Honestly, the manner in which so called 'sceptics' entirely dismiss scientific ideas based seemingly off a hunch is pretty telling as to exactly what level of scepticism they have to offer.
I'm noticing a lot of """"skeptics"""" are valuing balance over truth. Pretty sure if there was a show about math, Armored Skeptic would complement the show for it's balance if it shows a retard arguing that 2 + 2 = 0 and a average man arguing that 2 + 2 = 4.
[editline]30th June 2017[/editline]
christ I was honestly in tears 30:00 and past
this guy is great, I've never seen this guy before. will be looking forward to his video in the future.
Hbomberguy is quickly becoming a favorite YouTuber of mine.
I'm not sure what I enjoyed more: Him playing Skeptic saying "There is no science to gender expression. There are zero studies on it" while a list of citations for 40+ peer-reviewed studies explicitly on gender expression rolled past, or him completely breaking down in giggle fits once he realized the absurdity of saying "I wouldn't slut-shame the ice cream."
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;52420226]I'm noticing a lot of """"skeptics"""" are valuing balance over truth. Pretty sure if there was a show about math, Armored Skeptic would complement the show for it's balance if it shows a retard arguing that 2 + 2 = 0 and a average man arguing that 2 + 2 = 4.[/QUOTE]
You're overthinking it. Armored Skeptic got himself emotionally invested in the idea that there's "purity" in certain media and as a result he lost his shit when he was shown to be wrong. He did the same thing when some sleazy sockpuppet show he used to watch acknowledged feminism in a rather indecisive matter.
I think it's worth watching this in full, because boy howdy did the guy in the OP understate how bad this segment is.
[video=youtube;46h-LfNWPn8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46h-LfNWPn8&feature=youtu.be[/video]
Besides that I think the biggest issue with the new Bill Nye show is how condescending it is. I agree with pretty much all of it, yet I can't sit through a single episode due to how goddamn obnoxious it is.
The old Bill Nye show was about giving you the facts and just a little entertainment to keep kids interested. The new one is about giving you the facts(?) wrapped up in a political message and self-righteously shoving it down your throat, which believe it or not, does not do well to convince people to join your side.
that skit actually made me super uncomfortable somehow
This guy's analysis is extremely dishonest. For example, in the climate change panel. I watched it and it basically goes like this:
- One guy says we can run the whole country on renewables. He gives zero evidence. He gives absolutely nothing but a statement of fact.
- The other guy says we can't, and that we don't have time to work through that in the face of climate change, and that we should use nuclear while we get there.
Neither give any evidence.
... and the video creator demands evidence from the second guy, but nothing from the first guy. He tries to pretend like there's some consensus that all we need is wind and solar, without any nuclear, gas, or coal. The problem of course, is that there's no consensus. It's actually joke to pretend like there's consensus about this among any group.
The video creator just seems to agree with one side and tell everyone who disagrees that they're objectively wrong because he said so.
[editline]30th June 2017[/editline]
I then listened to his part on the Indian guy talking about Indian mysticism. Again, he's dishonest in his analysis. The joke about Depok Chopra was a joke tacked on the end of an argument, not part of the argument. He wasn't using Chopra as an example of what he's talking about when accusing "white people" of it, yet that's exactly how the video author presents it.
In reality the presentation in the show is pretty incoherent. He starts off by accusing "white people" of trying to sell stuff, like weed, by tricking people with Indian mysticism, but then he goes on to say that "white people" are gullible and think it's all real. So are they trying to trick people or are they being tricked? Overall, it was a weirdly racial presentation about not selling "alternative medicine," but with more focus on the racial aspect than the science aspect. In fact, he doesn't mention the lack of scientific backing until his closing line. The rest of it was just about how "white people" shouldn't use asian culture.
is this a video about bill nye's new show or this random armored skeptic youtuber
[QUOTE=sgman91;52420432]This guy's analysis is extremely dishonest. For example, in the climate change panel. I watched it and it basically goes like this:
- One guy says we can run the whole country on renewables. He gives zero evidence. He gives absolutely nothing but a statement of fact.
- The other guy says we can't, and that we don't have time to work through that in the face of climate change, and that we should use nuclear while we get there.
Neither give any evidence.
... and the video creator demands evidence from the second guy, but nothing from the first guy. He tries to pretend like there's some consensus that all we need is wind and solar, without any nuclear, gas, or coal. The problem of course, is that there's no consensus. It's actually joke to pretend like there's consensus about this among any group.
The video creator just seems to agree with one side and tell everyone who disagrees that they're objectively wrong because he said so.[/QUOTE]
You missed the point, then. The point wasn't that either side was right, but how Armored Skeptic approaches things. The video creator never demanded evidence from the other guy, he just pointed out that he had no evidence to support this, and Armored Skeptic (being the skeptic he is) liked that segment and the guy saying "No, you're wrong." without either side showing evidence.
The video creator made an error, but I think you pointing out that error actually made Armored Skeptic looked worse despite the segment being just a citeless speculation match.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;52420474]You missed the point, then. The point wasn't that either side was right, but how Armored Skeptic approaches things. The video creator never demanded evidence from the other guy, he just pointed out that he had no evidence to support this, and Armored Skeptic (being the skeptic he is) liked that segment and the guy saying "No, you're wrong." without either side showing evidence.
The video creator made an error, but I think you pointing out that error actually made Armored Skeptic looked worse despite the segment being just a citeless speculation match.[/QUOTE]
I'm not sure what you're saying. The Armored Skeptic guy says that he liked the segment. He didn't say he agreed with one side or the other, just that he liked how both sides of the issue were presented.
The author of the OP's video critiqued this by saying that Skeptic's idea of "balance" is wrong because balance for the sake of balance is a bad thing when one side clearly has all the facts... but neither side had any facts. So his point is irrelevant. His whole thing about Skeptic saying he liked it not being political was stupid as well. Clearly he meant that it wasn't political because it wasn't about how you need to support certain people and be against other people. It was about how to solve the problem, not who to vote for. Even Bill's "Vote" comment didn't name names.
[editline]30th June 2017[/editline]
His dumb analysis is constant. He's now critiquing the Skeptic guy for complaining that Bill didn't talk about any science when it came to gender because he can go find that information somewhere else. I'm sorry, but that's nonsense. This is a science show. It's a problem when there's no science. That's a totally legit criticism. "You can find the answer with your own research," isn't a reason to not talk about science on a show about science.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52420478]I'm not sure what you're saying. The Armored Skeptic guy says that he liked the segment. He didn't say he agreed with one side or the other, just that he liked how both sides of the issue were presented.
[B]The author of the OP's video critiqued this by saying that Skeptic's idea of "balance" is wrong because balance for the sake of balance is a bad thing when one side clearly has all the facts...[/B] but neither side had any facts. So his point is irrelevant. His whole thing about Skeptic saying he liked it not being political was stupid as well. Clearly he meant that it wasn't political because it wasn't about how you need to support certain people and be against other people. It was about how to solve the problem, not who to vote for. Even Bill's "Vote" comment didn't name names.[/QUOTE]
Where the hell did you get this? Yeah the guy who made the video is dumb in not citing any of this claims but the claim that armored skeptic is a retard for thinking the segment was balanced still stands.
You seem to agree. The segment was dumb since it was just.
"Here's my claim."
"You're wrong."
"Okay."
No one should like this. His point was this:
"The problem with thinking this panel is balanced or is supposed to try to be balanced is that science isn't balanced."
While what preceeded after that was dumb, he is STILL right even if the guy saying that 100% clean energy is a utopia is right.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52420478]His dumb analysis is constant. He's now critiquing the Skeptic guy for complaining that Bill didn't talk about any science when it came to gender because he can go find that information somewhere else. I'm sorry, but that's nonsense. This is a science show. It's a problem when there's no science. That's a totally legit criticism. "You can find the answer with your own research," isn't a reason to not talk about science on a show about science.[/QUOTE]
Again, you keep missing the point.
Armored Skeptic starts his criticism from "He doesn't tell us what gender expression is!" and then goes to "Well Gender expression is FASHION!" despite if he genuinely cared a 10 second google search could tell him what it is.
It's [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance"]an argument from ignorance[/URL].
who would've thought a dude who wears a tuxedo and a suit of armor would be a pseudointellectual fuckwit detached from reality
[QUOTE=sgman91;52420478]I'm not sure what you're saying. The Armored Skeptic guy says that he liked the segment. He didn't say he agreed with one side or the other, just that he liked how both sides of the issue were presented.
The author of the OP's video critiqued this by saying that Skeptic's idea of "balance" is wrong because balance for the sake of balance is a bad thing when one side clearly has all the facts... but neither side had any facts. So his point is irrelevant. His whole thing about Skeptic saying he liked it not being political was stupid as well. Clearly he meant that it wasn't political because it wasn't about how you need to support certain people and be against other people. It was about how to solve the problem, not who to vote for. Even Bill's "Vote" comment didn't name names.
[editline]30th June 2017[/editline]
His dumb analysis is constant. He's now critiquing the Skeptic guy for complaining that Bill didn't talk about any science when it came to gender because he can go find that information somewhere else. I'm sorry, but that's nonsense. This is a science show. It's a problem when there's no science. That's a totally legit criticism. "You can find the answer with your own research," isn't a reason to not talk about science on a show about science.[/QUOTE]
You... you [b]do[/b] realize he's not analyzing the Bill Nye videos, right?
He's analyzing Armoured Skeptic's video [b]on[/b] the Bill Nye videos.
The only reason Hbomberguy brought up the argument about Bill Nye not citing any evidence is because Armoured Skeptic brought it up. And the only reason that's the only segment Hbomberbuy brings it up is because that's the only segment Armoured Skeptic brought it up.
In fact, I believe Hbomberguy even makes a point of saying Bill doesn't cite sources [b]anywhere[/b] in his series, and then goes on to say "But this is the only time Armoured Skeptic brings it up, because up until now he's agreed with Bill."
Hbomberguy isn't judging the merit of the Bill Nye show. He's judging how Armoured "Skeptic" isn't being very skeptical in [b]his[/b] judging of the merit of the Bill Nye show, by pointing out all of the decidedly non-skeptical things Armoured Skeptic does in the video, such as claiming that a discussion with one person going on and on about renewable is totally balanced with another guy going "that's utopian," or how he doesn't question the lack of sources or citations on information presented until he disagrees with the information (and then goes on to say "there are no sources for this information" when there are, in fact, many).
Hbomberguy is glorious, he's done a great job of destroying the "skeptical" communtiy and the alt right. Unfortunately, these two groups seem to the ignore p obvious flaws in their own logic hbomberguy points out
[QUOTE=Gmod4ever;52420689]You... you [b]do[/b] realize he's not analyzing the Bill Nye videos, right?
He's analyzing Armoured Skeptic's video [b]on[/b] the Bill Nye videos.
The only reason Hbomberguy brought up the argument about Bill Nye not citing any evidence is because Armoured Skeptic brought it up. And the only reason that's the only segment Hbomberbuy brings it up is because that's the only segment Armoured Skeptic brought it up.
In fact, I believe Hbomberguy even makes a point of saying Bill doesn't cite sources [b]anywhere[/b] in his series, and then goes on to say "But this is the only time Armoured Skeptic brings it up, because up until now he's agreed with Bill."
Hbomberguy isn't judging the merit of the Bill Nye show. He's judging how Armoured "Skeptic" isn't being very skeptical in [b]his[/b] judging of the merit of the Bill Nye show, by pointing out all of the decidedly non-skeptical things Armoured Skeptic does in the video, such as claiming that a discussion with one person going on and on about renewable is totally balanced with another guy going "that's utopian," or how he doesn't question the lack of sources or citations on information presented until he disagrees with the information (and then goes on to say "there are no sources for this information" when there are, in fact, many).[/QUOTE]
Yup, hbomber does in fact state that Bill Nye doesn't bring up any sources, the goal being to act as an introduction to these subject. Hbomber doesn't focus on the nuclear guy because of his argument (not the main point of his discussion) but because he wants to highlight the fault in AS's approach.
Also, in response to sgman's post, I think the segment on renewables was more a discussion on the viability of green tech rather than a detailed exploration of the roadmap to green tech dominance and the necessary scaffolding of said tech until then. As such, saying that we could reliably cover our energy needs with our current green tech isin't wrong, just like saying that we would need to partially depend on fossil fuels in the transition period isin't wrong either... But again, that panel was just about the validity of renewables.
I also think it was fair to roast the nuclear guy, even though I believe in nuclear as a viable energy alternative, exactly because of the legislative and political nightmare it would be to build enough nuclear power plants to cover the energy needs of the USA.
Like it or not, the public is more open to the idea of green tech, it's cheaper, and easier to implement. It's currently our best bet for getting rid of our dependens on fossil fuels.
[QUOTE=Muggi;52420732]Yup, hbomber does in fact state that Bill Nye doesn't bring up any sources, the goal being to act as an introduction to these subject. Hbomber doesn't focus on the nuclear guy because of his argument (not the main point of his discussion) but because he wants to highlight the fault in AS's approach. [/QUOTE]
Yeah, and that would be completely fine if he didn't instantly do the same as AS. As far as I've seen (I've only watched that part on Youtube), the panel literally went that way - "Renewable is the way to go" - "No, that's nonsence, nuclear is better" - "What are you talking about, nobody wants nuclear, so lets not talk about it at all". Nobody presented any argument there and Bill Nye just sort of decided to cut it short. AS apparently supports the nuclear guy and implies that it's the only right way, while hbomber supports the renewable energy and then he literally puts it on screen, in text, "nuclear" guy is an "idiot". While none of the sides presented any arguments what so ever to any of their claims and it looked like an exercise in wishful thinking.
Taking any side there and criticising anyone else for doing the same is kinda dishonest if you ask me.
Armoured Skeptic often respond to criticism so I await his response.
[b]Edit:[/b]
I actually follow Hbomber on you tube because of his (actually good) FO3 critique. I was sorely disappointed to find out most of his videos are anti-gamergate and pro-SJW tier garbage.
I watched that episode where people were rapping about their vaginas and it made me cringe so hard I just had to turn it off.
I don't care if you agree or disagree with Bill, you're not going to tell me you watched that and thought it was quality television.
[QUOTE=gudman;52420841]Yeah, and that would be completely fine if he didn't instantly do the same as AS. As far as I've seen (I've only watched that part on Youtube), the panel literally went that way - "Renewable is the way to go" - "No, that's nonsence, nuclear is better" - "What are you talking about, nobody wants nuclear, so lets not talk about it at all". Nobody presented any argument there and Bill Nye just sort of decided to cut it short. AS apparently supports the nuclear guy and implies that it's the only right way, while hbomber supports the renewable energy and then he literally puts it on screen, in text, "nuclear" guy is an "idiot". While none of the sides presented any arguments what so ever to any of their claims and it looked like an exercise in wishful thinking.
Taking any side there and criticising anyone else for doing the same is kinda dishonest if you ask me.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, you're right; it is dishonest to present one side as being more right/wrong, even if it isin't the main point of the discussion at hand.
[QUOTE=V12US;52421129]I watched that episode where people were rapping about their vaginas and it made me cringe so hard I just had to turn it off.
I don't care if you agree or disagree with Bill, you're not going to tell me you watched that and thought it was quality television.[/QUOTE]
Well, HBomber thought it was quality, so I dunno.
I hate to way in on these things these days (Mainly fear of blacklisting in certain circles), but I'll say the same thing I said when the original Bill Nye clips were posted:
Why the hell is it so aggressive? This isn't trying to reach out and teach anyone. The 'Ice Cream' and 'Vagina Song' skits preach instead of teach. I may not always agree with the Armored Skeptic, but he was right that there is a weird kind of hostility to quite a lot of the messages in the show.
Which is really depressing, because Bill Nye The Science Guy was a show anyone could watch. It was fun, the science was fun, and everyone could feel included.
[QUOTE=Elv02;52421209]
Why the hell is it so aggressive? This isn't trying to reach out and teach anyone. The 'Ice Cream' and 'Vagina Song' skits preach instead of teach. I may not always agree with the Armored Skeptic, but he was right that there is a weird kind of hostility to quite a lot of the messages in the show.[/QUOTE]
The Ice Cream skit was more nonsensical than anything else. Watching it you can just sort of approximate at which point it just came apart and the creators forgot where they were trying to take it. Sexual orientation got mixed with gender, and then with race (???) and political views... and then they all fuck because uh, black lgbt people are promiscuous I guess and heterosexuals with conservative political disposition are actually promiscuous black lgbt people in disguise or want to be but are shy???
That one part with Indian guy is similar - like, what are you trying to say?
[QUOTE=Gmod4ever;52420689]You... you [B]do[/B] realize he's not analyzing the Bill Nye videos, right?
He's analyzing Armoured Skeptic's video [B]on[/B] the Bill Nye videos.
The only reason Hbomberguy brought up the argument about Bill Nye not citing any evidence is because Armoured Skeptic brought it up. And the only reason that's the only segment Hbomberbuy brings it up is because that's the only segment Armoured Skeptic brought it up.
In fact, I believe Hbomberguy even makes a point of saying Bill doesn't cite sources [B]anywhere[/B] in his series, and then goes on to say "But this is the only time Armoured Skeptic brings it up, because up until now he's agreed with Bill."
Hbomberguy isn't judging the merit of the Bill Nye show. He's judging how Armoured "Skeptic" isn't being very skeptical in [B]his[/B] judging of the merit of the Bill Nye show, by pointing out all of the decidedly non-skeptical things Armoured Skeptic does in the video, such as claiming that a discussion with one person going on and on about renewable is totally balanced with another guy going "that's utopian," or how he doesn't question the lack of sources or citations on information presented until he disagrees with the information (and then goes on to say "there are no sources for this information" when there are, in fact, many).[/QUOTE]
I mean, he may be intending to critique Armoured Skeptic, but he also definitely, 100%, comments on Bill Nye's show as well. When summing up the nuclear advocates argument, HBomberGuy says, and I quote:
[QUOTE]"Yes, that's too utopian, even though it's literally doable and I have no counterpoint to yours."[/QUOTE]
He then describes the nuclear advocate as being for nuclear because he's "dismissed ideas that could work in practice." HBomberGuy totally dismisses the nuclear guy's argument as being dismissive and anti-science. He never mentions that neither presented any actual facts. He argues that one is using facts and the other is just being a biased ignoramus.
This sort of dismissing of the nuclear guy continues for no reason other than HBomberGuy happens to disagree with him. The whole section is about HBomberGuy giving his opinion on the discussion, not about commenting on Skeptic's video.
He then, very ironically, totally strawman's what Armoured Skeptic says. HBomberGuy makes it seem like Skeptic is calling one guy an "SJW" and the other guy "rational" when he said no such thing. Skeptic summed up the two arguments, and pretty accurately I might add. He didn't say that one was right and the other as wrong. He said that one wants renewables for the whole country and the other guy thinks it's utopian. He also says that he's happy both sides were there for a "balanced" discussion.
The ironic part is that HBomberGuy literally just did what he's accusing Skeptic of doing. He unfairly and dishonestly critiqued the discussion based on his preconceived biases against the nuclear energy guy.
You [b]do[/b] know that the "that's too utopian" comment was, [b]once again[/b], in the context of the video, right? He was mocking the guy who said it, the nuclear energy guy. Because that's literally what the nuclear energy guy said - he said it's too utopian, and then offered absolutely no rebuttal to argue his claim.
I'm honestly not sure you [b]actually[/b] watched the video. Because most of what you're saying is being pulled out of thin air.
[QUOTE=Gmod4ever;52421803]You [B]do[/B] know that the "that's too utopian" comment was, [B]once again[/B], in the context of the video, right? He was mocking the guy who said it, the nuclear energy guy. Because that's literally what the nuclear energy guy said - he said it's too utopian, and then offered absolutely no rebuttal to argue his claim.
I'm honestly not sure you [B]actually[/B] watched the video. Because most of what you're saying is being pulled out of thin air.[/QUOTE]
The point is that neither gave any fact based arguments. One guy said it was possible, and the other guy said it wasn't. But HBomberGuy pretended like the first guy gave a fact based argument and the other guy just dismissed it out of hand.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52421811]The point is that neither gave any fact based arguments. One guy said it was possible, and the other guy said it wasn't. But HBomberGuy pretended like the first guy gave a fact based argument and the other guy just dismissed it out of hand.[/QUOTE]
No he didn't..?
Hbomberguy was bringing up the point how Armoured Skeptic treated the discussion as totally equal, when in reality the renewable energies guy had a [b]much[/b] longer time to talk, where he brought up various points and numbers (even if they are uncited, which isn't the issue here), while the nuclear energy guy barely got more than a few sentences in and absolutely none of them were even attempting to back up his point.
Hbomberguy was pointing out how those are very obviously not balanced.
[QUOTE=Gmod4ever;52421814]No he didn't..?
Hbomberguy was bringing up the point how Armoured Skeptic treated the discussion as totally equal, when in reality the renewable energies guy had a [B]much[/B] longer time to talk, where he brought up various points and numbers (even if they are uncited, which isn't the issue here), while the nuclear energy guy barely got more than a few sentences in and absolutely none of them were even attempting to back up his point.
Hbomberguy was pointing out how those are very obviously not balanced.[/QUOTE]
Uhh, the only meaningful number he brought up was the very end where he cited his own study about being possible to have 100% renewable energy grid in 2050 (Not that it's possible to get there, but that it's technically possible to even run a grid with 100% renewables in 2050). It was irrelevant to the discussion of what's the best path now.
Neither made any verifiable or fact based arguments. They made assertions. That's it. There wasn't anything meaningful for the nuclear guy to try and refute.
this guy has an incredibly sexy voice
reminds me of jam enslaver reviews
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJloiSx-gd4[/media]
[editline]2nd July 2017[/editline]
ow he needed a pop filter badly
[QUOTE=Qbe-tex;52421817]I agree too. I think he's really at his best doing these long analysis of movies/videogames; (Sherlock, Fallout 3, Dark Souls 2), and while I also like he's Measured Response videos, I do think they're kind of hit and miss at times (for example, PewDiePie's videos was really a miss, if for no other reason than the fact that he felt a 8 MINUTE skit was required in a 15 minute video); and while I don't exactly agree with all of his views, I do really like his video on pickup artistry.
[/QUOTE]
Completely agree with you there. Hbomberguy has been kind of hit and miss. That fucking pewdiepie video was god awful even when he got to his point imo.
Best thing I saw from him was his video on Male Objectification. Ive never read into much feminist thought, so that video really helped me understand my own thoughts on the subject. He automatically gained my respect for that video alone.
The renewables guy has multiple papers out and works at Stanford. The other guy try's to run a thorium interest group.
I mean I may support nuclear but the renewables guy isn't a joke like sgman suggests
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.