The Shitstorm is back . . .

[Anachronous Rex]

Why Thunderf00t still has subscribers is totally beyond me.

In fairness, he was more fun when he had science content....

 

[australopithecus]

True. He needs to stop crying about Islam and people who say he has crap clothes and start making more videos on science and creationist pwnage.

 

[MRaverz]

Why Thunderf00t still has subscribers is totally beyond me.

In fairness, he was more fun when he had science content....

I'm still waiting for more of his 'in the lab' stuff, that stuff was epic.

 

[Amerist]

Why Thunderf00t still has subscribers is totally beyond me.

It's mostly because he generated one of the best pwnage video series vs Creationism ever with "Why Do People Laugh at Creationists". Certainly YouTUBE runs on drama and the pwnage of stupid anti-science nonsense fueled more than enough drama to get gossip gigglers interested and it contained enough educational value and gimmicky flash for the skeptical crowd. He also targeted the primary worst offenders in the anti-science crowd on YouTUBE.

His more recent videos, which center on Islam, take a totally different bent. They're more political, emotional, and demagogic and this isn't what made him popular initially.

However, it may well keep him fairly popular because the masses like to see people getting in fights. The gossip-giggle type of YOUtube user far outstrips the type who want to feel vindicated that people spouting anti-science nonsense are getting taken down a peg. A personal bitching contest between Tf00t and Dawah will keep them satisfied (and draw more moths to the flame) even while it bores the rest of us while we wait for more science pwnage. :|

 

[Prolescum]

stuff

I used the word still on purpose, mainly because I don't require a history lesson. Jim Davidson may have made some people laugh in the seventies, doesn't change the fact that he's a bigot and casual racist and receives no respect from me for that reason. If you're willing to forgo Thunderf00t's fuckwitted stance on Islam just because he made some good videos on a non-inflammatory subject, well, that says more about your thinking processes than I'm sure you intended to express.

Edit: Before anyone gets pissy, I'm not insinuating that if you are a sub of Thunderf00t you're a racist or a bigot or anything else, just further from a critical thinker than many here purport to be.

 

[borrofburi]

stuff

I used the word still on purpose, mainly because I don't require a history lesson. Jim Davidson may have made some people laugh in the seventies, doesn't change the fact that he's a bigot and casual racist and receives no respect from me for that reason. If you're willing to forgo Thunderf00t's fuckwitted stance on Islam just because he made some good videos on a non-inflammatory subject, well, that says more about your thinking processes than I'm sure you intended to express.

Edit: Before anyone gets pissy, I'm not insinuating that if you are a sub of Thunderf00t you're a racist or a bigot or anything else, just further from a critical thinker than most here purport to be.

Meh... I sub to tfoot. Haven't watched a vid in a long time. I keep waiting for his next science video.

 

[monitoradiation]

If you're willing to forgo Thunderf00t's fuckwitted stance on Islam just because he made some good videos on a non-inflammatory subject, well, that says more about your thinking processes than I'm sure you intended to express.

I don't understand this part at all.

I havent unsubscribed to tf00t because I'd like to see any further science videos he's going to make. I forgo his stance on islam because I don't think its relevant and frankly it's stupid to even do anything against him because of it. I don't have to unsubscribe to a channel that at times express opinions that are contrary to my own, or even if they said something dumb. What are you, someone who cannot stand to hear someone disagreeing with you?

I am perfectly fine with being subscribed to someone's channel when I have no respect for their stance on islam, or even their person as a whole. I'm subscribed because of the content of the channel, not because of their person. I can be subscribed to ShockofGod, even though I hate his guts, just that his videos were always garbage and has a clear lack of content that I don't subscribe.

To take your comedian analogy (though I'm unfamiliar with Jim Davidson), I watch Bill Maher from time to time. I think he's funny, he's got some good points, even though I think he's crazy as an anti-vaxer and he's a bit self-congratulatory. I don't totally shun him or refuse to watch his stuff because of his stance on vaccination. His show does have merit when he's not doing his anti-vax thing and I generally enjoy his show. So I watch it.

You're basically saying a single dumb idea from a person is enough to invalidate his entire channel. Fine. I guess that also says more about your thinking processes than I'm sure you intended to express.

 

[Prolescum]

I used the word still on purpose, mainly because I don't require a history lesson. Jim Davidson may have made some people laugh in the seventies, doesn't change the fact that he's a bigot and casual racist and receives no respect from me for that reason. If you're willing to forgo Thunderf00t's fuckwitted stance on Islam just because he made some good videos on a non-inflammatory subject, well, that says more about your thinking processes than I'm sure you intended to express.

Edit: Before anyone gets pissy, I'm not insinuating that if you are a sub of Thunderf00t you're a racist or a bigot or anything else, just further from a critical thinker than most here purport to be.

Meh... I sub to tfoot. Haven't watched a vid in a long time. I keep waiting for his next science video.

To be completely blunt, and meaning nothing more than what I say, I'm not surprised. I've seen quite a few of your posts that begin with something along the lines of 'I haven't bothered to read the whole thread, but...'. Meh is just about right on the Goldilocks scale.

I don't understand this part at all.

I havent unsubscribed to tf00t because I'd like to see any further science videos he's going to make. I forgo his stance on islam because I don't think its relevant and frankly it's stupid to even do anything against him because of it. I don't have to unsubscribe to a channel that at times express opinions that are contrary to my own, or even if they said something dumb. What are you, someone who cannot stand to hear someone disagreeing with you?

I am perfectly fine with being subscribed to someone's channel when I have no respect for their stance on islam, or even their person as a whole. I'm subscribed because of the content of the channel, not because of their person. I can be subscribed to ShockofGod, even though I hate his guts, just that his videos were always garbage and has a clear lack of content that I don't subscribe.

To take your comedian analogy (though I'm unfamiliar with Jim Davidson), I watch Bill Maher from time to time. I think he's funny, he's got some good points, even though I think he's crazy as an anti-vaxer and he's a bit self-congratulatory. I don't totally shun him or refuse to watch his stuff because of his stance on vaccination. His show does have merit when he's not doing his anti-vax thing and I generally enjoy his show. So I watch it.

You're basically saying a single dumb idea from a person is enough to invalidate his entire channel. Fine. I guess that also says more about your thinking processes than I'm sure you intended to express.

My thought processes are always as clear as I can make them, I try not to bother to hide behind hyperbole whenever possible. Actually, 'subbing', as far as I'm concerned, is support. It is used to keep track of people you want to watch, sure, but it's the same as buying Cinnamon Grahams; you might want to eat them because in the past you've liked them, they might still be great, but do you want to support the continued availability of Cinnamon Grahams when it's owned and manufactured by Nestle, a serial (yeah, I saw that gag and left it alone) abuser of the third world?

Just in case that analogy isn't clear, Cinnamon Grahams = cool science videos : Nestle = bigotry.

 

[borrofburi]

To be completely blunt, and meaning nothing more than what I say, I'm not surprised. I've seen quite a few of your posts that begin with something along the lines of 'I haven't bothered to read the whole thread, but...'. Meh is just about right on the Goldilocks scale.

Sounds like you're awfully judgmental off small fractions of people's works.

 

[australopithecus]

I'm still subbed to f00t because occasionally he still posts videos that are actually educational. His stance of Islam may be fuckwitted but the objective scientific knowledge he presents (though less frequently) is no less valid because of his opinions of Islam. If Jim Davidson was qualified enough to teach me things about physics and biology that I didn't know then I'd listen when he told me. Just don't expect me to laugh at the bigoted arsehole.

 

[Prolescum]

Sounds like you're awfully judgmental off small fractions of people's works.

Were they few and far between, I probably wouldn't have noticed. I meant that I don't expect you to concern yourself with others' views. With respect to the Thunderf00t issue, it's really as simple as a hypocrite who should know better; instead of a mea culpa, or a valid affirmation of his views, he whitewashed. Is this the kind of person you want teaching anything?

I'm still subbed to f00t because occasionally he still posts videos that are actually educational. His stance of Islam may be fuckwitted but the objective scientific knowledge he presents (though less frequently) is no less valid because of his opinions of Islam. If Jim Davidson was qualified enough to teach me things about physics and biology that I didn't know then I'd listen when he told me. Just don't expect me to laugh at the bigoted arsehole.

Let me put it another way then. Since his rabid, irrational prejudice against Muslims became apparent, have others wondered about his views on other topics? It is clear that his distaste for Islam has led to some unhinged reactions and worse still, the very things he accuses others of.
The question, to me, is why should I even bother listening if I can't trust that the source has a) integrity and b) respectable, rational values?

He sells himself as a rational free thinker, yet makes passive threats toward an entire generalised swathe of people. Not someone I want to associate with, and like I said in my first post in this thread, find it quite boggling that some do, although I can understand apathy. What I'm saying is that the history of material argument doesn't really convince me in this case; he's not the only one doing science videos.

 

[australopithecus]

Let me put it another way then. Since his rabid, irrational prejudice against Muslims became apparent, have others wondered about his views on other topics? It is clear that his distaste for Islam has led to some unhinged reactions and worse still, the very things he accuses others of.
The question, to me, is why should I even bother listening if I can't trust that the source has a) integrity and b) respectable, rational values?

I have found myself wondering if he can be this emotional about Islam then potentially he can be biased in other areas. But with regards to the data he imparts with regards to science, that can be double checked and varified. His dickish behaviour towards islam of late however is totally subjective with no reasonable support. It's hard to present evidence against creatonism that can't be checked to make sure he's not talking bollocks. You can't do that with appeals to emotion.

If he were to sit me down and try to really explain, say, quantum electrodynamics to me then I wouldn't be sitting there thinking "Is he making this up", because as far as his science goes he's always been on the ball. His views on Islam don't change my opinion on his ability to impart scientific knowledge, for me at least.

He sells himself as a rational free thinker, yet makes passive threats toward an entire generalised swathe of people. Not someone I want to associate with, and like I said in my first post in this thread, find it quite boggling that some do, although I can understand apathy. What I'm saying is that the history of material argument doesn't really convince me in this case; he's not the only one doing science videos.

...and if he keeps up the childish bullshit continually I probably will unsub. But then I don't see subbing/unsubbing as a meaningful act. It's like 'defriending' someone on facebook...who cares? It's a useless act. Actually engaging with him with words and calling him on his bullshit, that's meaningful (somewhat). If I am to unsub it's because he's not making the videos I subbed to him for, nt because I disagree with what he says. Hell, I was subbed to VFX for a while to see what crap he was spouting this week.

 

[borrofburi]

Sounds like you're awfully judgmental off small fractions of people's works.

Were they few and far between, I probably wouldn't have noticed. I meant that I don't expect you to concern yourself with others' views. With respect to the Thunderf00t issue, it's really as simple as a hypocrite who should know better; instead of a mea culpa, or a valid affirmation of his views, he whitewashed. Is this the kind of person you want teaching anything?

I think australopithecus already said everything I wanted to say... But I would ask clarification on two things: what does "they" refer to in the first sentence, and how did "he whitewash"?

Oh, and I guess a major point of "disagreement" is simply that I don't see subscribing or unsubscribing as that major of an act. You see it as "endorsement", but I don't think I really share that viewpoint.

 

[Prolescum]

Let me put it another way then. Since his rabid, irrational prejudice against Muslims became apparent, have others wondered about his views on other topics? It is clear that his distaste for Islam has led to some unhinged reactions and worse still, the very things he accuses others of.
The question, to me, is why should I even bother listening if I can't trust that the source has a) integrity and b) respectable, rational values?

I have found myself wondering if he can be this emotional about Islam then potentially he can be biased in other areas. But with regards to the data he imparts with regards to science, that can be double checked and varified. His dickish behaviour towards islam of late however is totally subjective with no reasonable support. It's hard to present evidence against creatonism that can't be checked to make sure he's not talking bollocks. You can't do that with appeals to emotion.

If he were to sit me down and try to really explain, say, quantum electrodynamics to me then I wouldn't be sitting there thinking "Is he making this up", because as far as his science goes he's always been on the ball. His views on Islam don't change my opinion on his ability to impart scientific knowledge, for me at least.

Fair enough, but for me it's the same as the reason I pay for the Guardian* but would only pick up the Telegraph if it was on the train; I can't trust the content controller and quite literally don't have the time to check a variety of other outlets just to make sure. I shouldn't have to, and that's pretty much the point. Even making a mistake is fine if you accept it and learn something.

*The Guardian is the only paper with a specific editor for corrections and clarifications IIRC.

He sells himself as a rational free thinker, yet makes passive threats toward an entire generalised swathe of people. Not someone I want to associate with, and like I said in my first post in this thread, find it quite boggling that some do, although I can understand apathy. What I'm saying is that the history of material argument doesn't really convince me in this case; he's not the only one doing science videos.

...and if he keeps up the childish bullshit continually I probably will unsub. But then I don't see subbing/unsubbing as a meaningful act. It's like 'defriending' someone on facebook...who cares? It's a useless act. Actually engaging with him with words and calling him on his bullshit, that's meaningful (somewhat). If I am to unsub it's because he's not making the videos I subbed to him for, nt because I disagree with what he says. Hell, I was subbed to VFX for a while to see what crap he was spouting this week.

Sure.

I seem to recall Coughlin616 attempted to engage Thunderf00t on the matter and received a barrage of abuse for his troubles, though.

 

[monitoradiation]

My thought processes are always as clear as I can make them, I try not to bother to hide behind hyperbole whenever possible. Actually, 'subbing', as far as I'm concerned, is support. It is used to keep track of people you want to watch, sure, but it's the same as buying Cinnamon Grahams; you might want to eat them because in the past you've liked them, they might still be great, but do you want to support the continued availability of Cinnamon Grahams when it's owned and manufactured by Nestle, a serial (yeah, I saw that gag and left it alone) abuser of the third world?

Just in case that analogy isn't clear, Cinnamon Grahams = cool science videos : Nestle = bigotry.

Actually, 'subbing', is NOT the same as support. You got it kinda backwards. If I support someone, yes I'll sub to them. But If I sub to them, it doesn't mean that I support them.

I was subbed to VFX for a long time when that stuff was going down without a bit of support for his actions nor his character.

Whether or not VFX (or in your case, say... Nestle) can claim that the number of subscribers is how many people that support their work is their own perogative. I would call them out on that BS if they were to say that, however.

Secondly, your analogy is inept. The reason why I would want to not buy Cinnamon Grahams based on the actions of Nestle is actually because of financial motives that Nestle has to exploit the third world (though I've not been informed about this, but for the sake of argument let's go with it. Substitute it with... Oh, Iono, Nike). What they're doing in the third world country enhance their profit margin, and thus by giving them profit, you're incentivizing their exploitation. Therefore, a boycott on Cinnamon Grahams is to deny the reward that they seek, thus sending a message that their buyers don't want exploitation.

When you equivocate that to the scenario described here, I can roughly equivocate three things here.

Bigotry = exploiting third world countries
Subs = financial incentive
Science videos = Cinnamon grahams

What you're saying is that tf00t is making bigotted videos so he can more effectively make science videos that give him subs, which is what he wants. Ie tf00t is sub-seeking.

Edit: last sentence.

 

[Prolescum]

Were they few and far between, I probably wouldn't have noticed. I meant that I don't expect you to concern yourself with others' views. With respect to the Thunderf00t issue, it's really as simple as a hypocrite who should know better; instead of a mea culpa, or a valid affirmation of his views, he whitewashed. Is this the kind of person you want teaching anything?

I think australopithecus already said everything I wanted to say... But I would ask clarification on two things: what does "they" refer to in the first sentence, and how did "he whitewash"?

Oh, and I guess a major point of "disagreement" is simply that I don't see subscribing or unsubscribing as that major of an act. You see it as "endorsement", but I don't think I really share that viewpoint.

'They' refers to your posts. I think I gave an example of your other question in my last post at the bottom.

 

[Prolescum]

My thought processes are always as clear as I can make them, I try not to bother to hide behind hyperbole whenever possible. Actually, 'subbing', as far as I'm concerned, is support. It is used to keep track of people you want to watch, sure, but it's the same as buying Cinnamon Grahams; you might want to eat them because in the past you've liked them, they might still be great, but do you want to support the continued availability of Cinnamon Grahams when it's owned and manufactured by Nestle, a serial (yeah, I saw that gag and left it alone) abuser of the third world?

Just in case that analogy isn't clear, Cinnamon Grahams = cool science videos : Nestle = bigotry.

Actually, 'subbing', is NOT the same as support. You got it kinda backwards. If I support someone, yes I'll sub to them. But If I sub to them, it doesn't mean that I support them.

I'll repeat what I said, because I think you missed the important bit.

Actually, 'subbing', as far as I'm concerned, is support.

Secondly, your analogy is inept. The reason why I would want to not buy Cinnamon Grahams based on the actions of Nestle is actually because of financial motives that Nestle has to exploit the third world (though I've not been informed about this, but for the sake of argument let's go with it. Substitute it with... Oh, Iono, Nike). What they're doing in the third world country enhance their profit margin, and thus by giving them profit, you're incentivizing their exploitation. Therefore, a boycott on Cinnamon Grahams is to deny the reward that they seek, thus sending a message that their buyers don't want exploitation.

When you equivocate that to the scenario described here, I can roughly equivocate three things here.

Bigotry = exploiting third world countries
Subs = financial incentive
Science videos = Cinnamon grahams

What you're saying is that tf00t is making bigotted videos so he can continue to make science videos because he needs the subs to keep making science videos. That does not compute.

Right, the analogy was sloppy. Mea culpa. Not difficult to do, really. Thunderf00t doesn't even see, or want to see, that he's being a hypocrite or bigoted or... wrong.

As a comical fundie once put it, 'I don't listen to weak men'.

 

[borrofburi]

Were they few and far between, I probably wouldn't have noticed. I meant that I don't expect you to concern yourself with others' views. With respect to the Thunderf00t issue, it's really as simple as a hypocrite who should know better; instead of a mea culpa, or a valid affirmation of his views, he whitewashed. Is this the kind of person you want teaching anything?

I think australopithecus already said everything I wanted to say... But I would ask clarification on two things: what does "they" refer to in the first sentence, and how did "he whitewash"?

'They' refers to your posts. I think I gave an example of your other question in my last post at the bottom.

"whitewash" translates to "large barrage of abuse"?

I can think of about... 3 posts in which I haven't read the whole thread and explicitly declared it... But let's be charitable and say it was 10 posts... I have... holy shit... well anyway, I have over 2300 posts on this forum... So basically less than 0.4% of my posts; fits my definition of "few". Though I grant you they weren't "far between", iirc they were clustered around a busy week or two... Still, hardly seems noteworthy, and not really worth basing an entire character judgment on...

 

[lrkun]

I still enjoy TF's videos. I guess, I'm really biased in his favor. I mean, atleast in a way, he is fighting for what he thinks is right. Sure, we may not agree with him, nor in how he does it, nor in a manner of whom he picks on, but hey, that's part of the program.

One thing we can do is probably inform him that we would like to view things on a certain topic. However, that doesn't mean we can petition to control that which we want him to make as a video. As far as I am concerned, the constant theme of TF has always been in favor of education and science, in contrast, he has videos in which he made, which is about religion and points out near well to do arguments and shows why it is not good.

Of course, we may argue that it is wrong to criticize others. Delicadesa, or something, I don't know the english term for it. I say, we need to criticize others if we can, especially if it can lead to a better change. Making fun of others is somewhat bullying, but sometimes, it can be more effective than a number of arguments. For example, if a person will tell you, pray to Jesus and you will be reborn. If you are knowledgeable, will you state the reasons why he is wrong? Or just laugh at him then move on? The latter is a good way, though a fallacy. Then when asked why you laugh, you can always give a reason. Both are best used together. Ex. WDPLAC videos of TF. Science + humor.

Maybe, it's because of the ongoing fear of offending others that some of the fearless folks no longer do so. Maybe, it's also because of the plathora of dmca being filed. Maybe, because of politics. Who knows, there are a lot of reasons why people change their opinion of TF.

What do you think?

 

[monitoradiation]

I guess we here mostly agree that tf00t was at his best doing science videos. I do think it's kind of pointless to talk about subscribing vs unsubscribing.

Due to the lack of common targets, it'd seem strained to have tf00t make attack vids like he likes to do. Although I don't know his specific specialty, I would love to see more videos addressing what that is and what he can help us understand better without having to get a degree.

Like AronRa, after his Foundational Falsehoods series he's done some interesting videos on paleontology and how cladograms work. I don't think I learned a whole bunch as a lot of that went over my head, I at least learned something new and know where to go if I needed more information.

Heck, I'd totally support tf00t if he were to do a "visit a skeptics" series, where, if he's going somewhere, he makes a video about visiting the local prominent skeptic/scientist. That'd be wonderful.