Why do you hate him?

he was only good literally 10 years ago when he did his series about creationists. he should have quit and focused on academia so
didn't happen. instead, he is just another dunning-kruger god at this point

My faovarite video from sargon is "TYT is falling apart"
I had never heard of them sok i went to check them out and turned out they were in the middle of raising 20 million dollars, which they succsfully did, meanwhile sargons like "they wont make it six months"
Sargon is a fucking mong.

>If it's not feminists it's solar roadways or the hyperloop.
>if it is not one group of stupid people, it is another group of stupid people.

Who would have imagined this is the activity of a channel made for giving commentary on the actions of stupid people. Really gets that nogging jogging. Maybe you'll be in his next video.

lowest hanging fruit

TYT is falling apart though. They are making ideology money, but no one respects them.

The right does not respect them because of obvious reasons.
The reasonable left does not respect them because they tend to side with the far left most of the time.
The far left does not respect them either because TYT is not pure enough. For example, Cenk had this whole thing of "Justice Democrats" which was basically SJW democrats but he got kicked out of his own thing literally because 30 years ago he went to mardi gras and commented "Women have pussies. I like to fuck pussies because I have a penis". A well-known crime against humanity.

Are feminists, the current political establishment, the lowest hanging fruit?

Maybe Hyperloop and Solar Roadways are lowest hanging fruit, but you have to realize he is the only person making any criticism against them. Everyone else is too busy sucking Elon dick and donating to retarded kickstarters.

>Are feminists, the current political establishment, the lowest hanging fruit?
Trump is a well known feminist as we all know.

The anti-SJW people on Youtube always finds the most idiotic and crazy feminists and outrageous tabloid articles to make fun of. They never engage beyond that other than stroking their own ego's and circle jerk on hangouts with how superior their childish philosophy is.

>Are feminists, the current political establishment, the lowest hanging fruit?

Anita Sarkeesian is, which is pretty much what Tf00t deals with and what 9436701 was referring to.
(the current political establishment was never mentioned)

>Hyperloop
He failed at that one though.
youtube.com/watch?v=kx52A-v65Q8&list=PLSPi1JFx4_-Gz0Fm0qq2KUz4c22UbZCco

And there is plenty of criticism on both the hyperloop and solar roadways.
And we definitely don't need Tf00t doing wrong calculations giving us that criticism...

Not saying that the lowest hanging fruit targets should not be critizsed,
but when that's the only thing he manges to somewhat do, then, well, not very impressive.

>The anti-SJW people on Youtube always finds the most idiotic and crazy feminists and outrageous tabloid articles to make fun of
lmao, are you saying this screenshot of someone I found on Tumblr saying something dumb doesn't represent an entire academic movement? What a pathetic fitlhy SJW cuck you are XD

Crazy huh.

This is what we get when people don't go out side their own internet bubble. They and their fans probably think its actual main stream feminism they are attacking.

That's like saying the average "alt-right" or reactionary racist type isn't represented by the average /pol/tard. Of course there are very educated people who are pro-social justice as a political movement but from the type of thought bubble it generates it becomes obvious that is an idiot generator.

I've seen enough tumblr femminists on my college campus yelling dumb shit to acknowledge this, just like every type /pol/tards do irl activism they all look like larping retards.

No, its more like saying /pol/ is a good representation for what the right-wing is about. I wouldn't make video after video and circle jerk on youtube about how stupid the right wing is and only show cropped images from /pol/ and idiots on twitter.

Cause he’s an ugly cracker who hates minorities cause he’s, you guessed it! An ugly cracker. ;) Don’t blame us for your short coming, blame genetics my dude!

I mean, fair enough, but you wouldn't waste your time making 200 different videos to refute /pol/tards, would you? The same should go for angry pseudo-academic Tumblr feminists.

>No, its more like saying /pol/ is a good representation for what the right-wing is about.
But don't most anti-sjw youtubers claim to be left-wing? I'm pretty sure thunderfoot does. I don't think they are generalizing the left, they are generalizing the particualrly crazy SJWs.

I know they make a cartoonish strawmen of their beliefs, but to be fair the extreme femminists do influence legislation and can "harm" society from their point of view, just like they percieved creationists potentially doing when they were their targets. I think a lot of them just see shit like crying for affirmative action to unmeritocratic force more women into positions in academia the same way they saw creationists pushing against evolution being taught in schools.

>but you wouldn't waste your time making 200 different videos to refute /pol/tards, would you?
Yeah, obviously. After doing 1000 videos on the same subject its pretty obvious they're just doing it for money at this point.

jelly of his muscular neck girth

I used it as an analogy.
But these are broad movements that are associated with the left. The endresult is that the left gets straw-maned, so its not a totally unfair comparison neither, no matter what they self identify as(I'm aware that TF is left leaning.).

Is not an unreasonable position to hold that the state shouldn't meddle with hiring quotas and affirmative action. But i haven't seen them address these issues in honest ways. When it comes to actual politics they seem so incredibly immature and stupid.

Well, poking fun of the left for its blue-hair wing has been a thing for well over a decade and its not unique to youtube. Wouldn't the endresult of the whole creationist deconstruction thing TF was doing before also be "strawmaning conservatives" by your logic?

But in the end, honestly, who even gives a fuck? It's just a select group of assholes making fun of trendy shit on youtube. TV has a much bigger influence on the left and talkradio has a much bigger influence on the right than youtube on the US as far as I'm aware.

> Wouldn't the endresult of the whole creationist deconstruction thing TF was doing before also be "strawmaning conservatives" by your logic?

Maybe, its been a long fucking time since I watched that shit, and I was a teenage little shit back then so I probably wasn't watching it as critically. But If you asked me how stupid the average conservative in the US is, back then, then I would probably only have that YouTube shit as my only reference too. I still don't know if that would be far off if I'm being honest.

But I think the difference now is that broader politics gets dragged in and justified from this. TF isn't bad in that regard, but other people would say shit like "we need trump because SJW are taking over the US." Which is idiotic.

>But in the end, honestly, who even gives a fuck?
Well yea, but its okay to think something is retarded without thinking its the end of the world. Something they could probably learn.

A rough overview simply based on his playlists (not controlled for overlap or whether he categorizes all his videos).
>Feminism
Around 80 videos, of which I assume none are monetized/put up on his Patreon feed
>Creationism
Around 65 videos
>Science and/or interesting videos
Around 172 videos (I'm guessing there might be some overlap here)

Seems his main focus is science and debunking pseudoscience (which arguably includes creationism even if it's "hurr durr low hanging fruit").

I fail to see the problem here. Overall he seems to be pretty great.

Well, most of those videos are fairly bad.
But some of them are worth a watch.

> "we need trump because SJW are taking over the US."
I'm not american and it seems like we're about the same age and encountered the anti-creationist side of youtube at around the same time.

That being said, wouldn't you say that the whole "we need Obama because Tea Party, gun maniac christian fanatics are taking over the US and a retard like Sarah Palin sholdn't be a 70 year old's heat failure's away from the nuclear codes" the exact same shit? It's just dumb political talking points to scare voters into doing shit. Now that I'm old enough to know that the judiciary branch of your government is by far the most powerful state legislative power and it basically humours voters by barely appealing to your congress and executive branch's decisions I just think worrying about Trump is just mass hysteria. It's more of an symptom, showing that the general public is more reactionary mostly because of insatisfaction with immigration issues in your country and maybe you should reach some sort of compromise to avoid civic disorder in the future. That's essentially what modern democracies are.

So I can make 75 video's about debunking "traps are gay" and as long as I have other content on my channel, it doesn't get obsessive and repetitive?

I have problems with your method. And my main problem with TF is his repetitive and dishonest editing. I'm still subbed for some reason though. Maybe its nostalgia from the creationist days.

I didn't say he was beyond fault. I would say that his faults aren't much to fuzz about.

Inconsistent and faulty reasoning presented in an irritating manner.

I'm actually from Norway, so basically all of US politics seem fucking crazy to me. Trump is especially crazy though, and it seems to have empowered a big portion of the far right. But I guess that was always there to begin with.

I don't think he will be able to do much to the domestic policies. He can fuck up international relations during his time though, which is good for no-one.

>RR is total pseudo-science
proof?

Like that one where he's screaming that men have to sit with their legs 90 degrees apart because of their balls?

Anybody with even a basic knowledge of anatomy would realize that if someones balls are that large and/or painful to touch they should seek medical care.

No people sit like that because they are expected to culturally. Even heard of men in the US afraid to cross their legs as it would be seen as feminine... Fucking incredible.

PS if he'd use some reasoning instead of screaming pointing out that the hips of men and women are different could be useful.

The burden of proof would be on you to prove RR is true.

And the consensus in the field doesn't think so.

>He can fuck up international relations during his time though
How? By calling other countries shitholes? Most countries are fairly pragmatic about trade deals, which is the only possible and relevant consequence of diplomatic fuck ups, and usually government officials only pretend to be angry about the shit someone like Trump says to appeal to their target demographic. The only danger he could possibly represent to someone like you is if he encourages your own far right to be more influential politically, which in the long run could change the culture of western democracies into something more conservative-looking. That's decades away from actually happening though, and by then something else will probably pop up and change everyone's attention to something else.

But as someone not from Europe or the US I'd say you people should reach to some sort of compromise that makes reactionary people happy with the immigration thing pretty soon or else the far right will only grow louder and more violent and make everyone's lives miserable. My dad is an old socialist who lived in France during the 70's and he says this current immigration crysis you're having feel like the reactionary equivalent of what the 1968 movement was building up to be. They'll either win or be crushed by the state.

>lives alone
>nobody helps him moving
he is the /r9k/ of youtubers

He spends more time on being asshurt than he does talking about science

he has a real bad habit of ignoring key details so he can shitpost furiously about them
moments include: when he steadfastly believed the hyperloop was to be an above ground construction, and based all of his "debunking" around that fact, despite absolutely fucking everyone with hyperloop plans saying it was going to be 100% underground

This and after someone calls him out on his bullshit, instead of admitting he's wrong, he doubles down with another retarded video.

>just like every type /pol/tards do irl activism they all look like larping retards.
It's okay to be white was massively successful. What you think of as /pol/ IRL activism is actually just redditors and skeptics being retarded and cringy. Actual anons don't go outside and show their faces.

That's because nobody has ever actually refuted us and every time they try they lose hard. We recently just conquered a good portion of the Skeptic community because of this.

All I ever see from other boards that aren't our colonies already is nothing more than condescension and never any actual arguments against us.

>youtube "intellectuals" that talk about feminism and sjw

Brainlet here. Can some expanding-brain wojak tell me whether the science in this video series is sound?
youtube.com/watch?v=BJa9tQyMXDc

Fuck, this guy's voice is annoying. Reminds me of the amazing atheist, with his sudden, tumblresque yelling.

Nowhere nearly as annoying as thunderf00t's though.

Anyone can debunk /pol/ by just reading a book. The whole Kraut and Tea episode could have been solved by Kraut reading any post-70's anthropology book that shows race as a biological category literally doesn't exist and is socially defined rather than scientifically. The only people convinced by /pol/ and their retarded bug-men are people who want to be convinced.

Literally everything that you said was just smug condescension.

Also yes race is a spectrum just like colors. However saying that white people don't exist is just as retarded as saying that Red and Yellow don't exist.

No it isn't. Anthropologists realized in the 1960's and 70's that we call "black people" aren't homogeneous in anything but skin colour and spent a long time in isolation from each other despite being on the same continent. Their categorization was only ever superficial.

>saying that white people don't exist is just as retarded as saying that Red and Yellow don't exist.

Oh they exist superficially. But Japanese people are white skinned as well and west Asians can be light skinned, and yet they're clearly not the same as Western Europeans. Furthermore, another problem is the tendency to dump mixed race people in with blacks despite them having half and half, meaning they should be able to categorize themselves as white or black or both.

Race is that much of a useless indicator in Britain its self reported. I could literally go around saying I'm black and the government would put me down as black.

hey bud are you going to support those statements

"With the vast expansion of scientific knowledge in this century, however, it has become clear that human populations are not unambiguous, clearly demarcated, biologically distinct groups. Evidence from the analysis of genetics (e.g., DNA) indicates that most physical variation, about 94%, lies within so-called racial groups. Conventional geographic "racial" groupings differ from one another only in about 6% of their genes. This means that there is greater variation within "racial" groups than between them. In neighboring populations there is much overlapping of genes and their phenotypic (physical) expressions. Throughout history whenever different groups have come into contact, they have interbred. The continued sharing of genetic materials has maintained all of humankind as a single species.

Physical variations in any given trait tend to occur gradually rather than abruptly over geographic areas. And because physical traits are inherited independently of one another, knowing the range of one trait does not predict the presence of others. For example, skin color varies largely from light in the temperate areas in the north to dark in the tropical areas in the south; its intensity is not related to nose shape or hair texture. Dark skin may be associated with frizzy or kinky hair or curly or wavy or straight hair, all of which are found among different indigenous peoples in tropical regions. These facts render any attempt to establish lines of division among biological populations both arbitrary and subjective."

americananthro.org/ConnectWithAAA/Content.aspx?ItemNumber=2583

>Oh they exist superficially. But Japanese people are white skinned as well and west Asians can be light skinned, and yet they're clearly not the same as Western Europeans
Literally nobody on /pol/ thinks that race is primarily about skin color, there's a million other differences in races that are more important.
>Furthermore, another problem is the tendency to dump mixed race people in with blacks despite them having half and half, meaning they should be able to categorize themselves as white or black or both.
They are mixed abominations and can't identify as either because they aren't either.
>Race is that much of a useless indicator in Britain its self reported. I could literally go around saying I'm black and the government would put me down as black.
Government retardation has nothing to do with biological reality, stop making retarded arguments.

>there's a million other differences in races that are more important.

Yeah, and as the post says skin colour, of which race is defined, doesn't predict any of them. Likewise, its impossible to categorize humans in such a way that generally, none of the deviate from it. This is why the AAA considers race to be a useless classification system.

>They are mixed abominations and can't identify as either because they aren't either.
>abominations

Ah yes, very scientific. Lets face it, you're not going to accept fact anyway. Fuck off to /pol/ and let smarter people do the science. Fact is, you're wrong whether you can convince a bunch of retards you're right or not.

I don't know, but it seems better than Tf00t's work

his incredible arrogance and smug attitude
>*scoffs in your direction*

Is the Youtube atheist market still as big as it was back in like '08? Or did most people get tired of it by now?

A lot of his earlier science videos were very informative and good. That went out the window quick when he got into the whole anti-SJW, antitheist market. Yuck

>That went out the window quick when he got into the whole anti-SJW, antitheist market
>antitheist
So he was never good then? Because that's how his channel started.

You must not be a very serious person.

I see people complaining about his criticism of hyperloop.

Does their white paper still cite a laughably ridiculous vacuum?

>They are mixed abominations
lmao

>You must not be a very serious person.

Don't see how that follows from the first part, but okay. He did have anti-SJW videos early on, but it grew to slowly dominate the entirety of his content. Basically everything he does now is either anti-SJW shit, or 'epic tech DEBUNK' videos. Either way, no thanks.

No one is implying the hyperloop is not going to fail,
just that tf00t's videos on them are full of errors

Most of thunderf00t's criticism has been addressed in the whitepaper itself. He either didn't read it, is completely incompetent or outright lying.

The guy is poster boy of why modern day academia is a joke.
He heavily influences his arguments with his believes and he overextend his stay on youtube.
I guess the money are too good.

Too fucking repetitive.

So he lied about that specific figure when he provided a screenshot of the white paper itself while explaining why it was ridiculous?

Just trying to get specific here.

I'm not qualified enough to answer that, but he's been dishonest and deceitful throughout the whole series, so it wouldn't surprise me.
Just think about it this way: thunderf00t, with absolutely no relevant engineering background, is implicitly claiming that the engineers at SpaceX, undoubtedly some of the most brilliant minds in the field, are a bunch of morons.

In what specific way? He has some qualifications himself. And he has been right about certain things promulgated by authorative sources being bullshit (something about NASA and extraterrestrial life and those "water from air" things come to mind,).

Watch this video series and make your opinion.
youtube.com/watch?v=BJa9tQyMXDc

He heavily strawmans most of the time, I think he even did so in his videos against Anita, when you can easily crush her without doing so.

>nobody has ever actually refuted us
Don't watch anything posted by Shaun, Hbomberguy or Garrett, otherwise they're gonna burst your hugbox.

You only say that because Sargon once said "should we question your videos on Anita?" once due to something unrelated he supposedly did poorly.

>Hbomberguy
Not even that guy but some of these people you listed have the education equivalent of a 12yo.
I would seriously warn you against even wasting the time on their ramblings even for amusement purposes.

There is no general scientific consensus in the field of race and IQ.

>constant obsessive videos on people who dared to talk about womyn in video games
his latest anti-feminism video is like 7 months old

There is no general consensus that race-realizm is true, which is the same as saying that the scientific conscious does not belive in race-realizm.

Proving that race-realism is true is just as hard as proving it isn't. Right now, with the limited genetic information we have connected to intelligence. And our limits in measuring and understanding what intelligence involves, it is simply not something we can prove. To then say that its true is incredibly unscientific, which is why Race-realizm is not a real science.

Don't get your opinions on this field from people who wants to make an ethno-state, they are incredibly biased. They all repeat the same easily refuted talking points too.

It would seem likely, however, that something like intelligence would quickly spread in the gene pool. So I doubt there are any strong or meaningful trends between populations.

No, it's mostly """skeptics""" riding the light racism train now

Thing is, IQ test are quite powerful. And they are very universal. And it's the best we have.
If you do large testing of two different races (of similar social status/class), and get a difference, you HAVE a difference.
It's not hard at all!

You don't need to know the deep mechanics of what influences IQ. That would be the next hypothesis to be tested.
But I know that there are a lot of possible genes linked to intelligence, and I think if it was properly funded we would figure out a lot, really fast.

Also, RR isn't a question about if there are differences (IMO), because there is (There is way more "evidence" of a difference than there is "evidence" of there being some uniformity),
but it's more an ethical question. I'm a bit against it since I know it will be ammunition for right-wing groups, instead of progress in the understanding of intelligence and how it impacts society etc.

And of course, all this difference tells us is that if you compare one "black" person with one white person, the "white" person is more likely to have the highest IQ.

Okay, first of all what is usually said to be "powerful" is g-factor which is ment to be a measure of general intelligence, IQ is a part in this, and correlated with g, but it is not the same thing. Now, there is debate weather g-factor is just a natural result of what they use to calculate it or if it is actually a real thing. But I don't think its worth going into here, neither of us are probably equipped for it.
g-factor alone doesn't say if something comes from environmental factors or genetic. And when you say things like there is a difference between Races in intelligence, it is usually used as a way of saying the difference between IQ in races is determent genetically.

Many dumber RR's will even say that IQ has nothing to do with environment, even though that doesn't even make sense to say, because a trait is a genome expressed in an environment, and taking environment out of it doesn't make sense. The Flynn effect will easily debunk this claim too.

RR goes something like this:
>You can categorize humans into distinct groups based on their genomes.
This is true, but arbitrary, and geography is a much better indicator for these distinctions.

>This is useful because there are differences in traits between the groups such as IQ and this is not due to environment.
Proving this is every RR's headache, firstly because they make huge generalizations such as black or white usually even though there is a huge genetic variation within these groups. Secondly because dividing how genetics and environment influences an outcome is really really hard. When in usually statics, controlling for the environment of something is basic shit, when you do that here, your stats will always say the outcome is mostly genetic. RR's will use twin studies as a way to get pas this, but they have huge problems such: A shared environment in the womb and until adoption. Little variation between adoptive family's. Small sample sizes in similar environments.

>He can't comprehend racial statistics or the concept of heritability and will choose this hill to die on because it hurts his fee fees

It's hilarious that people imagine the burden of proof is on so-called "race-realists" to show that intelligence is determined, at least to some extent, genetically. Bayesian reasoning tells us, if we know nothing about the subject, to not make assumptions either way. If you accept the principle of evolution, it would be curious to simultaneously suggest that any sort of polytypic divergence in homo sapiens is impossible, or that there is no intellectual variation therein.

You're not addressing any points man. You are just dropping words you probably don't even know the meaning of. I have been talking about heritability.

>Using Bayesian analysis to prove race-realizm.
Oh Jesus, go ahead and say you were just trolling to save your self some dignity.
How do you go from "evolution is a thing" going to prove anything. Where do you get how big the difference is from, and which is the dumber of the races from "evolution exists" And ironically you seem to forget to take genetic variability into account.

More variation within "races" than between them
/board

More variation within chimpanzees and humans than between them.

>When brainlets attack

>variation

*Genetic variation.

Obviously everyone here is smart enough to know that comparing merely superficial numbers of code isometries does not magically translate to getting similar numbers when measuring *performance* by one metric or another as a result of the *output* of a complex code base.

>Already resorting to image posting
Give a link next time. Some /pol/ level shit here.

And if you could argue for yourself you would realize that I have already been over this. You can always group people into clusters, that does not in anyway tell us anything about their traits or how usefull this grouping is. Also notice how your image is geographicly divided, like i mentioned before and Africa is a big group on its own.

How about the study cited in the image, brainlet.

>.5% variation in humans, on average
>.3% deviation in apes is enough to classify a different species
>"Race is arbitrary and irrelevant bro"

You should just kill yourself because you will always be a sub-120 IQ retard.

How you group it IS arbitrary. Even RR that are more clever than you like AH or JFG will admit this. And you still didn't demonstrate that this is a usefull distinction when talking about traits such as IQ.

Also you clearly have no idea what you are talking about judgeing from your point about monkeys.

Maybe you should go back to just posting images.

>.3% deviation in apes is enough to classify a different species
iff they don't interbreed.

He was quoting "antitheist". Literally the first video he uploaded was antitheist.

What if you use k-means? Is it still arbitrary?

Yes, it can still be weighted differently to produce different outputs.

And it is still just an arbitrarily chosen method too.

>Anita Sarkeesian
People still talk about her?

She did a kickstarter and made a video series which was basically just looking at video games through a feminist theory 101 lens. Why is she such a target for these weird dudes?

Because a "feminist 101 lens" is entertainingly flawed and internally inconsistent.

It becomes old fast though.

Sieg Heil brother

Not really.

The best and worst thing about her is that she hardly ever does anything, which is good because she can be easily ignored 95% of the time, and bad because she essentially welched on her commitments to her kickstarter backers by being monstrously late on delivery.

Just as bad however is an army of sycophants who will back her up despite her being and entirely useless figure in any kind of community.