Measured Response: Bill Nye VS Pseudoscience (Part One) 

"i didn;t mean for it to get this long" (PART ONE)

roblox oof

Yeah, he made a 2-hour long video on the Roblox Oof sound, and then 3/4s of it was dedicated to talking about Tommy Tallarico.

Also, hearing Nyanners narrate some of the internet comments near the start of an Hbomb video is absolutely wild in current year

@@sarcastichearts The one before Roblox was double the length of Roblox

I'm so glad I decided to actively try to improve myself and really tried to become less transphobic. It made me a lot happier in the long run.

proud of you bro

Me too i don't believe it

I went through a similar phase, but at least we got out.

Same

That bit felt so similar to a tucker Carlson segment. “Just asking questions”

@@frimi8593 LMAO you right, you right

Hahahaha! I'm taking a dumb and you made me laugh. Thank you

Says the word gender and hundreds of people go into a catatonic state from the shock

Felt the same dam way. He literally just said all science knows!

I think he means the "trendiness" of exploring gender, but he could have meant that as well, which would have been more positive i think

AngryNerdBird, I know this is old but I wanted to piggyback - you're right, *and* there is more to expression than fashion. In a simple example: I, a nerdy guy who is cautious about his behaviour and respectful of boundaries, expresses my masculinity in a way that is different from, say, a used-to-play Football ex-Marine who keeps himself fueled on testosterone and adrenaline - compare/contrast "butch/femme" in this video. It's things *other than* fashion as well, I think - but I'm not an expert. I think Armoured Skeptic was, himself, just experienced confirmation bias is all. Unfortunately, I think Armoured Skeptic was primed to react with outrage and anger - which isn't uncommon in the outrage-baiting circles of youtube and other media.

he is literally like right there!!! like YES ITS FASHION!! the only problem is that he doesn’t realize how important fashion is!! yeah sure its ‘just fashion’ but fashion is an important part of seeing into society. yeah those cat meme t-shirts were a phase but that phase showed the popularization of internet, just like how in victorian times (?) them wearing padding and corsets showed what the ideal body type was like, thr fact they used toxic lipstick can show either how they didnt care abt how bad it was or how they didnt know how bad it was, radium in paint to get pretty greens, the whole blank cores trend thats going on recently shows the want to find a personality, the list goes on. they dismiss fashion trends as if it isnt an important part of society (also i put a ? after victorian times bc im not an expert and im just going off of memory rn, its a rlly interesting topic tho so i think you should look it up)

​@@thefatcat1366and the "fashion is part of society" thing is kind of key how you express yourself is based on external and commonly accepted aspects of aesthetics. Like if I wear a rad shirt at home it's whatever but doing so in a crip neighborhood or a country where cannibals all wear read is a whole other thing. I mean to expand that analogy out to other things we do or wear or ways we act. Dude really just nailed down gender expression for me just by being like "its fashion"

I honestly find it funny how "it's just fashion" isn't even wrong. The way it seems like he ment it is, but fashion is a big part of the social momentum that defines what a man or woman is, or if and what other genders and sexes are real.

True, but you act like you wouldn't do the same thing? Let me answer that for you. You would. IDK what your political views are, but imagine someone you were a fan of talks about a political topic you were passionate about and had the exact opposite opinion. You probably would want them to shut up about politics so you could continue enjoying whatever it is they do. Or is your identity solely based on your political perspective?

@@justaburgscousin That's a lot to extrapolate from 1 sentence...

Diinytro mfckers be psychically linking through youtube now.

it depends on what the art is and how it's executed. Personally, I'd be more offended with something that's badly inserted over something that is well made but doesn't agree with my personal views. But then that's more a criticism of the media itself and not of the concept of political messages in media. What I really like are video games specifically that allow me to express my own moral and political leanings in choices and see how the game plays them out. But that's super hard to do so I get that it's not a common thing.

​@@justaburgscousin Maybe projecting?

For thousands of years men used face paints and cosmetics... then in the past 200 years it becsme taboo

I imagine that guy is actually Marvin the Martian.

Stoicism master race!

@@square_banana How you say it matters. He failed to prove his facts in that particular scene. For one thing, his focus on a particular race as a perpetrator of a particular action is definitely not scientific. I don't think I can agree that some wrongdoing behavior is unique or inherently built into a specific race or ethnicity of people as the doctor in this segment implies (and focuses on). And even if it was, he did not provide evidence of that. Nor did he even provide evidence that it was happening on any meaningful scale that warrants throwing an entire group of people under a bus.

@@tenchimuyo69 It feels like you did not finish watching this video or the episode in question. With additional context, it becomes very clear that race was not the core of the discussion at all, it was a stand up comedy bit about people trying to sell mystical remedies without scientific basis.

Fact

@@kirayoshikage1491 uhmmmm ackshually facts dont care about your feelings librals.

​@@jorbore1413 Yeah, you're right. And that's why the right gets all offended whenever people show you guys peer-reviewed scientific studies that don't align with your MAGA cult

The right is still used to the times when scientists used to subscribe to their crude theories. Sadly for them scientists actually learn stuff and improve.

*surprised pikachu face*

That has been the exact trick that these people have been using for millenia. And is still as powerful as ever.

I watched him as a teen/early 20s when he was doing atheist content and then basically forgot about him. Kinda sad seeing where he ended up.

HE DIDN'T TALK ABOUT THE SCIENCE OF IT THAT MUCH!! EVEN HBOMB SAID THAT!! The "performance" must be really in-depth considering Hbomb also uses it and you didn't even notice...

​@GORGOVOID173 i am sorry, but he showed that there's research that's all hbomb had to say to disprove skeptic's claim, skeptic said there was no research not that it was bad or illogical, he denied the existence of evidence not if its good or bad

@@radwanshakfah6938 IN THE SHOW. Was there any in the show? We're talking about a show here. Did you forget that?

+Eric B. All of those bullies with the intent of being homophobic and transphobic are just _jealous_ of that boy slaying the non-conformity game.

@@cosmicjenny4508 More men should wear makeup theyd look better.

+God Of Spaghett Agreed - eye liner on certain guys is just incredible.

@@CommieApe I have never seen a blush that goes with my beard.

Right? There has ALWAYS been guys wearing make up.

i think his name is harry brewis

@@merouanetekfi8303 Which is short for Harris Brewis, which I'm sure he'll tell you, but I like to call him 'the Notable HBG'.

@@lolicanadian really man i did know that ...i should give you a sherlock teddy bear worth 3 thousands of pounds

Such a virtue signaler

...unless the ice cream is into that stuff, in which case, you're a dirty, nasty little cone, aren't you?

Congrats

Oh great, now you've become a god-emperor of us gays. F*in Theists. /j

Looks like we're twinsies, LOL. So glad I got away from old friends pushing this kind of worldview on me, legit encountering new people and ideas has saved my life, that's why this kind of close-mindedness is so sad.

Ayyyy me too baybeeee (although I believe I already knew I was trans at the time I watched him, just closeted) "skeptic" youtubers like him suddenly denying the science of transpeople did make me realise that I should come out and fight for civil rights though!

It is pretty difficult to be a conservative and Trans gender at the same time

Dang. Didn't expect to see such a well-written youtube comment from a cat named lettuce, but here we are.

Very well written. I appreciate your insightful perspective on the distortion of leftist ideologies. I would venture to suggest that a similar phenomenon has arisen in the realm of "right-wing" or "conservative" politics. The oversimplified and somewhat patronizing representation of the political spectrum hinders progress, fostering a misleading division between differing viewpoints. Over the years, I have encountered a variety of perspectives, which have at times provided reassurance, while occasionally prompting a sense of alienation. This previously led me to approach sharing my future opinions with a degree of apprehension. The prevailing concern that one's viewpoints may be inherently flawed is indeed detrimental, particularly as political discussions become increasingly prevalent, even in educational settings. Reflecting on my own experiences, from ninth to twelfth grade, I recognize the challenges faced in expressing one's views. It is imperative to acknowledge that neither side is categorically "incorrect," but rather, each offers distinct lenses through which they perceive crucial issues. Embracing this understanding can pave the way for a more harmonious and united future. When doctrine and partisan affiliations obstruct our ability to make well-informed decisions.

Very well said! I'm eating pizza so I can't really type a lot but I agree! 👍 Best of luck in life friend!

Well as they say, there are two genders: Male and political. There are two skin colours: White and political. You catch the drift. Honestly anyone who denies politics play a role in every aspect of our lives is just kind of stupid. Politics is about how a country is run, what resources get produced or imported, from where, how, who gets paid how much for it. Every single object in every single household is touched by politics. You found a stick outside and brought it home? Political. I mean... was it even legal to take that stick and claim ownership of it? The air we breathe is political, pollution is a political topic.

I am disabled too, but cis and bi. Politics is just the art of disagreeing with each other when it matters to us. When people say not to be political, they're really saying three things. 1. Don't disagree with me. 2. I myself don't know how to disagree gracefully so stop it because I can't compete. 3. Stop making stuff matter. The first two reasons are nonsense, and the third is ridiculous. When nothing matters to us, we cease to live. Defy with pride!

hey at least its more honest than a guy who thinks global warming is real and a guy who thinks its all a hoax

In practice though the effect is largely the same, if you're exposed to the hoax dude all you end up doing is questioning whether it's real and not being motivated to do anything, and if you're exposed to the 'be more realistic everything is fine industry is solving things', you still aren't motivated to do anything and the world keeps burning. Sometimes doing nothing is as powerful of a choice as doing anything. And this is why the status quo centrism, at least when viewed from a left-leaning lens is so destructive, because it gives the illusion of balance while ignoring the context. The context being if we don't fucking do SOMETHING we risk not having a habit for 90% of the worlds population within 50-100 years. And that's just talking about the sea level rise, who knows what the acidification of the oceans will do, who knows what all those casdading events will do when that shit finally spirals out of control. So ya, fuck centrism.

Amazing how the principles that make democratic society function have become a dirty word.

which principles would that be?

Centrism.

the idea that anyone would even want to be queer in the world we live in is the stupidest shit ever. imagine all the kids that got horribly abused, abandoned, and brought to the brink of suicide by the way they’ve been treated. who the fuck would /choose/ that because it’s “trendy” lol

Idk man, every high school ive been to in utah seems to disagree

i don't thing greg and shoe leave the house to often 😂

“Gay” is *still* an un-ironic insult.

@Candace Vasquez yeah. I’ll take one discrimination please.

I don't think you really got either of the messages correct. Also, identification is not a choice. You do not choose identity. Identity is what you are, no matter how you feel about it.

@@seigeengine Your identity is not a choice, but how you identify is. I am a lesbian and I can't change that, but if I chose to identify publicly as straight for my own safety, for example, that would be a choice. I choose to identify as a lesbian bc it is the label that matches my identity.

@@seigeengine Literally what the fuck do you think the word identity means.

@@theirnknight Sure, but that wouldn't be your identity, and you could "identify" yourself as a lesbian, but actually be bisexual, or straight, or asexual. and simply be wrong. You could be even more confused, and call yourself pansexual, and then get offended when I ask if you really want to bang dead kids.

@@NibNibNib I literally explained what the fuck the word identity means.

@@slevinchannel7589 ...?

@@AshlynOne I said what i said.

@@AshlynOne They're a weirdo who has 3 different accounts that they use to spam Hbomb's comment section. Just ignore them.

@@peterprime2140 Gotcha, thanks.

I have unfortunately met trenders, which just absolutely fucking destroys the reputation of the trans community

As a centrist I can assure you that "centrism" is an euphemism for "i'm enough of the radical overreaction bullshit from both sides pouring in from all media and social platforms into my life all the time, just leave me the fuck alone".

@@Seviexe get an opinion loser

Haha, Centrist = the ones who take it from both sides. Nah... being moderate is not inherently bad. It can lead to indecisiveness if taken to extremes, but given that it's about avoiding extremist thinking, I'd argue that a 'hardcore' centrist who denies everything on the basis of being left or right can't logically be considered a centrist. You kinda can't be a hardline centrist... not like that. If you reject everything, you're still at an extreme point. You have a core bias, but instead of leaning one way or the other, are biased against both. That's not the intent, as far as I can tell. But that's the definition a lot of people seem to run with... that the people in the middle are somehow anti-politics, when it's supposed to be about weighing both sides appropriately before picking one, or even taking pieces of both! If you choose to completely disengage from politics, you're not a centrist! Centrisim is a political outlook. It describes how someone engages with politics, not people who openly choose not to. It's supposed to be about balancing out different points of view, with the idea being that no one point of view is 100% correct. It does NOT mean that a centrist does not have any definitive views on issues, or that they cannot substantiate their own claims. It's just that they do not base their views on any particular topic on whether it is left or right wing. They're trying not to get boxed in, or walled out from a view they better align with, simply because of party affiliations. This doesn't entail a lack of bias, but rather personal acceptance of a variety of biases! A centrist could have left-wing bias on one issue, and right-wing on another, and that is still within their sphere. It's not about rejecting ideas based on political association, but rather the opposite. A centrist doesn't reject something on the basis of it being left or right, but rather on what they determine the merits to be or not be. Actually, they kind of exist to counter the very mindset of putting people in boxes, and not characturizing important ideas and issues, kind of like what you're doing. People who are strongly for one side or the other hate them because they choose not to adhere to the us/them nature of the partisan system, and simply see the intended function of the system differently. They see it as an affront to their whole thinking, which is funny because by definition a centrist doesn't actually oppose either side, but rather welcomes both equally. Isn't the saying "The friend of my enemy is my friend." or am I mistaken on that? Why are people so dismissive of the simple political approach of weighing both sides equally? How does that jump straight to never having an opinion about anything? It sounds more to me like a refusal to engage people who don't think exactly like you do. The centrists out there wouldn't do anyone on the left or right like that. In fact, sometimes we can benefit from their criticisms and it can help bolster our own causes or get us back in the right direction when we lose our way, which does happen. I lean left for the most part, but I can see the value in having people out there who don't, who can point out when I'm working against myself. That really sounds pretty good to me! Personally, I kinda get it. When it comes to left/right, it isn't a matter of determining which SIDE is right, but simply what is ultimately right. There is a place for them at the political table, too. If you really think they only exist to be contrary to every single political bias, you've never actually met one. The one's I've talked to have always been more about simply not favoring one bias over another. But I suppose there are plenty that are eager to hate those who do not think like them. It goes sort of like this. Righties tend to think they already know what is right and hold fast on it. Lefties embrace ambivalence towards those absolutes and look more to nuance - for them there is always more and we have to always keep looking forward, not back. Centrists say nah, the problems of one side are shared by the other, what's right IS definitively there, and it's somewhere between those two approaches. Nothing saying a centrist can't pick sides on things. The definitive aspect is a commitment to variety in which sides get favored when, and for what reasons. Not the same as saying they have no reasons or arguments to make. That would be rather stupid. It's nice to think that people are just stupid sometimes, but it's not really a very useful way to engage with anyone. Centrism is more concerned with where the ideas come from and how a person interprets the landscape. They simply choose not to look through a lens that's always red or always blue and value being able to use either, depending on which is more useful at the time.

@@pantherette113 it's inherently stupid to have an opinion on everything just because you feel like you have to. It's something you grow out of though...

USA "centrism" corresponds to ultra-conservatives in Europe. Now, what Americans call "left" is the moderate right in Europe. Y'know Angela Merkel? That's the right wing in EU. Literally Christian Conservative party. They're pro-migrant, pro-human rights, support free universal healthcare, work unions, don't deny science or climate change etc. and that's as conservative as a sane person can go. I don't think anyone ever got as left in USA to ever approach center. America is just 50 shades of wingnut conservatism

I feel like someone like armoured skeptic would have enough historical understanding to know that the nazis kinda burnt all research done about gender, sex and sexuality.

@@fletcheragenda6014 I'm sure they burned those...and more

@@rachmatabbid5936 oh they definitely did, they burnt religious texts, specifically jewish texts, a lot of different scientific texts, anti nazi books and more

@@fletcheragenda6014 jewish texts, and, uh, the people who wrote them....

@@fletcheragenda6014 it wasn't just the Nazis, as nice as it would be to be able to blame all of society's ills on them. Science is fundamentally tied to society, as scientists rely of other people giving them money for their research, and other scientists to review their research. This coupled with the fact that institutional science (i.e. science journals, conferences, university positions) were explicitly exclusive to men and often implicitly exclusive to white men historically, means that the institutions of science, and thus recorded scientific thought were sexist, and racist for a long time. It has really only been the last several decades that those institutional barriers have been brought down, that research could be done on these topics.

reminds me of a less funny version of the "kermit gulag" tweet

That's when I stopped watching. He started this series of wild conspiracies and I thought oh, he's going to try to lay them out convincingly and then debunk them, except the second part never happened and you just got this string of weird attempts to present an inconsistent narrative.

Bruh

Are you really surprised ?

Clearly when he heard the term "skeptic" he took it in the "deny everything if it doesn't conform to his predetermined views" way, as opposed to the "follow the evidence wherever it leads even if it's uncomfortable" way. Oops.

I'm honestly bummed about that. From what I've seen of him (which is just this video to be fair), he seemed incredibly flawed but at least comparatively normal to most youtube skeptics

@@metalvoiceguy1232 trust me, he is not. go watch his million video long series talking about "the green man" and his appearance thru history and how it seems to be a metaphor for himself being god.

Listen to me (don't listen to me) Talk to me (don't talk to me) Dance with me (don't dance with me) Oh... beep beep!

it's loud and tasteless and I've heard it before

Philosophy Tube You should make a video with Hbo.

Seth Perry I doubt a cable network WOUL work with a small youtuber

"We are the goon squad and we're coming to town, beep beep...what a fucking great line" -Robert Fripp

Exactly, I consider myself to be somewhat of a skeptic because I don't simply accept facts presented to me as such. This is pretty valuable, especially in an era of what some call information warfare. This does NOT mean that I immediately reject information presented to me that opposes my viewpoints, or even that there is any political bias whatsoever to what I believe. Like what you said, the actions and existence of the anti-sjw 'skeptic community' dilutes the meaning of the word they SELF IDENTIFY with continually. They're so bad at it that it makes me wonder if they even understand what skeptic means at all! To me it seems like they choose to be contrarian because they are offended by the opinions of those who don't share their worldview. It really makes me happy to see positive comments from all sides on this video, but especially those who admit their opinion has altered from watching. You people are the true skeptics. Also if you read this, have a nice day!

It's more that people who have unfounded or illogical beliefs love to lump themselves in with skeptics to try and give some justification to the things they say and do in relation to these beliefs. Morons trying to scapegoat their actions. And skeptics are the scapegoat.

@@mustangwolf1997 That kinda makes me sad for the non moronic skeptics.

real skeptics are getting a bad rep bc anti-sjws are full of themselves lmao

Skepticism is by in large what leads me to positions that get me labeled an SJW by idiots who have no other way of telling me I'm wrong.

I mean, it seems to me that it is just fashion. I have no desire to wear dresses, but I also have no desire to wear most "male" clothing that isn't the clothing I'm used to wearing. Right now that's mostly shorts and tees, but it's been various things across my life. Jeans seem insufferable to me now, but there was a time when jeans were all I wore, and they felt completely comfortable to me. There is no reason justified here for men and women to wear certain kinds of clothing. There's only conceptions of what type of clothing men and women wear, and our association with those same concepts... but how is that different from any other fashion? That could be trends, clothes from the past that now you wouldn't be caught dead in, or clothing typical of certain groups you don't belong to, or, again, just things you're not used to wearing. I see no reason why if I chose to start wearing dresses, I wouldn't end up quite quickly feeling completely comfortable wearing them, and eventually if I kept it up, the clothes I wear now would feel foreign to me. Men have often worn, throughout history, what would constitute dresses, skirts, etc. to our modern standards. Many items that today are associated with women were, in the past, worn often, or even mostly by men. But that's really where I draw the line. I personally think it makes sense to differentiate gender roles and expression from gender itself, although one could argue gender in that case is just a part of sex differentiation, understanding, of course, that biology is complicated and messy. Cause it seems to me there are certainly real differences between men and women as demographics in terms of personhood-associated characteristics, but that how we express our gender and so on is entirely learned.

@@seigeengine it isnt just fashion. What's associated with each gender is what gender is.

@@bubby632 I disagree with that model.

@@seigeengine why?

@@bubby632 because it doesn't jive with our lingo and grasp on transgenderism, forcing you to either recategorize transgendered people as intersex, or to deny the evidence that transgenderism is inherent and not learned, since if gender is just fashion, then it's purely arbitrary.

Bitch I wasent human before?

I kinda don't like the words. It feels like maningless separation of something that's trying to unite

@@gManGabecool how do you think trans and autistic people feel

@@thebestdoggo9512 Don't know. Can you tell me? (not /s, i'm new to this discussion and trying to learn)

@@gManGabe alienated extremely because they don’t fit in the neurotypical cis world

@@Sky-mh1vh He seemed less "upset" and more like he thought it was "cringe-y." Which is still not great and very "dudebro," but is more of an indication of a discomfort with change and adapting than actual hard intolerance.

@@GoddoDoggo lmao I need to know what that comment said

@@GoddoDoggo what he said?

It's not. One guy saying dumb shit doesn't mean an entire "community (I'm not even sure we can talk about a community here, since skeptics don't Have to share any views or beliefs)" will think in that exact same way, or even close to it. You're making the mistake Armoured Skeptic has done: asserting non proven facts based on your personal feelings/lack of knowledge on a matter

@@katacutie I put "skeptic" in quotes because I was referring to the crowd of right-wing idiots who use "skepticism" as an excuse for ignorance and intellectual uncuriousity. Skepticism is good because it means you're open to further questions and knowledge, not because it makes you "win" an argument.

Of social media. Or people in general. It sucks

These Post-modern Neo Cultural Marxist Idiologs

@@neerkum5428 thats what people have to say three times in a row so that the ghost of karl marx will appear in their bathroom mirror

THREE politics? Centrists don’t exist you CULTURAL MARXIST FREAK!!!! It’s just RATIONAL.

Not a big chunk, just the most extreme ones. You think it’s a big chunk because they’re more vocal and stand out more. The fact that no one here is one of these is proof of that.

That's actually kinda upsetting. He seemed cool, despite his blind spots.

The video is still up on his second channel, comments off but there

@@wiltamsfam is it really? That's wonderful

@@slhpproductions6707 I really feel like his response was very much a "Schrödinger's Joke" kind of thing. If he wasn't being serious, and was joking around, then I think he should work on his delivery of them so that they don't come across as his honest opinions.

The issue is that he specifically go against what we do know and presented a known fallacy that failed scientifically and got revived politically, if you get power behind a lie then you can enforce it despite it being a lie, that is why they went the political route when they found out it was not true. He just wanna get paid and he want to make your children suffer medical issues for life for that money through incorrect treatment and surgery, and their goal is to make it happen before the person is old enough to stop it, pure vile abuse for cash by the medical industry, as usual, just one more pill to sell.

Left: I wanna cut off my own penis.

@@fadlinugraha347 why shouldnt they bitch. It's their body let them do what they want with it. Being transgender isnt hurting you so dont be a sick about it.

@@Top_Cheeze do you want to link any sources to this information? Like I dont know a TV show created by the biggest streaming service in the world which if it was caught telling lies would almost certainly destroy the show? Can I see evidence to your points?

daedalus 14 he just wants to act like he’s enforcing science not provide sources or proof you know that thing that’s the bread and butter of science

"YOU ARE LITERALLY ASSAULTING MY CHARACTER BY MAKING FUN OF MY POLITICAL OPINIONS! REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!" -Those same RU-vid skeptics

The guy also literally got triggered by a comedian lol

@@damnedforyoursins3459 he gets triggered by real comedians, but i bet hes hot for that Steven "Closet" Crowder

"This made me very angry" Angry Septic

@Rechordian Both GMS and Cosmic Skeptic are skeptics whose views generally align with the larger "SJW" community as a whole. They're men of science and philosophy, not the fake "skeptics"

Yo, just wanted to remind you that you're super tough for hanging in there, and also, a super cool dude. Also, respectfully, and platonically, you're very handsome. :) -sincerely, a fellow trans man who's been there, bud. Wishing you the best.

Hold yourself up my man.

I hope things are going better for you my man.

Hope things are going well for you, man. I have a few trans man friends and I know things are tough currently (especially in America). You’re stronger than you think you are. Lots of love to you

I wonder if he transitioned

I think you mean his bye fiancé

He left her tho pff

​@@mushovers3006beautiful

@@viking-astronautsure he did :/

Not real skeptics if that's the case

true, but I was referring to Armoured Skeptic in particular

Agreed!

Armored Skeptic in character: Feelings aren't facts. Skeptic as a person: This show made me angry, here's why, I *personally feel* it's wrong. Jesus, beat that strawman harder why don't you?

TrueWOPR bullshit he literally denied that scientific studies exists about gender expression and lied about what the guy doing the comedy bit was saying. he's a piece of shit plain and simple.

+

Do you not recognize the concept of political bias in science and how that might ruin the science? Don't you think it's more reasonable to assume he was referring to that?

@@sciencetube4574 you make an important distinction! I wish this Hbomb had made this distinction too. Science that is motivated by love for humanity and knowledge, that happens to take a position on controversial political subjects, is great, and the kind I think we can all get on board with. Scientific pursuit that is subverted by political or religious agendas, THAT is terrible, and happens all the time. I think this distinction is made by looking at which way the influence is going. The mistake AS makes, that is being pointed out here, is that he conflates the two. He acts as if the segment on gender is the latter of these two (science being influenced by a political agenda), whereas it's Hbomb's (and my) position that this episode is actually driven by love of science and love of humanity and the desire to understand humans better, and is making politically controversial statements.

@@AzaleaJane I kind of disagree with you. I don't think science should make any political statement, and it should be motivated only by the desire to gather information which may be useful for humanity. Science is nothing but a method of gathering information. This information is neutral, no matter what political implications it may have. It gets its political meaning only through our political interpretation of it, and that interpretation must be separated from the information itself. Otherwise, you're inviting fallacious arguments from both sides, attacking or defending the science (cold, hard numbers and nothing more) on the basis of political alignment. Therefore, I still think that, regardless of motivation, science that _"happens to take a position on controversial political subjects"_ is inherently bad science. Just to reiterate: Science that is unpolitical that is later used in the political debate is of course legitimate. This is what science is for; to help us make political decisions. I am only talking about science that makes political statements by itself. As for gender science, it's obviously politically motivated, as it is aligned specifically with the political ideology of intersectionality and its research is purely semantic. There is no difference in the empirical observations behind calling a certain behaviour "gender" or calling it "personality". It is simply the interpretation of the observation through the specific ideological lense. Therefore, ascribing random things about a person to gender (a very specific term) is a political act and not a scientific one. Besides, "love of science and love of humanity" are themselves political values, not scientific ones. Science only cares about the data, not moral judgements (which "love" is).

@@sciencetube4574 "Does drinking from plastic containers and using plastic products have a side effect on the health of people who grow up using said products?" Is this question scientific? Yes, it does not phrase the question in such a way as to imply that the statement is true or false, it looks at a thing which exists (drinking from plastic containers) and asks a question about it (does this have any side effects, positive or negative?). If you then devised an empirical way of studying this with a control group and what not, you might be able to come to a conclusion. This question is also inherently political. Whatever this study says, even if the results are inconclusive, plastic companies WILL be affected. If there are positive side affects plastic companies got a new way of advertising their product. If the results are inconclusive they now have a layer of plausible deniability should anyone accuse their business of producing unsafe products ("There was a study on it and it was inconclusive so there is no scientific evidence this does occur"). If there are negative side effects the plastic companies just got damaged in an important way that, if the side effects are bad enough, could do massive damage to the whole industry. Plastic companies are more then willing to lobby and bribe politicians , so something that hurts/helps plastic companies will affect how plastic companies interact with politicians. Meaning no possible result from this study could have 0 political impact, and therefore this study is inherently political. On gender science, you don't seem to have read much on the subject. I'll just post this www.juliaserano.com/av/Serano-CaseAgainstAutogynephilia.pdf It is about 10-9 pages long from an academic source and if you sat through the 35 minute video you can read this. It goes into extensive details about the numbers and methods used for and against the Autogynephilia theory. You'll note the Autogynephilia theory is quite transphobic (for it to be true it has to assume many trans people are liars, an unfalsifiable and therefore unscientific claim). There are more studies on gender that you can find out there, I'm not too well read either (something I'm working on). Finally, there are people who genuinely wish for mankind to go extinct ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_Human_Extinction_Movement ) . Gathering information useful to humanity (which would prevent or slow our extinction) is inherently anti-VHEMT (I don't know why they put a T at the end of their acronym) therefore all science going by your definition is political since VHEMT is a political movement. This is an extreme example, but I think it shows that literally no reason to do science is 100% non-political.

IronicHoneyBadger “..because I agree with him whether or not he’s right”

@@geologist5838 Except he have shown that things that he said is right

@@geologist5838 uhhhhh

@@geologist5838 ......is a dumbass

☝☚=ɐɔ¢๏ںи+ №ᵐ ☑ˢ Ṏປ†

( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

"IT'S CREAM TIME"

Guys guys *chuckle* guys What happened when the ice cream fucked? Ice creamed.

hbomber is a disgusting slimy SJW

crybaby :D Sad part is, you will probably get likes from people who think you are being serious. Oh...wait....well at least the name checks out.

Plus Post-Modernism philosophy is a huge inspiration for it. You can guess what they'd think about that particular school of thought

As a matrix fan, and a fan of equality in general, I'm still deflated at how the right has tried to claim the red pill metaphor... the ignorant turds.

huh?

To be fair they weren't trans when they made it. Is...that an okay way to phrase it? Also, as for the allegory, that seems like pretty big stretch. I kind of see where you can claim there are broad similarities, but I have serious doubts it's interpreted this way in any significant amounts.

@@legion999 A, trans people always were trans, they just take time to realize. B, they literally wanted to put in a character who was opposite genders inside and outside of the Matrix, but decided against it thinking it would be too blatant

I don’t think he’s apathetic, I think his statements mean any non-cis expression is doing gender wrong, thus the idea that gender expression scale is a (leftist sjw) thing exists but is wrong (see also being an sjw idea). So he says it doesn’t exist, it’s just fashion. Mostly he sounds ignorant and dishonest about wanting to learn about the subject he’s already decided on because yay culture war.

@@adaroben1104 true

Your comment, and his attitude, reminds me of something that is a part of what the author Julia Serano calls "cissexual assumption" (I've seen it used interchangeably with the word cisnormativity, which is basically: Everyone has a gender identity (this author makes an interesting distinction between gender identity, actually, she uses the term "subconscious sex" to refer to one's more subconscious feelings about gender and sex, and the term "gender identity" to refer to one's more conscious thoughts and interpretation of it. So, subconscious sex, for trans people, would be things like euphoria and dysphoria, and the sense of right and wrong, that they often feel, and gender identity is, say, a trans woman going "so, this feels right, and this feels wrong, therefore... oh my God, I'm a trans woman!" and, with this definition, gender identity can be understood as how we see and interpret our underlying feelings through the lens of our lived experience, which is influenced by the culture of the society we live in. Serano also talks about how this is why she, a trans woman, thinks that if she was born in India and at a certain time than where she was actually born, she may have identified as a hijra, a third gender in that society, instead of a trans woman, because, while her feelings would be the same, the way she makes sense of them is being informed by the culture of a different society. It also explains how some people identify as different genders throughout their life without this subconscious sex changing, like someone who goes FtXtM, or FtMtFtX. I like this distinction and concept, it reminds me of a similar one used by researchers in studies of sexuality where they acknowledge that there is a difference between one's sexual orientation and their sexuality identity. I've seen this brought up in studies that asked participants over long periods of time "what is your sexuality?" because some people's answers change, and it could be that who they were attracted to changed, but it could also be that this stayed the same, and that the reason why they changed their answer and how they identified is that their understanding of their feelings changed. The distinction is an important one for this reason.) Anyway, what happens is that most every has their subconscious sex, and most everyone has their gender identity. And some people have a subconscious sex that does not correlate with their birthsex. And those people often experience the aforementioned euphoria and dysphoria, and, as a result of their subconscious sex being different, they identify as a gender different from that which they were assigned at birth. Most everyone has a subconscious sex and gender identity, those who don't probably include most people who identify as agender, but most cis people aren't among those who don't have it. Yet they feel like they are. Because, unless they are someone like Norah Vincent or David Reimer (cis people who voluntarily or involuntarily lived as the opposite gender and felt distress as a result [cis people can have gender dysphoria]), they live as the gender that they identify as and have the body that matches their subconscious sex, they are in the right one all the time, so it doesn't feel right, it is their norm. Most of them never have to give it much thought. So, because most of them don't notice it in themselves like how trans people do, there is a tendency to assume that they don't have it and to either view it as something only experienced by trans people, or to be sceptical that it exists in everyone, including trans people. And I think that the same is true for gender expression. I'm not trans, but I am gender nonconforming. And I don't view it as fashion at all. Masculine clothing and haircuts feel right, and feminine clothing feels wrong. I'm not the only person who feels this way. A lot of butches disagree with the definition of butch being a lesbian who wears masculine clothes, they think that that isn't what makes them butch. Some of them describe it as being a personality, which I dislike, because, to me, it makes me think of personality traits, so, when people say that butch, a word typically used to describe masculine presenting lesbians, is a personality trait, it makes me think of stereotypically masculine personality traits, like being aggressive or stoic or chivalrous, which I don't think should be part of how we define butchness, and it makes me think of the stereotype that butch women are similar to men in ways other than how they present themselves, which is a butchphobic stereotype that I dislike. Some of them describe it as being spiritual, or being an energy or vibe, which I think is an improvement, but I still don't like that. "Energy" and "vibe" are close to personality, for one, and I don't believe in spirituality, so I sort of find it a bit cringe (I guess it brings out my inner reddit atheist). It's sort of the butch equivalent of the feminine essence theory, which is the idea that trans women are female souls trapped in male bodies, and, while both are good at describing what the experience of being butch or of being a trans woman feels like, they aren't good as actual explanations of why butches are butch, or why trans women are women. Personally, I like to describe butch as being a woman who feels right in a masculine expression. If she is wearing a suit, she's butch, and if she's wearing makeup and a dress, she's butch and uncomfortable. Because I like Julia Serano's intrinsic inclination model and think it describes gender expression, in addition to gender identity and sexuality, and how they all relate to sex, really well, with terminology that is just 👌, I describe myself as someone who is intrinsically inclined to a more masculine gender expression. Now, I don't want to make the assumption that I will always be this way or that I was born this way, because I don't like making such assumptions. For all I know, maybe in 10 years I'll have found out that I was mistaken and actually love wearing feminine clothes and I'll be super feminine. But it feels like something that is just etched into my skull, I've been this way from a really young age, and I feel that, considering the possibility that socialization, how I was raise, may or may not have played a role in addition to biological factors, than by the age of 8 I was destined to either be a masculine woman, or be an unhappy feminine woman. Like, again, I don't want to assume it is 100% true, but I still have to acknowledge that everything about me points towards that, and that it's an inclination, a draw, towards that sort of expression that simply calling it a preference, while not wrong, feels in adequate. It feels magnetic. And I think that there exists something similar to the aspect of cissexual assumption that I described earlier, but for the inclinations towards gender conforming and gender nonconforming. You don't think much of it when you are gender conforming. Your expression is the default, the norm. Without the expectation of presenting with the expression you are not inclined towards, you probably don't experience the wrongness of it, and without being denied the expression you are inclined towards, you probably don't experience the rightness of it. You also probably don't experience the sociopolitical issues that gnc often do, like discrimination, which make the language that describes the experience of being gender nonconforming important language to have. This assumption is probably why people brush these things off as being mere preferences, or fashion. People talk about it as if it is a choice, and outward gender expression is a choice, but it is a choice made based on internal, psychological gender expression, something which isn't a choice. And outward expression that is not conforming is a choice with many negative consequences that people choose to make anyway, because it's worth feeling comfortable in your skin. I'm not that mad that people are as dismissive towards gender expression as they are, because I fully expect them to make this assumption. It often comes from a place of ignorance than a place of malice, although, in armored skeptic's case, that ignorance is possibly willful, he should certainly educate himself a little bit more before making a fucking video with those claims. With discussions of gender, sexuality, and expression, I think it is important to also make a distinction: with gender, there's two sides: the gender someone lives as, and their gender identity (and there are two sides to that identity). This is similar to the difference between the genders someone dates and their sexuality (and sexuality also has those two sides). And I think this distinction can also be made for gender expression. There's the gender expression that you are currently expressing, and the gender expression that you are intrinsically inclined towards. If I put on a dress, some make up, a wig, than I have a feminine gender expression, but I still have an intrinsic inclination towards a masculine gender expression.

Also, I think the fact that I can make as long a comment as I did drawing from and expanding upon the ideas of a well known transfeminist, distinctions often made in studies on sexuality, and the experiences and ideas of gender nonconforming people that aren't just my own, is ironic considering how he claims there is no science or anything out there about gender expression. Granted, he's not a gender nonconforming woman with some interest in philosophy or science- although he certainly seems to depict himself as someone who cares about science, so maybe I shouldn't let him off the hook there- so I'm not going to expect him to know about those things, but I do expect him to at least Google it. Maybe read a few Wikipedia articles. Because there is such an interesting conversation going on about gender, about gender identity, gender expression, sexuality, sex, sexism, feminism, etc, and it is such a damn shame to hear him ask "what is gender expression, how's it different from gender identity, is it connected to sex", and then be dismissive and continue as if these are topics that haven't been touched on and aren't worth touching on. I guess we'll never know, chief. Like, God, if he wants an answer, if he'd be interested in the answer, someone, sit the man in front of a computer and pull up Serano's website or something! But, as far as I can tell, he isn't, he only pretends to be.

He needs to spend even 5 minutes in a classroom of 12 - 16 year old boys and realise that viewpoint is complete bs

Is that Lovecraft? Cthulhu fthagn!

"... because it directly contravenes the central tenet of the belief system upon which i base my sense of self worth. and that makes me sad and angry."

I like your use of the quotation mark here, for direct quotes from media. These, of course, are all direct quotes from Skeptic's video, good job.

These peer-reviewed papers won't stop me, because I can't read!

False Feathers Facts don't care about your feelings

Quite ironically amusing for anyone who calls themselves a '' skeptical atheist '' who's ''a-politlcal'' Sure, because I'm really sure that someone who genuinely believes in skepticism and is an atheist is '' a-politlcal '' when it comes right-wing nut jobs denying climate change and denying same sex marriage. Anti-feminsti '' skeptics '' for years have been quite fine using 3rd world countries oppressive regimes that denys womens freedom and the rest to help negate and put down feminists in the western world, yet now have the nerve to call themselves ''a-politcal'' I've found that people who often call themselves such things are only actually admitting that they only want to ignore politics when its convenient to them to turn a blind eye to something. '' Fascism is a leftist ideologue!!!! We have to stop SJW like beliefs from being implanted into the government, we have to stop HILLARY CLINTON FMO GETTING INTO OFFICE! '' Yet when things they they so happen to have some sort of preconceived notion about and have for ages being spouting anti-lgbt rhetoric for a while they become ''A-poltical '' '' Oh well, I just don't like politics to disparage a discussion. I'm a-politlcal and don't really like politics ''

I feel like this is the same class of thing as saying that facts aren't political and neither side is "correct", two sides to every story, literally apolitical data-based studies are "liberal" because they support a liberal talking point, etc. If this were true, then you could immediately de-factualize anything by arguing its opposite in a political arena. ...wait...what if THAT'S what the right is doing? By arguing against global warming, they make it "political" so it ceases to exist as an actual phenomenon! Those brave souls, publicly expressing obviously stupid views to try and save the rest of us...

The reason for why people think this is because they're main shtick is that they're only supporting facts, or, at least in their content. Base facts can be considered apolitical. Yes, you can say that all ideas fall into a political framework, but without thinking so deeply about the intricacies of society, this is why. With the example of Armoured Skeptic, he believes in global warming, that mankind is causing it, he has debunked flat earthers, and has made a video in the past bashing a tour guide for being badly versed in the exhibition content to make the message of how ignorance has intercepted places of thought. In his video about bill nye, he states that he is dissatisfied with the lack of scientific explanation. In videos like these, he sets the idea that he is only or at least most concerned with scientific discussion. If you look at the video in the places that hbomber has specified, you can see that isn't always true, but that is what he advertises himself to be.

It's a lack of self-awareness. We're all political. I challenge you to use social media these days and remain apolitical!

I really have to agree with you on this one, the second a topic becomes the subject of political discourse, it becomes a political topic. Regardless of weather you include you own political affiliation or not, your discussing it and adressing the subject becomes political. Climate is a political subject, gender identity for some reason is a political subject. Who is best girl in Persona 5, not a political subject.

There's no such thing as genderqueer.

@@shoutuckerdidnothingwrong just like the amount of time you spend outside and not invalidating people?

@@skunknoodles6426 The left truly can't meme.

@@shoutuckerdidnothingwrong you make me feel as braindead as you are from reading that comment

@@hydeme If you believe there are more than 2 genders, you're already braindead, sorry!

Well one thing we know is that armoured skeptic does not like christians haha

Well, skeptics are just adopting the Conservative ideas and thinking they’re thinking outside the box... Then again I might be wrong about that, I’m *skeptical* I’m always right... :D I’ll leave...

Jimmy Snow, Telltale, and Zelph on the Shelf are exceptions.

@@reginaldbarclay1637 oh yeah, and GM Skeptic, and Cosmic Skeptic (I think), and Rationality Rules (I think), and ThereminTrees

@@celestesimulator6539 out of everyone listed- Jimmy Snow and Telltale, two of four of the people out of those listed that i watch, i've seen being susceptible to emotional reactions. Theramintrees is probably the best- he keeps everything calm and levelheaded, and lets his arguments stand for themselves. not discrediting anyone else, but theramintrees is probably better at saving anyone caught in an echochamber than the others. (it's been too long since i've watched Genetically Modified Skeptic) but yeah, not everyone sucks lol.

0:37 Also, did that woman just use "Jewish" as an insult? Christ alive 😲

It's a show about science, not politics. If I watched a show for science and then it was just a shit tonne of politics I would say "boy jee this seems a little too political for me"

Shadowhelmet Umm... did you forget when Lauren Southern and her far right Rebel Media goon squad tried to shut down and protest Julius Caesar because they were offended that it had a Trump lookalike getting killed. They literally started calling the audience "Goebbels". Stupidity is not at all limited to conservatives.

*Edit - limited to liberals.

*Not enough les-bi politicz -Anita Sarwuusequinn

Preeeetty much. The second one says "you're an irrational clown and a trend chasing fool, but you're my buddy and my equal", that said one is neither seeing you as buddy nor equal. I can't believe people think it's not aggressiveness when the hostile rejection isn't even thinly veiled!

omg congratulations from a fellow queer person :)

lol im trans now. lmao.

​@@FlareShiftbased

@@FlareShiftyea it be like that sometimes

Lmao now I'm gay again, but in the opposite direction this time

commmulism will prevail, conrad radical memes for communist teens, on my channel

Commulism is the next logical step from Crapitalism

Sounds like communism plus cunnilingus. Who could resist THAT?!

;) www.marxists.org/history/ussr/sounds/mp3/soviet-anthem.mp3 Enjol, frield

where is this meme from?

It happened to me as well

Although it was a contrapoints video (i think the one that talks about the Golden one)

I dont remeber the exact video

Might want to read those studies. You might find they're not as conclusive and clear cut as you think

@@razornz007 You seem to be putting some words in my mouth. All I advocate for is education and skepticism.

It's funny how he was the first many of us found and became skeptical only to look back and see him for who he really was.

@@50_Foot_Punch I mean, I guess he is still a skeptic. Just... in the conspiracy-theorist sort of way.

@PitLord777 the logical end point it's being skeptical of everything I suppose but skeptical of the proof is just a step too far personally.

Bruh

Tbf in his community tab, he also appears incredibly depressed and mentally unwell so I honestly hope he gets the help he needs

@@whitefang2312 Yeah, the altright can be a hell of a drug

I'm in the same sinking boat my friend.

Hey, you're not there anymore though! You're living proof that the world is an awesome place and it's really big of you to admit that.

He is about as intellectual as a coconut

Most people had that phrase...... though I had a Pokémon phrase that's been continuing ever since

Don't be embarrassed; rejoice in knowing that you've moved forward.

Actual skeptics which hbomberguy is citing in this video, aka "centrists": "Bill Nye has joined the SJW's and he's anti science and SJW's are anti-science and there are only 2 genders and all this other bullshit doesn't exist" That Bill Nye is being too vague and not explaining the concepts enough is a valid criticism. hbomberguy makes that criticism in the opening of this video. Don't project that valid criticism onto the invalid criticisms of the critics which are analysed for the rest of the video. Because that's not the arguments they are making.

Sceptics Point was Nye did it terribly which he did if your interested sceptic has responded his response was pretty petty but he does explain what he meant

@@loturzelrestaurant what?

I literally facepalmed at that point when that clip was being shown, as a gnc trans person. Having people dismiss this shit and be annoying about it is a whole thing I'm used to dealing with, but the mutual facepalm and sighing in exasperation is so appreciated now and then.

The entire situation is messed up in yet another new way. We had feminists, and things were fine. We had some radical "feminists" gaining popularity, spouting extremist nonsense, as well as other similar sorts of things. We had criticism of those "feminists," and their extremism. We had alt-right psychos hijack that criticism to push anti-feminist sentiments, which became super popular for a while. Then we had more psychos show up who call anyone who ever criticizes any "feminist" for anything a misogynist, and makes similar asinine character attacks as the sole facet of their response. And now memory of those extremists has faded to the point where people think the psychos I just mentioned had a valid point, because they only vaguely remember the alt-right psychos, and so conflate everything with them.

@@seigeengine Exactly. It's all fucked.

dont be too embarrassed, they preyed on you and people like you for money

the most depressing thing is seeing grown men hate on women cuz they can't get laid

It's a common tactic of those who claim to be this silly idea of the "moderate."

@Giordan Diodato this ain’t 4chan you can’t greentext here

@@mrasray7622 no

it's a science show... I don't want politics fed to me in a science show.

@@prussia9255 science, for the most part, has and will always be related to politics. period. it used to be political to say the earth revolved around the sun, or that meat didn't turn to flies. so, if you don't like politics? don't bother talking about modern science.

Yeah where all of them ?

No, this episode was all Tommy man. Tallarico said so!

Or, just stay away from it in general.

Being political= doesn’t show the scientific consensus, or doing in an confirmation bias way like your boy Harry

@@geologist5838 Scientific consensus = sex, gender, and gender expression are all different things. Your move, gonna raise the standard of evidence here or are you just going to keep slinging mud and pretending like you're doing something meaningful?

@@geologist5838 being a woman or a minority on internet, incels, racists & boomers: yOu ArE tOo PoLiTiCal

Or just having non straight white cis males in a video game.

The ice creams fuck!

Also apparently licking is slutty behaviour. Dogs are sluts!

💀💀💀

The most indiest of band names

I thought you said “Indonesian welding” and wondered what the fuck bill was doing welding in Indonesia lol

I think you've pretty much nailed it. The "skeptic community" is skeptical of anything that challenges their straight, white hetero-normative view of society, skeptical of anything that might mean they aren't inherently better than others or the "normal" or "default" of society.

Orwell explained all of this with the concept of double-speak in his prophetic novel 1984, it's the same reason that cuckservatives think that the government murdering people with impunity is freedom but giving people access to health care is fascism and all of their other non-sensical beliefs

​@@curtmacquarrie I believe that is a misrepresentation of the skeptic community. Armoured Skeptics' girlfriend is not even straight. He always advocates for freedom of expression, gay and trans rights. Besides he's only one person, pretending everyone who calls themself a skeptic shares the same mindset and agrees with his views is incorrect. His video is ignorant. But the segment from the show is also not very clear. Skeptics' inability to understand the subject and its roots in science is a result from first of all his own bias (and ignorance) but secondly the lack of effort the show puts into proving the things they are telling us. They are not convincing and confusing. I also thought the episode was a mess. Not because I don't support LGBTQ rights or disagree with the science, but because it was just not a very good representation of the issue.

He is skeptical to change

Love this comment

I agree, but it's still politics... thing is, that's perfectly okay. Pretending you can avoid "getting political" in a society so thoroughly shaped by politics is kinda stupid. If you have any opinion on just about anything, you are officially "getting political". Anyway, yeah, there are definitely some things that should take priority over what political orientation you take part in such as human rights, like yknow.. LGBTQ+ people being treated like actual human beings like everyone else.

Im too busy politicking in crusader kings, gotta murder my brothers and sister for more land and power.

I do agree that some politics are life and death. But for the rest that isn’t, if I don’t have a stake in it then why should I care?

@@defective.6192 Politics would be more interesting if they involved more Machiavellian power-plays and brutal assassinations (CIA doesn't count).

@@dustydesu7019 Follow your leader.

Thank you for being willing to change your viewpoints and yourself. It isn't easy to accept that you were wrong about anything, much less something big like human rights for a whole group of people.

The true end goal of your journey to is to realise he IS a crazy SJW and that’s rad as hell

@@zilentis1835 the real SJWs were the friends we made along the way

That depends on whether they care about being informed or only care about being right.

There is a crazy Paradox in social biology that is in direct conflict with science, and it goes like this: When proven that someone is wrong, the same region that registers physical pain in their brain activates. All the effects of that correlation haven't been completely proven yet (or I haven't researched enough), but some studies show that presenting someone with the fact that they are wrong it only strengthened their believe that they were indeed right. And some have said that happens because the "pain"-part of your brain triggers, forcing a fight-or-flight response, you defend yourself and if not perfectly taken down you emerge as the "victor" of that fight only with more confidence that you are correct in your assumptions.

Flumpor well its a good thing we can discuss facts without the use for emotion.

Flumpor I do not see why it is suppose to be a paradox. The phenomenon we call "belief" is a form of commitment to an idea and science is not about commitment. If our system of beliefs was only developed to learn how nature works and adapt to it then we wouldn't have evolved to be able to develop more complex concepts/beliefs. But for some reason all cultures around the world has complex systems of beliefs. These are the stories that have been shared down trough generation to generation at social gatherings, like around campfires or in holy buildings. The reason why we believe in concepts that doesn't necessarily mean anything to us is so we can share it with other people. To believe things is far more of a social phenomenon than most people believe. The same thing goes with opinions/values, experiences, traditions and just about anything that defines you as a person. When humans forms social systems based on the sharing of these things it becomes a religion. The reason why humans convert to other religions is because what we believe, what our values are and all that stuff doesn't matter in the end. What matters is that we can share them with people about as desperate as your our selves. So if we end up in a situation when you have to spend time with people who doesn't share your views you have to change them. How protective we get with our beliefs, values and stuff depends on what situation we are in. The more dangerous our situation becomes the more we become in need of social interactions to survive. So there is no coincidence that extremism tend to come as the result of war and oppression. The reason behind all this could be that sharing all of the things that defines your personality and makes you predictable with another person makes you more reliable. If two people think the same way and behave the same way then both of these two people can trust one and another better.

you swallowed the same pill as steve shives. dont deny it.

Not mutually exclusive.

@@bn444 but a clear sign of lack of self-awareness

@@NoahRodriguezShow No. If anything, it's a clear sign of self-awareness. The statement, "This made me angry", explicitly indicates awareness of one's emotional response; a quality necessary for a human to be objective. Really, the 2 statements are more complimentary than contradictory.

@@bn444 , well only if one doesn't base their whole arguments on that feeling, but does everything to cut it out, and he didn't . Otherwise its no where near objective, if you feel smth towards smth and use it as an argument, in this case "it made me angry so that's bad".

@@bn444 That doesn't really apply when he uses "being very angry" as the basis for his entire argument. You're engaging in apologetics.

If you truly believe something doesn't exist, you shouldn't destroy evidence of it existing. You should heavily research it to find out why it shows something existing

redemption arc

I like how@@cauldroneer2722 doesn't actually say which argument they were against and just said it was disinegeniuous, which neither video was.

@@dominickperez2952 i dont see @Cauldroneer so im assuming they deleted their comment?

@@MiorAkif Yeah

@@MiorAkif they bitched out

Occam's Blazer im a sjrm soicial justice red mage

Can I be the Red Swidge Knight?

I'm a Social Justice Bard, we're this close to forming a party to raid the Dungeon of the Dark Mother

+Dnt Wry you've gotta just make sure you do the sub quest first since Red Swidge Knight is the advanced job class and you have to start with Dark Swidge Knight first.

Social Justice Mage/Rogue duel class represent!

Yeah, I feel like it was always a running theme in his videos. For a guy who would get on people's cases about sources, he would seldom back his own words up with data sources.

​@@cutecatgirlnya it comes from the days where he was arguing against such bad positions, you *could* basically take it down by going "it is known..." But he never got better at arguing.

So many things are, or never should have become, political. But, the moment someone disagrees it becomes political. If it seems new, trendy, outside of one's experience, strange, or involving a minority, it becomes political.

@@marcdedecker3400 I'm not aware that anyone is being "forced" to use the appropriate pronoun for a person who identifies a certain way. Like you said, one can be conservative and still be respectful enough to use the pronoun one chooses for one's self. However, regardless of politics, we still have a lot of ignorant and/or mean people who will choose to be disrespectful and use the pronoun they *think* should be used, based on their own beliefs. In some cases, education on these matters can resolve these issues, but by and large people don't like having their beliefs challenged, and there are those who just feel it is necessary to be outright rude and mean to anyone who doesn't fit their ideal. Legally, I believe people should have the right to choose the pronouns that best fit themselves, and that includes changing legal documents to show that personal choice, rather than some arbitrary set of rules that do not always apply. I also feel an employer can make decisions on what type of employees they will hire or people they will serve. And what I mean by this is that we've already established that businesses are allowed to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, so businesses should also be able to decide if they will have employees that are supportive of LGBTQA+ persons or not. If we can have businesses that can legally and actively discriminate against gay or trans folk, then businesses should be able to hire only LGBTQA+ persons and their allies, and not serve anyone who is anti-gay or trans. Right? (I don't think these practices are ideal, nor do I agree with them overall, because I just think it's entirely dysfunctional, but if we are going to divide ourselves, then what is good for the goose is also good for the gander).

@@katherinerubie557 From what I recall, there was actually a proposed law in Canada a while back that, with the language used, would compel educators to use the pronouns a student gave them, with failure to do so being grounds for legal action. I can't say for certain whether or not the language got amended, or the law even got through at all in the first place as it did not directly affect me or my life at all, but there's precedent for the concern. And being vehemently against the notion of compelled speech in the first place, I can understand such a concern. Of course, I'm also of the arguably mundane opinion that you should just fucking treat people with respect and call them what they want to be called, even if you're not compelled to do so, because it's a simple and kind thing to do. Should you be forced to? No, but don't then get all huffy when people start calling you an asshole when you basically just got done fighting for your right to be an asshole.

@@firekirby123 I actually support policies that get transphobes fired for misgendering students and coworkers, and here's why. If I decide not to respect a cis man's gender and insist on referring to him as she/her... that's harassment. If I decide I don't like his name and start calling him Shelley instead... that's harassment. If I did that to a coworker or a student, I would be reprimanded for harassing them and eventually fired for refusing to stop. No one should be fired for making an honest mistake, so any law codifying this kind of policy should be written carefully to avoid doing that. But I strongly disagree that people have the right to bully their transgender co-workers and students explicitly because they're trans.

@@edgarallenhoe3518 Yup. Basically sums up my thoughts. My main point is just regarding careless legislation that sets a precedent which can lead to _more_ discrimination and harassment down the line, not less.

COME HITHER CHILDREN. The Solar Wolf is selling some spicy knowledge, dropping some cool truth bombs.

If you were talking about the science behind something, then you'd be right. There is only one objective truth, and everything that isn't true must be false. But what Armoured Skeptic is talking about in the video is not the science itself, it is the question of what to do with the science. In this specific case, it is the question of what to do with the information that the climate is changing, probably due to human interference. This is a political question, not a scientific one, and therefore, can't be divided into simply a "true" and a "false" answer. That means that we need debate to optimise our approach. This is also the reason why people are welcoming a debate about our approach to climate change (a POLITICAL topic) but not a debate about flat vs. round earth (a SCIENTIFIC topic). You can't debate the facts, but you must debate the conclusions to draw from them.

@@ChangedMyNameFinally69 Example?

@@sciencetube4574 watch the video to find out

@@ChangedMyNameFinally69 Well... which specific fact are you referring to? The worst things I could find is him dismissing the concept of gender expression as fashion (which it literally is and the definition of gender expression in the study hbomberguy shows at 26:55 confirms) and him not accepting the concept of a gender spectrum - but neither of these are "dismissing facts". Whether you talk about gender expression or fashion is just a question of naming the same thing, not a question of empirical data or fact. And whether you talk about a gender spectrum strictly defining behaviour or two genders loosely correlated with certain behaviour is just a difference in modeling and interpretation of the data, not in the data itself. Saying "it's a fact that gender is a spectrum" is like saying "it's a fact that electrons orbit around the nucleus" - no, it's not, it's just a way of visualising the data we have. So, no facts dismissed so far. Please be specific.

... think "political" means *"stance, whether fact or opinion, that doesn't perfectly fit in to their preconceived worldview" ftfy

Reminds me of a segment in one of Innuendo Studio's videos. "Nazis are good" is apolitical, because it's obviously wrong and hence must be a joke, no need to worry about it. "Feminism is good" is controversial because there are people who argue for and against it, so it's political and we need to do something about it.

@@timothymclean unfortunately there are actually people who publicly argue for nazism nowadays so that's not the best example anymore

@@ShrubRustle The video was partly about how we got to that point, so... (And there are also plenty of people who still insist that there isn't anyone remotely fascist about any modern political movement. I don't know if they're ignorant of the alt-right or just define "fascism" too narrowly around fascists already in power, or maybe just the Nazis?)

Political = not a white male neckbeard or a Karen, the only type of women exist for incels, their mum.

@no, my name is tyler even "non-trans" can be kind of gross since it kind of makes being transgender to be this "condition" that some people have. just use "cis." there's no negative context behind it, and most people use the word "cis" anyway

@@olipolygon So nitpicky. It's just semantics.

@@Josie.770 it's literally the medical term but okay lol

@@olipolygon Cis is the medical term, I mean thinking "non-trans" is bad.

What it means is so absurd to me When you're born, a doctor doesn't click on a box and your gender is assigned. They check the crotch, and note what's there! It's not assigned, it is REGISTERED/NOTARIZED

Please rewatch 34:00-38:40 of his Climate-Change-Denial-Video to get hyped for a Journey. A Journey through various Science-Channel and Atheist-Channel who all cover Scammers and Science-Denial and these thing’s rather deep connection to Unhealthy Religion. Start with the legendary Professor Dave, who just covered the Discovery-Institute and go from there. MANY resemble him: Sci Man Dan, Prophet of Zod, Telltale, UpIsNotJump and those they collabed with. And throw likes and subs around during it all.

You learned wrong what a Sceptic is, bro.

nah having watched alot of skeptics, its just atheists jerking themselves off for being atheists and questioning literally everything

@@slevinchannel7589 no

I mean, it's a complicated area. When I got into what wasn't even called the skeptic community really at the time, it was all left-wingers, pro-LGBT, etc. But any time you criticize things intelligently, there's room for bad faith criticism too. Some criticized legit problems with religious groups, beliefs, and societies organized thereby... and others promoted hatred of a "them," (Islam, mostly) using the valid criticism as cover. It's much the same way you had nutjobs masquerading as feminists pushing misogyny and man-hating... but then had legitimate criticism of that... but also misogynist anti-feminist psychos. Now, I don't know all the channels Slevin recommended, but I will say at least some of them are good, if maybe not your cup of tea. I know Sci Man Dan mainly discusses things like criticizing flat earth conspiracy quackery, and associated nonsense.

❤

@Ben Prokein Im confused, if you agree with everything then what is he wrong about?

@Ben Prokein seems wise. Also your English is fine.

I'm a fan of both Skeptic and Shoe. I've wanted to hear a different opinion because I just really want to understand how both sides see things so I can form my own opinion. The only problem was *RU-vid's algorithm* recommending crap like "Feminists Get Rekt" instead of a video related to the topic. I tried a manual search, but I only ended up with "You're a nazi if you don't agree" content. I only stumbled upon this one by chance, and I'm grateful. TL;DR You missed nothing. Move on.

Same. I did not realize the problems in that community until I heard some of your criticisms of it.

Mark S So his moniker should be.... ‘Shelled Critic’

the slits in his helmet are there to let white supremacist memes and talking points infiltrate his brain

soupalex I’m not too familiar with how he has shifted since the time this video released, but he recently said he supports Bernie Sanders in his Joker movie review: hardly a white supremacist.

Look I don't like Armoured Skeptic either and apologies for nitpicking,but being skeptical has nothing to do with open-mindness. It just means you are not apt to accept new ideas and will only accept them after them after vigorous,thorough research.

Shane Cash i make false claims so you don’t have to

I was much like you, and I also managed to avoid going into the full nazi train and bounce over to being a lefty. Thankfully, it honestly gets better, I don't know what kind of person I'd be today if I stuck being right wing.

kind of unrelated, but i find it honestly sad that the right sucked many people turning atheist and apostates into itself back in the day, because what it means for us now is that stigmatising us as "holier than thou" assholes who throw shit at everyone who believes in different things or has a darker skin tone than us is really easy, when we're actually a (non)religious minority actively persecuted in lots of the world and mispotrayed as way larger and more threatening and dangerous than we actually are, even in leftist circles usually concerned with helping people... ykno, not be opressed

A lot of people are in a similar boat. Right wing youtube is MASSIVE and has an iron grip on hobbies that mostly contain young people, ripe for influencing. Video games, for example. Most game youtubers are just 'anti woke' channels nowadays, stoking the fires of hateful right wing ideology as soon as possible. So glad I got out of that hell before it was too late.

@@brightroot5719 Thanks to you and the original commenter for being willing to admit you were wrong and change your viewpoint. It's not easy to do, and I respect you both immensely for both doing it and admitting it.

This sounds so bizarre to me. People are so easily brainwashed.

Why not just say "a normal person".

@@jeffm9770 exactly. Isn't that the point of your whole pride parades? Celebrating being abnormal?

@@macadelic2492 that's a lot of words. That's what prefixes are for

@@macadelic2492 also it's not specific enough

@@bubby632 there's no need for that. It just complicates what everyone already knows. It's going backwards

That's TERFs for ya

That's very true! Bill Nye is all about effective science communication and I think they were trying to help viewers who aren't as knowledgeable understand. I would have loved it too if he brought out some *HARD SCIENCE* but sometimes that's too much for the intro to a topic.

I'm bi and the only abuse I've ever received is from a gay guy.

@@deezboyeed6764 there are still too many gay and lesbian people who feel they've worked too hard at gaining acceptance as legitimate, and then along comes someone who says they're bi and they see that as a threat because now it APPEARS that straight people get to take advantage of a trend towards being gay. We know this isn't true, but when your existence is threatened by someone else's, then it becomes vitally important to deny it. Geeze! I'm not sure if that was even "followable." I too consider myself bi, but when I was struggling with my sexual orientation in the beginning I was faced with 2 choices: I was either straight and curious, or I was a lesbian who had been led to believe I was straight by social conditioning. I had even taken a college course that focused on the history of lesbians. This course was taught by a lesbian who also denied bisexuality as legitimate. As the weeks progressed I was still trying to fit inside one of those boxes. Finally, my lesbian professor quietly pulled me aside in the hallway during a break and told me it was ok to be bi. Not only had that not even crossed my mind as a legitimate option, but the fact that she just defied her own political beliefs by saying this to me, I was left flabbergasted and everything in that moment just clicked. Thank goodness that this hard core lesbian was willing to bend in her beliefs or I could still be struggling with my identity!

Why do they feel they are a guy?

LastTalon Oh my god same dude, it's kind of like watching yourself grow

That's what pretty much everyone does. When you only get one side of a story, you are almost guaranteed to be lied to.

I still watch his conspiracy theory reactions/rebuttals lol oop

I watched exactly one of his videos when I found him randomly on yt one night. It was on a completely innocent topic, so he wasnt screeching about sjws from the getgo or anything, but still something felt super off about him so I stopped watching. Having seen this video now I feel super good about it haha

I'm pretty sure everyone does that style of editing if they dislike the person making that content. That's just how trying to win an argument works. You will take the weakest points in the argument, and use that as ammunition. Hbomberguy also does that for people he's countering because he will pick the points he disagrees with the most. The only thing that's wrong is editing the footage itself, like the subtitles thing in the video, because that ends up being misleading. Remember that everyone will edit videos in a way where their argument is strongest, it's not just a few people. The important thing is that you should view the article or video FIRST, and theeeeen watch the video critiquing or contesting the source. Don't take what they say as FACT, take it as their opinion.

ong

MAXIMUM SKEPTICISM

Especially since its been a recognized scientific term since 1963.

And he calls other people the triggered snowflakes.

I think regarding to The white people thing he Got triggered by The comedian looking down upon and shaming a complete race. I think he would've also gotten "offended" If The comedian mentioned some other race, which he briefly does though so there's a little bit of inconsistency right there :)

Its the age old practice of "it's only funny when it happens to someone else" and "it is ok when it isnt me"

... where?

Its become acceptable to make negative jokes about white people. Its a double standard.

Tell your teacher armoured skeptic said that the book doesn't exist so you should just pass

That's the "factzoverfeelz" community for you.

i felt it was left in as a funny bit exaggerating how he felt, which would be supported by the intentionally "sloppy" editing.

Nesslig 20 Skeptic SMASH

Misinterpreting jokes as always I see

what joke

The response video to this was a whole ass roller coaster to watch lol

@@lavenderhuman shoot I looked for it but I can't find it.

@@lavenderhuman what happened?