Talk:TheAmazingAtheist

The change hairlesscat wants
In particular the bit where TJ accurately predicted a specific school shooter: without a citation, that seems like an an astoundingly unlikely order of events. Is there any reason to believe that's true? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:05, 30 August 2018 (UTC)


 * {{ping|ikanreed}


 * https://www.wired.com/2007/11/youtuber-warned/
 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIKUWgsIncg --HairlessCat (talk) 22:28, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 22:24, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Seems legit enough. Feel free to add that bit, at least, but make sure you include a citation.  <- something like that. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 13:58, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Opinion on Otherkin
In this video, TJ claims that he'd like to see Otherkin actually become whatever they identify as. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKrjchTKM2Y&t=45s --HairlessCat (talk) 15:23, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Reference 79
I have a qualm with reference 79, where it asserts that "scamming runs in the family" and points to his father's actions. I didn't realize this website runs off of "the sins of the father" type arguments and debases themselves to Christian-level talking points. Is it really appropriate for the "Rational Wiki" (a wiki I have thus enjoyed so far) to be doling out such low level comparisons based on his father's crimes when TJ was a child? I would hope not.

Why is this website so negative towards him?
I mean of course he’s said bad shit in the past but most of the time he’s pretty reasonable. He doesn’t even focus on feminists and “SJWs” much anymore. &mdash; Unsigned, by: 2605:6000:1518:9134:D61:18D3:405F:72BE / talk

He seems to have changed, and the article might need to be updated
I know why this wiki feels the way it does about TJ. I saw his old videos and I went down the rabbit-hole of anti-feminism for a few years. I eventually stopped watching him (and people like Sargon and stuff) and I'm glad I did. I'm in a much better place politically now.

Crazy thing is, it looks like TJ did the same. this video takes a pretty hard-line progressive stance. It takes a minute where he lays the groundwork of how "freedom" is nebulously defined and has to be thought of in terms of individual freedoms, but he pointedly says:


 * "Is there anything on this whole accursed earth funnier than when right-wingers have the temerity to say that they believe in freedom? The conservative inability to process or recognize irony on any level is surely an evolutionary adaptation designed to keep them from laughing at themselves as they try, laughably, hilariously, ludicrously to claim, that "freedom" is one of their alleged "values," as if conservatives have values, or value."


 * "When it comes down to it, the left supports a far more robust and useful array of freedoms than does the right, and in my opinion, it's not particularly close. So for example, if you're a woman who wants to make a decision about her own body, the left has got your back, the right does not." (He also pinned the top comment "private prisons should be abolished.")

Recognizing that his opinions have shifted radically, he did a series of videos on his current opinions late last year. In his video on trans rights, he says "gender is a human construct demonstrably independent of the concept of sex" and "I believe in trans rights because they are human rights, no-one who claims to believe in freedom can possibly oppose trans rights." There is an Abolition of gender bent to it, but not the transphobic kind.

Another video is titled "Mike Huckabee Hates Democracy." Another is titled "Conservative "Carrion" Monster Eats Ess Jay Dubyas!" ("Ess Jay Dubyas" is a way to mock people who talk about "SJWs"). His most recent video is called "WOKES KILLED JOKES (A PragerU/BabylonBee Response)", and appears to be about mocking people who believe the title. Another is George Floyd Gets Justice, and it gets EVERYTHING right:


 * He says police are seemingly given carte blanche to murder people


 * He says that that that license is taken out disproportionately on minorities


 * He points out that they're almost never charged for it, and even when they are, they get away with it even in the face of overwhelming evidence


 * He expresses optimism that the guilty verdict is the start of a change, but reminds the audience that "the fight continues."

There's some stuff that might still be seen as grating, like TJ on SJWs and TJ on Feminism, but I think those videos have nuance, in that they essentially recognize that there are many groups of people with a range of opinions, and that it's just the views of a small fringe that he's against. He's opposed to some forms of feminism and but not to others—and I think anyone on this wiki, except those who No True Scotsman away the forms they don't like, would feel the same way. TJ on BLACK LIVES MATTER expresses a... general support for BLM as a movement, with the caveat that he believes racism will never be destroyed until race as a concept is too. He condemns BLM activists who are racist against white people (yes, I know that that's a meme at this point, but arguing over whether it's possible for group X to be racist against group Y is just arguing over the definition of the word "racist"), but also points out that such racism is not institutional, and thus, that "it is not equally malignant in a broader, social, context."

TL;DR: holy shit you guys, TJ's good now. 206.174.62.254 (talk)


 * Facing dwindling audience, grifter modifies grift. He's still a psychopath who panders the way that psychopaths tend to do. How do you think he got on his anti-feminist, rape apologist crusade on the first place? Needed to increase his audience, and that was how he did it. Same psychopath, different gimmick. Asura (talk) 20:04, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a baseless, heavy accusation to give someone that you should refrain from even insinuating unless you want to give some incredibly solid evidence for such as his style of rhetoric or incidents he's been in and doesn't give a hoot about.--2friedeggs (talk) 23:36, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You're absolutely right, and I don't think Asura's assessment is accurate or fair at all. Perhaps you can add some stuff about his current views and positions. Some of this has already been done. Though I don't think we should forget about his past. SpeedOfLight (talk) 19:20, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Grifter is liberal speak for "I don't like you so I am going to engage in bad faith and slander". If I got a nickel each time some fool accuses another fool who holds some views that the first fool disagrees with, I would have a one dollar bill. Tuxer (talk) 21:31, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Not really. "A person who engages in petty or small-scale swindling".--2friedeggs (talk) 23:36, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It can be thrown around, but same for the other terms like "racist", "anti-vaxxer", "climate change denier", "intellectually dishonest", "snowflake", "SJW", "political hack", "bigot", "asshole", and "Nazi" and so on. In some cases, it's nicer than full on "idiot", as it assumes you don't actually believe the rubbish you spew about vaccinations and climate change. It's practically "troll". Anyhow, "grifter" fits Candace Owens, it fits Tucker Carlson, it fits Trump, it fits a lot of right-wing politicians since, well, they have money and they have education and we just don't believe they're as idiotic and self-contradictory as they sound.
 * It ultimately depends on which political figures you think don't deserve the grifter moniker, but without really good examples of what you're talking about, it's not a really useful observation. 00:32, 15 July 2022 (UTC)