Talk:Sargon of Akkad

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon pundit.svg

This Political pundits related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Editorial notes
  • Generates butthurt from fanboys and MRAs
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.

This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>

Extremely Biased[edit]

I expected better from Rational Wiki. This article reads as if it's a mad YouTuber who got insulted by Sargon and decided to write a hate letter and spread it around amongst his friends. The language needs to be cleaned up so the article sounds more clinical and objective, rather than portraying a subjective opinion. — Unsigned, by: / talk

  1. "But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink!
  2. What you want isn't an objective article since the facts don't bare out your POV. No, What you want is a neutral or better yet a positive article. Neither of those POV changes are going to happen, grow up and get over it. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:28, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
The butthurt coming from the mod GrammarCommie is delicious. Someone should definitely grow up and get over defending the holes in their logic just because they have Admin privileges. You're making the wiki look bad, son.— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs
NICE ADHOM MY FELLOW IP LOL.-- (talk) 18:58, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, here's the thing. The big thing. This is literally the exact same complaint creationists, homepaths, and flat earthers level. "It's so biased". It's useless criticism, usually from people who are very profoundly wrong. Secondarily, are you sure you know what the word "logic" means? I don't mean that as a snide "haha you're dumb" insult; I mean that in a very literal sense. Do you know what the word "logic" actually describes? How logic is used and applied? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:07, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Then why does this article read as a hitpiece? name one positive thing the article addresses to Sargon, if you cant with an article of this size on a person then either Sargon is evil incarnate or this is written as a hitpiece. Example;
"This is, to put it bluntly, hilarious. Benjamin was a 9-11 truther for years and (allegedly) all it took was a 5-minute video for his beliefs to fall apart.[23]" 
Normally you would call this out for what it is, someone admitting they were wrong, and coming to terms... Nobody should be above or below that, unless rationalwiki holds the belief that "being wrong and sticking to your guns even when you realise you are wrong" would have somehow been the better option. Anyone stumbling into some of his videos and trying to find out what kind of person he is would google him, end up reading this article, and be able to see through it as nothing more then a hitpiece and put into question all the valid points raised in this article. Blizz (talk) 14:42, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, to be fair, Carl of Swindon changing his views and redacting from 9/11 trutherism isn't "hilarious". And I don't think we need that much of a section on 9/11 trutherism. We should just have a short summary of "yeah he used to be 9/11 truther and even doubled down on them when called out, but has since redacted his views when a subscriber of his showed him a video that made sense to him". But otherwise, Carl is a dishonest/hugely incompetent Youtuber with a big following and makes a pretty penny for, frankly, awful viewpoints and cultivating an awful audience and we don't pull punches when his bad videos are bad. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 03:50, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
So basically, RationalWiki is Encyclopedia Dramatica for lefties? SwindowsFinest (talk) 23:57, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
@SwindowsFinest No. We're basically a cynical hybrid of Snopes and Wikipedia. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:01, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes, we love organizing raids, promoting adolescent shock humor, promoting brainlet memes, spouting hatred of gays, women, and minority races; and being infested with clickbait ads, but just in a left-wing manner. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 00:45, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

The header at the top "generates butthurt from fanboys and MRAs" does not do a good job of supporting the position of this being anything other than a nasty hitpiece. And, just to be clear, I am NOT some Carl Benjamin fanboy. Benjamin can be obnoxious and opinionated, to be certain, but if you show him he's wrong about something he seems to genuinely consider it. Calling him 'alt right' is ludicrous, other than the fact that 'alt-right' seems to be anyone right of Chairman Mao these days. There is no question that Benjamin holds strong opinions, but there is no balance at all to this article. It literally focuses entirely on errors and ignores areas where the facts are supportive of his positions. It literally cherry picks pretty much every negative thing he has ever said or done. No, it doesn't have to be a 'fanboy' or 'positive' article but, in order to be 'rational' it should strive for balance. It does not even make the slightest attempt.

Do better Rationalwiki. This is extremely disappointing. — Unsigned, by: Silverinthetrenches / talk / contribs

Okay, but those things he gets wrong, it's very wrong and it's numerous. Such instances are well-documented in this article and it's been tackled frequently in BreadTube, such as how he misinterprets statistics terribly by not even reading the study he cites (even something simple as a news article on technology he's been shown misreading it). His whole schtick has been looking at a headline, looking at a few sentences, and then reacting to them even when the sentence in the screenshot he shares afterward clarify the positions. He doesn't really get any benefit of doubt from us. If those aspects of him are not representative on his views as a whole, that he flubs sources so frequently, then provide us examples of where he's correct, he actually reads the sources he trots out. And we don't go on a whim on calling people alt-right for being left of Mao, the article itself documents how people view him as a stepping stone to alt-right viewpoints. Even the person who coined the term "alt-right", Richard Spencer, has described Carl as an entry point to the alt-right, Andrew Anglin of the Daily Stormer considers him useful for bringing people into the movement. Carl might try distancing himself from it, but it's no secret his ideas are attractive to that crowd and he's not doing enough to examine why he's attracting them in the first place. There's being balanced, but there's also being fair, and we shouldn't try to somehow elevate what he gets right if he gets a lot of other things very wrong that has us question his honesty. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 01:22, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
What exactly does he get right? Seriously, when someone is wrong, dishonest, and too arrogant to admit either 98% of the time, how exactly are we to tell when they get it right the other 2%? If you have examples of stopped clock moments, I'm all ears. If you want us to praise him, that isn't going to happen. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:56, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
I don't know. I looked through this article again and I'm not willing to comb through his verbal flailing dick slobber such as "Now women are also involved in politics and - frankly - society is declining." and "I wouldn't even rape you" to find actual points in there. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 02:03, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
@LeftyGreenMario I was aiming that to our original poster. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:47, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Age of consent section[edit]

This section seems to examine the opinions of the youtuber Justicar on this subject. I don't see why it is in this article, as Benjamin seems to accept the current British law as reasonable.Ariel31459 (talk) 16:32, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

As much as I hate linking to a tweet to support anything, he's been obsessively defending that case of raping an 11 year old as something that is okay, but never really going further into why it's not evil as fuck. It's more wagon circling around yet another shitty reactionary youtuber than sargon being a nonce, but it's in the article for a reason. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:21, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
@Ikanreed The section may be in the article for a reason, but does not account for the reason. I don't follow Sargon of Akkad, so the article has to tell me what is going on, which it does not do. Ariel31459 (talk) 18:19, 20 September 2018 (UTC).
To be clear, you want the section to take a stronger editorial stance rather than just quoting what he said? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:23, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
The conversation seems to be an example of Benjamin expressing moral ambiguity, which would be interesting in a series of examples, not so much as an independent section. The quote is a vague treatment of the subject of consent. Benjamin is indefinite about the subject ("case by case basis?" ), giving protective laws desultory support ("...protecting teenagers from the depredations of older, presumably, men but I’m sure in a lot of cases women. I can see that...") What is the point of the section? We can let readers guess, I suppose.Ariel31459 (talk) 18:52, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
@Ariel31459 The section is mainly about where he said "Yeah, I think it depends on the child really, doesn’t it? Because some kids mature faster than others." and "It’s true. It’s true though. It should really be a case-by-case basis." The rest of the transcript is in order to avoid quote mining. He originally stated that 16 "seems reasonable" but then appears to have been persuaded that it "depends on the child" and should be on a "case-by-case basis" after talking to someone who says they had consensual sex at "well under the age of 11". CowHouse (talk) 03:38, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
@CowHouse Talking about minors having sex is problematic for many people. Just writing this to you makes me a bit uncomfortable. Yet the sectional presentation is incomplete in several important aspects. Most importantly, that it is ambiguous. What is it that is being decided on a case by case basis and by whom? I don't think it is clear at all. Suppose both parties are 11 years old. What exactly would be decided? Whether a sex act between two eleven-year old children were developmentally wrong and should be prevented whenever possible? or whether it were an evil act requiring one or both participants to be punished? The latter question must be decided but not all cases would be identical. Was it not the judgment of the courts that must be decided on a case by case basis? Ariel31459 (talk) 15:17, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't agree that it's ambiguous. Justicar says he was "well under" 11 and claims he could appreciate the nature and quality of what he was doing. Benjamin replies "yeah, I think it depends on the child [...] because some kids mature faster than others." Justicar then says "that's what the Catholics say". This is clearly a reference to child sexual abuse by adults (Catholic priests).Wikipedia Benjamin replies "it's true" and "it should really be a case-by-case basis". In context, "it" means whether or not a child can appreciate the nature and quality of what they're doing. Where is the ambiguity? CowHouse (talk) 06:21, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
You are seeing what you want to see. I can imagine readers seeing Benjamin as just being very indulgent of a crazy Justicar, who evidently has perverted views of child sexuality. This is worthy of criticism. Just stating these quotes is ineffective. This section needs an introduction.Ariel31459 (talk) 15:11, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Extreme cognitive dissonance aka AS and the panel "debacle"...[edit]

I think this article needs to expand - principally on his interactions with Anita Sarkeesian. This smug f**k*r (Carl) saddled up to the front row with the single intention of intimidating or trying to induce a reaction from her. PLENTY of people who disagree with Anita have had reasonable, calm debates/private discussions with her - yet Carl has presented what went down with her at the panel as a totally one-sided issue. Her made out as if Anita's problem with him was a purely ideological issue. Horseshit. This is a woman who, for the past 4+years, has had to deal with constant 1) Death Threats 2) Rape threats 3) Doxxing - and as far as any sane person can see, Sargon has been an enabler to this sh*t. Her reaction, frankly, was reserved, compared to the crap she has had to endure because she is a woman with an opinion concerning "traditionally male" spaces. I am too new and too incoherent to make a section on this. I hope someone will. There should be sauces. Regards, --Weird Chinese gurl (talk) 19:12, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry too much about being new. Don't let that keep you from making the change. We can hash out any problems an edit has after you make it. It might even get reverted, but even then it gives a starting place for discussing the content. The short version "he showed up and quietly sat in the front row of a panel she gave and she called him an awful person for being there" would miss the whole "He spent years of his life obsessively making videos attacking her character far beyond any bound of reason, which prompted thousands of his followers to attack, threaten, and harass her for years", which, in turn, would miss "Sargon was only one of dozens of prominent antifeminist psychos making that exact pitch". So that's a lot of context to pack into one story. Not sure how you'd do it either. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:20, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

'Lying about being black'[edit]

"Sargon" (I cannot use this ridiculous meme name without square quotes) did not admit to this. He at most admitted to exaggerating his "blackness" by saying his mixed-race grandpa was black. His grandpa was from St. Helena, an island of mixed race people off the coast of southwest Africa. so "Sargon" is probably something like 1/8 black 7/8 white, but almost certainly has significant levels of sub-Saharan African ancestry (unless he's lying about the St. Helena thing, which we have no evidence of). — Unsigned, by: / talk