What does Veeky Forums think of John Green?

What does Veeky Forums think of John Green?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Richard_Green
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

dumb cuck

/thread

I've got a better question: what does Veeky Forums think of John Green?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Richard_Green

He should stick to writing books for children.

/thread

>major in literature
>make videos on history (inaccurately)

To be fair he doesn't actually write the videos.

Why does Crash Course History even exist?

Talentless idiot

We haven't had this thread in a while.

Pretty based, gives a non-eurocentric and non-androcentric view of history

His content will only be useful if you have a grasp of knowledge about the topics, but if not then yeah, it's pretty much useless, for me at least.

Proof that history isn't written by the winners

Idiot who can barely even report the facts

Meh, its fine. Not great by any stretch of the imagination, but its good enough for a broad overview of historical tops. Hes also very open about his biases, which is nice.

I unironically like his history videos

but hate his literature ones

Commendable in his efforts to educate people on history in an easily-onsumable form of media in concise, bite-sized servings. Otherwise he's shit and replacing popular misconceptions with more misconceptions.

When did this meme of John Green cuck begin?

Like I don't even watch his videos anymore and I don't get this sudden h8

Any example videos where he's wrong?

He's good for learning just the most basic overview of a topic but he shits the bed with his horrible unchecked bias that often isn't true in almost every video

I would also like to /thread this

The Alexander the Great one is the one that gets pointed to the most on this board. There also used to be a video about how environmental determinism was racist, but it was taken down by Green after people called him out on it.

His literature videos are far worse than his history ones, imo

/Threado

Who would win in a deathmatch?

John Green vs Lindybeige

Matt Easton

>Plato questions the morals in homer's works and with using them for moral guidance
>is considered as perhaps the most influential Western philosopher who was brave enough to question contemporary revered conventions and practices.

>John Greene does the same with how homer was fine with his hero banging other women while praises his wife for being loyal to him during his travels
>"stop injecting your moral and political views with interpreting something of a completely foreign time, cuck!"

He's decent for normies. For people seriously into history he's probably annoying.

For me personally, I don't care for his personal politics, I just wish he'd be less silly, In fact, I'd prefer just an animation of civilizations and history with good narration.

Is this the guy who wrote The Fault in Our Stars?

ya

He's not a historian though, is he? He's this vlogger who macks on undera- REALLY UNDERSTANDS TODAY'S YOUTH AND SHIT.

I didn't know he did history videos. Not looked but I assume they're 'not holy, Roman or an empire kek' and funny voices.

He did actually start a video with the Voltaire quote, but most of the time its just pop history. His Alexander the Great video is particularity notorious for focusing most of the video on why Alexander wasn't "great" and complaining how women were never considered "great"

Some of his older videos are okay.

It's not a meme. He justifies marrying a woman who has ridden the cock carousel by comparing it to cheerios.

What does Veeky Forums think of Hank Green?

>non-eurocentric view of history
>not a cuck

pick one

wtf are you all talking about?? not only he fights along with the greatest captain ever alive, the glorious captain jack o´neill, but he also understand a shit load of different alien languages?!? the greatest historian ever

Professional Coattail rider

here is a newer picture of him

Is that Tom Brady?

To make reactionaries mad

Brony cuck

He's a brony?

just in general, people who aren't researchers of history don't understand the methodology, and don't realize how important it is to obtaining truth. So you get a lot of folks who like great big events lead to other great big events and they follow a rational path, when, in reality, no historian in the last 50 years has done research in this way. Why? Because it's fucking lazy, and, frankly, pretty unsatisfying as an explanation for events. You see this sort of analysis from people like CGPGrey too. Normie history leaves way too much out.

What's wrong with CGPGrey?

what he said