9 ms·

Interesting, I recognize the channel name from his toxic anti-feminist rant videos I'd seen years ago. Great that he's doing something productive now

ajuc 5y ago
He was always a scientist and also did debunking of crowdfunding projects that promised physically impossible stuff. And while I agree about his toxic tone - he has some points regarding feminism. For example his critique of Feminist Frequency podcast was on point ("in this game women can be killed therefore it's sexist" meanwhile in that same game you kill thousands of men and that's fine).
rowanG077 5y ago
This guy is toxic in everything he does. I greatly dislike him because of this. But I almost always agree with the actual points he makes.
- CRConrad 5y ago
  Does that mean you consider yourself toxic, too... Or perhaps that he actually isn't? (Genuinely asking, haven't looked at him yet. Just seems to stand to reason.)
  - buu700 5y ago
    I think he's just saying "the guy's an asshole, but he's usually not wrong". (Not agreeing or disagreeing either way, as I know nothing about Thunderf00t.)
  - rowanG077 5y ago
    I'm not sure how you are arriving at your question. What I mean is that he delivers a message that is true, but he does it in the worst possible way.
    - CRConrad 5y ago
      Idunno... I guess what I was trying to say was that if it's just the "delivery", but the actual contents are actually correct, then can that really be called "toxic"? I mean, if what he is saying is not "Black people / women / poor people are all inferior, and deserve to suffer!", but just "Hey assholes, black people / women / poor people are not inferior, and don't deserve to suffer just because they're black / women / poor!", then "toxic" doesn't feel like the right word to describe it. IMO. To me that feels like it should relate to the actual content of the message,as in "White supremacists are spreading their toxic views online" etc. But but, guess I'm just arguing semantics, YMMV, so never mind.
  - 411111111111111 5y ago
    thunderf00t is usually spot on / correct, but his videos are extremely demeaning to the people that are wrong. It gives off an extremely elitist feeling, which usually gets everyone just to double down on their opinions. He's just not actually trying to teach people why things don't work, he instead does long videos showing how dumb various people are to believe the bullshit they believe in. I wish some of the people that valued musks corps would watch some of them, as their presentations are usually pure scify that's not doable with current technology, as can be shown by literally all their product launches. (Tesla's arent going to be self driving cars. Not 3 yrs ago when he said he'd deliver it, nor anytime soon - remember how musk said each Tesla would earn their owner $30k per year? Vacuums for Hyperloops remain impossible at scale and the solar roofs are plain uneconomical, which is why they never shipped them.)
    - CRConrad 5y ago
      Ah, thanks. To get some sense of scale: If you have any experience (or anyone else who has, please chime in!), how much more down-putting is he than, say, SciManDan; how bad is he "on a SciManDan scale"? :-) An appropriate comparison IMO, seeing how Dan is also famous for debunking dumb stuff. N.B: I think Dan is pretty darn nice, even when he's being what for him is snarky. As I recall, I was much more of an arrogant a-hole myself when I was younger. (Yup, that's my exc^H^H^Hstory: I've mellowed out now, all that was only when I was young.)
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
  - CRConrad 5y ago
    Follow-up: FWIW, now that I've seen a few of his videos, he doesn't seem all that mean to me. Could be that I watched the "wrong" ones: I saw two or three of the "Why do people laugh at creationists" series, but they were very old, some 12-13 years IIRC. Maybe he's gotten meaner since? But then I also watched a couple other ones -- also not totally new, but some two, three years old I think -- and they weren't particularly "toxic" in tone either, IMO. Either I just happened to randomly miss his most typical toxic videos, or I have a very different -- higher -- threshold for what I consider toxic than you do.
kwere 5y ago
he is a feminist you know? he also like to call anita sarkessian & CO. BS
- s_dev 5y ago
  Yeah -- he called it right. After her appearance on the Colbert show she started getting in to scamming people. Which was a very odd turn that I didn't see coming at all.
  - user-the-name 5y ago
    None of that is actually true. That is, again, anti-feminist propaganda.
aitchnyu 5y ago
Yikes. I recognised him as an anti-creationist Youtuber around 2005.
- ajuc 5y ago
  He debunks a lot of stuff, but debunking feminist-gone-crazy is very controversial so now he is considered sexist :/ As a guy living in conservative country where women actually are discriminated and have to fight for their rights I find it very sad that this pseudofeminist bullshit becomes the face of the movement. It is very harmful to have a constant stream of "pacman is sexist" or "kill all men" from the west used by alt-right to point out "see this is where this whole feminism thing leads to - that's why you can't have legal abortion or civil partherships or anti-family-violence legislation". I know there are always fringe groups in every movement, my problem is that you cannot criticize them without getting a label that instantly destroys your credibility for a lot of people. It's not sustainable, eventually this will discourage people from talking about women rights at all, even in the west.
  - JeremyBanks 5y ago
    It sounds like your description of those feminists came from his videos. You should try watching them so you have a more accurate take. Anita isn't nearly as much of a radical as she's painted.
    - ajuc 5y ago
      I watched several podcasts of Anita and they were all pretty much the same. A game shows half-naked women = sexism. The same game shows half-naked men but that's ignored. A game shows tortured women = objectification. The same game shows tortured men (including by women) but that's ignored. The game allows you to kill women = sexism. The same game allows you to kill men, but that's fine. Now support us at .... In my opinion if a game worked like they want it to (you can only kill/torture and see naked men) - only then it would be sexist.
      - 5y ago

ajuc 5y ago

He was always a scientist and also did debunking of crowdfunding projects that promised physically impossible stuff. And while I agree about his toxic tone - he has some points regarding feminism. For example his critique of Feminist Frequency podcast was on point ("in this game women can be killed therefore it's sexist" meanwhile in that same game you kill thousands of men and that's fine).

rowanG077 5y ago

This guy is toxic in everything he does. I greatly dislike him because of this. But I almost always agree with the actual points he makes.

CRConrad 5y ago
Does that mean you consider yourself toxic, too... Or perhaps that he actually isn't? (Genuinely asking, haven't looked at him yet. Just seems to stand to reason.)
- buu700 5y ago
  I think he's just saying "the guy's an asshole, but he's usually not wrong". (Not agreeing or disagreeing either way, as I know nothing about Thunderf00t.)
- rowanG077 5y ago
  I'm not sure how you are arriving at your question. What I mean is that he delivers a message that is true, but he does it in the worst possible way.
  - CRConrad 5y ago
    Idunno... I guess what I was trying to say was that if it's just the "delivery", but the actual contents are actually correct, then can that really be called "toxic"? I mean, if what he is saying is not "Black people / women / poor people are all inferior, and deserve to suffer!", but just "Hey assholes, black people / women / poor people are not inferior, and don't deserve to suffer just because they're black / women / poor!", then "toxic" doesn't feel like the right word to describe it. IMO. To me that feels like it should relate to the actual content of the message,as in "White supremacists are spreading their toxic views online" etc. But but, guess I'm just arguing semantics, YMMV, so never mind.
- 411111111111111 5y ago
  thunderf00t is usually spot on / correct, but his videos are extremely demeaning to the people that are wrong. It gives off an extremely elitist feeling, which usually gets everyone just to double down on their opinions. He's just not actually trying to teach people why things don't work, he instead does long videos showing how dumb various people are to believe the bullshit they believe in. I wish some of the people that valued musks corps would watch some of them, as their presentations are usually pure scify that's not doable with current technology, as can be shown by literally all their product launches. (Tesla's arent going to be self driving cars. Not 3 yrs ago when he said he'd deliver it, nor anytime soon - remember how musk said each Tesla would earn their owner $30k per year? Vacuums for Hyperloops remain impossible at scale and the solar roofs are plain uneconomical, which is why they never shipped them.)
  - CRConrad 5y ago
    Ah, thanks. To get some sense of scale: If you have any experience (or anyone else who has, please chime in!), how much more down-putting is he than, say, SciManDan; how bad is he "on a SciManDan scale"? :-) An appropriate comparison IMO, seeing how Dan is also famous for debunking dumb stuff. N.B: I think Dan is pretty darn nice, even when he's being what for him is snarky. As I recall, I was much more of an arrogant a-hole myself when I was younger. (Yup, that's my exc^H^H^Hstory: I've mellowed out now, all that was only when I was young.)
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
- CRConrad 5y ago
  Follow-up: FWIW, now that I've seen a few of his videos, he doesn't seem all that mean to me. Could be that I watched the "wrong" ones: I saw two or three of the "Why do people laugh at creationists" series, but they were very old, some 12-13 years IIRC. Maybe he's gotten meaner since? But then I also watched a couple other ones -- also not totally new, but some two, three years old I think -- and they weren't particularly "toxic" in tone either, IMO. Either I just happened to randomly miss his most typical toxic videos, or I have a very different -- higher -- threshold for what I consider toxic than you do.

kwere 5y ago

he is a feminist you know? he also like to call anita sarkessian & CO. BS

s_dev 5y ago
Yeah -- he called it right. After her appearance on the Colbert show she started getting in to scamming people. Which was a very odd turn that I didn't see coming at all.
- user-the-name 5y ago
  None of that is actually true. That is, again, anti-feminist propaganda.

aitchnyu 5y ago

Yikes. I recognised him as an anti-creationist Youtuber around 2005.

ajuc 5y ago
He debunks a lot of stuff, but debunking feminist-gone-crazy is very controversial so now he is considered sexist :/ As a guy living in conservative country where women actually are discriminated and have to fight for their rights I find it very sad that this pseudofeminist bullshit becomes the face of the movement. It is very harmful to have a constant stream of "pacman is sexist" or "kill all men" from the west used by alt-right to point out "see this is where this whole feminism thing leads to - that's why you can't have legal abortion or civil partherships or anti-family-violence legislation". I know there are always fringe groups in every movement, my problem is that you cannot criticize them without getting a label that instantly destroys your credibility for a lot of people. It's not sustainable, eventually this will discourage people from talking about women rights at all, even in the west.
- JeremyBanks 5y ago
  It sounds like your description of those feminists came from his videos. You should try watching them so you have a more accurate take. Anita isn't nearly as much of a radical as she's painted.
  - ajuc 5y ago
    I watched several podcasts of Anita and they were all pretty much the same. A game shows half-naked women = sexism. The same game shows half-naked men but that's ignored. A game shows tortured women = objectification. The same game shows tortured men (including by women) but that's ignored. The game allows you to kill women = sexism. The same game allows you to kill men, but that's fine. Now support us at .... In my opinion if a game worked like they want it to (you can only kill/torture and see naked men) - only then it would be sexist.
    - 5y ago