From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 3 May 2016. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <6>, (new)(back)

Change in focus of the article over time[edit]

Just going through the fossil record, as you do...does anyone else see a bit of a shift in focus? The article from, say, late 2011/early 2012 contained the usual objective description balanced with snark. The article today appears to focus almost entirely on painting him as a misogynist (by the internet-definition, at least - no semantics please). There is so much more shit that he says that it could be talking about, that such a specific focus seems strange. Also, the article used to hint at the fact that he intentionally tries to be controversial, but this seems to be gone.

Is there any reason for this change in focus, or does it simply reflect a change in userbase? WilderG (talk) 03:17, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Probably because his more assholish behavior became more prominent than any good he might have done previously. EVDebs (talk) 03:35, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
That would only explain a general shift towards "he's an asshole". WilderG (talk) 03:39, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
You know what they say: "you can build a hundred bridges, but if you suck cock once you are a cock-sucker, not a bridge builder". This place does tend to be a bit harsh on anyone who says anything that might be interpreted as misogynistic, but hey, that is how we roll. --DamoHi 03:51, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Okay, it's looking like 'userbase' was the answer. Thanks. WilderG (talk) 03:52, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
You are, of course, part of the userbase, so if you want to make changes go right ahead. Be bold, as it were. If people don't like your changes I'm sure they will be polite. DamoHi 04:25, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


He's changed his views on feminism now, and he's said that he doesn't object if someone wants to say that he is a feminist. I'd still object, but only because I understand the psychology behind convincing people to identify as a member of one's group. I also wouldn't get pissed about it either, with agreeing with 9/10 things they say, just make some false light accusation and move on. I also gave up completely on watching this guy's videos completely once Youtube increased their video length and he started rambling far more than making fun of idiots. –Inquisitor Sasha (Talk | contribs | block) 17:45, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

holy shit lol[edit]

This article reads like a fucking Encyclopedia Dramatica page. Is this shit supposed to be completely inflammatory? It looks like a bunch of really pissed off teenagers sat down and typed up a long ass rant about how much TJ sucks, and then someone added as an after thought the "not entirely a douche" segment so they could pass off this shit as a wiki page instead of an anonymous letter written for an anger management class. Maybe I'm just unfamiliar with how this place operates, but lmfao. -- (talk) 20:04, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. If I remember correctly, it used to be longer and more rambly/Encyclopedia Dramatica–y. — (talk to) [æn əˈmɛɹɪkən ˈnaiːɪlɪst] 06:48, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Age of consent comments[edit]

I undid the last edit, simply because no reason was given for its removal. Is it not true? Do you not think it is relevant, etc. If true, to me it shows more of his perspective about women, if not true, of course it should go. Sorry for just "undoing". Green mowse.pngGodot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 15:57, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Eh… I'm kind of debating in my mind whether it's relevant or not. I guess it really doesn't matter, and either way he's a shit. — (talk to) [æn əˈmɛɹɪkən ˈnaiːɪlɪst] 19:14, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Again, sorry to pull the trigger so fast. this is one of those articles that gets lots of "but he's not so bad" reverts. I didn't think *you* would do that, but i wasn't sure. Green mowse.pngGodot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 04:45, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't like him, but I don't want to unfairly attack by saying "you're an evil pedophile"… but dating a 14-year-old at 23 and wanting to lower the age of consent to 12/13 are pretty extreme even for me. If you combine those with his "extreme pedophilic fantasies", then you might be able to make a good point. I don't know — things are complicated. — (talk to) [æn əˈmɛɹɪkən ˈnaiːɪlɪst] 08:16, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
An age of consent of 13 is not without precedent, even in developed countries. Japan's age of consent is 13, and Spain had an age of consent of 13 up until recently (2009? I can't remember off-hand). Though it's much lower than you're used to, it's not "extreme". (talk) 01:17, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Just because this seems to come up in every age of consent debate: Japan does not de facto have an age of consent of 13. Each and every prefecture has set higher ages of consent. 13 is just the national minimum, but de facto the AoC is 13 nowhere in Japan. And among the industrialized nations, Spain pretty much is the outlier. Personally, I think when people advocate lowering the AoC to 12 or 13 that is pretty telling and damning. It's a relatively common thing among MRAs, too, so yeah, it fits to him. Octo8 (talk) 17:50, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

grammar edits?[edit]

Can someone explain this edit to me? I'm not sure why "sic" was added, I don't see a problem with the grammar. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Who knows? Could just be that the quote was copy-pasted from a non-wiki source without the punctuation being corrected to defaults (hence I’m instead of I'm). I've now taken that bit out altogether as the quote wasn't particularly interesting & was being misinterpreted very blatantly (claiming that TAA's comments on veal must apply to all meat). WėąṣėḷőįďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:30, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Vicious defamation against TheAmazingAtheist[edit]

This discussion was moved to User talk:Inquisitor Ehrenstein. WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 06:48, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


The editors are lucky this poor bastard isn't smart enough to file a libel suit. In any case, this page is a ridiculous, internecine hatchet job. It seems clear to me, as a disinterested party, that this page is purely retribution for his critique of feminism. As such it ought to be beneath the dignity of the editors. A more balanced essay could probably be written. Of note, this page makes no acknowledgement of any possible contributions to rationalism and atheism. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Please sign your talk page contributions (add 4 ~ at the end of them). Anyway, it's only libel if it isn't true. Everything the article lists what TAA has done or said is on public record and well sourced. And considering that - why the FUCK are you supporting a guy who DID say "I think we should give the guy who raped you a medal. I hope you fucking drown in rape semen, you ugly, mean-spirited cow."? Whatever he might have "contributed" to rationalism or atheism pales in comparison to his sheer and pure assholery. We don't do "balanced articles" on assholes, plain and simple. They don't deserve that. But, oh he goes against the evil feminists, so his comments must be justified. Lewis' Law in action, it seems: Comments about feminism justify feminism. Octo8 (talk) 11:18, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Hint, MRA. It's not libel if it's all true.--The Madman (talk) 11:19, 10 February 2014 (UTC)The Madman

Oh snap out of it. I am a...regular watcher of his who agrees with a lot of his points ( saying fan would probably be an overstatement) but this article is not the way it is because he critiques feminism ( though yes, that would probably be enough to make him at least partially unfriedly with this wiki) but because he as very very unconventional ideas of what is an acceptable tone of discussion. He also would never file a sue against this wiki, not because hes to stupid but because he truly thinks that, as long as you DO make oints ad Hominem is absolutly acceptable, one way or the other. And while i don't agree with that assesment he at least follows through with it and does'nt make a fuss about any Insults about him...he just returns the favour. He also hasn't contributed anything great to scepticism and Atheism. He's an atheist and sceptic who offers his thoughts and views on society while trying to evade any predetermind narative as much as he possibly can. I found that his videos, wether i agreed or not, usually offerd another angle and ideas about different subjects and are usually worth checking out ( but then i am a liberal who watches lee Doren for pretty much the same reason.) And i don't think that anyone, even his fans, can maintine that he is a completely normal and functional human beeing. I mean...he himself keeps pointing out that he has a fucked up mode of social interaction.He probably would'nt debate most of what is said in this article.

That said, what does not fit are the links to MRA because...well...he is not an MRA. He has infact pointed out that most MRA's don't really give a fuck about gender politics but simply exist to blame feminists for...everything, focusing only on their own trouble and view point and not doing anything to actually adress gender issues ( which is basically the same criticism he, in my opinion wrongly, offers of modern feminism). Watching his videos on gender issues (not feminism directly) as someone who usually agrees with feminist view points interesting experience really. He usually discerns a lot of patterns and offers a lot of thoughts that would fit into a modern feminist analysis but then manages to come to completly different conclusions. But i digress, case in point, he is not with the MRA crowd. Nekuni (talk) 15:06, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Ah. Well, if you can source your statement, go ahead and edit the article accordingly. Nullahnung (talk) 15:23, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Johnson probably meant the anon who created this subsection with "MRA", not TAA directly. On another note, what is with the current influx of anti-feminist trolls? Octo8 (talk) 15:33, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

OP: I'm a feminist. I don't like hatchet jobs. Subsequently I think many articles on this site are beneath the dignity of its editors. Some are potentially libelous -- good thing this site is such a joke. (talk) 20:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Parts of the article (e.g. the "e-begging" section) have been added by other drive-by unregistered editors who may or may not have other bones to pick with TAA than feminism. And if you can suggest any specific improvements to make the article less of a "hatchet job" without detracting from the problems with his behaviors, you are welcome to make them.--ZooGuard (talk) 20:58, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


I understand that this wiki is liberal, but it looks like this article was vandalized by some people who wanted to put their subjective views on a wiki. There's a lot of derogatory language, and this article even has a header titled "what a guy" this article really needs to be cleaned up.— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs 03:28, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Please see RationalWiki:SPOV--"Shut up, Brx." 03:55, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to address this acticle's clear bias against TheAmazingAtheist. Yes this is fairly accurate in that it does present factual information, but it also comes across as a person attack against him and seems to be written with a negative undertone that is showing extreme contempt. I feel this is a poorly written article, that isn't up to wikipedia standards. Although I know this isn't Wikipedia, do you want to be taken seriously as a site with the name RationalWiki, if you allow non neutral arguments? I hope that someone is on this page right now. Brokenxwing (talk) 05:21, 21 July 2014 (UTC)Brokenxwing

While I do believe that you need to understand that we're not all about neutrality, and that quite a few of this guy's views are… questionable, at best, I do think that the tone can sorta come across as a bit harsh. I'm too lazy, but you could try editing the article, and let the community do the rest. MĖSSIÅH ØF DØØM Cacophonous aura of illness and woeDolan.png 09:36, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

As long as it isn't the What a guy/Feminism/Reddit meltdown section I'd support that. Neutrality isn't "exclude criticism" and his comments and views on sexual assault put his criticisms of Feminism into context. I get the impression he's never properly spoken to a rape survivor before --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 09:43, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Was about to attend the AVFM conference[edit]

...but it didn't happen: --ZooGuard (talk) 08:43, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

It looks like they really wanted him there. He has similar values to them, especially when it comes to sexual assault, so it isn't surprising --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 08:46, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

The lower decile of online atheism[edit]

Fan and detractor. Whoever wins, we all lose - David Gerard (talk) 11:30, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Straw Man[edit]

Can you guys show me how he straw mans? I just don't see the straw mans. What arguments is he misrepresenting?— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs 17:21, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Heavy BIAS. Shame on you "rational"wiki! You are more like uncyclopedia now! At least i get this feeling while reading this article, full of rambling, shaming, naming and bias.


You know this website is ultra, ultra liberal when it satirizes liberals that aren't liberal enough.— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs 08:51, 31 December 2013‎ (UTC)

Or when they're just plain assholes. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 10:07, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

He is taking a quite vicious tone against feminism. This website is largely pro feminist. So people here don't like him. Also , lets face it, even when you are a fan of his like i am, he is a really, really, anti social person who has a habit of loosing his shit from time to time and go for the jugular of his opponent. I still like him, still think that he does make far more good than bad points and is almost always worth listening to and thinking about. But let's face it....hed has the tactfulness of an turine scale level 10 Asteriod. I don't think he belongs into the bat shit crazy category. He has just not comitted any mental dissonances or fallacys, or belives to justify that. — Unsigned, by: Nekuni / talk / contribs 16:32, 11 January 2014‎ (UTC)

Or maybe... you know. "Liberal and conservative" aren't the only two views people can have so you don't have to add "ultra" to it in order to make it fit. Not to mention that a person can be left-wing on one issue and right-wing on the other (opposed to one social hierarchy and supporting another one). -- (talk) 11:12, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

WTF!? How can this wiki be pro feminism and at the same time call itself rationalwiki? -- (talk) 10:02, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

How would it be rational to oppose women's rights? (talk) 10:59, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Women's rights and feminism are not necessarily one and the same thing. Burkean (talk) 04:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
and he does not oppose women's rights! Why are you lying? This article is SO fcking biased that makes me dizzy. How you can call yourself RATIONALwiki. Theres more emotions and ideological disgust in this article than rationalism.

And i wondered about why are quotation marks placed around the word feminism. Talk about showing the bias, LOL

Needs to be more nuanced[edit]

I didn't expect this article to be positive coming on to it, he has said and done some nasty stuff and is obviously opposed in many ways to the majority of this forum. However in my opinion this goes too far; he has been an adamant critic of religion, pseudoscience and irrational beliefs, and has always been a huge supporter of the scientific method and investing in science, a virtue that one would think would be the most important of all on a site called "rational wiki'.

Bill Maher on the other hand, who has also criticised feminism (no mention of that on his article whatsoever), and has expressed disbelief in the core principles of modern medicine, in lieu of unfounded pseudoscience, gets an unbiased article. Hell, even Tony Blair, who essentially destroyed the British left wing, gets less hate than this guy.

Alongside his (rightfully)controversial comments he has also made many videos targeted against feminism (or more often specific feminists), and most of the points he makes (in my point of view) are at least somewhat reasonable. He has also made videos criticising conventional gender roles, such as this one:

I'm not sure that this will do anything, since others have criticised this article and nothing has come of it, yet I hope that me laying out my arguments and providing of examples could make Rational Wiki ... a little more rational. (talk) 15:19, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm so glad I don't play the rationalwiki drinking game. Anyways, those things are mentioned on Maher's page, at least a little. The argument from a double standard wouldn't hold water anyways, because the correct fix for that problem would be to fix the Maher page.
The crux of your argument, however, is that since he's a pro-science atheist, we need to align with him as an ally. That's a little too tribalistic for my thinking. Being hateful and bigoted, regardless of what you agree with me on, is always instant shitlist material. Ikanreed (talk) 15:31, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Bill Maher is an anti-Vaxx Islamophobe who thinks he's intelligent but really isn't, I completely agree. However, the Amazing Athiest is a misogynist prick who argues from his ass and is a toxic human being. I'm black and I don't support morons like Louis Farrakhan, why should I support AA simply because I'm an atheist? If anything, supporting this guy would hurt our community more than help it.BlackProg (talk) 15:36, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Oh man, the damage to our community has long-since been done, though. AA is well known, his toxicity is well known, and he glued atheist to his online identity in a way that will naturally turn peoples' mental associations our way. That doesn't mean I have to let that association be accurate by supporting him. Ikanreed (talk) 16:28, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually it is pretty nuanced if you read the whole thing especialy the last bits which quite frankly didnt need to be mentioned. It appears that if you do any thing less that kiss this "subhumans" ass you are being biased. Oh the irony.


No mention of the anal banana incident? Burkean (talk) 22:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Why would there be? --Inquisitor (talk) 22:31, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
The article seemed to focus on what a loon he is (one of the few times I agree with rationalwiki). I just thought that might be worth pointing out. Often times rationalwiki will include info on a person that isn't "on mission" because it's funny or reinforces the craziness of person. Burkean (talk) 04:27, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
What.--Madman (talk) 04:32, 19 January 2015 (UTC)The Madman
What do you mean by what? Burkean (talk) 04:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Honestly, I don't know how you could include this in any meaningful way. "LOOK THIS GUY SEXED A BANNANA; HE'S CRAZY" just doesn't seem helpful. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 05:05, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Often times, rationalwiki discusses bizarre behavior of people they talk about without it being on mission. I wasn't saying it should be done in a way to judge him, or say there is something wrong with it, or to bash homosexuality (if it was homosexual), I just meant as a joke. Political differences aside, has rationalwiki completely lost its sense of humor? Burkean (talk) 09:09, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
It's funny. You can add it if you want. I don't care. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 19:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Please don't. We're not a gossip website and frankly it even goes beyond our boundaries. Zero (talk - contributions) 19:34, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

It is somehting he admitted himself, if that matters in terms of gossip. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 20:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
It's something somebody leaked. & It has nothing to do with our missions. €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 13:39, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
RW is not ED. TAA is here because of a) him being an atheist 'Tuber celebrity, and b) him being a clueless asshole. Everything else is irrelevant. Whatever he does to get off is not RW's business.--ZooGuard (talk) 09:19, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Making a joke about it wouldn't have to involve ridiculing or making fun of him (although he often does that to other people). Rationalwiki has frequently made jokes about the sexual practices of people they write articles about. Why should TJ be an exception? Burkean (talk) 19:32, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Because he's not hypocritical about it? Zero (talk - contributions) 19:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I thought this side was suppose to me objective?[edit]

Let me start of by saying; I am not a MRA nor am I fanboy. I do not enjoy these videos anymore than you do. However I feel like this wiki has gone over the top. This is suppose to be a catalog of knowledge! Not of bigotry. Even if he does insult your views, this should still be an objective site. With information rather than insults. The most of these quotes are taken out of context, to spin a story about a "vile man", blaming suicide, rape and murder victims. A VILE misogynist and a hater of all good things.

Yet this is far from the truth. He has said many "I am all for equality". He has said "the suicide of young people is tragic". He has on more than one occasion stood up for people who have been raped. Called out the rapist as someone who needs to be punished. Yet you do not see that. And yet again I MUST remind you; I am not a fanboy, I am not a MRA. I just find it appalling what this site has come to. This should be an objective site, NOT a way to throw your opinion out in public domain. But hey what do I know?

I pray you have any human decency and rewrite this article, to better accommodate this site, which I used to hold in such high regards.

(I sincerly apologize for my flawed english. I am not a native speaker.) — Unsigned, by: Ben3b / talk / contribs 08:31, 28 January 2015‎ (UTC)

You must have never read any of the articles before. No one really cares. --Someon (talk) 08:48, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
If you believe that a specific portion of the article is incorrect, please quote that portion of the article and provide counterevidence. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk)

00:47, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I would quote entire article and demand YOU provide any evidence!

Rationalwiki my a..

enough said :(

Oh, sorry, are the inline citations not evidence of at least a portion of the articles' claims? We include them for a reason. "I reject it wholesale because bias" is half the comments rationalwiki gets about, well, anything. Ikanreed (talk) 06:46, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


Where's all the coverage of him being banned from

  • McDonald's
  • Tumblr
  • Wendy's
  • Waffle House
  • Subway
  • Denny's
  • Burger King
  • McDonald's again

?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:08, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Is it all that important? Zero (talk - contributions) 08:06, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
It's all I know about him.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:22, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

The "e-begging and scams" section...[edit]

...was originally added by a BoN, so it needs close scrutiny and a rewrite, if necessary. The section title not in line with the usual ways of capitalization on RW should have been a red flag.--ZooGuard (talk) 12:27, 8 February 2015 (UTC)


This is slightly biased. I mean he has apologized for the quote and it no longer expresses his views (or at least he states that) and this should be added and he realizes it crossed the line. He is not the greatest guy but this is becoming more and more and more of a circle jerk. I like this site but really, some things can use some less-biased views and updating. But, I think that everybody, being a Human has some bias. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

There's more than the single quote you are referring to. He hasn't changed his mind about women at all, or feminism, or about getting his pedo-lech on with jailbait. It's not biased to state the facts. --Castaigne (talk) 21:21, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
If you knew the full context of the quote you would know it doesn't represent his actual views on women or rape. It may not be biased to state fact, but it is biased to cherry-pick and distort them. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Origin of the quote[edit]

I'm curious about the origin of the quote. Where did he say that statement? Respond quickly please. — Unsigned, by: ManGuy / talk / contribs

It's called a citation, they're the little numbers by the quote. here's one of the THREE just for that quote. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 21:10, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much. Yeah, sometimes I'm pretty stupid, sorry about that. What I don't understand is the "—Everything you need to know about this guy in a nutshell". I mean, the quote is pretty bad by itself , I don't understand why add this subjective statement on an objective article. I would like it to be changed if possible. Thanks. — Unsigned, by: ManGuy 21:37, 24 July 2015 / talk / contribs
Let's see. Objectivity is not a requirement, if you disagree with what is written don't just blank the page, and sign your posts. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 22:11, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

"Objectivity is not a requirement" then isn't this site a whole collections of essays? Isn't this site supposed to be an encyclopedia? Randomguy23

Yeah. No. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 14:15, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
See also

WalkerWalkerWalker 14:18, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

... So it's not objective, therefore not factual, but it's not opinions. Then what is this site composed of? Are you telling me that your opinions are fact? Randomguy23
You are misquoting yourself. Mosts statements are shaped in part by opinions. Most are also not essays. Hence the false dichotomy. Hurhurdurr. Secondly, I can present perfectly factual information in a subjective manner - and do, often. Again, you are grossly and willfully oversimplifying. Go. WalkerWalkerWalker 14:27, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

First, if I'm oversimplyfing, it's not willfully. Sorry if my argument appears as such. But an encyclopedia should present the facts, as in what happened, and let the viewer decide subjectively what's right, wrong, etc. But yeah, you can present the fact subjectively. It's not objective, but you can. However, by saying that the quote was "Everything you need to know about him in a nutshell", you're not presenting facts. Hence why I said it resembled an essay (like the rest of the article for that matter). And instead of putting the subtitle "What a guy...", I think "Criticism of The Amazing Atheist" would be more appropriate or "Views of the Amazing Atheist". Randomguy23

I agree that it's not entirely encyclopedic. This is irrelevant. RationalWiki is not an encyclopedia. This wiki is indeed biased, biased in favor of rationality. Kosterortiizbrock (talk) 18:06, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

... And feminism. But I think everyone already knows that. Randomguy23

>everyone knows that
>just finished bitching over lack of disclaimer
Where the hell is onozomg.gif when I need it? WalkerWalkerWalker 22:06, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
And the first "bias" REQUIRES the second, sir. WalkerWalkerWalker 22:06, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Onozomg.gif αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 22:35, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Found it. WalkerWalkerWalker 22:36, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Alright. The articles tend to be biased in favor of Feminism by some definitions of bias. The advocacy of women's rights. Do you have an actual reason against this, or are you just stating desultory facts? Kosterortiizbrock (talk) 01:24, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh, not at all, just wanted to point it out. And by the way, you can be an advocate women's rights without identifying as a feminist.Randomguy23

Agreed. You do not have to identify as a feminist to be one. Kosterortiizbrock (talk) 02:44, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Is this going anywhere? It doesn't look like a discussion that has anything much to do with TheAmazingAtheist. WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 02:51, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, I know where it should be going, but apparently the drunk bus saloon bar is shooting me dirty looks anyhow sooooo... WalkerWalkerWalker 02:53, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
I personally was seeing if they could explain their apparent problem with the article, and why their obvious statements (seemingly attempting to discredit the article) were relevant. Kosterortiizbrock (talk) 02:56, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Well never mind that I simply wanted the subjectivity out of the article, and I would have liked if it would be more like the article you (as in rationalwiki) made on Thunderf00t. You criticized him well without trying to demonize him. Sadly, I see this isn't going to to be done no matter what I say. Randomguy23

I agree with that. Why don't you try to do it though, keep it on mission but fix it to your standards and if everybody appears to agree with your obviously superior ideas I can not begin to comprehend it will not be reverted. Kosterortiizbrock (talk) 04:06, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay, if I appeared condescending, I'm sorry for that. Second, I already tried, but it was reverted within minutes. Randomguy23

And by the way, can you provide me the link where he blamed suicide victims? Thanks. Randomguy23 Oh. Never mind. I saw where he did. When he said that he said killing yourself for being bullied is synonymous with being weak.Randomguy23

Where does this article say that bullying is synonymous with being weak? Fix that line then, and put the appropriate information. Fix the article yourself instead of having a pissing contest. If sometime keeps using rollback on a legitimate edit discuss it with them on their talk page or this article's talk page. They might even qualify as a vandal. TotallynotTipuSultan (talk) 16:11, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

When I said "he", I meant the amazing atheist. He said that killing yourself for being bullied is weak. Sorry for the confusion. Randomguy23

Alright, I reviewed the video and he did indeed mean it was weak even if not outright saying that exact sentence. He also downplayed it to what he considered actually notable deaths where people died with more resistance. I see no problem with that part of the article. Also, no offense, but the all that red is rather unsightly :P may want to make a user page eh? TotallynotTipuSultan (talk) 17:33, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't know at first where he blamed suicide victims but I did remember a video where he blamed the people who wer bullied and were suicidal to be weak (to a certain extent). I think Onision did the same thing, if I'm not mistaken. And yeah, I think I'll make a user page soon. The all red username start to annoy me too :/. Randomguy23


At the moment, someone by the name of 'Hexaotl' keeps editing this page, only for everyone to roll it back. Anyone have a way of verifying whether Hex is actually TheAmazingAtheist? CorruptUser (talk) 00:06, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

He has said numerous times that he doesn't care what the internet says about him. — Unsigned, by: / talk 07:40, 20 April 2015

Many other sites criticize him heavily. I don't think even someone like him would try to vandalize a wiki in an anonymous name.

It appears that TJ (aka Hexaotl, Nebxan...) is putting a lot of effort into editing his page, either as an unregistered guest or under dummy accounts. At least I hope it's TJ, because the thought of him having fanboys dedicated enough to keep editing his page is deeply, deeply depressing. Does anyone think a brief mention of these edits should be included in his page? Petey Plane (talk) 15:45, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm neither TJ nor a fan of TJ. I do believe, however, that at the very least we should change the quote at the top. Others have expressed a similar sentiment.

Removing the quote at the top[edit]

Considering that the quote at the top is WAY off line with TAA's expressed views and the reference leads to some thread on Reddit that's completely unrelated, I'm deleting it. If you have a problem with this, find a better reference and repost the quote. Here's the quote:"I think we should give the guy who raped you a medal. I hope you fucking drown in rape semen, you ugly, mean-spirited cow." Necromancer 22:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Here's the report on his meltdown from We Hunted The Mammoth. And BlagHag It's pretty obvious he tried to go into delete mode since then. I'll put the quote back, with obligatory references and screenshot. --Castaigne (talk) 22:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
And the screencap was already there. Were you unaware of the context of the Reddit? --Castaigne (talk) 22:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Where else would this be acceptable? Should we headline an article on Thomas Jefferson with "'Whosoever shall be guilty of rape, polygamy, or sodomy with a man or woman, shall be punished; if a man, by castration, a woman, by boring through the cartilage of her nose a hole of one half inch in diameter at the least?' - Everything you need to know about this guy in a nutshell." Or Winston Churchill, in that he said "I am strongly in favour of using poisonous gas against uncivilised tribes … to spread a lively terror?" Or perhaps we could sum up Gandhi for that one time he said Hitler wasn't all that bad?

The fact of the matter is that people are going to sometimes say shitty things that they later regret (or not, sometimes). Is what TJ said wrong? Of course. Is it an accurate representation of his actual views on rape? Of fucking course not.

This kind of character assassination belongs on Encyclopedia Dramatica, not on anything that calls itself rational. Take it down.

First, no. Second, this is still defining behavior on his part, unlike the people you described. Zero (talk - contributions) 05:16, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Why is a Reddit flamewar "defining behavior" for TJ, but Thomas Jefferson proposing a law to cut off gay people's dicks not defining behavior for him?— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

One is an asshole on the internet, another is the third president of the US. Which do you think is more relevant to talk about? Zero (talk - contributions) 03:53, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
The former, given that this page is about the asshole on the internet. You didn't answer his question.— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

He wrote that law during his term as Governor of Virginia. If George Bush had proposed a similar law while he was governer of Texas, you'd be pretty pissed off, I'm sure. However, in both Jefferson's case and TJ's, displaying such quotes without context and claiming that "it's all you need to know" about them is misleading and irresponsible. Jefferson's sodomy law was a proposed liberalization of Virginia's existing sodomy laws, which recommended death. In TJ's case, he's not actually pro-rape as you suggest, he was protesting attempts by other Reddit users to get him to stop talking because it might trigger a rape victim, which he felt was counterproductive to discussion. He didn't think anyone should be kept from saying something just because someone else finds it offensive. I'll let him explain from here: — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

This is all covered within our article. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:15, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

It's not covered in the banner that says that one quote is "Everything you need to know in a nutshell."

But there are a couple of thousand words of text below that banner. If you don't bother reading them, that's up to you. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 07:32, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Your logic is self-defeating. If there's something you need to know about him that's not in the quote then the caption below the quote is false. It's obvious you don't want to listen to his side of the story, why not just come out and say it?
I've never spent the time typing that a person should drown in rape semen and that the rapist should then be awarded a medal, nor do i know anyone else who has. He considered and typed that quote under no more duress than someone else typing mean things about him. While the quote may not be everything you need to know about the AA, it indicates a character trait that does speak to his overall personality.Petey Plane (talk) 15:47, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Even if I accept that the quote speaks to his overall personality, (which I do not) you are now admitting that it isn't everything you need to know about him. Ergo the caption is, by your own admission, false. Change it.— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs
Who are you talking to? Did you even notice the quote was changed hours ago? And sorry, but his history as a rape apologist and his frequent use of rape as a threat against women does point to something deeply troubling about his personality. Petey Plane (talk) 18:00, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
It looks like the "everything you need to know about this guy" caption is gone. This is good, but the quote itself needs changed. Also, are you a licensed psychologist, or just presenting your unfounded opinions as fact?— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs
Why should the quote be changed? It remains a pretty good representation of the kind of person AA is, along with his rhetorical skills. What would your analysis be of someone who repeatedly makes excuses for and diminishes the harm rape causes, along with rape threats being his go-to attack on women who disagree with him? As someone so concerned with RW's editorial positions, you should register as a member and contribute. It's not like you have anything better to do with your time, TJ. Petey Plane (talk) 18:19, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
By your criteria, we should take the absolute worst thing you have ever said, regardless of his long ago it was, regardless of the circumstances and regardless of how deeply you recanted and say it is a good representation of you as a person. Also, I would register, but I have nothing to offer this intellectual wasteland other than a bit of common sense.— Unsigned, by: ‎ / talk / contribs

I feel like there is enough support at this point to discuss what quote would best replace the current one. Anyone have any ideas? I was thinking maybe something from Neckbead Uprising or his opus, The Douchebag Bible. --NebXan (talk) 04:24, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

The current quote would be the best replacement for the current quote. WalkerWalkerWalker 04:49, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
No, we've established that the current quote needs to go. Any real suggestions?--NebXan (talk) 05:08, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
We did? Why wasn't I informed of this? (talk) 05:09, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Maybe because you're not registered :P --NebXan (talk) 05:23, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
I was serious, and he is registered. Keep trying. WalkerWalkerWalker 05:28, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Gladly. The current quote is not a good fit for the article for one reason: it is not a good representation of TJ or his views because it is so unlike other comments he makes. One way of understanding this is outliers. In statistics, an outlier is a data point that is very far from other data points. Staticians generally discard them from the data set to get more accurate figures. TJ's infamous Reddit comments are outliers, that is, they are far from the sort of thing TJ would normally say and thus, do not give a true picture of TJ's character and values. --NebXan (talk) 05:41, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
See, that would be a good justification, but it isn't. Just because he doesn't constantly run around yelling that some peoples rapists should get medals for the effort doesn't make it any less of a line that defines who he is: Somebody who thinks that's at all acceptable to say. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 05:49, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
He apologized multiple times for the meltdown. By your reasoning, even one apology on reddit would redefine him as a person who does not think what he said was at all acceptable. TJ has said and wrote an awful lot of words since the incident, why are we still using this quote? It tells readers nothing accept that he said some awful things on the internet years ago.--NebXan (talk) 06:03, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Oh the irony. I'm getting a lecture on stats. WalkerWalkerWalker 05:54, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
On a more serious note, we see other similar, but less succinct, quotes throughout the article. WalkerWalkerWalker 05:57, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
All of the heinous rape quotes came from the reddit incident, an incident I consider to be an outlier, a significant but isolated laspe in judgement.--NebXan (talk) 06:01, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Significant, certainly, but read beyond the rape quotes and tell me he's lacking in similarly poor judgement. WalkerWalkerWalker 06:07, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
I have and I can't. It's true, some of his opinions on sex are a little "out there" but he is indisputably not a rape apologist as that quote makes him out to be.--NebXan (talk) 06:11, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
"I feel like there is enough support at this point..." one person and his dummy accounts does not equal "enough support." I think the original quote remains appropriate. Petey Plane (talk) 20:19, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand the function of the quote at the top, NebXan. The intent isn't to summarize the guy; that's what the lead is for. The function of the quote is to immediately crush the perception some of his followers may have that TheAmazingAtheist is an amazing kinda guy in any positive fashion. That doesn't mean none of his views hold any water; it just means you shouldn't expect the guy to always be right about stuff, especially when it comes to matters of morality and civility. (talk) 22:09, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Random Words[edit]

One section of the article starts with,

"===Nope, nothing creepy about that=== The "Sex" segment of the Kirk's book closes with the chapter "Tits vs. Ass: The Final Showdown," which features a helpful comparison chart of pros and cons, with such charming observations as tits being "hard to stare at without the girl noticing," while "you can take a picture [of her ass] and she won't be any the wiser."

When no book has previously been mentioned. This needs to either have a book actually referred to or be removed. (talk) 23:16, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I was okay with pointing out he apologized twice(if it's true)[edit]

The edit got reverted, presumably for being whitewashing, but I didn't think it was too bad. I don't ever watch youtube videos as cites, however, so if the problem was accuracy, I understand the revert. IP, feel free to discuss your reverted change here, if you want. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 21:57, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I watched the video before I reverted the edit. It says he apologised (it's not the actual apology) and then tries to justify the comments. It did not seem in the spirit of an apology. WatcherIntheDark (talk) 22:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Good to know. Sorry for being credulous. I just can't stand validating points via youtube video. Thanks for taking one for the team. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 22:32, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Don't worry. I'd have usually left it but my suspicion of IP edits made to this page managed to outweigh the actual pain of have watch the thing. WatcherIntheDark (talk) 22:40, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

But why then remove the fact that he apologized? Why not just add that the apology was not "in the spirit of apology"? That he tried to justify the comments? — Unsigned, by: ManGuy / talk / contribs

Because the edit didn't reflect that and it's the responsibility of the editor including the claim to present it honestly. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 21:12, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
That's a pretty ironic statement for you to make given the rampant dishonesty throughout this article, don't ya think? — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs
That would be pretty ironic if it were true. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:15, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm glad you're able to see it. Now, if only we could stop this circle-jerking long enough to make revisions that reduce fact distortion. — Unsigned, by: ‎ / talk / contribs
I'm accusing you of lying and/or being totally wrong. Not endorsing your position. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 13:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)