Information icon.svg Nominations and Campaigning for the 2022 RationalWiki Moderator Election are now closed.

The election booth is now open!

Talk:Megan Fox

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to 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.

Missionality[edit]

As far as I can tell, this article has two main points: 1) Ms. Fox created the internet-era equivalent of a couple of nutty letters to the editor of the local newspaper. 2) She also frequently used a law which, along with death penalty appeals, I think even a level of abuse should be tolerated.

My neighbor is a devout catholic who loudly curses at his TV. My creationist teenage nephew is trying convert his classmates. They are almost as deserving of an article as Ms. Fox. MarmotHead (talk) 12:52, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

And I'm sure your neighbour and nephew will get articles too if they gain enough notoriety on the internet. Why have articles on TheAmazingAtheist or Thunderf00t if all they've done is make some YouTube videos and write some stuff in blogs and forums? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 13:08, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
What notoriety ? A few people are talking about her. So what? Even then, she's inconsequential to the mission of this project. If a big Hollywood star expressed the same thing, it'd still be marginal for coverage here beyond a few snarky comments in the Saloon. In importance to this project, she's somewhere between a street corner preacher and a racist candidate for the homeowner's association. If RW were focused on survival of local libraries, she'd be more important, but even then, not so much.
As for TheAmazingAtheist or Thunderf00t, they have actual largescale following and a years-long record of idiocy. That's different. MarmotHead (talk) 13:30, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
From what I've seen virtually every atheist on the internet has talked about her and her videos. Were that the only thing she did I wouldn't see her deserving of a page on RW. However I think that her incredibly stupid lobbying campaign against a public library is just enough to warrant a brief article. All that being said I doubt we've seen the last of Mrs. Fox, sooner or later she's bound to do something else worth a mention. Samstr (talk) 18:05, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Did you go back and look at what you wrote and how you wrote it when I called this article shitty groupthink? Nutty Roux (talk) 20:57, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
When/where did you call it shitty groupthink? Samstr (talk) 22:05, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
He called it that in the edit summary when took the scalpel to the article. Nutty has a grand vision of he wants RW to be, and he tends to get a little gruff when articles pop up in defiance of that vision. --Inquisitor (talk) 22:14, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
I got that impression about nutty, I just didn't take a look at the fossil record. Well that explains it then.
I know I'm the new guy on the block but I tend to favor a fanciful writing style that places emphasis on humor. I definitely support the RW mission, but I like going about it in the most snarky manner possible. Perhaps this article could be moved to funspace instead of deleted outright. Samstr (talk) 23:10, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Your snark was a cover for paper thin analysis. Your humor was not humorous. I happen to think Megan Fox is interesting enough to cover. Briefly. I also happen to think that funspace shouldn't be a dumping ground for things that aren't fun just because people didn't want them in mainspace. Nutty Roux (talk) 23:51, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Unlike Nutty, I don't think she is interesting enough. Not yet, at least. I do think it read too much like, "Dude, you'll never believe what I saw on the internet." I also think her library-related work is much more impactful and relevant so far. MarmotHead (talk) 00:23, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
If you think that the analysis really is paper thin I would appreciate some specific advice. You seem to agree that she warrants some coverage, yet you don't appreciate what I have done. I don't want you to misunderstand me, I'm really not trying to be antagonistic here. That being said, I would prefer it if you either gave me specific advice on what to improve in my writing or made those contributions yourself. I'm open to constructive criticism of my work, but I don't think simply saying my analysis is paper thin really helps me. Samstr (talk) 21:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
The article read like "lol she's a stupid creationist look at how stupid she is." The library situation is obviously unrelated to her comments at the Field Museum. It has nothing to do with creationism. In fact, her basic position isn't frivolous. Some libraries prohibit pornography on library computers. Others permit it, oddly typically claiming that viewing pornography is protected 1st Amendment speech, which I think is ludicrous, but maybe I'm behind on the con law on this issue. That Fox wasn't allowed to use a computer in the children's section is interesting considering her complain is about people viewing porn in the adult section. She claimed someone was diddling, but the police found no evidence this was true. Nonetheless, not wanting to be around people watching porn and not wanting porn permitted in a public library where children might see is a perfectly reasonable position. One might say something snotty like "grow up it's just porn", but I bet you'll find a lot of parents (conservative and liberal) don't want porn being viewed in public places. What happened after the library's initial response, which it took in good faith based on legal counsel, is weird for at least three reasons. If I'm straight on the facts, Fox started issuing FOIA requests seeking information about the porn policy. The library apparently had a board meeting that was required by the Illinois Open Meetings Act to be public, however the Trib article says something like the timing and announcement of the meeting was squirrelly. Fox wanted to attend to address the porn issue through appropriate channels. After she learned of the meeting, IIRC she issued a staggering number of both legit and frivolous FOIA requests. Again, that's not inappropriate to some extent, although she clearly got really weird about it. What's absolutely puzzling about the whole situation is that the library claims to have spent $125k on two employees to handle Fox's FOIA requests. First, not even tall building law firms pay that much for temporary staff to handle trivial matters like processing FOIA requests. Second, I'm not exactly sure of the circumstances under which each of these provisions would apply, but the Illinois Freedom of Information Act permits a public body to (a) charge for copying, (b) charge up to $10/hr for employee time required to respond to requests, and (c) deny requests that are simply burdensome to respond to. In other words, everyone involved is acting strangely. As to Mehta, he really blew some credibility by stating things so simply while reminding people of Fox's trip to the Field Museum, which is irrelevant except to poison the well. That's fine, but if you're going to do it, you ought to acknowledge that the situation is more complicated than "hey look what this stupid creationist home school mom is doing to cost this poor town." My point about groupthink is that this is yet another instance of so-called skeptics piling on without bothering to dig a little deeper. It happens all the time on RW with people dismissing arguments using words like "debunk" and "refute", which are things I've seen to be way beyond the ability of some of our users. Nutty Roux (talk) 00:40, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
So in short, just a local kook with a semi-legit beef with the local library, who happens to be currently enjoying 15 minutes of internet fame for creationist foolishness. Doesn't sound like it needs an article at this point. I do somewhat disagree with the groupthink diagnosis. I think RW has more of a tendency to fall into the "too good to check" mentality. --Inquisitor (talk) 01:14, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
No, that's not what I said. Where did you get that?
I need to do some more reading. There's more to this and I may have gotten wrong parts about her wanting or being able to use the adult section computers. Nutty Roux (talk) 03:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
It's synthesis of my opinion and the mono-block synopsis that you wrote. --Inquisitor (talk) 05:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
As it bears no resemblance to what I said, let me suggest that it's just your opinion. What does mono-block mean? Nutty Roux (talk) 13:09, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Figured out what you meant. Nutty Roux (talk) 13:15, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Pretty much. A "mono-block" is when you stick two or more separate mono amplifier channels into a single chassis. In some engineering circles it's slang for when somebody writes a wall of text. Because you have multiple discrete thoughts shoved into a single paragraph.--Inquisitor (talk) 18:18, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with marmot[edit]

This article should barely exist, and if it must, it should not be longer than his/her/their proposed edit.

On occasion, Rationalwiki can feel uncomfortably similar to TMZ, which I promise you is not a good thing (lol) Parogar (talk) 00:22, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I want RationalWiki to be more like WorldStar! Lol!Baecard (talk) 01:10, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

LOL it's heading that way, it seems Parogar (talk) 01:23, 14 December 2014 (UTC)