Jesus fucking lol and it is so funny considering she literally talks about Marx and the industrial revolution and dismisses it, like please which is it?
How can you be so fundamentally wrong holy shit, I was skeptical when the other thread compared her with Peterson or whatever but boy oh boy this is the worst way possible to double down.
Just how hard is it to just own it, say some obviously fake PR shit like “oh we learned a lesson from the feedback of our community and we will do better in the future” or “we understand we should have approached the topic with a little more rigor” or something.
I fully admit I was willing to let her take this L as a fluke, something something her “team”(maybe even herself) suggested a bad topic and the minions can’t afford to tell her that was a bad idea or something, but no.
I can’t wait for the triple down I guess. Even the replies are still roasting her lol.
Why would you ever take somebody who does a video on trans issues and views the Littman study about ROGD as a credible source seriously again? We’ve known since then that she is completely incapable of adressing criticism in good faith, she’s the prototypical case of “i have a STEM degree, so i’m an expert on everything” bazinga brain. I know the type, and they all suck, they’re all transphobes and they’re all capitalist bootlickers. Comparisons to Peterson are entirely in order, give her a paycheck from Exxon and she’ll outdo Furzgesagt on how we can innovate our way out of climate change. China’s cultural revolution wouldn’t go far enough if applied to our universities.
: It’s only true capitalism when the markets are completely unregulated. You’re thinking of corporatism.
🌐: It’s only true capitalism when the markets are completely regulated. You’re thinking of corporatism.
you fail to consider that she genuinely doesn’t know enough about socioeconomics and geopolitical history to understand that she’s wrong. she’s dunning-krugering this because her brain knows how to actually do string theory calculations.
I want to say it’s not a case of a scientific person getting a subject they’re not familiar with wrong. I watched some of her climate change vids months ago, and although factually there wasn’t a ton wrong with it, the way it was presented was really off-putting.
https://youtu.be/oqu5DjzOBF8?si=WW9MtgPc8VySHsJr
And I realized that it’s the format. She spends time describing some easy and commonly misunderstood ways that people think drive climate change, and spends a few minutes debunking them. At the very end of the video she gives a basic summary about stratospheric cooling and shares a famously misused graph from Manabe (but presents them “correctly”). The one she uses is
While a more updated one that very clearly shows in a simple manner the problem:
What bugs me is she’s giving viewers all they need to debunk someone who’s not familiar with the finer details. She supplies helpful reading material, but the video itself felt falsely presented. Ultimately it takes a complex issue and makes it worse somehow.
I hate that I still can’t quite articulate why it rubs me the wrong way, but the graph really bugged me. If you did the research on Manabes original paper you had to have come across updated charts. If you really wanted to teach people, why would you use a pixelated black and white line graph to present info?
Anyways I decided she’s because something stunk. It was mostly bad vibes, but my guess was she was gathering a following of casual non specialized scientists and slipping in micro doses of bullshit reactionary brain worms and teaching chuds how to argue against casuals.
Her, responsding to criticism that the way she depicted the advent of currency was ahistorical:
“It was just a hypothetical, bro!!”
Imagine if we treated physics with the starting point of a hypothetical which was entirely incorrect and how she’d respond if someone was like “Ohhh, when I said ‘Hooray, we just invented the theory of gravity!’ I didn’t mean to make a scientific statement… 👉👈😳”
