Recent Bill Nye Hatred...

[Armoured]

He also actively trashed those that believe in creation. He is no longer teaching science but rather putting his opinion in and calling it science. There are plenty of credible scientists who do not believe in global warming or evolution. I loved some of his kids shows but we also knew from the beginning that he was never teaching from a Christian world view...so his shows were a lesson in critical thinking as well as science.

No credible scientists in the relevant fields, however.

 

[Rion]

The bashing of him that I have seen has nothingto do with climate change, but his nonsense about sex and gender. He had a cartoon whose subtext seemingly argued that heterosexual attraction is conditioned into us and ended with scoops of ice cream having an orgy.

 

[Ada Lovelace]

Those who treat science as something that must conform to their hermeneutics or politics in order to accept it have long rejected Bill Nye.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

The bashing of him that I have seen has nothingto do with climate change, but his nonsense about sex and gender. He had a cartoon whose subtext seemingly argued that heterosexual attraction is conditioned into us and ended with scoops of ice cream having an orgy.

This is the first, I ever heard anything about him expressing his sexual ideas. The main reason I heard of him. Is over climate stuff. And religious people says he's not religious.

 

[AceHero]

He also actively trashed those that believe in creation. He is no longer teaching science but rather putting his opinion in and calling it science. There are plenty of credible scientists who do not believe in global warming or evolution.

Really? Plenty? The evidence for anthropogenic climate change is overwhelmingly supported by the scientific community, and evolution probably even more so.

I loved some of his kids shows but we also knew from the beginning that he was never teaching from a Christian world view...so his shows were a lesson in critical thinking as well as science.

Probably because science doesn't require a religious worldview...

 

[ThatRobGuy]

The bashing of him that I have seen has nothing to do with climate change, but his nonsense about sex and gender. He had a cartoon whose subtext seemingly argued that heterosexual attraction is conditioned into us and ended with scoops of ice cream having an orgy.

Like I mentioned before, there are numerous spectrums of sexual attraction, some naturally occurring with no outside influence, and some are the result of conditioning.

In some cases, heterosexual relationships can be the result of a certain level of conditioning. For instance (and this scenario isn't all that uncommon for many gay men), there are many gay men who will date, marry, and procreate with women (even though that's not their first choice) to conform to what their families and society view as "normal", and then they'll come out years later after all of that.

...and even what societies have viewed as normal has shifted and changed over time. It was fairly commonplace in pre-conquest Americas, and are on the earliest recorded history from East Asia. The same is true of the Middle East from the 1500's to the 1700's...same goes for Europe.

However, many modern day folks seem to think that westernized, predominately Christian, nations (circa 1700-2017) have the monopoly on defining "Normal" for the entirety of human history.

Naturally occurring ones, for instance (and I'll use myself as an example), would be like my preference for Asian women vs. White/Black/Hispanic/etc... It's not something I can change or make go away, it's just the way it is.

The fact only 7% of relationships are interracial would be a strong indicator that there is some conditioning still happening at the racial level too and that the "you have to stick with your own kind" mentality is still at play to a degree.

 

[seashale76]

For a long time, Nye was a beloved children's show host, teaching kids about fun experiments, etc...

However, I noticed a recent backlash against him on social media as well in conversation with people.

Since he did an episode about climate change, seems like many of the people who used to like him, now no longer do.

Now there's memes of "Bill Nye the 'not a real scientist' guy"...claiming that his opinion isn't trustworthy because he doesn't have a PhD (as if that ever impacted their opinion before).

Does anyone who espouses the idea that they believe in climate change instantly make them "an enemy" to some?

How much evidence would it take before some would actually start viewing scientific issues as just that, rather than immediately thinking that every form of scientific research that challenges their beliefs must be a "liberal political scheme"?

You're trying to make this too complicated. Bill Nye is an outspoken atheist these days- and it is his anti-religious stance that is off-putting to a lot of people. That's why he's getting a lot of flack. It's not really about climate change or whatever science stuff he's talking about. No matter what he says now on science anything (true or not), he has pretty much made himself a person that many no longer want to listen to. It was the Ken Ham thing that really put him on people's bad side. I don't like Ken Ham and don't agree with him- but Bill Nye didn't win any awards with me either- I must admit.

 

[Rion]

Like I mentioned before, there are numerous spectrums of sexual attraction, some naturally occurring with no outside influence, and some are the result of conditioning.

In some cases, heterosexual relationships can be the result of a certain level of conditioning. For instance (and this scenario isn't all that uncommon for many gay men), there are many gay men who will date, marry, and procreate with women (even though that's not their first choice) to conform to what their families and society view as "normal", and then they'll come out years later after all of that.

...and even what societies have viewed as normal has shifted and changed over time. It was fairly commonplace in pre-conquest Americas, and are on the earliest recorded history from East Asia. The same is true of the Middle East from the 1500's to the 1700's...same goes for Europe.

However, many modern day folks seem to think that westernized, predominately Christian, nations (circa 1700-2017) have the monopoly on defining "Normal" for the entirety of human history.

Naturally occurring ones, for instance (and I'll use myself as an example), would be like my preference for Asian women vs. White/Black/Hispanic/etc... It's not something I can change or make go away, it's just the way it is.

The fact only 7% of relationships are interracial would be a strong indicator that there is some conditioning still happening at the racial level too and that the "you have to stick with your own kind" mentality is still at play to a degree.

Did you even watch the video in question, or the one linked to earlier? The one that I am talking about had a vanilla cone representing a heterosexual male and a number of other flavors to represent others. When the straight male declined interest, the other begin seducing him and they have him do a "prayer" to resist the temptation until a different flavor kisses him and he joins in on an orgy.

Think about the message of such a video and then what you are trying to argue. They are not really the same.

 

[SilverBear]

Not at all. I trust the wisdom of God above the wisdom of men. Approaching it the other way around is a sure way to go to hell.


An endorsement does not necessitate trying to change people. An endorsement simply means that one publicly supports something. In this case, Bill Nye publicly supports a way of life (transgenderism). So, no, the quote is not out of context.

maybe he just opposes prejudice.

 

[SolomonVII]

Bill Nye is not hated. He has a show on Neflix that is the subject of controversy, and the 'science' behind the show is scoffed at.

His latest show is not for children either, unless shows with women singing about anal sex stews is now considered to be science for the kiddies.

 

[SilverBear]

W

You're trying to make this too complicated. Bill Nye is an outspoken atheist these days- and it is his anti-religious stance that is off-putting to a lot of people. That's why he's getting a lot of flack. It's not really about climate change or whatever science stuff he's talking about. No matter what he says now on science anything (true or not), he has pretty much made himself a person that many no longer want to listen to. It was the Ken Ham thing that really put him on people's bad side. I don't like Ken Ham and don't agree with him- but Bill Nye didn't win any awards with me either- I must admit.

Why?
Because Nye accepted Ken Ham's challenge to debate?
Because Nye mopped the floor with Ham?

 

[HereIStand]

Nye's education is impressive though he's not an an academic. His look and "Science Guy" shtick is way of casting him as a kid-friendly version of Richard Dawkins. Instead of claiming that teaching creationism to children is a form of child abuse, Nye merely labels it as inappropriate.

 

[tstor]

maybe he just opposes prejudice.

Prejudice is not mentioned in the context.

 

[seashale76]

W
Why?
Because Nye accepted Ken Ham's challenge to debate?
Because Nye mopped the floor with Ham?

You'll have to be more specific. Why, what? Are you referring to why I stated Nye didn't win any awards with me? I don't really care that Nye accepted Ham's challenge to a debate, though I honestly think it was a waste of time. Ham is an idiot. I also don't care if Nye won the debate. I agree with Nye on evolution. I don't like Nye because I find him annoying and I dislike his anti-religious rhetoric. It has nothing to do with the man being an out of the closet atheist. It's one thing to present science. It's quite another when you add your personal biases and commentary to everything- which Nye is guilty of. If he just stuck with the science angle I don't think there would be a real problem here.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Did you even watch the video in question, or the one linked to earlier? The one that I am talking about had a vanilla cone representing a heterosexual male and a number of other flavors to represent others. When the straight male declined interest, the other begin seducing him and they have him do a "prayer" to resist the temptation until a different flavor kisses him and he joins in on an orgy.

Think about the message of such a video and then what you are trying to argue. They are not really the same.

There was an article touching on the video:
In a segment being denounced as a "Sick Ice Cream Orgy" that promotes lust as a virtue, the show takes aim at conversion therapy—the discredited practice of trying to change someone's sexual orientation or gender identity through counseling. In the segment, a vanilla ice cream cone tells all the other ice cream flavors they need to become vanilla, too. "I just think if you want to get right with the big ice cream in the sky, change your flavor by wishing to be vanilla," it says. (Oh, and there actually is an ice cream orgy—so enjoy!)

So, again, the "ice cream orgy" is an example of the edgy humor I made reference to before, however the bit was taking aim and the bogus and flawed premise of "conversion therapy".

As far as the other bit (with the song)
Conservative bloggers are especially horrified by what's been dubbed a "vulgarity-laced, transgender manifesto," sung by Crazy Ex-Girlfriend star Rachel Bloom. The freakout over Bloom's supposed "transgender anthem" is doubly bizarre, because it's a clear misunderstanding of her lyrics; the song is about sexual preference and doesn't really mention gender identity.

So...it would appear that much of this outrage can be attributed to (surprise surprise) alt-right media making exaggerated claims, banking on the fact that their subscribers aren't likely to question their account of what happened or fact check them. The right-wing media reaction to these segments are no different than the stuff they try to pull when they run all of those "war on Christianity" articles.

 

[H4wk]

It has a whole lot less to to with climate change and EVERYTHING to do with this
--->

I couldnt even make it through the whole video

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Nye's education is impressive though he's not an an academic. His look and "Science Guy" shtick is way of casting him as a kid-friendly version of Richard Dawkins. Instead of claiming that teaching creationism to children is a form of child abuse, Nye merely labels it as inappropriate.

I would say their methods are very different from each other. Dawkins' primary focus is debunking religion...as to where's Nye's focus is promoting scientific thinking even if it goes against religion.

 

[seashale76]

I would say their methods are very different from each other. Dawkins' primary focus is debunking religion...as to where's Nye's focus is promoting scientific thinking even if it goes against religion.

The two are not mutually exclusive. Some of us find the view of people thinking/assuming that scientific thinking goes against religion to be just as odious an idea coming from a non-religious individual as it does a religious one.

 

[bhsmte]

The two are not mutually exclusive. Some of us find the view of people thinking/assuming that scientific thinking goes against religion to be just as odious an idea coming from a non-religious individual as it does a religious one.

Depends on the theology a believer holds. To some, science is a huge threat. To others, it is no threat at all.

 

[seashale76]

Depends on the theology a believer holds. To some, science is a huge threat. To others, it is no threat at all.

That's true. However, there are a lot of people that sort of ignore the fact that there are those of us out there that don't see a conflict between the two.