YouTube content providers that you follow?

[Moonbeam]

I don’t follow anybody on any platform. I just post here to tell you things you will likely never hear anywhere else.

 

[Muse]

While I am not a “ influencer “ like he is. I did my part by voting and went to a few rallies. Since he is an influencer that his only job…. So golf clap for someone actually doing what they get paid

But on a side note. Steve did give us bush # 2. And tried to give us palin.

He deserves a lot of credit for flipping. He obviously hates those people now.

 

[cytg111]

The only actual journalistic authority that haven't taken a knee to Trump are PBS and NPR. Some took it in 2015, others not until 2025.

puzzle remains unsolved... but who cares.

 

[dlerious]

Political
Rational National, Majority Report, I've Had It. I'll check out some of the others mentioned once in a while, but I get tired of the clickbait titles - "BOMBSHELL REPORT", "TRUMP PANICS", "PLAN BACKFIRES" always all caps words.

Computers
Jeff Geerling
Gamers Nexus
Hardware Unboxed
PC Builder
Hak5

RC cars
Scale Builders Guild
RCSparks Studio

Guns
The Honest Outlaw
Mr Guns & Gear

Misc.
Project Farm
Flick Connection (movies)
Crosstalk Solutions
Ryan Hall, Y'all
The Modern Rogue
Shawn Ryan Show

That's some of what comes to mind. @cytg111, have you ever checked out Ground News?

 

[Iron Woode]

I refuse to watch political channels. I have had my fill of politics.

I subscribe to channels about science, movies, reddit stories, computer hardware, cooking, certain mystery and crime channels and misc stuff.

I absolutely enjoy Mr. Nightmare. I also get a kick out of About Canada channels.

 

[cytg111]

Political
Rational National, Majority Report, I've Had It. I'll check out some of the others mentioned once in a while, but I get tired of the clickbait titles - "BOMBSHELL REPORT", "TRUMP PANICS", "PLAN BACKFIRES" always all caps words.

Computers
Jeff Geerling
Gamers Nexus
Hardware Unboxed
PC Builder
Hak5

RC cars
Scale Builders Guild
RCSparks Studio

Guns
The Honest Outlaw
Mr Guns & Gear

Misc.
Project Farm
Flick Connection (movies)
Crosstalk Solutions
Ryan Hall, Y'all
The Modern Rogue
Shawn Ryan Show

That's some of what comes to mind. @cytg111, have you ever checked out Ground News?

Will check it out.
Shawn Ryan is pretty good too, I have to adjust for my political leanings but there is a lot of insight on that show.

 

[KMFJD]

Jubilee has some interesting videos, this one yesterday was peak

https://www.youtube.com/@Drachinifel - Naval History
https://www.youtube.com/@RexsHangar Airplanes
https://www.youtube.com/@Candrsenal Guns

https://www.youtube.com/@FallofCivilizations History
https://www.youtube.com/@KingsandGenerals History

 

[Pens1566]

Jubilee has some interesting videos, this one yesterday was peak

https://www.youtube.com/@Drachinifel - Naval History
https://www.youtube.com/@RexsHangar Airplanes
https://www.youtube.com/@Candrsenal Guns

https://www.youtube.com/@FallofCivilizations History
https://www.youtube.com/@KingsandGenerals History

Yeah, Hasan is the last person you want sitting across from you in that setting. Just brutal. I wish more of our interview hosts were like him.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Yeah, Hasan is the last person you want sitting across from you in that setting. Just brutal. I wish more of our interview hosts were like him.

Thats why I follow Zeteo. Mehdi is a super smart dude with great analysis and an international perspective

 

[Pens1566]

Thats why I follow Zeteo. Mehdi is a super smart dude with great analysis and an international perspective

So I just finished watching the entire 1:40 show. To see that the most "balanced" one of the 20 debaters is actually a well known groyper just shows how fucking doomed we are as a society. The fact that so many of those idiots were so open with their racist, undemocratic views is not an encouraging sign. And the rest were either just some combo of ignorant/arrogant or couldn't put together a cohesive train of thought.

 

[Muse]

So I just finished watching the entire 1:40 show. To see that the most "balanced" one of the 20 debaters is actually a well known groyper just shows how fucking doomed we are as a society. The fact that so many of those idiots were so open with their racist, undemocratic views is not an encouraging sign. And the rest were either just some combo of ignorant/arrogant or couldn't put together a cohesive train of thought.

It's the TV, people don't demand better when they are conditioned to accept mediocrity or worse.

 

[Reflex]

He deserves a lot of credit for flipping. He obviously hates those people now.

Again, has he renounced the right and conservatism and worked to advance the left? If not he hasn't flipped at all, he just wants people he likes more in charge of the right.

 

[Muse]

Again, has he renounced the right and conservatism and worked to advance the left? If not he hasn't flipped at all, he just wants people he likes more in charge of the right.

No, Schmidt's a Republican antagonist now. Have you watched his videos? They come out virtually daily.

 

[Reflex]

No, Schmidt's a Republican antagonist now. Have you watched his videos? They come out virtually daily.

No, I'm just asking if he's actually against the Republicans or just does not like Trump. I do not see any 'good Republicans' or "good conservatives' in today's environment. Fascism is the inevitable result of conservatism as it has been pursued in the 20th and 21st centuries. If he is not taking a stand for the left, he is useless, if anything he is a detriment since he is upholding the idea that we can do all this right wing crap so long as we favor corporate fascism over white supremacist fascism.

The only cure for what we have now is actual leftism. If someone is not promoting that, they are extending and supporting fascist rule.

 

[Muse]

No, I'm just asking if he's actually against the Republicans or just does not like Trump. I do not see any 'good Republicans' or "good conservatives' in today's environment. Fascism is the inevitable result of conservatism as it has been pursued in the 20th and 21st centuries. If he is not taking a stand for the left, he is useless, if anything he is a detriment since he is upholding the idea that we can do all this right wing crap so long as we favor corporate fascism over white supremacist fascism.

The only cure for what we have now is actual leftism. If someone is not promoting that, they are extending and supporting fascist rule.

I won't argue against that spiel and to me Steve Schmidt appears to be thumbs down on Republicans at this point. I've been paying attention, you appear to not be. Check out his videos and come back here with a retort.

You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. - Harlan Ellison

 

[Reflex]

I won't argue against that spiel and to me Steve Schmidt appears to be thumbs down on Republicans at this point. I've been paying attention, you appear to not be. Check out his videos and come back here with a retort.

You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. - Harlan Ellison

I'm not going to waste my time watching videos if people can't just say whether he's a leftist or not. If he's not, fuck him, he's still doing damage. If he is, congrats, he isn't going to tell me anything I don't know as someone who grew up in the far right and am a leftist now, but hey the more that realize it's a death cult the better.

 

[cytg111]

No one mentioned Sabine Hossenfelder for popsci news?

Sabine Hossenfelder

As simple as possible, but not any simpler! Science and technology updates and summaries. No hype, no spin, no tip-toeing around inconvenient truths. Currently 5 videos a week (Tue-Wed-Thu and Sat-Sun). Early access for channel members. Sabine Hossenfelder has a PhD in physics. She is author of...

www.youtube.com

 

[Reflex]

No one mentioned Sabine Hossenfelder for popsci news?

Sabine Hossenfelder

As simple as possible, but not any simpler! Science and technology updates and summaries. No hype, no spin, no tip-toeing around inconvenient truths. Currently 5 videos a week (Tue-Wed-Thu and Sat-Sun). Early access for channel members. Sabine Hossenfelder has a PhD in physics. She is author of...

www.youtube.com

She's not considered terribly credible these days and has been pandering to the right wing and anti-intellectual crowd. She routinely asserts opinions with authority on subjects she is not an expert in (climate change, lgbt issues, etc) and is playing the skeptic card in ways that the intellectual dark web tends to do.

A bunch of stuff from practicing scientists on YT covering her, but here's a succinct one:

Another:

Also: https://youtu.be/r6Kau7bO3Fw?si=fPYXBNsTtuM0zR1d

 

[cytg111]

She's not considered terribly credible these days and has been pandering to the right wing and anti-intellectual crowd. She routinely asserts opinions with authority on subjects she is not an expert in (climate change, lgbt issues, etc) and is playing the skeptic card in ways that the intellectual dark web tends to do.

A bunch of stuff from practicing scientists on YT covering her, but here's a succinct one:

Another:

Also: https://youtu.be/r6Kau7bO3Fw?si=fPYXBNsTtuM0zR1d

Yes I am aware of these, lessor opinions from lesser minds . IMO she is not really pandering either left or right, she just cuts with the data and facts - fuck your feelings. I mean I think Weinstein is a tool however I can appreciate how she will use him as an example of non-group-think.. Something that has apparently dragged their field down for decades of string theory.
So she will hate on String Theory for years .. until a paper comes along and she be like "well maybe I got something wrong".
You can tell when people are in pursuit of the factual and real and not polishing the ego and vanity over past positions.

 

[pmv]

The only cure for what we have now is actual leftism. If someone is not promoting that, they are extending and supporting fascist rule.

Which is why I increasingly _loathe_ Starmer, and the entirety of the Labour Right.

It's very weird how a party can be captured by a gang who have a diametrically opposite ideology to the one the Party was supposed to have. I don't really understand how that happens. There's nothing similar with the Democrats, who were never a socialist party to begin with, and have always been a mixed-bag/broad church. The contrast between Labour's traditional agenda and the hard-right ideology of Starmer and his pals, seems almost unprecendented. IMO something very odd happened there.

 

[pmv]

She's not considered terribly credible these days and has been pandering to the right wing and anti-intellectual crowd. She routinely asserts opinions with authority on subjects she is not an expert in (climate change, lgbt issues, etc) and is playing the skeptic card in ways that the intellectual dark web tends to do.

A bunch of stuff from practicing scientists on YT covering her, but here's a succinct one:

Another:

Also: https://youtu.be/r6Kau7bO3Fw?si=fPYXBNsTtuM0zR1d

Can't say I'd ever heard of this person before.

But this is interesting to me.

Those videos actually leave me slightly sympathetic to her position (presumably the opposite to what they are trying to do?).

She has a valid point that "science" is hugely affected by social, economic and political influences - there are countless examples of that, particularly in medicine, psychology and (most of all) economics.

And I've heard similar criticisms of string theory, and the general direction of contemporary physics, before (my degree was in physics and at least one friend I had went on to do a PhD in string theory - but the truth is I wasn't a very good physicist - not least because I had serious undiagnosed medical issues - and my experience with how doctors deal with rare medical conditions is one of the reasons why I'm skeptical about how our culture treats 'science').

The arguments about string theory strike me as by far the least important aspect of the status of science in our culture - it's a pretty esoteric and minor issue - but seems as if she has a point on that topic. I've heard people arguing that it's become almost theology - or at least just pure maths - at this point, as there's no experimental way of deciding between the different theories. But I don't know enough to have an opinion, and don't much care either.

One argument I have encountered was the question of why so much more prestige and funding is attached to esoteric science topics like String theory vs more practical areas like, say, studying climate change.

Why do you, supposedly a leftist, disagree with questioning the authority of 'science'? It gets invoked relentlessly to support right-wing political agendas (cf that bogus 'lockdowns didn't work' study that used the authority of Johns Hopkins).

No leftist should buy into an uncritical worship of anything that calls itself 'science' (whether it's "IQ studies", sociobiology, or neo-classical economics).

 

[Amused]

Can't say I'd ever heard of this person before.

But this is interesting to me.

Those videos actually leave me slightly sympathetic to her position (presumably the opposite to what they are trying to do?).

She has a valid point that "science" is hugely affected by social, economic and political influences - there are countless examples of that, particularly in medicine, psychology and (most of all) economics.

And I've heard similar criticisms of string theory, and the general direction of contemporary physics, before (my degree was in physics and at least one friend I had went on to do a PhD in string theory - but the truth is I wasn't a very good physicist - not least because I had serious undiagnosed medical issues - and my experience with how doctors deal with rare medical conditions is one of the reasons why I'm skeptical about how our culture treats 'science').

The arguments about string theory strike me as by far the least important aspect of the status of science in our culture - it's a pretty esoteric and minor issue - but seems as if she has a point on that topic. I've heard people arguing that it's become almost theology - or at least just pure maths - at this point, as there's no experimental way of deciding between the different theories. But I don't know enough to have an opinion, and don't much care either.

One argument I have encountered was the question of why so much more prestige and funding is attached to esoteric science topics like String theory vs more practical areas like, say, studying climate change.

Why do you, supposedly a leftist, disagree with questioning the authority of 'science'? It gets invoked relentlessly to support right-wing political agendas (cf that bogus 'lockdowns didn't work' study that used the authority of Johns Hopkins).

No leftist should buy into an uncritical worship of anything that calls itself 'science' (whether it's "IQ studies", sociobiology, or neo-classical economics).

Their point is you can be critical without empowering science denialism and anti-academia conspiracy theories. She's not doing that. She's doing the opposite and increasingly so because those videos get her a magnitude more hits and make her significantly more money.

In my opinion, she is falling down the same hole Russel Brand fell down.

And if I am correct, she will increasingly produce videos that appeal to science denialism and anti-academia at the expense of her credibility for money. So far, she is doing just that.

It's the you tube trap.

 

[pmv]

Their point is you can be critical without empowering science denialism and anti-acidemia conspiracy theories. She's not doing that. She's doing the opposite and increasingly so because those videos get her a magnitude more hits and make her significantly more money.

In my opinion, she is falling down the same hole Russel Brand fell down.

You might be right, I am entirely unfamiliar with her output. I just find that uncritical acceptance of anything said by someone in a white coat is something I encounter more often in my life than right wing anti-science attitudes (like anti-vaxxers).

I guess there's an interesting sociological issue there, as to how skepticism about science from the left can channel people to the far right.

 

[Amused]

You might be right, I am entirely unfamiliar with her output. I just find that uncritical acceptance of anything said by someone in a white coat is something I encounter more often in my life than right wing anti-science attitudes (like anti-vaxxers).

I guess there's an interesting sociological issue there, as to how skepticism about science from the left can channel people to the far right.

The two critics of her in the above videos have both been critical of particular scientists/findings and particular aspects of academia WITHOUT making blanket statements and clickbait cover pictures that appeal to science denialism and conspiracy theorists.

In fact, in their critique of her, they explain this very thing.

 

[pmv]

The two critics of her in the above videos have both been critical of particular scientists/findings and particular aspects of academia WITHOUT making blanket statements and clickbait cover pictures that appeal to science denialism and conspiracy theorists.

In fact, in their critique of her, they explain this very thing.

Damn, gonna have to do a lot of 'homework' before I can decide what to make of all this. Still not enamoured of the way those critical videos 'tone police' and blame her for right-winger science deniers citing her (as if anyone has any control over what right-wingers do).

I notice one of them complains about her having an 'anti establishment' tone, suggesting this in itself is somehow is a marker of 'the right'. Which strikes me as a weird stance to take - redolent of 'centrists' (like Starmer supporters) doing the 'both sides' thing lumping left and right as being as bad as each other, while being firmly right-wing themselves.

E.g. one of them is complaining that she had a video titled "why academia sucks", and arguing that that would appeal to right-wing anti-intellectuals. That's a piss-weak guilt-by-association argument, one typical of centrists who do the 'both sides' thing. The whole argument seems very similar to the way "centrists" (who are, in reality, usually firmly on the right) try to lump left and far right wing criticism together.

Still have no first-hand knowledge of what she actually says, though. Not sure I have the energy to investigate it.