Talk:Mister Metokur

Mister Metokur
Is Mister Metokur Jim81Jim? 06:12, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Hm, it's just a rumor. Although I don't think Mister Metokur came forward with it so it's best to not include it in the article. 06:25, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

We have his real name on the article now, maybe we can check these claims again. If he really is Internet Aristocrat than we have a whole lot more to write about. StudentofPhilosophy (talk) 22:32, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

This page needs to be improved or deleted
I don't know what this entire article is really accomplishing other than listing a bunch of offensive words a b-list member of the sceptic community has used. Either this page should be expanded to provide more substantial criticism of this guy's statements (since debunking baseless beliefs is the point of RationalWiki, not just keeping track of some asshole's poor behaviour) like the pages for Mouthy Buddha or Sargon of Akkad do, or alternatively it should be deleted entirely like the Atheism-Is-Unstoppable article was since it doesn't really achieve anything useful otherwise. DiabolikDownUnder (talk)


 * And to top it all off, that picture they're claiming to be Jim isn't even him. Its habermann from Metokur forums. A guy he was making fun off. Whoever made this article obviously doesn't have a clue.
 * 51.171.138.160 (talk) 22:43, 26 December 2018 (UTC)


 * A topic I’ve already raised on Talk:The Golden One and other, similar article talk pages on various YouTubers: Why should we care about this particular YouTuber? Is he particularly (in)famous, well-known, nutty, novel, or influential? Or is there some other distinguishing features to set this dude apart from the throng of YouTube ranters and/or nutters? ScepticWombat (talk) 09:07, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This guy is particular relevant, and has a following. He is more influential than most. 10:51, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Why and how is Mister Metokur particularly relevant? How much of a following does he actually have (and do we have some fairly reliable way of estimating it)? The current article gives little or no clues to either of these salient topics. This is a problem that charactises several of our YouTuber articles, which tend to be short on informative text or debunking and long on quotes from the YouTubers with little or no context. ScepticWombat (talk) 18:36, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Harasses the weak?
Genuine question, what does this article mean by "sarcastically and condescendingly harasses the weak". I can't find any examples on the article and I am generally not very familiar with the guy. Could someone elaborate please?

As far as I know, the writer of the article has a general distaste for Jim, possibly due to the later stuff in the "bad" section. Nonetheless, I agree that this claim requires some kind of substance other than that the guy just had a gripe. I mean, come on, this is "rational" wiki.--100.34.17.110 (talk) 08:24, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * One instance is where he began an online lynch mob towards some random unassuming DeviantArt user for no other reason than to be a prick. Also, I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki. —  Ɖøn Ĵuan  Harass  00:59, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Small Semantic Issue
"No right to be banned"? I understand this is supposed to be sarcastically, as a kind of joke, but the phrase "right to be banned" makes absolutely no sense. Might it be replaced with "Clearly, these individuals were perfectly innocent", or "Clearly, these individuals did not deserve to be banned", or even "Clearly, these individuals were banned", because that's the only thing we can gather from what you've said so far. Enough with the passive-agressive hate, give us an argument, please. --100.34.17.110 (talk) 08:30, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

small little update
this is metokur's new twitter. https://twitter.com/MisterAntiBully

Coronavirus
Think it might be worth noting under "The Good" that he sounded the alarm on the severity of the coronavirus very early on, sometime around late January/early February in a series of livestreams. –Gato (talk) 02:06, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

MISSING VIDEOS
Alert, the YouTube videos cited within the article have since been taken down :( --Debunky (talk) 11:19, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Pedophilia section should be expanded.
Jim's become pretty famous for this. He's exposed a handful of guys and deserves credit for that as well. Jonathan Elias Ross comes to mind... scumbag. Jim's honestly a pretty hilarious dude, which is unfortunate given his political leanings.

Some links to that effect: https://youtu.be/caEoxHVq6YU | https://youtu.be/YSnwJSKyrzM

I'd add it myself but I haven't made an account yet and I don't want my IP being logged in the history. 2601:5CC:0:3B70:9912:D529:D2BF:D84B (talk) 15:03, 10 June 2020 (UTC)