From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon internet.svg

This Internet related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Editorial notes
  • Page generates butthurt from fanboys and MRAs.
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.

This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>


Banana in anus man --Hsgjkldth8495 (talk) 04:48, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, but let's not lead with that. Or include it at all. Thanks. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 05:08, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Can we call this guy a nihilist instead of an atheist?[edit]

This is what this guy really is, just a nihilist or "edgelord troll", he's not an atheist in the modern, Humanist sense of the word because he doesn't stand for any values (religious, secular otherwise), he just thrives off of drama and obscenity - that's basically what separates an atheist from a nihilist.-- (talk) 04:22, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

@ That’s stereotyping. Nihilism doesn’t mean you're an asshole. Also, have you considered registering? —ℓσωℓу ѕуѕσρ вιgℓʝвιgℓ σf gσαтιѕтαи (ᴡᴏʀᴅs ᴏғ ᴡɪsᴅᴏᴍ/ᴀᴄʜɪᴇᴠᴇᴍᴇɴᴛs) 20:12, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
No. No, we can't pretend the shitheads don't share an ideological dimension with us. Some percentage of atheists are reprehensible people. (Also, you have a weird definition of nihilist) ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:41, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Talk About Vandalism and Utter, Unhidden bias[edit]

After attempting to fix the page's incorrect and blatant misrepresentations while also adding factual information, one of this page's gleeful, respectful followers greeted me with a completely unnecessary edit war before the page was locked. Then I received the lovely message I'm breaking down right now.

"I'm not seeing any improvements to TheAmazingAtheist aside from attempted whitewashing (such as part related to the "thousands of other people died aside from Amanda Todd", thus it adds unnecessary verbiage to the article as well as a white-washed interpretation of what he actually said."

Not a whitewashed interpretation of what he originally said since it was in his clarification video.

"Also, you upload files through Special:Upload, not by linking directly from your computer. Also, adding "[16]" isn't going to automatically generate a source. Learn some formatting first before making edits."

Thanks for that actually. I write on websites similar to this one where direct embedding through the machine is standard and the formatting is differently coded. Thanks for the correction in that regard. If only we could reach some consensus on how you're blatantly misrepresenting TJ and his stances on SJWism.

— Unsigned, by: LordColbito / talk / contribs

First, the debate on misrepresenting crusade on "SJW" is not productive as "SJW" is a poorly defined term and we need to use more specific alternatives. For instance, calling him an "anti-feminist" and "seeing feminism as somehow being a great danger and harmful to society" is more specific than "turned his focus to bashing SJWs". The early life stuff can probably stay as long as we can verify it's original writing (i.e. not snipped from Wikipedia).
"and he was disillusioned with his older, less informed opinions" If he really was disillusioned, this can stay. The word choice "less informed" though, needs to be altered as it's ambiguous if the wiki is stating his opinions are "less informed" or if he thinks his opinions back then are "less informed".
The Hillary Clinton edits can probably stay.
"His stance on the video was that the media shouldn't be crying about one girl when dozens of other teens had done the exact same thing and that in the end, it was her decision." This one is very bad. This doesn't add anything to the article and, from the demeaning language of "crying" and "exact same thing" this is your own bias being added to the article (contradicting your claims of "hidden bias". Furthermore, this is already stated later in the passage with his own quotes.
"which received some criticism from vegans and vegetarians for supposedly using the naturalistic fallacy even though he was not arguing it was objectively correct because of nature" Unsourced; it appears to be responding to the piping to the naturalistic fallacy in the previous revision. Remove.
"Joking view on upskirt photography" <- This otherwise unnecessary change "joking" adds your bias to the page, which again contradicts your accusations of "utter, hidden bias". People will disagree that he's joking about it, and adding that word suggests with-holding responsibility for his harmful claims. Remove. This is similar to the other edits you put on there including "trolling" and
Your addition of "third-wave feminism" isn't supported by the source. In the reference, there is no mention of "third-wave" feminism as opposed to a more generic reference to feminism. To be fair, the blog post is only a response to the video above, and so I can't say anything about if he thinks it's "sexist and superfluous".
The Thunderf00t part is a complete whitewashing, removing content that says that he did do a copy-and-paste video and with supporting claim and replacing it with "similar", and there's unjustified removal of a sourced claim that goes on into the crap stuff he said. A lot of your edits do this too, by replacing more specific critiques that use MRA talking points with more vague "arguments and insults against third wave feminism".
First stab, don't want to go into Gish Gallop mode. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 22:02, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Sheesh, where outside of the internet, do people practice this moronic "logic"? we are not vandalizing the page, you are! Now cease calling us vandals. In addition, the fact that you had to remove over ten sources, vs the single one you added (that's less than ten in case your math skills are as bad as your critical thinking skills) says something about the strength of your claims. (hint: They're weak.) ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:15, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie Nobody is vandalising the page and the insults are not necessary. Please read RationalWiki:Constructive dialogue. CowHouse (talk) 06:47, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

The change hairlesscat wants[edit]

In particular the bit where TJ accurately predicted a specific school shooter: without a citation, that seems like an an astoundingly unlikely order of events. Is there any reason to believe that's true? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:05, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

{{ping|ikanreed} --HairlessCat (talk) 22:28, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: SigButt.png on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:24, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Seems legit enough. Feel free to add that bit, at least, but make sure you include a citation. <ref name="wired">[ YouTuber Warned of Finnish Gunman in June, But No One Listened]. Wired, 2007 </ref> <- something like that. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 13:58, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Opinion on Otherkin[edit]

In this video, TJ claims that he'd like to see Otherkin actually become whatever they identify as. --HairlessCat (talk) 15:23, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Reference 79[edit]

I have a qualm with reference 79, where it asserts that "scamming runs in the family" and points to his father's actions. I didn't realize this website runs off of "the sins of the father" type arguments and debases themselves to Christian-level talking points. Is it really appropriate for the "Rational Wiki" (a wiki I have thus enjoyed so far) to be doling out such low level comparisons based on his father's crimes when TJ was a child? I would hope not. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Why is this website so negative towards him?[edit]

I mean of course he’s said bad shit in the past but most of the time he’s pretty reasonable. He doesn’t even focus on feminists and “SJWs” much anymore. — Unsigned, by: 2605:6000:1518:9134:D61:18D3:405F:72BE / talk