User talk:Hobby

- David Gerard (talk) 20:26, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Reason for revert: Whitewashing! Scream!! (talk) 17:49, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If you can link me to that in the RW guide that would be great. As far as I can tell however you claim I'm censoring out something important. Please tell me what exactly I've censored and I'll fix it. As it stands I fail to see any relevant information that has been removed. I simply changed the tone from assertions to claims made by certain groups. Is this wrong? Does RW hold the views of these certain groups to be somehow sacred?
 * So, I respectfully request that you either justify your statement that I was censoring something out or you return the page to it's previous revision.Hobby (talk) 18:08, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, bugger off to some MRA site, why don't you? You seem to be more suited to them than here. Scream!! (talk) 18:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not an MRA, and even if I was this would be irrelevant. Why don't you bugger off to some Feminazi site? See how it works both ways. No if you would please refer to my comment above and give a valid reason for the revert with specific examples that would be great. Otherwise I see no reason not to return it back to the original edit. Hobby (talk) 18:30, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This is a mobocracy. So far two people have, effectively, voted down your edits. Personally the original gets my vote as well - it suits our SPOV, your edits removed the snark. So, that makes it three to one against. That is good enough reason for me. Placeholder (talk) 18:34, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Finally, someone who can give a valid reason to blindly insult someone based on the mobs misguided opinion. Now if Scream could've said that rather than shouting ridiculous insults and giving a reason that's not in line with the website policy this would've been a lot more pleasant. Hobby (talk) 18:39, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think we all got off on the wrong foot. When you reverted your reversion you came across, rightly or wrongly, as some guy on the internet shouting the odds. Conversely we came across - and I appreciate your points re Scream - as overly hostile and unwelcoming.
 * We are particularly touchy about certain articles and the Thunderfoot article is one of them (another is Anita Sarkeesian(SP?)). This is because they attract drive by editors who wish to change the tone of the article. This is how you came across and, maybe, we were a little quick to bite. If you want to change articles like those it is best to take your thoughts to the talk pages first.
 * So, let's try again.

Placeholder (talk) 18:48, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, sonny, but I'm under no obligation to be in any way nice to you. Now go away. Scream!! (talk) 18:50, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't remove other's comments. Scream!! (talk) 19:23, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You're also under no obligation to imply someone is probably also an MRA just because they're TF fans, so why do it? Nullahnung (talk) 20:01, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Not to mention I just implied he/she's probably a TF fan. I'm a fucking hypocrite again, no news there. Nullahnung (talk) 20:10, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Placeholder. It's nice to hear someone with some genuine input. As I said before, I was trying to help. I've seen the article and assumed that the edit was to remove some kind of vandalism, considering it has comments like "Mason has continued to make ill-informed comments on feminism within the skeptic community, to air his grudges, and to display the same immature attitude to criticism, churning out of a series of bitter and increasingly unhinged videos attacking feminists within the atheist community, typically full of strawman stereotypes and anally literal misinterpretations of their comments." As I've actually seen the videos in question from both sides I find these comments at best one-sided and at worst, biased as fuck. I also saw no justification for this from a sceptical or scientific POV, especially as TF is not the only critic of feminist videos or actions. Hobby (talk) 19:13, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You won't be able to convince people to employ a mellower tone unless you are able to bring convincing arguments for TF's points to present them as reasonable, since the mob holds the view that they are entirely unreasonable. And I realise the article isn't making much effort in terms of argumenting either. That's one of my main issues with it. Nullahnung (talk) 19:19, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the main problem is that the two sides seem to miss each other. The TF side seems to be arguing against what many see as radical and unnecessary feminism, the sort in places like this, which encourages some pretty extreme and certainly not equal ideas. For example, one video criticised this which has been argued as a blatant double standard and pretty offensive to half the planet. These is also the MRA movement which I also see demonised on these pages, yet when I actually go on the MRA page on rational wiki it says "The Good Men Foundation, for example, promotes activism on men's issues, supports charitable foundations such as boys' and girls' clubs, and publishes an online magazine dealing with men's issues that also acts as a forum for dialogue between feminists and men's rights advocates. They focus on criticisms of traditional male gender norms, father's issues, factors affecting at-risk boys in inner-cities, sex and health." Now I'm not saying that suddenly all MRAs are fine, they certainly aren't, but there are groups out there that are trying to achieve equality and happen to think that some of the issues come down pretty strongly on men. It's nothing to do with privileged or wanting things to be the way they were 100 years ago for these groups. Finally, I think it's necessary to direct you here where a group of radical feminists pulled a fire alarm and shouted with megaphones half way through a Men's Issues lecture and subsequently went outside and shouted pretty much non-stop at them without any allowing any possibility of a rational discussion. This isn't the first time this has happened in Toronto either, with people not even necarssarily in support of the ideas in question getting calle "fucking scum". This assumption given by people that feminism is somehow sacred and irreproachable and men's right's movements are almost always "evil" is, in my opinion, just an example of how bad the double standard can get.
 * That's just how I see the issue though. I understand that not everything TF says is directed at the more radical feminists as he simply titles things "feminists", as does TAA. They are making the same mistake people do with weak-strong atheists, young-old earth creationists et cetera. which is that the most extreme in a conversation instantly become the norm, allowing you to attack a whole group on that person's views.
 * Anyway, I'd be glad to know what you think. Hobby (talk) 05:31, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Hate to say this.
I'm really sorry to say this, but… look, just click the link. MĖSSIÅH ØF DØØM  Deserved doom shall be unto you  07:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Your edits to Isla Vista
Good job. I would just like to point out that, while I think tht, for the most part, you're a pretty good editor, it would be a lot better if you just kinda gravitated away from articles regarding the MRM and feminism and whatnot (unless, of course, you're doing useful shit)- that, in my opinion, would much improve the community's view of you, and would likely get your user rights and shit back a lot quicker. THE GREAT RIGHTEØUS DESTRØYER  Solemn strikes the funeral chime  06:20, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

The documentary you're looking for
http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Debate:Why_is_RationalWiki_so_misandristic%3F&diff=prev&oldid=1303576

It might be Hjernevask. --A Real Libertarian (talk) 06:34, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh yer, that's the one. Cheers. Hobby (talk) 13:22, 19 June 2014 (UTC)