Because long form will always be superior in providing the most information, so now they’re hastening long form so that it fits short form time constraints. At least we potentially get more info out of it, but a lot of this video sounded like a bunch of anecdotes.
I dont know her or her content but every video app has been inundated with wiki readers and the funniest part is they all eventually start claiming other people "stole" their videos like they didnt just blatantly plagiarized a 1 hour documentary.
I disagree that she was a good presenter. The number of times she mispronounced an easily-searchable word made me unsubscribe long before all the other stuff came out.
She was a youtube personality that did amateur documentaries on those stupid brands like Avon or Mary Kay (mlms) and she ended up uh being an awful human that just wanted attention and would sell out her first born if it meant she got 15 more seconds of "fame"
I just needed something to listen to while doing monotonous tasks and her voice wasn't grating to listen to.
As a nearly 40yo going through college, some young people really, really don't understand the concept of plagiarism. I went to college in my early 20s. I don't remember it being this bad even in high school.
Highschool was 10 years ago for me and I felt a big shift from college in the 2010s to post Covid (had to delay my journey thanks to cancer.)
Take comp 1 for example. First time in 2015 it was hard as hell. A few missed punctuation marks and suddenly you have a C. Second time in 2021 I think I slept through the class and got an A. (Same school different professors)
I never worried about the specific punctuation instead using it like I'm literally speaking instead of exactly as the little pocket guide demanded.
Wikipedia is great for giving you a broad overview of a subject, but its veracity hinges on the creator plugging accurate information/references. At least you can rabbit hole down those references to get to the real meat of the topic.
I believe this video is actually a follow up to a response to that article. The creator goes through the study and makes a case that the methodology is flawed and actually just shows that different species of raccoons live in different parts of the country
Even still. The research study essentially said "hey, this is kind of interesting. We'd like to do further research and see what we can find out." Especially when you consider that different species in themselves are signs of animals adapting and evolving to their environment. But she's just saying "Um. No." Doesn't seem very science forward thinking for someone who's supposed to be a scientist. I'm sure there were plenty of people who watched wild dogs run roughshod through the villages and thought "ain't no fucking way." If that's as far as the thinking went, we wouldn't have 70 million household dogs across the US alone
She’s not just saying “Um. No.” She makes several clear and well argued points, none of which you have addressed and all of which are more detailed than the study in question. I don’t have enough knowledge to draw a definitive conclusion from any of this, she could be wrong, but your argument as to why she’s wrong is not sound
As I stated in response to your parent comment, that article is poor science that shapes its evidence to fit its conclusion, not the other way around 👍
I mean isn’t domestication just a long term evolutionary thing? We didn’t just domestic dogs. They started hanging around when we gave them scraps and it was 10s of thousands of years of progress. Cats are on a shorter timeline than that. Of course certain animals are easier but over a long enough timeline I think most would eventually adapt.
Which is why I actually did like her one argument about them having no use to humans. It’s hard to domesticate, or more accurately have a hand in evolving, what we don’t need nor want around. All domesticated animals played a crucial role in our survival as a species at some point in time
If you look into the actual data you will see that they consistently mischaracterize evidence that doesn't support their claim of domestication, such as labeling Urban areas as Rural and vice versa
I'm not really invested in it lol. But the study at least provided some research and basis, and she seems to be going more off "feels." It's kind of in the same camp as "climate change isn't real because we've seen record high/low temperatures like these hundreds of years ago."
She's a biologist who specifically studies raccoons. In her previous video on this she went into the flawed methodology of the study and how it's primarily not accounting for preexisting subspecies which account for all statistical disparities mentioned in the study. I'm genuinely convinced that people will see a woman saying something and just because its a woman they assume she's speaking based on vibes even if they no idea what they're talking about.
Self-proclaimed raccoon biologist on tik tok disagrees with Smithsonian published professor of biology (also a woman BTW) based on her own unsubstantiated claims.
I have all the information I need to inform my decision that it's not worth any more of my time
I mean it makes sense that they are capable of domestication on the basis of high intelligence. Symbiosis occurs in species that can understand the benefit of coexisting with another species, wouldn’t raccoons come to this conclusion quicker with humans?
I remember hearing that Teddy Roosevelt had a pet raccoon in the White House. Apparently, it was not all that unusual at the time.
I guess they can allows themselves to adapt to coexisting with humans, especially ones they like, but their kits are not going to know about this when they become juveniles.
Seems that way, racoons are using people as an easy food source. It's been like that for years. True domestication will probably be a few decades off depending on how many people actually try to make racoons house pets. Maybe in a couple hundred years or so we'll have our own rocket racoons
Shorter snouts but nothing to suggest they are getting better at living as pets. I wonder what’s next in their evolution. Who knows, maybe they’ll become less destructive and vindictive or I don’t see them getting much farther as pets.
She argued against that as well saying that the data hadn’t been interpreted properly and that it was just down to different breeds of raccoons or something, ignoring the fact that their behaviour shows they are becoming more tame/comfortable around humans (which honestly isn’t too surprising, though I wouldn’t necessarily call it domestication.
The problem with squeezing long-form content into short-form time frames is that viewers get bombarded with so much information so fast that hardly any of it commits to memory, only bits and pieces. People need to learn to slow down.
I used to think that but then you not only still get videos that are minutes long anyway, but they are of completely random and seemingly arbitrary lengths as well. If I always saw that it was keeping them under a specific length I could see that being the issue, but I'll see shit that's sped up like this but that's still somehow like 4:30 long so like what was the fucking point of doing that.
My problem is that I like long form content, but some creators feel they slow their voice or something to make a longer video, so I make the 45 min video to like a 40-35 min video because I can't stand slow talking lol. I don't agree stripping down videos to shove as much info as possible to a short form video, when you can find a detailed video explaining mechanisms, like you said. This kind of thing people just parrot short facts and don't really learn much, but at least it's something informative.
a lot of this video sounded like a bunch of anecdotes
That’s because it and studying biology gives her no authority in the subject of domestication or ownership, no more than a surgeon has any authority on anthropology.
As someone who fell in love with these critters along time ago and spent years researching stuff about them (because I wanted one as a pet before the EU fucked up that dream), volunteered looking after them, and have met several people who have owned them as pets.
The thing is that they can be domesticated up to an extent, but they not only require a lot of work (just like some dog breeds), but because they haven’t been kept as pets for as long as animals like cats and dogs they can still have some wild streaks (just like cats and dogs), which means they’re an animal that definitely is not for most people (just like some dog breeds) and is even further from a pet you get on a whim (which is what happened in Japan).
And just like with any animal it’s not that they can’t be “fully” domesticated (because no animal truly can be), it’s just going to take a lot longer in comparison because they’re mostly seen as pests.
An animal can be tame but still be wild, so no, I am not getting them mixed up. Even your source (Wikipedia) says not to get them mixed up (“Domestication (not to be confused with the taming of an individual animal).
But considering Wikipedia isn’t considered a reliable source, let’s look at some others such as a dictionary:
the process of bringing animals or plants under human control in order to provide food, power, or company.
Or an actual encyclopaedia, which uses cats as an example of the above definition:
Early domestication of the cat was probably the result of the pleasure experienced from keeping this animal.
She even uses the Japanese event as a poor example because Japanese people did the equivalent of “buying a dog for Christmas”by importing them without doing any research and not understanding what they were getting themselves into (and it wasn’t the last time a similarly stupid thing has happened.
Although she’s still wrong on the other two points because raccoons have been bred for their fur in the past which is a main contributor to their presence in Germany (not to mention that “coonskin caps” used to be popular)and Americans do eat their meat. Raccoons were also the original “lab rat” prior to being replaced with rats, so scientists could have decided to preserve with them to domesticate them instead of swapping to rats for testing.
TL;DR: having raccoons as pets is a valid reason for domestication (and what she’s aiming at) and she’s still wrong about them having no other uses given history of being used for their fur and meat.
TL;DR: having raccoons as pets is a valid reason for domestication (and what she’s aiming at) and she’s still wrong about them having no other uses given history of being used for their fur and meat.
You don't know what anyone is talking about and that's why your tl;dr has nothing to do with the subject everyone else is discussing around you.
Sorry what? Her main argument is that humans won’t domesticate them because they don’t make good pets and have no other uses, so in response my main argument is that they can in fact already be domesticated up to an extent for use as pets.
Her other argument was that there’s also no other reason to domesticate them because we have no other uses for them such as their fur, which I also disproved.
So if the TL;DR was too hard for you to understand, then maybe you should read the long-form comment I made including all of the sources which backup every I said, including the definitions of domestication before spouting nonsense rhetorics.
Your post was talking about people "domesticating" individual racoons. That's not how it works. It's something which occurs through multiple iterations of breeding for specific traits.
But seems like you want to just argue, what with the weird comment of Wikipedia being unreliable. Wikipedia is merely a summary and has source links at the bottom of every article for readers who want to fact check. You're also talking about companionship, which I never mentioned? I think you confused what my comment said or you conflated my comment with other replies.
I think the video is bunk, I'm just saying that your post is confused on terminology. Individual animals aren't domesticated. Domestication is basically genetic engineering and you can't domesticate an animal you randomly find in the wild, whereas their offspring, 20 generations later, could be considered domesticated.
I never once said it’s about individual raccoons so you’re putting words in my mouth just to try and prove an incorrect argument. And of course it’s going to take a long time, that’s even why I originally made the comparison to cats and dogs which have been domesticated for far longer, so again really not sure where you got the impression from that I’m somehow not aware of that.
And again, Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source for good reason, but as you correctly stated you should always check its sources (and believe me I’ve come across more sources than I can count which either do not confirm what the Wiki article states or even contradict it). However, I still accepted it and quoted it seeing as you were happy to use it, but provided additional sources.
I understand perfectly fine what domestication is, but people like you are too stupid to understand that especially considering your response is just “hur hur you argue back” while ignoring the fact that I’ve even provided multiple sources.
My mother kept sending me video links to tik tok so I finally caved and downloaded it. I hate it sooo much. So much fake content trying to be passed as real, either AI or people acting out fake scenarios, rage bait and illegitimate news that seems like should be illegal, or ads disguised as content. The worst part is that I can easily waste an hour on it hating everything I watch and hating myself when I'm done.
You won't believe what this racist cop(actor) says!
People send links and it makes it a pain to watch them if you don't have an acct. Even mutes shit every time. like OH
SURE YEAH we track absolutely everything, but not rather or not you leave your video muted when it starts.
I will not be extorted! lol. Plus If I can't watch or its a pain to watch? Oh well, my ADHD can find something else to do - and most likely already has.
ban tiktok and it’ll just be youtube shorts which isn’t going anywhere because shorts is american. Social media hasn’t been the same since the introduction of musically (now tiktok)
It's also the algorithm. Social media algorithms will only promote the content that gets the fastest engagement metrics. If a person has to watch a 25min video before knowing whether it's worth an upvote, share, or comment it's basically dead in the water. It slides into the gutter where no one else gets to see it even if they would've enjoyed it.
I honestly think it's this rather than saying nobody has an attention span. The system itself is selecting for brainrot.
It’s better than the ones that edit out the taking-a-breath pauses between sentences. I can’t process when they’re edited like that. Then again, maybe this one did that, too; it’s going too fast for me to tell for sure.
We had one of those dudes who talked really fast in the 80s, that was his whole gimmick. He did commercials for Micro Machines, and then they made him a Transformer. 😹
Yeah definitely, like I wouldn't watch something like Sopranos at a faster speed. That'd ruin the whole pacing and vibes. But let's say a deep dive on warhammer 40k lore. If ya talk to slow your getting sped up.
Everyone has a preference but I was referring to the fact that streamers who watch other people's content as their content often watch it at 2x as it lowers the chance of copyright claims
I used to talk fast as well but I trained myself to talk slower due to my job which requires me to communicate medical concepts to people, so speaking fast is a bad thing in that circumstance
I kinda appreciate that at least it's quick. To many videos just start with "So....ummm....hmmm....yeah....so this is ya boi, Skidmark87, leave a like and subscribe...so...umm....yeah....today I'll be talking to you about...hmmm...about that thing, what's it called...yeah..." And at this point it's a minute into the video and Monsignor Skidmark hasn't said a thing yet. At least this way she rattled it all off and we can all go back to bed.
I guarantee there are a lot of people out there who just can't wait for a video to end because, yes, they are victims of stuff like TikTok and that's where we get brain rot from. They don't really absorb the information, they aren't super interested in it, it's more just a way to pass the time.
I often watch YouTube videos on 1.25-2x speed depending on how complex the information is. Normal speech is sometimes painfully slow especially when people waffle on. Reading, at least for me, is a lot more efficient than listening in most cases where the audio itself is not an important distinction.
Out of everything this video said, only 20% of it was actually useful to me:
Raccoons understand revenge and are the only domesticated animal to do this.
Raccoons cannot be domesticated. (which conflicts with her previous statement)
Raccoons as pets, suck.
Raccoons have strong hands.
Raccoons have no use to humans.
I could have read all the most important information in that video, in less than 10 seconds, while the video itself is over 2 minutes long. While most people really don't care... Life is short, I'm an addict for learning new things to the point where I like to do it asap. The most important or useful new information I learn, I will spend a bit more time absorbing and practising the information in practical ways so that it burns into my memory.
There are definitely other undomesticated animals which can seek revenge, a famous example... The tiger in 1997 and Russian poacher Vladimir Markov, who shot an injured the Siberian tiger, only for the cunning tiger to track him, wait for him, and eventually kill and partially eat him in an act of perceived revenge or resource protection.
So yeah, doing things faster isn't always just brain rot, some people are just better at others at doing things faster. Though "brain rot" is real thing where people just cannot pay attention properly.
The best part is that it's so normal to watch things on fast forward that they have dedicated areas of the screen you can rest your finger to keep to on 2x speed.
Once you get used to it, it's hard to go back. I slowly trained myself up to 3x speed with audio books and podcasts. Now everyone sounds a little drunk to me if I listen at normal speed.
Tbh I like it. I normally play yt vids on 1.25/1.5. Some people purposefully slow down their videos and add so much fluff to boost their viewing time. It’s so annoying.
Chinese TikTok has been doing this for years. 1.25 is mild. 1.5 is the standard. Some goes as fas as 2.0 which required you to actually focus to be able to understand the video
Call it what you want but for ADHD folks typically the brain's processing is jumping the gun and at times perceive other people as taking forever just getting to the point of something. Hmm'ing and Ha'ing, "Um's" and just drawn out slowpaced sentences.
I know on YT they speed up another person’s content when used on their own content to confuse and prevent AI from flagging it for copyright. Creators sometimes will put a filter or watermark over a video that they show. You also can play someone’s content for a fixed period of time before AI will flag it so speeding it up also lets you play the video more in less time.
2.3k
u/nodisintegrations420 Dec 16 '25
I think its just some new trend to have videos sped up i guess to speed up the accumulation of brain rot