Talk:TheAmazingAtheist/Archive2

This is an archive page, last updated 3 May 2016. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>

, (new)(back)

Criticism link

Shouldn't we put link to criticism of his views on feminism in the article itself? It would be much more visible than among the footnotes. -- DasRationalpersone (Annoy me!) 13:08, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

References go in the footnotes. PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 14:03, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

A Mystery to Me

Why hasn't TJ ever got into drama with Nephilimfree? I mean, he's interacted with Jezuzfreek777, Shockofgod, VenomFangX, and even GEERUP and yet there has been no indication that TJ and Nephilimfree have even acknowledged each other's existence. Why? This may seem like a weird question, but it has always puzzled me. Moderateman3345 (talk) 19:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Who cares. We try to stay away from drama here at RationalWiki, as far as possible. -- DasRationalpersone (Annoy me!) 19:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Because of all listed creationists Nep is the most unhinged? Ace^{Ace For Mod!} 19:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Protect it

I demand that this article is protected from IP editing. -- DasRationalpersone (Annoy me!) 20:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I demand an evening in a posh hotel room overlooking Paris with Nathalie Portman. PintOfStout Talk BRONIES! 20:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Now that's a little more complicated than protecting this article, isn't it? -- DasRationalpersone (Annoy me!) 06:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh shit, now I'm embarrassed. Sorry, I thought only admins can protect articles. I shall now commit harakiri. Again. -- DasRationalpersone (Annoy me!) 06:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

No BONs have been editing this page anyway. - π 06:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes they were. One of them added link to TJ's sex tape just yesterday. -- DasRationalpersone (Annoy me!) 14:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

ZOMG stop the internets. Actually maybe we should add the bananagate, as well as the response video to the article. -- Nx / talk 14:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

+1 for locking the article. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

We already discussed about including the bananagate. No we won't. -- DasRationalpersone (Annoy me!) 16:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Meh, seems everyone above was missing the point. It's not the fact that he used a banana in ways God did not design it to be used that's interesting, it's his reaction. There's multiple ways to approach a subject, not just the ED way of "hurr durr he stuffed a banana in his butt". -- Nx / talk 17:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, if we get one more banana reference I'll protect the article indefinitely for BoNs. I suspect they may be ED trolls. -- DasRationalpersone (Annoy me!) 17:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Why? I'm not an ED troll, and I'm also not a BoN. -- Nx / talk 17:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know. Maybe it's because we get new bananalinks every single fucking month. -- DasRationalpersone (Annoy me!) 17:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Wow, every month? Oh my god, how will our legion of sysops deal with this massive wave of vandalism? -- Nx / talk 17:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

It still keeps appearing and sysops aren't helping here. We once had link to bananatape for a long time before I found it. -- DasRationalpersone (Annoy me!) 18:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

That's why I think adding it (with the response video and all of course) is a good idea, it kinda makes the vandalism pointless. -- Nx / talk 18:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Sure, but is it notable enough or are we just going to drop quality of wiki to appease the vandals? -- DasRationalpersone (Annoy me!) 18:49, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Like I said, it's not the sex tape that's interesting, it's his response to the leak. -- Nx / talk 18:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that would stop them from linking the sex tape. -- DasRationalpersone (Annoy me!) 19:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, but it'll make it kinda pointless if it's already addressed in the article. -- Nx / talk 19:03, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

How do you know that? I say: No pasarán! Appeasing the BoNs cannot be a satisfying reason to include bananagate in the article. -- DasRationalpersone (Annoy me!) 19:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

If this is a fairly famous incident relating to this guy, it should be mentioned. I suggest linking to the response vid with an appropriate explanation, rather than to the actual banana video; readers can go looking for it themselves if they want to. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, why have you reversed your opinion on including this since a couple of months ago when you were all in favour of it? Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I saw the light. It wasn't notable, but I just checked and it passed 200k views, so now we are obligated to include it, as we consider a video notable after it has 200k+ views. -- DasRationalpersone (Annoy me!) 19:31, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

This is probably a silly question but the discussion above displays more heat than light. Could someone explain in simple words why this article should be protected?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 19:39, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

(EC) Because of the constant onslaught of vandals..or are you going to clean this Sisyphean disaster? Why do you hate RationalWiki??? Occasionaluse (talk) 19:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Trolls occasionally insert links to a video where TheAmazingAtheist puts a banana into his anus. You can read more here -- Nx / talk 19:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah. Well, I've never been much into youtube controversies, but it's kind of "so what?" then. Presumably the banana is now the "athiests friend" in that case. Bet that joke's not been made before! So why protect the page? If he did it and he's famous for it - why not mention it?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 19:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

He didn't get famous because of it. -- DasRationalpersone (Annoy me!) 20:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

No, but it seems to be one of the things which he's presently better known for. I've had a look at his response to the problem and it seems pretty good. I have no wish to look at the the original though. Nevertheless it seems to be one of the things that's got people talking about him and we link to it. So I'm not sure what the issue is.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 21:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

He got famous for being a complete and total asshole, and yet you refuse to add a very accurate comic of his style.--User:Brxbrx/sig 22:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

He may be an asshole, but he is right a lot of time, or at least makes good points. Granted, he can also make very stupid points; but that's life for ya. F_litzer^{talk to me :D|see my shit} 22:38, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

"Some guy on the internet said something stupid."

Can we stop micro-following every time this guy has a bowel movement and write articles about stuff that matters. Thanks. P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 20:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

But he's just had the most amazing dump ever!! Took too flushes. That HAS to go on the Wiki!! ^postate 20:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

200k+ rule. -- DasRationalpersone (Annoy me!) 20:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Are you a big fan of Terroja or something? I mean, this is a site that fucking spends a large amount of space and time documenting Conservapedia. How about we stop micro-following every thing every idiot does on that site?

If we're going to have an article on The Amazing Atheist, it would be fucking stupid to leave out how much shit he gets in for his 'un-rational' attitudes towards Feminism. Jesus, how stupid are you, P-Foster? F_lucked^{talk to me :D|see my shit} 20:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Conservapeda played a particular in the coming together of this community, but that was before your time. Also, I don't even think we SHOULD have this article, so we can leave it all out for all I care. Asshole. P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 20:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

As Conservapedia has already been mentioned the point I was going to raise is moot. Although I'm considerably more polite than most. The other point, though, is that this is a talk page for a relevant article, as opposed to - for example - clogging up the SB with it. You can happily not edit or view this page if you like. ^theist 20:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Except that this--and the one about the other loser, I forget his name but i had to spend hours fixing it-- has historically been one of the worst-written and most painfully-fanboyish articles on the wiki, which reflects poorly on the site as a whole. The cheetos-eaters who follow this mountain-dew drinker to a lot of shitty work. P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 20:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

It's subjects and times like this when I have to stop and ask myself "What would Marcus Cicero do?" Then I do that. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Shut your pie hole, Marcus. I'm on to you. P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 20:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I am a fan. Crucify me or something. But before you do that, can you at least explain what to fuck is so irrational about saying "I'm not a feminist, but I believe in equal rights" and why should we care so much if someone says that to provide it with equal coverage than real misogyny? -- DasRationalpersone (Annoy me!) 20:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Are you asking me? 'Cause I'm not going to explain anything about this guy, 'cause I don't give a fuck about this guy.P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 20:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

And that means... what, exactly? How is that a justification for feeding the trolls/attention whores/idiots/whatever you want to call them at Conservapedia?

What really matters? Seriously, tell me what on this site matters. Who comes to this site besides us? Even on articles that 'matter' (e.g. creationism, homeopathy), we're just preaching to the choir.

Also what the A guy said. F_lint^{talk to me :D|see my shit} 20:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, if you poke around, you'll see the places that people come, some of the articles that have been cited, and people like woo-meisters and extremists that our smart work has pissed off. It's a shame you contribute so much to a prject with no idea how it really works. P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 20:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

We are making a difference, I'm walking proof of that. Also, fuck the CP side of the site with a ten foot pole covered in rusty barbed wire and fire ants. Ty^Annoy 20:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, I take it back -- this site can make a difference, even if it's small; I was just kind of pissed off at the time I wrote that. But I don't see how working on articles like these, or articles that 'don't meet the site mission' in general take away from the articles that 'matter', unless they are of extremely poor quality. F_ucker^{talk to me :D|see my shit} 23:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

This is of extremely poor quality.

Well, propose a deletion of it then. It probably does need a massive rewrite. F_ucker^{talk to me :D|see my shit} 23:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

And I'd rather be a fanboy than a hater. -- DasRationalpersone (Annoy me!) 20:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

@DasRationalpersone

It's that his actions don't match up with his words. Have you read that Reddit comment thread? F_ucker^{talk to me :D|see my shit} 20:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm making Marc Mues article tomorrow. Any problems? It doesn't even matter, right? And I'm not arguing today - you guys edit so much I needed to copy my text up kazillion fucking times. -- DasRationalpersone (Annoy me!) 20:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

""I'm not a feminist, but I believe in equal rights" - cause in most circles, that's what a feminist is. Some people think the word has lost power, cause of that, but as a feminist of the 80s, I sure don't think that. If he has an issue with "radical" feminists - though I find that people who say that, tend not to ACTUALLY understand what "radical" feminism is about anymore than fundies understand atheism. GodotGrow a vagina 20:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The guy seems pretty unpleasant & this article is far too sycophantic about him. I don't think we do ourselves any favours by whitewashing some hateful troll just because he falls on the same side of the religion debate as most of us. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

He's like Penn Jillete -- he can make a lot of good points, but he's also an asshole, has some stupid views that he loudly parades around, and is somewhat misogynistic. F_ucker^{talk to me :D|see my shit} 23:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

So I read the myers link, and linked from there. this guy is a freak of a jerk. GodotGrow a vagina 23:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

1. Misogynist? No, he isn't.
2. If it's equal rights for both sexes, how come it's called feminism?
3. 200k+ rule still stands, so if the affair didn't get wide enough attention, we aren't including it singularly, but just write he can is sometimes a jerk. -- DasRationalpersone (Annoy me!) 12:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

1. See below. He said some pretty misogynistic things. "No, he isn't" is not a great counterargument.
2. Because it represents the interests the women in opposing the various societal disadvantages which they have been subjected to throughout history and still continue to suffer from. Anyway, I don't think that this is the place for a debate about what feminism is or why it is so called.
3. I'm not aware of any such rule. The article should mention anything notable & mission-related about this guy, plus the feminism incident is already attracting a lot of attention from bloggers etc. Are you really opposing its inclusion on notability grounds, or just trying to keep the altar clean?

Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 14:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Info Box

Not sure why the info box is necessary. He's not exactly a person we will be looking up for details, and everything we say in it, is in the article. just my two cents. bu it should be talked about, rather that warred over. --GodotGrow a vagina 16:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I've put the template up for deletion. Ty^Annoy 16:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

the "subscriber" thing is uber annoying. talk about dick waving. "see mine, bigger, badder". And "arch enemies? what, are we 5? GodotGrow a vagina 16:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I like infoboxes. Quick, concise information about a person without reading poorly written, glued together articles. F_arter^{talk to me :D|see my shit} 17:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe the other answer is to improve the box. I mean, we do not have it on most of our humans, here. Just teh "youtubers". which is bothersome to me as a "get off my lawn" type. GodotGrow a vagina 17:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's either between a portal or an infobox; they both use the same area. F_litzer^{talk to me :D|see my shit} 17:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Pardon my ignorance (I do try to limit it, but there's so much of it), but what's a "portal" in this context? GodotGrow a vagina 17:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Likely the nav templates. Ty^Annoy 17:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Misogyny

This ends here. What's so misogynical about him? He said multiple times he thinks of women very highly. -- DasRationalpersone (Annoy me!) 12:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

So what? He also trolled a rape victim, saying she deserved it & he hoped it would happen again, + joking about raping her himself etc. People are judged by their actions. You don't get to excuse yourself from being a misogynist (nor any other form of bigotry) just by stating that you're not, if your behaviour shows otherwise. That just smacks of "I'm not prejudiced, but..." ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

"rape victims are not survives". That's. Pure. Misogyny. Trust me, it's something you survive. Not just something that "sucks'. YOu don't just "get a dick inside you that you didn't want'. That sounds like bad sex. rape is not bad sex. This guy is a woman hating jackass. GodotGrow a vagina 16:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC) Unless of course the women is one who thinks like you, but "some of my best friends are black".

"This ends here." No, no it doesn't. P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 16:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Heh, I like ^ him ^. He be all pithy and witty at the same time, our foster. --GodotGrow a vagina 16:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

But... but... I thought you liked me?!

Ahhh, Fallacy, I try to be nice and like EVERYONE. but something about foster's use of curt and droll makes me laugh all the time. :-) GodotGrow a vagina 16:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Being insensitive to rape victims = misogyny? I thought we were trying to be rational. We may call him a dick, but that doesn't apologize calling him every other name of the book. -- DasRationalpersone (Annoy me!) 17:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes. It does equal it. especially when you put it in context with the rest of the crap he says about feminists. he wants to oggle women. he's said that. that's a view of women that shows his utter disdain for them "I should be able to oggle you, and if you compain, you clearly are not a feminst"GodotGrow a vagina 17:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Did you even watch his fucking videos on feminism? He does believe in equality of women, and I don't think he would act any differently towards male rape victims. Just give it a rest. Let's not edit this article for five days and talk later, when our heads are cooled. -- DasRationalpersone (Annoy me!) 17:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh Jesus God Almighty. Now with the MRA shit. -- DasRationalpersone (Annoy me!) 17:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

DRP, i can say I like gays day in and day out, but if i post a video about gay marriage and why it should be illegal, then I am NOT a supporter of gay rights. He wants equality, but he wants the right to oogle women. he talks about women's equality, but dismisses their very legitimate complaints about the real world. He derides them for being raped. and he calls rape "just putting a dick in a place you don't want it". sorry, you dont get to play the "some of my best friends are black" card on Rational Wiki - least not while i'm around. you are what you do, not what you SAY. GodotGrow a vagina 18:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Even if he would be a misogynist, that wouldn't make him a MRA right away (what's with MRA now being some kind of slur word now? I think it's same shit as feminism, but sometimes even more retarded) - maybe he would just be a passive woman-hater. Second, everyone sometimes go frustrated and write something stupid on teh internetz, and that doesn't completely deteriorate all their other work. If he would do that on daily basis, it would be different. Third, being a dick to victims and not believing in equal rights are different things.

Either I'm right or wrong, I think I will just pull out for a couple of days, because I'm on the very peak of starting not to give a shit about what further abomination you make out of this article, and I honestly don't want that. I will wait for my head (and your heads, for that matter) to cool off a bit before I take further actions. What you just did is horrible. You took everything intelligent he ever said and did that was summarized in this article, threw that shit out the window and filled the article entirely with knee-jerk reaction shit about an unimportant affair no one will remember and care about months from now. -- DasRationalpersone (Annoy me!) 19:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, people get frustrated & write stupid things, but TJ has stood by his misogynistic comments & done nothing to retract or distance himself from them. Being a dick to victims and not believing in equal rights are different things. No shit Sherlock. So he believes in equal rights for women? Whoop-de-do. So does most everyone in the English speaking world. Seriously, when was the last time you heard someone suggesting that women shouldn't vote or own property? Does believing in equal rights make it OK to use chauvinistic language, belittle feminism, trivialise rape & taunt victims? Nah. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[insert emoticon saying "Good post!" here] F_ucker^{talk to me :D|see my shit} 19:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Nope. Not doing it. -- DasRationalpersone (Annoy me!) 20:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Look, i don't know who's head you think is "hot". I just think the guy is full of shit, and every link out there about him says the guy is full of shit. And frankly, as a feminist, he's NOT for equality, he's for a particular view of equality that allows him to have his cake and eat it too. I get that you love the guy, but that's not sufficient to make this article into something that he isn't. What has he done, DRP, that makes you say "wow, this guy really needs to be highlighted at RW". He's got a blog. Ok, so do I. He has followers (ok, I don't), and he says some things. But he's not saying anything new, he's not publishing, he's not really being philosophical and as a person trying to "debate", his arguments against theists almost always amount to calling them "stupid" for believing in a god. Yippi skippy. That's not someone I see us highlighting here, but you did, so ok. At least we are going to make it honest about who he is and what he says. GodotGrow a vagina 20:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

... -- DasRationalpersone (Annoy me!) 15:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Wow

It still has copper? A dramatic decrease of the norms for status awards, I'd say. Current status is similar to putting quote of John Lennon insulting his fanbase on the top of the article and writing "all you need to know about this guy, move along, don't listen to Imagine or anything, just believe us, he's a douche" under the quote. Everyone says something stupid and douchy in their life, and that doesn't make them complete assholes. You shouldn't listen to a fan or anything though, he might even, you know, watch TJ's videos.

Oops, I stoped ignoring this cesspit for a little bit. Oh well. -- DasRationalpersone (Annoy me!) 12:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you that this article should not be copper. If only we had something less than copper. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 14:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Standards for copper are anything longer than a paragraph & with a few refs, but it's probably going to be scrapped anyway. See RationalWiki talk:Article rating#Copper???.

Everyone says something stupid and douchy in their life, but most of us don't make a career out of saying stupid and douchy things. John Lennon this ain't. The misogyny stuff in the article is factual, quoted & cited; RW should not stoop to censoring or justifying it. And what is the guy supposed to have done that's so amazing? The stuff that was removed from the article was just banal trivia and a list of videos. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

^^ agree. That's been my whole problem. you can excuse trashy behavior if the person is Steven Hawking, or even a Bill Clinton (though we generally make points to go out of our way and detail the trashier moments in people's lives, around here), but when the person is a blogger who has nothing else wiki worthy, then he's simply not wikiworty.GodotGrow a vagina 22:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

B-b-but... he's the AMAZING atheist!!!!11 He's well known enough on the youtube circuit for this to be a big deal for some people. For instance, I could say far worse and only about two people on the planet would give a shit. Meanwhile, he's caught the attention of some noteworthy (by which I mean WP standard noteworthy) bloggers, skeptics and feminists over it. So I don't think there's justification in saying he's not famous enough for RW given some of the obscure shit here that's perfectly accepted without controversy. Let's face it, he's internet famous for making an ass of himself - that's fucking prime material for us! ^bomination 01:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Or ED, for that matter. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, i don't mind having him here as a mockery of what is or could be a truly amazing atheist. ;-) Are there any amazing atheists, by the way? I'm sorta a "eh", atheist. Cox might be *my* amazing atheist, but i would doubt he's anyone else's. hehGodotGrow a vagina 02:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Generally, I distrust someone who labels themselves like that. You're amazing are you? Great. Call me later when I give a shit. It's like people in Star Trek forums with "Admiral" in their username - I used to have to deal with every possible permutation of Captain, capt, cpt, Kirk, kirk and space, no space and underscore so the latter can also be kicked for a lack of imagination, but generally the self gratifying nature of such labels grinds my gears. Though, to be honest, that's beside the point right now. ^bomination 02:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

(there was a point?) GodotGrow a vagina 03:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I think this article is useful in that is shows that there are (popular) asshole atheists who can be as worse as Christian apologists at times, even if they can also give good arguments. It's not like he's the only example, but he's a good one. Fallacy (talk) 03:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

So reluctant to label any atheist as amazing because it will probably bite me in the ass when they turn out to hate jews or enjoy burning puppies in their spare time. I do like James Randi though, and I think the moniker "amazing" suits him. With regards to this amazing atheist I say keep the article but make it more snarky. Apart from DasRationalPerson who seems to identify more strongly with TAA everyone thinks he is a douche. His video series on vegetarianism is almost legendarily uninformed. After watching that I never bothered to really watch more of his movies, he may have improved since then but given the recent events it seems unlikely. He's prime material for us to demonstrate that there is no solidarity among atheists for people who make no goddamn sense. Tielec01 (talk) 03:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Is he a vegie, or is he a meat eater? just curious, though i'm sure it's somewhere in our article. GodotGrow a vagina 03:16, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

He's a real man, not a pussy, so he eats meat of course. Fallacy (talk) 03:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

It's DasRationalpersone. And I'm sure he got all 250k+ subscribers by being a dick. Centering only on the dick-side of the person is truly the definition of being a dick.

Also, he doesn't rant around religion that much anymore, so before I go into ignore-state again in order to prevent myself from abandoning the wiki completely out of desperation: he seems to have chilled out about religion a lot. I for one, don't cling on the past of a person if (s)he doesn't stand behind it anymoe. -- DasRationalpersone (Annoy me!) 13:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

^ It's not clear whose comment this is a response to or what change to the article you are suggesting. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

To the guy that called me DasRationalPerson and all you guys ranting about how he's being a dick to religious people. I think article should be nuked back to the way it was in December or completely rewritten. Seriously, are you saying he never said anything even slightly intelligent? -- DasRationalpersone (Annoy me!) 17:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The thing is, it's not that he hasn't said "one intelligent thing", it's that he's not anyone who contributes greatly, intellecually in such a way that he can be overlooked for his stupidity or that his "one intelligent thing" is all that unique. everyday, atheists here say lots of intelligent things. But we dont' single them out for webpages, cause it's sorta a great big "so fucking what". this guy is "famous" because of his little anti-women anti-gay rants. not because he's a great mind that should be highlighted. (and yes, great minds say stupid shit all the time... but we are more likly to overlook it, cause that's not why they are important)GodotGrow a vagina 17:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

In other words, you do ignore all the smart stuff he said. Also, claiming he got all the fame due to his "misogynist rants" is simply false. Those rants compromise, ca. 6 videos out of 440 - that's about 1%, only 3 of them have more than 200k views, and the most watched video that's even remotely connected to feminism (1m+) is just a rant about double standards, the only flaw of which is generalizing feminism, which, I agree, he does do too often. His most watched video is about Justin Bieber, then there are some about racism, miracles etc.

I also see he's a homophobe now. I bet he'll be an antisemite next week. -- DasRationalpersone (Annoy me!) 18:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

"all you guys ranting about how he's being a dick to religious people." Don't really see anyone saying that in the last few sections of this page, but OK. "I think article should be nuked back to the way it was in December". You mean to a version that's been described multiple times on this page as painfully fanboyish? Tough shit, the article doesn't belong to you, despite how you seem to have behaved throughout this talk page. The unpleasant behaviour/attitudes to women & rape (not a one off incident; see quoted passages from the book he wrote five years ago) should not go unmentioned. The banana incident can be mentioned or not mentioned; it doesn't really have much bearing on anything. The other stuff that was taken out was mostly cruft - a long list of videos, some waffle about his beliefs, what movies & music he likes; nothing to actually show what's particular notable about his arguments or achievements. Suggest something that really makes him amazing in your eyes, & maybe it could fit in the article, but it's not a justification for taking out or glossing over stuff he's said or done that's genuinely offensive. "And I'm sure he got all 250k+ subscribers by being a dick." Yeah, fifty million Frenchmen can't be wrong. Seriously, drop the argument-by-numbers shtick. What's worth writing about is not determined by how many pageviews something had. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:58, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• his views on Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney and elections in general
• his opinions on shitty poems by that non-religious Jesus-believing person
• his anti-MRA, anti-feminist leanings
• his opinions on racism
• his views on liberalism and the USA

And you should drop FANBOYZ! argument. Fans know the subject of the article best and though they may be subjective and putting in unimportant stuff, no one will be able to provide as much content as they are - their contributions can simply be dealt with by regulating. Also, you are calling editors fanboys because they inserted positive things?

My first problem with this article is that you, even though you can't know if he got all the followers by being a dick, presume he did, and my second one is that you are sacrificing all his intelligence in favour of creating some kind of a case of raging douchebag misogynist misotheist so you can point to him and say "look, here's one." There are million more intelligent quotes you could put up there, but that might even, you know, say something positive about him, and we don't want that, right? All we want readers to know about him is stupid thing he said once on Reddit. -- DasRationalpersone (Annoy me!) 08:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

If there are millions of quotes, give some examples; the article previously didn't contain any. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:19, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

YouTube turned a fat, angry loser into a fat, angry loser people listen to. Powerful stuff. That one captures him quite well, even by your definition of him. Even if "people listen to" is, again, despite his 200k+ subscribers, fanboyish, I can provide another one. -- DasRationalpersone (Annoy me!) 15:03, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The quote

So, can I put in the quote or not? I think it could appease both groups. Not fanboying him nor making him look like a total loser. -- DasRationalpersone (Annoy me!) 14:53, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Who/what is it a quote from? ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 15:00, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Himself. How could've I forgot to say that, lol. -- DasRationalpersone (Annoy me!) 15:27, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Now the ebegging?

Oh God ... Now that? -- DasRationalpersone (Annoy me!) 09:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The guy has consistently proven himself to be a dick of the highest order and the article reflects this fact. You appear to have an agenda.--Brendiggg (talk) 09:59, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Because he said some shit to some rape victim once doesn't mean he's an e-beggar. You are the one that has an agenda here, because no matter how many smart things he said, you only let the shit into the article and portray him as dick in all aspects just because he's a dick in one aspect. -- DasRationalpersone (Annoy me!) 10:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Why are you making a big deal out of this? He has decent things to say sometimes, but it's clouded by sheer levels of obnoxiousness when he clearly doesn't have to. I just heard of the rape comments today, and no way in hell is it defensible. He's either a pure asshole, or has some mental issues. Get over it. Osaka Sun (talk) 11:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Because he said some shit to some rape victim... If you think his amorality can be pithily dismissed like that, I have grave fears for the people around you.--Brendiggg (talk) 11:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Define "sheer levels of obnoxiousness" - I want to see a detailed analysis of stupid/offensive/etc. things vs. intelligent things he said, and proof that the sum of the first is bigger than the second. Can't do it? Thought so. I have nothing against including the douchebag things he did/said in the article, as long as it is acknowledged that he said some smart stuff, too. That way, we can achieve an optimal level of douche/genious ratio and at least some degree of rationality. -- DasRationalpersone (Annoy me!) 17:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

And we all (yeah, me, you, TJ, Obama etc.) - all - have said some seriously offensive shit on the internet out of frustration, and that doesn't make us serial killers and/or a candidate for preforming actions you threatened to do. You guys get over it. -- DasRationalpersone (Annoy me!) 17:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

This is not a "frustration" issue. Something's clearly wrong with his reasoning. And if Obama said something like this...I don't want to even imagine the uproar. Osaka Sun (talk) 18:51, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The e-begging is a different issue. He asks for money. Has asked for money. I find we snark this up on our anti-evo pages when they do it, why should we treat atheist pages any differently? And it wasn't "One comment". It's his entire interaction with women. This has been shown for a while, especially when you see how he treats women who refute him. I really do not see what you love about this guy, that you can't find in someone who is actually articulate, recognized, (even if they, too are jerks), and who has original ideas. But you don't, so there it is.GodotGrow a vagina 18:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

e-begging is horrible and makes you an awful person for some reason. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

begging is annoying. It's a reality of life for non-profits. But doesn't make it less annoying. My boss's church has his annual "begathon" (their words, not mine). NPR interrupts my shows for a short message about how easy it is to give. And ads on my tv guilt me about starving kids, homeless animals, and politicans who are too poor to do what they need to do. And school kids knock on my door selling whatever, so they can take their band/club/team to whatever competition. it's necessary. it's still annoying.GodotGrow a vagina 20:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Terroja

Apparently terroja is his Reddit name. I bring it up because of this piece of WTF. ^{d hominem} 14:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I kind of liked him before he began ranting against feminism. Still, he still can make a good video. F_lint^{talk to me :D|see my shit} 16:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Gosh, still with this feminism shit? Who cares what he calls himself if he believes in equal rights. -- DasRationalpersone (Annoy me!) 18:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

"I will make you a rape victim if you don't fuck off." - he seems to believe in it and practice it very nicely too. ^bomination 18:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Though ICumWhenIKillMen did say "what about my user name even remotely suggests I'm bigoted towards men?", so I think this entire conversation is basically the unstoppable force vs the unmovable object of stupidity and fucknuggetry. ^gnostic 18:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to reddit. He is slightly to very retarded at times, but Fallacy said only problem he has with TJ is that he doesn't like feminism. -- DasRationalpersone (Annoy me!) 18:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

That isn't his only problem, but it is his most apparent. And yes, it does matter to me that he hates (and dedicates a large portion of his videos to denigrating) a movement attempting and succeeding to/at achieve equal legal and social status for women. F_ucker^{talk to me :D|see my shit} 19:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, nice disablist language there. F_ucker^{talk to me :D|see my shit} 20:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, wow. I just started reading that Reddit comments thread. Yeah, after that, any argument that he's not a feminist but still believes in equality for women was utterly demolished with a fifteen-inch cock. F_litzer^{talk to me :D|see my shit} 20:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

PZ doesn't think much of him either. --PsyGremlin話しなさい 19:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

This shit again? Why does some ass who makes YouTube videos induce so much butthurt? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Because he's popular, I guess. F_ucker^{talk to me :D|see my shit} 20:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

More popular than Jesus? -- DasRationalpersone (Annoy me!) 20:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Why is it I'm never shocked when people against one kind of biggotry or stupidity have their own set if you scratch them -- ie Dan Savage.GodotGrow a vagina 20:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I wonder why people take one thing the guy says as infinitely more important than everything else he says. As though by saying some abusive things online on a single occasion renders anything he has previously stated null and void. He has stated many times over the years why he dislikes with feminism and many people seem to dismiss it. I personally don't understand how you can misunderstand his viewpoint and misrepresent it as sexism or whatever. Yeah, what he said on Reddit was vile and sexist, but it does not reflect his general views on the matter. One little inconsistency (which, by comparison, it is) does not invalidate every single one of his arguments. ^{— Unsigned, by: 124.179.94.117 / talk / contribs}

Bullshit. See the passages quoted from Scumbag. Same contempt for women, their bodies & consent; same flippant attitude to rape, same lack of sympathy for rape victims. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 06:40, 19 April 2012 (UTC)