Neil deGrasse Tyson on Triggernometry

[Igneococcus]

Is anybody watching? I lasted five minutes. I can't listen to more, I might have to get a wee bit drunk first, or watch it in very small doses.

@CeciNestPasUnPipi

He’s not blind. Which leaves two possibilities.

1 - He likes the gravy train he’s on and has become practiced in waffling his way through “tricky questions” to avoid being chucked off said gravy train for wrongthink.

2 - He has very specific hobbies with regards to wearable things.

Given that you’d have to have the worst weathervane on the planet to have not noticed the decided shift that has occurred on the topic, I think those on the pure gravy train ride are starting to look for more wriggle room in their script. So later they can point to their “trying to question the narrative” endeavours (yes I am talking about you Mr Noah).

The ones doubling, tripling down, I suspect they have kimonos a more personal kind of skin in the game and are trying to pull victory from a looming defeat. I think they thought they’d practically got the cup in their hands to the point that they forgot to play any kind of defence at all. So desperate hurling of self towards the ball is now the order of the day.

'Neil deGrasse Tyson is an utter tool of a man. I can figure out whether it's his ignorance exceeding his arrogance or the other way round.

Essential viewing.'

Very well said. Hefty quantities of both ignorance and arrogance for sure

Essential viewing ONLY if you're in a tolerant mood and think you will be able to laugh at his nonsense rather than get enraged by it

he's saying he can distinguish men from women because women are more likely to have longer hair and more jewelry, makeup and groomed eyebrows.

Ancient Egypt gonna blow.his.mind.

Not to mention 18th century France, 1980s England, etc etc etc

More seriously, I remember in the 1980s I genuinely wasn't sure whether Boy George, Marilyn and even Pete Burns were men or women. Looking at the same pictures now there's no question. Similarly the current crop of drag queens.

I think cultural cues can override sex cues at first, but the more male people adopt female cues, the more the mind stops registering them as female and so we read the male person again.

Dang, did she @nauticant I need to break that gently to dp

I tried but had to give up. The level of arrogance off the scale. He's patronising as hell, too.

What struck me with this was that he was talking about covid related things in his example - which he was interviewed a lot about on CNN - and he was talking as if the "consensus" as he said was actually super clear, and anyone who thought otherwise was an idiot.

I'm a microbiologist (and molecular biologist and biochemist) and I was following everything covid related from the very first vague reports from China, dp was plotting case numbers from about mid January 2020, we were discussing Covid with each other and friends/colleagues and there really wasn't a consensus how to deal with it. Maybe within the government-associated scientists but not the scientists out there in the universities and industry.
You can have all the consensus in the world and it can still be blown out of the water by new data. Science is not decided by ballot. Dawkins (who NdGT also has a go at in that interview) says somewhere that all the evidence points to that evolution is real but it would take one verifiable piece of evidence, such as a fossil in the wrong layer of rock to cast serious doubt on it. A good scientist is excited by the prospect of having their certainties challenged, at least that is how I see it.

I dont think hes motivated by science, though.

He seems invested in the removal of single sex spaces.

Sifting thru this morass, it's certainly interesting watching hardcore and complacent trans allies. The complacent ones will turn on a dime once the weather/tide turns. They were only following the science (yes, following NdGT), they were only trying to be inclusive, it was the zeitgeist ("I was only following orders"). Trevor Noah and the whole CNN brigade will be typical. O'Briain another.

The hardcore believers will stay hardcore believers. Their whole worldview is predicated on either the gravy train (Stonewall, Mermaids, gender clinics, online grifters) or the fact that they collaborated in damage to their children, and acquiesced to creating damaged children everywhere (Labour Party, SNP, Drippy Drakeford's lot, Reet The Teets Frankenstein surgeons, unrepentant transmaidens, Left cultural institutions).

NdGT? He's just too dumb to even know why he's jettisoned science for activism, and too arrogant to even be genuinely curious.

My view on Sabine Hossenfelder's take is harsh@Igneococcus because I felt she was rather incurious/accepting about/of how gender identity ideology frames what's going on. However, others are more appreciative of the way she tackles the issue:

https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2023/04/30/sabine-hossenfelder-on-the-transgender-phenomenon/

The oddest thing about that whole part was the emphasis he put on stereotypical grooming as a way for people to signal their sex whilst he knew full well whether people were male or female regardless of whether they wore jewellery or not. Otherwise he'd just see a bunch of people wearing various costumes and he wouldn't be able to tell if they were gender conforming or not.

I don't know, I tend to think it's part and parcel of his larger political approach, which is very caught up in him taking positions that he thinks are the ones the right kind of people have.

As he said in the interview his father was a campaigner for social justice. I expect he feels a duty to continue to carry the torch.

Just watched. What a maroon.

The sense I am getting from all these comments reminds me of Clever Pub Guy. He has grown very used to being the smart person in the room, being defered to, and that can make you forget your blind spots. Hey maybe I don't understand this fully but I still understand it more than yow and yow.

I think cultural cues can override sex cues at first, but the more male people adopt female cues, the more the mind stops registering them as female and so we read the male person again.

This.

Yes definitely.

I have long thought that a lot of transsexuals only 'passed' because people were expecting them to be women and that is what they saw (in the Terry Pratchett way). Since there has been an explosion in numbers, age range and the Stonewall campaigning, then people's measurement of what they expect to see changes, and these people no longer fall in that window of perception.

There is a Lincoln quote, also attributed to a few others, that makes sense here.

That makes me think of The Only Gay in the Village from Little Britain.

After a diversion to clown world with Neil deGrasse Tyson last week, yesterday Triggernometry returned to reality by interviewing Maggie Oliver, a Policewoman who went through Hell in her efforts to help the victims of grooming gangs. However, this version of reality is very gritty indeed and while I'd recommend it, maybe give it a miss if you're feeling not especially robust, it's a tough watch.

Just finished the Maggie Oliver interview. I thought about Neil DT several times while watching it, about how extremely engaging, thoughtful and measured she was throughout, in contrast to his pig headed bloviating!

It's well worth a watch, but only if you're feeling fairly robust. I can't imagine what toll it took in her being saturated in that world for years, with all the corruption on top

Glorious analysis, by Simon Evans, of deGrasse Tyson’s Triggernometry appearance.

'One can disagree, but it’s simply a question of re-defining the word ‘gender’ to refer to cultural semiotics rather than biological reality. It’s wordplay.
^^
The issue is whether this meaning of gender – as essentially signifying an inner feeling and mode of expression – should be regarded as the decisive one when using words like ‘woman’. This then determines who has access to certain spaces, events, dressing rooms, shortlists or sporting world records that relate to that category.'

https://www.spiked-online.com/2023/09/26/the-cluelessness-of-neil-degrasse-tyson/

Not Bill Nye! 😩

I watched the shorter version just on trans issues. He’s so ignorant and it’s maddening that he was part of the new atheist movement where it was all supposed to be about rationality and logical arguments. He’s as woolly as any religious person.

Also, I don’t get how it’s now progressive to say that a man who puts on make up or dresses has become a higher percent female??? What the F is that?

the flipside of that for women is that if you wear trousers you get minus Woman Points?

the flipside of that for men is if you wear a pink jumper you get plus Woman Points and minus Man Points.

And for Trans people, it makes 'passing' into some kind of qualification for being trans. I think that's particularly unfair to focus on appearance when so many late-transing males don't remotely pass

An old thread but I'm just adding this

From a brief look at the comments, my favourite is the one about AI removing about 120lbs.

😂