Is Kurzgesagt BILLIONARE PROPAGANDA? Reviewing A Takedown Video

😎 SIGN UP TO CANVASS! www.vaush.gg/map
🔴 Website - www.vaush.gg/
💵 Patreon - / vaush
🌟 Other Socials 🌟
⭐️ Main Channel - / vaush
👀 3rd Channel? - / @vaushvidya
🐦 Twitter - / vaushv
👾 Twitch - / vaushvidya
📸 Instagram - / vaushv
🔵 Facebook - / vaushvidya
🎵 TikTok - / vaushvidya
🎙Podcast - anchor.fm/vaush
#vaush #vaushpit

[@Vraptor1]

Haven’t watched the video yet, so I’ll say these two things: I agree with vaush, I disagree with vaush, or I’m morally neutral

[@kylecow1930]

three

[@conbinspark3144]

@@kylecow1930 Truuuuu

[@SkulloMad]

I have no strong feelings one way or the other

[@kuyahdaemon]

you covered your bases, I think! well done

[@Vraptor1]

@@kylecow1930 I’m dumb lol

[@ANNIHILISTIC]

God, I can't believe Kurzgesagt don't disclose their sponsors until they disclose their sponsors! UNFORGIVABLE!

[@CloppingIsMyThing]

Disclosing your sponsors at the end of your video is pathetic. Every KZbinr front loads there sponsorships because there terrified of the laws coming in and destroying them, Kurzges doesn't because the governmental body that would kick down there door is a fucking sponsor...

[@tristanheaton2127]

The point is they do it at the very end when most people stop watching

[@tristanheaton2127]

@@azlanadil3646 they should put it at the start before they actually start talking about the topic of thr video so people are aware of any bias that the video might have

[@the-lag-gamerita5446]

@@tristanheaton2127 they will still skip it.

[@HunterTracks]

@@tristanheaton2127 People that care would already seek out that info, people that don't would skip or disregard it. What difference does it make?

[@FuzzyImages]

I kinda hate people getting on them for being "too Optimistic" they are openly optimistic nihilists, and even then, why does that matter? Is it not better to strive for a better outcomes, and most of their anti-doomer rhetoric is to combat straight up apathy to a situation!

[@Haispawner]

They're mad other people aren't miserable and full of hate like them. Which I totally get I'm like that sometimes too, but this is just ridiculous.

[@neoqwerty]

@@Haispawner Do you work in retail, by any chance?

[@lil_weasel219]

He isnt being "too optimistic" , he is misrepresenting evidence and truncating climate action to "Just buy some electric cars actually", and similar analogues, essentially the Musk tech bro route, instead of countering car centrism, the source of the issue. Good public transport is not only cheaper but endlessly better for the environment than simply "just buy some electric cars bro" He then proceeds to substantiate his claim by pointing to Norway, a country that funds its electric car population using it's nationalised oil industry. So let's fight the climate crisis by selling more oil essentially I can't believe this community so uninformed

[@Skywarslord]

@@lil_weasel219 I don’t remember ever seeing a video where they try to move the who issue onto the average person. What video is this on?

[@FuzzyImages]

@@lil_weasel219 Except they do mention that the source of grid energy is a problem, and their arguments arn't just "Buy electric cars bro" That's one single component of many outlined throughout that video (Which I should say videos, as that is just one of several addressing the issue of global warming). Their end argument is not just changes that an individual should make, but for people to effectively lobby for legislative changes. You clearly hyper focused on one thing or blocked out so much of what was said, that it is simply being dishonest. Even so though, aside that, what else do you propose to do, crowed fund a bunch of nuclear energy plants?

[@glacierwolf2155]

I believe that most of the issue from the Kurzgesagt debacle is treating the correlation between "Kurzgesagt makes optimistic videos about humans adapting to and alleviating climate change via technological advancements" and "Kurzgesagt, the owner of the channel and those that work on the channel, is funded by the Bill Gates Foundation" not merely as a correlative relationship, but as a causative relationship. "Kurzgesagt makes optimistic videos about humans adapting to and alleviating climate change _because_ he and his employees are funded by the Bill Gates Foundation." This is merely a loose foundation for an argument. I argue that the only effective ways to combat and adapt to climate change is to, of course, change the economic system that heavily contributes to climate change, but I wouldn't accuse of Kurzgesagt making videos whose central structure is focused around green capitalism simply because the channel is being funded by a foundation that has been a cutthroat corporation in our current economic system. That accusation is as valid as Bill Gates putting microchips in COVID-19 vaccines or in lab-grown / plant-based meat patties.

[@Saktoth]

It doesn't matter. Would Bill Gates have sponsored a channel which DIDN'T support green capitalism? The causitive chain doesn't really matter.

[@page8301]

@@Saktoth Wait, "green" capitalism? That is nothing but an oxymoron, with emphasis on "moron".

[@Dystopikachu]

That's all well and good, but we can at a minimum expect Kurzgesagt to try very hard not step on their benefactors feet.

[@wolfmaster0579]

@@Saktoth It really does when you make judgements about Kurzgesagt. Just because someone who is rich and powerful supports a message does not mean that the message itself is propaganda or those who delivered it are propagandist. The same is said for microchips, as glacier wolf mentioned above.

[@wfb.subtraktor311]

Dont know if you know this, but Kurzgesagt in German has existed for a long, long time. They have always been like this, since long before they were big. However, their spin has become more slanted in recent years. So no, there is no conspiracy, but getting all this money also hasn't not affected them. Getting 7 million dollars will affect you, even if you have no malicious intent. Something, something, don't attribute to malice what could be explained by incompetence, something, something.

[@1urie1]

18:17 Claim: Kurzgesagt is terrible at disclosing sponsors Reasoning: I made a poll, where people voted when sponsors should be disclosed Fact: Kurzgesagt does it differently Conclusion: Kurzgesagt is bad Ok buddy

[@caad5258]

Flawless logic

[@tykokavaak5784]

@@caad5258 Flawgic.

[@tristanheaton2127]

You didn't watch the wideo lol ofc the have too dissclose sponsors but they leave it too the very end when most people stop watching

[@ekuu8918]

​@@tristanheaton2127 Do you think that we should move the credits sequence back to the beginning of movies to make sure that people see them?

[@sebastianlavallee706]

@@tristanheaton2127 But would you argue that having the sponsors at the end of the video is the same as not disclosing them? Because that's what the "takedown" argued.

[@seththeawesome3366]

It amazes me how conspiracy heads will take the most basic obvious shit and act like they’ve cracked the code

[@tristanheaton2127]

What so it was obvious too you that kurtizgat is billionaire propaganda and an unreliable source

[@osamabinladder9677]

fed

[@seththeawesome3366]

@@osamabinladder9677 Well yeah, I’m a Vaushite

[@HairEEck]

This channel isn't into unproven conspiracy though. I've been following it for a while and, from what I've seen, they always cite good sources. Don't get baited by the "undercover investigation into the illuminati" vibe, they are actually serious about their work.

[@katzensindweich3505]

@@HairEEck Not sure. Saw a lot biases in their work. I don't trust them. Their sources appear cherry picked.

[@isnitjustkit]

To claim that Kurzgesagt produces propaganda, you have to deliberately hyperfocus on a tiny, even minuscule fraction of the content they've ever made and the fact they get a lot of their sponsorship from the Bill and Malinda Gates foundation whilst ignoring the fact that they source almost *_everything_* they say with peer-reviewed studies I had Diplomas in Physics and Biology and am studying Chemistry at Bachellor's level, and _nothing_ they've said has yet to be disproven, or even challenged by my education, which includes high school at King's Grantham, famous for having Isaac Newton as an alumnus

[@alesalazar1175]

Exactly! An actually good take-down would point out where their funding comes from. And also *crucially* point out what they say in their videos that is *wrong* . Explain why it's wrong and how it aligns with the agenda of those that funded the video.. If you just do the first part, of pointing out the funding.. You've done nothing to discredit the video or portray them as dishonest or bought out, at all.. And that's all this video is doing. It's kinda funny when put into perspective. But also kinda sad that that's enough for people to agree 😖

[@isnitjustkit]

@@Ass_of_Amalek Okay so you hate a massive channel because of a tiny proportion of their videos and think it's all a psyop to get people to trust them. I'm sorry but, I don't care, you're mad at their climate takes for being optimistic (which there is reason to be, see the concept of the self defeating prophecy in relation to climate predictions) and you're mad at their other political takes for being moderate and in line with the general electorate, I guess? And again, I don't care

[@isnitjustkit]

@@alesalazar1175 Exactly, if it was wrong, he'd be able to say _why_ it's wrong, but instead he just points outs that they happen to agree with Bill Gates even when Gates is objectively correct as if it's some big sin

[@alesalazar1175]

@@Ass_of_Amalek Hmm 🤔 idk dude. As far as I can tell the climate change video didn't say anything that wasn't true. It was however only focused on positive trends in regards to the subject, but everything that they pointed at was correct. I might consider it inherently dishonest to portray *only* the positives of the subject without taking into account that hundreds of millions will die from the climate crisis, that it's an issue that is having/will have horrifying and monumental lethal consequences. But technically what they said wasn't wrong, that humanity is very likely to persist through climate change is true. That these positive trends are happening to lessen the impact is also true (it's also not enough, but still their framing is true) But they *do* start out the video by pointing out that it's a huge problem, they just go on to focus on the positives. I think it's an honest attempt to combat climate doomerism. As long as they don't say thing that are outright misleading or false i can't fault them too harshly.

[@bigzed7908]

@@Ass_of_Amalek than, may I ask. Why do you give out an uninformed opinion on the internet? See the irony?

[@monorail4252]

GMOs are good, but Monsanto owning the copyright to certain GMO crops that require their seeds and fertilizer is wrong.

[@DJ1573]

This! But most just dont understand this simple fact

[@monorail4252]

@Henrik Schmidt true. A GMO developer that led to increasing food yield to poor countries that increased access, left the field based on the negative responses based in false pretenses.

[@CrazyYarick]

Yes copyright is bad, although I think they own a patent and not a copyright(the gene is not a creative work). Additionally the seed will not only grow with Monsanto fertilizer. That is either marketing or a lie. Fertilizers are generic commodity compounds and are pretty much interchangeable. Sure some formulations might be more or less effective but at this point you can't patent a fertilizer that is effective enough to give you a competitive advantage.

[@monorail4252]

@CrazyYarick you might want to talk to farmers. In order for Monsanto seeds to grow they require certain fertilizer that is exclusive to Monsanto. Mansanto also demands that their crops not be grafted to other crops.

[@DJ1573]

@@CrazyYarick Its all about the weed killing substances like Roundup against which most Monsanto plants are immune so the farmers can increase yield with mono cultures. Those are patented

[@calmkat9032]

I'm always sceptical when I see sponsorship from someone I don't like, but I never assume the worst. A lot of people go right into the deep end and I've heard them called "Hitlerist" in response to that, "can we stop climate change? no*" video. Vaush's take of "so what, it's too optimistic?" applies to A LOT of criticism about them.

[@calmkat9032]

Also, a lot of this video seems to be "Bill Gates advocates for it, so it must be bad", in particular the GMO bit. A little critical thinking goes a long way.

[@janefkrbtt]

bro where were these people when they did the video on the fucking sun engine. no fucking way we make that but it's something to think about. I've always thought that's what their videos were. people need to stop relying on KZbin to be their guiding light.

[@lljkgktudjlrsmygilug]

What connection could someone possibly make to ecological pessimism being an endorsement of Nazism?

[@janefkrbtt]

@@lljkgktudjlrsmygilug schizophrenia

[@nosredep7873]

skeptical*

[@Racecarlock]

Hey, did you know that google owns youtube, and that a billionaire owns google? This guy put a video on youtube, which means he's funded by billionaires too! BUSTED!

[@codemonster8443]

You really do not have to misrepresente such a low ball.

[@Reavant_]

There is a difference. He´s not directly paid extremely large sums of money by the billionaires whom own Google only on the basis that they approve of his content. There really is no double standard here imo.

[@yveltalsea]

Bill Gates isnt paying him millions to use his sources and describe his opinions, to in return make billionaires seem less bad by saying poverty is improving.

[@pancakes8670]

@@yveltalsea Cope and Seethe

[@TheHatedOne]

Good morning Vaush, this is the creator of the video here. I would be glad if you gave me the chance to correct your misrepresentations of my points in your reaction. You skipped back and forth throughout the video and made arguments I didn't make. Like for instance, my video doesn't argue against GMOs. It argues against Bill Gates' way of doing it and how he is funding. It is a long a debate I didn't get it into because I will address it in the future and this video was about the conflicts of funding. You also skipped parts of the video that explain how Gates' funding and investment prioritize Western corproations at the cost of the needs and interests of locals they are operating in. You also skipped the part where the video explains how Gates contributed and benefited financially from problems his foundation is attempting to solve. This has beeen well reported in the news articles listed in the sources. Every claim in the video is referenced. You skipped the part of the video that explains how Kurzgesgat claims they are "almost entirely viewer funded". This is another claim that my video disprove with numbers. You are mischaracterizing my claims and argue against something I am not saying. The point in the video is that Kurzgesagt said they are primarily funded by viewers. But the numbers from publicly available documents and sources dont' support that claim. You are completely missing the whole point to argue against something that only exists in your head. You also grossly misreprent my points about the conflict of interests. You authoritatively claim "this is how it works" when referring to Kurzgesagt disclosure practices. But again, you do not address my point because you skipped that part of the video. Kurzgesagt claims they do not let sponsors have input on their scripts. But there is evidence how they allow sponsor input on their videos because they consult with employees on sponsors or experts on their payroll. They don't disclose these relationships in their source documents. In a few instances, they only consult with the sponsors. That was the case for the videos made with Max Roser and William MacASkill. By the very least, Kurzgesagt is misleading about how they approach their research when they say they don't let sponsors have input on the scripts. Letting sponsors have input on the scripts is common but Kurzgesagt repeatedly told their audience they don't ever do. That's Phillip Dettmer's (CEO of Kurzgesagt) words from his Reddit account. You should not make these authoritative claims to your audience when you clearly don't know how it works. In science articles, government and billionaire funding is common. But published articles are peer-reviewed indepdently to avoid these conflicts of interests. The Gates Foundation has been criticized for years for stifling diversity of views and silencing scientists who speak out against the charity. This is has been well document by reputable media outlets like The Seattle Times, LA Times, Lancet, Vox, and The Nation. You didn't bother to check the sources to verify my claims and went on to incorrectly disprove them. Instead, you only used common logical fallacies, mainly ad hominem attacks, strawmans and reductions to absurdity, to make your rhetoric more appealing. I would love to come on your channel/stream to correct your false claims. Cheers.

[@_Nyx_Raven_]

I totally agree with you. Vaush came in with this video in bad faith by skipping and and going back to constantly different parts of your video which was very sussy , he also stated that he himself liked watching Kurzgesagt, I myself used to watch Kurzgesagt but atleast I trief to heat from you and from another KZbinr (think that through) about Kurzgesagt's claims about climate change and in general their motives and goals which are not as noble as they make them out to be or that their videos are even close to accurate (especially found in the climate change videos) where there was a lot of half truths with carbon capture and innovation itself seen as the only solution. And I honestly admired your push for more transparency, I think Vaush calling you a conspiracist and his chat calling you anti vaxxer when you showed clear conflicts of interests that go against the creators claim of editorial independence and non-biased coverage, show how much their care about their ideology that they go out of their way to shun any possible criticism about the funding and who heavily influenced these videos. Their claims were false and you corrected them that's what the video was about you were absolutely correct. And Vaush seems to assume everyone is as intelligent as him , so he thinks that its common sense that billionaires influence with money small and medium sized creators not for the goodness of their hearts but because they profit off of it, but unfortunately he forgets that not everyone is a social democrat and a radical leftist, there are working class liberals and conservatives who unironicaly believe that billionaires fund these small-to medium sized creators for the goodness of their hearts and not for profit and for good PR. This analytical framework goes against the current establishment's ideology thus is not promoted.

[@lootria]

+1, would love to see this, plus i also instantly noticed he skipped first 6 minutes of the video to point out the aesthetic and then continued watching from that point which i really found uh... odd to say the least

[@XMysticHerox]

@@_Nyx_Raven_ Nothing sussy about that. Vaush just has a tendency to jump to conclusions (he does have autism and thats a symptom).

[@eidolonengine]

He's not going to respond. Most KZbin personalities don't like being challenged. He won't give you the attention you're giving him. It's hilarious that he whines about conspiracy aesthetic. His titles are clickbait buzzfeed aesthetic, some in all caps. Dude is a hypocrite to judge others.

[@lootria]

@@eidolonengine iirc ive seen on his discord that he will in fact do a debate but im not sure THO has discord (or is willing to make one) or meets the criteria needed for vaush to actually respond.. im not gonna go back in there cause idrc enough to be in a discord server where its all just politics. but idk, maybe theres a chance, just not through yt comments

[@charlieputzel7735]

I swear, ever since they published a video essentially saying "Hey, don't be doomer about climate change, there's actually some hopeful signs." They've been getting shit like this. Thought slime of all people trashed them for this on a Livestream.

[@charlieputzel7735]

@@Ass_of_Amalek I mean, it's a bit libby, but it wasn't terrible. It basically just said "don't be doomer" which I think is a good take, regardless of wether you agree with all the reasons they gave.

[@charlieputzel7735]

@@Ass_of_Amalek Okay, I guess.

[@Lorenzo_631]

i feel started when they publish that "is milk bad for you?" and said that it really isn't bad to consume.

[@charlieputzel7735]

@@Lorenzo_631 It kinda comes and goes. This also happened when they said "yeah, GMOs aren't evil" and "Nuclear isn't ridiculously dangerous."

[@materialdialectics]

We're only allowed to be hopeful about things if it's draped in a red flag and vibrates in a manner that you can hear L'Internationale emanating from it. Two things I love very much, but fuuuck I can't stand people who can't be hopeful about _anything_ unless it has the right combination of performative lefty signifiers.

[@nesslig2025]

11:33 About the guy (can't see comment) who said that GMO's caused Indian famine. Never heard of this. They are probably referring to the claim of Indian farmers committing suicide due to GMOs, which is a claim peddled by the anti GMO activist Vandana Shiva who doesn't know about this stuff at all. She claimed that both the current SARS and the SARS outbreak of the early 2000s was due to GMO animal feed. Specifically, she thinks that the DNA promoters that were inserted into the GMO crops hybridise somehow with natural viruses that turns them into super viruses, which makes ZERO sense at all since coronaviruses are RNA viruses that don't rely on DNA promoters. Anyway, the farmer suicide thing was not caused by GMOs. The suicide rate was going up before the introduction of GM crops and we also see suicide rates in regions where GM crops aren't even grown. The most likely causes for this are indebtedness from lack of formal banking and a lack of irrigation that led to crop failures.

[@TheBlackfall234]

"Who cares what the Victims claim" is what youre saying "they lie and are full of shit anyway"

[@schoe2164]

Or it's just doesn't hybridize and is in the GMO itself, sars is not really a super-virus anyway

[@nesslig2025]

@@TheBlackfall234 Never said what the victims claim. The one I mentioned who is making the claim is Vandana Shiva, and she isn't a farmer.

[@nesslig2025]

@@schoe2164 ???? I am not really sure what you are even trying to say. What's in the GMO itself? The SARS virus? No, it's not.

[@schoe2164]

@@nesslig2025 You stated that it would not hybridize. But there could/is still harm caused by mutagenetic crops and shit by itself

[@thegrandwombat8797]

I feel like the main thing is that they are a bunch of STEM folk producing expensive science communication videos on KZbin, and working with foundations is the easiest way to achieve that. This does have genuine implications, for instance, they won't come out with a video that's critical of billionaires or capitalism even if that kind of video would be a good fit, but it doesn't mean that they're constantly lying. Definitely worth keeping a skeptical eye out, but precision in identifying what the problem is definitely helps criticism land more effectively.

[@CloppingIsMyThing]

Ay that's what that 20-minute video was doing tbf. The only thing you can say that's wrong about the video is he made it to "entertaining".

[@JackDespero]

@@CloppingIsMyThing No? The take down video was not very good at presenting criticism. Many of the arguments were just stupid. That might have been the orignal intention, but the final piece is just full of generalizations and forcibly connected dots because they support the author's propaganda.

[@CloppingIsMyThing]

@@JackDespero Just stuipd? To a layman who knows nothing about those organisations it was fine. And do remember vaush only watched 10 minutes of the video, he skipped through alot of it. I mean vaush couldn't make any sound arguments against the video other than "I'm all for transparency but that's just nitpicky" and "oh the guy isn't blasting out the company paying him, no shit". Like the last one was the only fair take being completely honest.

[@legion999]

Pfff yeah I'm sure a couple videos criticising aspects of capitalism would cause Gates such distress he'd immediately pull all the funding /s I think you overestimate the effects of such vids both ways.

[@SuperFronky]

@@CloppingIsMyThing can anybody tell me if he goes back to watch the first part of the video?

[@RealmRabbit]

This guy's arguments are basically like "seat belts, traffic lights, and laws about speeding or not being under the influence of drugs and alcohol or using your phone while also driving haven't solved car crash deaths... Therefore why have any of them?"

[@Turnil321]

Fun fact. Seat belts laws were made by the car industry lobby.

[@RealmRabbit]

@@Turnil321 Doesn't really change my opinion on them.

[@GigasGMX]

Right. Having all those things is stupid and pointless, compared to the far superior solution of banning cars.

[@none-ro9dz]

@@GigasGMX GIGA BASED

[@ronylouis0]

@@GigasGMX literally you destroyed this comment thank you

[@thatdarnskag5043]

This criticism video of Kurzgesact reminds me of the "Fed" accusations PhilosophyTube was receiving for working with the Royal Society on some vaccine stuff.

[@LimeyLassen]

This exactly.

[@mrnemo204]

Caleb Maupin?

[@veemie8148]

lmao true!

[@tristanheaton2127]

How he's just talking about how kurtzegat is unreliable as a source and serves the interests of billionaires all of this is true

[@HunterTracks]

@@tristanheaton2127 No, the video is saying that Kurzgesagt is paid by billionaires to produce content at their behest. Getting paid because you produce content that a billionaire happens to agree to and getting paid by the billionaire to produce content that would favour them are two entirely different things. Would you decline a payment from George Soros for your coverage on why fascism is bad? Would the fact that you accepted that payment be a good cause to doubt your conclusions?

[@Nakla]

TLDR Privacy channels can be very paranoid

[@felicityc]

mental outlaw moment

[@KyleAButler]

16:00 I don't think kurzgesagt ever claimed to be "serious research". Scientific papers aren't typically animated.

[@itzjake5283]

They have a disclaimer in every single video from what I remember

[@dinosaysrawr]

They should be. People would probably read them more often!

[@flosa1995]

@@dinosaysrawr way less time and money for actual research then 🥲

[@TheFenderBass1]

Well given the fact that their videos are used by teachers at school in educational purposes I'd still say one should be critical. Because it is a information in a narrative form that shapes people's understandings. And although they wouldn't pass in academia, let's face it most people don't read academic papers to understand the world, most people watch documenteries, the news or in this case a seemingly neutral and legitimate source of information in a video format.

[@GermaniaImmortalis]

It’s not just about if the papers are “serious research” but also wether the papers and their results are biased or not, which being sponsored by such big organisations is quite likely.

[@bananasplit4391]

billionaire philanthropy is capitalism's equivalent of noblesse oblige.

[@delos2279]

Which is a good thing in itself, but the issue is that it's voluntary and therefore rare when it should be mandatory. Or rather, tax systems should not allow billionaires to exist at all. That level of obscene wealth serves no personal benefit and could instead do immense social good.

[@politiqueen420]

Deciding to become a billionaire to help people is the equivalent of hacking someone's arm off and say that you helped by stitching it back on.

[@cen3684]

IS THIS A GENSHIN IMPACT REFERENCE ✌👄 HOLY SHIIIIT, EHE EHE EHE EHE TE NANDAYO, BOUKEN DA 😂 BOUKEN, BOUKEN DA BOUKEN 👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍, LISA MOANS 😰😩 ARE 💯 THE 💴🍰 BEST, 😄👍 LISA MOANS ARE THE 💯 BEST, 👌👳 HAVE 🙌 U 💦🙅 SEEN 👀👄 THIS 📥🎁 PHYSICAL DAMAGE ON THIS 👁 SPEAR AT 🙈🍆 LVL 60 OMG OMG 😍😱 OMG, 😮 ZHONGLI THICC 🍑🌹 ZHONGLI DADDY 💕 OMG OMG, 😱 XINQIU X CHONGYUN, ZHONGLI X CHILDE, DILUC X KAEYA, NINGGUANG X BEIDOU, OH 😆 MAH GAWD, 😍😍 PAIMON IS 😞 EMERGENCY ❗❗ FOOD SKSKSJJSJSK, DILUC 100K DAMAGE ☄☄ OH 😲🙀 MY 🏿💩 GOD, KEQING CATGIRL

[@sorejack]

Both are like training dinosaurs to be service animals. All good till it isnt.

[@sammaelazrael6309]

Conspiracy theorist don't believe in coincidence, and in the process of building up the crazy they make a good case for why sometimes things just weirdly line up.

[@Mongrelntruder]

it’s what makes them so infuriating to argue with because they just straight up don’t believe in coincidence

[@SefirothPH]

@@Mongrelntruder Some times conspiracy theorists are just correct lol. You're painting with a really broad brush. I used to think "conspiracy theorists" about 9/11 and JFK were crazy until they were proven right by mountains of evidence that made the "coincidence" explanation an infinitely more unbelievable suggestion.

[@Mongrelntruder]

@@SefirothPH literally 99% of the time they’re bullshit 💀 so i’ll keep painting them with that brush

[@TheBlackfall234]

@@Mongrelntruder because "random" and "coincidence" are literally made up beliefs you cannot proof. The Argument of "random" essentially includes the possibility of me throwing a pot to the ground and somehow that could, if repeadeatly often enough, create something vastly different other then broken pieces of that pot. No it wont. The Factor of "Random" and "Coincidence" are also unscientific. Nothing is random, not even Nature. You guys may look up Fractal Geometry, if youre Preachers of the Random.

[@anderslarsen4412]

@@SefirothPH So you're saying that you've become a dumb conspiracy theorist that doesn't believe in coincidence? That's basically what you're telling us here.

[@vking7]

God, what I would give to teach some online lefties some moral nuance. Bad people (and organizations and nations) can do and believe in good things, even if not for good or right reasons.

[@materialdialectics]

Yeah I find it endlessly depressing how much they essentialize everything; the very methodology for thinking that lays at the heart of fascist ideology that always finds a way to corrupt even ideas that desire positive outcomes.

[@tristanheaton2127]

And kurtzegate isn't any of that there liberal propaganda

[@davitdavid7165]

The Hitler drank water fallacy, as I call it. The original argument I am referencing is disingenuous, but it does have a point.

[@apuji7555]

Though how is this left?

[@thienthien7765]

But not for long, for example you might say that corporations can do good things if they’re profitable. But when bad things are profitable, you guess?

[@Palemagpie]

Talking about sponsorships and declarations. Made the thunderf00t contribution drama pop into my head. Few years ago a KZbinr called thunderf00t discovered a scientific method for the invention of metallic water. And the university he did the research at demanded to be listed as contributers cause they provided the equipment for the physical tests. Thunderf00t was like. "That's fine, but by that same logic I wanna put all my patreons and stuff on the paper too, because they contributed financially to me. Which gave me the freetime and financial security to pursue this research. And he had to fight the bit out tooth and nail to be allowed to list them as contributors.

[@legion999]

Oh really, did he succeed with the patrons? I dont like the guy but thats pretty cool

[@Palemagpie]

@@legion999 I mean, he's gets a bad rap for really getting caught up in the whole gamergate/ feminists are ruining movies. And all that mad ridiculousness. From a good few years ago. And that makes me lose a lot of respect for him. But credit where it's due. The guy is also a pretty accomplished engineer and scientist. Yea. If memory serves, there was a huge stink about it at the time. Points brought up about it devaluing education or some other bollox. But at the end of the day, since it was him and his team who made the discovery and pioneered the process. The university couldn't force the issue if the whole team saw the patreons as contributors. I think, (second hand account here, so I might be mistaken) That the logic really did boil down to anything the university could argue made them contributors, also, rightly applied to the patreons. After all, all they'd really contributed themselves was funding. Not scientific expertise, or even equipment I don't think. I know the team built their own. It's a bit of a double edged sword with that guy, like he's clearly a bit of a prick on some subjects, but he stands by his ideals. Even if I don't always agree with what they are.

[@april5054]

@@Palemagpie he's clearly over that phase now

[@SergyMilitaryRankings]

@@Palemagpie he was absolutely right about all the feminist crap, did you see some of the Nonsense people like laci green and Anita sarkeesian were saying, tfoot craps on the woke idiots and the conservitards, which is refreshing since most people are either a woker or a conservitard these days

[@gryph0n55]

Here’s the thing, if a content creator’s content is consistently well researched and cites basically everything they say with respected reputable sources and nearly none of their takes/stances are in any way controversial or manipulative and nearly the entirety of their content creation has literally fuck all to do with anything other than educational material (have fun explaining to me how their shit million videos about quantum foam or Dyson spheres or black holes is pro-billionaire), then honestly I don’t give a fuck where they got the money. They could get the money from hitler for all I care. These videos are consistently well researched and cited, consistently have strongly supported stances, are some of the highest quality educational material in existence, and you have to pick out an immensely small fraction of their content to find anything even approaching biased in favor of a specific interest group.

[@gryph0n55]

@@Ass_of_Amalek that means literally nothing. All you just said is “it’s harder to tell if someone you trust is lying” which like yeah, no shit. That applies to literally anything. That’s such a nothing statement. You can say that about ANY credible source. But for that to mean anything negative you have to skip over the fact that they ARE credible.

[@gryph0n55]

@@Ass_of_Amalek it absolutely was credible. Like all of their videos, it cited reputable sources for practically everything they said. Nevermind that actual climate scientist online content creators have talked about the video and they broadly agree with everything said in it. I read your other comment in which you clearly bad faithed the shit out of your viewing of that video because the message you pulled from it is wildly disconnected from the explicit intent and message of the video. Idk how you read “it’s all good we’ve got it handled nothing to worry about” out of a video that literally starts off going “hey this is still a huge problem that will cause a lot of other huge problems and we definitely need to work towards fixing it”. But it’s clear you’re approaching everything in mega bad faith to suit a narrative you have that is very poorly founded. Which honestly idk why. Like of all the hills you could die on, you pick Kurzgesagt?

[@scslre]

@@Ass_of_Amalek you need antipsychotics

[@Whispitt]

Literally his only issue is "This one relatively progressive billionaire supports something correct, and is funding people promoting the correct idea."

[@gryph0n55]

@@Whispitt Right? Like yeah billionaires suck, that doesn't mean literally every take any of them have is immediately incorrect. Elon Musk is fuckin garbage, but he's not wrong that moving towards electric cars is a good thing. It would sound stupid to go "Elon Musk supports the existence of electric cars therefore it's bad to support electric cars". And like you mentioned, the ideas that Kurzgesagt is supporting are GOOD and FACTUALLY CORRECT ideas. Good ideas aren't bad just because some rich people support them. Are we about to say charity, feeding the hungry, or curing diseases are now bad things and we shouldn't trust any organization that advocates those things if a rich person donates to them?

[@user-fe9dj6wq8e]

Admit it, you're here to see how Vaush pronounces "kurzgesagt"

[@rikifromplanetk8305]

U right

[@goose9515]

im not a native german speaker, but sounds pretty alright?

[@titaniawallace4223]

@@goose9515 better than the guy in the video who keeps tripping over it and saying "curtsy-sagt" because he's talking so fast

[@user-fe9dj6wq8e]

@@goose9515 Almost, the "u" is pronounced as in "put", not as in "hurt".

[@revelaitons3959]

I believe it should be KOORTS-ge-zahgt, and Vaush does it better than the other guy

[@Prometheus1464]

They honestly should have emailed everyone who could possibly watch the video an entire essay on their sponsors and partners/supporters before they even post the video.

[@chaos2inferno]

Literally the bare minimum they could do.

[@XOguitargurlOX]

It's the only way for true transparency...the only way

[@tacotown4598]

Or just...not allow their content to be heavily influenced by taking sponsors lol

[@TheEnecca]

Hey he did a poll in his community ok. if thats not indicative on how to disclose sponsors then what is.

[@LineOfThy]

@@tacotown4598 the joke -> your head

[@MarkArandjus]

Kurzgesagt produces SO MUCH content of the HIGHEST production quality that makes science interesting to people of all ages that I'd honestly forgive a few Bill Gates propaganda videos. Easily a net positive, even if it were true. Don't @ me.

[@korganrocks3995]

I'd find it MORE unforgivable for a high-quality, reputable youtube channel to produce anything that wasn't genuine or true. However, for some reason Kurzgesagt videos fail to make science interesting for me the way other similar channels do, so I don't have a dog in this fight.

[@sea_triscuit7980]

@@korganrocks3995 cool story bro, so what's your point?

[@CloppingIsMyThing]

The path to hell paved by good intentions.

[@_Aemse]

fite me nerd @ you

[@tristanheaton2127]

Well I wouldn't the fact they get most of there info from a billionaire think tank I'd disgusting and makes them an unreliable source is there sources are billionaire bull shit and there production quality shouldn't matter they should all way put facts first

[@MenacingWithVideos]

When you do not know how anything works you will think everything is a conspiracy.

[@FabbrizioPlays]

The pharmaceutical industry has serious issues, but I just can't bring myself to take someone seriously when they call it "big pharma" without a hint of irony. That is the language of a terminally conspiracy brained person.

[@Siscon92]

How is this "reviewing a video" if you just skip over it and don't listen or try to understand?

[@dumpsterDeity]

People, just watch Think That Through's video on Kurzgesagt's climate greenwashing. I like Kurzgesagt's vids, and I do not believe that their intent is malicious in any form. But I still feel that their "overcoming climate change does not require us to change anything about our economic system" take warrants serious criticism.

[@jackjackson3942]

Yeah I thought that's what this vid would be about :(

[@user-up1op3kz9q]

This video is one huge Motte-and-Bailey. Keep in mind that they don’t even try to really claim that Kurzgesagt’s content is incorrect or manipulative, just that it’s billionaire funded. In order for something to be billionaire propaganda it needs to be 1) billionaire funded/controlled and 2) propagandistic. Proving one does not automatically imply the other. Like what, some rich asshole donates to a school and suddenly precalc and chemistry classes are “billionaire propaganda?” This approach feels pretty underhanded and conspiratorial to me, it reminds me of the “just asking questions” approach a lot of right wingers use

[@swim3530]

They do claim that tho. Im watching this after seeing the original video, they go into kurzgesakts sources and show that the sources are pulled from bill and Melinda gates foundation funded sources and those sources are actually at odds with what the rest of the scientific community is saying.

[@jacksonc]

Conspiracy theorist logic: I don't like kurzgesagt because they cooperated on project research with scientists who work in institutes and as Faculty of universities that received funds from Billionaire foundations, and Kurzgesagt receives sponsorship from foundations and venture capitals from angel funds investors. Okay, and? If the research is sound, solid, peer-reviewed and are disclosed of interest groups (which Kurzgesagt and its sister channels do) What's the issue here? DS ruse? Global human genomes modifications? Lizard Men? Illuminati? This is the QAnon shit from a perspective which you can't even call it leftist! Batshit arguments filled with fallacies.

[@wumbojet]

The first time someone tried to shit on kurzgesagt it was because they made a mistake on a video (which they apologized and made a correction), now they're doing this shit

[@tristanheaton2127]

OK so what's actually wrong with the video kurtzegate Is a bullshit channel who's funded by billionaires and only gets info from a single source which is funded by billionaires by the way thier like a higher quality prauger U at there core

[@MrElionor]

The first time I heard anything negative about kurzgesagt it was someone complaining that they beat them to the punch about exposing their mistake

[@wumbojet]

@@MrElionor wasn't it some shit like: "they only corrected themselves to gaslight their viewers into thinking they are honest" or some garbage of that level?

[@MrElionor]

@@wumbojet Ya something like that it was a while ago

[@th01m3nn]

@@wumbojet Nah, that video was WAY earlier in the works than Coffee Break's idea about interviewing Dettmer about their mistakes

[@rawbebaba]

They rightfully took a lot of heat from the "worry about African population as a means to fight climate change video" and they've been better at not jumping out of windows for billionaires ever since it seems

[@Saktoth]

The Malthusian thing is a BIG problem for the coming ecofascism.

[@delos2279]

The rapid population growth issue in Africa not only seems like a major climate change concern but also a matter of basic women's rights and reproductive rights.

[@rawbebaba]

@@delos2279 oh boy.

[@delos2279]

​@@rawbebaba Not to mention educating girls and women also boosts economic growth and opportunities, in addition to just reducing population growth. But no, a billionaire who donates 95% of his wealth also supports that and we're reactionary against billionaires so it has to be wrong now. We can't be "jumping out of windows for billionaires" can we?

[@rawbebaba]

@@delos2279 it's weird how often libs will try to sneak some genocide and mass murder under a cloak of women's rights lol. I'd really like to unpack what you think is currently preventing Africa's development.

[@Xaphnir]

"Who thinks money can't buy power?" Libertarians (with a capital L), that's who.

[@TheArrowedKnee]

In other words AnCaps?

[@soccerruben1]

So the moment the account who did the hit piece on Kurzgesagt mentioned their opposition to GMOs and synthetic pesticides, they lost me because it’s clear that GMOs are safe, key to solve world hunger, and key to solve climate change. Conventional foods is no inferior than organic products because they use pesticides, which the account should know, organic farms uses pesticides too, just not synthetically, and is no better in quality and nutrition than conventional products.

[@alexisartfeild2807]

In most ways 'organic' produce is measurably worse than 'conventional' foods. Especially, in yield per acre and (ironically) negative environmental impact.

[@retard4582]

They never said they opposed gmo

[@twincitiestara]

Weird that the guy who made a take-down video about Kurzgesagt not opening by citing their sponsors... did not open by saying who was paying him,

[@Zaluskowsky]

oh here i know the answer... he did it for free. to save us ! ^^

[@PiecefulKaos]

He is patreon funded, that's why

[@spaghettiman512]

That’s because he was funded by patreon. He explicitly stated that he has never taken sponsors at the end of the video. If you’re going to criticize somebody then at least watch their video.

[@twincitiestara]

@@spaghettiman512 But he didn't OPEN wth them right up front. which is exactly what he's "calling out" Kurz for failing to do.

[@spaghettiman512]

@@twincitiestara Yeah on second thought you do have a point there. Thanks.

[@bena8805]

I’m genuinely confused, does this guy pass as a leftist in the US?

[@elchucabagra]

Only to kids, just look at his viewship

[@nataliekhanyola5669]

Nope!! Only to his sad liberal audience full of incel suburbanites.

[@look4lec]

I worked on a gates project, were were legit trying to make it better, and I'm not just saying this because ~10 years ago I did accounting and got 46.6% of my salary was paid on that. We are doing our best, I watched so many presentation and saw Bill Gates, I didn't meet him. No this project I was working on was awesome and focused on really low yield countries. Our work WAS open source. He was a dick to block vaccine open source. But our jobs, my job saved lives.

[@eelvis1674]

Doomers not only refuse to be optimistic but also refuse to allow others to be optimistic. Depressives trying to push their depression.

[@soccerruben1]

I honestly hope the guy who did the hit piece on Kurzgesagt sees Vaush’s vid and hit up Vaush with a chat/debate on this, and I want Vaush to hit him on the anti-GMO and anti-conventional food stuff, and his whole video.

[@TheHatedOne]

But I am not anti-GMO and never said anything against it. Vaush made it up. He skipped most of the video and pulled claims out of context to argue against something I never said. Would love to debate Vaush on this too.

[@fdfd4739]

@@TheHatedOne Cool to see you here, although most of the comments are pretty disingenuous to your point in the video so it's hard to see much good will for a direct debate. It's either a Yeah, so? or missing the point that there's a conflict of interests when 80% of the "research" done is under the same financial umbrella. Maybe a follow up clarifying some of the weaker points like GMOs and such would be best practice.

[@gusfring96]

@@TheHatedOne whatever man, just remember to add more shadows in the corners of your videos and amp up the pulsating doom music so that more weirdos and paranoid people subscribe to your channel. Also add more random guys in suits with evil smiles in your transition to effectively convey that cute science channels are out to destroy civilization.

[@bavarianbanshee]

Good news, he did. Bad news, he didn't show up for the stream.

[@SuperFronky]

can anybody tell me if he goes back to watch the first part of the video?

[@Nuvizzle]

Kurzgesagt is like, ideologically techno-liberal/neoliberal which is in my experience true of a vast majority of engineers and a lot of others in the physical sciences. That's always going to give them a particular bent towards favoring rich philanthropists but, guess what, the majority of brilliant people working on real solutions to the climate catastrophe and all our other global issues share the same ideology.

[@linaiisaye8357]

Just going to put this out there, in the Kurzgesagt videos on climate change, the bad guys were listed as greedy capitalists and politicians and were depicted as such as well.

[@BaronVonQuiply]

So brave of Vaush to stream while famous KZbin streamer "Vaush" is live on KZbin.

[@Wallyworld30]

Kurzgesagt has pumped out the easiest to digest educational content on a very consistent in terms of quantity and quality on all of KZbin for YEARS. Why on earth would some asshat try and find dirt on such an amazing channel that has spread more solid education than probably anyother channel on KZbin. I super skeptical of anyone that attempted to do a hit job on such a great channel.

[@trojanhorsechannel]

Clout chasing. They want to be the head of a wokescold take down.

[@TheRyderShotgunn]

because they're gunning for their "big break", obviously. accusing large and famous channels and figures of heinous crimes puts a big spotlight on them, the accusation being true is just a bonus.

[@twincitiestara]

@@TheRyderShotgunn That, or they were hired by some anti-vaxx group to "take down" popular science sites.

[@tristanheaton2127]

Well I wouldn't the fact they get most of there info from a billionaire think tank I'd disgusting and makes them an unreliable source is there sources are billionaire bull shit and there production quality shouldn't matter they should all way put facts first

[@tristanheaton2127]

God you really ate a lib 🤣🤣🤣

[@dakunssd]

GMOs in their current form don't contribute much to food production, they mainly serve patent enforcement for Agroscience companies. The whole "Golden Rice" thing never went anywhere. Most GMOs are just the RoundUp-Ready variant from Bayer-Monsanto. Selective breeding is a different issue entirely, and the fact that we're standardizing plants and animals and narrowing their gene pool has it's own issues. Note that I'm not against gene editing as a concept, but the way capitalism has implemented it is predictably about capitalisation and not about feeding people.

[@EmperorNiel]

Golden Rice never went anywhere because of huge WESTERN backlash from organizations which i can only describe as halfway through eco terrorism. They destroyed a couple experimental fields by pulling out the plants.

[@dakunssd]

@@Ass_of_Amalek In the short term, yes. Mid to long term they suffer from the same problems as any monocrop, mainly soil exhaustion and erosion, secondly salt buildup and adapted weeds and pests. They're also a dependency trap for farmers. Monsanto has been known to sue farmers, whose crops even contained traces of patented DNA through pollination, for patent breach. You can't use crop seeds from roundup-ready crops to sow, they're engineered to be sterile. GMOs are used by Agrobusinesses to extract rents and further farm consolidation and endanger long-term food security for profit. Vaush should have someone on who actually has some expertise in this area before dismissing concerns out of hand.

[@kstar1489]

Vaush did skip the parts where he takes issue with the content of the videos. Overstating effectiveness of Gates funded carbon mitigation technology, how a video mis-told a story that painted Pharma companies as the heroes. And yeah I do think if an entire video is sponsored by an org, it should be disclosed at the beginning.

[@HoneyDoll894]

Honestly its so weird, like so much of this is just "billionares gave money" but there's no attempts to actually say any of it is wrong, no counter evidence or anything that there's anything wrong with what the grant sponsored researchers said

[@lazarnikolic65]

Ey everyone just to say that u are probably wrong Being too optimistic about events is just making people reckless AF "We will solve climate change in the future" WILL literally make you stay in the status quo, aka you won't change anything now because you feel good despite the realistic picture Like bro it's fucking spring in my country for the New Year w t f ??

[@TYKUHN2]

Kurzgesagt didn't spend more than an hour at the beginning of every single video disclosing every sponsor and their intimate details! Who knows what they're hiding! Wonder if he applies the same standard to Patrons

[@Kaepsele337]

The critique of Kurzgesagt by ThinkThatThrough is pretty good, he should watch that (but it's long)

[@holnrew]

That's what I was hoping this was when I clicked.

[@Skywarslord]

Are those the guys who made the video about climate change? I’d definitely want to see thoughts on that.

[@dumpsterDeity]

I would also recommend the "Why Green Capitalism is a Lie" series by Bes. D. Marx

[@parazitkolol]

​@@dumpsterDeity oh shit someone actually read marx

[@dumpsterDeity]

@@parazitkolol lmao but seriously, watch the series. that channel is really good.

[@AndaraBledin]

It's worth noting that direct GMO vs breeding GMO results in FEWER dangerous side effects. We've had potatoes that lead to sunlight poisoning. Another food (cucumber, I think) was bred into being toxic, which is very common problem with cross breeding our food supply. Look into the Kiwi fruit. It was bred into edibility and it was on the market for over a full generation before anyone did any research into the properties the fruit had that might lead to allergic reactions in those who ate it. Direct GMO is tested long before it ever reaches market and the results are strict and controlled, especially in comparison.

[@JackDespero]

One last thing: Supported by X foundation doesn't mean "we run the script through their censors and this is what you get". Of course there are incentives there, but I know from personal experience how grants work (not paid ads, grants) and often the only limitations are self imposed. Which again, are real, but "Supported by a grant of the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation" doesn't mean "they provided us the talking points and we made a video", it is more like "Hey would you be interested in doing a video about food conditions around the world? If you do, we can give you a grant to finane it." It is like those history channels that do very cool videos about a relatively unknown part of history because a new video game is being released and it happens in that period. The developers approach those channels to see if there is interest in doing a video in the topic, not giving them the talking points.

[@theacesage1778]

"And if you talk shit about our company, we won't give you any money" do you not see how that influences the creator's mind of what to say?

[@imtheonewhoaskedlol]

​@@theacesage1778 dude, it's obvious that you don't want to talk negatively about a company when they gave you the money to finance the video. Also, it's disclosed. All sponsored videos on KZbin begin with the pop up, includes payed promotion. Let us take an example with tech youtubers. Linus tech tips received a free device from Logitech for a sponsor. Linus didn't make a sponsored video though, but still made a video on it. He was still very critical of Logitech's design choices. It's possible to receive support like grants and free stuff like this for support, and still be critical. Not to a far reaching extent, that is the limit, but still criticize the company.

[@JohnDoe-wi7eb]

Did you even watch the whole video ? Your arguing points that are not even in the video.

[@tipoima]

>watches 1 minute >skips to a random point in the middle Bruh

[@SuperFronky]

sooo...i have asked this several times now, can anybody tell me if he actually goes back to watch the start? objectively a bad "Review" if(!) he doesn't watch all of it...and from the moment he skipped i lost interest, that's why i'm asking ^^

[@imtheonewhoaskedlol]

​@@SuperFronky he skipped ahead because he didn't like how it started with the whole rant about industrial meds and stuff. He skipped ahead because there was no mention of kurzgesagt, which was what he was here for.

[@Painocus]

Vaush's anti-wild-strawberries takes are his wildest take ngl. Garden strawberries tastes like water compared the real thing.

[@Painocus]

@@Ass_of_Amalek I mean if you agree that the breeds of cultivated strawberries most people are familiar with are less tasty than the wild ones that allignes with my point, no? Vaush is acting like the wild ones are almost inedible.

[@RevolutionaryLoser]

@@Painocus Most supermarket vegetables are bred to maximize shelf life, yield and transportability, flavour is a secondary concern. That's why there are plenty of tasty vegetables in tropical countries that don't get exported, because they rot very quickly. In the cases of wild vegetable that is of "higher quality" than the market variety in 99% of cases the cost of production would make them unsellable.

[@Painocus]

@@RevolutionaryLoser And? That's utterly irrelevant to how edible or tasty they are. Vaush wasn't going "look at these wild strawberries, they aren't breed into tastelessness and blandness to maximize transportability", he was saying that breeding is what made them edible and gave them flavour. When in reality that breeding sacrified those things for transportability. Also wild strawberries aren't tropic. You can find them growing near fields and in the woods in Norway.

[@RevolutionaryLoser]

@@Painocus I'm sorry. At no point did Vaush say that gmo strawberries improved the taste or edibility of strawberries. The seeds in strawberries are inedible as in, they cannot be digested and provide no nutritional value. If your only issue is that the phrase "inedible seed" is misleading then this comment is being incredibly nitpicky. What Vaush said is semantically correct.

[@Painocus]

@@RevolutionaryLoser "85% grainy inedible seed". As opposed to "have tiny fruits on the outside just like cultivated strawberries do". And this isn't the first time he has talked about this.

[@trashrabbit69]

I'll say Kurzgesagt is innocent when I can get their credit card information and the three wacky numbers on the back

[@kris9074]

The watermelon thing is misleading. Those photos and old art were of a watermelon with a genetic defect. Watermelon from that time were largely the same as they are now. Modification of effective food melons happened way, way further back than the 1600’s.

[@1urie1]

I mean if FTX made up money went into something at least somewhat good like Kurzgesagt, then I'm all in.

[@Daniel-ne5ms]

Kurzegast "don't worry first world, we'll make it out fine at the expense of them poor brownies in the third world" 😘

[@nataliekhanyola5669]

No wonder vaush loves him.

[@Markunator]

@@nataliekhanyola5669 Because this is definitely what Vaush believes. You are very smart and extremely well-versed in Vaush’s views.

[@fawfulBeans]

Seems like the guy has issues with specific arguments made by the videos, but instead of trying to actually address those arguments, he is instead merely trying to insinuate that they're wrong or untrustworthy on the sole grounds that they recieve funding from charities. The right way to make a video like this is to first find something that they're wrong about, debunk or address it in full, and then link that failure to a conflict of interest in the funding. Ultimately the video would be a case study in how and why channels are used to peddle propaganda. The Tom Nicholas Veritassium video is essentially this but done properly. The problem with doing this about Kurzgesagt is that they're actually pretty damn rigorous with their data and fact-checking so he can't actually commit to calling them out on anything, and has to rely on guilt by association, and the assumption that billionaire funding automatically equals wrong or untrustworthy - which I'm sympathetic to, but ultimately is a mindless and thought-terminating way to ascertain truth - almost all media can be linked to capitalist interests and even those that can't are still capable of peddling misinformation. Case in point. This guy is just trying to ride Kurzgesagt's popularity for views and, unlike them, doesn't give a damn about creating truthful or informative content.

[@soccerruben1]

Ok, my last comment on the creator’s dig at Kurzgesagt for being pro-GMO- that whole bit is so elitist AF, because of how expensive non-GMO and organic products are for working class folk, so much for being for the people.

[@DeathAlchemist]

I know some leftists don't like Kurtz, Tom Nicholas critiqued him on twitter and I know there was another Kurtz critique video called climate greenwashing that I saw in my recommended once.

[@isnitjustkit]

Just so you know, Kurz isnt one guy, it's a relatively large animation studio which just so happens to have taken on their original, hired voice actor full time

[@DeathAlchemist]

@@isnitjustkit Well, you learn something new every day. I am guessing the writer is also different.

[@isnitjustkit]

@@DeathAlchemist Yes, the English VA is Steve Taylor, whilst Philipp Dettmer is lead writer, founder and CEO, the entire team is listed on their website, including their dog

[@neoqwerty]

@@isnitjustkit okay that's cute, doggos deserve recognition in the team effort.

[@SefirothPH]

Why would leftists "like" a neoliberal channel? It's possible for their videos to contain truth about a variety of topics but their ideology is ultimately the enemy of every leftist.

[@SimGunther]

The original video was such a missed opportunity to show how "outscience all the things" can't work when the underlying system works against improving conditions for everyone (a point Vauch said in this reaction)

[@d0nj03]

There are much better anti-Kurzgesagt videos and arguments (e.g. by BadEmpanada), but curiously Vausch who is totally not a radlib and not a billionaire defender picked one of the lowest-hanging fruit weaksauce-arguments videos to attack. One wonders what he will disingenuously pick next, the weakest antifascist video where he will agree with the basic idea of antifascism but trash the whole rest of the video for using weak arguments? And this helps the common cause more than, say, focusing on the actually high-quality well-argumented antifascist (or anti-Kurzgesagt, anti-deluded-capitalist-optimism) videos?

[@imtheonewhoaskedlol]

​@@d0nj03 dude this was the most popular anti kurzgesagt hit piece, so big that it warranted a full on video apology. The others are small channels that I doubt he knows about. They didn't prompt a full on reaction from kurzgesagt, and the videos don't have a view count above 700k

[@d0nj03]

@@imtheonewhoaskedlol BadEmpanada's video did prompt Kurzpropagandasagt to come around defending themselves in his comments, that should count for something. Plus BE is a popular breadtuber who deserved the extra views vs. this rando that Vauch chose to respond to. No surprise for him to throw other Leftists under the bus when they don't agree with his radlib takes, and to pick other rando/centrist channels to engage with. (LE: I will say this rando has nice video titles in his history - he's promoting GrapheneOS and phone privacy, good man, I've seen worse centrists lol.)

[@KenLinx]

How are you going to criticize nitpickiness whilst skipping entire portions of the video just to talk about certain parts of it? And again, the video is called “Why Kurzgesagt is Billionaire Propaganda” not “Why Kurzgesagt shouldn’t work with researchers with ties to the organization they’re sponsored by.”

[@skyllerf97]

I think you've got Effective Altruism wrong here, it's not about funneling money to billionaires. The "donate 10% of your income" is aimed at regular people too. And the main focus of EA is to rate what causes we should be working towards, they prioritize neglected causes that no one else is funding but would create a lot of good if they were. They also focus a lot on longtermism. Sure destroying capitalism would be the biggest help, but I think their strategy and ideology is helpful

[@rathekastormbjorne]

Yeah, I'm sad Vaush got his take on EA so bad here.

[@darth0tator]

Rebecca Watson did a great video recently about FTX and Effective Altruism and Longtermism

[@GigasGMX]

It’s effectively become a cult about funneling your money to “AI research” foundations.

[@rathekastormbjorne]

@@darth0tator I was underimpressed with it. She seems to have failed at "reversed stupidity is not intelligence"; someone failed at a very basic test of consequentialism, therefore consequentialism is wrong, rather than robbing banks to donate the money is being bad at consequentialism.

[@trimblypibbles9654]

That's how EA started, yeah, and a lot of that is good. But huge chunks of it have now gone to the Long Termism "lets make trillionairres so they can uplift us into perfet machine bodies" wingnuttery.

[@logarhythmic6859]

Their most recent video was about hypothetical stars that are so large a black hole could be at their core and you wouldn't be able to tell from the outside. How the fuck can that be propaganda for anybody?

[@Dillarune]

well yeah not all of their videos are heavily biased, noone said that

[@avinashreji60]

@@Dillarune they are not heavily biased, sure everyone has flaws but saying that they are massively swayed is dishonest

[@neoqwerty]

BIG SPACE AND THE NASA PROPAGANDA ARE OUT TO GET YOU or something, I'd guess. I'm joking but I'm fairly sure I've seen "Big NASA" somewhere before in the jewish cabal with their gay and trans minions conspiracy lunacy types, too.

[@Booga-tz8kj]

Not propaganda... Sigh another one who has fallen under the pull of big star

[@rifter0x0000]

How based is this audience: Vaush: GMOs are the future! Chat: But property is theft! Open Source that shit! Vaush: Also yes.

[@tiay6269]

property is theft?

[@none-ro9dz]

@@tiay6269 when it comes to things like owning mathematical formulas or genomes, it certainly is. things that are found in and derived entirely from nature can't be morally or ethically owned.

[@midnattsol6207]

I find it strange that you reject things for being "libshit" - when that is what Kurzgesagt ideologically promotes?

[@nataliekhanyola5669]

Vaush is a LITERAL shitlib democrat. He just pretends he's not.

[@DJchilcott]

I don't know where I heard it, but I remember someone saying something that really summed up the problem of charities. It was something like: "The wellbeing of people should be dependant on the kindness of strangers; it should be the default state of affairs."

[@pooshoveler]

Just because rich people give money to a project doesn't mean that the information inside is automatically bad. It's a logical fallacy. You would need to break down the ideas in the video.

[@neoqwerty]

If anything it means that the rich person either agrees with the message (out of utility or altruism, both lead to the same outcome), thinks it's good optics because the base they want to court agrees with it, or is investing in the tech/field so helping to promote it benefits them. I dunno about other people, but short of bilionaires fighting capitalism and destroying their own fortune while dragging the other billionaires down with them, I'd rather have them spending their money on sustainable and renewable and healthcare and education than on speedrunning bleeding the planet dry and making their workforce game-ending-ly miserable and chronically sick.

[@calvin6235]

The same way rich people fund politicians to have things go a certain way? Dont see that as a fallacy.

[@pooshoveler]

@@calvin6235 there's no proof that kurtz did anything special for that money. That's the problem. The guy didn't prove anything. He just did a bunch of straw man attacks. I don't know how to break this to you but we live in a capitalist society and you have to get money to do projects. That doesn't automatically mean the information inside the project is corrupt or wrong.

[@pooshoveler]

@@neoqwerty sometimes it benefits some groups financially to do the right thing. And other groups won't be benefited and they'll fight it. It's the nature of capitalism. It's where we are right now.

[@TouringWolf42]

@@calvin6235 The rich donate a lot to the Democratic party, but not every democrat is bought out or serves the interest of the major donors. That's the case, you have to analyze the message, not the messenger.

[@TheClocktowerCrew]

lol yeah the whole thing about people hating on Kurzgesagt is really dumb, its like people bitching and complaining that people are using primary sources. Like yeah, use primary sources wtf, they did the research. It just sounds like the video hating on Kurzgesagt is in itself just propaganda to push people away from academics

[@ayoCC]

There has to be a mix of emotions that is more complex than we have as words in English language. U =unit There is a mix of 10u contempt, 1u envy, 2u betrayal, 2u righteousness, 1u spite, 1u contrarianism, 3u denial In terms of % I give the thesis that kurzgesagt is propaganda a quality of 10%. Theyre mainly paid through a fixed budget from the German public fund for media. Every housing unit has to pay pay like 17€ to pay German public media.

[@CaptainPrincess]

I think most people just inherently distrust kurzgesagt because we live in a world where actual philanthropy and pursuit of knowledge are all but unheard of and the world is crammed full of vile, evil ghouls who will pretend to be those things only to be then be revealed to have been sucking the blood of orphaned puppies while kicking kittens for fun and so when the concept of a good person wanting to help people is by itself suspicious any little indiscretion looks major and like a thread to an overall evil plot, because everyone is horrible and goodness has been thoroughly eradicated

[@nielsjensen4185]

I distrust Kursgesagt because he's in favour of nuclear power. And that's an objectively stupid take. Once you research deeper into and take time and entropy into the equation his arguments fall apart. Yea, nuclear technology is safe now, can you guarantee that the same will be a reality in 100 years? Because regardless of how much you maintain and repair technology, eventually, it'll be obsolete as technology becomes more advanced. For an extreme example of this just look at mobile phones that get technologically irrelevant after just five years. Then there's storing nuclear waste. High-intensity waste needs to be stored for 55 years before it can be stored as mid-intensity waste. Extrapolating on the current numbers from the US and timing it by a factor of three to account for the entire world ramping up nuclear power production would result in 600 tons of high-intensity waste over 55 years. Since it's an accumulated number it has to be stored individually and reusing a storage facility when high-intensity waste has been stored there is difficult. Furthermore, this rolling number is also something that goes into the future since once 600 tonnes have been accumulated it would be 600 tonnes constantly from that point. Again, with the same caveats. Eventually, humanity would run out of space to store it since there are strict restrictions on where it can be stored. And storing high-intensity waste as mid-intensity waste merely cuts the half-life from millennia to centuries. There are roughly speaking three generations to a century. A century is still a timeframe most people are unable to imagine, it's an abstract. It's a similar kind of thinking to the one that created the climate crisis. Back when it was known in the 70s the oil execs went, "I'll just continue reaping the benefits and I'll be dead once it becomes time for the consequences to show." And now proponents of nuclear power reason their like with "I'll reap the benefits now," and even though they never say so explicitly their subconscious frame of mind is "and I'll be dead when the consequences are felt." And the consequences will be felt and they'll be more serious than the current climate crisis by an order of magnitude since the consequence of the climate crisis is that the Earth will be uninhabitable by US. The consequence of nuclear power is that eventually, the entire planet will be uninhabitable by EVERYONE. And what do the proponents really care, they'll be long dead when this happens. They only care about protecting themselves and reasoning themselves and their motivation to be "good actually" since the reality that their reasoning is extremely selfish would break their identities.

[@CaptainPrincess]

@@nielsjensen4185 man, with respect, the youtube comments section is not the best place to one-and-done your entire essay, you should try to actually engage the conversation and get it out piecemeal as a result, I kinda tuned out around "how do we know nuclear power will be safe in 100 years!!?!?!!?!" like I dont fuckin know man but if its safe now then its safe now and worrying about will it stay safe forever is not a valid excuse to call it "objectively stupid"

[@Discojericho]

@@nielsjensen4185 Mf really talking about running out of space to store nuclear waste like its a similar issue to climate change and its effects. You're on equal footing with Trump crying about birds beeing killed by windmills. Just goes to show that big block of text does not mean you actually had something to say.

[@nielsjensen4185]

@@Discojericho I take it Chernobul was just a historical event to you. For me it was personal. I live in Scandinavia. Scandinavia was two days away from being turned into a radioactive wasteland due to the cloud of fallout headed that way, then the wind changed. Chernobul is about 5000 km away from Scandinavia. While the example uses specific places and events the general concept remains the same. Nuclear waste from fission is due to its effect so lethal and dangerous that repeated storing in the same place due to radiation exposure presents some challenges. To make an example you might be able to understand. It would be like if you went to the doctor and were told that you had terminal cancer from the water you drank that had been radiated several thousands of kilometers away. Are fossil fuels optimal? No. they should be replaced by green energy standards where possible, and if your source of water gets polluted by fossil fuels you can see it and fairly easily cleanse it. If it gets polluted by radiation the area is dead.

[@GigasGMX]

@ Niels Jensen people who can’t spell Chernobyl aren’t allowed to invoke Chernobyl.

[@TheeAwesomecake]

I love how this guy keeps repeating "bill gates funded" and clearly wants to get across how bad it is being funded by him, but beyond noting some bad things he's done before he never ever explains why it's specifically a bad thing being funded by things related to him outside of a vague mention of being influenced without ever showing any proof of being influenced. I think he just hates billionaires and the idea that they might contribute to something good once in a while upsets him.

[@tortellinifettuccine]

20:20, vasuh is completely incorrect/lying here. You can literally click on any video from not just bikes, and either at the beginning, end, or both, he will vocally say that he's sponsored by curiosity stream and nebula, and even puts up a whole graphic and explains what it is and what it does, literally every youtuber using nebula and curiosity stream does this. Meanwhile, the channel we are talking about with the unspellable name that i refuse to try NEVER explains that they are sponsored, very similar to Prager, huh? Both are owned and run by rich people/corporations, and both are making videos specifically about things targeting their owners' likes and products.

[@Molly-jh4kz]

I actually think having all of the major video sponcers, donors, and grantors automatically listed under a video is a pretty good idea. Not kertziged's job, but a job KZbin should do.

[@parazitkolol]

Say again? Kertziged?

[@Molly-jh4kz]

@@parazitkolol kierkegaard

[@parazitkolol]

@@Molly-jh4kz kilimanjaro

[@lukemini9021]

KERTZIGED

[@danbw8838]

How would youtube automatically list that? They would need to defy space and time to yoink information from the abyss.

[@PrinzAviator]

I stopped this video midway through to watch a Kurzgesagt video I haven't seen yet.

[@sandollor]

I don't think this person has ever been a part of any research study. Even students in base research classes understand more than this person.

[@RevolutionaryLoser]

Kind of wild that "leftists" are arguing 30 second ad reads should be mandatory on KZbin. It'd be nice if leftists ocassionally shared the ideas that don't suck. It might make us look more appealing.

[@smaakjeks]

Being against GMO but advocating for selective breeding is like opposing using scissors to cut paper into shapes for Christmas decorations, but advocating for using a shotgun to blast shapes with. Sorry, I tried to be festive with my analogy.

[@JackDespero]

I love Kurzgesagt videos and I think they are an amazing tool to get people interested in topics that otherwirse are dense or boring. I do not need a "take down" video, because I have two eyes, two ears, and a brain, and I can understand propaganda por myself. Kurzgesagt can be very optimistic sometimes, I hardly doubt that it is because of money, but because the people behind it truly believe in humanity. I know that for some doom and gloom doomers it seems that any expression of optimism is suspicious and hypocritical, but I can ensure you that some people are like that. I know, right? Pff, hope, amirite? Every single time I have finished one video about climate, I got left with a feeling of "we can do something to fight climate change, and I am pissed off that we are not doing more", which... is the best position for the issue? Would it be better to have the feeling of doom, that nothing can be done and thus any action is pointless? The first makes me take action against climate change, the second makes me turn on the ac more because who the fuck cares anymore, we are doomed either way. Also what about the scientific videos? I have a phd in physics and I recognize that sometimes their videos are a bit oversimplified, but it is inevitable if you want to make all types of people care about why a neutron star is very cool, for example. I have no problem with these things. They constantly put sources and repeat that what they are explaining is not the full picture, because they hvae no time. I recently bought their 12 023 year calendar to support them, and I would do it again.

[@michaeljohnson905]

Gonna be a hot minute before you can use that calendar, goddamn

[@noahwilliams8996]

You clearly don't understand how funding works. The fact that you supposedly have a phd in physics worries me greatly. The fact that you said these topics are "dense or boring" indicates that you're probably lying about that phd.

[@josephgoddard7438]

@@noahwilliams8996 fridge IQ take

[@Ark_Strike]

I can say these kinds of videos and commenters aren't any better than conspiracy heads because people will go to stupid lengths to defend things and people they like, and if you like Kurzgesagt and can recognize that 90% of their videos don't apply to the "propaganda" idea, you'd still defend them because hey its only a small portion of it and its not all bad or whatever, but no lmao you need to call them out on it until they address it, which they won't. Until then, take all of their videos sponsored by anyone ORG or Foundation with a tablespoon of salt, for your own good.

[@shiraseskai3021]

Trying to link the creators of Kurzgesagt to any Billionaire conspiracy is ridicolous. If you compare the general vibe of Kurzgesagt content that aims to educate and inform people being exactly the opposite of any propaganda and then taking the conspiracy vibe of the critic's video I have no issues to decide whom I personally trust more. :)

[@Lantern_Light]

One video I didn’t like on Kurzgestat was on climate change where it depicted degrowth as a worse option than deregulation. And depicted socialism with a nuke, and hyper capitalism as a futuristic hologram

[@dumpsterDeity]

Wow, green capitalism defenders in the comments section. I'm outta here

[@Senumunu]

conspiracy framing aside there is a case to be made for a more transparent money flow behind these videos people should know who is funding your "optimistic arguments"

[@zagreus5773]

Kurzgesagt not proposing revolutionary socialism as a solution to all of our problems makes them billionaire propagandists ofc. You could say it makes them fascists even 😳

[@GhostRat__]

This guy mad about not making as much money as someone else screams at channel. Meanwhile game theory literally sold themselves to billionaires this week.

[@azuriasart]

Yeah that takedown video seems very odd and a bit conspiratorial to say the least. However Kurzgesagt does have an underlying which is very much criticizable. While they are making gerat content for the most part, they also promote a "tech will fix everything"-mentality. Another video that talks about this - and way more differentiated and fair - is "Kurzgesagt and the art of climate greenwashing" by Think That Through. The video is not like the one you just reacted to, even though the title might seem like it. But that's a long watch with it's nearly 2 hours length, but worth it I think.

[@XMysticHerox]

I actually think they make some good points later in (the one about poverty is legitimately concerning). That said the whole thing is terminally conspiracy brained.

[@makskauzny3794]

Vaush should watch "Kurzgesagt and the art of climate greenwashing" by the channel Think That Through. It's long but it's really good. It also doesn't do the whole conspiracy bait thing (although the thumbnail sugests otherwise, but it is supposed to grab attention)

[@th01m3nn]

That is what clickbait is about lol, to grab the attention

[@kedamafoe2240]

People on nebula are all partial owners of nebula so it is not a sponser thing when not just bikes advertises for it

[@sorejack]

Effective altruism is like training dinosaurs to be service animals.

[@PaTrollOk]

You really should be as transparent as possible with sponsorships. In the case of an entire video being paid for by a sponsor you should disclose that at the beginning of the video, that's valid, also platforms should provide adequate tools to mark such content in other ways. The wording is also important, it should be straight and beyond doubt, avoid using phrases like "in partnership with", "created with", "helped to bring this video", the right wording is "sponsored by". I get that the video is conspiracy-bait and some arguments used are missing. For me it should focus on why the ideas like Effective Altruism and Longtermism being pushed by Kurzgesagt is bad and explaining those ideologies, why they're terrible for humans with a sprinkle of the stuff I said about sponsored content.

[@Jyyhjyyh]

Lets be honest, he won't be satisfied until there's a disclaimer at the start of every video saying how it was made in a conspiracy together with billionaires. The problem he has is that Kurzgesagt doesn't prime their audience to distrust whatever they say in their videos, which is an insane thing to demand from them

[@noahwilliams8996]

You're supposed to disclose potential conflicts of interest.

[@Jyyhjyyh]

@@noahwilliams8996 Which they do. Watch the video

[@noahwilliams8996]

@@Jyyhjyyh Yes, at the very end. Right in the last few seconds. That's not exactly honesty when it comes to disclosing potential conflicts of interest, now is it?

[@Jyyhjyyh]

@@noahwilliams8996 It is honesty, they'll tell you exactly who they are working with in their own video. Notice how you first claimed they don't disclose potential conflicts of interest but now the problem is that they do but at the wrong point of the video?

[@noahwilliams8996]

@@Jyyhjyyh Well for one thing it's best to disclose it up front. You're required by law to disclose where you got your funding from. Though there are tricks they can use to try and hide conflicts of interest. For one they can accept money from shell companies, such as open philanthropy which is funded by gates.

[@Mason-jj4ww]

Hi I study sustainable agriculture- the problem with GM crops primarily (besides the tight legal control the GM seed creators have over the farmers who use their crops) is that they require a LOT more water than traditional farming, and have secondary and tertiary effects on the environment. especially since they have to be grown as a monocrop, usually a cash crop for export, which does not actually go to feeding the people who grow it or their communities. The monocropping along with the nature of the GM crops themselves leeches the soil of nutrients FAST, requiring farmers to purchase synthetic fertilizers in order to not have a failed season. These fertilizers, naturally, runoff into local environments and cause a plurality of problems (some are also known carcinogens that can not only harm the farmer, but anyone who lives near the farm). All this make the soil basically useless if they ever want to go back to growing literally any other crop, or wish to switch to safer farming practices (like organic intercropping). The efficacy of genetic modification isn’t really the problem that actual, well-informed agricultural specialists are debating on. It’s the resources (financial and natural) required to grow them, the predatory deals farmers are forced into for access to the market, and the watershed effects their continued growth has on the land and local communities. There’s also a difference between GMOs like “wild versus domesticated strawberries” (which was actually selective breeding) and “corn made specifically for corn oil, which cannot be eaten and is a cash crop export only.”

[@oleksijm]

Thanks for being honest on GMOs. In general, when I hear some more absurd ecologist arguments saying that humans should basically collectively kill themselves to save koalas in the rainforest, I remember a quote from Michael Crichton - "civilization protects us from nature".

[@isakrynell8771]

There is a fault in reasoning I often encounter among my comrades on the left and it’s this: just because something is biased does not automatically mean that it is wrong. Bias is the source of error not the error it self.

[@InsecureCreator]

This video feels like someone discovering the fact that academia and science journalism are influenced by the sources of their funds for the first time.

[@maeschder]

So I've done some reading on Singer in my Philosophy Masters, and I feel like Vaush is mischaracterizing (the theory of) effective altruism somewhat. It's mostly supposed to be a practical application of altruism that requires appropriate input from everyone. The idea is that everyone should be contributing what is "reasonable". Of course this version that is being promoted here is corrupted as fk, and effective altruism sadly lends itself to that. When you approach it "apolitically" you get this potential for abuse that ignores power dynamics. I.e.: poor people shouldn't have to give even the proportional equivalent of rich people, since the system is designed to fuck them over. The fact that a system exists is ignored to begin with when you apply pure action-based theories, since they focus on individual circumstances, and not what led to them.

[@GigasGMX]

The theory doesn’t matter, because the movement is just an “AI research” cult.

[@abdulmasaiev9024]

Isn't effective altruism just the idea that if you're going to spend resources on individually helping people like for example though donating to charity, it should be done in a way that will have the most positive impact for the amount you put in? Given the premise, I honestly don't see anything wrong with this "if x then y".

[@bena8805]

Tiktok attention span