I do wish he practised a little bit more rigor with his research. In his Vlad the Impaler video he claimed that Vlad's night raid may have been the first use of gunpowder in warfare, which is ridiculous at the face of it. Europeans had been using early cannons for well over a century at that point, and the Ottomans (the targets of said attack) were the first country in western Eurasia to employ what we would now recognise as musketeer units.
It makes me take him with a pinch of salt when he's talking about stuff I'm not so informed about.
To be fair, the same could be said of virtually any history documentary.
Netflix just did a high budget production called Age of Samurai in which they had "experts" talking about how the Katana was the primary battlefield weapon of the Samurai and how it was the most fearsome sword ever created.
You will always have these weird little things creeping into history. For instance, every documentary I've ever seen on Alexander has mentioned the Gordian Knot but I've literally never seen another reference to it that doesn't revolve around Alexander. Seems like just another apocryphal story that's become part of a historical narrative.
Either way, always approach history with several grains of salt lol
There so many but not using those Efap and friend went over, to me would be oversimplified.I appreciate him making history more digestible for the the average person but when you know the history of the thing he talk about i kinda wanna go "actually" and dig into the history of said event.
Wait, do people hate oversimplified? That dude makes great content and the fact that he... well... oversimplifies things to make the story entertaining shouldnt be held against the channel when that is stated up front in the name
There probably people out there that do hate him.Personaly I don't HATE him but when your a armchair historian you a want a little bit more meat.For example his video on the Three kingdom is OK and get to the bigger picture but when compare to Serious Trivia video on the lore of various three kingdom lore it's night and day.
Sure, there is more detailed content, but that content is probably less comedic with less personalized art animation and editing. They are just different kinds of content.
Like i understand if you want more detail and thus dont enjoy the oversimplified version, but i dont think it makes his videos any worse. They just serve a different purpose.
That why I said I appreciate what he does.But for me it just dosent scratch the itch.The information he give out is very generic with more humor and more editing.
His videos are more intended to generate interest in a topic than provide a detailed breakdown. That content definitely exists but is much more niche and typically doesn't get tens of millions of views. It's like an undergrad vs grad school history class comparison. One compliments and generally precedes the other.
Didn't realize he was hated. I can definitely find stuff to criticize (like the occasionally crude humor and of obviously oversimplifying a lot of stuff) but they're still fairly well-made and informative videos that are pretty entertaining.
The humor is weird. I feel like after his ww2 videos and he became popular, he started trying to force it more and more, which isn't how his videos were originally supposed go together. Also, the humor went from clever word plays or something to characters yelling, and grade-school bathroom humor. I do think overall the videos are good.
I Hate Everything. Since he hates everything, that would include himself. He should not hate himself.
In all seriousness, I would say Cinematic Venom. Yes, that LOTR review was awful, and so were a handful of his other reviews. BUT, when he is good and tries, he is REALLY good. His reviews of The Godfather, Citizen Kane and his 2nd LOTR review, say. On top of that, he received other haters over the years before that EFAP for unfair reasons (the Change the Channel gang being really awful in particular), had several family issues and I think he would have been more successful if some outside forces did show him some kindness. It's a shame that he's gone now.
(But still, his initial responses to EFAP 93 were REALLY bad.)
What really bugs me is that its so easy to debunk this logic. Iphones can exist and be made without slave labor. In other words, the existence of iphones isnt inherently immoral, because iphones can be made ethically.
The same cannot be said about CP. There is no ethical way of making CP, hence the existence of CP is always immoral.
What bothers me is that if you watch his debate with Count Dankula, he hounds Dank for his twitter jokes because they could be "dog whistles to neo nazis".
So i could make an argument that his equivocation of iphones and CP is a dog whistle to pedophiles.
I think something can only be immoral if you had a choice in it. If you are born a pedophilia thats not your choice. If you act on your desires it becomes immoral because you make an active choice.
You are operating under the assumption them not acting on it is out of restraint vs fear of consequences or lack of opportunity. You can still have immoral impulses and thoughts.
Count Dankula
His madlad videos are what I wish history class was like
I would say it depends on a your teacher, I had great history teacher and I love every single lesson
I do wish he practised a little bit more rigor with his research. In his Vlad the Impaler video he claimed that Vlad's night raid may have been the first use of gunpowder in warfare, which is ridiculous at the face of it. Europeans had been using early cannons for well over a century at that point, and the Ottomans (the targets of said attack) were the first country in western Eurasia to employ what we would now recognise as musketeer units. It makes me take him with a pinch of salt when he's talking about stuff I'm not so informed about.
Yeah, in Hussite wars we were using guns/cannons against crusaders I forgot about that
To be fair, the same could be said of virtually any history documentary. Netflix just did a high budget production called Age of Samurai in which they had "experts" talking about how the Katana was the primary battlefield weapon of the Samurai and how it was the most fearsome sword ever created. You will always have these weird little things creeping into history. For instance, every documentary I've ever seen on Alexander has mentioned the Gordian Knot but I've literally never seen another reference to it that doesn't revolve around Alexander. Seems like just another apocryphal story that's become part of a historical narrative. Either way, always approach history with several grains of salt lol
Pewdiepie
There so many but not using those Efap and friend went over, to me would be oversimplified.I appreciate him making history more digestible for the the average person but when you know the history of the thing he talk about i kinda wanna go "actually" and dig into the history of said event.
Wait, do people hate oversimplified? That dude makes great content and the fact that he... well... oversimplifies things to make the story entertaining shouldnt be held against the channel when that is stated up front in the name
There probably people out there that do hate him.Personaly I don't HATE him but when your a armchair historian you a want a little bit more meat.For example his video on the Three kingdom is OK and get to the bigger picture but when compare to Serious Trivia video on the lore of various three kingdom lore it's night and day.
Sure, there is more detailed content, but that content is probably less comedic with less personalized art animation and editing. They are just different kinds of content. Like i understand if you want more detail and thus dont enjoy the oversimplified version, but i dont think it makes his videos any worse. They just serve a different purpose.
That why I said I appreciate what he does.But for me it just dosent scratch the itch.The information he give out is very generic with more humor and more editing.
His videos are more intended to generate interest in a topic than provide a detailed breakdown. That content definitely exists but is much more niche and typically doesn't get tens of millions of views. It's like an undergrad vs grad school history class comparison. One compliments and generally precedes the other.
Didn't realize he was hated. I can definitely find stuff to criticize (like the occasionally crude humor and of obviously oversimplifying a lot of stuff) but they're still fairly well-made and informative videos that are pretty entertaining.
I'd even argue they're overrated, but that's just because their "humor" is physically painful to me lol. I can respect what they do. No hate here :)
The humor is weird. I feel like after his ww2 videos and he became popular, he started trying to force it more and more, which isn't how his videos were originally supposed go together. Also, the humor went from clever word plays or something to characters yelling, and grade-school bathroom humor. I do think overall the videos are good.
Emplemon. Dont know why people hate him so much, his content is top notch.
Emplemon is TREMENDOUS! GREATEST YOUTUBER. The ONLY person who DOESNT like him is LIL MARCO!
MauLer! lol.
Anyone who has the balls to criticize dunkey.
Clownfish TV
Arch Warhammer.
Agreed. Edgy doesn't make you a nazi, despite what some very vocal people say.
E;R
Remarkable Republican
Sargon of Akkad
Immarksman
Did not expect to see him mentioned in this sub
I Hate Everything. Since he hates everything, that would include himself. He should not hate himself. In all seriousness, I would say Cinematic Venom. Yes, that LOTR review was awful, and so were a handful of his other reviews. BUT, when he is good and tries, he is REALLY good. His reviews of The Godfather, Citizen Kane and his 2nd LOTR review, say. On top of that, he received other haters over the years before that EFAP for unfair reasons (the Change the Channel gang being really awful in particular), had several family issues and I think he would have been more successful if some outside forces did show him some kindness. It's a shame that he's gone now. (But still, his initial responses to EFAP 93 were REALLY bad.)
I think naming an under-hated YouTube is a better question
CinemaWins
Honestly, CinemaSins. I think they're harmless, but enough people seem to take them seriously that others see their content as problematic.
He seems like an okay guy and his format has great potential. It's sad that he (mostly) makes low quality videos
Especially when compared to CinemaWins, who doesn't get nearly the same amount of criticism.
Mysteriousmrenter he’s not perfect but some people act like he’s never tried to improve when he has
I’ve been waiting for someone to say it
Some of his videos like his technocracy, extra credits and thoughts on videos show he’s pretty good
Basically everyone who isn't a feminist gets quite a lot of undeserved hate from certain twitter crowd and I'd say that counts as ''overhated''.
Filmento
Dishonored Wolf, MisAnthro Pony and KingKong19100.
Rags
Vaush
He said OVER hated. That pedo defending cuck deserves all he gets and more.
When did Vaush defend a pedo? (He'd still deserve hate for being a massive hypocrite)
Basically he said pedophilia is not immoral because iPhones are made with slave labor. I shit you not
Just watched the clip. What a piece of shit.
What really bugs me is that its so easy to debunk this logic. Iphones can exist and be made without slave labor. In other words, the existence of iphones isnt inherently immoral, because iphones can be made ethically. The same cannot be said about CP. There is no ethical way of making CP, hence the existence of CP is always immoral. What bothers me is that if you watch his debate with Count Dankula, he hounds Dank for his twitter jokes because they could be "dog whistles to neo nazis". So i could make an argument that his equivocation of iphones and CP is a dog whistle to pedophiles.
To be fair, pedophilia is not immoral, acting on it is
Nope, pedophilia is immoral
Its not a choice, how can it be immoral?
Having sexual desires for someone who can never consent is immoral. Not sure why thats hard to get
I think something can only be immoral if you had a choice in it. If you are born a pedophilia thats not your choice. If you act on your desires it becomes immoral because you make an active choice.
You are operating under the assumption them not acting on it is out of restraint vs fear of consequences or lack of opportunity. You can still have immoral impulses and thoughts.
No
He's under-hated
....why would you say that?
Bait, probably
It's not possible to overhate vaush in my opinion.