Since it's apparently fine to demand things from strangers on the internet, you will need to provide me payment for the research you're asking me to do to provide you with these examples.

Or not. You can go on living your life believing whatever random video pops up on your youtube recommended list without ever questioning it. Why would you think I should care if you believe in weird shit? The onus on you to question the content you get on the internet, not on other people to debunk every single video an algorithm shoves in your face.

Did you watch the entirety of BBT?

I'll watch your video after you've watch BBT an analyzed it yourself. Otherwise what's the point of discussing anything with you rather than whoever made the video you linked?

I haven't watched the entirely of BBT, but I've seen enough episodes to know the thesis of the video that you're repeating (without doing any verification yourself) is false.

Are you paid by the person that made the video? Why do you feel the need to defend something that's discussing something you're unfamiliar with? We aren't talking about some arcane secret scrolls that are locked away under guard that only a few are allowed to view. It's a popular TV show that you could watch yourself to check whether the video is correct. Why won't you do this? Why do you trust a random youtube video that has a profit motive in promoting a false narrative over people that have actually looked at the source material under discussion?

Yeah and Bill Maher said Justin Trudeau was a dictator because he called some protesters disgusting. He left out the part where the particular protesters he was referring to had Swastika flags.

So would you say the Bill Maher took Trudeau's words out of context? If so you're no different from your father in law. Therefore you're a fan of Rush Limbaugh!

See how easy it is to take things out of context and use specious logic to form a narrative about anything?

This is why critical thinking is important. The point Justin Trudeau was making was the Nazis are disgusting, therefore Bill Maher was taking things out of context. The point of Rush Limbaugh was right wing grifting, so him saying shitty things isn't out of context.

Applying even more critical thinking, how are fictional stories different from political commentators? Stories often have character arcs where a character starts out as being wrong, they learn something, improve themselves and are no longer wrong. So you can easily make many stories appear to bad in a political context by giving examples from the earlier part of a story (where the character was wrong) and leave out the part of the story where the character learned they were wrong and why.

Political critiques of works of fiction are fertile grounds for grifters to create false narratives. They should always be taken with a grain of salt. Did you see Ben Shapiro's critique of the Barbie Movie? Really convincing if you never saw the movie.

I haven't watch all of BBT but I've seen enough that I can tell you that in the beginning they were losers with misogynistic tendencies. Women are disgusted by them and rightfully so. Over the course of the show they learn to respect women and because of this they are able to form healthy relationships. Yup, you can pick out examples of misogyny, but how do you tell a story about misogyny being bad if you cannot portray misogynistic tendencies out of fear of "video essays" taking it out of context to create a false narrative?

What do you mean? Does it just direct you to the YouTube homepage? It takes me to the video essay in question.

As I expected, a lot of the scenes where from Season 1 and/or taken out of context.

After watching the video I'd still argue that calling a show misogynistic that has has 90% misandristic jokes and 10% misogynistic jokes is misleading at best. Yes the show definitely has misogynistic jokes in it, but singling out that aspect of such a train wreck of a show only harms any real discussion about the topic.