Talk:Radical chic
Delete?[edit]
Nothing against Tom Wolfe
, but this doesn't seem very on-mission. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:29, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- No, no it does not. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.
16:38, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- Given that practitioners of "radical chic," specifically Hollywood celebrities, give many crank ideas a presence in the media that they might not otherwise have had, I think the topic is on-mission, although this article could use expansion.
ListenerXTalkerX 16:54, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- If you think you can make this on-mission, go for it. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:58, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- I find our language of these things, to be off putting. "the most common example are teh hippies". I don't know, are we really comfortable saying they were just into anti-war, feminism, and racial equality becasue it was "hip?" I get that we may want to explain snarl words, but all over the wiki, we ourselves are participating in the snarl... and i'm never sure it's warranted. shrugs.
Godot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 17:07, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- This is the problem -- the mission says "crank," and people often interpret that to mean "something that goes against my own politics." I think the mission needs to have the words "empirically verifiable" in there somewhere. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 17:10, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- We have an accurate definition of a "crank" right here on the Wiki: someone who maintains a highly unorthodox viewpoint regardless of whether or not there exists strong evidence to the contrary. ListenerXTalkerX 17:36, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- I do like that term, and am fine with it, if we respect it. I do truly see a "logical" "rational" difference between a biblical literalist and someone who is a bible "believing" christian in the "i go to church and whatever" sense. I see a difference between, say MRA and men who are perhaps a bit tired of hearing what they percieve as "all women all the time". Because one set of people have values I disagree with, but the other set is just... irrational in how they come to those values.Godot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 18:07, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- I do like that term, and am fine with it, if we respect it. I do truly see a "logical" "rational" difference between a biblical literalist and someone who is a bible "believing" christian in the "i go to church and whatever" sense. I see a difference between, say MRA and men who are perhaps a bit tired of hearing what they percieve as "all women all the time". Because one set of people have values I disagree with, but the other set is just... irrational in how they come to those values.
- We have an accurate definition of a "crank" right here on the Wiki: someone who maintains a highly unorthodox viewpoint regardless of whether or not there exists strong evidence to the contrary.
- This is the problem -- the mission says "crank," and people often interpret that to mean "something that goes against my own politics." I think the mission needs to have the words "empirically verifiable" in there somewhere. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.
- I find our language of these things, to be off putting. "the most common example are teh hippies". I don't know, are we really comfortable saying they were just into anti-war, feminism, and racial equality becasue it was "hip?" I get that we may want to explain snarl words, but all over the wiki, we ourselves are participating in the snarl... and i'm never sure it's warranted. shrugs.
- If you think you can make this on-mission, go for it. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:58, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- Given that practitioners of "radical chic," specifically Hollywood celebrities, give many crank ideas a presence in the media that they might not otherwise have had, I think the topic is on-mission, although this article could use expansion.
Right. But not all people who deploy the term respect that definition, I fear. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 17:48, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- Delete. Щєазєюіδ
Methinks it is a Weasel 19:24, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm usually the type to support even the most tenuous connections to being "on-mission", but this would need some serious reworking to even be considered close to viable. Perhaps if there was more detail about something like celebrities being "radical chic" and using their status to promote those radical ideas, but then, if they were actively promoting them, it wouldn't really fit the concept of only pretending to be radical in order to be trendy. I vote "Delete". Reverend Lucifer (talk) 22:27, 19 September 2013 (UTC)