[Nepsotic]

Damn, I thought my post was pretty clear and reasonable Nep. Why do you feel the need to defend this guy? Time for a different tact.

Because I've not seen this side of him you think represents him, and I'm relatively sure I know more about him. He's someone I quite admire because I agree with him on most topics, and despite usually having a controversial opinion, he doesn't give a fuck and will say it anyway. He looks at a lot of things from a different perspective, and I like that.
I feel that you, on the other hand, don't know him well enough to understand. He's not a very well-liked figure because people often dismiss his opinions and call him a racist or a sexist. Of course when the internet dislikes something and you haven't had much exposure to said thing, you're going to side with the internet because all you hear are bad things.

My anecdote (take my word for it, I couldn't manufacture a story that idiotic without outside assistance, it's real) makes his points less valid by illustrating he's a dishonest, adolescent fuckboy who doesn't understand women and does stupid shit like shove a banana into his ass and share the pic with people. It didn't happen Nepsotic. Unless you're Ryan Gosling, chicks don't drop their panties because you're youtube-famous, especially if you're fat and whine about religion all the time. I don't care if he was prepared to laugh at himself about the banana, it's the only damage control he had

What does what he does in the privacy of his own home have to do with anything? Who gives a shit? If Neil DeGrasse Tyson was actually a massive sado-masochist and a video of him doing something fucked up got leaked, would that make his points or credibility any less valid? Of course it wouldn't, but people would throw a hissy fit anyway because reasons.
I don't really care if the story he posted was a lie, it's totally believable and even if it was a lie, so what? What does that have to do with any of his views or points? It's not exactly an ad hominem, but it may as well be.

Don't try to refute my points by making the 'you just don't get him' argument. I've been aware of the Amazing Atheist a hell of a fuck of a lot longer than you have yet his entire shtick hasn't changed one iota in ~8 years

He definitely has, and how would you know? It's not as if you regularly keep up with his content. I don't understand the correlation between the time someone's been aware of him and their knowledge about him. I've watched a lot more of his videos of him than you have, you knowing about him longer doesn't mean you know him more. I'd probably beat you on a quizz of Doctor Who, but you've probably been aware of it longer than I've lived.

He might articulate his stupidity a little clearer, but less than a year ago he was lumping all muslims together as 'more than a few bad apples'. I think the fact that he says things like this on a platform that reaches impressionable young people makes him a fucking piece of shit.

You can't really argue with statistics unless you have some of your own. Instead of calling him a fucking piece of shit, why don't you attempt to refute that point?

I hate watching his videos, I really do, because his is an aggressive, pointless and impotent kind of stupid that justifies itself by pulling people into the abyss with him. He's the reason we have so many fucktards jumping all over religion without reading more than a collective paragraph of religious text. You are making yourself stupider by enjoying his videos and begging for more. It is stupid to expect me to change my opinion on him when I've been listening to his idiotic vitriol several years longer than you.

You've said a lot there without actually saying anything, so I'm just going to leave that.

Remember after Charlie Hebdo, when you posted some video where he said something along the lines of 'I don't call him the Prophet Muhammad, I call him the SCUMFUCK Muhammad.'? I don't want to quote my post since it was perfect then and reposting it now would be unfair, but he was spewing that same kind of blindly hateful garbage years ago.

So you're saying thay somebody who married a nine year old, made up a religion centred around the premise of getting 72 virgins if you obey it perfectly in order to trick people to fight in his battles in order to steal from less fortunate people and rape their young girls, is not a scumfuck?

If you're going to just shit on the idea that they are both con artists, one dumb, one greedy, I'm not going to pretend this is a conversation worth having Nepsotic. You need to introspect a little and frankly stop being so ready to praise some neckbeard who doesn't know what he's talking about. TAA makes broad, sweeping generalizations directed at a specific kind of equally-ignorant person to get youtube views. He is not genuine. He is not an academic. He is not worth listening to for the exact reasons you think he is: He's a simpleminded fool who is subtly leading you down a trail of ignorance.

Why are you under the impression that I'm praising him as some sort of genius? He's shown that he's a smart guy despite what you say, and I find myself agreeing with him on many points, not because I am told to, but because that's what I think.
You're the one making claims about the guy, so provide some sources. Tell me exactly where he makes broad, sweeping generalisations because as far as I can tell he's more sane and rational than the vast amount of people I've seen online.

See, I just don't understand how you can sit there, defend the guy, state Sarkesian is a 'con artist' and expect me to try to change my tune when you're missing the point of my posts entirely: Stop thinking in this black and white bullshit. It doesn't matter how much detail you have on these people, it doesn't matter what hateful garbage frames them, start forming your own opinions. That starts with reading, and reading, and readingreadingreading until you can't even remember how to search for things on youtube properly. Consume information aggressively, don't allow yourself to be told what to think at your leisure

I don't think you understand that just because something is in written text, that doesn't necessarily make it any more credible than a YouTube video. I don't understand why there's such a stigma against agreeing with an unpopular opinion.

Jesus Christ, I didn't think I'd have to go this far, but Sarkesian DOES produce content and although facile, her points about feminising gaming are a lot more relevant than another 19 minute video of 'fuck the muslims'.

That's a lovely straw man you have there. Her content consists of barely any sensical points, and all "look how much of a victim I am." Summing TAA up as 'fuck the Muslims' is as retarded and ignorant as you're trying to make him out to be.

She popped up in some twitter pic with Joss Whedon over the summer, for crying out loud The significance there is that Whedon is a wealthy hollywood type with some clout amongst nerds.

That's because Whedon is a feminist-pandering little willy.

Is she the smartest feminist I know? Fuck no,

The words 'smart' and 'feminist' don't usually go together in a sentence but Christina Hoff Sommers is a rare example of one.

but I'd rather she influence video games to be more appealing to girls (and ideally, smarter and more thoughtful in general)

I don't think you have watched one of Anita's videos. It's not at all about making games more appealing to girls (people forget that girls make up about 50% of the gaming demographic anyway due to dumb mobile games like Candy Crush), it's about taking what she can out of a hobby many people enjoy and making it about herself and how much of a victim and martyr she is. Quite simply, she's a piglet, sniffling around in the dirt for truffles and then eating them.
Remember the more you think you are not affected by Anita's videos, the more likely you are to be affected.

then TAA influence young men like yourself to be filled with blind loathing for things you don't seem to understand in the first place.

It's not about loathing and it's not things that I don't understand, they are things that aren't difficult to understand, the difference is a lot of people don't see through the bullshit.

I said it before, and I'll say it again: TAA's character needs to be called into question when young people blindly follow whatever he says and are willing to defend what is genuinely lazily constructed, ignorant hatespeech.

For god's sake, give me some examples or I'm just going to skip over it. You're not actually making any points here.

He's not saying anything good, nor is he saying anything new in a creative way.

That's not exactly true, he can be quote poetic at times.

We've had patronizing, self righteous scum like him for thousands of years, and regardless of the mighty soapbox that holds him up,

Even though he's one of the most unpopular people on the internet?

he's still a tiny man who is either frightened or too arrogant to acknowledge modern theological discussion. If you took one of his videos to a Theology classroom and tried to checkmate those folks with it you'd be laughed out of the school.

Is this supposed to be a point? His content isn't really intended for scholars or students. He isn't a university lecturer. He's a guy that speaks his opinions on the internet.
He actually does read a shitload, and often knows what he's talking about.

I really mean it when I tell you in the adult world, patronizing and condescending as it is to imply you are not part of it, TAA and people like him are sort of an inside joke, the archetypal NEET vindicated by an income dredged out of his crappy opinions.

I have adult friends that like him. A good few.
Also, he makes his money off YouTube and you're berating him for that? I've had this argument before but the short of it is that it's a pretty retarded and hypocritical point to make.

I'm not going to sit down and pick apart a video that is designed to get 12 year olds to send him money on Patreon,

Surely you know he openly admits he's a massive shill.

nor am I going to pretend it isn't frustrating that you'd rather assume my attacks on his character carry any more substance than the objective fact that he is willfully ignorant and unable to argue with anything but the simplest tennets of theology.

Sources? He encourages debate and despite what you assume, doesn't endorse being in an echo chamber. They regularly have guests on Drunken Peasants with opposing viewpoints.

All I want for you, Nepsotic, is to engage yourself in more thoughtful discussion on these topics because once again it is so easy to just watch a video, like it and assume that's where the conversation ends.

And that's exactly what you assume I do, and that's exactly what I don't do.

As you can probably tell, I'm not interested in the subject matter itself. The role I've given myself is to analyze the commentary and suggest what is healthy and considered and what is simple and manipulative, both Anita and TAA fall into the latter. My point is that these people are entertainers, and you're doing yourself and that wonderful piece of meat lodged between your ears a disservice by getting at all caught up in their world instead of expanding your own, and I'm going to go all folksy on you again and tell you that in this day and age reading is the best way to consume information, especially reading directly from a book (or from an e-reader, those things are neat.)

Why? It's the same thing. Anybody can get a book published and Neil Black Science Man has a YouTube channel. Would you rather I read Twilight than watch Mysteries of the Universe?

Read some Saint Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Good ol' Charles Darwin and even Douglas Adams for a bit of perspective. I'd say 99% of the reason I take such a fluctuating and inventive take on things is because Dougie Adams taught me to laugh at how ass-backwards things are just by being the way they are, and you can't get that surreal and wonderful sense of things by letting yourself be told what you're comfortable with, over and over and over again.

But of course you realise that there's no difference between what those people do and what TJ does? You just disagree with him, it's a logical fallacy I can't quite remember the name of.
Also, Thomas Aquinas is overrated.
I've read up on him and his "5 proofs" are utter, easy to debunk bullshit.

And let me say this, then I should really hit the hay since I have 2 hours of classes in the morning and a lot of masturbation to catch up on: It's absolutely fine if you just like his videos. I'm not judging you for liking what I don't like, but I believe it would be to your benefit as an intellectual to take a more nuanced approach to dissecting things, especially religion. You read my most recent blog right? So you know the best way to get on my nerves is learn a lot about religion and talk about it constantly, just advertise how much you know about it. You do that, and frame it in a way that makes me laugh, and I'll be your #1 fan.

Oh I don't know a lot about it. I never said I did. I have learned much about it but that doesn't mean I can't criticise what I already know. I dont2 think the Bible ends with "and then Jesus woke up, and realised it was all a dream."

I don't give a shit if you don't like TAA, there's plenty of reasons to dislike him, I just think your criticisms are misguided and generic. It's what everyone says about him yet it's just not true.

Either way. They look stupid.

Umad fam