How to deal with youtubes "skeptic" community (veganism)?

[Eqeuls]

Hello Guys,

Although I really enjoy the content that the, i'd call it, "skeptic community" is putting out. It is really difficult to argue or reason with them, when veganism gets included into the equation.

The sketpics community in my eyes would include content creators such as:
Bearing, Undoomed, Sargon of Akkad, EdgySphinx, Armoured Skeptic, AIU, Charmingman93, Harmful Opinions to name a few.

Now, in this case, undoomed created a video arguing with the points made by a vegan feminist. Although I can't follow all her conclusions, I can agree on some points she raised. The facts surrounding animal agriculture are obviously very true, the points she is making regarding feminism, are in my understanding only raised to state "If you're a feminist, you should not exclude female non-human animals" So she is basically arguing for veganism, or rather trying to convince feminists that veganism should be/is a feminist issue - to basically win over feminists for veganism.

TL:DR The video seems to be created from a feminist for the feminist movement to make them aware of animal rights.

Now, I usually don't agree with the current feminist movement, or rather, I do not come to the same conclusions as they end up with when a topic is discussed. But I can follow her points, If I bear in mind, what they think is the current state of society.

I hope you guys do understand what I am trying to say

Now - the problem isn't that undoomed or any other youtube creator is putting out content like this, because I do enjoy such content aswell. The problem for me is, that it is literally impossible to discuss the topic on hand in the comment section. Obviously, as a vegan, I feel strongly about veganism and want to share what I've learned over the years. But any point you raise, or try to raise, gets ignored, ridiculed or ends up in an ad hominem. It almost feels like the "skeptic community" isn't all that skeptical when it comes to personal believes. It seems very easy for them to ridicule others - but they never seem to take a look at themselves and check if their believes are "up to date".

I know I am generalizing quite a bit - you do always find one or two people who are up to have a civilized discussion with, but they are usually way down the comment sections. And when i'm having such a discussion, I do think both parties get away with a meaningful and productive message in the end. ~ Even if we can't agree with each another.

TL:DR Do you guys have difficulties discussing with the "skeptic community"? How do you approach a discussion regarding a topic you're passionated about?

- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MCUnzrlVBM (Undoomed)
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InOnxxZHITA (Marine Janine)

[Red]

I honestly kinda hate this skeptic community as you call it. I think we've established at this point in internet history that theists and SJWs are pretty easy targets. I get the vibe that these people see themselves as geniuses, even though their IQs rival that of a petrified log that has been rotting on the side of the road. All jokes aside, I hate it how the general public of YouTube adore these idiots. They go after low hanging fruit because it's the best they can handle, and they don't even have any expertise in any actual field, and don't have much intellect. I mean, I don't either of those things as well, so maybe I'm just as bad as them. Most of them are hard core liberals, so that probably means that they are anti nuclear power and GMOs, and are pro organic. The videos they do on vegans are beyond stupid, and honestly, I could probably write a small book debunking most of their arguments against it. But this actually makes me want to do a video on it. I think I'll write yet another script if I can come up with enough material.

[miniboes]

I don't think the content the skeptic youtubers point out is interesting, but I see why it troubles you. One option is to simply not engage, the other option is to make youtube videos yourself. The comment section will not be kind to you.

@Red, do you plan to actually make a video or are you going to write scripts until the end of time? (Not meant offensively, but you should probably go through the whole production process before starting to work on another video, because you'll lose interest and motivation for the older scripts.)

[Red]

[/quote="miniboes"]@Red, do you plan to actually make a video or are you going to write scripts until the end of time? (Not meant offensively, but you should probably go through the whole production process before starting to work on another video, because you'll lose interest and motivation for the older scripts.)[/quote]
I'm actually working on the videos right now, I just have other ideas, and I want to write down what I want to say before I forget. I also need a few more things (ie, better editing software and a USB mic). I actually still want to carry out my other ideas.

[brimstoneSalad]

It almost feels like the "skeptic community" isn't all that skeptical when it comes to personal believes.

Correct. These people are not true skeptics, they are selectively skeptical about things they don't like -- just as Christians are (who can be very good at debunking other religions).

Don't assume they are in any way more rational or reasonable than anybody else. You have to come at them like any other dogmatist. Try street epistemology if you're going one on one in a comment section.

[Red]

Correct. These people are not true skeptics, they are selectively skeptical about things they don't like -- just as Christians are (who can be very good at debunking other religions).

I guess "Armoured Skeptic" is a misnomer. As I've said, these people overestimate their intelligence (Dunning Kruger effect), and just because they have an idiot following of mostly 12 year olds, that just inflates their egos even more.

Don't assume they are in any way more rational or reasonable than anybody else. You have to come at them like any other dogmatist. Try street epistemology if you're going one on one in a comment section.

I'm gonna be honest here. Now this may be coming across as seeking attention and a pathetic attempt at wanting to appear rational, but I kinda think I'm a lot like these people. I mean, I can't really debunk anything above my knowledge or even a bit complicated, and I can be prone to confirmation bias as well. But hey, it's as they say, a polished turd is still a turd.

[Eqeuls]

miniboes wrote:
One option is to simply not engage, the other option is to make youtube videos yourself. The comment section will not be kind to you.

I don't have any desire to produce content on youtube, although I do somehow have a desire to challenge believes. Because i'm very passionated about animal rights. As much as I don't like to say this.. but I am a keyboard warrior regarding veganism

brimstoneSalad wrote:
Don't assume they are in any way more rational or reasonable than anybody else. You have to come at them like any other dogmatist. Try street epistemology if you're going one on one in a comment section.

RedAppleGP wrote:
I'm gonna be honest here. Now this may be coming across as seeking attention and a pathetic attempt at wanting to appear rational, but I kinda think I'm a lot like these people. I mean, I can't really debunk anything above my knowledge or even a bit complicated, and I can be prone to confirmation bias as well. But hey, it's as they say, a polished turd is still a turd.

But everyone is bias in a sense. I mean when i'm meeting my friends, which are all not vegan, I've got the feeling i'm the only rational one in the topic of veganism or animal rights. But on the other hands my friends would believe they are the rational ones and I hold irrational believes. And even on a personal level usually you'd think you're the rational one in a discussion, but your opposite thinks the same about their believes.

What I am trying to say everyone is biased about their belives and standpoints, but the difference is, one is willing to change their believes if the other person is making convincing arguments. But for this to happen both parties have to be open for the discussion and willing to learn from one another.

I'm a lot like these people. I mean, I can't really debunk anything above my knowledge or even a bit complicated

I feel the same way, my expertise is in typography, design and printing. I simply don't have professional insight or am certified in human nutritions, animal rights, religion or any other topic. I can only hold a position on these topics, mostly supported by experts in these fields. But as I stated, I am willing to change my positions if the argument is convincing.

And to get back on topic, I have the feeling the "skeptics" rather ridicule the topic instead of talking rational about it.

[Red]

I don't have any desire to produce content on youtube, although I do somehow have a desire to challenge believes. Because i'm very passionated about animal rights. As much as I don't like to say this.. but I am a keyboard warrior regarding veganism

Making YouTube videos seems very fun to me. There are probably other ways of addressing them (like this forum), but YouTube is the best way, since you can grow an audience and introduce people to other perspectives.

But everyone is bias in a sense. I mean when i'm meeting my friends, which are all not vegan, I've got the feeling i'm the only rational one in the topic of veganism or animal rights. But on the other hands my friends would believe they are the rational ones and I hold irrational believes. And even on a personal level usually you'd think you're the rational one in a discussion, but your opposite thinks the same about their believes.

I guess you're right. But for things like veganism, it's kinda self evident to not eat meat for moral/health/environmental reasons, so a few things (that you are 100% sure of, and are supported by facts and evidences) you don't have to be skeptical of. You're not as bad or as arrogant as these people (from what I can tell), and you seem to be someone who would change as they obtain more facts and knowledge. These other people, not so much. As PsYcHo's signature states, it's easier to fool someone than to convince them they have been fooled.

Just make sure to only assume you're the most rational when vegan-related topics are brought up. Any other time you'll just look like the Skeptic community.

What I am trying to say everyone is biased about their belives and standpoints, but the difference is, one is willing to change their believes if the other person is making convincing arguments. But for this to happen both parties have to be open for the discussion and willing to learn from one another.

That's the problem with the Skeptic Community; they aren't. They think they are the fucking Socrates and saviours of the YouTube community. Just make sure you don't become that. These people don't seem to have much talent anywhere other than video making and editing (some of them just use WMM or iMovie), considering that one of them thinks that playing the recorder is an example of peerless talent.

I feel the same way, my expertise is in typography, design and printing. I simply don't have professional insight or am certified in human nutritions, animal rights, religion or any other topic. I can only hold a position on these topics, mostly supported by experts in these fields. But as I stated, I am willing to change my positions if the argument is convincing.

Hey, at least you have something to be proud of. I want to do something, y'know? I guess I should get started now.

And to get back on topic, I have the feeling the "skeptics" rather ridicule the topic instead of talking rational about it.

As we've said, they're idiots. YouTube is a reverse meritocracy. They only know how to take on SJWs and theists, and any argument even slightly above them they ignore. ie Matt Dillahunty.

[ThatNerdyScienceGirl]

To be honest, I feel the same way. I had a woman who was a skeptic when it came to debunking science myths in regards to GMOs, automatically mute and unfollow me on Twitter just a couple of days ago, because in response to a post talking about people excluding others based on race, I posted a picture of a "black only healing space." She told me that those two things were "obviously different" and she couldn't understand how a "smart" person could make such a claim. I personally think there is no difference in excluding one race from a location, vs excluding all BUT one race from a location. Both seem equally as racist, especially claiming the intent for a "Muslim-free zone" and the intent for a "black-only safe space" are the SAME intent: To exclude people they deem as harmful because of an arbitrary factor.

That said, yeah, I see it a lot. In terms of where you may go, some skeptic groups, like those who are pro-GMO or pro-vaccine, tend to be more liberal, while anti-religious skeptic groups tend to be more conservative. And with this comes in-group and out-group bias. That's why I as a more libertarian thinker who is trying to get away from politics can't seem to get away from people who talk about science and myths, and then turn around and start talking about how Hillary Clinton is some sort of feminist god, while then unfollowing you if you say "all 4 candidates for president suck."

People might be very skeptical about many claims. They may be skeptical about the claim that glyphosphate is a carcinogen and then do ample research into finding out the truth. Or skeptical about whether Jesus was really seen in the clouds on 9/11, or even be skeptical on whether or not you can be healthy while not being vegan. But then they turn around and are closeminded about other beliefs they hold. It is very possible to be extremely thorough when it comes to the claim that eating peanut butter can cause diabetes, but then be completely accepting of other claims without evidence, such as the idea that vaccines cause autism.

Everyone has beliefs that they feverishly grasp onto, while meanwhile being adequately skeptical of other claims. You can easily be skeptical of god, while seriously believing the Earth is stationary and flat. Human psychology adores these double standards, and nobody is immune from them.

So we have to just learn to deal with the fact that some otherwise intelligent people are going to say pretty nonsensical things.

[ThatNerdyScienceGirl]

Correct. These people are not true skeptics, they are selectively skeptical about things they don't like -- just as Christians are (who can be very good at debunking other religions).

I guess "Armoured Skeptic" is a misnomer. As I've said, these people overestimate their intelligence (Dunning Kruger effect), and just because they have an idiot following of mostly 12 year olds, that just inflates their egos even more.

Don't assume they are in any way more rational or reasonable than anybody else. You have to come at them like any other dogmatist. Try street epistemology if you're going one on one in a comment section.

I'm gonna be honest here. Now this may be coming across as seeking attention and a pathetic attempt at wanting to appear rational, but I kinda think I'm a lot like these people. I mean, I can't really debunk anything above my knowledge or even a bit complicated, and I can be prone to confirmation bias as well. But hey, it's as they say, a polished turd is still a turd.

I agree that most Skeptics do nothing more than attack low-hanging fruit, much like the Anti-SJWs and Anti-Feminists out there. But to be honest, I probably would not have found the skeptic community and learned many things if it wasn't for skeptics like The Peach, ZOMGitscriss, JaclynGlenn and a few others. I did once like Armored Skeptic, The Amazing Atheist, and Thunderf00t, including one YouTuber I liked until she pulled the same confirmation card and blocked me for diagreeing with her one time; BionicDance. They grew out of style for me the more childish they became over time. Aside from the first two, the rest just stopped being interesting due to the large confirmation biases they hold on particlular topics, as well as all the screaming and name-calling.

I do also think it is unfair to attack their fanbases as well, calling them "idiot 12 year olds" seems untactful and shows more of a biased hatred towards them on your part. To be honest, their fanbases might actually be older, but we don't know because older people are less likely to be loud and obnoxious on the internet than younger people.