Which is worse? Christian Reason, Feminism, Islam, Scientology or Guy Fawkes Mask wearing? - General

[QUOTE=Last or First;44742238]Women being treated fairly: just as bad as a cult Awkward, cringey masks: just as bad as a cult What's with his hate boner for Rebecca Watson? It's like she dumped him and he never got over it or something.[/QUOTE] Asshole cornered her in an elevator and asked her back to his room for a 'bit of coffee'(insert Grand Theft Auto joke here). Understandably, she was slight unnerved at some twerp trying to preposition her in place where she couldn't leave in a hurry if he went super saiyan after being turned down. Some twerps lost their shit after being told it's an asshole thing to do to harass folks in elevators.

Facepunch gets angry at Thunderfoot again! Surprising.

Holy shit, his neck is like a meat pillar, does he go to the gym and exclusively lift weights with his neck?

[QUOTE=OHNOES;44749838]Holy shit, his neck is like a meat pillar, does he go to the gym and exclusively lift weights with his neck?[/QUOTE] He does starting strength plus gallon of milk everyday.

[QUOTE=seano12;44749795]Facepunch gets angry at Thunderfoot again! Surprising.[/QUOTE] Thunderfoot posts a dumb video worthy of ridicule again. Surprising.

[QUOTE=Takuz;44749020]He's a misogynist now?, when did he say anything that could be considered as misogyny?Last time I checked, rejecting modern internet ''feminism'' doesn't constitute as misogyny.[/QUOTE] He doesn't just reject modern internet "feminism", he rejects feminism as a whole. He spends his life making videos to denounce what is essentially a progressive movement aimed at achieving gender equality. To me, that seems like misogynistic behaviour. I could go dumpster-diving in his videos for particular examples but I don't think it's necessary as they pretty much speak for themselves when it comes to blatantly chauvinistic attitudes.

What is his neck so thick for? Is it some genes passed down that are used to support a bony frill or something? Because that'd explain why his views are so old and backwards.

[QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;44747877]No. Atheism is the remarkable distinction that there is no god or spiritual force present. Agnosticism is the lack of religion, as it denotes that one is unsure. I get that you stipulate that this is "just a layman's definition" but if I told you shit and chocolate were the same because they were both brown substances, would you go "Oh well I guess that's okay then." No, you would notice there's a glaring error. The words can be told as such by being broken down. Atheism breaks down in to "A", a prefix meaning without and "theism", the root word which denotes spirituality. Agnostic breaks down the same way with the prefix "A" meaning without, and "gnostic" being the root which is knowledge. If you are an Athiest you are comitting yourself to the belief there is not a thing. If however you're more handwringing and want to claim Agnosticism, then you cannot defend Atheism as being the lack of anything alike Agnosticism since Atheism is actually making a factual claim in concern to reality unlike Agnosticism which is only stipulating a lack of conclusive knowledge. Also neither is inherently scientific. I can unscientifically claim that when we die, there is no afterlife, and that because of that there is no god. I can do that all day long by just claiming it. I can also claim to be unsure of an afterlife because I've never contemplated such a concept, which would make me an unscientific agnostic. Neither of these beliefs have the privilege of being "thinking men's" beliefs anymore. They lie well within the realm of idiocy and madness as all public property does. Addendum: In fact Agnosticism is the only formulation of these beliefs that is actually scientific. Atheism is a belief, which is held based on the postulates that empirical science works. However empirical science is really limited in its scope of "soul measuring" and "god sensing," so an Atheist actually could not claim to scientifically disbelieve god because no god has been scientifically disproved. In the same way, Christianity is the belief that these is a paternal god who created the world, and a lot of that works because no one has disproved that yet in any conclusive way.[/QUOTE] Alright, you want to play it that way, then let's play. Agnosticism is not the lack of religion. In fact, it's not even mutually exclusive with atheism or religion. Agnosticism is a knowledge claim, saying that you don't know or are unsure. You can be agnostic atheist, where you don't believe in god and say you can't be sure of anything about the afterlife and such. You can be agnostic and religious, where you believe but you admit you aren't sure. You can be a gnostic theist, where you believe in god and it's absolutely true 'cuz the bible says it is. You can even be gnostic atheist, where you believe god and religion is just a bunch of shit and can't possibly be true. Note, in this context, gnosticism refers to 'not agnostic' or 'sure', not to the religion of Gnosticism. Now, the closest thing to what your definition of agnosticism would be is 'apatheism', which is "I don't know and I don't care". Do you go into USA political threads and say "you people are crazy, why are you all saying republicans are crazy and stupid, a republican is just someone who advocates a republic"? No, of course not, that would be fucking stupid. The layman's use of the word 'atheist' refers to an agnostic atheist (hereafter [U]A[/U]theist). Well, let me clarify. When I say "the layman's use of the word Atheism", I'm referring to what people mean when they identify themselves as Atheist, or when some people refer to others as Atheist. I am not referring to crazy people who think Atheists are Satan-worshipers who are just mad at God. About my "Atheism is inherently scientific" statement: I do admit, I got my claim backwards, so I apologize for that. What I should have said is that science is inherently Atheistic. Let me tell you how science works. It's not "we'll believe something until it's been disproved, then we'll disbelieve it". It's "we'll disbelieve something until it's been proved." Massive difference, especially with regards to religion. Sure, the former one (belief until it's been disproved) still applies, but the thing must be proved first. For instance, if someone scientific evidence for Bigfoot or something, but then later it turned out the evidence was faulty, then 'Bigfoot or something' would be disproved. That would have been scientific. (Of course I'm exaggerating the scale here so it's easier to understand: what would really happen would be faulty ice cores or inaccurate measuring devices or whatever. And proofs must be double checked and reproduced elsewhere when applicable, of course. Remember that "neutrons can go faster than light!" thing a while back?) [I]However[/I]. If someone believed in Bigfoot because "he hasn't been disproved yet" and then someone completely disproved it was possible for him to exist at all, that wouldn't have been scientific, at least not the first part. That would be superstition and stubbornness. That leads me to my next point: it's important that we make the distinction of "disbelief until proof" and "belief until disproved" with regards to religion. Why? [I]Because it's impossible to prove something like that doesn't exist[/I]. "There's no evidence for god." "Well he's just not showing himself!" "There's no evidence of Bigfoot outside of things that are easily faked, like footprints and blurry videos. No Bigfoots (Bigfeet?) have been captured." "They're just really elusive!" "There's no evidence of the Loch Ness monster, people have looked." "It swam away! Or they're all lying, covering it up!" "There's no evidence for there being a teapot floating somewhere in the asteroid belt." "Space is big, you haven't looked hard enough!" "There's no evidence for an invisible, unimaginably fast magical rhino roaming the highways." "It's [I]invisible[/I] and [I]super fast[/I], duh!" It's not scientific to believe in these things. You can't scientifically prove they 100% don't exist, due to their nature. However, science demands that you disbelieve something until you have evidence. Disbelief doesn't mean that you believe 100% it doesn't exist, but that you don't yet believe it exists. If you express disbelief that someone won the lottery, it doesn't mean that you absolutely believe it's impossible for them to win. It means that you doubt them, but would be persuaded with evidence.

that's a pretty large wall you got there

[QUOTE=Bread_Baron;44750322] to denounce what is essentially a progressive movement aimed at achieving gender equality.[/QUOTE] You do know that feminism isn't just one united movement right? Like there are some divisions and differences in beliefs that run pretty deep.

[QUOTE=Rangergxi;44753889]You do know that feminism isn't just one united movement right? Like there are some divisions and differences in beliefs that run pretty deep.[/QUOTE] Yes, as I'm sure to point out almost every thread. That's why I said "feminism as a whole". thunderf00t targets a few idiots that parade themselves as feminists and uses them to generalise feminism as one inherently bad movement.

[QUOTE=Bread_Baron;44755065]Yes, as I'm sure to point out almost every thread. That's why I said "feminism as a whole". thunderf00t targets a few idiots that parade themselves as feminists and uses them to generalise feminism as one inherently bad movement.[/QUOTE] I'm fairly sure that he only uses that for clickbait, throughout all of his feminism videos he says "not all of feminists are like this, it's is a small radical group of feminists that are like this"Also it's not that bad considering that mostly stupid retarded and radical "feminists" get the lightspot some it's not a big deal at all.

[QUOTE=Bread_Baron;44755065]few idiots that parade themselves as feminists[/QUOTE] They are actually feminists though. They also aren't exactly the fringes that live on Tumblr either.

[QUOTE=Rangergxi;44758934]They are actually feminists though. They also aren't exactly the fringes that live on Tumblr either.[/QUOTE] But admitting that stupid feminist-extremists exist might indirectly give credence to some of thunderf00ts arguments. And that would be baaaaad.

[QUOTE=Baham;44755653]I'm fairly sure that he only uses that for clickbait, throughout all of his feminism videos he says "not all of feminists are like this, it's is a small radical group of feminists that are like this"Also it's not that bad considering that mostly stupid retarded and radical "feminists" get the lightspot some it's not a big deal at all.[/QUOTE] I've passively watched/listened to a few videos of his and I didn't hear the bolded claim in any but I'll take your word for it. If you could find any that would be cool. The thing is, his attacks harm feminism as a whole and he knows it. You only have to check the comments beneath them to see the frankly retarded things people who buy into his crap say. It's a big deal because he's not concentrating on the positives of feminism, he just spends his days generalising it based on the same few idiots. He hasn't stopped to make a video and say "Easy there fellas, you're saying dumb things and that's not what I mean." Or any video praising feminism. He just keeps on attacking. For the record I don't think I'm going to convince anyone that signs up exclusively to defend thunderf00t but I'd rather these things not go unopposed. [QUOTE=Rangergxi;44758934]They are actually feminists though. They also aren't exactly the fringes that live on Tumblr either.[/QUOTE] When you say "fringes that live on Tumblr", I wouldn't call them fringes. Tumblr seems to be a hotspot for "social justice" where people get their education online and blurt out the most unfounded claims. They get too much attention and credit nowadays. It's not of course limited to feminism but that's the topic at hand. Anyway, the problem is he deals with the extremists who [I]did[/I] get a proper education and makes claims about all feminists based on them. Any idiot with a voice can claim to be a feminist so both he and they undermine all he non-hypocritical, serious people out there. The people that choose to go in the spotlight tend to be a bit loopy and don't represent all the feminist academics that just peacefully sit in their offices writing articles on literature and whatnot. I don't mean these crazies flat out aren't feminists, I'm saying they're extremely poor examples to generalise the word "feminist" with. (Also please forgive my rambling, I'm barely awake!)

it's almost as if blaming things on tumblr was always a meaningless panic button that never said anything relevant or held any kind of water in a discussion

[QUOTE=Cone;44764022]it's almost as if blaming things on tumblr was always a meaningless panic button that never said anything relevant or held any kind of water in a discussion[/QUOTE] Spoken like a true tumblrizer

None of these things matter at all. Who gives a fuck what radical idiotic "feminists" are doing or what weird awkward stupid guy Fawkes anonymous people are doing.