RationalWiki talk:Webshites/Politics

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Suggest adding USA News Politics[edit]

Extreme right-wing regurgitator, basically Hillary and Obama and everyone they know are criminals, Hollywood Elite, etc.
Agreeing comments by the score evidence dazzling echo-chamber right-wing brainlessness.
https://usnpolitics.blogspot.com/Moray (talk) 03:14, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Disputed content[edit]

So allowing untrue shit about leftists designed to provoke harassment is ok with rationalwiki now? — Unsigned, by: 107.77.200.150 / talk

Your argument is flawed, since it relies on the premise that this listicle page is designed for harassment. The page is intended for nothing of the sort, merely listing bad sources and explaining why people shouldn't use them. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:51, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Its not flawed because the people i removed from the list dont belong there, theres no sources that back up the claims made here and links provided are just links to peoples channels and others are using this site as a means to target these people. How do you think I even found this? This isnt a link of bad sources, this is a link of some bad sources, and people that the person who entered them just dont like. I havent been on this site since 2014 but back then we didnt engage in kiwifarms like smears of people. — Unsigned, by: 107.77.200.150 / talk
So, by your logic we should just delete the entire thing? Because that's what your saying. Whether you intend to say that is another matter. Further, if there are people misusing our Webshites list, then they are doing so without the backing of RationalWiki. Finally, you claim that the people you removed don't belong on this list, yet you have neither provided evidence for that claim nor disputed the accusations against them. This sounds to me as if you merely wish to remove those you like, while keeping those you dislike. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:07, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
No thats not how this works and you know it. You all put unfounded claims about those people, the burden of proof is on the person who put them there. As i have stated the links about them do not back up the claims made about them, most of them just link to their individual youtube channels. How do you rationally expect someone to prove someone didnt do or say something when no real proof has been shown that they did? What is stated without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. — Unsigned, by: 107.77.197.219 / talk
Now, you are either being willfully ignorant or blatantly dishonest. A), I did not add those entries, I merely stopped you from removing them. B), The sources used are the channel links. They may not be good sources, but they are sources. And C), Again, you assert that the channels do not bear the claims out. If true, take it up with the mods, because (again) right here and now it looks like you're playing favoritism with entries. And again, you have neither provided evidence for this list being used for harassment (I'm not doubting your claim, merely pointing out that you haven't provided evidence) nor have you explained why your argument cannot be inverted towards subjects who are shitty sources. For example, let's say someone came in claiming that this list was being used to harass the editors of Breitbart, but they provided no evidence for this claim and merely insisted that the Breitbart entry be removed. Would you be willing to simply accept they're hearsay and remove said entry? What if it was the Stormfront entry that was in question? Would you still be so lax in your standards? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:36, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
I didnt say *you* put them there i said *you all* as in the site as a whole, and i later specified "the burden of proof is on the person who put them there". I didn't not specify you personally. Now who is being dishonest? The sources are the channel links? How does that remotely make any bit of sense whatsoever. The person who put them there made very specific claims about those people and provided links to youtube channels with hundreds of hours of watchtime. With no links to specific videos and timestamps, no specific links to tweets from those people saying what the author said they did and no links to any transcripts of videos specifying where those claims can be found. Also comparing leftist youtubers to stormfront is absurd and you know it. I saw a lot of the events that sparked these claims and its mostly a Ship of Theseus style argument where something was twisted woefully out of context to the point the claim has nothing to do anymore with what actually happened. Im going to use the claim against Eric Taxxon as an example here to demonstrate what i mean. Eric's retelling is basically what happened in his case. This is why i am insisting that you either find real concrete sources for those claims or retract them. You are being used by bad actors. — Unsigned, by: 107.77.197.219 / talk / contribs
Fuck it. I just got done writing a long post explaining why I'm standing in your way, why your argument is poor, and why I made the argument I did. But you know what? Fuck that. Fuck explaining shit. You're going to ignore it because it isn't what you want to hear. Fuck it. I don't fucking care that much. Do whatever bullshit you want for whatever bullshit reason you like. Fucking crap. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:16, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
@Oxyaena Get your ass over here and explain your reasoning. I'm tired of doing it for you. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:23, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
So in other words. You have no argument except you feel very strongly about this. I have provided a concrete example of what is going wrong here and you did not even acknowledge it. You are not discussing this in good faith. Using your logic a bad actor could just write *your* name into that list with a link to your twitter or youtube or whatever (idk what social media you do or don't have) and just *say* you were a cryptofascist or a terf or something else thats bad and then it would be on you to prove you weren't, which you couldn't because you have no idea what they were basing it on. — Unsigned, by: 107.77.201.154 / talk
No. I said you don't give a shit what I say unless it's what you want to hear. So, here's what you want to hear, do whatever you want, delete whichever entries make you feel bad. Ignore the consequences of your actions. DO WHATEVER YOU WANT, SINCE YOU'RE GOING TO DO IT ANYWAY. Ignore wht anyone says and do whatever you want. Do I need to translate it to another language so you can understand it better? You don't care what I say, you're going to change it no matter what, and to hell with precedent, to hell with consequences, and to hell with anyone who disagrees. I'm not saying your argument is good, (it's still crap) I'm saying that i don't give enough of a fuck to fight you on the matter. Go nuts and delete all the entries that offend your delicate sensiblities. Who gives a crap about objective reasoning. Not Skeptics, not Theists, not Atheists, not anyone on the left, not anyone on the right, not anyone in the center. No one gives a crap about what's true or false, only what they want. SO, with the fact that EVERYONE IS RIGHT ABOUT EVERYTHING ALL THE TIME!!! DO WHATEVER YOU WANT!!! ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:54, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
You seem very upset by the fact I'm trying to help this wiki not be libelous. Its immoral and unethical to lie about people. This isnt just about removing those entries now. I need you and the rest of the people here to understand whats been going on under your noses or it will keep happening. So far ive been acting under the assumption that most of you are well meaning people who got suckered into defending this nonsense. While i had my reasons for leaving in 2014 ive never wished the site ill and I do not want it to become a new encyclopedia dramatica. You seem to be unwilling to accept the possibility that the eateries are wrong, and you refuse to even look into it. You also keep screaming at me that you don't care and that i should just do whatever i want, while the article is still locked by you. I also do not appreciate you having a meltdown when presented with some of the very proof you asked for. The way you are going here i have to prove these claims aren't true, but if i do you will throw a tantrum and scream at me.
Do you not see what you are doing here? — Unsigned, by: 107.77.200.68 / talk
I unprotected the page, do whatever the fuck you want. Half our articles count as "libel" because people dislike the ugly truth about heir views. Who cares though, you won. Yay for you. By the way, the next time some random person takes issue with an article, guess what, they get to win too. No matter what their view, no matter how shitty it is. Yay for winning! Everyone wins!! (And everyone loses.) ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:20, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── OP, why not try doing something constructive, and tell us exactly how they are wrong? Oxyaena Harass 21:34, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

I have tried up the thread when i said "I saw a lot of the events that sparked these claims and its mostly a Ship of Theseus style argument where something was twisted woefully out of context to the point the claim has nothing to do anymore with what actually happened. Im going to use the claim against Eric Taxxon as an example here to demonstrate what i mean. Eric's retelling is basically what happened in his case."

But i was ignored. The ones i removed were all involved somehow in the same drama event that is the source of these claims. Contrapoints is not a grifter. She makes a living wage making videos about topics she cares about, and has had an effect in deprogramming some of the people in the alt-right. While i don't agree with all of her takes sometimes, shes very new to living as a trans woman and makes mistakes, ones she usually corrects on when people tell her why shes wrong. Emerican Johnson makes puppet shows about leftism and is fairly harmless. Hbomberguy raised 300k for a trans charity. Angie Speaks was the victim of a harassment campaign because of the fact that an unpopular person was a 5 dollar patron of hers. Peter Coffin got caught up in it simply because he didnt want to take sides due to his history of the bad parts of the internet making stuff up about *him*, he wasnt comfortable with calls for folks to be exiled. None of these people are of course perfect but the accusations leveled against them are simply untrue, malicious and absurd when you actually look into the details.

People are legitimately angry at Contra, I don't know enough about the other people, but Contra has dissed nonbinary people, "pre-op" trans girls, and so many other people, she legitimately pisses me off. Oxyaena Harass 21:53, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Im not saying any of these people are perfect or have never made mistakes. Im saying contrapoints is not a grifter. Which she is not. Im nonbinary myself and was annoyed at some of her statements but i dont think it warrants calling her a scam artist. Thats just absurd. You can not like people without lying about them. — Unsigned, by: 107.77.200.79 / talk
Also tell your friend to stop having a tantrum. — Unsigned, by: 107.77.200.79 / talk
I am not having a tantrum. I'm expressing depression and bitterness. Delete my topic one more time and this whole discussion ends. If it bothers you that much, get the Mods to handle it. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:21, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
This is not a discussion, this is you flipping out when you were shown at least one of the claims was wrong and you refusing to look at it, all while screaming "lets purge the wiki so nobody gets offended" its not about being offended, its about being wrong. If you don't care about being wrong, perhaps encyclopedia dramatica or conservapedia might be more right for you. You are acting like a child with these absurd hysterical antics. Comparing some leftist youtubers who are humans beings, who while have made mistakes are doing their best and are acting in good faith with the nazis within the alt-right is just nuts.
You know it. I know it. — Unsigned, by: 107.77.201.66 / talk
"This is not a discussion, this is you flipping out when you were shown at least one of the claims was wrong and you refusing to look at it" Shut. Your. Trap. And. Read. My. Posts. I. Conceded. That. The. Claims. Were. Weak. Multiple. Times. Get. Off. Your. High. Horse. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:43, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Slander and libel, and defamation!! Let's purge the wiki so no one gets offended![edit]

source or delete[edit]

if you're gonna make claims like those present here (ie, that literally every leftist youtuber is super duper problematic for one very specific, concrete weird thing), you have three options: [1] provide sources [2] add said sources to their article or [3] delete it. @Oxyaena @GrammarCommie

and yes, the "call everyone bad names without citations" style from 2010's RationalWiki is bad. that doesn't excuse making more bad shit lol Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 22:36, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

@FuzzyCatPotato I conceded that the sourcing was weak (Gesturing vaguely at a YouTube channel is about as weak as it it gets) My problem was with the complainant's arguments being equally as weak. (Entry makes claims about X. Negative things are happening to X that Y attributes to the entry. Y demands the entry be deleted. Y fails to elaborate.) It sounds familiar. I was already leaning in that direction, but I wanted a good reason, preferably with sources. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:53, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Hell, I recommended pruning and/or updating our standards for Webshite entries in general, Partly based on the complaints raised here. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:58, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie no need to delete entry -- just delete claims ya can't prove Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 22:57, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
@FuzzyCatPotato Honestly, I have little data on the disputed entries (Excluding Contrapoints' comments about trans people, which I've heard about), I was just here because there was edit warring and the argument sounded poor. (Contrapoints is still staying, on that I refuse to budge.) ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:03, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Can you prove shes a grifter? No you cannot. As for nonbinary stuff well. https://twitter.com/CommsSSBM/status/1140669154028085248 — Unsigned, by: 107.77.201.66 / talk / contribs

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

Response to above comments[edit]

@GrammarCommie Your hostility to the BoN was unfair. We have a policy about living people that I assume you are familiar with: "if a claim is not solidly referenced, asserts something about the article's subject(s), and the article's subject(s) might object to it, it probably shouldn't be in the article at all." The quality of sourcing on the RationalWiki:Webshites pages in particular have been dreadful for a long time (see here). If an entry has no description, or an unsourced description, then the BoN is right to remove it. It is reasonable to undo their edits if you are also substantiating the claims in the description with sources or, if there is no description, providing a valid reason with references. Sources need to be verifiable, so you can't expect someone to click a link to a YouTube channel and watch every video just to check if a claim is accurate. The BoN's position was uncontroversial: we should not keep unsourced entries about living people because we cannot easily verify if the claims are true. Your response about the page not being designed to provoke harassment is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if there is an innocent reason to add lazy entries with unverifiable allegations, such entries should still be removed. The BoN is also correct that you have the burden of proof backwards when you said that the BoN should provide evidence they don't belong on the list, considering they were talking about entries where there were no sources for why they do belong there. CowHouse (talk) 10:57, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Is this entry accurate?[edit]

Below is an archive of a deleted tweet that I suspect is the basis for the following entry. I can't be sure since the person who added it was too lazy to include a reference. The entry seems to assume hbomberguy is aware the person he is responding to was a sexual assault survivor. Is this the case? Am I missing any context?

hbomberguy(link): Male feminist, comedy slant on videos. Known for the "A measured response" videos. Recently, however, he's started becoming very... deplorable in his approach. Specifically, he made a post on Twitter where he made fun of a sexual assault survivor for not having enough sex.

Twitter user: "Call me a swerf but I don't see what's wrong with sex remaining a strictly reproductive act"
@Hbomberguy: "I can see you've had a lot of sex. Please, tell me more" (link)

CowHouse (talk) 13:18, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Burden of proof is kind of on the "he knows" side here, and if there isn't anything to suggest he knew, I'd suggest removing it. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 14:04, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

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


Vaush[edit]

I really don't think anything Vaush has said or done indicates transphobia. The linked statement was about pronouns being dumb(as in he/she) because he cant type them on his phone readily. Furthermore, again, the "SJWs are a threat to Western Civilization" is very obviously a joke and in response to the poor reactions from the previously mentioned Tweet.

He absolutely has not called for the "genocide of un-contacted tribes" Actual statement: "I don't think they should be allowed to kill people extra judicially for crossing an imaginary line in the sand."

Lastly, "sexual predation" on Discord must be cited.

I have edited this page to no longer include this entry. — Unsigned, by: EcksThree / talk / contribs

As 100% of his video content espouses left politics, he is not "left in name only." — Unsigned, by: 24.22.223.23 / talk
Ah yes saying "fuck trans people" is just about how hard typing is. Thank you for elucidating. For what it's worth, I did check on your concerns at least. But I don't think we're going to get anything productive with that level of misrepresentation as a starting point, though. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:05, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
The opinions expressed on his channel run counter to claims that he is "transphobic." Taking statements out of context is a form of bad faith. Its not rational. — Unsigned, by: EcksThree / talk / contribs
You apparently started and stopped reading the section header at "left in name only." the full header is "Liberals, left-wing and leftists in name only" Now, with that out of the way we can get to the meat of the matter. Yes, his tweets were (bad) jokes, and yes, they were added in bad faith. Yes the claim of him being a sexual predator on discord needs sources. Yes, I think these particular claims should be removed. No, the comment about "I don't care if the tribes' immune systems can't handle contact" comment will not be removed. He is wrong, and misses several points. One, the missionary was told, repeatedly, that going to the island was basically a death sentence. Now, I don't really like borders, I think they're dumb arbitrary constructs. That being said, I also don't think wandering into to a quarantined area and trying to do a minor form of colonialism (missionary work is arguably a form of colonialism, given it involves people from developed countries, usually white, going to less well off countries, usually not white, establishing enclaves and trying to force a foreign culture on the natives) is acceptable either. You walk into a nuclear reactor core, you get radiation burns. And probably die. Tough shit. The post will likely be rewritten, it will not however be removed. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:28, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
According to Nazis and white supremacists us not buying into their horseshit isn't rational either. What I'm saying is that that argument was complete trash, where you attempt to paint us as irrational in order to force our hand. That's stupid. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:33, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
No one is "forcing your hand" you made what appears to be bad arguments. Your conclusions are indeed: punitive, irrational, or in bad faith. Given the largely foregone reasons, having his name as an entry in this list is just a form of punishment. I come to this conclusion because Vaush in the past has expressed disdain for leftist infighting. Therefor, if you insist on having Vaush on this list, perhaps change the tone of your statements. Instead of "supports the genocide of uncontacted tribes" say "has at one time expressed colonialist views regarding uncontacted tribes." Instead of "is a transphobe" say "has made jokes that could be interpreted as transphobic." However, as far as I am concerned he does not belong on this list. — Unsigned, by: EcksThree / talk / contribs
I've removed the more contentious claims and altered the one not under dispute to be more accurate and begrudgingly slightly more balanced. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:55, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@EcksThree, please sign your name on talk pages with four tildas (~~~~). It will automatically add a date stamp. Bongolian (talk) 21:42, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry about that. My no-script extension likes to truncate special characters. EcksThree (talk) 21:55, 14 November 2019 (UTC)