From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 30 August 2021. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, (new)(back)


This article is filled with misrepresentation, subjectivity, and falsehoods. I wasn't aware that Rational Wiki is Encyclopedia Dramatica. — Unsigned, by: / talk 07:39, 20 April 2015

Hi, AA (talk) 22:40, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
First, Drink! Second: Prove your position with sources. Zero (talk - contributions) 08:53, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Well I don't know who that was, but I'm not AA, I'm not even an atheist. This article is an embarrassing, unbalanced attack that shows how irrational "rational wiki" can be — Unsigned, by: / talk
"But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink! Can you actually say which part is wrong or are you here just to whine continuously? Typhoon (talk) 13:37, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
What's wrong with the article is that is focuses on the things he said years ago (and apologized for!) and omits the thoughtful and productive comments he's been making on his Youtube channel for years. Honestly, I thought this site was a place for information and rational discourse and not simply a burnbook for internet man-boys. — Unsigned, by: ‎ / talk / contribs
Show me that he's different now and the apologies. Zero (talk - contributions) 20:03, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, I'd start here. Most recently he apologized here (at 14:35) and explains his side of the incident. (which this page fails to do) He also uploaded this video in which (at 8:04) he talks about gender equality without feminism. Finally, I would just like to remind you that the one incident on Reddit that seems to color your entire opinion of him is just that, one incident. If he were making comments like that in his Youtube videos, I'd have no problem with this article, but to take that quote and declare it to be "Everything you need to know about this guy in a nutshell" is dishonest and reprehensible.
Embarrassing - irrelevant appeal to emotion
Unbalanced - Hello balance fallacy!
Irrational - argument by assertion
Whew, you're on a roll. (talk) 13:43, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, the article has this quote: 'Everybody should have the right to do anything they want within the realm of consent, as long as it doesn't infringe upon the freedoms of anyone else; at least that's what Kincaid says he believes. This includes staring at women.

So, should people not be allowed to stare at women?-- (talk) 20:37, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Got consent? No? Then its rude as hell. Zero (talk - contributions) 20:43, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I mean, I agree with all of this article including calling him a jerk, but calling someone a jerk is not exactly rational, and no I don't drink thanks. — Unsigned, by: / talk

He qualifies as a jerk by any stretch of imagination, so why wouldn't calling him a jerk wouldn't be rational? LEFTYGREENMARIO 02:36, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Because this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a collection of essays. Objectivity is needed in an encyclopedia, and personal feelings shouldn't interfere with the distribution of information. And if he seems like a jerk directly from his actions, then why add this term to his description?— Unsigned, by: ManGuy / talk / contribs

Not an encyclopedia, thanks. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 21:09, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
agree, RW is not nor does it attempt to be an unbiased encyclopedia. This wiki has very clearly stated biases. If one does not like the biases on RW, they are free to start their own wiki. That being said, it's factually accurate that the AA is a bloviating jerk and a text-book example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.Petey Plane (talk) 15:32, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

More TJ apologists[edit]

I'd like to remind you that rolling back legitimate edits is tantamount to vandalism. I'm referring of course, to the changes of mine you undid on The Amazing Atheist's article. — Unsigned, by: NebXan / talk / contribs
Removing sourced content wasn't exactly legitimate. Perhaps two sourced quotes for the article?-- Forerunner (talk) 00:56, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Looking at past comments & edits, I stand by the roll back. TJ is a rather loathsome character. Taking a quote from a self published book (for an editor's one and only edit) changing the entire drift of the article without first discussing on the talk page is not good practice. Scream!! (talk) 13:05, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
—from my talk page

Edits referred to Scream!! (talk) 13:41, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Don't be absurd, there's a whole section here dedicated to changing the quote at the top. What makes the quote from his book any less legitimate than a reddit post he made years ago? If you ask me, the quote from his book is more legitimate. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs
You keep rolling back my edits even after I justified them on the talk page and provided sources. Explain yourself worm. --NebXan1 (talk) 18:52, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Consider the fact that your changes are also undoing somebody else's edits. One common source of disagreement in collaborative projects is wh- ... ... ... "worm?" Your credibility went from zero to negative. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar?~) 18:56, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Oh, and, you lack sincerity. I'm sort of wondering if what I typed above needed to be typed, or if you understand fully and are just wanting to cause trouble. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar?~) 19:00, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
And then I realized that's a sock. Hoo boy. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar?~) 19:01, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Around here, expressing a view that goes against the herd gets you a one-way ticket to bansville. Hence the socks. --NebXan (talk) 19:47, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Heh, clearly you're not familiar with RW blocking policy at all. (talk) 20:22, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
you realize making socks made the bans more likely? 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 20:33, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Around here, expressing a view that goes against the herd gets you a one-way ticket to Superman busting down your door. Hence the nukes strapped to civilians that are dangling over a volcano. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar?~) 20:35, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Narky that makes too much sense. WalkerWalkerWalker 20:45, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

So I did some more research on TJ during my ban and I came to the conclusion that he isn't such a great guy. I had thought that the "rape survivors" quote came from the Reddit meltdown. I didn't realize it was from his book. I wouldn't go so far as to call him a rape apologist, but he definitely downplayed the severity of rape. I guess I should apologize for my naivete and, shall we say, forceful editing... --NebXan (talk) 19:58, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Sad truth is this site's a propaganda machine which is made up of 90% ad hom and other logical fallacies, and about only 10% rationality. And you're dealing with emotionally stunted who'd be banned for trolling and personal attacks rather than made admins on any website other than this, hell even bottom-of-the-barrell sites like Stormfront.
As far as the AA goes, I could care less because's a moron, but the fact some reprobate like Scream!! is that desperate to keep that asinine quote at the top of the page and can't even communicate with those who disagree other than hurling "idiot" and "fuck off" - shows the intention in using the site as a medium to bash anyone the freaks and bullies here dislike. Not to mention the paranoia over an "internet celebrity" who has more following on 4chan than he does in academia.
The only redeeming value of this cesspool site at this point is that it serves as fodder for its Encyclopedia Dramatica article. Other than that it's just Conservapedia's alter ego - a way for society's impotent reprobates to make themselves "admins" because harassing and banning people like you is the only control they'll ever have in their worthless lives. Don't waste your time, because I sure don't, lol -- (talk) 09:03, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Well actually you do, my old 202 flufflebunny. You wasted your time typing all those characters above and on the talk page of another editor. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 09:27, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Different people have different opinions on "waste". Fact is I've been viewing behavior of the so-called admins here and the fact that it's allowed to continue - everything from admins yelling "fuck off" and all caps because they're too emotionally stunted to speak English like normal people, to admins issuing threats over simple disagreements, to one admin even harassing a female contributor calling her a "fucking liar" and "deceitful filth" and making some threat about her Twitter feed.
At this point anything I can do to help destroy this website's A-OK. If enough of this stuff starts getting documented and spread around the net pretty soon this site will be shunned by the rest of the world and be lumped into the same camp as site like Stormfront for letting this shit go on here with full approval from the higher ups. And when that happens mission accomplished; none of this political or "Youtube drama" crap belongs here anyway if this site was actually true to it's claim of being a "science wiki" instead of a bunch of radical propaganda intermingled with Star Trek and "goat" references. That's what happens when you let a bunch of sociopaths who couldn't even hold down a job at Burger King with their behavior be given admin privilidges when that they really need is community supervision -- (talk) 09:54, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
As 202 desperately back-pedals.... Of course, if your declared aim is to "destroy this website" then I will have no problem in blocking you - not for your beliefs but for your inability to play nice. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 10:02, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
202... it's Washington DC. Careful fellow goatle trekies, our potential Burger King jobs are on the line. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 10:25, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
What makes you think Burger King would hire you? Even a HS kid would be fired for talking the way the admins do here. And I say the site should be destroyed since if you erased all of the bad content, users, and admins, you'd be left with about only about 5% of it left, so deleting it all and starting over from scratch would be easier. Why are you worried about lil' ol "202" bashing your precious website more than your own admins making a mockery of it by spending more time cussing and bullying newbies than actually contributing anything of value? -- (talk) 10:33, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Admins..... admins everywhere. Cussing is such a charming word. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 10:35, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Gotta love the gaslighting and incomprehensible Yoda speak. And lol at "play nice" when those like Scream and the rest of the peanut gallery are given free reign to play the little dick-tator, not to mention people like this being allowed to post here at all. I'm just hoping the newcomers get wind of what goes on here unchecked so they'll know the kind of people they're dealing with-- (talk) 10:41, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Where'd you see all these admins, many of the active users are sysops, which is only a small step above a regular registered and autopatrolled grunt.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 12:07, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

That Video[edit]

You know, the one those screen shots are from? Of the personal opinion they should be left off his page. As far as i remember, those got out without his consent, and it's really unfair to hold something like that against the guy. He's actively produced, for public consumption, enough garbage to give him his due respect without bringing up something he had no intention of being public. I feel like attacking him for that brings us down to his level, or at best, an Encyclopedia Dramatica page, and we should be better than that.

I have a feeling this has already been covered, and i'm sorry if i'm rehashing an old argument, and please, if he meant the thing to be leaked, then let him have it.--Petey Plane (talk) 01:56, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Your right that it shouldn't be on the page. The article's history has several instances of removing any reference to it. WatcherIntheDark (talk) 02:03, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't think the bit you removed was 'attacking him' over it, but I agree it probably shouldn't be included. (talk) 02:05, 2 November 42015 AQD (UTC)

Videos Worth Discussing (Including Drunken Peasants)[edit]

I took a look at videos on his channel called "When Women Rape Men", "Not All Men-Three Words All Feminists Hate (And Why They Should Be Said)", "I'm Racist?" and so on. They are him at his worst. In addition, there should be discussion of his podcast group, the Drunken Peasants. These include a debate with TheVigilantChristian, and TJ getting butthurt to defend Marilyn Manson's appearance on the Talking Dead, when the resident Stephen Colbert of atheists, the Creationist Cat, pointed out that Manson was far more shitfaced than usual. Even TJ's podcast partners agreed that TJ was in the wrong.Mmoore29 (talk) 21:02, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Internet Tough Guy[edit]

The opening sentences mention his "macho posturing" (source?) and link to the article on internet tough guys. I don't believe this belongs there, as it doesn't seem to fit the article. He may act like an asshole, but there is no reference for where he expresses internet tough guy behavior, some of his rape comments are just lame and obnoxious, appearing to be attempts at humour. I want to remove it if it can't be backed up, if it can that's great. TheAmazingSkeptic (talk) 07:33, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Internet Tough Guy, part 2[edit]

Please provide examples, that is why I removed it. If it can be backed up that's great, but if it can't it shouldn't stay there. TheAmazingSkeptic (talk) 21:43, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

If we had to have a cite for the way we describe people carrying themselves, Rationalwiki would just be full of gifs and meaningless links to rambling paragraphs. It's un-citeable, but accurate. Nobody would argue against it if we talked about how Donald Trump flails his hands like a moron when he's speaking, but it's a visual cue, and visual cues aren't always citeable (and isn't "macho posturing" a visual cue?). Besides, he kind of carries himself like a tough-guy asshole in general. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 23:00, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
What is macho "posturing?" I just watched a video of his and don't know what you're talking about. I also reread the RW article on internet tough guys, it doesn't seem to match. If Trump actually flails his hands while speaking (I don't look for that stuff) then that would be accurate. TheAmazingSkeptic (talk) 23:09, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
I was just referring to what the link was when I talked about macho posturing. I generally believe it's talking about how superior and how much more manly and logical he thinks he is compared to everyone else, which is par for the course for MRAs. Throwing your weight around as if you're the smartest and toughest guy in the room, and throwing around edgelord "humor" that masks the sincerity of your beliefs. Personally, I don't care whether it stays or goes, it just seems like a silly thing to get hung up on. Might be better with a rephrasing as opposed to complete omission. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 23:11, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Your "un-citeable but accurate, it's a visual clue" rambling is complete nonsense. Provide a link or two as example. It's very easy. This is how citing works. Carpetsmoker (talk) 23:31, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
General conclusions about a person's attitude don't need citations. Including cites for simple attitude descriptors is ridiculously inane (and a tall order, because you're summarizing a whole person and not a singular incident) which is why the rest of the article exists to make that case for us. Also, this issue was resolved before you decided to jump in here. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 23:35, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't know, I think the article (in this case TAA) should be able to establish that the attitude descriptor is correct (here concerning whether he is an ITG), which it doesn't seem to do. TheArrogantSkeptic (talk) 23:49, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
As I said, I think a case could be made for the crowd it's defining having expanded and evolved (devolved?) in recent years, but it's not really something worth arguing here, so I'm gonna let it fall by the wayside. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 02:54, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

As I understand it, ITG means "if you disagree I'mma beatchu up with mah Navy Seal Black Belt!", not "I'm right and an asshole about it". Kirk fits the second, not the first. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 23:16, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, could do with a rephrasing. Although, generally, words shift meaning and evolve over time, and I haven't really seen ITG used in ages, so whoever put it there might have gotten it's meaning mixed up, or intended it as a variant of the phrase. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 23:17, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
I was thinking the same as FCP, which is why I was confused. The article it links to doesn't seem to cover the 2nd def (which is what confused me as well), if it isn't changed/omitted, maybe the article should at least be updated or not linked too? TheAmazingSkeptic (talk) 23:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
I think a large part of it is that I think the crowd that we used to call ITG's have evolved to be the second definition, and our article hasn't been updated to reflect that fact. When I think ITG personally, I don't think "I'mma beat you up", i think "I'mma be an asshole to you online incessantly", because they've realized that that's way easier. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 23:22, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Given that the intro excludes any reference to ITG, this is a non-issue. ;P Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 23:21, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

A case could be made for some variant of the originally intended meaning to become included, as it is a valid descriptor of his personality. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 23:22, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Ehhh. "ITG as asshole" is better described by the term asshole itself; ITG pure! FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 23:27, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
We need a new word for these people, then. :D - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 23:28, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
+1. TheAmazingSkeptic (talk) 23:29, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
"Asshole" works quite well, I think. If you need something more, try "flaming asshole". FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 00:32, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Yea FCP, that would be very accurate indeed. TheAmazingSkeptic (talk) 00:35, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
The article is now improved. :3c - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 02:42, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Agreed, but it could still use improvements if you have any ideas. TheAmazingSkeptic (talk) 03:00, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
I'll sleep on it. A thing that immediately comes to mind is his affiliation with Gamergate, which should be mentioned somewhere in the article (the only place that it's mentioned is the page category), though I don't have any resources to cite and document that on hand, and I'm not about to foul up my youtube recommendations searching for them. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 03:07, 12 January 2016 (UTC)


Perhaps it's because english is not my first language, but I don't get this article's stance on the subject of "ogling at women". What qualifies as ogling? How does one get consent if eye contact is not allowed in the first place? And if it is offensive to look at a person, then I'd guess actually talking to a person without consent is considered a crime. How would I get consent for talking to a person, without talking? Or how would I ask for consent without looking? I can't quite believe, that this article would critisise TAA for thinking, it should be allowed to look at a woman. I'm not here to defend TAA, just confused. Anyone cares to clarify? (talk) 17:52, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not that eye contact is bad, it's that staring at women's bodies, solely for sexual reasons, when you don't know them well is bad. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 22:29, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Sexual objectification. TheAmazingSkeptic (talk) 22:31, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
When does a quick glance become a stare?--Kugelschreiber (talk) 22:02, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
After 0.3 seconds. WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:20, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
According to...?--Kugelschreiber (talk) 22:33, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
There was a sig following that statement, ya know. (talk) 22:36, 3 February 42016 AQD (UTC)


Is somebody going to make them articles, or can I remove them? TheArrogantSkeptic (talk) 23:59, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Which ones you talking about? The misogynists? They might be created someday. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 00:28, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
jezuzfreek777 and Jesusophile, but it's not something I care about too much. It just looks sloppy, but if you think somebody is going to make them then alright. TheAmazingSkeptic (talk) 00:32, 12 January 2016 (UTC)


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

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

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

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

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

Talk About Vandalism and Utter, Unhidden bias[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

— Unsigned, by: LordColbito / talk / contribs

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