Talk:Armoured Skeptic

With an article like this it's no wonder he has a low opinion of the site.
I do not believe that RationalWiki or any of its articles should be here to flatter or attack anyone despite it doing so on more than a few pages I have read. Having said that, let's dissect some of the problems I've read here.

Right off the bat is the image of him in real life. The caption reads: 'The "Human".' Having the word human in quotation marks like that sounds like whoever put it there is implying that he isn't human. Why even call attention to the word when a caption such as "The real person" would do just as well?

Next up is a misleading quote from a blog post he made about ideology, feminism and how people act according to their beliefs. While he does speak poorly about feminism in the article, he goes on to say that feminism itself isn't the problem, it's the people who use it as an excuse to treat those they disagree with unfairly. While one could argue it was a mistake to keep using the word feminist, it's also clear that he isn't attacking all feminists. But the very next sentence, "I choose to treat everyone as an equal" doesn't get put at the top of the page because it doesn't paint him as a woman-hater. Plus the little part under the quote sarcastically calling a cherry-picking overgeneralizer wouldn't make sense if the blog post in question was about certain feminists using feminism to attack people they don't like rather than just calling all of them crazy. Hey look, RationalWiki can generalize too!

The problems come back when we get to the Politics area of the article. RationalWiki says "AS heavily opposes "identity politics" in atheism, which here largely means Atheism+ and feminism" and as a source, cites a video of him making fun of Dogma_Slayer666 and not actually saying anything related to what the wiki said right before said citation. What does it have to do with anything? It seems to me it's just another sloppy attempt to make him look bad.

The part about GamerGate lacks any meaningful citation and I question its inclusion. That's all I'm going to say about that can of worms.

Further on, under the heading of his views on RationalWiki, which are here for some reason, it says he's "fallen off the deep end" without any further explanation. The part that always gets me is near the end when he calls the site a "one-sided clusterfuck" which was then linked to the page on the balance fallacy, basically saying it's ok to only bother with one point of view.

The reason I put this in the talk page instead of rewriting the article is because a discussion would probably go down better than an edit war. If you want to disagree with him or some of the points he does that's fine but is it too much to ask to do so in a way that wouldn't be at home in a gradeschool playground? 108.51.129.120 (talk) 15:24, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * After reviewing this, point-by-point I have more inclination to say "you're being dishonest" than "good point" about every single one of them. And... I'd particularly love for you to identity what exactly you think is gradeschool playground type insulting, since virtually every half-assed objection you raise is about a deconstruction of something he's said or done.
 * Alright then. Let's talk about the citation for the line "AS heavily opposes "identity politics" in atheism, which here largely means Atheism+ and feminism." The citation that follows is, as I said, a video about him making fun of Dogma_Slayer666. But, if sincere, it seems more like an attack or parody than him sincerely explaining his views. If someone had never heard of AS and came across this page, it seems like using that video as an example of him "heavily opposing identity politics in Atheism+ and feminism" doesn't make much sense, especially since the video lacks context. Later, saying that he's "fallen off the deep end" and leaving it at that just seems like name calling. As a follow up, can you explain where and why I'm being dishonest and why any of my objections were half-assed? 108.51.129.120 (talk) 17:01, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I know I come off as combatitive, but honestly you seem like you're throwing half-thought objections at the wall and seeing what sticks.
 * Or explaining what I feel is wrong. It's not like I went line-by-line complaining "This is wrong!". 108.51.129.120 (talk) 17:01, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I mean, I know I'm biased against assholes who rant at a camera on youtube(really I am, that's a definite bias I've got), but... I don't think you're giving me anything that says "really, this is a sincere problem with the article." ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:52, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily the entire article, just parts of it. 108.51.129.120 (talk) 17:01, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Lol, check the article again. 16:06, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Cute. 108.51.129.120 (talk) 17:01, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * If you think the article misrepresents AS by not including enough of his work, add more! Wikis are by nature incomplete; it's as often as not that a misrepresentation is a result of someone being lazy. (A general rule that might not apply here, but hey.) 16:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'll do that later. 108.51.129.120 (talk) 17:01, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * If you think the article misrepresents AS by not including enough of his work, add more! Wikis are by nature incomplete; it's as often as not that a misrepresentation is a result of someone being lazy. (A general rule that might not apply here, but hey.) 16:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'll do that later. 108.51.129.120 (talk) 17:01, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Error on page
Was flipping through, and saw that Skeptic is labeled as Men's Rights. I'm not sure who put that there, or how to change it, but he's been as outspoken against the militant MRAs as the militant feminists (see his video on MGTOW if you want evidence). It would be more accurate to put him as equal rights or egalitarian.

Not a bad article.
This article is pretty good. AS seems to be focused on whatever is happening. That seems to be social justice issues, politics, Modernism, Feminism. Since he criticizes feminists, I guess you could say he is anti-feminist; or, more accurately, a critic of Feminism. There is a difference. The latest on his collision with Franchesca Ramsey might be good to cover. He says Franny tried to buy him off with promises of money and celebrity. Might be interesting or not? Here is another one with two versions of the same story Ariel31459 (talk)
 * It seems to be a decent article, indeed. And anti-feminism is certainly different from making particular criticisms of particular feminisms. Indeed, the various inter-feminist critiques constitute an essential distinguishing aspect within interdisciplinary feminism. (Just read the summary of our article on feminism — it's neither logically possible, nor politically desirable, to blanket-endorse all schools of feminism all at once. Doing so would be like saying "I vote in favor of the entire political spectrum!".) That being said, however — AS could well be an antifeminist, as well as not. By which I mean: I actually don't remember what the article says about that. Also: huh, so Modernism is to be considered 'a thing' that is currently 'happening'? Like a 'current meme' of sorts? Bring me my tutor! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:12, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't ask me, but since you did, I feel like most people complaining about post-modernism haven't even remotely considered what their null hypothesis is? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:04, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

C-16
I have a few problems with your recent edits: I agree with you about the helmet part though. CowHouse (talk) 04:05, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Old version: Fluhrer has been criticised for his overinflated ego and tendency to act as if he is an expert on topics of which he is demonstrably ignorant. New version: Fluhrer has been criticised for his overinflated ego and tendency to act as if he is an expert on many topics, although among entertainers this is a common enough failing.
 * Is this common? Even if it is, is that supposed to be a defence?
 * Old version: Even his friend Sargon of Akkad.... New version: Eminent youtuber Sargon of Akkad...
 * Calling Sargon an eminent YouTuber suggests that he is normally a good source, but the old version made clear that his opinion was noteworthy because he is friends with Fluhrer.
 *  although it is doubtful that Sargon would agree there us anything wrong with it
 * Irrelevant. Sargon was mentioned earlier in the same way that Milo Yiannopoulos was quoted on the Baked Alaska page. Essentially, if somebody criticises their friend, it is likely to be honest.
 * Old version (now removed): He made numerous factual errors which made it obvious that he was either deliberately lying or had done barely any research. ... as well as potential plagiarism ... Fluhrer was apparently too lazy to actually read the bill before commenting on it, even though it was only about two pages long (including the French half).
 * What is wrong with this?
 * You changed the description of errors to "controversial claim[s]".
 * New version:  To be fair, Fluhrer is not alone in maintaining the claim that C-16 could be used to suppress free speech in the ways described by it's opponents.  
 * Firstly, "its" not "it's". Secondly, saying he is "not alone" in his beliefs is irrelevant to whether or not they are accurate.
 * Hi. Congrats again on the election. Much of my edit is meant to address the excessively severe and humorless perspective of the paragraph.
 * 1. Fluhrer calls himself an entertainer. And, what is assumed to need defending? Having an over-inflated ego and inflated understanding of his own competence? We can't be that judgmental can we?
 * 2. that was a joke. Sargon is an asshole. why would we use his opinion on anything? It seems dishonest.
 * 3. "He made numerous factual errors..." That's just lazy. Can't someone make a list? Otherwise, it sounds like empty talk.
 * 4. There is controversy about the claims. I gave three references. One by a transsexual Canadian lawyer. It's kind of a hoot. Some people say there is no controversy and some say there is. There is certainly a controversy about whether there is a controversy. Who is right? Do I know Canadian law? No...
 * 5. Yes. I thought the helmet part was a nice touch, though I wouldn't use it in a college admission essay.
 * Thanks for taking all that time to think about this. I think the part about Sargon was a little much. I would expunge his name entirely. Thanks again and All the best!Ariel31459 (talk) 04:33, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks
 * 1. I'm happy to concede this point.
 * 2. I agree he is an asshole, but that doesn't mean he's always wrong. We quote assholes occasionally. Along with the Milo example I already gave, we quoted Ben Shapiro about Mike Cernovich. I don't see how it's dishonest.
 * 3. The errors are referenced with timestamped links. I could probably write it out in detail though if you prefer.
 * 4. Fluhrer's claims were factually inaccurate (e.g. "C-16 is a Bill that prohibits people from misgendering or using the wrong pronouns when addressing people who identify as trans."). The Bill does not mention misgendering or pronouns at all. If a transsexual Canadian lawyer says it does, that does not make it true. CowHouse (talk) 05:16, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * About 3: Don't trouble yourself about it. The guy isn't quite that important. About 4: I am not a lawyer. Several lawyers I referenced make claims. The claim is not that the law (C-16) mentions pronouns. The underlying claim is that the law acts in conjunction with other provincial, and possibly federal  Civil Rights law so that punitive measures are possible that violate freedom of speech in the view of some legal experts. Is this true? How would I know? It is a controversy. I am not taking a side. I am not the moderator here .Ariel31459 (talk) 05:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Pivot to wingnuttery?
Hi all, long time reader, first time user. I made this account right now because, well... things have changed with this guy. I've always generally hated his guts, but uh... this is something else. Since about a year ago, he's started uploading something he called jokingly the "Armoured Conspiracy Theory Files". In between his typical anti-SJW hogwash, he has been espousing pseudohistory. (Completely lacking sources, of course!) There are four videos: "History is a Lie?", "Free Energy is Real?", "Alien Skulls are Real?", and finally the climax about two weeks ago, "History is a Lie - Atlantis" (Edited to provide hyperlinks).

"History is a Lie?" makes claims about a "mud flood" (which is a conspiracy theory that might merit its own page at this point!) that happened around 200 years ago and all history prior to that has been distorted. In "Free Energy is Real?", he claims that many human structures were actually free energy devices a la Tesla. In "Alien Skulls are Real?", he begins to claim that there was a separate advanced race of conehead albino giants. Finally, in "History is a Lie - Atlantis", he brings it all together: that's right! Atlantis was a global ancient society of albino conehead giants that ruled over humans for centuries with advanced technology bequeathed to us. I'm not lying; you can go watch these videos. This is literally what he's claiming.

So... I feel like maybe this page should acknowledge this. Given that it's been a full year and he's still going, and these claims have only become more absurd as he's gone on... well, let's just say "Skeptic" is being generous. Monochroma (talk) 13:26, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Is he slowly drifting towards Conspiracy Theorist area's aswell? For example, starting to blame George Soros for everything? Gunther1987 (talk) 08:15, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Currently, it doesn't seem like that. (In hindsight, perhaps "wingnut" was not the proper term.) He directly invokes the Illuminati in at least the first video in that series, though. He did upload a video on COVID-19 conspiracy theories that leans in some... offputting directions. (He seems to be open to theories about it being a bio-engineered virus, but I don't know what to make of it.) At the very least he's telling people to wear a mask, thank god. But currently, I would say he's mainly diving head-first into pseudohistory. Monochroma (talk) 09:51, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * He should change his name to "TinfoilSkeptic", if he's going down the "Imaginati" path...


 * What about his hackish GF? Is she starting to absorb that nonsense aswell? Gunther1987 (talk) 16:28, 7 August 2020 (UTC)


 * To the man's credit, he jokingly referred to the show as "Tinfoil Helmet", which is a half-decent gag. As for the Shoe0nHead, I believe he and she are no longer together. I think they still are friends though? I don't know; I don't follow these clowns too closely. I only stumbled on that Atlantis video and was just too dumbfounded to let it slide. All said, do you think a mention of this is appropriate? Perhaps a subsection in the "Views" portion. Monochroma (talk) 11:17, 8 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Hey, update: I added a section. Happy to hear if something's wrong with my addition. (Again, I'm new to this!) Monochroma (talk) 08:41, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Greg's not serious. He first discussed doing these types of things in a video called "The End of All Conspiracy Theories on Youtube," where he said he'd be doing this as some sort of reaction to something.  Also, in the very first of those alternate history videos, he outright says he wants to see his fanbase exercise their skepticism by debunking his video and discussing it in the comments.  This point came up again in a vlog on the Armoured Gregory channel (the one about Missing 411) where he mentions a comment someone posted asking if he's gonna debunk his alternate history--his response is essentially no, because the whole point is for his fans to test their skepticism by debunking it.  So no, he hasn't pivoted towards being a wingnut.  Additionally, his latest videos (about Missing 411, Bigfoot, and Mothman) are all clearly skeptical.