[thringsaround]

Snarky reply replaced: I'm sincerely curious if that's really all you're taking away from my comment, including the explicit disclaimer. My advice was to pay closer attention to the material, not to ignore it, so I'm perplexed as to how you managed to get the complete opposite message.

This seems exceptionally straightforward to me, so I'll make it as un-political as I can: There are lifetimes of new content available for your consumption every single day.

Maybe it's not all worthwhile. Maybe not 1% of it is. It doesn't matter-- you'll never get to see an infinitesimal fraction of it, even just the good, true, accurate stuff.

So how do you decide what to pay attention to with your mortal lifespan? Just as a first pass, I like to use filters like "is this notably excellent" or "does this make me want to throw up at all, even just a little".

Then if it's not excellent, or if the speaker doesn't agree with my politics, or especially both, I don't feel any remorse whatsoever about skipping it.

This isn't about shutting myself off. I think it's very important to expose myself to perspectives that differ from my own, to broaden my own frame of reference. I also think that feces play a critically important role in my metabolism, but that doesn't mean I'm excited to open a box of donuts and discover a frosted turd.

And I'll accept exactly 0 concern trolling around my publicly saying, just, hey... look in the box.

If it's a turd in there, you don't still have to eat it.

[jshevek]

> if that's really all you're taking away

I'm not commenting on everything, just the things I think are the most important. I can't read your mind, but in your own words you "encourage folks not to watch that video at least without..."

Just my impression, but it appears to me that you aren't even trying to contribute to the actual topics of discussion in any meaningful way.

[thringsaround]

> but in your own words you "encourage folks not to watch that video at least without..."

Trying really hard not to get back on snark here, but... did you literally just stop reading there? Just finish my sentence: I "encourage folks not to watch that video, at least without [...] making an informed decision."

So, do you think folks shouldn't make an informed decision, or do you think my decision is wrong?

Just my impression, but it appears that you might be arguing one as a proxy for another.

[kd0amg]

So... watch several of his other videos and then decide whether to watch this one? And that's to save time spent on consuming non-worthwhile content? You could stand to be a lot more specific about what your beef is with this youtuber and how that links back to the arguments given in this video.

[jshevek]

> watch several of his other videos and then decide whether to watch this one?

I think that is a generous interpretation. I fear that we are probably being asked to ignore Thunderf00t's criticism of the Hyperloop on the basis of the titles of the other videos - without even looking at the content of those videos!

The titles alone should be sufficient for us to agree that Thunderf000t is so terrible, with his terrible 'regressive' politics, that all of his videos are unworthy of watching.

[thringsaround]

Do you actually believe that?

I mean, do you actually believe that I think the Hyperloop is extremely important, criticism of it must be quashed at any cost, and this YouTuber will just have to be one of the broken eggs?

I'm serious. Is that... is there a part of your brain that what you just said actually makes sense to?

Is it possible in your universe that I've just expressed my actual feelings? And now we're having a big argument about my actual feelings? Even though at this point I doubt you even know what my actual feelings are?

[kd0amg]

I mean, do you actually believe that I think the Hyperloop is extremely important, criticism of it must be quashed at any cost, and this YouTuber will just have to be one of the broken eggs?

No, I think GP is suggesting that you have some other sacred cow, and you consider the "quashing" of technical arguments about other topics to be acceptable collateral damage in protecting it.

[thringsaround]

No. Just go to the channel, read the titles of some of the other videos, and then either walk away, or not, for your own reasons, or not. Or don't, if that really seems so hard.

Again, weirded out that this is such a burdensome ask for some of you. Like, I'm not even talking about my politics, just pointing out that my politics exist.

[kd0amg]

You're also refusing to explain what they are or why they're relevant to this video.

[thringsaround]

So? I'm not asking anyone to adopt my politics.

Don't you want everyone to form their own opinion, without my bias?

[jshevek]

> did you literally just stop reading there?

Of course not, what a strange question.

[thringsaround]

Respectfully (because your writing looks fine) but in all honesty, is English your first language?

You ended your quotation on the preposition "without", which alone should tell you that the meaning of the sentence is contingent on what follows. That sentence could end "...without putting on your PPE" or "...without grabbing a popcorn and soda first", completely opposite meanings.

And you called it the "important" part.

I realize it was a strange question. It was a strange quote.