Theory is actually the term you use for something that has been proven many times through different means and never been disproven. It is the overall consensus until it has been disproven. So by definition the term conspirancy theory is nonsensical. Conspirancy theories are usually build up on a true and easy to prove statement or event. Based on that more vague and scandalous claims and connections are made. Since they are build up in that way, they easily lure in the uneducated into believing them and are rather easy to defend against people that want to debunk them. Nevertheless many Conspirancy theories have been proven wrong (which does not neccessarily stop them from spreading further). If you truely want to know the truth and not want to get fooled by people that want to make a quick buck out of you, I would recommend to get into natural sciences. Science is the only way we have to prove something true (there is no absolute truth).
I wouldn’t classify any of the people you’ve shown here as conspiracy theorists, and even if they were, having lots of subscribers or being intelligent themselves does not automatically make them correct.
I agree with you that subscribers and intelligence doesn't make someone correct. But that is basically the argument which the mainstream uses to argue for their points. We have smart people on our side and most people watch our channel.
@@aryanlochab3792 I mean by the logic almost everybody is a “conspiracy theorist,” almost everyone feels like they have some idea of hidden ideas or plots in some area of life
@@Palindrone-lj3foconspiracy theory is a theory, a clear explanation about some event, that implies that there is a conspiracy in it. The h0loc4ust is a conspiracy theory theory that the mainstream belief, it's the high level of the n4zi party conspired against a entire population, killing them in the camps, they hided it from the major population of their country, this fits perfectly as a conspiracy theory.
Conspiracies do in fact exist. But, theories may or may not be true. Theories are not facts. There are conspiracy theories which have been proven true. But, there are also many conspiracy theories that are lacking in evidence. Many of the people have shown seem reasonably smart, and they probably are correct on many issues. But, that doesn't mean they are incapable of being wrong sometimes. I think it would be more helpful if you included examples of the conspiracy theories these individuals believe which you feel are dismissed without properly understanding the theory first.
▪️ FIat world is an astroturf movement designed to make critical thinkers look ridiculous. 99% of those pushing FE are PRETENDING to believe in nonsense. The remaining 1% are mesmerized CalfTards just dumb enough to fall for the shiII act. Cut and dry. ⬛
I'd be considered a conspiracy theorist and I have an IQ of 142. It's actually those with an IQ in the range of between 110 and 130 that are most susceptible to propaganda (ie the news telling people conspiracy theories are for stupid people). If you want to delve more into the subject. You should research the term midwit. The midwit meme you can Google simplifies the term, and it concludes high IQ and low IQ people often arrive at the same conclusions as each other, and it's those in the middle that are most likely to be taken up by pseudo intellectual nonsense. You come across as a smart and lucid guy with a mind of your own. I've watched a bunch of your videos now, you're a talented communicator with great verbal skills, and this one warmed me especially, as I've also been attacked and labelled as an idiot by those types, even though I'm apparently in the top 0.2 percent of the IQ range. I have ADHD and find regular jobs difficult as well, I've often been fired just because I'm not great at a lot of menial work, I get easily distracted and bored and don't do the job as well as a regular person. My only option has been self employment and I've leaned into being good at art and music, which I''ve been fairly successful with, but i've always struggled financially as too much admin makes me shut down. Only saying this, as IQ doesn't seem to be the be all and end all. I have loads of it and find everyday life and mundane tasks very difficult to get through. I can see things clearly for what they are though, and it appears so can you, you're gonna be a very wise man one day.
Well said, midwits are the most blinded, and shall we say "stupid" people. The Dunning-Kruger effect seems tailor-made to describe them. Your average 80-100 IQ farmer or manual laborer has more common sense than all of them combined. I would be considered a conspiracy theorist as well. I'm not sure what my IQ is these days, but it was 127 when I tested in college, about 8 years ago. I currently don't work for myself, but I've had a business in the past and am working on a new one now. Life threw some curveballs at me that set me back a bit. Self-employed is the only way I can really maintain my sanity.
Why do you have an IQ of 142? What can you actually do? Math verbal logic visual spatial? I don't know what conspiracy theories you subscribe to but jenraly I find the seasons to believe a lot of popular conspiracy theories to be poorly founded. But there are a lot of things labeled conspiracy theories that really are comen sense. It's very strange when you can see that a certain class of people have a vested interest and the means to bring about a particular event but simply to conclude that there not doing it or at least not on purpose. And don't forget the saying today's conspiracy theory is tomorrow's news.
@@cedricburkhart3738 Why? That's what I got tested for when placed into my sets at school, I had the highest in my year on SATS & Edinburgh reading test (was an 80s thing, not sure if still around), I guess it was genetic. How it manifested was learning things quickly and easily without much effort, advanced reading age, spelling, drawing, spatial etc. Never had to do any work to get decent grades, so was able to cruise through school and college and would place toward the top of the class in tests with little or no effort. I was more interested in drawing and messing about (my talents lean toward the creative and I was a 'naughty' and spirited kid, often in trouble). Although I score highly in spatial, logic and pattern recognition, I wasn't particularly great at maths as a subject, it was the one class I wasn't able to naturally excel at, although I think that was more down to the way it was taught (it bored me shitless as an ADHD kid). I am very good at chess though and there're only two people I've played that have ever been able to match/beat me in return, one of them was on a math scholarship before he went insane from heavy drug use. An example of how my thinking differed from my peers in practice, may be the time in year 9 (age 14) biology class we were instructed by the teacher to measure the amount of o2 released during photosynthesis, by setting up a light source near a test tube and counting the amount of bubbles released as it was moved closer. The rest of the class got to it, did as instructed, and followed the method set out. Being of a more playful mind, and doubting the accuracy of the bubble counting technique, I went off to scour the tech labs, invented and constructed my own contraption of pipes and test tubes, that enabled the o2 to displace the water in a linked measuring cylinder, to give me an accurate readout of released gas. I then formulated a working equation that predicted correct results to whichever distance I placed the light source. The teacher's response to my experiments were "why do you always have to be different". It's that difference that essentially marks me out, as i have a more lateral way of thinking, taking knowledge from various subjects, linking them together and forming new ideas, rather than the incremental way of learning and thinking your standard 120 IQ academic would employ. In latter life, I guess it's manifested in my career choices, in so much as I've always been able to do anything I've set my mind to, as I can pretty much figure out how to do anything as long as I have the interest (and can force learn boring things if I need to). I'm most 'gifted' in the area of visual arts, and my biggest passion was always for music so I chose that direction over the acedmic route (I would have liked to study physics). I didn't get on with constrictions of university, so dropped out after the first year to do my own thing. By my early /mid 20s I was desigimg record sleeves for the record labels that had been my inspiration as a youth, and also started producing and releasing music on those record labels (initially just a hobby I had on the side of my art/design), which ended up becoming my main career. I've made quite significant impacts on the small corner of the underground electronic music scene that I occupy, having toured the world with my music, been nominated for a few awards here and there and now own a fairly renown and influential record label that's been instrumental in the shaping of a scene. Technically I guess I'm a highly intelligent polymath, as I'm able to master a variety of subjects to a high level, rather than be limited to excelling at one. Although my career has been focused on the creative arts, my interests are toward the scientific, theistic, psychological geopolitical and philosophical, all of which I'm looking to integrate further into my creative output as a whole. That my be via, art, design, music, written fiction or game design/film making, depends on which direction I feel like going (I get bored doing the same thing for too long). I also know my limitations, as although 142 is considered high in general, I'm no genius and although I'm able to follow and understand higher concepts, I don't have the faculties to be out there pushing the frontiers of quantum physics or delving into the same depths as somebody like Jung. All I can do is look to the real geniuses throughout history for intellectual guidance and play that off against my own observation. I'm answer to how I'm different, I'm not really in any major way, I can just do a few more things to a high level than most and I'm a little more obsessed with consuming information and learning. I always have to be learning, making or doing something or I get quickly bored. I think it also may make me more capable of viewing things rationally and objectively than most, which has become more evident in recent years. Being in the arts for instance, I'm inclined to be VERY Liberal and left leaning (which I was until around 2017ish and we entered clown world). Pretty much the entirely of my peer group and fan base are of this mindset, and I exist within that marxist echo chamber, by all intents and purposes, I should be one of those types. I have one other friend within the same circles that I can still talk to openly, honestly and calmy about more controversial subjects (climate change for example) that tends to trigger the modern leftist. I wondered what set him apart from the rest of them, turns out his IQ was also measured at 142, which made a lot of sense. If you look into the articles I linked in the midwit, it explains further how particular intelligence brackets make you more impervious to brainwashing and pseudo intellectual nonsense. It all boils down to actually being able to make sense of what you're reading, rather than simply memorising and regurgitating. Midwits will be more likely to defer to authority with their thinking and trust the sagely advice from above. This is what was highlighted to me in that Yr 9 biology class, and it stuck with me. Most 'smart' people aren't actually thinking for themselves. All that 'intelligence' does come with caveats though. I'm a useless bastard at every day menial tasks, or any job I find boring, to the point I can appear as being dippy, stupid and vacant to others. Hope that didn't come across as bragging, I havent had the easist ride in life either, I'm not from money and making a living with art is a tough thing. My ADHD (although makkng the creative side easier) makes the general admin of life a constant up hill battle and for all my skills and smarts I'm not nearly as set up in life as my friends who just left school and became plumbers/window fitters etc. Those guys grew up, gaine practical skills and got themselves sorted much earlier than the 'intellectuals' and I always respected them for that.
Sometimes the people promoting the conspiracy do so because they don't understand the topic. Sometimes they do so because they understand the topic, and come to a different conclusion. And sometimes they are so smart that they start to rationalize their ideas by finding patterns which don't even exist. People who are stupid can be right and wrong. People who are smart can be right and wrong. There are stupid people in all camps and there are smart people in all camps. The intelligence of the person promoting a view is not something we should consider, unless it is relevant for the argument.
Well I don't think you can consider a pirsin stupid based on one stupid thing they think. What really does stupid mean though? I think conspiracy theories often don't make sense if too many people have to be in on it to hide it.
As far as I understood he is explaining why this common correlation isn’t correct. He is pointing out that intelligent people also suspect conspiracies (illegal acts between 2 or more people) happening. And he uses irony in the video, calling competent people “stupid”, hence the title. Do you think I misread him? Cuz I might but I don’t think so.
You comment is funny. You complain that the title is not honest because it says the opposite of what the video is about. And then you use sarcasm, which is the use of words which mean the opposite of what you actually mean. Also labeling someone an idiot who is aware that he is low IQ is a bit of a fail.
@@benrex7775 calling him a genius at the end when he's very vocal about being low IQ, is humour.. And the difference between me writing a word that means "the opposite" of the literal meaning, vs his title, is that the word I wrote is clear straight away. It's standard convention to anybody that speaks English and from the context of the very sentence it's in, what is meant. There is no ambiguity. Whereas his dishonest title is misleadingand one would only see from the video that he thinks the opposite of the title. (albeit for his low IQ reasons). Sarcasm isn't dishonest, when it's totally clear straight away, same sentence. You don't even need to read one more word after the word "genius", to know what meaning is meant. Not like sucking somebody into a video with a clickbait dishonest title . Was interesting (and disturbing), to see what that low IQ person found convincing though. (to paraphrase him), "oh look they have a million followers, they must know what they're talking about!!"
@@boliussa So your excuse for using sarcasm is that it is clear right away. Then I also apply that to the video. He made a title that is on topic, but the opposite what he is intending to say. From the first moment of the video it is clear that he wants to say the opposite from the title. Click bait means if you have a title which has nothing to do with the topic. This title is completely on topic. It just uses a little sarcasm that is obvious to anyone who watches the video. I have no clue how that title is misleading to anyone. Unless someone only watches videos they agree with and are frustrated to hear a different opinion. And in that case I don't mind a bit of misleading. And now to your other point. I agree that the argument he brings is a bad argument if you want to determine truth on a philosophical basis. But no matter if he does it deliberately or not, he is pretty much turning the common people's logic on themselves. Most people I interact with think that the media is credible because they have many followers and they have smart people on their side. Same thing with the WHO, the climate change argument, the flat earth and so on. Very few people go beyond "they seem smart and have many followers" and go check up on the facts themselves. Some people even fall under the Gell-Mann Amnesia, where they know someone is incompetent in their own field and trust them in other fields anyways. So if you say conspiracy theories are bad because they are stupid and nobody believes in that stuff, the counter argument of they are smart and have many followers is a valid argument. That is also why I listen to both sides on any topic and check the arguments. Sometimes I agree with the mainstream view, sometimes I agree with a view that differs from the mainstream. And sometimes I find the topic to be inconclusive.
@@benrex7775 There's a difference between clear in a millisecond. and clear after having to watch 35 seconds or even 10 seconds, of a video. Clickbait is misleading people into clicking, and making a title the opposite of what the video is, is clickbait. Even if the opposite of what thevideo is, is still the same general subject as the opposite of that.
Your IQ does not define you are a person you are more than a number.
You should do a video showing your daily routine, what you do regularly day by day. It would be interesting
Lots of conspiracy theories have been proved true and are no longer theories, I think it’s intelligent to question everything
Theory is actually the term you use for something that has been proven many times through different means and never been disproven. It is the overall consensus until it has been disproven. So by definition the term conspirancy theory is nonsensical.
Conspirancy theories are usually build up on a true and easy to prove statement or event. Based on that more vague and scandalous claims and connections are made. Since they are build up in that way, they easily lure in the uneducated into believing them and are rather easy to defend against people that want to debunk them. Nevertheless many
Conspirancy theories have been proven wrong (which does not neccessarily stop them from spreading further).
If you truely want to know the truth and not want to get fooled by people that want to make a quick buck out of you, I would recommend to get into natural sciences. Science is the only way we have to prove something true (there is no absolute truth).
I wouldn’t classify any of the people you’ve shown here as conspiracy theorists, and even if they were, having lots of subscribers or being intelligent themselves does not automatically make them correct.
I agree with you that subscribers and intelligence doesn't make someone correct. But that is basically the argument which the mainstream uses to argue for their points. We have smart people on our side and most people watch our channel.
Actually, they can be considered conspiracy theorists, as they tell how the society works behind the scenes. And that's a "conspiracy theory"
@@aryanlochab3792 I mean by the logic almost everybody is a “conspiracy theorist,” almost everyone feels like they have some idea of hidden ideas or plots in some area of life
@@Palindrone-lj3foconspiracy theory is a theory, a clear explanation about some event, that implies that there is a conspiracy in it.
The h0loc4ust is a conspiracy theory theory that the mainstream belief, it's the high level of the n4zi party conspired against a entire population, killing them in the camps, they hided it from the major population of their country, this fits perfectly as a conspiracy theory.
genius, lucid
The way you say stew-pid is great lol
That's the way Irish people say the word stupid.
MLK was a conspiracy theorist too.
Conspiracies do in fact exist. But, theories may or may not be true. Theories are not facts. There are conspiracy theories which have been proven true. But, there are also many conspiracy theories that are lacking in evidence. Many of the people have shown seem reasonably smart, and they probably are correct on many issues. But, that doesn't mean they are incapable of being wrong sometimes. I think it would be more helpful if you included examples of the conspiracy theories these individuals believe which you feel are dismissed without properly understanding the theory first.
Depends on the conspiracy
Some conspiracies are just uncorroborated truths others think the earth is flat
▪️
FIat world is an astroturf movement designed to make critical thinkers look ridiculous.
99% of those pushing FE are PRETENDING to believe in nonsense.
The remaining 1% are mesmerized CalfTards just dumb enough to fall for the shiII act.
Cut and dry.
⬛
These people are not conspiracy theorists. Also, subscriber count has absolutely NOTHING to do with intellectual credibility
"Speak friend and enter"
I'd be considered a conspiracy theorist and I have an IQ of 142.
It's actually those with an IQ in the range of between 110 and 130 that are most susceptible to propaganda (ie the news telling people conspiracy theories are for stupid people).
If you want to delve more into the subject. You should research the term midwit. The midwit meme you can Google simplifies the term, and it concludes high IQ and low IQ people often arrive at the same conclusions as each other, and it's those in the middle that are most likely to be taken up by pseudo intellectual nonsense.
You come across as a smart and lucid guy with a mind of your own. I've watched a bunch of your videos now, you're a talented communicator with great verbal skills, and this one warmed me especially, as I've also been attacked and labelled as an idiot by those types, even though I'm apparently in the top 0.2 percent of the IQ range.
I have ADHD and find regular jobs difficult as well, I've often been fired just because I'm not great at a lot of menial work, I get easily distracted and bored and don't do the job as well as a regular person. My only option has been self employment and I've leaned into being good at art and music, which I''ve been fairly successful with, but i've always struggled financially as too much admin makes me shut down.
Only saying this, as IQ doesn't seem to be the be all and end all. I have loads of it and find everyday life and mundane tasks very difficult to get through. I can see things clearly for what they are though, and it appears so can you, you're gonna be a very wise man one day.
Well said, midwits are the most blinded, and shall we say "stupid" people. The Dunning-Kruger effect seems tailor-made to describe them. Your average 80-100 IQ farmer or manual laborer has more common sense than all of them combined.
I would be considered a conspiracy theorist as well. I'm not sure what my IQ is these days, but it was 127 when I tested in college, about 8 years ago. I currently don't work for myself, but I've had a business in the past and am working on a new one now. Life threw some curveballs at me that set me back a bit. Self-employed is the only way I can really maintain my sanity.
Why do you have an IQ of 142? What can you actually do? Math verbal logic visual spatial? I don't know what conspiracy theories you subscribe to but jenraly I find the seasons to believe a lot of popular conspiracy theories to be poorly founded. But there are a lot of things labeled conspiracy theories that really are comen sense. It's very strange when you can see that a certain class of people have a vested interest and the means to bring about a particular event but simply to conclude that there not doing it or at least not on purpose. And don't forget the saying today's conspiracy theory is tomorrow's news.
@@cedricburkhart3738 Why? That's what I got tested for when placed into my sets at school, I had the highest in my year on SATS & Edinburgh reading test (was an 80s thing, not sure if still around), I guess it was genetic. How it manifested was learning things quickly and easily without much effort, advanced reading age, spelling, drawing, spatial etc. Never had to do any work to get decent grades, so was able to cruise through school and college and would place toward the top of the class in tests with little or no effort. I was more interested in drawing and messing about (my talents lean toward the creative and I was a 'naughty' and spirited kid, often in trouble). Although I score highly in spatial, logic and pattern recognition, I wasn't particularly great at maths as a subject, it was the one class I wasn't able to naturally excel at, although I think that was more down to the way it was taught (it bored me shitless as an ADHD kid). I am very good at chess though and there're only two people I've played that have ever been able to match/beat me in return, one of them was on a math scholarship before he went insane from heavy drug use.
An example of how my thinking differed from my peers in practice, may be the time in year 9 (age 14) biology class we were instructed by the teacher to measure the amount of o2 released during photosynthesis, by setting up a light source near a test tube and counting the amount of bubbles released as it was moved closer. The rest of the class got to it, did as instructed, and followed the method set out. Being of a more playful mind, and doubting the accuracy of the bubble counting technique, I went off to scour the tech labs, invented and constructed my own contraption of pipes and test tubes, that enabled the o2 to displace the water in a linked measuring cylinder, to give me an accurate readout of released gas. I then formulated a working equation that predicted correct results to whichever distance I placed the light source. The teacher's response to my experiments were "why do you always have to be different".
It's that difference that essentially marks me out, as i have a more lateral way of thinking, taking knowledge from various subjects, linking them together and forming new ideas, rather than the incremental way of learning and thinking your standard 120 IQ academic would employ.
In latter life, I guess it's manifested in my career choices, in so much as I've always been able to do anything I've set my mind to, as I can pretty much figure out how to do anything as long as I have the interest (and can force learn boring things if I need to). I'm most 'gifted' in the area of visual arts, and my biggest passion was always for music so I chose that direction over the acedmic route (I would have liked to study physics). I didn't get on with constrictions of university, so dropped out after the first year to do my own thing. By my early /mid 20s I was desigimg record sleeves for the record labels that had been my inspiration as a youth, and also started producing and releasing music on those record labels (initially just a hobby I had on the side of my art/design), which ended up becoming my main career. I've made quite significant impacts on the small corner of the underground electronic music scene that I occupy, having toured the world with my music, been nominated for a few awards here and there and now own a fairly renown and influential record label that's been instrumental in the shaping of a scene.
Technically I guess I'm a highly intelligent polymath, as I'm able to master a variety of subjects to a high level, rather than be limited to excelling at one. Although my career has been focused on the creative arts, my interests are toward the scientific, theistic, psychological geopolitical and philosophical, all of which I'm looking to integrate further into my creative output as a whole. That my be via, art, design, music, written fiction or game design/film making, depends on which direction I feel like going (I get bored doing the same thing for too long).
I also know my limitations, as although 142 is considered high in general, I'm no genius and although I'm able to follow and understand higher concepts, I don't have the faculties to be out there pushing the frontiers of quantum physics or delving into the same depths as somebody like Jung. All I can do is look to the real geniuses throughout history for intellectual guidance and play that off against my own observation.
I'm answer to how I'm different, I'm not really in any major way, I can just do a few more things to a high level than most and I'm a little more obsessed with consuming information and learning. I always have to be learning, making or doing something or I get quickly bored.
I think it also may make me more capable of viewing things rationally and objectively than most, which has become more evident in recent years. Being in the arts for instance, I'm inclined to be VERY Liberal and left leaning (which I was until around 2017ish and we entered clown world). Pretty much the entirely of my peer group and fan base are of this mindset, and I exist within that marxist echo chamber, by all intents and purposes, I should be one of those types. I have one other friend within the same circles that I can still talk to openly, honestly and calmy about more controversial subjects (climate change for example) that tends to trigger the modern leftist. I wondered what set him apart from the rest of them, turns out his IQ was also measured at 142, which made a lot of sense. If you look into the articles I linked in the midwit, it explains further how particular intelligence brackets make you more impervious to brainwashing and pseudo intellectual nonsense. It all boils down to actually being able to make sense of what you're reading, rather than simply memorising and regurgitating. Midwits will be more likely to defer to authority with their thinking and trust the sagely advice from above. This is what was highlighted to me in that Yr 9 biology class, and it stuck with me. Most 'smart' people aren't actually thinking for themselves.
All that 'intelligence' does come with caveats though. I'm a useless bastard at every day menial tasks, or any job I find boring, to the point I can appear as being dippy, stupid and vacant to others.
Hope that didn't come across as bragging, I havent had the easist ride in life either, I'm not from money and making a living with art is a tough thing. My ADHD (although makkng the creative side easier) makes the general admin of life a constant up hill battle and for all my skills and smarts I'm not nearly as set up in life as my friends who just left school and became plumbers/window fitters etc. Those guys grew up, gaine practical skills and got themselves sorted much earlier than the 'intellectuals' and I always respected them for that.
No. Look at trump supporters. Not the brightest people yet they fall for a lot of propaganda.
@@boltgunmetali have a lot in common with you.
Id like to know your positions on theistic view.
I have an IQ of 130. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, I just ask the questions that mainstream 'journalism' should be asking.
Sometimes the people promoting the conspiracy do so because they don't understand the topic.
Sometimes they do so because they understand the topic, and come to a different conclusion.
And sometimes they are so smart that they start to rationalize their ideas by finding patterns which don't even exist.
People who are stupid can be right and wrong. People who are smart can be right and wrong. There are stupid people in all camps and there are smart people in all camps. The intelligence of the person promoting a view is not something we should consider, unless it is relevant for the argument.
I've never even heard of any of these people and I'm pretty stupid.
Even though many people follow them on Social Media doesn’t mean they are NOT fools
Well I don't think you can consider a pirsin stupid based on one stupid thing they think. What really does stupid mean though? I think conspiracy theories often don't make sense if too many people have to be in on it to hide it.
keep up the good work!
🤨
Smart at making money
3:31 WTF is this shit? Maybe you shouldn't click on random links on the internet LMAO!
You calling anyone stupid is crazy
As far as I understood he is explaining why this common correlation isn’t correct. He is pointing out that intelligent people also suspect conspiracies (illegal acts between 2 or more people) happening. And he uses irony in the video, calling competent people “stupid”, hence the title. Do you think I misread him? Cuz I might but I don’t think so.
@@arkansas99 what makes the people he mentioned conspiracy theorists? What conspiracy theories are they known do believe in?
Why should I believe you lol
try a more honest title, like what you actually think not the opposite of what you think, genius
Why can’t you make a suggestion without using sarcasm?
You comment is funny. You complain that the title is not honest because it says the opposite of what the video is about. And then you use sarcasm, which is the use of words which mean the opposite of what you actually mean.
Also labeling someone an idiot who is aware that he is low IQ is a bit of a fail.
@@benrex7775 calling him a genius at the end when he's very vocal about being low IQ, is humour.. And the difference between me writing a word that means "the opposite" of the literal meaning, vs his title, is that the word I wrote is clear straight away. It's standard convention to anybody that speaks English and from the context of the very sentence it's in, what is meant. There is no ambiguity. Whereas his dishonest title is misleadingand one would only see from the video that he thinks the opposite of the title. (albeit for his low IQ reasons). Sarcasm isn't dishonest, when it's totally clear straight away, same sentence. You don't even need to read one more word after the word "genius", to know what meaning is meant. Not like sucking somebody into a video with a clickbait dishonest title . Was interesting (and disturbing), to see what that low IQ person found convincing though. (to paraphrase him), "oh look they have a million followers, they must know what they're talking about!!"
@@boliussa So your excuse for using sarcasm is that it is clear right away. Then I also apply that to the video. He made a title that is on topic, but the opposite what he is intending to say. From the first moment of the video it is clear that he wants to say the opposite from the title. Click bait means if you have a title which has nothing to do with the topic. This title is completely on topic. It just uses a little sarcasm that is obvious to anyone who watches the video.
I have no clue how that title is misleading to anyone. Unless someone only watches videos they agree with and are frustrated to hear a different opinion. And in that case I don't mind a bit of misleading.
And now to your other point. I agree that the argument he brings is a bad argument if you want to determine truth on a philosophical basis. But no matter if he does it deliberately or not, he is pretty much turning the common people's logic on themselves. Most people I interact with think that the media is credible because they have many followers and they have smart people on their side. Same thing with the WHO, the climate change argument, the flat earth and so on. Very few people go beyond "they seem smart and have many followers" and go check up on the facts themselves. Some people even fall under the Gell-Mann Amnesia, where they know someone is incompetent in their own field and trust them in other fields anyways.
So if you say conspiracy theories are bad because they are stupid and nobody believes in that stuff, the counter argument of they are smart and have many followers is a valid argument.
That is also why I listen to both sides on any topic and check the arguments. Sometimes I agree with the mainstream view, sometimes I agree with a view that differs from the mainstream. And sometimes I find the topic to be inconclusive.
@@benrex7775 There's a difference between clear in a millisecond. and clear after having to watch 35 seconds or even 10 seconds, of a video. Clickbait is misleading people into clicking, and making a title the opposite of what the video is, is clickbait. Even if the opposite of what thevideo is, is still the same general subject as the opposite of that.
Earth is flat