SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for TheMightyBuzzard
When uploaded to Netflix, an episode of the educational children's show "Bill Nye the Science Guy" cut out a segment saying that chromosomes determine one's gender.
[...] While noncontroversial at the time, the 1996 segment appears to contradict Netflix's new series "Bill Nye Saves the World."
The new show endorses a socially liberal understanding of gender, under which gender is defined by self-identification rather than genetics and there are more than just the two traditional genders.
People, people, people... Say it with me: The Internet Never Forgets.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Netflix Edits 'Bill Nye' Episode to Remove Segment Saying Chromosomes Determine Gender
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 250 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
A sect or party is an elegant incognito devised to save a man from
the vexation of thinking.
-- Ralph Waldo Emerson, Journals, 1831
(Score: 5, Insightful) by looorg on Friday May 05 2017, @10:20AM (31 children)
So it's not only the evil conservatives and religious types that are anti-science, seems to be a lot of socially liberal people that are equally disturbed. Somehow I doubt they'll see it as that.
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 05 2017, @11:09AM (27 children)
Disclaimer: I am considered left of center though not "capital L Liberal".
It seems that the reasons or motives for the suppression of rights/freedoms/science/ideas/thinking/whatever determines whether or not that suppression is just in the eyes of the left/center/right. And it is not seen as hypocrisy due to the oppressor's desire to achieve the greater good (as defined by the oppressor).
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Oakenshield on Friday May 05 2017, @01:21PM (26 children)
C. S. Lewis
(Score: 3, Interesting) by mmcmonster on Friday May 05 2017, @01:31PM (7 children)
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
C. S. Lewis
Interesting quote.
We've seen the omnipotent moral busybodies with the Obama presidency and Nanny State rulings (ie: sugar beverage tax).
Now we're seeing the Robber Baron's cruelty.
I guess the country will decide which one they would rather have at the mid-term elections.
My prediction: Record turnouts for a mid-term.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by fustakrakich on Friday May 05 2017, @04:14PM (4 children)
My prediction: Record turnouts for a mid-term.
For which? the 'moral' busybodies, or robber barons? Which one is the 'lesser evil'? And a vote for anyone else is a 'wasted vote', right? Isn't that how it goes? Funny how that works for both sides to keep each other in power in this back and forth
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Friday May 05 2017, @05:09PM (3 children)
At least in Canada we have a (on and off) 3 party system, with the odd littler parties gaining here and there as people become more and more aware of them (Go Green!).
But the
32 big parties work hard to make people ignorant of the fact that there are more than32 parties and work hard to keep groups like the greens out of political debates.... to let them into a debate would legitimize them and make people aware of them.--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 05 2017, @10:44PM (2 children)
3 parties? More like 3 flavors of socialism
(Score: 3, Touché) by Zyx Abacab on Saturday May 06 2017, @01:46AM (1 child)
Man, you know your country is fucked when the party on the Left is socialist, the party on the Right is socialist, and the parties on the top and bottom are socialist too!
Must be the free healthcare.
(Score: 2) by dry on Saturday May 06 2017, @06:18AM
They all believe in socialism when it comes to helping out successful businesses. Remember that corporations are people and socialism is about helping people, so socialism is about big government helping the poor corporations.
(Score: 2) by archfeld on Saturday May 06 2017, @09:05PM (1 child)
Long before the Obama administration, we had the folks censoring record lyrics for the good of the children. Heck prohibition was the same thing, you can't drink cause it's bad for you. Saving your soul from the evils of witchcraft, or getting a confession of satanical impurities during the inquisition. I'd rather the crook I know is stealing, their motivation is at least predictable, than the altruist who will sometimes act against their own immediate interest in the belief of the 'greater good'. Fanatics of any type are scary peoples.
For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 07 2017, @02:55AM
> Heck prohibition was the same thing, you can't drink cause it's bad for you.
The suffragists supported prohibition because they were tired of drunk men beating the shit out of them and their children.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Friday May 05 2017, @03:40PM (6 children)
Interesting quote from this guy, considering he was a huge Christian apologist. Did he say this before he converted back to Christianity?
(Score: 2) by pnkwarhall on Friday May 05 2017, @05:01PM (5 children)
I think you may be confusing religion and politics. CS Lewis wrote this both as a Christian and as a citizen of Great Britain.
Lift Yr Skinny Fists Like Antennas to Heaven
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Friday May 05 2017, @05:10PM (4 children)
Then he's in conflict. I know GB is derided as being a nanny state, but Lewis was talking about "moral busybodies", and that describes devout Christians to a tee. They're always running around telling everyone else how to live their lives. while they themselves are frequently going against their own advice, such as all the Christians like Ted Haggard who preach against homosexuality and then have secret gay lovers.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 05 2017, @07:40PM (3 children)
Association fallacy much? He is no more required to answer for fringe Christian groups like American evangelists, than you as a (presumed) American are required to answer for the CIA's terror campaign upon the third world.
One can be both a Christian and tolerant of philosophical differences. Doing so does not make them responsible for those Christians who choose to be moral busybodies, they only need reject the act as part of their religious doctrine and thus they will have no contradiction in their worldview. The basis of his creed are ambiguous enough that one could go either way without being objectively in the wrong, after all the Bible is anything but consistent.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 06 2017, @01:24AM (2 children)
Association fallacy much? He is no more required to answer for fringe Christian groups like American evangelists, than you as a (presumed) American are required to answer for the CIA's terror campaign upon the third world.
If its good enough to blame all 1.3 billion muslims for the handful of terrorist attacks committed by muslims in the west, then hell its good enough to blame all christians for the hypocritical and sanctimonious pushers of the christian agenda.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 06 2017, @01:21PM (1 child)
If its good enough to blame all 1.3 billion muslims for the handful of terrorist attacks committed by muslims in the west, then hell its good enough to blame all christians for the hypocritical and sanctimonious pushers of the christian agenda.
I've never personally said that, but I keep getting strawmanned into that position when I assert that Islamic doctrine promotes religious violence.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 06 2017, @02:03PM
lol
"I never said that. So I will say it now!"
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Friday May 05 2017, @04:34PM (9 children)
I guess updating an educational show to use the current dictionary definition of a word is considered a tyranny now...
(Score: 3, Informative) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Friday May 05 2017, @04:39PM (4 children)
The quote In TFA says "boy/girl" not "gender"
The word "gender" was probably (improperly) used by whomever wrote the headline.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 05 2017, @08:56PM (1 child)
> The word "gender" was probably (improperly) used by whomever wrote the headline.
Unsurprising. The article is on the washington free bacon which is yet another site in the alt-reality eco-system that puts catering to reactionary outrage ahead of reporting accuracy because $$.
(Score: 3, Informative) by aristarchus on Friday May 05 2017, @10:22PM
Hmmm, remember we had a discussion about sorting out the fake news from the real news by considering the reputation of the source? And that Fox News, Brian Williams, Brietfart, the Washington Times, and TMB were not reputable sources? Basically, any source that Runaway cites, as well.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 05 2017, @09:17PM (1 child)
> The quote In TFA says "boy/girl" not "gender"
Not just TFA. The actual video clip itself, which is helpfully included at the top of the article never once uses the term gender.
This article is just another made up controversy to get suckers lathering at the mouth in faux-rage.
Editors why do you keep giving the mighty dummy the benefit of the doubt on submissions?
If it is a social issue anything he submits is guaranteed to be disingenuous at best if not an outright lie.
How many times does he have to prove his lack of good faith before you wise up to his shenanigans?
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday May 07 2017, @01:30AM
He's one of the site's main coders, so for some reason he has an undue influence over the submission queue. Personally I think the guy's basically an idiot savant: the bee's knees at coding, the pig's ear at literally everything else.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 05 2017, @07:53PM (3 children)
Updating the dictionary to contradict the usage of a word in common parlance and using that as a basis to use the wrongful definition of the word is pretty scummy through. If feminist "academia" had confidence in their idea of gender, then why not create another word and let it succeed or fail on it's own merit? What is the benefit of attaching a meaning to a word that literally contradicts it's previous meaning and then insisting the previous definition is no longer valid?
tyranny
Of course not, uncreation of concepts is doubleplusgood.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 05 2017, @08:48PM (2 children)
Updating the dictionary to contradict the usage of a word in common parlance and using that as a basis to use the wrongful definition of the word is pretty scummy through.
Conspiracy theory much?
Literally no dictionary works that way.
They are all descriptive of common usage, not prescriptive.
If a definition makes it into 'the dictionary' that's because that usage is already in the common parlance.
Simply because you personally don't use words the way others does not make those uses non-existent.
Believing otherwise just a variation on the argumentum ad populum fallacy.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 06 2017, @01:30PM (1 child)
Conspiracy theory much?
No. The point is that certain disingeneous hacks hack the language to provide undue legitimacy to their ideology. If this the standard for a "conspiracy" these days then every political movement that has ever existed has engaged in such a thing.
If a definition makes it into 'the dictionary' that's because that usage is already in the common parlance.
Incorrect, the dictionary also includes rare and obsolete usage patterns as well.
Simply because you personally don't use words the way others does not make those uses non-existent.
Believing otherwise just a variation on the argumentum ad populum fallacy.
Nice strawman, too bad that's not what was said.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 07 2017, @02:58AM
Its not what you literally said.
It is sure is what you expressed.
And after that idiotic non-rebuttal to the fact that dictionaries are not prescriptive, you've got zero standing to complain about what was and was not said.
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Friday May 05 2017, @07:23PM
Whoops -- misread that with the 'y's in the wrong place ...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 05 2017, @11:39AM
What makes you believe they are not evil religious types with an orthodoxy that demands conservatism?
(Score: 2) by Beryllium Sphere (r) on Saturday May 06 2017, @04:35AM
Science is about disciplined observation. There is well-attested clinical observation that chromosomes can fail to determine even below-the-neck anatomy.
Some extreme cases, for example, include a man who was treated for infertility. Turned out to be defective sperm, and he also turned out to be XX.
Another was the 46,XY person who got pregnant without medical intervention and carried to term twice.
Much more common variations in development, like CAH and AIS, are scientific facts.
That's all medical reality, not politics.
I do wish they had added material instead of deleting it. "Chromosomes determine gender" is right 98-99% of the time. "We have large gaps in our understanding of gender development" is 100% right. A science show really ought to be about the search for truth.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 06 2017, @03:51PM
I am quite the liberal and I find this decision repugnant. The basic science should not be disputed, bit they could petition for a more detailed discussion of gender, genetics, and identity. It is a more complex issue than x and y, sorry highschool dropouts you need more than spre-algebra for this one!