Talk:Thunderf00t/Archive3

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 3 May 2016. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>, <4>, <5>, <6>, (new)(back)

ACTUAL problems with the crusade against feminism section[edit]

Its description of the video's contents is too shallow (though the conclusion is right). If you actually watch his video, there's a little more to it than just 'heavily relying on examples where the trope happens to not apply'. Here, have a breakdown of the video:

Thunderf00t points:

1.)Women are not portrayed as weak that often.
2.)Games are made to cash in on their target audience and please the consumer, not equally represent men and women.
3.)Games are often shallow and the characters one-dimensional to the point where a simple plot like damsel in distress is the easiest option.
4.)In the trope the man loves her, that's why he goes through self-sacrifice. Not because she is an objective reward.
5.)Sometimes the men in the trope are turned into characterless objects too, there's no apparent gender inequality against women.
6.)It is only natural to have the trope and therefore ok, because men are physically stronger.

I actually included a direct refutation of all of these points here: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Essay:Sexism_in_Video_Gaming partly because I was sick of all these people coming to this article and having problems with the criticism of Tf00t's points. I think it covers a little more than the Freethought Blogs one, but I realize that we generally don't like to link to essays in RW.

As for what I'd like to change, I just want the section to not give the impression that the video relies primarily on the cherrypicking, though it is one of the things, it's hardly the main thing. The reason I now want to change it is because people get pissed at it and it really makes no attempt to explain to them the problems in his feminism vs. facts video. Nullahnung (talk) 01:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Since it's just the one section, I'd say post a mock up here and anyone who cares can look it over before you post.--Token Conservative (talk) 14:57, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Here's a quick mock-up (with the refs written explicitly), let me know what could be improved, anyone who cares:
Thunderf00t cannot seem to admit that he's wrong on this particular issue and instead treads further and further outside his area of expertise. In March 2013, he released a video in which he attempted to challenge the first video in Anita Sarkeesian's "Women vs. Tropes in Video Games" series creatively titled "Feminism vs. FACTS."{ref}http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJeX6F-Q63I {/ref} Sarkeesian's video explores the damsel in distress trope in video games from its history to its modern use. In response, Thunderf00t's video contains a number of mined quotations and more misrepresentations showing just how far he has ironically plunged. Points he actually does make include the notion that the damsel trope represented in games mostly focuses on the commendable value of caring self-sacrifice - which is not entirely true; that the trope being there is only natural and therefore ok because men are physically stronger - which does not hold up in the world of video games; that men and women are equally treated in any important aspects - which is not completely true; and most importantly that games are there to cash in on a majority male target demographic, not please everyone - which is a rather narrow-minded view of the market, and really, a medium shouldn't be exempt from any and all societal issues, since it does not exist as an isolated system.{ref}http://freethoughtblogs.com/amilliongods/2013/03/20/regressive-crap/ {/ref}
Nullahnung (talk) 16:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm good with it--Token Conservative (talk) 16:57, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Nullahnung - i'm not sure why you think we do not link to essays. If they are good, they are a huge resource that separates us from just an encyclopedia. People who have opinions, even counter ones, if well written are and should be highlighted in relevant articles. If it's a good essay, that you link to, keep it! highlight i! one of "us" wrote it, so yeah us.Green mowse.pngGodot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 17:46, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
PS, to be honest, the way you wrote his issues that are more or less valid in your first paragraph reads much better than the one in the all text, no numbering. Your attempt to keep the original langauge just isn't as strong as your own voice. I really personally like the numbering, the clarity of issue, etc.Green mowse.pngGodot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 17:48, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
So you say it doesn't read as well/read as smoothly? Well, thanks for your feedback. I'll do another mock-up tomorrow with the numbering, then. Nullahnung (talk) 20:28, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Here's another mock-up:

Thunderf00t cannot seem to admit that he's wrong on this particular issue and instead treads further and further outside his area of expertise. In March 2013, he released a video in which he attempted to challenge the first video in Anita Sarkeesian's "Women vs. Tropes in Video Games" series creatively titled "Feminism vs. FACTS."{ref}http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJeX6F-Q63I {/ref} Sarkeesian's video explores the damsel in distress trope in video games from its history to its modern use. In response, Thunderf00t's video contains a number of mined quotations and more misrepresentations showing just how far he has ironically plunged.

The points he does make or imply in the video on the subject of the damsel trope in video games are made in ignorance of the actual situation of the trope as well as the workings of the medium of video games themselves.

Thunderf00t points:

1.)Women are not portrayed as weak that often.
2.)Games are made to cash in on their majority male target audience and please the consumer, not equally represent men and women to please society at large. They are often shallow to the point where a simple plot like damsel in distress is the easiest, best option.
3.)In the trope the man loves her, that's why he goes through self-sacrifice. Not because she is an objective reward.
4.)Sometimes the men in the trope are turned into characterless objects too, there's no apparent gender inequality against women.
5.)It is only natural to have the trope and therefore ok, because men are physically stronger.

How they hold up to scrutiny:

1.)Actually, they are portrayed as the weak character often enough and this is related to objectification as well.
2.)This is a rather narrow-minded view of the market, and really, a medium shouldn't be exempt from any and all societal issues, since it does not exist as an isolated system.
3.)In a lot of the shallower games the female character is blatantly portrayed as nothing more than an object. As a player it is hard to care for an NPC with no real characterization.
4.)This ignores the issue that there is an imbalance in active roles. Damsels have the distinction of remaining passive, objectified.
5.)Games as an artful medium should not be restricted thus by the realities of our present and past-day situation.{ref}http://freethoughtblogs.com/amilliongods/2013/03/20/regressive-crap/ {/ref}

Nullahnung (talk) 02:19, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

As additional notes, there was a study done that found that 45% of gamers are women, so the idea (in number 2) that they're "focusing on their demographic" is frankly horseshit. For number 4, per Sarkeesian's third video in the series "if a character could be replaced by an object, there's a problem". The Damsel in the trope could easily be replaced by a lamp, but the male hero could not.-- Token Conservative/ Feminist Bouncer 03:07, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Here are some more official statistics, which largely say the same thing: http://www.theesa.com/facts/pdfs/ESA_EF_2012.pdf
One should note that the misogynist problem comes from the less casual ("harcore") gamers, so it would be interesting to find sources on how many hardcore female gamers there are. I heard the statistic was 20%-30% and growing, which is still quite significant.
And yeah, in a lot of cases you could accomplish pretty much the same thing the damsel trope does by having them chase after a magical artifact. Nullahnung (talk) 04:12, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I prefer completely mundane and inanimate objects like lamps, because I feel it better drives home the point that "these characters are completely useless".-- Token Conservative/ Feminist Bouncer 04:28, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't play many games, and the ones i do would fit squarly into more "brainy"(?) games - world building and city managment, etc. What is a "hard core gamer". I don't see it defined. Is it just one of those words that is used cause it actually *isn't* intended to be specific so it can fit whatever someone needs it to fit? or does it mean people who play games more than 1/2 the day? or does it mean people who buy more than 3 games a month, etc. Cause i see it tossed out in "but hard core gamers are usually men" and such... with little to no "out group" understanding of what that could be. (ie., those in the know, know who they mean).Green mowse.pngGodot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 01:02, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
It's a term that exists generally in the gaming community to refer to people who play certain games (usually in certain specific genres). Right now it means people who play certain popular FPS games and eSports. But basically, the most dedicated players of the most respected games.-- Token Conservative/ Feminist Bouncer 01:08, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
So someone who plays often, and plays the big names like Civilzation, or Sims, or the online (what do they call them, but like D&D oline) are not "hard core gamers", even if they invest just as much money and time as the dude who sits and plays Grand Theft Auto. So basically it's a made up catigory to make people who play shoot-em-ups seem more "real" and "hard core" than people who play, i don't know, the hedgog one with it's millions of editions? That says something about this entire conversation.Green mowse.pngGodot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 01:50, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
I will clarify the term. Godot is completely right that the term 'hardcore' is used differently depending on who is saying it. Some PC gaming elitists would call anybody who doesn't play certain FPS and e-sports-potential games "casuals" ("not hardcore"), which is what Hamilton just described. A more general definition, though, would include all those gamers that invest a significant amount of time and effort in other games like civilization and even the more casual MMORPGs and such. Something any regular gamer will agree on, though, is that mobile and tablet (and social media) gaming is considered casual gaming (the typical stereotype being your mom/grandmom who plays bejeweled on her phone and farmville on facebook). So a "safe" view would be that anybody who plays games extensively outside of mobile/tablet/social media is "hardcore". The REAL safe view is that "hardcore" as a word should be avoided whenever you can help it, and when you use it, consider your target audience. Nullahnung (talk) 02:08, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
As an additional thought, there is really no such thing as a "gamer", because people who play video games are often fiercely territorial about different methods of play (XBox vs PS vs Computer, the Wii, mobile, and flash games are the subject of mockery and derision) and genre (MMORPG vs Shooters vs whatever the hell else). A comparison would be to reading: there is no such thing as a "reader" because that refers to everyone that reads poetry, flash fiction, short fiction, novellas, and novels about every genre. Instead, people are into different story methods and genres. The idea of "hardcore" gamers as being those that are dedicated to certain genres on certain systems is like Sci Fi novel fans calling themselves "hard core readers"-- Token Conservative/ Feminist Bouncer 03:59, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Indeed, that's quite right. The important thing to remember here, though, is where the misogynist tendencies are coming from. I would argue they come from the Xbox/PS/PC crowd of gamers who are invested in the AAA games. Thunderf00t himself is an avid Quake player, so he could (not saying he is) be close to the PC elitist view if you ask him what "hardcore" is. Nullahnung (talk) 04:08, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
I guess for me, then, the point is how it's used when TF or other "menz" talk about how "hardcore gamers are mostly men". at that level, it seems sorta set up to be whatever they want it to be. and might be worth a mention somewhere - if it comes up. Green mowse.pngGodot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 16:48, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

This wiki page on Thunderf00t is shameful and anti-woman[edit]

That much of this page, particularly the 'Crusade Against Feminism' section, is truly the height of irrationality and extremely biased opinion, it's not only an affront to the word Rational (as the proprietors of this wiki seem to freely admit), it's also an affront to women and feminism.

If those who have posted and maintain the bias in this opinion-laden page had any respect for women then they would realize that real feminist women (those who seek equal footing of, opportunity for, and treatment of women) would not want nor need, and would be HIGHLY offended by, the use of such bias, opinion, and emotion-laden defenses of the feminist position, not to mention the irrational visceral attacks on someone who has an honest difference of opinion. That is unless, the faux-feminists here believe the stereotype that women act emotionally and irrationally is accurate, and that should be considered equally as valid as level-headed rationality. Is that the idea one is supposed to take away from this site?

I only on rare occasions have found myself on Rational Wiki for a quick piece of information, which mostly seemed valid and relevant, but when I came to this page looking for some additional information on Thunderf00t for a completely unrelated blog discussion I was participating in, and referenced his Creationist video series, I was truly appalled at what I found here. Not the information that was attempted to be disseminated, but the clearly rabid bias and even downright evident hatred the permitted editors of this page have for this person.

My opinion of RationalWiki has now taken a 180 degree turn. Perhaps it was merely a misapprehension on my part as to what this site was all about given the name and some of the content. The apparent powers-that-be here have now made it clear to me what this site is about. The site has little to nothing to do with Rational thought and dialog, but with a biased ideological irrational-where-necessary agenda.

How very disappointing. FoxFire (talk) 20:02, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

ok, then! Green mowse.pngGodot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 20:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Don't worry, we don't give a shit what you think :)--Token Conservative (talk) 20:08, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
I think it's becoming more-and-more evident that you, Token Conservative, are here to undermine and destroy the idea of rational logical thought. Such things have never played too well for the conservative agenda and goals, which relies significantly on people buying into bullshit. I would not be surprised if you're nothing more than a plant to undermine a movement wherein increased factual knowledge and information being made available to greater-and-greater numbers of people, is having a serious impact on conservatives ability to elect their preferred politicians and enact their regressive policies. FoxFire (talk) 20:15, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Mainstream (read:vulgar) conservatives hate me, actually. I'm an Eisenhower Republican/Burkean Conservative/One State/Red Tory. Not that it matters in the least.
I'm sure Godot is lolling pretty hard at this though. So, I guess there's that.-- Token Conservative/ Feminist Bouncer 20:20, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
(EC)You say how you perceive rabid bias and hatred for Thunderf00t, but that is just a result of you focusing on the negative that was written. Tf00t is not perfect, that is all. He has his faults and merits just like everyone else. What really is being criticized here is his view on feminism and in particular that one video 'Feminism vs Facts' that he made. Dude, have you even watched that video? You can't tell me that he didn't do an excessive amount of quote mining and misrepresentation in that video, because he clearly did. As for Thunderf00t's actual points that he made, read around for the refutations and counter arguments! (I plan to add his actual arguments into the article some time tomorrow, I haven't yet.) There is a clear case for what has been written. If you would like to debate it, you will have to read up a bit on video games and watch Anita Sarkeesian's video as well as Thunderf00t's one, and then come back and say what you think. Nullahnung (talk) 20:31, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Is it just me, or does the "real feminist women" label in the first post reek a bit of No True Scotsman? - GrantC (talk) 03:55, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
It's pretty much paraphrasing what Thunderf00t himself has said in his various anti-feminist videos. WéáśéĺóíďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 06:49, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I am Cruious, Foxfire. Our feminism articles, and "feminist slanted" articles are rather few and far between. so how do 10 or 20 articles that open up discussions of feminism (well, plus a bunch on sexuality and abortion - but nto sure those are "feminist") really color a website with a few thousand articles? It's a sligh bit like listening to "men going their own way", who say they are done with women, spending their entire site talking about women. Just saying....Green mowse.pngGodot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 16:42, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm curious what the point is. 90% of that post is just ranting about "oh, so why do you call it RATIONAL Wiki!!!!!?!?!" - I can't see where the actual constructive criticism comes in. His feminism stuff is hilariously terrible - full of straw man, quote mining, claiming authority without even cursory research, and his FTB posts devolved into self parody eventually. There's absolutely no way someone who has any idea what they're talking about can conclude differently. Scarlet A.pngpostate 18:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Eh, what would you know. You're just one of the corrupted males in our Uber Ultra Feminist Brigade. (UUFB). Green mowse.pngGodot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 19:04, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
If it's such a clear and minor thing, then why do you have to repeat this self-satisfied routine only on talk pages on this subject? --81.175.225.92 (talk) 04:32, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Crusade against feminism[edit]

Since the site is called "RationalWiki", can't we stick to factual statements?

"Thunderf00t cannot seem to admit that he's wrong on this particular issue"

Who has the authority to decide that thunderf00t is wrong, and who gave that person such authority? A lot of people clearly don't think that he's wrong.

"and instead treads further and further outside his area of expertise."

First of all, as feminism is not a technical field, no specific expertise or training is needed to make criticisms of it. Obviously technical knowledge is required to make comments on chemistry and physics, but this is clearly not the case for a soft-academic field such as feminism.

Secondly, he didn't entirely stray out of his field of expertise. In her video, Sarkessian claimed that women are not weak. This is a scientific claim, and as such, is well within thunderf00t's realm. thunderf00t thus responds by quoting studies which show that women have a lot less upper body strength than men. — Unsigned, by: 33LB / talk / contribs

"First of all, as feminism is not a technical field, no specific expertise or training is needed to make criticisms of it."
Brilliant, wilful ignorance and we didn't even need to push it out of you. Osaka Sun (talk) 04:20, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
It's just another example of RationalWiki going from a, well, rational wiki to a feminist soapbox. It's rather sad, really. (And I am quite sure this comment will be deleted shortly) 81.221.32.170 (talk) 07:55, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Oh, grow up. EVDebs (talk) 08:06, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
As has already been pointed out several times on this page, RationalWiki is not an encyclopedia nor neutral in its outlook. If you want to find out more about the POV & tone of the site, see RationalWiki, RationalWiki:Newcomers and RationalWiki:What is a RationalWiki article?.
Who has the authority to decide that thunderf00t is wrong? Anybody who disagrees with him. That's how opinions work. Obviously this issue (feminism within the skeptic community) is one of opinion rather than an empirical one where he could be proven correct or incorrect (hence a lot of people clearly don't think that he's wrong), but his arguments & examples are very flawed, often misrepresenting what feminists say or want, & by & large the tide of opinion is against him. It's nice to know he can put feminists in their place by proving that women have a lot less upper body strength than men, but are you sure that Sarkeesian actually made a scientific claim otherwise? You know, there are other connotations of the words "strong" & "weak". ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 10:12, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Firstly, drink!.
Secondly, yes, feminism actually is a field you may need to brush up on to talk about. It has its own terminology that means something and people have written on the subject. "Privilege" for instance, has a very technical definition. This is why people bitch and whine about being called "privileged", because they didn't bother to read up on the technical specifications of what that person was talking about. You wouldn't discuss the chemistry of rhodium bisphosphine compounds with me without at least taking a cursory glance at some definitions used in organometallics, so why is this suddenly acceptable for social justice issues?
What happens in these cases is that someone has made an assumption of what "feminism" "is" (quotes around "is" for Reasons) and then assumes that whenever someone uses that term, their pre-suppositions and inferences are all true, no matter what. In fact, there's a massive amount to learn about it as a movement, history, offshoots, ideas, all of which compete under a general umbrella term. "Feminist" as a term is like saying "religious", and so many comments criticising feminists are no more valid than criticising Christianity based on Mohammad's choice in underage brides. The umbrella term doesn't really convey a lot of information, but you do need to dive deeper into what people belief to learn something about it. Most of these people who go on to "criticise" feminism don't bother to do that. Not at all.
At least when I decided not to identify as a feminist, I did so after doing enough reading and talking to people to say "I hold beliefs similar to the third-wave and sex-positivity movements", and with enough reading on identity politics to suitably caveat my position if asked. Because things like "second-wave" and "third-wave" are terms of art within gender equality that mean something (and there's a plethora of others), and so can be understood by those who speak the language. Mistaking the fact that it isn't a hard science as a carte blanche not to bother learning anything about it before trying to critique it is endemic in many internet "rationalists", and it's a tragedy that people still insist on doing that. Scarlet A.pngpostate 10:59, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
That's more than I was going to bother saying. There's just so much wrong with the OP's statements, but I'll focus on one thing: the idea that you don't need special knowledge to talk about something that might be considered "soft science". With or without OP's explicit "girls suck" agenda, that's such an over-the-top statement of intellectual ineptitude that it's just as well it was left unsigned; data is data, and just because social science can be and often is mushy doesn't mean that it's absolutely useless for drawing conclusions, and you actually do have to inform yourself about the subject to be able to comment on it. And I'm not sure what to say about the dig at Anita Sarkeesian except to say that single-issue cranks usually don't have much of value to contribute anywhere else. They can't all be Brian Josephson or Linus Pauling... EVDebs (talk) 22:53, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
"...Sarkessian claimed that women are not weak. This is a scientific claim..." - this is a blatant misunderstanding of science, to be honest. In science, we test the real world. Now, this real world is physical objects, emergent patterns and so on. But it is not words. We therefore use a considerable amount of precision, artful terminology, symbology and diagrams to represent what we mean. So if Sarkeesian was saying "women are not weak", then we have to consider what she means if you want to consider it as a scientific exercise. Since certain people have clearly interpreted this as meaning "physical strength measurable my force applied by muscle mass" when Sarkeesian is talking about character strengths/interest, mental strengths, willpower and so on (i.e., a much broader statement) then what the above is, if it is anything, is emphatically not science. In fact, it's a science fail on par with the equivocation used by creationists. And it's all because someone thinks it has to be a "hard science" for you to need to bother learning about something. Fucking amateurs, that's what it is. Fucking lazy amateurs. Scarlet A.pngnarchist 10:42, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Generally men have more upper body strength, but that doesn't mean women have none. It certainly doesn't justify portraying them as constantly needing a man to protect and/or save them. Fighting involves way more than brute strength, and that doesn't have much to do with the trope. A person can get out of trouble without brute force. — Unsigned, by: Notquitethere / talk / contribs
Talking about Sarkeesian's videos, it is more important to consider that video games should not be bound by reality. There are several more stats to consider than just strength. There is usually more, like agility, marksmanship, magic, etc. Things that might or might not be important in a real fight, but can be as important as you want them to be in a video game. Nullahnung (talk) 03:15, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Who is user 'Hamilton'? He is attempting to maintain character-assassination and inappropriately biased opinion in this article[edit]

I made the following change to the "Crusade against feminism" section:

I changed the title to "Feminist Disagreements", and changed the terribly biased section to the following modified text:

In March 2013, Thunderf00t released a YouTube video titled "Feminism vs. FACTS" in which he challenged the first video in Anita Sarkeesian's "Women vs. Tropes in Video Games" series. Sarkeesian's video explores the 'damsel in distress' trope in video games from its history to its modern use. Thunderf00t's refutation relies heavily on the claim that women are not so often portrayed negatively in video games, wherein he provides several examples where this is quite conceivably not the case, or where certain portrayals of women are being misinterpreted (he suggests willfully) by Sarkeesian. For a dissenting opinion of Thunderf00t's video please see this Freethought Blogs article "Hags of Lag – Thunderfoot doesn’t get Regressive Crap" by contributor Avicenna.

Within seconds of my making these changes, he reverted them back to the horribly biased original with the typographically erroneous comment "We all nothing but biased opinion".

Who is this person Hamilton? The official moderators of this wiki need to take a close look at this user's editing habits and take appropriate actions. He or she is making a mockery of this Rational wiki (at least from this single example).

If this is really the way in which Rational Wiki functions, then it's truly a joke. There's nothing 'rational' about it.

--FoxFire (talk) 00:49, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Here we go again ... you see, RationalWiki is just a name that was somewhat poorly chosen, here, have a read: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Essay:I_thought_this_was_supposed_to_be_RATIONALWiki
Also read this: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RationalWiki:What_is_a_RationalWiki_article%3F
RW is not supposed to be neutral on much of anything, when it can take a side, it will. In this case it was blatantly pro-feminism, as you can probably tell. Nullahnung (talk) 01:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Who is Hamilton? He is the Alpha and the Omega. He is the rising of the sun at dawn and the moon at dusk. He is the feeling of being full after a large meal, and the emptiness of a large poop
But seriously dude, no.--Token Conservative (talk) 14:54, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Well then if this is the case, then I think it's high time to begin trashing the RationalWiki name among the greater rational/skeptic/atheist/reality based community as being little more than an irrational radical one-sided side-taking ideological editorial blog (masquerading as a wiki). In other words.... It's mostly useless as a resource or repository for rational information. Truly, as you stated, RationalWiki IS a very poorly chosen name. It ought to be placed among the likes of "What the bleep do we know." FoxFire (talk) 19:34, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
The skeptical community at large already knows about us and has already decided that we're either awesome or assholes for our view on feminism. Also, it's telling that you go from "you wont let me insert my personal bias" to "this place is a biased hellhole"--Token Conservative (talk) 19:52, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
As a conservative (as your handle suggests) I'm not surprised by your lack of intellectual vigor. <--- (Yes that's my biased opinion). This is the TALK section of this wiki page. Bias and opinion are supposed to be freely welcome in a talk/discussion page. However, the edits I made to the 'Crusade Against Feminism' section of the main Thunderf00t page were my best attempt at removing any bias (including my own), in order to give straight factual information regarding the topic/controversy. Those edits were immediately denied and the full extremely biased original text was restored. As I mention below, this site is remarkably shameful. FoxFire (talk) 20:09, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
You clearly do not understand Rationalwiki, as we pretty clearly say we have a biased perspective and a snarky point of view. You attempting to remove snark is not going to be tolerated. If I hadn't done it, Nulla or Godot, or any one of a dozen other users would have done the same thing.-- Token Conservative/ Feminist Bouncer 20:17, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Foxfire, it's quite clear that you're some sort of butthurt misogynist who's trying to insert your own sexist views and mitigate our views with your concern trolling. On average, Rational Wiki is really not that excessively pro feminist, and such POV is rare. –Jewish Bolshevik (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 05:36, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Women are wrecking the joint - part 5[edit]

So has anyone else watched Thunderfoot's latest video on feminism ruining atheism? Tracking Thunderfoots trajectory is like watching a Greek tragedy; much more tragic because the fall happened from such a high place. The problem is that the "other side", by which I mean PZ, is almost (not quite) as bad. Anyone that deals with pigs gets covered in mud I guess.

As a reasonable facsimile of the average Joe Six-Pack of atheism I am so disillusioned with the community, or at least what is left of a community, that I no longer feel proud to call myself part of it. I just hope that all of the genuine leaders/intellectuals of the atheist movement stay the hell away from A+, Thunderfoot, PZ and any of the other cretins that have stoked the fire behind this drama.

Perhaps we are harshest to our fallen heroes but, as it stands, it seems Dawkins is a misogynist (as is Grothe apparently), Shermer is a rapist, Harris is a torture apologist, Hitchens is dead, Dennett has disappeared, PZ is a drama queen, Thunderfoot is... I don't even know, Randi is a GW denier and Plait is too rude (too rude for PZ - imagine). Never let the massive areas of agreement get in the way of a good argument I guess, otherwise you might lose relevance. Tielec01 (talk) 03:06, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Speak for yourself. Aside from PZ, who I always thought was a twat of the highest order, I respect all of those figures. I don't agree with absolutely everything they say but that is expected. You take what you like out of the people you follow and discard what you dislike. None of them are fallen heroes just because I have one or more area of disagreement with them. --DamoHi 03:27, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
As women speak up, one tof the things that is hardest for many men to deal with is teh fact that they are likely in "rape or rape like" stiuations, and have been much of their lives. we teach men that "she's more likely to say yes if she's had a few". this is not to say she didn't give consent, but if she wasn't goign to sleep with you till you have plied her with drink, making her less accountable, then you have to ask yourself why you needed to do that, and not just accept her sober answer. So, as men who were raised in the 50. 60. 70s are now in positions of power, more and more of them are being called out for rather dumb ass behaviors. Thunderfoot is no exception. If you want to put these men on a pillar, feel free, but most humans have serious ass problems and many if not most men, use their positions of power to get closer to women. Women are not wrecking anything, unless you think it's great to hero worship fallible humans.Green mowse.pngGodot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 04:43, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Who is that directed at? It doesn't seem to follow from either of the comments above. DamoHi 04:55, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Tieleco who says "it's not rape". Why not? if you have to get her drinking (which at rumor level, he does OFTEN) for her to say "yes" if she even says yes at all, is dubious behavior if not outright rape. for a girl or a guy, by the way. if I took a guy drinking, and i have, shamefully, and used the drink to make him more likely to say yes, then I have to ask why i would use alchol in teh first place. if i KNOW it will make her inhabitions go down, how is that not rape? i know they are not likely to have sex with me, when sober, so i get them drunk. my motive for the alcohol is to make a yes come out. i want to manipulate the situation. that is all part of rape.Green mowse.pngGodot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 07:10, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree with you Damo (except on Thunderfoot - he's off the Christmas card list now). Shermer is not a rapist, even if the allegations are true (sleazy to be sure). Randi was never a GW denier. Plait is not rude, people just accused him of it (ironically because he asked people not to be dicks). Harris doesn't agree with torture at all. If we explored these issues we would find that all of the above agreed 90% of the time, the other 10% would be only minor differences. I guess I'm sick of certain egotistical shitheads spouting their mouth off every time they think they can manufactroversy. It's probably time to tell them "Thanks for the good times; feel free to fuck off back to obscurity". Tielec01 (talk) 05:34, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
A big part of what does - or at least should - separate us from theistic communities is that we place significance on ideas and not on personalities. Even if Randi turned out to be an absolute shill for the oil companies, it would not impact one iota on the significance of his points on homeopathy or on psychics or any of his other points. I've watched one or two of TF's latter videos on feminism and have not been all that impressed with some of them, but I'm not about to write him off just for that, partly because I don't care all that much about the subject matter. His video on the Shermer business was spot on imo. As for Harris, well I have read plenty of Harris and his points on Islam are often uncomfortable to listen to, but that does not mean they are incorrect. Sometimes it is good to call a spade a spade. --DamoHi 05:46, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
My evaluation of all this... Well, I'll start with the list of names. Dawkins isn't a misogynist, but he can be pretty tone-deaf at times (see also his use of the rather loaded term "Israel lobby"). PZ is a firebrand, and I've come to realize he probably jumped the gun on a couple of issues, but this wasn't one of them; most of the hostility towards him seems to be in response to his support of feminism, and embarrassingly post hoc at that. Phil Plait is actually pretty level-headed and seems to have stayed above the whole matter. Shermer is a sleaze and has by all indications left himself wide open for accusations of harassment at the very least. Harris I actually don't follow and have no opinion of. Randi is... well, he's not completely convinced by the GW science, but he's willing to let it speak for itself. DJ Grothe I wouldn't say is a misogynist, but he is a clueless asshole who doesn't want a clue. (Ben Radford, on the other hand, seems to know exactly what he's doing and is apparently almost as bad as Shermer.) And Thunderf00t has frankly completely lost his mind. What little I know about Dennett seems to put him somewhere where science used to be and has moved on from, maybe around the 1960s or so. Now... A+. I have yet to see a convincing argument that A+ is "divisive" to anyone except the usual people who resent being reminded of their privilege (the link, btw, is to make the meaning of the term unambiguous here). That's the same bullshit that you hear from people who think racism is over and complain when black people point out they still don't have it as good as they should. "Divisive" here is just lazy and immature thinking. The truth is, we have a big problem in the community, and that's that when it comes to social issues, a huge sector of the community tunes out a lot of data because they think it's a "soft science" issue. In the one community outside science itself where cherrypicking data is understood to be taboo, there's an entire fucking orchard crew of cherrypickers when it comes to these issues. When it comes to social issues, the atheist/skeptic community has very, very badly lost its way, and when women try to tell their stories (you know, add more data), this shit happens. Something has gone very, very wrong when gathering more data becomes a flashpoint for an all-out civil war. EVDebs (talk) 06:07, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Can you run me by the criticism of Dennett? I am a casual fan of his having read a couple of his books (Breaking the spell and Darwins dangerous idea) and watched some of his talks and debates, but I'm afraid that criticism went over my head. DamoHi 07:30, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
As I said, I'm not that familiar with him. I've been given to believe that he's a little backwards in terms of science and takes Darwin a bit more seriously than most scientists do. It's all hearsay and I don't claim to be qualified to comment. EVDebs (talk) 07:37, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
True Godot, without knowing what happened we are all speculating.
EV, obviously A+ has been divisive, whether or not it should have been. Perhaps it has neatly excised the ignorant MRA types, and good riddance to them, but here I am telling you that I have given up with the community and I don't think that I fit that category (at least, I'm no MRA). Tielec01 (talk) 07:47, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
I find that the people who think A+ is divisive, are people who don't want things to change. they like the status quo, even though it's clearly sexist. They don't want to address the fact that there are few writers or speakers who are women. They don't feel they should have to provide a "safe" place for women to be included. They do in fact think that sexual harassment is fairly minor and does not happen at all, and "all i did was hit on her, that's not harrassment" is their view of how most men approach the whole dating thing. Why is it devisive to say "women matter?"Green mowse.pngGodot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 08:06, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Alright then cheers for the honest opinion. Tielec01 (talk) 08:10, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

One Minor Problem[edit]

In the Rebecca Watson case, no harassment took place. Based on what she said, the guy did nothing wrong. You can't just assume what the intent was. — Unsigned, by: Notquitethere / talk / contribs

Who knows, that guy might not even have been Thunderf00t at all. Maybe there is a reason why you're posting this here or maybe there isn't. Nobody can assume what the intent is. WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:57, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
I hadn't heard anything like that. I thought it was some random guy...but I only looked at blog statements after watching video responses. I just don't like how people can't discuss things like this without attacking each other...Notquitethere (talk) 03:36, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
We've been through this before. Osaka Sun (talk) 06:15, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Discussion closed/archived[edit]