Talk:Sargon of Akkad/Archive2

This is an archive page, last updated 18 October 2022. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)(back)

Sargon prefers the alt-right to the SJeW menace

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/sargon-of-akkad-cites-white-nationalist-propaganda-reveals-his-alt-right-sympathies/

As the interview began to wrap up, Benjamin gave parting advice to Robertson about successfully advancing the alt-right agenda because he believes that social justice advocates are “a fucking massive problem”

“You’ve got diversity in everything—everything,” Benjamin said.

“I know. I know, it’s terrible,” Robertson said.

“Yeah, it’s terrifying, isn’t it? But like [social justice warriors are] not just a loud fringe. They’re not. This what people have to—say ‘Oh, SJWs, they’re not a big problem’—no, they’re a fucking massive problem. I mean holy fuck, the reason thousands of young girls are getting raped is not because the police didn’t want to do something or couldn’t do something. It was because they were afraid of social justice warriors calling them racist,” Benjamin explained.

Benjamin later went on to conclude that “worst case scenario for the alt-right’s success in this endeavor,” referring to racial segregation, “is less intolerable to me and my family than the SJW success. So from a tactical evaluation, I have to choose this angle. I have to try and explain to the alt-right that they can get what they want and they should take this gambit, even if it means the end of liberal democracy.”

Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 22:35, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

The above exemplifies Benjamin's insipid trolling. You buried the lead:

an early part of the discussion included Benjamin echoing white nationalist propaganda surrounding the murder (blunt force trauma) of (Heather) Heyer, a liberal counter-protester at the racist Unite the Right rally earlier this year in Charlottesville, Virginia.

“As I understand it, I thought Heather Hayes or Heyer or whatever her name was, I thought she died of a heart attack,” Benjamin said.

“Yes. It looks like what happened is that she was shocked by seeing the car crash happening and had a heart attack,” Robertson said.

Benjamin laughed and when Robertson remarked Heyer’s alleged heart attacked seemed “a bit dramatic,” Benjamin said, “It’s more that the alt-right being blamed for someone having a heart attack, someone in tremendously bad physical condition has a heart attack, and suddenly the alt-right has murdered someone.”

Now that is unforgivable, and should be included.Ariel31459 (talk) 00:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

@Ariel31459 That part is included, we just haven't directly quoted him.

Benjamin responded to the Right Wing Watch article. He was, unsurprisingly, not a fan of it. CowHouse (talk) 02:46, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Response video quotes

"I will defy you to find where I have said the term, 'I am a rational skeptic'."

You say, [reading from Holt article] Benjamin pushed another alt-right conspiracy theory that NPI white nationalist Richard Spencer was "controlled opposition," meaning that he was a government agent embedded in the movement to give the alt-right a bad public image. [speaking] Which, I mean, let's be honest, that could well be the case, because he's doing a fabulous job of that. But you even quote me here, and it's weird that you say I'm pushing this, when what you quote me as saying is, 'Is Richard Spencer controlled opposition?' So that's not me pushing something, that's me asking for clarification. And Colin said, no. So, okay, that's great, that's clear, Richard Spencer is genuinely as incompetent at being an alt-right figurehead as he appears. It's not an act. He's not being paid off. Okay. Good to know.

The full quote was:

The mainstream media could just have a policy of non-engagement and that would be more successful for kettling the alt-right than it would be promoting them. But I mean Richard Spencer is only a household name because of the media. Is Richard Spencer controlled opposition? I’m genuinely curious.

galaxy_brain.png 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 01:07, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Commentary on quote

This quote was particularly egregious concerning the Heather Heyer conspiracy theory:

• "Okay. The alt-right had lied [mocks gasp of shock] My goodness! I can't believe it! Both the far-left and the alt-right are both a pack of liars!"

Firstly, this is not what happened at all. Benjamin was the one who raised the conspiracy in the first place, not Robertson. Besides, there's no reasonable way to interpret this. He's admitting he heard this theory from an alt-righter and is then sarcastically saying he was shocked it was a lie. Well, why didn't he check if it was a lie when he heard it in the first place?! All he needed to do was a quick Google search. He cannot pretend to be shocked that an alt-righter lied to him when he was stupid enough to believe them. CowHouse (talk) 05:24, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Wow, just fucking wow.--86.191.199.111 (talk) 17:42, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Sargon prefers the alt-right to the SJeW menace

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/sargon-of-akkad-cites-white-nationalist-propaganda-reveals-his-alt-right-sympathies/

As the interview began to wrap up, Benjamin gave parting advice to Robertson about successfully advancing the alt-right agenda because he believes that social justice advocates are “a fucking massive problem”

“You’ve got diversity in everything—everything,” Benjamin said.

“I know. I know, it’s terrible,” Robertson said.

“Yeah, it’s terrifying, isn’t it? But like [social justice warriors are] not just a loud fringe. They’re not. This what people have to—say ‘Oh, SJWs, they’re not a big problem’—no, they’re a fucking massive problem. I mean holy fuck, the reason thousands of young girls are getting raped is not because the police didn’t want to do something or couldn’t do something. It was because they were afraid of social justice warriors calling them racist,” Benjamin explained.

Benjamin later went on to conclude that “worst case scenario for the alt-right’s success in this endeavor,” referring to racial segregation, “is less intolerable to me and my family than the SJW success. So from a tactical evaluation, I have to choose this angle. I have to try and explain to the alt-right that they can get what they want and they should take this gambit, even if it means the end of liberal democracy.”

Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 22:35, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

The above exemplifies Benjamin's insipid trolling. You buried the lead:

an early part of the discussion included Benjamin echoing white nationalist propaganda surrounding the murder (blunt force trauma) of (Heather) Heyer, a liberal counter-protester at the racist Unite the Right rally earlier this year in Charlottesville, Virginia.

“As I understand it, I thought Heather Hayes or Heyer or whatever her name was, I thought she died of a heart attack,” Benjamin said.

“Yes. It looks like what happened is that she was shocked by seeing the car crash happening and had a heart attack,” Robertson said.

Benjamin laughed and when Robertson remarked Heyer’s alleged heart attacked seemed “a bit dramatic,” Benjamin said, “It’s more that the alt-right being blamed for someone having a heart attack, someone in tremendously bad physical condition has a heart attack, and suddenly the alt-right has murdered someone.”

Now that is unforgivable, and should be included.Ariel31459 (talk) 00:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

@Ariel31459 That part is included, we just haven't directly quoted him.

Benjamin responded to the Right Wing Watch article. He was, unsurprisingly, not a fan of it. CowHouse (talk) 02:46, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Response video quotes

"I will defy you to find where I have said the term, 'I am a rational skeptic'."

You say, [reading from Holt article] Benjamin pushed another alt-right conspiracy theory that NPI white nationalist Richard Spencer was "controlled opposition," meaning that he was a government agent embedded in the movement to give the alt-right a bad public image. [speaking] Which, I mean, let's be honest, that could well be the case, because he's doing a fabulous job of that. But you even quote me here, and it's weird that you say I'm pushing this, when what you quote me as saying is, 'Is Richard Spencer controlled opposition?' So that's not me pushing something, that's me asking for clarification. And Colin said, no. So, okay, that's great, that's clear, Richard Spencer is genuinely as incompetent at being an alt-right figurehead as he appears. It's not an act. He's not being paid off. Okay. Good to know.

The full quote was:

The mainstream media could just have a policy of non-engagement and that would be more successful for kettling the alt-right than it would be promoting them. But I mean Richard Spencer is only a household name because of the media. Is Richard Spencer controlled opposition? I’m genuinely curious.

galaxy_brain.png oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 01:07, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Commentary on quote

This quote was particularly egregious concerning the Heather Heyer conspiracy theory:

• "Okay. The alt-right had lied [mocks gasp of shock] My goodness! I can't believe it! Both the far-left and the alt-right are both a pack of liars!"

Firstly, this is not what happened at all. Benjamin was the one who raised the conspiracy in the first place, not Robertson. Besides, there's no reasonable way to interpret this. He's admitting he heard this theory from an alt-righter and is then sarcastically saying he was shocked it was a lie. Well, why didn't he check if it was a lie when he heard it in the first place?! All he needed to do was a quick Google search. He cannot pretend to be shocked that an alt-righter lied to him when he was stupid enough to believe them. CowHouse (talk) 05:24, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Wow, just fucking wow.--86.191.199.111 (talk) 17:42, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Hear from a whiny BoN

God damn, you losers are desperate. You've put all this work into trying to assassinate someone's character and you haven't even made them really look bad. What a bunch of hopeless, desperate babies.^{— Unsigned, by: 220.239.171.2 / talk / contribs}

Spriggina (razgovor) (doprinosi) @ 22:23, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Sargon connects the Rothschilds to loss of Le Pen in France

http://archive.li/DcMKU http://archive.is/qnscl http://archive.li/RVagE The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 20:14, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Sargon doesn't mind the pseudo-fascist government of Starship Troopers

https://twitter.com/MoaVideos/status/951037312787406849 Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 20:20, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Ah, well, the book was a lot better than the movie. Also, the link page does not exist.Ariel31459 (talk) 23:53, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

How exactly does he "not mind" it? And how is it pseudo-Fascist? Service guarantees citizenship is not Fascist. Citizenship guaranteeing service is Fascist.78.150.68.151 (talk) 09:36, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

So you guys mind if I link to the Encyclopedia Dramatica article?

Or does doing such still fall under doxxing? After all, their page on him is surprisingly accurate (most of it anyway). Maim!Kill!Burn! (talk) 22:05, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I believe it is the position of the wiki that ED should never be used as a source except to document its own idiocy, and if the article has personal information that he has not willingly released elsewhere, that's doxxing. Spriggina (thảo luận) (đóng góp) @ 22:14, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

If the article is sourced, we can probably use those sources, but otherwise, take anything from Encyclopedia Drama with a mole of salt. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 22:20, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

How is this not on the page yet

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfFai-0hqH0^{— Unsigned, by: 75.90.15.136 / talk / contribs}

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. Spriggina (thảo luận) (đóng góp) @ 04:53, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Is this for real or an The Onion type of post?

1st I'm a noob to this. I'm not even sure if this is the correct place to post this.

After spending some time, <1 hour, this seems to be an entirely fictitious article. Are people actually listening to the things SOA says? It doesn't seem like it.

Do people here want to ACTUALLY be honest or only publish propaganda?

I held RationalWiki with high esteem until I read this straw man with "Poisoning the Well" thrown in for good measure. ^{— Unsigned, by: Alextiming / talk / contribs}

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you.

Can you be more specific please? If you actually want to improve the page, a generic complaint like this is entirely unhelpful. CowHouse (talk) 15:10, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Not the OP, but how about this for starters. The caption on his twitter pic makes fun of the way the dude smiles. This wiki should be a place for people to learn, not for petty insults. I tried removing the comment, only for someone to put it right back 8 minutes later.--24.13.88.55 (talk) 18:21, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Richard Spencer tweet

I have added a tweet by Richard Spencer in the intro which I think it's quite illuminating over the connection between Sargon and the alt-right. Please feel free to move it elsewhere in the article if you think it doesn't belong there. 83.250.104.107 (talk) 23:01, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

How on Earth is Spencer a good person to be referencing? Carl would only be a good entry point for people who completely reject the basis of individualism that Carl argues for.78.150.68.151 (talk) 09:34, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Spencer is a valid source for how the alt-right views Sargon. But I'm not sure the quote belongs at the article start; it would be better to include it with context in the "Relationship with the alt-right" section. --Gospatric (talk) 10:41, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah...

This article doesn't go hard enough on olde Ben of Swindon. It doesn't emphasize how much of an enabler for the alt-right he is - how is audience is just a bunch of neck-beards looking for confirmation bias. He operates under the guise of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". He went along to the anti-Trump protests in London with the intent of making anyone who is against Trump look like an unhinged anarcho-communist - knowing very well these protests attract bourgeois middle-class white people who are always going to be outraged about something. We know why he does this - it pays his bills. Good hustle and all. He capitalizes on the SJW's et al. PS, in one of his recent TWIS episodes he suggested that if someone writes racist slurs on a napkin they should be excused from any wrong doing. So, considering how my civil partner is Chinese, someone could write "GET OUT OF BRITAIN YOU FILTHY CHINK" on a napkin and hand it to her in the restaurant she works in, and in Sargon's eyes that doesn't warrant a police intervention....because of the medium it was written on. I smell...bullshit. I smell "I only care about money because I chose to make my job on YT and now adverts are removed from my videos I need Patreon support". He is a fucking hack. --86.146.118.45 (talk) 11:00, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Extremely Biased

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: 71.40.185.82 / 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: 96.38.135.194 / talk / contribs}

NICE ADHOM MY FELLOW IP LOL.--86.184.84.51 (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 81.83.139.83 (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, LeftyGreenMario! 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, LeftyGreenMario! 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, LeftyGreenMario! 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, LeftyGreenMario! 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

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). 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)