Talk:Nathan Larson/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 12 November 2022. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Petition

• https://www.change.org/p/the-fbi-needs-to-investigate-all-users-and-remove-the-website-rapey-co MrYellow (talk) 22:06, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Draft?

Why was this moved to draft? Most of it is well sourced.MrYellow (talk) 02:04, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Mod inpoot requested here.

@Ace McWicked@Bongolian@RWRW@Scream!!@Spud

Some sources are of questionable origin. The narrative brings Abd ul-Rahman Lomax into the mix, which is, on this wiki, highly contentious. I am highly suspicious of bringing any Abd drama into any article in RationalWiki, as this is almost always a magnet for flame wars and useless drama and bullshit. There is also a lot of highly personal drama "documented" here, such as his wife's suicide, which I don't think is missional at all, and which is borderline doxxing and inappropriate for this wiki. A lot of the article reads like an Encyclopædia Dramatica hit piece, and that is definitely not what we want here. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 02:22, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Just in case you guys didn't know. Abd Lomax visited Larson in prison and gave him a board game. There is a 12 year friendship between Larson and Lomax. I don't see why it would be "drama" to document it. Both of these guys were responsible for closing down WikiInAction on Reddit earlier this year. 2001:41D0:601:1100:0:0:0:10B3 (talk) 02:34, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

My point above is proven. See? Useless drama. Who gives a shit about this? How in any way is this missional to RationalWiki? —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 02:44, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Well I added the section mentioning Abd as a rebuttal to the idea Larson is a troll and not a real pedophile. The troll idea has now been mentioned in numerous YouTube videos because of the recent petition about Larson being called a pedophile with 180,000 signatures - a minority viewpoint shared by Abd is Larson's online persona as a pedophile is a joke and not serious. Much can be added about Larson's crazy views that fall more within the mission statement, some are already documented. Read his political manifesto https://archive.fo/9Lvao. Larson also owned a wiki named Child Wiki that supported things like allowing children to drive cars and being able to buy and drink alcohol. MrYellow (talk) 02:53, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

You fail to answer the question, why is this missional? Have you ever clicked on the link? —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 02:57, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Larson's extreme and bizarre form of libertarianism for many things falls under "Documenting the full range of crank ideas". Some of his views are mentioned on the article. But he's not a consistent libertarian and he has plenty of other extreme ideas, for example he believes women and children should be the literal property of men to the extent he believes husbands can rape their wives and children. The fact he has a 10+ year history of extreme views many people have never heard of seems pretty missional. In my personal opinion your complaints have nothing to do with the mission of this wiki - it's because this wiki has a history of being soft on pedophiles. I create an article criticising a pedo and predictably it's being censored. MrYellow (talk) 03:04, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

>In my personal opinion your complaints have nothing to do with the mission of this wiki - it's because this wiki has a history of being soft on pedophiles. I create an article criticising a pedo and predictably it's being censored.

There is no censorship happening here. I did not delete any of the content you posted, nor did any other editor here. I consider it highly insulting that you think this wiki is "soft on pedophiles" and that you think moving it to the draft space is equivalent of "censorship." I am not censoring you. I am asking for community input to make this proposed article worthy of promotion to the main space. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 03:44, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

No it's not useless drama. There is a current FBI investigation into Larson and there are news sources on this that mention Larson. Lomax and Larson are both alt-right and Larson is very notable for his pedophilia and white supremacy. These articles are missional. Are you saying Larson is not notable? 2A04:1741:0:A:0:0:0:0 (talk) 02:58, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Indeed: https://www.newsweek.com/petition-fbi-investigation-child-abuse-pedophile-forum-1532583 MrYellow (talk) 03:06, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

It's clearly missional to debunk white supremacists on RationalWiki. Larson is more notable than someone like Noah Carl so I don't get why you would suggest an article on him is not on missional. 2A04:1741:0:A:0:0:0:0 (talk) 03:05, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

"There is also a lot of highly personal drama "documented" here, such as his wife's suicide, which I don't think is missional at all, and which is borderline doxxing and inappropriate for this wiki." Bruh it was in the news. I'm fine with it being removed though. Neiltyson1fan (talk) 21:24, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Can the people who drafted it just remove what they didn't want in it and move it back, if people war over this stuff it'll stay in draft forever due to contentious topics. The article was topical, relevant, and interesting. Kiwifarms stuff doesn't an RW article make, as was implied here. This was sourced from direct statements by larson or news outlets. Neiltyson1fan (talk) 21:28, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

The article needs to be moved to mainspace. I am tired of seeing baseless allegations on here of "doxing" or "borderline" doxing. We have newspaper sources and websites Larson has used himself that mention his ex wife's first name. There is no doxing. The information is entirely public. Johns (talk) 22:13, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Cosmikdebris we don't really need to mention Abd. If there is news coverage would could in the future but right now it is unneeded drama. So his name has been removed from the article. Johns (talk) 22:38, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Agreed - I see the Abd stuff has been removed. MrYellow (talk) 03:33, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

RW ban?

I understand he was one of RW's first absolute fuck-off never come back bans. Who came before him on this score? Cos Larson's ban was special - David Gerard (talk) 23:13, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

There's now two paragraphs in the lede saying the same thing RE December arrest

Maybe the person who added the second can merge them Neiltyson1fan (talk) 00:09, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

WikiInAction section suspiciously removed by JudgeDredd

What was the reason for removing this?

In June 2020 the subreddit WikiInAction was semi-closed (so no new posts could be made) after Larson spammed child pornography. Larson also created an account named "iluvhvngsexwchildren". In December, the subreddit was reopened with new moderators as a forum dedicated to mocking Conservapedia.

Could it be that JudgeDredd was defending Larson on the same subreddit, and didn't want him banned despite he was spamming child pornography? 88.202.180.249 (talk) 14:35, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I ran a bot, which recorded the submissions to the r/WikiInAction subreddit, during the relevant period. I can say with absolute confidence that the posts you refer to, since removed, did not contain material which constitutes child pornography. I retain copies of the aforementioned posts, which I can refer to if necessary. Further, since Nathan is an identifiable person, and what you accused him of there is a criminal offence, the wiki would be liable to a libel suit, if the claim is not supported by a reliable source. There is no reliable source covering the alleged incident, it cannot be legitimately included. Judge Dredd (talk) 15:43, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

meds

firstly, paxil has some issues it seems. not the worst but still. has issus. nothing to suggest it have negative consequences for larson, whose reddit post is the only source for the assertion 'Larson's criminal history was probably due to or highly exacerbated by the antidepressant named, Paxil'. paxil isnt even the only drug he mentions, while claiming it highly linked to criminal behaviour 'more so than any other depressants' isnt true at all. there are a few that seem to be ranked worse in the very references we cite (and dont mention larsons specific usage at all - its ony larsons reddit comment to suggest it had any negative effects at all.)

secondly, the psychiatric report for fbp and the accompany note seem, with the previs section imply 'not me mister, its all the ide effects of me meds' theres no other purpose for this information cribbed from the a court decision of an appeal to be there. but neither note nor court decision support this. the note quote's about impulse control and dangerous behaviours ends with 'during and after these incidents he was treated with prescriptive medications for the purpose of countering poor impulse control.' 'during and after' is very much not the same as causing or even aggravating incidents. he was prescribed meds to deal with these incidents. directly before the quote 'while no drugs were totally effective and he experienced certain negative or common side effects: (1) his mental health problems were generally improved or controlled with medication; (2) each time he reported negative side effects from certain medications, his medication was changed; and (3) he eventually was prescribed at least two identified medications which seemed to cause improvement without adverse or negative side effects.' the court decision btw was on appeal by larson agsainst being ordered to take med to prevent him going of the rails. his psychiatric record had suggested medication helped, his own mother claimed they were necessary for violent incidences. the decision later claims his medical and psychiatric history undisputably show he requires meds to control his conditions, going on to say 'The district court did this when it explicitly outlined some of the serious mental health issues Mr. Larson experienced, including his inability to control his impulses, which the record demonstrates occurred without proper prescriptive medication, and other related self-control problems, such as his threats against authority figures, personal and physical attacks against others, and the danger he posed to himself and others.'

the two sections combined imply dodgy meds are the cause of his transgressions. overtly in the first bit and by quote mining an appeal to suggest medication was significant in causing bad events, when the opposite is true (or concluded. if they did have a negative effect, none of these sources support such a claim, just muddy the water). bear in mind also the appeal was against part of court judgement which saw him sent to prison. the appeal did not see him get off which if he may well have done if it was true that it was his meds all along. hes not even making the claim himself that meds caused the crime he was convicted of, and not what he was appealing. which lost any how.

gonna delete or significantly remove misleading, or at best point pointless, information baselessly absolving him of responsibility for his crimes. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:00, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

The citations clearly said Paxil causes violent and criminal behaviour in those under 18, when he was prescribed them, this is just all dancing around that fact. This isn't even a pro-psychiatry vs anti-psychiatry debate, Paxil is *SPECIFICALLY CONTRAINDICATED* for those under 18. It's also true he took Paxil for an extended period of time before age 18. It's certainly a good explanation of some, but not all, of his behaviour Neiltyson1fan (talk) 22:57, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

“”Prozac (fluoxetine) was most commonly linked to aggression, increasing violent behavior 10.9 times. Paxil (paroxetine), Luvox (fluvoxamine), Effexor (venlafaxine) and Pristiq (desvenlafaxine) were 10.3, 8.4, 8.3 and 7.9 times, respectively, more likely to be linked with violence.

—The livescience citation and the peer-reviewed study

Also, it wasn't a Reddit thread I linked Neiltyson1fan (talk) 23:01, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

“”"I have some pleasant memories, but it was kind of hit-or-miss because I also had a lot of miserable experiences and didn't really consider myself happy. I tried many different antidepressants -- Paxil (which impelled me to carry out a school shooting with a urine-loaded Super Soaker)"

—Nathan Larson https://archive.is/wip/8xaEI

Using Occam's Razor, cuting to the most likely cause, either him being "possessed" in a religious fashion, or... some combination of extreme narcissism and poor medical care, it's obviously the latter Neiltyson1fan (talk) 23:06, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

“”"Jury finds drug 80% responsible for killings ... A US jury in Wyoming has found the British based pharmaceutical company GlaxoSmithKline responsible for a spate of family murders and a suicide committed by a patient taking the antidepressant paroxetine, which is marketed as Paxil in the United States and Seroxat in the United Kingdom. The jury awarded $6.4m (£4.6m) to the surviving family of Donald Schell, a 60 year old man who killed his wife, daughter, and granddaughter before killing himself.

—https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1173337/

^{— Unsigned, by: Neiltyson1fan / talk / contribs}

Can we apply a version wikipedia's "No original research" principle here? The conclusion that Paxil can be held partially responsible is sourced only from an appeal and is otherwise an inference made by (an) editor(s) based on information from other sources. If the article mentions Paxil it should be mentioned along the lines of:

In *insert court case here* *insert person or persons here* made the claim that a medication, Paxil, was in part responsible for *insert objectionable actions here* as part of an appeal. Paxil has been found to *insert whatever sourced statement about Paxil is appropriate here*. The appeal was denied.

Mentioning the paxil argument in any other form would seem to me to give that argument a weight that is not born out by the evidence. SolPyre (talk) 23:38, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

@Neiltyson1fan "Using Occam's Razor, cuting to the most likely cause, either him being "possessed" in a religious fashion, or... some combination of extreme narcissism and poor medical care, it's obviously the latter." This is a weirdly constructed dichotomy, who the fuck brought up possession as a possible explanation for NL's behavior? SolPyre (talk) 23:50, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

@Neiltyson1fan@SolPyrethe evidence presented just does not support the claim 'criminal history was probably due to or highly exacerbated by the antidepressant named, Paxil'. it does not support it was the cause of 'his first anti-social behaviour'

there is only one source for for larson taking paxil and being aversely effected by it, larsons own post not on reddit, my mistake there, but an incel site which does not in an way make it a more reputable source. in this post he describes his 'prime' as 2000 to 2008 but had some miserable experiences

“”I have some pleasant memories, but it was kind of hit-or-miss because I also had a lot of miserable experiences and didn't really consider myself happy. I tried many different antidepressants -- Paxil (which impelled me to carry out a school shooting with a urine-loaded Super Soaker), Zoloft (which sent me into a suicidal depression that impelled me to steal money from a McDonald's cash register to buy a gun with which to kill myself), Wellbutrin (which sent me to the hospital with a seizure), Serzone, etc. I'm actually happier now, even though I'm not getting any pussy.

note 'many different antidepressants'. the sole mention of paxil is followed by mentions of zoloft, wellbutrin, serzone.

he would have been 19-20 years of age at the start this 8 year period he considers his prime. not under 18 when paxil would contraindicated. there is nothing to suggest here that he took paxil for an extended period of time nor when under 18. if he did hes not saying so here.

there is no medical history. there is nothing saying how long he was taking any of these medications (he was also getting high alot too in this period which is surely something to consider here). nothing saying his state mind before taking these medications, nothing saying what he he was taking them for, what else he was taking them for. there is nothing concrete here just vague reminiscing on an incel forum.

it gives no indication of his criminal history or anti social behaviour before or during this period, save the super soaker incident and theft from macdonalds - no suggestion at all that this was the first of such incidents or any kind of timeline showing when they occurred in relation to anything else.

the 3 misdemeanour convictions prior to his prison sentence possession of marijuana 2 counts and one of sending a 'lewd email'. there is nothing to link to his use of antidepressants or if they occurred before this super soaker incident, or after, nor any indication of the time passed between each event.

his appeal against mandatory medication as part of his sentence, made according to the other wiki because he does not believe he is mentally ill, is no longer cited. it failed as it was established from his medical and psychiatric record he needed meds to moderate his behaviour not that meds were the cause.

“”'The district court did this when it explicitly outlined some of the serious mental health issues Mr. Larson experienced, including his inability to control his impulses, which the record demonstrates occurred without proper prescriptive medication, and other related self-control problems, such as his threats against authority figures, personal and physical attacks against others, and the danger he posed to himself and others.'

the appeal noted that when problems with his meds were reported they were changed, until a working combination was hit upon. there was no mention of any particular medication in that document.

the appeal document was the only source that questioned medicating larson, as that was the point of the appeal, but it still didnt support that his meds were significant in his criminality generally, or for the crime he was convicted specifically.

dangerous side effects of paxil and court cases affirming them are of little point here. it does not show paxil causes violent behaviour in all who take it, and it doesnt show that it did for larson. studies show an increased likelihood of such effects but do not prove anything to do with larson . the court case showed it was significant in that particular case. that case did not involve larson and doesnt prove anything concerning his own reaction.

the only source we have for larson being being negatively effected by paxil is larson himself in a vague post of uncertain veracity to an incel forum referencing an incident with a super soaker. its the only mention of paxil at all. that is it. from that we have an assertion that his criminal record resulted or was significantly effected by this medication. its not supported by anything cited now or in previous versions. its not even claimed in larson in this one comment its all resting on.

does occams razor really apply when there is no evidence to suggest anything at all? i feel you need quite an extensive look at someones upbringing, their background, their current circumstances, psyche evaluations, and the like to have anything to ay about someones descent into criminality. all we have here is a vague post on an incel site. if were really a significant factor it would likely be an argument in his defence in court, larson himself would have a lot more to say than 1 online post. there is not enough here worth bothering to even mention that we dont know - even that gives it more weight than it deserves. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:38, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

AMG when I read his edits last night, well, quite frankly, it seemed like some sort of bizarre apologia. Leucippus 18:45, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

AMassiveGay, you make a convincing argument. SolPyre (talk) 19:59, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Ah yes, the old "appeal to villainy" argument (I don't know if such logical fallacy has an official name) which goes "if I don't like the contents of this, I don't need any rational argument, I can just say the person they're discussing is a complete monster and thus their argument is invalid". --2001:BC8:1824:103F:0:0:0:1 (talk) 16:05, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

From what I remember, he'd been, legally, mind you, complaining about forced meds since the 2008 stint. Personally, he was a lot more vocal about the damage they were doing to him. So it's not something he pulled out of his rear in 2020 or whenever it suited him. --2001:BC8:1824:103F:0:0:0:1 (talk) 16:05, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

For me, Occam's Razor is that if it can happen, it probably did. Especially when concerning biology, which is poorly understood even as we live in 2021. All you need to do is look about the whole Coronavirus and antivirus fiascos. --2001:BC8:1824:103F:0:0:0:1 (talk) 16:05, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

"dangerous side effects of paxil and court cases affirming them are of little point here", disagree lol of course it's relevant. Also I wrote half this article so I'm not a drive-by POV pusher. And I don't think Larson is a moral person. And yea, I think Larson was a narcissist with obviously immmoral social predatory issues. However, it makes sense to lay blame to people who were put in charge of correcting his behaviour but only made it worse. Probably some component of his hyper-violent speech was genetic, but I doubt most. Neiltyson1fan (talk) 17:08, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

This isn't the most important thing in the world so gonna move on tho Neiltyson1fan (talk) 17:15, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

As someone who regularly talked (online) to him before his first stint, I can't say he showed any violence speech to me. All the madness I read about is after his arrest and numerous complaints about wrongful medication. Also, starting from the assumption that the US "justice" system wants first and foremost the well-being of prisoners and not their punishment/humiliation/breaking is ignoring reality. I, personally, would not think the priority of the kinds of people who work in the prison system is to "correct behavior", nevermind how close to truthspeak and mindrape that sounds. --2A0B:F4C1:0:0:0:0:0:8 (talk) 17:24, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Though regarding of violence, people may firstly interpret his letter as one of violence. As far as I am aware and as I have been told, he took such action as a protest against the US government, not as an actual, valid threat against a person of power in the country. In theory, it's a lofty ideal, to remind those in power who they abuse it that they may face consequences for it. In practice, he should have predicted the results and the torture he'd face in retaliation. But, what's done is done. --2A0B:F4C1:0:0:0:0:0:8 (talk) 17:24, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Think if you took a look at his post 2018 websites you'd notice he wasn't a peaceful guy. Neiltyson1fan (talk) 17:31, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Think 10 years of pumping meds they do not require/want/say is harmful to them in a person can easily drive them mad. --2A0B:F4C1:0:0:0:0:0:8 (talk) 17:37, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

All I know is the Paxil thing and don't know if it was forced. If it was, then agree. Neiltyson1fan (talk) 17:55, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Nevermind, forced psych meds on children is basically child rape, so if that happened to him, that's unfortunate. It doesn't excuse his behaviour because he himself expressed publically a desire to rape people, according to the news and also the title of his last widely publicized website. But yea child psychiatry, all forms of child molestation, should be banned Neiltyson1fan (talk) 17:57, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Uh, look mate, I think we may be misunderstanding here. I consider I was his friend, but I knew him as a friend talking about global issues, not his medical sheet. I know why he sent the letter, I read his posts about it etc. etc. I don't even know what meds he took before or not. I don't stalk my friends or follow their media circuses, if they're in some. I just randomly found this page while finding other nostalgic things. But what I do know is they fucked him up: he had a medical plan (whether that meant he needed to take some meds or not, I don't know) and they refused him. They refused his lawyer. Likely, they refused his personal doctor. They pumped him with what they consider he "needed". And he kicked and screamed and yelled against that the whole way. I consider that torture, thank you very much. And I know before his enforced "treatment", he was a kind, rational person. That's what I know about him. --2A0B:F4C1:2:0:0:0:0:242 (talk) 18:14, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

"It doesn't excuse his behaviour" - as for this, as far as I am aware, people are not responsible for their actions if they are forced/tricked into consuming drugs they would not normally accept. So yes, having his body chemistry (and likely his brain chemistry) being changed against his will makes the negative aspects of his behaviour that he did not show prior to these actions of the state clearly the state's responsability and something the state should pay for. They destroyed the mind of a great man. He's not the first states have done this and he's not the last. And I think that'll I'm going to say about this on this matter. --2A0B:F4C1:2:0:0:0:0:242 (talk) 18:14, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

For-profit orporations and the state. Wasn't the state that decided to manufacture x drug for y purpose, usually, in psychiatry. But thanks for this information. If you have other information relevant to him that could be sourced, it would be appreciated in the article. And I don't think he was a great man lol, although he could be very funny at times in his more tame public writings. Neiltyson1fan (talk) 18:22, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Anyway, yes I agree that forced psych meds are torture. Neiltyson1fan (talk) 18:25, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

But I agree most prison systems and all psychiatric systems are jokes that only make things worse, except maybe this facility which chooses not to use meds on their severely psychotic patients even. https://unn.no/steder/unn-asgard Neiltyson1fan (talk) 17:33, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm glad for one more person that's not a blind follower in the "good will, intentions and actions of the state" and the supremacy of the medical system. --2A0B:F4C1:0:0:0:0:0:8 (talk) 17:37, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Dead link

Dead links to Greasy Clown need to be exterminated. 2601:647:4701:5680:A4BA:2AB8:B270:5426 (talk) 00:15, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

the dead links

Pod Awful shouldn't be a source for anything as it is run by a Neo-Nazi who bullies innocent people. And the links are dead... GreasyClownsAreGreasy (talk) 03:24, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

sad to see

someone found an archived of that greasy Neonazi's podcast. :( GreasyClownsAreGreasy (talk) 06:16, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Photo

Current photo is unfree and also too flattering. His Wikipedia article has free images including one of his current self in his gorgeous glory. 217.72.11.201 (talk) 15:24, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Dead?

Rumour has it he has died. See (among other places) here. Zapper (talk) 09:29, 6 October 2022 (UTC)