There's always time for a quick D
this post was submitted on 20 Dec 2024
229 points (100.0% liked)
Videos
15412 readers
482 users here now
For sharing interesting videos from around the Web!
Rules
- Videos only
- Follow the global Mastodon.World rules and the Lemmy.World TOS while posting and commenting.
- Don't be a jerk
- No advertising
- No political videos, post those to [email protected] instead.
- Avoid clickbait titles. (Tip: Use dearrow)
- Link directly to the video source and not for example an embedded video in an article or tracked sharing link.
- Duplicate posts may be removed
Note: bans may apply to both [email protected] and [email protected]
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Just the tip
I've enjoyed every video I've ever seen by him, but always forget to subscribe to him and YouTube never recommends his videos to me even though it's filled with all kinds of other skeptical materials.
Sub now. Captain D is amazing.
Are people really serious about liking him? I mean, I get that there was a lot of tongue in cheek SNL unfunniness in there. But…I felt it was painfully unfunny to watch. S
I’m saying this in the most genuine way possible, what is the appeal exactly? Is it the humor? The information? I was very surprised to see under that video is was on the trending list. I’d never heard of him. But everyone here seems to really like him as well.
Just curious. No hate
The humour is a large part of why people enjoy watching his videos, but the main focus of his channel is going over visual effects in viral videos with incredible detail.
He is genuinely amazing at his craft and has some really informative material. This specific video isn't a great example but some are much funnier too.
Just check out his other videos I guess. I think he can be quite funny, and this video isn't the best example. But he's built a lot of goodwill by other means with the blender community over the years, he didn't become popular as a comedian.
The YT algorithm hates inconsistent uploaders, so they don't get as promoted as much. Unfortunately you're going to have to smash that bell icon if you don't want to miss a video from him.
I'm very skeptical of "skeptical materials". most of that shit went on to a misogynistic, transphobic and xenophobic route. and that's not captain disillusion.
See my reply to Diplomjodler3. One of the temporary hosts of Skeptoid was trans. You have some very uninformed ideas about what skepticism is and what it isn't.
no I don't. I said nothing about what skepticism is. My comment was about YouTube "skeptics" and the people they idolized, like Sam Harris and Dick Dawkins.
Given your unwillingness to accept that you aren't as informed on the topic as you think you are I can see why you have the ideas you do.
Sam Harris has never been part of the rationalist or skeptical culture. He is much better known in the atheist and the "intellectual dark web". In the skeptical community he is generally regarded as a close minded person who is too busy kissing the butt of people like Ben Shapiro and selling meditation.
Even before Elevatorgate Dawkins was on the outs for being a sexist & misogynist who was contributing nothing to the movement except harm. If you are using him as an example you are operating on information that is more than a decade out of date and it might be time to update your priors.
"I utilize a narrower definition of the word, shame you are too closed-minded to comprehend that I'm right. Now let's force a debate on semantics to maximize our time wasted."
Don't you find it's usually better to frame your opponent's position in terms they would agree with? You're using skepticism in a way that does not comport with today's use by the community. Community exchange over time. Community exchange over time.
The community's use isn't the correct point of reference. It is also naturally biased, because the community seeks to avoid association with these people.
It's not crazy or outlandish to label Harris or Dawkins as skeptics in the common use of the term. It's core to their branding whether you like it or not. That's what matters when you talk to people outside the community, not the insular definition you treat as objective fact.
I don't even see a point in litigating this, other than the one I mentioned already. It was clear from context what they were talking about.
The community has explicitly rejected the people you named because they aren't in keeping with positions the community holds. If the community says they don't want these people in the group but you insist on saying they are part of the group then you are making a bad faith argument.
Communities get to decide who is an isn't part of the community. You specifically mentioned trans issues. Two of the pods I named had trans hosts. Dawkins had his AHA award pulled because of trans comments. Skeptics aren't being the people you said they were. You can either change your mind or stick to your beliefs despite the evidence.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/richard-dawkins-trans-humanist-aha-b1835017.html
You're completely missing the point. This isn't about a community no matter how much you'd prefer otherwise. This was a conversation in a public forum.
The word "sceptic" has a generally understood meaning regardless of how the community feels about it, because the general public isn't paying attention to what the community wants.
You can either change your mind or stick to your beliefs despite the evidence.
How kind of you. Word of advice, don't resort to statements like this. It's transparent ego stroking that makes you sound like a self-centered asshole and doesn't help your argument in any way.
"This isn't about a community no matter how much you'd prefer otherwise."
Except that it was/is about the community/movement/group collectively known as skeptics. Go back the the beginning of the conversation. I mentioned materials and the reply came back about how it was all transphobic misogynist stuff. Well there is nothing inherently transphobic or misogynist about the application of epistemology, logic and spotting logical fallacies so the complaint must have been about the people. Then the conversation explicitly mentioned people by name as representatives of the community. So no matter how much you try to say it wasn't about the community it was.
"This was a conversation in a public forum. The word "sceptic" has a generally understood meaning."
There are lots of "generally understood" groups that go by existing words that aren't understood at all by the general population. To many people atheists are Satan worshipers, trans people are bathroom predators, and geologists are part of a massive cover-up about the truth of young earth creationism. But we know that these "generally understood" meanings are completely false. In a dictionary a word can have more than one meaning and context matters.
In a dictionary a word can have more than one meaning and context matters.
Precisely. Which is why you can make the case why the distinction is important to you, and why other people should care about and respect the more specific definition.
But you didn't make that case. You took the position that there's exactly one valid definition and the other person was factually, self-evidently wrong, and needed not to be convinced but to be condescendingly corrected. That is not conducive to your goal of conveying your position, it doesn't represent the community position well to outsiders, and it rubs me the wrong way simply because it's self-absorbed and extremely rude. Hence my sarcastic initial reply.
If you seek a discussion that others can meaningfully engage with, purely out of self-interest you need to be able to center other people's perspective, not talk down to them about how they could be so obviously wrong and stupid.
Being perceived as less of a total ass is just a bonus.
There you have your explanation. "Sceptical" channels will just question everything without providing real evidence. The Captain always backs up his claims.
I think you have a very uninformed idea about skeptical content. Go find Skeptic's Guide to the Universe, Skeptics with a K, Be Reasonable, Skeptoid, Bayesian Conspiracy, Squaring the Strange, Monster Talk and others. There is trutherusm crap and then there is looking at evidence.
Captain D is a fan of this stuff. He attended The Amazing Meeting, a skeptical conference held by the JREF, back when James Randi was still alive.
Most science communication YouTube channels engage in debunking (of flat feathers, young earth creationists, pseudoarcheologists, etc.), always with evidence. Just because a bunch of racist pngtubers co-opted the word skeptical 10-15 years ago doesn't change the meaning of the word itself.
He only uploads like once or twice a year
Thanks, Captain o7 o7 o7
What's the over/under on when he stops painting his face?
That alone makes me not want to listen to him.
imagine missing this entire goldmine over makeup...
to answer your question, considering he's been doing this for nearly two decades, maybe in 15 years? assuming that's when he stops making videos.
wow you're petty.
I was cross faded posting last night. I misread your comment as "wow you're pretty" and I had a moment like aww, then I was like what the fuck did I post my face on Lemmy?
But it's just this. Yeah I think the makeup is stupid. It looks stupid. I'm sure it made him stand out from the crowd to create his initial following, but now he's really famous. I think he could simplify his life by ditching the makeup and maybe gain even more fans who feel like I do.
I don't watch YouTubers. I'm 41 years old. I just got into podcasts two years ago. Everybody says the guy is awesome so live and let live. If he likes his makeup, whatever. He's got to be tired of doing it by now.
it does look stupid. and that's good, because it cultivates on audience of people who can look past that.
the amount of work that goes into each of his videos is also enough that skipping the makeup would barely make a dent. especially since he uses the marks on his face for tracking.
i'm 41
ah so you were 21 when youtube started.
Wow has it been that long? It's not that I don't use YouTube, I just don't really watch people that do it for a job. I'm sure I'm missing out on a ton of good stuff. I did watch that NZXT expose when it came out and it was very good and I learned to never buy a NZXT component.
Appearances are everything, after all. Why even fill books? Just sell covers!
Gotta fill them up with useless paper so they burn better.
That's what Captain Disillusion's face looks like. 🤷♂️
The guy playing Captain Disillusion, however, appears without face paint (well, maybe flesh coloured face paint, I've never been good at recognising makeup and he seems like the kind of guy that'd make sure not to have weird shines and whatnot in video, though to be fair he's perfectly capable of fixing that in post, so who knows really) in this very video (for a short but maybe slightly too long sketch), as well as, if I recall correctly (Captain Disillusion's videos are sadly rather infrequent, so it's been a while), in at least one other of his videos...
He's been in quite a few videos without face paint. People get hung up on the weirdest things.
I get it. Ive never watched this guy once and the makeup is part of why I've never clicked on a thumbnail
From the very first video in glorious... Was it 240p? Well, since the very early days he's had this great vibe of an edutainment program with the host being a metallic alien with holograms and stuff, and it's definitely part of the appeal. You claim he could get more followers by dropping the whole gimmick, but I have to question how many regular viewers he might lose if he stops it.