But the question is are the sources on his show any less horseshit than what he's spouting here?

He's had *some* good sources in the past, but I really doubt it

Really? Have they ever produced a single decent show?

I remember the trophy hunting one not being terrible. Haven't watched in a while though so maybe i am mis-remembering.

He mentioned the trophy hunting stuff at the beginning of the interview with Joe. That's the one that comes to mind when I try to think of legit stuff he's done

The rest may just be when he talks about the origins of random folklore

I've heard some fairly decent arguments for trophy hunting, so I would have to hear that for myself, though I don't want to.

I realized why he got the trophy hunting arguement right. in the video he's a frog:
https://youtu.be/YUA8i5S0YMU

video is cringy, also sterotypes hunters

Oh shit, that's not the stance I expected him to take.

Oh. I actually thought he’d argue against it.

power of frog man

There needs to be a balance of predator an prey so that the ecosystem remains stable.

The guy has taken every standard leftist position on everything else.

Kudos to actually trying to tell the truth for once.

Also, because he mentioned poachers, those assholes can be pretty inventive, as seen here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQG1bHugZRA

Even the "researcher" he referenced for his argument on trans isn't a scientist. The person has a degree in mikitary research from being in the military

That doesnt mean the are qualified to do research on the emotional or psychological impact of child trans issues

I get it, that "researcher" is trans. But that doesn't mean they are qualified on the subject, i have a butt hole, doesnt mean im qualified to be a psychologist

so instead of a trans research it's a trans researcher....

I mean, someone in the military can become a doctor/researcher.

That doesn't mean they're a good one though. I find that doctors who study psychological phenomena that they deal with tend to have more blinders than those who don't.

from what I hear most psychologists go into the field to solve their own psychological issues

Do we let people serve in the military if they have been diagnosed with a psychological condition that makes them want to cut their arm off? Or some who has been diagnosed and thinks they are a cat?

ah cut their arm off so body dysphoria

It's kind of like the line from Scarface isn't it? Never do your own stash.

Most psychology activists struggle with their own mental issues. Most psychologists I've met either haven't struggled, or if they have, they've "fixed" it.

It's after their own counseling that they enter the field.

His degree was in miltary research, not medical research

I personally don't really see degrees as much of a qualification of competence.

After he left the military to be a woman he startes being a journalist on trans issues

Thats not researcher, thats a journalist with a military reseaech degree

Degrees are and can be a qualification of competence, liberal degrees are not, and the aptitude of many college degrees these days has led to a lot of growth in graduate programs and certification programs to proce competence

not even journalist, that's activism

Undergraduate degree used to be more exclusive, so they meant something

imagine having such a narrow field as to cover maybe a couple thousand people worldwide

Just like your SATs and ACTs used to have a direct correlation to IQ, they removed that correlation for a reason, to create more inclusion into higher education

So what you're saying is....

Diversity is bad?

Diversity of aptitude in professions is bad :p

@Lord Zedd that's why they inflate the number.

it's a good racket for colleges though, charge through the ass for gender studies degrees that can only ever create more gender studies professors to teach more gender studies degrees

"have you ever entertained the thought at some point in your life if you were the opposite sex?" = Must be trans.