[QUOTE=Ignhelper;52151675]Its ironic that people get pissed when white girls where kimono or hanbok, but nobody bats an eye when asians wear Dirndl Dresses and Lederhose or the tons of asian girls with native american war bonnets[/QUOTE]
Man, people don't even give a fuck when a whole Thai schoolyard is filled with people wearing SS uniforms.
[t]http://www.globalo.com/content/uploads/2016/12/NaziTaiwan.jpeg[/t]
How dare they appropriate our culture! :v:
Bill Eye the neoliberal guy?
[QUOTE=Tudd;52151402]My new favorite is watching the diet episode, and how much they shit on the Paleo diets, out of all alternative diets they could have chosen. It's essentially the only diet they criticize and they do it horribly with little to no science mentioned on why. Its just one gigantic segment of critiquing with no discussion and truly comes off as indoctrination (agree with me cause I said so).
[/QUOTE]
Please correct me if I'm wrong (seriously, I'm no expert in nutrition), isn't Paleo pretty legit?
Like, not that it's some holistic cure-all, but isn't Paleo just cutting out processed shit and eating nothing but fruit, proteins, dairy, and veggies? Because out of every ridiculous fad-diet I've heard (juice cleanse, nothing but grapefruit, kale and almond milk, etc.), Paleo is the only one that just sounds like eating a healthy, well-balanced meal. Especially if you're hitting the gym and need to maximize protein while minimizing carbs.
Again, I could be totally wrong on this one, but shitting on Paleo really seems like the worst example of a fad-diet to focus on when trying to debunk health myths.
[QUOTE=Gmod4ever;52150988]He didn't.
The nuclear-power guy only got one sentence, interjected in between the green-power guy and the other person, saying nuclear is viable - and then Bill just waved his hand at him, said "yeah but no one wants that, it's really expensive and takes a long time to build", before letting the green-power guy dominate the entire panel.
It was really annoying.[/QUOTE]
Dunno why people look up to bill so much when it comes to science, yeah okay he did a show back in the 90's but he ironically isn't actually a scientist, his degree is in engineering and he doesn't even have a PhD
[QUOTE=ChadMcGoatMan;52152814]Bill Eye the neoliberal guy?[/QUOTE]
I get the feeling that anyone throwing around "neoliberal" in here doesn't really know what it means.
[QUOTE=Duck M.;52153124]I get the feeling that anyone throwing around "neoliberal" in here doesn't really know what it means.[/QUOTE]
Neoliberalism is economical theory and sometimes politically ideology as well, refers primarily to the 20th-century resurgence of 19th-century ideas associated with laissez-faire economic liberalism.
And said this because it's likely contractors has something about this?
If you found out please go here [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism"]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism[/URL]
[QUOTE=ChadMcGoatMan;52153184]Neoliberalism is economical and sometimes politically theory refers primarily to the 20th-century resurgence of 19th-century ideas associated with laissez-faire economic liberalism.
And said this because it's likely contractors has something about this?
If you found out please go here [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism"]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism[/URL][/QUOTE]
I dont really see what this has to do with Bill Nye though. He definitely doesn't strike me as the laissez-faire libertarian type.
[QUOTE=Duck M.;52153205]I dont really see what this has to do with Bill Nye though. He definitely doesn't strike me as the laissez-faire libertarian type.[/QUOTE]
Maybe he thinks this is way to panders his old and nostalgic fans - Hillary style of pandering.
Otherwords Neoliberals are pretty bad and misused of Social Liberalism and Social progressivism' identity politics as sad excuse of caring social issues.
And yes, I see comparisons of old school Libertarianism and Neoliberalism do share similar views on economics.
[QUOTE=Tudd;52151393]The "Nuclear debate" panel ironically was 95% about renewables.[/QUOTE]
It wasn't a nuclear debate panel. It was a panel about energy methods that cut ghgs.
[QUOTE=BanthaFodder;52152855]Please correct me if I'm wrong (seriously, I'm no expert in nutrition), isn't Paleo pretty legit?
Like, not that it's some holistic cure-all, but isn't Paleo just cutting out processed shit and eating nothing but fruit, proteins, dairy, and veggies? Because out of every ridiculous fad-diet I've heard (juice cleanse, nothing but grapefruit, kale and almond milk, etc.), Paleo is the only one that just sounds like eating a healthy, well-balanced meal. Especially if you're hitting the gym and need to maximize protein while minimizing carbs.
Again, I could be totally wrong on this one, but shitting on Paleo really seems like the worst example of a fad-diet to focus on when trying to debunk health myths.[/QUOTE]
No your not wrong at all on it as far as I can tell. Even the studies to find out if it's detrimental have shown nothing clear to indicate it is.
The problem is that there are some many worse fad-diets to tackle, and they decided to go after the one that actually cuts out processed foods and has somewhat of a balanced diet compared to other fads.
[QUOTE=BanthaFodder;52152855]Please correct me if I'm wrong (seriously, I'm no expert in nutrition), isn't Paleo pretty legit?
Like, not that it's some holistic cure-all, but isn't Paleo just cutting out processed shit and eating nothing but fruit, proteins, dairy, and veggies? Because out of every ridiculous fad-diet I've heard (juice cleanse, nothing but grapefruit, kale and almond milk, etc.), Paleo is the only one that just sounds like eating a healthy, well-balanced meal. Especially if you're hitting the gym and need to maximize protein while minimizing carbs.
Again, I could be totally wrong on this one, but shitting on Paleo really seems like the worst example of a fad-diet to focus on when trying to debunk health myths.[/QUOTE]
At the very least the justification is complete garbage. Humans during that time period farmed. [I]A lot.[/I]
If you really want to lose weight or want a special diet for a certain reason or something like that it seems sensible though (but doesn't need the fancy name that attracts people who don't know what they're doing).
Otherwise, afaik it's completely fine to eat bread as long as you keep everything relatively balanced overall.
[QUOTE=Lobstuzz;52153367]It wasn't a nuclear debate panel. It was a panel about energy methods that cut ghgs.[/QUOTE]
My bad, just rewatched it and I was pretty sure he prefaced as such.
Either way it still fucking blows.
[QUOTE=Tudd;52153424]My bad, just rewatched it and I was pretty sure he prefaced as such.
Either way it still fucking blows.[/QUOTE]
Yeah to be fair it ends up seeming like a debate against nuclear.
[QUOTE=Lobstuzz;52153430]Yeah to be fair it ends up seeming like a debate against nuclear.[/QUOTE]
"Debate" is too kind. Bill Nye just said no one wants them and let the other two people talk. Real disappointing, considering he was doing this on a platform that could have worked to make nuclear more amiable.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;52153640]"Debate" is too kind. Bill Nye just said no one wants them and let the other two people talk. Real disappointing, considering he was doing this on a platform that could have worked to make nuclear more amiable.[/QUOTE]
this show wasn't created to inform and debate with all the info on the table, though. it was created explicitly to entertain a very specific subset of people with certain beliefs.
thinking of it that way after the fact doesn't make the show so shockingly stupid. now it's just regular stupid.
[QUOTE=Tudd;52145311]There is some science (the best parts), but it is very politicized, and the jokes/segments regularly fall flat or panders a great deal to the millennial audience in awkward ways.
Overall the show sucks, but that is my view on it.[/QUOTE]
Science is inherently unpolitical, you just don't want to believe in it.
This segment is ridiculous, but there can be no bias in climate change, if you examine the cold hard scientific facts.
But anyway, bill wasted an opportunity to educate voters about science, a shame.
[QUOTE=Firetornado;52153913]Science is inherently unpolitical, you just don't want to believe in it.
[/QUOTE]
What do you mean I don't want to believe in it???
Science is not inherently political. Bill Nye is the one who thinks it is and he actually said that in this [url=https://youtu.be/WAoxZPK1ArY]clip.[/url] :v:
[quote]This segment is ridiculous, but there can be no bias in climate change, if you examine the cold hard scientific facts.
[/quote]
And yes they can. Estimates and projections can be emphasized on the high-end to low end, numbers can be skewed, or taken out of a context of a bigger data set.
Climate change exists, but that is woefully ignorant to say people can't be biased in Climate Change. Just go look at the British courts ruling on Al Gore for his documentary for examples of everything I listed.
I think Climate Change is real but you can totally politicize science. People can skew information and have ulterior motives, even if what they're saying is [i]technically[/i] correct.
[QUOTE=latin_geek;52151157]I didn't know Erika Moen got the money for a tv show[/QUOTE]
If only. Even the cuck comic is less out there than what's in the OP.
[QUOTE=BanthaFodder;52154101]I think Climate Change is real but you can totally politicize science. People can skew information and have ulterior motives, even if what they're saying is [i]technically[/i] correct.[/QUOTE]
Or just say "people don't want it," and move on when talking about Nuclear as a power source. :v:
And while were talking about ulterior motives, I bet that panel was nothing more than Bill Nye to give his buddy Mark a huge platform, and bring the nuclear guy on with no intention of hearing him out. Bill had already mentioned Mark's plan before on the Bernie livestream, and talked extensively on utilizing a month ago I think, and referred to Mark as a friend on this show's panel. So there is a good chance they were in contact well before the show.
Bill Nye: The Political Science Guy more like it.
[QUOTE=BanthaFodder;52154101]I think Climate Change is real but you can totally politicize science. People can skew information and have ulterior motives, even if what they're saying is [i]technically[/i] correct.[/QUOTE]
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yV__MkDqqo[/media]
leaded gasoline was political.
[QUOTE=Tudd;52153948]What do you mean I don't want to believe in it???
Science is not inherently political. Bill Nye is the one who thinks it is and he actually said that in this [url=https://youtu.be/WAoxZPK1ArY]clip.[/url] :v:
And yes they can. Estimates and projections can be emphasized on the high-end to low end, numbers can be skewed, or taken out of a context of a bigger data set.
Climate change exists, but that is woefully ignorant to say people can't be biased in Climate Change. Just go look at the British courts ruling on Al Gore for his documentary for examples of everything I listed.[/QUOTE]
First of all, I called it Unpolitical.
Second of all, science can be manipulated, but actual facts are still facts.
Climate change is too widespread to be written off as "The scientists want more money" or "The climate is always changing"
You can find effects of it appearing across multiple fields, universities and think tanks have done independent studies, the EPA has published several reports, ameatuer scientists online have done experiments.
Its leaking into foreign policy too, with disasters in other nations being directly linked through analysis of certain regions.
Sure science can be manipulated, but building up a Hoax of this scale would require an effort that is practically and fiscally impossible
90% of studies done so far link it to mankind, it is being accelerated by humans.
Corporations like exxon have been known to be funding campaigns to try and spread misinformation on purpose about global warming.
It will not go away because we ignore it, or dont want it to exist.
[IMG]https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-b874f3c18052d940ccd932fbf440a9f7.webp[/IMG]
[B][B]
[B]tldr[/B]
No amount of mental gymnastics by GOP senators (who have their pockets filled by big oil), or by /pol/ can make facts go away.
The earth doesnt give a fuck if you are a republican or a democrat.
Science is apolitical
And to be honest I wouldn't give a shit about trump if he left the environment alone[/B][/B]
[editline]26th April 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=Tudd;52153948]What do you mean I don't want to believe in it???
Science is not inherently political. Bill Nye is the one who thinks it is and he actually said that in this [url=https://youtu.be/WAoxZPK1ArY]clip.[/url] :v:
And yes they can. Estimates and projections can be emphasized on the high-end to low end, numbers can be skewed, or taken out of a context of a bigger data set.
Climate change exists, but that is woefully ignorant to say people can't be biased in Climate Change. Just go look at the British courts ruling on Al Gore for his documentary for examples of everything I listed.[/QUOTE]
Sure certain facts can be emphasized, but not on this scale.
[QUOTE=BanthaFodder;52152855]Please correct me if I'm wrong (seriously, I'm no expert in nutrition), isn't Paleo pretty legit?
Like, not that it's some holistic cure-all, but isn't Paleo just cutting out processed shit and eating nothing but fruit, proteins, dairy, and veggies? Because out of every ridiculous fad-diet I've heard (juice cleanse, nothing but grapefruit, kale and almond milk, etc.), Paleo is the only one that just sounds like eating a healthy, well-balanced meal. Especially if you're hitting the gym and need to maximize protein while minimizing carbs.
Again, I could be totally wrong on this one, but shitting on Paleo really seems like the worst example of a fad-diet to focus on when trying to debunk health myths.[/QUOTE]
Nothing wrong with it in action, just a healthy diet. You'll surely lose weight and body fat if you follow it.
I'm getting some interpretations from people that these skits are suppose to be ironic and are suppose to take things out of proportions in order to prove a point... Yet I don't really see that.
I'm just pretty confused on where this whole view comes from.
[QUOTE=Firetornado;52154451]First of all, I called it Unpolitical.[/quote]
Ok? What is the semantic difference you are trying to make other than "It isn't inherently Political." like I said?
[quote]
Big wall of text that is not on point[/quote]
I think you misunderstand that I am not here arguing the denial standpoint.
What I am arguing is that despite facts being used on climate change, there are some people who are putting their bias in for political or economic reasons. This can seen in BILLYMAYS post when we talk about Nuclear Energy in comparison to renewable energy on cost efficiency. Then people who are completely for Solar/Wind or have ties to the industry work against Nuclear because A. It would take away business, B. Take away potential subsidies, or C. Because Nuclear is scary and so we gotta demonize it as much as possible or ignore it.
So these people play up the benefits of these technologies, or they use exaggerated scenarios when discussing climate change to push for renewables, that have to later be recounted and shown to be bad predictions.
[quote]
Sure certain facts can be emphasized, but not on this scale.[/QUOTE]
Despite this quote obviously talking about how Climate Change couldn't be a conspiracy, and that isn't my point, I am still going to tackle this with an example.
So again, check out the proceedings that followed Al Gore's court case.
[quote]The plaintiff sought to prevent the educational use of An Inconvenient Truth on the grounds that schools are legally required to provide a balanced presentation of political issues. The court ruled that the film was substantially founded upon scientific research and fact and could continue to be shown, but it had a degree of political bias such that teachers would be required to explain the context via guidance notes issued to schools along with the film. The court also identified nine of what the plaintiff called 'errors' in the film which were departures from the scientific mainstream, and ruled that the guidance notes must address these items specifically.[/quote]
You can read those inaccuracies here:
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimmock_v_Secretary_of_State_for_Education_and_Skills[/url]
Al Gore is traveling politician who distributes information like this to millions and his documentary is award winning. So yes, inaccuracies and bias can hit the largest of scales due to the sheer amount of influence someone like Al Gore and Bill Nye bring to in the mainstream. It is very important their biases and exaggerations are reigned in to make better informed policy decisions.
[editline]26th April 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=Aman;52155028]Nothing wrong with it in action, just a healthy diet. You'll surely lose weight and body fat if you follow it.[/QUOTE]
I highly recommend anyone to watch that episode or the part on it.
Bill Nye straight up acts like you are part of an fad-diet cult for eating Paleo and will seriously be unhealthy.
[t]http://i.imgur.com/F2GRxI3.png[/t]
pretty sure this is the lowest score for any netflix original show
[QUOTE=Kecske;52155911][t]http://i.imgur.com/F2GRxI3.png[/t]
pretty sure this is the lowest score for any netflix original show[/QUOTE]
"Folks, sometimes you need some super-help to Save the World... and who better to help us learn about the elements than MARVEL'S IRON FIST!"
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;52153016]Dunno why people look up to bill so much when it comes to science, yeah okay he did a show back in the 90's but he ironically isn't actually a scientist, his degree is in engineering and he doesn't even have a PhD[/QUOTE]
maybe he just got lucky but i think the debate he had with ken ham is when people started taking him seriously again, until this happened.
I don't understand when and why gender became such a big deal. To me I just equate it with the sex of the person. You know, if you have a vagina and want to dress and act like a dude then cool, but whats the big deal with still being called a girl? Or if you prefer a boy, just fucking pick one good gravy. I just don't get it. Why is it such a major fucking deal that Bill Nye is concerned about it.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
