Talk:Dinesh D'Souza

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Icon politics.svg

This Politics 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.



Can we have a serious discussion about fixing this article, instead of waging a rollback war? Madscientistjaidev (talk) 05:13, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Good idea, but let's keep this stuff in mind. Bio information aside, I object to removing the snark and denunciation. ~ Kupochama[1][2] 05:19, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Snark isn't an excuse to make content less jabs at a popular apologist. Use effective argument to respond to his ideas. They're stupid. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 05:23, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Agreed, but replacing it with a personal biography isn't really a solution. ~ Kupochama[1][2] 05:27, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Nutty Roux - The intent is not to create a Wikipedia style personal biography, but we need to provide some background information to place his arguments in context, and to be able to provide relevant rebuttals.

Kupochama - The only fit place for snark and denunciation on this wiki is on the pages where we provide a point by point rebuttal to a speech or article these nutjobs may write, not on a page that is meant to provide information. Lets leave the low blows and insults to the other side, and keep a professional standard, ok? — Unsigned, by: Madscientistjaidev / talk / contribs

Actually, no, that's not quite okay. Please read that link I posted, and maybe some other stuff. Referring to bullshit as "bullshit" is a standing theme here; until this article becomes considerably more thorough, there's no need to replace that with information anyone can get from Wikipedia.
...Incidentally, it looks like you mostly copied your edit from Wikipedia. Like those links mention, we're not trying to compete with them, no less copy them. ~ Kupochama[1][2] 09:53, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
You haven't been around nearly long enough to understand the culture here. Snark and mockery has always been encouraged (albeit not at the expense of accuracy). Excessive seriousness just validates tone trolls, and we really do not want to do that. EVDebs (talk) 00:15, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Then I'm a tone troll, being deeply concerned as I am about gratuitous and childish name calling directed against popular apologists in particular. I strongly believe we need to have a summer wiki-project to get our anti-creationism and counter-apologetics materia up to date and presentable. Honestly, everyone's got an idea of what "snarky" means, but it's so inconsistent as to be meaningless. And it makes us look like real assholes when meanspirited shit like ends up in these articles about prominent apologists substitutes for actual research and analysis. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 18:22, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with NuttyRoux. @Kupochama & EVDebs - I like snark. Its ok to throw in occasional, well directed snarky comments. Making it a standard policy is just juvenile. I dont object to pointing out bullshit when it is warranted, but right now, this article (like many others on this wiki) sounds like it was written by a kindergarten kid who just learnt his first swear word. The SPOV article is funny, but we still need to maintain a line between RationalWiki and Uncyclopedia. If you have a problem with the thoroughness of the article, roll up your sleeves and get to work. I did not copy the entire wikipedia article, just the first paragraph, so that (i repeat) we could establish a context for actual point by point criticism of this guy - the writing of which has been spectacularly stalled by the TrollArmy.Madscientistjaidev (talk) 09:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

TMI section[edit]

I added a bit of personal info on Dinesh's ethnicity and moved his dating habits tidbit up to the lede. It looks really silly to have it in its own section at the bottom, making it look like a petty jab rather than trivia.--ADtalkModerator 01:58, 6 September 2012 (UTC) dinesh D'Souza is in fact NOT capitalized. I have heard this was an homage to ee Cummings.

D'souza: Trump ALONE stopped Adolf Hitler[edit]

See the main article on this topic: Poe's law

In his new book, The Big Lie — Exposing the Nazi Roots of the American Left, D'souza asks how the fuck you people can sleep at night while the openly fascist brownshirts of the US Democratic Party is allowed to perpetuate their hate crimes in the open street? Also: @Ikanreed, what the fuck do you have to say for yourself, you pseudohistorian Hitler-admiring neo-Nazi pissant? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:31, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Quote from the Washington Examiner:

D'Souza shows how the Democrats have Nazi ties and even "inspired" Adolf Hitler.

Without Trump, there IS no Democracy. Don't you Nazi scumbags get it??? Permanently revoke Trump's term limit, or freedom is done for, you holocaust loving leftists. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:41, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Other historical oddities[edit]

Some KKK march was a march to the DNC. In reality, it was the KKK marching to avenge a fallen cop and attack Italians.

Franco was not a fascist.

αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 08:42, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Death of a Nation[edit]

We should add something about DInesh D'Souza's upcoming documentary: Death of a Nation. LuodiWang (talk) 14:18, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Why do you people refer to the critic score on Rotten Tomatoes as if it means anything? The audience score for Death of a Nation isn't zero, it's 88%. All that zero indicates is that every critic on RT is a far-left loon. — Unsigned, by: 2600:387:9:5::48 / talk / contribs

What is the general tone of D'Souza films?[edit]

I feel like the change added by 173 isn't quite right, but I'm trying to put my finger on why I feel that way. It is the case that his films are absolutely of the form "Democrats/liberals are always evil, republicans/conservatives are always good" but something about the way the BoN phrased it is off. Does he actually do the "bad conservatives undercover liberals" bit very much? He definitely does the "republicans stopped slavery democrats supported it. Did you know that? DID YOU??!" a lot. I guess I haven't seen enough of his movies to know. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:48, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

All I know is from CinemaSnob's review of Hillary's America. Dinesh's style is to: 1). Whine about his convictions by suggesting he's a personal enemy of Obama. 2.) Talk to the crowd about the Democrats being pro-Slavery in the Civil War and treat it like new information never taught in schools. 3.) Repeatedly argue that the KKK votes Democrat today. It might be in that new Trump film that he talks about undercover liberals - he's certainly insisted on Twitter that the alt-right and Neo-Nazis are Liberals so I wouldn't be surprised.-- Forerunner (talk) 21:56, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
So you'd agree that's not "the" tone of his films, and a revert is warranted? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:58, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
His latest "movie" Death of a Nation is about how the neo-Nazis of the Unite the Right crowd are totally liberals, so... (talk) 21:59, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
"Not wrong" is good enough for me. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 22:01, 15 November 2018 (UTC)