League of Treason

[UNFFwildcard]

While is should not be called a responsibility per se, there is a necessity to 'babysit' troublemakers as the consequences are not just their own. Every time some chalatan Christian does something illegal or idiotic, that negatively reflects upon every other Christian - myself included. Their choices do indirectly hold consequences for me. This can be made quite evident by the xenophobia and jingoism that emerged within the united states against all Muslim people after a petty handful of them decided it would be a good idea to suicide attack choice US military and economic targets using hijacked commerical aircraft. Those 19 individuals had just as much autonomy in their decision making as Thunderf00t did when he decided to capitalize on such actions through his rhetoric and blanket stereotyping. In terms of the public perception to whichever group such individuals were affiliated with (whether it be youtube atheists or all muslim people) the consequences of individual choice to either group affiliated were analogous. This is the price you pay for a group identity.

Two points:

1) We don't have a 'group identity' here. We're barely able to hold together a "we" around here. Besides not breaking the forum rules, there's no sort of orthodoxy of viewpoint that unites all of us, and no deviation from a standard worldview will get you booted from here. We don't have an group identity in the way you imply.

2) Proof of that can be found in our own previous interactions. I don't think we've ever agreed on anything, and yet there's a place for both of us on this site. What would you like "us" to do to T-f00tie that shouldn't be applied to you, or to me, or to anyone who happens to disagree with someone else?

The problem with your two statements is that you consider group identity as merely an internal label. While AndromedasWake may protest that the LoR has no religious or political affiliation, the simple truth is that LoR is considered by virtually all non-patrons - and by many LoR patrons including myself - an atheist website. If Joe Christian or Joe Muslim were to come across this website, will their first (and lasting) impression be that this website has no political or religious affiliation/orientation, or will they consider it as simply an atheist's website? I thought so. Denying this is simply turning the LoR into an ivory tower - and an illusionary one at that.

At the heart of things, its a matter of 'the other perspective'. This overlaps with our previous argument over ritualistic cleanliness. You may disagree with the idea of atheists having a group identity, but I'm not trying to point out the way things ought to be, but the way things are. When you understand this, you will also understand why it was so imperative for your own sake that atheists call Tf00t on his BS. It was not a responsibility, but a necessity.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

The problem with your two statements is that you consider group identity as merely an internal label. While AndromedasWake may protest that the LoR has no religious or political affiliation, the simple truth is that LoR is considered by virtually all non-patrons - and by many LoR patrons including myself - an atheist website. If Joe Christian or Joe Muslim were to come across this website, will their first (and lasting) impression be that this website has no political or religious affiliation/orientation, or will they consider it as simply an atheist's website? I thought so. Denying this is simply turning the LoR into an ivory tower - and an illusionary one at that.

At the heart of things, its a matter of 'the other perspective'. This overlaps with our previous argument over ritualistic cleanliness. You may disagree with the idea of atheists having a group identity, but I'm not trying to point out the way things ought to be, but the way things are. When you understand this, you will also understand why it was so imperative for your own sake that atheists call Tf00t on his BS. It was not a responsibility, but a necessity.

By definition, a "group" can ONLY be defined by its members. All group labels are inherently internal. We get to define who we are, and who we are is a loose collection of people THAT INCLUDES YOU, YOU BIG SILLY NINNY!


If Joe Christian, Joe Muslim, and Joes of all stripes come here to post, they will be accepted so long as they don't flame or spam excessively. They might not be liked, but who gives a flying fuck?!?! I'm the Lime Tord, the #1 poster here, I've got more posts than we have active members... and yet most people don't agree with me, a whole bunch of people actively dislike me, and sure as shit no one is afraid to criticize me. That's great, because I'm not afraid to call out other people either, and that adds to the value of this place.

You call me out when you disagree with me. Lots of us(and you too) called T-f00t out when he was a bigoted asshole. We call people out, the way I called you out, the way you called me out, the way we both call T-f00t out... and at the end of the day, all three of us are still allowed to post here.

What the fuck else do you want? If you want T-f00t banned, should I be banned as well? Or should you be banned? Or all three of us?

Or, here's a crazy idea! Let's not ban anybody, and allow criticism of everybody. I'm all for it. Why aren't you satisfied with it?

 

[UNFFwildcard]

The problem with your two statements is that you consider group identity as merely an internal label. While AndromedasWake may protest that the LoR has no religious or political affiliation, the simple truth is that LoR is considered by virtually all non-patrons - and by many LoR patrons including myself - an atheist website. If Joe Christian or Joe Muslim were to come across this website, will their first (and lasting) impression be that this website has no political or religious affiliation/orientation, or will they consider it as simply an atheist's website? I thought so. Denying this is simply turning the LoR into an ivory tower - and an illusionary one at that.

At the heart of things, its a matter of 'the other perspective'. This overlaps with our previous argument over ritualistic cleanliness. You may disagree with the idea of atheists having a group identity, but I'm not trying to point out the way things ought to be, but the way things are. When you understand this, you will also understand why it was so imperative for your own sake that atheists call Tf00t on his BS. It was not a responsibility, but a necessity.

By definition, a "group" can ONLY be defined by its members. All group labels are inherently internal. We get to define who we are, and who we are is a loose collection of people THAT INCLUDES YOU, YOU BIG SILLY NINNY!


If Joe Christian, Joe Muslim, and Joes of all stripes come here to post, they will be accepted so long as they don't flame or spam excessively. They might not be liked, but who gives a flying fuck?!?! I'm the Lime Tord, the #1 poster here, I've got more posts than we have active members... and yet most people don't agree with me, a whole bunch of people actively dislike me, and sure as shit no one is afraid to criticize me. That's great, because I'm not afraid to call out other people either, and that adds to the value of this place.

You call me out when you disagree with me. Lots of us(and you too) called T-f00t out when he was a bigoted asshole. We call people out, the way I called you out, the way you called me out, the way we both call T-f00t out... and at the end of the day, all three of us are still allowed to post here.

What the fuck else do you want? If you want T-f00t banned, should I be banned as well? Or should you be banned? Or all three of us?

Or, here's a crazy idea! Let's not ban anybody, and allow criticism of everybody. I'm all for it. Why aren't you satisfied with it?

The very fact that other people define atheists as a group of people both invalidates your first point and simply demonstrates to me that you completely failed to understand my prior post. Whether or not the LoR is an open forum is moot.

Re-read my prior post and try again.

 

[UNFFwildcard]

The problem with your two statements is that you consider group identity as merely an internal label. While AndromedasWake may protest that the LoR has no religious or political affiliation, the simple truth is that LoR is considered by virtually all non-patrons - and by many LoR patrons including myself - an atheist website. If Joe Christian or Joe Muslim were to come across this website, will their first (and lasting) impression be that this website has no political or religious affiliation/orientation, or will they consider it as simply an atheist's website? I thought so. Denying this is simply turning the LoR into an ivory tower - and an illusionary one at that.

At the heart of things, its a matter of 'the other perspective'. This overlaps with our previous argument over ritualistic cleanliness. You may disagree with the idea of atheists having a group identity, but I'm not trying to point out the way things ought to be, but the way things are. When you understand this, you will also understand why it was so imperative for your own sake that atheists call Tf00t on his BS. It was not a responsibility, but a necessity.
By definition, a "group" can ONLY be defined by its members. All group labels are inherently internal. We get to define who we are, and who we are is a loose collection of people THAT INCLUDES YOU, YOU BIG SILLY NINNY!


If Joe Christian, Joe Muslim, and Joes of all stripes come here to post, they will be accepted so long as they don't flame or spam excessively. They might not be liked, but who gives a flying fuck?!?! I'm the Lime Tord, the #1 poster here, I've got more posts than we have active members... and yet most people don't agree with me, a whole bunch of people actively dislike me, and sure as shit no one is afraid to criticize me. That's great, because I'm not afraid to call out other people either, and that adds to the value of this place.

You call me out when you disagree with me. Lots of us(and you too) called T-f00t out when he was a bigoted asshole. We call people out, the way I called you out, the way you called me out, the way we both call T-f00t out... and at the end of the day, all three of us are still allowed to post here.

What the fuck else do you want? If you want T-f00t banned, should I be banned as well? Or should you be banned? Or all three of us?

Or, here's a crazy idea! Let's not ban anybody, and allow criticism of everybody. I'm all for it. Why aren't you satisfied with it?

The very fact that other people define atheists as a group of people both invalidates your first point and simply demonstrates to me that you completely failed to understand my prior post. Whether or not the LoR is an open forum is moot.

Re-read my prior post and try again.

On second thought, allow me to adjust my tone. Due to several factors I've been quite abrasive on LoR lately. I apologize ImprobableJoe. Allow me to reiterate my point.

I do not want TF banned from anything, and I support a healthy dose of criticism. I think OP's point was that there was a general lack of criticism offered to Thunderf00t. Several people on here have stated that its not anyone's responsibility to criticize thunderf00t, and that his actions are his own. My own point though is that his actions have consequences on others, and that while it is not anyone's responsibility, it is still necessary to offer such criticism. I gave the example of jingoism and xenophobia post 9/11. After your comment, I clarified by stating that group identity is not merely an internal label, and I gave LoR as an example.

My point is simply that there is a need to recognize the opinions and perspectives of others, and that you need to take those into consideration when calculating your next course of action. By the book LoR may not have any fixed political or religious identity, but in the popular perspective it is an atheist website. Likewise, Thunderf00t may be an individual expressing individual opinions, but in popular perspective his additude is representative of LoR and atheists in general.

 

[borrofburi]

On second thought, allow me to adjust my tone. Due to several factors I've been quite abrasive on LoR lately. I apologize ImprobableJoe. Allow me to reiterate my point.

It's nice to see Joe get it once in a rare while (sorry Joe, but it's true), but we mods try to keep things from getting too... well, personally hostile. It's actually a difficult line to draw between letting people speak their minds and letting people be too big of asshats... The general idea is to let as many people speak their mind as possible, battle of ideas, open forum, etc. (I'm sure you get the idea)... Err, I forgot where I was going with this... Probably something about it being good to clarify or something...

I do not want TF banned from anything, and I support a healthy dose of criticism. I think OP's point was that there was a general lack of criticism offered to Thunderf00t. Several people on here have stated that its not anyone's responsibility to criticize thunderf00t, and that his actions are his own. My own point though is that his actions have consequences on others, and that while it is not anyone's responsibility, it is still necessary to offer such criticism. I gave the example of jingoism and xenophobia post 9/11. After your comment, I clarified by stating that group identity is not merely an internal label, and I gave LoR as an example.

My point is simply that there is a need to recognize the opinions and perspectives of others, and that you need to take those into consideration when calculating your next course of action. By the book LoR may not have any fixed political or religious identity, but in the popular perspective it is an atheist website. Likewise, Thunderf00t may be an individual expressing individual opinions, but in popular perspective his additude is representative of LoR and atheists in general.

I don't know, there seems to be plenty of criticism directed at tfoot in this thread alone. I personally haven't criticized him because the videos in question appeared to be very very boring (thus I have not watched them, and indeed you would think I would go watch them now, but it sounds to be an unpleasant experience, and I have plenty of those already in my life, at the moment).

Still, I think there is far less group cohesion among atheists than religions... There are no basic tenants of atheism, only a single shared attribute. The analogy has grown tired, but I think there's a clear difference between the group of all people who believe the words in the bible should have very significant influence on how you live your life (because god himself had some hand in writing the book) and, say, the group of all people who do not collect stamps.

The funny thing is, I've talked to theists (just a few, obviously sample biased) who complain about something similar, and when I showed them they were wrong (by directing them to all the internal community criticism), they then switched tones to those "awful atheists [who] are always bickering amongst themselves". Some times it seems that rationalizations dictate we can't win, we can't even make headway.

Not that I call myself an atheist (too much confusion with "satan worshipper who enjoys raping babies" and "one who claims god can't possibly exist under any circumstances, including alternate realities"), but that's a conversation for another day.

 

[australopithecus]

Several people on here have stated that its not anyone's responsibility to criticize thunderf00t, and that his actions are his own.

For the record, I personally wasn't implying it's not our job to criticise him, just it's not our job to babysit anyone who has a passing assocciation with this forum in case they fuck up. Tf00t was criticised both in private and here on the forums. The OP seems to think that unless 85994 videos are made calling him out on youtube then nothing has been said which is patently false, and I'm pretty sure plenty of people on youtube did call him out, some might have been members of the forum. But as a matter of courtesy it seems that the likes of AW and DPR had words with him personally, I don't see how a grand LoR sponsored video would have had more of an impact and I don't see why the responsibility is ours anyway because he has only the minimal interaction with the LoR, primarily through the show which is only a month or so old.

If people want to assume that tf00t's videos represent atheism or the LoR then they will make that connection regardless of what we do or say to speak out, and frankly I wont lose any sleep over it. If people want to assume this is an atheist forum then that's their problem. I don't see why we should pander to (false) preconceptions about us as a forum or atheists/agnostics/whatever because the majority of people who'll make those preconceptions will probably hold them regardless. They're more than welcome to join and debate, I don't see why we should do anything more.

As for why FvR was brought up with relation to the forum anyway is beyond me. Aside from getting inapropriately shouty over a show she wasn't supposed to be on anyway she's had nothing to do with this forum or the live show.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

On second thought, allow me to adjust my tone. Due to several factors I've been quite abrasive on LoR lately. I apologize ImprobableJoe. Allow me to reiterate my point.

I do not want TF banned from anything, and I support a healthy dose of criticism. I think OP's point was that there was a general lack of criticism offered to Thunderf00t. Several people on here have stated that its not anyone's responsibility to criticize thunderf00t, and that his actions are his own. My own point though is that his actions have consequences on others, and that while it is not anyone's responsibility, it is still necessary to offer such criticism. I gave the example of jingoism and xenophobia post 9/11. After your comment, I clarified by stating that group identity is not merely an internal label, and I gave LoR as an example.

My point is simply that there is a need to recognize the opinions and perspectives of others, and that you need to take those into consideration when calculating your next course of action. By the book LoR may not have any fixed political or religious identity, but in the popular perspective it is an atheist website. Likewise, Thunderf00t may be an individual expressing individual opinions, but in popular perspective his additude is representative of LoR and atheists in general.

I could care less about your tone... Satan knows my own tone isn't anything special... and that's part of my point.

As I've said before, we're not shy about the criticism around here, and anyone who claims otherwise doesn't know what he's talking about. There's some weird sort of idea going around that we're not critical enough towards specific people. Those folks don't ever post here though... if they did, they would find multiple feet in their ass before they knew what hit them.

Just look at me, kiddo... you're new here, and I'm one of the oldest members. Check back a few posts and see how a Chat Mod like borrofburi takes a random dig at me... are you seriously claiming that people get special treatment here, or are shielded from criticism here? NO ONE is immune to criticism here.

NO ONE.

If Thunderf00t seems to get a free pass, it is only because no one here really gives much of a shit about him. He's not one of our spokespeople, or one of our idols, so we don't waste much time analyzing all of his moves online.

 

[Prolescum]

If Thunderf00t seems to get a free pass, it is only because no one here really gives much of a shit about him.

Quoted For Truthâ„¢.

 

[Gnug215]

Hi UNFFwildcard,

I have a number of points to make. Some of them have already been made, but I'll still call attention to them because they were good.

The first issue is the group identity thing. I'm not an atheist myself, but I still get lumped in with them just because I make videos critical of religion, so I usually respond to charges against atheists and such.
I think atheist generally loathe being lumped together, because it's been done and overdone, especially by fundies, who'll claim that atheists are all: satanic; hate God; actually believe in God but want to live in sin because that's how they roll; part of an atheist religion, where Dawkins is a priest/prophet, because all atheists love him so immensely; etc.
I'm sure you know the drill. VFX was really good at spewing out this kinda stuff ("atheists have no love" was a classic).

Anyway, I think this is one reason atheists dislike being lumped together. Another reason is that there is often so much internal disagreement (what else would one expect from people who come together around only one single point?) that the lumping together seems ridiculous and absurd.

However, the fact of the matter is that atheists DO get lumped together, even by "insiders", as it seems, and such lumping is in actuality unavoidable, even though it is ideally unfair. That is the point you're trying to make, right?
If so, then what we have is a group of people who don't see themselves as a group, "versus" another group of people (who aren't really a group, because both theists, fundies, "insiders" and others are in said group - which only is a group in terms of its opposition to the "atheist group) that DOES see atheists as a group.

So how do we resolve that? Well, I suppose it's a paradox that can't be resolved as such, but we can partly resolve the disagreement on a case to case basis by doing what we're doing now: having a discussion about it.

Now, the fact that "we" here don't consider ourselves a group makes it hard for us to address this situation, wouldn't you say? If any one of us spoke out in any kind of official manner, they'd have to make sure to state that they're not speaking on behalf of anyone else.
There have been threads touching on these subjects (such as TF and PatCondell) around here, so I think many of the forum members consider them debated and concluded.
Given that this is a forum (with an attached chat, where we also frequently take care of world affairs), what kind of response would you have liked to have seen from this forum?

I suppose AW could have started a thread about these issues, made a poll, asked people to vote and then made an "official" video about the results of the poll, but doing that has some problems, I think, and I don't think that's the kind of site he was going for. Having seen the "About", I assume you know why this site was started, why it got this name, and why it... is what it is.

Having said all that, I'd like to raise a small point about the supposed lacking criticism of "extremists" (and the like) by the moderates on both sides of the fence. First, one could say that there is never enough of it. Then, one could ask, "how much is needed?" How much criticism is adequate? How much does either side need or demand? And what obligation does the other side have to issue criticism?
But there are also other questions here: for what reason should there be criticism? Does the other side have a right to demand criticism? Is it hypocritical to demand criticism from the other side, but not do it oneself (because one doesn't identify with the "perpetrator", or the like)?

As someone who became "famous" on YouTube for criticising "one of their own" (yeah right, like you're anything like VFX), you have some experience here. But what obligation did you have to criticise VFX? And wouldn't it have been more prudent if someone like NephilimFree, a fellow YEC, had made the criticism?
I think you can see where this particular line of thinking is going: what affiliation "justifies" an obligation to criticise? This question could be asked along with this next one: what kind of affiliation does the other side demand? Sure, they want the moderates to criticise the extremists, but if they have a totally different outlook on their ideology, is it fair if those moderates don't even identify themselves with the extremists?
How many points of agreement in ideology does one have to share with someone before affiliation is "strong enough" to obligate criticism? In my view, that's hard enough to determine with theists/fundies, but it's gotta be ever harder to determine among atheists, who only have one point of agreement in "their ideolohgy", right?

Now, I'm not trying to shirk responsiblity on "our side", but you can see the problem here, right?

Another point I'd like to make here. Some of us in this community might appear to be defending TF, mostly just my default, meaning that if we're not criticising, then we're automatically approving, defending. But I hope it has already become evident here that this isn't the case. We may defend some of his viewpoints/actions, but it doesn't mean we automatically subscribe to all that he says.
I suppose you defending Dawah was a similar situation. Clearly, Dawah made some mistakes, but you, presumably, weren't really looking to justify those mistakes, but defend him against the part of the criticism you felt was unfair. In the process, it might have made you look as if you were defending his entire position. This is what happens usually. Things lose nuance, things become polarized. That's a sad fact of life, I'm afraid. What we need to do is, well, like I said before, what we're doing now: talking about it.

So here we are. Did TF make a mistake? How grave was it? Who is obligated to respond? Why? Is the atheist community a group with obligations? Is LoR?
If we disagree on some the first few of those questions, I think it's fair to say we might not be able to reconcile on the following ones. But we have to be conscious about the fact that it's not because we're fundamentally different that we disagree, but we just happen to disagree on some of the fundamental questions that we are not able to resolve other differences down the line, because they are often reliant on each other.

I... hope that last bit made sense.

One final point:

If Thunderf00t seems to get a free pass, it is only because no one here really gives much of a shit about him.

He's right, you know. Perhaps mostly due to the simple fact that TF doesn't even post here, so no one here consideres him a part of this community. And well, I guess TF's recent "foray" into politics and whatnot has alienated him a bit. We're talking about a "group" that by definition only agrees on one thing.

And I think that covers all I had to say.

 

[australopithecus]

Regarding getting lumped in with tf00t by assocciation, do we really (or rather should we) man the watchtowers everytime an atheist somewhere says or does something stupid in public? I mean if someone want's to make a generalisation of all atheists or even all people on a forum because of the action of one person who sometimes has a small amount of interaction with the rest of us, then at the end of the day that generalisation is always going to wrong, and the connection they've made only exists in their mind. I'm not one for actually caring what people think of me personally, if someone watching a few youtube vids is too lazy to make the distinction between an atheist and all atheists then that is no skin off my nose. It will never impact on my life, even if it were the case that no one had criticised the videos, which is not the case.

The tone I got from this thread is that unless it happened on youtube, then it didn't happen. Since when did youtube become that important? Criticism is criticism whether it be on youtube, this forum, a PM to tf00t or on IRC or even telling your mother "this guy on youtube, he made a stupid video that was utter balls". Private criticism is no less valid that public criticism, and I for one am not the kind of guy who'll spend X amount of time making a useless video when I could easily just come on here and type:

Thunderf00t's videos on Draw Mohammed Day we're bollocks and uneccessarily antagonistic, and if any quote mining and out of context refutations made by him of his detractors did take place then he should be ashamed of himself.

But it's not in the form of a video reply, so I guess the above criticism didn't just happen.

 

[borrofburi]

stuff

Additionally, I think that the usual "moderates should say *something*" line of reasoning comes with death threats, riots, killing, terrorism, etc. And while I've heard accusations of thunderfoot making a sort of general "the US has lots of bombs" type of threat, it is extremely veiled at that; the instant he says something like "I'm not saying anyone should kill Dawah, I just think we'd all be better off if Dawah were dead" (it's kind of hard for him to say that it's every atheist's duty to kill someone, as the guy who called for Matt and Try Parker's deaths did, so I guess this is the closest an atheist can get), you can bet there will be a huge uproar (well, I mean, I can't speak for everyone, but I'm fairly certain I've assessed the average "atheist" properly).

EDIT: I think the usual line of reasoning is "you *insist* that islam is a religion of peace, while not decrying the very not-peaceful things people do in your religion's name, how do you reconcile the two?"; It's not merely a "all moderates should criticize all 'extremists'"; moreover I have a hard time calling someone who at worst made a veiled remark about how the first world countries have really big bombs, and more generally has used harsh and bad words an "extremist".

 

[UNFFwildcard]

I understand that many people here to not consider TF as a LoR patron as he does not post anything here. But if people here really do consider Thunderf00t as irrelevant or inconsequential to LoR, why is he on the LoR show? If LoR people really didn't give a shit about Thunderf00t as ImprobableJoe suggests, why is he allowed on a LoR-sponsored show?
If you say that he is invited because many LoR atheists respect him on YouTube, then that just simply makes things worse: You can't pick LoR patrons (you certainly have no influence on me being here), but LoR patrons can pick who goes on the show. Hence, when Thunderf00t is asked to go on the LoR show, he is not a LoR spokesperson but something far worse: an honoured guest or an endorsed icon. When thunderf00t regularly appears on the show, he and all his ideas and perspectives are given the 'LoR stamp of approval' precisely because it was by the initiative of LoR affiliates that put him there on the show. He otherwise has no business there.

If you came across a Christian talkshow and an unaffiliated (one who otherwise has no business on the show whatsoever) Christian holocaust denier or YEC was frequently invited to speak on the show, would you simply think 'to each opinion his own' or would you conclude that they were endorsing his ideas and perspectives?

This, I believe, it what OP was driving at. Thunderf00t did not have any LoR relevance, but LoR gave Thunderf00t LoR relevance. In return, LoR failed to offer the proper criticism normally offered to any other patron on this website. In a sense, Thunderf00t did get a free pass, but its for precicely the opposite reason of what ImprobableJoe suggests.

 

[Atomicnumber86]

The BlogTV is controlled by AndromedasWake. Not LOR. AndromedasWake. AW is not LOR.

>If you came across a Christian talkshow and an unaffiliated (one who otherwise has no business on the show whatsoever) Christian holocaust denier or YEC was frequently invited to speak on the show, would you simply think 'to each opinion his own' or would you conclude that they were endorsing his ideas and perspectives?

I can only talk for myself here. I have seen Glenn Beck reguarly on Bill O'reilly's show, and I don't think that Bill O' holds as many whackjob ideas as Beck.

 

[australopithecus]

I understand that many people here to not consider TF as a LoR patron as he does not post anything here. But if people here really do consider Thunderf00t as irrelevant or inconsequential to LoR, why is he on the LoR show? If LoR people really didn't give a shit about Thunderf00t as ImprobableJoe suggests, why is he allowed on a LoR-sponsored show?

Because he's a good communicator of science. That's pretty much it, though he's not essential to the show. There are many who could take his place, Potholer54, NonStampCollector, Th1sWasATriumph, djarm67....etc. Just because he is on the show doesn't mean he's essential. He was invinted by AW or Dpr or whoever, that's why. It's not like we all voted.

If you say that he is invited because many LoR atheists respect him on YouTube, then that just simply makes things worse: You can't pick LoR patrons (you certainly have no influence on me being here), but LoR patrons can pick who goes on the show. Hence, when Thunderf00t is asked to go on the LoR show, he is not a LoR spokesperson but something far worse: an honoured guest or an endorsed icon. When thunderf00t regularly appears on the show, he and all his ideas and perspectives are given the 'LoR stamp of approval' precisely because it was by the initiative of LoR affiliates that put him there on the show. He otherwise has no business there.

We didn't pick him, there was no show of hands. Whoever is on the show is there because they were invited by AW or someone else involved with the shows running. He's not an honoured anything or remotely an icon. He knows science, that it. As I said there are other who can do what he does just as well, it's not something we have control over, you need to take it up with AW.

When thunderf00t regularly appears on the show, he and all his ideas and perspectives are given the 'LoR stamp of approval' precisely because it was by the initiative of LoR affiliates that put him there on the show. He otherwise has no business there.

That's patently untrue. Just because he's on the show that doesn't automatically follow that everything he says is endorsed by the panel, the show or by us. And to be honest why shouldn't he be on the show? Because a few people on youtube got a little pissed of with something he said? So? Many of us did too but unlike the ones throwing toys from the pram we can seperate his bullshit DMD tirades from his knowledge of science, which as I have repeatedly said, is the reason he's on the show. I personally don't think he's a good at getting all theological, I much prefer him sticking to science but it's not my call, it's AW's. If he wants TF on the show then that's his call. If people want to make generalisations about the rest of us, or to assume everything he says has LoR backing outside of the show then to be honest I have no time for that level of dumb.

If you came across a Christian talkshow and an unaffiliated (one who otherwise has no business on the show whatsoever) Christian holocaust denier or YEC was frequently invited to speak on the show, would you simply think 'to each opinion his own' or would you conclude that they were endorsing his ideas and perspectives?

I'd conclude he was there for a reason. I'd ask questions, I'd find out the why, what, who and where of the situation before I made any kind of judgement. What I wouldn't do is assume such crap was the mentality of everyone on that perticular show unless then specifically agreed with the idiot.

This, I believe, it what OP was driving at. Thunderf00t did not have any LoR relevance, but LoR gave Thunderf00t LoR relevance.

The LoR gave him nothing, he was an established commentator on youtube before the LoR even existed. It's through TF that I leaned of AW, AronRa and subsequently DonExodus, ExtantDodo....etc. He was relevent to scientific debate before this was here, that he chose to make a few questionble videos doesn't change that.

LoR failed to offer the proper criticism normally offered to any other patron on this website. In a sense, Thunderf00t did get a free pass, but its for precicely the opposite reason of what ImprobableJoe suggests.

Proper criticism? Define proper. He's been criticised on this forum by many people who the DMD videos, he by no means got a free pass. He was called on it both on here and in private by AW. So there was no sponsored LoR youtube video calling him out, why would there need to be when members of this forum and AW had called him out.

Again, I have to reiterate, just because it wasn't splashed all over youtube doesn't mean it didn't happen.

 

[UNFFwildcard]

The BlogTV is controlled by AndromedasWake. Not LOR. AndromedasWake. AW is not LOR.

>If you came across a Christian talkshow and an unaffiliated (one who otherwise has no business on the show whatsoever) Christian holocaust denier or YEC was frequently invited to speak on the show, would you simply think 'to each opinion his own' or would you conclude that they were endorsing his ideas and perspectives?

I can only talk for myself here. I have seen Glenn Beck reguarly on Bill O'reilly's show, and I don't think that Bill O' holds as many whackjob ideas as Beck.

If The BlogTV show is a separate entity from LoR and is run privately by AndromedasWake, then why the hell is it called "The League of Reason Show" with the brain-bulb icon over all of the YouTube BlogTV audio samples? Furthermore, it seems that everyone - including Thunderf00t - is interpreting the LoR show as a product of the LoR. After typing "Leage of reason show' into the YouTube searchbar, the first video that comes up is a Thunderf00t video from 2 months ago. The first line in the video description reads:

"The League of Reason [emphasis mine] have been prompted into starting a call in show. "

If LoR show is a product of the LoR, then my prior post still applies. If it is not, then why does it seem that everyone treats it otherwise? If it is truly an independent enterprise run by AW, then this is something that AW is going to have to clearly communicate to everyone.

 

[UNFFwildcard]

I understand that many people here to not consider TF as a LoR patron as he does not post anything here. But if people here really do consider Thunderf00t as irrelevant or inconsequential to LoR, why is he on the LoR show? If LoR people really didn't give a shit about Thunderf00t as ImprobableJoe suggests, why is he allowed on a LoR-sponsored show?

Because he's a good communicator of science. That's pretty much it, though he's not essential to the show. There are many who could take his place, Potholer54, NonStampCollector, Th1sWasATriumph, djarm67....etc. Just because he is on the show doesn't mean he's essential. He was invinted by AW or Dpr or whoever, that's why. It's not like we all voted.

We didn't pick him, there was no show of hands. Whoever is on the show is there because they were invited by AW or someone else involved with the shows running. He's not an honoured anything or remotely an icon. He knows science, that it. As I said there are other who can do what he does just as well, it's not something we have control over, you need to take it up with AW.

Thunderf00t certainly is a good communicator of science. But let me remind you that not voting for TF's presence does not absolve you of whatever association you and everyone else in the LoR now have with him. AW created the show under the LoR banner, and he invited TF on behalf of the LoR.

When thunderf00t regularly appears on the show, he and all his ideas and perspectives are given the 'LoR stamp of approval' precisely because it was by the initiative of LoR affiliates that put him there on the show. He otherwise has no business there.

That's patently untrue. Just because he's on the show that doesn't automatically follow that everything he says is endorsed by the panel, the show or by us. And to be honest why shouldn't he be on the show? Because a few people on youtube got a little pissed of with something he said? So? Many of us did too but unlike the ones throwing toys from the pram we can seperate his bullshit DMD tirades from his knowledge of science, which as I have repeatedly said, is the reason he's on the show. I personally don't think he's a good at getting all theological, I much prefer him sticking to science but it's not my call, it's AW's. If he wants TF on the show then that's his call. If people want to make generalisations about the rest of us, or to assume everything he says has LoR backing outside of the show then to be honest I have no time for that level of dumb.

No, I'm not suggesting that Thunderf00t be kicked off the show. The LoR is free to have anyone they want on there, and I do believe that he is a good contribution due to his scientific prowess. I just wish to emphasize that how others percieve things is a vital thing to consider. Have you ever watched my DMD related video titled 'Draw Mohammad Day: A Pyhrric Victory for Free Speech?'?

If LoR show is not actually a LoR product (as I disputed in the above post), then AW needs to emphasize that clearly. And it must also be emphasized clearly that the opinions of the LoR show guests are exclusively those of the guests.

LoR failed to offer the proper criticism normally offered to any other patron on this website. In a sense, Thunderf00t did get a free pass, but its for precicely the opposite reason of what ImprobableJoe suggests.

Proper criticism? Define proper. He's been criticised on this forum by many people who the DMD videos, he by no means got a free pass. He was called on it both on here and in private by AW. So there was no sponsored LoR youtube video calling him out, why would there need to be when members of this forum and AW had called him out.

Again, I have to reiterate, just because it wasn't splashed all over youtube doesn't mean it didn't happen.

I'll concede this last point as we'll simply be arguing over subjectivites.

 

[Gnug215]

UNFFwildcard, my previous post was a bit too long, so I'll it short this time.

First off, there is the disagreement as to the gravity of TF's erorrs.
You would agree that if he wasn't in error, he doesn't need to be corrected/criticised, right?
(I'm not saying he didn't.)
And if he did make a mistake, that mistake will be perceived differently in terms of gravity by different people, right?
(I don't think most people here think he did something all that horrible - more like something stupid, and that stupidity was outside his usual area of expertise, and subsequently also outside of the area that presumably is the reason why most people are subbed to him.)

Second, I'm still not sure what kind of reaction you're looking for.

Third, I think you're presenting TF's presence on the LoR show in rather rigid terms. Again, LoR isn't a company or organization, so the fact that he's on the panel doesn't necessarily mean that LoR, all of LoR, then 100% approves of TF and everything he does and has done.

 

[australopithecus]

Thunderf00t certainly is a good communicator of science. But let me remind you that not voting for TF's presence does not absolve you of whatever association you and everyone else in the LoR now have with him. AW created the show under the LoR banner, and he invited TF on behalf of the LoR.

That's the point there is no 'on the behalf of the LoR'. This is just a forum we turn up and post in, aside from that fact there is no collective, AW cannot do anything on our behalf because we are not a collective entity, we're just a bunch of people posting on a forum. We may agree on some things, we disagree on others. We can't be spoken for as a whole.

No, I'm not suggesting that Thunderf00t be kicked off the show. The LoR is free to have anyone they want on there, and I do believe that he is a good contribution due to his scientific prowess. I just wish to emphasize that how others percieve things is a vital thing to consider. Have you ever watched my DMD related video titled 'Draw Mohammad Day: A Pyhrric Victory for Free Speech?'?

How others perceive things only matters to those people. We can't or shouldn't be held hostage to every fallacious conclusion that people dream up. I just watched your video, and I tend to agree that DMD was a such a victory, mostly because for every person like myself who entered into the day with non-offensive images on Mohammed, there were 100 trolls seriously trying to cause shit. And I can see how TF's videos would be seen as very antagonistic, but the fact remains people on this forum called him on it, and if anyone wants to criticise us for something he did while ignoring our criticisms then they're the ones at fault, not us.

If LoR show is not actually a LoR product (as I disputed in the above post), then AW needs to emphasize that clearly. And it must also be emphasized clearly that the opinions of the LoR show guests are exclusively those of the guests.

Why? So people with more teeth than brain cells don't leap to false conclusions? AW shouldn't need to spell everything out in 6ft high neon letters just so people 'get it'.

 

[Atomicnumber86]

>If The BlogTV show is a separate entity from LoR and is run privately by AndromedasWake, then why the hell is it called "The League of Reason Show"

Because Randomatheistsandfreethinkerslumpedtogetherbyandromedaswake is a bit long, to be honest.

The blogtv is to highlight the site, by pulling in big players. Such as Thunderf00t. Does that mean that he is part of this? I once mirrored a video for a new place for the former dawkins forum users to go to, does this mean that I am in fact member or spokesperson? Or even a representetive?

>samples? Furthermore, it seems that everyone - including Thunderf00t - is interpreting the LoR show as a product of the LoR. After typing "Leage of reason show' into the YouTube searchbar, the first video that comes up is a Thunderf00t video from 2 months ago. The first line in the video description reads

Really? So Youtube favorites and ranks highprofile users higher than other people? What a shock, I was lucky I was sitting down, else I might have hurt my back, in sheer suprise over this revelation.

In the video you mention, do TF at anytime claim he is a member of LOR? Do he ever claim he speaks on behalf of LOR?

>If LoR show is a product of the LoR, then my prior post still applies. If it is not, then why does it seem that everyone treats it otherwise? If it is truly an independent enterprise run by AW, then this is something that AW is going to have to clearly communicate to everyone.

Yeah, it is nice to set up the rules, so you win either way isn't it?

With prior post, I assume you refer to "This, I believe, it what OP was driving at. Thunderf00t did not have any LoR relevance, but LoR gave Thunderf00t LoR relevance. In return, LoR failed to offer the proper criticism normally offered to any other patron on this website. In a sense, Thunderf00t did get a free pass, but its for precicely the opposite reason of what ImprobableJoe suggests."

Is LoRBlogTV a product of LoR... I would say no. Since some of the chatregulars, had thought of a similar idea, just only with "pure" LoR members. Mostly themselves. I don't know, how AW got the idea, or even if he is the person behind it. He might even have seen it in the chat. Would you agree to the point, that if LoR never existed, the same setup on BlogTV would be possible? In fact even likely to occur? Or is it just possible because LoR exists?

How should I know, why people treat it as it is part of LoR? I have my own theory, which involves people stupid.

What exactly should he say to EVERYONE? Should he say, this is not the regular LoR users. In fact it is members I have gathered due to their fame?

 

[UNFFwildcard]

UNFFwildcard, my previous post was a bit too long, so I'll it short this time.

First off, there is the disagreement as to the gravity of TF's erorrs.
You would agree that if he wasn't in error, he doesn't need to be corrected/criticised, right?
(I'm not saying he didn't.)
And if he did make a mistake, that mistake will be perceived differently in terms of gravity by different people, right?
(I don't think most people here think he did something all that horrible - more like something stupid, and that stupidity was outside his usual area of expertise, and subsequently also outside of the area that presumably is the reason why most people are subbed to him.)

Second, I'm still not sure what kind of reaction you're looking for.

Third, I think you're presenting TF's presence on the LoR show in rather rigid terms. Again, LoR isn't a company or organization, so the fact that he's on the panel doesn't necessarily mean that LoR, all of LoR, then 100% approves of TF and everything he does and has done.

I agree with you that there is disagreement as to the gravity of TF's errors. I personally found his behaviour so grevious that it warranted posted several videos on the subject. I also agree with you that whatever mistakes he did percieve (if any) will be weighted differently by different people.

To answer your second point, I did not come here to demand or request any specific action whatsoever against TF.
Let me sum up what I have been saying. What I stated is that it is a necessity - not a responsibility per se - that other atheists criticize Thunderf00t (or anyone else for that matter) as the consequences to what TF says are not merely their own. Atheists may like to percieve themselves as cats and recognize among themselves that 'to each opinion his own', but from the (non-atheist) external perspective, atheists are packs of dogs like the rest of us who live in hierarchies and have others represent their own beliefs on their behalf. You may have heard of remarks like 'Pope Dawkins' and will reject such hierachial notions, but the simple truth is that if prominent atheists like Dawkins or Hitchens do or say something stupid, in light of public perception that does negatively reflect upon yourself even though you (atheists) think among yourselves that no one else represents you. This problem is of course compounded when atheists do try to represent other atheists WRT their beliefs, etc.

Like Dawkins or Hitchens, Thunderf00t too is percieved as having a 'flock' or 'a following', and members of this 'flock' include prominent LoR members as well as prominent YouTube atheists. Hence, for example, why there were already several criticisms directed against FactsVsReligion and DprJones allegedly for giving TF a free pass merely out of favour to him (I'm sure you can see the similarity between that and swayed Christians excusing the illicit behaviours of their favourite charlatan pastor). Therefore, when the 'flock' invite their favourite 'pastor' onto a show that he otherwise has no affiliation with, it appears that they are silently endorsing his viewpoints. This otherwise would not be a problem if they clearly emphasized that 'to each opinion his own' and also offered criticism of TF's troublesome behaviour (DMD, etc) publicly, but the problem is - as voiced by OP's 'formal' letter somewhere around the 7th page - is that the most prominent atheists (and the ones who frequent the LoR show) were silent on the matter. While stern criticism of TF's behaviour came from lesser known atheists like Cimbolic or Anekantavad, the prominent YT/LoR atheists appeared silent. Hence it boils down to 'necessity, not responsibility'. I am not asking or demanding that atheists offer any such criticism to TF (or whichever atheist does whichever thing). I am merely offering the following piece of advice for your own sakes: ample criticism should be made when due. Such ample criticism is doubly necessary for Christians against their own troublemakers since they (the Christian body) do allow others to speak authoritatively on their beliefs to non-Christians and behave as a collective far more than atheists do.