For those claiming Bill Nye's new show is pure propaganda: Let's Discuss why you're potentially wrong, civilly of course. (others also welcome)

0  2017-05-10 by KiddohAspire

FOREWORD

I want to start this off by saying this is only for people who have watched and not made assumptions based on the "Gender" episodes cringe level 10,000 song.

Now, full disclosure I am not fully through it at the time of writing this, there's 2 episodes left and I'm in the middle of one listening as I write now. I also believed it could be TERRIBLE based solely on that song, however like any reasonable dare I say, scientific, person I couldn't speak on it without watching and absorbing the material for consideration. Hence, this being for ONLY people who have watched.

So; omitting the song and any political bias, because that is where that song gets the most heat, we have a few "standout" episodes I believe are the entirety of the reasoning behind these claims of "propaganda"


Episode 4: "More Food, Less Hype"

First, we have the GMO episode. This is a touchy subject some believe and some don't in our and others communities of skeptics. In this episode, he discusses the basics of GMO knowledge. Or what the ideal GMO system is. He doesn't go into the deplorable actions of companies like Monsanto who are overtly controlling and even has a Monsanto employee on the show.

That aside, as omission is not necessarily support (this is important) and further research and such could be mind changing, he details what a GMO aims to do and what it is. A good parallel would be Communism AIMS to be populist in it's purist form everyone is supported and equal.


Episode 11: "Malarkey!"

The second episode in question would be "Malarkey!" where he explores pseudoscience, conspiracy theories, and confirmation bias. This episode; is great on the surface you will say "he's discrediting this to the masses and psyop blah blah" talk potentially forever. But a recurring theme in this episode is "skepticism" and THAT is the important bit both for the explanation AND the people watching at home. First, he uses the word skeptic and promotes skepticism which is GREAT. However it does appear as if the episodes gear it's skepticism towards more pseudosciences and how they are "malarkey" pretty fitting name I guess.

Then we have a piece by Karlie Kloss, a model and correspondent for the show. She explores the idea of "chemtrails" this is the big issue arguably with this episode. She visits the USAF and is educated on what a CONtrail is. Which is drastically different than a CHEMtrail. A contrail, like in the episode is exactly that a condensation trail and the science is spot on for why it is a thing. A chemtrail is different, and it is not only reasonable but mandatory to say this episode was likely shot before we had the 100% confirmation of "weather control" chemtrails. After her segment, or rather as it is wrapping up she says "I didn't even know about these conspiracy theories"

This is a BOMBSHELL not because any reason of negativity but with the overtone of SKEPTICISM it's very possible she looked into them further and may continue to do so, and maybe others will also do so.


Important Things To Know

Now, why is omission and skepticism both so important? Skepticism is the basis of science and fact, by being skeptical you can find fact even if you're questioning "facts" example "Flat earth" in the olden days was questioned and what do you know the earth is a globe. But it was "fact" it was flat.

Omission, is important because these are 30 minute episodes hardly enough for any reasonable crash course through this medium. Let alone omission via ignorance. Karlie Kloss showed that through ignorance she had no knowledge of conspiracy theories. So her eyes have be opened at the very least she may now be more aware and see these things maybe give them some weight think of it like your eyes dilating as you wake up; you can't see super well but you can kind of see.

So, through omission quite possibly solely through ignorance we get an episode that dismisses "chemtrails" filmed prior to proof at least 1 form is being used and lobbied for that has a heavy overtone of SKEPTICISM which is what has created all of this. The episode hardly touches anything else unless you put weight into astrology or healing crystals..

In defense every single one of us have at one point have been blatantly dismissive of anything resembling a conspiracy theory. Many people here I bet were green when 9/11 happened and got caught up in the calls to war for Osama's head. While others who awakened long before then as older generations saw right through it. But minds were changed with further, say it with me now, INVESTIGATION AND KNOWLEDGE! Which is.....SCIENCE!

So, like many have said regarding PG; put it in clear concise form with the hardest facts possible so the pill goes down easiest. This likely has not happened for Bill on any of these, what's worse is he is SUPPOSED to be a man of science so very compelling conjecture could be alright to slip in there with decent links but circumstantial ones at that. Why? Because that's what science craves.

No one can say any conspiracy community is "Tidy" we're like frantic honey badgers thriving in organized chaos. Which makes it very difficult for outsiders to grasp.


Rules of Conversation

So, I pose the question with just 1 hour of the show left to watch; People who believe Bill Nye's new show is propaganda what is your argument?

Here's an immediate list of dismissal:

  1. Anything saying Global Warming isn't happening

  2. Anything regurgitating Fox News talking points like "gender is blah blah blah" or "Renewable energy is impossible we need coal because muh jerbz" etc Conservatives are more often than not opponents to anything Bill Nye says and suffer from confirmation bias. That has no place for discussion

  3. Any obvious attacks against me like "oh what a shill kek LOL"

  4. Anyone who hasn't watched any of it but the god awful gender song


Epilogue/Outro/Humble Request

I know it's not right to ask for upvotes, however I can ask you do not downvote based solely on dismissal or disagreement as per reddiquette.

Rather allow the topic to flow and be seen by as many people as possible creating a civil discussion.

44 comments

97% of all scientists believe he's shiite. The science is undeniable.

Isn't 97% the go-to percentage for "statistics made up on the spot?" Huh...weird how that works. I also have never heard any bad about him outside of conservative tied people...Strictly because he doesn't mind calling them out on global warming being a thing.

Honestly he lost my respect on the episode with the "sound healing" the girl was a brat and her and Bill both think only in present terms it seems. Well only when the present suit their narratives

Care to elaborate? That was the "vaccine" heavy episode was it not? I have binged this in my information gathering.

I have to agree with them on some level I think it's BS, I also agree to something you sort of touched on in the "brat" sense; during the panel he kind of shit all over the filmmaker guy who brought up Mushrooms being a studied beneficial thing.

I think it was the one addressing "fake medicines" idk I just feel it's hypocritical to claim things like climate change which is pretty much a present/future issue then discredit things like the shrooms. Pretty no Bueno due to "current practice/understanding" to discredit. Yea she was a fucking brat reminded me of pretentious tumblr keyboard warrior.

Yeah, some of the episodes touch on small things then have whole episodes it blurs.

Yeah I feel editing may have been used in a certain manner though, or maybe Bill is much more like that than I know. Though he always seems to hear out people in other interviews and so on unless they're spouting absolute nonsense.

i dont think you are going to get much response. I am not sure how you think people are going to abide by your "discussion framing". Bill Nye, is a TV personality and therefore a part of the Media machine, he has agendas just like everyone else. My concern is the GMO, he is making claims without actual evidence over long term use. We know in the immediate that someone doesnt die the second they eat a GMO, but there is 0 study as to the long term effects on a person who has a diet of heavy GMO. Which means he is making claims with partial evidence.

My concern is the GMO, he is making claims without actual evidence over long term use. We know in the immediate that someone doesnt die the second they eat a GMO, but there is 0 study as to the long term effects on a person who has a diet of heavy GMO.

This is addressed in 2 parts. One they address the "we don't know if it's bad" bit bringing up other things that we thought were ok and turned out bad ie; asbestos

The other being the long term, now it's not completely conclusive but like vaccines (an episode i forgot to include) the study is sort of proof of concept. It's been 20 years now that by no means is long term in this sense especially with ever changing modifications but it does seem to be for now on the safe side.

Plants also naturally evolve traits to help thrive as humans do, and we are just forcing a chosen evolution. Which again maybe disastrous in a longer term, and by no means do I approve of the actions taken by companies suing people and so on for using/not using seeds, it just seems for now the aim of the idea isn't corrupt on the side of food just the business side.

A stance I have had long before this discussion but nevertheless skeptical and conscious of news of GMO's

Well, like vaccines, there are people who will claim they are completely safe when we either have the evidence to say otherwise or that they dont have sufficient evidence. Bill Nye is choosing to use the absence of evidence as actual evidence. Which makes me concerned that he is just pushing an Agenda

This is exactly why I wrote "omission is not support" he has also changed his mind on subjects with more information being brought to light for him.

Does he have political ties? Yeah who doesn't I mean daily it seems our president is being praised by or praising Fox News who is the propaganda arm of the conservative party. Many people here are from t_d I personally am registered independent but lean liberal as they for the most part want to resolve things that have facts supporting them in a broad spectrum (climate change) however, many are very shitty....

So when a candidate comes up who says "We should have guns because rights, but also HOLY FUCK THE CLIMATE CHANGE IS REAL AND EVERYONE NEEDS TO STOP FREAKING OUT ABOUT GAY MARRIAGE" I go "Yeah man, I agree people need to butt out of other peoples lives and we need to fix this shit thats going wrong"

Brings me back to that whole "government should outlaw gays" type rhetoric some conservatives spit then they go on shortly after to say "The gubbmint needs to be small and not mess with people lives"

LOL fucking what hypocrisy, bet them rich gays that side with them get all the love though huh? I really wanna see a Milo Yianopolis? idk his last name spelling and one of those Talking Heads sit down.

if he is going to parade himself out as a legitimate scientist, he needs to use legitimate reasoning is all i am saying. Ultimately, he isnt a scientist, he is a TV personality.

But he's a scientist! He spent all of that time and money getting his mechanical engineering degree so he can tell other people how they aren't qualified to talk about science. Lol

I have a degree in economics, doesnt make me an economist. Titles come from practice not education

I can call myself Thorumar the statistician and focus on statistics my whole life, but that doesn't give me the right to tell someone else that they are unqualified to talk about statistics.

"Scientist" isn't a thing.... this isn't the game "Life" technically engineering is a science. But "Scientist" just means he has the scientific method employed often and in his studies and has knowledge that mixing some things does X and mixing others makes explosions.

Basically enough to not get yourself killed. You don't go to school and go "I'm gonna be a SCIENTIST!" That's not a job title. You can be say; a Chemist, Engineer (all sorts), Theoretical Physicist none of those are "scientist" but all of those would be classified as "scientist"

So with his knowledge of the sciences, and a degree in the field of science, and employing the scientific method along with seeking knowledge yes he is a scientist.

Is he say, the Jamie Oliver of Scientists? Yeah that's pretty close to accurate. Is he the Gordon Ramsay? Doubtful. In fact if we're drawing this parallel I'd say Brian May would be the Gordon Ramsay.

Both appear on TV and talk about science but one is much more "conventional" than the other. Gordon Ramsay is a bad ass Chef first and TV person second. Brian May is a magician who I'm sure has mastered black magic so he can be Queen's guitarist and a astrophysicist.

Where Bill Nye knows science stuff better than a hell of a lot of people, and taught about it for a long time but isn't 3 michelin stars quality.

I agree, I commented below with what i think is a beautiful comparison to Gordon Ramsay and Jamie Oliver. Or rather, an accurate shot at it

Got a bachelors in Aerospace Engineering. Doesn't make me an aerospace engineer; I neither do research nor do I work in the industry. I am not qualified to act like some big shot in science because of a degree; neither is Bill Nye. He is a TV personality first, and a scientist second.

i haven't watched these yet but am super skeptical of anything being on netflix as of recently.

that being said i know gmos are highly contested. they inevitably will be proven as unsafe in the long term.

however - i do kno that there are arguments out there that, while recognizing the potential hazards, also state the struggle in feeding the planet without them.

we cant feed the planet based on profitability reasons, not supply. We throw away tons of produce a day while people are starving on the other side of the planet.

Co2 climate change could be true as the media reports, it could be worse than they report, it could less worse than they report. It could have been planned decades ago to coincide with warming solar cycles of the sun.

...but in this climate of fake news, a rational person must also consider Al Gore was vice president to Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton is a criminal low life.

You bring up a good point, and I'll curb that solely because it's not QUITE on topic.

However, it does bring the question of "science" up. Many have come to agree about 9/11 based on scientific evidence (free fall speed and such done by professionals who have no bias towards a party in their work) So why does climate change differ? Because "fake news" has enlisted propaganda reports to coincide with their narrative.

Though it seems by all accounts that global warming is in fact a thing, it may be blown out of proportion in a "scare" tactic to move us away faster but it could also be just as bad as they say, like you point out, either way it does need to be addressed correct?

I agree.. if we pumped oil into the ocean it would be terrible. Air is not nothing and we continue to pollute it. I remember dismissing climategate emails years ago but now maybe I need to re-examine because people are dismissing the Podesta email and I know what they expose.

I hate that the media cant be trusted but probably I side on the benefit of the doubt but I would not be surprised if its a scam.. Bill Nye is obviously political biased but the truth is .. I just don't know

Where he has ties, there's no damning evidence in my mind. He DOES get more traction with a liberal mindset yes. He may be a liberal idk, honestly idc that much.

Actions are what speak, I pointed out in the OP that yes he does omit things but that could be for a variety of reasons and can't necessarily be jumped on as "He is da propaganda." It could be time constraint for episodes, it could be ignorance to the chaos of the conspiracy community and how to get the FACTS.

there are only two genders. This was a political issue. Then Netflicks removes his past documentary that he stated there were two genders. obviously some manipulation going on.

Alternatively, like he said in the episode information has been brought to light, and he took that info and changed his mind.

Such as me I was like "TERRORISTS KILL EM ALL" then i did some learning and I was like "BUSH HANG HIM NOW"

He does point out the "spectrum" talk is all new "happening now" research. Scientific minds tend to change with new facts. Ie; Newton and Gravity, or Einstein and Relativity

The documentary (never heard of it but I did see memes of his old show go around claiming he said it when in fact he didnt as seen by finding the episode and watching) could be removed in order to prevent hysteria or give arguments lousy ammunition in attempts to discredit him.

I agree, and so does he. There are 2 "genders" male and female all of nature has it (except the clownfish that can change its gender) however, he points out the science of extra chromosomal births where you'll have an extra Y or X or maybe multiples. That's being derived by SOME as additional genders.

If you watch the episode and I hope you have seen the show and not dismissed it based on crap talk, you would see that. Just skip that horrifying song

I'm glad someone finally went through these instead of copy pasting corresponding article titles and whining about how they're propaganda without any explanation as to "why?"

Outside of the episodes I mentioned here, and the last 2 of the season I saw nothing that popped up a red flag. Hell even those episodes in question were just evolutionary to his original show.

Yet the subject matter is a bit touchy in the episode above and some jokes/discussion are in fact more pg-13

Beakman's World was better.

Fair enough, not necessarily discussion moving but an improvement so far in the comments I have received.

here here!

Anything regurgitating Fox News talking points like "gender is blah blah blah" or "Renewable energy is impossible we need coal because muh jerbz" etc Conservatives are more often than not opponents to anything Bill Nye says and suffer from confirmation bias. That has no place for discussion

you really dont see how idiotic this whole statment is?

You mad? Sorry global warming is a thing, and gender politics are not conspiracy. Or propaganda. Fox News is just as fake as Alex Jones and CNN.

Nope. Climate change may be valid but there are still a lot of conspiracies around it. Gender politics is very much an agenda and conspiracy. Most news is bs.

It literally has politics in it's name. There's no conspiracy. Also, I concede that it seems I am saying "fuck off conservatives" when I am not. Civil, informed discussion is the goal. I just don't want Alex Jones who's a bad source or Faux News as citations because they're both extremely poor sources same with CNN.

The only problem is with the influx of "alt right" or t_d members I have to put a reminder in there. CNN and such are by no means good sources and are often avoided, as of late however Fox News and Alex Jones have been used often as source material and are often extremely spun or ya know Alex "I got Bought" Jones

I've seen nothing substantial that anything related to gender is a conspiracy. Agenda? Of course any political discussion has an Agenda not all agendas are bad for example; Freeing slaves was a part of an agenda it wasn't a bad thing it was civil rights.

That said I mentioned PG above, I believe PG had some ground and in many spots (like the news anchor who got canned's piece) was right on the money.

Others see that as flimsy, for digressive discussion purposes if you have any good evidence to support your claim that it somehow is a psyop or something I'll give it a read.

That said, I've met, am friends with MANY gay or trans people. More than your average person I'd imagine I'd say 20+ are acquaintances. I don't know any who are on the Tumblr bs wagon that spawned memes such as "I identify as an attack helicopter" they just like the same sex, or feel they are the opposite gender. Whether they be homosexual and feel they are actually women/men and prefer their birth gender sexually but feel they are actually "straight" just in the wrong body or whatever.

They just want what everyone wants, to be left alone and be treated as a human without having to hide and live a lie. Think of it like having, say a foot fetish, and being told you're unnatural and can't get married to anyone with feet. They just want a normal life, not to take over the world or "Turn muh frogz gai" They just want everyone to not give a fuck about how they like to fuck and have all the rights they would have if they didn't have a foot fetish or like other men or other women.

George soros gave netflix 30 million

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/george-soros-buys-stakes-in-alphabet-netflix-dumps-disney-general-motors-2016-11-14

netflix shits out this atrocity. if thats not enough pieces of the puzzle i invite you to watch a documentary about other people george soros gave money to who behead children and then get paraded around as humanitarians.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xR1Vs5fZltY

Knowing about Soros is something I admittedly have only a little knowledge on. But I can come to agree he is not a beacon of good.

However, this doesn't bring anything to the table in this debate

George soros gave netflix 30 million

That's not how this works...

congratulations on your brain-washing

Congratulations on not following the simple rules. My argument was clear, concise, and logical. You offered nothing

Removed. Rule 4. At least come with a counterargument.

Here's an immediate list for dismissal:

  1. Any argument that has to start with a list of trigger warnings aimed at shutting down free speech.

Dismissed.

Trigger warnings for idiots trying to derail the conversation via straw man arguments spouting the same fake news nonsense they love to preach against.

So yeah, trying to keep the dumb out of the conversation, however meaningful civil discussion is welcomed. This isn't t_d sources should have merit and not just praise confirmation bias.

Bill Nye, the pandering, ultra-liberal guy.

Do you have sources? Or are you just regurgitating the same crap this sub has put through the shill mill?

Because it sure does seem like you're suffering from confirmation bias attacking him with 0 credibility