I was so, so, so wrong to invite him to blog here. His latest escapade: a woman wrote a letter to his employer complaining about his assholishness, trying to get him fired*, and so he doxxed her and sent his legions of haters to ruin her business with bad reviews. And of course the scum at 8chan are excited and see blood in the water and are cheering on attempts to drive her to suicide.
These are truly terrible, awful, vile people. I’ll never forgive myself for inviting him to join us at a network that’s the antithesis of everything he stands for.
The people who have been targeted by 8chan and Thunderf00t are struggling to keep their business afloat, and have created a fundanything page to raise money, and so far they haven’t even come close to what the thundering asshole gets for every video he makes. Yeah, people suck.
*This was a bad move for a number of reasons. 1) it was going to have no effect (I speak from experience) and should have no effect, 2) his employers certainly already know that he’s an asshole, and have no problem with it, and 3) it gave him an excuse to be openly vindictive.
I’m glad I wasn’t a fan before he went off the deep end. (Pat Condell did make some videos I enjoyed though…)
PZ: in your defence, neither you or anyone else here knew quite what a raging, spiteful, pre-adolescent two-fisted wanker Mason was before his second-ever post at this network (his first post merely revealed what an amateurish writer he was – and nobody really knew about that either, knowing Mason only from Youtube).
I had stopped watching his videos a few months, maybe a year before he joined FtB as his increasingly pompous and sneering tone, his obsession with VFX and his endless dramas with other ‘tubers no longer matched what I was looking for from the atheosphere, but I still counted myself a fan and was genuinely looking forward to Mason being here and contributing. I thought maybe his written work would be more measured than his videos.
But of course I was dead wrong. We all were, so don’t beat yourself up.
We weren’t just wrong about Mason either – he wasn’t the first, the most famous and he won’t be the last atheist luminary to turn out to be a repository of bad ideas, retrograde attitudes and flat-out shitty behaviour. In fact, I think the mistake a lot of us made was to assume our fellow atheists and skeptics weren’t as likely to engage in bastardry as believers, civilians and other assorted “normals”. Turns out we were wrong about that, too.
Yep, just another misogynist bully, with fans of the same ilk. And they wonder why they are reviled by anybody with a working brain.
@Tabby
I counted myself a fan of Mason, Condell and Kincaid (TAA) at one point. I stopped watching them all at around the same time (I mostly just lost interest in their respective topics/styles), then I started to see their names discussed here and elsewhere, and before I knew it I had three brand new bigots to un-sub from. I had to wonder if they’d all been raging racist/sexist bastards the entire time I’d watched them and simply didn’t realise out of ignorance, or if they’d just been inching toward flat-out hate speech slowly enough that I didn’t notice, or if they’d all reached some tipping point after I stopped watching. I’m guessing it was the first thing.
As seen in the comments of the WHTM thread: Everyone should go to Patreon and report his account. He is clearly breaking the rules there.
From https://www.patreon.com/guidelines
While we’re all self-flagellating here, I was also a fan of Thunderf00t for a time. His was the first YouTube channel I ever subscribed to, actually. I remember him making the odd cringeworthy video (he was opposed to the “Ground Zero Mosque”) and didn’t really care for his weird obsession with VenomFangX, but I never really imagined him as the petty asshole that he turned out to be.
@sff9
This is a very good idea and I’m trying to do this right now however I’m having trouble finding a |report” button.
I gotta say that freedom is not the best metric for a moral system. It causes people to push other people’s healthy boundaries back further and further in the name of freedom. Unlimited freedom of speech including hate campaigns sort of prove my hypothesis.
Mitigation of harm is the best metric in my opinion. Which is why we aren’t done with morality when we are done with religion.
So… after “The God Delusion”, “Why Do We Laugh at Creationists” (or whatever that series was called) was my door into atheism.
And I was defending the VFX shit for a long time. I never thought anyone had an obsession with him (then). I thought he (VFX) was a criminal (he stole so much money… from a fucking children’s hospital) and someone who had an odd obsession with YouTube atheists (he even targeted me before I even knew who the hell he was… because he was trolling the comments on a video I’m pretty sure had nothing to do with him but was on one of those atheist channels, and I had commented and VFX got pretty angry at me; it was hilarious… though I can’t remember the context now) and somehow managed to make anti-evolution arguments that made “Crocoduck” seem like an almost rational anti-evolution argument.
Obviously, though, that was before ThunderDouche showed his true colors. Now, when I look back at that saga… well…
Hank Says
Eric O
RE: subscribing to Condell and Thunderf00t, I am pretty sure that this is a big club and I was a member as well. I suspect that of the possibilities Hank Says lists all are true to some extent. I remember listening to one of Condell’s podcasts while walking to the station to go to work one morning then having to replay some of it because I could not believe my ears. Looking back on it I could see with 20/20 hindsight that he was a raging bigot the entire time, it just took some time for his true colors to show in his work. And Thunderf00t was also the first YouTube channel to which I subscribed. After Mason made a rather ignorant criticism of Islam (I’m not defending any religion, only historical accuracy) he dismissed my comment without any reference to evidence. Then he did an even more atrocious Muslim-bashing video, giving me a “Pat Condell” moment yet again.
It often takes time for people to reveal themselves. No need to beat ourselves up over being deceived. It happens.
Thunderf00t after his falling off the deep end is the reason why I decided to get an add on that would block channels from my feed. For some reason youtube thinks you’d never not want to watch videos from someone you blocked.
Also, it should be noted that the last video title of Thunderf00t’s I saw was him strawmanning the treatment of Sarkeesian as “People saying mean things on the internet.” They were credible threats.
I hope his reaction to someone trying to get him fired gets him fired. ‘Twould be poetic justice.
For those who want to report him on Patreon here is the form: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1AXep3wKV1Sf_lwYcAIhKZFGrGtHXGJDk6vTlIKuiM3M/viewform
Since it’s a goole doc I’ll also add the page that points to it from the patreon website:
https://patreon.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/204914235-Where-can-I-report-a-campaign-
Still am a huge thunderf00t fan. This stiuation is laughable, not because someone may commit suicide, but because if she had never sent a letter to his employer his fans would never have retaliated against her. If you want others to be held accountable for things they have said on the internet then you better also be ready to be held accountable for the things you’ve said on the internet. Thunderf00t did not fucking arrange this, it happened as a result of his fans witnessing what happened to him. Attacking someone’s job because you don’t like what he said or what his fans are doing is vile. There is no other words for it, and in response his fans attacked her job. That’s poetic justice if I’ve ever heard it.
All the people submitting reports are god damn delusional. You have no evidence to say that he orchestrated any of this. He said what he wanted to online in the form of free speech, he never suggested that someone attack anyone. People have been slandering him and trying to ruin his livelyhood because of what he said online, which is pathetic. The new rule of the internet is “if you don’t like what someone had to say, do everything you can to try and get them to stop saying it.”, quite sad really. The internet was once a place that encouraged others to speak their mind, now all anyone wants to do is prevent others from speaking their mind.
Also inform where he is breaking the rules here?
“After creating a Patreon page, any Creator caught in the act or convicted of making credible violent threats, committing violent crimes, malicious doxing, coordinating nonviolent harm such as fraud, or encouraging others to do the aforementioned harmful activities may be banned from using Patreon.”
I don’t give a fucking shit whether you agree with what he says or not, but you’re all citing circumstances where you disagree with what he has said and not what he has done, which makes your claims little more than baseless slander.
AAutumn,
Ever wish that the people you look up to were above this horseshit?
One thing I am struck by is not only is it anything goes when it comes to seeking retribution when wronged, it also does not seem to matter who else gets hurt by it. It is a business run by a couple, and they employee 14 people. They will gleefully hurt all of those people in order to seek retribution. I suppose they will likely say they should not be working there anyway, or that they should blame her if they happen to lose their jobs.
What a vile little skidmark is Phil. I hope he gets the help he needs before he wrecks the rest of his life.
@ Pascal’s Pager, I really do. I never have had my beliefs rooted in a group mentality, and have always chose to look at things objectively. I thought that most people on here did the same, it seems I am proven wrong.
@ launcespeed, define “… wrecks his life.”. From what I am seeing he hasn’t done anything to this woman except post a clip from a video she posted, as part of a larger video where she proudly shows her name next to an email she is about to send to his employer, his local newspapers, and the police. An email with no sources, no direct quotes, nothing at all to quantify her claims. Which is leaves her claims to be no more than baseless slander, and would be considered defamation of character were it published in a newspaper. Phil never personally attacked her company, and never told anyone to attack her company. It happened because some of his viewers wanted to enact a retaliation upon her, and they did, independant of Phil.
And yet, AAutumn, Phil is not telling his followers to not do the very thing to her that they deplored when aimed at him… by a *single* person. And instead, basically gloats about it.
That is the response of a fucking asshole.
@ Rowan vet-tech, that’s subject to opinion. People will have conflicting views on whether that makes him an asshole, and as an asshole is not measurable, and has no strict or rigid set of guidelines to qualify him as such, saying that he is an asshole is pointless. It doesn’t get us anywhere by saying that. Personally, I don’t really give a shit how he responds to his viewers because they’re not his children. He’s not responsible for actions they decided to enact without his telling them to. He was attacked, and his viewers attacked back. It is no more complex than that. If he wants to point out the irony in that, then he is free to. He did not attempt to get Jennifer Keller fired from her job, he just made a video response detailing what had happened. She had at this point already made her own videos gloating prematurely about him losing his job, so by your standards she is just as much of an asshole.
The bottom line is he hasn’t broken any rules to have him banned from patreon or youtube, and attempting to do so is pointless. Its also somewhat ironic that you slam onr mob for destroying the livelihood of a representing figure, then go to organise another mob to destroy the ability to speak freely of another representing figure.
Your bias is being brought into this, and it is corrupting your opinions into nothing more than throwing insults. Look at the facts objectively before you paint a picture about what happened.
@AAtumn
He maliciously doxxed her. And yes, I have read your apologetics, and I have one a few words whose meaning you should learn: context and deduction.
In the context of his other videos and how his (and TAA) followers generally react, he no doubt deduced what happens if he doxxes her. In other words, he knew, with very high degree of confidence, what happens next.
And you seem to fail to notice, that people here agree that what she has done is wrong. You semm not to understand, that in moral mathematic two wrongs do not make right. You seem not to grasp that retribution is not justice in any usable sense of the word – in fact, retribution is one of the vestiges of religious thinking that atheists seem often carry. You seem not to get what “tu quoque” means, because you are engagin in it.
That what she has done is wrong does in no way change the fact, that what he has done is just as wrong and it had big negative splash damage impact on multiple people. He was only more skillfull in wrapping his intention in free speech “I am not telling you to harass her but here is her name, e-mail and business page, wink wink” and he has a big mob of immature idiots to hide behind.
I am always amazed when someone tries to argue that someone didn’t cause a thing, when it was a completely foreseeable consequence of their actions.
Thunderf00t doesn’t have to tell people to attack the person who got doxxed, because he knows that will happen as soon as he releases the information.
See, typically people who aren’t assholes would begin to question what they, themselves, are doing wrong if it turns out that their fans are raging assholes who are actively ruining the life of someone, and encouraging her to commit suicide. If horrible people like you, then you’re probably doing or saying something horrible.
You like someone horrible. Instead of being horrified by his horribleness, you are trying to excuse it. This makes you horrible, too. Congratulations.
@ Charly, I never implied that what he did was right. Rather I suppose my major issue with people throwing around reporting pages is that it is a pointless endeavour that is not going to get anyone anywhere. As she had initially posted the video on YouTube showing her name, with the knowledge that as YouTube is a public access website where anyone can view her videos, he’s not exactly digging into private information of hers is he? He did a google search and found her job information publically available online, with the knowledge that as it can be found in a search engine, anyone can find it. The results of this are debatable. She was never anonymous to begin with, so is identifying her by her real name a case that violates the terms and agreements of any of the websites in question? Don’t quite think so. Specifically in regards to patreon, their legal guidelines can be found hither – > https://www.patreon.com/legal.
In regards to doxxing, in section 7 (Public Areas) in their first outlined rule they handle doxxing under the category of the Personality rights of the offending parties country of origin. A quick google search later you can find that the U.S has varying Personality rights depending on what state you’re in. They do however outline four causes of action that are defining of the Personality rights in the United States -> 1) Intrusion upon physical solitude; 2) public disclosure of private facts; 3) depiction in a false light; and 4) appropriation of name and likeness. As she had already published her name attaching it to her YouTube channel, her name in reference to that account was not a private fact. As her company’s website was a publically accessible website, that also constituted a non private fact. The chaining of the two together in the course of a video was all he did.
As for your argument about context and deduction, he may have been able to deduce that by providing references to the information she has made publically available his viewers may have attempted to attack her company maliciously. It is not out of the realm of possibility that it may have happened anyway, if he had made a similar video while ommiting her name and her company, but simply stated what had happened. ( Personally, doing things that way is more in tune with my line of thinking and is something I myself would have done. ) One of his viewers could still have gone to laughing witches channel, saw the video with her name, searched her name through a search engine, and arrived at her company website anyway. After that all it takes is for a Youtube comment and Twitter post and the mob would’ve been there.
Postulating this still gets us nowhere, and does not put any more doubt on whether or not Phil has broken any terms of agreement here, just a hypothetical scenario I put forward to question from a moral standpoint whether he has done anything wrong. From this perspective, they’re both assholes who tried (or atleast willingly enabled others) to destroy each others livelihoods. Their quarrel should be confined to them (in a utopian world), and would probably settle splendidly if they sat down, had a ‘cuppa and talked settling these things outside of YouTube and Patreon. I do not believe in an eye for an eye policy of these things, and do not in any way endorse or approve of the actions his viewers took.
I fail to see how however, how attempting to have him banned from Patreon or YouTube is in line (ignoring for the moment that he hasn’t broken any of the guidelines, at least on Patreon) with this Blog’s message of free thoughts. Banning him from receiving money from people who are willing commiting themselves to those transactions is limiting his ability to conduct a part of his livelihood. The argument I am presenting is not one I am taking to discredit an oppenent’s claims, I’m just presenting that it seems peculiar that that is the method you would chose to undertake. A far more appropriate one, at least in my eyes, would be to target the offending video. So as to not limit his future ability to speak freely on his channel on YouTube. But that’s just my opinion.
@ Rowan vet-tech, I have no pre-disposition towards anyone’s guilt based upon whether I “like them” or not. I also do not find myself needing to be horrified to validate my opinions. I simply go on whether an opinion can handle scrutiny or not. My previous post covers the reasons why I do not find Phil Mason’s actions have broken any laws or legally binding agreements. I was not involved in this event, and am not trying to say nothing wrong happened, just that I do not see any actions taken by Phil that broke a law or a legally binding agreement. I like however that your best rebuttal to me is to call me horrible, thank you.
On a side note, I find no opinion preferrable to another. I respect anyone’s ability to have an opinion and rather enjoy these kinds of discussions.
AAutumn:
Your major issue is that you oppose ineffectual action against the thunderpod?
Heh.
Patreon, YouTube and memberships are all actual things, not thoughts.
(Not even necessary to thought!)
@ John Morales, I’m explaining that it irks me that people would spend their time on an endeavour that has no end result. There are better ways that one could go about this, that are more focused and more influential. My major issue is simply that it doesn’t appear logical or relevant to the issue at hand. Instead of spending time trying to stop him from having the public voice he has, mayhap it would be more effective to enact your ability of free speech on the same forum to discredit him by showing him to be malicious, and his guilt in enabling the masses to attack this woman.
As per second quote, I never suggested that they were not actual things. Only that the line of reasoning provided in the comments didn’t seem to line up with a blog title “Free Thought Blogs – Reason, Discussion, Opinion”, that is to silence a voice.
Your current stated major issue; the earliest was that any action was being advocated against a putatively innocent person, the previous was that such action would be ineffectual.
What I think is that it’s the very concept of advocating against TF that offends you — and that, the OP doesn’t do.
It can’t line up, because it’s orthogonal to it.
Perhaps you should take notice that what you imagine the title to be is not what the actual title is, and that Freethought Blogs is the site that hosts this blog, which has its own name.
@ John Morales, I definitely never formed my initial argument correctly, you’ve got me there. The rest of my arguments better fit a refutation of Phil having commited an act of doxxing. I honestly do not care about whether this was Phil, or anyone else. I will propose that someone has not commited an act they are accused of regardless of who they are, if the situation I am presented with does not fit the accusations submitted. I prefer to attempt to adopt an observer’s standpoint over one where I use respect for an individual to disregard accusations about their actions.
As per the second quote, the point itself was moot anyway. I connected FreeThoughtBlogs with FreeThought, and then to people on such an addressed webpage trying to silence an individual. I commented on this line of thought because I found it odd, not that it was significant to the argument I presented.
@AAutumn #19:
As that Supreme Court judge said about the difficulty of determining a definition of hard-core pornography in the 60s, “I know it when I see it.”
To quote David Futrelle:
I know an arsehole when I see one.
You say, “Look at the facts objectively before you paint a picture about what happened.” But all you’re doing is trying to spin a subjective interpretation to support your point of view, once you were called out on it. The fact you don’t want to face is that Thunderf00t knew full well what would happen once he unleashed his flying monkeys.
That’s two arseholes I see.
AAutumn:
Yeah, I got that. You don’t dispute it happened, but you blame his fans.
(“Who will rid me of this troublesome priest?”)
Seems to me that your very first sentence in your very first comment only makes sense if you do care, and I give that due weight.
Orthogonal.
—
So, now you’ve shared and clarified your opinion and made your case.
Fucking sea lions…
@ Rich Woods, in regards to first point, an asshole can be defined in language as an irritating or contemptible person. Not everyone finds the same things irritating or contemptible, as such calling someone an asshole doesn’t mean anything. It only says what your view of him and his actions is.
As per second point, “I definitely never formed my initial argument correctly, you’ve got me there.” (#28). I do not care whether he knew or not, not because I do not find his actions reprehensible or morally wrong, but because it’s not relevant to whether he was commiting an act against a law or legally binding regulation. If thunderf00t were to be shown to break specific law or legally binding agreement and were banned for it, then that is what happens. It is the governement’s field if he broke the law, and his fault for breaking a term he agreed to if he were to have done that. I did NOT personally take part in any of the actions of his viewers, and do not agree with the actions partaken by “his flying monkeys.”. The key part is just what he is legally accountable for. The only information I’m seeking is the answer of his accountability, which I have not seen to be true.
@ John Morales, as per second quote, I enjoy thunderf00t videos, and have seen a lot of them. Much in the same way that if my best friend commited a murder that I would condemn his actions, if he assaulted someone, if he puts forward a stupid opinion, etc. If what he is saying or doing I disagree with, I will vocalise my disagreement.
as per first quote, in the past we should’ve just killed the pope because there were(are) christians who endorsed murdering gay people, and he didn’t do enough to prevent that.
@AAutumn #32:
OK, I understand. You carry on writing reams and reams about the narrow point of whether or not he is legally accountable for his actions in whatever jurisdiction might apply, and I’ll carry on expressing my distaste for a man whose actions mark him as a contemptible little shit who should be decried for his ongoing vindictive bigotry.
And all over the world, irony meters just exploded in unison.
Doing everything they can to try and silence people is what Phil Mason’s horde of sociopaths do. The internet was never a place that encouraged others (who are these “others”?) to speak their mind. The internet has always been a place that offer a voice to the privileged and makes it very, very, veeeeeery difficult for the unprivileged to speak their minds out in the open, precisely because of all the people who are very intent in silencing everything they don’t fucking like.
For youtube arseholes to complain about freeze peach is so fucking hilariously ironic, that i have no words.
What this woman did was wrong, but Phil Mason is still a despicable piece of shit that is happily gloating about the absolutely disproportionate mob response that he purposefully whipped up and the biggest fucking hypocrite that ever soiled the planet. Fuck him.
By the way, it is hilarious that someone so intent in defending the indefensible views themselves as the only rational, objective thinker in a conversation. AAutumn, you are a really shit thinker…and you wouldn’t know objectivity if it bit you in the fucking face. It’s amazing how the shittiest, most irrationally, emotionally driven arseholes are always the ones who think of themselves as mythical beings of perfect objectivity.
@AAutumn: Don’t know how others here feel, but personally I GIVE NO FUCKS ABOUT THE LAW in itself. I care about justice and morality. Decency even, if I dare be so olden-tymey.
If f00t did something illegal or broke a contract and we can use that fact to stop him doing unjust things, that’s handy. But it’s in no way essential to the arguments you’re facing here. So your legalising is kind of a derail.
And this, little children, is what we call victim blaming…
She doxxed herself you idiot. Her own fault for attacking someone and making joke out of trying to lose them their job by calling them *openly a nazi*, or whatever else. I don’t condone what Thunderf00t did, he should have taken the moral high ground, but hey when people call you a nazi anyway, and you have a personal group that hates on you, maybe he just didn’t care anymore, but you are clearly biased, and have taken things out of context to support your bullshit agenda.
I find it wholly amusing that people claim he is attacking her free speech, when laughing witch closed her accounts herself, and was the one trying to *censor* Thunderf00t but attacking his livelihood. That’s a clear double standard, hypocrisy at its finest.
Which people claim Mason is attacking her free speach?
The ones in their head against whom they’re brilliantly winning arguments
Charly, #20
Yup, that right there is why this isn’t some nuanced issue like AAutumn is trying to make it.
AAutumn,
Congrats on being a fan of a shitty, misogynistic, sexual harassment defending human being.
“Death Here”:
I find it only mildly amusing that you make claim here, as if someone had actually made the claim you claim is claimed.
<snicker>
—
[Hi chigau. We crossed, but I have refreshed, and I post anyway]
@Death Here #38
No she did not, you dumbass. She provided those informations in openly accessible but different media, and not directly connected to each other. Thunderf00t collected those openly accessible data, researched and extrapolated some additional details, connected it all together in one medium and posted it in much more easily accesible and understandable form to multiple times broader audience with intent to harm. That still falls under the definition of doxing as per Wikipedia (emphassis mine):
Further you:
From this I deduce that you are so stupid, that I cannot even find small enough words for you to understand, but I try:
She closed her account in response to bullying that Thunderf00t instigated. He doxxed her with the intent that she is flooded with hate and rage. I do not believe for one effing pikosecond that he did not wish for her having to close her account in order to avoid further harrasment.
You can argue whether her closing her account is good or bad result, but you cannot dispute that despite it being her hand that closed the account, he is the one who is morally responsible for this outcome, as well as the difficulties her business and her employees get as splash damage.
______________
As a reaction to the OP – I think Thunderf00t should lose his job and it says something awfull about his emploeyer that he did not, or at the very least he should feel some negative consequences from his coleagues.
Not because he is a Nazi (he is not, that alegation is afaik false), or because someone around the internet does not like him (this is true about everybody), or because what he says might be percieved as controversial.
But because his irrational ravings against harrasment policies clearly outed him as someone incapable of working in a functioning team where he has to mind the needs of other people sharing space with him. He is unsafe to be around if you happen to be a woman, or religious, or feminist or humanist, or any combination thereoff. Everything that came afterwards (his ravings against feminisim in general and Anita Sarkeesian in particular) is just the urea frosting on top of that excremental cake and it is tangential to any employment and should be protected by freedom of speach. But his open ravings against contractual agreements that are nowadays part of most work contracts are not tangential, they are relevant.
I am reasonably sure that if I were behaving like he does, I would be fired, or at least reprimanded and required to cease such behaviour and delete it. Because if I made anti-harasment policy videos like he did, I would be openly stating to the whole world – albeit in my private time – that I am unwilling to comply with our companys anti-harassment and equal oportunity policy. My face does not represent only me, my face also represents the laboratory that I lead. I cannot send message of reasonableness and cooperation to my customers and coworkers in the workplace, and the message of a raving idiocy that directly contradicts the conditions of my employment in my free time.
[Hi John Morales]
AAutumn, small hint: if you ever find yourself defending the actions of either yourself or of someone else with the words “technically those actions are not illegal”, then maybe it is time to have a long hard look at yourself.
I find it incredibly amusing ( i fucking do not) that TF’s sociopathic fans are dishonestly pretending that anybody is defending what LaughinWitch did, we are openly condemning it, or that anybody is claiming that her free speech is being attacked. More importantly though, it’s astonishing that they are incapable or unwilling to see how mindfuckingbogglingly hipocritical and EVIL it is to complain about how wrong it was what she did and then inmediately instigate and support doing the exact same fucking thing but several thousand fold, with the added extra of trying to actually psychologically destroy this person.
Scum, fucking disgusting scum all of you…
I agree with the other answers to AAutumn, but since I’m the one who quoted the Patreon guidelines, I want to clarify a few things:
I indeed doubt that Patreon will deem that he violated their guidelines. I suppose they will say it is not clear-cut enough for them to act (they have an interest in not applying their rules too zealously).
But we have no reason not to let them decide for themselves whether or not he broke their rules. The only thing that’s certain is that if nobody reports him, he’s not gonna get banned either way.
Second thing:
From what I can understand, yes he did arrange this. The open letter that LaughingWitch (among others) signed was sent back in January. Thunderf00t doxxed her last week, in response to new videos from her. Seeing this as “it’s just the result of his fans witnessing what happened” is a hugely generous interpretation.
Third thing:
I don’t condone the open letter (especially if it was not entirely factual). Consequently, I don’t think we have a ground to say that the most reasonable Yelp reviews of Tf00t’s fans should be removed (even if they obviously lack a lot of context and some are really ridiculous). I’m talking about this one in particular: “Have been watching how the VP of this company may have tried to get a man fired for disagreeing with her. It seems quite wrong.” (with a link). Well this was not merely “for disagreeing with her”, but I suppose that, at least on an individual scale, giving a bad review to a business because you think the owner is an asshole is fair game, especially with a link (even if it’s to Tf00t’s video).
However, using a mob to ruin the online reputation of a business is not at all on the same level as an open letter to one’s employer. An employer can see for themselves and try to make an informed decision. Customers of the business won’t choose a 1-star business, period. This is condemning the business without a trial. Add to this that they are damaging the lives of innocents (LaughingWitch’s husband and their 14 employees, as noted by Travis above) in the process.
If that is “poetic justice if you’ve ever heard it”, I guess you just never heard of poetic justice before…
——
I hope it’s clearer whence my position comes from now. Just a last point about one of your arguments (I find the other are more or less equally fallacious, but they have been answered already):
Yep. And in this case, we wouldn’t consider reporting him to Patreon. “Yeah, I stole this bike, but it was not locked, so someone would have stolen it anyway!”
A Youtuber I follow, Jim Sterling, recently tried to nip an audience harassment problem in the bud by asking his audience to not participate or in his words “Be cool” (link)
He’s a video game reviewer/critic whose niche is consumer advocate, as a consequence he focuses on a lot on terrible/cynical cash grab games and portions of his audience will naturally want to call out what they see as ripoff artists. People being people (sadly) some go too far and he doesn’t want this happening, certainly not in his name.
I say this to point out what Phil ought to be doing if he considers himself a decent person. But I know that his current schtick is making him a lot of money, much more than his science/atheism videos probably do by a long shot. He’s appealing to the horrible shitbags on the internet, he knows it and for all intents and purposes enables it.
I know people like him often say they didn’t ask for the audience and that they technically have no control over them. All true of course, but I’m just going to post a quote (or two) by Lieutenant General David Lindsay Morrison in reply
and
Have the fucking moral courage to call out harassment Thunderf00t or at least have the decency to drop the pretension and tell us you don’t fucking care.
Like you don’t have an agenda bully. All bullies like TF have agendas. Everybody agrees with them OR ELSE. The poor epsilon males bullies who are defending TF don’t like it when they are stood up to by women or males who tell them off….Temper tantrums galore.
@ Charly “He is unsafe to be around if you happen to be a woman, or religious, or feminist or humanist, or any combination thereoff.” Citation please? Has he physically harmed anyone that I am totally unaware of? Am I blind to the fact that he has a brimming sex offense record? That’s a good example of unfounded slander, if I have ever fucking seen it. If I recall correctly, I have seen videos of him where he is directly around many religious people, many of whom were women, and no harm had befallen them. Yes sir, you certainly have no opinion bias in determining his guilt here.
Also, Wikipedia does not constitute a law or anything legally binding and therefore has no relevance in determining whether he has committed anything punishable here. See my previous citations, they refer to the laws in the US and the agreements on Patreon.
@ zenlike, something either does or doesn’t fall into a category of illegal. I only seek to the category within which the actions fall.
@ Dreaming of an Atheistic Newtopia
Feel like I’ve said this like ten times but, Phil Mason does not represent the people who committed these actions. He is not them, and is not responsible for them. They were all sentient human beings who were aware of the damage they were causing.
I’d also like to say that if you are discuss an opinion with someone who as a radically different view from yours, it may be wise to refrain from calling them “fucking scum”. In general insulting somebody while simultaneously condemning their actions makes your claim seem a lot more biased.
From WHTM:
This is very clear, that what happened was what Mason wanted and expected to happen – he instigated this action, and incited people. I seem to recall that incitement can be legally prosecuted, so all the “oh, technically legal” simply doesn’t wash.
From WHTM:
This is very clear, that what happened was what Mason wanted and expected to happen – he instigated this action, and incited people. I seem to recall that incitement can be legally prosecuted, so all the “oh, technically legal” simply doesn’t wash.
@ Nerd of Redhead, I’m a poor epsilon male bully? I’m not even male, but alright you got me.
AAutumn – why do you think Thunderfoot posted her identifying information including her business information, then? Why did he do it? What was his desired result?
Ah, you admit you are a misogynist bully? A female one? I don’t think so Tim. Your arrogance is laughable….
@ Nerd of RedHead, keyword “even”, denoting that I don’t even meet that qualification. I fail to see how I’ve been misogynist in any of this, pray do tell.
@ Carlie, because because? Was he breaking a law doing that? Not as far as Patreon or the United States is concerned. He was allowed to do what he did. It’s not his responsibility what the actions of his viewers were. Why not take action against the people on the IPs who submitted the low reviews? You have a way larger case with them than you do against Phil Mason.
AAutumn – you avoided the question. I didn’t ask whether he was breaking the law, or whether he was allowed to – I’m asking, since you reject a vindictive rationale for his doxxing, what is your substitute hypothesis? “Because because” isn’t a reason for anything – nobody does anything “just because”, especially if it involves work to track down information and then post it oneself. I’m asking, in your opinion, what do you think his motives were in doing so? People post things because they want to communicate ideas to others – what idea was he trying to communicate, in your opinion?
It appears that quite a few people are ok with the tactics used by both Thunderf00t and Laughing Witch (they both did essentially the same thing). So are we pissed that he was apparently more successful than she was? Or are we just pissed off at him and his politics and think he shouldn’t have retaliated?
Penny L @ 58
Nice false equivalence. Nowhere did Laughing Witch or any of her friends gleefully celebrate the possibility of another person committing suicide. Nor were she or any of her associates who signed the letter cheering over destroying the livelihood of 14 strangers.
@Penny L #58:
Read the rest of what I wrote. Do not cherrypick out of context and try to spin it into something I am not saying or implying.
@AAutumn #51:
The same goes for you.
Physical harm is not the only harm that can happen to someone. Read up on hostile workplace environment, mobbing and bossing. Thunderf00t presented a few years ago in his writings here on FTB and in a few of his subsequent that he is unwilling to comply with rules regulating behaviour that leads to hostile environment and that he does not repect other peoples boundaries. That in itself would not be bad, because everyone is uninformed at some point of their life. But he refused to be informed and even instigates online harassment campains and even after being spoonfed the information he needed to make informed decision, he dug his heel up and now he even instigates online harassment campaigns.
I was not responding to any legal claim or performing legal analysis. I was responding to a claim that what Thunderf00t did does not constitute doxing. Wikipedia in this case suffices as a source of basic information with regard to the definition of the worls as it is generally used.
@ Carlie, I’m submitting that it’s not relevant. He may have submitted it for any reason and it doesn’t affect my arguments. His motive regarding it is irrelevant to determine his guilt. In my opinion, he posted it explaining what had happened/was happening. As that was the content entailed in his video. I also find it a bit of a stretch that their company is totally in shambles because of this. I feel like most of the negative reviews could be handled by contacting an administrator at yelp, or at any other website where they are now painted unfavourably. I doubt her or her coworkers will be living in shanties any time soon. But you really can’t tell what will happen until the situation has fully unfolded.
Typo: worls =word
So far, as I’ve understood it: Mason is blameless because because. But Laughing Witch isn’t blameless because she took an action with the intent of affecting Mason’s professional life.
It would be nice for at least a bit of moral consistency from Mason’s bootlickers.
Pascal’s Pager: “Ever wish that the people you look up to were above this horseshit?”
In my experience, what’s above horseshit is usually a bunch of voracious flies.
How would you define “malicious doxxing”, then, since intent is the main part of the definition?
I mean, how audacious is the thought that Mason simply supplied her identifying information, going out of his way to put the pieces together in order to do so, “because because?”
“Oh, I’m Phil Mason and I have 400k followers on my channels and if I release the information about someone I’ve had problems with in the past, why, nothing at all will come of it, I’m sure.”
Not even his detractors think he’s that daft.
@ drst, thunderf00t hasn’t even commented on anything about suicide yet. He is not his viewers, gonna have to say this a million times I think.
@ Charly, I will say again, citation please. Are you sure that he does not already work with anyone religious, or female, or feminist, or humanist, or combination thereof? If so, I’d like citations for that as well. Beyond that, its difficult to really trace this all the way to a statement that he is unsafe around women, religious people, feminists, humanists, or combinations thereof. It’s defamation of character.
Also, the reason I said that Wikipedia is not legally binding is that it doesn’t really matter what it says there. Its relevant to note that a business page attached to your name and viewable from a search engine and a YouTube channel attached to your name hardly constitutes information “difficult to obtain.”.
AAutumn, #56
Just wanted to highlight that for those who may have missed it.
You are a piece of shit, AAutumn.
@ Carlie, that is a stretch. He didn’t even doxx her from a definition stand point. He hardly submitted it stating “here’s the info, fuck her up mates.”. To bring it up to malice is a big step, and one I’m still not seeing much evidence for.
AAutumn, #61
Correction: You are a stupid piece of shit.
throwaway@63
You don’t understand: they’re looking at things objectively. Your bias is corrupting your opinions into thinking moral consistency is necessary.
@ saad, thanks for being civil again. I’m expressing my opinion regarding the circumstances and I get insults back. Respectful debate is a wonderful thing when it does occur.
On another note, I never said that no leader is responsible for the actions of his followers, just that in this case as Phil never told them to do any of the things they did, and they did them on their own with no directive, its a stretch to blame him for them.
Haha @ saad, thanks mate.
@AAutumn #67:
I am pretty sure he does. And he instigates online hatred campaigns against women, feminists, humanists an people who are combination thereof. Therefore he is for such people unsafe to be around even if he did nothing strictly speaking wrong in his workplace yet. He proclaims, loudly and proudly, that he is OK if harm happens to them.
It is the same as with loaded weapons. They are inherently unsafe, even if the one in your pocket did not kill anyone yet.
@Rich Woods #29
“I know it when I see it.”
There is a lot of postmodernist anti science among the posts on this blog, but not usually this blatant.
Next up we will have Thuderf00t defenders tell us they know in their hearts that he is a nice guy.
@ sonodeist, in that sense yes but where does the personal responsibility and free will of his viewers come in? In doing what he did, he did nothing wrong. If people do wrong with the information he provided its not really his fault. The people still had to make the decision to do that. They’re not bound to him legally, they had the choice to not do it, and they did. Phil was aware at least for sure that the results of posting this video were not set in stone, it was not like stabbing a knife in someone’s back, there wasn’t some certainty to it. It’s a weak case to argue.
sonodeist@73, you need to do it like this:
<blockquote>
His motive regarding it is irrelevant to determine his guilt.
</blockquote>
and then your message.
AAutumn: are you saying that it would be unreasonable for Mason to infer actions would take place on a personal level after making his followers aware of her identifying information?
I guess you also think it’s a good idea to place a rabbit in a dog’s crate. I mean, you just provided a living, breathing animal to the environment without expectation of the outcome, therefore there’s no reason to pass judgment on you for doing so. Plus it’s probably legal since that dog could have gotten that rabbit outside that crate anyway.
AAutumn
Did you know that ‘illegal’ and ‘immoral’ are different things?
@ throwaway, I’m saying his viewers aren’t dogs. They’re human beings who can rationalise and make decisions. They won’t guaranteed make a move to eat the rabbit every time, they’re a fluctuating group of people.
@ chigau, yup, and I’m saying that it doesn’t matter whether what he did was immoral or not, because even if it was it doesn’t not imply any kind of action to be taken against him, as morals are subjective.
AAutomn, your arguments are getting more and more absurd.
This implies that if terrorists made bombs that would have only 50% probability to explode, they would not be guilty.
Well you must be really, really bad at arguing then…
*does not imply
Laggy phone keyboard.
Oh my goodness. I have no idea how to quote things… I will go back to lurking!
@ sff9, my arguments have yet to change. My standpoints are the same, my allegories are different. I still show that he has no legal guilt, and that arguing that he is LITERALLY commanding a hate mob is a big stretch that would be hard to argue in a professional debate.
Would it be a good thing for the world if Thunderf00t directly and unambiguously asked that his followers and audience refrain from harassing anyone, this woman, or any other people that have been the negative subject of on of his videos?
@ Tinjoe, in short, probably yes. That’s not to say they still won’t do it, but some might not anymore.
There is the same uncertainty with dogs as well. Did I mention the dog in the crate was a Chihuahua? But the crate was labeled “Chihuahua puppies (Maybe a couple full grown dobermans)”.
Your contention is basically that it is unreasonable to infer that any harm would come to the rabbit because the nature that was expected of the animals is that of a group of small, timid young animals.
My contention is that, with 400k possibilities, expecting a doberman or two is not unreasonable. You’re saying that Phil didn’t expect dobermans. To me, that’s unreasonably daft attempt at pawning off culpability.
Respectful? You think that because you are not using expletives that means you are being respectful, or rational, or objective? Jesus fucking christ…
Also, none of this is even remotely a debate. I’m so fucking tired of these youtubers and their fucking “debates”…
You are expressing a repulsive, odious, digusting opinion that TF is not responsible for anything because he is clever enough not to explicitely say “go and do this, minions”, which is so fucking stupid and dishonest that it beggars believe. also, HE IS RESPONSIBLE for gloating about the actions of his fans. Knowing that his fans have done this (even if we were to pretend like he didn’t instigate it on purpose, which he fucking did) and not only not expressing repudiation of their actions, pointing out how it is WRONG just as it was wrong when something similar but at a minuscule scale, was done to him, but to actively rejoice in them, is morally repulsive and does make him responsible.
He knows about her distress due to the absurdly, monumentally disproportionate vengeance carried out by his minions, by the way, and not only does he not care, he clearly is inmensely enjoying it.
Scum…
TF did wrong. We have no problem criticizing bad behavior of TF, and will do so with our free speech.
You don’t like it, it is YOUR problem, not ours. We don’t have to agree with you or him. And we won’t.
Your motor-mouthing arrogant aggression is typical of MRA assholes. You are your own worst enemy, and your behavior makes more enemies.
AAutumn, you are engaging in apologetics. The preponderance of evidence shows, that Thunderf00t had every reason to expect the hate campaign following his video, even if he did not explicitly ad literally command it. He would be stupid if he did not deduce this. He is definitvely not stupid, therefore it is reasonable to expect that he was aware of the most probable outcome and therefore we can deduce he posted the video with full awareness of high probability of this outcome and with a specific wish for it.
There is not a single fact in this context that even insinuates, that he posted it innocently not expecting what happened.
The probabilities that he posted the video with malicious intent or without it are not 50/50 by far.
Sure. And when Richard II asked “Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest”, he wasn’t LITERALLY ordering his men to murder Thomas Beckett. He was just strongly implying that it might be nice if somebody did. Was he legally responsible? Hard to prove… On the other hand, does anybody reasonable person genuinely think that he wasn’t responsible at all?
If Phil Mason is genuinely unaware of the link between his actions and those of his fans, he should seriously reconsider his career in science.
So since the actual consequences were in TF employer’s hands, and not a direct result of the actions taken by LaughingWitch, and these employers are human beings who are free to make their own decisions, which are not guaranteed to be influenced by what she did, and you know, morals are subjective and shit, that clearly means that what she did wasn’t wrong. If you buy that steaming pile of horseshit for TF, why not for her?
I guess what I’m getting at with my question is that you come from this from a standpoint that he’s not legally guilty and by my own reading that he’s not active in creating harm.
Well not doing anything to counteract harm is still worse than combating it and by sitting on the sidelines when you command 400,000 strong audience you don’t make the world a better place.
It would cost so little to ask his audience to be better and he fails to do it with every new video he posts. This is why he stopped being a person I looked to for insight a long time ago.
AAutomn@86,
Well, OK, let’s say it’s getting clearer and clearer that your arguments are absurd, then.
You may think you “show” these points, but your demonstration is not convincing. It is your opinion that he has no legal guilt, but it does not matter (only a court decision would have an importance). It is your opinion that he did not broke Patreon’s rules, but your arguments are very weak; they amount basically to “it was not malicious doxxing because he could not be absolutely certain his followers would act this way”, which is (1) not relevant and (2) ridiculous. Anyway, once again only Patreon’s decision has any importance.
If by “professional debate”, you mean debate with semantic nitpickers and dictionary wielders like you, who would say things like “he did not use the imperative mood, so it was not an order, so by definition he did not command anything”, well I guess you may be right (any position being hard to argue in such a setting), but nobody cares except said “debaters”. Well, whatever floats your boat…
It is funny how TF can’t be linked to the actions of his fans when he clearly points into the direction of certain actions because they’re individuals, but Laughing Witch is EVIL for sending a letter to his employer because they are apparently automatons that will be influenced and controlled by strangers…
I’m also always astounded at the “how could he know” argument, also know as “he just said things, that isn’t any influence”.
I mean, those people are self-defeating by even making that argument. Yes, words have consequences. Words influence people. Words incite actions. If they didn’t nobody would argue on a blog, make Youtube videos other than of puppies and kittens and no company would ever invest a single cent in advertising.
Sweet fancy moses, but the Thunderf00ttin’s strong today.
regarding AAutumn‘s first post way back at #17, saying something like
I’m going to offer some constructive criticism to you here, @AAutumn. Take it how you will.
When you say “I choose to look at things objectively”, that is a choice everyone makes. Everyone thinks that, when they come to a decision about something, they believe that have good reasons for coming to that decision and that they are being objective.
Sadly, people aren’t objective, and saying “I choose to be objective” Is basically just saying “I choose to believe my conclusions are objective.” You’re not objective, you can’t be objective. You need to come up with solutions to generate objectivity instead. Science is one such solution. Humility is another – or at least is very useful in finding objectivity. Saying “I choose to be objective” is the opposite of that, and is a surefire way to not be objective.
It’s certainly a nice indicator for me though; nothing tells me whose opinions I can safely ignore quite like it.
savant>/b> Surely you are not suggesting that AAutumn is not that most glorious, perfect and mythological being known as The Objective Agent? If they declare themselves to be objective and, as a result of not using expletives, respectful, unbiased and unemotional, that clearly means they must be absolutely right and that they are the greatest professional debater that ever lived. All hail The Objective Agent, winner of debates, purveyor of unbiased analysis, defender of mysoginistic, morally repulsive arseholes.
Autumn @26: “… it irks me that people would spend their time on an endeavour that has no end result …”
Got a mirror?
Fuck….sorry everyone…
@ “Giliell, professional cynic -Ilk-”
Is it possible that neither of them are “EVIL” but that they are two people who have got involved in a pointless and petty argument through youtube? I suggest they both engage in some self reflection about what constitutes a good use of their time. Thunderf00t is a clueless buffoon when it comes to feminist issues and is incapable of realising his lack of rationality when speaking on such issues, does anyone really need to engage with him (or worse, actually spend time sending correspondence to his employers) for that to be apparent?
But possibly there was a time when engaging with him would have been worth it. His expulsion from FtB was long before I knew about the sites existence but it would have been interesting to see how long it would have taken him to accept the errors in his way of thinking had he been allowed to stay. To be clear if he hadn’t cleaned up his act he would have had to go eventually, but maybe not so soon. His quick expulsion has given him the platform to act as a pariah and deprived us of the chance to educate him or force him to admit his illogical positions. From within the FtB community maybe some people whom Thunder respected could have saved him from his path to oblivion?
Jeremy Corbyn has faced much criticism for his ideas about talking to bad people so any backlash over suggesting that Thunderf00t have been saved from the axe puts me in good company. (wink)
AAutumn,
I’m honestly thinking you’re a troll now.
Because you can’t be that stupid.
See? I’m taking the more respectful approach now.
It was tried. Lord, how it was tried… Everybody tried, over and over and over again. His expulsion wasn’t actually that quick. He just kept doubling down.
@59
It’s not a false equivalence. If anything the equivalence is kind to Laughing Witch because Thunderf00t didn’t resort to slander (saying that he openly espouses Nazi ideology, for example). I watched the video and he quoted from her letter and youtube videos extensively, he didn’t make anything up. Thunderf00t also didn’t “celebrate the possibility of another person committing suicide”.
You have a point about the 14 employees in her business, however. Thunderf00t’s response wasn’t proportional – everyone involved should have considered how it would have affected them, Laughing Witch included. And while I have sympathy for her employees, I have little sympathy for her. She coordinated the campaign to try to get him fired (also writing to newspapers and the police), understood that there could be consequences in the form of retailiation from him, chose to give up the anonymity of her screen name (not sure googling an email address is doxxing per se, but he didn’t have to do it), and seemingly goaded him into this response. She’s an adult and she chose to take the risk. Thunderf00t takes the same risks producing his videos, btw, and while I have a hard time understanding how he couldn’t be fired for his online activity he sounds very confident that he won’t.
In short, really no one in this situation has acted admirably.
https://xkcd.com/774/ works for so many situations.
Just change a couple of nouns.
Savant@99:
Your second sentence is not true of me, and I don’t think I’m unique—even among rationalists—in acknowledging my incapacity to be objective at all times and in all situations. All I, or anyone (I think), can choose to do is to consistently try “to look at things objectively”—which of course entails being open to looking again, that is, reconsidering both one’s personal decisions (which I think is part of what you later call “humility”) and the extrapersonal evidence (which is part, maybe the largest part, of “science”, no?) in the light of what happens after one’s decision.
Dreaming of an Atheistic Newtopia @ 100,
Quite the bold statement if I do say so myself :3
More seriously … these people who say things like “I’m objective” or similar, it’s like they don’t even know what the words mean. We all have subjective perspectives on the world, because we are all subjects within the world – we are subjected to the events of our lives.
You can’t just magic that away. You can’t even get rid of it with effort – it is a fundamental aspect of being alive. Once in a rare while you can beat your perspective into a shape that looks roughly objective (with a lot of metaphysical violence being done to your opinions along the way), but even then, it’s only for a narrow set of circumstances – and you’ll probably be out-of shape before too long, anyways.
Seriously, when I see someone say “I’m being objective” it’s usually a good sign to take an opposing viewpoint. Frankly, this has made me reconsider (not reject) my atheism, and how to approach the secularism question – far, far too many people on this side seem to be too vocal about how gosh-darn objective they are.
After receiving threats, SXSW cancels panel about online harassment
@ Dream of an Antitheistic Newtopia, the reason I’m not focusing on condemning someone from attempting to cause further harmer to her, is, well, no one is implying that they will. Although with an open attack such as hers one would have a lot more to argue that she should be reported on her YouTube channel.
I’m not being disrespectful of your opinions or who you are. Just giving my rebuttals to your points. Debate, discussion, whatever word you want to say. Discussion better suits it.
Also, gloating isn’t illegal. It does make you a dick, but there’s not something written somewhere saying you cant do it. So, he is free to do it.
leerudolph @ 108,
You’re quite right – and you’re quite accurate. I guess I was using “everyone” to mean “the default, before a person starts thinking deeply about these things”. Our impulsive decision-making process assumes that we’re – well, not infallible, but that our information is accurate and well-represents the events.
You’re quite right about what I was using the terms “humility” and “science” about. Admitting that I might be wrong, being willing to revisit old thoughts with new eyes, realizing that my perspective is as flawed as anyones’, and therefore that I should consider opinions outside my own – all of these things are important, in my opinion at least.
I do wish more of the conversations in the atheosphere bent in this direction. We should be talking about ways to beat our own subjectivity and internal biases, and how to bring those tools to others! In my opinion, at least.
Just read this amidst the volumes:
So, uh, there’s no reason to take action against harassment, because morals are subjective? First, subjective doesn’t mean non-existent. Second and more obviously, if we take your statement as true, can’t we also say
How deep down this rabbit-hole do we go before we say that enough is enough? We do have morals. They are subjective, but they still exist.
Reginald Selkirk@110: in return, BuzzFeed says it’s canceling its support of SXSW unless the panels are reinstated:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/tasneemnashrulla/buzzfeed-threatens-to-withdraw-from-sxsw-over-canceled-gamin?utm_term=.favWa6xkW#.gprQYV9dQ
In any case, whatever you consider his guilt to be, unless Patreon or YouTube decide to ban him, whatever anyone thinks doesn’t really matter. From considering the rules of above sites and the law in the United States, in posting that video he has broken no law.
Also would love to point out right quick that I never claimed go be totally objective or go imply that I always was, I said I try to be. :D regardless of whether everyone does it or not, it was just a statement.
@ saad, I assure you I’m not a troll, just a person who is putting forward my long and sometimes flawed views on the internet, with the interest of improving my views. I relinquish the notion that thunderf00t making the video was a good idea or a moral right, and acknowledge his role in the end results. It was more or less his fault that things went specifically the way they did. It dissapoints me to admit it, because I do normally hold him in high regards, but it is more or less completely certain that he at least knew what he was instigating. I am dissapointed (as per usual it seems) in the conduct of his viewers as they couldn’t find a more reasonable and rational way to handle the situation. I still do not see sufficient evidence that he broke a law or legally binding agreement, but I am as stated not any body in a position to settle that matter. That’s my conclusion of this entire thread thus far, my initial premise has been sufficiently shown to be wrong, and I accept it as that.
I still do however see how I have made myself out to be misogynistic. @55 Nerd of Redhead, please elaborate, I would love to hear this.
Also @101 petesh, wow. That’s a very harsh insult.
AAutumn @26:
Then you should be irked at your comments in this thread.
Everyone can see that you’re a Thunderf00t apologist and people like that aren’t well-received around here. I know you don’t care about that, but my point is that all your advice, all your apologetics are, spending your time on an endeavor that will have no end result.
So the best thing AAutumn can say about their actions is that they were not illegal? Duly noted. It’s not illegal to cut in line at the supermarket checkout either, but that doesn’t mean it’s a good thing to do or that nobody is going to call you out on it.
@49 Tinjoe: Yep, that’s how evil starts. The moment people decide their cause is so just and righteous that anything they do to further it is justified, they are on their way to committing the worst atrocities. Even before treating people as things comes the phrase, “It’s okay if WE do it, because WE’RE the GOOD guys!”
@ Tony! Mayhap, but I rather enjoy these kinds of threads. And I stand something to learn whether I change someone’s viewpoint or not. From my perspective, its not much of a pointless endeavour. It being one that I enjoy and one that I can learn other opinions from.
mclarenm23 @103:
He’s had years to accept the errors in his ways of thinking and it still hasn’t happened. Why do you think it would have happened had he been allowed to stay at FtB and continue shitting on the carpet and not listening to any of his critics? The shitstain that is Phil Mason is not interested in listening to people, or becoming a better person.
@ tbtabby, correct that is all I can say with any certainty. Doesn’t mean I agree with it or encourage it, just that it wasn’t an illegal act. I summarised that the rest of my opinions were flawed and were shown as such by the rest of the people here.
AAutumn @ 115
Excellent turnaround! It’s difficult to change course like that. Many of us here are former ThunderF00t fans, back when he was doing basic creationist and science videos, and we were all horribly disappointed when his less, uh, less-nice side emerged. Welcome to the “Disappointed-in-Thuderf00t” club!
As for whether he’s done something illegal, well, I’m not a lawyer, and it doesn’t matter. He doesn’t have to have done something illegal to have his Patreon account suspended, he just needs to have violated the TOS, and that’s up for Patreon itself to decide. Writing to them to draw attention to it is just going to get their adjudication machine running, and that’s a worthwhile thing.
Good for you! It’s very difficult to do what you’ve done in 115. I suggest you take a good long look at what you like about the recent (past few years) Thunderf00t videos, and why you like those things – and maybe see if there’s some bias in there that you didn’t see on first look. We all see a tonne of it – we’re only human, too, but we have good reasons for believing those biases are there, and I’m sure we’d be happy to talk about them.
@AAutumn I debated weighing in on this for a number of reasons but foremost it may do more harm than good. Mitigating harm is the most objective way of judging the morality of an action. I believe Thunderf00t has gotten very lost using personal freedoms as the main gauge for his actions. I believe many of his actions regarding discrediting feminism and his actions here are significant moral failings of his.
That said Laughing Witch is not without moral failings also. She wasn’t just wrong in her actions she was immoral. A person I respect asked me to promote her go fund anything account. I couldn’t do that in good conscience, not just over the harm she sought to cause to TF’s livelihood over a dispute over something that was more personal than informative. The main reason is the harm she is unwittingly causing to feminism.
If I argued MRA vs Feminism before, I could rightly say look at the MRAs/Anti-Fems that have significant followings not one of them has a morally defensible argument against feminism and additionally they are dismiss harassment and hate speech directed at women. Thunder falls in this camp though he denies it not just for this kerfuffle where he was accused of it alone. But now, Laughing Witch gives them a handy example of a feminist and her co-horts, who are hateful and make morally indefensible arguments. So I have to qualify my defense of feminism that there are no mainstream feminists with a significant following that exhibit hateful MRA behavior. It weakens the argument for feminism which is still necessary and doing real work not just hating on MRAs online like for example in reproductive rights. IF LW owes anyone a sincere apology with actual remorse it is feminists, whose hard work she is unwittingly helping to undermine.
So as to the morality of Thunderf00t’s actions here. I see that you dismiss morality as subjective, and attempt to defend legality. Laws would have no meaning and be unenforceable were morality as subjective as you suggest. I have seen these types of arguments before from people who think their behavior should have no limits because they argue to unrestrained free speech as TF does not incidentally.
If you are truly arguing free from the emotion you accuse others of then you will look at the arguments pro/con and fairly judge the morality of the actions taken by both parties as I have done by ceding that LW’s actions were immoral.
*A note to everyone arguing that even if he didn’t overtly state for his supporters to cause harm, but regardless he knew his actions by publicizing her data to his audience would cause harm -watch the second video linked in the post in the OP. I don’t like watching his anti-fem videos either,but if you are to judge fairly you must evaluate the evidence.
He went further than just showing what LW showed herself in a video her email and real name. He actually said others can easily do this but if you search her email address you can find her business. Then in response to her bragging she couldn’t be fired she was the boss, he suggested a Yelp review would harm her business. He also said that people should know what her actions are before using her business, and a review would show that.
Go look AAutumn before you attribute his criticism simply to dislike, and to try to argue from what you think is a superior standpoint. I don’t like having to make this judgment, but given that they both put this out there and the damage they both are causing feminism (One more than the other) -it is necessary to evaluate the morality of it. And too it may be informative for people to evaluate badly formed arguments that are merely personal and morally indefensible.
I would hope that they would adopt a better morality system in the future that keeps them from harming themselves and others, but that is ultimately up to them to decide on.
@ Savant, I honestly sorta wish he had stuck with the creationist related videos. They’re definitely by far my favourite videos of his, and the ones that seem to have brought about the least amount of online harassment and controversy. It’s disappointing that he’s been using bashing feminism as a means of creating popular videos, because while some of his major criticisms are valid, they get washed up among other shit that just makes the videos more popular, and in the process tarnishes a movement that while having its own flaws that need to be addressed, is otherwise a movement with the ability to cause great change in society. This thread has sort of forced me to accept this reality. You find more actions of his that are morally wrong when you dig into it. Its a minefield of problems when you look at it.
So I was acting on a bias in terms of whether he was morally right or wrong. When looking at it for what it is he knowingly enabled hundreds of thousands of his followers to perform a potentially severe action against LW’s company. Which is morally wrong, and shouldn’t have happened. A far more respectable action would have been to simply ask that she apologise, and then highlite her genuine lack of concern at the vile action she performed against him, instead of allowing a vile action to be performed against her. A terrible situation no matter which way you look at it. I still hold out a faint glimmer of hope that he will apologise for his actions, and acknowledge that they were no better than hers. Faint, because I know too well how he has handled other situations in the past.
Really? gloating isn’t illegal? Wow….mind. fucking. blown….
He IS free to do it, as i am free to express what a hypocritical, repugnant, shitstain of a human pustule on satan’s arse he is. That is my subjective moral assessment of his actions.
Don’t use gendered insults, it’s in the rules, which you haven’t read. And it’s not Antitheistic Newtopia, it’s Atheistic Newtopia…there’s nothing newtopic about having to be oppose theism…
I’ve been following this drama, mostly from Jenny McDermott’s channel, and all I can say is that Thunderfatwas are probably going to be the death of “New Atheism.” I cannot tell you how many people I know, who are atheist (in that they don’t believe in God and don’t follow an organized religion) who just watch this kind of bullcrap go on and on. If I were a woman and a skeptic, I would want to run as far from these people as possible. If the Republican Party wants a demographic to pick up, they should check out angry, white nerds, if only they could get them out of the basement to vote!
There was a time in my life when I could have been drawn into the MRA/anti-feminist fold, but I’m glad I never got sucked into it. I don’t know how I avoided it. Maybe because I have a natural aversion to right wing nonsense in general.
Well, the primary opinion of this thread is that HE IS A DICK.
So thanks for conceding the point.
More letters have been sent out. I left a comment that this was getting out of hand, and that trying to get him in trouble with Czech law for Holocaust denial or diminution is pretty low. Yeah, he’s a lowlife scum who thinks he knows it all. He does give out his Thunderfatwas, but this is someone who THRIVES on this kind of high stakes conflict. He’s basically what happens when a troll gets a high profile platform online. He never actually stops being a troll, and the trick to dealing with a troll is not to give him an audience. I have unsubbed (I loved his science and skepticism stuff). I tell people not to watch his videos. But that’s all I do, and that’s all we should be doing. He and his followers do not want to have an honest discussion about what their nonsense is doing to secularism, and if they don’t want to have a convo, then stop talking to them.
Autumn @116: Glad you noticed. To be fair, you have since shown signs of thought that might rise to the level of an end result. But you sure took your time getting there.
That’s not the point. The point is that gloating is evidence of intent. He put out her information (wink wink), and then when the hordes descended on her and trashed her business, he posted a video called “Karma is only a b**ch if you are one.” This unmistakably demonstrates that what happened to this woman is precisely what he intended to happen to her.
@lilandra #123
From what you wrote I understand that both Thunderf00t and LW handled this situation even worse then I originally interpreted from the OP and WHTM article. There is no way for me to watch any of Tf00ts videos ever again, his antifeminist ravings disappointed me too strongly to be able to listen to him – and I too used to like his videos, I was his fan as it was he who ultimately lead me to online atheism and subsequently Pharyngula.
I too could not bring myself to donate to LW because on available evidence it seems that what she has done was underhanded (accusing Tf of Nazism is downright slanderous) immature and immoral.
However even thought both did equaly wrong things, there seems to be no dispute about the fact, that the negative impact of those things hit one side of the argument only. He had more power than her, and he did not even hesitate to use it when it suited him. So it still might be appropriate to donate to her and I am still thinking about it.
And I really do not understand why Tf00t was not fired years ago by his employer on their own accord (before she tried to stab him in the back) for the reasons I stated in my #44. Online is Tf00t not a private person, he is public personality. As such everything he does inevitably reflects on his employer. And I do not know about the prevalence of such clauses, but at my employer’s we are required to abstain from online behaviour that could negatively reflect on the company.
Thundef00t provides a good contrast to Dr. Matt Taylor however.
Phil Mason – an example of reacting wrong to being called out on sexism.
Matt Taylor – an example of reacting correctly to being called out on sexism.
Former Tf00t fan. He was the reason why I logged into youtube, and his creationism videos were superb. But thinking back on it now, were they really? The feud with VenomFangX I loved. It was entertaining to see him pwn this immoral idiot, but thinking back on it now it was a grown man with a PHD intellectually besting a child, fucking impressive. Maybe my perception is biased due to all the shit that has happened, but I do feel like this should have been a red flag from the start.
Off topic:
@Dreaming of an Atheistic Newtopia
It is not there for quite a long time now. PZ has changed the rules significantly since he disbanded Thunderdome and The Lounge. They now essentially boil down to “don’t piss me off or else”.
@133
Hmmm…i dare say it falls under the “don’t piss PZ off” umbrella…but point taken.
I know this is not going to be a popular opinion but…
To be quite honest about it – what LW did, and what the letter campaign is – if an MRA was doing this to a feminist and it unfolded like this I’d all be siding with the feminist.
I”d be calling the letters a harassment campaign.
And yeah Thunderf00t has more power and knew exactly what he was doing, but quite frankly he wasn’t the one who started sending out letters trying to get people fired.
I don’t think Thunderf00t is a good guy, I was a fan for a while and then he lost it completely, I think quite frankly he is a douche, but this is one I can’t really hold against him because I wouldn’t hold it against somebody I liked or respected if they were in a similar position.
AAutumn, put down that keyboard.
Regulars here know that one of the indicators I use to spot trolls is when they try to dominate a conversation with volume. That’s you. You’re babbling. You spit out an insta-comment whenever someone else says anything. That tells me you’re not thinking.
Stew in other people’s words for a while, then post a response that’s got more meat to it than a knee-jerk defense of Thunderf00t, who is one of the more thoroughly reviled characters around here. It’s going to take more than spluttering rapid-fire to persuade anyone that he’s anything more than an asshole with a youtube account.
#133: The rules changed because I hate rules lawyering.
You can take it as given that gendered insults are not allowed here.
brucegorton
Why wouldn’t that be a popular opinion after several people, PZ included in the OP, have openly condemned what she did as definitely wrong.
However, it’s difficult to spend too much time talking about how awful it was what she did, in the light of how monumentally worse TF’s response has been. Yes, it was bad, but it’s eclipsed by something far, far worse. That’s not even taking into account the long history of awful and misserable things TF has done…
Dreaming of an Atheistic Newtopia
Maybe I am projecting my own feelings a bit. Given Thunderf00t’s history, I’m not entirely comfortable with how ambivalent I feel on this one.
@ PZ, I genuinely assure you that I’m not trolling. I just responded with my thoughts as they occured to me. Did it have to be over 115 lines? Well, probably not. But on the whole this discussion unfolded quite nicely, and as my arguments were shown to be fallacious over the course of the discussion, I renounced them at the end of my bit and adopted the more correct view.
Yes I did reply immediately when a thought occured to me, but not with the intent of overwhelming a conversation. It’s kind of what you do when you’re telling ten people that you think they’re wrong. Then every time you make an argument, each individual person replies to your arguments in a similar way, so you wind up relating your rebuttal to multiple people at more points than one. An ineffective strategy at best, but that didn’t really occur to me much while I was sitting in some of my lectures this morning.
On the whole I took it away from the ungodly tomes that are this thread, that this website actually isn’t half bad. And that the old TF vs PZ videos TF made were probably not accurate portrayals of the website. I actually quite like it here.
I don’t think it was PZ’s fault that he didn’t see Mason’s nasty side coming, I think that many of us only heard Mason speak about atheism and skepticism in the broadest possible sense. He wasn’t making videos on his views on feminism then, so we didn’t know he had such a dysfunctional, hostile attitude towards it.
Broadly speaking I think that some prominent individual atheists, looking at Mason but also Dawkins and Harris, have from put the physical sciences on a pedestal while ignoring the social sciences because the evidence is fuzzier and harder to falsify. When you ignore psychology because you don’t want to examine your own motivations, sociology because you don’t want to understand your broader place in society and history because you can’t be bothered understanding that it isn’t a hollywood movie of goodies vs baddies it doesn’t matter that you respect biology, physics and chemistry. Your skepticism is deeply affected because you aren’t prepared to turn it inwards.
Nor do I.
I’m someone who has a bit of experience with people trying to get me fired from my job for my online activities. It first happened less than five months after I started blogging, and it’s happened periodically every year or two in the decade since then. The scariest attempt occurred in 2010, when an antivaxer named Jake Crosby wrote a lie-filled article about my supposed undisclosed “conflicts of interest” with respect to vaccines because I allegedly was receiving money from Sanofi-Aventis. It was all BS, of course. I was studying a drug that was at the time owned by Sanofi-Aventis to see if it had anticancer activity, but, idiot that I am in terms of cluelessness with respect to getting that filthy pharma lucre, I paid for the drug myself out of my grant and startup funds. In any case, Jake lied about me; the most charitable interpretation is that he was so clueless that he didn’t realize how dumb his accusations were, but I don’t think even he was that clueless.
In fairness, Jake didn’t actually suggest that people write my employer in his post. Someone in the comments did, as I recall, and as a result my department chairman, cancer center director, medical school dean, and even the main university’s board of governors were flooded with complaints about me. I had only been working here 2 years, and, let me tell you, it was…awkward…explaining to my dean just what the heck this was all about. However, I’m fortunate enough to work for a university, and universities still value free speech and academic freedom. So my dean and the university supported me. My department chair, I think, was amused more than anything else, and he supported me too.
But…
I can fully imagine if I worked for a private company that it might not have gone so well. A private company might not have wanted to put up with the hassle of a bunch of deranged antivax loons flooding its leaders with rants about me or the possible hit to its image that might occur if they went more public. A private company might have told me to shut up and stop blogging. A private company might have even fired me rather than put up with the hassle.
That being said, as much as I detest people who write complaint letters to people’s employers to try to cause trouble for them for expressing their opinions online outside of work, which LW definitely did, in this case the retaliatory response, the doxxing, was a thousand-fold out of proportion to the crime. Two wrongs don’t make a right, particularly if the second wrong is the far more harmful of the two, the wronger of the wrongs, so to speak.
And Thunderf00t remains an asshole.
I (that is, my employers) also get these regular demands to fire me. Most recently, someone sent in Nugent’s long list of my perfidy to the division chair and various administrators; Comma has also sent in complaints of conspiracy. I get called in every once in a while to explain that no, I haven’t raped any students recently, nope, I haven’t been in collusion with the Illuminati, no way, I really haven’t been destroying student newspapers, no, no, no. I’ve had more than a few conversations with university lawyers.
It’s a waste of everyone’s time. I could be the snide, ugly asshole all these people think I am, and it wouldn’t matter, as long as I’m doing my job competently and am not committing criminal acts. It really is that simple. Administrators aren’t in the job of policing my personal, extra-curricular behavior, and no one wants them to be.
AAutumn@140, I completely agree with you here. I often witnessed what you’re describing (i.e., someone says something not very well thought-out or contrary to the majority’s opinion, then everybody answers at the same time, the person is overwhelmed by the pile-on and does their best to answer, then finally gets accused of making the thread all about themselves), and that always makes me cringe.
Unfortunately, it’s hard to avoid, since actual bad faith trolls are very common here. PZ’s advice to put down the keyboard, think a bit, and come back later is good advice, though it’s not easy when you’re being piled-on, and it’s also rather unpleasant to find dozens of angry messages to read and answer when you come back…
Anyway, props for being able to change your mind and admit your position was not as correct as you thought it was. I mocked you because of your comment about “looking at things objectively”, but it seems I was wrong and you actually try. (But of course savant@99 is still totally right that it’s not a good idea to brag about this.)
What Thunderf00t did and continues to do is wrong on every level. Totally indefensible.
Taking internet drama into the real world and going after a person’s employment, and doxing or at least signal boosting this person’s information? All unequivicolly wrong in our opinion. No excuses. Going after her means of employment? No! Fuck no! Not over internet drama. Encouraging fanboys and followers to take action on his behalf? Cowardly bullshit. Fuck that and fuck him.
On top of everything is the victim blaming. Not surprised about that at this point but always disappointed by it anyway. Some are trying to claim that LaughingWitch started it or was asking for it in some way because of something she had done first. Even if any of that is true it doesn’t justify broadcasting her name and employment info. It’s clear to the world that’s nothing more than a call to arms for others to do the dirty work on his behalf. Some are claiming that LW shared her own name in one of her own videos but (even if that were true) that doesn’t excuse TF for making that information known to an even larger audience. It’s still wrong regardless of whether the information was technically already “out there.”
Can’t help but notice the power and privilige dynamics in play here as well. Comparitively more popular white male trying to intimidate and harass a less well known woman by screwing with her employment. This type of stuff is prefuckingcisely why it’s come down to petitioning the U.N. for help with cyberviolence against women. These kinds of bully tactics and harassment cannot be allowed but sites like Yelp and Twitter and YouTube seem powerless or just completely unwilling to actually protect users.
Part of the whole argument in this thread ignores there is such a thing a Political Dog Whistles.
Political dog whistles allow someone to say “I didn’t sic my fans on somebody”, and by their actual words they didn’t. But the words they said was interpreted by misogynist bullies as “go gett’m” by those who understand the meaning.
I notice many who claim equivocation ignore the concept of dog whistles, and just look at the words per se. Those of us who know dog whistles see through the words to the meaning behind them. Example, “states rights” means “Jim Crow laws are legal” to bigots.
8) DID YOU KNOW
That the user known as the Facts did not bother to read the fucking thread and is making an ass out of himself?
(9) DID YOU KNOW?
Now we can add a corollary to the idea that the majority of people with the word ‘atheist’ in their usernames are ass wipes. We can now include the word ‘facts’ and probably ‘truth’ as well.
Wow, The Facts are actually clearly damning for PZ and the other scum SJWs! I never knew! I mean, think about it, there might be a paedophile among them, so clearly they are full of shit. And PZ does not defend HannibalTheVictor13 who was not attacked by Thunderf00t, whereas he defended LaughingWitch who was attacked by Thunderf00t, so WHAT ABOUT CONSISTENCY??
If only I had not let myself get carried away by wishful thinking and blind hatred… Thanks a lot for en
tertainlightening us, The Facts!Sarah Butts is not even a pedo, at least I haven’t seen any evidence on that other than some gamergaters unsourced tweet, but then getting a gamergater to believe anything negative about SJWs is easy as fuck.
I’m pretty sure this is a felony. I believe fake reviews are fraud. Directing a coordinated fraud (especially in self interest, in this case to punish free speech against his reputation) looks like racketeering. And though the authorities often don’t give a shit about cybercrimes like this, civil court will answer. I hope they consult a lawyer about suing. Because I think there is a real case here.
The Facts&TM; is an obvious misogynist asshole who wouldn’t know the truth from the his asshole’s flatulence to make his agenda work. Which it doesn’t. Eau de Asshole is strong with this one….
In a blog post about Mason proving PZ was wrong about him, Mason’s defenders are proving him right about them. That’s an interesting turn of events.
@ sff9
Hey, gamergaters make predatory pedophillic comments too-but theirs are more plausible and better sourced.
http://i.imgur.com/wmqYWXD.png
https://archive.is/uzuVY#selection-2929.7-2933.15
So, is there a massive Brietbart/GamerGate/Baph campaign to defame and dogpile the Gamergater who said that? If not, why not?
@logicalcat
Probably not. I never watched any in full because they started off sounding like they were preaching to the choir, then I saw how long they were. If I wanted to hear a snarky atheist who would later become clearly an Islamophobe and sexist, at least Bill Maher made me laugh.
#139
@144
I’ll be honest. What Laughing Witch attempted to do is vile. She initiated a harassing mail campaign to get a person fired from his job for asshole things he posts in his spare time. That is vile and unacceptable.
However, if my neighbor threatens to poison my cat, I’m not going to respond by poisoning his dog. And if I did and I end up the only one with a living pet I wouldn’t claim that proves my neighbor was the real pet poisoner.
If thunderf00t thinks this is a serious threat (which it is) then he should be aware and very loathe to engage in it himself. I’m not going to run red lights to deliberately smash my car into drunk drivers.
Both thunderf00t and Laughing Witch are both vile people (although Laughing Witch seems more of naive dupe) but neither deserve to lose their job or business. And one of them suffered real harm from this and the other didn’t.
So, no, I’m not going to dismiss what thunderf00t did with a “she started it”. (What is this, kindergarten?)
Oh, and posting fake reviews on Yelp is criminal fraud.
Unpopular opinion here (oh noes, I’m going to be banned, woe is me, yadda yadda)
While I think that there should be a very high treshold, I don’t think that people’s off work behaviour should never be a reason for them to face consequences at work. If your off-work behaviour shows that you do not endorse the ethics required to do your work then at least some extra scrutiny should be applied.
This doesn’t mean that assholes aren’t trying and will not try to get people fired for holding “wrong” opinions. HR should be trained and competent to handle such complaints.
So what do I mean by legitimate complaints?
For example, if PZ didn’t go after famous creationists and figures of religious authority but would go after individual christian undergrads on his blog. If he constantly trashed christian students as “trash” and “stupid” and “terminally incompetent”. I think that in that case christian students and parents would be more than justified in worrying about whether there would be discrimination based on religious belief.
Or some examples from Germany: Young male neo fascists often work for security services which then get hired to ensure safety at refugee centres*. Participating in anti-refugee demonstrations and posting horrible anti-refugee shit on social websites has been deemed sufficient to fire them and believe me, worker protection in Germany is quite high.
*There is, of course, a huge amount of irony in the fact that those assholes who rage and rant against refugees coming and stealing “our” jobs only have a job because there are refugees coming
@162 Giliell, that last point is actually hilarious when you ponder it.
@ sff9, thanks for the props :) I value myself on having knowledge of anything. It honestly borders on the absurd with some of the more stupid things I waste my time learning. If I learn that an opinion I hold or something as I know, is wrong or does not accurately fit the circumstances than I just go for the next best view.
//
On an unrelated note, what’s the general consensus around here on people like tl;dr, or Feminist Frequency? I ask as this is my first thread on here and haven’t had much time to grasp exactly what people’s views are yet. If there is another place I should be posting or asking this, please let me know.
@Richard Carrier #155
Is it really necessary for those working in the civil courts to have to waste their time on a petty issue like this? Both Thunder and Witch engaged in provocative behavior which seems to have had the desired effect on both sides. Both parties have damaged their reputations (If Thunders could actually sink any lower, but that’s another argument) and do we really care who comes out on top legally between someone making false claims about Nazi support to someone else’s employer and someone promoting the trolling of a yelp account?
She doxxed herself. TF didn’t do anything she hadn’t done. He certainly didn’t send letters to her boss to fire her. It is all very silly.
@164 mclarenm23
What?? Both of them have had the desired effect? No they fucking haven’t….one of the sides has had NO effect and the other is well on its way to destroying the business of two people and leaving their 14 employees without a job. How in the fuck is that both of them having the desired effect?
Also, yes, civil courts should be in the business of dealing with malicious campaigns of fake reviews that destroy businesses. Absolutely.
Wow this got huge.
Just as a note: I didn’t report TF on Patreon. I just find it very difficult to leave things unfound on the internet so when someone said they couldn’t find the page I went and got it for them.
@nevilleneville: Have you read any of this thread? There is a big difference between someones info being available on line and someone posting it to an audience that they know will react in an over the top harassing manner.
IMO the woman who sent the letter was also acting, although I think Giliell @162 has a point, but TF cannot claim to be ignorant of what will happen if he lays into someone in a video and provides locations to contact that person. His subs are going to trash them and he knows that’s going to happen.
Do you really think Witch expected Thunder to get fired or that Thunder thought Witch’s business would go under? They were both devious acts designed to provoke the other person, cause trouble and get people like us whipped up into a frenzy about it.
If the fake reviews actually destroy the business or Thunder actually gets fired, then we can reopen the debate but at the moment it is a petty internet squabble.
Errm. I accidentally a word during editing.
should read “… also acting inappropriately…”
Also, because I didn’t make it clear: I think Thunderf00t’s actions are FAR worse that her’s due to the magnitude and the fact that he knows exactly the kind of abuse his followers are going to dish out to anyone he even vaguely gives them an excuse to go after.
He didn’t tell anyone to go and do it. Now if it was me I wouldn’t have put it up, but the information was proudly displayed by her so it is hard to have too much compassion for her. Especially with the deranged behaviour she displayed towards him.
mclarenm23
Valid points, this all seems blown out of proportion.
nevilleneville
*sigh* Read the thread. This has been addressed already.
So what, I must go along with what someone else said. Unless their is evidence he set people on her, I
shall stay skeptical.
Political dog whistles. Read up on that. And understand TF showing information about an uppity woman IS waving the “sic ’em” signal to the raving misogynist bullies.
AAutumn #163
Have you tried using a search engine for your question about Pharyngula general consensus?
Still, that is opinion not fact. And to call people who watch his videos misogynists won’t do us any favours. Unless their is proof, it would be wrong to go ape shit at him.
Denying the obvious is not being skeptical…it’s the fucking opposite…it’s digging your heels and refusing to acknowledge what is evidently true because it goes against your prefered conclussion.
The delusional perfect “skeptics” strike again…
nevilleneville
So it’S total coincidence that after he showed her name and business in a video complaining about her people started to target her and her business. Tide goes in, tide goes out, you can’t explain that…
Who’s “us” supposed to be? Are you using the royal “we”?
No, it is fact. Ask Rebecca Watson, Anita Sarkeesian, et al., about how little it takes for the misogynist bullies to come out of the woodwork and attack. You are very unobservant. Open you eyes, instead of shutting them. And only misogynists defend TF. You outed yourself.
Feeling justified in doing wrong. Atheists can be just as susceptible to in-group vs out-group dynamics just like the religious.
Ah, the magic words that have tainted the whole skeptic movement. They never seem to notice that what they choose to be skeptical about is so telling.
Nevilleneville has been banned.
Not just for his tripe here, but because he only shows up to sneer at feminism, and in the past has posted videos from assholes like Sargon of Akkad and Thunderf00t as if they somehow are credible evidence for his claims. He’s exactly the kind of mindless dudebro I want to fuck off.
Good.
The Hivemind is pleased.
At least this unit is.
How this man still has a job, let alone a youtube channel still amazes me.
All I want for xmas is for the “it’s not technically illegal” defense to vanish from discourse about ethics.
Technical legality is for court. This ain’t court.
“It’s not technically illegal” is about as useful in a discussion on ethics as “it’s not technically poisonous” is useful in a discussion on whether it’s safe to eat some wild berries.
My dad once gave me a few days of discomfort after mistakenly equating “nontoxic” with “edible”. In my defence, I was four at the time.
@mclarenm23 #77:
Is all subjective comment necessarily pomo? I was offering what I hoped would be an amusing reference in which to frame my opinion, not a rebuttal by formal logic.
@Rich Woods #188:
The Potter Stewart quotation isn’t even necessarily subjective, much less “postmodernist anti science” (at least when it’s used outside of its original context, that is, as “an amusing reference” or the like, rather than —for instance—some kind of appeal to Stewart’s authority as a jurist). I am in the midst of a long project to make sense of mathematical modeling (I am a mathematician, neither a scientist nor a philosopher, so I may not be the ideal person for the task but I think I’m no worse suited for it than various scientists and philosophers who aren’t mathematicians and have tried to do the job). Here are two fragments of a manuscript in progress; the first is background for the second, and the second gets back to Potter Stewart.
==fragment #1==
[Konrad] Lorenz’s rhetorical questions Q1–Q4 quoted [from his 1942 paper translated as “Kant’s doctrine of the a priori in the light of contemporary biology”] in 1.2.1 can be condensed into the single (equally rhetorical) question posed by Georg Kreisel (1978, pp. 85–86; italics in the original), a mathematical logician and philosopher of mathematics:
Kreisel addressed Q5 neither to Kant nor to Lorenz (I have no reason to believe that Kreisel was even aware of Lorenz’s article) but to the mathematical physicist Eugene Wigner. Specifically, Q5 was Kreisel’s response to the catch-phrase which the title of Wigner’s 1959 Courant Lecture, “The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the physical sciences” (Wigner, 1960), had quickly become.
==end of fragment #1==
==fragment #2==
Lorenz’s article, though not long (running to 30 pages in German, half that in English translation), is long enough for him to discuss in some detail possible answers to his four questions. My manifesto is very short […]. [Here is a] condensation of it, suitable for use on bumper stickers, namely the following axiom stated by Justice Potter Stewart.
Of course to serve my purpose EO7EO7—which is not otherwise, perhaps, comparable to “Kant’s doctrine of the a priori”—must, like that doctrine, be viewed “in the light of contemporary biology”: that is, evolutionarily. In that light, the axiom (which, absent such illumination, might appear to be an axiom of epistemology alone: it does begin “I know”) is clearly (also) an axiom of ontology—an “it” is an “it” (to me) because “I see it” (and only then do “I know it”). That is, before (and, then, during and after) “thinking about the external world in which we have evolved”, we (not just human beings, but all evolved beings that can be said to “perceive” in any sense, whether or not they can also be said to “cognize”) surely have become (generally) “effective” in structuring “the external world in which we have evolved”: the “it”s that we (first) “see”, then “know”, are our “it”s, and they are ours because we and they evolved together. Collectively they are, in fact, our “system of ‘things’” (Baldwin, 1909, p. 72, as quoted by Campbell, 1974, p. 447; see (D) on p. 4).
Like Kreisel, I deliberately (and, for my part, avowedly) conflate humans’ being “effective in thinking about the external world in which we have evolved” with humans’ thinking mathematically about that world—which is not to say that all (or even very much!) “effective” thinking behavior by (human or other thinking) beings is explicitly mathematical, only that some (and perhaps much) of the most effective thinking either is (semi-)mathematical or mathematecizable, or can itself be (effectively) thought about mathematically—in other words, mathematically modeled.
==end fragment #2==
Hey, something you might want to know about that fundraiser. Agent of Doubt on You Tube did a bit of detective work and found out Laughing Witch and her husband have a judgement against them from Well’s Fargo (made in August, before this drama) w/ Tf00t), and the amount they’re trying to raise coincidentally is roughly the same amount they’re in debt, something which they were not upfront about. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qY689h8Tos AoD discovered this thru Maryland’s court records. Tf00t is still an asshole for doxxing her, but LW isn’t blameless either. And I’m speaking as a former LW sub who liked her videos pwning people like Davis Aurini. Kinda disappointing to see her go down this route.
-.- No one here has said she was blameless.
as someone who comes from a literature background, and who occasionally does literary criticism, i am continually baffled by this weird equation of “postmodern” with “anti-science” or even just “silly”. Alex Gabriel and Natalie Reed had a good discussion about it that expresses how i feel about pretty eloquently: http://freethoughtblogs.com/godlessness/2015/05/31/i-feel-obliged-to-never-talk-about-my-atheism-natalie-reed/
If I was Phil Mason’s boss, I’d fire him now. How odd, that his behavior was in response to a complaint to his boss, but his behavior after would certainly embarrass his boss enough to fire him now. Ironic, isn’t it? (I’m really asking- is it ironic or coincidental?)
In fairness, she provided all that information herself. She sent a letter to his employer making false accusation of him being a Nazi supporter simply because she disagreed with him and in the video where she sent it she proudly showed her own name on the letter! A simple Google search of her name would have revealed the information already on her company website!
I’m not saying I agree with people leaving bad reviews on her company page, that’s just stooping to her vindictive level, but that’s not Thunderf00t’s fault. He simply responded to her actions and in doing so included the snippet of her own video in which SHE included her personal details. He never once encouraged anybody to respond in this way. She’s been pretty much hoisted by her own petard and there’s some poetic justice in that.
Also, SHE removed her YouTube Channel, not Thunderf00t. At least she had the balls to apologise in the end!
I’m not even a fan of the guy, but this article is so biased and completely misrepresents what happened!
This thread makes me sick, the amount of SJW circlejerk is appalling. TLW gave her own info away, even pointed at her real name with a finger in a video she posted. TF merely had that segment of her video in his.
I know this post will probably be deleted, but you guys and the moderators have formed this hive mind collective of just terrible thoughts and ideas.
It’s just like you neo progressive assholes to shut out differing opinions, and the ganging up you guys did on AAutumn is downright shameful.
This is one of the reasons why I will probably always be a fan of Thunderfoot. Would exactly have done so myself with that crazy lady.
The op isn’t exactly fair but on Phil mason I will challenge him in the free market of ideas as he is always blathering on about. Implying that a woman may leave herself vulnerable to rape in an analogy to you letting a mountain lion attack you is a horrifying blame on the victim that strains all intelligence and strikes me as immoral. I cannot stand by you after that one. Still a lot of hatred slung around here for those claiming the high road. Phil with your popularity ignoring laughing witch was a far better use of any dignity you have . Pz let’s put thunder foot to bed for real this time please? You keep flattering him with acknowkedgement, which is so much less than he deserves.
Thunderf00t is one these Youtubers who is really only successful when he has an enemy. At first he was the legions of creationists who were posting bullshit on Youtube, and when they largely disappeared, he spent years searching for an enemy. He found the perfect enemy in feminists, especially the one who did all those videos about video games and sexism, which obviously is something that just cannot be done in this day of hyper rationality and reason. He then spent all his time fighting with people over feminism, because he found the perfect audience. The young angry man! The young angry man sees the world falling apart left and right. He’s beguiled by libertarian bullshit and race realism fantasies, and then he finds a person with a doctorate who just doesn’t like the gynocentric, emasculated world that he thinks is robbing of his birthright to greatness. So the Thunderf00t becomes the Thundermob.
He’s essentially making a Youtube career out of being a professional troll, and the problem with this sort of person is that attacking him in any way is just going help his cause. More conflict= more hits= more Patreon money.
Here’s what I did with him. I used to subscribe. I unsubscribed. I have better things to do with my life than fight with people on the internet, especially over social and political issues that actually do matter in the real world. At one time, I thought I would do commentary videos on Youtube, but if it’s nothing but technologically astute Archie Bunkers running the show there, what is the point?
Thunderf00t isn’t worth anyone’s time anymore. He’s just an annoyance, and he’s eating up all this negative attention and publicity.
I think it’s time to playing games this overgrown teenage boy. He’s wrong about feminism. Totally. He’s wrong about tolerating Muslims in our society. Totally. He’s wrong about a lot of things. He thinks one step below Nobel material. He also is probably overestimating his ability to intimidate mountain lions.
But he’s living off all this hatred he’s getting. He loves it. He’s a hateful person. He’s sad person in a lot of ways. I feel sorry that he lost his dad to cancer. I get the impression that he’s always sort of been an outcast, and until he started to make something of himself in the academy and on Youtube, he was a really sad and lonely person. I feel sorry for him.
In his most recent video, which I only watched because I’ve been following this drama for the past month, he sounds like Donald Trump talking about how successful his Youtube channel is. I could almost hear him say “It’s really yuuuuuge.”
When you’re dealing with someone like this, it’s best to turn him off. That’s what I’m going to do from now on.
For those playing along in the latest round of Asshat Bingo here are the latest calls:
plutoid733 @194: victim blaming + sexist language
terribleperson @195: more victim blaming + using the term “SJW” + reference to “hive mind”
johannes9126 @196: ableist language
Thunderf00t just released another video
inciting his army to continue the harassmentwhining about how he was treated and gloating about what he’s managed to accomplish in return. Which presumably explains the sudden influx of fans and supporters.I never thought of the terms circlejerk and hive mind as complimentary until now. Thanks, terribleperson.
I’ve banned a few more people here, and am closing the thread. Now that the asshole contingent of Thunderf00t acolytes has had their ignorant, bigoted say, I never need to hear from them again.