Why is it so much more common for the right to mistrust scientists and representatives of science than the left?

Why is it so much more common for the right to mistrust scientists and representatives of science than the left?

Is this an American thing or is it the same with conservatives and progressives in other parts of the world?

Other urls found in this thread:

journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
science.energy.gov/
youtube.com/watch?v=Sl9-tY1oZNw&t=332s
lowerthought.wordpress.com/complete-notes-to-good-calories-bad-calories/
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

What the fuck is a "representative of science"? Also, why should scientists be "trusted"? If a scientist releases a paper, you can trust them a little bit on the specific issue addressed by the paper, but actually, most published research papers are false.

I would turn the question on its head and ask - are Western Leftists the only people in history who have given "scientists" this magical aura to speak with authority outside their field?

The only reason distrust governmentally funded science is because we've seen the same thing done in other parts of the world throughout history. The government pays people to cherry pick data in order to push a narrative that aligns with its agenda.

>What's a representative of science?
Someone who explains scientific results to the general public. Scientists are notoriously bad at doing this themselves.

>Why should scientists be trusted?
To be clear I'm not talking about letting them watch your kids, I'm saying that until you have reason to believe otherwise it makes sense to assume that some guy who spends all day studying protein synthesis knows more about protein synthesis than you do.

>Most published research papers are false
...what? That's so stupid that it's not even wrong. Like it literally doesn't mean anything, but whatever you intended it to mean is batshit crazy.

>are Western Leftists the only people in history who have given "scientists" this magical aura to speak with authority outside their field?
We don't. Prove me wrong faggot.

Show me when that has happened.

>scientists get paid by governments. >governments have agendas
>"w-why can't those who want to restrict government power just trust scientists??"
Scientists aren't allowed to be politically incorrect. You never bite the hand that feeds you.

>...what? That's so stupid that it's not even wrong. Like it literally doesn't mean anything, but whatever you intended it to mean is batshit crazy.

If you don't understand, the fault is with you, not with me.

journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124

Ah yes, the answer to my question is that conservatives are insane. Thank you for that.

You said most papers are false which is a significantly dumber thing to say than what you linked to.

Anyway, the fact that a lot of bad papers end up getting published means nothing as far as accepted science, since the vast majority of papers aren't widely accepted, and for them to be they need to go through significantly more than is needed to publish.

I mean you can literally get anything you want published if you have $50 to burn. Publishing something isn't the same as doing science.

>lelelel conservatives are just insane!
Great argument faggot. +1

over the past couple of months people have been legitimately reviewing the papers on global warming/climate change.

Yes. that happened in those papers.
turns out shit scientists will happily screw up their own results if it means better funding for the projects they actually want to focus on.

listen to me:

RURAL

AND

SUBURBAN

RETARDS

there was nothing insane to that question
its well known that scientists pretty much pay lip service to get funding

Well you made an enormous broad accusation about the overwhelming majority of scientific research done in America and backed it up with... nothing.

So I responded with nothing.

What are you saying? Reviewing papers? Isn't that a good thing? Why not link me to these reviews so we can talk about this.

+1

prove it

>Someone who explains scientific results to the general republic

We recognize when "representatives" completely abandon science and push an agenda that involves jailing people who disagree with them. I would ask you, as someone claiming to be objective, why you would put your trust in someone as deranged as pic related even considering the human rights violations he's proposed. Are you just turning a blind eye to obvious bullshit or what? Or are human rights violations ok with you if it's your people doing it? That's the definition of being a hypocrite m8

Depends, sometimes the opinions of art professors get lumped with STEM-scientist opinions, and then people use the collaborated opinions of scientist professors and non-scientist professors as the one true opinion, even though only a fraction of that opinion is from actual nature scientists. Not saying this is always the case, but sometimes ie. studies of race and IQ, people saturate the true science with the opinions of humanists and anthropologists. I took the race and IQ as an example of this, because most of the biologists agree that there is such thing as different human races, but the humanists don't, yet mainstream news and those humanist studies use the polls based on both biologists and humanist views on the case.

I guess it's sort of an American thing. Like the other user said, just saying you're a scientist carries weight in America. Here it is more to do with your field, I'll trust a mathematician on how to properly garner statistics, but not on how we should govern the country.

isn't it a reaction on most scientists in US being lefties?

which in turn is probly a byproduct of much of US science being done by 1st generation foregners? Domestic scientinsts can be right or left, but an immigrant scientist is of course more likely to be pro-immigration, for example.

at least when it comes to non-socieal studies science

the only natural leftie things for scientins is free exchange of ideas and government support for fundamental science, I think huge number of people doing research would be for it.

see: SciHub, reality of fundamental research being communism,

>it makes sense to assume that some guy who spends all day studying protein synthesis knows more about protein synthesis than you do.
True. This is why we should only trust scientists on their particular specialities rather than think they are experts on everything in the world the way too many liberals seem to believe.

Far too often, liberals act like a mechanical engineer can predict the weather which is just weird.

>upstanding "representatives of science"

If a scientist says that he does't believe global warming is man-made, and he requests funding for an experiment that will prove that, it won't get funded. Pretty simple.
The people in charge of the funding are openly saying this.
A couple of months ago, a guy in charge of some sort of temperature measuring satelite, told congress that he wouldn't be changing his mind about man-made climate change, even if his satelite's data was showing the earth to be cooling down.

Can you change the "science" part in social sciences to studies?
I'm a social sciences major, and even we look down on the social studies majors because, well, there's no real theory except X is at fault that Y is like that, and no real data behind it.
Please change that, it will sting them even worse because plenty of social/whatever studies writers shit on the social sciences because we're "biased" like having data that too much diversity is actually bad for a society is being biased.

He would't change his mind about man-made global warming*

>Why would you put your trust in Bill Nye
Because he's an intelligent guy who has a pretty good understanding of the things he talks about. Do you think he called for jailing people who disagree with him? Because he didn't. I've seen a Breitbart article claiming he called for killing old people and it linked to an interview that said nothing even close to that. Why are you guys incapable of actually doing the least bit of checking on your news sources?

And to be clear obviously I'm against jailing people for disagreeing. If you can actually prove he did say that then I'll be against him. But I didn't bring him up, you did.

I think in the case of race the majority of things being said by scientists and by non scientists is opinion rather than scientific fact. Because it's such a charged subject it's approached differently in our culture than most subjects. I wasn't really talking about race. Also as far as whether there are or are not races it's arbitrary. What isn't arbitrary is that if we do define difference races they won't be strict definitions, because humans aren't genetically separate enough from each other yet.

That's reasonable.

>Why is it so much more common for the right to mistrust scientists and representatives of science than the left?

You tell me.

>durr dey done did it to global warming
the data isn't cooked you moron. feel free to substantiate your claim with something other than "I say so because global warming is jew hoax"

> Or are human rights violations ok with you if it's your people doing it? That's the definition of being a hypocrite m8
bill is a faggot but most of pol is completely alright with this and the ammount of salt you generate when anyone does it back is pathetic

(citation required)

How do you think funding works? Do you think there's the official US government committee for deciding who to fund? And they sit in their high seats looking down on scientists for any sign of dissent?

Once again you people are fucking nuts.

without context i can think of a couple of good reasons why he has every right to fucking say that. temperatures fucking fluctuate even in a warming period, it isn't all up at all times.

bill nye is a moron who thinks coal is better than nuclear power.

I never said anything about Bill Nye until other people started assuming I was talking about him.

Also source please, I'm surprised if he's that stupid

The left has a huge science denying component as well.

This contingent is so powerful they control the science narrative, like bill nyes joke of a show.

Consequently even "real" science is so tainted by politics it can't be trusted.

Scientists aren't very practical. They can make discoveries and explain phenomena, but they can't make any practical application out or their understandings. Otherwise, they'd be engineers or businessmen, using their knowledge to make an impact in peoples' lives and make themselves a ton of money.

So they pair up with the government to get money the only way they can: by force through taxpayers. Then they conveniently find problems that, obviously have only one solution, which is to take more money from the taxpayers. Lefties use scientists as a strawman for the right's opposition to big government and nothing more.

>there's a problem, scientists say so
>therefore we need the government to fix it

If you object to the second point, then it's the usual "like ugh i cant believe the right are such science deniers smdh" from lefties. Nevermind that they turn around immediately and claim that men and women are interchangeable and all races are equal.

The left has a lot of science denialism, including some that you won't see on the right, but the right has far far more. That's what I'm asking about. Why is it so skewed?

>Most published research papers are false
To be fair, psych and medicine account for almost all papers, and they're the softest of sciences. In addition, it's not the duty of science to be right, but to present evolving guesses that receive influence from peer review and evidence.

However, many modern "science authorities" do not do this, and instead present every result as though it were concrete and true.

>What the fuck is a "representative of science"?

In Australia we call them 'science ambassadors': tv personalities that did a few semesters in a sciencey area before transferring to a pure arts degree/dropping out.

Weirdly, they all seem to be sexual deviants. I bet there's a study in that.

Yes, there are people in charge of deciding who gets scientific funding.. Is this seriously a question?

The overwhelming majority of important engineers throughout human history have been scientists, and in fact tended to be more well known for their scientific contributions.

In fact I'm having a hard time thinking of any who weren't.

'Cause most of the scientists are leftists. Their research is funded by the state and they want more taxes. The state bribes all intellectuals to prevent them from criticizing the state and fomenting revoluton.

for one thing, social scientists are referred to as "scientists" though they do not employ falsifiability. for another, there is a lot of money compromising certain fields, particularly in energy and medicine.

other than that, I don't take arguments from authority seriously and I do my own research. cosmology, physics, chemistry, and biochemistry are all fairly reliable fields when it comes to information.

Social studies have been rebranded as social sciences in the west. What you majoring is now called quantitative social science and used as curse in uni environment like your a Nazi concentration camp doctor.

I studied, worked and lived next to a campus for years. I've seen the changes happening in real time and the growing insanity taking hold of one department after another.

>Do you think there's the official US government committee for deciding who to fund?
science.energy.gov/

I explained it pretty badly to be honest, i just watched it again, and the whole ordeal is pretty crazy
youtube.com/watch?v=Sl9-tY1oZNw&t=332s

The left simply fetishises science, they don't like the scientific method at all, and their influence on science in general has been to suppress all scientific finds that don't fit their agenda. As for science communicators, they're just as cucked as any other form of academia. They make the big bucks by going on TV and saying all the stupid bullshit liberals expect of them.

>How do you think funding works? Do you think there's the official US government committee for deciding who to fund? And they sit in their high seats looking down on scientists for any sign of dissent?
How the fuck do you think funding works? Currently any goverment handled funding is seeded out through agencies that determine where to apportion those funds, do you think the ACLU is going to approve funding for a scientist whose research niggers are on average just slightly smarter than gorillas?
>inb4 attacking the metaphor

That's exactly how it works. There are financial committees for every major institution in the US that decide what initiatives they want to push and how to allocate resources. Every college has a board of instructors and finances that determines how they're going to allocate funds for things like new programs, scholarships, alumni organizations, etc. How the fuck do you not know this?

Maybe because the left claims that science proves there are 193498984983894343 genders and that biology doesn't exist and that all differences between men and women are caused by an unprovable patriarchial conspiracy theory?

Just guessing

...

the left mistrusts science on things that are politcally incorrect

since the media never talks about science when its politically incorrect you never see the left opposing science.

Because we're not retarded. There a several points to remember in this situation :
1 : all "soft sciences" are garbage.
2 : "representatives" have a agenda. All of them. And even if one of them only cared about the truth, the reason why they are "representatives" and not scientists is because they are too retarded to really understand what they are talking about. They always end up oversimplifying things to the point where they are full-on bullshitting people.
3 : Even on real sciences, even with scientists talking, a lot of shit happens. Some research is not funded/published because it doesnt go in the direction the board of the university wants to go. There is a huge bias here. Add to that the researchers personal bias and the occasionnal bullshit paper.
4 : lobbies/compagnies are not afraid to straight up pay for bullshit papers that get years to be debunked, and when they are, no one talks about it (especially not the "representatives" see where I'm going here ?)
5 : China. China does not give a fuck. China will publish anything. China can give you any results you want on anything. You want data that says the sky is green ? Pay China. China is an absolute cancer on science. Oh and they don't give a fuck about patents either. Suck it.

Science is important. It's probably the most important thing humans have ever produced and the major driving factor of any self respecting civilisation, but the whole "science lol" sphere is cancerous as fuck. People don't care about the truth, they just want to confirm their own bias. Especially left-wing people. Hence, they trust "science" more.


Source : I'm Science.

>rural areas have lower average costs of living
>typically house upper middle class families
>people with jobs requiring advanced degrees
>people living in cities work at mcdonalds for minimum wage and live in some shithole apartment complex

Rural people are the problem eh?

lmao OP ran away

Thread

READ CAREFULLY: Science is based on facts, not consensus. Conservatives are aware of this. Liberals are too, put won't admit it. They use consensus to push their agenda, i.e. anthrop global warming, for which their is not a molecule of proof.

You may now return to your regularly scheduled intelligence deficit.

The older you get, the more you realize how absurd and backwards some of the shit that was pushed as "science" was ten years ago, how much more absurd it was ten years before that, and so on, such that it would be incredibly naive to just buy all the hype and take on good faith that it's all 100% unassailably true right now.

t. Physics fag

Because waving a banner with the word science on it doesn't make a man smarter or knowledgeable in science. I want to see facts and evidence of something before I'll take it as a fact. And no, 4 minute videos of some e-celeb talking about how Siri will jumpstart the singularity or how we have no reason at all to fear gmos doesn't count. Plus, scientists are no more impartial actors or have better moral character than anybody else. Sure, in an ideal world they'd care about nothing else but figuring out material truths. But they're not. They want food, money, and a good house just as much as anybody else. You're stupid if you think they won't lie or pay lip service if they can to make an easy thousand dollars. They're humans the same as us. However, if what you mean by "representative of science" is something like bill nye or youtube series where they talk about how MAN SOLVED WORLD PROBLEM WITH THIS ONE NEAT TRICK then the answer is because your high school chemistry teacher spent more time in school and knows more than they.

It's a scientists funded by democrats to misdirect scientific findings and results to push an agenda thing.

If you're speaking of past times (up until 2000 i would say), then yes, 'murican conservatives were on average much more anti-science (mostly due to older-gen, technologically illiterate fundamentalist Christians) than the left. It never seemed that bad outside the US, though.

However, after the 2000's the left mutated into what it is now: a mass of stupid, over-emotional, irrational sheep which cannot think for themselves, let alone in logical, analytical or deductive ways. Today's Left is pretty much everything that contradicts science. STEM sciences are attacked constantly because they don't bend for the lefts ideological views; the already scientifically lax 'soft sciences' (humanities, philosophy, psychology) have completely gone to SHIT under their influence; and they created a new bunch of pseudo-sciences (Gender Studies) to give their ideological points a "scientific" impression. Hell, Gender Studies isn't even just about gender - no, they drag every single stupid topic into it (intersectionality) if they think they can attract other groups with it, thus giving them a larger base of allies in the "fight against the evil white cis male responsible for all evil on this world".

If you want to know wether actual scientists see todays left as "scientific", go and pay a visit to your nearby mathematics/physics/cs-faculty and ask the people there. I can tell by experience that you won't find many (if at all) positive answers...

Because leftists base their ideology around authorities like the scientific community
If a scientist told them suicide was the best thing to do, they'd kill themselves in droves

>I mean you can literally get anything you want published if you have $50 to burn. Publishing something isn't the same as doing science.

Yet they are many times announced as actual science by the (((news media))). Wonder why people are losing their faith in science? Same guys responsible for progressive (((news))) narratives inform us with bullshit science that can disproven simply by looking outside your window all day every day and people are getting sick and tired of being fed bullshit. That's why people don't trust science anymore.

I don't think that's true. The left hates scientists more than they "hate" racism and sexism combined, but they latch on to entertainers that larp as scientists.

First hand vs second hand experience. Seeing is believing.

It doesn't have "far far more".

You are just exposed to the "rights" denial of climate change and evolution because of controlled media.

In an honest appraisal you would probably find the science denying left to be far far greater and crazier than the right.

Feminism, cultural Marxism, economics, fucking gluten allergeries.

I don't give two fucks about global warming compared to leftist denial of economics and social realism.

When the lefts insanity inserts girls into boys showers via cultural Marxism, then utilizes listen and believe rapes to start a catastrophic civil war which will culminate into a communist coup run by blacks who will start purging whites, you will Wish you hadn't believed the Jews who were mindfucking you into global warming hysteria.

You see that is the ultimate purpose, it is the leftist delusion a need to feel morally superior while doing absolutely nothing.

Before it was save the whales, or UNICEF in Africa, or the Ethiopian famine, or save the rainforest.

All these hysterical fads accomplished nothing except promoting the constant march of cultural Marxism.

I mean they were literally funding the Somali warlords who were using child soldiers and hacking off arms for fucks sake.

But yeah.... science denying the right...

Bright to you by (((John Lievowitz))).

If the study has crediblity and makes logical sense when I read it, I believe it. When a front man comes on the news and talks about science instead of people with PhDs, I disbelieve until I hear it from the horse's mouth.

Why do leftists devote so much time and effort to propaganda convincing themselves of why they're correct and their opponents are all cartoonishly evil than actually having open dialogue and conceding they might be wrong on some points?

This is why you have retarded fucking millennial faggots like OP throwing tantrums and shitting themselves over imaginary pronouns at their college protests. No one ever slapped the spoiled first world faggots and told them they were being ridiculous, they just banned all dissent.

thank god the topics mathematicians work on don't relate to anything in politics.

and blind trust of "science" led to the horrors of "nutrition science". Which infected our law makers' agenda and made everyone fat

lowerthought.wordpress.com/complete-notes-to-good-calories-bad-calories/

That's what you'd think, and then the rain of articles about math being racist and sexist starts. For now it's not a mainstream assertion, but it's really fucking close to getting there.

"Politifact" is ran by two people. Their word means less than nothing.

He means hacks like Bill Nye.

Basically Science evangelists who go around spreading their "gospel", that nigger who said the earth is a pear as well.

no
at best a few news articles by insane people with inferiority complexes

>representatives of science
Left's Pope is Bill Nye the "sex is a spectrum" guy.
Why should be trust these "representatives" when they clearly lie?

You think that stops smug shitlibs from citing it? You know how authoritarian leftists love having their worldview supported with appeal to authority.

Journals haven't mattered for a hell of a long time. Journals are politics-oriented and don't peer-review the actual claims of the articles or whether they're even worth publishing. That's true especially of the popular ones like nature.

>government pays people to cherry pick data

I wish that was the situation. What actually happens is that they tell you to research whatever you think is important, give you the barest amount of funding to hire a couple undergrads, look over your proposal, and then throw it out at the next budget meeting because "well, the FDA is fine with nanoparticles of titanium as a food additive, so why would we be worried about it building up in the water supply?"

Politicians aren't capable of rigging science. We would be in a better world if they were. Bad science will come to light in a couple decades, but science that never gets funding doesn't.

There's been a plethora of recent papers (which of course never get accepted at conferences, although they've started to get accepted at shit tier workshops) about the topic as well as many blogposts, but just a few news stories about that crap. Additionally, the larger corporations believe that garbage 100% and have started hiring people to look into it.

i will not believe this until i see some sources
vixra papers do not count

>Why is it so much more common for the right to mistrust scientists and representatives of science than the left?

Because many scientific institutions blatantly abandon science for political concerns, and make political advocacy a central part of their mission. Most notably portions of the social sciences, and the sciences involved in modern intersectionality. In fact, the naturally conservative leaning scientific departments, say the fiscal sciences and economics get excluded from science.

If an entire department of a college campus could have zero right wing tenured employees, it's a sure sign of blatant political bias.

>Is this an American thing or is it the same with conservatives and progressives in other parts of the world?
It's a western thing. You're not going to see the same tilt at NUS in SIngapore, or Peking U, or Tokyo U. Latin America and Africa, are relatively meaningless in science, so I'm leaving them out.

>representative of science
Flip the expectations. Science KNOWS it has a credibility gap with conservatives in america, which is like a quarter of the population. Why are there ZERO openly politically conservative representatives of science? Someone familiar with the POVs and concerns of this population? There are openly liberal ones, and ones specifically for the black and hispanic communities.

Well people call IQ racist so it's not so far of a stretch

Why do "scientists" want to limit first world procreation when Africa is going to gain 4 billion more hungry mouths in the next 50 years and all of the developed world is going to stay the same?

>Because he's an intelligent guy who has a pretty good understanding of the things he talks about.
From what I've seen, whenever a discussion gets outside of the few phrases he's constantly repeating, he switches to personal attacks, appeals to emotion and appeals to authority.
He's a complete and utter hack. You don't need to be intelligent to spread dogma, you just need to remember things.

You are not supposed to trust science, you are supposed to question it all the time and try to prove its wrong, thats the essence of the scientific spirit.

that's a pretty damn far stretch

99% of "scientists" are just (((experts))) that CNN interviews to tell you what they want you to believe about science.

You're being sold an agenda and they call it science when it isn't.

what you aren't supposed to do is claim that science is wrong without trying to prove that it's wrong
claiming that it's wrong after not being able to disprove it is also something you shouldn't do

Why do they want us to stop the relatively clean factory pollution here and ship it to china where there are absolutely no environmental regulations?

Fucking weird almost like theirs a controlled (((media))) consoiracy

science has been concluding over and over that human races and sexes are not equal but the left refuses to admit it. both sides bastardize science

>Why is it so much more common for the right to mistrust scientists and representatives of science than the left?

Pretty general statement OP and I would argue it's more of a human nature to disagree with any "science" that doesn't validate your already held belief.

I think this notion just gets pinned on conservatives more because of global warming and their policy stances on it. There are plenty of things that the left vehemently supports or denies that is just flat out wrong.

examples:
>wage gap
Any person actually studying this knows the "gap" is mostly due to women preferring to seek lowering paying careers in exchange for more time flexibility. Even when you look at individual jobs, women tend to take more time off, work less overtime especially if they take time off to raise children. Once they accounted for all of this, women earn just as much as men. This isn't some new revelation either, one of the first studies published on this issue mentioned all of these reasons, yet the left continues to hold on to the belief that women earn 70% for doing the exact same work as a man.

>crime and policing
This one is a bit more general, but with the recent events of police shootings very relevant. Crime in the 90's was super high and was one of the things Bill Clinton had support was to increase policing in certain high crime neighborhoods to bring it down. As a result crime went down ,but after the recent shootings and cries of racism, police have pulled out of these areas. As a result, crime is starting to rise again, especially in Chicago. The left seems oblivious to this fact and was often a sore spot for the Clinton campaign last year.

There are plenty more we could discuss, but in general the left, at least in America, knee jerk reaction to any perceived inequality, aka the results aren't want they want them to be, is to shout discrimination and start a witch hunt.

Some simple examples.

China, great leap forward.

Russia, agricultural industrialization that lead to the holodomor.

Head of the CDC outlining his political aspirations with gun control, in advance of the data supporting his position in the first place, US 1990s or so.

The APA's general approach to sexual poltics, most notably transexualisim.

See a shitlib using that argument, use this. I was also wrong, it's not two people. It's nine.

Do you genuinely not know this?

Short answer: campaign finance law.

Republicans are owned by industries that spend billions funding campaigns, advertisements and "alternative science." Because science points out that a lot of companies are doing totally fucked up things that are hurting us.

So those companies spend assloads of money to contest this. Republicans saw a source of funding in those attempts being made by those companies and said "hey, give us money and we'll help push your narrative!"

And Republican voters, being mostly idiots, gobbled it up like fat slobs.

Fucking shit, I need to organize my folders.

>Why do they want us to stop the relatively clean factory pollution here and ship it to china where there are absolutely no environmental regulations?

China is on track with the Paris climate Accords, they're doing great on pollution!

Why would Trump call climate change something the Chinese use to keep America noncompetitive??

The right is just more sceptical of everything in general.

The left is mainly about herd mentality and wanting to fit in over reasoned facts.

After all... Don't you want to right now go and tell your friends of the stupid stuff you just read here?

Currently many scientists are corrupt or at least those who explain it to the public like the jewish goy

the right opposes oligarchs of any kind
the left is eternally looking for somone to rule over them with an iron fist

>The right is just more sceptical of everything in general.
This. With how far left the Overton window has moved you must be skeptical to be right wing.

I can confirm that the Earth is not a pear. It's not juicy, but dirty and grity

>the right opposes oligarchs of any kind
Hahahaha.

That's why you guys use Exxon Mobile's talking points to claim that science is just a conspiracy. Because you resist those evil scientists who independently reached the exact same conclusions in thousands of different experiments.

Because they're all part of a conspiracy. But multinational oil companies? Those guys are on your side for sure. You're the little guy!

...