Talk:Laci Green/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 8 October 2021. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

External Links

External links?--^talk 21:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I second it. Apparently, reducing the article to the lowest common denominator of information doesn't work. So, I figure it's best to go to Plan B. Plan B may involve a lot of viewing of the person's videos, comparing the older videos and younger videos, and acting like Laci Green's stalker for a while, trying to validate and cite the information on the article. 140.254.226.232 (talk) 16:03, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

you go do that--^Mikal_lakiM 16:05, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

What in the bloody hell is going on here? EVDebs (talk) 22:52, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Some bon is going to stalk Laci Green for awhile because we have an article on her for no reason that doesn't cite anything.--Token Conservative (talk) 23:03, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like a pointless style nitpick. Since this isn't a formal paper, it seems reasonable to say "go watch her videos, see what we mean". At any rate, she's a prominent skeptic and sex educator, and there is a lot of woo surrounding sex. EVDebs (talk) 23:17, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

And when I tried to make an article on sex myths it was all undone.--Token Conservative (talk) 02:04, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

That don't seem right to me. We've got plenty of other stuff on sex ed and the like; a page on sex woo makes perfect sense here. EVDebs (talk) 05:32, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Except that his idea was to "merge" various existing articles into a single, focusless page.--ZooGuard (talk) 09:29, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

No, it actually wasn't.--Token Conservative (talk) 13:25, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

"Very dangerous. You go first."--Sallah. Jackinthebox (talk) 22:56, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Internet mobbing

Should we add how she was mobbed and threatened after apologizing for a past use of the word "tranny" back in 2012, as recounted here? ^{— Unsigned, by: Mcc1789 / talk / contribs} 22:35, 23 February 2014‎ (UTC)

If you do, please do your own legwork, don't rely on secondary sources. This also includes the framing.--ZooGuard (talk) 08:11, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

And it seems that the Jezebel piece is a tertiary source, being based on a piece from The Daily Dot.[1]--ZooGuard (talk) 08:16, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

That's depressing. Can anybody find her email? I'd like to offer her words of support, but I can't find it anywhere. (I suspect she may have taken it down due to the attacks...) Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 10:46, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Please note that it happened in mid-2012. :)--ZooGuard (talk) 11:10, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

wehpudicabok.readingComprehension = 0 Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 19:23, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Misandrist?

Since she has received street and online harassment, can we really agree that she doesn't hate men because to her they must be the enemy? Isn't that the definition of Schrodinger's Rapist? In case if your wondering, no I haven't harassed her, I feel for her deeply and even had a panic attack over the threats she receives, I just don't want to be held responsible because I'm a man.-180.216.68.197 (talk) 07:24, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Then let me ask the obvious: Can you prove she hates men? Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 18:54, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

If her bad experiences with Islam and Mormonism made her Islamophobic and Anti-Mormon, as mentioned in the article, then why shouldn't her bad experiences with men make her misandric?--180.216.68.197 (talk) 06:57, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

You're speculating and projecting hard. Bring positive proof. Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 14:08, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

That is just how fear and hatred works. If we are treated badly by the other, or hear bad things of a collective, then chances are that we will develop a phobia for them.--110.142.60.110 (talk) 06:30, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

That might be how you work, but don't assume your behavior is close to representing the large majority of the human population. http://www.theonion.com/article/sociologist-considers-own-behavior-indicative-of-l-421 Withoutaname (talk) 07:16, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

If she's not misandric, than why is she Islamophobic and Anti-Mormon?--110.142.60.110 (talk) 04:25, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

You're not making any sense. It's possible to be racist without being sexist and vice versa. Withoutaname (talk) 11:54, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

But she believes that all Muslim men and all Morman men are straw myoginist and sextual predators, so why dosen't she see men in that light as a whole?--180.216.110.171 (talk) 13:00, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Who knows why? I don't think her view of Muslims and Mormons necessarily affect her views of men as a whole. Withoutaname (talk) 13:38, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Not men as a whole? Not when she believes all countries are the same towards women?--180.216.110.171 (talk) 13:46, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea why you keep misunderstanding me. Your statements are logically incoherent and you keep generalizing feminists as if they are one monolithic entity, the very thing you keep accusing them of doing. You should check your biases against feminists before spewing out more of your inane non sequiturs. Withoutaname (talk) 17:17, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

But does she believe all countries are the same towards women?--180.216.117.155 (talk) 07:29, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I would like an answer, because that is what I have concluded from watching her video of "Why I am a Feminist".--180.216.121.40 (talk) 13:42, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

No she doesn't. You've come to the wrong conclusion and you need to reevaluate your critical thinking skills. Withoutaname (talk) 13:44, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

So she dosen't believe that the male privilege means that all men are automatically guilty of woman's oppression from birth, nor does she believe that anything male is masculine and therefore toxic?--180.216.108.175 (talk) 10:29, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, does she believe in those two things or not?--180.216.96.172 (talk) 10:01, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Def worth inclusion

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2016/08/12/the-connection-between-circumcision-and-the-anti-masturbation-movement/ FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 21:45, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Social Justice Warrior

Should it be mentioned that she is a SJW, because if she is then her critics have a valid reason to call her a misandrist.--124.180.53.49 (talk) 14:45, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

SJW is a snarl word that is essentially meaningless beyond "person to the left of me that I don't like". Arawn Emrys (talk) 15:20, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Has she ever reffered to herself as a "SJW"? If yes, we should include it in the article here. Also, in canada, we have "Social Justice Tribunals" - it's more than a "snarl" word. Rational1 (talk) 15:39, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Afaik, (save for in cases of nutpicking) nobody self-identifies as a social justice warrior, or an "SJW". Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:55, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Social Justice Warriors are a collective that they call themselves, not a derogatory for feminist.--124.180.53.49 (talk) 09:46, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Remember, the failure of the Social Justice Warriors is why Trump won, because feminist can't be bitter harpies without hating and shaming men.--101.177.117.217 (talk) 14:00, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the reason Trump won — the failure of the Social Justice Warriors, because feminists can't be bitter harpies without hating and shaming men. Thanks for clearing that up. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:05, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

😆 ~ Aneris ✻ 15:54, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Trump did not win. Hillary Clinton won over 2 000 000 more votes. Worzelpete (talk) 23:56, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

@Aneris The perpetual existence of straight-faced statements such as "the failure of the Social Justice Warriors is why Trump won, because feminist can't be bitter harpies without hating and shaming men" actually adds a certain amount of credence to your theory that what you call the "ALT right" and "CTRL left" are in fact, bar some adjustments, brothers under the skin. Certainly, sides to the same guaranteed nuance-free cult of outrage. I mean, honestly — can you believe how hard it would be to get this BoN to genuinely comprehend that his mouth-frothing and hate-driven antifeminism relegates him to a level of blatant unreasonableness as bad as (if not likely worse than), say, that of Zorna? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:20, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

But he won the majority of states.--101.177.117.217 (talk) 15:40, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Dear Goat I just hope the recount goes through, so the Fascists can go back to being sore Losers instead of sore Winners. Anyway there is no Crtl Left.

At least, as far as i know, it is a made up counter movement to the Alt-right that the Neo nazis invented for their Persecution complex.--Benaresh (talk) 18:10, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Actually, you're right — but you're confusing two things! You mean, Cultural Marxism. The concept of "cultural marxism" is literally a made-up counter movement to the Alt-right which was invented by Neo-Nazis for their persecution complex. The term "CTRL Left" is a much less established term — as I understand it, a reference to two things — the regressive left, and (by extension, though importantly) to horseshoe theory. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:56, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

oooh! Cultural Marxism is indeed the Term i needed to describe it. But is the crtl-Left really alluding to Horseshoe theory or isn't it rather Psychological projection (We have the alt-right they have the crtl-left) ? --Benaresh (talk) 17:24, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, I would put it like this — I didn't say "CTRL Left" because I use that term regularly. The above use is the first time I've ever used it, personally. The reason I even used it is because I happened to notice that Aneris had used it here, in a discussion about this article. Regarding to your question about projection and horseshoe theory — I actually think that one of the brilliances of horseshoe theory is that it helps demonstrate how people who actually have very similar outlooks seem to think themselves utterly different from other people with essentially the same views. In this way, horseshoe theory accomodates the reality of projection somewhat. Like how super-orthodox jews, muslims and christians are so opposed to each other — no evangelical christian would vote for a salafist political party, and vice versa — despite them sharing 99% of the views on culture, abortion, women's rights, traditional households, drugs, pornography, gun ownership, school prayer, et cetera, et cetera. Another example is, of course, how tankies and nazis overlap. They both have super-conspiratorial world-views and see a perfect society just around the corner — we just have to put "the right people" in mass graves first. Hope this helps! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:43, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

First time I heard that was from Maajid Nawaz who used it to describe cultural radicals] who are basically the same as the Alt-Right. They do exist but they're not "Marxists" so much they appear to be extreme social constructivists who perhaps came to the logical conclusion (of their ideology at least) that because perceptions control reality that the best way to promote equality was by controlling people's perceptions. I would say their primary features, if you accept the term, would be an overtly unhinged anti-white male bigotry (as in genuine bigotry like #KillAllWhiteMales not Alt-Right conspiracy theories), apologism for left-wing authoritarianism (Purely anecdotally I know a couple people in this crowd who are somehow both this and full-blown tankies despite the difference in ideologies), full embrace of Derrida's concept of erasure (regardless of whether or not they know that's what they're doing) to control the use of emotional language as a weapon to be used against priviliged groups, paranoia, tendency towards demonization of opponents, refusal to criticize non-Western cultures and attacking those that do, attacking science and rationalism as white male social constructs, and a tendency towards groupthink and holding individuals responsible for the actions of others because they share genetic similarities (race, gender, sexuality, etc.). As far as I'm concerned, from what I know of her, Laci Green definitely does not qualify for this and I think it's weird people would think she does, given that if anything she's more of a left-libertarian. Perhaps it would be worth expanding on the concept of this Left wing version of the Alt-Right so as to show people why fairly mild people like Green do not qualify for the label? ClothCoat (talk) 05:01, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Watch "How to spot a Feminist" or "Vicious Feminist at Schools", there are the heart and soul of feminism. According to you, you can't question feminism without being a Neo-Nazi and also "you're either for us or against us", does that sound familiar?--101.177.117.217 (talk) 10:43, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

C'mon BoN, rise above stereotyping and look at a person by face value.—127.0.0.1  (talk • stalk) 17:01, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

The claim that you cannot criticize feminism (as if "feminism" was one monolithic thing, and not a term as wide and nuanced as the term "politics") without being a neo-nazi does not sound familiar, no. What did you expect, that some bullshit you just invented would "sound familiar"? Give me a break. In fact, already in the summary to our article on antifeminism, we make it very clear that what you imply here is completely untrue. I suggest you read it. I also don't think I've ever even said the words "you're either for us or against us", though I have brought up the problem of people falling into splitting like, seriously, thirty times just in the past few months. Sorry dude — I'm afraid the SJW final boss you're looking to joust is in another castle. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:14, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I will only raise above the stereotype, if you don't stereotype anyone who opposes feminism as Nazis.--101.177.117.217 (talk) 04:10, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

FFS read the actual answers to your Statements instead of immediatly playing a Victim Card. Just assume were not convinced of your arguments yet. My favorite quote comes to mind: "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it" - Aristotle

Take our points think about them and then you refute them, it is that simple. We will counter those points of course, but that way you can make a point. --Benaresh (talk) 18:21, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Though, I fear you may be expecting a tad much here from a BoN who puts words in our mouths about how "we think that everyone not indoctrinated into our cult is a Nazi" (?) or something. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:44, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Tell that to the victims of the SJWs and BLMs in the aftermath of the election.--124.177.214.166 (talk) 11:35, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Rebutted with one word: Who? Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 23:56, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Watch the reaction videos.--124.177.214.166 (talk) 11:04, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Peace be with everyone - except your mom

How come nobody has yet mentioned her YouTube endcard where she always says those horrible words quoted in the headline? Worzelpete (talk) 02:07, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Well because everybody knows that Moms never be at peace. There is always your laundry to fold,or your Homework to make, or your drunk Ex-Wife to pick up again crying on "how did all end wrong? We had something special", or well other little things.--Benaresh (talk) 02:26, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I never knew what the lyrics were. I checked on TVtropes and the lyrics are: "Peace be with everyone! ♪ 'Cept your mom, wo-hah."—127.0.0.1  (talk • stalk) 02:35, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

So should we add it with the "except" or in your version? Worzelpete (talk) 20:15, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

If you can explain why its missional. —127.0.0.1  (talk • stalk) 23:34, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Good christians are outraged at her filthy language. Worzelpete (talk) 23:57, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

^{[citation needed]}—127.0.0.1  (talk • stalk) 23:59, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Old Videos

Laci Green apparently has old videos that contradict her whole "girl love" ideas. It's covered in this video. The author also has other criticisms as well, such as her filing a copyright notice for a video that criticized her.—127.0.0.1  (talk • stalk) 03:11, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Does the atheist nav work here?

I don't doubt that she's an atheist it's just, I don't know, I think she's more notable for her sex, gender etc. kind of content than atheist one. I may be wrong of course (don't really watch her content much). I'm just unsure if the nav works here.--WMS (talk) 23:36, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Out of the two navs we can pick, top contenders likely include: {{atheism}}, {{internet}}, {{pundits}}, {{gender}}, {{sex}}, {{sj}}... It's a good question which ones are the most relevant, as I haven't watched her content. Maybe {{atheism}} and {{sex}}? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:46, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, it is a bit of a conundrum. I don't watch her content either so someone who knows at least a bit about what content she produces should be able to help with this problem.--WMS (talk) 15:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

She hardly brings up being an atheist anymore though.—127.0.0.1  (talk • stalk) 19:36, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

So, do you suggest the atheist nav should be changed on this article, CheeseburgerFace?--WMS (talk) 20:56, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Recently, her content consists of sex-ed and some social justic videos on rape.—127.0.0.1  (talk • stalk) 21:40, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Ah, if it consists of sex-ed and some social justice videos on rape, I think it would work to change navs into social justice and sexuality. I think it fits.--WMS (talk) 22:13, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Cooling it on the window sill

* dons Mod Hat * 

Page locked for a week, with Hipocrite's version in place (because I also find the relevant article portions to be highly suspect, placing us at 2-1 for now). Protip: Stick to the issue. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:19, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

The following sections were garbage.

"Views on Gun Violence" was sourced to "thedeclination.com"." I do not believe this accurately reflects her views.

"Ignorance about "Nerds"" demonstrates no ignorance about nerds.

"Ignorance about DCMA" does not present any evidence she used a DMCA claim.

Removing shit is not plagiarism. Hipocrite (talk) 13:04, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Point taken. I have edited the article to reflect your views. Kindly note that any and all problems can be solved by discussion, and there's no need to blank out any sections.

“”If it's true, let's write it down. If it's false, let's point it out.

—Rational1 (talk) 18:52, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Dear shitbird - you write this now, but you had previously asked to have me binned and this article locked all while this sat on the talk page, unresponded to. I note further your text is still garbage. You lack the competency to edit here. Hipocrite (talk) 19:01, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Mind your tone. I have responded as soon as I saw this. Rational1 (talk) 19:08, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

What is RationalWiki's ideology?

Hello Hipocrite,

What is RationalWiki's ideology? What's our ideology on Laci Green? As per my understanding of RationalWiki's policies, you are the one who is making a lot of mistakes on this page. It's possible that I am wrong. Can you point it out to me? Rational1 (talk) 19:14, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Our purpose here at RationalWiki includes:

   Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement.
   Documenting the full range of crank ideas.
   Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism.
   Analysis and criticism of how these subjects are handled in the media.

We welcome contributors, and encourage those who disagree with us to register and engage in constructive dialogue.

It's on the front page, shitbird. Hipocrite (talk) 19:16, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

So, Fuckhead. Which of these did I ever violate? Rational1 (talk) 19:23, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Your additions to this article did not analyze or refute pseudoscience or the anti-science movement. They did not document crank ideas (except your own). They did not explore authoritarianism or fundamentalism. They did not analyze or criticize how these subjects are handled in the media. Instead, they, in the case of the gun-control decontextualization and the DMCA falsehood, repeated trivially false aspersions cast at someone who does do those things by people who are those things, and in the case of your personal nerdgasm, actually WAS one of those things we are supposed to be fighting against. Hipocrite (talk) 19:29, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Again, if it's something we are to be fighting against. FIGHT AGAINST IT. Do not delete it, move it to another section, change the wordings a bit, and then write down as to what's wrong with it.

Your additions to this article did not analyze or refute pseudoscience or the anti-science movement. They did not document crank ideas (except your own). They did not explore authoritarianism or fundamentalism. They did not analyze or criticize how these subjects are handled in the media. Instead, they just removed three sections, which is vandalism. Rational1 (talk) 19:37, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Who expressed, exactly, the crank idea that she "completely ignores that teen boys and even adult men get similarly ridiculed with labels such as Nerd and Geeks." Is that you? Did you make that up? Why should I refute idiocy you made up? Hipocrite (talk) 20:06, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

You wrote - as fact - that she "She is critical of white men as leading cause of gun violence, for which she provides no evidence and completely ignores cases and areas where gun violence is more prevalent in black communities." Is that a fact? Did you make it up? Why would you write something so innane? Hipocrite (talk) 20:07, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

You wrote - as a fact - that "she filled a DCMA Violation complaint, even though it's acceptable under the fair use policy and she herself and done it on a number of her videos" Is that true? If it's not true, why would you write it, as a fact?

In summary, you are not the assignments editor, and stop FUCKING LYING ABOUT THINGS. Hipocrite (talk) 20:08, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello.

RE: White men and gun violence. She did tweet "Mental health is such a bs scapegoat for gun violence. Stronger correlation between white men & gun violence than mental illness." Due to the nature of twitter, it's hard to get anything from it. She could mean it, or she could be countering a BS statement with another BS statement.

RE: DMCA. There's one small YouTuber that accuses Laci Green of abusing DMCA. Another case, it allegedly happened seven years ago with her older account. And then again a year ago.

Re: males. WTF?—127.0.0.1  (talk • stalk) 06:36, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

The statement about white males is completely decontextualized. It was in a discussion about school shootings. RE:DMCA - lots of people accuse lots of people of lots of things. She did not DMCA anyone. Re males - it made no sense when he wrote it - it's just his broken mind spewing shit on our article pages. Hipocrite (talk) 12:38, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Let's try this again

I'm not 100% clear why this edit is meaningful, but you're not substantively discussing it. Here's the text of Rational1's edit:

== Views on Gun Violence ==

On, 13th October 2015, Laci tweeted her views on gun violence. She is critical of white men as leading cause of gun violence, for which she provides no evidence and completely ignores cases and areas where gun violence is more prevalent in black communities.

“”Mental health is such a bs scapegoat for gun violence. Stronger correlation between white men & gun violence than mental illness. #DemDebate

—Laci Green @gogreen18

== Ignorance about "Nerds" ==

In a MTV Braless video titled, "Why Do People Hate Fangirls?", Laci green claims that "Crushes", "Sexual Feelings" and "Media Interest" of teen girls are disparaged while those of teen boys are completely validated, for which she provides no evidence and completely ignores that teen boys and even adult men get similarly ridiculed with labels such as Nerd and Geeks.

== Ignorance about DCMA ==

After a Youtube Channel named "Roaming Millennial", used her photo in a video, she filled a DCMA Violation complaint, even though it's acceptable under the fair use policy and she herself and done it on a number of her videos.

Rational1, can you provide 1 reason for addition of each section? Hipocrite, can you provide 1 reason against addition of each section? αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 21:04, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

1. Is false. Puts words in her mouth she did not say.
2. Is a local invention of Rational1. No one has ever said this about her but him.
3. Is false. She did not file a DCMA complaint. Hipocrite (talk) 21:19, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

When our Dear Hipocrite says it's false, it's his personal opinion. The particular tweet in question is still live. Anyone can see it.

When our Dear Hipocrite says it's a "local invention", he means that I have debunked Laci Green, just as I am supposed to, just as you FuzzyCatPotato and numerous other PRODUCTIVE editors have done on ANY AND ALL pages of RationalWiki.

There are tweets from Laci Green, clearly saying that she will/has "filled copywrite complaint" and also that she has asked her lawyer about it. Even after this, if there is any slight chance that she didn't actually file the DCMA complaint, she clearly did threaten to do so. In any case, one or two words can be edited, the whole section is not to be deleted.

Dear FuzzyCatPotato,

Let me tell you why these sections deserve to be present. Bias by Omission. Period.

Suppose there are two politicians, A and B. Suppose RationalWiki is a news channel, let's say CBS. Suppose you are a news reporter, working for CBS.

If politician A says something bad/critical of politician B, IT IS NEWS.

As a news channel, CBS is supposed to tell it's audience about it. PERIOD.

As a news reported, you are supposed to mention it. PERIOD.

It doesn't matters if what politician A has said is true, untrue, rational, irrational, provocative, misleading, foul language,....(you get the idea).

Not repeating what politician A has said, as he has said it, in the exact words, no matter what the reasoning, no matter what the justification, would constitute "Bias by Omission". What's worse is that Bias by Omission is often a by-product of Cognitive Distortion, Cognitive Dissonance and what not.

If the news channel or the news reporter, believes that what politician A has said is irrational, then they can say:

Politician A has said, "Whatever he said, exactly, no creativity", but "Debunking politician A".

Without strict rules designed to prevent Bias by Omission and editors who may be suffering from Cognitive Distortion, Cognitive Dissonance and what not, we are doomed. Rational1 (talk) 09:17, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

This is nearly identical to what you said the last time you shit on one of our article pages and made me clean up after you. Not doing it again. Hipocrite (talk) 12:39, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

The last time, I mistook you to be an admin or someone of high position on this website, who has a good understanding of biases and how to avoid them. Sorry for that. Rational1 (talk) 15:35, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

You mean the time you were engaging in rampant quote mining against another SJW and got caught red handed? Yeah, we all remember that. Hipocrite (talk) 15:46, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

OK, let's say that "bias by omission" is a problem. What are we omitting? Why is omitting that problematic? Try to stay topical. Remember, the sum of your complaints so far are "she's dumb on Twitter" and "she might have been a dick on YouTube". I'm fine with inclusion of that material, but only if it's somehow meaningful. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 14:47, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

"He/she is dumb on twitter" and "He/she might have been a dick on Youtube" is the sum total of several articles here on RationalWiki. So, your argument that it's a small thing is invalid. Anyhow, if you insist that this is insignificant, then all such sections from all articles are to be removed, else it would be a "partiality/bias towards Laci Green".

I am close to tears in my eyes at this moment. Seriously? You want me to explain what's wrong with Bias by Omission?

When Hipocrite removes statements critical of Laci Green, there's a possibility that Hipocrite is Laci Green (or business partner/associate, real life friend or fan), who is removing valid criticism against her. If the criticism is invalid, refute it, why should it be removed?

When you are refuting a criticism, the original criticism should be presented as it is, without any omissions. Why? because there is a possibility that even after the best of your efforts, you are wrong. It happens. No one is right at all times. I am sorry. In the rare case you are wrong, most readers will read the original criticism and then read your points, and understand that you are wrong! This makes the website reliable to a certain extent, even if multiple editors are delusional about the topic.

It is our job here to point out cases in which others have engaged in such omissions. Not make them ourselves.

In regard to her filling a DCMA complaint, the girl has said that (i)Laci Green made multiple tweets about her filing a compaint (ii)Has shown screenshots of such complaints (iii) Claimed that Laci Green herself uses others' images all the time and has shown screenshots of her youtube channel which clearly shows it (iii) Laci Green has used the word "copyright violation", "contacted my lawyer" in her tweets against her and she has shown screenshots of it.

After all this, even if it is true that Laci Green didn't actually file a "DCMA" complaint, then this girl is wrong, but "little wrong", it's a "small mistake"

When any of the above mentioned 3 points is omitted, it gives the impression of this girl being "more wrong" than she "actually is".

When you do such omissions on a large scale, it gives the impression of Laci's critics being "outright crazy", "uneducated", "ignorant about law", etc... which is incorrect.

At this point, this isn't just "Bias by Omission", it's outright "mental manipulation". Rational1 (talk) 15:35, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

You are so far down the rabbit hole that you think I'm Laci Green or employed by her? SJWS ARE COMING FOR YOUR CHILDREN. Hipocrite (talk) 15:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

"it gives the impression of Laci's critics being "outright crazy", "uneducated", "ignorant about law", etc..."

You got it!

which is incorrect.

You didn't get it. Hipocrite (talk) 15:43, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Presented the opportunity to come here and justify your edits, you choose instead to just revert them over and over? Hipocrite (talk) 14:28, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I have justified my edits. I am sorry if you can't see it because of cognitive dissonance. Rational1 (talk) 15:20, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Do you think you accurately represented the context of the gun-violence tweet? Why or why not? Hipocrite (talk) 15:24, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I only think about accurately mentioning whatever her critics have said, if the context is wrong, and you know what's wrong about it, you should point it out by ADDING more content to the page and NOT VANDALISM.

I have taken your word for it and written that "it doesn't accurately portrays her views", what more can I do?

Here on RationalWiki, we are enthusiastic about writing and editing articles. If I am wrong, correct me, don't engage in unproductive edit wars. Rational1 (talk) 16:13, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

You are wrong. We do not amplify the bleatings of authoritarianism and fundamentalism here. You wrote "She is critical of white men as leading cause of gun violence, for which she provides no evidence and completely ignores cases and areas where gun violence is more prevalent in black communities." You wrote that in your voice, as a statement of fact about Laci Green. It ignores the entirety of the context of the tweet in question. It is not my job to educate you. Stop defaming people. Hipocrite (talk) 16:21, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

You wrote "thereby completely ignoring the existence of terms such as Nerd." You wrote that in your voice, as a statement of fact about Laci Green. It is not true, it is not sourced, and it is totally unrelated to what she is discussing. It is not my job to educate you. Stop defaming people. Hipocrite (talk) 16:23, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

You wrote "she filled a DCMA Violation complaint." You wrote that in your voice, as a statement of fact about Laci Green. It is not true, it is not sourced except to wingnuts. It is not my job to educate you. Stop defaming people. Hipocrite (talk) 16:24, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Yes, Yes. I agree with you. Sadly, that would mean you should leave RationalWiki. It isn't your job to check for accuracy of RW. This is a place for people who talk, discuss, make RW better both in quality and quantity. I made edits to make rationalwiki better in quality and quantity. Anyhow, if it turns out that my edit is making RW worse in terms of quality, then you can edit, but you edit should do one of these things:

(i) make it better in quantity (ii) make it better in quality. It isn't your jobs to correct my mistakes. It isn't your job to correct RW's accuracy on any topic. It isn't your job to visit RW. Stop visiting RW. Rational1 (talk) 16:30, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

It is, however, your job to not make mistakes. Stop making mistakes. Hipocrite (talk) 16:34, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

It is interesting how you are talking so much, but not telling as to what's wrong with any of the sections. Actually, you are wrong, you are the one making a mistake here. I am being courteous and talking as if you are right. I am acting as if your point of view is correct, so that I can show that your edit is wrong, even if your point of view is correct. In reality, you are completely delusional about these little things.Rational1 (talk) 16:42, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I told you what was wrong with all three of your sections. You totally ignored the context of the tweet. You invented something about nerds that she never said. You invented a DCMA notice that was never sent. Hipocrite (talk) 16:46, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Then, why can't they be mentioned on the page? Why can't it be said that the tweet is interpreted out of context. And while we are at it, would you like to enlighten us about the correct context of the tweet? Rational1 (talk) 16:54, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Let's debunk Laci Green's Critics! Hurray!!

RW is dedicated to debunking. There are a lot of people on internet who have made false statements about Laci Green. Let's debunk them here on her page. Hurray.....

P.S: I really can't make an argument more fundamental and basic than this. I am not going to make any more comments. Let's see what happens. Rational1 (talk) 18:08, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

"What does this [taking the red pill] mean for Green?"

It means she wants more money and more attention! Occam's Razor people! 90.197.152.115 (talk) 21:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Never ascribe to malice what can adequately be explained through incompetence. Most people aren't geared to handle and deconstruct toxic ideologies. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 22:01, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Turns out there's a much more simple explanation for the red-pilling. She got laid: https://heatst.com/culture-wars/romeo-and-juliet-feminists-attack-youtuber-laci-green-for-dating-chris-ray-gun/.90.197.152.115 (talk) 10:41, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

...So, do we use the first few seconds guitar riff of "That 70's Show", or "I just had sex" from Lonely Island, to provide background music for that reveal?

108.27.215.123 (talk)Krashlia

I don't see the big deal about her... 2d4chanfag (talk) 10:53, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't either, if I'm honest. I don't even know why Rationalwiki has an article on her. She's just a YouTube vlogger, for crying out loud! Surely, there are more worthy feminists out there - actual academics and intellectuals. People who have published stuff that have been peer reviewed! Not some bleeding YouTube vloggers, whose only claim to notability is having a YouTube channel. 90.197.152.115 (talk) 15:55, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

The whole "she got laid" thing screams of drama to me. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 04:27, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Green gets involved in a lot of drama despite it obviously doing a number on her health. She's with a bad left crowd and is now mingling with another bad crowd on the right. For this reason, I specifically avoided the sex drama when writing.—127.0.0.1  (talk • stalk) 04:50, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh boy

HOW MANY FREAKIN GENDERS. What a shitfest. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 20:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

That was a shitty video. Lots of JAQing off. I don't know why she feels the need to shape her opinions in the form of identity politics.—127.0.0.1  (talk • stalk) 14:45, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

did you really watched the video to the end? Because she rejects arguments from antifeminists like "there is only two gender," "gender is entirely biology." with counter examples.

Honestly, I was referring to the comment section, which was unanimously in the "MUH SEXUAL HELICOPTER" camp. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 17:08, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposal to remove "Taking the Red Pill" section

It is unclear to me what value there is to this section. It just seems to be trivial internet drama. I fail to see what is noteworthy about her "red pill" videos to justify such a large section on her page. I would also suggest removing the "leftists who turned right with age" category (I would do it myself but I am not able to edit the page). How exactly is she now right wing? -- CowHouse (talk) 2:09, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

She is apparently become right-wing to those friendly natives of the left pole (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFLX4x).Ariel31459 (talk) 13:06, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

"This video does not exist." I assume you were referring to Steven Pinker? CowHouse (talk) 16:30, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you CowHouse. Let me introduce myself: I am a big Steven Pinker fanboy.Ariel31459 (talk) 13:18, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

It definitely needs a rewrite, but I think it's definitely relevant. Apparently she is currently dating GGer and "comedian" Chris Ray Gun, and almost immediately started doing this "both sides" thing, before jumping right in bed with her former harassers. She's also started hosting anti-feminists and general bigots on her show for "aisle reaching" starting with Blair White. If her Twitter is any indication, she's sliding fast down the anti-SJW rabbit hole. Blitz (Complaints Box) 05:39, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

It seems even less relevant now. Gossip about her dating life is not the business of anyone other than her, and especially not RationalWiki. So are you saying the point of such a long section is that she used the balance fallacy? That seems quite excessive to me. How she chooses to treat people who used to harass her is, again, none of our business. She can forgive them if she wants to. The criticism that she is hosting bigots reeks of sexist double standards to me. Male feminists talk to antifeminists very often with next to no outrage, e.g. Kevin Logan talking with Sargon of Akkad and Destiny's debates. Besides, Blaire hosted Laci on Blaire's channel, so it's not even factually accurate to say Laci is platforming her. To address your last point, Laci said she "will always be a feminist." She also strongly criticised the anti-SJW community and went into detail about the threats and harassment she received. Personally, this argument that "she's sliding fast down the anti-SJW rabbit hole" comes across like a moral panic. -- CowHouse (talk) 7:46, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

The fuck do people keep reverting out shrinking this unwieldy section? Could you explain yourselves? Hipocrite (talk) 14:45, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Can we please avoid an edit war? Koidevelopment (talk) 14:53, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Not a single person has defended the section as of yet - 3 people have suggested it be shrunk. Yet, the section is reverted to the larger form. It's on the believers in the larger form to, you know, defend their edits. Hipocrite (talk) 14:58, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I've removed it. Christopher (talk) 16:54, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

That's a pretty dumb move. At the moment, I'd say she's more famous for rapidly becoming a shithead than anything else she's accomplished. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 17:09, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

If you've got reliable sources to back that up it can be readded, I've never heard of her so I wouldn't know. Christopher (talk) 17:13, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

What sources do you even use for "Shit someone starts spewing on social media"? ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 17:48, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree with ikan and suggest [2]. Hipocrite (talk) 17:52, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Only the future will tell what the future holds for her. Considering she has received tons of death threats, she must be sick of the far left. She may be transitioning to the right, she may be becoming a rationalist.—127.0.0.1  (talk • stalk) 18:58, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, because being a rightist is a rationalist position. The right is full of so many rationalists. Lol. Just look at all these rationalists: Richard Spencer, Dave Rubin, Sargon Of Akkad, Donald Trump, Alex Jones, Steven Crowder, Ben Shapiro, Lauren Southern, Milo Yiannopolous. I could go on... 90.197.152.115 (talk) 23:56, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

[3]Ariel31459 (talk) 03:08, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

[4][5]—127.0.0.1  (talk • stalk) 02:00, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

"The right is full of so many rationalists". You, sir, are a regular David Futrelle. Although I think the section should be kept, that line is proof that you ought to rewrite it. Do it, buddy. It'd mean a lot to me. Pillodendron (talk) July 1, 2017 (UTC)

Counter-proposal:delete the entire article

I fail to see how it serves RW mission statement. 90.197.152.115 (talk) 15:58, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Stick {{afd}} at the top the article and follow the instructions, I doubt it'll get deleted though. Christopher (talk) 16:31, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I think the whole thing is instructive: a pageant exploding contemporary binary thinking with a Romeo-and-Juliet motif. This is a lot of fun. I would moderate the overly messianic "Persecution" section as the two sections in succession are hilarious in a way that may not be intended.Ariel31459 (talk) 13:06, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Delete the Trump Section

I assume that most everyone agrees with Laci's general view of Trump, which seems about right to me, never-the-less the quote "Fuck you, you racist, misogynist pieces of shit..." when ostensibly addressing the Nation, make her seem somewhat unhinged, and does not cast her in a good light. Furthermore, as politics is not her strength, how is her opinion of Trump important to her biography? The biography of every liberal in this Wiki could well include the phrase "he/she hates Trump in every way possible." This is a dog-bites-man section.Ariel31459 (talk) 13:10, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Whats this about a "good light"? Since when was that something RationalWiki cared for?

"Dating Feminist Men"

I struggle to see how this is a "snarky controversy" or in any way relevant to the duscussion, except as (a completely pointless) speculation about Laci's sex-life--one that seems more like an attempt at taking a swing at feminism than anything else. The HuffPost article is mostly a conservative writer parroting the "modern feminism is bad guys, trust me" argument, and then attempting to extrapolate some statistics about who identifies as feminist (from 2015 no less) as a definitive statement on women not liking feminist guys. The second article is from a "Voice for Men" staffer, and that should be all that needs to be said (but if you actually torture yourself and read the article, it really is a pile of poorly-written garbage).

So, why have it? I'd just as soon revert it right away, but a cursory glance at the back-room nightmare that is this site makes me think that Ariel will have a shit-flip if I don't lay out why I think this is dumb and churlish.

But it is dumb and churlish. 68.146.150.79 (talk) 14:31, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I said it was controversial. I admit I was "kidding on the square." But I think I really was trying to do something else. Why is it relevant? Maybe it is not. If you remove it, I will not put it back.Ariel31459 (talk) 15:20, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Do we need this article

Honestly. This article is 25% Green's sayings (sans meaningful discussion) 75% documentation of InternetDrama™ minutiae (also sans meaningful discussion). I frankly can't how see a skeptical reader would gain anything from this article.

I propose we move the intro, an abbreviated quote, and the citations about harassment to RationalWiki:Websites. Green is a useful resource, perhaps, but we do Green no justice with this article. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 17:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

There are a lot of wrong ideas that this woman spreads online via Youtube and Twitter. Anyhow, as I see that one of the mods here is a fringe lunatic who is greatly delusional about her, there's no possibility of it all being covered here. I see that you are a sensible person, would you consider leaving Rational Wiki and starting a new website where there would be rigorous rules and guidelines so that even delusional mods can't do much harm? Rational1 (talk) 17:56, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree with FCP, there's not really any point of the article existing if it just covers Internet drama that doesn't provide any deep discussion. And yes, we can follow your advice in the second section.—127.0.0.1  (talk • stalk) 18:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

That's a good question, though I would phrase it "do we need this article? There are a lot of things one could say about Laci that are pertinent and biographical, few of which can be found in this article. Also, introducing her as pansexual next to "educator" and "feminist" is a nonsequitur. And I will mention it has a regrettable connotation. Laci's curriculum vitae is not hard to locate.Ariel31459 (talk) 01:16, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

How to deal with Green as of recently

I see some people are adding teh internet dramaz into the article. For the sake of not being like Encyclopedia Dramatica, let's please stay away from social media drama.—127.0.0.1  (talk • stalk) 02:32, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not completely against the idea of these edits, considering most of them were made by me in a very short period of time all at once, but still, I think that her recent actions of deliberately trying to make trans activists out as advocating rape and legitimately smearing science on trans issues as bunk deserves a mention, don't you think? James Earl Cash (talk) 02:39, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

My suggestions: 1: Show, not tell: Do quote Green's words and cite her actions (videos, social media, etc.). 2: Don't include material beyond Green's words/actions, excepting responses from criticized people. 3: Minimize the "detail the drama" syndrome. Focus on "bigger" events, like videos or debates, not Twitter spats. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 10:25, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

A "transphobe" comes full circle?

This is an appallingly moronic section regarding the following tweet: "Have your trans girlfriend rub her balls and dick on your face until you realize how awesome it is? I don't know dude" which Greene evidently took as unpleasant. For this she is transphobic? What? Transphobia is a good thing now? Someone doesn't understand Poe's Law.Ariel31459 (talk) 19:21, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I'd say she's transphobic for taking a joke tweet seriously, and using it to condemn the greater trans community, even after clarifications were made. Also, I wasn't able to specify this in the Fossil Record commenting section, but some of your edits lacked context or were far too speculative to be useful. That's why I reverted them. For example, all Laci did was claim that Kat treated her poorly, but didn't give any specific examples. I don't think that's very useful or clear, especially when her shift to the right has been so dramatic. James Earl Cash (talk) 21:45, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Not useful or clear? It's first person testimony. Clear enough for most folk.Ariel31459 (talk) 00:45, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Right, if you're going to give specifics on why there's a conflict between Laci Green and Kat Blaque, in an article about how her politics have inspired her to turn on her former allies at the drop of a hat, and the only thing you add is more vagueness as to why that is, that doesn't add much dimension to the picture. If anything, this lack of explanation fits more in line with how sudden her turn has been, as opposed to some more balanced view of things. James Earl Cash (talk) 00:54, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

You have it backwards James. Laci says Blaque just turned on her. I have no reason to think otherwise. It does seem sociopathic. Ariel31459 (talk) 01:25, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

The problem here is that Blaque just turning on her isn't context-neutral especially when Laci admitted to having a shift in politics, and apparently from the evidence is turning on her old allies at an alarming rate in proportion to her new choice of friends. But let's see some exchanges that make it look like Blaque is unfairly attacking her. From what I understand they used to be good friends, so an exchange with context that shows Blaque attacking her with no provocation would be better than a cherry-picked tweet that's just Blaque attacking her with no context of WHY that's the case. James Earl Cash (talk) 02:10, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Obviously Blaque is a cis-phobic person.Ariel31459 (talk) 05:51, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

23 July 2017 edit warring

@James Earl Cash and @Ariel31459, please discuss your edits. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 22:55, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

@FuzzyCatPotato I give up. This discussion is only drawing moonbats.Ariel31459 (talk) 03:07, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what there IS to discuss. There are citations for my edits, and Ariel's trying to present a "realistic" POV, that is to say for lack of a better word, balanced, is both uncited and speculative. As if Ariel needs to try and include a viewpoint that doesn't paint Laci's dramatic shift from her older material as sudden and untoward. If somebody can do that, fine, god knows I've hogged this page far too long, but sacrificing article quality and pretending her new viewpoints aren't sudden and drastic, isn't a step in the right direction either. James Earl Cash (talk) 23:09, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

@James Earl Cash I happen to like Laci Greene and the last sections, apart from being misleading, are in places dishonest. I shouldn't have to be drawing Venn Diagrams for you. You reverted my edit "some persons," in place of "liberals." Laci never made a claim about liberals. I am a liberal, and I don't think she was talking about me. Instead, I asked for a citation. The one that was in place did not mention "liberals." This is called overstatement, in editorial circles. So, I asked for a citation that justified the use of the word "liberal." Not unreasonable. Lets start with that.Ariel31459 (talk) 23:16, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I didn't even include that edit of using the word "liberal," so fine, it's a minor issue. Use "certain persons," if you want, though I think a better word can be used, and I think that she's definitely targeting the left with the association of hurt feelings and safe spaces and all that, to say nothing of how certain alt-right figures and the like have painted their antics as just "civil dissent." Still, it's a minor issue and I really don't care one way or the other. But I don't think that saying Green was justified in blocking Lindsay Amer because she "probably" felt attacked is good writing. Same with calling Sarkeesian's behavior "intemperate," when Sargon deliberately admitted to showing up to psych her out "for the lulz" as he'd put it, as one of those articles reported. Or even justifying her blanket dismissal of Kat Blaque in a snippet from a Youtube video, which is in itself yet another blanket dismissal, is helpful at all. Also, the Daily Dot article does refer to her as painting trans biology as pseudo-science, and a collection of alt-righters attacking the trans community. James Earl Cash (talk) 23:25, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

1) "I don't think that saying Green was justified in blocking Lindsay Amer because she "probably" felt attacked is good writing." Are you saying that she was not being attacked? Because it read like an attack to me. Also, there was nothing referring to any kind of justification. I presume, however, anyone is free to block people they don't want to hear from on twitter. Ever hear of Steve Shives? 2)"Same with calling Sarkeesian's behavior "intemperate": in·tem·per·ate; having or showing a lack of self-control; immoderate. That would describe Miss Sarkeesian's behavior to most people.3) "Also, the Daily Dot article does refer to her as painting trans biology as pseudo-science." How do you paint biological science? It's either accepted in legitimate Biology journals or it is not. CAre to list a biological fact that she has denied?Ariel31459 (talk) 23:43, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

1. No, she wasn't being attacked. It didn't look like she was being attacked, and her response certainly didn't reflect that she was felt attacked. Again, this addition is just speculation on your part, your usage of the word "probably," not helping things. Moreover, if you felt she wasn't justified in blocking Amer because she felt attacked, why include it at all? I think it's a bit deliberately obtuse to pretend this sudden hostility to old allies and acquaintances isn't at all related to her new association with and almost complete forgiveness of figures on the right, especially when said figures on the right have bullied her ad nauseum.

2. If a harasser of yours deliberately showed up in the front row while you're giving a speech on harassment, I'd say you're justified in calling that person out, if not to point out an example of harassment in general, then to call out that Sargon's behavior for what it is. Stop pretending like your usage of "intemperate," is neutral, or is completely context-independent of what Sargon and his buddies admitted they were out to do.

3. You're shifting the goalposts. The Daily Dot article referenced that she was attacking trans biology as misogynistic psuedo-science. That's been cited. This discussion isn't about the specifics of science, it's about what she said, and that's definitely relevant in the context of her having taken the red pill. If you want a discussion on trans science, check the transgender article, which for the record, appears sympathetic in the case of trans science as being real and not just bogus nonsense. James Earl Cash (talk) 00:04, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

OK James. It's really not up to you to decide if it is justified for anyone to block anyone on twitter. She wasn't being attacked? Is that your opinion? Great. But there was something Greene didn't like about the attack ( my term), because the result was a block.

I see you have a justification all worked out in your own world for verbal abuse. Words don't change their meanings because of your feelings.

Now you are just making shit up. If MS Greene was making a claim about biology, then what was it? Shifting goal posts, my ass.Ariel31459 (talk) 00:30, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

1. Yeah, sure she didn't like it. That doesn't mean it was at all justified, and given her newfound association with the red pill crowd, seems relevant if only because it proves she's attacking her old allies for small reasons. Good for her that she didn't like it for whatever reason, but I think her blocking old acquaintances at the drop of a hat while immediately jumping in bed with people that have been her ideological enemies and abused her in the past is noteworthy as a shift in politics.

2. There's nothing else to say here. Sargon was not the aggrieved party here, and his behavior at that Vidcon makes Green's claim that he was turning over a new leaf absurd at best. Even so, she was still willing to recognize that he fucked up there in light of her forgiving him. I think that's relevant in a section where she immediately pardoned him of all his similar wrongdoings in the past and still saw something wrong with the way he acted towards Sarkeesian.

3. She was making a claim that trans biology is pseudo science. That's all that's really needed in an article on someone who used to be gung-ho about trans rights and was generally counted on to fall on leftist ideals in these types of situations. I don't think someone like Milo Yiannopoulos needs to be an expert on cooking in order to be able to put his foot in his mouth if he actually tried to give Gordon Ramsay advice on his show, whereas someone here would rightfully note it on his page as another of his gaffes without any conflict from others. Same logic I think.

I think we're done here, as we've both had our say. I don't think we'll reach much agreement if this latest exchange is any indication, so maybe we should just let the powers that be dictate what's to be done with the article and leave it at that. James Earl Cash (talk) 00:58, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

No James, they are not going to do that. I am not going to try to force you to be reasonable. But I will continue to add text to the awful article you have helped make even worse. You clearly are butt-hurt about Laci's ostensible betrayal of the poobahs of transgenderism. You keep talking about Sargon. Sarkeesian's behavior is her own, Sargon did nothing but sit in the front row. He may be a cad, but he was a well-behaved cad and Sarkeesian was not temperate in her behavior. Maybe English is not your first language.Ariel31459 (talk) 01:20, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

@James Earl Cash Don't let that "reformed troll" scare you off of the site. "The powers that be" on this wiki are the members of the mobocracy. And with me weighing in, you've now got twice as much say as Ariel on how this article should be written. ~ ♥ 01:25, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

@Love Everyone needs a hobby. For the record, I have not suggested James go away, nor even that he not give his opinion in the article. I want some fair comment on the other side. This offends you?Ariel31459 (talk) 01:37, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Rationalwiki isn't about "taking sides"; speaking as someone who never even knew about Laci Green (nor her betrayal for that matter) until I saw the discussion on this wiki, ...I can say that in analyzing your contributions to the discussion, I very little of what I think Wikipedia would call "good faith" here. ("Assume good faith" doesn't mean "ignore evidence to the contrary and continue to assume good faith.")

Let's start with the edit over which this article was locked. You threw in a bunch of ^{[citation needed]}s into the middle of sentences, presumeably because they'd look a little more awkward right next to the citations at the ends of those sentences. Anita does have temperance issues; getting mad is basically her profession after all. Everything else James reverted, however, should remain reverted.

Oh, and... try not to use the {{DFFT}} template in a context where it can only be interpreted as telling me not to feed you. ~ ♥ 02:33, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I am pretty sure your "analysis" amounted to applying your own prejudices and not much more. I actually read all of the references. The request for references was meant as a rejection of the bad references given without removing the bad ones. Since you did not read them, obviously, you would not know this.Ariel31459 (talk) 02:48, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks @Love. For the record, I know I've been hogging this page down to minor grammar edits up the wazoo, but if someone can provide a more balanced view of things from Laci's perspective that offers context on her shift to the red pill beyond what appears to be simply turning on her old allies, great! Let them take over. But I don't think Ariel is helping and I'm willing to say that. James Earl Cash (talk) 01:46, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

@James Earl Cash I don't object to what you are saying. Some of Greene's allies feel abandoned. This is a big deal? Greene feels abandoned herself. She has said so. Is that in the article? So what? It's not about her? Huh?Ariel31459 (talk) 02:06, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I think it's a big deal when she's apparently been attacking her old friends with little to no provocation besides them taking issue with her new turn in politics. I'd say that's noteworthy, and any sympathies she's trying to garner from people leaving her when she's proven to be unjustifiably hostile to the left while jumping in bed with all sorts of her former abusers on the right aren't worth mentioning. James Earl Cash (talk) 02:27, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

By the way, I watched Greene's Gender videos. The words "Pseudo science" or any such claim about gender and biology did not occur. More bullshit from the Poobahs of transgenderism.

It's also really annoying that you think it's your business to comment on who anyone sleeps with.Ariel31459 (talk) 02:41, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

"Pseudo-science" does not appear there, but in one of the sources cited that you're still flatly ignoring, "psuedo-science"[sic] very much does. If you want your redemption to be taken seriously, you shouldn't build a giant talkpage on an article you haven't even read the sources (that you're adding ^{[citation needed]}s to) of; "reformed troll" isn't supposed to mean "reformed into a concern troll." ~ ♥ 02:48, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I am pretty sure your "analysis" amounted to applying your own prejudices and not much more. I actually read all of the references. The request for references was meant as a rejection of the bad references given without removing the bad ones. Since you did not read them, obviously, you would not know this.Ariel31459 (talk) 02:51, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not talking about her relationship with Chris Ray Gun, I'm talking about her being buddy buddy with the likes of Sargon from a shift in politics alone, who had a target on her back for god knows how long. You don't think that looks off when you're painting her as a victim of her old allies? As for her videos, it's late in my area, and one of them is three hours and a half long, that one video in particular being dated prior to the Daily Dot article. So I think right now we can trust the report as being an accurate source, not even getting into some of her hostile tweets to transgender people and science that have yet to be documented on this page. For the purposes of her sudden turn to the red pill and abandoning her old beliefs, the transphobia section should stay. James Earl Cash (talk) 02:59, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

So, you imagine Greene is in bed with all those awful people do you? Why don't you write some fan fiction? Also, the pseudo-science thing, that should fit into your novel as well^{[citation needed]}.Ariel31459 (talk) 03:04, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume there's a misunderstanding. "Jumping in bed with someone," can be taken as an expression, I'm not literally saying she's having sex with Sargon and Blaire White, or whoever else you care to mention. James Earl Cash (talk) 03:10, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Are you from Pennsylvania James? The Amish shun people who leave their sect.Ariel31459 (talk) 03:33, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

@Ariel: I'm pretty sure your "rejection of the bad references" is a sudden PIDOOMA; you sure took your time getting to the point. (This page is now well over 30,000 bytes.) My "analysis" of your discussion with James consisted of... actually reading your discussion with James.

Reviewing, once again, the edit in contention: the first {{cn}}, James has already noted stretches credulity by a painful margin. The second {{cn}}, I have just shown you did not actually read the source for. The third {{cn}} is also covered by the same citation you're probably only just now reading through for things to nitpick. And the Blaque deal? James is right; you're being ridiculous. ~ ♥ 03:14, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

@LoveThe references are all hearsay bullshit. None of them document the claims. Period. You are either very careless or a troll, and I suspect you are a troll.Ariel31459 (talk) 03:18, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

You know, I just reread the article and noticed that the video in question The Daily Dot referred to was a ten minute video specifically, as opposed to a blanket statement of her gender videos as you put it, something that no sane person would watch the entire spectrum of just to prove somebody wrong in an edit war. So now I have no excuses. And having watched the video in question, yes, she DOES refer to trans activists claims as bunk science and pseudo-science. She first mentions "bunk science" at 6:30 in part 2 of HOW MANY FREAKIN GENDERS and says pseudo-science outright at 7:03. The reference is right Ariel. Unless you have something to prove otherwise, I don't think you have much recourse to fall back on. A "reformed troll," indeed, but a troll is still a troll.

PS. For someone who loves Laci so much, it's "Green," not "Greene" :) James Earl Cash (talk) 03:39, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

@Ariel: Seeing as you are now reduced to relying on every single person reading this discussion not reading the contested sources (one of them linking directly to Laci's own tweet, the other being an article that links to every tweet it mentions), it's safe to say this is over.

Mop-work and defending-of-the-realm wasn't what I was expecting to be doing much of when I joined Rationalwiki, ...but I must say, though, that was exhilirating! Was it good for you too, baby? ~ ♥ 03:43, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

@LoveThat's alright girlfriend. I'm glad you were versatile.Ariel31459 (talk) 03:50, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

@James Earl Cash The context of pseudo-science in that quote is in reference to some feminist misunderstandings of the science. So, no. The citation is bullshit. Try again.Ariel31459 (talk) 03:50, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Doesn't matter even if it was a misunderstanding, although that's a discussion for a later time, the intricacies of biology not relevant. She was a hardcore lefty and abandoned many of her beliefs so this being one such belief deserves to be mentioned, her attack on Zinnia Jones notwithstanding. James Earl Cash (talk) 03:57, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

OK. The Facts don't matter. That's Game!Ariel31459 (talk) 04:00, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I think your demeanor has proven you're not concerned with facts one iota, so any characterization of the aforementioned biology as a feminist misunderstanding can be taken with a grain of salt. James Earl Cash (talk) 04:04, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I have never held that facts don't matter. It's just the end of rational discussion when that is the outcome. Science is important to me. Ideology to you. That's all I have to say about that.Ariel31459 (talk) 04:08, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

That's some goalpost shifting there, from saying pseudo-science wasn't mentioned at all to now saying it's not being used in the way you think it is so it can't be included, but suuuuure man. You have no ideological biases whatsoever :) James Earl Cash (talk) 04:14, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

There you go again with your shifting goal post tale: I admit I thought the words "pseudo science" were not even used. I was wrong. But I was right that they were not used in the sense that the citation demanded, that is, as was necessary to verify a statement. Tell me. Does being shown to be wrong shame you? I made a mistake, two mistakes, I put an e on Green. I admit it. Be magnanimous. Admit your own mistakes, and just to be amenable, I'll take the e off of "Greene."Ariel31459 (talk) 04:19, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Dude, the Daily Dot article was right. She compared the way trans activists used biology to a patronizing misogynistic video from god knows when without providing any real expertise on actual biology on why they're wrong besides just pearl clutching at the absurdity of it all. That's not even getting into how she scoffs at the idea that men can have menstrual cramps when one of her earlier videos from way back when is titled, "Boys can have a vag." But that's not relevant amirite? James Earl Cash (talk) 04:37, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

What? You again? Right about what? A disagreement about what? What biology book are you using? So I can get on the same page. Putting on make-up doesn't really impart scientific knowledge. Ariel31459 (talk) 04:42, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous and we're going in circles, so I'll simply say to anyone still watching this that the only reason I continued even after Love decreed the issue over was that others might still be watching and have a different opinion, so I thought I'd prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that these edits were justified. As for you Ariel, I'm done. James Earl Cash (talk) 04:47, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Love got sleepy after sex. You have done no such thing. Anyone who thinks so hasn't read and understood the citations.Ariel31459 (talk) 04:50, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Finally, to those who still pay attention to these silly things, let's agree upon one thing; if Laci Green(no e) is a transphobe, then the word is merely an insult, like fucker, sheiskopf, asshole. etc. A fine word meaning someone who disappoints unreasonable expectations of others, perhaps. I do feel transphobic at times myself.Ariel31459 (talk) 05:14, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Sure man! Being a racist ain't no thang either!

is this guy for real. James Earl Cash (talk) 07:30, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes James, quite real. Not a racist: I took the test. Try it. I hope you like it. By the way. Amer's analysis begins: "I'm not one to shit post but there's some serious bullshit next level shenanigans going on right now and I have to talk about it. This is the real story behind Laci Green's recent "Red Pill" videos." Very professorial beginning of a straightforward, non-attack.Ariel31459 (talk) 13:59, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I was referring to how you apparently believe being a transphobe doesn't have any real meaning anymore. If you believe that, then yes, you can definitely go so far as to say being a racist has no real meaning anymore.

Seriously, you're actually going to use an online test, which I'm sure is well up to par given that it's coming from Harvard, but still, using an online test as a final say to try and prove to a stranger over the internet that you're not racist? Yeah, you are definitely being too cavalier with these issues.

re: Amer. Yes, she showed an exchange in which Laci preemptively blocked her with no real explanation. I'd be pretty damn mad too talking about it and sharing it with others.

EDIT: I'm going to keep each section on topic as it is, so let's resume the debate about the Kat Blaque video here. I have no idea what you were going for with that video. She was saying Laci's political shift and claims of an open dialogue are bollocks, and selling out to the anti-feminist crowd for money, a betrayal of her former feminism. How does that make Kat Blaque anti-feminist in turn? You don't have to like her to see what she was going for. James Earl Cash (talk) 15:26, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

OK. I see KB was using the title as click-bait, despite the title of her video. But, no, she is really not worth talking about: a) according to Wikipedia she has no really significant accomplishment. b) the article on her is impressively unimpressive, c) it has been nominated twice for deletion, d) editors presume it is probably autobiographical. Yeah, she is not really important to me. RW does not have an article about her. Maybe this is all enough to justify one. Someone should write it. Not me.Ariel31459 (talk) 19:50, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

So uh

The edit in question seems very small:

@Ariel31459's edit: However, when it comes to negative reactions to her apparent ideological about-face, Green has been less receptive to friendly dialogues and dissenting views. After Kat Blaque, a feminist YouTuber, produced a parody of her initial "red pill" video, Green openly declared her a "sociopath" and claimed to have been mistreated by Blaque. Lindsay Amer, another YouTuber, reported that she privately sent Green the "kindest response I could" on Facebook, asking her to "step back" consider that the people whose criticism she was "dismissing" were "largely poc, queer, and trans/non-binary." Green reportedly responded with only "Lol. Y'all are just so oblivious." and immediately blocked Amer, probably because she thought she was being attacked unfairly. References

@James Earl Cash's edit: However, when it comes to negative reactions to her apparent ideological about-face, Green has been less receptive to friendly dialogues and dissenting views. After Kat Blaque, a feminist YouTuber, produced a parody of her initial "red pill" video, Green openly declared her a "sociopath." Lindsay Amer, another YouTuber, reported that she privately sent Green the "kindest response I could" on Facebook, asking her to "step back" consider that the people whose criticism she was "dismissing" were "largely poc, queer, and trans/non-binary." Green reportedly responded with only "Lol. Y'all are just so oblivious." and immediately blocked Amer. References

Can each person explain, in one sentence, why they prefer their edit? Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 06:56, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

One sentence? Okay, I'll see what I can do.

Ariel's edit is his own personal, uncited speculation when it comes to WHY Laci has ended her old friendships so abruptly and draws away attention from the bigger, cited issue, which is how drastically her behavior has changed following her political shift. James Earl Cash (talk) 07:30, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I am, ironically, in the part of the white knight, in defense of a dyed-in-the-wool feminist. Kat Blaque and some of her disappointed crowd are, in fact, anti-feminists of a different stripe; and my edit, modest as it is, was meant to moderate the extremist suggestions of the previous editor, without removing them or directly censoring the editor.Ariel31459 (talk) 13:20, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Trying to sum up a mess a troll has made in a single sentence is an unreasonable thing to request, but as far as that paragraph of the article goes, this one by James comes closest:

The problem here is that Blaque just turning on her isn't context-neutral especially when Laci admitted to having a shift in politics, and apparently from the evidence is turning on her old allies at an alarming rate in proportion to her new choice of friends.

However, I'd recommend you see where the paragraph was discussed already (Talk:Laci_Green#A_.22transphobe.22_comes_full_circle.3F; particularly this) for a relatively succinct display (one of many) of how thinly-veiled Ariel's trolling is. (An apparently not-so-"reformed troll".)

Meanwhile, as for the {{cn}}s (which I noticed Ariel "inserted into the middle of sentences, presumeably because they'd look a little more awkward right next to the citations at the ends of those sentences"):

Reviewing, once again, the edit in contention: the first {{cn}}, James has already noted stretches credulity by a painful margin. The second {{cn}}, I have just shown you did not actually read the source for. The third {{cn}} is also covered by the same citation you're probably only just now reading through for things to nitpick. And the Blaque deal? James is right; you're being ridiculous. ~ ♥ 03:14, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Another fun thing about fighting a troll is that as more and more evidence piles up against them, they slip up and reveal their true colors. ~ ♥ 14:32, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Ah! transphobia is fun to play with? Glad to see you are versatile.Ariel31459 (talk) 15:36, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

"Oh, do shut up"

A few months ago Weaseloid suggested that I shut up about a discussion section I started about MGTOW, which I meant to be humorous. I complied. Unlike some friends, no opinion of mine is the fixed point around which revolves the world. I respected his opinion, that I should shut up about it. Now, here in this article it seems to me that there is a kind of moral panic being expressed that originates among some of the transgender advocates. I should like to calm them. This cannot be done by disagreeing with them, and so I will not attempt to edit this article any further. In other words, even though there is nothing funny about the hysteria, I will shut up about it.Ariel31459 (talk) 15:30, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah...

Remember how Fuzzy was talking about not alienating allies in the fight against racism/sexism/general irrationality? This article is a pretty good presentation of why he's right. RoninMacbeth (talk) 02:48, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

What did I do? FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 02:51, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

You pointed out why the "SHUT UP, LISTEN, AND ALIGN" idea is terrible. I think this article demonstrates that your point is valid. RoninMacbeth (talk) 03:11, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

This? Also, this article has turned into shite.—127.0.0.1  (talk • stalk) 04:10, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

No, I meant this. RoninMacbeth (talk) 04:53, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

That Saloon link isn't working for some reason. Was the section deleted?

EDIT: Nevermind, I found it. This kind of thinking about not alienating potential allies is grasping at straws by conjuring SJW stereotypes that the alt-right would adore and doesn't actually accomplish anything. A privileged class doesn't risk anything other than hurt feelings when being criticized by the allies they're fighting for, as opposed to those being actively oppressed who have a lot more skin in the game. I'm thinking back on MLK's Letter from Birmingham Jail, where he condemns moderates for not getting actively involved enough and essentially makes the fight for equality about them in particular, instead of fighting to save those who are being oppressed. Sometimes you can't be nice and have to be as edged as possible about it. Certainly, racists, misogynists, and their ilk will be just that. Or they might take the shallow pretense of wanting people to "debate them," when that is all about getting coverage for their awful views and being more stubborn than Ahab in actually changing their views when the chips are down, all the while getting free airtime to bash on people who are fighting the good fight in the name of "civil discourse," and appearing as genteel as possible to make a prospective audience think they're better than they are.James Earl Cash (talk) 18:43, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

What did she do?

I mean I do not follow all that internet drama all that much, but other than saying "Yeah, let's talk" to people you may or may not want to talk to (though if you don't do it, how will you find out?) what did she do? I mean in "horrible" things? Evil Zionist (talk) 21:51, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Abandoned her old friends at the drop of a hat for questioning her political turn as misguided while being open to alt-right/MRA types who have doxxed and harassed her in the past (as in Sargon of Akkad) based solely on the veneer of being open-minded to opposing viewpoints, condemned Milo being de-platformed instead of people debating him (which he claims to want but only for more coverage of his awful views) and thinks liberals need to stop being so sensitive when alt-right/MRA types say offensive things no matter what their intent, has misrepresented trans activists' statements on thinking that cis people should be more open-minded towards potential trans partners as being rapey/nonconsensual/akin to gay reparative therapy when the whole point is being open-minded instead of forcing anyone to do anything, called several trans women men, misrepresented political correctness as running amok when she said colleges were banning The Vagina Monologues for lack of trans people when the truth was the theatre students chose not to perform out of respect for trans people, and called trans biology misogynistic pseudo-science whereas she once posted several videos on trans biology. Not helping matters is that she's dating a Gamergater.

It's fine if you don't want to mention "internet drama," but when a classic SJW/feminist has done a complete 180, and gone out of her way to alienate her old positions, it needs to be said. Brushing it all under the rug as irrelevant doesn't begin to cover how deep her change has been and what she truly stands for now. James Earl Cash (talk) 18:20, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I removed it because I wanted to distance ourselves from Encyclopædia Dramatica. If you really think the content should be in there, it should focus on what people say.—127.0.0.1  (talk • stalk) 19:47, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

News is news, whether it's on the TV or the web. There's nothing here to look like ED save that there's a lot of bad press about her lately, and rightly so considering she's changed so much and alienated her old positions so starkly in a matter of months. This isn't a bunch of stupid talk about her tits or whatever, it's coverage of her activities and how that relates to her, same as in the Trump, Sargon et al articles. As well, all this material has been quoted by several sources. I'm not exactly sure what else you want. James Earl Cash (talk) 19:59, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

@FuzzyCatPotato: Please see Essay:RationalWiki's coverage of politics to see how I think she should be covered.—127.0.0.1  (talk • stalk) 20:42, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I think it's important to document how far of a swerve she's made in politics, especially regarding how much she's made false claims about her former allies, all while ignoring or undermining the gross indecency of her new allies in the name of bridging both sides. This isn't falsely attributing things she never said or making mountains out of molehills, it's direct evidence that she has changed this much and the required evidence that proves it. It's only a coincidence that it involves other people on the internet, or drama as you would put it. It's no different than citing shoe0nhead's antics, and even that article, which has undergone some severe renovations, is still pretty meaty where it counts. You'd throw the baby out with the bathwater instead of appropriately making revisions and trimming the article as necessary. James Earl Cash (talk) 21:02, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Re: Drama vs Content

Get quotes ({{quotebox}} and {{cquote}} are your friend). Get thumbnails (remember the "only 2 genders" thumbnail). Get content that she produced, not piddling fights on YouTube. There's plenty of non-drama material about her political beliefs to be shown. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 22:05, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Begging your pardon, but a lot of what's been asked has been covered. There are quotes of what she said about her political shift and what is problematic about it in turn, and the "drama" in question is supposed to be specific examples of big glaring problems she's latched onto like transphobia, especially when it's someone who has made such a drastic turn to the right. What's been documented here is no different than saying Paul Elam is a misogynist lunatic, noting that Sargon hates Anita Sarkeesian and has been endorsed by The Daily Stormer, talking about Shoe0nhead's Trump support and her spats with Bearing and Roosh, or listing Blaire White's MANY transgressions. I'm seriously surprised that a number of people have made such a dramatic push against what is fairly standard fare for someone who formerly had a very bare bones article that didn't begin to cover her new activities. James Earl Cash (talk) 19:20, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

I question whether you've actually read the content you're criticizing in its entirety. The section is structured around quotes from Green and responses from notable critics. It's just worked into a more encyclopedic prose format instead of being presented as a lazy collection of blockquotes. What you're proposing would actually be a downgrade in quality. The equivalent of taking a legitimate news article and reducing it to one of those clickbait tweet galleries strung together with a few shreds of expository text.

Green's political beliefs have seemingly done a 180. She's cozying up to known bigots and bullies. That isn't just "Internet drama." More Cowbell (talk) 22:28, 17 September 2017 (UTC)