In a hilarious takedown, münecat returns after a year with special focus on men who rationalize their sexism with bunk science.
This video has good points but also deviates from The scientific consensus on the generic heritability of mental health conditions.
I also felt that parts of it were disability-positivist, which for me personally I interpret as ableist. Saying that schizophrenia isn’t something people suffer from, it’s just schizophrenia in the context of current society really rubbed me the wrong way.
Normally like münecat’s videos but between this and the defending-domestic-abuse/Caroline-Flack part of one of her previous videos some of her beliefs are really harmful.
People are often weird about the intersection of genetics and psychology generally. When I was in HS a kid tried to tell me that intelligence wasn’t heritable because genetics didn’t play a role. When I pointed out that people with genetically-linked intellectual disabilities exist, they said that it was different. Apparently they didn’t understand that disabilities are a result of (among other things) genetic variations and not the other way around.
I did not watch but I have had experience with schizophrenia and its about the worst thing to me outside of alzheimers.
Don’t know about debunking, it seems to be more about entertaining people than educating them. Anyway, only made it to the 20 minute mark, back to work.
“I only watched the trailer but here’s my review of the film”
Which films have 20 minute trailers?
Which films are 3 1/2 hours long?
You tell me, you started to talk about films.
None? You’re the one who watched the intro to a video essay and decided to leave a comment that you weren’t gonna watch it before forming an opinion
Should a good essay not have an introduction that goes over some of the actual information in the video and establishes the tone/method of delivering that information?
If you’re trying to say that the introduction is not representative of the quality of the rest of the video, you should argue that instead of the rather lame argument that not watching something in it’s entirety prevents any commentary on that thing. It goes hand in hand with someone saying they watched the whole thing and didn’t like it, then asking why they watched the whole thing if they didn’t like it?
There’s a finite amount of time in this life, and every moment spent doing one thing means not doing another. Giving anything stumbled across on the internet 20 minutes of your time to determine if another 3 hours is worthwhile is a decent commitment. When I’ve done that I’ve not made a comment about it because I’d rather let the people who did like the video enjoy it than throw out some negativity, but it’s a completely valid approach to curating one’s time.
It’s fine to quit 10% of the way in if you’re not into it but it doesn’t mean your opinion of what you watched is informed enough to leave a review. That’s the point I was making with the silly trailer analogy. Why comment if you didn’t watch it?
I watched about an hour and a half of it last night and it’s entertainment, yeah, but she’s just explaining the manosphere in an entertaining way. Thats how long form video essays work, it’s not an academic paper.
None?
Look what I found for you: https://www.imdb.com/list/ls031139166/ Happy to educate you, you’re welcome.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/31e0RcImReY?si=Z4uBGKXkHnxKgumF
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
deleted by creator
