This used to be the information age, but we now live in the flood of misinformation, and the water isn't safe to drink.
Mainly in the Bible belt.
This is the problem I'm trying to bring to light. Are we talking about a giant asteroid, the rapture, global warming, raptor attacks? They're all a problem that specific groups of people think will bring the end of humanity.
It my sound stupid, but that's the point. You need to be specific when you talk about this stuff.
That's where I think we agree. We have given ample resources, but my issue is that it's turning toxic. I know people are frustrated, but is hostility really the solution?
That's the thing. We shouldn't be acting like it's settled if it still takes research to come to a conclusion. That, by definition is nearly the antithesis of settled.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not against being environmentally conscious, but I'm also not about to stop driving my car and leave the AC off when it's 110f in the summer. I'm just going to choose a car with fuel economy in mind.
That's the best attitude to have about it, I think. It just annoys me when people attack an ideology and then act like Marxism or Libertarianism isn't a borderline theology as well. I get tired of the "I want it both ways" narrative that people are pushing. You can't have it.
I agree. There's definitely some good examples of fallout: WBC, Manchester yesterday, things along that line. I'm just trying to be tolerant of everything and getting frustrated with it.
Ugh, I don't want to fight about this, I'm just trying to figure everything out because how can I help it if I grew up in the deep south in the late 80s.
The conclusion has already been made, but 1 in 4 Americans still don't believe because they don't know the facts. They refuse to do their own research into why global warming is happening and only believe what politics and CEO's tell them
Not sure what you're trying to prove here. I'm sticking to the influence religion has in state and Government. Religion has no place in politics. There should NOT be laws based on religious beliefs. Like I said religion is fine as long as you're not affecting someone else's life with it.
Same thing with science. This nation has a great thing in the first amendment that allows people to say whatever they want. That Amendment doesn't also mean that anything you say is true.
The issue I see is when you're asking people to just believe what politics and CEOS tell them.
I'd be more interested in this discussion if we can talk about the more interesting topic of what to do about climate change. That's what we should really be doing. I'm just not sure where to go once we get to this point. It's not like we can force China to be environmentally conscious.
We are being left behind other countries. And our current administration is a climate change skeptic, reversing EPA regulations and putting more money in coal/oil
I refuse to defend that. Because I do not agree with the decision for them to continue to use coal.
Point is if I could snap my fingers and make coal a thing of the past, I would. I just don't know how to make it happen.
Er.. off topic much? don't derail a topic that's already a topic that needs careful discussion.
Yeah, sorry
I mean feel free to make a new topic to discuss that area specifically. Just keep in mind the goal of the topic.
Yeup. Hostility is the solution.
Look, for society to continue functioning there has to be some sort of consequence to willfully ignoring scientific data. Hell most of these people are ignoring basic logic.
Everyone likes to have this attitude of live and let live, but I think that is a mistake. We are one human species. We should all be on the same team, and they team is only as strong as our weakest link.
Idiocy on a individual basis might not be an issue. But as a collective it actually becomes a real drag on everyone else who wants to move forward.
Look at how long it took people to start doing real research into stem cell treatment. Its scary to think how many lives could have been saved if the medical community were properly funded back in the 80s and 90s when the field first got started.
Here we are again with an even bigger threat of global warming and scientists and researches still get their funding held up by the republican party because the republicans seem to have this weird idea that global warming is natural......or something.
There has to be a physical punishment for people who are willing to hold back public progress for their own personal beliefs.
OK pol pot.
2 Likes
See and that's the other thing.
I am so sick of this "insert dictator name here" bull shit.
I am not saying that we should kill them. But there does need to be something done. And no, its not going to be pretty, and its not going to make people feel good, but you know what? It just might get them to shape up.
Sociological gender and biological sexuality are different things in a field full of minefields for the unwary. The problem with Bill's new show is that it tries to stuff too complex topics into short TV segment length episodes and glosses over and simplifies a lot of details effectively sacrificing depth for scope.
This is where the problems start coming in because many people do not go at these topics with full prior knowledge of the field, but rather with their own experience and misconceptions etc by substituting these for all the holes in the story, it's the biggest difference between this and the prior bill nye the science guy series, it's a very loosely assembled and almost 'game-fied' series that tried far too much to be 'trendy' in some sort of way and ended up being really awkward/cringy instead.
Gender expression(Gender Identity/Attraction) is an area of psychology and has a very well researched scientific background but to many may come of as one of those fringe areas of science by appearing different from the hard sciences. It also comes down to how differently people from educated backgrounds apply language. To me where I am, gender is quintessentially different from biological sexuality similarly to what bill described.
Sex is purely a genetic attribute based on the chromosome pairs and genetic definitions for hormone production. Now it get's to the minefield part, keep in mind the meaning of the word 'trans' here, to 'transition', Transgender in the social understanding of the term is technically a misnomer here since scientifically this denotes or relates to a person whose sense of personal identity and gender does not correspond with their birth sex, this is a mental state of being, however many associated it with sexuality.
Those who voluntarily decide to undergo hormonal and or surgical change are transsexual, this is the point where it becomes medically and physically distinguished. However the individual in question did not originally necessarily have to have had any genetic predisposition towards either gender/sex and it can purely be the result of upbringing/mental state of being.
Of note is that either of these are again different from transvestite, which refers to cross-dressing and has nothing to do with genitalia of any sort. Yet in society the terms, transgender, transexual, transvestite are often perceived as the same with little distinction being made. To outsiders of the field this is analogous to seeing laypersons call a computer case the 'CPU' or copying a shortcut to a USB disk while thinking they are copying the program.
The previous are all gender specific terms and not biological sex related terms for people who are actually born with genetic variations(hormonal and chromosomal) that define their gender perception due to outward physical differences. The biological terms for the above being Hermaphrodite or more generally Intersex for people who posses any of several variations in sex characteristics like hormones and chromosomes.
Now that we know this, it is made yet more complex, because we have to understand that biology(nature) determines the development of the brain and associated mental characteristics thus creating a gender bias. Yet we must also consider that individuals own mental processes and upbringing (nurture) will also affect their own chosen gender identity and often like in transgender individuals this happens early at a very young age ( before ~3-4years old) and develops with time.
If some are interested I could go on for quite some time, there's a few books on sociological/psychological and biological (brain) related topics I could go into. But for now this wall of text should suffice to clear some of the societal 'common-knowledge' misconceptions many have.
3 Likes
Sounds like your unable to hear the other persons side of view though and when they don't comply you want there to be physical punishment which is what Bill Nye pretty much said.
Explain how your approach to discourse is different from the authoritarianism you displayed and i shall downgrade you from pol pot to a less aggressive communist leader.
I often wonder how to deal with all of this. Punishing people etc doesn't make us any better than the spanish inquisition at the end of the day. it's been done, and doesn't really solve ones problem in long term.
I think it is just going to take time. The base level of education and access to information for everyone needs to increase. The latter is certainly increasing over time.
People need to be removed from governance. Replace it with an algorithm that manages things appropriately.
Its not a view. Its a fact.
I am not asking for people to believe in the big bang. I am asking for people to go see with their own two eye balls that the ocean levels are rising.
As for punishment, I think it should be economical. Like an extra tax that goes straight into funding the thing you are trying to rally against.
There has to be some sort of irony or poetic justice involved.
For one thing, government & official positions of power should at the very least require some form of mental fitness test that covers required knowledge, understanding of their task and moral integrity as a vetting process.
To drive a car we need a drivers test and licence, to be a qualified engineer we require a test and license, and to be a politician seems to require nothing more than a popular vote (for trump not even that).
To quote myself:
I'm sure we'd all be a lot safer if citizens who knew nothing about flying an aircraft elected airline pilots by popular vote.
PS: Aww hell naww to Algorithms. That's just centralizing power to whoever manipulates the algorithm. Worst decision ever. DO NOT ADD ALGORITHMS/AI TO POLITICS. It's the shell company of politics.
You mean, like a judge? Whoa.
Couldn't agree more.
As for algos, I mean something specifically engineered make balanced decisions based on needs, not feelings. Not get alexa to run the show. Subtle difference there. Is that going to lead to an irobot/matrix situation? It might. Is that better or worse than what we have now?
Nope that's just as authoritarian. A punitive punishment would be more damaging in the long run and do nothing but create an uninformed society where people just went along with things rather than questioning and discussing issues through open discourse, through fear of economic, physical / physiological reprisals by the state and their peers.
When you pass a test at school should the child that failed get lashed or should they have their lunch money removed ?
Just as an FYI im not questioning climate science here, just your acceptance that punishments financial or physical are justified in order to condition other humans who cannot or will not understand the information being presented.
This is the status quo.
Those who fail get economically punished(debt & no job), those who excel get economically rewarded and It all starts with the education system.
But it's not a person or government doing it directly, instead it's the amorphous system of many faces and none which applies the punishment. It makes it much harder to rebel against when you are getting screwed in society because there is not one single entity you can direct your anger at.