Talk:TheAmazingAtheist/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 11 October 2018. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>

, (new)(back)

Deletion

Sorry for deleting it prematurely. I'm still getting the hang of things. Anywho, this page is crap. It's a short, pointless page slandering a person who isn't even notable enough to have a page about, let alone slander. Furthermore, no pages link to it. Nothing necessitates its creation other than a soapbox from the page's creator. Not many pages will likely to link to it in the future either. --e|m|c ^[TALK] 21:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, its crap and has very poor spelling. Ace McWicked^Necron99 21:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

It is kinda stupid to make an article for everyone on Youtube that voices an opinion on God and evolution. Focus on the more fanatical simpletons--Tabris (talk) 22:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Delete & replace with an entry at WIGOclogs. ^{This message brought to you by: respond}_and honey 22:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, we are not going to start having individual articles on every youtuber. Stick it on in an article on youtube if there is anything worth salvaging. Delete this though. tmtoulouse 23:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Done, nothing really worth salavaging. Ace McWicked^Necron99 23:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Past Tense

Don't know the guy, but much of this article is past tense. is he no longer on youtube?En attendant Godot 14:33, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

He's still with us. Fixed. DasRationalpersone (talk) 16:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Jerk

This section needs references. If we want to proclaim him a jerk we should at least supply URL to mentioned videos. DasRationalpersone (talk) 17:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

And Coughlan is a total drama whore so anyone punching him around should really be given the benefit of the doubt. 14:16, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Most subscribed

Why does "most subscribed atheist on YouTube" keep getting deleted? I don't know any that have more subscribers. -- DasRationalpersone (Annoy me!) 12:16, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

So you know how many people subscribe to every single YouTube account and whether or not the people who run those accounts believe in God or not? P-Foster (talk) 12:53, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Seems to have the most subscribers out of the atheists RW covers. What about making it more specific?? Like, "most subscribed vlogger about atheism" or something. 00:12, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

For clarity

RationalWiki in general has no real problems with people enjoying sexual gratification with food objects. Seriously, who are we to judge? We love goats a little too much. Please, stop wandalizing us with this nonsense. We are not ED. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 05:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it's notable and thus worth mentioning, especially I like the way he cool-headidly reacted to the leak. And please stop calling me Vandal, I play Rome: Total War as Saxon. So yeah, I think it should be included. -- DasRationalpersone (Annoy me!) 14:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Nobody cares what you think, when it comes to crap like that. 2 to 1 outvoted. Now drop it. --PsyGremlinRunāt! 15:03, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I see. "Who cares what's notable, if we no like it, then we no include it NOW STFU U OUTVOTED TROLOLOLOLOLOLOL." -- DasRationalpersone (Annoy me!) 15:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, you got the last part right. Also, as has been said before, you seem to be mistaking us for ED. --PsyGremlinTal! 15:37, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Can we include it if I do it differnet? Like, just "He was involved in a sex scandal when his sex tape was leaked, his reaction can be found here?" Pretty please? C'mon, care for what I think just for a sec ... -- DasRationalpersone (Annoy me!) 15:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

No. leave it. --PsyGremlinHable! 15:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Pretty please with a cherry on top? -- DasRationalpersone (Annoy me!) 15:53, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Seeing as how we agree with his response, "why is everyone making a big deal about this?" No. We don't feel like it's particularly anything worth mentioning. If he had become famous because of a sex scandal, that would have been different. But I mean, hey, the guy just enjoyed the company of a banana one night. Big deal. We here at RationalWiki are moving on. ED is free to play all this up for as much drama as they possibly want. That's their niche... our niche is different. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 21:22, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't like how the article suddenly went from "he's an asshole" to complete fanboyism. Why are we according this guy any respect? He's despiccable. He's irrational in his insistence on being a douche. The man is pathologically incapable of empathy.--. 21:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The page on him is full of fanboyism because why? We don't feel like including details about his sex scandal? zOMG GO STOP THE PRESSES! Fact is that TJ is an anti-creationist, and that gets you credit on RationalWiki. We're fairly clear that his process is to be intolerant of everyone in order to bring tolerance to religious expression (or rather, non-religious expression). The guy has problems, like being anti-feminist, and generally being a dick to people who were abused in any way other than physically, but that doesn't make him "irrational", and it doesn't mean that he rejects Rationalism. Namely, we're not ED, we don't care about manufacturing drama about a person that we don't like just because we don't like them. We drag drama out of the closet and beat it with a shiny aluminum bat for people who preach ideas fundamentally opposing science, or scamming medical patients, or any of a number of things. Not because they're douchebags... --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 21:37, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I don't believe we should include the bananabutt thing. Just that we shouldn't whitewash any of the BS he's slung at people--. 21:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

::::Wait, being anti-feminist is a problem? And TJ is a dick for not believeing that calling name-calling-your-partner "abuse" is bollocks? And what BS exactly has he slung at people? I don't like generalization ... -- DasRationalpersone (Annoy me!) 21:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: he is not anti-feminist in a way that women should just KKK (Kinder, Küchen, Kirche), he is anti-feminist in a way that he sees women having more privileges in society than men, and he opposes that. As for abuse: he just doesn't like sensitive people. Maybe he's right, maybe he's wrong, but w/e. And he isn't ignorant or intolerant of all but his believes. He is ignorant and intolerant to (what he calls) stupid believes. -- DasRationalpersone (Annoy me!) 08:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Kinder, Küchen, Kirche isn't anti-feminist, it's chauvanist/sexist. He is not a sexist, but he believes that we're living in a post-feminism world, where feminists are evil bitches who make up sexism in everything, because we apparently have nothing better to do. He's upset because now that we've gotten this far, balancing the rights and dignity of females with men so that we're actually equal, requires us to diminish male privilege. He ascribes to the "I believe in equal rights for females, but I'm not a feminist" viewpoint. To him, feminists are evil harpies out to castrate men. No, we just want to be treating like fucking equals, and we still don't have that in this world. So, basically, he's a sexism denialist, but not a sexism perpetrator. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 09:55, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

So how often do you get discriminated against? --Mack Coster (talk) 10:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I can't legally talk about it, because there was a settlement with an NDA. But yeah, I get discriminated against a lot. And how can you ask about "where's the discrimination?" Do me a favor, and google "Terra" the new MMO, and tell me it's not blatantly sexist, and while you're at it, figure out how much the average woman makes compared to the average man. Hint: it's lower. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 11:10, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

There are obvious biological reasons for the income disparity. And God forbid somebody makes a game for a male audience. --Mack Coster (talk) 12:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh? Biological reasons for the income disparity, hm? Amazing, do go on about why a woman putting widgets together should earn less than a man doing the same task... I need a reference for the sexism article.

The issue isn't that there are games made for men, it's that nearly all games are made for men. It's like global warming, and climate change. A single heat wave, or freak storm doesn't prove global warming or climate change all on its own. It's an aggregate combination of all of it together that indicates them. "Terra" is simply a single data point. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 12:21, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Women aren't treated as equals. That's wrong. But TJ doesn't want men to keep male privileges, he wants both having same privileges or noone having any. In the court, in like fucking 90% of divorce cases, the mother gets the children. There are numerous other cases of women's de facto privileges, as seen in his videos on feminism. Maybe he has attacked the wrong group or is generalizing, but he has a point. -- DasRationalpersone (Annoy me!) 17:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

About video games: we need more female video game developers. Then we might just get a game for women. -- DasRationalpersone (Annoy me!) 17:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Right, because secret antiperspirant is totally made exclusively by women, right? Bras of course were manufactured and designed by women all the way throughout the entire history of the bra, right? Even when women weren't allowed to work? This idea that sex A will and can only produce content targeting sex A is fucking apologistics for sexism. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 08:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Video games aren't sexist because the video game designers are sexist, it's because off business. Men play video games more and thus games targeted to them sell better. If we have more women designing and playing video games, then we just might get more games with big, muscular, handsom Arnie guys. -- DasRationalpersone (Annoy me!) 13:09, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Hm... it's such a well-known fact, that everyone knows it, right? Except, it's not true. Of course, if we just ignore women entirely from the market, then conveniently we can be sexist all we want, and treat women like sex objects, etc. It's not like it's the case where we shouldn't be sexist even when no one is looking. After all, "no cop? no stop!" Right? Morality only applies when you can get in trouble! I know when I'm all alone with my white friends, we break out the word "nigger" and talk about how all them niggers are stupid, and that's why they're not proportionally represented in CEOs and other high-level executive positions. I mean, it's not racist, right? Because there are no niggers there to get offended by it! (/satire) --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 01:35, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, based on my experiences with females, all of my male friends play video games constantly, while females barely touch them. Maybe that's just local. -- DasRationalpersone (Annoy me!) 09:28, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I know a guy who took homeopathic remedies for ebola, and it CURED him. Seriously, you're going to bring anecdote into this argument? Let's see, as for anecdotes, being that I am a reasonably extroverted female, I have a number of female friends. Most of them play some form of video game, one of them even played World of Warcraft for a heck of a lot longer and more than I ever did. (She beat me to level 70, 80, and 85. And now has/had multiple characters at 85, one for each healing class, and a warlock. I got one character to 60, then two to 70, and I think I managed to get those two up to 82 later.) Point is: there are plenty of females who play a ton of video games, and your lack of evidence to support that in your personal life is not valid evidence, and is certainly not a good reason to invent justification for sexism. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 10:09, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say my personal experience is evidence. I just said that I did epic fail because I didn't bother to look at polls and based my argument on personal experience. -- DasRationalpersone (Annoy me!) 10:53, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, as long as you understand that feminism is still necessary... and why as a result of that, you—a man—are a worthless rapist scum. (/satire) --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 13:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh noez! I iz rapist!!!??!! -- DasRationalpersone (Annoy me!) 15:30, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

And why do women nearly always get the children? Oh, right, because it's a stereotype that moms are more involved in their children's lives, because they're the people who are responsible for caring for the children. Why do mothers get longer maternity leave then fathers do? Oh, the same reason, because it's the woman's responsibility to raise the children. Sexism hurts men too, and these things that people bring up that are "female privilege" are not there for the woman's benefit, they are there because of sexist stereotypes or sexist cultural traditions. "Women don't have to pay for dates." because it was standard practice not too long ago that the man was the breadwinner, and women stayed home and weren't allowed to work. So, it's the man's responsibility to pay for a date in order to demonstrate to a woman that they can support her, because she's not going to be working. (Note: this is no longer the intent that men have behind paying for dates, but it was the original reason. The intent and reason for it continuing is tradition.) Yes, TJ doesn't want women to have special rights, and for both sexes to be equal, but the point that FEMINISTS are trying to make is that the system is STILL SEXIST against them. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 08:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Why shouldn't we include the information about 'Bananagate'? It's notable, and I think it probably caused some amount of controversy in Youtube land. Just because we say what happened doesn't mean we're condemning it or anything. Besides, it's so in line with his character. F_idgeter^{talk to me :D} 15:08, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we should start WIGO:TheAmazingAtheist, then. The incident is not relevant to our mission. PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 15:11, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

And '15 inch penis' is? You guys are taking yourselves way too seriously. It's an article about a guy who makes Youtube videos. Just fucking include the paragraph that states a video was leaked of him fucking himself with a banana, Jesus. F_litzer^{talk to me :D} 15:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

There's no nice way to say this, so: take your banana fetish and fick off to ED with it. You can die there too, for all I care. End of story. Do not bring it up again. --PsyGremlinParlez! 15:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

New strip

What's with that strip? He doesn't debate like that anymore, so we should add it to "Past" or something. It doesn't really fit with text on the left -- DasRationalpersone (Annoy me!) 14:22, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

It's a retarded comic from Encyclopedia Dramatica. There's really no reason why we should have it, AT ALL. Especially, when it makes a retarded creationist look like a reasonable person. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 21:08, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

You know, the character in the comic was not described as a creationist. He went to church, that is all. Second of all, so long as a creationist doesn't try to hinder scientific education or press his beliefs onto those who don't share them, what does it matter that they are creationists? Finally, maybe he doesn't debate like that anymore, but that's his lasting legacy, and he's done nothing to apologize for it. --. 23:44, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Isn't ED's job to cling on retarded past of a person for all eternity? Well, if we do that, we at least shouldn't stick it to the "present." We're moving on here. That's why bananagate wasn't included. And I would like to see some sources of him attacking "someone who just came from the church." -- DasRationalpersone (Annoy me!) 14:44, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

A holdover from when the article was desperate for content. It can probably go now. ^{d hominem} 14:46, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Notable videos

I think there may be some debate over what the word "notable" means. I'm tempted to go in there and remove every second one. PintOfStoutTalk Good people drink good beer. 03:28, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, most of them are off-mission. Maybe we should leave only those relevant to RW. Idunno. -- DasRationalpersone (Annoy me!) 11:15, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I took out anything with <200k views. PintOfStoutTalk Good people drink good beer. 14:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we should leave some videos that are important representatives of his views. -- DasRationalpersone (Annoy me!) 19:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

203.59.15.217

Somebody block this guy, his repetitive vandalisms make me want to blow my fucking brains out. -- DasRationalpersone (Annoy me!) 14:45, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Not Vandalism

The Straw Feminist isn't just limited to fiction watch anything on CBS about their beloved double strandeds or even worse watch any TV movie produced by Lifetime Tv network and see that the (feminist) writers not only portray all males as violent potential rapist but also all women as week and defenceless against them.

Further more ask any feminist if any male is automatically guilty of women's oppression from birth, they are guaranteed to, also ask any feminist if they believe in the "rape culture", they are guaranteed to. There for all feminist believe that all men are misogynistic oppressors, potential rapist, expendable both physically and mentally, useless as fathers, husbands and sons and finally are unable to do anything women can do. Pure hypocrisy. ^{— Unsigned, by: 203.59.15.217 / talk / contribs}

All, you say? Peter ^{talk, or type, or whatever...} 06:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

To add insult to injury any man or women for that matter who believes that men should be treated with care like women is a "misogynist" and all feminist have failed to realise the error of their ways. ^{— Unsigned, by: 203.59.15.217 / talk / contribs}

That does not really describe the beliefs of most feminists, only the pinko variety (who not only pretend that they are the only True Feminists^TM, but are loudmouthed enough that they manage to make some people believe it). ListenerX^TalkerX 06:54, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I treat anyone who deserves it, with care. I hold doors for anyone behind me, male or female, and if they are older, kids, or have their hands full, i'll go out of my way to grab doors. I expect that everyone likes TLC, and wants a hot cup of coffee at night, myself included. But, if you don't respect me, i'm not goign to respect you. and if you demand or EXPECT me to care for you, likely I won't.GodotSome would use a tautology to describe it ("The way things are done around here is the wa 15:48, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

They only support the female gender and not the male gender as well. If you do not subjugate women or even if you support women's rights then they will think of some other excuse to call you a misogynist.

Good job taking a small section of wingnuts in a group and then conflating them so that they are the group. Yes, there exist anti-men, reverse-sexist feminists out there, and they may be vocal, but they are by far not the majority.

Most women who are feminists, have felt the burden of being an underclass. WE have very little time for whiners. WE have very little time for people who say "But who's taking care of me", or say "but I lost my kids in the divorce, and that's man hating". Cause in our experience, most people who whine like you are, are not actually pro women, or even "pro male" but are in fact, anti women, and are generally upset that some women, somewhere pissed in their cheerios and they need to "hate on" all other women. GodotSome would use a tautology to describe it ("The way things are done around here is the wa 15:48, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

We have very little time for whiners... Oh, I am not so sure about that; they seem to have plenty of time to hold such whiners up as poster-boys illustrating what dissenters look like. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:54, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

And on TJ: I like a lot of his videos, but his ones dealing with feminism kind of piss me off, mostly because he does the same thing the BoN does, and is an asshole. F_ucker^{talk to me :D} 07:21, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Look up the perspective of Masculism or Men's Rights on Wikipedia (which doesn't just allow you to blog in anything) and you will see that its the majority, if not then the entire movement that subjugate.^{— Unsigned, by: 203.59.15.217 / talk / contribs}

...What? There exists a page on Wikipedia which claims that some people claim that all feminists are man-haters, so it must be true? What kind of fucked up logic is that? F_ucker^{talk to me :D} 14:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Gotta tell you, as a feminist who believes in the rape culture, your comments from the start, dear BON are loathsome to me. They are ignorant of any of the arguments made by feminists other than the single words you hear "attack on men" or "take men's power from them". You have set up such view of what it is to be feminist, that you will never ever have to actually worry about being one or even meeting one, but in one swoop you can demonize all women who want to control their world and their lives. If you ever want to know why we are a culture of rape, just take a look at the oh too slowly changing behaviors of courtship. In all effect, up until only the last 30 or 40 years, the man expected a virgin that he then wooed into submission to him, a woman who was not expected to enjoy sex, but to tolerate it in exchange for a ring, children, and financial support. In the US, UK, Germany, France, Canada - this has largely changed, but not entirely. Women are still expected to put out, even if they don't want to; men are still told as young lads that a woman will say no, and it's your job to convince her "yes". And 1 in 10 women in the US, and 1 in 4 women world wide, will be raped outside of the bonds of marriage (the numbers SOAR when you look at spousal rape). Why do we talk about a rape culture? Why do we talk about male oppression? Cause the system is designed with 6,000 year old values that make a woman a supplement to a man. Sorry the truth offends you, but you really aught to learn the actual arguments, rather than just saying "feminists are icky cause I don't like what they say about me as a gender."GodotSome would use a tautology to describe it ("The way things are done around here is the wa 15:40, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it's just confirmation bias on my part, but I feel like feminist/MRA-related material brings the most butthurt BONs out of the woodwork except maybe the Objectivism articles. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:58, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

True, the more fanatical feminists have mastered better than some the fine art of throwing a tantrum until someone gives them a cookie, but I think the medical-quack articles have to take the cake there. We have had some truly epic talk-page tirades over those articles. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:54, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

This article

Is much improved. My thanks to those that worked on it.--User:Brxbrx/sig 03:47, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Bienvenue. Il n'ya pas de quoi. PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 03:50, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Vsa zahvala gre MENI, ker sem jaz sprožil plaz! There, I know multiple languages, too! Kinda, lol.-- DasRationalpersone (Annoy me!) 06:39, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Assuming Google translate knows Slovenian well enough: Well, the original version of the article kept the same tone, and was a stub. A stub would be all this wiki needs on a youtuber. Then you came along and expanded it with lots of fervent praise. So yeah, you started an avalanche, but really the article would have been fine as it was before you came along.--. 14:42, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that that huge pile of hate-rant-slander-YouTube-drama-report had the same tone as this article, which is at least trying to be rational, not to mention calling it "fine." -- DasRationalpersone (Annoy me!) 15:10, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

"You are Automatically Responsible for Women's Oppression if you are Born Male"

I have coexisted with the opposite sex since infancy, believed in gender equality since I was a toddler, was the token male in a female group when I was a tween. I write females that go a great deal beyond the smurfett principle, have never been with a woman in my life and even when I was in high school I thought "All Men are Perverts" was demeaning to my gender. I hate to brake it to you but we are not all rapist despite what you have been lead to believe that .5% of the male population is 100%. I believe women should have equal and not supreme governmental post, women AND men should not be subjugated or abused, even though you love your double standards, men are just as emotional as women (which mostly goes beyond relationships), the Saudi Arabian government needs to fall because of the subjugation of women there, despite that you believe that all men are misogynistic subductors. You have proven that all feminist are like the Klan because you only have love for your own collective, example if a boy is raped by a man or a women then you would laugh a him because he is born with a Y chromosome, its right to castrate a male (often without reason) but not right to do the same for a female because of your beloved double standards and all women are allowed to falsely accuse even a virgin celibit and no one will question it because after all "only males are sexist and all males are sexist". ^{— Unsigned, by: 203.59.15.217 / talk / contribs}

The "only males are sexist" thing is partly due to a mix-up of terms between most of the population and the feminist theorists, the latter of whom use a definition of "sexism" by which it is possible to be "sexist" and "anti-sexist" at the same time. The only thing this concept shares with what most of us call "sexism" is the name. ListenerX^TalkerX 08:50, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

OK then so what is your commit of the title of this talk section? ^{— Unsigned, by: 203.59.15.217 / talk / contribs}

And what is the female about that which the man is? ^{— Unsigned, by: 176.9.235.126 / talk / contribs}

Any women who identifies herself as a feminist and not a equalist because all forms of feminism are in reality Gender Feminist/Separatist Feminist in disguise.^{— Unsigned, by: 203.59.15.217 / talk / contribs} The equalist womans is who what all that where she is that not are - sometimes.^{— Unsigned, by: 176.9.235.126 / talk / contribs}

Why is it that such bigotry goes along with poor writing skills? Bad Faith (talk) 13:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Now, Bad Faith, he makes a point. Certainly, not all feminists believe this, but there is a faction of radical feminists who believe in female superiority.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 13:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

But when women or men are the not what is the answer to the when or not? Which is better then? ^{— Unsigned, by: 174.140.169.143 / talk / contribs}

Why is a mouse when it spins? --24.246.11.252 (talk) 13:53, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Because the higher the fewer. Bad Faith (talk) 14:05, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Getting back to the point, our dear BoN seems to equate feminism with female supremicism. This is a bit like saying anyone who wants racial equality is a Black Panther. Whilst there are looneys on the fringe, as there are with any movement, in general feminism is about equality. It's about changing a long standing culture where women are lesser citizens who deserve less pay and less respect. I felt that WfG addressed the 'all men are rapists' aspect very clearly and very sucinctly. It's a cultural thing and the west is, in its way, just as guilty as, say, Saudi Arabia. Women, far more than men, are judged by their looks, judged as sex objects, not as humans. That is what the fight is about. Bad Faith (talk) 14:22, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Trolling

Okay, how come the response to this article being trolled is not to block the troll, but to simply protect it from editing? F_lubber^{talk to me :D} 08:09, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing myself. ListenerX^TalkerX 08:10, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

The edits were being made from different IPs. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:25, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

He's not trolling he is just trying to make a social statement that not all us males are violent potential rapist and Chauvinist pigs that all you make us all out to be.^{— Unsigned, by: 124.169.190.43 / talk / contribs}

That's rich, coming from the troll with the fucking creepy banana fixation. --PsyGremlin말하십시오 10:26, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

So do you believe that ALL us men are violent potential rapist and Chauvinist pigs like the other two feminist on the talk page, or not?^{— Unsigned, by: 124.169.190.43 / talk / contribs}

Never ever feed a troll. That is all. -- DasRationalpersone (Annoy me!) 14:19, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

That's not exactly true -- there are sometimes when it's appropriate or just fun to feed a troll. F_ucker^{talk to me :D} 17:16, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

True. TJ said that as well. -- DasRationalpersone (Annoy me!) 18:03, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

We're not feeding or being fed, where feuding, I haven't started the Anti-feminist party it is as old as feminism itself and according to Youtube they take up a small if not then a fair majority of its reception, and you still have't answered my question.^{— Unsigned, by: 124.169.190.43 / talk / contribs}

The anti feminist party is as old as feminism itself. --- That is exactly feminists' point(s). Thanks for playing. --GodotSome would use a tautology to describe it ("The way things are done around here is the wa 21:16, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Search videos such as "This is what a Feminist Looks Like" or "Tropes vs. Women: #6 The Straw Feminist" and the rating bar actually has the majority of negative views. There for those who are for them enforce misandry and lie that it douse not exist and those are against them fight against misandry and actually believe in gender equality.^{— Unsigned, by: 124.169.190.43 / talk / contribs}

Is English your first language?--ZooGuard (talk) 22:51, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

(I knoe, i'm feeding the troll, but the alternative is to clean house, including scrubbing the tub, comode and bathroom floor that i share with a BOY. would rather take on a troll, actually. heh.)

dear troll "search videos such as "the moon landing hoax" and "why god created the earth in 6 days" and the rating bar actually has the majority of negative views.GodotSome would use a tautology to describe it ("The way things are done around here is the wa 23:15, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Unlike the conspiracies that you have listed what I claim feminism to be is not a conspiracy but a accepted fact from both in and out of feminism that all feminist believe all us males are violent potential rapist and Chauvinist pigs.^{— Unsigned, by: 58.7.250.141 / talk / contribs}

I'm a feminist. I don't believe that. PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 03:57, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes you do because your movement believes in the rape culture and that only women can be victims of sexism.^{— Unsigned, by: 58.7.250.141 / talk / contribs}

Thank you for telling me what I believe. PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 14:25, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Add "How old are you?" to "Is English your first language?".--ZooGuard (talk) 09:14, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Here, have a little treat, trolly: accusing one person of a group of having the same believes as all other members (and even if stereotiphical believes are wrong is in question here) is the same as calling every single German in Third reich nazi, which is a factual fallacy. -- DasRationalpersone (Annoy me!) 09:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Germany is a nation not a belief, throughout history all religions (including atheism) have done far more harm then good both to themselves and to each other. You can chose what you want to believe in, but you can't choose your age, sex, race, state, era, ect. Yes different religions have different denominations but as long as they all believe in the same thing they they are considered the same religion. The same is with Feminism and just about every other movement in which its name only applies to one thing. ^{— Unsigned, by: 58.7.250.141 / talk / contribs}

"as long as you believe the same thing you are considered teh same religion". Oh,so THAT is why all these protestant mini groups tell the others they are going to hell! Did you even read why *many* (not most) women / feminists talk about a culture of rape? I've never met a single feminsts who thinks "all men are violent rapits"... in fact most of us think society has set it up so men do not even have to be violent to rape. Dworkin, the most "pro rape" of us out there, doesn't think men are violent. She thinks rape happens by buying women bobbles, rings, childern etc. but to understand that would mean you actually have to READ. hum. my cat needs attention. are trolls tasty to cats?--GodotSome would use a tautology to describe it ("The way things are done around here is the wa 16:53, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

You should really check out my second law of rationality. -- DasRationalpersone (Annoy me!) 17:25, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

"You can chose^[sic] what you want to believe in" - really? (and fucking sign your posts - it's quite easy) Scream!! (talk) 12:22, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

-- DasRationalpersone (Annoy me!) 16:27, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

That's Not What Iv'e Seen

You have never met a single feminist that believes all men are violent rapist? You must of missed Black Faith's commit in which she specifies that she believes that and all men think they are superior to women, all think they are nothing more then sexual objects and compares all nations and societies to the Saudi Arabian government. The user Tiberius Gracchus also believes that all men think its ok to rape and subjugate women. ^{— Unsigned, by: 58.7.250.141 / talk / contribs}

Dude, fucking sign your comments. It's not hard -- it's four tildes. ~~~~ See? F_ucker^{talk to me :D} 04:45, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Diffs or it never happened. Peter ^{talk, or type, or whatever...} 04:54, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

No doubt some people who describe themselves as feminists have extremist views, see e.g. Julie McCrossin's "Women, wimmin, womyn, womin, whippets - On Lesbian Separatism". But it is a major misrepresentation to suggest those holding these extremist views constitute all feminists, or even most feminists. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 05:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

This is the problem of the "silent majority": the cranks and fanatics in a movement are such loudmouths that they grab a disproportionate share of attention and make a movement seem more extreme than it is. With the mainstreaming of feminism, you will now get a little of that in any specifically feminist publication; but our local feminist paper, the Minnesota Women's Press, is far less crankish than the national feminist media (it does attract the neo-pagan cranks, but that is another matter entirely). ListenerX^TalkerX 05:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Am I supposed to know who "black faith" is? --GodotSome would use a tautology to describe it ("The way things are done around here is the wa 18:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The BoN meant Bad Faith. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Ahh, then the BON is an idiot. As BF never once stated all men think they are superior to women. BF was saying, as was I, that society is what society is. any specific male may well disagree, but he is still part of a sexist society. even if he is not sexist. good good BON work harder proving you are an idiot!GodotSome would use a tautology to describe it ("The way things are done around here is the wa 03:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The Amazing Fascist

TJ is just another unbelieving fascist, he like any atheist believes that all religions people are creationist and forces his beliefs on others. He just proves that atheism is no better the religion. Kind of like how the pigs where no different to the humans in George Orwell's novel Animal Farm.^{— Unsigned, by: 58.7.250.141 / talk / contribs} 06:21, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

He just loves when people change his name into some similar-sounding abomination, dontchaknow. And what exactly does "religions people" mean? What do you mean by "forcing his believes on others?" Just in case you don't know, he doesn't go around attacking all even slightly religious people anymore. And I'm confused: what exactly does "atheism is no better the religion" mean? I'm honestly having difficulties understanding your message. -- DasRationalpersone (Annoy me!) 07:41, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

They say god is the spaghetti monster, so you shouldn't believe in god, they say it just goes black when you die so you should be fearful of death, they believe that religion is the root of all evil and they think they have the answer of how life works. The history of communism is dominated by atheist fascism in which those that where even slightly religious where tortured and murdered by the Atheist Inquisition. ^{— Unsigned, by: 58.7.250.141 / talk / contribs} 09:29, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, um, I'm no atheist, but communism ≠ fascism. Communists generally were atheists; fascists had varying relationships to religion, but conservative religious traditionalism was much more common than anything resembling atheism. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 09:32, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

(actually, almost no communists were atheists. They just played on on Tv in public. So much easier that way. --GodotSome would use a tautology to describe it ("The way things are done around here is the wa 18:04, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32UGD0fV45g -- DasRationalpersone (Annoy me!) 09:47, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed I must say that the talents of Eduard Khil are rather under-recognised; it is a pity that most people's familiarity with his works is limited to that one song. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:06, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Prepare for point-by-point refutation;

• Atheists don't say God is a Spaghetti Monster, they use it as an example that just because you can't disprove something doesn't mean it must exist.
• Believing that nothing happens after death is not a reason to be fearful. Believing that you might spend the rest of eternity getting red hot pokers shoved up your arse is. Fear of this kind of death is one of the main factors in religion that keeps churches full on Sundays.
• All atheists are not anti-theist and do not believe religion is the root of all evil. This is plain untrue.
• "Atheism" does not claim to understand how life works, that's what science is about, and it's a constant learning process. Modern science explains life by fact, not by belief systems.
• Soviet Communists pretty much shat over anything and everyone that opposed them, and fair enough, that included religious doctrines. However, religious conflicts have over the years led to more bloodshed than those killed in the Soviet Union for purely religious reasons.

It's been a pleasure. SJ ^Debaser 11:18, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

What of the statements I have made of Atheism before I brought up Communism? ^{— Unsigned, by: 58.7.250.141 / talk / contribs} 09:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I am not an atheist, and I don't agree with atheism. But, of what I have seen so far, your criticisms of atheism have not particularly impressed me; others do much better than you do at that. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:07, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Atheism is just another religion, so how can any one portray them in a more positive light then I did? ^{— Unsigned, by: 58.7.250.141 / talk / contribs} 10:52, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

So what do you believe then? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:58, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

For the last 2600 years science has thought itself to be right but it has kept on getting changed as more was discovered just like religion keeps on changing as they find out more. The greatest mass murders in history where communist including Stalin, Mao and Pol. Russell T Davis is an atheist and encouraged his viewers to be fearful of an eternity of nothingness when you die. Anthropology has for centuries been considered science and has harmed all races and both sexes. Saying the the fabric of reality began with a big big is probably no closer to the answer then Abraham was 4000 years ago when he said the world began 2000 years before his time in six days.

I sorry that I'm not signed, it is because I don't know how to do it properly.

Anthropology is not a science, it's a logy like astrology or biology. --145.94.77.43 (talk) 12:16, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Depends on what you mean by science. Anthropology is not a physical science, but it is commonly considered a social science. If we go back to the original meaning of science, then all -logies were originally considered "sciences", including theology and astrology — it is only in more recent histories, that the term "science" (and its cognates) has evolved to exclude those disciplines. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 12:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Science is a learning process; we discover, we evaluate, we learn. The Big Bang is currently recognised as the most viable explanation for the origin of the universe, an alternative to the creation stories found in numerous religions, which is based on evidence, not a belief system. I'm afraid religion doesn't change as civilisation advances. Sure, many religions are full of people who no longer stone people to death for having sex with a man, or chop your hands off for stealing an apple, but this kind of crap remains a part of various religions. Genesis hasn't been taken out of the Old Testament. It's still punishable by death to have gay sex in most of the Middle East. I know nothing about anthropology or its history so can't successful argue with you on that topic. SJ ^Debaser 14:09, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

So you think only religion is evil and atheism is there fore perfect? Where did the primary nuclease come from? If it repetitively came from universes before this one then how did it get there to happen the first time?

I don't know how you came to that conclusion from my comments. In any case, I don't believe that's true. Religion works for some people and not for others. What religion people adhere to is no more my business than how regularly they take a crap, what shampoo they use, or who they're currently having sex with. I don't pretend to be an expert on evolutionary biology, or chemistry (in fact I know nothing about them above a high school education) but as I understand it the first living cells arose from DNA in water, which was allowed to happen because our plant exists in a place in a Solar System that is life friendly and ideal for the evolution of life. I'm unfamiliar with a theory of organisms "repetitively coming from universes before this one". That regressive argument (whatever the hell it is) can be turned round and applied to the Creator himself. Where did God from? What was He doing before creating the world? If I was God I probably wouldn't create the world, I'd just invent an Xbox and spend all day playing Grand Theft Auto and eating pop tarts and doing lines of cocaine off prostitutes navels. I'd be God, I could do whatever I wanted. SJ ^Debaser 14:58, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, you type four tilde (~) at the end of your post to sign it. On a US keyboard, tilde is to the left of the number 1, but you have to hold down the shift key to type it. Give it a try. Four in a row at the end of your post make a signature. As to the rest of your said, I actually asked you what you believe, so far you've just given me a list of things you don't believe. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 12:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Cummon guys: --Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 14:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Great. We fed him, and now he's not going away. Good job, guys! -- DasRationalpersone (Annoy me!) 18:59, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Bows. Why thank you. I'm quite proud of my job at the RW zoo, as anti-woman troll freeder. --GodotSome would use a tautology to describe it ("The way things are done around here is the wa 19:57, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

To quote my userpage, "Don't feed the trolls. If you have any suitable food, give it to the guard on duty." --ZooGuard (talk) 20:39, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Hating Feminism douse not make you a Misogynist any more then hating Al-Qaeda makes you Islamophobic. ^{— Unsigned, by: 203.206.17.196 / talk / contribs}

Cept when you call your local Mosque a "trainging center" and the local imam a player in al-qaeda. Corrina corrina. Where you been so long....GodotSome would use a tautology to describe it ("The way things are done around here is the wa 03:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The Youtube user feministfrequency claims that she believes in equality, but all she douse is blame the entire male population for women's oppression and inplies that only women can be victums of sexism and men are expendable. Buy the way how do you get into the signing page?

Use the button at the top right of the page above the search bar that says, "Log in/create an account". SJ ^Debaser 12:07, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry but just because you are a male writer doesn't make you a misogynistic oppressor despite what you believe. The real reason why you criticise most of the stories is because they where written by men regardless if there is more then just the token girl and there are strong and independent or not. Believe me, the Machine World is just another simulation in which you use to particulate hatred. You say that in allot of fiction that sexism doesn't exist, why do you complain because you want it to.

Who are you talking to? SJ ^Debaser 21:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

MGTOW

TheAmazingAtheist has said he thinks MGTOW is "stupid" and "dumb" and that most women are fine, as well as some anti-feminist statements but those are usual. Is this worthy to be put in the article? TheAmazingSkeptic (talk) 01:46, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Yep! αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 02:11, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Hahaha, lmfao, too bad, I'm not doing it. XD XD XD XDddd D xddD f :P LOL. Trolled, lol, lol, laugh out loud 111111oneoneone!!!!! TheAmazingSkeptic (talk) 02:13, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Just put it in rather quickly, could use improvement in wording. TheAmazingSkeptic (talk) 02:23, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

This is a very well balanced article

I still listen to T.J. because I think he still makes some valid points on some issues, and I still consider myself a fan of his. This article is very well written and objective, it shows both his massive flaws and the legitimate points he has made.--S.H. DeLong (talk) 20:39, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

It is? Hmm... don't think that was intended. Petey Plane (talk) 20:55, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I was worried with this headline, but thanks. Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 21:15, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

The drunken peasants reddit

Is butthurt about the article and blames SJWs. Might mean slightly more vandalism than usual. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 14:50, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Asking what is bullshit about it won't help, I think.--JorisEnter (talk) 14:50, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

No harm in trying. Sometimes it's just how material is presented; other times it's just rampant fanboyism. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 14:56, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Neoreactionary blog

Doesn't like it. They write:

So, according to this page on Ration Wiki, we NRx heart T.J. Kirk, aka TheAmazingAtheist.

We do?

Since when?

Isn’t he a lefty who let his personal feelz direct his political opinions?

I mean, yeah, he tears down feminists, but not well.

Seriously, does RationalWiki even fucking try?

Lovely. Is there a word that NRxies use for "neoreactionary in name only", other than "cuck"? Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 15:28, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Spite

Is there any evidence he raised it out of spite? Saying he would've done it sooner is flawed because he could've done it in response, without doing it out of spite. IIRC his position is more or less he did it to show that him and his fans care too. TheAmazingSkeptic (talk) 20:58, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

The phrasing of "They are bringing true feminism to woman [sic] and girls who suffer actual oppression and inequality" sounds a lot like somebody with an axe to grind (passive aggressively). ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

He does have an axe to grind, that is indubitable. I'm against just assuming spite is his only motivation when he has done several positive things before. TheAmazingSkeptic (talk) 21:07, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

According to the Oxford dictionary (and from my anecdotal experiences, most people) spite is deliberately hurting, annoying or offending someone: not merely doing something in response to them. If this was not what it was intended to mean, the wording should be changed. If it was what it meant, I'm still waiting for someone to show how it's the case. TheAmazingSkeptic (talk) 21:18, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Almost an hour since I challenged this, only a single response from Weaseloid. If nobody can defend it being there I'm going to change it to "however, given his character and previous actions, it's likely he largely [[or solely]] did this out of spite for Anita Sarkeesian." If this is unacceptable to you, then please explain why the current text should stay. TheAmazingSkeptic (talk) 22:14, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't give a damn about the Amazing Atheist, and from what I've read he seems to be kind of a dick - but even so, there's really no reason we should have it say "spite" unless we have proof it literally was for spite. We can't just invent things about people, and this guy has messed up his rep all on his own already without us inventing minor nonsense like adding "spite" if it's not clear that it was. Even something like "possibly out of spite" (or even probably) is perfectly fine with me, as that's just snarky. But again, passing it of as literal specific fact if we don't know that it was (assuming we don't; I haven't looked at any possible evidence pro or con) isn't something I'm in favor of. And PS, an hour isn't long enough - this isn't a chatroom. Things must be allowed to take time. But assuming you are correct, I agree it shouldn't say "spite". Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

The article doesn't really capture the character behind TAA. Some critics like TAA attack Feminism, not because they are anti-feminists, MRAs or misogynists, but because Feminist ideals are contending to be the next dominant social perspectives in America and the West. TAA is an iconoclast and anti-romantic. That doesn't make his opinions correct or even innocent. If you tell him what he should think, be prepared to call him an asshole because he will shit all over you. That's his schtick. He really can be hysterically funny.Jackinthebox (talk) 15:40, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

TJ on the 2016 election

I find it weird that TJ supports Bernie Sanders, even though Bernie has talked about the gender pay gap more than Hillary, has called himself a feminist, and has called the current college rape situation an 'epidemic'. TJ is on the opposite side of all of this. Maybe it's the social safety net plans which Bernie wants to implement that draws TJ in. I dunno. Legomania105 (talk) 22:39, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps he considers that the "gender pay gap," and "the college rape situation" are worthy of criticism as descriptions of American culture, but that they are irrelevant to real politics. It is a good idea for women to earn more, just not because of what men earn. It is a good idea to prevent and/or reduce the incidence of rape, just not because some imposter claims there is an epidemic.Jackinthebox (talk) 23:31, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

TJ is a socialist who supports most of Bernie's ideas, except for SJW "pandering."^{— Unsigned, by: 76.113.29.174 / talk / contribs}

Moronic quotes

Guys, quit it. You're celebrating somebody who blanked our article & replaced it with a shitpost. If you can't figure out why that's a really shit idea, you should give up editing wikis for good. As for the other quote you keep inserting ("u/therealfrankjones on /r/exchristian"), it has nothing to do with the section you're posting it in, which is about TAA's views on feminism, and there is no reason to quote from this source anyway. It would be relevant to quote comments TAA has made on Reddit/Twitter/forum, but not any old comments from random internet users. It's depressing how much effort it takes to try to keep this kind of drivel out of our articles. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:45, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

How many kinds of drivel are there?Jackinthebox (talk) 15:04, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

The vandal quote can certainly go.

The FrankJones quote, I think, succinctly explains how TAA is nitpicked and why it's a problem. I've put it in the nitpicking section. http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=TheAmazingAtheist&diff=1670766&oldid=1670714 Good? FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 22:23, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Can't you explain that in your own words? Why would you need to lean on therealfrankjones, whoeverthatis? Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:59, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

We could use our own words. But why ever use quotes? Because someone else said something well -- or in a way that's hard for an "encyclopedic" tone (which RW does tend to use) just can't make work. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 23:13, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

That said, if the quote is removed but the idea remains, I wouldn't be heartbroken. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 23:14, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

When you put a floating quote up with no accompanying explanation, the implication is "here is something significant that's been said about this subject". But it isn't; it's just a forum post, something disposable & forgettable. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:18, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Anyone, anywhere can be erudite. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 23:38, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

So what? My dad is sometimes erudite. I wouldn't quote him in a RationalWiki article. It would be embarrassing. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:42, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

That said, if the quote is removed but the idea remains, I wouldn't be heartbroken. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 00:24, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I'd quote myself all over the place if it wouldn't be so embarrassing. :) 142.124.55.236 (talk) 00:52, 17 May 4 2016 AQD (UTC)

Worth a mention?

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/barrierbreaker/is-the-amazing-atheist-popular-because-hes-racist-yes/

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/barrierbreaker/suck-a-big-white-dick-the-amazing-atheist-denies-hes-racist-by-being-racist/ Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 20:16, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

No. The last article is half-baked. Ironically, even the photo of Hughes makes him appear to be a halfwitJackinthebox (talk) 19:44, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Hell yeah, every time he does shit like this we should point it out since this guy is still quite prominent.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 21:06, 1 July 2016 (UTC) 21:06, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

He has responded to that blog post, btw.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 22:53, 5 July 2016 (UTC) 22:53, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Islamophobia?

I do not like TJ but is he really an Islamophobe? Look at these videos:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RSchr6WbnUU

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=g2k24aJITgo

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FARVimU1LqQ

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VnRKWTmVylY ^{— Unsigned, by: Reg321 / talk / contribs}

Nowhere on the page is he called an Islamophobe. You appear to be confusing the tags for indicating that he is one instead of a person associated with it via discussing it. Nergali (talk) 11:40, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

He still shouldn't be put in the category of 'Islamophobia'^{— Unsigned, by: Reg321 / talk / contribs}

Social Justice Warrior Comment Section.

Instead of vandalizing the editorial notes, all SJWs please comment here.Jackinthebox (talk) 14:41, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

how about no. Petey Plane (talk) 14:43, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Using TJ vs using TAA

It's not that important -- but "TAA" is helpful in that it's clearer what it stands for to someone new to TJ. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 13:03, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

On the other hand, "TJ" is used by him in all contexts, whereas "TAA" is just a short for TheAmazingAtheist. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:53, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Why be on first name terms with this guy at all? Put it back to his surname as it was a few months ago & as is standard practice when writing about people. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:57, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Because it's fair to address people that way? We call Bill O'Reilly Bill O'Reilly, not BOR. Out would be unfair to Bill to call him something else as a pronoun. PBFЯЗЭSPДCЗ (talk) 19:33, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Bias

I believe this article is unfarily biased against the subject. Although plenty of accurate criticisms are given, some inaccurate ones are also made. Take for example the RV trip. This has already been explained by the subject, and yet the implication that the subject pocketed money remains in the article. There are many other issues with this article that warrant a rewrite of sorts. I would like to see a better article, and I wouldn't mind one just as critical as this one but with better, more accurate criticisms. PB (talk) 00:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

There's some unnecessary snarky bits like "A man ravaged by 'foot-in-mouth disease'" and assuming the donations are "e-begging" and scams. I think those parts can be changed. CheeseburgerFace (talk) 01:46, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

PBF: stop whitewashing. If there are sources explaining the creationship roadtrip thing, cite them. What's currently cited is TAA denying all memory of it. Meanwhile what you keep removing from the article are his alarming statements about rape, quoted directly from source. Stop whitewashing. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 07:19, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Is saying that rape isn't as bad as murder an 'alarming statement'? Or is it the poorly thought-out joke on Reddit? It's not as if he's advocating changing the law to make rape legal, like Roosh V is. PBFЯЗЭSPДCЗ (talk) 19:30, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

So your rationale for removing a bunch of stuff that this guy said from the article about him is that he didn't say something that the article doesn't say that he said? Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:28, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Endorses Trump

The Amazing Atheist now endorses Trump for 2016, and cites as reason that he thinks he moves the Republicans leftwards, against trade agreements and towards protectionism. He also makes the point that Trump says things many people already believe, as if this makes such beliefs more acceptable. He also writes in the most upvoted comment "Note: Since the writing and recording of this video, Trump has unveiled yet another liberal plan (perhaps his most liberal yet) to give mother's six weeks paid leave when they give birth." See for yourself. I find it astonishing that TJ endorses Trump with such assertions without setting them in context with the plans of the other candidates (who, after all, might have at least similar ideas without Trump's bigotry). That's an opportunity to report on things accurately for once. ~ Aneris ✻ 17:47, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

...and?

I'm not surprised TAA supports Trump. You can either support Trump or Clinton. Supporting Clinton means you support "reggressive leftism", and Leftism is SJWism. Trump, on the other hand, is totally alt-right, therefore "all right". There are two sides in the process; anyone who doesn't choose SJWism or Alt-Rightism is a "cuck" who by default is allowing themselves to be ruled by SJWs due to their beta nature.

I also fail to see why this bothers you. Trump is on the side of everyone who opposes the regressive left, just like you do. --Castaigne2 (talk) 18:36, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's more of a "yay one idiot I like likes this other idiot that I like" knowing Aneris. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 19:44, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Wait, Ikanreed; does Aneris generally endorse TAA and Trump? (Aneris, prolly a good idea for you to feel this one personally). Also Aneris, thanks for the link. My two cents is that this is yet another step on the (already long progressed) TAA path to absolute nuttery. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:52, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I never endorsed either of these, but such assertions are common. These two are just the recent Goldfish Poop Gang duo who are, as is tradition, both uncommitted to evidence and who know best, as Thoughtpolice proper, what other people think. I wrote where I stand, and it's also clear from a "show, don't tell" perspective. But that is never a concern for post-fact individuals. Ikanreed asserted recently "[l]et's not forget he [Aneris] also has disdain for social sciences(except, *swoon* economics)". Completely invented. I think most of economics is about as accurate with their models as is astrology. So where's that "let's not forget" coming from? And to put it mildly, Castaigne has fabricated more falsehoods about me than Toyota has fabricated cars. In reality, I endorsed Bernie Sanders many times, and was critical of Clinton. I recently favoured Jill Stein in the Saloon. I also stated that I found Trump horrible, or whatever words I used. It's however an interesting sensation that I'm accused of being a right winger, but I imagine things when I protest this, and at once know that I never in life voted right of centre. But you can sort this out. ~ Aneris ✻ 03:25, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

n reality, I endorsed Bernie Sanders many times, and was critical of Clinton. I recently favoured Jill Stein in the Saloon. I also stated that I found Trump horrible, or whatever words I used.- Aneris

So, just to get this straight.

You endorse Bernie Sanders, an SJW supporter and Regressive Leftist.

You endorse Jill Stein, an SJW supporter and Regressive Leftist.

You don't like Trump, who is against Feminism, Regressive Leftists, and SJWs, and furthermore, endorses all Alt-Right tenets, which goals align with your stated goals.

Got that correct? Well, people do vote against their personal interests all the time, though I have no clue why. Very irrational, it seems to me. --Castaigne2 (talk) 16:46, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

That's a rather elitist and simpleminded way of looking at it. When you want to participate in politics at all, you need to make priorities. Even if Bernie Sanders or Jill Stein were SJW supporters and Regressive Leftists, I would prefer them over Donald Trump, especially since I was not even aware that they were inclined in that way. I also like to remind you that I'm not a US American citizen and will therefore not participate in this election.
I also noticied from “our” articles and from your argumentation that I have a vastly different — I dare say — more sophisticated view on what consitutes a social justice warrior or Regressive Leftist (which is not the same). They are neither generic social justice activists, and even less are they generic leftists. Social justice warriors necessarily need to endorse a range of postmodernist ideas (vulgar or academic) or use a certain rhetorical strategy around social justice topics. And Regressives necessarily need to act as apologists of conservative, patriatrchal, reactionary subcultures (such as Islam) at the expense of progressive and Enlightenment values. I also dispute that this is a “culture war”. The actual situation is vastly more complicated, and it's a shame that the RationalWiki is not only not helpful in enlightening the situation, but actively obscuring matters. ~ Aneris ✻ 18:20, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I also like to remind you that I'm not a US American citizen and will therefore not participate in this election.- Aneris

I fail to see why you would endorse anyone, then, as the politics of my nation are none of concern. I certainly don't care about yours. You could make rapeslaves out of every feminist in your nation and my response would be "Not Americans, not my problem." *shrug*

They are neither generic social justice activists, and even less are they generic leftists. Social justice warriors necessarily need to endorse a range of postmodernist ideas (vulgar or academic) or use a certain rhetorical strategy around social justice topics. And Regressives necessarily need to act as apologists of conservative, patriatrchal, reactionary subcultures (such as Islam) at the expense of progressive and Enlightenment values. I also dispute that this is a “culture war”.- Aneris

Well, that's directly contrary not only to the Alt-Right tenets as laid down by Vox Day, but also BASED Cernovich, Chateau Heartiste, Roosh V, MASTER MILO, Ethan Ralph of the Ralph Retort, 8chan in general, /pol/, and so on. According to these luminaries and notables, these people who lead the forefront of the Culture War against the Regressive Left, leftism is SJWism is postmodernism is feminism, and all of it is trying to destroy White Western European Christian Civilization, the only civilization worthy of the name.

Since, of course, you deny that this is a culture war, according to them you would be a "beta cuck", a useful idiot that has kowtowed and salaamed as the "Loyal Opposition" toadie of the Islamic-Atheist Regressive Left Social Justice Alliance. Take that for what it may be.

And much as you don't want this to be a culture war, it has become one, with the SJW forces aligned with Hillary and the Alt-Right forces aligned with Trump...and anyone in the world who doesn't sign up with one side or the other is a "cuck" who's just a target. *shrugs* Sucks to be you then. I would say that with your...ranting proclivities on the evils of SJWs, that you would fit in just fine with the Trumpalos and Gamergaters and 8channers and Vox Day's Dread Ilk and so on. You definitely don't fit in with the SJW side, so I would say it's in your best interest to place bets with the ones who are going to agree with you more. Of course, it's your choice, son.

Me, I'm in favor of global multinational corporations, so I'm with Hillary regardless. Corporations are opposed by the Alt-Rightists as "statist crony SJWs" and all that. --Castaigne2 (talk) 19:25, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

You can repeat your biases and misconceptions as often as you want, they don't become any more true. The culture war is the partisan political conflict of values waged over guns, abortion, secularism, or LGTBX — to name a few areas. Most atheists are liberal, and Democrats voters, overwhelmingly support LGTB causes and were on board with women's rights issues like pro-choice. Even in this very case here, the Amazing Atheist endorses Trump idiosyncratically for moving leftwards. I find this strange, but such is the situation.
The right hopped on board notably with Milo Yiannopoulos. He and others could profit from the larger (left) libertarian and anti-authoritarian streak, as well as from the fact that the media in this particular conflict overwhelmingly took the side of the Regressives and/or social justice warriors. As long as Sanders was still in the game, he was typically associated with the anti-SJW crowd (remember the “brogressive”, “Berniebro”, a sibling of the “Dawkbro”) because Clinton was always the SJW candidate. She's vastly unpopular and this freakish situation leads to some unusual constellations. The only thing that approaches “culture war” level is the subject on Freedom of Speech. But neither this “war” nor the “science wars” are as symmetrical and easy as you like to have it. ~ Aneris ✻ 20:59, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Ha. Then I assume you'd disagree with me that this whole bullshit started in the late 1990s? And that MASTER MILO, to give him his "proper" title, is a johnny-come-lately who's of minor effect in comparison to the people he works for?

Never mind it; the questions are rhetorical. Kids like you are bound to have a shortened view. --Castaigne2 (talk) 21:40, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

It depends where you want to begin. You can say it started with Kant, or with Dilthey. I disagree, but I know one philosopher who starts there. You can legitimately blame the postmodernist philosophers in the 20th century, like Derrida and Foceault, or Irigaray and the likes Sokal tore apart. I discussed a few times on this Wiki how this relates to the current situation. I'd place emphasis on Delgado, Crenshaw, Collins, hooks et al for this nonsense, which I likewise explained many times. You — however — as virtually everyone else here prefer a “culture war” framing, whereas I see this as a part of the “Science Wars”. But yes, Milo is a late-comer also in the other sense, that he and other right wingers joined an ongoing bar fight between lefists. ~ Aneris ✻ 12:50, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Castaigne doesn't like it, when his opponents don't match the cliches he espouses about them, e.g. he's trying to portray you, Aneris, as altright and then pulls out some edgy bullshit such as "culture war" out of his ass to justify classifying everyone as either ally, enemy or pussy. A zealot hates the neutrals more than the enemy, after all.--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 16:05, 25 September 2016 (UTC) 16:05, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Pedophilia and sexuality section

Removed, for now. We need to carefully evaluate if there's sufficient evidence to level a serious claim against TAA. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 22:14, 3 December 2016 (UTC)