Talk:Lesbian gang epidemic

Bizarre thing

That's about the most bizarre thing I can think of. Is he even trying to sound credible any more? --Kels 06:49, 9 July 2007 (CDT)

Ratings is ratings. ollïegrïnd 06:51, 9 July 2007 (CDT)

Just nuked the redirects, hope no one minds :-) -αmεσ (!) 07:53, 9 July 2007 (CDT)

I think the article title should be in quotes. It looks a bit weird on its own under "see also"s. human^{be in} 13:04, 9 July 2007 (CDT)

Good idea, right now it looks like the name of some sort of niche pr0n.--PalMD^-Goatspeed! 13:08, 9 July 2007 (CDT)

I was thinking something like Bill O'Reilly's Lesbian Gang Epidemic but that sounds even worse. Quotes should be fine. ollïegrïnd 13:11, 9 July 2007 (CDT)

Not that i wouldnt watch it User:DocSock. BTW don't forget to delete the redirects.--PalMD^-Goatspeed! 13:15, 9 July 2007 (CDT)

Unless I'm mistaken, I do not have such powerz. On a side note - can anyone who still has a CP login suggest this for their mainpage news? ollïegrïnd 13:18, 9 July 2007 (CDT)

Well, anyone can check "what links here" and correct the in-links. Then Doc or I, or any other sysop, can delete the old unneeded version. human^{be in} 13:28, 9 July 2007 (CDT)

I was a step ahead on the in-links, but can't do much after that except track down a sysop and ask him/her politely. But since the sysop was asking me it threw me for a loop. ollïegrïnd 13:32, 9 July 2007 (CDT)

I'm still getting used to my superpowers. Forgive the silly request.--PalMD^-Goatspeed! 14:34, 9 July 2007 (CDT)

<- This would make a great band name. human^{be in} 15:01, 9 July 2007 (CDT)

Just think of the posters if they opened for The Cure. --jtl^talk 15:55, 9 July 2007 (CDT)

Hehe... God Is My Copilot / Cure / the Lesbian Gang Epidemic .... human^{be in} 16:26, 9 July 2007 (CDT)

God was my copilot, but we crashed in the Andes and I was forced to eat him.

title

Anyone else think we should drop the quote marks? None of our other neological articles use them... human^{be in} 17:07, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

I concur, 7.5 months after you said it. Thunderkatz^Ho! 17:12, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

Don't do it yet. tmtoulouse ^oppress 17:12, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

Fact or sarcasm? -- O'Reilly mistook a lesbian exploitation film for a factual documentary?

Was that statement tongue-in-cheek, or serious, that perhaps O'Reilly saw one of the lesbian exploitation films and mistook it for a documentary? Did O'Reilly mention such a movie as factual reference? I ask, because I really don't know.

I know for a fact, that in the deep south, an article in Southern Living Magazine convinced many literal minded people that the fictional "Lone Ranger" was an actual historical figure. And many of these readers are college educated! (but in technical subjects) The magazine article, back in the 1970s, mentioned that the Texas Rangers' Museum had an exhibit honoring each ranger who had died in the line of duty. At the end of this long grey line of memorials, was an exhibit honoring the most famous Ranger, known the world over as the Lone Ranger. When questioned concerning the possible tongue-in-cheek, comic relief of this final exhibit, placed at the museum exit, readers' responses were along the lines of "but... but... they've got his actual guns... and the mask, too!"

Perhaps there should be a museum of unintentional hoaxes and urban legends?

Nowadays there is so much sarcasm on the internet that it is difficult to separate satire from that which is intended to be statements of fact. Or perhaps this sarcasm overload has made people more skeptical than they were back in the 1970s?

Myself, I still can't figure out when O'Reilly and other commentators are serious, or sarcastic. LOL!^{— Unsigned, by: 71.207.203.133 / talk / contribs}

The clue is that "Tides" O'Reilly is an idiot.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 21:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Does anybody give a shit about this anymore?

Does a 3-minute segment from a TV show 16 years ago really merit its own article? Spud (talk) 17:27, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Apart from a few articles mentioning this Fox broadcast sporadically in recent years, it seams that most discussion around it was back when the original broadcast aired. Though I wouldn't be surprised if someone tried to dig this up to use again. --Valeria22 (talk) 19:31, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I really doubt anyone cares about the article. But that is a problem shared with many of our more politically-motivated entries - which I'm sure someone thought were really important at the time. For example, this article links to our Bill O'Reilly article which is woefully out of date and devotes much of its space to a really detailed criticism of his Fox News slot - which disappeared many years ago after scandals which caused his departure.

All this political comment which people want to put in is ephemeral, and it's unlikely many people are going to keep updating so it goes stale quickly. Or worse yet, people do keep updating it and we end up with the Brexit article. (Rant over) Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 19:38, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Eh, life is ephemeral. No one is going to care much about Time Cube either in modern times, but as a historical artifact to a particular slice of 2000s Internet life, it's fine. And Bill O'Reilly really has not done nothing much since the Fox News gig, so as a slice of "old school" Fox News, the article I suppose also works (more as a bit of spiel back when yer World Net Daily and birth certificates were the crazy of the day, and also a reminder that fake news is nothing new).

That said, this article has more of that older trolly RW feeling (one citation, irrelevant stereotyping "jokes") and IMHO is too trivial to be its own article.BobJohnson (talk) 20:25, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Just about everything is ephemeral if you take the right timescale. But Lesbian gang epidemic and Bill O'Reilly are going to vastly more ephemeral than homeopathy or Flat Earth.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 11:43, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I do value this sort of thing as at least a historical artifact, but also: you never know when old bigoted tropes can randomly be resurrected again. Racialism manages to find new life with each successive generation, and all sorts of homophobic tropes get revived once in a while too. A decade or two after the "gay people are pedos" thing more or less died out in America as a conservative talking-point, I've seen fascists try to revive it using the exact same arguments and sources that had been debunked previously; thus part of the value in keeping the responses to old shit around. Chillpilled (talk) 21:01, 3 April 2023 (UTC) I mean Tucker Carlson was on Fox (lest we forget, he's who replaced O'Reilly!) just a week or something ago trying to talk up transgender mass shooters targeting Christians as a new moral panic based on one case. The parallel is kind of hard to ignore. Chillpilled (talk) 21:12, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Yeah it really did strike me that this was a slice of the bad old days of RationalWiki. Well, I've edited it to remove the fake statistics, the stereotypical crap about butch dykes and the "hot chicks kissing" stuff that could have come straight from Beavis and Butt-Head. I've also made some of the external links references instead. I still don't think this deserves its own article. I think it should be part of a homophobia section on the Bill O'Reilly page. But I'm not going to nominate for deletion just now. A certain somebody's block expires tomorrow and I think we'll all have bigger fish to fry after that. Spud (talk) 11:54, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Wouldn't object to a merge and redirect, myself. I have no idea who you're alluding to but I guess I'll find out shortly. Chillpilled (talk) 20:41, 4 April 2023 (UTC)