Bill Nye the Idiot Guy

Author: Nicole Commisso

If you are a 90s baby like myself, I guarantee that during elementary school/middle school you were probably introduced to (and loved) “Bill Nye the Science Guy”. I remember being excited in science class when the teacher put on one of the five-minute clips of Bill Nye demonstrating whichever topic we were learning with a cool science experiment. Even though Bill Nye graduated with a mechanical engineering degree and is not technically a scientist, he made science fun, entertaining, and engaging for young students. Even for the individuals who were not interested in science at all, he made it fascinating with his funny and clever antics. Although, all good things must come to an end.

For Bill Nye, a good thing has turned into a 61-year-old, washed up minor celebrity from the 90s, trying desperately to stay relevant with his latest leftist performances. He is abusing the influence he had on young people years ago by spreading nonsense with his new show “Bill Nye Saves the World”. The first season is on Netflix, which I would strongly discourage you to watch unless you want a cringe-worthy laugh, to feel extremely uncomfortable, and/or possibly lose brain cells. Each episode of the show targets a so-called controversial issue in today’s society such as, climate change, GMOs, vaccines, sexuality/genders, etc. Before watching, here are 9 Reasons You Shouldn’t Listen To Bill Nye About Science, but if you’re like me you might have to see this insanity for yourself. Unlike the old Bill Nye, I didn’t recognize any significant scientific evidence, or any evidence quite frankly, of his claims while watching his new show.

While trying to make it through multiple episodes of his show, the one that was most disturbing to me was Episode 9: “The Sexuality Spectrum”. An entire 30 minutes of Bill Nye and his cast rationalizing the leftist view of sexuality being on a spectrum rather than being biology. The episode begins with the apparent pieces of sexuality: Sex, Gender, Attraction, and Expression. Basically, Bill Nye states that exploring this concept of sex, biologically not everyone fits into the categories of male or female and that there are a variety of sex organs. Last time I checked, you are either born with a penis or vagina… no variety there. Bill Nye also claims, without evidence might I add, that one’s gender isn’t defined by their chromosomes. Even though, Bill Nye did properly explain gender in his 1990s children’s show which they conveniently just edited out recently. Hypocrite! In society today, the fact that XX means you’re a woman and XY means you’re a man is absurd to Bill Nye and the left. Where’s the science in that, Bill Nye the “Not So Science Guy”?  

As he explains the rest of his take on sexuality, he pauses and creepily says to the audience,

“You wanna hear Bill Nye talk about… sexual intercourse, right? Doing it!”

Actually, I really don’t want to hear you talk about that, Bill. That is bizarre, gross, and completely inappropriate for your TV-14 audience. He then goes on a huge rant while stomping back and forth,

“Like we have you know some people here in the United States that will never accept [sexuality being on a spectrum] … What’s the big deal? Just get over it will you! What do you care?! Those people are not going to try to have sex with you. Let’s just get over it and move on!”

What an excellent way for people to come together, Bill. Forcing your leftist agenda with your feelings by yelling “just get over it!” and throwing a fit. Where are your facts? Reality check: you can’t make people agree with you by screaming “agree with me!”. Pretty sure this was covered way back in kindergarten days – agree to disagree. Imagine that, being able to have a different opinion. Oh wait, we can… we live in America! This is something that the left tends to frequently forget.

Then, he has a panel of “experts” of sexuality sit around and discuss the “facts”. Bill Nye asks Katrina Karkazis, Cultural Anthropologist at Stanford University, “Is there such a thing as a gay gene?” She responds, “No. We group gay people together into this flat label of homosexuality for [individuals who believe there is a gay gene] to try to make sense of it.” This group of “experts”, including a gay comedian (which I am unsure how he is an expert on sexuality just because he is gay), all agree that we don’t need labels. They proclaim that it is offensive to cluster gays, lesbians, transgender, etc. into labels and groups. However, if we dare to use to wrong pronoun or not correctly address them to whichever label/group they “self-identify” as, we are labeled as homophobic. This is just one example that we’ll never please the left unless we agree with every single thing they say, no matter how hypocritical and irrational it is.

Next on Bill’s agenda is Ice Cream Conversion Therapy, where Bill shows an animation with talking ice cream cones that has Vanilla, the heterosexual ice cream flavor. Vanilla thinks that everyone should be/pretend to be “vanilla” (straight) like him in order to please “the big ice cream in the sky” (God). With this, they make a blanket generalization about straight people being conservative Christians that are heterosexual to please God and believe that everyone, regardless of what they are or how they feel, should convert to their beliefs. Newsflash: not every heterosexual fits this stereotypical criteria. A terrified Strawberry ice cream cone, who is screaming and running around, is clearly in need of a safe space as he jumps into Salted Caramel’s arms when Vanilla says everyone should be “vanilla” (straight). All the other different flavors of ice cream are upset with Vanilla for trying to change who they are. Then, they all gang up on Vanilla saying that it is only natural to want more than one “flavor” (more than one gender/sex). Mint Chocolate Chip, who boasts about being two things at once, says in a sexual way, “C’mon, Vanilla. Haven’t you ever wanted to be in a… Neapolitan?” Forcing their beliefs on Vanilla and telling him it isn’t natural to be “vanilla” (straight) is immensely hypocritical.

These hypocritical, animated ice cream cones are doing exactly what they were mad at the Vanilla ice cream cone for doing in the first place. Mint Chocolate Chip telling Vanilla (who is heterosexual) they should want to be in a Neapolitan, which I will leave to your own imagination what they are insinuating there, is complete hypocrisy. Again, what’s good for the left is a crime to the right. Vanilla can’t force his opinions on them but the other flavors can and it is completely fine. Strawberry is totally fine by the way, once Vanilla crosses to the other side of the argument that is. At the end of the clip, Vanilla joins them all in a big bowl where all the ice creams are licking each other and partying… Let me repeat, this show is rated TV-14. Doesn’t this bother anyone that this is what we are teaching our children?

The performance at the end, My Sex Junk” by Rachel Bloom, is one of the most vile things I’ve ever seen/heard. It is a song explaining how she is on board with having sex with basically anyone and doing anything labeled taboo. Her lyrics are repulsive, some are, “Power bottom or a top off, versatile love may have some butt stuff”, “I’m down for anything, don’t box in my box, give someone new a handy”, “Even you might like it if you sit up on it”, and the list goes on and on. I mean are you kidding me? This is undeniably sickening and almost unbelievable. At the end of her performance, Bill Nye shouts,

“That’s exactly the right message Rachel!”.

I will repeat yet again; this show is rated TV-14. Not cool, Bill Nye, Netflix and Rachel Bloom, not cool. The message they are trying to send out is what exactly? Confusing young, impressionable minds who are trying to discover who they are? Making straight people feel guilty for not wanting to have sexual experiences they don’t desire or feel uncomfortable about? I am straight, why should I feel guilty about it just because I don’t necessarily want what others do. They don’t want to be judged for how they live their lives yet, they’re doing exactly that to others who act differently. The hypocrisy is incredible!

As someone who had never seen the show before and enjoyed Bill Nye as a kid, I was expecting it to be science-related or at least somewhat informative. For someone to claim that they are “saving the world” with a show presents huge expectations to live up to (spoiler: these expectations are never met). His new show is like an alleged science version of Jerry Springer. By NO MEANS will Bill Nye and his new, atrocious antics save the world. In fact, this show is making fun of the issues he is bringing up rather than giving any real information on them. Would anyone be able to take any issue seriously when the “expert” is making a joke and mocking that very important issue? Watching “Bill Nye Saves the World” made me cringe at its poorly produced foolishness and at the thought that there are people who recognize Bill Nye from his old show, that they loved as kids, and listening to his leftist nonsense. At the end of his show he says to his audience, “Now go out there and save the world!” yet, he gives them zero tools on how to do so.

What I would like to say to Bill Nye “The Used to be Science Guy” is that I am tremendously disappointed in what you’ve become. I wish that staying relevant and forcing your leftist views wasn’t more important to you than truly “saving the world” (whatever that even means to you). Although I have right-wing views, I do believe that I am an open-minded individual and am always trying to see and understand the other side’s case. Before watching the show, I knew it leaned more to the left but, I thought that maybe I’d walk away with something I didn’t know before. That there must be some kind of substance, some sort of proof that will help me understand other people’s opinions. This was absolutely not the case. Bill Nye, you’re making a joke of what you’re attempting to prove and it is honestly pathetic and embarrassing to even try to watch. Do us all a favor and try saving the world by canceling your show.

 

Advertisements

6 thoughts on “Bill Nye the Idiot Guy”

  1. After reading this, one question comes immediately to mind, which is what would be your take on transgender people? Not going into all the non-binary stuff, just people who have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria etc.

    Also, after re-watching the episode you talk about, I did happen to notice that in the opening section, Bill talks about how 1 in 400 pregnancies have sex chromosome abnormalities. So, while this is still not a high rate, I think it’s at least made clear that “XX means female and XY means male” is not the set in stone rule, at least for 1 in 400 people.

    Lastly, I think you’ve missed a big point here. When Bill Nye goes on his “rant” and says “just get over it!” has it occurred to you that maybe being a decent human being and leaving other people alone shouldn’t be a controversial idea? Instead of blinding yourself with your own prejudices against “the left” and “leftist ideals” how about you take a step back? What is your aversion to feelings anyway? We’re social beings, our brains and bodies both react and produce emotions that help us interact with each other. While it isn’t wise to base all decisions off of these emotions, what’s wrong with simply treating people well when they haven’t done you wrong? This is what Bill Nye is imploring people to do- be fucking decent to one another. And I know that you probably find this a hypocritical statement from Bill, and from me, but I’d ask you to just pause for a second and actually think about the idea. Think what you will about sexuality and gender, but please also consider the idea that “getting over it and moving on” isn’t a bad thing when it comes to just trying to treat other human beings with respect and decency.

    As you say, this is America and we completely have the right to have different opinions, and I’m sure you disagree with mine. But I do agree with you on some points, and I think that it’s important to show our similarities, however small, as well as our differences. So while I understood the message in the ice cream cartoon and the Rachel Bloom song, I have to agree with you that these turned inappropriate and uncomfortable. And I also have to agree that many people (not just on the left, I hope you can admit) do forget that differences in opinion should breed discussion, not distain.

    Like

  2. There are two things I agree with you; that some of Bill Nye’s expert host seem sometimes less than expert and he does not have a doctorate in science but as you know from his show in the 90s, he does know science quite well. But seeing that you are an accounting major I don’t believe you have any real science education so I think it’s ironic that you are calling out a man who has dedicated his life to science. If you really think by saying he doesn’t have a degree in science discredits him you’re also discrediting yourself. I would like to tackle a couple of your arguments one at a time if I could. To your XX is female and XY is male argument, I have some disagreements with this because I have taken a molecular genetics course and I have educated myself in the facts of sex determination. You can be XY and be born with a vagina. Shocker right! It’s called androgen insensitivity. A Y chromosome has an SRY gene that tells your body to make androgens that cause you to develop genitals. But if you have a mutation in the genes that makes the receptor for these androgens you will become a female even though you are XY genetically. On top of that there can be mutations in the SRY gene that make it unable to propagate male sexual organs to form. “Wait you’re telling me that sex determination is not black and white?” Yes, there are even things such as XO (Turner’s Syndrome), XXY (Klienfelter’s Syndrome), XXX (and don’t get uncomfortable thinking this is a sexual thing because I know that would make you cringe, it’s an actual genetic phenomena). Also, there are many documented cases where people with a penis have ovaries and people with vaginas have testicles, mind boggling I know! So your idea of sex being black and white is not really correct when you look at the facts!
    Furthermore, when you go on your tangent about the ice cream metaphor you are interpreting it incorrectly. He in no way is saying that all people who are heterosexual are that way because they are trying to please God. Bill Nye himself is heterosexual and he doesn’t do it to please God but he is pointing out the fact that there are people that think heterosexuality is the only “correct sexuality”. Also, in the ice cream metaphor at no point did they tell vanilla to be gay. For instance, the quote you point out about mint ice cream asking vanilla if he wants to be in a Neapolitan is really saying that wouldn’t it be nice to be surrounded by diversity and things that aren’t all exactly the same. Also it is a flat out lie to say they hop in the big bowl and start licking each other because if you watch the video you will clearly see they don’t do that. But I know you don’t want your audience to watch this “absurd” video because they may see the video for what it actually is and form their own opinion. Also Bill Nye points out quite clearly that science is a growing, morphing thing that changes constantly and although some things are hard to think about or accept, science is what we know at this point in time.

    I also think it’s ironic that you bring up the only topic (sexuality and gender) that you can squeeze in an argument because it has a lot to do with cognition and use this one episode to write off the rest of the show where they talk about scientific facts. Like how shockingly vaccines work, GMOs aren’t this demonic thing and climate change is man made. But I know when it comes to those topics where you may have to cite a credible source you really can’t do it while arguing your side.

    Like

    1. Well said. I had a hard time even formulating a coherent response to this mess of an article, but I’m glad you were able to say what I was not.

      Like

    2. Luke, what a remarkably terrible comment you have written. Your comment is dripping with disdain, arrogance, and just a general sense of unpleasantness. Instead of simply focusing on the content of Nicole’s article, you chose to insult her and demean her character. I am a big believer in freedom of speech and your right to say the things that you said, but in this setting, it is neither productive nor necessary.

      As for your actual argument, I believe that there are a number of misunderstandings on your part which have clouded your understanding of Nicole’s article. You refer to a number of syndromes (Klienfelter’s, Turner’s, etc.) but you fail to completely understanding the scope of their impact. they affect only an incredibly small fraction of the population. As such, they are far out of the realm of normality and this was not even close to the point of Nicole’s article. Since you are a fan of “educating yourself in facts”, I ask that you would consider the idea of a “Giffen good” which is an idea that is present in the field of economics (yes, I am aware that economics and biology are two distinct fields, but bear with me for just a moment more). To sum it up, a Giffen good is consumed more as the price rises. The basic law of demand states that as the price rises, consumption (demand) should fall. As such, a Giffen good violates this basic economic law. You might be asking yourself how the law of demand can be in place if it is violated by the idea of a Giffen good. In both biology and economics and a number of other fields, laws and basic principles are created that apply in an overwhelming majority of cases. Our world is ever changing and we are aware that there might not be a situation that follows an idea (or the law that was created) 100% of the time but since such an occurrence occurs in such a minute amount of scenarios, scientists and economists still uphold those laws.

      The point of Nicole’s article was to focus on what is most common and normal. Although you are correct by mentioning that the above syndromes exist, you are focusing on the smallest of technicalities. I believe that you’ve simply missed the point.

      Furthermore, I do not believe your remarks on the ice cream skit could be more inaccurate. You say that “at no point did they tell vanilla to be gay.” However, a brief rewatching of the video shows that at 1:43, the mint chocolate chip flavor specifically asks the vanilla flavor if he wants to be in a “Neapolitan”, which is a metaphor for being gay in this skit. You state that “it is a flat out lie to say they hop in the big bowl and start licking each other.” Again, those scenes are quite evident in short video. The licking occurs at 2:02 and the flavors jump into a bowl at the 2:10 mark. For being so interested in facts and evidence, it is concerning that you could not thoroughly watch a video that is two and a half minutes long. Here is the video I am referring to so there is no confusion on when the events I mentioned above occurred: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46h-LfNWPn8.

      The list of inaccurate statements and misrepresentations in your comment is quite long and I don’t particularly feel like sorting through all of them now. If you do want to continue this discussion, I look forward to, and welcome, the discussion, as long as you do so in a productive manner instead of personally insulting people.

      Like

  3. Michael,

    Yes it turns out I am wrong about the licking I looked for it when they were in the bowl like it said in Nicole’s article and I missed it and for that I apologize. But at no point did I mean to personally offend anyone rather I just made a reasonable argument the discredit her comment that biology make sex determination black and white. Also in Neapolitan ice cream vanilla is its own ice cream, and so are strawberry and chocolate but they are just next to one another in the same package. So it’s not saying “be gay”, like the strawberry ice cream is depricted, but as I said earlier it is eluding to being surrounded by diversity. I also don’t know what you are referencing by saying I demeaned her character if you could please let me know. I would also like to point out the irony in your comments about how my comment was demeaning insulting and terrible while her entire article is trying to tear down a group of people for who they are. For people who preach freedom you sure go back on your word when it comes to something that makes you feel uncomfortable. What has anyone in the LGBT community done that has made you harbor such disdain for them. They are just people being who they are I don’t see how that effects you and why people have to freak when people talk about it. For people who love Tomi Lahren you are acting like “snowflakes” because really cartoon ice cream cones licking each other is really that upsetting to you.

    With no intent to insult,
    LJR

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s