Talk:CosmicSkeptic

This may be a tech support thing
But the link to YouTube in the lede is not rendering in my browser it shows up as "large skeptic community on ,". I inspected the DOM and the a href="wiki/YouTube" is there, but it's grayed out. Nothing on the page is blocked by my adblockers, is it just me?? What's going on? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:28, 11 September 2020 (UTC)>
 * Nevermind. I just disabled my adblockers instead of just checking blocked items, and it's there now.  I'll see if I can find what css rule in uBlock is doing it.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:30, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Guilt by association the article
Richard Dawkins is mildly islamophobic. Rationality Rules is mildly transphobic. Israel is ... eh, a political problem. And, apparently, because Cosmic Skeptic is associated with all three, in some way, he must be problematic as well. I don't know Cosmic Skeptic, but do you have anything stronger than guilt by association? Similarly, it's not a strong criticism to attack people for not criticising the right thing, (ben shapiro) and for criticising a religion related to a group of people (islam). If you hammer too hard on these points, people reading will think you're overreacting. Like when you seem to be getting angry that he wants to compromise between tearing a statue down and sending it to a museum and not tearing down a statue with -- tearing down a statue and sending it to a museum. I think the usual wiki advice for this would be to depersonalise the article. Tulpa001 (talk) 10:17, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You are correct. Better bases for establishing those points should be found.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:18, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * well here is an article that is leaves no us with no doubt on how we are supposed to think of this chap. the references are all youtube videos and a real ball ache to go through. the one for the vegan speech in israel and the rationality rules ones are hour+ long. 20 minutes into one and its all ought or is arguments over objective morality. dunno what it is meant to say, but he knows the rationality rules person and apparently disagrees on objective reality. anything about transphobia is well hidden in there and has little to do with the subject discussed.
 * the not criticising ben shapiro thing - the referenced video discuss teaching kids they will burn in hell if they sin is child abuse or not. he very much disagrees with shapiro. homophobia, sexism, and the like are touched on but was not the focus of this video. he says basing your morality on horrible biblical laws and scaring you kids into compliance is not healthy. what he didnt do is call him a cunt or push a glass in his face.
 * the video about steve bannon didnt discuss nazism because it was not about steve bannon. it was about protests and free speech and one not preventing the other. hardly a shocking view since the chap apparently likes to debate. it was certainly not pro bannon. and no homophobia in the video despite the insinuation.
 * im not sure 'better bases' exist here, and the removal of all that leaves us with very little. a philosophy and theology student talks mainly about philosophy and theology. not my bag, mileage may vary and all that, its not an article though. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:45, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for actually watching those videos and confirming. Given what you say I agree there is not enough here for an article. Tulpa001 (talk) 21:37, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

What kind of article is this?
Apparently, because he visited an animal rights conference in Tell Aviv, he's automatically pro-Israel? That's a terrible idea. So he once met with Rationality Rules, who is a smart man if we ignore his transphobia, which is admittedly a bad thing, but this is just dumb to call everyone that meets with RR a transphobe. That's another one on the list! There are so many fallacies to list it's really not good enough for an article at all. Just no. — Jeh2ow Damn son!  01:21, 14 September 2020 (UTC)