Watch: Bill Maher Snaps at Neil deGrasse Tyson During Testy Exchange
This article discusses a conversation between Neil deGrasse Tyson and Bill Maher that sparked interest in conservative circles. The dialog centered around issues related to gender differences in sports, the recent resignation of Scientific American’s editor, and the broader implications of scientific discourse and political correctness.
### Key Points:
1. **Players in the Discussion**:
– **Neil deGrasse Tyson**: An astrophysicist and science communicator, known for making complex scientific concepts accessible.
– **Bill Maher**: A comedian and political commentator with a liberal viewpoint who often critiques the left when it strays from perceived rationality.
2. **The Viral Conversation**:
– The discussion was prompted by comments made by Laura Helmuth, the former editor of Scientific American, regarding gender inequity in sports.
– Helmuth claimed that differences in athletic performance were due to societal biases rather than inherent biological differences.
3. **Maher’s Critique**:
– Maher expressed that the statement from Scientific American was “nuts” and criticized the editorial stance for not aligning with observable reality. He suggested that such views contributed to the Democrats’ failures in elections by detaching from scientific truths.
4. **Tyson’s Defense**:
- Tyson, attempting to defend the scientific community, suggested that Helmuth’s views were not representative of the entire magazine or the field of science.
- He encouraged a focus on actual science instead of the narrative that Helmuth espoused.
5. **Cultural Context**:
– The discussion reflects a broader cultural debate about the interpretation of science, gender issues, and how political narratives shape public discourse.
- The reactions from conservative spheres indicate a growing appetite for discussions that challenge prevailing scientific opinions when they clash with reality as perceived by a lay audience.
6. **Outcome and Implications**:
- The episode showcases the tensions within liberal circles regarding free speech, cancel culture, and how scientific discourse is influenced by societal changes.
– It raises questions about the integrity of scientific institutions and whether they are adhering to empirical evidence or bending to ideological pressures.
### Conclusion:
The conversation between Tyson and Maher encapsulates a significant ideological rift regarding how science, politics, and culture intersect. It underscores a conflict where science must contend with shifting societal narratives, which can sometimes overshadow objective analysis and truths. This dynamic has implications for public trust in scientific institutions and the future of political discourse.
Neil deGrasse Tyson and Bill Maher are both liberals. And they are both exceptionally good at what they do.
That’s why, surprisingly, a conversation between the two of them is going viral in conservative circles. And, not only that, but Republicans who want to keep on winning elections are hoping the Democrats don’t tune in.
DeGrasse Tyson is an astrophysicist by training, but he’s best known as a science popularizer for the 21st century. Think if Richard Feynman and Carl Sagan spoke a little more slowly and with the understanding they were trying to reach people who get confused if a video lasts longer than your average TikTok clip.
The thing is, when that requires him to make certain stands, it’s with The Science™. Note the difference between that and “science,” which is a method of determining the nature of material universe; The Science™, meanwhile, is a series of agreed-upon opinions about the nature of the universe which may not be factual, but sound nice to a certain crowd.
Maher, meanwhile, is a comedian and pundit who is reliably of the left, but whose credo could best be described in a four-word phrase he uttered during his showdown with deGrasse Tyson: “Just don’t bulls*** me.”
The Science™, alas, requires a lot of bovine effluence — and until its practitioners acknowledge it, they’re going to keep losing to, well, reality.
The affray in question, on Friday’s episode of Maher’s HBO show “Real Time,” involved the resignation of the editor of Scientific American, Laura Helmuth.
Helmuth had gone on a social media rant on BlueSky, the current alternative platform for libs so angry at Elon Musk that they’re abandoning their X account and going elsewhere, where they can hear each other talk to each other about the same things.
(For the record, this makes the third liberal “alternative” to X which saw a huge exodus of anti-Musk libs, after Mastodon and Threads. Go on both of those now and it’s basically like showing up to a college party nobody ever went to at three in the morning and listening to two drunk dudes trying to convince each other that they’re having a great time and everybody who never came also had a great time, as well.)
Anyway, Helmuth’s election night rant may have been the most interesting thing to happen on BlueSky yet, since, according to the Daily Caller, she described Trump voters as the “meanest, dumbest, most bigoted high-school classmates,” told them “f*** them to the moon and back,” and said Gen X’ers who voted for Trump were “f***ing fascists.” She tried to apologize for that but, alas, there was no cleaning that one up and she ended up resigning.
Maher, in his discussion with deGrasse Tyson, said that “I’m not for canceling people on either side, but here’s what I think is the scandal.
“This is in Scientific American less than a year ago: ‘Inequity between male and female athletes as a result, not of inherent biological differences between the sexes, but of biases in how they are treated in sports.’
“That’s nuts,” Maher said. “And it sure ain’t scientific. And it’s in Scientific American. And that’s why the Democrats lost the election. It’s true.”
Neil was dismissive, naturally: “Bill, every 20 minutes on your platform, you come up with another reason why the Democrats lost. You already have the answer. They lost the election.”
Maher got defensive, saying this was a mischaracterization of the show: “You talk as if you do and you f***ing don’t. That’s okay, just don’t bulls*** me. That’s the one thing people can never do on this show is bulls*** me.”
And as for why he thinks that’s part of why the Democrats lost? “Engage with the idea here. What I’m asking is Scientific American is saying basically that the reason why an NBA, WNBA a team can’t beat the Lakers is because of societal bias.”
DeGrasse Tyson, quelle surprise, did not want to talk about this.
“What you’re saying is not Scientific American saying that, an editor for Scientific American says that who no longer has the job so don’t indict a 170-year-old magazine because somebody goes —”
“This is Scientific American and they are printing something that’s –” Maher said.
“Someone enters the cesspool and social media and then participates in that exchange, so let’s talk about science!” deGrasse Tyson responded.
Maher then asked him to say the article was unscientific, to which he responded, “Well, does she still have her job?”
No, because she called people “f***ing fascists,” not because of unscientific piffle that aligns, felicitously, with The Science™ and which still, as of this writing, remains the position of Scientific American.
Tyson pointed out the article was written a year ago. Okay, Maher said: “I think a year ago, women still couldn’t beat men in basketball or any other sport and it wasn’t because of society. You don’t see a problem here?”
“Long distance swimming, women might actually have the advantage. Look into that,” deGrasse Tyson responded.
“Maybe long distance swimming, Okay,” Maher responded.
WARNING: The following video contains graphic language that some viewers will find offensive.
Neil deGrasse Tyson Embarrasses Himself as Bill Maher Exposes Disgraceful Scientific American Article
“Well, I’m gonna file you under part of the problem.”
The article claimed that the “inequity” between male and female athletes isn’t because of natural biological differences… pic.twitter.com/DqDrul4DT1
— The Vigilant Fox 🦊 (@VigilantFox) November 23, 2024
“I’m going to file you under ‘part of the problem,’” Maher concluded.
Now, look: If losing elections and losing hearts and minds because you were speaking the truth, that’s one thing. But it’s exactly the opposite here: We have evidence, both a priori and a posteriori, that men are better than women at sports, no matter what surgeries are performed or hormones administered. This shouldn’t even be a matter that requires significant thought.
The most deGrasse Tyson is willing to admit to? I mean, maybe women swim better than men under very specific circumstances.
When America’s foremost popularizer of science is also a shill for The Science™, yes, he’s part of the problem. It’d almost be funny if it weren’t so serious.
Advertise with The Western Journal and reach millions of highly engaged readers, while supporting our work. Advertise Today.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
Now loading...