Talk:Davis Aurini

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.

This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page: <1>

Accusations of child rape against Sarkeesian's father[edit]

Isn't this the very definition of actionable libel and slander?--Petey Plane (talk) 14:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I think it meets the criteria on most pieces. I would say he has proved malice with his history of other defamatory statements and likely knows it's false given how long he's looked for unpleasant things about his targets. The only thing in question would be harm. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 15:13, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
True, it would probably need a larger audience than the 14 people who've watched the whole thing to cause harm.--Petey Plane (talk) 15:23, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, it could also depend if one of those 14 decides to use it as justification to do something. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 15:30, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Probably why it was kept out of the film. It's not ideal repeating it here, given that it's cited to secondhand hearsay & a deleted YouTube video. WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Any Serious Reviews of 'Not the Sarkeesian Effect?'[edit]

The only review I've found of this joke is David Futrelle's post on We Hunted The Mammoth. Are there any other online reviews? I remember Mooseplainer Max and Dan Olsen's lifestreams...is there anything like that online somewhere? Or is the film too similar for there to be a point?

If you find one, then by all means ... - David Gerard (talk) 07:42, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I guess you can put "rational" in front of everything...[edit]

It's difficult to take this piece of obvious propaganda seriously. It's drenched in pathos laden verbiage and I've no idea how someone could confuse that with "rational". At best this is an opinion piece with clear underlying political motives. Clothing it in a robe of supposed "rationality" is a lie.

I've followed Davis Aurini for a couple of years and this piece of propaganda is way off. I have no idea how to flag it as "disputed", but if I could I would. The authors of this drivel should be ashamed of their abuse of the word "rational". Maybe consider calling this "ThinlyVeiledPoliticalPontificationWiki"? It would be less poignant but at least true.

And that is all. This does not deserve a polite discussion.— Unsigned, by: Malkavian / talk / contribs

"But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink!--JorisEnter (talk) 16:39, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Davis, shouldn't you be making terrible vlogs, instead of worrying about your RW page? Petey Plane (talk) 17:17, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
What I get out of this is: "You wrote something bad about someone I like. I don't have whatever is needed to dispute the statements, or references, so I'll make a silly attempt to equate a bias to reality with propaganda using a projection of pathos laden verbiage (rhetorical emotional appeal) because I use uncommon words without understanding their meaning." -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 17:36, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
If your best argument is that your opponent is appealing to emotion (and you fail to even support that), then you're losing. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 18:17, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

"Pepe, Kek, and the Rise of an Elder God"[edit]

Wow: https://youtube.com/watch?v=5FU2nG9gTlcUser000name (talk) 03:00, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

And the cliffnotes? Zero (talk - contributions) 17:58, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
(Third hand account) something something kek is an ancient heathen god brought back to life by the alt right. I am not the Ombud's man 20:31, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
This is an honest to god alt-right theory. Nick Land raised it in April, and /pol/ fucking believes it. Like Koanic Soul, this will be one of those things they pretend in two years never happened. So this is not original Aurini lunacy! - David Gerard (talk) 12:32, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Amazing. --Castaigne2 (talk) 18:42, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
And people complain about us self-labeling as rational. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:48, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Poe's Law in action. Like everything 4chan does, they're just trying to get people to take them seriously and believe the stupid stuff they say so they can mock people. 209.202.4.164 (talk) 21:35, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Did I accidentally stumble upon Encyclopedia Dramatica?[edit]

This article is very inflammatory and seems like something off Encyclopedia Dramatica. I thought this Wiki was supposed to be written in a third person style similar to the normal Wikipedia, not just a sarcastic rant.— Unsigned, by: 209.202.4.164 / talk / contribs

You thought wrong. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 21:49, 25 August 2017 (UTC)