Thunderf00t

oh he's anti-trump huh, well rot in hell thundershit

I love him. Way back then my intellectual sources for atheism and anti-feminism were TJ, the amazing atheist and similar figures like Repzion. When I found about Thunder '10 inches PhDick' f00t I went crazy. This was a guy with actual credentials talking about the good shit.

Obviously he is no replacement for TJ but when you want to expose people to... say... anti-feminism what would you choose to show them:

The Amazing Atheist: 5 minutes of calling feminists cunts

Thunderf00t: 10 minutes of well ordered points that make a case for why, maybe, feminists could be cunts.

Pretty sure you could say that about any intellectual, you know, the people that have made America the top dog over time. Really puts things in perspective.

people who post blogs on youtube are not "intellectuals"
and no, effeminate liberals are not the people who built western civilization

this desu senpai

also masterfully interweaves dank maymays.
>fps doug
muh niggum

>watch one p chem research video

oh wow, this is pretty good, lets check out some of his other--...

>WHY FEMINISM IS RUINING SOCIETY
>FUCK FEMINISM
>LOOK AT ALL THESE TRIGGERED FEMINISTS I UPSET

i dont give a fuck dude. just keep doing chemistry.

twitter.com/thunderf00t

and on twitter he rants against Trump and repeatedly posts the polls as if they were reality, also linked snope to "disprove" that veritas video
lol

But hey nice fucking intellectual we got here

He needs an editor

And a narrator

And a writer

Unfortunately for you, yes, they are the ones that built western civilization. You know, french revolution and all.

every so often he'll make something original that's decently entertaining, but then he basically remakes that video over and over and it can get old.

Not surprised the person who credits The Amazing Atheist and MrRepzion as intellectual sources views Thunderf00t's bizarre, multiyear hate-boner for Anita and other feminists as a series of "well ordered points".

Look at the fucking length of his playlist: youtube.com/playlist?list=PLQJW3WMsx1q3BAZh3XsK1cSwCiaqjSulc

That's fucking schizophrenic-tier.

talentless hack

he is not fearless

everyone attacks kickstarters. they are the lowest hanging fruit

And when he attacks feminism he's just as fearless as all the other brave little soldiers on youtube who attack feminism

...

french revolution destroyed french civilization

I don't know what you are complaining about. That playlist can only be as long as feminist are cunts.

Feminists are really big cunts so you get a really long list of cunt-debunking videos.

i enjoyed him back when his channel was first starting out but he became obsessed with talking about feminism and making a bunch of social commentary rather than just talking about science

i don't entirely disagree with what he says but all he does is beat a dead horse nowadays. lost interest awhile ago

This, also
this

Retarded anti-theist

He acts like a PhD in chemistry makes his opinions about feminism and women in general more valid. It's annoying.

I hate every single video he has ever put out discussing feminism. What a complete waste of time.

>I have no idea how he has a job with such a bad drama reputation on the internet
He works in Czech Republic

His science stuff (papers and videos) are pretty good, shame he wastes so much of his time on feminists and creationists but I guess a man has to get them clicks somehow...

So I guess that is why because he is living in second world country.

Always saw him on drunkenpeasants with theAmazingAtheist. My opinion of him was that he was ok dude but boring, however my only experience of him was through videos where TJ was present and it was only him debunking feminism and all that crap. When it comes to humaniora i found TJ to be funnier. However, I only recently found out who Phil Mason is, and that was only through Moriarty's channel, i have been subscribed to sixty symbols and moriarty for 4 years parallel with being subscribed to the fat neckbeard since 2011.

To find Moriarty enaging in feminism and deating theAmazingAtheist was mindfuck. I would never, ever imagine that the dude would even know that fucking neckbeard even existed, and to see that TJ called Moriarty a retarded dude was just next level. It felt absurd, surreal that two of my favourite youtube personas would be talking to each other, at least not a professor vs a fucking neckbeard.

And then I lurked through moriartys channel and found out that Moriarty has been having convos with thunderf00t even before he was doxxed. And then i found out that thunderf00t was doxxed by some muslim he had debates with on the MagicSandwichShow (a skype convo I watched back then), and found out that thunderf00t was a legit scientst with a good reputation and a lot of published jounrals with his name on. So much respect I pay to thunderf00t now.

Before he was doxxed I always viewed him as one of those neckbeards with TJ being angry at feminists, after the dox I started to watch all his science videos and man, I fell in love.

TL;DR:
Thunderf00t is a based nigga,
before the dox I thought he was just some random neckbeard being angry at feminism in those magic sandwich shows and drunken peasant shows.

>TJ called Moriarty a retarded dude
this is because TJ doesn't know Moriarty is a physicist, he just thinks he's some old turd vlogger on youtube. I enjoy Moriarty's physics videos, his social commentary is generally lacking, although I can agree to some of his points.

Moriarty does talk back and forth with NoelPlum99, great guy to listen to as he makes detailed points breaking things down.

I first saw Moriarty get involved with this feminism stuff when Moriarty made a blog response to Milo Yiannopolous (before he was banned on twitter).

I remember watching him like 10 years ago when he did his "creationism is bullsht" videos. Once in a long while I might see what is on his channel but otherwise I haven't really kept up with what he is doing.

He fights SJWs and doesn't afraid of anything

They tried to get him fired with a letter writing campaign, everyone involved got exposed and isn't on the internet anymore, he probably laughed it off with his employer

He explained why he goes after what he does, he doesn't want science influenced by SJWs/Feminists, like when Dawkins got no platformed for retweeting the big red cartoon mocking feminisms and islam

he's anti Trump, just a heads-up for the SJW Jew hunters of /pol/.

Trump is anti-net neutrality, everyone should be against him

But this retarded shit is fucking ruining academia, the social sciences and the humanities are completely fucked by it and it's only a matter of time until it gets to the sciences.

appeals to the lowest common denominator of Veeky Forums
good mix between the edginess of Veeky Forums and /pol/

>/pol/

Yeah /pol/ would love a guy who hated brexit and hates Donald Trump...

>In no thread we can have a simple civil discussion without buzzwords thrown like /pol/, sjw, feminist...

Oh god what have we done...Why don't the fucking mods wordfilter these words instead of f a m and t b h

Finally someone who agrees with me. I agree with this so much, there's only 2 people I wouldn't say the same thing about.

Really not as smart as the accent might (has) lead one (many) to believe.

He has a PhD and has had work published by scientific journals

not about being smart it's about accomplishments

>He has a PhD and has had work published by scientific journals

A PhD in Chemistry or somesuch. He's good at Chemistry. Do you think NDT knows the first fucking thing about Hegelian Dialectics? Just because he has achieved some success in one field doesn't necessarily qualify him to comment on what's happening in another space.

it's not an academic discussion

>implying social science fields require any authority to comment on

gimme a break

>>implying social science fields require any authority to comment on
you can't just comment on economics, psychology, linguistics, etc if you're not trained in those fields.

was referring to "x studies" fields

>you can't just comment
You can comment on literally anything.

ok then yeah

king of the fedoras

I like the fact that hes an atheist and his videos are usually pretty good and reasonable (except maybe brexit). For the most part good.

He should lay of with the Anita Jewkezian videos and stay with science vids

Mainly because Trump is anti-science. And I guess science is a top priority for him.

>Trump is anti-science
Among all the pathetic lies you SJWtards try to spread, this has to be the most hilarious one.
Please do explain how being anti-illegal immigration, anti-crime and anti-sharia makes someone anti-science. Enlighten us with more bullshit dear SJWtard.

He's stated that climate change is a hoax

>He stated that carbon taxation theft has no excuse such as climate change
You sure you know what science is? It's nothing to do with politics you know.

topkek, this is not bad bait at all

Is that how distorted your view of the world is?

also speaking of which
twitter.com/thunderf00t/status/795306708742602753

>His rejection against this politics ridden bullshit means that he rejects all aspects of science

Thanks for announcing how retarded you are to everyone. I bet you think immigrants are a race too.

Why are you posting this pedophile on Veeky Forums ?

he has published papers in peer reviewed journals.

He has his way in firing up his opponents through clickbaity but effective titles, subpar video editing, writing without punctuation. As for his actual argumentation, it's well constructed and climactic.

I like how he's able to piss off all the Brexiteers, Trumpers and Musk fanboys, especially because many of these are within his fanbase.

Mmmm mmm boy that bait almost tastes as good as dick!

He seems smart when he's taking apart Sarkeesian, but the way he shit the bed over Brexit reveled him as the paper-thin intellect he really is.

Moving the goalposts.
What the fuck does it mean to "reject all aspects of science"? Young earth creationists campaigning against evolution in schools use cars and cell phones and live indoors, so I guess they don't reject science either. Since you clearly need to reject every aspect of technology and empirical knowledge humanity has ever attained to be classed as such, huh.

I should mention Sanders had some particularly odious, uninformed views on transgenic crops.

This.
Galois was /cuteboy/ as fuck.

Man, sometimes anonymous posting can breed some of the stupidest ideas

Think about how beautiful the west would be if we still had proper monarchies & emperors

>What the fuck does it mean to "reject all aspects of science"?

By the same token, rejecting one scientific theory doesn't make you anti-science.

What, like Saudi Arabia?

By WHAT same token? What are you on about?
The concept of "rejecting all aspects of science," which your argument depends on, exists nowhere and is not well defined.
"Anti-science" is a matter of your attitudes, methods and philosophical leanings themselves.
philpapers.org/archive/SHATVO-2.pdf

"Rejecting all aspects of science"
is a much more extreme position than "anti science". Thus it is moving the goal posts in such a way that nobody could fulfill that burden.

Similarly "anti science" is a much more extreme position than "Rejecting one scientific theory", so the later being true doesn't imply the former at all.

That's what i mean by the same token.

Nobody knows trump's philosophical stance on science.... hence why it's a lie to say he is anti science.

>"Rejecting all aspects of science"
>is a much more extreme position than "anti science". Thus it is moving the goal posts in such a way that nobody could fulfill that burden.
You're the one who first used the phrase, here I tried to point out nobody actually made the argument that he's "against all forms of science" here This still does not make sense. You've misunderstood again.
You also clearly have no idea what "moving the goalposts" means and are just using the phrase because I did.

>"anti science" is a much more extreme position than "Rejecting one scientific theory", so the later being true doesn't imply the former at all.
You're just talking in circles. It's easy to make anything seem obviously true when you arbitrarily equate meanings like that.
Again, nobody argued that rejecting a theory inherently makes you anti-science. It's a matter of attitudes etc >Nobody knows trump's philosophical stance on science.... hence why it's a lie to say he is anti science.
Got us there. I guess actions, comments, etc really aren't any indication at all of his mindset or intent.
Why are you voting for him if you have no idea what policies he REALLY endorses? Since you can't have any idea whatsoever if he plans to restrict immigration or do anything else he's talked about. It's a lie to say he wants to build a wall.

And get off le ebin ONE THEORY line, he's said vaccines cause autism too.

You're incompetent at the level of basic argument structure

>You're the one who first used the phrase... (and the rest of the first part)

You asked what i meant by "by the same token" ... I explained what I meant. You didn't understand what I wrote and as a defense mechanism you projected that misunderstanding onto me. Yes I understand what moving the goalposts means. And yes, I used the term because you did.

>It's easy to make anything seem obviously true when you arbitrarily equate meanings like that.

I didn't equate the meanings of anything. I made an analogy.

>I guess actions, comments, etc really aren't any indication at all of his mindset or intent.

First (only?) reasonable thing you said in the whole post.
So what actions are we talking about?

>And get off le ebin ONE THEORY line, he's said vaccines cause autism too.
There's no theory that says they don't or haven't. It's an unknown.

Not an argument.

oh man i'm sad i'm late to this thread

youtu.be/7bVqfQvXP2o

this video pretty much debunks one of thunderfoots "grrrrr feminists" videos, along with showing how he's an entirely unreliable source of information who cherrypicks his arguments and is incredibly biased.

>You asked what i meant by "by the same token" ... I explained what I meant.
I know what the idiom means. I was asking what, exactly, you thought you were saying that apropos of, because it does not make sense in context
>defense mechanism
>projected that misunderstanding onto me
wew
your evidence?
>I understand what moving the goalposts means
That would seem counter to your misuse of the term
>I didn't equate the meanings of anything. I made an analogy.
google.com/search?q=equivocation&oq=equivocation&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.3651j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
>First (only?) reasonable thing you said
It was restating which you responded quite differently to the last time,
>There's no theory that says they don't or haven't. It's an unknown.
Nonononononononononono
We're pretty sure. It's absolutely not "an unknown" scihub22266oqcxt.onion.link/10.1016/j.vaccine.2014.04.085
>So what actions are we talking about?
You have to pay attention to how he justifies his stance, and not just the stance itself. These being
1) Does not seek out and evaluate the evidence contrary to his positions
2) Ignores and dismisses out of hand this evidence when it is presented to him
3) Fails to account for why this evidence is supposedly mistaken
etc.

Not an argument.

>I was asking what, exactly, you thought you were saying

And that's what I explained.

>wew
>your evidence?

Your post that projects misunderstanding onto me in which you admit that you don't understand what I meant by saying
>"This (You) still does not make sense. "

If something doesn't make sense to YOU that means YOU misunderstood, not me.

>link to google
So I either I accept your mis-characterization or I'M being dishonest? Is that it?

I haven't equated the meanings of any words or statements. I don't know why you said I did.

>It was restating

No it wasn't. Like you said, comments INDICATE mindset. They aren't identical. It's not a restatement, it's a different idea.

>scihub22266oqcxt.onion.link/10.1016/j.vaccine.2014.04.085

So you got a study published 3 years ago, and you expect it to be accepted as fact by everyone in the world 3 years later?

I don't think that's very reasonable. Society would be very unstable if people took that mindset. These things take time to be debunked or made certain. If you're betting your child's life on it, you want to be certain. There's nothing wrong with skepticism.

>You have to pay attention to how he justifies his stance, and not just the stance itself. These being
>1) Does not seek out and evaluate the evidence contrary to his positions

Sure he does. Remember him asking people "why can't we use nukes?". Everybody raised a shitstorm, but he wanted to get other people's opinions on it. He's very open to hearing what people have to say about complex issues. He's changed his stance on a number of issues after speaking with people.

>2) Ignores evidence
See above. He's open minded, but everybody ignores evidence to a degree. Everybody is biased.
>3) Fails to account
Example?

>Not an argument.
So it's hypocritical for me to point out hypocrisy.

>So you got a study published 3 years ago, and you expect it to be accepted as fact by everyone in the world 3 years later?
>I don't think that's very reasonable. Society would be very unstable if people took that mindset. These things take time to be debunked or made certain. If you're betting your child's life on it, you want to be certain. There's nothing wrong with skepticism.
Christ, you really are a babe in the woods here.

Well I'm just doing my best to humor you in a way that doesn't sound condescending.

Maybe someone else here can deal with you

>Maybe someone else here can deal with you
I doubt it. The arguments against trump boil down to "he's an asshole" or "He talks funny". And don't go much deeper than that.

I'm voting for Trump, asswipe. You think I want H1B Pajeet taking my job? Or some "trans woman of color" with half my qualifications and a quarter my skills through some "diversity" initiative?

But Trump is an anti-science candidate and you clearly have no clue what you're talking about.

>But Trump is an anti-science candidate and you clearly have no clue what you're talking about.

We've talked about this problem you have with projection.

That's OK. You can work on it.

watched the first 10 minutes. he still did expose some instances where thunderfoot misrepresented anita sarkesian videos. thought it was good except for the fact that the guy who made the video is cherrypicking too

>meta-analysis of case control and cohort studies totaling over 1.2 million children
>So you got a study published 3 years ago, and you expect it to be accepted as fact by everyone in the world 3 years later?
>I don't think that's very reasonable. Society would be very unstable if people took that mindset. These things take time to be debunked or made certain. If you're betting your child's life on it, you want to be certain. There's nothing wrong with skepticism.

lmao who is this semen demon?

>trump is anti-science
you keep repeating the shit with zero evidence. who are you trying to fool?

-Climate change denialist
-Anti-vaxxer
Many such cases!

>This means he rejects every aspect of science
both of Trump
Not only thats pants on head retarded, both of Trumps kids are vaxxed and he doesn't want people to pay carbon taxation to the government.
Got any more bullshit in your agenda?

I think thunderf00t had bias towards brexit because Brexit directly affected science funding. He was wokring at a university in the UK, so I guess he just ranted about the science funding.

>anti-science
>rejects every aspect of science
Pic related.

Hint: You're trying to use these interchangeably here, even if you can't realize it, re: Trump, a person who claims that vaccines cause autism, a person who claims that global warming is a hoax built by a Chinese conspiracy to make America uncompetitive, is anti-science in precisely the same way as a creationist.

fuck off ctr

SEE
TEE
ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

by your claims, he's anti-vaccine(even though both kids are vaccined) and he's anti-church of agw(so people don't get robbed by the government)

Watching you try this hard to mislabel these two politics infested agendas as "anti-science" is making everybody cringe. I don't know who you're trying to fool but you need a whole other strategy than simply lying your ass off.

youtube.com/watch?v=gQriX7NIgig&t=0s

I'm sure you'll make up some BS reason to disregard this since Trump and his ragtag band of mindless deplorables have never been known to care about facts. But who knows, maybe there's a slim chance you'll actually realize how retarded you are.