Talk:Moonbat

	This Politics related article has been assessed as SIGNIFICANTLY PROBLEMATIC in one or more ways. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.
This article requires attention for the following reason(s): Too much editorialization. This article requires sources. This article contains questionable value judgements without either going into detail as to why the movements listed here are irrational and worthy of the "moonbat" label.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)

FCKH8

I don't know why the BoN is so passionate about this but I don't think we need some driveby smear on some nobody in an article that's in danger of suffering from classic RationalWiki example bloat--Hastur! (talk) 23:39, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Have never heard of them. Bet some dumb YouTuber got worked up about it and hordes of teens are getting internet mad. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 23:59, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I think it's a personal vendetta, maybe? If that's the case we don't need it in our mainspace--Hastur! (talk) 00:02, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

It's not a personal vendetta. He is a scammer who is in moonbat territory and uses social justice as a veil for his get-rich-quick scheme. --2601:199:4181:E00:B19A:D333:8A5B:CE08 (talk) 12:42, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Query

What by default makes anti-globalization, anti-consumerism, and anti-capitalism in general an unreasonable position? Inquiring minds want to know. — Oxyaena ^Harass 16:21, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Bit of a loaded question there, chum. Twodots (talk) 15:17, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

This page is filled with unreasonable valuable judgements and loaded language towards positions that just so happen not to be aligned with liberalism. — Oxyaena ^Harass 20:24, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Dude, could you chill out a bit? We can make changes, but aggression isn't going to get anyone on your side. Twodots (talk) 20:38, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Let's start with Globalization.

1) It's not actually new; the world has been interconnected since history began. Roman trade goods found their way all the way to Korea, and Chinese silk was valued back in Rome. Romans used to bitch about all the money going to the Seres (India/China) even if they themselves never met a Chinese person. Especially since they never met a Chinese person.

2) It's not a bad thing in itself that we talk and interact. Trade is the real reason wars haven't been just a "fact of life" in most of the world for nearly a century now, because it's oh so much cheaper to trade for what you want than to conquer and steal it. The world only seems like it's more at war because now we know about wars occurring instead of it just being too far away to know about until long after the dust has settled. Interaction is how we exchange ideas and learn faster than if we only kept to ourselves.

3) You are on a computer, right now. Chances are, we aren't in the same state. We may not even be in the same country. Do you consider it a good thing that we can talk? Should we return to the days of carrier pigeons in order to prevent us from talking?

Sure, there are problems, but how about reading our article on Globalization first before instantly being anti-it? CoryUsar (talk) 17:45, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

As for anti-consumerism, "consumerism" isn't actually a thing beyond being whatever the "anti-consumerists" say it is. Buying things we don't need, again, predates modern civilization by several thousand years. One could argue that it even predates humans by a few hundred million years; conspicuous consumption is a biological thing. Take, for instance, the peacock's train. Not only does this thing require a lot of resources, but it actually increases the chances of the peacock being devoured by a predator. So why does it exist? Because it's an honest signal of sexual health; a weak individual simply can not create such a train. The same for humans; a poor person simply can't own a fancy car or great clothes or so forth, and those status symbols really are a way of saying "look at me, I'm the type of person you probably should be friends or sexual partners with".

The problem with this, of course, is that these status symbols use up resources we can't replenish, that would, long term, be better off being used for a space program. This really is a problem, and I would suggest we collectively choose a new status symbol for determining who is "sexy", one that doesn't rely upon using up precious minerals and polluting the environment. One such status symbol is Vegan foods, so, hooray for that. Another, better symbol would be skills; knowing how to play the guitar should be (and is) sexier than not knowing how, and that's a skill that requires some intelligence and a lot of free time to practice, being an honest signal that this person has enough spare time to raise a child. Knowing a second or third language is a skill that requires even less materials than a guitar, and is even more useful, and guess what, it's also kind of sexy too. We can still consume and spend, but we have to spend our money on hobbies and arts and so forth instead of clothes we rarely wear or extra cars and so forth.CoryUsar (talk) 17:59, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

As usual, you're missing the forest for the trees. Anti-consumerism is not against "buying stuff," it's against the commodification of nearly everything on the planet and the upholding of little plastic pieces of shit as things that define one's self worth. Strawman of anti-consumerism and anti-globalization noted btw. — Oxyaena ^Harass 01:28, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Question

Are the moonbats more or less stupid than the perceived opinion of 'the yokels attempting to fish the moon out of a pond'? (They were actually either attempting to persuade visiting royalty or whoever from building a hunting lodge in the locality or confusing the customs officers from the contraband hidden in the water.) Anna Livia (talk) 00:34, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Yokels and the like generally haven't had a proper education through no fault of their own. Moonbats generally have. Thus, moonbats are much more stupid. Twodots (talk) 02:31, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

The distinction was 'the perceived/external opinion of the yokels/working people, who may well have a significant practical knowledge - in this case 'the art of misdirecting officialdom.' Anna Livia (talk) 11:16, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Define moonbat. Science denial is more of an attitude on the right than on the left these days. — Oxyaena ^Harass 14:10, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

You could read the article. Twodots (talk) 17:15, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

@Oxy And if that's true, what, exactly, does it have to do with the point? Even if the Right does indeed have more crazies, how does that prove that Left-wing crazies don't exist? CoryUsar (talk) 17:30, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

The leftwing variety is known as a wingnut (with the right sort of screw) - and the variety has to be defined (including Fourth and Fifth Internationals, Militant, Tooting Popular Front etc). Anna Livia (talk) 18:33, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Those aren't to me nutters, fringe for sure, but having fringe politics doesn't make someone insane. I frankly find that notion offensive, if only cuz it throws genuinely mentally ill people under the bus. — Oxyaena ^Harass 18:36, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure they're using the colloquial definition of insane - not implying or describing a mental deficiency. IveBeenFrank (talk) 18:39, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

It's still ableist rhetoric. — Oxyaena ^Harass 18:41, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

How is it ableist if it doesn't reference or imply mental or physical deficiency? IveBeenFrank (talk) 18:44, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Because Oxy says it is, duh. Twodots (talk) 19:53, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

That one is a few sandwiches short of a picnic. CoryUsar (talk) 21:51, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

That's not very nice, Cory... Twodots (talk) 21:54, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Lol. Go fuck yourself, Cory. Ableist piece of shit. — Oxyaena ^Harass 01:22, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ @IveBeenFrank Okay, how about this. What is the colloquial definition of crazy and how does it relate to the academic one? — Oxyaena ^Harass 01:29, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Believe me, if I could do that I'd probably stop looking for dates. CoryUsar (talk) 04:42, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@Oxyaena Wacky, goofy, ridiculous, or absurd. Almost never used to describe or connote mental illness. And in modern academics, I have never heard the word crazy used for any reason. Of course, if you were to travel back 100 years or so, then crazy and words like it would be used in academics to describe mental disorders. But then again, if you were to travel back 100 years, thousands of words would have different meanings. While crazy and words like it may have been used to describe mental disorders in the past, they are not now. Language evolves, and context matters. IveBeenFrank (talk) 11:03, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Lunala — a literal moon bat, but not the kind of moonbat we're concerned with

Is it wrong that I want to put an image of Lunala on this page somewhere, probably with a caption like "No, this isn't the kind of moon bat we're talking about."? --Luigifan18 (talk) 15:50, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

"Moonbats according to liberals"

I feel like this section should be removed. The arguments within are very weak ("too much civil disobedience"? What exactly is "too much civil disobedience? That's very arbitrary. How do you demarcate that?) and the examples listed are also pretty weak, and can be pretty strongly challenged by anyone with a bare minimum of civic awareness and political literacy.

For example, while globalization certainly raised poverty standards, it also contributes to neocolonialism and has been linked to the decline and even extinction of traditional and indigenous cultures (more people switch to speaking English instead of, say, Navajo). There are legitimate criticisms to make of globalization that can lead one to be an anti-globalization activist.

So I think the broad label of "moonbat" to describe an entire movement is a bit unfair and is vulnerable to the strawmanning and nutpicking fallacies. I like how we cover the wingnut phenomenon, which for some reason is fairer to the right than this article is to the left. That article does have problems, but doesn't go out of its way to list specific examples and also points that the right has reasonable people in addition to zealots. Carthage (talk) 02:22, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

The "moonbats according to conservatives" section also doesn't really seem to add to the quality of the article IMO. Ut's just a pointless listicle with no substance. Carthage (talk) 02:33, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Oh. I didn't read the first section. It does distinguish between moonbats and rational leftists. My bad. Don't write this while half-asleep, folks. Lol. Carthage (talk) 02:35, 4 December 2023 (UTC)