From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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

Tropes vs women[edit]

I just watched his entire video response, and his video touches on a number of issues he had with the original video, but he never denied that women were portrayed negatively in video games, nor did he cherry pick examples where it wasn't true..... I know the current line is "We hate Thunderf00t." But come on, lets at least pretend to do some research. (talk) 08:27, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Good point. You read this page and come off thinking he's this evil, women-hating redneck. Then you actually watch the videos and note that he never says anything negative about women, and never trivializes women's rights. I think this just proves that most people are bad at differentiating between a social group (or gender) and an ideology, that is to say, between women and feminism. Being against feminism, or disagreeing with it is not equivalent to disagreeing with women's rights. Feminism is itself an ideology that falls under the umbrella of women's rights. So much for critical thinking, eh? -- (talk) 09:27, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
All you say is true, but that isn't how things work in our world. We live in a society of rage and victim-hood. Ironically, I consider myself a feminist, but I don't toe the party line on every single item, so I'm a misogynist troll, naturally. I never thought I'd see the day when liberal causes seized the tactics of the right to "win" the argument. (talk) 09:47, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Anti-woman? Sure, he's not in the same category as TheAmazing"I hope you drown in rape semen"Atheist, but the main point of third-wave is really to demonstrate that misogyny is a lot more subtle than that. Consider his video on Ana Kasparian, which effectively reduced her to nothing but her appearance and seemed to act pretty proud of it. Then his response to Tropes vs Women, which derailed into this relatively angry "FEMINISM VS FACTS" rant purely over the "regressive crap" line, but The Game Overthinker's video covered that point with far more elegance. And his entire "feminism is ruining atheism" mantra centring on his beef with sexual harassment policies at atheist conventions just because the world at large was sexist - as if lacking a religion wasn't a good reason to be able to bring about some good in the world and undo a load of a problems and merely "average" is okay to aim for. It really is pretty terrible.
Basically, you're both pulling a "not as bad as" here. When we talk about misogyny in the modern environment, we do so with an aim of raising peoples' conciousness to far more subtle forms of it - subtle, but still significantly damaging. Just because they're not screaming at women to "get back in the kitchen" (though Thunderf00t did open one of is FtB posts with a joke about that...) doesn't mean it's not worthy of staunch criticism. Scarlet A.pngtheist 00:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Two things: 1. The counter argument to that to that is "You're seeing misogyny where it doesn't exist. Having Mario save Princess Peach is not a horrible plot to destroy the feminist cause by relegating the female to a role as a object. The latest video completely cherry picked information (for example, singling out the 13 games that Mario saves peach while completely discounting the nearly 40 other games where Peach is a playable character with her own skills and weaknesses). 2. That has nothing to do with my first complaint, which is the article has not just mischaracterized Thunderf00t's rebuttal, but completely discarded it and made up a new line of argument that's easier to attack and dismiss. Nowhere in his video does he argue what is claimed in the article right now. (talk) 01:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Then feel free to change the article with the relevant quotes of what he actually said if you think it's currently a mischaracterisation.
But the accusation of "cherry picking" is false, because what you see in the Tropes vs Women video isn't some grandiose argument about prevalence, nor the accusation that every game is like that. It's a fairly dry, mostly academic look at the trope where and when it is found - it's actually quite underwhelming when you watch it, frankly, I have no great love for the series so far. But that's it. Saying that all games are terribly misogynistic is something that people thought Sarkeesian was going to do, and then continued to assume that she actually did even after it could be demonstrably shown that she didn't do it.
Again, to paraphrase the GameOverthinker's video on it, this is just a case of someone thinking "Princess Peach has been kidnapped too many times" is funny when it comes from a man, but an attack when it comes from a woman or feminist. So, Thunderf00t not only misinterprets the entire point of the video, but uses this to do his own cherry picking under the guise of calling it "facts" - facts that only refute a point that Sarkeesian doesn't even try to make. Scarlet A.pngmoral 11:52, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
He isn't anti-woman one bit in his videos. Again, as I spelled it out in my first post here: anti-feminism does not equal anti-woman. All your rebuttal can be distilled into that broad over-generalization, that you seem to think that feminism represents the entire female gender and that to disagree with their politics is equal to disagreeing with the female gender on women's rights. To pick a random example of what I mean: watch his videos on feminism and atheism. He makes the argument that feminist tactics of shutting people down, and censoring them, is antithetical to the freethought movement. Then look at his rebuttal to the videogame review, which you brought up. Again: he disagreed with feminist politics and ideology by arguing that the way the reviewer analysed the game is wrongheaded.
This reminds me of how people tend to think that PETA is the only voice for animal welfare, when there are dozens of other organizations which serve similar purposes. It's the same with women's rights. Feminism is but one way of understanding women's rights. It is a single branch of ideologies and philosophies, when the umbrella of women's rights encompasses more. Feminist ideology isn't always right, and some of it is downright wrongheaded, like its followers' tendency to support censorship and the proclivity to see misogyny everywhere (if misogyny is the answer to everything, if it's everywhere, then it is effectively nowhere - science teaches us that explanations which try to account for everything tend to explain nothing, or do so poorly).-- (talk) 03:45, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Going back a bit, Armondikov, you're actually incorrect. In the kickstarter video introducing the series, Sarkeesian says, "Have you ever noticed that with a few notable exceptions, basically all female characters in video games fall into a small handful of cliches and stereotypes." She is literally arguing exactly for the idea that nearly every video game does this. She may not have come outright and made the claim that all video games are misogynistic, but I don't think it's too far fetched to argue that it was the subtext of her argument. (talk) 18:38, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

He makes the argument that feminist tactics of shutting people down, and censoring them, is antithetical to the freethought movement.

This is the same impression that I get. He's complaining about almost cult-like behavior. WilderG (talk) 12:16, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Since you insist on comparing him to TAA...

Anti-woman? Sure, he's not in the same category as TheAmazing"I hope you drown in rape semen"Atheist

Are you implying that this is anti-women? Isn't it anti-the-person-that-he-is-saying-that-to? Otherwise, saying "I hope TAA gets castrated" is anti-men. WilderG (talk) 12:11, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Linked by Carrier[edit]

[1] - David Gerard (talk) 06:38, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

FFSMS, isn't Carrier a hyperbolic, pompous prat? He's one of the reasons for the initial bad reception of Atheism+, his post jumping on the bandwagon was worded in such a way that the opposition decided that A+ is aiming to dominate the movement. Talk about really embarrassing allies... Which reminds me, his article needs some development, such as adding his former antibigbangism. :D --ZooGuard (talk) 10:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Richard Carrier is indeed pompous as hell. Everything he's ever written is testament to that. He does a very good job of taking down TF's latest video, however (pompous though his delivery is). Having Carrier's video first, everything Carrier claims regarding quote mining and selective editing are true. Rather disappointing to see a former favorite resort to using James O'Keefe's playbook. ChrisB (talk) 21:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
I understand that Carrier made a video in which he claims quote mining and selective editing on TF's part. Could you please post a link to this video? Thanks! -- (talk) 12:15, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Linked at the top of this very section! That you're posting in while clearly not having bothered reading! Thanks ever so much! - David Gerard (talk) 12:49, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Take it down a notch. The link at the top points to a blog entry; I was asking for a link to a video. The video linked at the top of the blog entry is described as "my video promoting positive goals and values for the atheist community" - I did not make the connection between "claims regarding quote mining and selective editing" and "promoting positive goals and values for the atheist community". Is that the video Chris was talking about? -- (talk) 13:03, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Carrier displays such deep dishonesty in much of what I've read from him. This new piece is hardly surprising. It can be summarized as "Thunderf00t disagrees with feminism thus he hates women. Also he disagreed with my political and moral viewpoints, ergo he is a sociopath. BTW he hates minorities because he thinks Atheism's primary goal is anti-religion."-- (talk) 05:18, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
That doesn't mean that Thunderf00t is not blockhead, though. :P--ZooGuard (talk) 09:44, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
"That" is "my opinion of Carrier", which is not identical to the BoN's.--ZooGuard (talk) 09:50, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
"deep dishonesty"? Cites please, specific ones - David Gerard (talk) 09:47, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, just off hand, "Thunderf00t against Women/Minorities" and specifically where he says that thunderf00t essentially said "fuck minorities" and makes the obvious error of conflating feminism with women, i.e. disagreeing with feminist ideas or behavior is equal to hating women in his book apparently. Both of these are completely wrong. They are so wrong, I think it's intentionally designed to mislead a reader.
Claiming that focusing on minorities at the expense of the primary aim of objecting to religion as a strategy of resources is an argument that thunderf00t makes. He never says that minorities are unimportant. He argues that if your group is itself a minority trying to expand its influence, then the religious majority is where your efforts should be concentrated if you aim to expand your base.
In hindsight with sites like AnswersinGenesis and men like Kent Hovind bent on destroying secularism, not to mention Conservapedia... it's funny how freethoughtblogs and PZ Meyers and his circle of allies have managed to do more damage to the atheism "brand" and reputability than well-funded evangelicals and creationists could ever hope to achieve. Before last year you could always say that while you may disagree with some point in the atheist community, they never behaved like fundamentalists or wingnuts. Thanks to the addition of this uberfeminism ideology mixing into the atheism movement, which treats ideology and political positions like scientific fact (no political doctrine or ideology is scientific fact, by definition), we now see political tests in the movement, tests of stated beliefs and ideology which qualify you to be taken seriously. We now see paranoid, vengeful, and downright witch-hunt like behavior. Thanks to this shift in ideology, atheism as a movement now looks like the Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, etc. i.e. an ideology with real "extremists" who just want power and influence. It used to be so much more than that, because atheism was unique in being apolitical, with an emphasis on critical thinking.
If I were a religious fundamentalist, I'd be laughing at atheism+, and its founders for weakening the integrity of the movement. When men like Carrier are invited to community events and given a large voice in our community, it only undermines our credability, that we would allow men or women so intellectually dishonest and obviously interested in personal power.-- (talk) 08:47, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Yeah ... you got nothing. "I disagree with him" is not quite the same as "deep dishonesty" - David Gerard (talk) 12:34, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
If you read what I wrote, it was not "I disagree with him" but instead "He is completely wrong." There is a world of difference between ambiguity in an issue causing both sides to have room for disagreement, and the simple fact that someone is lying in order to promote themselves and their ideology. If you can't tell the difference, then I suggest you learn, because it only harms the community of supposed freethinkers to have members who can't distinguish between a fawning agreement of ideology (also known as believing what you want to hear) and the truth of the matter. -- (talk) 16:10, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
I read it. You're a slimepit idiot, fawning agreement is the whole reason for your cat piss man gang - David Gerard (talk) 17:29, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
If you have to call someone an idiot, especially over ideological disagreements, then you already have showen yourself to have the weak hand in the discussion. Congratulations for revealing it so quickly.-- (talk) 08:55, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Linked by the [redacted by the Femistasi][edit]

Of course, this has been also noticed by the inhabitants of a certain forum, who are not too happy with the contents. It's been linked in the thread about Carrier's post and there's also a separate thread about RW. You can witness a factoid in the making - a bright spark found David Gerard's revert of a blanking BoN and decided that this is the point the "feminism" content was introduced in the article, despite the edit summary clearly saying "revert". :D This, of course, was uncritically swallowed hook, line and sinker by the rest. I have the feeling that someone will be dumb enough to try to confront DG with this "fact" the next time DG comments at FtB. *sets aside a bag of popcorn*--ZooGuard (talk) 10:26, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Thread link fixed.--ZooGuard (talk) 13:12, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
The guy. His odour is actually famous - he is, literally, Cat Piss Man - David Gerard (talk) 13:00, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Huh? Not, this is not about him, though "grey lining" was cited in the thread. (I've fixed the link above.) The wannabe Internet sleuth who blamed you is "Aneris" - see here and the fixed link above. The "grey lined" ramblings about RW are old news.--ZooGuard (talk) 13:12, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Nah, it's a cluster of them invoking the sacred name of @rationalwiki on Twitter and threatening to dox me. It's a single small noisy cluster of cat piss men - David Gerard (talk) 13:33, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Dox a guy who is pretty open about his real name and his work on RW, Facebook and Wikipedia/Wikimedia and once appeared on national television to talk about it? Sure, I bet you're fucking quaking. Scarlet A.pnggnostic 12:47, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Also, is it just me, or is it that if you wanted to earn a bit of respectability and dispel the image of just being a butthurt cunt and general all-round terrible human being, you shouldn't use the name "slymepit" for your forum name? Sure, the etymology comes from a PZ reference, but when everyone has long since forgotten that particular factoid, it's left you looking pretty damn seedy. Scarlet A.pngsshole 12:51, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
That Slymepit thread is a clear example of why the Slymepit is everything wrong with the atheist/skeptical community today. It's unalloyed hero worship without a hint of actual thought. EVDebs (talk) 16:56, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Considering a comment...[edit]

If your edits are to defend Tf00t and you are motivated by hero worship rather than actual events, please don't bother. EVDebs (talk) 00:09, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the talk pages and the articles on this site, it's readily apparent that facts don't matter here. Despite that large swaths of people disagree with your community's ideology, and have factually coherent reasons for doing so, your community has decided to take the route of speculation, opinion, and hearsay. You've turned the wiki, which was once quite a useful resource on the various forms of woo, into what is essentially a leftist blog. It's a shame that such a useful resource has gone the way of conservapedia, just in the opposite ideological direction. Just read how Andy defends his personal opinion inserted into articles like Barack Obama. When you guys decided to make the blanket statement "we're not an encyclopedia therefore we have no standards of neutrality and opinion is fine" you essentially said that facts don't matter any longer and your own beliefs cannot be defended outside of an echo chamber. This echo chamber is readily apparent in articles relating to the rift in the atheist community, where some like Atheism+ read like a leftist blog screed rather than an attempt to inform.
So no, correcting misinformation about thunderf00t, attempts at character assassination, is not hero worship. Even if he wasn't one of the atheist community's prominent internet voices, and even if making as big an ally as that into an enemy because of minor differences in ideology wasn't what you were doing... there's still the simple fact that you're trying to present character assassination and personal opinion as facts, when like any opinion... there is always room for dispute.-- (talk) 10:17, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
From an outsider's perspective, this is all seems rather pathetic. If comments like the one above, about as loaded a statement as I've ever seen, are what this group is all about, then I feel motivated to not just avoid wasting my time at this wiki in the future, but before I do to make it clear that I find it pathetic and utterly contrary to free thought. And I'm sure my 2 cents mean nothing here, only further solidifying my point. Great job, team. (talk) 00:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Comment on Style[edit]

(I'm just a visitor.) The amount of bias in the article is astounding. I have much to say about Wikipedia's policies, but you guys should introduce a bit more NPOV in your work. RW seems to be a great resource, but only if I can rely on getting unbiased information. (The author who added the phrase "Rather than move on gracefully, [...]" must be the most irony deficient person on Earth.) -- (talk) 12:46, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

"Disagrees with me" is not the same as "biased", and "neutral/unbiased" is not the same as "factual". Scarlet A.pnggnostic 12:48, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the lesson. I'm not sure how this pertains to my comment. Please elaborate. -- (talk) 13:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Because if Thunderf00t is going to be an asshat, we reserve the editorial right to say so in such terms. There's no need for neutrality at all, and even so most people mistake "neutrality" as "agrees with me". Scarlet A.pngpathetic 15:01, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
(Have you read the article I linked?) Two things:
  • I do not equate "unbiased" with "balanced". I agree that these are two different concepts, and you don't have to convince me that an article can very well be unbiased and one-sided. (Age of the Earth comes to mind.)
  • I seriously don't want an article that "agrees with me". That is a profound misunderstanding of my position. I came here looking for unbiased information about the quarrel; your biased article is clearly unable to provide it. To be perfectly honest, that puts a bad light on TF's detractors.
Let's take a closer look at the lede to explain what I am talking about. Here is what I would change:
  • "has received significant negative press" - Clarify: As in New York Times press?
  • "that veered very close to MRA territory" - Evidence?
  • "Most of his defenders" - Evidence?
  • "albeit a ridiculous one" - This is the prime example of bias in the lede. The nature or quality of the exploit has no bearing on TF's actions, they are equally bad for exploits of any complexity. This is only meant to belittle him.
  • "publish confidential emails" - Evidence?
Except for the "ridiculous one", the claims may be unbiased, but since all seem to be detrimental, and at least one is potential libel, they should be well sourced. If that's not possible, they should be redacted.
Be aware that this is not only about this article; the bias shown here means that you - sorry for fuzzy collective term - are setting yourself up for confirmation bias. You are openly ignoring fundamental principles of at least part of the atheist movement. To quote Jen McCreight: "Atheists plus we use critical thinking and skepticism." -- (talk) 16:11, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Not "just a visitor", then... Oldest pose in the book, I wonder why people even bother.--ZooGuard (talk) 16:30, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
What are you trying to insinuate? I visited RW maybe a dozen times, and edited maybe once or twice.
It would also be nice if you would comment on the arguments, ie. in what ways they are wrong. -- (talk) 16:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
See our newcomer's guide: RW is explicitly not NPOV and that's how many of our readers & pretty much all of our editors prefer it. This article is critical of many things Thunderf00t has said & done, so I don't see why you think critical thinking is being ignored or abandoned. IMO, to adopt a complete neutrality to Thunderf00t's actions & arguments would seem much more of a dereliction of skepticism and critical thinking. & If you're going to quote Jen McCreight at us, how about when she described Thunderf00t as "a vile hypocrite who has lost whatever shred of credibility he may have had left"? Should she have been more neutral? Does her bias demonstrate a lack of critical thinking? WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:54, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
There you go fellow IP editor. You've run afoul of the chief problem with RW. Good luck. (talk) 06:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
"See our newcomer's guide" - I don't see anything addressing NPOV, please point out the specific section you are referring to.
"This article is critical of many things Thunderf00t has said & done, so I don't see why you think critical thinking is being ignored or abandoned." - From Merriam-Webster's entry for "critical": "2 a: inclined to criticize severely and unfavorably [...] 2 c: exercising or involving careful judgment or judicious evaluation <critical thinking>". The fact that you are confusing these two is supporting my case: As long as you are busy 2a'ing someone, you will have a much harder time "exercising or involving careful judgment or judicious evaluation", ie. being rational.
"IMO, to adopt a complete neutrality to Thunderf00t's actions & arguments would seem much more of a dereliction of skepticism and critical thinking." - False Dilemma: The choice is not between "complete neutrality" and the TF-bashing that is going on right now. There is an infinite number of shades between these, and every single one of them is better than embracing the irrational one-sidedness that is going on right now.
"Should [Jen McCreight] have been more neutral?" - In her own blog? I don't give a flying sexual intercourse.
"Does her bias demonstrate a lack of critical thinking?" - Yes. But it's her own blog, so I don't see a problem. Do you want to make her bias foundational for RW? If yes, why hers?
My question to you: What would be lost if RW would adopt something similar to Wikipedia's NPOV? Where is the disadvantage? -- (talk) 12:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
The first section of the newcomer's guide is "All RationalWiki articles seem to have a specific point of view - why is this?". It should be self-explanatory that something with a specific point of view is not NPOV.
As long as you are busy 2a'ing someone, you will have a much harder time "exercising or involving careful judgment or judicious evaluation". Well, if you're going to talk about false dilemnas . . .
The choice is not between "complete neutrality" and the TF-bashing that is going on right now. Since you keep suggesting NPOV, that's the suggestion I have addressed in my comment. NPOV would suggest complete neutrality.
In her own blog? I don't give a flying sexual intercourse. So why are you so bothered about what RW would say on the subject?
Do you want to make her bias foundational for RW? Nope, I quoted Jen McCreight as a counterpoint to your use of "Jen says" as an argument against this article.
What would be lost if RW would adopt something similar to Wikipedia's NPOV? Plenty, but that's not a question for this page. You could try bringing it up at RationalWiki:Saloon bar or RationalWiki talk:Community Standards if you like, but we have a longstanding policy of not being NPOV which is unlikely to be overturned anytime soon. ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 13:04, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
"The first section of the newcomer's guide" - My bad, I should have said it in a different way. The point of view described in the first section is "rational", and I think this is (or should be) tautological, at least for something called Rationalwiki. What I miss is any reference to needless (see above for evidence) bashing of the article's subject, something which seems to be fundamentally irrational.
"Well, if you're going to talk about false dilemnas . . ." - It's not a false dilemma, it's called Confirmation Bias. You already fell into the trap, by equivocating 2a and 2c.
"NPOV would suggest complete neutrality." - It would, but only in the sense of bias, not in the sense of balance. Also, NPOV could only ever be seen as a target, and can be partially achieved. At the moment, it's openly ignored, even flaunted.
"So why are you so bothered about what RW would say on the subject?" - My naive impression about RW was that it tries to apply principles of rationalism and scepticism to its subject. I am trying to find out whether or not this is accurate. I have no interest in Jen's blog.
"Nope, I quoted Jen McCreight as a counterpoint to your use of "Jen says" as an argument against this article." - Counter, yes, but I don't see the point. Jen's quote (the "plus" business aside for the moment) is one of the fundamental rules of our worldview (reluctant to call it "movement"), and my argument is not at all based on her person. I'm pretty sure I would find similar quotes (again minus the "plus") from TF, PZ, Concordance, Dillahunty, but also Dawkins and Hitchens. Not having a bias is part and parcel of our worldview, your Jen quotes on the other hand are expressly biased.
"Plenty, but that's not a question for this page." - Ok, give me one thing please.
"we have a longstanding policy of not being NPOV which is unlikely to be overturned anytime soon." - I actually don't mind either way, but I would like to see clarification. I hope to learn whether this is policy or just a custom, and then only followed by some.
Thanks for your time! -- (talk) 13:35, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps a better explanation of RW and RW's "SPOV" is provided in RationalWiki:What is a RationalWiki article?. "Policy" is perhaps the wrong word for it. "An established, even defining characteristic of the site" would be better.
I'll leave the rest of the discussion to Weaseloid. I just want to note that you are conflating "biased" tone (i.e. tone unfriendly to a particular "side") with cognitive biases/motivated reasoning. And despite your posturing, you yourself are exhibiting "bias".--ZooGuard (talk) 13:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, that link is indeed very pertinent!
I don't think that I conflate the two. I've given an example (and there are more) where the article is unreasonable, not merely "offensive". I also think that the link is unavoidable, ie. if I vilify someone (iso just pointing out negative facts), I have a much larger chance of falling victim to confirmation bias. The exclusion of a biased tone is a necessary step to avoid minimize cognitive biases.
Of course I'm biased, we all are. What's your point? -- (talk) 14:11, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
You took an issue with the lede, which, especially in long(ish) articles is supposed to be a summary of the content. Hence no citations - the confidentiality breach is summarized in the appropriate sections of the article below.
In particular, you apparently think that "albeit a ridiculous one" is "only meant to belittle [Thunderf00t]", which makes clear that either your are perceiving the article as more negative as it is, or willing to grasp at straws for the sake of argument. As I read it, that particular phrase was used to forestall the argument that because the exploit was not as "serious"/intrusive as, for example, a SQL injection, it was not a big deal.--ZooGuard (talk) 14:22, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The statements in the lede are not followed-up in the body ("exploit"), or even contradicted ("defenders jumping ship" vs. "Groupthink"). Anyway, the main point was something different.

The forestalled argument is bogus; the difficulty of the procedure is completely disjunct from its (for lack of a better term) morality. Why would you forestall, in the lede no less, a bogus argument? Nope, I don't see that as a valid reason to include the smear. "which makes clear that either your are perceiving the article as more negative as it is, or willing to grasp at straws for the sake of argument." - Come on, we should be over this by now. On the one hand, I gave a lot of reasons for my views, on the other hand, a part of NPOV is to avoid this perception of negativity. -- (talk) 15:32, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

You seriously think that "albeit ridiculous" is a smear? Really? O_o Is English your first language? Do you know what "albeit" means? Apparently you have problems with reading comprehension, as you seem to have missed the section where the "exploit" was described. And yes, the design flaw in the mailing list software that he exploited seems ridiculous to me. I think that most IT-security-minded people would agree with that characterization.
And you are asking "why would you forestall a bogus argument?" Really? On a wiki dedicated to debunking bogus arguments, among other things?--ZooGuard (talk) 15:55, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
"Apparently you have problems with reading comprehension" - Yeah, right. That really helps, thanks! Do you want me to respond in kind? Would that be rational?
I've seen the section where TF's action are described, the description just does not merit the term exploit, he simply resubscribed. This kind of inaccuracy is not suprising when unsourced ledes and bias come together. It's not a small matter either: Using an exploit to get access to a computer system is a felony (which in turn would potentially make the expression libelous, a misdemeanor in New Mexico); using a sloppy subscription mechanism probably is not.
Whatever "albeit ridiculous" means, it adds nothing of value, and it's certainly not important enough for the lede. Yes, I do think it is a smear. Just imagine how you would like it if everyone would preceed every reference to you and your work with "ridiculous". Would you like it? -- (talk) 16:09, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
He exploited a design flaw ("security vulnerability") in a software accessed over a network to gain privileges that he hadn't been authorized to use. :) The "albeit ridiculous" qualifier is precisely because a certain class of people are prone to describe it as "simply resubscribed".
And if instead of ranting about bias and talking about introducing NPOV, you argued that certain parts are factually inaccurate, unverifiable and/or unfair to Mason, you'd have made much more progress.--ZooGuard (talk) 16:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Let's drop the exploit discussion, there are more important points.
Are you joking? Do you have a source for "ridiculous"? A non-biased source for "exploit"? "Most of his defenders jumped ship"? -- (talk) 16:41, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
The sentence has been rewritten. You won't be able to see it directly because of squid caching, since you can't be arsed to register an account, but anyway, here's a diff link.
And asking for a source for "ridiculous" is... ridiculous. RW is not Wikipedia.--ZooGuard (talk) 17:08, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
"The sentence has been rewritten." - Wow. You are aware that this justifies my position to a large degree? In any case, thanks for improving the article!
"And asking for a source for "ridiculous" is... ridiculous." - A bit, yeah. It is also kind of the heart of the matter: If you add unsourcable claims, you can add anything. If I would add the attribute "professional victim" to Watson's article, it would be equally valid in terms of rationality. -- (talk) 17:19, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Which one of your positions? The specific issues with that sentence, or? To repeat myself from before: And if instead of ranting about bias and talking about introducing NPOV, you argued that certain parts are factually inaccurate, unverifiable and/or unfair to Mason, you'd have made much more progress.
Specifically, the "albeit ridiculous" part was removed because at least a part of the target audience seemed unable to grasp it.
And is it really that hard to write "I think that [insert wording here] is an inaccurate summary of the situation", instead of trying to guilt-trip someone to change it by accusations of irrationality and bias?--ZooGuard (talk) 17:41, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


Armondikov, Weaseloid: Please check whether I accurately described your positions. -- (talk) 14:04, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
This article itself is biased and bad writing because it confuses personal research and belief with fact. The point of writing encyclopedic articles is not to serve as the blog of someone, or promote a camp's conclusion as fact. For example, in the subsection you have "Crusade against feminism" and then start with the conclusion that the man in question is "wrong." Let's examine this for a second. This is an encyclopedic article, and instead it looks like a blog that posts opinion on a political issue of which multiple points of view exist. Secondly, there is no definitive truth to feminism, it is a philosophy. That means, ANY ideological disagreement or agreement is merely philosophical, not factual. Feminism is not a branch of science. It does not deal in the epistemology of science. So your error becomes about presenting an ideological position as fact. That is an example of bias, like what you'd expect in a blog, or conservapedia when Andy tries to present original research about liberals for example, as fact.-- (talk) 16:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Protip: RationalWiki is not an encyclopaedia. And I'm talking to the other BoN, who seems somewhat more reasonable.--ZooGuard (talk) 16:34, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Uhm... thanks, I guess?? -- (talk) 17:06, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

This discussion doesn't seem to be going anywhere. The claim that criticisms in this article do not derive from critical thinking is baseless. Large sections of the article are either positive or neutral towards Thunderf00t; the criticisms mostly come into play re his conduct at FtB & his opinions on feminism within the skeptic community, issues on which many within the community (including some of the authors of this article) do not agree with him - i.e. they analyse his arguments & actions critically using their own judgement & point out problems with what he says or does. As Armondikov pointed out at the top of this section, we call them as we see them. This site isn't NPOV and there is no commitment to use neutral language or avoid comments or opinions which some readers might disagree with. If you were looking for an encyclopedia, this isn't it. WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:02, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Criticism is going nowhere because the people who edit these articles have a personal interest in promoting their own viewpoints... which would be fine if this were a blog. When you write an encyclopedia, or on the pretense of factual information, the first duty is to maintain neutrality towards facts. Facts have no agenda. The sinister thing, however, is to use the authority of an encyclopedia to promote your own armchair speculation and personal politics. That's where a lot of flack is coming from on this page. It's merely an excuse to promote personal opinion rather than present facts. This has no place in an encyclopedia, and it looks little different from how conservapedia does things.-- (talk) 10:32, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
NOT an encyclopædia. We're allowed to be biased - generally in favour of rationality & truth. Scream!! (talk) 11:05, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Are you really trying to argue in favor of personal opinion over facts and neutrality? People who claim to have rationality and truth on their side don't have to state outright that they are biased or maintain a bias. The FACTS do the talking for them. You're just making yourself look bad by implying that the facts are insufficient and require personal opinion to color them in the name of "truth." Creationists do this all the time, for example. As do woo peddlers.-- (talk) 10:02, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
And so does Thundef00t. By your criterion, he doesn't come off as more "rational" than RW. I guess the appropriate expression is "he can dish it out, but he can't take it". Well, at least his fans can't.
As for RW, it's called that way because of the side it takes, not because it pretends to be some kind of humour-impaired, robotic pseudo-Vulcan reciting a dry collection of stamps facts. I suggest looking at the history of the site, there's a reason for its current ethos. And the word "bias" can mean different things in different contexts.
If you want any change, I suggest pointing out specific claims/wordings you have an issue with. In a separate talk page section. Without ranting about how "feminism is poisoning atheism".--ZooGuard (talk) 10:23, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Rationality doesn't take the side of community politics, in this case FTB. Rationality is a general principle, and if your rebuttal is a giant "tu quoque therefore bias" then you aren't on the side of rationality, but personal vendette and emotion. But if you want to put in subtitles "Not really Rational, but EmotionWiki" under the logo, then fine. As for complaints: the whole talk section here lists a wide variety of them. I would just be redundant. If you want to deserve the name "rational" in your wiki, then you have to do better than "X is unfair/irrational/polemic so we will be too!" If you can't present the facts, if the facts don't make your case, then you haven't got one. -- (talk) 05:28, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
You know what's irrational? Blind hero worship of someone who can't figure out why people are pissed off at him. No one is inherently and infallibly rational, but the lack of self-awareness that Tf00t displayed, as well as his willful failure to inform himself of the actual issues involved, puts him very much on the wrong side of the debate. This, by the way, is a trait shared with pretty much anyone who uses the term "ftbullies" unironically -- it's symptomatic of a refusal to admit that you might be wrong (or, in this case, not even wrong). See, the atheist/skeptic movement is supposed to be about education, not smugness or creating a clique for outcasts. EVDebs (talk) 03:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
And we're back to "tu quoque therefore bias." This is why people aren't taking RationalWiki as seriously anymore. People like yourself can't see outside of your own echo chamber of opinion and think the only answer is to use a public chronical of information as a soapbox. The rationalist/freethought community is looking a lot more like Breibart and WorldNet Daily every month.-- (talk) 00:48, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Oh, we're the echo chamber? Let me remind you of what happened: FTB rolled out the red carpet and Tf00t shat on it. Repeatedly. Then, after being told to take a hike, he snuck back in to shit on it some more. That is utterly inexcusable. So, for that matter, is the allegedly-skeptical faction of anti-feminists in the community; they (you?) have gotten so riled up over a simple question of respect and personal boundaries that they've become exactly what skepticism is supposed to be fighting against, then they turn around and blame the people who have called them out on their shit for being "divisive". Being assholes and adopting a persecution complex because... what? Because you can't bother to be properly integrated into society as a baseline condition to get laid? Because at the bottom that seems like what this entire shitstorm of the last two years has been about. Get the fuck over it. EVDebs (talk) 07:14, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I have seen many people link to RW. But, it is not a site to be taken as an encyclopaedia. It, has some useful information, but other times, there's some errors. Just like with every Wiki. Now, move on to the rationalist/freethought claim you have there. Please provide a citation.--Thrinaxodon (talk) 00:56, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

This article is horrid![edit]

This one article has severely lowered my opinion of the Rational wiki project and it's usefulness in other articles. The author(s) are so amazingly and brazenly bias against Thunderf00t - particularly in the section regarding the incidents with Free Thought Blog - it makes the entire page, and Rational Wiki by extension, seem immature and irrelevant. I am not "defending" TF00T - or saying that he was right and the author(s) of this post were wrong... I'm saying the personal bias and disdain for the subject being written about are plainly obvious and ugly. I've read several articles on this incident to get an idea as to what happened, and my opinion would be extremely skewed if RationalWIKI was my only source. That's disappointing. 04:25, 13 July 2013 (UTC)— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

What changes would you suggest? ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 16:44, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

It's not which part, it's more to do with the ad hominems littered throughout. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: SigButt.png on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. I don't see much in the way of ad hominem arguments in this article. You're really going to need to be more specific in your criticism if you want anything changed or if you want a meaningful discussion about what you think is wrong with it. WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:47, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Why would ad hominems skew your opinion of the events that occurred? You acknowledged that you recognize them as ad hominems. Ad hominems are by definition attacking the person themselves. How does saying "Tf00t is a manchild" affect the description of events? Stick to one argument, don't just hop to another when we ask you to point out examples. If you want the article to actually be changed, point out room for improvement, don't just say "But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" (Drink, everyone.) Ochotona princepsnot a pokémon 20:59, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

It affects the description of the events by saying it as if it was a fact of the discussion. — Unsigned, by: ‎ / talk / contribs

Drive-by IP[edit]

Please note the daily editing of this page, which deletes any further arguments against the opinion of "Rational" wiki — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs 2013-08-20T04:34:27‎

Please note the drive-by BoN who can't be bothered to understand why Tf00t gets the treatment he does here. We have to clean up after them daily. EVDebs (talk) 04:52, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
There is no daily editing to revert in-format changes on the talk page, though. You can talk things out and see if you convince anyone that the article warrants changing. Nullahnung (talk) 05:47, 20 August 2013 (UTC)