Talk:Maddox
|
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. |
|
This internet related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information. |
| ||
|
| ||||
First Edit[edit]
This is a new page I created, I'll back to it periodically to fix some things up. Things I want to include on this page would be some instropective of how Maddox became an internet phenomenon, to contributions he made to the world for the sake of humor, and also critisms regarding an ambiguously sexist tone that flavors his writing some times. I felt it was important to add Maddox, because his genre is considered fratire, a term he and others of the genre don't like, specifically in Maddox's case, he is not a fratboy, but an irate computer programmer. The manosphere crowd has occassionally referenced him either through plagairism or through some influence. Maddox generally tends to write offensive stuff out of spite, and has some shocking things like saying he'd take away Women's right to vote in his Regressive Party article, as well as some chapters in the Alphabet of Manliness, which include "Coping a Feel", "Enlightenment", and "Obediance" which specifically sacastically intstructs men on how to train your wife as if she was a dog. However, Maddox gets along well with women, and he has hired female talent on numerous occasions, has spoken up for some more obscure female heroes. Plus Maddox is pro science, speeaking out against the anti vaccination movement, creationists, pseudosciences, and conspiracy theorists, so he could be a kind guy that would find this site awesome and fit right well at home here.— Unsigned, by: RakortheTerrible / talk / contribs
- Why didn't you put all that in the article instead of on the talk page? Spud (talk) 09:50, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Well, Spud, the reason I am editing the talk page now instead of the article is because the article needs to be uniform in tone, and structured just like all the other articles on the wiki. I got some ideas down, I just need to format those ideas properly. I can't just copy and paste the above text into the article. In addition, I began working on this article, but some numbnuts went and deleted the progress on account of me being a fanboy. They could, you know, helped and contributed. But now, since Maddox is getting attention on this site, with this site quoting him, referencing him, and sometimes criticizing him, but never in full detail, it is utmost importance that we have coherent article on this internet legend. RakortheTerrible (talk) 23:49, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Why[edit]
I'm for having this removed again, on the same grounds. Yeah, RW articles have a strong slant, but it ain't this one. Fuck Maddox- he was unfunny when I was 10 and he's unfunny now (that's 15 years of lazy, misogynistic material that gives nerd comedy a bad name.) I wish I was an actual contributor so I could help flesh this page out a bit more but I have the same writing ability I had when I was 10 and I don't think I'd do it much justice. That being said, I've still got an opinion, and by no means is it special, but it's a strong one: Maddox is a fuccboi
Edit: to clarify, he is most definitely integral to the manosphere/alt right crowd at this point. If you read his more recent stuff, it's just more of the same screed they all take part in, decrying 'SJW's and whatnot as if they're the problems most worth focusing on in our society. The issue with 'fratire' isn't just that it's generally poor satire with weak points and tired subject matter, it's that they're not actually mocking the people espousing misogynistic and otherwise fucked up ideas. They're just using a tone they find edgy (and therefore super funny- clearly) to say things that are just the hyperbolic versions of their actual beliefs. It's hard to view it under the lens of traditional satire because of this. So yeah, I'm sorry if he didn't used to be this way, in a simpler time where the line between shock value driven/ironic hate was a little less defined, but that's not where we're at now, and old Maddox is clear on which side he settled into. I doubt he'd find much of a home in RW. Encyclopedia Dramatica is more his style, hopelessly mired in the early 2000s and so self referential it could map out every muscle fiber in its own asshole. -DopeyGuru 76.115.130.217 (talk) 22:42, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- We can change the slant from proMaddox to more critical of him, so wouldn't he still have a spot in RationalWiki? He is still relevant, according to you, so why not rewrite the page? --It's-a me,
LeftyGreenMario! 23:39, 9 April 2017 (UTC) - "Part of the manosphere and the Alt-right"? Despite him going up against both cuck calling and InfoWars? Presenting charges like the ones you just did without any sources to back them up risks misrepresenting you as a garden variety jonanist, which I'm sure you're not. Besides, Maddox made a skeptical video a while back, which was pretty funny, and — while nothing special — did contain its fair share of good points (just like the other two vids of his that I link above). He's also been fucking with Trump, which is great. So I really don't see how Maddox is "part of the Alt-right and the manosphere" in the least — unless you have some solid sources lined up for me, that is. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:29, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Well- this is embarrassing.
Tomato potato. I used alt-right and manosphere wayyy to loosely. But I'll stand by my belief that he's generally a sociocultural reactionary- a rationalist- but a reactionary nonetheless. The only real evidence I could present you with is the SJW decrying and 'satirical' misogyny for why I consider him right of center. You're absolutely right though, I don't think I approached these feelings on the subject the way an RW editor should have, which is why I didn't touch the article (that and I'm a trash writer.)
What I did make clear, and what I will make clear again, is that Maddox just isn't funny. And I DO NOT mean that in the VSP "the content is offensive, therefore, unfunny" way. I mean, yeah, that kind of flavor of humor is lazy on its own, but the guy is genuinely unfunny to me, in an aging-late-90's-angry-white-boy-protoblogger-still-trying-to-remain-relevant-10-years-too-late kind of way. It's just the worst kind of nerd humor (no offense to nerd humor that shit's great.) Anyway's yeah I just really don't like the guy and I actually didn't even realize he was still around until a few weeks ago when a similar kind of "I was born in the wrong generation" angry-white-boy-from-high-school shared one of his posts (the anti-SJW thing) and it prompted me to check him out. So yeah I didn't really know he was still relevant and I'm a little impressed that RBP is that up on things. So it should be very apparent that I was more or less yelling about my opinion rather than any robust argument as to why he shouldn't be on RW. If anyone's interested, check him out, see for yourself. I just get the feeling that his voice is pretty easy to categorize in the current cultural conversation all us internet denizens are a part of, and I do think I'm right, but I certainly can't prove that to anyone.
Whether or not all this belonged on this talk page is a different story. And for that, I'm sorry, but also glad I got some feedback after being able to get it out here. Peace, Maddox is a barnaclehead
Edit again: If you can give me significant proof that he's not another south park republican, I will absolutely take note and change that part of my belief about him and will probs be less disdainful. 76.115.130.217 (talk) 03:09, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Hey there unspecified user! I am the dude who created this page in the first place, and I can provide proof that Maddox is not another one of those. Looks can be deceiving, but Maddox is not a "South Park Republican." While such a title might accurately describe his former friend, Dick Masterson, Maddox has said some things that distance him from Vulgar libertarian ideology, despite his politically incorrect and trollish tone and style.
I'll pull some examples from the late great "Biggest Problem in the Universe" podcast.
http://thebiggestproblemintheuniverse.com
Episode 5 - 48:00 Maddox brings in his problem with "Conspiracy Dipshits" and bemoans their waste of time and energy.
Episode 8 - At 40:00, Maddox gives his opinion on Global Warming, which he considers a big big problem. He also refers to it as the re-branded scientific term "climate change" and mocked his former friend Dick Masterson for blowing off the issue with his "who cares?" attitude, sarcastically declaring the podcast as "The Glenn Beck Podcast" due to his former friend's statements. Maddox said he was not quite on board with the political left's solution, but he did agree with the science.
Episode 21 - At 44:30, Maddox gives his two cents on Anti-vaxxers.
Episode 58 - Halfway through the Episode, Maddox decries anti-intellectualism, bringing up "alternative news" and that one congressman who threw a snowball in court to "prove" that "global warming is a hoax."
Episode 75 - At 22:00 Maddox critiques libertarian theory(this episode cost him a lot of fans but I find it the best political debate ever. Maddox even shared a cat meme.)
I could also bring up different times in his regular articles in where he espouses a solution or two that don't line up with libertarian ideology.
For instance, in "Oops! You're Racist!" and the corresponding hate mail response to this article... http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=walmart
Maddox says that illegal immigrants should be paid the same amount of money that legal citizens get when working for minimum wage jobs like Wal-Mart. In sound theory, this would effectively kill the incentive that companies have for illegally hiring illegal immigrants to do work for lesser pay that is even less than minimum wage, and thus being a pretty righteous solution that you would think everybody would agree upon, even the most racist dirtbag of the "Dey tuk ur JERBS!" crowd should find workable. Maddox argued that if in the case the companies still hire the immigrants over citizens, then it would not be the companies nor the problem of the immigrants, for it would be the fault of the average citizens being less worthy as workers than the immigrants. The one person who did disagree with Maddox's proposal wrote racist stuff in his Hate Mail...
http://maddox.xmission.com/hatemail.cgi?p=1#CLUETRAIN
...proving Maddox's point, and Maddox put him in his place.
(For the record, and I must tell you this, when Maddox puts you in your place, and pwns you in an argument, it is like getting punched in the groin by the Hokuto no Ken style, Chuck Norris roundhouse kicked in the face, impaled by Goku's Spirit Bomb, getting Steam Roller'd via Dio Brando's "ZA WARUDO!", AND getting divided by Zero. It leaves a smoldering crater, and there is absolute zero recovery. Be very careful when debating Maddox, as his flying monkey, I find it my moral patriotic duty to spit on the remains of those who challenged Maddox and lost. Rekt in Pieces, Chump Change)
Now this solution requires a law. Libertarians are generally not for laws because they are for smaller government, albeit limited, and because of that, they are all about repealing laws. (This is just a general rule of thumb, because libertarians are okay with some laws, if they were not okay with any law, then they would be Anarachists and not libertarians. The keywords here are "limited government" not "no government" though there are anarachists in the Libertarian Party because the libertarian party is a disorganized mess.)
In "Bush: Making Political Satirists Obsolete"... http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=limits_to_freedom
Maddox has a picture of Bush pissing on the globe, while saying a bunch of infuriating statements. Among those statements was "Kyoto? Hell no!" Which heavily implies that Maddox was onboard with the Kyoto Protocol, which was the Japanese Government's call to the world to pollute less, and limit carbon emissions. Again this not fit with the libertarian party line, because usually even if Libertarians accepted the science behind climate change, they would generally oppose laws of any sort on the basis that laws limit an individual's freedom, they would probably have faith that the free market would solve the problem on the basis of inventors creating environmentally sustainable tech in response to the economic fundamentals of supply and demand.
In "Looking for a Safe Stance on Abortion? Me Neither..." or otherwise known as "The Infamous Regressive Party" article...
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=regressive
Maddox proposes a whole bunch of things that would leave libertarians, and everyone else on the planet who isn't Maddox flustered... Though I honestly think this article was made in jest.
So I think I have given some evidence that Maddox does not quite fit into the "South Park Republican" category, though he does attract people who fall into that camp.RakortheTerrible (talk) 06:31, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Maddox's Greatest Hits: Remember SOPA?[edit]
http://thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=pass_sopa
Maddox was one of the first people to spearhead the large scale and effective mass boycott of all the companies who got on with that piece of garbage legislature if not the first. It caused a world wide blackout and demonstrated to all these media companies that people are not so easily bought and sold, and that they shouldn't regulate the internet in such an authoritarian way. It was also a jab against one of Maddox's pet peeves which is "slacktivism" in where people do the most minimum of work when it comes to there activist causes(Clicking clickbait articles that tell them to "give a like" to end breast cancer, child abuse etc).RakortheTerrible (talk) 23:57, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
- It seems to me, we ought to give Maddox much more credit in our article for much of the above sourced stuff (read: on this entire talkpage). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 08:49, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Maddox's Greatest Hits: "The Pedosmile"[edit]
Maddox has actually contributed to something that could turn into legitimate scientific discourse, in addition to helping parents get a good idea of what kind of babysitter they should leave their children with.
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=spot_the_pedo
This article explains how convicted child molesters have a distinct look to them, especially when you compare and contrast their face to the looks of other criminals. Whereas armed robbers and murderers have this frowny cold dead stare, pedophile criminals on the other hand, have this wormy look to them. They often display this weird smarmy smile that Maddox dubs the "pedosmile."
"It's part smirk, part grin, and all molester. It's like he's having a two-for-one sale on rape, no refunds or exchanges."
The article even includes a test that will determine your ability to detect pedophiles using Maddox's method. Most people at least get a C+.
Well, this dudette over at science2.0 has looked into this, and come up with some interesting conjecture.
http://www.science20.com/selective_genetics/pedosmile_do_pedophiles_have_certain_smile-82713
Apparently, pedophillia could be genetic, or caused by some "environmental insult" like fetal alcohol syndrom that results in certain facial features and abnormal sexuality. What do you know, Maddox has helped us understand the murky waters of pedophilia better!RakortheTerrible (talk) 05:53, 8 September 2017 (UTC)