Firstly, it takes too damned long to listen to someone drone on when I could simply read a transcript in a fifth of the time. I'm convinced that people put up their views on YouTube because watching someone talk makes it that much more difficult to critically engage their thoughts than reading what they've written.
The bevy of political shows like Sargon and The Young Turks are unbearable. Then you have the people like Molyneux and Peterson who may be competent in one thing but are just embarrassing to watch when they talk about philosophy or history. There's a wonderful review of a Molyneux book where an erstwhile ally absolutely savages him for his inability to construct actual arguments:
It would be cruel to arouse false expectations, so I had better say at once that Molyneux does not succeed in his noble goal. He fails, and fails miserably. His arguments are often preposterously bad.
...
Despite the impression I have so far given, Molyneux is by no means stupid: quite the contrary. Therein, I suggest, lies the source of the problems of his book. Because of his facile intelligence, he thinks that he has a talent for philosophical argument and need not undertake the hard labor of learning how such arguments are constructed. Unfortunately for him and his book, he is mistaken.
I've linked the entire review at the bottom.
Honestly, if I want to learn something from an intelligent person with whom I vehemently disagree, I come here and read posts by LD or Tom or Cannoli. In addition to being markedly smarter and more educated than the YouTube talking heads, they have the benefit of not being self-obsessed.
~Camilla
Ghavrel is Ghavrel is Ghavrel
*MySmiley*
