Talk:Brittany Sellner
|
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. |
Sucks[edit]
Since this page still sucks, will it score a record as the page most often deleted on RW? 😉 Bongolian (talk) 04:58, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
- Without having read the current instance of this article... Why would we delete rather than expand? It's not like there's any lack of sources to base our claims on, and the topic is highly missional.
- Also, I dunno why the article centers on Brittany alone? She and her twin sister seem to undertake the majority of their most public nuttery together.
- Some even argue their recent, proverbial
booktour of various Alt-right soapboxes (including InfoWars, IIRC) didn't just happen to coincide with promotion season for that novel the twins co-authored. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:44, 29 May 2017 (UTC)- It was deleted again and again because it was plagiarized, having read both this article and the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article on her it's still fairly obvious this is based off it but they're sufficiently different to no longer warrant deletion. Christopher (talk) 15:48, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
This page is horribly written by those on the progressive left and slanted toward their political views. The whole page should either be deleted or completely re-written by somebody(s) who can give it a fair and balanced effort.— Unsigned, by: 104.129.198.106 / talk / contribs
- That's nice, but please refrain from erasing others' contributions without providing a more coherent argument here. Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 22:21, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
- If you want "fair and balanced", go back to watching the serial sexual predators on Faux News. Bongolian (talk) 22:40, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Open and unapologetic[edit]
Are any of the people described as being promoted by Pettibone really so "open and unapologetic" about the ideals claimed? I removed the "neo-Nazi" one because that was obviously false to claim as something they are "open and unapologetic" about being. The others don't seem particularly accurate to describe that way either, though. Is it necessary, let alone wise, to use these extremely inflammatory labels and suggest these individuals proudly identify with them?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:15, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
- @The Devil's Advocate Go ahead and change it. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 13:46, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
- Not sure what the best change would be exactly. Were I to rewrite in a way that preserved its general message, then I would say "people accused of being" yada yada, but I expect there would be opposition. I imagine people would also get upset if I removed that whole paragraph. Plus, I'm not familiar with all the people involved to say whether or not some can be accurately described that way or not. From what I've seen Molyneux doesn't really fit either description, but I know nothing about the other folks.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:31, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Impersonator of this person posting here?[edit]
So on the talk page of another couple articles, I saw an account called "Britanny Pettibone" posting some long-winded stuff, but from the tone of the posts I'm suspicious - it sounded like a troll or a parodist trying to rile people up (though it didn't look like it had posted anything in several months). Is pretending to be a person from real life (even a minor 'internet celebrity' who almost no one has heard of like this chick) allowed? --24.89.35.17 (talk) 04:04, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not sure. There might be some vague rule against it, but if there is it's practically unenforceable. RoninMacbeth (talk) 04:23, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
- Generally, on the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog.
Unless there's some rather strong confirmation, one should not assume that a person is actually who they say they are. There is a user who sounds Pettibonish (User:BrittanyPBone), but you never know. People editing their own non-user page on RW is frowned upon, otherwise their is no prohibition on pretending to be famous. Bongolian (talk) 05:27, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
You left out the most hysterical part.[edit]
Just like Lauren Southern, and Tara McCarthy, she's an evil 'race mixer', her boyfriend is a four foot tall ethnically-Jewish guy who makes a living through self hatred and hiding his Jewish ancestry. Like all these Nazi Barbies they seem to mix it up in the bed, then spend their career condemning the people they fuck each night for the shekels. Please reference this in the article, it'd be nice to see these Nazi barbies triggered. — Unsigned, by: 121.210.33.50 / talk
Rational, my ass...[edit]
This website is clearly full of shit, let alone this particular page...
The real RATIONAL question here, is why would anyone promote the shit on the website...
I mean, ultimately, it is irrational... (unless it is some kind of a conspiracy to mind fuck the population). — Unsigned, by: 71.82.97.84 / talk / contribs
- Yawn: Essay:I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki. Bongolian (talk) 04:01, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Hitler crap[edit]
I reverted some stuff added by a BoN. If it's actually legit feel free to put it back in. — Dysk (contribs) 15:57, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Dysklyver It's all bullshit from a troll who keeps swapping between being a fake Nazi and being a fake Communist. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:01, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
- Ugh. How boring. For a moment I thought it might have a grain of truth in it. I temp protected the article anyway. — Dysk (contribs) 16:05, 27 July 2018 (UTC)