How would you describe Steven Crowder?

I would describe him as: cruel, vengeful, proud, callous, hostile, taciturn, malevolent, calculating, plotting, merciless, domineering, severe, tyrannical, commanding, obsessed with power and control, unfeeling, uncaring, insensitive, unkind, uncooperative (unless it suits him), self-reliant, wicked, depraved, corrupt, immoral, hateful, vicious, destructive, violent, capricious, malicious, untrustworthy, unreliable, heartless, volatile, inconsistent, deceitful, discourteous, stupid, selfish, evil, crazy, mean-spirited, independent, greedy, self-centered, confusing, and individualistic.

Meh, I like some of his videos. Most of the time though I think he tries way too hard to be funny or to even get his point across.

@joebones5000: so you get triggered when he makes fun of Cenk and Anna?

THEY'RE HARDCORE LIBERALS FROM THE YOUNG TURKS

He seems like a great guy from what I have seen.

Never heard of him and from the sound of it I don't think that I really want to find out who he is or what he does.

Annoying in large doses but funny enough that I immediately remember skits like "I'm just a bill" and "do the hillary" and him crashing the big feminist event in his underwear or ridiculing the people at the event where a trigglypuff was born when you bring him up.

Woo Meister/Batshit Crazy/Tryhard/Anti-Intellectual

His global warming myths debunked was some of the stupidest shit I have seen on youtube in a while. The only "decent" point would be his first one, in the scientific consensus, and that is only if we are being generous. Yes, what the majority of scientists believe is irrelevant, what does matter is what comes up in the scientific journals,

Would rather torture myself by playing Witcher 3 than watch any more of his crap.

I hope that was sarcasm.

I like that he hits the nerves with liberals. LoL

He's a pretty funny guy. I've known about him for some time but never paid attention to him. But I started checking out his vids here and there and he consistently releases some interesting vids. I find myself more often agreeing with him rather than disagreeing.

People who are hung up on the peer-reviewed aspect of the global warming debunking haven't really educated themselves on the subject enough to debunk the conspiracy they're convinced is stupid. Or at least I've never really heard a decent argument against why people shouldn't be skeptical. All I hear is that the majority of people who get paid to produce green-slanted research (AKA publicly funded scientists) just so happen to agree with their own research that they were funded to produce. My response to that is : no shit? Have to try a little harder than that to sway a skeptic. Research isn't funded in an agenda-free vacuum. If the government wasn't paying scientists to exclusively push the concepts of global warming, perhaps the amount of published (let alone peer-reviewed) research disagreeing with global warming would be more balanced. To understand why global warming skeptics think the way they do, it's more about the big picture and how government influences science. (Psst...science is government funded)

People who aren't skeptical of climate science these days are under the assumption that scientists just get paid to research whatever they want. If that were the case, well then maybe that little pie chart would hold any weight. But the fact that I even have to point that out makes me think people are pretty far-removed from skepticism particularly concerning when discerning the sources of their information (and fairly ignorant to the major mistakes that have often been made by scientists regarding climate change). Doesn't seem like it takes much more than some deceptively-portrayed information to turn people into absolute zombies concerning certain subject. Being skeptical of climate change doesn't mean denying it, it just means accepting that the government has incentive to push this sort of research regardless if it's accurate or not, and thus most of those truly capable of making informed opinions on the subject happen to largely be funded with an agenda.

They are not Liberals, they are Progressives. Liberals are against such extreme progressiveness. Matter of fact, i dont even think Progressives accept them.

@samanthademeste: I hope you didn't hope that

He's your typical right-winger living in a fantasy land where logic and science don't exist.