It is most definitely not crap, as anyone who has studied materials science knows.

Ignoring the perils of comparing two completely different bicycles and attributing the differences to "the materials", let's just talk about materials for a bit.

Aluminum parts have to be made strong enough not to break, which is why aluminum components are for the most part stiff. Generally speaking, an equally strong carbon component will be more compliant. But that is not always the case. It depends on the component design.

Neither type of component absorbs vibration, which would require it to convert mechanical motion to heat. Viscoeleastic materials like rubber absorb vibration. Metals and carbon composites do very little absorption.

Now let's talk compliance, the ability to deform under stress. Which component on the bike has the most compliance? If you guessed tires, you were correct. Another component that has similar compliance magnitude is a seatpost, when it is fully extended. Seatposts are long beams, fixed at one end, with a heavy weight (your butt) on the other end. And even here, the compliance difference between a super stiff aluminum post and a super bendy carbon post is about 2 mm (Velo Magazine test).

So whenever I read that carbon is so much more comfortable than X, I have to roll my eyes.