The New Wave of YOUTUBE "SKEPTICS" - General

[video=youtube;TMDkaUB58Mk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMDkaUB58Mk[/video]

Armoured Skeptic covered this video. [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRCatLMIhps[/media]

Is this a guy who said friend zoning doesn't exist?

[QUOTE=Amplified;50959421]Armoured Skeptic covered this video. [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRCatLMIhps[/media][/QUOTE] This is a guy that can't even keep his argument civil before his video even starts (i.e "what the fuck" in the thumbnail) and then goes straight into mockery, saying he is a liar for calling out the "entire skeptic community" despite the fact that literally one of the first things he does is list skeptics he respects. Later he is saying the video is "useless". Yet despite this, during the course of the video, he frequently goes on to acknowledge and agree with points made throughout his long winded analysis Its funny that he demands to know why the OP's video doesn't name anyone. That's because the people who make these sorts of videos are literally preaching to a mob that swarm anyone who raises opposing opinions and drown out their voice. Anyone that dares speak out about these skeptic online demagogues gets a 25 minute rant about how stupid they are. [t]http://puu.sh/qQQcA/08233934bd.png[/t] [t]http://puu.sh/qQQf2/1d1e9c8fbd.png[/t] Some of his counter arguments really are pretty piss poor too. His response to a point about using extremists to frame an entire movement as bad is to say "well how can I critiscise a movement if I can't critiscise the people?!". Gee, I dunno, critiscise people outside of the extreme boundaries, like he suggests? Very early in the video he even says "its not about fighting SJW's, is about exposing ideas!" He then gives an example that because a guy walked into a Starbucks with a gun and demanded free stuff "christianity is fucked up" though I guess because of Poe's law I can't tell if he's actually kidding at that point. 19:45 "I'm insulted that you would even consider the positions on my channel not my opinions and thoughts". He didn't name anyone yet he's acting like he's being directly attacked by the video. He literally says he is leftwing and makes an off handed jab at the alt-right yet still somehow isn't aware of the sort of alt-right internet demagogues I expect come under the umbrella thejan1tor is talking about more so than he does.

[QUOTE=TornadoAP;50959368][video=youtube;TMDkaUB58Mk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMDkaUB58Mk[/video][/QUOTE] Question to destroy the video: Why are skeptics labeled as such for only being skeptical of paranormal things/religious things?

[QUOTE=Swilly;50960760]Question to destroy the video: Why are skeptics labeled as such for only being skeptical of paranormal things/religious things?[/QUOTE] because the earth isn't flat and jews didn't do 9/11

[QUOTE=Swilly;50960760]Question to destroy the video: Why are skeptics labeled as such for only being skeptical of paranormal things/religious things?[/QUOTE] Because politics is far less objective than matters of scientific fact, and selectively being skeptical toward only a certain group of people while maintaining the persona of someone just being out for the truth can be manipulative and misleading.

I feel like this video was way too vague to be useful. He didn't make any actual argument beyond a vague ad hominem attack against a nameless group of people. It seems to me like he was fine with "skeptics" standing beside him attacking religion, but doesn't like it so much when they start attacking his beliefs.

[QUOTE=Amplified;50959421]Armoured Skeptic covered this video. [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRCatLMIhps[/media][/QUOTE] why do people like this guy always have their videos be 25-40+ minutes long with dumb clickbaity 'ironic' thumbnails, it's like they're incapable of making a short, concise video

[QUOTE=Mingebox;50960916]Because politics is far less objective than matters of scientific fact, and selectively being skeptical toward only a certain group of people while maintaining the persona of someone just being out for the truth can be manipulative and misleading.[/QUOTE] That doesn't explain why you can't be labeled a skeptic if you don't focus on religion and batshit conspiracies. That just explains the dangers of the definition that's starting to become more vague just like the SJW moniker which means this entire argument is vapid at best because we're only continuing to demonize a term that can literally mean anything.

[QUOTE=Amplified;50959421]Armoured Skeptic covered this video. [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRCatLMIhps[/media][/QUOTE] As much as a like AS's videos, I prefer Jeff Holiday's video about the one in the OP. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vFNNENCvuY[/media] I like the1janitor and still watch his videos, but this one is one of his weaker ones that I mostly disagree on.

[QUOTE=Ithon;50959512]Is this a guy who said friend zoning doesn't exist?[/QUOTE] It actually doesn't, though

[QUOTE=HAKKAR!!!;50960962]why do people like this guy always have their videos be 25-40+ minutes long with dumb clickbaity 'ironic' thumbnails, it's like they're incapable of making a short, concise video[/QUOTE] Because they're usually discussing the video they're arguing against in whole. Showing clips from the other and then giving counter arguments to the statements made instead of only just cherrypicking parts of the video that "fits his narrative more". If you were to say that all 8 minutes of the1janitor's video were in AS's video and then cut them out, AS's video is only around 17 minutes long. Not to say that having longer videos invalidate their arguments anyway.

[QUOTE=Amplified;50959421]Armoured Skeptic covered this video. [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRCatLMIhps[/media][/QUOTE] i love how he makes a joke about videos on religious skepticism are just beating a dead horse, suggesting that he isn't beating the dead horse of sjw skepticism videos that make up his entire channel

I feel like what he's getting at is that we're (ironically) living in a post-factual world with very easily accessible information - or at least more accessible than ever before. I know he's mostly talking about "sceptics" on Youtube, but obviously this applies to both "sides" - some will say women make 77 cents on the dollar, while others will say there's no issue anywhere. Some will say one in four women have been raped on campus, some will deny there's any larger societal issue at all. Going to extremes makes you light up on the radar, which is obviously great if you want to be noticed, but it's detrimental to the whole conversation - if we can't reach any common ground, there's no dialogue to be had at all.

[QUOTE=Swilly;50961041]That doesn't explain why you can't be labeled a skeptic if you don't focus on religion and batshit conspiracies. That just explains the dangers of the definition that's starting to become more vague just like the SJW moniker which means this entire argument is vapid at best because we're only continuing to demonize a term that can literally mean anything.[/QUOTE] The problem is when you bring politics into it, because politics inevitably takes over a skeptics fanbase, his videos, and possible even himself. For example, why the hell do you never see any skeptic channels on the topic of the opposite side of the spectrum, on the far right? It's because skeptics are forced to continue their anti-leftism topics since that what their audience wants even if they don't necessarily subscribe to the "alt-right". If you want proof, it happened with Thunderf00t. Thunderf00t always make the kind of skeptical videos you expect from a YouTube skeptic nowadays, especially on the topic of feminism in atheism. When Brexit rolled around however, Thunderf00t realized how much of a monumentally stupid idea it was, but since Brexit was supported by most of his alt-right supporters, Thunderf00t lost a lot of his audience to petty fucking politics. This isn't even to mention that, as The1Janitor said, most of these skeptic channels are really just attacking individual people, labeling them as the face of a whole movement, to which then their followers go out and attack these movements. It's all a crock of bullshit because it means that skeptics cannot be skeptical without imploding upon themselves.

[QUOTE=TornadoAP;50962916]The problem is when you bring politics into it, because politics inevitably takes over a skeptics fanbase, his videos, and possible even himself. For example, why the hell do you never see any skeptic channels on the topic of the opposite side of the spectrum, on the far right? It's because skeptics are forced to continue their anti-leftism topics since that what their audience wants even if they don't necessarily subscribe to the "alt-right". If you want proof, it happened with Thunderf00t. Thunderf00t always make the kind of skeptical videos you expect from a YouTube skeptic nowadays, especially on the topic of feminism in atheism. When Brexit rolled around however, Thunderf00t realized how much of a monumentally stupid idea it was, but since Brexit was supported by most of his alt-right supporters, Thunderf00t lost a lot of his audience to petty fucking politics. This isn't even to mention that, as The1Janitor said, most of these skeptic channels are really just attacking individual people, labeling them as the face of a whole movement, to which then their followers go out and attack these movements. It's all a crock of bullshit because it means that skeptics cannot be skeptical without imploding upon themselves.[/QUOTE] Or maybe Thunderf00t weighed the evidence he found and sided with remain based on it. How would it even make sense that these Skeptics are just doing it for the views, when your very example of Thunderf00t seems to contradict that? You're assumption that skeptics are inherently anti-left is absurd.

[QUOTE=cdr248;50962787]i love how he makes a joke about videos on religious skepticism are just beating a dead horse, suggesting that he isn't beating the dead horse of sjw skepticism videos that [b]make up his entire channel[/b][/QUOTE] If you actually look through his videos, about 90% of them are on the topic of religion/conspiracies. Yes, lately he's been making more videos on "SJWs" because he feels like those discussions are more relevant at the moment. It's also not like he's 100% done with religious/conspiracy videos. He's even stated that he wants to do more videos on those subjects, but wants to discuss social issues more at the moment.

[QUOTE=cdr248;50962787]i love how he makes a joke about videos on religious skepticism are just beating a dead horse, suggesting that he isn't beating the dead horse of sjw skepticism videos that make up his entire channel[/QUOTE] That horse isn't dead at all though? Our generation is more likely to have faith in progressive ideals than they are to stick to their elders' "Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve" tier beliefs. As a result for many people questioning the validity of the claims used to spearhead them is akin to being against them. It's important to challenge these beliefs, for instance the wage gap claim, if you really want to achieve equality. If The Guardian's claim about women in their 20-30s earning more than their male counterpart is true (I assume it is, The Guardian, being one of the most left-leaning publications, has no reason to falsely claim that), then we should absolutely stop claiming women are at a disadvantage in that area. Unless we prefer to wait 40 years for this tendency to reach the entirety of the working population and realize we just switched the privileges around. It's just disheartening to have people be so convinced they're in the right that they don't question the facts. If one wishes to champion actual progress, he should necessarily be a skeptic. [editline]28th August 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=TornadoAP;50962916]The problem is when you bring politics into it, because politics inevitably takes over a skeptics fanbase, his videos, and possible even himself. For example, why the hell do you never see any skeptic channels on the topic of the opposite side of the spectrum, on the far right? It's because skeptics are forced to continue their anti-leftism topics since that what their audience wants even if they don't necessarily subscribe to the "alt-right". If you want proof, it happened with Thunderf00t. Thunderf00t always make the kind of skeptical videos you expect from a YouTube skeptic nowadays, especially on the topic of feminism in atheism. When Brexit rolled around however, Thunderf00t realized how much of a monumentally stupid idea it was, but since Brexit was supported by most of his alt-right supporters, Thunderf00t lost a lot of his audience to petty fucking politics. This isn't even to mention that, as The1Janitor said, most of these skeptic channels are really just attacking individual people, labeling them as the face of a whole movement, to which then their followers go out and attack these movements. It's all a crock of bullshit because it means that skeptics cannot be skeptical without imploding upon themselves.[/QUOTE] So one shouldn't ever be a skeptic about politics? This is asinine. Politics is where ideas should be challenged the most. I really don't see your point. I think the reason why skeptics rarely take on far right subjects is precisely because the far right is already widely depicted as wrong, in no small part because of what happened last century. I also don't see the problem in mostly covering a specific side of the political debate, as long as it legitimately deconstructs false ideas.

[QUOTE=Thlis;50962960]Or maybe Thunderf00t weighed the evidence he found and sided with remain based on it.[/quote] Okay? What does that have to do with anything I said, I was talking about the reaction to him after he came out on the remain side not really him deciding on which side to support? [quote]You're assumption that skeptics are inherently anti-left is absurd.[/QUOTE] Did you even read any bit of my post? My whole thing is that skeptics on YouTube right now are mostly anti-left because they made a couple videos on it and now their fanbase forces them to continue making such videos even if they don't actually believe in the alt-right viewpoint. I never even said anything about how skeptics are inherently anti-left, don't put fucking words into my mouth.

[QUOTE=TornadoAP;50963241]I never even said anything about how skeptics are inherently anti-left, don't put fucking words into my mouth.[/QUOTE] You outright state that [quote]It's because skeptics are forced to continue their anti-leftism topics since that what their audience wants even if they don't necessarily subscribe to the "alt-right".[/quote] Which frankly, is a claim that these skeptics only talk about these topics because of their audience.

[QUOTE=TornadoAP;50962916]The problem is when you bring politics into it, because politics inevitably takes over a skeptics fanbase, his videos, and possible even himself. For example, why the hell do you never see any skeptic channels on the topic of the opposite side of the spectrum, on the far right? It's because skeptics are forced to continue their anti-leftism topics since that what their audience wants even if they don't necessarily subscribe to the "alt-right". If you want proof, it happened with Thunderf00t. Thunderf00t always make the kind of skeptical videos you expect from a YouTube skeptic nowadays, especially on the topic of feminism in atheism. When Brexit rolled around however, Thunderf00t realized how much of a monumentally stupid idea it was, but since Brexit was supported by most of his alt-right supporters, Thunderf00t lost a lot of his audience to petty fucking politics. This isn't even to mention that, as The1Janitor said, most of these skeptic channels are really just attacking individual people, labeling them as the face of a whole movement, to which then their followers go out and attack these movements. It's all a crock of bullshit because it means that skeptics cannot be skeptical without imploding upon themselves.[/QUOTE] The term "skeptic" just refers to someone who doubts accepted opinions, that's it. "Contrarian" might be a better word for clarity's sake. You don't see the same on the other side of the spectrum because the alt-right has been decisively rejected by the mainstream in a way that the SJW "left" hasn't. You're right about the tribalism issue, it's disappointing to see the direction Dave Rubin has gone. Criticizing Islam and absurd culture wars leaves you with odd bedfriends.

[QUOTE=TornadoAP;50963241]Did you even read any bit of my post? My whole thing is that skeptics on YouTube right now are mostly anti-left because they made a couple videos on it and now their fanbase forces them to continue making such videos even if they don't actually believe in the alt-right viewpoint. I never even said anything about how skeptics are inherently anti-left, don't put fucking words into my mouth.[/QUOTE] That sounds kind of ridiculous to be honest. How can a Youtuber who previously never did this sort of video end up being forced to do so by their audience when said audience didn't mind the absence of such videos before he started making it? You could say that making these videos attracted an additional audience which is only interested in this specific kind of content, but then that's also the only part of their audience that will quit should they stop. How is that forcing their hand? The content makers who talk about this topic do so of their own volition. I also still don't see why that's an issue. You seem to think these content-makers are reasonable (or at least not alt-righters), so surely any videos they make to debunk far left claims will be honest? How is that a bad thing?

[QUOTE=Dr.Critic;50959661]He then gives an example that because a guy walked into a Starbucks with a gun and demanded free stuff "christianity is fucked up" though I guess because of Poe's law I can't tell if he's actually kidding at that point. [/QUOTE] [QUOte=armoured sceptic]like when I made Josh Fierstein videos I [B]wasn't[/B] like "hey look everybody, christianity is super crazy", I was like "hey everybody look how crazy Josh Fierstein is and look how he uses his Christianity to fuel his craziness".[/QUOte] [QUOTE=Dr.Critic;50959661]Poe's law demagogues[/QUOTE]

How do you guys want someone to criticize feminism as a whole? It's diverse and sometimes ideas within feminism are conflicting with each other. You have sex-positive and sex-negative. You have feminists who care about men's issues and intersectionalists. You can't put everyone in one bag. And if he would start talking about things done by people calling themselves feminists that are stupid or bad, the response would be "nobody is doing that" or/and "it's only being done by a fringe group" so he talks about [B]ideas [/B]of people like Lacy Green or Franchesca Ramsey. Are they the straw feminist that doesn't exist? Then what are they doing on MTV?

[QUOTE=Laserbeams;50961902]It actually doesn't, though[/QUOTE] Yeah no, it exists and people have told me they've done it, even I've done it because I couldn't handle the mixed signals and drama with one person long ago. People might not want to admit it has existed, but it still exist. People who get upset saying they don't get anything because they're a nice guy isn't the same as it can be an excuse which skeptic has said. Heck, I remember one person saying "you're a nice guy, but" in all in all and kept being friends eventually them telling me I was hyperactive sometimes (have ADD), forget who it was but I don't care I appreciate honesty. But, I've only known such situations with inner city or in locations where rich people live, relationship dynamics can be different in towns or at least my experience. I'm pretty sure if one was able to poll the internet and filter for only the honest answers saying yes then there wouldn't be this huge misconception that it's a myth.

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;50966616]How do you guys want someone to criticize feminism as a whole? It's diverse and sometimes ideas within feminism are conflicting with each other. You have sex-positive and sex-negative. You have feminists who care about men's issues and intersectionalists. You can't put everyone in one bag. And if he would start talking about things done by people calling themselves feminists that are stupid or bad, the response would be "nobody is doing that" or/and "it's only being done by a fringe group" so he talks about [B]ideas [/B]of people like Lacy Green or Franchesca Ramsey. Are they the straw feminist that doesn't exist? Then what are they doing on MTV?[/QUOTE] I think the key is to not consider any political movement as a single thing but rather as a spectrum. Feminism, for instance, includes people who are, in the minds of most people who identify as feminist and don't, are very extremist, and it also includes people with largely the same mindset as people who don't feel comfortable with the label feminist but still believe in gender equality. There are far more of the latter group, in my experience, but they don't tend to be as loud because on both sides of the debate dogmatic and extreme people are far more certain that what they are yelling is fact. I think the vast majority of people believe in gender equality as a goal, we just disagree on a) how much inequality there is (ranging from people believing that the world is absolutely extremely unjust to their own choice of gender to people saying there are no gender equality issues at all) and b) how to tackle it and how proactive to be. Maintaining an honest and open discourse where we accept that people aren't generally out to get us and are doing what they think is best for the world is hard, especially when you have voices who are failing to separate their opinions and their identity, and thus refusing to be reasonable and kind.

[QUOTE=NeonpieDFTBA;50967884]I think the key is to not consider any political movement as a single thing but rather as a spectrum. Feminism, for instance, includes people who are, in the minds of most people who identify as feminist and don't, are very extremist, and it also includes people with largely the same mindset as people who don't feel comfortable with the label feminist but still believe in gender equality. There are far more of the latter group, in my experience, but they don't tend to be as loud because on both sides of the debate dogmatic and extreme people are far more certain that what they are yelling is fact. I think the vast majority of people believe in gender equality as a goal, we just disagree on a) how much inequality there is (ranging from people believing that the world is absolutely extremely unjust to their own choice of gender to people saying there are no gender equality issues at all) and b) how to tackle it and how proactive to be. Maintaining an honest and open discourse where we accept that people aren't generally out to get us and are doing what they think is best for the world is hard, especially when you have voices who are failing to separate their opinions and their identity, and thus refusing to be reasonable and kind.[/QUOTE] I agree with everything you said. And frankly there's a lot of "SJW critics" or whatever you want to call it on youtube that do not maintain honest and open discourse and just resort to flaming or making fun of people they disagree with, which is pretty much the same thing that the opposite side is doing. That said, in my opinion, Armoured Skeptic does hold to these standards.