Talk:Kyle Kulinski/Archive1

"Conservapeida affair"
Got any CP links to that? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 07:22, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Added them. ClothCoat (talk) 17:03, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Israel
Didn't he once say that he wants to go back to the borders as lined out in the - internationally irrelevant and superseded - partition plan of 1948 and considers this position to be "progressive"? Shouldn't this be mentioned with at least half a sentence in this here article? 95.90.213.6 (talk) 16:16, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * He said that he would call this a moderate position, and that the compromise position would be the 1967 borders. PBfreespace (talk) 02:34, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Irony
Love how this wiki insults and derides Sargon and TJ when they both had conversations where they agreed with Kyle on many issues, even on feminism. Shows the blatant hypocrisy of SJWs. Thedoctor81 (talk) 17:36, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * They both took it to batshit extremes by fully embracing Men's Rights Activism and/or Gamergate. Neither of them would willingly self-identify as a feminist, or agree with Kuliniski that there exists a wage gap, double standards on sex, etc. Also "SJW" really? Does that term even mean anything anymore? Especially when your talking about a page that's critical of radical feminism? ClothCoat (talk) 18:08, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Both TJ and Sargon agree that there is a wage gap and that there are double standards. Why is there such a huge difference as to how these people are presented when their beliefs are almost identical? Rationalwiki seems to love Anita Sarkeesian, for example, and attack TJ and Sargon for criticising her, but this page mentions nothing on Kyle's view of Anita Sarkeesian (Quote from Kyle when asked about A.S. by TJ - 'if you care more about video game violence than actual violence there is something fucked up in your morality'). This page reeks of double standard.Thedoctor81 (talk) 13:03, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I try not to pick sides or join camps too much, but I'll dive in. I tend to agree with Kulinski and disagree with Sarkeesian on this issue. Sargon is a mixed bag, but I believe he is essentially sane. Gamergate itself I disagree with, as they were mean and dic dropped people, but Anita's camp is also wrong on video games. Gahh. Why won't his argument wnd already??? Are freethinking, rational and liberal people destined to devolve inti factionalism and insults? Why cant we get over this? This civil war should end. The broader movement would be helped by it. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 15:43, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Kyle Kulinski's Post-democratic primary plan
I give section about Kyle Kulinski plans voting on Jill after Post-Bernie primary season with video to proved it, Put some reason it undo with no reason. So why its isnt acceptable for? 98.27.29.192 (talk) 01:07, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Your extremely garbled English, on display again here. I would love to direct you to another language edition of RW, but there are only a handful of articles in "not-English", sadly. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost)))  (talk) 01:35, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * What, Actually no for quarter last part, Put majority of my question is realistically true because I have irritability or unintentional 'hyper'-irrational issue since my absence in this site for while that get through my brain. Put can you restored it and fixed with your good grammar, Please. And secondly Im born "your sterotypical American"/in Nevada, United States too so yea. 98.27.29.192 (talk) 02:09, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, but it is hard for me to even figure out what you are trying to say. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost)))  (talk) 02:26, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Well can you read slowly instead overlook it, If you want? 98.27.29.192 (talk) 02:33, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Please tell me one thing... How in the world do you get past the Captcha?! Because if English is in fact your first language (as you claim), that means you are somehow going way above and beyond the call of dyslexia. This is like, dyslexia and dyspepsia combined or something. Regarding the portion of text you attempted to add to the article, quote:
 * "Has Anyone Really Been Far Even as Decided to Use Even Go Want to do Look More Like?"
 * Your irritability and "hyper-irrationality" nonwithstanding, that type of writing can't be permitted into a mainspace article. I hope you understand this. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:00, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * --JorisEnter (talk) 23:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, And later, I will need rewording and cut sentence short that will make sense for you. 98.27.29.192 (talk) 23:23, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. You will need to do exactly that — reword and cut your sentences short, in order for them to make sense to me. Because currently, they really don't. Thanks. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:25, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Talk about ideologuery and conspiracy theories regarding CNN?
He is a pretty blatant ideologue - he stated that Democrats should not work with Trump because that's "giving the right what they want". He has also stated that CNN has a premeditated intent not to hire anyone critical of the establishment - an unfounded conspiracy theory for which he provides no source. RWNoob (talk) 13:42, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I watched mots of his videos and I think he criticized the DNC for not wanting to work with Trump. Diacelium (talk) 13:49, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Interesting. He did criticize someone for saying Democrats should work with Trump in this video, though. RWNoob (talk) 13:55, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

He seems different as of recent.
I am not sure exactly but this guy isn't the same as he used to be. There is nothing about him that I cannot exactly articulate but I know that is just a bit off with him. Does anyone have any ideas?&mdash; Unsigned, by: 216.7.252.209 / talk / contribs 19:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Not sure if it this is actually is a recent development, but in his today's segment on Merkel vs. Trump I finally understood one point on which I disagree with him. First off, I disagree with him here... he makes it sound like Merkel's statement that Europe has to go on its own path was exclusively about the military, while as far as I know it was mostly about renewable energy and overall economic cooperation, plus I think that european nations already spend enough money on the military while Kyle makes it sound like we have hardly any military at all.
 * This leads me to my actual disagreement with Kyle. As you probably know, he's very protectionist. I'm less protectionist, I think as long as international trade is sufficiently regulated to keep outsorcing and tax evasion at bay, it's usually a net benefit. However, I think that he's combined his non-interventionism (which I support) and protectionism (which I semi-support) into a form of isolationism (everybody stay on their turf and deal with their domestic problems! I don't support this.). Isolationism like this would also stifle the cultural, technological and genetic exchange, as well as the exchange of ideas in general.
 * Kyle hasn't always been like this with, for example, his segments about atheism in the nordic countries, which would be a prime example for an exchange of ideas. Recently, he's been very americacentric...
 * That's my take on it at least. Maybe this is a rant of a European who's slightly startled by his attack on one of the few of Merkel's opinions I largely agree with (namely, that the EU shouldn't act like a client of the US, especially when it's run by an ill-tempered anti-science protofascist who's not even good at being authoritarian), but Kyle's isolationism has been a thorn in my side for a few months now. --Imaginative username (talk) 22:16, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * --JorisEnter (talk) 10:38, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * He clarified his position today and he sounds a bit more moderate, saying that Trump was right by nudging the rest of NATO towards a higher military spending, even though he laments that he didn't decrease the United State's military spending at the same time s.t. the total military spending decreased.
 * I still partially disagree with him... the single number that's been floated around by a reasonable person was Bernie Sanders estimate that about half of the US military spending should be cut. That would be a decrease the US's military spending to about 1.7% of the GDP, which already is in the ballpark of the EU (1.5%) (source: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS) - Kyle again makes it sound like we could at most strap some guns on a handful of VW Beetles and call it a tank armada if times get rough. Given these numbers, I don't see much room for a total decrease in military spending if the EU nations increase their budget - even if the US disarmed a bit. While he sounds more conciliatory than a month ago, I still think that he's in an americacentric bubble, maybe even (unwittingly) an American exceptionalist one, with comparatively little understanding of the role of the other NATO members in the grand scheme of things.
 * Also, I don't really appreciate an increase in military spending in the EU for several other reasons... while we have more reasonable healthcare systems, affordable universities and much more (if not enough) spending towards regenerative energy sources, we still have Greece to take care of and a bunch of refugees from US-led wars the US is unwilling to help us with. Increasing our military spending, which more often than not tends to be used to further US imperialist ambitions via NATO, doesn't seem to be helpful there. --Imaginative username (talk) 01:44, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Kyle is anti-Monsanto, not anti-GMO
Kyle has insisted on multiple occasions that "there's nothing wrong with GMO's". Don't conflate his anti-establishment sentiments with tin-foil lunacy. Thank you. 71.62.0.183 (talk) 00:03, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, and thanks for providing timestamped links. CowHouse (talk) 00:30, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Not a problem, and I understand the contributors' concerns about his thoughts on glyphosate. I just don't want anything misrepresented here. Sorry I didn't timestamp both of them but hopefully sitting through the 10 minute one was at least better than the 100 minute one! And thanks to whoever made the edit, I didn't feel comfortable wading into a living person's article with my IP being visible. 71.62.0.183 (talk) 20:29, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

"Syrian Gas Attacks"
"that the gas attacks against civilians that have taken place since 2017 were carried out by someone else." He has said in, I think it's either "Secular Talking Smack #6" or his interview with The Progressive Voice that he doesn't actually know who did the recent chemical attack.


 * Reworded it. It's best to take most of what he says with a grain of salt because he has been wrong on a lot of things.--47.196.6.94 (talk) 18:02, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Left-Wing Slant
Why does this article come across as a Left-Wing propaganda piece? It should be about the subject, not shoehorned complaints about anything r/politics can come up with. I thought this was Rationalwiki. Where one would find rational articles. Not hyperpartisan trash heaps. &mdash; Unsigned, by: 74.101.190.2 / talk
 * Almost word-for-word.
 * This is what you sound like right now. 23:17, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This is what you sound like right now. 23:17, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Nwords is houngry
why does this quote keep being removed? &mdash; Unsigned, by: 112.207.98.115 / talk
 * You're accusing Kulinski of saying the n-word as a page quote. Whilst this may be correct (I don't know who Kulinski is), do you have a source of him saying this quote? If so, could you reply with it here? That way we can include it in the page with the reference. 10:42, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * > https://twitter.com/KyleKulinski/status/114361675355926529 Pete 2024 (talk) 14:43, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, that's pretty ugly. Though it's also 9 years old, I said some pretty stupid shit in my early twenties to be sure. And I've no idea of the context, not that I can see context making that good.
 * I'd like to know what this was about though, before approving for it to be included. And if someone knows if Kyle has apologized for the tweet, that'd be great to know too. If he hasn't, then fuck him. He certainly hasn't deleted it, though that could be because of his views on transparency and shit. I've got the impression that he isn't a big fan of people deleting embarrassing tweets. 15:06, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, there we go then. In that case, it can probably be added. 16:08, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Just include the reference when you do. 21:03, 20 December 2020 (UTC)