Talk:Sargon of Akkad/Archive1

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 15 April 2018. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page: <2>, (new)(back)


While I was trying to add him to the "insufferable assholes" category I had an editing conflict with someone, and it turns out they beat me to it by a second. ClothCoat (talk) 04:39, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Damn, I'm good B) --Trinity (talk) 17:52, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

One should probably add these two to that same category, if this is a representation of their regular personalities.— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Oh noes the Sargon of Akkad fanboys are angry and any second now they shall use the "pedantry attack" against us and then we'll lose for sure! ClothCoat (talk) 03:31, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Definite personality disorders are evident. — Unsigned, by: Shinola / talk / contribs


This is the most hilarious shit I ever read. You people are a fucking joke. And that's an insult to jokes.— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

A fascinatingly argued and logically watertight position. BicyclewheelModerator 22:48, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Just like this wiki article, no doubt. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs
*screams of awe at someone getting rekt* Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 11:23, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Reddit[edit] Any interest in asking for criticism? The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 02:35, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Not really sure what is meant by "asking for criticism" (and you tell me I have a problem with clarity?) but it seems that Xavier is pointing out that your logic that sargon is somehow creepy because of what he said is very thin. Pointing out that the inflexible and irredentist nature of many feminists (men hate women whether they know it or not, if this or that turns you on you hate women, if you try to approach a woman in a civil way about date/sex/relationship and she if offended, that's your fault, anti-porn, laurie penny delusional garbage) exacerbates tensions between the genders and yes creates more misogyny. When Xavier pointed out to you that criticism of feminists does not equal woman hatred you basically go "I don't know. You'll have to ask Sargon. I'm just telling you what I heard". If one accepts the premise that anti-Islamic sentiment fuels Islamic terror (a common view of many on the left) then it hardly seems implausible that the same could be true in this case. DrenDran then rightly pointed out that, despite the claims of the rationalwiki mission statement that snark should never be confused with shoddy research etc., rationalwiki has nonetheless indicted and attacked people with that classic snark using dead links, links that contradict what they claim the link says, and links to sources that they/you themselves do not consider reliable. And the devastating insanity of the gamergate page was also brought up. Burkean (talk) 20:48, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


What does rationality have to do with encyclopedia dramatica style puffing? I mean, where's the intellectual dignity here? It looks like you guys just took a handful of really pissed off feminists to write this page. It's pathetic. You might want to try to be impartial when attempting to remain rational. I can understand his point now about rational wiki is to rationality like free thought blogs is to skepticism. Kind of a big joke really, I kind of enjoyed the straight to the point articles but at some point someone decided to drop intellectual honesty in favor of spiteful insults and speculative interpretations. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

I personally believe that the article is too anti-Sargon, if my opinion matters to anyone. It's slightly too skeptical and harsh towards the subject. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:46, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
@96: The problem is that you assume that rationality requires a purely neutral tone. By that argument, Sargon himself would be incapable of rationality -- he commonly laughs at and mocks his opponents, calls them "cunts" etc., and is generally less than a perfect sage of impartial reason. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 02:56, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
And how does that make you feel? - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 03:01, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
" dropped intellectual honesty in favor of [...] speculative interpretations" haha someone's never read Plato. Being honest =/= wearing kid gloves. (talk) 18:31, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

So Plato, a fascist asshole (e.g, see the Republic), wrote your rule book.Shinola (talk) 16:06, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump supporter?[edit]

He seems to think he isn't a Donald Trump supporter. Seems odd to call him one on the page and then also show how he explicitly denounced RationalWiki's accurracy for calling him one.— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Of course he isn't one. Always run a quick test. Has the article remotely to do with social justice? If the answer is yes, you know its both uncorrectable and utter rubbish. After all, there's an entire section about how he's "Reactionary" and not a single item is mentioned why he's considered as one (but see how editors demand sources [which they will reject anyway] for every word when it goes into a direction they don't approve of). My suggestion, tell everyone about this, point them to the article and laugh together at it. ~ Aneris 16:24, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
"I'd love to see Trump as president. He's crazy, but fuck it, how could it be any worse." Those damn sources, huh Aneris. Also, a good test for your posts is: does Aneris use the words "social" and "justice" together at any point? If so, completely disregard everything that follows as a banal straw man argument.Petey Plane (talk) 17:53, 7 February 2016 (UTC)


He has said he supports Donald Trump[14] as the Republican candidate for the 2016 elections, and defended him against criticisms by the Young Turks.[15] However, he has also spoken in favor of Bernie Sanders as the Democratic candidate, and would vote for Bernie over Trump.[16]

Aneris, you are wrong. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 17:47, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Fuzzy you are. If I take your own claims (and those in the article) at face value, it says: "vote for Bernie over Trump". In other words, it's already disingenious to place Trump front and then in an afterthought mention Sanders. When I then look at the tweet provided he says about Trump: "I'd love to see Trump as president. He's crazy, but fuck it, how could it be any worse" doesn't sound like what is conventionally understood by "supporter". And then the context is a response to: "I see three options. Another Bush. Another Clinton. Or the greatest meme pres since Teddy Roosevelt", i.e. the motive here is lulz and anti-establishment. The next source says: "You will have two anti-establishment characters running for president and thank God, it means that Bernie Sanders is going to win." so, the tune seems to be anti-establishment with Sanders front. Again, going by the sources you provide. I have the nagging feeling that it'd turn out mostly rubbish if someone actually checked the sources. Going by the general style on the RationalWiki, he could be a total Bernie Sanders fan but the RationalWiki uses a single tweet to create the opposite impression. That would be rather typical. I'm not familiar with his political views, I just notice the obvious rubbish that usually dripping from such pages. Not to mention that the word "support" is a propagandist term. It's meaningless.
Anything that’s totally vacuous and diverts, after all what does it mean to be in favor of .. suppose somebody asks, do you support the people in Iowa, can you say I support them or no I don’t support them. It’s not even a question it doesn’t even mean anything. And that’s the point of public relations slogans like support our troops is that they don’t mean anything, they mean as much as whether you support the people in Iowa.
—Noam CHomsky
Of course you fool nobody. The editors want to create an impression out of thin air, and do so with such tricks. I'm still curious which of the things he lobbies for that make him a reactionary. Is it repealing "progressive taxation" or "Affordable Care Act"? Does he want to return "to a system of indirect selection of politician"? These are common reactionary positions, according to the RationalWiki. Inquiring minds want to know. You surely mean one of those "Common positions" since the article here mentions nary a thing, none, nothing. Not a single item, so we can all assume he's a typical reactionary, right? Or could it be that the article was once again written by complete bullshitters? I remain unimpressed by the intellectual standards here. Just in case he is a reactionary why not list examples? Why do even have to argue over this? The rule should be: goes against self-description and is unsourced = bullshit = delete. You make the claim, the burden to substantiate is on you. (PS: anti-establishment also doesn't gel well with reactionary, generally, just adding this) ~ Aneris 18:17, 7 February 2016 (UTC)


  • 29 Jul 2015: "I'd love to see Trump as president. He's crazy, but fuck it, how could it be any worse."
  • Oct 6, 2015: "Oh yeah, Cenk, you really showed Donald Trump."
  • Oct 18, 2015: "Who could have imagined that the corporate media would push the candidate they sponsored?" (Supports Bernie Sanders.)

Trump is first because Sargon said he supported him first. Stap. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 18:43, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Of course shows nothing, doesn't address the arguments above, and if the order was reversed, you'd argue "he most recently supported Trump, thus we list that first". Again, you fool nobody. You just like that conclusion and hence you also are okay with the "reactionary" angle that is entirely unsupported. ~ Aneris 18:46, 7 February 2016 (UTC) FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 18:54, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Good, now I'm curous about your theory how someone who'd vote for Sanders is anti-progressive, or reactionary even. Do you have sources for that? ~ Aneris 19:00, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Opposing feminism, liberal criticisms of media, and ranting about "illiberal left", "neo-progressives", and "SJWs" will usually earn you that moniker. *shrug* I could look more into it, but it seems sufficient. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 20:31, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
So by that same logic, opposing the state of Israel makes somebody a Neo-Nazi? Yup, seems sufficient.. it's not like people identifying with a group, are still be able to critique that very same group. No self respecting ideologue would ever do such an outrageous thing!— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs
@91: Nope, opposing Israel makes someone "anti-Israel". Opposing feminism makes someone antifeminist, opposing leftism makes someone antileft, opposing liberal media makes someone anti-liberal-media. Opposing all at once makes one hold opinions very close to that of a reactionary, even if they're expressed in the negative rather than the positive. And "critiquing" is very different from Sargon of Akkad's steadfast opposition -- rather than saying, "these feminists are nutters, but feminism is true", he says "all these feminists are nutters!" Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 16:46, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Once again claiming a lot of things, I know that Sargon makes a differences between 3th/4th wave feminists and those that came before them. So your claim that he's painting "all" feminists with the same brush is, once again, just another exaggeration if not plain and simply made up, like A LOT on this talk page. Similarly your whole deduction is pure BS, once again: People can identify with a movement/ideology/whatever and still be able to critique that movement, at least RATIONAL people, too bad there ain't too many left of those, around here.
Please, link me the part where he delicately picks apart different waves of feminism but still supports the movement as a whole. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 20:04, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Here you go: and no of course you won't hear him say "I still support this movement, regardless of what abomination it turned into", because only ideologues are that narrow-sighted. Today's third/fourth wave feminism has nothing at all to do with first and second wave feminists that brought actual change forth. Please don't pretend there is no truth at all about this statement, because even feminists themselves knew that much already over a decade ago hence those rifts over "sex-positivism vs objectification" and "identity/gender politics". All this is OT, considering that Sargons statement on Trump pretty much stemmed from an "Wow i wish i could see that crap-show, after all it won't be my country being run by that idiot!" Schadenfreude perspective. But what would this article be without some good strawmanning? Probably empty. (talk) 17:48, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Aneris wrong again? Say it ain't so! It's amazing how someone who claims to be so perceptive/intelligent doesn't listen to people at all, even with it shoved in his face, and instead chooses the voices in his head. It reminds me of Moldbug writing that 37k word essay detailing how Dawkins is a cultural Christian because he didn't listen to Dawkins directly stating that he was in 5 words. Fucking listen to people dude. It won't solve everything but at least it makes you look like you are paying some attention to the world around you instead of what's in your head. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 15:33, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Sources were provided above to demonstrate the point. Mr. potato and yourself don't seem to have anything to refute that.
And as for this hating all feminists thing, Sargon and Milo's take on feminism as a whole going back to the 19th century reformers is downright tame, if indeed too soft. For instance, Milo repeats that he thinks most feminists were relatively sane up until about the millennium.
So he gives a pass to a lot of certified lunatics, aka Sontag, Friedan, Steinem, Greer, Stanton, Millet (the divorced-husband-hating jabba the hut who got a French kiss from oliver reed she richly deserved). Burkean (talk) 15:27, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Questionable claims[edit]

-"He fails to grasp entry - level liberal concepts such as "privilege" and "not telling Muslims to get out of your country.""

He doesn't want to Muslims to get out of his country (or any country). He defended a pub that got criticized for putting up a poster that said they wanted radical Muslims who refuse to assimilate. He opposes suspicion and government surveillance of Muslims in the UK, and wishes for them to be accepted and assimilated into British society. He responded to criticisms of this claim in the cited video, and clarified that he doesn't think the majority British Muslims are radical and thought the poster "is probably done by EDL supporters or some stupid shit like that. People I don't support". I don't see how he fails to grasp privilege. He's seen it explained by countless people, and has disagreed respectfully. The claim seems way too subjective to me (I fail to see how one could disprove that he fails to grasp privilege). The idea of privilege is largely rhetorical or legal and useful in polemics only. It is not a nonsense concept, neither is it a scientific one.

-"He isn't much one for considering opposing views or being flexible in his beliefs. Instead, he prefers to transmute his ideological opponents into straw figures"

Considering most of his videos consist of going through an entire article or video and critique the claims the creators make, I don't really see how he straw mans or is obtuse in his beliefs (he often goes through content word for word, though he does sometimes skip through less relevant portions of internet articles, but leaves the un-commented text on screen). It's also worth noting that, on his livestream channel, he often engages with people that hold views that are diametrically opposed to his.

-"The only thing that makes him liberal is the fact that he hates Stormfront"

He agrees with contemporary liberals on all issues except social issues that relate to third wave feminism. He regularly criticizes Cameron and the Conservative Party, lambasting them more than the Labor Party. He also wants Bernie Sanders to be president over Clinton, due to Sander's support for left wing economics (not sure what he thinks of Corbyn, but he doesn't seem to dislike him).

-"Showing his vast understanding of history and politics Sargon believes that the only true liberalism is one that upholds laissez-faire markets (social liberalism does not exist apparently)"

Blatantly false. He doesn't support laissez-faire capitalism at all, and criticizes the Conservative Party primarily for supporting it. He has stated repeatedly he thinks markets should be regulated (though, overall, he does support market economy). He claimed "progressives" (third wave feminists) are not "liberals", nothing more to my knowledge.

-"and that Noam Chomsky is one of these liberals [that support laissez-faire capitalism]. Yes, that Noam Chomsky."

He never said that. He's never even called Noam Chomsky a liberal.

-"Also fascism is far left."

Pretty sure he never said that too. Proof please.

Editors should probably write about his (broader) views on social justice politics and not just Gamergate, considering most of his videos are not about Gamergate, and the ones that are tend to get a lot less views than the ones that aren't. Also, he claimed he wants Gamergate to end now.

Considering he and Kyle Kulinski had two conversations where they largely agreed on (critiques of) social justice politics, I don't see why Sargon is said to be a reactionary and (basically) not a true liberal, while Kulinski is written of positively (also, both can be pretty rude in their videos, for what it's worth).

Can't comment on the Gamergate/Twitter stuff since I don't pay attention to it (and, as I alluded to before, I don't think most of his subscribers do either, considering his view counts)— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

He's one of the leading voices in Gamergate.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:35, 17 October 2015 (UTC) "The further left and the further up you go on the scale, you eventually reach communism and fascism" WTF Withoutaname (talk) 08:03, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Horseshoe Theory. Not without it's merits.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 19:33, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
That's not even the horseshoe theory it's just lazily shoving all the ideologies you don't like on the other side of the spectrum. ClothCoat (talk) 03:31, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Of course, it's not the only political concept he either doesn't understand or twists.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 03:35, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
He's using the graph from and his explanation is clearly in accordance to the analysis on the site. Far left is Communism (Collectivism), far up is Fascism (Authoritarian). Has nothing at all to do with horseshoe theory (more strawmanning), he actually knows what he's talking about, unlike the contributors on this Wiki. But this article will stay an opinionated mess, such a sad thing because I used to love and respect RationalWiki, not anymore. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs
There is no way that going 'up and left' will take you to fascism. His explanation is clearly a confused misremembering of a political compass style breakdown, perhaps a conflation with horseshoe theory. So, no, he didn't know what he was talking about then, and clearly neither do you. Queexchthonic murmurings 15:11, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
His explanation is 100% in accordance with the political compass analysis. Once again: Y-Axis is Authoritarian (up) vs Libertarian (down), he didn't say anything wrong and nothing he said had anything to do with the horseshoe theory. while the contributors in this "talk" are just pulling crap out of their back end to make it look like he said something wrong. Here you have a graph with exactly those labels:, in exactly in those places where Sargon explained them to be (go left Communism, go up Fascism). You not being able to properly interpret a graph is neither Sargon's nor the politicalcompass fault. You can't deny that last graph, yet you will still try and even in face of absolute evidence, you still keep on pretending that I'am the one being in "the wrong", and that's why RationalWiki has become a pathetic joke.
He implies that a) Communism and Fascism are close together and b) that you can reach either of them by going left and going up. That's flat out wrong. If those were meant to be separate statements, he needs to copy edit his script better because that's not what that sentence says. If you can't grasp that, you are definitely the butt of this joke. Queexchthonic murmurings 23:03, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
He doesn't imply any such thing. He's clearly making the differentiation between left/up - communism/authoritarian just like he does it with all the other parts of the political compass in that video. The only people who confuse this with "putting communism and fascism close together" are those people who still believe that political ideologies are a linear scale from left to right, instead of the far more useful political compass with it's added verticality. You go all the way to the left and all the way up and what do you get? Stalinism, which is also considered "red fascism" due to it subjugating the individuals rights under the states authority (hence authoritarian), just like it happens under fascism. It's mindboggling how people here chose to ignore the source material Sargon is using, just so they can claim "he doesn't know what he's talking about", while people here never seem to have heard of the political compass before, hence the need to go "Oh it's horseshoe theory!", no it's not. Pretty much everything he says in that video is in accordance with the source he's using, that source being So any issues should be taken up with the compass, not with Sargon who's merely referencing it. (talk) 17:30, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
1) Learn the difference between its and it's for fuck's sake. 2) The god-awful libertarian political compass you're referring to is "more useful" in the same way that a canned fart with a broken pulltab is more useful than a canned fart without: Not very. 3) You're going to need to source all of your whining because I've actually seen Sargon putting his foot in his mouth on many of these topics over and over. The gormless twit actually claims to be a "left libertarian," believing a left libertarian to be something akin to Mises. So no, he knows nothing about politics or economics (or history or sociology or psychology or anthropology or really any academic discipline for that matter). The fact that you're defending him just reflects poorly on you. (talk) 01:42, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
"left libertarian" is one of those great phrases, like "left liberal", that I most often see meaning "right-wing, libertarian, probably a gamergater". If you have refs to hand, do you have examples of him self-labeling as "left libertarian" with some of what he thought that meant? I quite believe it, I ask only for personal amusement - David Gerard (talk) 12:10, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
"He defended a pub that got criticized for putting up a poster that said they wanted radical Muslims who refuse to assimilate." The poster literally said "If you don't like how we do things, get out! We won't accomidate you!" There's nothing else to say on the matter, Sargon genuinely holds the opinion that arabic people shouldn't have a right to complain about standards of living because it's not "THEIR" home. This isn't exactly expecting high - level reading - into, he pretty much overtly said it.
He probably wants gamergate to end because the GG revolt is hurting his feelings. --Trinity (talk) 19:17, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Sargon isn't really saying anything wrong when he defends statements like these. If you come from a different nation with a regressive culture and then demand your new home to adapt to you, then you have no business staying there unless it is temporary, or absolutely necessary. It is of course perfectly fine to be muslim and living in the western world, but when a minority of people for example form Sharia police that walk around telling people what to do, then stop wasting the country's resources by trying to force your regressive views on it. The same should apply to all people that want their new home to be like their old one. EuroBurro (talk) 15:39, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

A few more issues[edit]

He "fails to grasp entry - level liberal concepts such as "privilege""? Who gets to decide what "entry-level" liberal concepts are? I think plenty of liberals either disagree with the overuse of the word "privilege" or, more likely, have just never heard of it in that context. It is also noted that he complains about the far-left more than the far right. You can't judge/criticize someone's political ideologies simply based on what group annoys them more, just like you wouldn't criticize most people for crying when their pet dies but not when they hear about the holocaust.TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 02:39, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

It does if you position yourself as a faux liberal who defected from the extremism of the left. He can't even articulate where the extremism lies. He makes mock ups of unimaginative left-wing strawmen to stroke his and his viewers' egos. He's a conservative libertarian who wants to seem hip, so he calls himself a "dirty liberal" (his words) and paints his "progressive opponents" as the reactionaries. Either he's a useful idiot or a propagandist; the latter seems more likely as it's a booming business. Plutoniumboss (talk) 03:18, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
He never claims to have "defected". He is just criticizing the far left more often than the far right. Just because he isn't angry enough for you at the far right doesn't mean you can accurately infer his true political standing. But of course it doesn't matter if he says things and holds beliefs that clearly paint him as not a conservative, as long as your reclassification fits in with your preconceptions.TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 00:15, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
He's economically leftist (sometimes) and more conservative on social issues. Socially conservative socialists is an old tradition in Britain among working class men so it's not a new phenomenon. However I also think the term "conservative" would not apply to him. He's exactly what he's called in the article, a "brogressive" who opportunistically supports economic policies that helps people he relates to but is otherwise wishy-washy if not sometimes having right-wing nationalist sympathies (see: Support for Donald Trump). ClothCoat (talk) 00:31, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Wrong again, Clothbrain. In one of his most recent videos (not that I agree with him on this point) he said that Trump was an idiot created by the fact that all of the other candidates (with the exception of Sanders) offer either one doctrinaire party line or another and that people want a fusion of the two. The democrats and many republicans don't want to talk about immigration, for example. The ridiculous strategy of fighting isis and Assad at the same time instead of building a coalition with Iran, Russia, and the kurds. Not to mention what many feel is too much enthusiasm for free trade. These are all issues which might challenge the republican free market orthodoxy, which many people want. Those same people might also be equally skeptical of the Sanders project, as he has been quite coy about how he would pay for what he wants and just exactly how much taxes would go up. Enter Trump. And the article fails to provide evidence for why Sargon apparently can't make a argument, or why his comments on the pc left are innacurate. Racial identity politics has been trivial, factualy innacurrate, intolerant of outside opinion, and so forth. Any example of what the black lives matter people have been saying and doing would work; such as using heresay and outright lies (what'shisface who started the brouhaha in Missouri actually recanted one of his claims) to stir up a pitchfork wielding mob on the campus of old mizzou. Even supporters of mizzou thought Yale was completely retarded. And he completely dissected Laurie Penny's absolutely schizophrenic meandering rant at the festival of dangerous ideas (men, it's not your fault but when white guys came along, they programmed you all to act like beasts, so please kindly reprogram yourselves or you are accessories to violence against women...or something) Burkean (talk) 15:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
You haven't said anything related to what I posted and I posted that before he released that video, so thanks for insulting me for not being able to see the future, because up until then he was even more supportive of Trump. He has always said Trump is an idiot but has nonetheless been mildly supportive of him because he considers him to be the best of the worst, so yes that would still qualify as having right-wing nationalist sympathies, unless he explicily said in his most recent video "I hate Trump and would never vote for him, and his opinion on Muslims are idiotic" or something along those lines (tip: you could shorten your manifesto's by not going off topic, as you did in the entire second half of your above post). ClothCoat (talk) 21:40, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
So, I guess all those democrats saying they would support trump over trade or immigration issues are right wing nationalists. I would love to hear your case as to why Doug McIntyre has right wing nationalist sympathies. There is a liberal case against more immigration, especially illegal immigration. If you don't want to listen, that's not my problem. And then you said that he has always said Trump was stupid, but just before you said you couldn't know that because of one video that hadn't yet been posted. Huh? As for off topic, I discussed things which Sargon himself discussed frequently. The article seems to have little to no evidence as to why his arguments are poor. Laurie Penny's bizarre theories about men and how the cruelty of the third world is somehow the west's fault are beyond defensible. You also haven't made any kind of a case for why Sargon is wrong and the neo-feminists are right (since SJW is such a loaded term on this wiki). And even before that video was posted he wasn't saying Donald Trump is the greatest thing since sliced bread he was saying Trump is responding to a perceived need, which is much the same thing that most people in the media have been saying, the people who really hate Trump (like you, for instance). So, your response is extremely childish because it has nothing to do with predicting the future and everything to do with listening to what people actually say, something most liberals seem to have a lot of difficulty achieving. It's also extremely childish to say that to oppose more illegal immigration or NAFTA is right wing and nationalist. Many liberal democrats oppose NAFTA. You also tried to claim that Sargon is socially conservative when he supports abortion, pornography and gay marriage. So good luck being wrong.
Yes, actually, they are right wing nationalists if they support Trump on immigration and trade, by definition. Hope this helps. Sargon is also socially conservative for the most part. If you expect someone to be 100% either/or you're obviously not familiar with politics, or humanity for that matter. Sorry about your education, social life, etc. (talk) 01:47, 6 April 2016 (UTC) Burkean (talk) 20:38, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

'entry - level liberal concepts such as "privilege"'--- Classical Liberalism is concerned with rights. America's Founding Fathers called their rights Natural Rights. "Privilege" is used in a mealy-mouthed attempt at suggesting certain rights might be withdrawn at the discretion of government. In America, there are many people with guns who say that this is not so. All the pretty arguments aside, people will eventually fight for their rights.Shinola (talk) 15:53, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

"Natural rights" don not exist, people have invented these kinda rights, too, like all the other rights.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 16:24, 7 March 2016 (UTC) 16:24, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Real name[edit]

I don't care to defend him and everything he's said but it seems like as a site we're sensitive to posting dox. Did he deliberately make his name known? Aleksandra96 (talk) 01:50, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, he has. --Castaigne2 (talk) 01:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
It's reported in almost 100% of the places I've seen him mentioned, so I'd bet so. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 01:52, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
We probably should link the site, where he did that, just to be sure, OK? Does anyone know, where he did that?--Kugelschreiber (talk) 22:20, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
First possible source: : Pakman: I'm joined today by Carl Benjamin, known to many online as Sargon of Akkad 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 22:25, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
OK, I'm gonna add that to the article. Thanks!--Kugelschreiber (talk) 23:33, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
God he's such a know-it-all prick in that video. Classical liberal, Franz Ferdinand, he would have made it a hat trick if I had watched it any longer. Aleksandra96 (talk) 00:17, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Ironic, considering his knowledge of these sorts of things is precisely dick. (talk) 01:48, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

This is genuinely hilarious.[edit]

BON's comment:

Sargon is a God and can in no means be stopped.

His intention is to weed out radical feminists such as Sarkeesian and throw them in the garbage like the trash they are.

Whining radicals often cry buckets of tears over how their "campaign of rights" is getting slammed.

To Feminism, Social Justice, and Those related to Third-Wave Feminism :

You're all crackheaded fools.

The First and Second Waves were enough,

we don't need landwhales with hair dye parading for "Petuniakin Jihadi Transqueer" Rights.


The CORRECT minds.

But doesn't BON know that truly rational people never use biased writing??? αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 23:37, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

As someone who sexually identifies as a black hawk helicopter, I take offense at this. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:10, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

"Literally censoring free speech"?[edit]

Sure, he basically wants to restrict a form of free speech, but wouldn't we want to do the same thing if his description was anywhere near accurate? If there were antisemitic courses in universities, or YEC indoctrination courses, wouldn't we want to get those things banned? Of course we would! Instead of criticizing him on an approach that would be pretty reasonable if he was right about what happens at e.g. women's studies, we should emphasize how crazy fucking wrong he is about the latter. (talk) 03:18, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

But but but that's not true liberalism! Besides, all perspectives are equally valid! Lord Aeonian (talk) 03:52, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
"If the facts were different, we might agree!" is never a good retort. The idea is that these guys go on about how much they love freedom of speech (i.e "consequence free speech", which is how they interpret it) and that you should be able to say anything without repercussion, but then turn around and say "When we agree with the speech". - Kitsunelaine 「SJW Illuminati shill.」 04:07, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't know much about Sargon, but is he one of these guys you mention that go on about freedom of speech? If you look up "free" in this article, the only hits are the free speech from the section title and "free market". If you want to show he's hypocritical because he wants to limit freedom of speech while at the same time nominally defending it, you should also show he actually does the latter. Without that, the section title just seems to portray the reasonable restriction of bigoted and anti-scientific speech from education officials in the process of teaching students as something we here at RW need to criticize due to it being "literally censoring free speech." (talk) 04:35, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

SOA literally has a video called "Free Speech is the Answer to Political Correctness". FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 15:53, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Literally, eh? All what that title tells me is that he doesn't like political correctness (shocker!). Fewer restrictions on speech automatically entails freer speech. That doesn't tell us to what extent he's a free speech absolutist. Are there even free speech absolutists that would defend students being indoctrinated into blatantly toxic ideologies by education officials? (when said absolutists agree with said ideologies being notably harmful) Everybody draws the line somewhere.
Again, the thing to critique him on here is his factual incorrectness. There's nothing surprising or particularly objectionable about someone supporting a variety of ideals (like fact-based education and freedom of speech) that may at times conflict. (talk) 00:07, 25 April 42016 AQD (UTC)
It's more that SOA and his supporters constantly whine about being CENSORED by SJWs, often because an "SJW" somewhere criticized something they like.
But yes, the article should also rebut his claims. I spy a volunteer. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 01:19, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
It is more of an identity flaw with him strictly ... SOA established for himself a certain bar (call it "non ideology") .. and what he did in this instance just like in EVERY instance fully contradicts that
said bar. He is being rightfully called out for the blatant hypocrisy he packs. ---Плуто-0-Пи- 01:17, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I actually think this part of the article is quite biased and makes an unfair comparison (comparing him to Iran). It's argumentum ad absurdum. It should be rewritten from a less scornful point of view. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 01:22, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Preaching to the choir is a real problem with many articles in this wiki. The author writes about SoA as if he were a much despised personal acquaintance, more like a neighbor who has kicked our cat. This attitude has a pulverizing effect on the focus of the article. Am I concerned more with the subject or the cat? It depends upon whether I like cats more than any relevant facts. I know that the editors applaud humor (thank god). We could all use a little more Joe Friday.Jackinthebox (talk) 14:07, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
So here's the thing: if he wants "social justice" courses gone from universities, how would what he pushes for be any different than what Iran did? It's not a fallacious argumentum ad absurdum if it's what he's actually advocating (or a necessary conclusion from what he advocates). FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 01:55, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps Sargon thinks that the advocacy of unverified facts and non-empirical reasoning should not be subsidized by the state in higher education. This is a strange form of free speech. Does he advocate preventing the public from freely expressing their opinions in parks and other public gathering places?Ariel31459 (talk) 18:10, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I think it's hard to call gender studies or social sciences in general "non-empirical" -- especially when many if not most of gender studies is based on the findings of modern psychology and polling, which are highly empirical. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 20:57, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
It is not at all difficult to conclude that social science in general is problematic with regard to its pseudo scientific findings as meta-studies show that about one third of research in psychology is reproducible. Some topics are better researched than others. How do you think gender studies ranked?....Jackinthebox (talk) 21:10, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
*shrug* Medicine has about the same success rate. Modern science has many, many flaws -- but unless you wish to cast out medical research as non-empirical, then both at least attempt to use the scientific process. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 21:26, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Too true! You can't blame a girl for trying!Jackinthebox (talk) 21:30, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
and I don't have to explain to you that bogus cancer research is not taught in public universities.Jackinthebox (talk) 13:43, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Cancer researchers also don't ask anonymous internet posters opinion on what is legitimate research or not. -MasterofLogic (talk) 14:16, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Moreover, @Ariel: the real problem with a ban on SJ courses is that many colleges are private entities, and it's pretty much their domain. It's like asking for a ban on theological college classes in the US -- it's not the purview of the government (or, I don't think so). Public schools are another matter. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 21:33, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Sargypoo demonizing the early civil rights movement for equal rights for women[edit]

SOA Anti Feminist Tweet.jpg

>tfw Bell Hooks NEVER stated or even implied anything remotely close ... I think its the cognitive dissonance a.k.a professional MRA victimhood talking.

source: ---Плуто-0-Пи- 17:54, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Quick, someone I disagree with is an MRA. Drink!Jackinthebox (talk) 18:15, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Did you miss the part where they actually criticized what he said, making your response pithy? Or doth pith soot you? 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 20:56, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Soot pithes me off. Most of what he says is worthy of some criticism. It's the 3rd rate minds that get in the way of it all Fuzzy.Jackinthebox (talk) 21:13, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

There is a lot to say about the company he attracts...[edit]

While Sargon didn't write this himself, it's telling how absolutely disgusting some of his fans are as this recent reddit post from one of them on his reddit suggests:

I suppose it is unnecessary to point out that a devil's advocate is not a real devil. Arguing the fact that the general response to a rape was severe and unequivocal, and hence contrary to rape culture narratives may be unconvincing to some, but disgusting? Reach for the alka seltzer.Jackinthebox (talk) 16:28, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Seriously, just the very act of suggesting the woman in this case shares blame or is lying about something or that she is somehow "playing up her victimhood" pretty much proves the very thing they apparently don't believe in. Honestly, how fucking disgusting are these people? The guy was convicted, there are witnesses to the crime, he was caught red-handed and they STILL insinuate that somehow she shares a portion of the blame. Obviously despite every other drunk person at that party not committing rape, SHE should've apparently known better! I have never seen such flagrant imbeciles who practically prove the very thing they keep trying to deny! Seriously, they complain when we criticize sexist things in fictional media and when people actually discuss real problems... they say they're not real either! Fuck these people! And shame on Sargon for allowing these bastards to flourish in his fanbase! I'm not too surprised if he is a Trump supporter, he gets off on having sexists racists pieces of trash supporting him, same as the Donald.— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Yes, yes, yes, and Carl Jung was a Nazi. We all know how to commit guilt by association. No need for more examples of it.Jackinthebox (talk) 18:19, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
There's a difference between "shares social circles with insane antifeminists" and "actively promotes antifeminism, at the expense of science and rational thought". Sargon falls into the latter, and so the GBA fallacy doesn't apply. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 20:52, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
I know of no anti-scientific or seriously irrational statement made by SoA, unlike some of the authors in this wiki. He defends people I positively despise. That does not invalidate his other opinions, a pons asinorum many on this site have yet to pass .Jackinthebox (talk) 21:24, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
eh, there are some really really good analyses of Sargon's mis-debunking of the 1-in-5 rape stat -- in which SOA is ridiculously incompetent at science. see and 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 21:31, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
And if he were bad at math would you make a big deal out of that? Math is not science. Most kids are bad at math, especially in Social Sciences.Jackinthebox (talk) 21:46, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
^This. PB (talk) 21:48, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
^That?Jackinthebox (talk) 21:51, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Er, you are correct to point out that math is not a science. But then you wrote, "Most kids are bad at math, especially in the Social Sciences." What's that?! Nerd (talk) 21:53, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Probability and Statistics. The likely reason only one third of Psychology research papers published state reproducible results.Jackinthebox (talk) 21:59, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
No, I was pointing out an inconsistency in your argument. You wrote math is not a science, then another sentence implying that the social sciences is math. Nerd (talk) 22:06, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
I should let your friends explain that to you. Hint, "what study is called the Queen of Science?"Jackinthebox (talk) 22:14, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
I know the answer, mathematics. Again, I was pointing out an inconsistency in your argument. You imply that the social sciences are mathematics. I think a better way to phrase that would be the social sciences involve probability and statistics. That would remove the problem altogether. Nerd (talk) 22:20, 17 July 2016 (UTC)


So apparently that game he kickstarted, the one mentioned in the article here, has been cancelled. Do you guys think it's worth mentioning?: - Nergali (talk) 01:43, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Go for it. As noble as it is if he's truly refunding the money people donated to it, it's still worth noting the hypocrisy of him repeatedly attacking Anita Sarkeesian for apparently never finishing her Tropes vs Women project (even though she's set out a clear framework of the remaining videos in her series and where it will finish), when he couldn't even competently run a project of his own and ended up having to cancel his.

And don't forget to express your "nya, nya, nya,nya, nya, nyaaah!" in every sentence.Jackinthebox (talk) 20:35, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Not even trying to respond, eh? Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 20:53, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
It is so easy for me, it doesn't look like I'm trying.Jackinthebox (talk) 21:26, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Should we include discussion of his "debates", and also his flawed analysis of the "1 in 5" statistic?[edit]

Namely, the debates he had with Jenni Goodchild, Kristi Winters, and the Majority Report. All of these debates have in common that when you pit him against actual academics who can actually fight back, he tends to get exposed as being completely out of his depth and his claims thoroughly debunked in those debates to the point where, in the comments to each of the videos, even Sargon's own fans will admit how badly he performed. It would be good to maybe have a full article that could be linked to from this page discussing some talking points from the debates maybe in a "Side-by-Side" style of structure.

Also, I think it would be good to include discussion of his current obsession with the "1 in 5 Rapes happening on college campuses" statistic, and include as sources the Garrett video "Response to Sargon of Akkad" as well as Hbomberguy's "Anti-feminism vs FACTS" video, which include comprehensive debunking of how Sargon interprets the data from the surveys from which "1 in 5" originates. And of course, in both this article and any other articles on RW that talk about 1 in 5, there could be some fairly detailed stuff that could be added to explain why the MRA interprets the data is wrong as well. What do people think? (talk) 13:25, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Modern antifeminism is as much antiscience (or at least, misinterpretive of it) as is racialism -- and Sargon's abuse of publications/lectures on feminist theory, the wage gap, and rape rates all deserve scrutiny. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 22:37, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Modern Feminism that assumes the blank slate theory is completely anti-science. See Pinker's The Blank Slate. Much more work needs to be done scrubbing the pseudo-science from this wiki.Ariel31459 (talk) 15:41, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
I think feminism criticizes blank slate theory and would believe that absolute blank slate theory is disproven (since humans are not completely malleable) -- but so do most people. It seems unrealistic to me to believe that feminist scholars or a majority of feminists disagree completely with blank slate theory. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 20:55, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
You really do live in your own world. Especially rich when this Wiki perpetuates the SSSM model and supports its proponents in the a/s movement, Watson and Myers. The icing on the cake is that the dispute is cencored away. ~ Aneris 22:31, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
That is the problem: BST is a complete failure.Jackinthebox (talk) 21:28, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
? Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 21:31, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
!Si Hermano!Jackinthebox (talk) 21:54, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Sargon's politics[edit]

Okay, before this turns into an unending edit war with comments filling up the RC, let's discuss this. Rev previously told me that Sargon is a regressive leftist but we label as a libertarian wingnut. Based on the info on his page I believe he is somewhere in between a liberal and a libertarian but RIP appears to disagree. I am curious as to why.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 07:11, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Sargon himself has stated that Libertarianism is the closest official political ideology to his own beliefs, so if we want to classify him as anything, that would be the best. Arawn Emrys (talk) 13:36, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
A vandalous concern troll has tried to convince you there's something wrong with the current categories for a whole slew of pages. There isn't. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:23, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Just because he is a concern troll doesn't mean he is wrong. Sargon seem to empathize with working class people and he criticized certain government programs which are exploitative, I don't think that makes him just a libertarian.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 14:12, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
As I noted earlier, Sargon has said that he doesn't really ascribe to any specific political philosophy, but that Libertarianism is the closest. So, if we want to use any political descriptor, I can't think of a better one. Arawn Emrys (talk) 15:09, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Sure, but we can still label him on what he appears to be. If there was a right-libertarian who called for a government purge of perceived enemies I think it would be fair to say they are also likely to be an authoritarian. In this case, Sargon seems to have some left-wing views on certain economic situations, at least, according to our article; right-libertarians don't support worker's rights but he does.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 22:50, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
"When I use a word," Reverend Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less." So when I say "regressive" means "people I don't like", it is so. ~ Aneris 14:55, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
On a totally unrelated note, tell me more about the "regressive left" ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:43, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Feminists for Autism[edit]

Holy cow this man is insane. The video isn't his but it is a dissection of his video. I think we should include this level of nonsense clearly here. Zero (talk - contributions) 20:29, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

you like? Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 22:13, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
I never understand how anyone can watch Sargon. I mean when I was younger, I used to watch TAA but he was entertaining because he was a shock jock whereas Sargon has the same condescending, monotone voice. He is just boring.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 00:48, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
What's the reasoning behind "Feminists 4 autism"? Is it an anti-vaxxer sentiment or something? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:26, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
"Disagreeing with me can only be caused by a mental disorder, let me point to some really stretch-of-the-imagination symptom to ideology parallels" -- every "smart" asshole on the internet. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 14:50, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Wait, so he's implying that autism predisposes a person to not being an antifeminist? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:05, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes and no, but mostly yes. He is basically jerking some anti-feminist claims into the screen and loosely comparing them to autism in order to deride them, then if you don't agree with his assessment... you have autism. (Insert laugh track)--Owlman (talk) (mail) 17:11, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
"You're autistic" is #2 of my holy trinity of bad internet arguments everyone makes and treats like an epic victory. "Your side isn't logical and rational like mine, and is instead driven by emotion" is #1, and "The only reason I'm on the side opposing you is because you argue against side opposing you and it makes you mad" is #3. I think I could take all the logical fallacies and imperfect argumentation everyone else makes if I could just be rid of the turboturds that regularly abuse those 3. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:22, 4 October 2016 (UTC)


... would the real Sargon of Akkad make of this one? ('Not a lot' being the polite version.) (talk) 15:26, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I think you neglected to include the this that "this one" was referring to as part of your post. Unless you're referring to the article in general in which case I strongly suspect the answer would invoke the rationalwiki drinking game. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:45, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Is not 'his namesake' a logical implicit? Where is the page on the drinking game (and would real-Sargon's alchemists have had the knowledge and equipment to turn grain beer into vodka?) (talk) 16:25, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Oh, I completely misunderstood. I think his main reaction would probably be "HOLY SHIT, CARS!" And here's your answer ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:31, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
And the alchemists? (Being part of the useful technology they take back home on borrowing the Tardis for the weekend: and whichever 'fast car recommended by Jeremy Clarkson' can be converted to sand-power).) (talk) 17:05, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
The real SofA would probably say something along the lines of (a) eat my pants and/or (b) do not take my name in vain you (favourite insults). (talk) 15:57, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

More butthurtedness[edit]

See the main article on this topic: Fart

This is the rational wiki? I'm familiar with the form of this kind of satirical online content but most of the people who wrote this are clearly getting high from huffing their own farts. Shameful.— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs 12:14, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

"But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Joseph Goebbels would be proud of RationalWiki -A German — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Insightful. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 19:27, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Not as proud as Godwin is of you. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:43, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Dear Goat! Akkad's little flock does seem so "rational" and "composed", compared to the easily triggered SJW they always dream about.--Benaresh (talk) 22:48, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Alt-righters/Manospherians getting triggered?! Why, certainly you're not suggesting that they — along with the worst-case SJW's which they claim to combat — are in fact sides to the same hyper-offended coin?! Well that wouldn't be very reasonable to even suspect now, would it! Certainly nothing like that has ever been the case in the past! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:58, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

The point of this wiki is to allow us liberals to feel connected to the word rational while completely denying any and all philosophical rationality. If you don't allow us to have this echochamber, we will call you butthurt and upset. ‎— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Troll Reverend Black Percy (talk) 04:49, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Troll This is the best troll I've seen on this place in a long time. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 04:56, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
No offense, but this is nothing. My carbon fiber fedora can still withstand multiple tactical katana strikes — and that's assuming I don't just let them all miss. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 05:01, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Edit request: "Trump fanboyism"[edit]

Sargon is dedicating more of his videos recently to defending Trump. I'd like to amend the "Trump fanboyism" section as follows (in red), to be more accurate:

Trump fanboyism[edit]

On 29 July 2015, Sargon (jokingly) said "I'd love to see Trump as president. He's crazy, but fuck it, how could it be any worse."[1] (Well, we'll find that out soon enough, won't we?) On 06 October 2015, Sargon defended Trump against criticisms by the Young Turks.[2] However, on 18 Oct 2015, he spoke in favor of Bernie Sanders as the presidential candidate, stating, "You will have two anti-establishment characters running for president and thank God, it means that Bernie Sanders is going to win."[3]

Apparently, supporting Bernie Sanders translates into spending hours defending Donald Trump. So far:

  • Sargon has discussed "The Assassination of Donald Trump" (44:08!), in which Trump is, quote, "a manifestation of the will of the people" to "regain control of the system". According to Sargon, if Trump is assassinated, then the next radical populist reformer will be a "Julius Caesar" who will "end [the American] republic".[4]
  • Sargon whined about John Oliver's #MakeDonaldDrumpfAgain skit.[5] Twice.[6] Sargon also apparently fails to realize that, in a show spanning 30 minutes, the end-skit was not actually the brunt of Oliver's criticism.
  • Since the 2016 US election, Sargon has been making more of his recent videos about Trump, especially the "This Week in Stupid" series. Sargon claims to be "really fucking sick" of talking about Donald Trump.[7]

On 12 October, 2016, Sargon finally voiced open support for Trump, stating "Hillary must lose."[8] Way to live up to the "Bernie Bro" stereotype, Carl.

  1. [redacted because filter]
  2. [redacted because filter] Cenk Uygur vs His Own Bias
  3. [redacted because filter]
  4. [redacted because filter] - all quotes after 41:00 in the video.
  5. [redacted because filter]
  6. [redacted because filter]
  7. - quote at the start of video
  8. [redacted because filter]

  • "is assassinated", "the next radical populist reformer" -- because that's what Sargon was talking about in that video.
  • "all quotes after 41:00 in the video." -- because proper references should give page number and timestamp anyway, to aid verification
  • "Since the 2016 US election[...]", "hours" -- because the section kind of needs updating and that's the widest (accurate but imprecise) update I can be bothered to write in a short time

Feel free to insert sarcasm, your personal points, or biased hyperbole, to your heart's delight. I had to remove the links in order to get past the filter.-- (talk) 20:35, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good, add it in. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 23:04, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

This post[edit]

It is demonstrable horse shit. It's clearly not rational, as it takes a stance which is not informed in any way by reason or logic (the definition of rational). Note that I am not making an emotional or opinionated comment. I am stating fact. This post is clearly written with a bias, and the writer(s) had no idea what they were talking about. E.g. claiming Anita Sarkeesian isn't radical (by making the link to "bullshit"). Even she, herself, claims to be radical.

Another example of the horseshit of this article is using the term "anti-progressive" to describe Sargon or his content. He is specifically anti-REGRESSIVE. That's literally the point. He talks about and argues against regressive dumbfucks, like SJWs and 3rd-wave feminists who actively campaign for sexism. — Unsigned, by: Morons / talk / contribs

Your post (as you write in your above headline) may indeed be demonstrable horseshit (though you said so, not me). Regardless...
  • That's actually not a correct definition of rationality. Rationality means (circa) "in accord with one's goals and intentions". Rationality doesn't invoke logic (which is a language and a tool) by necessity, for one.
  • You're clearly making an opinionated statement. As is the article; as am I; as is everyone. It's not a problem that you are — so why the denial? Please don't pretend to some sort of "objective neutrality" (especially not while using terms like "horseshit" and "dumbfucks"). We sure don't.
  • You'll be shocked to hear it, but generally, we attempt to remember that there's a thing called "nuance" — and as such, we separate Sarkeesian from genuinely nutty zealots like Andrea Dworkin. Regardless of what you think of Sarkeesian, unless you unfairly bunch all feminists together somehowWikipedia, you will admit that Sarkeesian is certainly not at the end of any spectrum of radicalism. Relax.
  • That being said, though — you claim that she identifies as some sort of overt radfem (however one does that). Fair enough; find us a non-quotemined source for that exact position of hers and we'll look into it.
  • You seem to be stuck in a simplifying mindset. Just because we have a problem with Sargon, you conclude that we could not also explore regressive leftism, SJWs or sexism? Makes me wonder who's really the regressive here... Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:33, 4 March 2017 (UTC) petition: Give Sargon of akkad a knight-hood![edit]

Sargon of akkad (or Carl of England as he should be known) is one of the main defenders of western civilization. He has dedicated countless hours, cooped up in his basement to showing people the evils of Feminism and how it is going to destroy the west unless it is stopped. Feminism has proven a threat to video games, ghostbusters, and the free distribution of waifu body pillows. This man has done too many brave actions to count. Such as setting up a petition to ban social justice from university, and sending people porn on twitter. I can only imagine how many more brave and selfless he will carry out to defend the west in the future. Sargon is a hero. And must be treated as such. So please I beg the queen to give him a knight-hood for his acts of bravery on the internet.

We need to save video games and waifu pillows from people who did social studies. Cultural Marxists and SJWs are destroying my media by talking about them and Sargon is committed to fighting this with complaining his basement. He's anything if not brave.

Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 19:25, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Sargon intentionally misrepresents the anarchist/antifa YPG as ISIS militants[edit]

Twitter thread. Watch him dig his own grave in the replies. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 15:18, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Here's the TLDR. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 15:20, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Clear Bias[edit]

Bias in this article:

Hey, After reading this I feel like it is quite clear that there is bias against Sargon in this article. Whether you agree with him or not at least accept that Wikis by definition should not be biased. This is RationalWIKI. It would be nice if someone could change to page to only display objective facts and then separate out the arguments for and against Sargon when softlock the page in terms of editing.

Thanks— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: SigButt.png on the toolbar above the edit panel. (You can indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line.) Thank you. We don't claim to be neutral. Anything specific you think is wrong with the article? Christopher (talk) 09:14, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
"But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 09:59, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
I thought this was supposed to be RationalWiki RationalWiki. knird (talk) 10:17, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
While there is obvious bias against him (with a header like "Why Sargon is a shithead", it's kind of obvious), it does also raise valid points. I like him, I watch all of his videos (have since Gamergate started) but yeah, he does jump to conclusions, he used to quotemine a lot (though he has started presenting whole articles/links to the videos he's quoting so we get the whole context) and isn't very good in live debates. He also can get really aggressive/agitated, real quick, for little to no reason. I can't agree with him on Trump, at all. He infuriatingly uses anecdotal evidence of radicals representing the whole of a group, but will instantly criticize anyone who uses anecdotal evidence against groups he likes or supports. Also, he recently let a bunch of other Youtubers post videos on his channel while he was away on vacation and... wow, some of them were utter morons. "Kick all women out of STEM fields!"... what. Draevan13 (talk) 17:43, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

"I can't agree with him on Trump" So you're a fan of Trump?? He doesn't like Trump. At all. The main merits he claims Trump has are he's so God awful that he's going to screw up the establishment beyond repair. Like Nero.

Respectfully: it sounds like most of Sargon goes way over your head, or he's just not to your tastes. A lot of what he argues is clearly absurd, and not what he truly believes. He's also willing to entertain theories or people that you may find too profane to deal with, and I can respect that sentiment, even if I don't agree with it myself.— Unsigned, by: / talk

He is to my tastes, I watch all his videos the day they come out and find the vast majority of them entertaining and often thought provoking (though he sometimes could do some more research, especially his recent Syria videos being full of debunked claims and sources). As to his Trump views, I meant I disagree with his stance of "Trump may be bad, but he's a better choice than Hillary". As much as I dislike her, I'd rather have her in the White House now than Trump. Draevan13 (talk) 22:17, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Stop it[edit]

You're making this article great again. It'll be Silver quality soon if you keep this up, what with the adding of references for all his statements, and the non-hysterical tone of writing. Why, you're giving people the impression that fully level-headed criticisms against Sargon actually stick. For shame! I vote delete! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:06, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Protest.gif--JorisEnter (talk) 12:54, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
That makes 10 of us! Quick, someone coop Gerard! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:34, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Reminder to add this in[edit]

A view not too far from liberal views. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 06:18, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


He's doubled down on the trutherism lately, could warrant more - David Gerard (talk) 23:51, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

On his livestream channel or main one? I've watched all his main channel videos and didn't see anything recently, but haven't watched all his livestreams. Draevan13 (talk) 19:19, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Twitter (not dredging it up, but he was defending his past trutherism recently) - David Gerard (talk) 11:33, 4 June 2017 (UTC)


This page is hideously biased and completely misrepresentative. Sargon is a solid Leftist, and his criticisms are for our own good. He CONSTANTLY qualifies his statements with 'the right is even worse/wrong/garbage'; and you're a fool to thing he's even slightly aligned with them.

Is he frequently wrong, mistaken or misguided? Yes. Is he a corrupting covert far right agent that misrepresents arguments? Don't make me laugh.

This page does more to undermine the Left's cause than he's ever done.— Unsigned, by: / talk

He doesn't plan to vote Labor. He's spent hours upon hours defending Trump. He spends most of the remainder attacking leftists.
He calls himself a leftist and then paints Bernie Sanders types as socialists and communists (and then says communists were worse than Nazis).
He calls himself a liberal and sees no importance in defending abortion rights.
He says that the right will at worst be "mildly oppressive" to the poor. Conversely, he says that "the left" is going to destroy Western civilization.
In short: He is a centrist, a contradictory idiot, or both.
You're free to whine here. But if you want to change our minds, point to what we get wrong in the article. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 21:09, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

-Wrong. He's pro Bernie.
-Wrong. He's pro choice. He has frequently made this clear
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Watch the video; note the title.
He's called himself centrist more than once...
He calls himself a leftist and then paints Bernie Sanders types as socialists and communists (and then says communists were worse than Nazis).
-Despite being pro bernie?!???
WTF dude, how can you possibly make so many outrageous mistakes?!?? You've never listened to him if you literally believe half of the things here. I mean that literally; not an exaggeration. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs
Bernie: Fair point -- you might be right about Bernie. Yet he absolutely paints Corbyn as a commie and red-baits leftist politicians. He now spends his time defending Trump, attacking Labor, and whining about "neo-progressives". Actions speak louder than opinions.
Pro-choice: Yes, he's pro-choice. He also thinks abortion rights are "the least important thing in the fucking world".
The fact that Sargon doesn't know what he believes doesn't mean that you can pick and choose the leftist parts. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 12:40, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh God. I put off responding to this few a few days because I was sure you were going to jump to a bunch of insane conclusions and ad hominems... glad to see I was wrong for once.

I'm not actually a follower of Sargon, I'm not a fan of his tone, and his political ideas are far too right leaning for me. Also he's not very intellectual in the sense that he's far too prone to reactionism for my tastes... I'm but anyways: I don't know what he's got against Corbyn, and while I'm skeptical, I would be willing to listen to his argument. But on the other hand I view this as a lot more black and white than the American election, and there's no redeeming May's party, so he couldn't convince me if he tried.

But honestly I think you're not giving him a fair shake. He doesn't REALLY like Trump. He's defending Trump against unfair attacks. I do that too; but I think Trump is pretty much the worst... thing conceivable.

I'd call Sargon Leftist though. Solidly. That said: I think he's far too centrist for my tastes. That video you linked: it talks about labels. I hate labels; I think it always comes down to names. Focus on policy. And yeah, I'm not a fan of much of what Sargon's policies are.

Pro-choice: Yes, he's pro-choice. He also thinks abortion rights are "the least important thing in the fucking world".

I think you're misinterpreting what he means by that. Abortion is a first world problem. It should be a right, but the ability to kill an unborn child is a luxury that comes after pretty much every other biological right. So yeah, I agree with him. I would NEVER VOTE FOR A PARTY THAT WANTED TO REMOVE A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE THOUGH.— Unsigned, by: / talk

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: SigButt.png on the toolbar above the edit panel. (You can indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line.) Thank you. Christopher (talk) 19:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you (talk) 02:04, 8 June 2017 (UTC)Mr. Wiggles.

Nice anti-abortion language: "ability to kill an unborn child" to back up your defense that it's a "misinterpretation" when it sounds exactly like an anti-abortion canard. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 21:15, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
I said I'm pro choice in the same sentence, dink. And abortions target unborn children; if they were already born it's murder.

-- (talk) 02:04, 8 June 2017 (UTC)Mr. Wiggles.

Sargon doesn't hold many leftist positions. He likes universal healthcare and a welfare system -- and that's about it. That's hardly leftist -- especially for a Brit.

I believe that's how he describes himself. (talk) 02:04, 8 June 2017 (UTC)Mr. Wiggles.

What other "biological rights" do you think exist? The bottom tier of Maslow's hierarchy. It's on the second tier, and rather high on it. (talk) 02:04, 8 June 2017 (UTC)Mr. Wiggles.

Moreover, Sargon doesn't specify "biological rights"

He doesn't need to. That's not how discussion works. And also it's been a while but I'm fairly certain that he did at one point. Like 60% sure. But that doens't matter.

Gordian knot dude. Or umbilical cord, as it were. Does it REALLY matter how he arrived at the same conclusion as you? There are far bigger fish to fry than people who agree with you on 80% of issues. (talk) 02:04, 8 June 2017 (UTC)Mr. Wiggles.

-- he explains at length that abortion rights are less important than fighting college SJWs, who he thinks are literally ending "free thought". This is not a man who has thought through his system of rights very thoroughly.

I really doubt that. And if he did: I'm 90% sure it's a joke. He's prone to hyperbole. (talk) 02:04, 8 June 2017 (UTC)Mr. Wiggles.

As for Trump -- I really can't agree. Sargon shares pro-Trump memes and shares alt-right memes & conspiracy theories. If he's just defending Trump from "unfair" criticism, then he must think that almost all criticisms of Trump are unfair. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 22:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Have you been online in the past year? Most of the criticism of Trump IS unfair. Which is mind boggling since there are enough outrageous facts about him that making anything up is unnecessary. (talk) 02:04, 8 June 2017 (UTC)Mr. Wiggles.

Retiring these quotes[edit]

Sargon of Akkad is such low hanging fruit. He's basically a tomato.
—/r/BadPolitics on Sargon of Akkad[1][note 1]
He's literally a grown man with the attitudes of a naive teenaged boy.
—Libertarian Socialist Rants[2]
  1. Dear tomatoes, sorry for the comparison. We still love you!

I think they're funny and apt, but Sargon's probably best discredited through his own words. Thoughts? Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 19:42, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I think the "low hanging fruit" one can be replaced by one from the same Reddit thread, though it might be a bit too long:"It can be fun to watch him tear apart some blatantly ridiculous concepts in his videos, which is where he gets the majority of his fanbase from. But that's where his knowledge stops. Once he ventures into ideas that have actually have to be considered and thought upon, that he can't just dispel with a fallacy fallacy, his limitations start showing."Draevan13 (talk) 19:58, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Does Sargon Have a Coherent Ideology?[edit]

Lovely. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 14:00, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

That was basically a video of someone watching the links that were already on his RationalWiki page. --CowHouse (talk) 10:59, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Does he belong in the "racists" category?[edit]

For all his faults, I do not consider him a racist and I can provide several instances of him rejecting racism. He has said:

-- CowHouse (talk) 14:46, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Assuming they aren't cherry picked from countless pro-racist statements, these should all go in the article, and — unless there's another racist angle I'm unaware of — the racists category should be removed. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:50, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
He did make the "synthesised watermelon" joke ( When he's not making inappropriate jokes though, he seems to be consistently opposed to racism. I suppose that racist joke could be enough to put him in that category, but you would have to ignore his many other anti-racist statements. He may have made other racist statements but I'm not aware of them. -- CowHouse (talk) 15:36, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
We can only allege things about Sargon's views for which we have quotes. And, while that joke is tasteless, things generally look quite different when it's clear that a person's jokes are merely the medium for broadcasting actual opinion, e.g. in the case of RedPanels (in which case, this was done brazenly). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:08, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Honestly, category-dropping in general is the laziest and least-helpful way people add drive-by critiques to people on this wiki, without effort. Any time you see a category and the article we have here does not justify it(regardless of whether you're concerned there might be truth to it), just remove the category at your leisure. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:29, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Ideology (Libertarian/Conservative tags)[edit]

While I'm not sure I'd qualify Sargon as a Libertarian, I removed the "Conservative" tag from the page. Given his support of gun control, universal health care, abortion (though he is against taxpayers paying for it), gay marriage, being against more tax cuts for the rich, and the only subject he is definitely right-wing being immigration, I think calling him a conservative is a bit of a stretch. At most, he's a centrist. But as I said, I don't think he's a Libertarian either. What other tag could we use? Draevan13 (talk) 17:52, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

"Not to be confused with the infinitely more noteworthy and hirsute emperor of the Akkadian Empire"[edit]

Do we know for certain that the Emperor Sargon was more hirsute than Carl? The busts/statues have longer beards but that's not really what hirsute actually means. I can't prove it but I strongly suspect Carl has more body hair and really this wiki, of all places, shouldn't be making this kind of claim unless it can be backed up. Right? — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Have you ever read a joke before this very moment? FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 17:35, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Sargon Twitter Account suspended.[edit]

The references connected to Sargon's Twitter account are now dead. Someone should eventually attempt to remove them.Ariel31459 (talk) 15:21, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Most, if not all, of them will be archived. You can check by copying-and-pasting the links here. CowHouse (talk) 01:36, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Page locked?[edit]

I was going to add his argument with neo-Nazis from his latest Youtube videos but the page seems to be locked, can it be unlocked or added by someone who can edit? Draevan13 (talk) 20:30, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Sargon Sued for Copyright Infringement by Akilah Hughes[edit]


Sargon's just been sued in the Southern District Court of New York, with Hughes accusing Sargon of not following Fair Use when copying her video (i.e. no critique or commentary). A copy of the court documentation can be found on Leonard French's website here. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 19:22, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Quote mining[edit]

It seems like a like some of the quotes and captions of Akkad are biased in that they take quotes out of context. I'm not for or against him, but we should put a bit more context on the quotes.

— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs 20:29, 25 October 2017

@ Could you point to any specific examples? FuzzyCatPotato of the Dazzling Rickrolls (talk/stalk) 21:36, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
I added this one to the page, and I'll admit in retrospect that it was quote-mined:
There are a lot of people with very bad and ill-informed opinions. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure I'm one of them.
If you watch it in context, he was being humble and saying he doesn't know everything. I think I was being a bit harsh by taking a quote of him admitting his flaws and using it against him.
The other quotes on the page are all accurate representations of his statements as far as I'm aware. CowHouse (talk) 01:48, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
That's not quote mining. It implies exactly what you said the context implies, and is merely being used derisively because it proves more true than the humblebrag intends. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:41, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
@FuzzyCatPotato. The section on incoherent ideology is problematic because it implies being incoherent is somehow a violation of some subrosa rule. Um...humans are typically pretty inconsistent. e.g. take a Catholic who is pro-choice and anti-death penalty. The pope says that's wrong. Not me.Ariel31459 (talk) 18:23, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
@Ariel31459 That's incorrect. For commonfolk, we accept hypocrisy as a fact of life. For alleged intellectuals, hypocrisy is a sign that one hasn't truly examined one's own beliefs -- and thus that one is indeed just an alleged intellectual. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 08:41, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
@FuzzyCatPotato No, Fuzzy, this form of exposition is, paradoxically, incoherent as method of analysis. For example, no existentialist intellectual can be held to your standard. Moral choices are determined by empirical circumstances, not axiomatically. Also, simply quoting logical inconsistencies with no detailed discussion leaves the reader to do most of the work. He is guilty, of course, but of what? The evidence suggests inconsistency, but hypocrisy? A moral judgement? That's preaching to the choir. Some Anti-feminist bloggers make a living pointing out the alleged inconsistencies of prominent feminists. That doesn't make the feminists hypocrites.Ariel31459 (talk) 15:27, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

"Garbage Human."[edit]

It seems a little libelous to call almost anyone a garbage human, even if Sarkeesian thinks so. It would be acceptible to quote Anita Sarkeesian in the article. I think the guy is an internet troll. That is as far as I think it should go.Ariel31459 (talk) 17:54, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Professional Victim[edit]

He is also known for conducting targeted harassment campaigns against [[feminists]] like [[Anita Sarkeesian]] and then [[playing the victim]] when he gets called out on it.<ref>[ Anita Sarkeesian's astounding 'garbage human' moment]</ref> [[Ironically]], despite all of the above, he still has the nerve to call other people [[projection|"professional victims."]]<ref>See, for example, [ "Professional Victims and the Censorship of the Internet"] among many other videos.</ref>

  1. The intro isn't the place for these claims.
  2. The claims made require more evidence than 1 Polygon article. It should also use TAT. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 08:46, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Stupid Tweets to incorporate[edit] αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 14:22, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Fuzzy: why are you proposing a longer article here? It already has many more references than Alex Jones.Ariel31459 (talk) 15:53, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
@Ariel31459 Alex Jones should also be longer. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 16:25, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
@FuzzyCatPotato OK. But, I wonder that some editors think Benjamin is deserving of this much attention. If you Google the terms "Alex Jones YouTube Channel" and "Sargon of Akkad YouTube Channel" the numbers of results are 62 million and 216 thousand respectively. How important could Benjamin really be? This is a fact that maybe should find its way into the article.Ariel31459 (talk) 18:07, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Why propose a longer article? Why not? --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 18:42, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Ah,...because it encourages Sargon to think he is important, which I do not agree with, personally. I did compare interest in Sargon on google with Alex Jones and you will note the ratio is about 300 to 1. Does this matter? Maybe not.Ariel31459 (talk) 20:30, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
I've seen his name come up in predictive text for Rationalwiki when I'm googling at work or the library, so people out there seem to be interested, even if Mr Ariel thinks we ought not to be. Boredatwork (talk) 18:56, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
I never implied you should not be interested. I suggest that the subject does not merit as much detail as it has received. He must be very proud of the attention you have accorded him. Good for you if it makes you happy.Ariel31459 (talk) 20:30, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
How exactly does expanding the article give him more attention? Does it magically generate more links? Wouldn't you want people to know more about how much of a thorough fart bag he is? --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 00:36, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
I have watched Benjamin's videos at length, and I am convinced he is proud to receive extensive criticism from this Wiki. I hate the guy for many of the things he has said (see below with respect to Charlottesville for the latest example). I am not trying to limit his negative press. I just don't think he deserves a long article. You disagree. That's fine. I am offended by Benjamin, not by this article.Ariel31459 (talk) 00:54, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
We should care about how he views us.... why exactly? --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 01:03, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
OK. I don't like the idea that he is thrilled to get this much attention, and you don't care what floats his boat. I actually don't like this guy, whereas others seem to be acting on principle. I'll get over it.Ariel31459 (talk) 01:23, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Stupid Tweets to incorporate[edit] αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 14:22, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Fuzzy: why are you proposing a longer article here? It already has many more references than Alex Jones.Ariel31459 (talk) 15:53, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
@Ariel31459 Alex Jones should also be longer. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 16:25, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
@FuzzyCatPotato OK. But, I wonder that some editors think Benjamin is deserving of this much attention. If you Google the terms "Alex Jones YouTube Channel" and "Sargon of Akkad YouTube Channel" the numbers of results are 62 million and 216 thousand respectively. How important could Benjamin really be? This is a fact that maybe should find its way into the article.Ariel31459 (talk) 18:07, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Why propose a longer article? Why not? --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 18:42, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Ah,...because it encourages Sargon to think he is important, which I do not agree with, personally. I did compare interest in Sargon on google with Alex Jones and you will note the ratio is about 300 to 1. Does this matter? Maybe not.Ariel31459 (talk) 20:30, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
I've seen his name come up in predictive text for Rationalwiki when I'm googling at work or the library, so people out there seem to be interested, even if Mr Ariel thinks we ought not to be. Boredatwork (talk) 18:56, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
I never implied you should not be interested. I suggest that the subject does not merit as much detail as it has received. He must be very proud of the attention you have accorded him. Good for you if it makes you happy.Ariel31459 (talk) 20:30, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
How exactly does expanding the article give him more attention? Does it magically generate more links? Wouldn't you want people to know more about how much of a thorough fart bag he is? --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 00:36, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
I have watched Benjamin's videos at length, and I am convinced he is proud to receive extensive criticism from this Wiki. I hate the guy for many of the things he has said (see below with respect to Charlottesville for the latest example). I am not trying to limit his negative press. I just don't think he deserves a long article. You disagree. That's fine. I am offended by Benjamin, not by this article.Ariel31459 (talk) 00:54, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
We should care about how he views us.... why exactly? --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 01:03, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
OK. I don't like the idea that he is thrilled to get this much attention, and you don't care what floats his boat. I actually don't like this guy, whereas others seem to be acting on principle. I'll get over it.Ariel31459 (talk) 01:23, 14 December 2017 (UTC)