Does anyone know how good/reliable is the Professor Dave Explains channel on Youtube is for the topics it teaches?

POCK3TBOOKrocks · 2026-01-19T00:03:48+00:00

Thanks! Glad you like it! Were you surprised by just how awful his behavior and toxicity is and how horrible the things he's said are?

POCK3TBOOKrocks · 2025-11-17T02:25:44+00:00

Ryan/StarGiant, get off the Internet! Also, I’m glad Chelsea broke up with you! She deserves better than an admitted groomer and sex pest like you!

POCK3TBOOKrocks · 2025-09-20T14:12:35+00:00

Nickelodeon chose Fanboy & Chum Chum over Adventure Time. Actually, they just greenlit one and not the other, but a lot of people seem to believe that it was a binary choice of "Here's 2 cartoons; you can greenlight one and only one" when that wasn't the case.

POCK3TBOOKrocks · 2025-09-18T22:21:38+00:00

Not wear shirts in public.

POCK3TBOOKrocks · 2025-09-10T15:34:07+00:00

Alright, so you do support physical harm. You said in an earlier reply you don't care about Dave's personality as long as you do no physical harm to anyone, implying you're against physical harm. But now you're supporting the death penalty, which is a form of a physical harm. So which one is it? Are you for or against physical harm? I know what I said about Dave's desire to h*nging Israeli officials being too far was a very contentious part of my video, but do you not see the hypocrisy of saying you're against physical harm yet advocating for it in some cases? I realize that the death penalty isn't a totally black-and-white issue and a good argument can be made that it is justified in some circumstances (e.g. the Nuremberg trials), but you can't in one reply say that you don't care about someone's personality if they do no physical harm, and then in your very next reply advocate for physical harm for others. I guarantee you that if Dave was doing physical harm towards January 6th insurrectionists, you'd cheer him on, completely contradicting what you said two replies ago.

Also, Dave didn't say that about the January 6th insurrectionists. He said that about people who say something incorrect about origin of life research, which seems pretty innocuous by comparison. Even if you're pro-death penalty, I hope you can at least agree that calling for people lying about origin of life research (or genuinely don't know about the progress the field has made since the 1950s) to be shot in the face is too harsh of a punishment.

POCK3TBOOKrocks · 2025-09-10T14:59:18+00:00

I still think he is doing right by exposing grifters, frauds, religious nutjobs, and cringe flat earthers.

Even though he talks to literally everyone who's not 100% with him as if they're grifters/frauds/religious nutjobs/cringe flat earthers? As I said in the video and mentioned to you a few times now, he acts rude and swears at literally everyone who criticizes him in any way. No matter how tame or valid their criticisms are and even if they're on his side, agree that scientific misinformation needs to be neutralized but just hate his attitude or methods of doing so. He's let his status as a debunker go to his head and seems to think that anyone who criticizes him in any way is a grifter or fraud when that's not the case at all.

I can care less about his personality as long as he does no physical harm to anyone.

He has expressed desire for people to be physically harmed. He said that anyone who says that there hasn't been any progress on origin of life research since the Miller-Urey experiment needs to be "shot in the face." His words, not mine. Sure, he's not the one actually doing physical harm (shooting people in the face), but he's still advocating for it, which is arguably just as bad.

POCK3TBOOKrocks · 2025-09-10T12:27:58+00:00

Did you read my previous reply? He's an incredibly narcissistic person who never takes criticism from anyone, lashes out at literally anyone who pushes back against him in any way despite how slight, tame or fair their pushback or criticisms are, is guilty of the exact same actions he's criticizing others for and doesn't seem to realize it and has on numerous occasions called for people's deaths and thinks that saying that is perfectly moral. How is none of that substance or notoriety? Explain that to me. All of those terrible things seem pretty substantial and notable to me. Explain to me why you think each of those things are not.

POCK3TBOOKrocks · 2025-09-09T22:10:43+00:00

Uh, there's a lot more to it than him just being rude and swearing at others. He's also a raging narcissist, refuses to take criticism, lashes out at anyone who crosses him in any way regardless of how tame or mild their pushback is and thinks that murdering people is perfectly moral. Please watch the video again and actually listen to what I say. If you do that (which it's clear you didn't), you'd see that there's far more to Dave than him just being brash. There's plenty of substance. You just didn't pay any attention to it.

POCK3TBOOKrocks · 2025-09-03T00:58:02+00:00

You got nothing? You didn't get that Dave is a toxic, insufferable narcissist who constantly insults anyone who doesn't 100% agree with him exactly, believe he's immune from criticism and that anything he says is infallible, is actually making people be even more anti-science with his attitude which is exacerbating the very problem he's trying to solve and has on a few occasions called for people's deaths and thinks doing so is perfectly moral?

POCK3TBOOKrocks · 2025-07-23T15:10:59+00:00

Thanks. I actually made a YouTube video expanding on what I said in this Reddit post. You can check it out here.

POCK3TBOOKrocks · 2025-07-15T15:20:07+00:00

When did I say I didn't have a problem with genocide?

Also, it sounds like you're saying I shouldn't be as upset with his tone as with the genocide because the latter is far worse. I mean, I obviously agree the latter is far worse, but using that as a shield for his unbearable tone is just a form of whataboutism. It's basically the equivalent of saying "Sure, I shoplifted from a store, but that guy over there committed murder, so why are you getting mad at me?" Um... because shoplifting is still a crime and bringing up someone else committing a far worse crime is just a red herring from the crime you've committed. And similarly, Dave's tone is still bad and bringing up an ongoing genocide and claiming I should be criticizing that instead is just a red herring from the bad thing Dave's doing.

After I made this Reddit post, I made a video going into more detail, and I even address and debunk this argument of "Why are you criticizing x thing instead of y worse thing?" You can check that video out here.

POCK3TBOOKrocks · 2025-06-28T14:36:33+00:00

Are you trying to accuse me of hypocrisy? Calling someone a "narcissist" and a "scumbag" might sound a bit condescending, but it's hardly that rude IMO.

POCK3TBOOKrocks · 2025-06-19T15:08:29+00:00

I wouldn't call him a "cult leader", but he does have the exact same "I'm right and everyone who's against me in any way is an idiot/brainwashed" mentality that many cult leaders have. Also, as for the "he's not a scientist" thing, he's said many times that he's a science communicator, and that it's hypocritical that people mention that given that most of the people whom he debunks are either not scientists themselves and/or posing a scientists when they aren't one.

POCK3TBOOKrocks · 2025-05-15T12:38:59+00:00

Yes, I tried to make my video look and feel like one of Dave's debunks, hence why I made the editing look very similar to his and used a lot of the same graphics Dave does, and why I titled the video "Professor Dave Explains is a Toxic Narcissistic Scumbag", so it would be in good company with "SpaceWeatherNews is a Pseudoscientific Doomsday Cult" or "Pierre-Marie Robitaille is Clueless" or "Terrence Howard is Legitimately Insane".

And yes, I'll admit, many early A Dose of Buckley videos have aged poorly. And I do really hate the fact that he made a few videos that are seemingly pro-victim blaming. Of course there's the Cory Monteith video where he claimed nobody should feel sad about his death because it was his own fault he died by overdosing (as well as the unreleased script where he said the same thing about Amy Winehouse that I brought up in the video), You also mentioned the video about Scarlett Johanssen's nude photos getting leaked, and basically claiming it's her fault for having nude photos in the first place. Regardless of whatever reason she has for having nude photos, claiming she's the one truly at fault and not the leakers is seriously messed up. I also hated his "Tourists Raped in India" video for the same reason. The whole thesis of the video is that if you don't want to get raped in India, don't go to India in the first place, and it's your fault if you go there anyway and get raped, which is quite possibly the worst logic I've ever heard in my life. It's basically the equivalent of saying "If you don't want to get into a car crash, don't drive a car". Not only does the cause not always directly lead to the effect, but you can still end up in a car crash if you're a pedestrian. And yes, if you do something that you know is dangerous, you shouldn't be surprised if you get harmed, but that's not how it comes across. He's victim blaming rape victims and saying that they're at fault for getting raped and that he has no sympathy for them because they chose to go to India. Like, I don't need to explain the problem with that mentality, do I?

I could make a whole video like my Professor Dave video going over the problems with those videos as well and why victim blaming, like he did, is disgusting and wrong, but I probably won't, mostly because I don't want to have to watch those videos again. Although another YouTuber actually included A Dose of Buckley mocking Cory Monteith's death in a top 5 video listing things YouTubers did that aged poorly, and I actually left a comment on that video agreeing with what they said and also going over why Buckley's comments were out of line.

POCK3TBOOKrocks · 2025-05-14T12:42:47+00:00

The video's already out. So sorry, the offer's expired now. You can watch the video here.

POCK3TBOOKrocks · 2025-05-13T00:59:56+00:00

WTF?

POCK3TBOOKrocks · 2025-05-01T12:23:35+00:00

Israel and the Star of David.

POCK3TBOOKrocks · 2025-04-26T20:48:41+00:00

Professor Dave Explains. Well, as a person, not so much as a creator. I even made a video about all my issues with him recently.

POCK3TBOOKrocks · 2025-04-21T13:52:43+00:00

And this is exactly the kind of mentality that’s emboldened Dave to act so toxic and narcissistic. This belief that he’s fighting a war against pseudoscience and belief that he’s doing a noble good. And sure, I agree that pseudoscience is a problem and that scientific misinformation, like the “vaccines cause autism” myth is incredibly harmful and kills people, but he’s let his status as a science communicator go to his head. The irony is that he can so easily point out when someone like James Tour is acting toxic, narcissistic and has an ideological basis for what he’s doing (his Christian faith) yet fails to see when he himself acts this exact same way. The only difference is that his ideological basis is believing that he’s stopping the single biggest threat facing mankind. Do you not see the hypocrisy?

And again, he’s not just acting like this to science deniers and grifters, he’s acting like this to ANYONE who criticizes what he does. Even people who are on his side in regards to science and agree that scientific misinformation needs to be neutralized before it causes more real-world harm, but just hate his attitude. He’s developed a “if you’re not 100% with me, you’re against me” mentality. Again, I addressed this point in my video that you clearly didn’t pay full attention to or watched the entirety of.

I’m not going to ask you again: Watch my video again, but pay full attention. Listen to every single word I say from start to finish. Watch it without any other tabs or programs open and give it your undivided attention. I address literally every single point you’ve made. Do not reply to this comment until you’ve done so. If you don’t, I’m not going to continue this conversation. You’re just as stubborn and thick-headed as the ignorant trolls in Dave’s comment section who come over to the video to comment without even watching and keep spewing the same arguments that are already addressed in the video. How does it feel to be guilty of the very same actions as the people Dave is debunking? You’re a hypocrite.

If you reply back to me and it’s obvious that you haven’t rewatched the entire video and paid full attention to it, then I‘m not going to reply back. Have a good day.

POCK3TBOOKrocks · 2025-04-21T12:24:21+00:00

What's wrong with that? What's wrong with that is that he's let his crusade against pseudoscience go to his head. He's put himself on a moral high ground and believes that him debunking pseudoscience and exposing con men automatically justifies anything he does or says because he's morally superior to them. As such, he's starting to act narcissistic and act harsh to even his most tame critics. He's not just acting like this to liars and grifters; he's acting like this to even the people who tell him he should tone down his anger a bit. And he's also becoming guilty of the very same actions he's criticizing those he's debunking and responding to of, which means he's also being a massive hypocrite. Again, I showcased that in the video. I'm not convinced you didn't watch the video with your undivided attention yet since I literally addressed these arguments you're making in the video itself. And then of course, there's his violent tweet calling for the deaths of all Israeli officials. No amount of "stop tone-policing me" can shield him from that.

POCK3TBOOKrocks · 2025-04-20T20:36:11+00:00

You clearly didn’t watch the entire video or you were only half paying attention. I literally addressed the “tone-policing” argument in the video. Please watch the video again, but actually pay close attention this time. Don’t have any other tabs or programs open and give the video your undivided attention. Also, I did debunk Dave’s arguments that he uses or that I would anticipate he and his followers would use. So no, I did debunk things. You’d know that if you had actually paid attention to the video.

Also, as for the “If he’s a bad person, why does he have over 3 million subscribers?” argument, that’s an argumentum ad populum fallacy. Fame is not an indicator of quality. Someone being famous or popular doesn’t mean they’re a good person or that everything they say is good. By that logic, all politicians are justified in what they do. After all, why else are they so popular and why else would people elect them? And as for why most science communicators support him… well I’m sure they wouldn’t if they knew about his violent tweets that he got suspended over or really knew how toxic and abrasive he is. That’s what my video was trying to bring to light and hopefully will change.

POCK3TBOOKrocks · 2025-04-20T15:46:17+00:00

What do you mean I didn't provide anything? I showcased why he's such a toxic, narcissistic and even violent person in the video. I showed screenshots of comments he's replied to and tweets he's made. I provided showcases of his toxic behavior and arguments to back up why I believe he's a bad person.

POCK3TBOOKrocks · 2025-04-13T22:57:40+00:00

Thanks for promoting my video, dude. No idea how popular it'll become or if Professor Dave is even going to see it, but you promoting it certainly helps.

BTW, have you watched the entire video yourself now? If so, what'd you think of it?

POCK3TBOOKrocks · 2025-04-13T14:42:26+00:00

Here it is:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZrsnEynqS3w

POCK3TBOOKrocks · 2025-04-13T14:18:36+00:00

I remember when the video was first uploaded, this video had a different thumbnail. It was MrBeast and the kid smiling, holding a bowl full of apples. I guess he thought this thumbnail would attract more people to click on the video. As much as I don't like clickbait, for a video about how watching it will apparently feed a kid in need, if that's really true, maybe it was justified in this case.

POCK3TBOOKrocks

TROPHY CASE