Talk:Laci Green
Contents
Social Justice Warrior
Should it be mentioned that she is a SJW, because if she is then her critics have a valid reason to call her a misandrist.--124.180.53.49 (talk) 14:45, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
- SJW is a snarl word that is essentially meaningless beyond "person to the left of me that I don't like". Arawn Emrys (talk) 15:20, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
- Has she ever reffered to herself as a "SJW"? If yes, we should include it in the article here. Also, in canada, we have "Social Justice Tribunals" - it's more than a "snarl" word. Rational1 (talk) 15:39, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- Afaik, (save for in cases of nutpicking) nobody self-identifies as a social justice warrior, or an "SJW". Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:55, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- Has she ever reffered to herself as a "SJW"? If yes, we should include it in the article here. Also, in canada, we have "Social Justice Tribunals" - it's more than a "snarl" word. Rational1 (talk) 15:39, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Social Justice Warriors are a collective that they call themselves, not a derogatory for feminist.--124.180.53.49 (talk) 09:46, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Remember, the failure of the Social Justice Warriors is why Trump won, because feminist can't be bitter harpies without hating and shaming men.--101.177.117.217 (talk) 14:00, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's the reason Trump won — the failure of the Social Justice Warriors, because feminists can't be bitter harpies without hating and shaming men. Thanks for clearing that up. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:05, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
- 😆 ~ Aneris ✻ 15:54, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
- Trump did not win. Hillary Clinton won over 2 000 000 more votes. Worzelpete (talk) 23:56, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Aneris The perpetual existence of straight-faced statements such as "the failure of the Social Justice Warriors is why Trump won, because feminist can't be bitter harpies without hating and shaming men" actually adds a certain amount of credence to your theory that what you call the "ALT right" and "CTRL left" are in fact, bar some adjustments, brothers under the skin. Certainly, sides to the same guaranteed nuance-free
cult of outrage. I mean, honestly — can you believe how hard it would be to get this BoN to genuinely comprehend that his mouth-frothing and hate-driven antifeminism relegates him to a level of blatant unreasonableness as bad as (if not likely worse than), say, that of Zorna? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:20, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Aneris The perpetual existence of straight-faced statements such as "the failure of the Social Justice Warriors is why Trump won, because feminist can't be bitter harpies without hating and shaming men" actually adds a certain amount of credence to your theory that what you call the "ALT right" and "CTRL left" are in fact, bar some adjustments, brothers under the skin. Certainly, sides to the same guaranteed nuance-free
But he won the majority of states.--101.177.117.217 (talk) 15:40, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
- Dear Goat I just hope the recount goes through, so the Fascists can go back to being sore Losers instead of sore Winners. Anyway there is no Crtl Left.
- At least, as far as i know, it is a made up counter movement to the Alt-right that the Neo nazis invented for their Persecution complex.--Benaresh (talk) 18:10, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
- Actually, you're right — but you're confusing two things! You mean, Cultural Marxism. The concept of "cultural marxism" is literally a made-up counter movement to the Alt-right which was invented by Neo-Nazis for their persecution complex. The term "CTRL Left" is a much less established term — as I understand it, a reference to two things — the regressive left, and (by extension, though importantly) to horseshoe theory. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:56, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
- oooh! Cultural Marxism is indeed the Term i needed to describe it. But is the crtl-Left really alluding to Horseshoe theory or isn't it rather Psychological projection (We have the alt-right they have the crtl-left) ? --Benaresh (talk) 17:24, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
- Well, I would put it like this — I didn't say "CTRL Left" because I use that term regularly. The above use is the first time I've ever used it, personally. The reason I even used it is because I happened to notice that Aneris had used it here, in a discussion about this article. Regarding to your question about projection and horseshoe theory — I actually think that one of the brilliances of horseshoe theory is that it helps demonstrate how people who actually have very similar outlooks seem to think themselves utterly different from other people with essentially the same views. In this way, horseshoe theory accomodates the reality of projection somewhat. Like how super-orthodox jews, muslims and christians are so opposed to each other — no evangelical christian would vote for a salafist political party, and vice versa — despite them sharing 99% of the views on culture, abortion, women's rights, traditional households, drugs, pornography, gun ownership, school prayer, et cetera, et cetera. Another example is, of course, how tankies and nazis overlap. They both have super-conspiratorial world-views and see a perfect society just around the corner — we just have to put "the right people" in mass graves first. Hope this helps! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:43, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
- First time I heard that was from Maajid Nawaz who used it to describe cultural radicals] who are basically the same as the Alt-Right. They do exist but they're not "Marxists" so much they appear to be extreme social constructivists who perhaps came to the logical conclusion (of their ideology at least) that because perceptions control reality that the best way to promote equality was by controlling people's perceptions. I would say their primary features, if you accept the term, would be an overtly unhinged anti-white male bigotry (as in genuine bigotry like #KillAllWhiteMales not Alt-Right conspiracy theories), apologism for left-wing authoritarianism (Purely anecdotally I know a couple people in this crowd who are somehow both this and full-blown tankies despite the difference in ideologies), full embrace of Derrida's concept of erasure (regardless of whether or not they know that's what they're doing) to control the use of emotional language as a weapon to be used against priviliged groups, paranoia, tendency towards demonization of opponents, refusal to criticize non-Western cultures and attacking those that do, attacking science and rationalism as white male social constructs, and a tendency towards groupthink and holding individuals responsible for the actions of others because they share genetic similarities (race, gender, sexuality, etc.). As far as I'm concerned, from what I know of her, Laci Green definitely does not qualify for this and I think it's weird people would think she does, given that if anything she's more of a left-libertarian. Perhaps it would be worth expanding on the concept of this Left wing version of the Alt-Right so as to show people why fairly mild people like Green do not qualify for the label? ClothCoat (talk) 05:01, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- Well, I would put it like this — I didn't say "CTRL Left" because I use that term regularly. The above use is the first time I've ever used it, personally. The reason I even used it is because I happened to notice that Aneris had used it here, in a discussion about this article. Regarding to your question about projection and horseshoe theory — I actually think that one of the brilliances of horseshoe theory is that it helps demonstrate how people who actually have very similar outlooks seem to think themselves utterly different from other people with essentially the same views. In this way, horseshoe theory accomodates the reality of projection somewhat. Like how super-orthodox jews, muslims and christians are so opposed to each other — no evangelical christian would vote for a salafist political party, and vice versa — despite them sharing 99% of the views on culture, abortion, women's rights, traditional households, drugs, pornography, gun ownership, school prayer, et cetera, et cetera. Another example is, of course, how tankies and nazis overlap. They both have super-conspiratorial world-views and see a perfect society just around the corner — we just have to put "the right people" in mass graves first. Hope this helps! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:43, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
- oooh! Cultural Marxism is indeed the Term i needed to describe it. But is the crtl-Left really alluding to Horseshoe theory or isn't it rather Psychological projection (We have the alt-right they have the crtl-left) ? --Benaresh (talk) 17:24, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
- Actually, you're right — but you're confusing two things! You mean, Cultural Marxism. The concept of "cultural marxism" is literally a made-up counter movement to the Alt-right which was invented by Neo-Nazis for their persecution complex. The term "CTRL Left" is a much less established term — as I understand it, a reference to two things — the regressive left, and (by extension, though importantly) to horseshoe theory. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:56, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Watch "How to spot a Feminist" or "Vicious Feminist at Schools", there are the heart and soul of feminism. According to you, you can't question feminism without being a Neo-Nazi and also "you're either for us or against us", does that sound familiar?--101.177.117.217 (talk) 10:43, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
- C'mon BoN, rise above stereotyping and look at a person by face value.—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara
(talk • stalk) 17:01, 4 December 2016 (UTC) - The claim that you cannot criticize feminism (as if "feminism" was one monolithic thing, and not a term as wide and nuanced as the term "politics") without being a neo-nazi does not sound familiar, no. What did you expect, that some bullshit you just invented would "sound familiar"? Give me a break. In fact, already in the summary to our article on antifeminism, we make it very clear that what you imply here is completely untrue. I suggest you read it. I also don't think I've ever even said the words "you're either for us or against us", though I have brought up the problem of people falling into splitting
like, seriously, thirty times just in the past few months. Sorry dude — I'm afraid the SJW final boss you're looking to joust
is in another castle. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:14, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
I will only raise above the stereotype, if you don't stereotype anyone who opposes feminism as Nazis.--101.177.117.217 (talk) 04:10, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- FFS read the actual answers to your Statements instead of immediatly playing a Victim Card. Just assume were not convinced of your arguments yet. My favorite quote comes to mind: "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it" - Aristotle
- Take our points think about them and then you refute them, it is that simple. We will counter those points of course, but that way you can make a point. --Benaresh (talk) 18:21, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Though, I fear you may be expecting a tad much here from a BoN who puts words in our mouths about how "we think that everyone not indoctrinated into our cult is a Nazi" (?) or something. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:44, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Tell that to the victims of the SJWs and BLMs in the aftermath of the election.--124.177.214.166 (talk) 11:35, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
- Rebutted with one word: Who? Zero (talk - contributions) 23:56, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Watch the reaction videos.--124.177.214.166 (talk) 11:04, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Peace be with everyone - except your mom
How come nobody has yet mentioned her YouTube endcard where she always says those horrible words quoted in the headline? Worzelpete (talk) 02:07, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
- Well because everybody knows that Moms never be at peace. There is always your laundry to fold,or your Homework to make, or your drunk Ex-Wife to pick up again crying on "how did all end wrong? We had something special", or well other little things.--Benaresh (talk) 02:26, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
- I never knew what the lyrics were. I checked on TVtropes and the lyrics are: "Peace be with everyone! ♪ 'Cept your mom, wo-hah."—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara
(talk • stalk) 02:35, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
- So should we add it with the "except" or in your version? Worzelpete (talk) 20:15, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
- If you can explain why its missional. —Hamburguesa con queso con un cara
(talk • stalk) 23:34, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
- Good christians are outraged at her filthy language. Worzelpete (talk) 23:57, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
- [citation needed]—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara
(talk • stalk) 23:59, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
- [citation needed]—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara
- Good christians are outraged at her filthy language. Worzelpete (talk) 23:57, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
- If you can explain why its missional. —Hamburguesa con queso con un cara
- So should we add it with the "except" or in your version? Worzelpete (talk) 20:15, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
- I never knew what the lyrics were. I checked on TVtropes and the lyrics are: "Peace be with everyone! ♪ 'Cept your mom, wo-hah."—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara
Old Videos
Laci Green apparently has old videos that contradict her whole "girl love" ideas. It's covered in this video. The author also has other criticisms as well, such as her filing a copyright notice for a video that criticized her.—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara
(talk • stalk) 03:11, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't doubt that she's an atheist it's just, I don't know, I think she's more notable for her sex, gender etc. kind of content than atheist one. I may be wrong of course (don't really watch her content much). I'm just unsure if the nav works here.--WMS (talk) 23:36, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Out of the two navs we can pick, top contenders likely include: {{atheism}}, {{internet}}, {{pundits}}, {{gender}}, {{sex}}, {{sj}}... It's a good question which ones are the most relevant, as I haven't watched her content. Maybe {{atheism}} and {{sex}}? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:46, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, it is a bit of a conundrum. I don't watch her content either so someone who knows at least a bit about what content she produces should be able to help with this problem.--WMS (talk) 15:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- She hardly brings up being an atheist anymore though.—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara
(talk • stalk) 19:36, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- So, do you suggest the atheist nav should be changed on this article, CheeseburgerFace?--WMS (talk) 20:56, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Recently, her content consists of sex-ed and some social justic videos on rape.—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara
(talk • stalk) 21:40, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Recently, her content consists of sex-ed and some social justic videos on rape.—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara
- So, do you suggest the atheist nav should be changed on this article, CheeseburgerFace?--WMS (talk) 20:56, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- She hardly brings up being an atheist anymore though.—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara
- Yeah, it is a bit of a conundrum. I don't watch her content either so someone who knows at least a bit about what content she produces should be able to help with this problem.--WMS (talk) 15:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Cooling it on the window sill
Page locked for a week, with Hipocrite's version in place (because I also find the relevant article portions to be highly suspect, placing us at 2-1 for now). Protip: Stick to the issue. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:19, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
The following sections were garbage.
"Views on Gun Violence" was sourced to "thedeclination.com"." I do not believe this accurately reflects her views.
"Ignorance about "Nerds"" demonstrates no ignorance about nerds.
"Ignorance about DCMA" does not present any evidence she used a DMCA claim.
Removing shit is not plagiarism. Hipocrite (talk) 13:04, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- Point taken. I have edited the article to reflect your views. Kindly note that any and all problems can be solved by discussion, and there's no need to blank out any sections.
“”If it's true, let's write it down. If it's false, let's point it out.
|
| —Rational1 (talk) 18:52, 24 January 2017 (UTC) |
What is RationalWiki's ideology?
Hello Hipocrite,
What is RationalWiki's ideology? What's our ideology on Laci Green? As per my understanding of RationalWiki's policies, you are the one who is making a lot of mistakes on this page. It's possible that I am wrong. Can you point it out to me? Rational1 (talk) 19:14, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- Our purpose here at RationalWiki includes:
Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement. Documenting the full range of crank ideas. Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism. Analysis and criticism of how these subjects are handled in the media.
- We welcome contributors, and encourage those who disagree with us to register and engage in constructive dialogue.
- Your additions to this article did not analyze or refute pseudoscience or the anti-science movement. They did not document crank ideas (except your own). They did not explore authoritarianism or fundamentalism. They did not analyze or criticize how these subjects are handled in the media. Instead, they, in the case of the gun-control decontextualization and the DMCA falsehood, repeated trivially false aspersions cast at someone who does do those things by people who are those things, and in the case of your personal nerdgasm, actually WAS one of those things we are supposed to be fighting against. Hipocrite (talk) 19:29, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- Again, if it's something we are to be fighting against. FIGHT AGAINST IT. Do not delete it, move it to another section, change the wordings a bit, and then write down as to what's wrong with it.
- Your additions to this article did not analyze or refute pseudoscience or the anti-science movement. They did not document crank ideas (except your own). They did not explore authoritarianism or fundamentalism. They did not analyze or criticize how these subjects are handled in the media. Instead, they just removed three sections, which is vandalism. Rational1 (talk) 19:37, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- Who expressed, exactly, the crank idea that she "completely ignores that teen boys and even adult men get similarly ridiculed with labels such as Nerd and Geeks." Is that you? Did you make that up? Why should I refute idiocy you made up? Hipocrite (talk) 20:06, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- You wrote - as fact - that she "She is critical of white men as leading cause of gun violence, for which she provides no evidence and completely ignores cases and areas where gun violence is more prevalent in black communities." Is that a fact? Did you make it up? Why would you write something so innane? Hipocrite (talk) 20:07, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- You wrote - as a fact - that "she filled a DCMA Violation complaint, even though it's acceptable under the fair use policy and she herself and done it on a number of her videos" Is that true? If it's not true, why would you write it, as a fact?
- In summary, you are not the assignments editor, and stop FUCKING LYING ABOUT THINGS. Hipocrite (talk) 20:08, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- Hello.
- RE: White men and gun violence. She did tweet "Mental health is such a bs scapegoat for gun violence. Stronger correlation between white men & gun violence than mental illness." Due to the nature of twitter, it's hard to get anything from it. She could mean it, or she could be countering a BS statement with another BS statement.
- RE: DMCA. There's one small YouTuber that accuses Laci Green of abusing DMCA. Another case, it allegedly happened seven years ago with her older account. And then again a year ago.
- Re: males. WTF?—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara
(talk • stalk) 06:36, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- The statement about white males is completely decontextualized. It was in a discussion about school shootings. RE:DMCA - lots of people accuse lots of people of lots of things. She did not DMCA anyone. Re males - it made no sense when he wrote it - it's just his broken mind spewing shit on our article pages. Hipocrite (talk) 12:38, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Let's try this again
I'm not 100% clear why this edit is meaningful, but you're not substantively discussing it. Here's the text of Rational1's edit:
== Views on Gun Violence ==
On, 13th October 2015, Laci tweeted her views on gun violence. She is critical of white men as leading cause of gun violence, for which she provides no evidence and completely ignores cases and areas where gun violence is more prevalent in black communities. [1]
“”Mental health is such a bs scapegoat for gun violence. Stronger correlation between white men & gun violence than mental illness. #DemDebate—Laci Green @gogreen18 [2] == Ignorance about "Nerds" ==
In a MTV Braless video titled, "Why Do People Hate Fangirls?", Laci green claims that "Crushes", "Sexual Feelings" and "Media Interest" of teen girls are disparaged while those of teen boys are completely validated[3], for which she provides no evidence and completely ignores that teen boys and even adult men get similarly ridiculed with labels such as Nerd and Geeks.
== Ignorance about DCMA ==
After a Youtube Channel named "Roaming Millennial"[4], used her photo in a video[5], she filled a DCMA Violation complaint, even though it's acceptable under the fair use policy and she herself and done it on a number of her videos[6].
Rational1, can you provide 1 reason for addition of each section? Hipocrite, can you provide 1 reason against addition of each section? αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 21:04, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- Is false. Puts words in her mouth she did not say.
- Is a local invention of Rational1. No one has ever said this about her but him.
- Is false. She did not file a DCMA complaint. Hipocrite (talk) 21:19, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- When our Dear Hipocrite says it's false, it's his personal opinion. The particular tweet in question is still live. Anyone can see it.
- When our Dear Hipocrite says it's a "local invention", he means that I have debunked Laci Green, just as I am supposed to, just as you FuzzyCatPotato and numerous other PRODUCTIVE editors have done on ANY AND ALL pages of RationalWiki.
- There are tweets from Laci Green, clearly saying that she will/has "filled copywrite complaint" and also that she has asked her lawyer about it. Even after this, if there is any slight chance that she didn't actually file the DCMA complaint, she clearly did threaten to do so. In any case, one or two words can be edited, the whole section is not to be deleted.
Dear FuzzyCatPotato,
Let me tell you why these sections deserve to be present. Bias by Omission. Period.
Suppose there are two politicians, A and B. Suppose RationalWiki is a news channel, let's say CBS. Suppose you are a news reporter, working for CBS.
If politician A says something bad/critical of politician B, IT IS NEWS.
As a news channel, CBS is supposed to tell it's audience about it. PERIOD.
As a news reported, you are supposed to mention it. PERIOD.
It doesn't matters if what politician A has said is true, untrue, rational, irrational, provocative, misleading, foul language,....(you get the idea).
Not repeating what politician A has said, as he has said it, in the exact words, no matter what the reasoning, no matter what the justification, would constitute "Bias by Omission". What's worse is that Bias by Omission is often a by-product of Cognitive Distortion, Cognitive Dissonance and what not.
If the news channel or the news reporter, believes that what politician A has said is irrational, then they can say:
Politician A has said, "Whatever he said, exactly, no creativity", but "Debunking politician A".
Without strict rules designed to prevent Bias by Omission and editors who may be suffering from Cognitive Distortion, Cognitive Dissonance and what not, we are doomed. Rational1 (talk) 09:17, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- This is nearly identical to what you said the last time you shit on one of our article pages and made me clean up after you. Not doing it again. Hipocrite (talk) 12:39, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- The last time, I mistook you to be an admin or someone of high position on this website, who has a good understanding of biases and how to avoid them. Sorry for that. Rational1 (talk) 15:35, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- OK, let's say that "bias by omission" is a problem. What are we omitting? Why is omitting that problematic? Try to stay topical. Remember, the sum of your complaints so far are "she's dumb on Twitter" and "she might have been a dick on YouTube". I'm fine with inclusion of that material, but only if it's somehow meaningful. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 14:47, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- "He/she is dumb on twitter" and "He/she might have been a dick on Youtube" is the sum total of several articles here on RationalWiki. So, your argument that it's a small thing is invalid. Anyhow, if you insist that this is insignificant, then all such sections from all articles are to be removed, else it would be a "partiality/bias towards Laci Green".
- I am close to tears in my eyes at this moment. Seriously? You want me to explain what's wrong with Bias by Omission?
- When Hipocrite removes statements critical of Laci Green, there's a possibility that Hipocrite is Laci Green (or business partner/associate, real life friend or fan), who is removing valid criticism against her. If the criticism is invalid, refute it, why should it be removed?
- When you are refuting a criticism, the original criticism should be presented as it is, without any omissions. Why? because there is a possibility that even after the best of your efforts, you are wrong. It happens. No one is right at all times. I am sorry. In the rare case you are wrong, most readers will read the original criticism and then read your points, and understand that you are wrong! This makes the website reliable to a certain extent, even if multiple editors are delusional about the topic.
- It is our job here to point out cases in which others have engaged in such omissions. Not make them ourselves.
- In regard to her filling a DCMA complaint, the girl has said that (i)Laci Green made multiple tweets about her filing a compaint (ii)Has shown screenshots of such complaints (iii) Claimed that Laci Green herself uses others' images all the time and has shown screenshots of her youtube channel which clearly shows it (iii) Laci Green has used the word "copyright violation", "contacted my lawyer" in her tweets against her and she has shown screenshots of it.
- After all this, even if it is true that Laci Green didn't actually file a "DCMA" complaint, then this girl is wrong, but "little wrong", it's a "small mistake"
- When any of the above mentioned 3 points is omitted, it gives the impression of this girl being "more wrong" than she "actually is".
- When you do such omissions on a large scale, it gives the impression of Laci's critics being "outright crazy", "uneducated", "ignorant about law", etc... which is incorrect.
- At this point, this isn't just "Bias by Omission", it's outright "mental manipulation". Rational1 (talk) 15:35, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- "it gives the impression of Laci's critics being "outright crazy", "uneducated", "ignorant about law", etc..."
- You got it!
- which is incorrect.
Presented the opportunity to come here and justify your edits, you choose instead to just revert them over and over? Hipocrite (talk) 14:28, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
- I have justified my edits. I am sorry if you can't see it because of cognitive dissonance. Rational1 (talk) 15:20, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
- Do you think you accurately represented the context of the gun-violence tweet? Why or why not? Hipocrite (talk) 15:24, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
- I only think about accurately mentioning whatever her critics have said, if the context is wrong, and you know what's wrong about it, you should point it out by ADDING more content to the page and NOT VANDALISM.
- I have taken your word for it and written that "it doesn't accurately portrays her views", what more can I do?
- Here on RationalWiki, we are enthusiastic about writing and editing articles. If I am wrong, correct me, don't engage in unproductive edit wars. Rational1 (talk) 16:13, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
- You are wrong. We do not amplify the bleatings of authoritarianism and fundamentalism here. You wrote "She is critical of white men as leading cause of gun violence, for which she provides no evidence and completely ignores cases and areas where gun violence is more prevalent in black communities." You wrote that in your voice, as a statement of fact about Laci Green. It ignores the entirety of the context of the tweet in question. It is not my job to educate you. Stop defaming people. Hipocrite (talk) 16:21, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
- You wrote "thereby completely ignoring the existence of terms such as Nerd." You wrote that in your voice, as a statement of fact about Laci Green. It is not true, it is not sourced, and it is totally unrelated to what she is discussing. It is not my job to educate you. Stop defaming people. Hipocrite (talk) 16:23, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
- You wrote "she filled a DCMA Violation complaint." You wrote that in your voice, as a statement of fact about Laci Green. It is not true, it is not sourced except to wingnuts. It is not my job to educate you. Stop defaming people. Hipocrite (talk) 16:24, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, Yes, Yes. I agree with you. Sadly, that would mean you should leave RationalWiki. It isn't your job to check for accuracy of RW. This is a place for people who talk, discuss, make RW better both in quality and quantity. I made edits to make rationalwiki better in quality and quantity. Anyhow, if it turns out that my edit is making RW worse in terms of quality, then you can edit, but you edit should do one of these things:
- Do you think you accurately represented the context of the gun-violence tweet? Why or why not? Hipocrite (talk) 15:24, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
(i) make it better in quantity (ii) make it better in quality. It isn't your jobs to correct my mistakes. It isn't your job to correct RW's accuracy on any topic. It isn't your job to visit RW. Stop visiting RW. Rational1 (talk) 16:30, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
- It is, however, your job to not make mistakes. Stop making mistakes. Hipocrite (talk) 16:34, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
- It is interesting how you are talking so much, but not telling as to what's wrong with any of the sections. Actually, you are wrong, you are the one making a mistake here. I am being courteous and talking as if you are right. I am acting as if your point of view is correct, so that I can show that your edit is wrong, even if your point of view is correct. In reality, you are completely delusional about these little things.Rational1 (talk) 16:42, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Let's debunk Laci Green's Critics! Hurray!!
RW is dedicated to debunking. There are a lot of people on internet who have made false statements about Laci Green. Let's debunk them here on her page. Hurray.....
P.S: I really can't make an argument more fundamental and basic than this. I am not going to make any more comments. Let's see what happens. Rational1 (talk) 18:08, 2 February 2017 (UTC)