Discussion:
Mike Rowe Destroys Woman Who Wants Him Fired For Being ‘Ultra-Right Wing Conservative’
(too old to reply)
a425couple
2018-01-20 00:46:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Mike Rowe Destroys Woman Who Wants Him Fired For Being ‘Ultra-Right Wing
Conservative’
Photo of Derek Hunter
DEREK HUNTER
Contributor
3:17 PM 01/12/2018
238181075 238181075 Share
Play Video

TV host Mike Rowe is known for his measured, devastating take-downs of
people who attack him or his work. He has perfected the art of subtly
twisting the knife in the side of critics with calm, cool language.

This skill was on display Thursday when Rowe responded to a woman
criticized his politics on Facebook.

Rowe narrates the show “How The Universe Works” on the Science Channel.
The woman, Rebecca Bright, called Rowe an “anti-education, science
doubting, ultra-right wing conservative” who should be fired.

“I love the show How the Universe Works, but I’m lost on how the
producers and the Science Channel can allow anti-education, science
doubting, ultra-right wing conservative Mike Rowe to narrate the show,”
Bright wrote, according to Rowe. “There are countless scientists that
should be hired for that, or actors, if you must, that believe in
education and science that would sound great narrating the show,
example: Morgan Freeman. Cancel this fools contract and get any of your
scientists so often on the show to narrate it.”

In his response, Rowe started off by exhibiting his knowledge of the
subject of the show and killing Rebecca with kindness:

Well hi there, Rebecca. How’s it going? First of all, I’m glad you like
the show. “How the Universe Works” is a terrific documentary series that
I’ve had the pleasure of narrating for the last six seasons. I thought
this week’s premiere was especially good. It was called, “Are Black
Holes Real?” If you didn’t see it, spoiler alert….no one knows!!! It’s
true. The existence of Black Holes has never been proven. Some
cosmologists are now convinced they don’t exist at all, and the race to
prove their actuality has become pretty intense. Why? Because so much of
what we think we know about the cosmos depends upon them. In other
words, the most popular explanations as to how the universe actually
works, are based upon the existence of a thing that no one has been able
to prove. As I’m sure you know, it’s OK to make assumptions based on
theories. In fact, it’s critical to progress. But it’s easy these days
to confuse theory with fact. Thanks to countless movies and television
shows that feature Black Holes as a plot device, and many documentaries
that bring them to life with gorgeous CGI effects and dramatic music, a
lot of people are under the assumption that Black Holes are every bit as
real as the Sun and the Moon. Well, maybe they are, and maybe they
aren’t. We just don’t know. That’s why I enjoyed this week’s show so
much. It acknowledged the reasons we should question the existence of
something that many assume to be “settled science.” It invited us to doubt.

Oftentimes, on programs like these, I’m asked to re-record a passage
that’s suddenly rendered inaccurate by the advent of new information.
Sometimes, over the course of just a few days. That’s how fast the
information changes. Last year for instance, on an episode called
“Galaxies,” the original script – carefully vetted by the best minds in
physics – claimed there were approximately one hundred billion galaxies
in the known universe. A hundred billion! (Not a typo.) I couldn’t
believe it when I read it. I mean, the Milky Way alone has something
like 400 billion stars! Andromeda has a trillion! How many stars must
there be in a universe, with a hundred billion galaxies? Mind-boggling,
right? Well, a few weeks later, the best minds in physics came together
again, and determined that the total number of galaxies in the universe
was NOT in fact, a hundred billion. They were off. Not by a few
thousand, or a few million, or few billion, or even a few hundred
billion. The were off by two trillion. That’s right…TWO TRILLION!! But
here’s the point, Rebecca – when I narrate this program, it doesn’t
matter if I’m correct or incorrect – I always sound the same. And guess
what? So do the experts.

Rowe then slowly turned his keyboard to Rebecca’s idea that he should be
fired because doesn’t “believe in education and science,” and it gets
brutal:

When I wrote about this discrepancy, people became upset. They thought I
was making fun of science. They thought I was suggesting that because
physicists were off by one trillion, nine hundred billion galaxies, all
science was suddenly suspect, and no claims could be trusted. In
general, people like you accused me of “doubting science.” Which is a
curious accusation, since science without doubt isn’t science at all.

This is an important point. If I said I was skeptical that a
supernatural being put us here on Earth, you’d be justified in calling
me a “doubter of religion.” But if I said I was skeptical that manmade
global warming was going to melt the icecaps, that doesn’t make me a
“doubter of science.” Once upon a time, the best minds in science told
us the Sun revolved around the Earth. They also told us the Earth was
flat, and that a really bad fever could be cured by blood-letting.
Happily, those beliefs were questioned by skeptical minds, and we moved
forward. Science is a wonderful thing, and a critical thing. But without
doubt, science doesn’t advance. Without skepticism, we have no reason to
challenge the status quo. Anyway, enough pontificating. Let’s consider
for a moment, your very best efforts to have me fired.

You’ve called me an “ultra-right wing conservative,” who is both
“anti-education,” and “science-doubting.” Interestingly, you offer no
proof. Odd, for a lover of science. So I challenge you to do so now.
Please provide some evidence that I am in fact the person you’ve
described. And by evidence, I don’t mean a sentence taken out of
context, or a meme that appeared in your newsfeed, or a photo of me
standing next to a politician or a talk-show host you don’t like. I mean
actual proof of what you claim I am.

Also, please bear in mind that questioning the cost of a college degree
does not make me “anti-education.” Questioning the existence of
dark-matter does not make me a “dark-matter denier.” And questioning the
wisdom of a universal $15 minimum wage doesn’t make me an “ultra-right
wing conservative.” As for Morgan Freeman, I agree. He’s a terrific
narrator, and a worthy replacement. But remember, Morgan played God on
the big screen. Twice. Moreover, he has publicly claimed to be a
“believer.” (gasp!) Should this disqualify him from narrating a series
that contradicts the Bible at every turn? If not, why not?

Anyway, Rebecca, my beef with your post comes down to this – if you go
to my boss and ask her to fire me because you can’t stand the sound of
my voice, I get it. Narrators with unpleasant voices should probably
look for other work anyway, and if enough people share your view, no
hard feelings – I’ll make room for Morgan. But if you’re trying to get
me fired simply because you don’t like my worldview, well then, I’m
going to fight back. Partly because I like my job, and partly because
you’re wrong about your assumptions, but mostly because your tactics
typify a toxic blend of laziness and group-think that are all too common
today – a hot mess of hashtags and intolerance that deepen the chasm
currently dividing our country.

Re-read your own post, and think about your actual position. You’ve
publicly asked a network to fire the narrator of a hit show because you
might not share his personal beliefs. Don’t you think that’s kind
of…extraordinary? Not only are you unwilling to engage with someone you
disagree with – you can’t even enjoy a show you claim to love if you
suspect the narrator might not share your view of the world! Do you know
how insular that makes you sound? How fragile?

I just visited your page, and read your own description of you. It was
revealing. It says, “I stand my ground. I fear no one & nothing. I have
& will fight for what’s right.”

Maybe I’m missing something, but I don’t think the ground you’re
standing on is worth defending. If you truly fear “no one & nothing,”
it’s not because you’re brave; it’s because you’re unwilling to expose
yourself to ideas that frighten you. And while I can see that you like
to fight for what you think is “right” (in this case, getting people
fired that you disagree with,) one could easily say the same thing about
any other misguided, garden-variety bully.

In other words, Rebecca, I don’t think you give a damn about science. If
I’m wrong, prove it. Take a step back and be skeptical about your own
assumptions. Take a moment to doubt your own words, and ask yourself –
as any good scientist would – if you’ve got your head up a black hole.
Having said all that, I think you’re gonna love next week’s episode.
It’s called Multiple Stars! Check it out, Tuesdays at 10pm, on Science.
Best,
Mike
Tags: Mike Rowe

http://dailycaller.com/2018/01/12/mike-rowe-destroys-woman-who-wants-him-fired-for-being-ultra-right-wing-conservative/
None of the Above
2018-01-20 09:07:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
How refreshing! Especially compared to those videos of Bill Nye
snarking at his detractors by sinking to their level.

On Fri, 19 Jan 2018 16:46:23 -0800, a425couple
Mike Rowe Destroys Woman Who Wants Him Fired For Being ‘Ultra-Right Wing
Conservative’
Photo of Derek Hunter
DEREK HUNTER
Contributor
3:17 PM 01/12/2018
238181075 238181075 Share
Play Video
TV host Mike Rowe is known for his measured, devastating take-downs of
people who attack him or his work. He has perfected the art of subtly
twisting the knife in the side of critics with calm, cool language.
This skill was on display Thursday when Rowe responded to a woman
criticized his politics on Facebook.
Rowe narrates the show “How The Universe Works” on the Science Channel.
The woman, Rebecca Bright, called Rowe an “anti-education, science
doubting, ultra-right wing conservative” who should be fired.
“I love the show How the Universe Works, but I’m lost on how the
producers and the Science Channel can allow anti-education, science
doubting, ultra-right wing conservative Mike Rowe to narrate the show,”
Bright wrote, according to Rowe. “There are countless scientists that
should be hired for that, or actors, if you must, that believe in
education and science that would sound great narrating the show,
example: Morgan Freeman. Cancel this fools contract and get any of your
scientists so often on the show to narrate it.”
In his response, Rowe started off by exhibiting his knowledge of the
Well hi there, Rebecca. How’s it going? First of all, I’m glad you like
the show. “How the Universe Works” is a terrific documentary series that
I’ve had the pleasure of narrating for the last six seasons. I thought
this week’s premiere was especially good. It was called, “Are Black
Holes Real?” If you didn’t see it, spoiler alert….no one knows!!! It’s
true. The existence of Black Holes has never been proven. Some
cosmologists are now convinced they don’t exist at all, and the race to
prove their actuality has become pretty intense. Why? Because so much of
what we think we know about the cosmos depends upon them. In other
words, the most popular explanations as to how the universe actually
works, are based upon the existence of a thing that no one has been able
to prove. As I’m sure you know, it’s OK to make assumptions based on
theories. In fact, it’s critical to progress. But it’s easy these days
to confuse theory with fact. Thanks to countless movies and television
shows that feature Black Holes as a plot device, and many documentaries
that bring them to life with gorgeous CGI effects and dramatic music, a
lot of people are under the assumption that Black Holes are every bit as
real as the Sun and the Moon. Well, maybe they are, and maybe they
aren’t. We just don’t know. That’s why I enjoyed this week’s show so
much. It acknowledged the reasons we should question the existence of
something that many assume to be “settled science.” It invited us to doubt.
Oftentimes, on programs like these, I’m asked to re-record a passage
that’s suddenly rendered inaccurate by the advent of new information.
Sometimes, over the course of just a few days. That’s how fast the
information changes. Last year for instance, on an episode called
“Galaxies,” the original script – carefully vetted by the best minds in
physics – claimed there were approximately one hundred billion galaxies
in the known universe. A hundred billion! (Not a typo.) I couldn’t
believe it when I read it. I mean, the Milky Way alone has something
like 400 billion stars! Andromeda has a trillion! How many stars must
there be in a universe, with a hundred billion galaxies? Mind-boggling,
right? Well, a few weeks later, the best minds in physics came together
again, and determined that the total number of galaxies in the universe
was NOT in fact, a hundred billion. They were off. Not by a few
thousand, or a few million, or few billion, or even a few hundred
billion. The were off by two trillion. That’s right…TWO TRILLION!! But
here’s the point, Rebecca – when I narrate this program, it doesn’t
matter if I’m correct or incorrect – I always sound the same. And guess
what? So do the experts.
Rowe then slowly turned his keyboard to Rebecca’s idea that he should be
fired because doesn’t “believe in education and science,” and it gets
When I wrote about this discrepancy, people became upset. They thought I
was making fun of science. They thought I was suggesting that because
physicists were off by one trillion, nine hundred billion galaxies, all
science was suddenly suspect, and no claims could be trusted. In
general, people like you accused me of “doubting science.” Which is a
curious accusation, since science without doubt isn’t science at all.
This is an important point. If I said I was skeptical that a
supernatural being put us here on Earth, you’d be justified in calling
me a “doubter of religion.” But if I said I was skeptical that manmade
global warming was going to melt the icecaps, that doesn’t make me a
“doubter of science.” Once upon a time, the best minds in science told
us the Sun revolved around the Earth. They also told us the Earth was
flat, and that a really bad fever could be cured by blood-letting.
Happily, those beliefs were questioned by skeptical minds, and we moved
forward. Science is a wonderful thing, and a critical thing. But without
doubt, science doesn’t advance. Without skepticism, we have no reason to
challenge the status quo. Anyway, enough pontificating. Let’s consider
for a moment, your very best efforts to have me fired.
You’ve called me an “ultra-right wing conservative,” who is both
“anti-education,” and “science-doubting.” Interestingly, you offer no
proof. Odd, for a lover of science. So I challenge you to do so now.
Please provide some evidence that I am in fact the person you’ve
described. And by evidence, I don’t mean a sentence taken out of
context, or a meme that appeared in your newsfeed, or a photo of me
standing next to a politician or a talk-show host you don’t like. I mean
actual proof of what you claim I am.
Also, please bear in mind that questioning the cost of a college degree
does not make me “anti-education.” Questioning the existence of
dark-matter does not make me a “dark-matter denier.” And questioning the
wisdom of a universal $15 minimum wage doesn’t make me an “ultra-right
wing conservative.” As for Morgan Freeman, I agree. He’s a terrific
narrator, and a worthy replacement. But remember, Morgan played God on
the big screen. Twice. Moreover, he has publicly claimed to be a
“believer.” (gasp!) Should this disqualify him from narrating a series
that contradicts the Bible at every turn? If not, why not?
Anyway, Rebecca, my beef with your post comes down to this – if you go
to my boss and ask her to fire me because you can’t stand the sound of
my voice, I get it. Narrators with unpleasant voices should probably
look for other work anyway, and if enough people share your view, no
hard feelings – I’ll make room for Morgan. But if you’re trying to get
me fired simply because you don’t like my worldview, well then, I’m
going to fight back. Partly because I like my job, and partly because
you’re wrong about your assumptions, but mostly because your tactics
typify a toxic blend of laziness and group-think that are all too common
today – a hot mess of hashtags and intolerance that deepen the chasm
currently dividing our country.
Re-read your own post, and think about your actual position. You’ve
publicly asked a network to fire the narrator of a hit show because you
might not share his personal beliefs. Don’t you think that’s kind
of…extraordinary? Not only are you unwilling to engage with someone you
disagree with – you can’t even enjoy a show you claim to love if you
suspect the narrator might not share your view of the world! Do you know
how insular that makes you sound? How fragile?
I just visited your page, and read your own description of you. It was
revealing. It says, “I stand my ground. I fear no one & nothing. I have
& will fight for what’s right.”
Maybe I’m missing something, but I don’t think the ground you’re
standing on is worth defending. If you truly fear “no one & nothing,”
it’s not because you’re brave; it’s because you’re unwilling to expose
yourself to ideas that frighten you. And while I can see that you like
to fight for what you think is “right” (in this case, getting people
fired that you disagree with,) one could easily say the same thing about
any other misguided, garden-variety bully.
In other words, Rebecca, I don’t think you give a damn about science. If
I’m wrong, prove it. Take a step back and be skeptical about your own
assumptions. Take a moment to doubt your own words, and ask yourself –
as any good scientist would – if you’ve got your head up a black hole.
Having said all that, I think you’re gonna love next week’s episode.
It’s called Multiple Stars! Check it out, Tuesdays at 10pm, on Science.
Best,
Mike
Tags: Mike Rowe
http://dailycaller.com/2018/01/12/mike-rowe-destroys-woman-who-wants-him-fired-for-being-ultra-right-wing-conservative/
Loading...