PM
That’s not remotely the same as declaring contested constitutional conclusions like “bypassing Congress” or “illegal act of war” as settled fact in a breaking-news lede. You’ve found one word used as common descriptor; you haven’t shown reporters issuing unqualified legal verdicts.
In that ISIS piece, “terrorist group” is being used as conventional shorthand for ISIS, whose status and record of mass terror attacks are widely established, and the article immediately supports it with factual context.
January 3, 2026 at 3:37 PM
In that ISIS piece, “terrorist group” is being used as conventional shorthand for ISIS, whose status and record of mass terror attacks are widely established, and the article immediately supports it with factual context.
I’m not arguing the NYT never uses those words. I’m pointing out that when it does, they’re descriptive or attributed, not reporters rendering verdicts. That distinction is the entire argument.
January 3, 2026 at 3:28 PM
I’m not arguing the NYT never uses those words. I’m pointing out that when it does, they’re descriptive or attributed, not reporters rendering verdicts. That distinction is the entire argument.
"Bypassing Congress” is not a brute fact; it’s a constitutional claim, which is why it’s argued rather than announced. Declaring it “obvious” without argument makes it opinion with impatience.
January 3, 2026 at 3:27 PM
"Bypassing Congress” is not a brute fact; it’s a constitutional claim, which is why it’s argued rather than announced. Declaring it “obvious” without argument makes it opinion with impatience.
“They do this all the time” is a testable claim. I asked for one example and got none. That’s the entire issue. Assertion isn’t evidence.
January 3, 2026 at 3:24 PM
“They do this all the time” is a testable claim. I asked for one example and got none. That’s the entire issue. Assertion isn’t evidence.
Journalism that refuses to prejudge is not being “oblique.” It is doing the one unfashionable thing left in public life: distinguishing fact from inference. If that restraint feels intolerable, the problem is an allergy to uncertainty masquerading as moral seriousness.
January 3, 2026 at 3:20 PM
Journalism that refuses to prejudge is not being “oblique.” It is doing the one unfashionable thing left in public life: distinguishing fact from inference. If that restraint feels intolerable, the problem is an allergy to uncertainty masquerading as moral seriousness.
It's intellectual laziness. You want the conclusion served before the evidence, the sentence before the trial, and the satisfaction of outrage without the inconvenience of process.
January 3, 2026 at 3:20 PM
It's intellectual laziness. You want the conclusion served before the evidence, the sentence before the trial, and the satisfaction of outrage without the inconvenience of process.
To demand all of that in a breaking-news headline is to ask reporters to abandon reporting and start issuing proclamations.
January 3, 2026 at 3:20 PM
To demand all of that in a breaking-news headline is to ask reporters to abandon reporting and start issuing proclamations.
What you’re asking for is not clearer reporting but a headline that does the thinking for you. “Bypassing Congress” is a constitutional judgment, “unprecedented” is a historical verdict, and “attack” is a legal and moral characterization.
January 3, 2026 at 3:20 PM
What you’re asking for is not clearer reporting but a headline that does the thinking for you. “Bypassing Congress” is a constitutional judgment, “unprecedented” is a historical verdict, and “attack” is a legal and moral characterization.
Wanting the paper to collapse reporting, analysis, and judgment into one voice is garbage media criticism and a fundamental misunderstanding of how journalism works.
January 3, 2026 at 3:10 PM
Wanting the paper to collapse reporting, analysis, and judgment into one voice is garbage media criticism and a fundamental misunderstanding of how journalism works.
If you can point to a NYT hard-news article where reporters themselves render an unqualified legal verdict absent attribution or context, cite it. Otherwise, what’s being objected to here is journalistic restraint.
January 3, 2026 at 3:10 PM
If you can point to a NYT hard-news article where reporters themselves render an unqualified legal verdict absent attribution or context, cite it. Otherwise, what’s being objected to here is journalistic restraint.
Saying “experts argue this may violate international law” is not the same thing as a reporter declaring “this is illegal” as fact in a breaking-news lede. One is reporting, the other is adjudication.
January 3, 2026 at 3:10 PM
Saying “experts argue this may violate international law” is not the same thing as a reporter declaring “this is illegal” as fact in a breaking-news lede. One is reporting, the other is adjudication.
They really don’t, at least not in straight reporting and when they do use terms like “illegal” or “act of war,” it’s almost always attributed (“experts say,” “officials argue,” “under international law…”), or it appears in analysis/editorial sections. That distinction matters.
January 3, 2026 at 3:10 PM
They really don’t, at least not in straight reporting and when they do use terms like “illegal” or “act of war,” it’s almost always attributed (“experts say,” “officials argue,” “under international law…”), or it appears in analysis/editorial sections. That distinction matters.
Moral and legal judgments belong to analysis, editorials, and argument.
January 3, 2026 at 2:38 PM
Moral and legal judgments belong to analysis, editorials, and argument.
The complaint here rests on a basic confusion about journalism. Straight news is not a courtroom, and reporters are not juries empowered to declare acts “illegal” or “war” on demand. Their job is to establish what happened, who claims responsibility, what is confirmed, and what remains disputed.
January 3, 2026 at 2:38 PM
The complaint here rests on a basic confusion about journalism. Straight news is not a courtroom, and reporters are not juries empowered to declare acts “illegal” or “war” on demand. Their job is to establish what happened, who claims responsibility, what is confirmed, and what remains disputed.
This Okamura guy is a clown in Czech Republic.
I know from growing up in Prague how he is seen.
I know from growing up in Prague how he is seen.
January 3, 2026 at 2:34 PM
This Okamura guy is a clown in Czech Republic.
I know from growing up in Prague how he is seen.
I know from growing up in Prague how he is seen.