Talk:Arielle Scarcella

	This YouTube related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

This article contains information about one or more living persons. Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats. Reference any contentious allegations solidly; unreferenced allegations should be removed. If legal threats are raised on this page, please direct the potential litigant to RationalWiki:Legal FAQ; do not interact with them.

Hmmm

Given that she’s clearly a bit of a bigot, is it really ethical to link directly to her channel and videos? At least the “I’m transphobic” ones. II feel like it would be better if there could be a link to like, mirrored versions so that she doesn’t get more ad revenue from this joint. But idk. That’s just my thoughts and this isn’t my House so you know. Anyone have any other opinions? Penguinsfunnylolhaha (talk) 12:23, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

You have a good point, but I'm not sure if there are mirrored versions of the videos available - if there's an alternative way to reference and verify the statements about what she's said etc. that would be good. --Yisfidri (talk) 11:20, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, I've got rid of the the "Being transphobic" videos and replaced two of them with article references instead. --Yisfidri (talk) 12:38, 27 November 2019 (UTC) --Yisfidri (talk) 12:39, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

She’s not clearly a bigot, even remotely. Very soon, this page will be overhauled with truth by homosexuals. All face-paint-loving, attention-seeking straight children looking to attack this woman will need to team forces in order to slander this gay woman if they want their narrative to hold weight. ^{— Unsigned, by: 49.198.134.177 / talk / contribs}

Yeah, whatever... ScepticWombat (talk) 13:39, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Why is this entry not meant to be taken seriously? Why is there no attempt at truth? Why is it deliberately slanted? Is Rational Wiki one giant middle finger to dignity? Do those reverting the entry to obvious bias believe that humanity can’t access YouTube and take the news from the horse’s mouth? Is this whole enterprise meant to be a waste of time? Onceactivistnowbootlicker (talk) 13:15, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

@Onceactivistnowbootlicker "Why is this entry not meant to be taken seriously?" It is meant to be taken seriously. "Why is there no attempt at truth?" We do make attempts at the truth, you just don't like them. "Why is it deliberately slanted?" Because that's where the evidence leads. "Is Rational Wiki one giant middle finger to dignity?" No, we're a skeptic wiki dedicated to debunking pseudoscience. "Do those reverting the entry to obvious bias believe that humanity can’t access YouTube and take the news from the horse’s mouth? Appeal to bias, fallacy fallacy, entry number 2683. Also she lies. Also, you haven't read a single source. "Is this whole enterprise meant to be a waste of time?" That depends, are you going to continue your attempts at edit warring and whitewashing this page? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 13:22, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

What a farce! Any attempt at this being a legitimate article, and thus Rational Wiki being anything other than a factual page, has been undone. ^{— Unsigned, by: 49.198.134.177 / talk / contribs}

Have you noticed that broad ranging accusations of bias and non-fact are never accompanied by any actual specific issues of factual error? ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 14:38, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I have indeed noticed that. Fucking cite specific examples and go through how they're wrong dumbfucks! ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 14:44, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie

Considering you are:

- Extremely rude

- Endlessly revert corrections

- Have an entire ant colony worth of bugs up your ass about Jaclyn Glenn and Arielle

- Apparently no oversight by any moderators

What's the point of anyone trying to "prove" anything or contribute? Foamhead 06:45, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

@Foamhead Since your Ping was misformatted I missed your message. To point A, tone argument, irrelevant. To point B, You have to prove that your "corrections" are in fact factual. That means citing sources, not just asserting that you are correct a priori. To point C, I really don't give as much of a shit about these people as you seem to think I do. To point E, if you think the Mods are needed, call them. Though given you haven't actually made a case it seems to me to be a tad much to waste their time here. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 14:03, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

"Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white"

That's the title of Saracella's newest video. Incidentally, we've got an article on this very slogan: Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white. Someone might want to check the video out and add a section in it. 2001:569:BD89:A00:3965:1729:FF8D:4F17 (talk) 01:01, 15 March 2021 (UTC)