I’ve enjoyed every video I’ve ever seen by him, but always forget to subscribe to him and YouTube never recommends his videos to me even though it’s filled with all kinds of other skeptical materials.
The YT algorithm hates inconsistent uploaders, so they don’t get as promoted as much. Unfortunately you’re going to have to smash that bell icon if you don’t want to miss a video from him.
Are people really serious about liking him? I mean, I get that there was a lot of tongue in cheek SNL unfunniness in there. But…I felt it was painfully unfunny to watch. S
I’m saying this in the most genuine way possible, what is the appeal exactly? Is it the humor? The information? I was very surprised to see under that video is was on the trending list. I’d never heard of him. But everyone here seems to really like him as well.
He is genuinely amazing at his craft and has some really informative material. This specific video isn’t a great example but some are much funnier too.
The humour is a large part of why people enjoy watching his videos, but the main focus of his channel is going over visual effects in viral videos with incredible detail.
Just check out his other videos I guess. I think he can be quite funny, and this video isn’t the best example. But he’s built a lot of goodwill by other means with the blender community over the years, he didn’t become popular as a comedian.
I’m very skeptical of “skeptical materials”. most of that shit went on to a misogynistic, transphobic and xenophobic route. and that’s not captain disillusion.
See my reply to Diplomjodler3. One of the temporary hosts of Skeptoid was trans. You have some very uninformed ideas about what skepticism is and what it isn’t.
no I don’t. I said nothing about what skepticism is. My comment was about YouTube “skeptics” and the people they idolized, like Sam Harris and Dick Dawkins.
Given your unwillingness to accept that you aren’t as informed on the topic as you think you are I can see why you have the ideas you do.
Sam Harris has never been part of the rationalist or skeptical culture. He is much better known in the atheist and the “intellectual dark web”. In the skeptical community he is generally regarded as a close minded person who is too busy kissing the butt of people like Ben Shapiro and selling meditation.
Even before Elevatorgate Dawkins was on the outs for being a sexist & misogynist who was contributing nothing to the movement except harm. If you are using him as an example you are operating on information that is more than a decade out of date and it might be time to update your priors.
“I utilize a narrower definition of the word, shame you are too closed-minded to comprehend that I’m right. Now let’s force a debate on semantics to maximize our time wasted.”
Don’t you find it’s usually better to frame your opponent’s position in terms they would agree with? You’re using skepticism in a way that does not comport with today’s use by the community. Community exchange over time. Community exchange over time.
The community’s use isn’t the correct point of reference. It is also naturally biased, because the community seeks to avoid association with these people.
It’s not crazy or outlandish to label Harris or Dawkins as skeptics in the common use of the term. It’s core to their branding whether you like it or not. That’s what matters when you talk to people outside the community, not the insular definition you treat as objective fact.
I don’t even see a point in litigating this, other than the one I mentioned already. It was clear from context what they were talking about.
The community has explicitly rejected the people you named because they aren’t in keeping with positions the community holds. If the community says they don’t want these people in the group but you insist on saying they are part of the group then you are making a bad faith argument.
Communities get to decide who is an isn’t part of the community. You specifically mentioned trans issues. Two of the pods I named had trans hosts. Dawkins had his AHA award pulled because of trans comments. Skeptics aren’t being the people you said they were. You can either change your mind or stick to your beliefs despite the evidence.
There you have your explanation. “Sceptical” channels will just question everything without providing real evidence. The Captain always backs up his claims.
Most science communication YouTube channels engage in debunking (of flat feathers, young earth creationists, pseudoarcheologists, etc.), always with evidence. Just because a bunch of racist pngtubers co-opted the word skeptical 10-15 years ago doesn’t change the meaning of the word itself.
I think you have a very uninformed idea about skeptical content. Go find Skeptic’s Guide to the Universe, Skeptics with a K, Be Reasonable, Skeptoid, Bayesian Conspiracy, Squaring the Strange, Monster Talk and others. There is trutherusm crap and then there is looking at evidence.
Captain D is a fan of this stuff. He attended The Amazing Meeting, a skeptical conference held by the JREF, back when James Randi was still alive.
I’ve enjoyed every video I’ve ever seen by him, but always forget to subscribe to him and YouTube never recommends his videos to me even though it’s filled with all kinds of other skeptical materials.
He only uploads like once or twice a year
The YT algorithm hates inconsistent uploaders, so they don’t get as promoted as much. Unfortunately you’re going to have to smash that bell icon if you don’t want to miss a video from him.
Sub now. Captain D is amazing.
Are people really serious about liking him? I mean, I get that there was a lot of tongue in cheek SNL unfunniness in there. But…I felt it was painfully unfunny to watch. S
I’m saying this in the most genuine way possible, what is the appeal exactly? Is it the humor? The information? I was very surprised to see under that video is was on the trending list. I’d never heard of him. But everyone here seems to really like him as well.
Just curious. No hate
He is genuinely amazing at his craft and has some really informative material. This specific video isn’t a great example but some are much funnier too.
The humour is a large part of why people enjoy watching his videos, but the main focus of his channel is going over visual effects in viral videos with incredible detail.
Just check out his other videos I guess. I think he can be quite funny, and this video isn’t the best example. But he’s built a lot of goodwill by other means with the blender community over the years, he didn’t become popular as a comedian.
I’m very skeptical of “skeptical materials”. most of that shit went on to a misogynistic, transphobic and xenophobic route. and that’s not captain disillusion.
See my reply to Diplomjodler3. One of the temporary hosts of Skeptoid was trans. You have some very uninformed ideas about what skepticism is and what it isn’t.
no I don’t. I said nothing about what skepticism is. My comment was about YouTube “skeptics” and the people they idolized, like Sam Harris and Dick Dawkins.
Given your unwillingness to accept that you aren’t as informed on the topic as you think you are I can see why you have the ideas you do.
Sam Harris has never been part of the rationalist or skeptical culture. He is much better known in the atheist and the “intellectual dark web”. In the skeptical community he is generally regarded as a close minded person who is too busy kissing the butt of people like Ben Shapiro and selling meditation.
Even before Elevatorgate Dawkins was on the outs for being a sexist & misogynist who was contributing nothing to the movement except harm. If you are using him as an example you are operating on information that is more than a decade out of date and it might be time to update your priors.
“I utilize a narrower definition of the word, shame you are too closed-minded to comprehend that I’m right. Now let’s force a debate on semantics to maximize our time wasted.”
Don’t you find it’s usually better to frame your opponent’s position in terms they would agree with? You’re using skepticism in a way that does not comport with today’s use by the community. Community exchange over time. Community exchange over time.
The community’s use isn’t the correct point of reference. It is also naturally biased, because the community seeks to avoid association with these people.
It’s not crazy or outlandish to label Harris or Dawkins as skeptics in the common use of the term. It’s core to their branding whether you like it or not. That’s what matters when you talk to people outside the community, not the insular definition you treat as objective fact.
I don’t even see a point in litigating this, other than the one I mentioned already. It was clear from context what they were talking about.
The community has explicitly rejected the people you named because they aren’t in keeping with positions the community holds. If the community says they don’t want these people in the group but you insist on saying they are part of the group then you are making a bad faith argument.
Communities get to decide who is an isn’t part of the community. You specifically mentioned trans issues. Two of the pods I named had trans hosts. Dawkins had his AHA award pulled because of trans comments. Skeptics aren’t being the people you said they were. You can either change your mind or stick to your beliefs despite the evidence.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/richard-dawkins-trans-humanist-aha-b1835017.html
There you have your explanation. “Sceptical” channels will just question everything without providing real evidence. The Captain always backs up his claims.
Most science communication YouTube channels engage in debunking (of flat feathers, young earth creationists, pseudoarcheologists, etc.), always with evidence. Just because a bunch of racist pngtubers co-opted the word skeptical 10-15 years ago doesn’t change the meaning of the word itself.
I think you have a very uninformed idea about skeptical content. Go find Skeptic’s Guide to the Universe, Skeptics with a K, Be Reasonable, Skeptoid, Bayesian Conspiracy, Squaring the Strange, Monster Talk and others. There is trutherusm crap and then there is looking at evidence.
Captain D is a fan of this stuff. He attended The Amazing Meeting, a skeptical conference held by the JREF, back when James Randi was still alive.