|
Nominations and Campaigning for the 2024 RationalWiki Moderator Election are now open |
Talk:Charlie Kirk
|
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. |
|
This United States politics related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information. |
| ||
|
| ||||
Charlie Kirk's Hospital Visit Goes WRONG[edit]
I'm genuinely surprised that this article doesn't mention how Charlie Kirk suffered from a blood clot and a hospital denied him treatment, especially considering the irony that Charlie Kirk does not believe that healthcare is a right.[1] LuodiWang (talk) 02:03, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- I can put in that into the article right now. TheUmbilicalCordGuy (talk) 02:07, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Healthcare is a service, not a right. When did RationalWiki change into a blog for angry teenagers anyway? I remember when this site didn't read like tabloid trash.— Unsigned, by: 194.193.216.146 / talk / contribs
- It is both, actually. Healthcare is what is called a positive right.[2] GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 12:59, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
"vagina hands"[edit]
Is there anything inherently wrong making those hands or are they just a awkward gesture? Like I'm getting the vibes that vagina = wuss and I don't like that. --It's-a me, 
LeftyGreenMario! 21:24, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
"take it to the talk page"[edit]
There's not much to it other than what I wrote before being directed to "take it to the talk page". The counter to bad rhetoric is not bad rhetoric. Am I wrong in thinking the 'rational' in the site name is sincere? Is it any part of a rational discussion to write "If you don’t like this RationalWiki article, why don’t you move to Venezuela?"? — Hugh O'Byrne, by: 24.47.85.248 / talk
- Section 1, subsection 2, part 2. Fallacious appeal to the site's name. Section 5. Any further questions? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:05, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah while it's crass or "unprofessional" to write that caption, it has a place in discussion. It's a riff on the talking point that commits the tu quoque fallacy as well as the "socialism = Venezuela" talking point. Does it add anything to the intellectual debate? Probably not. But this wiki responds to junk talking points with snark, so in this informal atmosphere of the wiki, that's fine. --It's-a me,
LeftyGreenMario! 22:27, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- "We already know that we aren't perfect. Tell us why. Be constructive."
- It is less than perfect to counter bad rhetoric with bad rhetoric. Removing bad rhetoric improves the quality of the site. Following so far? You don't get to criticize the likes of "it was locker-room talk" with "it's an informal atmosphere".— Hugh O'Byrne, by: 24.47.85.248 / talk
- I mean, you yourself have thus far used poor rhetorical skills. Such as fallaciously appealing to the site's name in a tone argument. Just like the many, many, many others who have done so before you... ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 12:13, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- I thank you for your feedback. I will endeavour to improve my rhetoric. I'll limit myself to what I've written only three times already: "Bad rhetoric is not a suitable response to bad rhetoric (regardless of the name of the site in which it occurs)". (In the interest of demonstrating my sincerity for improving my rhetoric - e.g. where I use a simple two-word phrase, be it a phrase like 'bad rhetoric' or 'rational wiki', you may take the phrase at face value - I'll state for the record, that my name is Hugh O'Byrne.)— Hugh O'Byrne, by: 24.47.85.248 / talk
- You're just just asserting something and then repeating yourself. You literally have said nothing other than "I disagree with the tone of this article". No further explanation, simply reversion to repetition ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:52, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- I thank you for your feedback. I will endeavour to improve my rhetoric. I'll limit myself to what I've written only three times already: "Bad rhetoric is not a suitable response to bad rhetoric (regardless of the name of the site in which it occurs)". (In the interest of demonstrating my sincerity for improving my rhetoric - e.g. where I use a simple two-word phrase, be it a phrase like 'bad rhetoric' or 'rational wiki', you may take the phrase at face value - I'll state for the record, that my name is Hugh O'Byrne.)— Hugh O'Byrne, by: 24.47.85.248 / talk
- I mean, you yourself have thus far used poor rhetorical skills. Such as fallaciously appealing to the site's name in a tone argument. Just like the many, many, many others who have done so before you... ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 12:13, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah while it's crass or "unprofessional" to write that caption, it has a place in discussion. It's a riff on the talking point that commits the tu quoque fallacy as well as the "socialism = Venezuela" talking point. Does it add anything to the intellectual debate? Probably not. But this wiki responds to junk talking points with snark, so in this informal atmosphere of the wiki, that's fine. --It's-a me,
big brain TPUSA takes[edit]
https://www.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=321869439965582&id=100064275866335 — 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭 talk stalk 14:32, 10 February 2022 (UTC)