Talk:Black Pigeon Speaks

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

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)

Good luck suppressing the truth, clowns!

Call BPS a Nazi or whatever...

Good luck suppressing the truth, clowns! ^{— Unsigned, by: 71.82.97.84 / talk / contribs}

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. þe olꝺe Ꞅƿɽyᵹᵹyna (ꞇalc) (conċꞃybs) @ 02:57, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

What are we supposed to be suppressing again? I didn't get my NWO memo. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 03:11, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Gratuitous insult - automatic indicator of galloping deliberate stupidity. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 15:22, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Uhh, that's a pretty "gratuitous insult." What irony. You both think and communicate like a badly educated child. That's not an insult, by the way, it's an honest observation. Just stop. 72.181.99.6 (talk) 20:17, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Please stop this conversation. Thanks. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 20:26, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I have better targets for 'fourth rate over-ripe RW tomatoes' (and I presume the two IPs are linked to the same set of fingers). 82.44.143.26 (talk) 14:28, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Worth inclusion

BPS repeats titles and content all the time: https://mobile.twitter.com/_ThreeArrows/status/1020284001842597889 FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 05:59, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Not worthy of inclusion. It's an irrelevant point. CNN, FOX, MSNBC, ABC, and all the other Alphabet news outlets, use this same method of letting the viewer know that this is an ongoing story. If you notice, the time for each video is different. It's not the same video recycled. It's a continuation, and update of an ongoing story. RustyLH (talk) 04:39, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

No, that's a pretty big reach to say this is "an ongoing story". --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 04:50, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

No, it's actually not a big reach. The Tommy Robinson story HAS been an ongoing story. Where have you been? RustyLH (talk) 06:56, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Transgender "beef"

"Lace also has a beef with transgender folk, claiming they are mentally ill.[8]"

Saying gender disphoria is a mental illness doesn't imply hostility toward the people that would suffer said illness. This is a non-sequitur, therefore it should be rephrased in a more rational way. For example "BPS claimed that transgenders are affected by a mental illness (gender disphoria) [8]".

NB: I used BPS because he's mostly known under this name. Therefore using his birth name is misleading, as would saying "I love Robert Zimmerman's songs" instead of "I love Bob Dylan's songs". ^{— Unsigned, by: 2001:67C:2660:425:7:0:0:354 / talk}

He says this knowing well how stigmatized mental illness is and trying to imply there's a reason to distance from trans people and that trans people are just crazy. It's hostile, even if made in ignorance, especially against the face of medical evidence that firmly rejects that line of thought. It's an attack used frequently by transphobic people, as well, and so saying that trans people are mentally ill in front of an audience that's well-known for transphobia, is considered a transphobic attack. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 19:05, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Not all scientists agree on that "medical evidence that firmly rejects that line of thought." And just using rational thought, you have to understand that when one has a Y chromosome, and the resulting physiology, but mentally they reject this reality...something is wrong. The real scientific question is, "why" and if the exact why can be found, can a medical remedy be found. But it was ironic that you have a problem with "He says this knowing well how stigmatized mental illness is and trying to imply there's a reason to distance from trans people and that trans people are just crazy. It's hostile, even if made in ignorance..." And yet you throw around made up terms like transphobia, and I am sure you also use homophobia, both of which are made up terms whose sole purpose was to do exactly what you just described. A phobia is a mental illness...an unreasonable fear...which results in the person being unable to function in a normal manner. For instance a person who has an unreasonable fear of crowds, which impacts their life because they cannot go out into public spaces. Homophobia, transphobia, etc...are not real phobias, but phobia was used to place a stigma on anyone who does not buy into modern beliefs about these things, or people who just don't want to be around them, or people who have religious objections. Transphobia is so new, spell check doesn't even recognize it as a properly spelled word.

The reality is that BPS is not far-right. People who are far-left, don't think they are far left, so anyone who is simply conservative, even those who are just to the right of center, are being labeled as far-right. And surprise surprise...this is being done to stigmatize anyone who has conservative beliefs. There literally isn't a conservative speaker, who hasn't been labeled as far-right by some leftist group. That's OK...rational people see this, and thus the term loses its power. That's bad because when a group actually deserves the title, it won't carry any stigma...except with leftists, but that has zero consequences.RustyLH (talk) 04:31, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

No, it's very established in medical literature the concept of gender identity. See here. And no, you're not using "rational thought", you're using extremely basic elementary level biology thinking as a basis for the wrong conclusion that transphobes make, and it shows in your simplistic appeal to chromosomes and implication that transgender people are "delusional". Second, you got the whole "phobia" thing completely wrong. You do realize that words can take different definitions that are only tangentially related (i.e. hydrophobic molecules don't "fear" water molecules) depending on context? It's super disingenuous to imply we're hypocrites for not wanting to stigmatize mental illness (similar to the "fear" type of phobia like arachnophobia) while also denouncing people saying bigoted things that fit with definition of minority group -phobia. It's two completely different type of phobia. Why is this ignorance of simple nomenclature so common with these people who don't like the terms "transphobia" and "homophobia"? And so what about spellcheck? Just because spellcheck is behind doesn't mean concept doesn't exist. And that concept of homophobia and transphobia does exist. Simply saying "it's just to stigmatize people who don't agree with a minority's existence" is a terrible take, outright denialism, and a way to downplay the hatred and mistreatment transgender and gay people get. The reality is that BPS is far-right for espousing strong anti-immigration rhetoric, distorting history, strong misogyny rhetoric, citing literal far-right Men's Right sources like "The Primal Male", JAQs off about racialism, indulges heavily in conspiracy theories, and more. This isn't "just a guy with conservative beliefs" and we don't just run around "irrationally" labeling people whatever we like. We have body text to support our assertions. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 04:47, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

No, you just spouted a load of BS. There is only one definition for phobia. "an extreme or irrational fear of or aversion to something." If, for instance, I say, "look, I have nothing personal against trans people, but I do believe that the science is not settled, but one side is being suppressed. I believe that the very fact that a person does not believe they are the physical, biological gender that they are, that is a mental illness," that does not make me a bigot, or a transphobe. There is no such thing as a transphobe. I neither have an extreme fear, or an extreme aversion to trans people. I have a difference of opinion on the science, and there is plenty of evidence that scientists who dissent, are punished for it, in true Spanish Inquisition style. I work one day a week at a charity for the homeless. We have a regular patron who is trans. I treat her(him), just as good as I treat everybody else. I treat all of them kindly, and with compassion. A different opinion on something does not mean you hate, or lack compassion.

Also, what you just typed about BPS, only shows that YOU are far left. Don't ever try to pretend otherwise. As I said, every conservative speaker these days, gets labeled as far right by you people, because their conservative beliefs are simply far to the right of your far left beliefs.RustyLH (talk) 07:34, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

There are multiple definitions of phobia. You're plain wrong. I already gave you an example of other uses of phobia and you don't get to stretch language to serve your arguments. It doesn't matter how much you deny you are transphobe, but your willingness to believe in core transphobic concepts such as outright denial of their identity, disrespecting their gender identity, believing their identity is an illness that needs cure, hiding behind the guise of science (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Transgender#Brain_science it's not on your side] and yes, your persecution is showing and accuse the establishment as a conspirational Spanish Inquistuion) to try to bolster your beliefs makes your beliefs transphobic. It's "differing opinion" just as how sexists have a "differing opinion" on women.

And you don't get to denounce my beliefs as "far left" just for analyzing and refuting his beliefs. It is accurate to say Black Pigeon Speaks misrepresents his sources. It is accurate that he arrived at wrong conclusions based on vastly unsubstantiated premises. I arrived at the conclusion that Black Pigeon Speaks is far-right and thoroughly explained that he fits the far right label this wiki has assigned him by fulfilling criteria I've noted in an earlier post by me. This shouldn't be hard to understand. If you want to dispute that, don't accuse me of being "far-left", dispute either the criteria or dispute the evidence provided that fit the criteria. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 08:54, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

"but phobia was used to place a stigma on anyone who does not buy into modern beliefs about these things, or people who just don't want to be around them, or people who have religious objections"

Way to downplay bigotry with moderate language. It's not fooling anyone.

"I just disagree with sex gender minority identity" is a known cover for that crap. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 06:38, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

As opposed to your bigotry against people, like Christians? Like it or not, they are entitled to their beliefs just as much as you are. I know many Christians, who could care less what you do in your bedroom. But they are still entitled to their beliefs. You have a problem with that, then you are no less a bigot. RustyLH (talk) 06:57, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

First, I didn't condemn Christians for being Christians. Second, a bigot's religion which motivates bigotry isn't a cover for prejudice against minority groups. Yes, if their beliefs contradict general decency, such as "disagreeing" that LBGTQ people exist, we call out on them. This isn't a difficult concept to grasp. And this isn't bigotry to call an asshole an asshole. I thought we're past this whole homophobia thing being unacceptable and evil since 2010. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 07:06, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I completely expect that you are brainwashed, and thus won't give any credence to anything that contradicts what you believe, but you might want to give this a read, anyway. https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2018/01/20810/ RustyLH (talk) 07:10, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I have terrible first impressions for this source. It's not even academic, appears to be religious organization that also promotes pro-life nuttery. A quick read on Wikipedia shows they oppose gay marriage and is part of the execrable New Family Structures study. They even cite fucking pro-conversion therapy hate group American College of Pediatrics that a history of misrepresenting work by real scientists. This isn't a scientific organization, this is a conservative religious advocacy group that pushes pseudoscience and bad methodology to support denigration of LGBTQ people. Thanks for wasting my time. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 09:11, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Like I said, you are brainwashed. You WANT to believe something. We have been here before. Remember when we were told that global warming was settled science, and that there was a consensus on the subject by scientists? Well, all along, there were some climate scientists who were saying that it wasn't true, that there was no consensus, that scientists were being pressured, and punished for dissent. Well don't look now, but 31K+ scientists agree that there is no justification for alarm. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiPIvH49X-E Now, we have scientists saying the same thing about the science regarding transgender science. Saying the same things about scientists being punished for dissent. I've no doubt that in the future...likely near future, you will be proven wrong.RustyLH (talk) 18:18, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello, just letting you both know that I spent one minute and twenty seconds (give or take) reformatting this thread. Non sequiturs and poor arguments aside, the OP (Original Poster) really should learn to format their comments correctly, thus making this thread easier to follow. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 18:31, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Human-caused global warming is settled science. There is no point of contention especially when virtually all national science organizations ranging from societies of astronomy to oceanography to UNESCO to WHO to geology have agreed on it. Climate change denial is without a doubt a fringe belief when you have to deny very basic and extremely well understood phenomena (CO2 is a blanket and more CO2 makes a heavier blanket), horrifically mangle and disfigure graphs through cherrypicking and other dishonest manipulation like zooming in really close to a high end and a low end, assume a gigantic conspiracy of scientists, dangerously politicize the issue (as in the video), outright deny the effects of climate change when tons of scientists ranging from ornithologists to rainforest rangers notice changes like altered migratory patterns, more frequent and intense storms, bigger deserts, rising oceans, acidification of oceans (coral bleaching), cover up your own evidence of climate change (Exxon studies), and so on. You're making a "science has been wrong before" and using the widely discredited and bogus Oregon Petition attached to a video in the meantime, which doesn't discredit the literal thousands of papers and tons of international organizations of experts at all, if we're going to play the sheer numbers game. Anyway, if you want to change the subject to how wrong we are on climate change, do try to enlighten us and potential onlookers at Talk:Global warming. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 00:10, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikitubia plagiarized from this

https://youtube.fandom.com/wiki/Black_Pigeon_Speaks

Editor also thinks plagiarism by Black Pigeon Speaks is bad, but I guess it's fine to plagiarize from RationalWiki. You're welcome, wikia, that's my writing you took, by the way, as well as others like FuzzyCatPotato. The page doesn't even properly quote our quotes, so it looks like the quotes are part of the body text. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 19:22, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Actually it's a copyright violation to use content from RationalWiki without attribution because it breaches the terms of our Creative Commons license. I went to the Fandom page and stuck a deletion template on it, but it's hard to know how that will be received. — Dysk (contribs) 23:10, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

We don't actually document the correct way to attribute "us". ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 18:55, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Well it did get cleaned up. I was gonna say the tone is way too moderate when it comes to the content matter (it's inaccurate to say there is no evidence he promotes conspiracy theories, see article, and it's also inaccurate that "he doesn't show his bias" particularly all his video titles have emotionally loaded language and that "by allowing women to fuck freely" quip in that video on "HOW WOMEN DESTROY CIVILIZATION" as one example) but again, it's just a small wikia. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 21:28, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Self-hating?

someone should probably add that he hates immigration and multiculturalism despite himself being an ethnic minority immigrant in a society(japan) that will never accept him ^{— Unsigned, by: 2a00:23c4:5385:a200:19a:7c47:ac6b:f11d / talk}

We're not your serfs here. What's the evidence? Bongolian (talk) 20:02, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Possible activities of BPS in Wikipedia

I came across this on the Long-term abuse list on the English Wikipedia. Let's see: a user editing from Japanese IP addresses in English and engaging in

invoking conspiracy theories, especially re: surveillance, internet, police or military technologies, or about identity politics; expressing anti-Israel, anti-Blair, anti-Muslim, pro-Thatcher or pro-EDL opinions —verbatim quote

If this is not BPS himself I'd be very surprised. Paging User:LeftyGreenMario, you seem to be the only user still active in the creation of the article. --2001:999:13:37D6:A94:8EDB:799:53C3 (talk) 11:13, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is just speculation as there are MANY right wing ideologies, there's probably a sizeable pool editing in the Japanese IP address, and I think a lot of them would fit that mold. It's still relatively a shot in the dark who this is, and I also don't think it's vital information. If it's him, that'll be funny, but otherwise, not a big deal. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 21:24, 3 September 2021 (UTC)