Talk:Bryan Denlinger

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon sociology.svg 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.

Icon christianity.svg

This Christianity related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.



This article was written based Bryan Denlinger's Youtube video "bible studies". How should one go about citing relevant videos which are long rambling rants some of which are over an hour long? RationalRex (talk) 07:18, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I mean should there be a timestamp as to where it is mentioned? MythBusterAnonymous 17:06, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
It is possible to link to a specific time in a video, and for good sourcing, far more considerate of the reader, so this should be done. With a reference to a book, a page number should almost always be given, so with a reference to something said or shown in a video, the time should be given. Sometimes people just write the time, but better can be done.
With a quick google search, I found this: "To link to a specific part of a YouTube video, so that upon visiting the URL, you are taken directly to that time, simply add #t=01m10s to the end of the YouTube URL. Replace 01m with the number of minutes into the video, and 10s with the number of seconds."
Unfortunately, that doesn't work. Looking further, the # is in error. It should be an ampersand. So I pulled up a video from your footnotes and this URL starts it at 10 minutes and 10 seconds: (nothing special there, simply a random time I picked. Happy sourcing. --Some random Smith (talk) 23:30, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
That will only work if the video is used once... multiple references to a video and would like to use multiple time stamps so if the | was in there some where [1] the link works once. or even just reference a time point in the [1] so that even a mouse over may show a time point. IF it is just a single reference to a video that works. It is the multiple references which I would want to timestamp or reference a time point. MythBusterAnonymous (talk) 00:34, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Each reference can have its own link. This is common in research papers. There may a list of sources, a "bibliography," those would be the whole video in this case. Then there are specific points that are sourced in notes. Forcing a reader to wade through a massive video to see or hear one point is quite rude, but most people simply won't take the trouble if you don't make it easy. It's this way with sourcing a statement from a book. One should always give the page (or range of pages). For good writing, anyway. It's more work: good writing is always more work. --Some random Smith (talk) 02:11, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Help in expanding[edit]

If anyone enjoys listening to the rants and ravings of paranoid schizophrenics please help expand this article. Denlingers' video sermons can be found here: RationalRex (talk) 16:55, 25 August 2017 (UTC) I appreciate any help but I the guy's rants are growing old and one has to listen to 30 minutes of blather and rambling before anything noteworthy is mentioned. MythBusterAnonymous 17:06, 12 September 2017 (UTC)


It's getting really meaty. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 04:39, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Just from a glance, should be at least silver but someone needs to read the text to see if the content itself is well-written and the sources used are actually good. Long doesn't necessarily mean good. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 22:12, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
The article is an extended rant by someone with more than an ordinary interest in exposing idiocy. "Katherine, the banshee"? Really? It is very obvious as a hate piece and silver would ratify that this is what RationalWiki is about. Hatred of stupidity will never shift society toward rationality; hatred, in fact, blinds and disempowers, long-term. But Denlinger is quite a piece of work, to be sure. I'm not motivated to put any effort into "improving" the article, and more than I'm interested in wading into the local sewer to "clean it up." Unless someone pays me, of course. And who in their right mind would pay someone to clean up an article on Denlinger? --Some random Smith (talk) 18:11, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Smith, the person who wrote most of this seems to genuinely hate Denlinger. Christopher (talk) 19:07, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
That's what I figured, just because you poured effort into it and it superficially looks good, doesn't mean the writing is any good. Yeah, some part of the article comes off as pretty ranty. Check this passage. I bolded the parts where the tone has to be moderated. I think it'll be more helpful to provide quotes of the person and let the quotes describe the person rather than rely on loaded adjectives and metaphors.

Given the gullibility and half-wittedness of his followers, Denlinger, ever the pretentious narcissistic oaf, grooms himself to be a savant among them, a man of culture and learning. Given the imbecility of his followers whom he bamboozles, they form a loyal cultic sycophants drinking his Drano Kool-aid.

Denlinger claims to be a rational man of science.[19] Denlinger has emotional meltdowns when he is chastised or called into question by his fellow bible thumping windbags and given to irrational, emotional rants against them. It is apparent that he has never read a book of worth regarding science or philosophy since leaving high school, save perhaps a Chick Tract comics (which is after all where received most of his adult education) or save, perhaps, cooking meth at his trailer park. Having no training, education, nor having worked in any of the scientific disciplines nor philosophy, he proclaims himself to be a man of science and reason.

Denlinger considers himself an artist and "coming from the art world".[20] He considers that since he worked as a wood turner that he is an artist and claims to know about art because he is an artist. Oy veh. He considers most art a perversity. Given his distaste and disdain for actual art, one might lead to believe that he is an iconoclastic cretin without even the ability to judge the aesthetics of a beauty mark on the butt of a baboon, but they would be wrong because Bryan the artist knows best.

Denlinger, being an uncultured lout plays the part of the proverbial village idiot in a sermon which he preached against medieval and Renaissance art which he called pornographic and pagan.[18] According to Denlinger such art encourages pedophilia and is the work of perverts. The purpose of the sermon was to “wake up the Catholic people to the fact their system has always been corrupt” and that “these paintings have no basis in scripture, and merely show the perversion of the Catholic artists who painted them.”[18] He goes on to ask his audience, pointing at cherub angels as to where in the bible there are “naked babies with wing flying in full nudity”?[18] No telling where in the bible it say that Denlinger can make videos, or pass out Chick Tracts but being god’s prophet and “saved”, Denlinger is allowed to ignore any rules he makes up at his convenience which he hoists on everyone else's shoulders by his god – typical behavior of any cult leader.

The last paragraph is particularly bad because I don't think it's particularly wrong to say it's "pedophilia" and "the work of perverts"; certainly, the late Renaissance got more erotic and it's definitely pagan. Whenever it's a bad thing or not is up to the individual, though equating pagan = bad is religious intolerance. Though as far as medieval art goes, he's just wrong; medieval art (I assume he's referring to Gothic and Italo-Byzantine is certainly not pagan and it lacks erotic elements. It's all about restraint. Lumping medieval art and Renaissance art as "pagan and sexually perverted" is strange given how drastically different the two styles are (moreso, the Renaissance has distinct versions between Northern Europe and Italy). I also find it strange that Denlinger rags on Catholicism; at this point, humanism still hasn't been developed so there isn't the Protestant idea that God shows his grace through individuals. "These paintings have no basis in scripture"; is he referring to medieval or Renaissance paintings (and if the latter, Italian or Northern)? When he talked about naked babies, I think he's referring to Italian Renaissance paintings. Of course the Italian Renaissance paintings have little basis on scripture! The Renaissance is a revival of Greco-Roman classical style, especially in Italy where Greco-Roman ruins and statues are everywhere. The Northern Renaissance, on the other hand, has more Christian symbols (but Delinger should like how the Catholic Church lost influence during the Northern Renaissance!), less mythology, less idealism from the mythology, more landscapes, more genre (every day life) art. That being said, I think my response to Denlinge's criticism of Renaissance and medieval art is more appropriate for the content of the article.
More quotes

Denlinger, like his mentor Phelps are little insignificant men, inferior to most persons, which can be evidenced by their invincible ignorance and abject stupidity. They attempt to force better men, using their bible as a religious shield into submitting to them as a slave so that once in their putrid lives they will feel a sense of authority and control over another human being – which elsewhere Denlinger claims is mind control.

Anyone with a modicum of reason would come to the conclusion that whatever spirit which possess Denlinger is pretty much an ignoramus as Denlinger is, and suffers from just the same stupidity and ignorance as he does.

This kind of writing goes on for a while and there is a huge reliance on sarcasm. The section headers are kind of lame and there is one complete section to Drano from one remark by him to his critics to "to recommend that his competition drink Drano or sulfuric acid so as to "test their spirit" and to do so on camera in full view of their subscribers".... why? "Windbag" is used 7 times often coincided with "bible thumping", which is used 10 times. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 19:39, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Oh, and I'll try getting @MythBusterAnonymous, the person who wrote most of the article. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 19:52, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
This article obviously has way too much snark in it, and need to be trimmed. @MythBusterAnonymous is acting in good faith, and just happens to be one of our editors who is verbose and opinionated. That's okay. It's much better that we have a lot of content here to analyze and trim, than useless stubs that say "watch this youtube for proof" links. And @Some random Smith, there are editors here that like making our content better and not just bitching about it. As to fuzzy recommending this for silver, I'd say it's a call to action. It's close but could use some help. Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 01:29, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Cosmik. I like making useful content better. I'm working a bit on Flat Earth, as an example. However, to make this article better, I would need to actually study it and review the sources, which is about as appealing as investigating shit sandwiches. There are countless idiots making videos, and I find my life improved by remaining unaware of the shitty details of most, -- there is only so much time, this is worth spending time on? -- and then ignoring rants against those shitty details. If Denlinger does something notable, it might be worth it. Has he? I wouldn't know from the article. In any case I haven't said that MythBuster shouldn't write, just that this isn't Silver or close to Silver. Just my opinion. It's a pile of snarky rants that someone might use to create something useful someday. More likely not. Just my opinion. You want to work on it, go right ahead. Or perhaps you prefer to waste time complaining about my "bitching." --Some random Smith (talk) 23:08, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Hey Lefty, many of those are word for word quotes from Denlinger, apart from the snide commentaries which are meant to be snarky, it should be accurate. In is supposed to very snarky but it is not a hit piece he is sorta funny because he and his followers take him seriously. The reason for the running commentary is to point out either hypocrisy, inconsistency, illogic and just plain poppycock. Also, many persons may not be aware of the historical or the bible context etc. so it attempts to provide that to a reader, I do not want to presume that the reader already knows the background information. The snark is largely my own running thoughts while listening to the videos (I do not actually watch them, I listen, until he has something to say because he blathers in between important bits) or when I am writing it. Some of the commentary or snark is from criticism left in the comments to the videos which I check if valid and put in my own words. I use bible thumping windbag quite a bit because that is what he himself has described himself but he was being snarky then. The art being "pedophilia" and "the work of perverts" is not my words it is actually his own words. I am in real life very snarky.  :) As for silver, I will leave that for the rest of you as have been editors here for a while to decide. MythBusterAnonymous (talk) 03:11, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • also it is worthwhile noting that he often refers to the spirit that indwells him. It is that "spirit" which lead him to disrupt a his neighbors private function - that is according to him. So there is quite a bit of snark leveled at the spirit. also he has mentioned that he is from the art world or coming from the art world, to validate his opinion on the subject and impress upon the listener his credentials. MythBusterAnonymous (talk) 03:19, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Denlinger, like his mentor Phelps are little insignificant men, inferior to most persons, which can be evidenced by their invincible ignorance and abject stupidity. They attempt to force better men, using their bible as a religious shield into submitting to them as a slave so that once in their putrid lives they will feel a sense of authority and control over another human being – which elsewhere Denlinger claims is mind control. I have to confess this was written when Denlinger mentioned Hamites (or Cananites - which is what he calls persons of color) are servants/slaves of Japheth - which is according to him there appointed station in their life, one of the few time he got my goat. My thought at that time was how could a person of color, I have many professional and personal friend who are, and I could not imagine any one of them subjecting themselves to the whim of a jackass because he believes he should be their master. Certainly in this one case you would be right in saying that it was more than just snark. That part of the video starts at the 14:15 mark. And this was one of the times I requested some assistance at the saloon because I did not my opinion (I was pissed) cloud my thoughts MythBusterAnonymous (talk) 03:35, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • As to the trimming of snark, or the appropriateness or the amount of snark etc. I am not the best judge of my own work or its appropriateness - there are others more attuned with the "culture" at rationalwiki, fairly new here. As always, (and I have asked for assistance in already), my "philosophy" has generally been both here and at Wikipedia is to provide a base to build upon, correct and change. If someone would like to volunteer to "lower the snark" they are welcome to do so. Besides, the ideas is that anyone who wishes can correct/change/add to the page. The note about Katherine "the Banshee" it a reference to a irish spirit which is given to wailing/shrieking (I forget, been a while) and an allusion to when she shrieked in one of her sermon and she needed to be calmed down by Bryan. There are a few like this including "Denlinger's arch hero is none other than the infandous, street corner roundhead himself" references a somewhat well known press briefing. MythBusterAnonymous (talk) 05:24, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Just to clarify, because this has been brought up, I do not "hate" Denlinger. I find him entertaining and annoying (a droll). I learn better through listening. Due to Bryan's naturally varying pitch of his speech pattern and due to his sarcasm (and name calling) and general snark (which is much like I am), I find it far easier to engage him in a conversation, and much of what is written is somewhat like a conversation/debate/banter and using his own words and phrases. I actually very oddly like the guy though on a couple of occasion was pissed. The article is long because it is very easy to engage him (plus he give a lot of material to work with and because he has snark in spades which lead to more snark). On the other hand Eric Jon Phelps whom I vehemently disagree with and is genuinely a nasty piece of work, (unlike Bryan) I don't have much written because his monotone drawl is not engaging. Phelps does not have an "interesting character" to engage so there is not much snark in that piece because he is just a hate filled jerk and a boor, whereas Denlinger is not the same (really – someone watching assume this, but he is not really even if his expound such ideas sometimes). MythBusterAnonymous (talk) 20:27, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Sheesh, who let the grad students in[edit]

"Attempting to understand Denlinger's weltanschauung cannot be accomplished outside this context of the American Experience."

Some of this reads like a sociology paper. — Unsigned, by: / talk
  1. 1.0 1.1 [ Abcdef]