Talk:Laci Green
|
This YouTube related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information. |
| ||
|
| ||||
|
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. |
Shut the fuck up Ariel, v1.3[edit]
Seriously, "she didn't use this exact word, so your paraphrase is WRONG" is asinine. As is injecting pointless weasel words, which also doesn't help anyone. Weasel words muddle the sentence, add no context, help no one understand anything, does nothing at all but inject ambiguity where the overall meaning of the sentence changes in no way. If you're going to make a small 2 word change to something, adding pointless weasel words is among the least helpful possible changes in the entirety of English vocabulary at your disposal. ikanreed šBleat at me 16:12, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
- No seriously. ikanreed šBleat at me 17:37, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
- Facts can be hard things to accept. "Liberals" does not belong in that sentence. Don't be a weasel.Ariel31459 (talk) 17:43, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
- Man, if only that were my principle objection listed here. I mean, I'd still disagree, because Laci is pretty anti-liberal these days(and could easily be bolstered with other citations). ikanreed šBleat at me 17:55, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
- I see words still mean what you make em mean. This is what I do, correct bad diction. "Uses weasel words," is a weasel argument you idiot.Ariel31459 (talk) 14:50, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
- No it's not. "Some people" is nothing. It's no one. It's meaningless. Once you've committed to the course of sub-setting without being explicit, you've committed to a course of not telling people what you mean. There are no doubt other places on this wiki where weasel words are used that way, and I doubt I'd approve of any of them. Always say what you mean. ikanreed šBleat at me 15:58, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
- I suppose you could hold that the expression is an abuse of language for an articulate argument. Why not say what you mean? I'd prefer a real argument. One would assume there isn't any, hence "weasel words," "dishonest (whatever)," "fucking stupid..." What you appear to mean is "I feel this way and fuck you for thinking otherwise." That's OK. Just say so.Ariel31459 (talk) 17:00, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
- Yep, this is about as dumb as usual. I mean, I do feel that way, (because of the reasons I gave), and, indeed, fuck you for thinking otherwise(because you don't engage with those points, and there's basically never an excuse for that kind of muddling).
- Meta-argument serves no purpose either. Dragging in objections I've made about honesty, and people being fucking stupid elsewhere doesn't help anything. Weasel words are a fairly explicit thing, directly applicable to the edit at hand; putting it in scare quotes is real dumb. Goddamn basically everything about engaging with you is so pointless. ikanreed šBleat at me 17:30, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
- You are a critic who does not recognize the rules they expect others to follow. There is no reason for you to engage if all you represent is a bundle of directed negative feelings. Bug off if you can't do the job. No one appointed you to confront me with blue language and insipid arguments. Ariel31459 (talk) 18:05, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
- Well apparently banning you to protect your delicate eyes from "fuck" is not a good solution. You need to stop editting. Forever. You're real fucking bad at it. ikanreed šBleat at me 18:20, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
- That's not going to happen. You are a mean sophist with ideological preferences. Nothing can be done about you. I will continue to comment when you abuse users. I will never campaign for your removal. I will just continue in hope that you will eventually tire of being a dick.Ariel31459 (talk) 18:33, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
- Sophist, coming from you. ikanreed šBleat at me 18:35, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
- Empty words from an empty mind.Ariel31459 (talk) 18:42, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
- Sophist, coming from you. ikanreed šBleat at me 18:35, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
- That's not going to happen. You are a mean sophist with ideological preferences. Nothing can be done about you. I will continue to comment when you abuse users. I will never campaign for your removal. I will just continue in hope that you will eventually tire of being a dick.Ariel31459 (talk) 18:33, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
- Well apparently banning you to protect your delicate eyes from "fuck" is not a good solution. You need to stop editting. Forever. You're real fucking bad at it. ikanreed šBleat at me 18:20, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
- You are a critic who does not recognize the rules they expect others to follow. There is no reason for you to engage if all you represent is a bundle of directed negative feelings. Bug off if you can't do the job. No one appointed you to confront me with blue language and insipid arguments. Ariel31459 (talk) 18:05, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
- I suppose you could hold that the expression is an abuse of language for an articulate argument. Why not say what you mean? I'd prefer a real argument. One would assume there isn't any, hence "weasel words," "dishonest (whatever)," "fucking stupid..." What you appear to mean is "I feel this way and fuck you for thinking otherwise." That's OK. Just say so.Ariel31459 (talk) 17:00, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
- No it's not. "Some people" is nothing. It's no one. It's meaningless. Once you've committed to the course of sub-setting without being explicit, you've committed to a course of not telling people what you mean. There are no doubt other places on this wiki where weasel words are used that way, and I doubt I'd approve of any of them. Always say what you mean. ikanreed šBleat at me 15:58, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
- I see words still mean what you make em mean. This is what I do, correct bad diction. "Uses weasel words," is a weasel argument you idiot.Ariel31459 (talk) 14:50, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
- Man, if only that were my principle objection listed here. I mean, I'd still disagree, because Laci is pretty anti-liberal these days(and could easily be bolstered with other citations). ikanreed šBleat at me 17:55, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
- Facts can be hard things to accept. "Liberals" does not belong in that sentence. Don't be a weasel.Ariel31459 (talk) 17:43, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Regardless of your petulance, given that you can't actually give any fucking reason for your change, don't touch the article. Don't put that bullshit back in. ikanreed šBleat at me 19:00, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
- Did I tell you to go fuck yourself yet?Ariel31459 (talk) 19:32, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello you two.
I've read the tweet but I don't know Laci Green so well. What I'm seeing is an empty platitude that makes little sense to me. I looked at the responses and it tells me a better picture. Supporters cheered her on for taking the red pill; they complained about the overuse of the terms; they rallied behind her to fight the SJWs; one called those that negatively reacted "lolcows". Detractors (not many) said she's obfuscating real problems, she has done nasty things in the past apparently. I think the contested statement ("that liberals are just a bunch of oversensitive crybabies who need to get over their 'hurt feelings' and be open to 'civil dissent.') is sort of what she's implying but it doesn't satisfy me. It seems too strong. Given that she's taken the red pill prior to this tweet, it's not unreasonable to say she's directing this toward her critics. I think we can rewrite the sentence a bit to say something like "She has expressed a number of common anti-SJW talking points on her Twitter account such as perceiving her critics to be oversensitive liberals and lecturing them about their need to 'suck it up' and tolerate 'civil dissent', which are empty platitudes." --It's-a me, 
LeftyGreenMario! 19:05, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
- on the other hand, this link I provided weeks ago explicitly showing that what we have is her explicit position on liberals. It doesn't need moderating or toning down. It's straight up accurate. ikanreed šBleat at me 19:11, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
- I see. So I think I can just cut to the chase. I think calling that tweet a "lecture" is a good word choice as it implies smug condescension. --It's-a me,
LeftyGreenMario! 19:15, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
- @LeftyGreenMario You know, I thought the edit I made some time ago, and since forgotten, was just an improvement in style and accuracy. Ikanreed, our unelected censor, doesn't think it is tough enough... That I use weasel words. Thus goes the way of accuracy on this wiki. I don't really care. I thought I was improving the article. ikanreed was just being an antagonist. I will now, as a gift to him, from time to time edit this article. See for yourself that everything I do will be wrong because it will be "letting her off easy." "Expect to be mercilessly edited?" Maybe.Ariel31459 (talk) 19:43, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
- Normally, I wouldn't automatically assume critics that someone like her is attacking are "liberals", so maybe from that angle, I can kinda see why you'd choose to qualify words. But when someone else points out that she has been hating on liberals explicitly via video, as well as the responses she has garnered from that tweet in particular, I'll have to agree that "her critics" or "some of her critics" is now too vague. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 19:54, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for a thoughtful reply. "Liberals" is clearly the wrong word. Too often this word is used as a synonym for "the good guys." I know I have used it this way. But many popular "antifeminists," call themselves liberals, and we use "liberals" when we really mean progressives or some variant thereof. It is hopelessly ambiguous. Ariel31459 (talk) 20:05, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
- You've got a good point, but regrettably this applies to some extent to every political identification. As an aside, I've never called myself a liberal even during my days of hardcore leftism, mostly because in my native country "liberals" are secular capitalists who occasionally pretend to care about this or that social issue and usually amount to little more than corporate shills. Surprisingly this turns out to be a pretty accurate description of American "liberals" as well, or at least their political party. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:20, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for a thoughtful reply. "Liberals" is clearly the wrong word. Too often this word is used as a synonym for "the good guys." I know I have used it this way. But many popular "antifeminists," call themselves liberals, and we use "liberals" when we really mean progressives or some variant thereof. It is hopelessly ambiguous. Ariel31459 (talk) 20:05, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
- Normally, I wouldn't automatically assume critics that someone like her is attacking are "liberals", so maybe from that angle, I can kinda see why you'd choose to qualify words. But when someone else points out that she has been hating on liberals explicitly via video, as well as the responses she has garnered from that tweet in particular, I'll have to agree that "her critics" or "some of her critics" is now too vague. --It's-a me,
- @LeftyGreenMario You know, I thought the edit I made some time ago, and since forgotten, was just an improvement in style and accuracy. Ikanreed, our unelected censor, doesn't think it is tough enough... That I use weasel words. Thus goes the way of accuracy on this wiki. I don't really care. I thought I was improving the article. ikanreed was just being an antagonist. I will now, as a gift to him, from time to time edit this article. See for yourself that everything I do will be wrong because it will be "letting her off easy." "Expect to be mercilessly edited?" Maybe.Ariel31459 (talk) 19:43, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
- I see. So I think I can just cut to the chase. I think calling that tweet a "lecture" is a good word choice as it implies smug condescension. --It's-a me,
Ariel, cut the bullshit[edit]
There's no reason for you to continue being an obnoxious shitfucker. I seriously question how you're still on this site after all you've pulled. Anyone can check the archive of this talk page to see you were painfully full of it a year ago, oh, and you're still doing it in the present day. Goddamn. Absolutely zero people have approved your edits but you'll edit war all the same. And I thought my ass could be obnoxious. James Earl Cash (talk) 22:28, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
- Just to make my objection clear to the use of "attack", it implies a violent assault. I imagine you may not be a native English speaker, so, there is that excuse.
I have not been edit warring. I have been exercising my rights as an editor here proposing synonymous expressions for a correct heading: I have been mercilessly editing the article.I can't help it if you are dismayed by correct English diction. If you are not satisfied being in the position of either Demeter or Hades, maybe you are on the wrong wiki. Given that I consider you to be an imbecile, I imagine you may not understand why I disregard your opinions completely. Ariel31459 (talk) 00:22, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
- Okay, I REALLY don't like relying on the brass for backup, but @LeftyGreenMario, Ariel refuses to relent on his editing crusade, and quite frankly, there's no excuse for this. I know we're not on the best of terms right now, but you're one of the few mods who's familiar with the situation on this page, as you can attest that nobody has approved his edits. He was doing this a year ago too, you can check it out on the page archives, and it was way more obnoxious than then it was now, and still a year later, he's going out of his way to whitewash what was clearly a very one sided affair. This is really the straw breaking the camel's back for me, I'm really tempted to make bring him up in a coop case, because as far as I know, this kind of obnoxious behavior with no redeeming side qualities seems to be his MO.
- And for the love of god, this fucking guy. Just as I was about to add this entry to the page, he edited it midway to cut out the part where he admitted that he's exercising his rights to "mercilessly edit" the main article. Check the history section. I'm done with this idiocy. James Earl Cash (talk) 00:49, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
- @LeftyGreenMario JEC is the worst sort of whiner. Thank goodness GrammarCommie stepped in and made an acceptable heading change. Regards.Ariel31459 (talk) 01:09, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
- Uh yeah, if she excuses what you were blatantly doing earlier just because someone else intervened, this is my last post on this wiki, and I'm still not satisfied with that heading either. I've seen dumb shit happen on this wiki go unopposed, but you're the fucking worst mate. James Earl Cash (talk) 01:14, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
- @James Earl Cash What's wrong with the new header? āComrade GCāMinistry of Praise 01:19, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
- Doesn't have enough bite to it to fully capture what she was doing. It's a hundred times better than what Ariel was proposing with his idea of whitewashing the whole thing, but if you'll pardon me for saying so, it seems like you're capitulating to Ariel to shut him up instead of giving Laci the full thrashing she deserves. James Earl Cash (talk) 01:24, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
- @James Earl Cash Did she, or did she not have a 180 on social issues? āComrade GCāMinistry of Praise 01:45, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
- I propose we do no "thrashing" in these articles. How about the truth with humor, and some sarcasm? I suggest James should try this wikiAriel31459 (talk) 01:51, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
- I liked the use of "attack". It doesn't literally mean violence, it means that Laci Green dealt with ateast two of her critics rather aggressively. Characterizing it as simply countering or backtracking her views is not accurate. Ariel, attack doesn't mean violence in this context and I believe most people don't see it as such, but what they should see are aggressive tactics. "Attack" is appropriate and recommended. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 17:39, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
- I don't like it. So there we have it. A compromise should be found. GC found one. As a matter of fact, both sides attacked one another in that sense. Do you want to change it to"mutual attacks?" I won't accept attacking as a one-sided concept, like Germany attacked Poland. They attacked one another.Ariel31459 (talk) 18:10, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Ariel31459 Are you referring to the forceful German annexation of Poland that officially began World War Two? āComrade GCāMinistry of Praise 18:13, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
- When you put it that way it seems so harsh. Maybe more like the Duchy of Grand Fenwick attacking the USA.Ariel31459 (talk) 18:19, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
- "Both sides attacked one another." No. Taking what she said at face value, Lindsay Amer's messages are hardly considered attacks, yet she got blocked and received a message "Lol. Y'all are just so oblivious." I'm not sure yet if Kat Blaque's parody merits a response of being called a "sociopath" by Laci Green, but if it doesn't, then it's an "attack". The second paragraph doesn't fit and should be part of the first section. Anyhow, don't "both sides" me. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 06:08, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
- What you are doing is called personal research. Maybe you should write an essay. On Green's Wikipedia bio Kat Blaque is not even mentioned. "Youtube drama" is considered irrelevant. I have no idea if she is a sociopath, but if she acts like one... That is not the issue. And I think you are doing your best to avoid the issue, which is the one side you happen to approve of does not get to totally dominate articles. Ariel31459 (talk) 14:07, 25 November 2018 (UTC).
- No this is not personal research. It's coming to a conclusion and finding a word that best describes her behavior. Most people would call it "an attack". You're being pedantic. And you act like "avoiding" the issue is a bad thing, but what exactly is the issue anyway? Word choice denoting aggressive behavior? The use of "attack" is not a big deal. If Laci Green does things that snark would call "stupid and shitty" we call it "stupid and shitty". --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 22:04, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
- No this is not personal research. It's coming to a conclusion and finding a word that best describes her behavior. Most people would call it "an attack". You're being pedantic. And you act like "avoiding" the issue is a bad thing, but what exactly is the issue anyway? Word choice denoting aggressive behavior? The use of "attack" is not a big deal. If Laci Green does things that snark would call "stupid and shitty" we call it "stupid and shitty". --It's-a me,
- What you are doing is called personal research. Maybe you should write an essay. On Green's Wikipedia bio Kat Blaque is not even mentioned. "Youtube drama" is considered irrelevant. I have no idea if she is a sociopath, but if she acts like one... That is not the issue. And I think you are doing your best to avoid the issue, which is the one side you happen to approve of does not get to totally dominate articles. Ariel31459 (talk) 14:07, 25 November 2018 (UTC).
- "Both sides attacked one another." No. Taking what she said at face value, Lindsay Amer's messages are hardly considered attacks, yet she got blocked and received a message "Lol. Y'all are just so oblivious." I'm not sure yet if Kat Blaque's parody merits a response of being called a "sociopath" by Laci Green, but if it doesn't, then it's an "attack". The second paragraph doesn't fit and should be part of the first section. Anyhow, don't "both sides" me. --It's-a me,
- When you put it that way it seems so harsh. Maybe more like the Duchy of Grand Fenwick attacking the USA.Ariel31459 (talk) 18:19, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Ariel31459 Are you referring to the forceful German annexation of Poland that officially began World War Two? āComrade GCāMinistry of Praise 18:13, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
- I don't like it. So there we have it. A compromise should be found. GC found one. As a matter of fact, both sides attacked one another in that sense. Do you want to change it to"mutual attacks?" I won't accept attacking as a one-sided concept, like Germany attacked Poland. They attacked one another.Ariel31459 (talk) 18:10, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
- I liked the use of "attack". It doesn't literally mean violence, it means that Laci Green dealt with ateast two of her critics rather aggressively. Characterizing it as simply countering or backtracking her views is not accurate. Ariel, attack doesn't mean violence in this context and I believe most people don't see it as such, but what they should see are aggressive tactics. "Attack" is appropriate and recommended. --It's-a me,
- I propose we do no "thrashing" in these articles. How about the truth with humor, and some sarcasm? I suggest James should try this wikiAriel31459 (talk) 01:51, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
- @James Earl Cash Did she, or did she not have a 180 on social issues? āComrade GCāMinistry of Praise 01:45, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
- Doesn't have enough bite to it to fully capture what she was doing. It's a hundred times better than what Ariel was proposing with his idea of whitewashing the whole thing, but if you'll pardon me for saying so, it seems like you're capitulating to Ariel to shut him up instead of giving Laci the full thrashing she deserves. James Earl Cash (talk) 01:24, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
- @James Earl Cash What's wrong with the new header? āComrade GCāMinistry of Praise 01:19, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
- Uh yeah, if she excuses what you were blatantly doing earlier just because someone else intervened, this is my last post on this wiki, and I'm still not satisfied with that heading either. I've seen dumb shit happen on this wiki go unopposed, but you're the fucking worst mate. James Earl Cash (talk) 01:14, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
- @LeftyGreenMario JEC is the worst sort of whiner. Thank goodness GrammarCommie stepped in and made an acceptable heading change. Regards.Ariel31459 (talk) 01:09, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Ariel cuts the bullshit[edit]
If I object to the use of a single word, that could be seen as pedantic. What's your point? What kind of an argument is "If snark would call it X, then it has to be called X?" Not "shitty", probably. How about "Expresses frustration?" Because that defines the empirical detail of what is being described. I am satisfied with GC's edit. I would be satisfied with maybe a thousand possible variations expressing the existence of conflict. I don't see anyone being victimized, therefore "attack" is overkill. Pedantic? Maybe. What are the rules regarding being pedantic?Ariel31459 (talk) 22:17, 25 November 2018 (UTC) Ariel31459 (talk) 22:17, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Daily Dot, May 2018[edit]
This article from May 2018 seems like a very even-handed source of updated (as of 5-6 months ago) info on Laci Green. Explores her point of view and motivations sympathetically but without ignoring her less savoury actions. --Yisfidri (talk) 14:44, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Topic[edit]
TBH, she's prob the best example of a toxic internalized, misogynistic white woman, who almost certainly holds racist and anti-trans views. Plays victim only to harm millions. Just awful. — Unsigned, by: 47.28.82.50 / talk