Category talk:Doofus

For the record, category names are supposed to be plural. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 00:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Doofi? Peter ^{Subsisting on honey} 00:52, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Doofuses, doofus. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 00:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Eh, I think it's punchier in the singular. EVDebs (talk) 00:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Alright. I won't fight you over it. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 00:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think this is a very helpful category. It just looks like an exercise in in-group/out-group labelling (like an inverse Atheism+), and also seems to be suggesting that we just overlook these people's little foibles because "hey, we're all on the same team"; not everyone sees it like that. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 01:00, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I do think it's rather necessary, though -- the people in this category are in a gray area where their overall work is useful, but they've done or believed some stupid things. Part of being a skeptic is realizing that these gray areas exist, and that being wrong about one (or several *cough*Bill Maher*cough*) things doesn't necessarily mean they should be excommunicated or whatever. EVDebs (talk) 01:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

(Also, I'm not sure about putting TheAmazingAtheist on this list. He crossed the line into outright misogynistic hatred a long time ago, and he's probably well in the red concerning his net value to the community. Not quite Franc Hoggle territory, but pretty damn bad.) EVDebs (talk) 01:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's the kind of thing I'm talking about. While Dawkins has made some questionable comments on gender politics, he's still undeniably an important figure in the atheist movement. TheAmazingAtheist is a liability who's at least as well known in the community for his appalling attitudes to women, rape, feminism, transgenderism, homosexuality, etc. as he is for anything salient he's said or done about religion or woo. Putting them in the same "gray area" is misleading, & plays into a rather strange dichotomy where we see anyone who identifies as "skeptic" as a potential "ally" against some common foe. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 01:15, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

It's a really wide gray area (see below for what I think the cutoff is). And I didn't actually put TAA on the list -- someone else did. 01:19, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the Weasel. Nobody^{don't bother} 01:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

But it's a gray area between what & what? Good & bad atheists? Wanting to categorise people arbitrarily as things like "doofus" and "asshole" is the kind of thing that makes RW look petty & churlish. It's only a few steps away from giving them a rating out of 10. We used to have a few lists on this kind of theme (really embarrassing liberals, really embarrassing conservatives, really embarrassing moderates, right wing bastards, left wing bastards) which are now in funspace. It would be better to add these guys to the appropriate list page rather than letting that kind of categorisation creep back into mainspace via a category. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 07:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree. We got rid of Batshit Insane and Soulless Evangelists, we don't need this. Nobody^{don't bother} 07:43, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

(EC) I agree with Weaseloid. This category is completely arbitrary and a potential embarrassment. ZAP IT. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 07:44, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

With the power of bots I have wiped this cat, and will now delete it. I agree with Weaseloid & Ty. Blue (is useful) 07:54, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

A metric: two borderline cases

Bill Maher and Thunderf00t represent the cutoff between doofus (wayward ally) and asshole (more trouble than they're worth). That said, I can't decide if Thunderf00t belongs in this category or not, but I'm inclined to add him. EVDebs (talk) 01:14, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

What about Stalin? Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 01:20, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I think as a general rule that "chaotic evil megalomaniac" pretty much automatically puts someone in the asshole category even before you factor in the mass murder thing. EVDebs (talk) 01:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Chaotic? Evil, sure. Chaotic, not so much, I think. Wehpudicabok (talk) 08:29, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, if I was going to define the difference between lawful and chaotic evil, Hitler and Stalin respectively would be my examples. Hitler subverted the existing law in Germany and mostly did his evil within that context. Stalin, on the other hand, was very arbitrary and really didn't care about the laws or philosophies he paid lip service to; they were both self-centered megalomaniacs who killed millions of people, but they had very different ways of going about it. EVDebs (talk) 19:27, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Then who would be NE? Nobody^{don't bother} 19:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

"Allies of the skeptical community"?

Savage is not noted for anything to do with the skeptic movement. It seems odd that he is in this category. Blue (pester) 07:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Not so much because of being a professional skeptic, as for being a guy who works for important progressive causes like gay rights and the acceptance of human sexuality but who also has some less-progressive views re: trans, for example. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 19:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC)