Forums / Discussion / Serious Debate

So Thunderf00t made another video critiquing YouTube social justice skeptics today. To summarize, Thunderf00t has expressed grievances in the behavior of the anti-SJW community. He's likened the changes in the "skeptic community" to the early YouTube atheist community/Atheism+ (for those that don't know, the YouTube atheist community got hijacked by feminist ideologues about a decade ago, leading to a fracturing of the community).

In my opinion, Thunderf00t is by-in-large correct. While he isn't great at presenting his position, I agree with his premise. Instead of being a group of people with one common characteristic (skepticism of modern feminism/critical race theory), the "skeptic community" has become something of a hive mind. Members of the community uncritically accept whatever YouTubers like Sargon say and see criticism as being traitorous (for instance, Thunderf00t was called an SJW for not wholesale supporting Donald Trump).

The anti-SJW community also mirrors the SJWs in many respects. People like Sargon and his followers constantly criticize SJWs for their use of buzzwords, when they have their own buzzwords to sling. "Virtue signalling" is one of the most hypocritically used buzzwords I've ever seen. Any statement about your own morality can be construed as virtue signalling. Of course, this only applies to feminists in the eyes of dogmatic anti-SJWs. And yes, Thunderf00t is being called a virtue signaler for expressing a moral opinion.

Feminist skepticism is going the way of Atheism+. Collective/tribal thinking is turning the community into what it set out to destroy:
"Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you."

That is why I never really considered myself an "anti-sjw" because often times putting a label on yourself leads to people grouping themselves off, saying "oh we're not like those guys" which leads to another whole can of worms.

You have to remember that when you call out BS, you have to call it out even if people you agree with do it. Nobody is infallible, realizing you made a mistake and correcting yourself is a virtue.

Unfortunately people on both sides seem to oftentimes view self-correction as hypocrisy and a lack of conviction.

Oooo this is getting interesting. Sargon has posted a retort:

Apparently Thunderf00t used some slick editing to support his argument. That's pretty damning.

[Feminist skepticism is going the way of Atheism+. Collective/tribal thinking is turning the community into what it set out to destroy]

I do think it's falling apart, but not because of collective thinking.

1) The content quality is declining. This is because a) YouTube feminism is declining, providing less fodder and b) a lot of more prominent skeptics are getting lazy (Armored Skeptic) or their acts are getting stale (Undoomed). I would argue TF falls into this category as well, as he's put out several videos in the last months that argue from points that are factually incorrect and which do not demonstrate thoughtful or critical analysis.

2) There are ideological issues causing divides. Sargon and Thunderf00t fell out over Brexit and Trump, and apparently that relationship has never been repaired. There's major drama between some second-tier skeptics about engagement with SJW YouTubers because of doxxing. The Candid shilling caused another divide.

3) There are several people who put out similarly-themed content, notably TL;DR and Harmful Opinions, who are trying to distinguish themselves as outsiders who don't want to be part of a community. As part of this positioning they've made valid but also self-serving criticisms of skeptics, which has caused additional drama and handringing. The cynic in me sees TF's stance here as partially motivated by this need brand himself as an outsider.

4) Nearly every big skeptic has had some sort of personal scandal in the last six months that has undermined their credibility, and this includes Sargon. This is further breeding distrust among these people and leading to the type of spats in 3).

This group of people were united by opposition to YouTube feminism, which is waning. Now that the opponent is gone, it's fracturing for the typical reasons: ideology, ego (notice that both Sargon and TF mentioned subscriber counts?), cliques, and money (let's not forget the ad revenue crisis).

Youtube comments (in Thunderf00t's video) are just calling him dishonest, liar, cherry-picker, virtue signaler, etc.

Holy shit

is this suppose to be the 2017 version of leafy vs keemstar?

God it's Bioshock Infinite all over again. The "SJW, skeptics, difference is how you spell the name" thing you know.

The more I see this, the more I'm glad I got out of this part of Youtube. Too much drama

I will try to weigh in on this impartially, because 1) Internet celebrities, for the most part, are a fart in the wind tunnel and 2) It seems fruitless to side with one online stranger who is having a hissy fight with another online stranger.

To understand Thunderf00t's "hatred" of the "skeptic community", I think people need to understand his origins. Thunderf00t started on Youtube around 2007, with a big series called "Why Do People Laugh at Creationists?". He, along with people like dprjones, The Amazing Atheist (back when his channel was strictly about atheism), Rabidape, Kingheathen and other atheists, made up the core of the "Youtube atheist/skeptic" community, and would frequently butt heads with creationists like VenomFangX, Yokeup, NephilimFree and ItsAboutJesus.

At that point in time, Thunderf00t was soaring in popularity. His videos were articulate, well thought out, lengthy but consistent, and came from an almost purely objective scientific point of view. People viewed him as the John Adams of Youtube atheism, really.

Years later, the game has changed. A lot of creationist/atheist vloggers have quit Youtube, mostly because the argument of religion vs science got stale. The ones that stuck around made their channels more varied, and would talk about things like feminism, politics, etc.

This, I think, is where Thunderf00t started running into trouble. He is a man of science, and he built the foundation of his subscriber count on his knowledge of science. However, scientists are not infallible; they can be misinformed, ignorant, or flat out incorrect on beliefs when subjects like modern culture, society and politics are brought up. Thunderf00t would sometimes find himself at odds with skeptics of a different stripe.

The way I see it, Thunderf00t is a bit disgruntled at the fact that he is an "older" Youtube channel that's being outshone by people like Sargon of Akkad, TL;DR and Armored Skeptic. I think Thunderf00t was attempting his hand at moral grandstanding, like an older man admonishing juveniles for being "immature". Sargon isn't particularly innocent of the petty nonsense that happens on Youtube, but I think his video response, at least, gives a bit more clarity to the problem.

Sandor pretty much hit the nail on the head as to why these "skeptics" are starting to lash out at each other – they no longer have a common goal to tackle. They're like starving piranhas – once they realize there's no more fish, they're likely to turn on one another.

[His videos were articulate, well thought out, lengthy but consistent, and came from an almost purely objective scientific point of view.]

Which is increasingly untrue, which is a large part of the issues going on with this section of YT. Thunderf00t is far from being alone on this trajectory, but I'll stick to him as an example.

Now, Thunderf00t clearly has the right to want to distance himself from behavior he doesn't approve of. Furthermore, given what happened with his father's death, his position is completely understandable.

His reaction is to a large degree an emotional one. Which is ok. I'm not going to accuse him of being a hypocrite for priding himself on being a rationalist and getting emotional over an issue.

But there's a difference between being emotional, and letting emotions dictate how one behaves. And I'm not getting into what he thinks, but how he argues his position. His debating tactics are not on the up and up here. It would have been perfectly fine, in my opinion, to say "I don't like this behavior, so I am distancing myself from it." To me that's a much better argument, and a more valid justification, than the series of questionable points he attempts to construct his argument on.

I would, under normal circumstances, give him some leeway in this instance because of what he experienced when his father died. But this isn't the first time he's taken on an issue in the last year (Brexit, the American elections, Lauren Southern's inauguration coverage all come to mind) where, in situations where his personal biases conflict with facts, he chooses to follow his biases. Which is not to say he's been completely wrong in his take about these events, even though I admit I hold opposing views on them. The criticism is not about his opinions, but how he appears to be forming and defending them. My point is his arguments increasingly come across as constructed on facts shaped by per-conceived opinions as opposed to opinions shaped by empirical facts.

Furthermore he has demonstrated an increasing tendency to say "If you can't handle the truth, then get out of here" rather than do things such as listen to criticism, engage in self-reflection, and listening to conflicting points of view. This is far more similar to Steve Shives' behavior than anyone other Skeptic I can think of.

Say what you will of Sargon, and there is plenty to be critical of here and elsewhere, but he has at least shown a willingness to listen to criticism and to admit when he is wrong. Equally importantly he demonstrates an intellectual curiosity which in Thunderf00t's case appears to have been replaced with a "I think it, therefore it must so and if you disagree with me you're automatically wrong" mentality that he couches as being the status of fiercely independent thinker.

What I was inferring was that Thunderf00t's beginning videos where he repudiated creationists were articulate and lengthy. I was not talking about his later videos, or the entirety of his channel. I think people started to see more of Thunderf00t's personality and debating skills (or lack thereof) when he debated with Ray Comfort and onward.

My original point (and maybe I didn't articulate this well) was that I think Thunderf00t's attitude didn't particularly gel with other Youtube personalities. I don't think he was properly prepared to debate people like Lauren Southern and Sargon when it came to things like political spectrum.

Worse, I think Thunderf00t doesn't understand when he's beat. Despite "leaving" the skeptic community, he is still making a big kerfuffle about "leaving" the community. It reminds me of a person who brags about how they don't like their ex-girlfriend/boyfriend, but feel the need to bring them up in nearly every conversation.

Overall, Thunderf00t is good at at debunking fake inventions, but not very skilled at covering other Youtube/Internet personalities. Like you said, it's hard to be a "skeptic" when you aren't willing to listen to the opposing person's point of view.

I completely agree with your points, and you did articulate them nicely. In fact, I think you got across what I was trying to say much more succinctly and effectively.

While I quoted your response my follow-up wasn't so much directed at it per se; however, it did give me an opening to discuss some aspects I wanted to bring up earlier but which didn't fit into where the discussion was at the time.

Thunderf00t's always been a sleazy, dishonest guy. I'm happy he's getting his teeth kicked down his throat. It was long overdue.