Talk:Thunderf00t/Archive5

Thunderf00t vs. Solar Roadways
Solar Roadways responds to the f00t's videos. Is this worth including? I have no opinion on the plausibility of solar roadways, but the original video seems to have some pretty basic errors. (We won't be able to see LEDs in sunlight, seriously?) Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 15:58, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The LED thing is clarified in the next video. The power requirements would be too astronomical to be economical. Zero (talk - contributions) 16:06, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That page doesn't seem exclusively focused on Thunderf00t, and without having seen both their video and TF's, I can say how much of it is relevant. It provides a few examples of the Galileo gambit, though. I don't think it's worth mentioning.--ZooGuard (talk) 17:58, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I think this is the original video. Again, IANAE (I am not an engineer), so I have no opinion. Just wondering if it would be relevant for inclusion. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:16, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Endorsement of the Chart
Part 19 of the "Why people laugh at creationists?" series apparently cites the Chart in all seriousness.--ZooGuard (talk) 18:03, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You were expecting accurate historical information here? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:21, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * As a History student, I feel I must point out that the Renaissance was not a period of rapid scientific advancement. While that was a period when people no longer had to be Theologians to be respectable members of the scientific community, it was also a period when virtually anybody could become a teacher. The Renaissance is more akin to the Internet - lots of possibilities for mass-scientific advancement (email, crowdsourcing), but more focus spent on reviving pre-Christian religious beliefs (New Age, neo-paganism, astrology) or just obviously-wrong pseudoscience taught by people not qualified in their respective eras.-- 2.97.9.75 (talk) 16:05, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Weird sections
The section "Eric Hovind OFFICIALLY accepts that atheism is true and accurate" does not seem to really say anything other than link to a video with that name. Perhaps someone can add some text explaining why this is a relevant video or the historical interest or whatever (my changes all get reverted, so no point me doing it). It seems to me a bit weird, maybetitle the section Kent Hovind, and add something about why the vide with that title was posted...? Also the section on twitter seems to be out of date, can someone work out when the account was reactivated and bring it up to date. 92.227.228.148 (talk) 23:11, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Not looking forward to this...
Lately he has been tweeting about doing a Anita parody video, including a plaid shirt and hoop earrings. I an not looking forward to watching this to defend against it. Ugh. Zero (talk - contributions) 15:19, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh good. I can skip the video now. The short answer is he is not getting the point about gender neutrality. 14:28, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * What point did he miss? He showed how Anita's claims that women are portrayed in the media as objects can EQUALLY be mirrored by men who are seen as punching bags and human targets. How is that NOT neutral? Hobby (talk) 17:44, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Equally, sure. [[image:nods.gif]] Seriously, that's an awful video.  What a cretin.  18:06, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yet he has an audience and his videos easily influence people. It would be nice to have some sort of refutation, if not to the level of detail of a point-by-point, but something more than just a "short answer", as Zero puts it. Nullahnung (talk) 18:32, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I would love to see a refutation, although how you can refute a parody while leaving the original unscathed is beyond me. Hobby (talk) 04:00, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The parody is an inane strawman and "refuting" it would be giving it unnecessarily validation as well as a waste of time. There's no need for us to add an individual 'response' to every video this guy posts.  22:20, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't really understand the argument that a lot of people use that refuting something gives it validation. If it's wrong, then it's not valid and could be refuted. If a lot of people get swayed by something wrong, even more reason to refute it. That said, you may be right that it's a relative waste of time. Nullahnung (talk) 22:43, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * If you can back your own statements up and show it's a strawman then you would actually show that the video is invalid, therefore refuting it. So how is it a straw man? Hobby (talk) 15:04, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The missing implication in your post above, "Anita's claims that women are portrayed in the media as objects can EQUALLY be mirrored by men who are seen as punching bags and human targets.", is incomplete. That particular sentiment on its own (namely, that there are problems with the representation of men as well), Sarkeesian would almost certainly agree with. Thunderf00t's videos about Anita Sarkeesian, claiming that she's complaining over nothing, add an unwarranted conclusion to that statement. Namely: "Therefore, there's absolutely nothing wrong with the way women are portrayed, and she should stop complaining". It's nothing more than the usual anti-feminist "men have problems too, therefore women should shut up about their problems" nonsense, and is refuted in exactly the same way (namely, that pointing out problems in x do not mean that different problems in y are nonexistent or unimportant). It's a shame that he's reduced himself to this, really. I used to be a huge fan of thunderf00t. ChrisB (talk) 09:02, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That was not the point of TFs vid. He explained that it's NOT a problem in multiple previous and later vids because people aren't effected by these characters and the stereotypes only exist to make game design easy, and as a result of sexual dimorphism. So he is not using one to cancel the other out. He is using one to show how ridiculous it is to claim that the other is even a problem. Did you not catch this when he talked about fps games causing people to kill each other. Especially when Anita says something about people being more effected by media more when they don't think it effects them. So did you watch the vid honestly, or did you watch it just to hate on it? 66.177.46.167 (talk) 17:32, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * For violence in video games multiple studies have shown that this does not make us more violent. As for sexism in video games, it just reflects and reinforces the sexism that we already exhibit in society, which might not make us more sexist, alright, I'll give you that (though we don't know that for sure, since there aren't any studies for that, afaik), but it is sexist in itself. See the difference? Whether the stuff affects the audience doesn't even need to enter the equation. Violence shown in video games is not really violence, now is it. Sexism in the making of video games is really sexism (putting gratuitous boob physics everywhere for example, is an expression of sexism, as that is really... distracting and objectifying). Nullahnung (talk) 19:14, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "Sexism in the making of video games is really sexism" No it isn't. It's as fictional as the violence.
 * "(putting gratuitous boob physics everywhere for example, is an expression of sexism," No it's not.
 * "as that is really... distracting and objectifying)." Distraction isn't sexism. "Objectification", an inept, ludicrous and overused term itself, requires specific conditions in order to become sexism... or qualify as "objectification", for that matter. 93.223.33.194 (talk) 23:27, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "It's as fictional as the violence." I don't think so. Real violence happens when people get hurt, whereas violence in video games is just... a bunch of pixels beating up on another bunch of pixels while nobody is really getting hurt in the real world. Sexism on the other hand is discrimination of a gender compared to another one, which may be expressed through media such as films or video games.
 * As for who is generally objectified how in video games, I'll let Jim Sterling explain this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hR9UMgOFeLw Nullahnung (talk) 00:00, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Violence committed by fictional characters: Not real. -> Support of violence / the depicted violence: Doesn't follow automatically, needs additional demonstration.
 * Sexism committed by fictional characters: Not real. -> Support of sexism / the depicted sexism expressed through fiction: Doesn't follow automatically, needs additional demonstration.
 * Unequal and inaccurate depiction of genders: Not real. -> Expression of a sexist worldview: Doesn't automatically follow, needs additional demonstration.
 * Depiction of unequal and unjustified gender roles: Not real. -> Expression of a sexist attitude / value system: Doesn't automatically follow, needs additional demonstration.


 * EDIT: Watched the video - it didn't take him half a minute to conflate "sexism" with "objectication" by using both terms as interchangeably as carelessly, making any arguments or statements made about either inherently flawed and murky.
 * At 3:10, he defines "objectifcation" without specifying that it has to be sexual, thus including a lot of those "hulks for straight frat men" into the group while excluding many cases of "sexualized women". Needless to say, he's quite unaware of either implication... I'm rating his argumentation as largely worthless.
 * He merely asserted that it's not a problem, he didn't "explain" it. That media presentation can have an affect on behavior and perception is well known (incidentally, this goes for violence too; most of the studies I've seen suggest it acts as a release, which reduces overall violence), and has decades of study to back it up. "using one to show how ridiculous it is to claim that the other is even a problem" is exactly the same thing as using one to cancel the other out. His intent was to claim that we should assume the same argument applied to men is clearly ridiculous, and therefore it's incorrect when applied to women (for the record, I don't think it's wrong when applied to men; there are problems with the presentation of men in games). I watched it because I like to keep on eye on the absurd hate campaign that Sarkeesian gets for pointing out issues that, I thought, were completely uncontroversial and common knowledge among all thoughtful gamers (it's beyond incomprehensible to me; nobody should get the endless shitstorm Sarkeesian did for pointing out what everyone already knew).ChrisB (talk) 03:35, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * "for the record, I don't think it's wrong when applied to men; there are problems with the presentation of men in games" The presentation of men requires the same conditions to qualify as a "problem", as the presentation of women - if you don't agree, take that shite to an MRM forum kthx.
 * "I thought, were completely uncontroversial and common knowledge among all thoughtful gamers" Thought wrong: only as uncontroversial as blindly accepted, common nonsense, and thoughtless/ideologue gamers. Not what everybody knew - what not everybody thought. 93.223.33.194 (talk) 23:27, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If you know of any studies that specifically conclude that sexism in video games makes gamers more sexist, I'd be interested to see them linked, as I am having to frequently discuss this point with people. Nullahnung (talk) 10:32, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * specifically conclude that sexism in video games makes gamers more sexist that's a very specific refutation you're demanding there. The problem is that it encourages existing sexism (don't tell me you want a study certifying the existence of that), and repels women from wanting anything to do with it - David Gerard (talk) 13:31, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * For the record, I am not demanding anything here. It would just be nice to have a study like that on hand when I'm trying to convince the umpteenth clueless gamer that sexist tropes in video games matter. If there isn't a study like that, then I'll take whatever is closest. Just give me something I can link. Nullahnung (talk) 13:52, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * There is something called the Sexual Objectification Spillover Effect, which is of value:
 * http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-big-questions/201106/the-sexual-objectification-spillover-effectShadow Nirvana (talk) 20:21, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Thank you! Nullahnung (talk) 20:28, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem. It makes me a bit sad that we have to go further proof-wise to persuade people than "Hey, video games are aspects of media, too and reducing women to sexist tropes ain't cool.". I mean MRAs can go "Men are shown on TV as incompetent doofuses" based on a small number of sitcom characters and ads. I've never heard "Yeah, okay, so what? Does it effect men in real life? Stop being so much of a victim!". But a feminist makes a similar point and hoo boy, every excuse is rolled out. It is simply ridiculous to think media doesn't shape the way we think, the way we stereotype, our habits etc etc.Shadow Nirvana (talk) 20:40, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * "Hey, video games are aspects of media, too" Redundant - other "aspects of media" get the same complaints thrown at them, too, including by Sarkeesian pre-Kickstarter.
 * "and reducing women to sexist tropes ain't cool." It *is* cool. With or without counter-examples, and there are plenty of those.
 * "I mean MRAs can go "Men are shown on TV as incompetent doofuses"" They're just as wrong.
 * "based on a small number of sitcom characters and ads." Not a small number, and the most famous, popular sitcoms in existence. Prominence plays a role, as well, not just numbers.
 * "I've never heard "Yeah, okay, so what? Does it effect men in real life? Stop being so much of a victim!"." You've just heard it from Thunderfoot.
 * "But a feminist makes a similar point and hoo boy," Fuckface :D
 * "It is simply ridiculous to think media doesn't shape the way we think," It's the consumers' fault for not educating themselves. 93.223.33.194 (talk) 23:56, 10 November 2014 (UTC)


 * (EC)I dunno. A (non-MRA, quite average) gamer I discussed with recently about overly sexualised body ideals in video games pointed out that "Women have romance novels catered to them that idealise men in various ways, chiseled jaw and all. It's a dirty pleasure. Why can't games cater to men in the same way with big-titted female characters?" I was inclined to say that two wrongs don't make a right, but romance novels aren't exactly a hot topic anywhere for some reason. Nullahnung (talk) 20:50, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * "Dirty pleasure" doesn't sound like a wrong to me ;)
 * This is ultimately one of the problems with Sarkeesian's agenda - she's not merely interested in the media she "analyzes" to appeal to more women / appeal to women as much as to men, she also wants them to have specific properties whether "women" like those or not. A lot of women enjoy Twilight and what she'd refer to as its "pernicious aspects", but obviously they're wrong for doing so. Fictional fantasy women > what real women enjoy. 93.223.33.194 (talk) 23:56, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Most people are completely unfamiliar with the psychological effects of objectification. They just assume it's made up. In fact, if I had to guess, even many people who object to it do so on a non-evidence based level. Ikanreed (talk) 20:48, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Nullahung, misogyny and objectification are rife in the kind of "bodice ripper" romance novels you and the gamer are talking about. Feminists have criticized them for years, particularly for they're portrayal of woman as passive sex objects waiting to be swept off their feet by a rakish scoundrel, who I'd argue is generally not particularly objectified in this kind story.  If you're curious, apparently contemporary romance novels have moved away from the distinctly rapey 60s and 70s stuff .  --Marlow (talk) 21:58, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Well there you've got it - women like it, and yet those feminists still complain about it. Looks like they're not representing women's interests after all - just their own.
 * Their complaints are as valid as those of uptight scientists protesting against the inaccurate portrayal of space travel in soft SF - not deserving of any attention from anyone. 93.223.33.194 (talk) 23:56, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You can like whatever you want in the media you consume, you can call for more bodice ripper novels or more big-titted characters in video games because you like it, nobody can really tell you that you are wrong simply for liking to consume these things. However, calls from a feminist perspective for more diversity, more active female characters who are not objectified, can only be good because diversity is good (it gives writers more options to explore interesting dimensions and fosters creativity). We're not looking to take away or censor any sexist aspects in games here, we're trying to expand and add a little diversity for everyone's enjoyment. Not such a bad thing when you look at it like that, now is it? Nullahnung (talk) 00:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "nobody can really tell you that you are wrong simply for liking to consume these things." Your opinion is correct - Anita and some users on this page disagree with that notion, which is why theirs isn't ;)
 * "calls from a feminist perspective for more diversity, more active female characters who are not objectified, can only be good" They're only good as long as they're in agreement with the above premise - Anita's calls don't, which is why hers aren't ;)
 * "diversity is good" Diversity is good; the lack of said diversity may be "bad", but it's not *wrong*. Another important premise to keep in mind - not kept in mind by Anita and some users on this page, well you know the rest ;)
 * "any sexist aspects in games here" And you're coming dangerously close here, as well ;)
 * The examples you named above, aren't examples of sexism in the first place; depicted sexism isn't real, and the expression of sexist attitudes is only sexist if meant literally/seriously. If you include the latter, or the latter two, in the definition of "sexism", then the necessary conclusion is that not all kinds of sexism are bad/wrong.
 * "trying to expand and add a little diversity for everyone's enjoyment. Not such a bad thing when you look at it like that, now is it?" Not at all. In fact, that's what I thought Anita Sarkeesian's to be when I originally saw her Kickstarter video - I hadn't seen any of her videos at that point ;)
 * edit: "add a little diversity for everyone's enjoyment" However, you should be aware that this "diversity" you speak of, also includes "diversity of sexist attitudes" - because if more women are to enjoy video games, sexist fantasies that appeal to women will have to be included in the package ;) 93.223.33.194 (talk) 02:45, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Never read a romance novel, wouldn't know about it. I'll take your word for it. Nullahnung (talk) 22:04, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Sarkeesian busted
What do you think of the "Anita Sarkeesian BUSTED" video? Do you perceive that to be fallacious as well? Keydet (talk) 01:35, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It's true that Anita took some scenes of games out of context and made unjustified conclusions from them. Thunderf00t forgets to mention that in GTA:SA you can kill any passers-by for money, so also hookers, which Anita took out of context. So yeah, that's what I think about the video. I don't think there's any useful way to include that video in our article here, though. Nullahnung (talk) 02:05, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "BUSTED" is a bad choice of words. Sarkeesian certainly misunderstood and made an incorrect claim, but thunderf00t's nonsensical implication that she did so out of pure malice toward gamers renders it mostly moot to my eyes. When you know someone receives an endless amount of mindless vitriol for no good reason already, any decent person, even when criticizing, ought to refrain from piling on as thunderf00t does.ChrisB (talk) 03:35, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It's his hobby to pile on pet topics and he does that regardless of whether or not the person he's piling on is already under considerable pressure. Nullahnung (talk) 10:32, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Air Carbon
So Thunderf00t just went after this. I watch his video and was convinced something was left out and mislead. Turns out, I'm right this time. • 2 I personally wanna see this stuff succeed. And unlike the nonsense of solar roadways, this is real. 17:16, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I think Solar Roadways dudes answered his criticism points pretty well here: http://solarroadways.com/clearingthefreakinair.shtml
 * Am I missing something else that make you think it's just nonsense? Don't get me wrong, I of course understand that promising-looking technology and ideas can turn out to be duds.Shadow Nirvana (talk) 20:32, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * There are just far better places to put solar panels more cheaply and efficiently than on roadways with the same net effect. Solar panels are notoriously fragile and expensive to install, and I'm doubtful that these folks have found an implementation cheap enough to maintain to be worth it. - Grant (talk) 22:06, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Solar panels of decent quality are just expensive, period. Oh, amorphous panels are cheap, but their life expectancy isn't very high. But, the high quality panels do have a decent life span and they're as strong as both the substrate and the cover. Will, the highway idea is impractical. It is practical for foot paths, sidewalks, etc. Replacement of those is trivial, compared to replacing even one square meter of highway. Still, many fine ideas fell by the wayside, such as the Volvo turbine engine car, which could quite literally run on cheap wine. That was abandoned out of consideration that few were the mechanics who would understand how to repair a turbine engine. A plant that turned municipal garbage into light, sweet crude oil, at twice the price at the time. The latter was tested at the Philadelphia Navy Yard business complex.Wzrd1 (talk) 07:50, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Just... well, wow...
It's very interesting to contrast the scathing denunciation of Thunderf00t in this article with the absence of anything even remotely resembling a similar tirade on PZ Myers or Freethought Blogs. Do I agree with Tf00t's ideas? Nope, and I certainly find his implementation of them to be counter-productive to say the least. However, considering the criticism of the groupthink espoused by PZM and FtB (and no, this criticism isn't only coming from Tf00t's fanboys), I hardly think that the current description of "everything is Tf00t's fault, 'cause he's an asshole" is entirely accurate. ScepticWombat (talk) 08:52, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If you think there should be more criticism in the PZM or FTB articles, go ahead & add it or bring it up on the article talk page(s). It's unclear why you're discussing it here. If you have concerns about any of the criticisms of Thunderf00t, raise them here. 13:56, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * First, one way could be to dampen the "Tf00t is just an asshole"- version here, rather than inserting "PZM and FtB are assholes too!" in the respective articles. Secondly, I raised it here, because I thought it to be less provocative to take an indirect route, as I have a hunch (given the conspicuous complete lack of criticism in the PZM and FtB articles) that beginning to raise the issue there might create a shit storm, and I really can't be bothered to get into one (or the accompanying edit wars - why spend time writing stuff if you risk having it instantly reverted...). ScepticWombat (talk) 20:36, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * This isn't a neutral site & doesn't need to seek balance for its own sake or hold back from criticism. My own view is that Thunderf00t is an asshole and has said & done plenty to demonstrate it.  Most of this article's authors probably take a similar view.   21:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Not writing about Thunderf00t as if he's an asshole would first require him to stop behaving like one, spreading documentation of his assholism behind him, and stay stopped for quite a while - David Gerard (talk) 21:19, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * So, what would your opinions be on inserting the numerous allegations of groupthink that have been made against PZM and FtB? Personally, while I think that Tf00t seemed to take some odd pleasure in playing the martyr, I couldn't help being left with the feeling that unless you either agreed to his entire "package" of atheism or at least avoided criticising it outright, PZM will chew your ass out and the FtB collective will pile in.ScepticWombat (talk) 21:55, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you're trying to come up with bad things to say about Myers in the completely logically disconnected hope that this will in any way make Thunderf00t look the slightest bit better, and you're continuing to do it in the wrong place after it's been pointed out to you. As such, your suggestions are so far looking unlikely to add to the collective intellect of humanity. But, philosophically, that doesn't technically rule out hope for the future - David Gerard (talk) 22:06, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Bring it up on the Myers talk page, and if you have a good argument it will be accepted. I agree that Myers fans and FtB is mostly an echo chamber. Tfoot has firmly jumped the shark in ways that Myers is not even close to yet. Tielec01 (talk) 00:46, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, will see about it if and when I'm in the mood for a good old wiki-battle Tielec01.
 * Oh, and it's nice to see that David Gerard is not above a little "it's just because you like Tf00t"-motive interpretation. Must I then assume that you're a William Lane Craig fanboy for not only reverting my edit to Craig's CV, but also refusing to answer when I stated my reason for doing so on your talkpage? (pleasepleaseplease don't answer yes to that rhetorical question and destroy my faith in Rationalwiki) ScepticWombat (talk) 15:27, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * This is the talk page for one specific article. It's not a good place for discussing issues you have with other articles.  They all have their own talk page.  21:02, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Creepiest video yet
Apparently he felt the need to critique Anita's master thesis now. Is this verging on stalking? --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 22:54, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It's no more stalkerish than we are doing to him... so yes, pretty stalkerish. Nullahnung (talk) 23:04, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That's true, although it's still a little weird to look for somebodies master thesis --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 23:14, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Wut? It's an obvious attack vector for dealing with anyone you believe to be a crank or a charlatan. Look at the RW articles on Gillian McKeith or Kent Hovind. Robledo (talk) 00:04, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Good point, I guess it only seems weird in the context of his obsession: --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 08:49, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * On that subject, why do you guys keep watching his videos? I once clicked one of his videos on YouTube by accident and I found it unbearable to watch. Ugh, never again I tell you. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 00:10, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Because he's apparently a big deal -> people watching his videos so they can refute him -> becomes even more of a big deal -> etc. Nullahnung (talk) 00:32, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I find his videos pretty unbearable and seldom watch one in its entirety. This one (from what I've seen of it) seems like one of the most incoherent yet.  Correct me if I'm wrong (again, I haven't watched it in full), but he doesn't seem to be saying anything about what the thesis was actually about or what its argument was; just reading extracts from it in a silly voice, intercut with clips of Sarkeesian and other feminists.  08:29, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * He's a "big deal" because he did the intellectual equivalent of beating up toddlers and made a series of videos making fun of creationists. He then spun that into an online identity of an intellectual, then kinda descended into talking down to every social movement that didn't personally benefit him, usually with a scarcity of depth of understanding.  But he kept his subscriber count.   Ikanreed (talk) 14:36, 14 November 2014 (UTC)


 * "seems like one of the most incoherent yet."
 * How is it incoherent just because it focuses on piece of the paper rather than its entirety? The point, as I understood it, was to highlight how she's not just someone who once "counted video game and movie characters and found interesting results", but pursues a much deeper running ideology that includes things like anti-capitalism that she maybe doesn't let on in her more prominent work and talks. Another point was that the contradicted her own data, and yet another that it was full of silly nonsense. If you think some or all of the things in it were wrong, feel free to include that in this wiki... cause I won't :D


 * "beating up toddlers and made a series of videos making fun of creationists"
 * Creationists are old, wise Amish-patriarch-bearded sages compared to the feminists around Sarkeesian as well as those from the FTB area. While some of the things they say about God or evolution fall into usual hillbilly apologist claptrap, they make a lot of factual scientific claims that require a decent level of education to tackle - a level that, I freely admit, I don't live up to in most cases myself.
 * Most of the nonsense that comes pouring out of these silly ideologues, on the other hand, can be destroyed by anyone possessing an adequate amount of reason. Heck, not even reason - *sense*. I WONDER WHO THE REAL TODDLERS ARE. 93.223.8.208 (talk) 17:10, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * What's so bad about being anti-capitalist? Do you really support the hoarding of wealth and resources by some rich elite? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:35, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You're not gonna get very far with cartoon talk like that - capitalism isn't about elites hoarding money (that sounds more like feudalism), it's about free, voluntary money exchange for services. I see it the way Noelplum99 does - as long as there's a safety net that guarantees healthcare and an acceptable quality of life with all the needs provided and some additional money, there's no problem whatsoever with some "elite" "hoarding the money" - they acquired it through a free, voluntary system, so tough if you don't like that.
 * Now, in the case of Sarkeesian, it's not just that she's anti-capitalist per se, but that she's being a complete kook and links it to "white supremacist patriarchy" (which is already ludicrous by itself) as if it was all one giant, homogenous evil entity. Also, if she's anti-capitalist, that implies that she's against consumers voting with their money with regard to games... such as, for example, when they aren't fun to play.
 * Control - what do most people think about when her name comes up? "A woman who found sexist tropes in video games and would like some diversity". And what comes up if you look at her less known work such as this? That she's out to abandon capitalism or something (the principle by which the gaming industry operates), and subvert the entire system - and her views on gender in media is shaped by / originates in her views on "racist capitalism". Seems like the overall message of the video is: "she's kookier than you thought, folks". 93.223.8.208 (talk) 01:21, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * How is it incoherent? Well lets see.
 * The first thirty seconds or so is barely even words or sentences; just garbled nonsense.
 * Clips of things and people that have nothing to do with Anita Sarkeesian are cut in at various points in the video.
 * After promising "a verbatim reading" of the masters thesis, Tf00t then doesn't even explain the title or subject of the thesis, just quote some excepts without context.
 * Where is the analysis? Tf00t just seems to be asserting that things are ludicrous or hilarious without explaining why.  This may be enough for his core audience of MRA dickheads but doesn't make for compelling rebuttal of any of Sarkeesians points.
 * One of the few actual points he makes is that there's only one pierce of data. But it's a masters in Social & Political Thought, not a data-driven subject area.
 * 20:17, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) LOL that ain't nonsense, that's a humorous introduction. Remember that time when Rebecca Watson returned after a hiatus and made some charity video that she opened with some joke about balls and manginas? Oh how offended Thunderfoot was about her inability to SPEAK ABOUT CHARITY without *poisoning even that with her toxic baiting*. Can't a girl just make a joke to her fans, even if the fans, herself, and the mindset behind that joke are themselves stupid? Now you're doing the same crap. Except worse, because you couldn't grasp the meaning of "be prepared you're about to witness some major bullshit!".
 * 2) Comparison and juxtapposition.
 * 3) OH MY GOD NO!! He reads excerpts verbatim, even though he said he'd read "the thesis" in his humorous over-the-top introduction. So incoherent.
 * By the way, not saying he shouldn't ever analyze the thesis in its entirety - but this is a video with him reading excerpts.
 * 4) This isn't analysis, this is mockery. Replace your silly "MRA dickheads" with "reasonable viewers who already understand", and you've got it about right.
 * The showing of over-the-top clips in response to her bit about "normalcy" works as a rebuttal, though it's from a video and not the thesis.
 * 5) The main point, though, was that she went on to contradict said data.    ;)


 * So you're a fail. There's some incoherence I've found there myself, however, though it's mostly "asides": for example when he jumps from her "thanks to McIntosh" to her business video to "grown into a woman everyone listens to and believes". Since this is mockery and not analysis, it's not that there isn't a "logical chain" to be found there - but I just can't follow the thought process. Probably was meant to be like a "satirical retelling of her biography" for a bit of fun, but it kinda took me out a bit. The intercutting between MSNBC and the Big Red was another minor example. Or the bit where he shows her hugging Colbert.
 * But basically, it's not incoherent, it's more stream of consciousness - a sentence from the thesis is compared or juxtapposed with something she or a similar kook says, and then maybe they say something else in the same clip and then that's compared to something else again, and then it's back to the thesis again. Eh - I've seen him do better satire (the one about Joss Whedon probably being among the best he did), but this one, you know, it's acceptable. Sounds like he was too excited and rushed through it somewhat, but it does the job. 93.223.8.208 (talk) 01:21, 15 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Jesus, Christ, no, just no!
 * I'll make this simple for you: Thunderfoot has already addressed the "talking about her public work makes you a stalker" horseshit argument multiple times in his videos, so if you wanna make it here again, you'd kinda have to respond to his objections first. I mean Jesus H. Christ the H is silent, I don't even.
 * A master thesis isn't something that sits there in the teacher's drawer, waiting to be extracted by sneaky Thunderf00t in his creepy black burglar cap while his IMF team deactivates the lasers and manipulates the guards into shooting each other over faked evidence of adultery. It's a published work just like a paper, and has been even available on her website some time ago (from what I know) - it may be examined in the same vein as a youtube video.
 * As to his "obsession", I don't get why people call it that (including a vocal portion of his own also anti-feminist fandom) - it's a source of "contestable claims" that has put up a good amount of material to be "analyzed" (and circulated in schools) and still keeps delivering and updating. When it's not Anita herself, then it's some news article or prominent ideologue singing praises of her again. Feminism is now one of his regular topics next to science and skepticism, and as long as it keeps going, there won't be anything even remotely strange about him making updates about it, as well. If his fans who prefer science topics (watch?v=6kwW5FxguJE) don't like that - toogh. 93.223.8.208 (talk) 16:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Phil is a dad
I'm just gonna let that sink into your brain for a moment. Video. Notice he said "Made this for the kids." and in the video is a "Dad" mug. 03:37, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Hmm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRjkEZKQatQ — Ryūlóng (琉竜 ) 03:22, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * He...spent 20 minutes not exactly saying much. He keeps leaving information and stories out. 05:47, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it's in order to protect his friend or this got posted somewhere on reddit as a rebuttal.— Ryūlóng (琉竜 ) 10:36, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm sitting through Phil's latest verbal nonsense which is a response to this guy and sofar the only thing I can say about it is the premise is just...strange. Apart from the usual diversions of attacking Anita like a broken record, he does completely miss the point as he found ONE GUY with violent(ish) threats against him whereas a quick search of the word GamerGate can find tons of threats from different people. Incidentally, this is the first video in which he flat out admits his primary income is youtube. So there is that. 18:10, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait. More than his obscenely overinflated Patreon?  Ikanreed (talk) 18:13, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * People actually pay this guy to make unwatchable YouTube videos? Oh Gods... Wait, doesn't that make him the exact thing Sarkeesian is accused of being? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 18:25, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Does he still have his day job as a scientist? - David Gerard (talk) 19:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

He turns out videos longer and faster. The difference being that Anita also has other things that need doing, like actually playing games, writing scripts, editing and soforth. I can get through maybe two or three video games start to finish per month. I would think Anita's pulverizing my pace. And yes, he still has the scientist, as he says he does it out of charity. 19:02, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * So... uh, has he put out more hours of complaining about tropes vs. women than there are hours of tropes vs women yet? Ikanreed (talk) 19:53, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. By a longshot. 20:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Rational?
Hello, RationalWikiers. I'm going out on a limb here and assuming that open dialogue and well-reasoned debate is what the RW community wants to see. That said, there are some serious issues with the Thunderfoot wiki page. TL;DR at the end.

For the sake of time and timeliness, I'll focus on Thunderfoot's involvement in the gamer-gate controversy and Rational Wiki's coverage thereof. Not only has this been the most heated topic of Thunderfoot's YouTube career, but the story has been picked up by the mainstream media and people are paying attention to the culture of this hundred-billion dollar industry and how it moves forward.

So, when confronted with a profile of Anita Sarkeesian in Businessweek or about someone like Starcraft 2 player Scarlett in The New Yorker, a diligent reader may want to do some extra homework on the issue. A quick search reveals that Sarkeesian and her allies have some opponents, among them a YouTuber named Thunderfoot who attempts rebut their claims. What does this hypothetical reader find upon a Google search of "Thunderfoot"? A nice, tidy wiki page about him as the second result.

This hypothetical reader was me a few months ago when I first stumbled upon this wiki. I had recently come across Thunderfoot's videos in the wake of gamer-gate and I wanted to see a quick rundown on what the guy was interested in, what his education was and if any concrete rebuttals had been made to his views. "Oh good," was my first reaction. "A site called Rational Wiki should have a fair rundown on this." But then I discovered an article so laden with weasel words and unsubstantiated claims that it was a failure to launch before the intro was even done with.

I was a little salty at the time to see a bunch of sloppy ad hominems being thrown around in the name of rationality, though I didn't have the time to respond. But this article became like a bad song that would pop into my head during a long drive.

One point that really stuck with me comes at the beginning of section 3 of the wiki ("Ongoing crusade against feminism"... seriously, the heading title itself is designed to taint your impression of Thunderfoot before any argument is made or evidence provided) is case in point of how this tied up this article is in preconclusions about Thunderfoot the Big Mean Jerk.

"Rather than move on gracefully," it begins, "Mason has continued to make ill-informed comments on feminism...". Move on gracefully from what? His encounter his feminism? The making of YouTube videos? The academic arena as a whole? If Thunderfoot has a conviction, and can provide a compelling argument to back it up, then there is nothing graceful or rational about backing down, even if the issue is so provocative that it caused him to split with a group among whom he had probably expected to find like-minded people. Also, what specifically about his comments are ill informed?

Point by point on this section of the article:  "Although such a commitment to "free speech" is admirable, most people regard YouTube comments as being one of the lower points of human achievement, and not as a template to be reused anywhere else at all." ---Umm, yes? I agree? That's why when Anita Sarkeesian holds up hateful social media comments and anonymous e-mails up as proof of a conspiracy among male gamers to bully and silence her, you can safely call BS. These trolls do not reflect a representative sample of any gaming demographic and there is no way to prove otherwise. I'm guessing Thunderfoot's reply policy evolved from responding to the feedback he got on the "Why Do People Laugh at Creationists?" series. Once you've explained something like, "Well yes, carbon dating is in fact reliable" and the person doesn't budge at all, I imagine you'd quickly come to see the futility in going further with the conversation. Also, his comment sections tend to be more civil than most.

"...they misrepresent feminists' arguments to an extent that is either grossly naive or wilfully disingenuous..." ---The claims Thunderfoot is tackling here are so disingenuous to begin with that I can't imagine much opportunity to make them more misleading. Consider Sarkeesian's claim that in the Hitman series, players are incentivized to brutalize helpless women. Thunderfoot correctly rebuts that the game actually disincentives that kind of behavior and points out that of all the videos available of the "offending" game segment, the only one that featured sexual violence was the one that Sarkeesian recorded herself.  "...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..." ---Again, where exactly are the strawmen and "anally literal misinterpretations"? When you have somebody like Rebecca Watson saying that a fellow conference-goer asking her to his room for coffee (after talking with him at the bar until 4 a.m.) is proof of unchecked male sexual agression in the gaming culture, there is no need to come up with a weaker version of that argument to attack. It fails fine on its own.

"He tends to go off on a tangent, repeat points previously made in other videos about other people and quote mine them, taking things out of context." ---Thunderfoot, from what I can see, repeats points that have not been responded to. Since so few of his rebuttals ever do see a response, he ends up looking like a broken record. Seriously, the Feminist Frequency-style response has consistently been designed to divert attention to the alleged backlash against the feminist incursion while offering nothing in the way of a response to those who. Sarkeesian wants to be treated as an equal, but in the intellectual marketplace, being treated the same as everyone else incurs an obligation to substantiate one's claims and defend them against critics. There's no rule that says you have to let people off the hook for unanswered questions.

Ironically, the author uses the same kind of misdirection/listen-and-believe tactics that Thunderfoot is dismantling in his videos about Sarkeesian. I'll leave my tinfoil hat in the closet and not go any further into that.

'''TL;DR The feminist claim in question is a strong one: the content of video games, they say, has a significant impact on the way that men view women, on the way that women view themselves and on the prevalence of sexual violence. Strong claims require equally strong evidence. Meanwhile, the only available evidence says that as video games have become more common, sexual violence has declined (obviously lots of factors to account for there). Additionally, this type of behavioral influence was thoroughly debunked back when video games were targeted by people like Jack Thompson. Thunderfoot is calling about the overwhelming smell of bullshit, but no one is home'''

On this talk page, I read this comment from Weasloid: "This isn't a neutral site & doesn't need to seek balance for its own sake or hold back from criticism." Teaching creationism in the classroom is an example of balance for its own sake, this Thunderfoot controversy is not. This is about unpacking two sides of an argument and seeing whose premises actually lead to the conclusion offered. I guess the subjectivity is fine, but how about some academic rigor? '''

(1) Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement. (2) Documenting the full range of crank ideas.'''

There you have Rational Wiki's first two stated goals. With no data to support her claims, doesn't that put someone like Sarkeesian in the camp of pseudoscience? Gamergate was originally a story about the incredibly incestuous relationship between gaming journalists and the people whose work they cover, a crippling problem not limited to gaming journalism, but endemic of mass media in general. Yet Sarkeesian managed to hijack the whole thing and used the momentum to fuel a separate agenda, which then became the focus. Does this not make her a crank? &mdash; Unsigned, by: Hiphop / talk / contribs
 * Hi there. We generally disagree with almost everything about your assessment of what Gamergate is, the validity of Sarkeesian's points and in particular the simplistic comparison to Jack Thompson. You might want to check out the articles on Gamergate and Anita Sarkeesian on this wiki as well as the heated discussions on the respective talk pages to get an idea of the extent of disagreement. Also, do you have evidence to prove that she recorded that Hitman segment herself? Last time I checked she took all her video game footage from other people's video playthroughs (albeit rudely, without asking them) under fair use. Nullahnung (talk) 10:24, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


 * You are dumb as hell. Why is it that internet logicians never seem to be able to understand context? This wiki is open about its bias. It's not some kind of golden mean South Park episode where every idiotic idea is given equal weight. I don't think this wiki is for you. Klansmen and other hate group members aren't really the target audience. 24.243.62.225 (talk) 15:23, 2 June 2015 (UTC)