Should have more.
Needs to have more on the fact that he's constantly denying the Trump/Russia collusion story but he swallows up every bullshit story that has to do with the Clintons and the DNC.Jaydogg1994 (talk) 00:46, 3 August 2017
Prior smear attempts
I encourage everyone to read the talk page from Dore's Wikipedia entry, where Jaydogg1994 and CowHouse were admonished for trying the same thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jimmy_Dore. Now they're taking their act to RationalWiki. I would expect the same commitment to truth here. As it stands now, RationalWiki's article on Dore is far less "rational" than Wikipedia's. Gnocchi (talk) 21:29, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Gnocchi I was never "admonished". More people disagreed with me than agreed with me, and at that point I conceded. In retrospect, it was a waste of time since the argument became about whether the sources were reliable and whether Wikipedia's policy guidelines had been violated rather than whether the information presented was accurate.
- "Now they're taking their act to RationalWiki." False. I was already editing this page well before I ever edited the Wikipedia page. My first edit on the Jimmy Dore page on RationalWiki was August 2nd and on Wikipedia it was September 6th. My original edit on Wikipedia was because the Jimmy Dore page was objectively awful (the main reason I bothered to edit it was that it sourced to The Duran, a clear unreliable source by Wikipedia's standards). I actually removed a poorly sourced quote that made Dore look crazy, where he talks about Clinton's "bloodlust warhawkism". If you disagree, check for yourself . If you check the edit history on his Wikipedia page, I was reverting vandalism . In fact, you restored one of my edits because the language I used was, in your view, "neutral"  . So, what was I "trying" again?
- "I would expect the same commitment to truth here." Feel free to point out anything that's false. The standards Wikipedia has for original research and a neutral point of view are not the same on RationalWiki.
- "RationalWiki's article on Dore is far less "rational" than Wikipedia's." Please provide some actually constructive criticism in the future. CowHouse (talk) 03:27, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
- Since this is part of a crank campaign of targeted harassment and defamation against Dore, I was hoping we could expedite the matter. But I'm happy to restate the discussion from Wikipedia, adjusted for RationalWiki's rules. Gnocchi (talk) 22:09, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
- The primary purpose of this article on Rationalwiki is to document the many crank ideas Dore had. It's not to document his life story. —ClickerClock (talk) 03:58, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
- That's creepy that you know what sites I post on, posting personal information is a violation of RationalWiki:Community_Standards#Privacy I haven't been engaging in "targeted harassment" at all, If you actually read the links that you posted (I don't know how you had so much time on you're hands to dig up information about me, You're such a creep) he's not the only person I have criticized for believing in irrational things. Jaydogg1994 (talk) 04:48, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Incomplete entries on Dore's criticism of Google
Hey guys, first time posting. I wanted to make an edit but found that it may be resolved via the talk section. So here it goes.
"He has also promoted fake stories relating to Hillary Clinton such as that Google manipulated search results to favor her," is incomplete for a "rational" wiki page. The Search Engine Manipulation Effect (SEME) is not a pie in the sky concept. Harvard psychologist Robert Epstien co-authored a study published in a peer-reviewed journal that found that SEME "exerts influence largely through order effects that are enhanced in a digital context." Researchers' duplication of a prior experiment of targeted SEME found "voting preferences shifted by 39.0%, a number almost identical to the shift found in a previously published experiment." Source: https://cbw.sh/static/pdf/epstein-2017-pacmhci.pdf
Secondly, it's impossible to ignore then-Alphabet Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt's extensive involvement in supporting Clinton's campaign. As has been reported, "An under-the-radar startup funded by billionaire Eric Schmidt has become a major technology vendor for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, underscoring the bonds between Silicon Valley and Democratic politics." Source: "The stealthy, Erich Schmidt-backed start up that's working to put Hillary Clinton in the White House": https://qz.com/520652/groundwork-eric-schmidt-startup-working-for-hillary-clinton-campaign/ by Tim Fernholz and Adam Pasick in a report published by Quartz. Date of publication: October 9, 2015.
Quartz reported that: "The Groundwork, according to Democratic campaign operatives and technologists, is part of efforts by Schmidt—the executive chairman of Google parent-company Alphabet—to ensure that Clinton has the engineering talent needed to win the election. And it is one of a series of quiet investments by Schmidt that recognize how modern political campaigns are run, with data analytics and digital outreach as vital ingredients that allow candidates to find, court, and turn out critical voter blocs." (ibid.)
Schmidt, who knows quite a bit about Google's tech, was extremely enthusiastic about supporting the Clinton campaign 2 years before ballots were cast. See "Hacked emails show Eric Schmidt played a crucial role in Team Hillary’s election tech": https://qz.com/823922/eric-schmidt-played-a-crucial-role-in-team-hillarys-election-tech/ by Tim Fernhol in Quartz.
Perhaps nobody knows as much about Google's data collection than Schmidt, and he had all of this data at disposal as he remained formally outside the campaign as a vendor. To fail to make a logical leap that the chairman of Google's parent company used Google as the unofficial chief of digital operations is irresponsible. As such, claims about the impacts on voting behavior of such actions would need to rest on evidence from a peer-reviewed journal. To my knowledge, this has not been done, and thus it would be prudent to critique Mr. Dore on the account that he may have suggested the Google results had a specific, definite influence on voting behavior among groups in different states throughout the country.
Epstein has stated that he has run an experiment showing the link, but this study is not clearly scientific and is not in a peer-reviewed journal. See "Could Google influence the presidential election?" By David Schultz in Science. Article published October 25, 2016. http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/10/could-google-influence-presidential-election
If we think Facebook has a lot of data about voters, it's still a fraction of the number of data points Google can collect on an individual (and from more individuals).
I propose adding that academic research studies have empirically tested the very real impacts of algorithmically-tinkered search results on voting behavior, with significant results (P <0.001). Further, I propose a second bullet mentioning that press reports show Alphabet Executive Chair Eric Schmidt eagerly offered ways to support Clinton's campaign, leading some to conclude that Google tilted search results to favor Clinton without telling users.
I also propose rewording the initial bullets as to ensure claims are examined rationally and do not reflect an approach that starts with conclusions and then points to evidence. Epistemically, the facts should be weighed before a conclusion is made so boldly on Rational Wiki. Leading with conclusions and explaining away questions with stories is what politicians do, not what knowledge-building people do. Cryptoeditr (talk) 03:30, 28 March 2018 (UTC) cryptoeditr
Tell me how to defend
- If you're going to make big changes that you think need to be justified, you should probably make a user subpage with the revision you like stored in that page and then provide justification for that revision. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 03:03, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
- Well, if I have my facts and sourcing right-- and I think I do-- ins't it ok do it here? I mean, maybe I know more (or not) than whoever initially edits. I can set forth more sourcing or defend my edits if that's what is the norm here?--Tea Sagan (talk) 03:10, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
JD on Sex trafficking
I agree Dore too often has Fox-News-like standards to journalism/sourcing but I wonder why the article tries to link JD to Pizzagate conspirators. He's not endorsing that specific claim at all, he instead said it wasn't too far off in the sense that, and this is the critical point, government sponsored defence contractors pimp out kids to warlords & sex traffickers which is proven to be correct. That in turn is often tolerated by US/western administrators. See https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Essay:Is_Obama_really_a_lefty%3F#Escalation_of_the_Afghanistan_war, https://www.aclu.org/other/military-contractor-human-trafficking-documents-released-under-foia or the 2010 movie The Whistleblower. — Unsigned, by: EauDeCologne / talk / contribs 10:30, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
- "the article tries to link JD to Pizzagate conspirators. He's not endorsing that specific claim at all". The page makes the point that he does not believe Pizzagate is real but he has enabled the views of Pizzagaters (a similar point is also made here). Dore listened to someone say that Pizzagate is real and his response was not to deny or criticise this but to say "there's something to what he's saying". Even if his example is true, he was still incorrect that Bravo was "not far off".
- The link referenced in your first source did not work and I found no archive. Where does your second source substantiate Dore's claim that "our defence contracting companies will often procure young people, young boys and girls, for sex parties around the world"?
- Also, don't forget to sign your comments with four tildes. Thanks. CowHouse (talk) 16:14, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
- Linking a right wing fantasy such as pizzagate that claims the promoters' political opponents maintained a child sex ring, to military human rights abuses, is a stupid thing to do. There's no comparison at all, and there's no "comedy" or "humor" in it either. The only reason I could see anyone making such a comparison is if they were either very stupid or sympathized with the claims made by the pizzagate goons.
- There's a right wing blowhard on a local AM radio station I occasionally listen to for the hell of it. After the Parkland shooting, some idiot called in claiming that all the protesting kids were crisis actors. Instead of immediately refuting the caller, which is what any reasonable and rational human being should have done, this radio guy said he had no evidence one way or the other that the kids were actors. Therefore he implicitly agreed with the caller's ridiculous claims and dirtied his name and reputation. This is the same kind of behavior Dore's doing with his enabling of the tinfoil hat crowd. Cosmikdebris (talk) 21:53, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
His stance on chemtrails and rationalwiki
I found a tweet claiming he promoted chemtrails and bashed rationalwiki on his live stream, He also called Muller "part of the swamp", Is there anyway anyone can confirm this because I don't have enough time on my schedule to try to trackdown his live stream. Jaydogg1994 (talk) 09:12, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Jaydogg1994 Somebody uploaded the clip where he gets asked about RationalWiki. I can't find any video of him discussing chemtrails since the link to the livestream no longer works. According to the Twitter account referenced in your edit, you have to watch it live because it gets hidden afterwards. CowHouse (talk) 15:49, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Careful with "conspiracy theories"
I'm a university lecturer and I love RationalWiki, but this particular article I find pretty weak. You should be careful to criticise Dore (or anyone) in a precise and fair manner, as otherwise, serious folks will accuse you of bias. Whoever wrote the "conspiracy theories" part is clearly unaware of both the actual meaning of the term as well as mainstream views in the academic and intelligence communities, respectively. Here are two problematic passages in the article:
"Why would you need to shame people who question the government's view of what happened on 9/11?"
1. The official 9/11 report presents a theory about a conspiracy of several actors and institutions, AKA conspiracy theory. 2. Many scholars, journalists and people from the intelligence and security community who have dealt with the 9/11 Commission Report believe that it is incomplete, redacted in an insincere manner or even misleading. This even includes former members of the Bush Jr. administration. To this day, there is no uncontroversial evidence that Bin Laden or Saddam Hussein were the planners or initiators of the attacks (the report itself dismisses a link to Saddam). HOWEVER: it does NOT follow from this that 9/11 was an "inside job" or some other outlandish theory. QUESTIONING the government's official report does not AUTOMATICALLY make you a conspiracy-nut. 3. This illustrates my main criticism of this article: it totally ignores that the US government frequently HAS spread conspiracy theories to start wars or to interfere in other countries in the past and that therefore, it is NOT unreasonable for a rational person to expect them to continue doing this.
"Dore does not believe Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone:"
Not a SINGLE PERSON I've met in the academic community who dealt with the case believes this. You may argue that this is due to my particular experience, but the best thing you can say is that half the world doesn't buy the story. Given the ballistic evidence, again, a rational person would doubt this. And again, this does NOT necessarily mean that theory x or y is therefore true.
The authors of this articles seem to believe that anybody who questions any officially sanctioned view by the US government must be a conspiracy nut. This itself is an interesting theory, to put it sarcastically. — Unsigned, by: 2001:1716:4607:4D70:20ED:8C07:D801:B4D4 / talk
- It might've mattered more if the the questioning was done years ago when the event was fresher and evidence wasn't established yet, but this isn't the case. The guy isn't "open-minded", he denies or downplays large swaths of evidence, uses similar tactics of traditional conspiracy theorists such as attacking the press, appealing to "not trust government reports". He probably denies it "was an inside job" but not only he qualifies that statement, all this other actions are JAQing off. If he knew better and was honestly searching for answers, he also wouldn't be spreading this crap on a network, double down when people criticize him for it (such as handwaving a criticism that his views are like climate change denial), and do more reading in sites that disseminate legitimate information, not crazy sites. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 17:17, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- The quote you cherry-picked is not the only evidence on the page of him being a 9/11 conspiracy theorist, unless you're arguing it's unreasonable to call him a conspiracy theorist for saying things like this about WTC 7 (?):
- "Building 7 fell and it wasn't hit by fucking anything."
- "I'll have to look up the Popular Mechanics Building 7 theory because whatever it is it has got to be bullshit."
- "Building 7. Now who you gonna believe? The government that lied us into a war or your lying eyes? Building 7 was demolished by somebody. It didn't fall down because of a fire."
- "I think that when Building 7 went down, somebody was directly involved in that."
- "All I know is that Building 7 did not come down because a plane hit another building next to it."
- "They have videotape of police and the firemen saying "get back, this building's gonna go." The guy who owned that building, they interviewed him. He tells the story of "we made the decision to pull it, to pull the building." He says "pull it" which means we're gonna implode it. That's another term for implode."
- Regarding JFK, conspiracy theories about his death are certainly popular but that doesn't mean they aren't conspiracy theories. Even if you exclude the two examples you mentioned, there are other examples on the page which justify describing him as a conspiracy theorist. It's hardly a controversial label since he was a speaker at the "Tin Foil Hat Comedy Night" and was a guest on the podcast "Tin Foil Hat with Sam Tripoli" twice. CowHouse (talk) 06:36, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
A "rational" smear page? Meaning that Wikipedia is too rational to allow Dore to be called a "conspiracy theorist"? (By the way, the very term "conspiracy theorist" is pure counterinsurgency propaganda, created by the CIA in the wake of the JFK assassination to discredit anyone who saw something fishy about the lone assassin theory (which Wikipedia itself was still pushing last time I looked). Jimmy Dore is starting to make some powerful people uncomfortable. 2A01:E35:8788:26A0:599:756A:26D9:A96C (talk) 10:20, 10 September 2019 (UTC)