![]() Perhaps this is a consequence of the medium, in which case established science (as opposed to politics) would be the topic of choice.Įvil is a religious idea. There is no room in such a worldview for nuance. Having (what I presume to be) the ISIS emblem and a bunch of skulls around it seems like it's telling me "these guys bad", "those guys good", which is a bit authoritative for my taste and feels like it's from a dystopian classroom where we are told what to think. However if you give me a piece of art, you are basically telling me a story whose validity I have no way of discerning (within the framework i.e. Maybe I'm not used to viewing such media, but it feels like if you gave me a piece of text, I could read it and decide for myself whether or not it makes valid arguments. I think it might be a good idea to stick with science and topics that aren't controversial, because otherwise it seems a bit like propaganda. It's a nice idea, but the pictures about ISIS are a bit disturbing. The audio explanation does give a fair treatment of the subject matter. would never be possible on a streaming media.Įdit: I was looking at the pictures rather than watching the video. Also, the pure speed of the videos makes them more entertaining than any TV show could, because TV has to aim for the lowest common recognition speed at every time. For example of the latter, take a look at this video - describing the same concept (expansion of the universe does not have a center) in book would have been much more awkward. I'm fascinated by this new avenue of educational material as it can provide the best parts of both books and tv if done well: You can pause and play back any parts you have difficulties to understand or want to think through more thoroughly and you have the benefit of both visual and auditive information channels in parallel. Grey's, Crashcourse's and Henry Reich's channels. If you like this kind of dense educational videos I can recommend C.G.P. They also have a German channel, which unfortunately is not up to date with the English one, though. (Forgive the comma splices they were in the subtitles).Also, in contrast to their website, their Youtube channel only contains educational videos and no promotional material. We simplified an idea so much, that it made a great story, but became distorting. In both of, we didn't try to present a balanced perspective, but instead chose a take and ran with it.Īnd in regards to their Addiction video specifically:Īddiction is far from solved, and our videos should have reflected that, instead of taking one side. Here's the reason why, in a quote from said video: I will stand behind my view that the meat video doesn't meet the standards they are claiming in their trust video. And that's a shame, because when combined with the misleading information it really undermines the legitimate reasons why one should limit their meat consumption! The section of the video using these sources loses any sense of impartiality because they begin to argue for a specific moral viewpoint. I would consider those sources to be biased. About a quarter of the sources (not including the extra reading section) were from animal rights organizations. It's funny you mention sources, because after re-watching this video I checked the sources for the meat video. Perhaps doubling down was too strong a phrase, but they (very quickly, as part of a list) did say that they are sticking behind it's conclusion. We already produce more than enough food to feed the world - the problem is that we aren't 100% good at ensuring everyone has access to it. They later state the world could feed billions more people if we stopped producing meat, but that's not even a real argument. Water used by livestock doesn't just disappear, it gets recycled. But that isn't an argument to stop eating meat - it's an argument to stop producing meat in areas with local freshwater shortages. One of the more specific arguments they use is how livestock requires much more water than plants. Their video on meat is a perfect example. I have also noticed that they sometimes use scientific findings to support their narrative, but are actually part of a much more complicated argument. It's largely because the animation is distracting and the even tone the narrator speaks in makes it difficult to tell which words are important. I find it difficult to get meaningful information from their videos. I can't speak for but from the few Kurzgesagt videos I've seen have been off in a way I can't quite describe. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |