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

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

Editorial notes
  • Page generates fanboy butthurt
Icon sociology.svg This article contains information about one or more living persons.

Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats.
Reference any contentious allegations solidly; unreferenced allegations should be removed.
If legal threats are raised on this page, please direct the potential litigant to RationalWiki:Legal FAQ; do not interact with them.

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


Anyone who even moderately likely TF will immediately stop reading at that paragraph. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 17:26, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

It's a real phenomenon though. People who are casually dismissive of broad classes of analysis and evidence because they arbitrarily declare them to be irrational. We get them on here all the time. What do you propose? ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:33, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Oh yeah, I fully agree. I think it just shouldn't be in the intro -- it's a very substantive claim that makes more sense in the context of all his other nonsense ideas. Maybe put it in a section further down (as I did)? But fans will still hate RW for having it. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 17:41, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Hm. Sounds totally reasonable. I feel like I'm supposed to argue but I've got nothing, that's a reasonable change. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:49, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
I think the fanbase will be fine. If you check out this video "DrawCuriousity threatens copyright claim over TENS SECONDS of video!", you can see that his fan will call out on his shit in the comments. So we have that going for us. Hmmm... I think we haven't got a section about this video yet. But hopefully that was only a single offence that he did. Mofosyne (talk) 17:40, 1 February 2019 (UTC)


pls pls pls pls pls

with this embedded:

Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 22:55, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

How about no thanks. WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 07:33, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Be Funny And Not Just Stupid - David Gerard (talk) 09:43, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
good advice for everyone.Jackinthebox (talk) 00:47, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

RW vs the Facts (again): Laughing Witch[edit]

Incidentally, this exchange in the comments on Dr. Winters's video also featured since-deleted comments by Laughing Witch where she presumably took the side of Dr. Winters, and this appears to be the thing that motivated Thunderf00t to proceed to doc-drop the YouTube feminist LaughingWitch in a series of videos as well as directing his followers to mass downvote her business on Yelp. This occurred ten months after she had emailed his employers trying to get him fired asking them if they were okay with the kinds of behavior he was engaging in online.

The Letter[edit]

That's going to be longer, because every bit shows just how grotesque RationalWiki's take is (as usual). Back in reality, Laughing Witch rallied other SJW on YouTube to get Thunderf00t into trouble. Her baseless assertions were that Thunderf00t was a nazi, commanding over 300k+ nazi followers, who attack on his behalf; that he was a revisionist/Holocaust denier, supports Hitler and viewed the Holocaust as a good thing, and more.

How the RationalWiki manages to portray her as a poor victim, and as if she stated the truth, is not a mystery, but just example case #231337. It gets better. Laughing Witch sent her nice letter with these assertions to police, press and Thunderf00t's employer. The quote above looses the press and police part, downplaying the case. He resided in Czech Republic at the time where her accusations are Serious Business, and indicte a crime. That is also omitted, because the RationalWiki sees her as the victim.

The Campaign[edit]

Laughing Witch also asked fellow SJWs to do as she did, and called it a “campaign”. Jenny McDermott, Bewildered Ape, Kevin Logan and HannibalTheVictor13 said they supported it, she hints at more/others. HannibalTheVictor13 dropped out after it was discovered that he was a paedo (yet another among SJWs), and a sex offender.

At the time of the campaign, Thunderf00t took care of his father who lived out his last month due to terminal cancer. Though he uploaded other videos, but hey, the moral high ground of the RationalWiki is showing, again, when we learn about the ten month delay, portrayed as a vindictive late response because [Laughing Witch] “presumably took the side of Dr. Winters” in some feminist arguement. What a nonsense. The actual reason why he responded late is tactically omitted, again. RationalWiki style reporting in a nutshell. What it brought to the fore again?

The Gloating[edit]

Laughing Witch gloated on a video about her letter campaign, believing that it was successful and got Thunderf00t fired. She was mistaken. She also said she was immune due to owning her own company and stated that employees must behave (i.e. employers are right to fire employees if they do things in their free time the employer disapproves of: that's how left wing SJWs are).

She shows her letter including her name underneath, and even points at it saying “here's my letter. See my name? I put my name there”. She also used a picture of herself on her channel, the same which she had on her company's page. On RationalWiki, that becomes Thunderf00t doxing. This is also how we know what she wrote, and to whom she wrote it. She explains it herself.

The Reply[edit]

Thunderf00t shows her video (remember where she even points at her name) and her company's Yelp page to mock her for shilling for her own business and says that people can say truthful things (which are obviously not so nice) on the owner, Laughing Witch, comparing that to an infamous company that was in Gordon Ramsey's show. His rationale was that while his job is safe, coercing and threatening YouTubers with “concerned” phone calls and letters was setting a dangerous precedent. He however agrees that people are of course free to write such letters, but that such a “door swings both ways”. Thunderf00t also requested that Laughing Witch should offer a “groveling” apology to the YT community. For the record, I disapprove of the Yelp reference, and did then, and it was clearly an appeal to write bad reviews, but doxing it was not. He showed an eye-for-eye “taste some of your own medicine” approach.

The Yelp Business[edit]

Mere days later, Laughing Witch (with her husband) appears on a local TV programme and claims fake reviews where killing her business. Thunderf00t and his followers were portrayed as a sort of cyber-criminals. She asks people to donate 25k to a fund, ostensibly to secure the jobs of her employees. How Yelp reviews have such an effect on their bathtub renovation company (!), mere days later, remained a mystery. Another YouTuber found out from official records that the company was in debt of 25k before this whole episode went down. Also, Yelp quickly cleared up the added reviews, but in SJW land, her action was ultimately successful. She was portrayed as a poor victim that did nothing wrong, Thunderf00t as a business destroying cyber-harasser. This version was adopted by David Futrelle and PZ Myers, and is another episode in the Bizarrro Universe (in which also Richard Dawkins is a white supremacist, and Rebecca Watson merely requested “guys don't do that”). Laughing Witch deleted her channel to destroy the evidence, i.e. another feminist was being silenced in SJW jargon. But she quickly made a new channel for damage control and propaganda purposes, where she then spoke of cyberharassment against her and that the FBI was involved and watching. It petered out from there.

The Pretzel Propaganda[edit]

And now, for the laughs read the RW description above again. Doesn't it state the exact opposite as far as the quartertruth can be bent? Even her lies are portrayed as truthful, and it's maximally downplayed. Nothing of a campaign, either. Nothing about how she gloated and pointed to her own name. Nothing about letters to police and local media, too. Nothing about Czech laws and the intended serious effects.

Her view of chilling effects, as promoted by the SJWs, with de-platforming and in favour of social coercion through a tyranny of a majority is also the editorial position on the RationalWiki. RW hero PZ Myers, who endorsed McDermott and other SJWs, has called for actual workplace harassment (of a female physician), just like Laughing Witch. Of course the RationalWiki is silent about this, too, but then disapproves when Thunderf00t shows a Yelp page.

The whole affair is interesting, for it is a crystal clear case where we have video material of the people boasting themselves what they did. That is, what happened is completely out in the open, on tape, and stated by everyone. Laughing Witch has deleted her side, of course, as is good memory-holing practice among SJWs in order to create their familiar narrative. But her and the other's statements are video-quoted in countless videos. Mirrors probably exist as well. But as usual, despite having everything mouseclicks away, the SJW side, including of course the RationalWiki manage to twist even that case into a pretzel, painting vile liars whose attempt could lead to serious consequences as the poor victims. To be fair, the RW editors don't need to lie themselves, but can rely on a community of bullshitters, fact-challenged individuals and frauds, like PZ Myers or David Futrelle, whose reporting is about as reliable as that of the Nazi Wochenschau news. Not only is this not rational (I know the name thing), it is meeting perhaps only the standard of fiction-writing. Consider how slightly less clear cases are being handled here. How reliable are any such “he said — she said cases” (this is not a fluke, many more such cases are known).


Just go to YouTube, type in the names and pick your poison. You'll easily find primary statements. As for Futrelle and Myers, their take is on their blogs. ~ Aneris 01:26, 11 September 2016 (UTC)


I fully agree with all of the above points. I think the article has some unfair criticisms. PBfreespace (talk) 02:04, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
I agree with none of it - David Gerard (talk) 22:59, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Let's have a debate page. Or something. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 23:02, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm unsure what's there to debate. David's comment is bizarre. The factual bits either happened, or they didn't happen. Of course they did happen. We know this because Laughing Witch herself shows it. Likewise all of Thunderf00ts actions and statements are public. You can dispute whether this level of distortion as in the article is commonplace on the RationalWiki — I think it is, and know numerous cases like this one. But it's arguable, since you can dispute and deny everything until its demonstrated, case by case. And then you can deny that X cases are enough to count as commonplace. Such disputes are however unresolvable, because believers in social jusfice — more a religion — ultimately don't care about evidence. But if that comes out, it's good enough for me. How this is sustainable for this project is another question. ~ Aneris 19:34, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedian protester.png Saying go to youtube is not a citation. Zero (talk - contributions) 20:13, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

When the debate is regarding the contents of a youtube video(s) it sort of is. Arawn Emrys (talk) 20:39, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Nope, even then "search youtube" is vague as fuck and represents hiding in ambiguity. Might as well be "research it yourself, sheep" at that point. Specific content ought to be contestable with specific citations. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:57, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
You're a True Believer anyway, and I'm not interested in argueing with you. You can play obtuse all you want. It's not vague at all. You type “laughing witch” into youtube and dozens of videos come up. Since the a/s community tends to do the Socratean cite-comment style, you'll see Laughing Witch's assertions easily. Comically, your paragraph has no source at all and of course whoever wrote it could write what they wanted, as long as it was in the desired direction. Of course, when you don't like the direction, you drag your feet, revert even trivialities, no source matters and every sentence must be fought through. You increase costs for others, while keeping it cheap for yourself and your narrative. The high costs make it infeasible to correct such articles, hence it's pointless, and nobody should bother. This is merely an example case that shows all of this another time, for transpareny reasons. Those who care can watch the sources below:
Here are a few mirrored videos from LW's channel, from where her statements were taken.
  1. Laughing Witch Mirror Video 1
  2. Laughing Witch Mirror Video 2
  3. Laughing Witch Mirror Video 3
  4. Laughing Witch Mirror Video 4
Though there isn't much to quote-mine when someone shows their name, and says “that's my name there”. But you see more/other context from her directly as well. Here's her TV appearance:
  1. Bathtub News 1
  2. Bathtub News 2
Their debt records are exposed here. Then, of course, there's Thunderf00t's side.
  1. He talks about one of these “concerned” letters in an unplugged off the cuff manner. I didn't compare whether it's the same letter Laughing Witch sent, or whether this is one of the others.
  2. This is Thunderf00t regular main video, featuring the gloating clips of LW (the ones mirrored above). Watch at least that.
Thunderf00t's editing can be tendentious and obviously, he has opinions, but the point are the primary sources of LW and others he shows.
  1. He then made a short recap of sorts as it was ongoing.
  2. And then another regular style longform follow up, incorporating whatever seemed relevant to him at the time.
Here's a mirror of the second coming of Laughing Witch, with her FBI claims. Maybe you want commentary and summaries from others. Well, you can pick your poison, there are aplenty. Here is Noel Plums row, with other context and tangents:
  1. Noel Plum discusses letter context, Bewildered Ape etc
  2. Noel Plum discusses the apology episode
  3. Noel Plum discusses the bathtub news
  4. Noel Plum discusses King Crocoduck's involvement
This should give you lots of additional context. If you need even more, Vicky Caramel of the Slymepit made a playlist with many more videos on this matter, from all sides (e.g. Sargon, Kevin Logan, Kristi Winters etc). I'm happy to be shown wrong, if you have the evidence, but my confidence comes from the fact that your take is certainly wrong, even if you find some issue with mine. ~ Aneris 01:11, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Here's the result, about two weeks later. Nothing happened. Only ingroup editors can edit such articles, and nobody did. The RationalWiki is obviously fine with spreading obvious, and extreme falsehoods, and not just in this case. Here, Laughing Witch points at her name underneath an extreme smearing letter (claiming Thunderf00t was an actual neo nazi), but to the RationalWiki it becomes him "doc-drop the YouTube feminist LaughingWitch". You cannnot make this up. Instead of seeing the glaring problems, RationalWikian board member "disagree" or in Percy's case laugh it off. ~ Aneris 16:21, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Wait — did you expect someone else to just buckle down and make all of your proposed edits for you? When is that how any article has worked on this site, ever? Also, I do laugh it off when you literally barge into conversations and say stuff like (partial quote):
"RationalWiki is actually PZPOV. Basically, what PZ Myers thinks is also the editorial position here. If he doesn't like someone, or something, you also don't. In the rare cases he likes something, or someone, the RationalWiki will follow along. He's also frequently quoted, unless, his words might make him look idiotic, then the PR team will rather sweep it under the rug and are suddenly not so keen on including the quotation. "What PZ Says" goes as far that it even overwrites fully documented video evidence."
You even go ahead and say "It's quite comical actually." — quite the double standard for you to lament me laughing at it, then, isn't it? And by the way; insisting that your Slymepit source covers the matter "from all sides" seems unlikely. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:06, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
First, The playlist is not a "source", but a playlist with sources. Kevin Logan, Kristi Winters et al are anti-TF (and pro LW). Others on the list sympathize with TF to varying degrees. It also has nothing to do with likelihoods, but with looking at the names and what they have said. Also, you know almost nothing of the Slymepit and what you learned is mostly false. Secondly, don't try the "why don't you edit" stuff yet again. Look what happens: example 1: FGM (note that the article lost about a third of good sources including major human rights organisations). Or, example 2: Coyne/Pinker vs Watson/Myers, fully sourced with proper context and all. This thing continued, by the way, this time with a YouTuber named Miles Powers. But why cover pseudo-science debates on the RationalWiki? *Rollseyes*
It's already established without a doubt, Percy, that you drag your feet, obstruct and do everything to delay corrections in the "wrong direction". I wrote this above already, and it hasn't changed since then. If someone is disliked, however, lying and slandering without sources goes easy and practically writes itself, just see the responses. It should be trivial to correct things. But it needs weeks and every tiny point must be rubbed under your nose, or fought through, and you are still not willing to get it. Of course, if you are caught pants down, and things are not favourable for your agenda, you rather sweep it under the rug. So if you can't portray LW as a victim of Thunderf00t, at least not mention her campaign and workplace harassment against him. Another fun fact: you call the postmodernist hack "Dr Winters", yet it's not even once "Dr Mason". :D ~ Aneris 21:55, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Ground Zero Mosque[edit]

"While Mason's channel remains one of the most popular atheism channels on YouTube, he has become an increasingly polarizing figure due to his outspoken attitude towards Islam and Muslims (joining the ranks of those who oppose Park51)" I went to the youtube link and could not find Thunderfoot saying he opposed this proposal. He appears to be saying that he finds the hypocrisy of Islamic countries such as Saudi Arabia unacceptable, and appalling. Not only could Christians not build anything in Mecca, they would not even be allowed to enter the city. I find that I am in agreement with his disapproval of such a fantastic ideology. It's rational...yeah.Jackinthebox (talk) 02:57, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

winters affair[edit]

this section is terrible. Hysterically it accuses Mason producing a strawman and engaging in science denial and then goes on to highlight "describe the exact biological process which impacts on political representation" as an example of "real scientific discourse". As though the inability to exactly describe a process means her ridiculous theory has purchase and the comment itself isn't straightforward science denial. To put winters comment in a context that might make the unchecked idiocy leap a little higher for this audiance, her statement is the same as saying "describe the exact effect climate change has on a specific weather event" and gloating when it can't be done. the person who wrote that passage managed to confuse "real scientific discourse" with a classic (if not quinessential) science denial tactic. Well done "rationalwiki". — Unsigned, by: / talk

  1. "But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink!
  2. Her response was somewhat sarcastic. Or to put it another way, if someone claimed they could prove that the Abrahamic God is real I would (quite correctly) request that they put up or shut up. He claimed something that was patently false, she told him to put up or shut up. Case closed. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 12:20, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
No he didn't. What was thunderf00ts false claim? I mean precisely. Because there are biological explanations for the phenomena. We are animals, there for social structures we build by definition must have a biological explanation. It's funny you should use the example of proving the existence of God as an argumentative technique when discussing this. Be sure which concept out of biology and patriarchy has more in Common with an unevidenced knowledge claim. — Unsigned, by: / talk
Yes, he did. Patriarchy is a very real social phenomena that can be seen in multiple aspects of life, but is more pronounced in less advanced social structures. Sharia Law or the laws espouses by Moses in the Old Testament are some of the most blatant examples. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:01, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Oh patriarchy is very real. Well turns out biology is too. I'd invite you to provide the the definitive set of social structures which is establish it is real and that means there isn't biological processes which impact political representation. You and winters are falsely reversing the burden of proof and then claim an effective conspiracy theory. — Unsigned, by: / talk
I just gave you an example, two examples in fact. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:23, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
No you didn't. You just claimed that patriarchy can be seen in many aspects of life. Which ones exactly. And why are they example of patriarchy and not something else? And how is causation of these many effects established, exactly. I'll wait. — Unsigned, by: / talk
So seeing as I effectively won the exchange in the way winters did, because the best you've got is Abrahamic religion exists as an example of "patriarchy" I'm gonna go ahead and change the article. — Unsigned, by: / talk
Given that I the article is locked that will likely be difficult. In addition you have unfortunately run afoul of Danth's Law. Good day! ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:50, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

That's precious given it seems like winters argument could be construed that way. You lock away. I'll wait it out. You have utterly failed to demonstrate your claims in relation to patriarchy other than to say Abrahamic religions exist and could be described as patriarchal. What that is an example of is pretty unclear, but it is not an example that a broad construct which can be sensibly called Patriarchy exists. — Unsigned, by: / talk

I think I got an address wrong.[edit]

The YouTube address I posted- the last character was wrong, it was a zero rather than an o. Flashthecash (talk) 23:11, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Rekt. — Dysk (contribs) 23:18, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

thunderf00t's law[edit]

The people who go on most about how everyone else are just sheeple tend to be the most sheep-like of all.
—Thunderfoot [1]

Add this to the sheeple page. (Call the law whatever you like). (talk) 17:45, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

This was said four days ago and has not seen common use. No thanks. Zero (talk - contributions) 18:19, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
  1. Timestamp- 17:29