Your arguments are the same kind used by black lung / coal miner or cancer / smoking skeptics. Sure, it seems like when we control for every other factor in longitudinal studies that these factors are strong predictors. But you can't guarantee that all coal miner will get black lung or a smoker will get cancer. So it must be some other lifestyle factor.

Same with climate change. Your right wing blogs / websites argue that just because you can't create a model with perfect certainty, the inexorable trend isn't obvious. No thanks, I'd rather go with a 97% scientific consensus that has convinced most scientific organisations, large multinational companies (without a countervailing interest) and national governments from America to China.

If you're so certain that the science is wrong, why not publish a countervailing journal article? Oh wait, no, you almost certainly don't have training in the field or actual understanding of the science, and are just copy pasting fancy phrases like "decadal scale oscillations" because it makes you sound more credible.

The explanation afterwards typifies my skepticism of machine learning and the kind of magical thinking that makes people think that limitless tasks can be automated beyond set domains.

Of course, algorithms with enough data are going to be effective at determining scary, tender or action segments from movies. But just like how they admit, a human touch is required to then piece it together in a way that resonates on an emotional level.

Trailers ultimately are pretty formulaic so they may be automatable but there are bound to be a whole host of areas where either a deterministic result is not practical or the noise of the algorithm response will be high enough to render the prediction meaningless.

Also too bad the movie's getting panned by reviews, I was kind of excited about watching this.

Trippy the comment has been removed. That's really weird. It was actually longer but i edited down to this one sentence. Must have been done by siftbot, but no clue why and ive never seen it done before. Very odd.

Also i asked lucky to double check siftbots auto spammer as i cant figure out for the life of me why siftbot spammered him.

Im highly skeptical of auto siftbots ability to figure shit out.

I was super skeptical of this game because the developer's were obviously intentionally vague about the gameplay aspects. Well, they didn't necessarily lie, it is exactly like I thought it would be - an indie survival game with a procedural engine. They were "vague" because that is literally all of there is to this game, it's a half empty / half full scenario.

I find the game great because I didn't have any grandiose ideas about it and went in skeptical. 40 hours later I'm still headed towards the center of the Universe, playing with the minimal systems but always able to appreciate what the game is and not what it is not.

This video is hilarious though, and the off key notes insinuated towards this game are one of the reasons I find the game endearing. I'm glad it doesn't feel like a AAA game, it feels fresh, I just wish they wouldn't sell this (shit) for $60.00

He did. He posted the yelp page and told them to leave messages.

And the "1:1" example was referencing the above video.. the one you're commenting under. The one titled "The New Wave of YouTube 'Skeptics", not the article. Which is why I said as such.

And I don't think one person calling up Mason's work is a good thing nor should it be condoned, but I also don't consider it on par with doxxing someone and sending your 400,000 followers after them. Which, doxxing someone isn't just "amusement". If you actually cared about harassment, like you want to claim with calling this woman's actions harassment, maybe you wouldn't equivocate on that.

And the reason I'm willing to draw a link to trolls and MRA-wackjobs and Mason is because: Those are his fans. Those are the people he pointed at this woman's yelp page. Those are the people that followed his target de-jour and doxxed them.

The reason I'm not willing to do that for Sarkeesian is because: I don't really care about Sarkeesian, she didn't post where Mason worked/his works contact info/told people to comment directly to him. AFAIK, there is basically no connection between Sarkeesian and this woman other than "well I guess they're both left-ish on the political spectrum".

But hey, I think it's pretty obvious which side your bread is buttered on and this isn't so much a dispute about the original topic (Poor examples of youtube "skeptics") any more, so my interest is waning.

Sounds like the grass is dying out on this side of the internet. Meanwhile, trolls skulk under bridges awaiting both SJW and skeptic to cross the bridge for their evening meals.

Where be the fattest of the goats?

Then you haven't encountered any of his fans on twitter.

And he is pretty much the largest and most 1:1 example the above video is referencing: He uses specious arguments, focuses on minor details or extreme examples to paint with a massive brush, and generally is more vitriol than skepticism.

And the difference between Sarkeesian making videos critiquing and thunderf00t is myriad: Sarkeesian focuses on depictions and media, thunderf00t focuses on indviduals and a very amorphous idea of "feminism" with videos like "Why feminism is poisoning atheism", "Why 'feminism' poisons EVERYTHING", all pretty much completely obsessed with Sarkeesian and Rebecca Watson.

That's not skepticism.. that's a creepy personal vendetta.

The other major difference are their fans. I don't recall Sarkeesian ever taking out a personal vendetta against a random person and suggesting her fans bombard their business on Yelp with bad reviews and then people on the doxxing boards of 8chan joined in the online attacks.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/10/25/1439148/-Phil-Mason-is-Working-With-Baphomet-to-Ruin-DC-Business

I mean, it's not quite as simple as "one person makes videos critiquing, another makes videos critiquing". But I feel like you probably already knew that.

I always felt that my progressive ideology was a natural result of my atheism and 'skepticism', so it was really weird to find all these angry conservatives online shouting at women, muslims and black people while calling themselves atheists and rational skeptics.

I think the 'problem' with SJWs online is that a lot of concepts that 20 years ago would have been discussed mainly by well-educated academics, such as privilege, appropriation, etc., are now becoming mainstream and are being wielded by teenagers, lunatics, and people who are no smarter than you or I. This is technically a good thing - we need to get those concepts into the open if we are ever going to address the real problems they describe - but it means that there will be some people who fuck up or overreach while trying out these concepts. If somebody badly wants an excuse to dismiss all of feminism, or all of racial equality, there will thus inevitable be some teenager online with a webcam who is all too happy to give them that excuse - but why look for that excuse in the first place?

As someone who will happily wear the labels of both skeptic and SJW, I think he makes some really good points here.

Ok I'll try to divide up my wall text a bit better this time

I totally acknowledge that people in the past, and even in present day, some people have to live a certain way in order to survive, but for the vast majority of people that doesn't apply.


Taste:
Like most of the senses in the human body, the sense of taste is in a constant state re-calibration. It's highly subjective and easily influenced over mere seconds but also long periods of time. They say it takes 3 weeks to acclimatize from things you crave, from salt to heroin. That's why most healthy eating books tell you go to cold tofurkey (see what I did there ) for 3 weeks. It's all about the brain chemistry. After 3 straight weeks you aren't craving it. (The habit might still be there but, the chemically driven cravings are gone).
Try it yourself by eating an apple before and after some soft drink. First the apple will taste sweet, and after it will taste sour. Or try decreasing salt over a 3 week period, it'll taste bland at first, but if you go back after 3 weeks it'll be way too salty.



Food science:
One of the major things stopping me from not being vegan, was the health concerns, so I read a number of books about plant-based eating.
There is a new book "How Not To Die" by Dr. Michael Greger. If you want scientific proof of a plant based diet this the one stop shop. 500 pages explaining tens of thousands of studies, some going for decades and involving hundreds of thousands of people. I was blown away at the simple fact that so many studies get done. Most of them are interventional studies also, meaning they are able to show cause and effect (unlike observational or corrolational studies, as he explains in the book). 150 pages of this book alone are lists of references to studies. It's pure unbiased science. (It's not a vegan book either in case you are worried about him being biased).

At the risk of spoiling the book - whole foods like apples and broccoli doesn't give you cancer, in fact they go a long way to preventing it, some bean based foods are as effective as chemotherapy, and without the side effects. I thought it sounded it ridiculous, but the science is valid.
Of course you can visit his website he explains all new research almost daily at nutritionfacts.org in 1 or 2 minute videos.
He also has a checklist phone app called Dr.Greger's Daily Dozen.

There are other authors too, most of these ones have recipes too, such as Dr. John McDougall, Dr. Neal Barnard, Dr. Cadwell Esselstyn, Dr. Dean Ornish, Dr Joel Furhman.
Health-wise it's the best thing you can do for yourself. And if like me you thought eating healthy meant salads, you'd be as wrong as I was I haven't had a salad for years. My blood results and vitamin levels are exactly what the books said they would be.

Try it for 3 weeks, but make sure you do it the right way as explained in the books, and you'll be shouting from roof tops about what a change it's made to your life. The other thing is, you get to eat more, and the more you eat it's healthier. What a weird concept in a world where we are constantly being told to calorie count (it doesn't work btw).

Environmental:
I've read a lot about ethics, reason and evidence based thinking, as well as nutrition and health (as a result of my own skepticism). So I could and I enjoy talking about these all day long. On the environmental side of things, I'm not as aware, but there some documentaries such as Earthlings and Cowspiracy which paint a pretty clear picture.
Anyone can do the maths even at a rough level - there are 56 billion animals bred and slaughtered each year. Feeding 56 billion animals (many of which are bigger than people) takes a lot more food than a mere 7 billion. Therefore it must take more crops and land to feed them, not to mention the land the animals occupy themselves, as well as the land they destroy by dump their waste products (feces are toxic in those concentrations, where as plant waste, is just compost)
The other thing is that many of these crops are grown in countries where people are starving, using up the fertile land to feed our livestock instead of the people. How f'd up is that?
It's reasons like that why countries like the Netherlands are asking their people to not eat meat more than 3 meals a week.

Productivity and economics:
Countries like Finland have government assistance to switch farmers from dairy to berry. Because they got sick of being sick:
http://nutritionfacts.org/video/dietary-guidelines-from-dairies-to-berries/

The world won't go vegan overnight, and realistically it will never be 100% vegan (people still smoke after all). There will be more than enough time to transition. And surely you aren't suggesting that we should eat meat and dairy to keep someone employed? I don't want anyone to lose their job, but to do something pointlessly cruel just to keep a person working seems wrong.

Animal industries are also heavily subsidized in many countries, so if they were to stop being subsidized that's money freed up for other projects, such as the ones in Finland.

The last bit:
If you eat a plant based diet, just like the cow you'll never have constipation, thanks to all of the fibre
When it comes to enzymes, humans are lactose intolerant because after the age of 2 the enzyme lactase stops being made by the body (unless you keep drinking it). Humans also don't have another enzyme called uricase (true omnivores, and carnivores do), which is the enzyme used to break down the protein called uric acid. As you might know gout is caused by too much uric acid, forming crystals in your joints.
However humans have a multitude of enzymes for digesting carbohydrate rich foods (plants). And no carbs don't make fat despite what the fitness industry would have you believe (as the books above explain).
Appealing to history as well, when they found fossilized human feces, it contained so much fibre it was obvious that humans ate primarily a plant based diet. (Animal foods don't contain fibre).

The reasons why you wouldn't want a whale to eat krill for you is:
1. Food is a packaged deal - there is nothing harmful in something like a potato. But feed a lot of potatoes to a pig, and eat the pig, you're getting some of the nutrients of a potato, but also heaps of stuff you're body doesn't need from the pig, like cholesterol, saturated fat, sulfur and methionine containing amino acids etc And no fibre. (low fibre means constipation and higher rates of colon cancer).
2. Your body's health is also dependent on the bacteria living inside you. (fun fact, most the weight of your poop is bacteria!) The bacteria inside you needs certain types of food to live. If you eat meat, you're starving your micro-organisms, and the less good bacteria you have, the less they produce certain chemicals and nutrients , and you get a knock on effect. The fewer the good bacteria also makes room for bad bacteria which make chemicals you don't want.
Coincidentally, if you eat 3 potatoes for breakfast, lunch, and dinner, you have all the protein you need - it worked for Matt Damon on Mars right?

Yeah, Cenk went the wrong direction with this. But I think a narrower point can be made, we should expect elected politicians to have some rational skepticism about misinformation on the internet.

Either he cynically believes his base isn't smart enough to tell that it's photo shopped, or he is gullible enough to believe it himself. One is a dramatic failure of character the other of intelligence. And it does seem like republican politicians are far more guilty of spreading bullshit internet memes.

Am I the only one who is skeptical that there is anyone on this planet who could legitimately be worth 28k per minute. I don't care how sexy you think his voice sounds.

@vil
RT does have an issue when it comes to russian politics and military operations,but the same can be said about CNN.so i agree in certain instances to be a tad skeptical.

abbey martin lefts RT for the very reasons you mentioned.

but this is thom hartmans show,who is a liberal and has always been critical of power,american politics and american military interventions.

the real substance of this video is william black.who you may not be familar with,but he was one of the main regulators who prosecuted the bankers from the saving and loan scandals of the 90's.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savings_and_loan_crisis

he also wrote a great book:
http://utpress.utexas.edu/index.php/books/blab2p

so while RT can,and is at times,a propaganda arm for russian politics.
it aint pravda.

I have to admit, I thought you were posting videos lately that you neither agreed or disagreed with, but were just posting for debate. I mean - if you want to stand up for the views of every video you post, then fine, you're right, you can't win - you're posting videos from climate science skeptics, bundy rancher supporters, and gamergaters, and those people are all idiots. If you want to support them and the viewpoints in their videos, you're going to get smacked down hard, for obvious reasons - these morons are easy targets. If you want to put them up for neutral debate (and accept that people are going to shit all over the viewpoints expressed) then you're doing fine.

Basically - if 'you' are the youtube-accounts in the videos you sift, you're losing.
If 'you' are your videosift account, you're doing fine.
If 'you' are a real person, you probably have 800 other things to worry about.

</drunk>

@bcglorf Whenever I complain about the Right pushing propaganda, I always trot out Moore as an example from the Left.

Bottom line -- be very wary of anyone with a strong agenda. Listen with a gimlet ear and wonder what you aren't being told, and how statistics are used to paint a picture rather than impart new information.

Apply that same skepticism to Facebook posts, too.

Usually if something is egregiously awful, mind blowingly awful, it isn't true.