Information icon.svg Nominations and campaigning for the RationalWiki 2019 Moderator Election is underway and will end on November 16.

Talk:Lauren Chen

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon sociology.svg This article contains information about one or more living persons.

Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats.
Reference any contentious allegations solidly; unreferenced allegations should be removed.
If legal threats are raised on this page, please direct the potential litigant to RationalWiki:Legal FAQ; do not interact with them.

Lol[edit]

Elizabeth Warren ROFL. Nuff said. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 18:52, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, giving racist ideologies any credence is dumb as hell. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:58, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

She's not actually an alt-right sympathizer[edit]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDRDcoPJlVY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPOmu9fdIr8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTjkc58U-vs

Rather than cherrypicking tweets from 2016, how about more recent things? Plus, the alt-right wasn't as well defined as it is now. — Unsigned, by: 107.137.91.108 / talk / contribs


Agreed[edit]

She's a very moderate conservative and clearly NOT far-right! TaraElla (talk) 11:43, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Hit Piece[edit]

This page seems to be structured as a hit piece. Other than the first couple of paragraphs the page makes several points I would consider slander.

For someone with a Political Youtube channel, it makes sense that they interview people with a diverse array of political views. If your case that someone holds racist sympathies because they have a single interview (out of many) with a controversial or racist figure, then it is a very weak case. As a result I would describe these talking points as slander rather than something informative.

So it would be nice if Wikipedia applied its anti slander/defamatory policies with more consistency.

Lauren Chen does not show any behaviour suggesting she is a racist or a socialist. So why is her page structured as a hit piece?

— Unsigned, by: Vurdmeister / talk / contribs

@Vurdmeister Look at your URL. Good, now look at the site logo. Now understand that you aren't on Wikipedia or any of the Wikimedia projects. That means we aren't bound by their rules, though we do try to be as accurate as possible. At no point does the article accuse her of being a Socialist. In addition the charges of racism are sourced to her Twitter account, implying her own words indicate her position. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:25, 7 January 2019 (UTC)


This article needs "balance"[edit]

The commentary is clearly one sided and presumes that any debate on the topic of “non-binary” or “transgender” concepts that do not conform to LGBTQ preferences of the day are based in either “hillarious” pseudoscience or hate. To denounce opposing views in this way is a logical fallacy.

The idea that gender is a subjective construct is a new notion and worthy of discussion and debate. To ridicule one side, or the other diminishes the opportunity to explore the topic. — Unsigned, by: Arawn Emrys / talk / contribs

Fuck you bigot. LGBTQ+ people get to decide what constitutes hate, not you. Euphoric Intelligence (talk) 18:31, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
"LGBTQ+ people get to decide what constitutes hate, not you." Are you serious about that? I seriously can't tell. But I agree with Arawn, you can feel the article eradiating bias. 84.59.247.87 (talk) 21:22, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Whatever. The other " concerned" side isn't worth our time. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 21:27, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
that's a great statement for a wiki called rationalwiki to be honest. I still don't know if you're joking since it's so far away from a useful debate. Isn't rationalwiki for critical thinking? How do you want to think critically by ignoring the other side? 84.59.247.87 (talk) 21:52, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Please read our mission statement and policy pages before you proceed. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 22:08, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
I did read it before, that's why I'm so suprised. I don't see a way to get your statement (please note: a mods) and the mission to a state of consistency. If you report one sided and ignore the other site it's a priori impossible to think critically. Hence my only conclusion is that the project is unreliable. But it's not the first dubious site I visit, it won't be the last and there are most likely worse ;) 84.59.247.87 (talk) 22:50, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
I see little reason to give weight to the "other side". Your lecture about being "balanced" and "respectful" to someone who thinks racism doesn't exist today or feminism goes against "family values" means nothing to me. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 04:52, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
She's now a host at Glenn Beck's TheBlaze which, of course, is known for hiring (and broadcasting to) committed centrists... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BsuW2POXNJU. The constant pontification about "the west" getting compromised by youknowwho is so not alt-right shilling, right? Balance, my ass. — Unsigned, by: EauDeCologne / talk / contribs

Lauren Chen is a liar[edit]

In this lo-quality video I posted on YouTube I explain how Lauren Chen blatantly lied about Ana Kasparian not substantiating a claim that Dave Rubin was being funded by the Koch Brothers. I was going to add this to the page, but I wasn't sure if pointing out that she's a liar was something worth adding. Gynocentrism Watch (talk) 14:39, 30 April 2019 (UTC)