Then you haven't encountered any of his fans on twitter.

And he is pretty much the largest and most 1:1 example the above video is referencing: He uses specious arguments, focuses on minor details or extreme examples to paint with a massive brush, and generally is more vitriol than skepticism.

And the difference between Sarkeesian making videos critiquing and thunderf00t is myriad: Sarkeesian focuses on depictions and media, thunderf00t focuses on indviduals and a very amorphous idea of "feminism" with videos like "Why feminism is poisoning atheism", "Why 'feminism' poisons EVERYTHING", all pretty much completely obsessed with Sarkeesian and Rebecca Watson.

That's not skepticism.. that's a creepy personal vendetta.

The other major difference are their fans. I don't recall Sarkeesian ever taking out a personal vendetta against a random person and suggesting her fans bombard their business on Yelp with bad reviews and then people on the doxxing boards of 8chan joined in the online attacks.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/10/25/1439148/-Phil-Mason-is-Working-With-Baphomet-to-Ruin-DC-Business

I mean, it's not quite as simple as "one person makes videos critiquing, another makes videos critiquing". But I feel like you probably already knew that.

>> ^RFlagg:

Elevatorgate... Rebecca Watson (that Wiki link includes a summary of the elevator incident as well), founder of Skeptchick.com and semi-popular atheist blogger/vlogger, was a guest at the World Atheist Convention in Dublin. She gave a speech that apparently painted a misogynistic view within the atheist community and how women are under represented and the men treat the women who are there lowly. She was in the hotel bar with some friends after and at 4am announced she was going to bed. She got on the elevator and some guy followed her on. She says he cornered her and asked her if she wanted to come to his room for some coffee. She felt very uncomfortable and turned him down. She then made a blog post and video saying that you shouldn't approach a girl alone in an elevator and proposition her, and that was inappropriate behavior. From there elevatorgate blew up. Some accused her of over reacting, that it was just coffee, others pointed out it was "coffee" in his room at 4am. Many big names in the community took sides, and eventually even Richard Dawkins came out against her. It mostly fell across gender lines, many women noted how few women were at these conventions and pointed to the whole thing as an example of why, while many men said it was just coffee and one couldn't infer anything beyond that. There were notable exceptions on both sides, but the whole thing occupied the atheist blogsphere for a while.
If you look up atheist elevator incident on Google, you'll find lots of opinions and parodies of the incident. A large part of the community thought it was an over reaction, while the largest part of the community just got tired of it all. I personally was in the later category, but I do think it was inappropriate to ask her to his room, and she had a right to feel creeped out. Had he asked her to the hotel's restaurant/cafe and she reacted the way she did, then I would see the other point of view, but he asked her to his room. They didn't know each other, so I can see how that would be seen as odd... as a matter of fact I have a hard time seeing how anybody sees it as perfectly normal and okay, but a large part of the community did, or at least felt she over reacted to it (although it didn't appear she overreacted at first, it was after the community started reacting to it that the reactions started getting out of control on both sides).
Anyhow elevatorgate finally settled down, but still remains a hot button issue, hence the joke about elevators being a touchy subject at the end.
>> ^Boise_Lib:
>> ^RFlagg:
Loved and agreed with all of it. I also liked the "elevators are a touchy thing right now" at the end... a bit of an insider thing for the atheist community (and for the record I was largely on her side).

Do tell. No--really do.
I'm not familiar with the inside stuff.



Thanks. That's interesting.

Elevatorgate... Rebecca Watson (that Wiki link includes a summary of the elevator incident as well), founder of Skeptchick.com and semi-popular atheist blogger/vlogger, was a guest at the World Atheist Convention in Dublin. She gave a speech that apparently painted a misogynistic view within the atheist community and how women are under represented and the men treat the women who are there lowly. She was in the hotel bar with some friends after and at 4am announced she was going to bed. She got on the elevator and some guy followed her on. She says he cornered her and asked her if she wanted to come to his room for some coffee. She felt very uncomfortable and turned him down. She then made a blog post and video saying that you shouldn't approach a girl alone in an elevator and proposition her, and that was inappropriate behavior. From there elevatorgate blew up. Some accused her of over reacting, that it was just coffee, others pointed out it was "coffee" in his room at 4am. Many big names in the community took sides, and eventually even Richard Dawkins came out against her. It mostly fell across gender lines, many women noted how few women were at these conventions and pointed to the whole thing as an example of why, while many men said it was just coffee and one couldn't infer anything beyond that. There were notable exceptions on both sides, but the whole thing occupied the atheist blogsphere for a while.
If you look up atheist elevator incident on Google, you'll find lots of opinions and parodies of the incident. A large part of the community thought it was an over reaction, while the largest part of the community just got tired of it all. I personally was in the later category, but I do think it was inappropriate to ask her to his room, and she had a right to feel creeped out. Had he asked her to the hotel's restaurant/cafe and she reacted the way she did, then I would see the other point of view, but he asked her to his room. They didn't know each other, so I can see how that would be seen as odd... as a matter of fact I have a hard time seeing how anybody sees it as perfectly normal and okay, but a large part of the community did, or at least felt she over reacted to it (although it didn't appear she overreacted at first, it was after the community started reacting to it that the reactions started getting out of control on both sides).
Anyhow elevatorgate finally settled down, but still remains a hot button issue, hence the joke about elevators being a touchy subject at the end.

>> ^Boise_Lib:

>> ^RFlagg:
Loved and agreed with all of it. I also liked the "elevators are a touchy thing right now" at the end... a bit of an insider thing for the atheist community (and for the record I was largely on her side).

Do tell. No--really do.
I'm not familiar with the inside stuff.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

This achievement has earned you your "Silver Tongue" Level 4 Badge!

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

>> ^spoco2:
Awesome stuff.
I hate with a passion those who espouse not giving their kids vaccinations, especially those who do so based on here-say or what a 'friend told them' without ever looking into it.
Vaccines keep us safe, they have eradicated many diseases that would otherwise be killing us by the thousands or millions.
So while it's good to keep a sceptical eye on things at all times stopping things like vaccines without having any fricken idea why you are other than some uninformed dicks told you it was dangerous is just horrendous.
It's the same people who take homoeopathic medicines instead of actually doing anything to get cured of life threatening illnesses.

Eradicated diseases? No, the vaccines have suppressed many diseases, but have not eradicated them. If vaccines "Utterly destroyed" the maladies then the vaccines would no longer be needed and you would be advocating their uselessness.
The diseases are still around, and will continue to be around. Vaccines, no matter how good, will always be weaker than nature's wrath.
I blame this on the community of health and science for one reason. Autism is spiking, as are so many other diseases, and the answer to the question of why is pretty much an "I don't know the answer. But I will fail to give a possible answer that is believable, and additionally I will sell our opinion without any fanfare or exictement at all. It will be like a box of shit, but then, we don't know if it is manmade shit or not, but enjoy the shit nevertheless."
Also, if someone doesn't have the answers, people will temporarily fill in the blanks for them. It is our nature, it has been the way of man for 30 thousand years. It is how science advances (Temporary thoughts or theories.) Even the smartest, liberal minds do this everyday... So you cannot really hate people who guessed vaccines were bad.
You can however hate them now that the evidence contradicts their guesses.

The way of science isn't to fill in the blanks with wild speculation. Ok, every hypothesis starts with a guess, but the blank isn't truly filled in until its been tested. Your right though, humanities curious nature seems to be born out of a fundamental fear of the unknown, and we'll make up any fairy tale to help us sleep. I honestly wish we could embrace our ignorance without shame, after all, ignorance is really only damaging when you delude yourself into thinking you know the answers you don't. Do I hate the people that jumped to the wrong conclusion, not really, but I can't say I think much of the people who propogated the lie.

People used to be so stupid back in the 00s...
>> ^MycroftHomlz:

There was a time (just a few years back) here on videosift that the overwhelming sentiment was anti-vaccine and most of the people here had never heard of Andrew Wakefield. I am happy to see things have changed.

Small pox is gone. So yes, eradication is possible given persistence and commitment.

Weaker than natures wrath? That is some mighty fine grandstanding there, going for the nomination of best dramatic comment . Frankly, medicine and food are the two most important areas science has advanced. For instance, mortality rates for mothers giving birth is less than 1%, down from nearly 10% so many years ago. And this malevolent force of nature to which you refer hasn't struck every first born yet.


I agree with the jist of your comment mostly, though. If my child just got diagnosed with autism, I would be looking for answers, and vaccines would seem to be a smart place to look, strange men in lab coats poking children with needles is an easy target.
>> ^Lawdeedaw:

>> ^spoco2:
Awesome stuff.
I hate with a passion those who espouse not giving their kids vaccinations, especially those who do so based on here-say or what a 'friend told them' without ever looking into it.
Vaccines keep us safe, they have eradicated many diseases that would otherwise be killing us by the thousands or millions.
So while it's good to keep a sceptical eye on things at all times stopping things like vaccines without having any fricken idea why you are other than some uninformed dicks told you it was dangerous is just horrendous.
It's the same people who take homoeopathic medicines instead of actually doing anything to get cured of life threatening illnesses.

Eradicated diseases? No, the vaccines have suppressed many diseases, but have not eradicated them. If vaccines "Utterly destroyed" the maladies then the vaccines would no longer be needed and you would be advocating their uselessness.
The diseases are still around, and will continue to be around. Vaccines, no matter how good, will always be weaker than nature's wrath.
I blame this on the community of health and science for one reason. Autism is spiking, as are so many other diseases, and the answer to the question of why is pretty much an "I don't know the answer. But I will fail to give a possible answer that is believable, and additionally I will sell our opinion without any fanfare or exictement at all. It will be like a box of shit, but then, we don't know if it is manmade shit or not, but enjoy the shit nevertheless."
Also, if someone doesn't have the answers, people will temporarily fill in the blanks for them. It is our nature, it has been the way of man for 30 thousand years. It is how science advances (Temporary thoughts or theories.) Even the smartest, liberal minds do this everyday... So you cannot really hate people who guessed vaccines were bad.
You can however hate them now that the evidence contradicts their guesses.

>> ^spoco2:
Awesome stuff.
I hate with a passion those who espouse not giving their kids vaccinations, especially those who do so based on here-say or what a 'friend told them' without ever looking into it.
Vaccines keep us safe, they have eradicated many diseases that would otherwise be killing us by the thousands or millions.
So while it's good to keep a sceptical eye on things at all times stopping things like vaccines without having any fricken idea why you are other than some uninformed dicks told you it was dangerous is just horrendous.
It's the same people who take homoeopathic medicines instead of actually doing anything to get cured of life threatening illnesses.


The reason I bring up the significance of "eradicate" is--People honestly think that when a vaccine works, its use can be stopped because the disease is gone for good. This cannot be further from the truth!

Those not vaccinated will be even more susceptible to diseases! Where nature once thinned the herd and built up resistance naturally, nowadays there is either a pill for every near-fatal malady or death.

>> ^MycroftHomlz:

There was a time (just a few years back) here on videosift that the overwhelming sentiment was anti-vaccine and most of the people here had never heard of Andrew Wakefield. I am happy to see things have changed.


I know I had some questions until I became aware of the dutch study on it. It pays to question that stuff you put into your body, like corn sugar, fast food, ect. Not exactly the same, but you get the idea.

>> ^spoco2:
Awesome stuff.
I hate with a passion those who espouse not giving their kids vaccinations, especially those who do so based on here-say or what a 'friend told them' without ever looking into it.
Vaccines keep us safe, they have eradicated many diseases that would otherwise be killing us by the thousands or millions.
So while it's good to keep a sceptical eye on things at all times stopping things like vaccines without having any fricken idea why you are other than some uninformed dicks told you it was dangerous is just horrendous.
It's the same people who take homoeopathic medicines instead of actually doing anything to get cured of life threatening illnesses.


Eradicated diseases? No, the vaccines have suppressed many diseases, but have not eradicated them. If vaccines "Utterly destroyed" the maladies then the vaccines would no longer be needed and you would be advocating their uselessness.

The diseases are still around, and will continue to be around. Vaccines, no matter how good, will always be weaker than nature's wrath.

I blame this on the community of health and science for one reason. Autism is spiking, as are so many other diseases, and the answer to the question of why is pretty much an "I don't know the answer. But I will fail to give a possible answer that is believable, and additionally I will sell our opinion without any fanfare or exictement at all. It will be like a box of shit, but then, we don't know if it is manmade shit or not, but enjoy the shit nevertheless."

Also, if someone doesn't have the answers, people will temporarily fill in the blanks for them. It is our nature, it has been the way of man for 30 thousand years. It is how science advances (Temporary thoughts or theories.) Even the smartest, liberal minds do this everyday... So you cannot really hate people who guessed vaccines were bad.

You can however hate them now that the evidence contradicts their guesses.

Your video, Anti-vaccination: Rebecca Watson Follows the money, 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 thats a super lame report on an rather inconclusive study.

On an other note, I'm always so confused at why guys gush over Rebecca Watson. People say well she is cute because shes a science nerd and she is funny. But listening to the skeptic guide, one finds shes not really on the ball as far as science goes, she has about the same level of understanding as someone halfway through first year sciences at university.

Ive seen pictures on their web site of her with a periodic table shower curtain, but I would bet money that she doesn't half of the uses of it ( electronegativity, atomic radius). And as far as funny goes, she provides the most palm to forehead lame jokes than anyone else (not funny lame either). I mean, I know alot of girls who are much smarter and funnier, couldn't the skeptics have found one too?

I don't know, she is a good blogger, maybe I'm being too hard on her. Maybe sooner or later I'll see the light, but for now...

I'm glad to see that you enjoyed the interview with Rebecca Watson that I posted a while back--and thanks for promoting it! I wasn't expecting a top-15 hit, but I was kinda disappointed that it died with just my own vote on it. Hopefully more people will check it out this time...

P.S., I also really liked Robert Wright's talk at TED. (your favorite sift)


In reply to this comment by jwray:
*promote