→Yvonne DeLaurenceLet's not forget his mysogyny and constant effort to 'weightshame' women with healthy normal body types. Not that anyone elses body is better or superior to another persons. I know this isn't the most relevent but it had to be mentioned.
- not a word; no scarequotes, barely quotes; healthy how?; can't even spell genitives; why not?; not a word either. Lysdexia (talk) 22:02, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Mark Dice vs Russia
So recently Mark Dice did one of his "crazy petitions" in which he tricks Americans into signing onto fake petitions, and in this one he posed as an Obama supporter getting people to sign on in support of Obama's (nonexistant) plan to preemptively nuke Russia. A lot of people signed. This would be hardly notable, except that Russian media outlets discovered the video and promptly lost their shit. ConfusedLiberal (talk) 08:23, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
The Bilderberg Group
I don't have the articles to reference in editing the article, but having met the imitable Mr Dice, I'd suggest the wiki article could further explore his utter obsession with The Bilderberg Group.— Unsigned, by: 220.127.116.11 / talk 03:43, 10 July 2015
Update the article.
So, does Mark Dice believe that somehow magically the illuminati still exists and is plotting a New World Order yet he is skeptical to similar conspiracy theories? Why? Soooo, is he like a batshit crazy, slightly rational conspiracy theorist? Despite him sometimes doing a good debunk, he is still full of bunk when it comes to his conspiracy theories right? because I'm falling down the bloody rabbit hole again...--WeakMindedSkeptic (talk) 19:50, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
- Mark Dice is completely insane. Does that help? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:23, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
- Illuminati is plural and the conspiraties aren't theòries as they aren't proven. Lysdexia (talk) 22:02, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
This is supposed to be "rational"wiki, but the article starts off calling Mark Dice a bunch of names with no context. It's just a bunch of ad hominem. If you want to be taken seriously, you can try putting a little more effort. There's plenty of stuff to bag on this guy about, but don't start sounding like a shitty buzzfeed article.— Unsigned, by: 18.104.22.168 / talk 06:16, 19 September 2017
Relocate with citation needed or revert
The most recent edit by a BoN alleges a lot of very believable mark dice views and behaviors(though with some spelling errors). It however put them in the lede as a big pileup of claims and no citation. I could relocate all those sentences to a new subhead under ==views==, and at a fact tag, or revert it as unsubstantiated, but I don't really know what would be better. Anyone know of where he might do some of the more provable "list of mosques" type things? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:02, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Ikanreed I reverted the edit in question. If you wish to add back with citations (and hopefully better spelling) go ahead. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:07, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
- lead; should; whose Lysdexia (talk) 22:02, 22 March 2019 (UTC)