I agree that she absolutely is fostering an “anti-establishment” audience, she’s also doing it in a lackadaisical way and that’s harmful. A good example of thi

I agree that she absolutely is fostering an “anti-establishment” audience, she’s also doing it in a lackadaisical way and that’s harmful. A good example of this was on her video on free will, she made the argument that free will does not exist because human brains operate on principles that are deterministic. She followed that conclusion with a tirade on climate change and how people should stop trying to build the “political will” to do something on climate change, because free will does not exist. I have to wonder what the reasoning behind including that in a video was. It absolutely alienates anyone working on building coalitions for climate solutions, and she didn’t even need to bring up the topic to make her point. You could say that she could be making that point to curry some favor with people who do not believe in climate change and would like to see content by a scientist, with credentials, indicating skepticism. However, she has videos that talk about the drivers behind climate change in detail that are in line with the scientific consensus on the issue. It makes zero sense to me from a messaging stand point why she takes contrarian views on social issues. I can appreciate the scientists who stay out of the limelight because, while many are smart, not all are “media trained” and are wise enough to know it. Scientists who drift into fame, but are not equipped to navigate it, are controlled by the whims of the public they serve.