[philosophical_recovery]

(04-26-2017 05:06 AM)loremipsum Wrote:  

Hollywood going full force, this time with the guy from Mythbusters.






Daily reminder to sell your TV and never trust ANY pop scientist.

I didn't realize that Adam Savage tweeted with all the wherewithal of a 14 year old numale.

[weambulance]

Adam Savage has no choice but to act like a cuck extraordinaire. His career would fall on its face if he didn't.

Edit - Kinda makes it hard to tell who is actually a fucktard in Hollywood and who isn't.

[loremipsum]

Sure, the ones who pay him would try to damage him if he was to disagree.

But then again, there is an open market for "alt-right" scientists. Now if ever would be the time to leverage that. (Difficulty decreased if they're gay and a minority too).
Turns out he is a cuck and most likely even believes that stuff himself.

[Chevy Woonsocket]

(04-26-2017 08:13 AM)philosophical_recovery Wrote:  

(04-26-2017 05:06 AM)loremipsum Wrote:  

Hollywood going full force, this time with the guy from Mythbusters.






Daily reminder to sell your TV and never trust ANY pop scientist.

I didn't realize that Adam Savage tweeted with all the wherewithal of a 14 year old numale.

With all these celebrities acting like complete dipshits on social media recently, I really miss stars like Jack Nicholson, who refused to do video interviews and generally didn't make a spectacle of himself in public.

[Captainstabbin]

(04-26-2017 05:06 AM)loremipsum Wrote:  

Hollywood going full force, this time with the guy from Mythbusters.



Daily reminder to sell your TV and never trust ANY pop scientist.

Great, now the guy who makes clay models is lecturing on gender fluidity. For a guy who claims to be a skeptic, he sounds more like a leftist zealot.

[MajorStyles]

We need to make this a new smilie for the forum. I think that "Dancing Cuck" would be a good description.

[911]

(04-24-2017 03:02 AM)loremipsum Wrote:  

So this is what science is nowadays folks.

Its from Nye's talk show which
" looks at topics from a scientific point of view, refuting myths and claims that rebuke science. "

Notice Nye's purple pocket square, the purple lighting on the stage, and the purple arrows on her outfit.



Two words: color revolution.

[Alsos]

Can't find the clip now, but saw this afternoon the last few minutes from Nye's show. It featured four mannequins with lights and image projected onto them as he rattled off a bunch of BS assertions on sex and gender.

He concluded with the sage observation to the effect of "for all of us, gender, sexual identity, and sexual attraction are on a spectrum." Which of course, you just know he doesn't believe about himself - it would be fun to see someone actually press him on that.

No sooner does he make this assertion than he backtracks where he himself is concerned, leading off with: "Of course, as a cis-male" and following it up by slyly casting himself like a zoologist impartially observing the mating habits of some other species with nothing in common with his own. It's as though he wanted everyone else to believe the narrative he was peddling, but did not want anyone to think those universal "scientific" pronouncements he was making actually applied to himself. No siree, don't let that scrawny frame and squirrely bowtie fool you, mister, he's as straight as an arrow, no spectrum for him, 100% het, you bet.

"Bill Nye the 'No-Homo' Guy."

As for the Mythbusters dude...he like Nye is a great illustration of how utterly phony this narrative is. Five years ago they would both have said (and did say, in Nye's case) things 180 degrees opposed to what they're now saying, and would have been enraged at the idea that we should subordinate actual science to childish feelings and sexual perversities and weaponized envy. Their contrary-to-interests embrace of SJWism in general and "gender theory" in particular, so hard and so suddenly, and the matter-of-factness of how they present their opinions on the matter (as if they'd held those same opinions forever, and that no sensible person could think otherwise) shows that what they're pushing is neither science nor sincere.

[Paracelsus]

Understand that Bill Nye is not a scientist, any more than Oprah is a journalist. Both of them are purely entertainers. That makes them leftists by definition. The guy is a former mechanical engineer who couldn't make it at Boeing or anywhere else, and instead went into standup comedy. The success of his educational shows were primarily because of government fiat: his was one of the programs deemed "suitable" to meet Childrens Television Act requirements, so TV stations ran him endlessly.

He does no scientific work and never published a scientific paper in his life. The doctorates he has are without exception all honourary, which is to say, they are all PR exercises by the organisations that handed them to him.

More generally, republishing Grumpy Uncle John T. Reed on leftists and their hilarious associations with science:

https://johntreed.myshopify.com/blogs/jo...-lab-coats

Quote:

I sort of agree with some of the principles of the demonstrators around the world—called the March for Science. The headline on our local paper was “Fans of facts take to the streets.” But is was on the occasion of Earth Day, a day when liberals say they support the earth in order to imply that conservatives do not.

This wall has long been explicitly devoted to drawing conclusions based on facts and logic. https://www.johntreed.com/…/60887299-int...y-honest-…

One of their clever placards said,

“What do we want? Evidence-based science.
“When do we want it? After peer review.”

I like the first half of that. Peer review, however, is the subject of item #27 in my list of intellectually-dishonest debate tactics:

27. Peer approval of subjective opinion: “Proving” correctness of a subjective statement by citing the approval of political allies in the same subject—so-called peer review in academia. Peer approval has value when it relates to objective standards like those in STEM subjects like mathematics, chemistry, and physics. Such peers check the accuracy of calculations, the cleanliness of laboratories, and whether they can replicate the results in their own experiments.

But peer review is of little probative (proving) value when it relates to subjective areas like sociology, economics, or women’s studies where the peers in question, and indeed the whole field or large portions of it, have a particular political agenda. What is considered correct academic teaching in high schools is determined by long-term, circular, self-reinforcing, peer group-think unaffected by results achieved by their students.

Meanwhile, at those very same high schools, numerous coaches and athletic directors decide what is correct by whether it produces victory in athletic competition against other high schools, a.k.a. results.

Global warming advocates are big on using this. I heard one opponent scientist observe dryly when hit with the global-warming “consensus” argument, “In science, we do not take a poll to ascertain the truth.” 2 + 2 = 4 no matter how many people say it is 5.

By the way, the Global warming/climate change theory is not based on science. It is based on a computer model. There is such a thing as model error, which does not require science error. See the Wikipedia article on Butterfly Effect. In Latin, this logic fallacy is called Argumentum ad numerum or Argumentum ad populum. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect

Is peer review good or bad? It depends on the peers in question. If they are all federal government employees and/or academics whose salaries are paid indirectly by federal grants, not so much.

I was not at any of the demonstrations. The thought would never occur to me.

Unfortunately, these were Trump haters, not facts lovers. Their real agenda was climate change and federal funding for Democrat programs.

Their definition of science is a person with a scientific degree who agrees with their agenda, usually an employee of government.

Bill Nye the Science guy, who spoke at the DC rally, is actually a lapsed mechanical engineer. How did he get to be a science guy? He took a course on astronomy from Carl Sagan at Cornell, started wearing a bow tie, and made sure that whenever the Leftists talked about science, he swore by it on PBS.

An underlying assumption of all this is that science exists only when the US taxpayers pay for it. The Wright Brothers and Thomas Edison were mythical characters. This is akin to the notion that Big Bird would cease to exist if funding for the National Endowment for the Arts were cut. (Big Bird and his fellow CTW characters were signed to a five-year contract by the for-profit HBO in 2015.) If it ain’t federal, it doesn’t exist.

Tellingly, actual scientists were turned off by the demonstrations. “Activism doesn’t belong in science,” they said. Science is a disciplined search for correct conclusions. Activism assumes their agenda is correct without science. Activism is a disciplined pursuit of political power.

Conservative publisher Matthew Cunningham got it right when he said,

“All they’re saying is that their policy preferences are science-based and anyone who disagrees with them is anti-science.”

Another clever sign said,

“The Empirical strikes back.”

Empirical is a fancy academic word for results. If the Left is so fond of results, where did I get the impetus to write articles like https://www.johntreed.com/…/69792323-pro...ation-ve….

Liberals love the Head Start Program. They promised it would result in long-term improvements in the performance of inner-city public students. Then their own study—empirical—said it did not. They utterly ignored it and again funded it. “The empirical strikes out” is more like it with the people waving that sign.

One demonstrator in Livermore, CA did not get the memo. Her sign revealed the wolf inside the lab coats clothing,

“Only You Can Resist Fascist Liars.” Lots of empirical facts in that sentiment.

[Delta]

Lost in the theatrics here is the fact that the "scientists" who argue that gender is a spectrum don't know what a spectrum is. A spectrum implies infinite possibilities. Height is a true example of a spectrum. There are infinitely many possible heights even though we round to the nearest inch, i.e. someone who is "6 foot 2" is actually something like 6 foot 1.8923646328... continuing on forever.

This principle doesn't apply to gender. The "spectrum" peddlers are just pointing out some finite set of abnormalities, e.g. people who have both parts, people who have the brain of one gender and the sexual organs of another. What they're really saying is that there are more than 2 discrete categorizations for gender... which is technically true, but a strange fixation given that well over 99% of people fall within the two main categories. The "spectrum" argument is a sure tell that someone is either scientifically/statistically illiterate, or blatantly pandering to such people.

[weambulance]

Quote:

27. Peer approval of subjective opinion: “Proving” correctness of a subjective statement by citing the approval of political allies in the same subject—so-called peer review in academia. Peer approval has value when it relates to objective standards like those in STEM subjects like mathematics, chemistry, and physics. Such peers check the accuracy of calculations, the cleanliness of laboratories, and whether they can replicate the results in their own experiments.

Haha, I hope he's not naïve enough to think that stuff actually happens in STEM. There's a reason a huge percentage of published results are irreproducible.

[Paracelsus]

The very argument that "GENDER IS A SPECTRUM!" actually contains a false premise: that gender exists.

It doesn't. The word gender was coined by a sexologist in 1955. It was created specifically to drive a wedge between biological sex and the role of that sex in society. Feminism, of course, picked it up in the 1970s as part of its war on family. Gender has no biological foundation because the very definition of the term has nothing to do with biology. It refers solely to roles in society.

Idiots who scream that gender is a spectrum are therefore right: you can have an infinite number of conceptual roles in society, from unicorn to fucking mermaid to motherfucking treefucker. It doesn't change the biological fact or reality, not from the physical organs to the hormones to the brain shape or size. Gender is a phantom, a concept, first cousin to Harvey the Rabbit. It doesn't exist. Except on paper. Never confuse gender with sex, and never say one when you mean the other: when you do, you help the enemy win.

[weambulance]

So gender is a social construct! Shit, the SJWs were accidentally right all along.

[weambulance]

FWIW I was taught sex = biology, gender = language. It's not so important in English, but in Spanish you have to worry about the "gender" of the subject all the time.

[demolition]

(04-26-2017 08:51 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

The very argument that "GENDER IS A SPECTRUM!" actually contains a false premise: that gender exists.

It doesn't. The word gender was coined by a sexologist in 1955. It was created specifically to drive a wedge between biological sex and the role of that sex in society. Feminism, of course, picked it up in the 1970s as part of its war on family. Gender has no biological foundation because the very definition of the term has nothing to do with biology. It refers solely to roles in society.

Idiots who scream that gender is a spectrum are therefore right: you can have an infinite number of conceptual roles in society, from unicorn to fucking mermaid to motherfucking treefucker. It doesn't change the biological fact or reality, not from the physical organs to the hormones to the brain shape or size. Gender is a phantom, a concept, first cousin to Harvey the Rabbit. It doesn't exist. Except on paper. Never confuse gender with sex, and never say one when you mean the other: when you do, you help the enemy win.

I disagree simply on the point that ceding the language is essentially letting leftists rewrite the dictionary. We don't need to bastardize the word gender to mean 'conceptual roles in society' because we can articulate what we mean by this just as well (in fact, more clearly) by saying "conceptual roles in society."

Part of the reason why this mental disease is so effective is because the language obscures the absurdity of the claims being made. Everyone knows that sex/gender is a characteristic that is determined by biology.

However what the mentally ill folks propose is that other people should be forced to refer to them using terminology that is determined solely by their own whim (or, in the more extreme, to treat them as they demand to be treated -- as masters over slaves). Disguising this risibly authoritarian shit behind linguistic sleight of hand is precisely why it's taken the better part of a century for people to start waking up and realizing how damaging it is.

[Paracelsus]

^^^^

I think we are in violent agreement. Cialdini himself notes in Pre-suasion that language itself is a play for power: define the concept and you force the person to think in your terms, not theirs. Sex and gender are increasingly being used interchangeably, which is the problem, because gender is imaginary and therefore arbitrary, while sex is not.

[Wutang]

(04-26-2017 08:51 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

The very argument that "GENDER IS A SPECTRUM!" actually contains a false premise: that gender exists.

It doesn't. The word gender was coined by a sexologist in 1955. It was created specifically to drive a wedge between biological sex and the role of that sex in society.

The reason these people want to weaken the link between sex and gender so that the former has little or no connection with the latter is because sex is binary with a few rare exceptions such as people who are born with XXY chromosomes. Sex being binary puts a damper on their plans to have 87 different genders so instead gender identity must be disassociated from biology and relocated to the mind. Gender is now entirely based on what is going on in a person's head and becomes completely subjective with no pesky inconveniences like chromosomes putting a limit to the snowflake's imagination. If any one of us decided to walk into a woman's bathroom and then really insisted that we truly feel like a woman inside (at least at the moment) and that the manager who is trying to throw our ass to the curb is disrespecting our gender identity what can anyone say if the only standard for what our gender is just based on our mental state?

Sometimes I wonder if the reason all of this nonsense never took off until the Millennial generation start coming along is because the Millennial generation has been constantly bombarded with messages about how they can do anything and that anyone that puts a foot down and tells them "no" is oppressing them. It's a generation that's grown up on slogans such as "You do you" and a million variations of "follow your heart".

[Simeon_Strangelight]

(04-27-2017 07:48 AM)Wutang Wrote:  

(04-26-2017 08:51 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

The very argument that "GENDER IS A SPECTRUM!" actually contains a false premise: that gender exists.

It doesn't. The word gender was coined by a sexologist in 1955. It was created specifically to drive a wedge between biological sex and the role of that sex in society.

The reason these people want to weaken the link between sex and gender so that the former has little or no connection with the latter is because sex is binary with a few rare exceptions such as people who are born with XXY chromosomes. Sex being binary puts a damper on their plans to have 87 different genders so instead gender identity must be disassociated from biology and relocated to the mind. Gender is now entirely based on what is going on in a person's head and becomes completely subjective with no pesky inconveniences like chromosomes putting a limit to the snowflake's imagination. If any one of us decided to walk into a woman's bathroom and then really insisted that we truly feel like a woman inside (at least at the moment) and that the manager who is trying to throw our ass to the curb is disrespecting our gender identity what can anyone say if the only standard for what our gender is just based on our mental state?

Sometimes I wonder if the reason all of this nonsense never took off until the Millennial generation start coming along is because the Millennial generation has been constantly bombarded with messages about how they can do anything and that anyone that puts a foot down and tells them "no" is oppressing them. It's a generation that's grown up on slogans such as "You do you" and a million variations of "follow your heart".

They have this propaganda everywhere - In Zootopia they had a tiny fox kid who was told that he could become an Elephant, because you Can be Anything You want to be:



Propaganda as such seeps in not via a cold ice bucket, but dripping in one molecule after another until suddenly you see Bill Nye's head bobbing to gender-bending-scientific "facts".

[infowarrior1]

(04-24-2017 03:02 AM)loremipsum Wrote:  

So this is what science is nowadays folks.

Its from Nye's talk show which
" looks at topics from a scientific point of view, refuting myths and claims that rebuke science. "

[IveBeenFramed]

[Simeon_Strangelight]

The show will keep on dishing out propaganda. Here an Indian guy lecturing White people on cultural appropriation.

And yeah - it is so terrible when Whites have Buddha statues around, because they like the symbolism and peaceful nature.

And it is indeed terrible if they have Asian wallpaper or when white hot girls do Yoga.

Go fuck yourself you shitty SJW who preaches whatever his masters tell him to.

[infowarrior1]

(04-27-2017 08:48 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

The show will keep on dishing out propaganda. Here an Indian guy lecturing White people on cultural appropriation.

And yeah - it is so terrible when Whites have Buddha statues around, because they like the symbolism and peaceful nature.

And it is indeed terrible if they have Asian wallpaper or when white hot girls do Yoga.

Go fuck yourself you shitty SJW who preaches whatever his masters tell him to.

Was the pictures I posted appropriate for this thread? I cannot find any better image to encapsulate my thoughts on this.

[Delta]

(04-27-2017 08:48 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

The show will keep on dishing out propaganda. Here an Indian guy lecturing White people on cultural appropriation.

And yeah - it is so terrible when Whites have Buddha statues around, because they like the symbolism and peaceful nature.

And it is indeed terrible if they have Asian wallpaper or when white hot girls do Yoga.

Go fuck yourself you shitty SJW who preaches whatever his masters tell him to.

This clip isn't about cultural appropriation, it's about bullshit "alternative" remedies that don't work and are sold to gullible morons as the product of some ancient exotic wisdom. More than anything, it's attacking the white liberal pedestalization of nonwhite cultures. Let's pick our battles.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

(04-27-2017 11:03 AM)Delta Wrote:  

(04-27-2017 08:48 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

This clip isn't about cultural appropriation, it's about bullshit "alternative" remedies that don't work and are sold to gullible morons as the product of some ancient exotic wisdom. More than anything, it's attacking the white liberal pedestalization of nonwhite cultures. Let's pick our battles.

NOpe - it has both.

White girls have ruined Yoga?
How dare White men put on statues of Buddha?

Oh and they love to attack all alternative healing methods - healing via nutrition, high-dosage supplements which work like drugs, simple chemical but effective compounds, some herbs = all is equally taken with the same fucking measuring stick as the guy who sells you legit water from the Amazon with a healing crystal.

The battleground is their entire fucking show, not only the dance stunt.

Every bloody globalist and SJW meme will be brought out there, because whenever they say SCIENCE you better stop thinking and start believing everything they say.

[Canopus]

When something like 96% of humans on the planet can look in their pants and figure out what gender they are, I don't get why the other 4% needs so much attention from anyone other than the psychiatric community. Such a small fraction of the population doesn't constitute a spectrum, rather they are an aberration. But the loudest among them, namely the weirdos on Tumblr, want to turn things around to make it seem as if there is something wrong with the default setting or it doesn't exist in such an overwhelming majority of people.

Nye could have covered any number of problems facing humanity, but he chose this hair splitting issue about sexual minorities instead. It's depressing that he's got a soapbox that he could really educate people from, like Carl Sagan and others have done, but instead we get ice cream orgies and vaginas with voices.