Check out some of thunderf00ts videos on sarkeesian (youtube thunderf00t sarkesian).

Level headed response and breaks down this social crusader for what she really is.

Someone thats making noises to get money for her videos / books whatever. She sounds reasonable, until you hear the other side....and then you cant fathom how you could have ever believed her bullshit to begin with.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'solar, roadways, reality, check, its laughable' to 'solar roadways, reality check, thunderf00t, are they real' - edited by xxovercastxx

I see what you're getting at. In this particular instance though, I'd say the Tyson explains it in a fine manner. What else would you like to back it up? Citations?

You can compare these with more in-depth videos like those thunderf00t or AronRa makes, where they actually go in detail with their explanations. Those are indeed much harder pills to swallow - most people want to be educated while entertained and often a video simile of a university lecture is just not appealing.

You'll, of course, notice the difference between what the two speakers in this video are saying. Limbaugh says "it may result in this", while Tyson says "it does this, which then results in this". Limbaugh does not provide anything to back up his claim, while Tyson at least backs up one step. He does not explain why the atmosphere captures IR light, granted, but it is not just an empty claim.

The framing of the video is a bit crass, but in terms of right and wrong it sums it up pretty well.

I'd rather not get involved in this discussion because it just makes me mad. I've skimmed over several discussions of this video, and find Nugent's to be the one that reflects my opinion thereof in the politest fashion:

http://www.michaelnugent.com/2013/01/03/thunderf00t’s-inflammatory-video-of-misleading-personal-attacks-on-atheist-feminists-is-not-helpful/

When did I become Thunderf00t?

Your video, Thunderf00t - Why 'Feminism' is poisoning Atheism, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 28 Badge!

Alternate Title: Thunderf00t Successfully Trolled by PC Crowd

I'm no fan of atheism+ and that in spite of the fact that I do support most of their claimed causes. I just don't like the censorship and banning, the very conflation of religion with social causes that we've been fighting against for years, or the 'with us or against us' attitude I find when I look to see what all of the fuss is. noelplum99 (among others) has a sourced and detailed playlist of vids explaining his objections, long but it covers a lot of ground. http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLl8YBXeamXSI4rnZraJTu3RDXnkImNwD7

Rather than a double post I'll reply to the statement by VoodooV above here as well. VoodooV says...

"This video is confusing, it doesn't really introduce itself or the problem very well."

I'm not subscribed to anyone directly involved in the fights so don't really have a horse in the race and haven't followed every detail. But in a nutshell... many months back at a conference a woman in an elevator was made uncomfortable by a man, man turned out to be Richard Dawkins. People took sides and much drama ensued.

Freethought blogs took on Thunderf00t as a writer and he expressed opinions which pissed off some of the others at the blog. More people took sides, more drama ensued and Thunderf00t was asked to leave.

And in the middle of this those who took the more (to them at least) 'feminist' view decided to start a new group, atheist+, even they seem to admit these days that the launch of the idea was ham handed and more confrontational than it needed to be and according to them it's all just a misunderstanding. According to their critics it's understood just fine, the critics just don't agree. Yet more people took sides and yet more drama ensued. And here we are.

My favorite comment on the whole mess was probably a post by TheMudbrooker at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLMy6zBft4s Can't say that I agree with every word of it but the end at least seems on point for my view. If they need a group to tell them what to do, a social structure, go back to church where they belong and leave the rest of us alone. It's hard enough as it is to get people to understand that atheist mean "not theist" and nothing more without these people confusing the issue. Regardless of any other opinions anyone might have about them for other reasons. I don't approve of mixing religion and politics and it's no more defensible to mix a lack of religion with politics. Separate debates even if they are both worthy on their own merits. It's not helpful.

Reading the title I thought thunderf00t had lost his fucking mind.....it seems I am gladly wrong on that one.

Perfect last statement.

Thunderf00t "God does not kill people, People with God kill people. When you justify the slaughter of children as an absolute good because you think a magic being said that it was good.. you're not moral, but a monster"

Your video, Thunderf00t Unmasked, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Yeah, his demeanor is very threatening. What a dick.
>> ^cracanata:

That obtuse little shit, he's well aware of what the even obtuser of the Islamic brothers would do with Thunderf00t's real name, he's so aware that he's reciting very slowly his words ...what a tool.
I hope Thunderf00t will come out of this nicely, but considering the level of motivation these animals have...

That obtuse little shit, he's well aware of what the even obtuser of the Islamic brothers would do with Thunderf00t's real name, he's so aware that he's reciting very slowly his words ...what a tool.
I hope Thunderf00t will come out of this nicely, but considering the level of motivation these animals have...

>> ^NetRunner:
China doesn't have the ability to censor anything outside of its own domain either

What are you talking about? The Chinese government controls or monitors most or all communication channels going in and out of the country (thanks in no small part to Google). Not only do they effectively prevent communication about certain topics between their own citizens, they prevent communication between their citizens and the outside world. When the censorship is circumvented, the consequences are dire, sometimes fatal.

>> ^NetRunner:
in the hypothetical situation that Google stuck to their guns, and thunderf00t decided to keep breaking Google's policy to make a point, ultimately the U.S. government would be drawn into the fight, and would, if nobody backed down, arrest thunderf00t for trying to use Google's property in a way that they didn't consent to.

lmahs! On what charges? Google wouldn't even have grounds for a civil suit unless they could demonstrate some real harm to their business. Short of thunderf00t actively hacking Google's servers to post his videos, he would face no consequences more severe than those set out in the terms of service:

1. YouTube will terminate a user's access to the Service if, under appropriate circumstances, the user is determined to be a repeat infringer.


2. YouTube reserves the right to decide whether Content violates these Terms of Service for reasons other than copyright infringement, such as, but not limited to, pornography, obscenity, or excessive length. YouTube may at any time, without prior notice and in its sole discretion, remove such Content and/or terminate a user's account for submitting such material in violation of these Terms of Service.

That might be terrifying if YouTube was the only useful video host, or could somehow exert influence on all the others to prevent access to those as well.


I think this comes down to two interrelated disagreements. First, I view censorship, like most tools, as morally neutral. It can be used morally (e.g., preventing the dissemination of information on how to design biological weapons) or immorally (e.g., preventing the dissemination of information on government corruption). The immorality of an act of censorship is based on what the information is, why its censored, who is censored, and the consequences for circumventing the censorship.

Second, in this case, I don't think Google is in a position to use censorship in an immoral way. This is what I mean by "effective" censorship. If circumventing the censorship requires little or no effort, and there are no real consequences for doing so, it can hardly be called "effective", can it? Hypocritical and unethical? Absolutely. But Google can neither prohibit nor prevent thunderf00t from communicating anything he wants to whomever he wants.

>> ^jonny:

1) Censorship is not, in and of itself, morally wrong. There are plenty of situations where it is not only acceptable but morally preferable.

Which situations? I can think of a few too, and as I said in earlier comments I think it's perfectly acceptable to have some narrow exceptions to the "free speech shall not be infringed" rule.

I'm just saying that we'd enumerate the exceptions in law, and if your speech doesn't clearly fall in one of those categories (like incitement to violence or hate speech), then private companies shouldn't be free to censor you.

The idea isn't to force Youtube to host hate speech, the idea is to give people a legal recourse if they're being censored for merely rendering an atheist critique of major religions.
>> ^jonny:
2) What makes censorship immoral is the nature and basis of the censorship and the means of its enforcement consequences for breaking it. 3) Google does not have the ability to effectively censor anything outside of its own domain, which means it doesn't have the ability to effectively censor anything, period.

We're back to my China example then. China doesn't have the ability to censor anything outside of its own domain either, which (according to you) means it doesn't have the ability to effectively censor anything, period.
>> ^jonny:
Every time I start to expand on these points, I keep coming back to that first word. 'Yes.' Before I go any further, I want to make sure I understand you clearly. Is it the case that you believe a policy of repressive government censorship which would provoke someone to renounce their citizenship is morally equivalent to Google's censorship which would provoke someone to change their video host?

I'm mostly just being flippant. China's form of censorship is clearly much worse than what Google did here. But there's usually a sliding scale with moral transgressions -- if a guy punches someone in the face over a misunderstanding, and then later apologizes, that's obviously less severe than a guy who unrepentantly commits genocide. But the underlying violation of moral principle is the same: violence against innocent people is wrong.

The larger point I'm trying to make is that China is only different in terms of how intensely they've violated the underlying moral principle. It's not a categorically different transgression.

And keep in mind, that in the hypothetical situation that Google stuck to their guns, and thunderf00t decided to keep breaking Google's policy to make a point, ultimately the U.S. government would be drawn into the fight, and would, if nobody backed down, arrest thunderf00t for trying to use Google's property in a way that they didn't consent to.