Talk:Mike Cernovich

Daaamn
Daammnn what an asshole. I'll go through tomorrow and clean up references and spell/grammar check. Doesn't it seem like we have a ton of quotes though and less actual content? Meh (You) 02:47, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh you guys actually have added some content since the last revision I saw Meh (You) 02:48, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. Cosmikdebris (talk) 02:50, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Tidbits
Cernovich also has a weird habit of referring to himself in the third person.

Weird admiration for Charles Manson.

Reflist
05:53, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Bronze? Silver?
Thoughts? 05:53, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Mike Cernovich, speech impediment justice warrior
https://archive.is/yn5s3 13:39, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

The Antifa-NAMBLA flag
Should this get its own article?

https://archive.is/R7pQj

see also Paul_Joseph_Watson

14:04, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It definitely needs a thorough debunking, but Snopes probably has that handled, as far as google searches go. Probably doesn't need it's own page.  Petey Plane (talk) 19:45, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Mike tried to smear Chuck Schumer
https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2017/12/12/right-wing-trolls-hype-apparent-effort-dupe-reporters-and-smear-chuck-schumer/218830 19:11, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Schumer has legit standing to take Cernovich to court over slander. Malicious intent is pretty easily provable.  It won't happen, but it would be pretty hilarious if it did.  Petey Plane (talk) 19:17, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2017/12/two-alt-right-doofuses-tried-to-take-down-senator.html It's gotten even better 00:26, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * :D Petey Plane (talk) 20:07, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The article ends with: "This is all so hysterically incompetent..." LOL! Cosmikdebris (talk) 01:09, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Alt-right dorks:ASIP gang is a pretty appropriate analogy. Petey Plane (talk) 03:32, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Can't Shut Down the Mindset Power
https://twitter.com/JohnnyHeatWave/status/941697215352975362

01:09, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Old
https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/294814294359539713/399414275854041089/5a5115c45b63a.jpeg?width=502&height=658 21:26, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Needs restructuring
This page is a bit of an unstructured mess and hard to navigate or find stuff. It needs thought about how to organise it before it can be raised beyond Bronze status. --Gospatric (talk) 10:40, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Everyone Remember
This dickhead probably just killed Guardians of the Galaxy vol. 3. Let the hate flow. RoninMacbeth (talk) 04:29, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * At a certain point, you have to stop blaming people for uncovering something that you yourself are responsible for. Defending missteps by liberals and getting up in arms about other celebrity missteps (who happen to lean conservative) is pretty much textbook genetic fallacy, with the caveat that the speakers are likely oblivious to the fact that they're doing it. 69.60.33.176 (talk) 14:16, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Given that Cernovich is proven to act in bad faith, I don't think the above defense is applicable. 14:21, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * My primary point is that it doesn't matter if Mike Cernovich or Elizabeth Warren was the one to uncover Gunn's posts, it's Gunn himself who has to take responsibility for what he said. It reminds me of this video I watched the other day of some douchetuber making some half-assed apology video for cheating on his girlfriend where he turns the guilt back around on here for "making all this public". Of course, the secondary issue is that people don't care what he did or what he said; people on here will defend him because he is a liberal and his critic is a conservative, and people will go at him for the very same reasons. I just don't see what's so difficult about sticking to your principles despite who's the target. If the progressive view is to criticize offensive content, then they should be able to do so whether the person in question is liberal or not. Conversely, if the reactionary view is to defend "free speech" or whatever they call it, and stand up for people getting bashed for "jokes", then they should take up that mantle regardless if the person is liberal or conservative. 69.60.33.176 (talk) 14:41, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it does matter. For how can you trust that a bad faith actor has presented all of the evidence, since their intent is not to inform, but to deceive? 15:28, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * By that same token, we could render you yourself as arguing in bad faith, because you are completely glossing over my points to focus on the critic in this scenario, which is a much more obvious genetic fallacy. Secondly, those tweets were public knowledge and Gunn apologized and rationalized himself instead of questioning the validity of the accusations. Why waste time arguing about something we know as fact instead of addressing the larger issue that's present in the talk page as well as the article? Oh, because defending Gunn's tweets on its own face is a lot harder to do, of course. See, when someone intentionally ignores a point and introducing speculative false facts to support the ignoring of said point, that sounds to me a lot more reminiscent of a bad faith actor, but to be fair, maybe we have different definitions. To quote a wise scholar, "how 'bout make believe land has anyyything you want." 69.60.33.176 (talk) 15:49, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, I thought this would have to go without saying, but I have no affinity for Mike Cernovich, despise everything he stands for, and I think to bring up someone's decade old dirty laundry as a political ploy is tactless. But to reiterate, it doesn't matter what the critic's guilty of when addressing the wrongdoing of the target. Those tweets are still reprehensible in a vacuum, and Gunn took his lumps as he was supposed to. It's ridiculous to be against that kind of shit, up until the point that the person that's calling you out for it is a well known wingnut, then it's defensible. 69.60.33.176 (talk) 16:03, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. Though I do find attacking my motives to be a bit tasteless, I think I understand your position. I did not address Gunn's Tweets because I held no point of contention condemning them as tasteless at best and out of line at most. Apologies if I conveyed a different position. 16:33, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, I apologize, sometimes I feel like that I write clear enough that anyone misrepresenting or ignoring my points is doing so willingly, but maybe I didn't articulate well enough what my stance was. But yeah, I spoke about Gunn's tweets because the edit I originally responded to made it seem like it was Cernovich's fault that Gunn faced repercussions for what HE himself said, which is language of the abuser. It doesn't help that the article seems to downplaying the seriousness of his tweets, and seems to preempt accusations of hypocrisy by using arbitrary criteria. And that alludes to my secondary point of being consistent instead of falling into the same trap Cernovich falls into by highlighting critiques of the opposite of his party and ignoring criticisms of his own. 69.60.33.176 (talk) 16:57, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Pure gold
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C_j10iMXUAA_dag.jpg:large 05:54, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Template suggestion
These type of articles make me think there should exist a template to the effect of "read at your own risk if you want to preserve your sanity." Unlike broad informational articles, this is chock full of direct quotes from the asshole. —Dorianha Bogelund (talk) 13:25, 22 January 2019 (UTC)