Top Video of 2016 #7: Jim Gaffigan Says Liberals Are Wrong to Dismiss Trump Supporters
This election has scored high for entertainment value, but it's put our humanity through the mill. Comedian Jim Gaffigan is here to talk some sense back into us as people, rather than voters.
Jim Gaffigan is a Grammy nominated comedian, New York Times best-selling author, top touring performer, and multi-platinum-selling father of five. He recently wrapped the first season of his semi-fictitious television show, The Jim Gaffigan Show, which TV Land picked up for a second season and premieres two episodes on Sunday, June 19th at 10/9c. The series, lauded by The Los Angeles Times as “Fun and Funny,” and People Magazine as “One of Summer TV’s bright spots,” was developed by Peter Tolan along with Gaffigan and his wife, Jeannie, who both also serve as executive producers and showrunners. The single-camera comedy co-stars Ashley Williams, Michael Ian Black, and Adam Goldberg and revolves around one man’s struggle to balance fatherhood, stand-up comedy and an insatiable appetite. With multiple projects in motion, Gaffigan is currently preparing to travel the country in a tour bus with his family on behalf of his Fully Dressed arena and theater tour which begins July 7th.
Gaffigan’s fourth special ("Beyond the Pale," 2006; "King Baby," 2009; "Mr. Universe," 2012),"Obsessed" premiered on Comedy Central in 2014 and the DVD/CD was released soon after by Comedy Central Records. "Obsessed" premiered at #1 on iTunes which marked the fifth time Gaffigan reached the Top 25 Comedy category on iTunes. The album also earned a nomination for "Best Comedy Album of the Year" at the 2015 Grammy Awards.
In 2013, Jim’s first book, Dad Is Fat, was released by Crown Publishing and debuted at #5 on The New York Times Bestseller’s List and remained on the list for 17 weeks. His second book, Food: A Love Story, was released in the fall of 2014 and debuted at #3 on The New York Times Bestseller’s List.
Jim Gaffigan: If you have a problem with the patriarchy or with white people you‘d look at me and you’d go this guy invented white people because he’s so white. He probably invented slavery. He probably was resistant to women voting. So the weird thing is I do feel like sometimes even people talking about Trump or some outlandish conservative opinion will kind of present things to me that are like well, you know, some people don’t support gay marriage like you maybe. And I’m like just because I look, you know, like a prototypical white guy villain who wants to kick immigrants out I’m not. I mean that’s a form of bigotry. Anyway, I’m a great guy.
I grew up in a small town in Indiana and I feel as though living in New York or in LA or even Chicago there is this dismissiveness to people with different opinions where rather than explaining our point of view we’d rather be right. John Kerry was running for president versus Bush there was this – I feel like there was this collective thing like anyone who votes for Bush is an idiot. And I’m like that’s not how you convince people to – that’s not how you persuade someone. And I feel like being from a red state or from a flyover area that sometimes people on the East Coast or in LA there is this dismissiveness of people that hold differing viewpoints. Rather than having a discussion there’s just kind of like well they’re morons. And the thing that worries me about people that are supportive of Trump or angry about Trump there’s this absence of dialogue. Instead saying to someone that supports Trump like what is it? What is it that you like?
There is this self-satisfaction of like you’re an idiot. And that’s not how you convince someone. And I think that there’s also this kind of denial that I think we exist in when it comes to Trump or people of radical opinions that we emotionally disagree with is that there are moments when they talk. Where we go, well that’s a decent point. But we never admit to that. When Trump talks, when he gives speeches because everyone watching this has watched Trump. I mean I stopped working to watch him because it’s entertainment. It’s not as if he’s not articulate at communicating an idea. It’s not that there aren’t moments that we don’t identify with some of his ideas. Overall again emotionally we might disagree wholeheartedly but we might identify with some of the fear. We might identify with the sheer raw kind of like I don’t want to lose. I want greatness. We all identify. That’s not that foreign. It’s not speaking a different language. But I think there’s also some geography that we forget that I think that sometimes there is similar to how we get our news like there’s people that watch Fox. There’s people that watch MSNBC. I’m a news junkie and there was a time when I brought up yeah, Fox news and my friends were like how dare you watch that.
And I’m like I would go to the Soviet Union when it still existed. It doesn’t mean I’m a Marxist, you know. It doesn’t mean I support communism. I just think it’s weird that I – maybe I personally – I like having friends that like comedians that I perform with that open for me on the road. I had a guy who was a libertarian and then the next guy who opened for me was an Occupy Wall Street guy. And all three of us are friends. I kind of like people with different opinions. And I’m not dismissive of – I mean I might casually say you’re crazy but I mean I love these people and I also learn from them. So anyway, my point is I’m a great guy.
As the 2016 Presidential election draws nearer, the divide seems to be widening between Team "I’m With Her" and Camp "Make America Great Again", with plenty of desperate support still behind the "Giant Meteor 2016 (Just End it Already)" faction.
One side calls the other ‘crooked elitists’, and the other fires back with ‘uneducated racists’, only this exchange rarely happens in the same room. Democrats and Republicans vent their frustrations in separate homes, separates states, and symbolically in separate worlds. Comedian (and all-round great guy) Jim Gaffigan takes issue with this. He lives in New York City, where the berating and shaming falls most heavily on Trump supporters, but he grew up in a small town in Indiana, a red state, so he has a valuable dual perspective.
He laments the absence of dialogue between Trump and Clinton supporters and – from his viewpoint within a blue state – there’s a blanket dismissiveness of the ideas from the so-called fly-over states. Many democrats, when they hear ‘Trump’ or ‘red state’ immediately think ‘moron’, and shut down any potential dialogue.
Dismissing people, or insulting their beliefs, isn’t how you convince someone that your argument is the valid one, says Gaffigan. Science journalist Michael Shermer seconds this motion, and has spoken to Big Think about how to talk to people whose beliefs oppose yours. Specifically when your position is based in science, reason, and critical thinking, and the other person’s is based in emotion.
"If you attack somebody pretty aggressively and you don’t treat them with respect, the wall goes up. Cognitive dissonance kicks in," Shermer says. "[They think] ‘These are my beliefs and you’re telling me I’m wrong? Okay, whoa. I’m going to double down.’" He argues that you’re much better off killing prejudice with kindness; reciprocity is the way to go. "I will give you respect if you hear me out, and you give me respect if I hear you out." From here, says Shermer, you can at least plant a seed of doubt.
Gaffigan’s emphasis isn’t so much on persuading others of your argument, but of respecting the complexity of someone’s decisions, even if you find them questionable. Several years ago, Gaffigan was on a comedy tour with a libertarian and an Occupy Wall Street member. "And all three of us are friends," he says. "I kind of like people with different opinions. And I’m not dismissive of – I mean I might casually say ‘you’re crazy’ but I mean I love these people and I also learn from them." Of course, when issues beyond economics, like race and gender, enter the landscape it’s much harder to be so understanding, but this article does a good job of humanizing a Trump supporter, and showing their perspective in a way that isn’t some caricature rooted in pure racism and misogyny. We may not ever agree, but talking to a Trump supporter can help us understand one another.
Gaffigan urges us not to be dismissive. Talk to people who are different from you. Widen your friendship circle, watch a wide range of news media; vary the sources through which you interpret the world.
And on that note, check out Jim Gaffigan’s book, aptly titled Dad is Fat.The Jim Gaffigan Show.
Younger Americans support expanding the Supreme Court and serious political reforms, says new poll.
- Americans under 40 largely favor major political reforms, finds a new survey.
- The poll revealed that most would want to expand the Supreme Court, impose terms limits, and make it easier to vote.
- Millennials are more liberal and reform-centered than Generation Z.
Logic puzzles can teach reasoning in a fun way that doesn't feel like work.
- Logician Raymond Smullyan devised tons of logic puzzles, but one was declared by another philosopher to be the hardest of all time.
- The problem, also known as the Three Gods Problem, is solvable, even if it doesn't seem to be.
- It depends on using complex questions to assure that any answer given is useful.
The Three Gods Problem<iframe width="730" height="430" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/UyOGZk7WbIk" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe><p> One of the more popular wordings of the problem is:<br> <br> "Three gods A, B, and C are called, in no particular order, True, False, and Random. True always speaks truly, False always speaks falsely, but whether Random speaks truly or falsely is a completely random matter. Your task is to determine the identities of A, B, and C by asking three yes-no questions; each question must be put to exactly one god. The gods understand English, but will answer all questions in their own language, in which the words for <em>yes</em> and <em>no</em> are <em>da</em> and <em>ja</em>, in some order. You do not know which word means which."<br> <br> Boolos adds that you are allowed to ask a particular god more than one question and that Random switches between answering as if they are a truth-teller or a liar, not merely between answering "da" and "ja." <br> <br> Give yourself a minute to ponder this; we'll look at a few answers below. Ready? Okay. <strong><br> <br> </strong>George Boolos' <a href="https://www.pdcnet.org/8525737F00588A37/file/31B21D0580E8B125852577CA0060ABC9/$FILE/harvardreview_1996_0006_0001_0060_0063.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">solution</a> focuses on finding either True or False through complex questions. </p><p> In logic, there is a commonly used function often written as "iff," which means "if, and only if." It would be used to say something like "The sky is blue if and only if Des Moines is in Iowa." It is a powerful tool, as it gives a true statement only when both of its components are true or both are false. If one is true and the other is false, you have a false statement. </p><p> So, if you make a statement such as "the moon is made of Gorgonzola if, and only if, Rome is in Russia," then you have made a true statement, as both parts of it are false. The statement "The moon has no air if, and only if, Rome is in Italy," is also true, as both parts of it are true. However, "The moon is made of Gorgonzola if, and only if, Albany is the capitol of New York," is false, because one of the parts of that statement is true, and the other part is not (The fact that these items don't rely on each other is immaterial for now).</p><p> In this puzzle, iff can be used here to control for the unknown value of "da" and "ja." As the answers we get can be compared with what we know they would be if the parts of our question are all true, all false, or if they differ. </p><p> Boolos would have us begin by asking god A, "Does "da" mean yes if and only if you are True if and only if B is Random?" No matter what A says, the answer you get is extremely useful. As he explains: <br> </p><p> "If A is True or False and you get the answer da, then as we have seen, B is Random, and therefore C is either True or False; but if A is True or False and you get the answer ja, then B is not Random, therefore B is either True or False… if A is Random and you get the answer da, C is not Random (neither is B, but that's irrelevant), and therefore C is either True or False; and if A is Random...and you get the answer ja, B is not random (neither is C, irrelevantly), and therefore B is either True or False."<br> <br> No matter which god A is, an answer of "da" assures that C isn't Random, and a response of "ja" means the same for B. </p><p> From here, it is a simple matter of asking whichever one you know isn't Random questions to determine if they are telling the truth, and then one on who the last god is. Boolos suggests starting with "Does da mean yes if, and only if, Rome is in Italy?" Since one part of this is accurate, we know that True will say "da," and False will say "ja," if faced with this question. </p><p> After that, you can ask the same god something like, "Does da mean yes if, and only if, A is Random?" and know exactly who is who by how they answer and the process of elimination. </p><p> If you're confused about how this works, try going over it again slowly. Remember that the essential parts are knowing what the answer will be if two positives or two negatives always come out as a positive and that two of the gods can be relied on to act consistently. </p><p> Smullyan wrote several books with other logic puzzles in them. If you liked this one and would like to learn more about the philosophical issues they investigate, or perhaps if you'd like to try a few that are a little easier to solve, you should consider reading them. A few of his puzzles can be found with explanations in this <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/02/11/obituaries/smullyan-logic-puzzles.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">interactive</a>. </p>
The theory could resolve some unanswered questions.
- Most stars begin in binary systems, why not ours?
- Puzzles posed by the Oort cloud and the possibility of Planet 9 may be solved by a new theory of our sun's lost companion.
- The sun and its partner would have become separated long, long ago.
If most stars form in binary pairs, what about our Sun? A new paper presents a model supporting the theory that the Sun may have started out as one member of a temporary binary system. There's a certain elegance to the idea — if it's true, this origin story could resolve some vexing solar-system puzzles, among them the genesis of the Oort Cloud, and the presence of massive captured objects like a Planet Nine.
The paper is published in Astrophysical Journal Letters.
The Oort cloud
Image source: NASA
Scientist believe that surrounding the generally flat solar system is a spherical shell comprised of more than a trillion icy objects more than a mile wide. This is the Oort cloud, and it's likely the source of our solar system's long-term comets — objects that take 200 years or more to orbit the Sun. Inside that shell and surrounding the planets is the Kuiper Belt, a flat disk of scattered objects considered the source of shorter-term comets.
Long-term comets come at us from all directions and astronomers at first suspected their origins to be random. However, it turns out their likely trajectories lead back to a shared aphelion between 2,000 astronomical units (AU) from the Sun to about 100,000 AU, with their different points of origin revealing the shell shape of the Oort cloud along that common aphelion. (An astronomical unit is the distance from the Sun to the Earth.)
No object in the Oort cloud has been directly observed, though Voyager 1 and 2, New Horizons, and Pioneer 10 and 11 are all en route. (The cloud is so far away that all five of the craft will be dead by the time they get there.) To derive a clearer view of the Oort cloud absent actually imagery, scientists utilize computer models based on planetary orbits, solar-system formation simulations, and comet trajectories.
It's generally assumed that the Oort cloud is comprised of debris from the formation of the solar system and neighboring systems, stuff from other systems that we somehow captured. However, says paper co-author Amir Siraj of Harvard, "previous models have had difficulty producing the expected ratio between scattered disk objects and outer Oort cloud objects." As an answer to that, he says, "the binary capture model offers significant improvement and refinement, which is seemingly obvious in retrospect: most sun-like stars are born with binary companions."
"Binary systems are far more efficient at capturing objects than are single stars," co-author Ari Loeb, also of Harvard, explains. "If the Oort cloud formed as [indirectly] observed, it would imply that the sun did in fact have a companion of similar mass that was lost before the sun left its birth cluster."
Working out the source of the objects in the Oort cloud is more than just an interesting astronomical riddle, says Siraj. "Objects in the outer Oort Cloud may have played important roles in Earth's history, such as possibly delivering water to Earth and causing the extinction of the dinosaurs. Understanding their origins is important."
Image source: Caltech/R. Hurt (IPAC)/NASA
The gravitational pull resulting from a binary companion to the Sun may also help explain another intriguing phenomenon: the warping of orbital paths either by something big beyond Pluto — a Planet 9, perhaps — or smaller trans-Neptunian objects closer in, at the outer edges of the Kuiper Belt.
"The puzzle is not only regarding the Oort clouds, but also extreme trans-Neptunian objects, like the potential Planet Nine," Loeb says. "It is unclear where they came from, and our new model predicts that there should be more objects with a similar orbital orientation to [a] Planet Nine."
The authors are looking forward to the upcoming Vera C. Rubin Observatory (VRO) , a Large Synoptic Survey Telescope expected to capture its first light from the cosmos in 2021. It's expected that the VRO will definitively confirm or dismiss the existence of Planet 9. Siraj says, "If the VRO verifies the existence of Planet Nine, and a captured origin, and also finds a population of similarly captured dwarf planets, then the binary model will be favored over the lone stellar history that has been long-assumed."
Missing in action
Lord and Siraj consider it unsurprising that we see no clear sign of the Sun's former companion at this point. Says Loeb, "Passing stars in the birth cluster would have removed the companion from the sun through their gravitational influence. He adds that, "Before the loss of the binary, however, the solar system already would have captured its outer envelope of objects, namely the Oort cloud and the Planet Nine population."
So, where'd it go? Siraj answers, "The sun's long-lost companion could now be anywhere in the Milky Way."
Another amazing tardigrade survival skill is discovered.
- Apparently, some water bears can even beat extreme UV light.
- It may be an adaptation to the summer heat in India.
- Special under-skin pigments neutralize harmful rays.
Stressor testing<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDU1MzIzMS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYyMjc2MDc4Mn0.5R6DAfzsq29zvETCEH1sR9rprcnJv_L0KyUW2qedslE/img.jpg?width=980" id="c6b71" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="e7afe644fc94631ed9ea6837ed3920d3" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="water bear illustration" />
3D illustration of a tardigrade
Credit: Dotted Yeti/Shutterstock<p>It seems at times like scientists enjoy playing the "let's see if <em>this</em> kills them" game with tardigrades, a game that humans usually lose. After searching the campus of the Indian Institute of Science, researchers gathered some water bears and brought them back to the lab to see what they could handle.</p><p>The scientists found that after they exposed <a href="http://cshprotocols.cshlp.org/content/2018/11/pdb.emo102301.full" target="_blank"><em>Hypsibius exemplaris</em></a> tardigrades to very high doses — 1 kilojoule (kJ) per square meter — of UV light for about 15 minutes, they would in fact die over the next 24 hours. However, when they aimed the same blasts at the reddish-brown tardigrades…nothing. The humans even quadrupled the UV intensity and, nope, they tracked the water bears for 30 days, and a majority of them, 60 percent, were still fine.</p><p>As is often the case with tardigrades, the question is how?</p>
Turning deadly light blue<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDU1MzIwMy9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYxMTM1NTE2N30.n8FiCLgp5aTqmYby2bjpeu9QJRTV7KzaB9tmTHBzWtk/img.jpg?width=980" id="5d4cc" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="7aa8735a958123bcfb269920eb4d2aed" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
Tardigrade's normal appearance (left), and under inverted fluorescence (right)
Credit: Suma et al., Biology Letters (2020)<p>When the researchers examined the tardigrades under an inverted fluorescence microscope they found that when they were exposed to UV light, they became blue. The researchers' hypothesis is that these tardigrades carry fluorescent pigments beneath their skin that they deploy as necessary to transform UV light into simple benign, blue light. It may be that this ability has emerged as an evolutionary response to southern tropical India's often-extreme heat. The study says that typical summer-day UV levels in this region are about 4kJ per square meter.</p><p>Of the 40 percent of the reddish-brown tardigrades that had died before 30 days — mostly after about 20 days — the scientists concluded they had less pigment with which to neutralize UV light.</p><p>When the scientists extracted the pigment from the UV champions and coated some <em>Hypsibius exemplaris</em> tardigrades with the stuff, their resistance to UV exposure was also enhanced, boosting their survival rate to almost twice that of their uncoated brethren.</p><p>Autofluorescence has been found in other animals — parrots, scorpions, chameleons, and frogs, among others — so it's not completely unheard of. In parrots, for example, autofluorescence is hypothesized to be involved in tweaking coloration during mating rituals. Still, surprise, tardigrades seem to be putting it to unusual use by employing it for UV protection. </p>