The people that are most likely to insert a sin or a vice or a ethics accusation at people loudly and often or when it makes the least sense are the people who are thinking about it constantly. For some of those people, the reason they think of it constantly is that it is there job to think about it, like law enforcement, journalists, social workers, etc. and they are trained to see the signs everywhere. For some others, they have personal traumas that cause them to see that trauma reflected at them at the slightest trigger.

But the other people, by and large, are those who are thinking about it constantly because they are constantly craving it and/or trying to find ways to get it. This is the “every accusation is an admission” crowd. Your sister in law who is obsessed with calling people out as thieves, who will swipe cash off your night stand without hesitation. Your “gays will burn in hell” preachers that get caught soliciting male prostitutes. Your “trans people are groomers” politicians who get arrested for CSAM. Whether it is shame over their desires that makes them genuinely angry or an attempt at subterfuge by going over the top against it so they don’t get in trouble, they are obsessed with the subject to the point that they either bring it up all the time or they shoehorn it in seemingly out of nowhere.

So any time I see someone like Elon, who has absolutely nothing to go on but a white guy existing in Thailand and children being involved, immediately come to the association of pedophilia… well he’s not a sex crimes cop or journalist is he? It makes me feel very confident that either he was a victim of child sex abuse, or someone who might be a perpetrator of it, or both (as is unfortunately very common). Pair that with his later revealed desires to go to Epstein’s island, and, frankly, what I would perceive as a halting in his maturation from adolescence (genuinely think he has Peter Pan syndrome) which can be caused by childhood trauma, I really wonder if it is both.

They will not hear a fucking word of it

So what is it when all the Trump administration lie and say that don’t recall to every question? Or just don’t answer at all? Or yell about the DOW for some reason?

Regarding the knitting thing, I’ll take your word that he once said something to that nature (I never saw that one, so IDK) but just a few months ago he went on a deep dive into textiles and did interviews with subject matter experts about their deep importance to history, technology, and modern life. I thought it was very cool and insightful.

It sounds to me like he made a mistake, assumed he knew more than he did, got and (more importantly) was receptive to the critical feedback from his audience, and decided to dedicate time to correcting his misunderstanding. I’m inclined to give grace to someone for that.

Again, I didn’t see the comments on HRT either, and I don’t much about know the specific studies regarding health outcomes with different regimens. I will take your word for it on both. I will go so far as to say that he shouldn’t speak on specifics regarding health that he is only passingly familiar with, and that is on him. But, I don’t think that what you described was, in any way, critical of trans people. And a mistaken opinion based on limited knowledge in an area you do not claim to be an expert in is not really all that unforgivable, especially when you voluntarily take that misinformation down to prevent further spread once you’ve been corrected. Plenty of people have plenty of opinions about things they don’t fully understand, and you don’t always know what you don’t know. From what I have seen of him, I would hope that he later highlighted his mistake and corrected it, along with removing the video. I don’t know that he did, but I have seen him do similar before. I really can’t expect that much else from a YouTuber.

My criticism is not about who he is. But the general social conditions, like race, gender and orientation privileges that allow him to speak with authority without being put into question by the vast majority since his status is socially determined to be the default.

I don’t think his cis het white male status is what gives him an air of authority on the matter. For one thing, not that it matters, but he has made clear that he is not hetero, but bi, even though he is married to a woman. But regardless, if his authority comes from anywhere, it is that he has spent decades in various forms of science education, provides these resources for free as a non-profit, and loves to do and share research into a wide variety of topics, and do interviews with experts in niche fields to spread knowledge. He has experience and proven dedication to science education. There is nothing about that that has to do with his race, orientation, sex, or gender identity. In fact, the science education channel he created and co-hosts, Scishow, also has several other hosts that are of various races, genders, orientations, etc. He is using his privilege to platform other groups in the science space, actively pushing against the default status you are concerned about.

Again, you are absolutely free to feel however you feel about him, and criticize his ideas, his mistakes, the risky overconfidence you perceive, etc. I agree wholeheartedly that speaking on health issues regarding trans health in particular without a firm expertise or expert source at minimum is a bad idea, and it is potentially grossly negligent to give health advice in that or any area you do not fully understand when you have the kind of platform and perceived authority he does. But I do think that he is of good character, does actively try to help, and willingly admits and corrects his mistakes to the best of his abilities. And so I really can’t agree that he is overall a bad guy or source of science education/discourse.

It sounds like your main gripe would be that he speaks before he had certainty, and his platform thus lends credence to his words, right or wrong. That is a very fair critique. We also need to remember that he is a flawed human being like the rest of us, and with a curious mind, loves to learn and share what he has learned. If you put no more stock into his words than that, as one should, then he is harmless. He should be mindful that he’s going to be treated with more trust than most and should honor that trust with as much credibility as possible. But also no one is perfect.

Him being a cis het white guy is not relevant here apart from general privileges that come with that. Unless you are saying that one with those attributes should automatically be disregarded or disqualified from public participation, or treated as lesser in matters of science, history, current events, etc. That is not a stance I can support. Equality means equality for all. That does mean that privilege should be recognized and often worked against in the name of equity. But cis het white men can still have a seat at the table of public discourse just like everyone else.

If you have a problem with Hank, the things he says or has said, that is fine. Criticism of ideas is great and necessary. Criticizing the societal privilege that he possesses for some inherent traits or his fame and money is also great and necessary too. But reducing an individual to some set of inherent traits outside of their control and criticizing those traits instead of their words and actions is just prejudice.

Edit: Also, I’m interested in what he said about trans people and HRT that you found objectionable. Same for the misogyny. Can you share a bit about that? And maybe a link to the relevant videos? I personally haven’t seen him speak about trans issues in any real detail. And everything that I have seen him say in regards to women and trans people has been generally positive. I’m curious what I may have missed.

Except for their modesty, dignity, privacy, agency, reputation… and the fact that they are literally being objectified, as you so conveniently worded it, instead of human beings who will be effected by these things, as well as those who view it.

So the damage to the pool already existed, it was widely publicized and many many people were out there observing and touching the water, yet you’re claiming this this individual somehow caused $1000+ in damages for touching tbe already peeling paint. Even if he yanked on it and more peeled off (which all indications are that he didn’t do that), that would still not constitute new damage since it wouldn’t peel unless already damaged before he touched it. So, yeah. Good luck making that stick.

Sometimes it’s worth looking below the headline, my guy.

I mean, I watch YouTube all the time, way more than TV these days. Some of that involves politics yes, but mostly it’s just pretty innocuous. Science, technology, books, comics, gaming, D&D, sketch comedy, standup, animation, movie reviews, food, cooking, history, etc. By far the most political thing I watch on YouTube is Some More News, and it’s admittedly pretty rage inducing sometimes. But most of my viewing is just wholesome, nerdy, and/or makes me hungry. I don’t really live by the algorithm though. I primarily watch people I’ve specifically subscribed to.

Then come the “saviors” of the internet that blame it on illegal aliens, women having rights etc because according to their logic we had it good in the 70s so we must reverse everything back to the way it was in 70s.

The problem isnt just the “saviors” and their message. Those people have always existed, always had the same blaming strategy. The problem is that the internet has made it easier for those messages to reach a global audience, has made the messenger faceless and unaccountable and given the presumption of legitimacy, has made it easier to get absorbed into isolated communities saturated in this kind of messaging, and made it easier to warp the worldview of the community to something antithetical to reality. If you run into a dude saying wacky shit in a bar, and he just seems to be some drunk asshole, you’re not likely to give him much credence against all of the other messaging around you. But if you find an entire community saying the things he says, and they welcome you in, and you get a sense of comradery and purpose from it, that same messaging holds a lot of sway over you.

Isolation has always been the secret sauce to radicalization. Exposure is the antidote. Humans have always had cultural feedback loops that reinforce a specific worldview. And meeting with other cultures often causes conflicts when those worldview collide. The promise of the internet was a more global culture wherein we have a shared reinforced world view. But that didn’t really happen for everyone. What we are seeing now is that same feedback loop phenomenon in a digital space, but often with dramatically different worldviews, even within the same local physical space. That still causes conflict when those communities collide, both online and in the real world, but now that conflict happens everywhere, even in your own household sometimes.

We’re losing physical communities, friends and family for our online echo chamber communities. People are definitely driven more into those digital communities as their physical life is more of a struggle financially, socially, etc. Relieving those struggles would certainly go a long way in remediating the problem, but it won’t go away.

The older I get, the more I think that the internet was a mistake. It had a lot of potential for good and has delivered on that in many ways, but it has also unleashed an uncontrollable onslaught of radicalization, hatred, isolation, and mental illness. It’s harms have outweighed the good by orders of magnitude.

Ha! I fucking called that after they claimed they also were taking a hard line. Complete bullshit.

Could you imagine if ol’ bone spurs had actually went to Vietnam?

Oh, I very much doubt that. They’re counting on the federal goverment as a “backstop” to their over extended debts when the bill comes due (several orders of magnitude over extended, mind you. More than a trillion over extended.). They’re gonna play mouth service for the public, but give Bitch Baby Trump whatever it takes to keep that backstop secured and reep all the benefits of their beyond unrealistic gamble and none of the financial consequences.

Child*

I… did not… inhale.

That’s… not what I asked you, Bill.

Even if it were true that China stole the election, how is “something happened 6 years ago” an emergency? He won in 2024, so it can’t be that effective anymore.

Well they have my vote. My bar isn’t very high anymore after the last few elections

Oh good. I don’t think we need to add a 137 year old Hitler to the current political situation. It’s bad enough as it is. I assume your Nans haven’t Holocausted anyone. …right?

Both Hitler and Nana?