First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next  Last
Post Reply Netflix censors episode of Bill Nye the Science Guy
29051 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Bundaberg, Queens...
Offline
Posted 5/5/17

AppleFart wrote:

Bill Nye is not a scientist, he is just another leftist fraud.


just like all the rightist frauds.
5247 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 5/5/17

qwueri wrote:

I won't argue against the potential value in curating dated teaching material, although I do think airing it as currently accepted theory irresponsible in it's own way.



The Problem is it's not a change in Theory. It's a Change in Terminology. They recently changed the term Gender from meaning the EXACT same thing as Sex to a social construct and are now going back and altering or getting rid of any that use Gender in the old form of the word while using the fact that Gender was the commonly used word for Sex as a tool as well. Public Restrooms were divided by the Sex definition of Gender not the Social Construct but they used the fact that people commonly used the term Gender to push the agenda after they got the Definition Changed.
Posted 5/5/17

PeripheralVisionary wrote:


Roboteki wrote:

gender fluidity is retarded


It depends on what you mean. I have not seen a great deal of a common term, often used to meet not strongly identifying with a gender, or the change between two separate genders on the spectrum (The last one seems radically farfetched, but I need to find studies on this). There should be a difference between true fluidity and differing from the normal.

In any case, there seems to be just as much confusion by other people as well as those that actively use them, but I suspect it has to do with the term "fluid" (Meaning susceptible to changes over time, changing naturally) has to do with the change of sexuality, or sexual attraction, rather then that of gender. This is more prevalent enough among women, possibly because society is (more) into lesbians. This is humorously referred in another thread with birds and mercury.


OT: Not sure why the edit occurred, but it seems to be too much of a coincidence. I am not too sure of stuff, but chromosomes I believe are roughly responsible for your biological sex, but this does not go against Bill's message. It is just basic science 101.


Probably the confusion is because it popped up out of nowhere. I'm using it as the meaning for gender, not sexuality. I believe gender is defined by nature, and isn't nurtured. I don't believe it can be changed through nurturing, like the gender-fluid proponents claim.
Posted 5/5/17


qwueri wrote:

So Sociologists and Psychiatrists are publishing in tabloids now?


Might as well be with the crap social 'scientists' publish. Like that recent viral story about the embracing bodies of a 'couple' at Pompeii where a social 'scientist' implied that they might be gay men. Not father and son, brothers or just two terrified humans embracing each other in the face of an imminent and violent death, but GAY, with no proof whatsoever other than the bodies embracing each other.
Is making a huge stab in the dark to generate clickbait headlines and draw attention to your work 'scientific'? I think not.
Banned
416 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 5/5/17

Ryulightorb wrote:


AppleFart wrote:

Bill Nye is not a scientist, he is just another leftist fraud.


just like all the rightist frauds.


Leftists have cornered the market on frauds, my friend.
qwueri 
20394 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M
Online
Posted 5/5/17

Granitefish wrote:

The Problem is it's not a change in Theory. It's a Change in Terminology. They recently changed the term Gender from meaning the EXACT same thing as Sex to a social construct and are now going back and altering or getting rid of any that use Gender in the old form of the word while using the fact that Gender was the commonly used word for Sex as a tool as well. Public Restrooms were divided by the Sex definition of Gender not the Social Construct but they used the fact that people commonly used the term Gender to push the agenda after they got the Definition Changed.


The change in terminology reflects a shift in the understanding of gender in relation to social expectations and conventions. The challenge of legal terminology from the shift in how social sciences use the term, but even if a different term entirely was used the argument would remain as individuals who feel misdefined by the social expectations of their birth sex regardless of the term used. And I doubt using a different term would clear up confusion any more than it currently is, other than opponents to argue the validity of the term; like what's done with cis/transgender terms.
5247 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 5/5/17

qwueri wrote:


Granitefish wrote:

The social sciences are more fluid and have less hard rules than the other sciences. As a result saying that one should alter former documents because of new social science understanding is irresponsible. There is very little concrete understandings in the social sciences so in a short time those documents could go right back to being correct.


And so an older educational program that's aired falls under the same documentation curation as a dated textbook or paper?


Rethinking alterations I was slightly wrong on my point. Alterations to the actual content should not be done. But side notes and annotations clarifying what is believed to be wrong or what the wording/definitions/societal beliefs were at the time period of the documentation would not be amiss.
qwueri 
20394 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M
Online
Posted 5/5/17

Amyas_Leigh wrote:

Might as well be with the crap social 'scientists' publish. Like that recent viral story about the embracing bodies of a 'couple' at Pompeii where a social 'scientist' implied that they might be gay men. Not father and son, brothers or just two terrified humans embracing each other in the face of an imminent and violent death, but GAY, with no proof whatsoever other than the bodies embracing each other.
Is making a huge stab in the dark to generate clickbait headlines and draw attention to your work 'scientific'? I think not.


So using a "viral" story on an unclear hypothesis to discredit an entire field of study, classy.
5247 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 5/5/17

qwueri wrote:


The change in terminology reflects a shift in the understanding of gender in relation to social expectations and conventions. The challenge of legal terminology from the shift in how social sciences use the term, but even if a different term entirely was used the argument would remain as individuals who feel misdefined by the social expectations of their birth sex regardless of the term used. And I doubt using a different term would clear up confusion any more than it currently is, other than opponents to argue the validity of the term; like what's done with cis/transgender terms.


The Change in terminology is still not a Scientific Change or Scientific Understanding. Only the reason for the change could loosely be considered Scientific. Changing things based on Biology, a hard concrete science, because of something tangentially related to a soft fluid Science like Sociology is not changing something based on new Scientific Understanding it's changing something based on new Political and Societal Beliefs.

The Beliefs themselves are not Scientific. The Study of them is.
29051 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Bundaberg, Queens...
Offline
Posted 5/5/17

AppleFart wrote:


Ryulightorb wrote:


AppleFart wrote:

Bill Nye is not a scientist, he is just another leftist fraud.


just like all the rightist frauds.


Leftists have cornered the market on frauds, my friend.


so have the right nothing new.
Posted 5/5/17 , edited 5/5/17

qwueri wrote:

So using a "viral" story on an unclear hypothesis to discredit an entire field of study, classy.


That's not the only story. Too much of this social 'science' crap is just based on guesswork. There's a reason they call social sciences 'soft' sciences.
qwueri 
20394 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M
Online
Posted 5/5/17

Granitefish wrote:

The Change in terminology is still not a Scientific Change or Scientific Understanding. Only the reason for the change could loosely be considered Scientific. Changing things based on Biology, a hard concrete science, because of something tangentially related to a soft fluid Science like Sociology is not changing something based on new Scientific Understanding it's changing something based on new Political and Societal Beliefs.

The Beliefs themselves are not Scientific. The Study of them is.


Biology is slower to define differences between gender and sex, and likely will remain as such until a better understanding of the biological differences is defined. That doesn't invalidate the need for sociologists to draw distinctions between expectations based upon biological and upon self-image. Transgendered individuals, and individuals that contain more than two genders, would exist regardless of the social and political climate, what would be different is their ability to express themselves. Societal fluidity does not make it's study less scientific, just more difficult to pin in absolutes.
22955 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Oppai Hell
Offline
Posted 5/5/17

Roboteki wrote:


PeripheralVisionary wrote:


Roboteki wrote:

gender fluidity is retarded


It depends on what you mean. I have not seen a great deal of a common term, often used to meet not strongly identifying with a gender, or the change between two separate genders on the spectrum (The last one seems radically farfetched, but I need to find studies on this). There should be a difference between true fluidity and differing from the normal.

In any case, there seems to be just as much confusion by other people as well as those that actively use them, but I suspect it has to do with the term "fluid" (Meaning susceptible to changes over time, changing naturally) has to do with the change of sexuality, or sexual attraction, rather then that of gender. This is more prevalent enough among women, possibly because society is (more) into lesbians. This is humorously referred in another thread with birds and mercury.


OT: Not sure why the edit occurred, but it seems to be too much of a coincidence. I am not too sure of stuff, but chromosomes I believe are roughly responsible for your biological sex, but this does not go against Bill's message. It is just basic science 101.


Probably the confusion is because it popped up out of nowhere. I'm using it as the meaning for gender, not sexuality. I believe gender is defined by nature, and isn't nurtured. I don't believe it can be changed through nurturing, like the gender-fluid proponents claim.


I am saying that they are misusing it, or rather, defining it on a whim, because of same vague relating to sexuality (The umbrella term of LGBT), but that is just my hypothesis.

5247 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 5/5/17

qwueri wrote:

Biology is slower to define differences between gender and sex, and likely will remain as such until a better understanding of the biological differences is defined. That doesn't invalidate the need for sociologists to draw distinctions between expectations based upon biological and upon self-image. Transgendered individuals, and individuals that contain more than two genders, would exist regardless of the social and political climate, what would be different is their ability to express themselves. Societal fluidity does not make it's study less scientific, just more difficult to pin in absolutes.


The original segment was about Biology though. Not Sociology, not Society Expectations. But the Biological Difference between Males And Females in regards to Chromosones. Unless there are better understandings of BIOLOGY regarding the difference then there should be no reason to change it. But they are changing it based on Societal and Political Changes not Biological. The Biology in the segment removed is still sound and Clearly referring to Biological Sex.
qwueri 
20394 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M
Online
Posted 5/5/17

Granitefish wrote:

The original segment was about Biology though. Not Sociology, not Society Expectations. But the Biological Difference between Males And Females in regards to Chromosones. Unless there are better understandings of BIOLOGY regarding the difference then there should be no reason to change it. But they are changing it based on Societal and Political Changes not Biological. The Biology in the segment removed is still sound and Clearly referring to Biological Sex.


If the segment was purely about biological sex I don't see the point in arguing about gender at all. If it was conflating sex and gender, I don't see the point in getting flustered over it getting edited out to avoid confusion with contemporary understandings of the two. Unless the segment significantly impacted the rest of the episode's understanding on the topic. Would probably be better annotated rather than cut, but so long as the educational value isn't impacted it doesn't seem worth fussing over.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.