RationalWiki talk:Webshites/Politics
Unsubstantiated Names[edit]
I am confused as to why names are left up when they have no description. For example, I deleted Emerican Johnson's name earlier because there was no information included with his name. My assumption was that whoever put his name on the list in the first place probably should have been expected to include some modicum of information first. It seems, however, that his name has been added again, still without any descriptor. I know nothing about Emerican Johnson, but if we are going to lable him as a "leftist in name only," should it not be expected that we give some substantiation. As a more general note, maybe some guidelines should be created in this talk section with regards to who should be included in what section. For example, we'd hardly include Karl Marx in the "leftist in name only" section due to his essay, "On the Jewish Question." Assumably one can engage in problematic behavior and still be a leftist? — Unsigned, by: 67.253.212.73 / talk / contribs
Some serious double standards[edit]
Right, I’m an outsider here so you’ll probably notice some of my opinions are a bit different to the consensus here, so I’ll go through a few of the significant issues here.
Fallacies all over: For a website that prides itself on calling out logical fallacies whenever possible, there’s a number of them in these very entries and elsewhere. Most of these as well as some of the articles are full of ad hominem attacks and cherry-picked information. For example, there’s a few cases where you say someone like Carl Benjamin or ‘SomeBlackGuy’ is bad because someone deemed unacceptable like Richard Spencer or Tommy Robinson had endorsed them for whatever reason. This is textbook “Guilt by Association” here, which normally would be lambasted were it from someone of a different political view to your own. Also, regarding TERFism as well as Christina Hoff Summers, why is it that self-identifying as a Christian is all it takes to be Christian (as implied in your No True Scotsman article), but self-identifying as a feminist isn’t all it takes to be a feminist, as implied in these pages? In fact, many of these articles are just attack pieces full of ad hominems like “reactionary” and out of context quotes to make the subject look as bad as possible. Aren’t they fallacies, or are they only fallacies when someone you don’t like is doing it? If so, isn’t that Special Pleading?
“Hides behind an avatar”. Ah yes, because it’s not as if the social justice/intersectionality side has a well-documented history of trying to get people fired from their RL jobs for disagreeing online or anything like that (*cough* Melody Hensley, Amy Siskind, The LaughingWitch, Brown University’s campus changes, ‘Woke Twitter’ as a whole, ). It’s also nothing more than an ad hominem, especially when a number of the people who this website’s userbase endorse also use avatars and/or pseudonyms, and that the reasons they do (eg fear of being doxed, desire to keep private and work life separate, preference of flexibility of online personas or simple preference) apply to others as well. Also it’s interesting how it claims Bearing is a rape apologist by using a clearly quote mined and edited piece of footage that Michael Rowlands spread around while failing to factor in context, and also claiming that Bearing fabricated his claim that Winters was responsible for spreading his doxing, despite archived comments reported by Bearingcab showing she did exactly that.
It’s especially bad when many of the people endorsed on the other page do many of these same things. Just instead of made up words like “cuck”, “soyboy” and “regressive”, it’s real words like Nazi, sexist or rape that get thrown around till they’ve lost all meaning, which is definitely worse in overall impact. Many of those endorsed use argument tactics that would no doubt be shunned if someone with different views to you used them. Indeed, even some of the people previously endorsed are being put on here for minor offences like Natalie Wynn or Harry Brewis, simply for having somewhat different opinions to your own. That seems just as much of an echo chamber mentality as anything Conservapedia has.
Not saying you can’t disagree with people of course, but claiming to be above all the fallacies while allowing them in your own articles just seems out or order. Thank you for your time. — Unsigned, by: 2a00:23c4:60b:6001:c578:d8b7:5256:ea4c / talk / contribs
why is rev says desu here?[edit]
Used to be one of my favorite you-tubers, I¿ don't watch them anymore though. It was a surprise seeing them.— Unsigned, by: 174.57.131.28 / talk / contribs
Thank You[edit]
Thank you so much for giving me a list of new people to listen to. You have no idea how much I appreciate it. — Unsigned, by: 2600:387:b:5::25 / talk / contribs
Reality has a liberal bias[edit]
Famous quote from acclaimed conservative pundit Stephen Colbert and his comedic persona “Stephen Colbert”. --Jakester499 (talk) 01:28, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
- Despite this I believe in a big tent between post left to center right.--Jakester499 (talk) 01:46, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
- To sum up, liberals and leftists must respect each other when the enemy is fascism parafascism cryptofascism white supremacism, herrenfolkisch nationalism, right wing populism, authoritarianism, Rashism, etc. Jakester499 (talk) 03:03, 23 December 2022 (UTC)