Information icon.svg Nominations and campaigning for the RationalWiki 2019 Moderator Election is underway and will end on November 16.

Talk:Armoured Skeptic

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon sociology.svg This article contains information about one or more living persons.

Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats.
Reference any contentious allegations solidly; unreferenced allegations should be removed.
If legal threats are raised on this page, please direct the potential litigant to RationalWiki:Legal FAQ; do not interact with them.

Generally disappointed in him[edit]

I just don't get where all this suddenly interest in taking down feminism has come from. He keeps making strawmen and denying things, misrepresenting facts and just finding easy targets in people who don't word their meaning that great. So what? A few assholes Dox him and almost get him fired, suddenly all modern feminism is evil and needs to be demolished? Honestly, he's recently put up a video that ends claiming Zootopia is Anti-Feminism, when it isn't in the slightest and he comes up with a dozen ridiculous strawmen about what he thinks feminism is to prove his point. The usual stuff, that Feminists are professional victims constantly complaining about the system and how they want the world to completely alter itself for them. Never mind, Judy wants to change the world in the movie, make it better. I imagine anyone working on the movie would tell AS off for suggesting they intended to comment at all about feminism or what it stood for.

He went from one of my favorite youtubers, to a person I just can't stand anymore.— Unsigned, by: 69.156.128.116 / talk / contribs

To be honest, as much as I don't like his hatred of feminism and the series of videos on it, I'm not sure I can entirely blame him for it. "A few assholes Dox[ing] him and almost get[ting] him fired" is a big fucking serious deal (and if you don't see why, you don't understand online abuse). Some assholes took something we all consider extremely important -- his personal privacy -- and destroyed it by directly attacking his personal life and his livelihood. People respond differently to being attacked like this; in the case of ArmouredSkeptic, he swung the way of Thunderf00t. I'll still be watching his videos, but not the ones he does on Feminism.
And yeah, I didn't see the Zootopia one yet, but I've no idea how you get "anti-Feminist" from it. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 22:17, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
TBH doxing is a good excuse for turning on a group -- though he fails to realize that his now-favored antifeminist crowd is, if anything, more prone to it.
Zootopia: Hell, I'm pretty sure the police force on that movie was almost all male anyway. Seems like she's defying gender (and species) norms, decidedly a feminist idea. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 23:07, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Hey, I'm not saying he shouldn't feel angry or upset. If someone did that to me I would feel pissed off too. Especially if it was something that could've just been explained to him better. If someone bothered to better explain what Rape Culture was instead of reacting in a shitty manner things might have turned out different. But having an excuse doesn't justify believing shit that is wrong or labelling all Feminists as some horrible divisive force that intends to ruin everything. I mean, if a bunch of Mexican Migrants beat me up or some Black Kids in hoodies trashed my car, is it fair to then label all those people a threat to me? Is it fair to every innocent person who had no relation to that crime to be treated with contempt? This is a lesson Judy learns in Zootopia, she had a terrible experience with a Fox as a kid, it colored her perception however subtle, and while she tried to convince herself it didn't affect her and she was free of such bias, she only discovered too late that she was pretty quick to make a rash judgement however justified and reasonable it seemed. AS was wronged, I won't argue that, but I can no longer watch him descend into this quagmire he's decided to throw himself in. If he can't even bring himself to trust Joss Whedon's own words about why he left Twitter then he has a problem. He has pathological need at this point to keep the blame on feminism and never see the bad in anyone who opposes it. I will not support that, I just can't. (As for Zootopia and Feminism, while Judy's predicament is centered more on her species than her gender it can be viewed somewhat in terms of her being a female. Bunnies are predicted as smaller, weaker and generally not suited to a job that requires stronger and bigger animals. So yeah, kinda the same arguments people use to say women shouldn't be cops, so Judy can still be viewed as a feminist icon in that sense. She just happens to be a girl so it helps sell the point further. seriously, you could probably write a whole book on Zootopia's many facets concerning, authority, stereotypes and prejudices.) — Unsigned, by: 69.156.128.116 / talk / contribs
Yup. I wonder how different Armoured Skeptic's viewpoint would have been had he, after being spurned from the Atheism+ group, found a another pro-feminist group that actually spent time explaining, instead of getting angry. Mm. An argument for being nice to all newcomers, eh. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 16:18, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
You're forgetting the elephant in the room, FCP. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 20:14, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Uh? Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 21:11, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Oh, wait, you said "Almost". Nevermind. Was trying to make joke about that gag they did during the first squad room scene. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 17:20, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
What I thought was totally the opposite. I feel like he's hidden the truth of a lot of things, & only reveals them when he feels he would still get support. I'm not saying he's lying about being doxed, but for example when he originally said that he was "called a rape apologist," he neglected to mention the fact that it was because he denied that "drunk sex is in any way a form of rape." That detail only came out later, after he got a lot of positive reaction to his antifeminist views. That doesn't exactly sound like someone who was devoted to social justice, as he claims he was. So who knows how much of his story is altered or omitted to paint himself in a positive light? In my opinion, this isn't "sudden," this is the truth coming out.67.234.50.108 (talk) 22:06, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

ASpolitix.png[edit]

Don't understand it. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 19:11, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Neither did I. (Seems my original comment died) Zero (talk - contributions) 20:25, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

With an article like this it's no wonder he has a low opinion of the site.[edit]

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)
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?
Lol, check the article again. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 16:06, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Cute. 108.51.129.120 (talk) 17:01, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
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!
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.) Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 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[edit]

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.[edit]

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! @Ikanreed 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[edit]

@Ariel31459 I have a few problems with your recent edits:

  • 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.<ref>http://nationalpost.com/opinion/bruce-pardy-meet-the-new-human-rights-where-you-are-forced-by-law-to-use-reasonable-pronouns-like-ze-and-zer</ref><ref> https://www.nationalobserver.com/2016/10/25/opinion/opinion-bill-c-16-flawed-ways-most-canadians-have-not-considered</ref><ref>https://youtu.be/z10lOuoL0OI?t=69</ref>
    • Firstly, "its" not "it's". Secondly, saying he is "not alone" in his beliefs is irrelevant to whether or not they are accurate.

I agree with you about the helmet part though. CowHouse (talk) 04:05, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

@CowHouse 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)
@Ariel31459 Thanks Th hug.gif
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)
@CowHouse 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 (Th hug.gif).Ariel31459 (talk) 05:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC)