Talk:Steven Crowder/Archive1

Potholer54 video
Potholder54 did a good video where he debunks Crowder's arguments on climate change being falsified here.-- Forerunner (talk) 02:13, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

this page needs to be bigger
Steven Crowder is such an influencial nutjob, he needs a bigger page exposing his stupidity GreatPerson (talk) 08:33, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

^^^ Or you could make a page that gives a holistic summary of his positions and views, and let people come to their own conclusions Waifu4Laifu (talk)Waifu4Laifu

THIS PAGE NEEDS TO BE BIGGER
How come rationalwiki has long ass pages on stupid subjects, but one of the most notable and influentiual youtube conservatives, has a page of a few sentences. Please explain.
 * Go ahead and try to add something to the page. No one's going to stop you if it's reasonably sane and well-referenced. Bongolian (talk) 07:06, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * RW used to have long articles on YouTube personalities. I think it was ruled that as YT personalities they had only a marginal presence, with VenomFangX (one of RW's longest articles) being shaved of 90% content.-- Forerunner (talk) 22:07, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * WHY ARE WE YELLING Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:47, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

No one
"No one's going to stop you if it's reasonably sane and well referenced."

Horse shit. I recently made perfectly reasonable edits that did nothing more than remove unsourced and speculative material, and they were deleted. Twice. Irrational Wiki. 05:36, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Edit wars are pretty common. 06:17, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "I recently made perfectly reasonable edits that did nothing more than remove unsourced and speculative material". No. If you had actually done this then you might have a point. You added this line (which we were obviously going to remove): [...] as can be seen on the ironically named "Rational Wiki". You incorrectly described Cenk Uygur as "far-left" when Uygur considers himself a capitalist. You also removed a sourced and accurate paragraph about Ashley Judd. You later changed a quote from an article (although, to be fair, you probably didn't realise it was a quote). I could go on but I think you see my point. CowHouse (talk) 06:37, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

And you removed the SECOND edit, where I did indeed only remove material without a source, as well as the returning all of said biased and speculative material because...?

"I could go on but you see my point."

Whenever someone says that, I know for a fact that they can't, because they have nothing else. 06:42, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Please sign your comments on talk pages with four tiles at the end of your comment (Like this: ~ ). If you are replying to another comment, you can use colons to indent your replies so they are easy to read.
 * I've already demonstrated that what you said was untrue, so it is unnecessary to continue providing examples. I did not remove any of your edits actually, and I removed an unsourced paragraph. By the way, your second edit was where you modified a quote so that it no longer matched the source.
 * If you have complaints about the page, I'd focus on them instead of arguing about whether your edits were justified. CowHouse (talk) 06:53, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Yep, that's about the kind of dodge I expected. Okay, so you want to hear my complaints about the page itself? How about the fact that there isn't an objective or unbiased sentence in the entire article?

You'll no-doubt have some excuse as to why the absurdly biased and unprofessional writing on it is somehow justified, but anyone reading it can see how horrendous this article is. And I'm done trying to help you. If your own editors did their job, you wouldn't have so many people getting pissed off and calling you out on it.

Have a nice life. 07:36, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * So if you paid me better, I'd do a better job! Bongolian (talk) 07:43, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Sign your comments. It's not difficult.
 * What exactly am I dodging? I pointed out the problem with your second edit.
 * Be specific about your criticisms. Point out the parts that are either false, misleading or poorly sourced, and I will edit them if you are correct. I agree that the article could be greatly improved. CowHouse (talk) 08:05, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not conservative or liberal, but the liberal bias here is astounding.
Very ashamed that I used to come to this wiki for seemingly "rational" information when there's clearly a leftist agenda. Every single conservative commentator gets shit on while their liberal counterparts lack a single negative comment on their page. Trump's page is filled with hate towards him, yet Hillary's page is written objectively, almost defending her obviously corrupt actions. It's amazing to me how blind you all are to your own biases, and it's utterly IRRESPONSIBLE to call yourself the "Rational" Wiki when you are EVERYTHING BUT THAT.
 * Being rational has nothing to do with not picking sides.-- Forerunner (talk) 16:31, 12 April 2017 (UTC)


 * It is literally impossible to be apolitical or unbiased. There is no true neutral. just because you think unnamed far right classical liberalism is some kind of default doesn't make it so. It's ironic that you'd call others blind to their own biases (when they're clearly not) while you don't even recognize your own ideology. Being rational means adopting points of view that are evidence-based and objectively true. Some political ideologies are generally or wholly opposed to this, like Crowder's extreme Christian fundamentalism and far right Pinochetesque economic ideas. Being "neutral" politically is idiotic at best. I'm not a liberal, but pointing out the fact that Crowder's politics are nothing more than hateful, reactionary nonsense that would necessarily lead to a total collapse of Western civilization if implemented isn't wrong. It's rational. 72.181.99.6 (talk) 23:19, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh please. Every politically related page has very clear partisanship. What you're essentially saying is that a political view in accord with reason and logic is that of the Left which is complete bullshit. I wouldn't even have a problem, wouldn't be taking the time to respond if this Wiki actually rested on objectivity, listing the actual thought processes and reasoning behind all sides of various controversial issues. But that is the OPPOSITE of what's accomplished here. Instead, you choose to impose your political agenda under the guise of "rationality" which is incredibly disingenuous! I'm a libertarian and don't support Trump, but looking at Obama's page is one of the clearest indicators of this absurdity.

"Add in eight years of Obama's dithering in the White House, and you end up with rather fertile ground for "strong man" politicians who promise to get things done."

Are you fucking kidding me? Forget the general description of Obama's policies and accomplishments, lets get right to subtle (not really) Trump-bashing in the FIRST FUCKING SECTION. There's not even a single piece of criticism towards him! Where's the short excerpt about his unintentional but still fatal arming and funding of ISIS or the immense amount of drone strikes and civilian casualities? Only brief mentions of drone warfare are present, but not criticized which would be totally fine if the rest of the article remained bias-neutral. But it doesn't: "He likely would have won a third term if he weren't prohibited by the Constitution." Jesus Christ, you guys are pathetic and despite the fact that I liked Obama and some of his policies, it is utterly appalling all of this information is filtered through liberal bias.
 * Considering that "Obama armed ISIS" is one of those claims that pretty much only exists in the facts-can-be-made-up-freely-osphere, I'm not too worried about it. No serious fact checker I could find has backed that assertion.  others have more-or-less refuted it.  So if your main complaint centers on a conspiracy theory not being included: boo hoo.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:31, 9 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that's my main complaint alright! Hilarious how you ignore everything else I've said, but nitpick a small example of an example I've made. But just to clarify, since googling "Did Obama arm ISIS?" isn't a sufficient fact-checking method, Obama's administration made plans to arm and train Syrian rebels (which totally failed as we know) and by July 2015, 54 troops were trained in Turkey. But in the recently released Podesta emails, Hillary Clinton (Secretary of State in Obama's administration) suggested using diplomatic and intelligence assests to "bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups in the region." This was in AUGUST OF 2015. In other words, she KNEW that Qatar and Saudi Arabia were funding ISIL radical groups, and they SHIPPED WEAPONS to these countries anyways, which indirectly armed ISIS troops. Did you actually read these emails? Or did you just Google "podesta emails debunked" because the implications were contrary to your political agenda? Because if you type in "Did Obama arm ISIS?", the sources you just posted are the FIRST links to pop up, quite amusing. A true rational minded person would be interested in looking at the PRIMARY sources rather than looking to news organizations to dumb it down for them.


 * SO I'll go ahead and correct myself. Sorry, Barack Obama himself didn't arm ISIS. But Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State in his administration, knew damn well of the possible consequences that could come of this operation, and one can infer that she wasn't the only person that had this information. Even so, the page on Hillary Clinton is no different, just framing her as an honest and brave woman who just made a few innocent mistakes. And you actually try claiming that this site is bipartisan? Rational Wiki my fucking ass.


 * (Different person) Swearing, repeated use of CAPITAL LETTERS and accusing the diversity of people here of bias in a particular direction (rather than a diversity of opinions and 'a willingness to be amused by the range of peculiar opinions other people have and arguments used' and considering the flaws in their discussions) indicates you don't understand RW.
 * And, generally, politicians do not consider the unintended (even if logical) consequences of policies they take on (until said consequences come back to bite them). 86.191.125.168 (talk) 10:58, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

OH MY GOD!!! A....CONSERVATIVE!! SHOCK AND HORROR!
"Steven Crowder is a Detroit-born, Quebec-raised[1] conservative comedian, but unlike the other Steve C., it isn't an act." Oh my god.. a real conservative - and it's not an act! EVERBODY WATCH OUT ITS A CONSERVATIVE!!! RUN FOR YOUR LIVES FROM THE RACIST SEXIST HOMOPHOBIC BIGOTS!!!1!!!!111!!! *screams* This quote is making it out as if it's a giant issue that he's a real conservative. This is problematic because it villifies the conservative community as crazy. This is completely untrue, there are lots of normal people who are conservatives.&mdash; Unsigned, by: 79.73.248.209 / talk
 * On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes ( ~ ) or by clicking on the sign button: SigButt.png on the toolbar above the edit panel. (You can indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line.) Thank you. Christopher (talk) 19:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * There used to be normal people who are conservatives. Now there are literally no non-reprehensible reasons to associate yourself with the movement called "conservatism".  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:05, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Can we just remove the label and let this person's words speak for themselves? 21:11, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * There are still normal conservative people, hence why RationalWiki has: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Category:Right_of_reason. Your statement seems quite bigoted and implies guilt by association. Imagine if someone had said "there used to be normal people who are muslims." -- CowHouse (talk) 5:14, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No really. American conservatives have proven to be united by being garbage people lately. You realize of that tiny list you linked to me, half of those people are fucking dead, and the living set includes intelligent design advocates and climate change denialists?  I.e. batshit.   Like, if I were the biblical god negotiating with Abraham, we're already past the "If you can show me 50 good people I'll spare them" part of the negotiation.
 * Sorry, I'm all for trying to understand that people aren't caricatures, but if you haven't left conservatism with the emergence Trump, you're a fuckhead at the very best. Stop picking through the piles of shit for kernels of corn.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:18, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Because there are no Conservative  Christopher (talk) 17:54, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Frum remained a conservative after conservatism as his party built it caused that. Have you looked at David Frum's backlog of articles?  It's a huge pile of carefully contained vile shit, things like (incorrectly) denying that images from a Palestinian hospital are real after an Israeli raid, or out of nowhere accusing serena williams of using performance enhancing drugs, or wanting to deport people who entered the US as infants and are now adults.  Or the article I'll let speak for itself: "We Need More State Secrecy".   He doesn't like Trump for purely PR reasons.  Not a good person.  Not at all.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:40, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Frum is not the only conservative critic of Trump, see the other stuff I linked to. I never said Frum was a good person, only that he's a conservative critic of Trump (your post seemed to imply they don't exist). Christopher (talk) 18:45, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * "Conservative critics of Trump" would just be branded as "centrist" or even "liberal", there's that to consider. Right? 18:55, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * And there's the fact that the representatives and senators in those groups pretty consistently voted for the dumb shit he's proposed. And huge chunks of them still are various kinds of garbage people, just garbage people who like the pretense of politeness.  Sorry, Christopher, conservatism has become literally synonymous with "bad human being". ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:25, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It was subtle, but you are clearly guilty of moving the goalposts. You started with "conservatives", then "American conservatives" and now you seem to be talking specifically about American Republican politicians. That was not your original position or statement. You should also realise that RationalWiki is not an encyclopedia, and of course most of the people with pages on here have issues since debunking and refuting ideas is basically the point of this wiki. If you insist on a further example, there's . "Stop picking through piles of shit for kernels of corn" sounds exactly like an anti-Muslim meme. Your statement is basically "there are no moderate muslims conservatives!" -- CowHouse (talk) 1:18, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not. My position this whole thread is that there are no non-shitty conservatives.  They are, with only the most reaching exceptions, garbage people nowadays.  That was and continues to be my position.  You brought up never-trumpers as if they had washed their hands of every shitty view that they have.  Fuck them, and fuck you for changing my argument in your head then accusing me of moving the goal posts when I returned to it.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:20, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * This conversation seems to be a waste of time. If your argument is that there are "no non-shitty conservatives", then you should lay off the Americentrism. Either that or you're blaming all non-American conservatives on the planet for the events in the United States. Also, please pay attention to who you're responding to. I did not mention "never-Trumpers". You ask for a "conservative who isn't an absolutely detestable shithead" yet you're also conveniently ignoring my example of Anne Applebaum (probably because you couldn't discredit her with five minutes of Googling). Are you going to bother to acknowledge her? If so, I look forward to what you find about her that you pedantically take issue with. -- CowHouse (talk) 16:34, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Actual point defeating
Just list a conservative who isn't an absolutely detestable shithead, particularly about the things that they think make them "conservative". So far, none of the above have even approached the mark. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:22, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * All conservatives or American conservatives? Christopher (talk) 15:27, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * One of these? category=Right of reason

category=Living people suppresserrors=true mode=userformat listseparators=,¶%PAGE%¦%TITLE% Christopher (talk) 15:38, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh look, dead people. So many dead people, because you're too lazy to investigate your list, and want me to do it for you.  Not repeating this argument.  (Edit to be clear, pick one living, currently self-described conservative and actually defend them.)  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:05, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * There are no longer any dead people in the list but the formatting is now rubbish. Christopher (talk) 17:10, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Since you won't actually pick someone who you think actually represents this hypothetical conservative, I went for random ones, hit two non-americans then finally, you know what, I arrived on Michael Bloomberg is a giant piece of shit person, who has seriously supported massive racial profiling campaigns by police. If you want to make an argument by example do it.  Stop making vague gestures, and actually find me the gold in this pile of shit. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:48, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * So you're discounting non-American conservatives? Christopher (talk) 19:06, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * For the most part, yes, the vile toxin towards human decency is a component of American conservative ideology, and has been purposefully inflamed over the last 30-40 years, and not endemic in the word "conservative" or any given status quo, such as "conservative" might be understood to mean approaching a more historical view of the concept. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:31, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Everything after "and not endemic" looks like word salad to me. Whilst American social conservatism is nearly synonymous with homophobia and Christian supremacism, being a fiscal conservative doesn't warrant being called a "vile toxin towards human decency", "an absolutely detestable shithead" or a "garbage [person]" in my opinion. There's no need to demonize everyone you disagree with. Christopher (talk) 20:16, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Sigh. Christoper, please stop being a shithead.   I don't demonize everyone I disagree with.  I disagree with plenty of people here who aren't bags of human filth with bigotry, extreme authoritarianism, or a basic absence of human empathy as the core of their ideological views.
 * I'm not sorry for thinking that conservatism has turned into a symptom of being an awful person, I'm not sorry thinking, in the face of you providing me no substantive reason to change my mind, that that position is still valid.
 * If you are conservative, I am sorry that you refuse to look at the stunning mess of bad opinions that makes up the cultural center of that perspective and get better, but rather engage in a really indirect argument with me where you don't actually bother to make a real case. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:35, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You've never provided any evidence that all conservatives are shitheads, just demanded that we prove that they aren't, I agree that social conservatism = bigotry, fiscal conservatism (whilst I by no means support it) isn't inherently evil though. Christopher (talk) 20:44, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Does anyone know where the goalposts are anymore? You said "fuck you" to me for accusing you of moving the goalposts and then proceeded to move the goalposts. You are talking about American conservatives and have admitted it yourself more than once. If you aren't, why did you handwave the two non-American conservatives you found? If you're not talking about American conservatives only, then stop saying you are and stop being so obsessed with conservatism in the United States. I would consider and  to be "non-shitty" (whatever that means) and not "absolutely detestable shithead[s]". Don't call Christopher a shithead just because he does not agree with your bigoted, inaccurate and close-minded worldview. Don't even try to claim you're not being bigoted either since you literally believe "normal" conservatives no longer exist. Also, I can foresee you moving the goalposts again so you need to: (a) make clear if you are only talking about Americans (b) define what makes someone "normal", "non-shitty" and not an "absolutely detestable shithead" (c) define what you mean by "conservative" (for instance, is someone who is centre-right a conservative?) (d) say whether or not they have to be famous and notable. (e) say how many examples you will require before you admit you are completely wrong.  -- CowHouse (talk) 3:43, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Not apologizing: once again, fuck you for accusing me of moving the goalposts, when neither my position nor standards have changed. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:00, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

You originally stated "there are no non-shitty conservatives", you then said "for the most part, yes, the vile toxin towards human decency is a component of American conservative ideology". Do you just mean US conservatives? Yes or no question. Christopher (talk) 15:03, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * @ikanreed Yes, I accused you of something that you actually did. It's amazing how you insist on doubling down despite being so consistently wrong. "Fuck you" is not a refutation. Try again. Quote: "I went for random ones, hit two non-americans then finally, you know what, I arrived on Michael Bloomberg..." [Christopher: "So you're discounting non-American conservatives?"] "For the most part, yes". If the goalposts were never moved, then why did you handwave the two non-American conservatives you found? You are unable to answer this question because you did, in fact, move the goalposts. Saying "fuck you" does not change this fact. I am very close to deeming you a waste of my time since you consistently ignore my points and only reply with childish, uncreative insults. I wouldn't mind the childish "fuck you"s if you backed them up with substance but I'm starting to realise that you have none. Please prove me wrong. CowHouse (talk) 15:51, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Fucking hell. It is entirely clear from basic linguistic context I clearly meant american conervatives as part of the American conservative movement.  You stupid pedantic asses.  God damn.  I wasn't "dodging" that point, it was fucking central.  And that's why you get responses like "fuck off with this shit".  If it sounds childish, it's because I don't particularly feel like addressing a pedantic "Surely there's at least one, why don't you go find the counter-example to your own belief for me because I'm a lazy ass" argument.
 * If your goal has been to demonstrate to me the possibility that this movement can be redeemed in any meaningful way by its more decent members, you've utterly failed at that by being noxious asses missing the forest for the trees ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:24, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You at least attempted to provide substance this time so I should give you credit for that. In context, when I suggested you were only talking about Americans, you replied with "No, I'm not. My position this whole thread is that there are no non-shitty conservatives." It's not pedantic to clarify what your incoherent argument even is. Sorry if it made sense in your head but your articulation in this thread has been consistently awful. I never asked you to find a counter example. I provided you with counter examples that you have consistently ignored because they are inconvenient to your narrative. Since you're clearly too lazy to look, one of my examples was Anne Applebaum (this is the fourth time I've mentioned her now and I very much doubt you will acknowledge her next time either since my expectations for your responses could not be lower at this point). Our goal was never to "demonstrate to [you] the possibility that this movement can be redeemed in any meaningful way by its more decent members." It was to refute your claim, which has changed again, that there are no normal conservatives. You have now acknowledged that "more decent members" exist so, even though you would never admit it, your original point is incorrect by your own admission. CowHouse (talk) 01:22, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Until such time as one of you actually does the thing I asked at the top of this tiny subsection, I'm not really interested in arguing anymore. You're being pedantic, but not informative. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:57, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You've already contradicted your original point so I don't really care either. I'm amused that you actually did ignore my example of Anne Applebaum again though. Surely you must be trolling. Why else would you keep lying that no examples have been provided? It seems clear that you're arguing in bad faith and you're not willing to be honest and open-minded. CowHouse (talk) 02:13, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * After substantial searching, there's no evidence to me that Anne Applebaum identifies as conservative. So... what?  I've gone through about 1000 of her tweets, looking for some semblance of ideological alignment, beyond being a historian with a focus on the history of totalitarian eastern european governments.  I've gone through several of her articles looking for the "This is not my conservatism" or something similar to hint that she's got any alignment there.  Searching for party affiliation, anything, any hint that you're not reaching like crazy.  As far as I can tell, you're full of shit.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:46, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Quote: "You know, I always thought of myself as being centre-right. I was very happy in the Tory party in the 1990s when I was living in Britain. I have voted Republican in the past."
 * Quote: "I sort of started as an anti-communist. I was interested in small but efficient government."
 * If you listen to the parts of the podcast I've linked, she also acknowledges that she feels out of touch with the Republican Party today, but maintains that her views have not changed. I'd call her a "normal", "non-shitty" conservative. We can reach common ground here since I think we would agree that many reasonable conservatives would feel alienated today. My point is that reasonable conservatives exist, rather than your view that "conservatism has become literally synonymous with "bad human being"". If you want another example of a reasonable conservative who is more open about supporting Republicans, there's.
 * Rather than being unnecessarily hostile and accusing me of being full of shit, you should have just asked why I thought she was a conservative. I eagerly await your retraction and/or apology. CowHouse (talk) 15:17, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You get neither. The most you'll get is "I understand why you think you're not full of shit, but that was a hell of a reaching example" because among other things, she doesn't identify with the modern conservative movement at all.  She last lived in the US and voted in American elections in what?  19eightysomething?  I understand that you really want to see the best in people, but modern american conservatism remains shit.  I'm neither sorry nor even slightly apologetic, because honestly, it shouldn't take massive qualifications to deem someone decent as an American conservative.  I get why you think you're right, but please drop it.  If this is the closest you're gonna come, it's not going to convince me.  Not by a long shot.  I'm not sorry, I'm not convinced, I'm not retracting shit, and I won't view my having standards for what I count as "A modern american conservative" as moving the goalposts.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:10, 14 June 2017 (UTC)


 * }

Can we not...
Can we please not have arguments about how whether or not this is a hate page that exists just because he's a conservative vlogger? I mean, this is a guy that conflates Trans-acceptance with climate change - he's a verifiable nutter regardless of who he votes for.-- Forerunner (talk) 19:57, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm aware my argument with User:Christopher, and the far-less sane pal tagging along, are more to do with a completely off-topic debate. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:33, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

"Edit Wars"
Says page needs to be bigger, cries foul when page is bigger (lmao)

Never mind my account of his interactions with Dr. Patrick Moore (PhD Ecology), never mind the glaring logical errors, such as putting Comedy in quotations, nor the glaring misuse of the word 'irony' (This isn't even an 'our opinion vs yours' situation, the rationality just isn't there).

Just undo an hour of edits, which I thought were pretty 'Fair and Balanced', why don't you.&mdash; Unsigned, by: Waifu4Laifu / talk / contribs


 * On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes ( ~ ) or by clicking on the sign button: SigButt.png on the toolbar above the edit panel. (You can indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line.) Thank you. Christopher (talk) 15:59, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Delaney Rohan?
"Steeped in bigotry and violent humiliation, the point of most of the clips seems clear: Liberalism is a threatening pathology in need of urgent, punitive extermination—by whatever means are at hand." As much as I despise Crowder and think he can be an asshole and an imbecile, the last part of the quote (cited above) seems to suggest that he is a genocidal maniac. Looking at the reference article, I don't know that the author is more distinguished than the typical editor of any wiki, revealing the quote to be an impuissant persuasion. I would clip off the part about punitive extermination, just to be on the safe side.Ariel31459 (talk) 00:44, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The quote makes him sound like a Gestapo officer. He is a shitty comedian and a right-wing asshole. I am certain he is not frightening (to me at least).Ariel31459 (talk) 22:24, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that rather than clipping the quote we should add the paragraph that precedes it from the article. This gives the quote context, so rather than sounding like he's a monster or some such he instead is revealed to possess a rather twisted sense of humor. 02:22, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

change my mind
Rather a lot of these now. 22:34, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm wondering why this idea isn't more wide-spread? As a concept 'change my mind' sound like wonderful idea. Or am I wrong? 193.166.253.150 (talk) 12:47, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It's a meme, in reality it's rather hard to change someone's mind once they're dead set convinced on something, even when presented with evidence that is contrary to their assertions. — Oxyaena Harass  12:50, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * True. Yet not impossible. Isn't changing even one mind (for the better, hopefully) worth it? 193.166.253.149 (talk) 06:50, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I just watched Daryl Davis on Joe Rogan. Talking to people you disagree seems pretty worth it. 193.166.253.149 (talk) 06:46, 7 February 2020 (UTC)