Talk:Shoe0nHead

	This YouTube related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

This article contains information about one or more living persons. Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats. Reference any contentious allegations solidly; unreferenced allegations should be removed. If legal threats are raised on this page, please direct the potential litigant to RationalWiki:Legal FAQ; do not interact with them.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)

Left-wing activist?

How many left-wing activists follow something on Twitter like "Gays Against Groomers"? Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 22:01, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

@Arcadium Trancefer I don't know who that is or everyone Shoe0nHead is following as I don't have a Twitter account; however, her current videos and posts are clearly from a leftist, social democratic perspective (example: the most recent YouTube video). YXTQWF_climbThe^Stairs 22:32, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it's worth spending much time on her, but I don't think she belongs in any political category at the moment. She's sort of an intersection of left wing paranoia over THE MAN type things (so you will get some socdem-Sanders style stuff) and right wing paranoia of THE MAN type things (eg social media "censorship" musings). Maybe "left-libertarianism" would work for her current phase, but for me, a hard label doesn't work for someone whose political depth is basically "LOL" over bad memes. If we had a Category: Shitposter, that would be perfect, but I don't think we do. 72.184.99.135 (talk) 22:44, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

https://www.advocate.com/news/2022/9/21/google-bans-anti-trans-hate-group-gays-against-groomers-venmo-paypal Very Left-wing... Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 23:03, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Shoe0nhead is a grifter as the article documents pretty well (as well as the long history of deliberating this on the talkpage of shoe stans upset that we aren't super positive about their favorite youtuber). I recommend viewing her content through that lens. Her political viewpoint is more or less against "the establishment" as long as it is both profitable to do so (and populism is never short of fools with money burning in their wallet) and as long as it's safe to be on conventional social media platforms. -- Techpriest (talk) 23:46, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Seems to be an strange assertion that sh0e is making bank off her channel. She hardly ever posts on it nowadays. Additionally I don't see her milking money from fans, but am fine with being corrected on that. I just haven't seen it. FallisBestSeason (talk) 01:10, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

How is being against censorship a right-wing view? This view is widespread across the political spectrum, and is held by other leftists like Noam Chomsky (who is not described as a centrist/grifter). In addition, using memes to advance one's beliefs is not exclusive with leftism, nor does it make one a grifter, and neither does criticizing the US establishment. YXTQWF_climbThe^Stairs 00:32, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Quotes

"#DemExit our ‘democracy’ is controlled by a corporation that doesn’t care about you, only it’s donors & special interests. dems stopped being the party of the people and the workers a long time ago. i’m only a democrat now because NY requires me to be one to vote for bernie."
"the "cabal" of elites and lobbyists worked together just this one time dude they all came together like the avengers to defend democracy and that's it trust me bro"

If you believe those are "anti-democratic" you are either a nutcase, a liar, or a deranged Democratic Party stan. FallisBestSeason (talk) 01:42, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

For those who don't remember the Dem Party (with full support of the "corporate meida cabal") was going to deny Bernie the nomination even if he won the most votes. This is actually common in American Party primaries before the civil rights movement, the rubber just didn't hit the road again until 2016/2020. FallisBestSeason (talk) 01:46, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, that quote doesn't make her anti-democratic. She's not criticizing democracy as an institution. She's insinuating that the U.S.'s democracy is a sham. I do think the Democratic Party has very undemocratic elements to it, particularly corporate donors, Super PACs, and whatnot, but I don't agree with the messaging either, it's too pessimistic and would encourage nonvoting and whatnot, but that's just my opinion. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 01:56, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Reverted edits

Yesterday, I made a few edits to the article:

• I replaced an unsupported claim that Shoe0nHead's views are "often contrary" with a more accurate an update-to-date description of her views.
• I removed a statement that Shoe0nHead "claims to lean antifeminist", which contradicts an earlier statement that she rejects the label.
• I replaced Category:Centrist stupidity with Category:Left-wing activists, as that is more in line with social democracy and left-wing populism. To describe her views as centrist is wrong, and that is nowhere else stated in the article.

The points I fixed were the some of the most obviously incorrect parts of the article; however, my edits, along with some edits by @FallisBestSeason, were reverted without explanation, and the page was subjected edit warring and protection by @Cosmikdebris. YXTQWF_climbThe^Stairs 00:19, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

What's scary is two mods didn't even bother to go to talk, preferring to lock and carelessly revert, before a sane mod put the truth back in. Don't see the point in contributing if basic article contribution is dealt with so poorly by moderation and one has to wait a day for mods to stop other mods from purposefully ruining articles. FallisBestSeason (talk) 01:48, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Does ShoeonHead still have anti-feminist views? She could be saying she's not anti-feminist, but her viewpoints can easily contradict her own judgement, as I've seen a bit on the article; for instance, she has "I have never ever felt oppressed as a woman, ever. I have never felt the [air quotes] patriarchy [air quotes].", but she rebukes other classic anti-feminist arguments as well as butt heads with known anti-feminists. There is a statement that she's part of "anti-feminist YouTube", supported by this tweet, but honestly, it's not a really strong source. I also don't think "centrist stupidity" is a good label (if it is to be used at all) since she doesn't seem to endorse moderate stances (quite the opposite actually as she constantly disparages neoliberals). She has a strange blend of views. Anyway, I did see the phrase, "claim to be anti-feminist". I reworded to say, "she has some antifeminist views" which does seem to best illustrate her stance as being a qualified anti-feminist; "qualified" meaning: "that which modifies, reduces, tempers, or restrains". --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 21:03, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't say so. Sources on this are all from years ago. While she is still critical of certain kinds of feminism, that would hardly make anyone an antifeminist.YXTQWF_climbThe^Stairs 02:00, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Did she change her views since then? I know she's retracted her support for Donald Trump and whatnot but anything else? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 18:08, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

I think the fact that she took down most of her videos with less reasonable criticisms of feminism (many listed in Shoe0nHead#Arguments) and no longer expresses them suggests that. Also, Shoe0nHead couldn't have "retracted" her support for Donald Trump, as even this article documents that she never supported him. YXTQWF_climbThe^Stairs 21:20, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Alt-lite

Think that fits considering her influence in the anti-SJW and anti-feminism sphere, apparently she’s more left leaning now from what I understand however, as the article and people have said, she seems to be a grifter with no strong stance, and when she was more a proponent for the right wing stuff, her contribution to the alt-lite radicalisation is significant I’d say.—WMS (talk) 20:57, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. I mainly watched her videos during the 2020 Democratic primaries, and at least since then, her stance has been consistently social democratic/populist. The idea that she is a grifter is, in the article, only dropped in the lead and not supported with evidence; and here, only backed by the fact that her views/focus shift (which is natural for anybody) and that she criticizes the U.S. establishment (which is a reasonable position to hold). Regardless, Category:Alt-lite does not fit at all; she does not at all fit this wiki's definition of "alt-lite". YXTQWF_climbThe^Stairs 21:50, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough, I only know her from her anti-sjw past so that’s what I was going off of. I see conflicting opinions on her so I’ll let people that know what they’re talking about come to a consensus.—WMS (talk) 22:13, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

I think she is personally a left-winger, but she developed and sustained her fanbase from dog whistling to the alt-right and social conservatives. Because that's an easy way to get a ton of followers and viewers. And not just through anti-feminism, but on a lot of other topics. On a scale of liberalism to conservatism, she's probably a mix of both, but she clearly appreciates extremist social conservatives a lot and would give up all her beliefs to support them if say Tucker Carlson or some other cretin ran. 2600:4040:403C:F300:C98C:DDB:313C:B476 (talk) 01:52, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Also one component of grifters is their politics change depending on who they think their audience is and how they want to grow it. She does a "social liberalism has gone too far", as well as the opposite schtick depending on her audience. 2600:4040:403C:F300:C98C:DDB:313C:B476 (talk) 02:03, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

She pretty much just is a grifter to the root. Being a right wing grifter these days is complicated if you want to try to be "clean", it tends to get a lot of people angry at you on social media, it results in Paypal suspending your account, possibly a youtube channel termination and before you know it, you're streaming on a platform chiefly used by neonazis and your relevance has dwindled to nothing, you become a has-been. So she shifted her politics because the wind was blowing very obviously about this at... maybe a few weeks after Trump got elected? Well into the "oh god the administration is manned by buffoons" era of the news cycle and where people started to catch on that so much of the stuff that radicalized people was on social media. Like... she still pokes back at going back to the far right sometimes, it's really easy to catch shoe slip up accidentally and end up in say, the committee for some fringe New York-based far right populist group. Even her Twitter feed is more or less just half the time dogwhistling to the social conservatives still in her audience about how stupid she thinks social democrats and liberals are, usually just by nutpicking someones ludicrous takes (or in some cases, deliberately trying to provoke one) and then tacitly putting stuff in the response that indicates to that part of her audience "hey, I'm still shitting on the people you hate". The far right and the far left both can rather easily interchange propaganda shitting on social democrats and liberals, it's a very common strategy by far-rightists and grifters to basically mix this content to appeal to both (to the point where in the 2020 election, I've been able to trace certain types of far-left anti-Biden content straight back to the source of literal GOP accounts). -- Techpriest (talk) 19:29, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

It seems to me that we sometimes conflate the far right with positions with which a majority of the left disapproves, yet are essentially populist. Why is she alt-lite instead of alt-left? Given that "grifter" is only meant as an insult if it does not imply the person is a swindler, say by selling over-priced vitamins, does it make sense to say that people who are using opinion, theirs or others, to create commercial content, are grifters? I suppose if the content creator is just making shit up like Alex Jones, that could be called a grift. I always take what Canadians say skeptically. I would say that she wants to be popular which is not a partisan concern. That would make her politically difficult to characterize and intellectually uninteresting.Ariel31459 (talk) 21:53, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Among her most recent tweets are celebrating the return of Trump's Twitter account, supposedly accidentally saying that African-Americans make poor architecture, and gratuitous pepe memes. She's alt-right dogwhistling, and maybe there's a better word than 'grifter' for it. If you know of one, feel free to replace what i wrote 2600:4040:403C:F300:951A:F01:B278:71B5 (talk) 23:19, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I've defended sh0oe in the past because all I paid attention to was her Youtube but am now sort of starting to understand the criticisms of her 2600:4040:403C:F300:951A:F01:B278:71B5 (talk) 23:22, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Vee (talk) 23:45, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

She deactivated her Twitter account while we were having this convo https://archive.vn/epV3Z 2600:4040:403C:F300:951A:F01:B278:71B5 (talk) 23:49, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Something about Lauren Southern

In case you were wondering why this section has any relevancy to the topic at hand because we all know the folks here can't be bothered.

We are talking about a person who was "friends" with noted neo-nazi Lauren Southern. Unless there is some point in time where Shoe has called for the workers to own and run the means of production and the abolition of all sexist and racist hierarchies we probably don't have much business calling her a leftist. Being social democratic is closer to the centre then it is to any radically left position on the broader political compass (and is in fact the centre on a few european political compasses); something that is only suggestive with her support of Bernie Sanders. It's not as if far-right individuals didn't feign a support for social democratic or socialist policies to appeal to workers. Hell there is a neo-nazi political party in sweden directly called the "Swedish Social Democra" ...nope *correction "Sweden Democrats" party. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 00:21, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

There's a long history of people to the left of social democrats calling social democrats "social fascists" apparently 2600:4040:403C:F300:951A:F01:B278:71B5 (talk) 00:05, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Before we begin "left-bashing" let's remember that the people who call socdems "fash" typically are MLs. Don't lump us all in with those authoritarian shitheads. Vee (talk) 00:11, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Upon reading more on this, you're right it's not leftists broadly who accuse SDs of being fascist, but rather leninists and stalinists most notably 2600:4040:403C:F300:951A:F01:B278:71B5 (talk) 00:14, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Actually I think I am misremembering the specific party I am thinking of. Just a sec - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 00:16, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

My b. It's the Sweden Democrats party.[1] - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 00:21, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Still the point still stands given that americans at least still naively associate "democratic" with "left". - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 00:22, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps update Southern's wiki page. It doesn't claim she is a neo Nazi, only that she has possibly met one.Ariel31459 (talk) 01:13, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

oh fuck off. She made an entire video about promoting "the great replacement" conspiracy theory for the Rebel. It's not up to any wiki to officially decide if she is a nazi or not, if we are going to give a pass to xenophobic white genocide conspiracy theories as not qualifying to being a neo-nazi then our use is so narrow as to be politically useless. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 01:23, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

We literally classify her as an alt-right figure and white nationalist on ratwiki. At best we can say she may not be a nazi any longer but she definitely has a history as a neo-nazi. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 01:26, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I'll tell you something. If you don't like discussing texts on talk pages you can take off dipshit.Ariel31459 (talk) 01:29, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

No I love it, I just I am tired of this thinly veiled bullshit you constantly pull. About three users that I know of have already picked up on this crap, you are not fooling anyone. We know what you won't put on the record, but exploit social implicature to hint at (avoiding any obvious logical implication so there is plausible deniability). It is not at all subtle. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 01:35, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

"I believe in the Neo-Nazi Great Replacement conspiracy theory." There's no possible way she's a Nazi! Again, . Vee (talk) 01:38, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

A quote without a citation, why that's not bullshit, but it is pretty lazy. You don't like my bullshit? Tough tacos. Some people don't take well to real discussion. Fuck off if you can't deal with it.Ariel31459 (talk) 01:44, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

It's called sarcasm. The fact that Southern literally made a video promoting the Great Replacement conspiracy theory is mentioned above. Anyway here's a citation. Also a citation from the SPLC deeming her to be an "alt-right propagandist" (slight paraphrasing). Vee (talk) 01:49, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

>Lying about Wikipedia calling Lauren Southern a nazi to cast doubt on the claim. >"""Real Discussion""". Okay hon. Wikipedia calls her "alt-right", "white nationalist" and many other synonyms for neo-nazi and in the context of using the word nazi directly is in how she defended the politics of Richard Spencer. You have also tried to claim the "alt-right" was not a real thing in the past. This is the sort of bullshit someone who is crypto-fascist would pull. Which I am not saying you are, but you definitely act like someone who is. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 01:53, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Even more incriminating that you jumped into the talk-thread to claim ShoeOnhead was "alt-left". - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 01:55, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ OK zippy, I was referring to our own wiki page on Southern, which does not call her a neo-Nazi. Update that kid. Your reading skills leave some things on the table. I asked for an explanation as to why she wasn't alt-left. I am by no means saying she is alt-left. And, finally, fuck you! What do you mean incriminating? Just fuck off.Ariel31459 (talk) 02:07, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I mean I also addressed the fact this very wiki also categorizes her as alt-right, and describes her as a (possibly former) white nationalist....still synonyms for neo-nazi and still makes you kind of a liar. Also for someone who thinks it’s a reification for people to treat the alt-right as something real how is that consistent to even suggest “alt-left” as something worth considering? - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 03:21, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Saying that makes you kind of an asshole. That's alright I have accepted what you are, a paranoid fanatic and incapable of a straight forward discussion. "Neo-Nazi" is a smear term used to express disapproval unless the person referred to is actually promulgating Nazi ideas or actions. You can use it if you just want to be an asshole. With respect to alt-left, I wanted to discuss the differences between alt-lite and alt-left you dope.Ariel31459 (talk) 16:47, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Talking of “neo nazi” as a smear term in the context of Lauren Southern is a deeply odd thing to say when in this context it’s definitely meant literally and given her professed political beliefs (or at least past beliefs) meets the ideological tenets of what a neo-nazi is it calls into question what exactly your motivations are to downplay her explicit neo-nazi character. Also “paranoid fanatic”; fanatic of what exactly? Everything you say after I called you out has only deepened this “sus” hole for yourself. Your ad hoc explanations still don’t make sense given the context and your past remarks. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 17:32, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Let's get this straight, this argument is not about me, It is an argument that refers to your stupidity, true, but not really about you either. I don't care about referring to Southern as a neo-Nazi, maybe she is one, I don't know how I would know. I mentioned you could put that on her page, but you are probably too lazy to bother. I did question associating the Shoe personality with neo-Nazism. Fanatics are generally narcissists, and you fanatically defend your POV in a paranoid manner. My POV frequently modifies, for the better I hope. A narcissist seldom is able to change.Ariel31459 (talk) 17:50, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Except that the SPLC explicitly identifies her as an alt-right propagandist. Is the SPLC now in doubt? Vee (talk) 18:04, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Not as far as I know. You mean Southern I suppose. SPLC has lost law suits for mischaracterizing people, but on the whole they are OK.Ariel31459 (talk) 18:13, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Do you or do you not deem out-and-out white nationalism as a form of neo-nazism? What makes someone a neo-nazi according to you? Why is it important to make a distinction between neo-nazism and white nationalism if there is such a distinction? You resorted to name calling and boasting about your ability to "change your views" -- if you want a "straight forward" discussion then I expect you will stop relying on such shallow empty rhetoric. Direct answers to the previous questions please. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 19:11, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

If you were a respectable person, I probably would answer your questions in a respectful manner. But, since you are a fanatic I will describe the world for you, showing how your questions are pointless. The US is full of white people. Yes, that's right, and most of them are not progressives, that is, they don't care about the issues most of us here are concerned with. My guess is, and this is really based on my intuition, most of those white people I just mentioned would prefer to live in an environment that would be mostly white. I could be wrong. I doubt that I am. So, assuming that is correct. So, now, are all those people white nationalists? Maybe, one could claim that is true, and I wouldn't object to that designation. But, now, here's the trick, are they therefore the same as Nazis? Think so? Do you think calling them Nazis will get them to change their minds? Maybe? Only a terrible anthropologist might think so. Ariel31459 (talk) 21:54, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Way to just JAQ off instead of answering the question. This whole "serious discussion" schtick isn't working. No one reading this is going to fooled by this kind of rhetorical strategy. You are also putting a lot of loaded assumptions that were never being appealed to. No one said anything about changing minds, and you also seem to confuse experts in rhetoric with anthropologists. No one was asking about the vague desires of being in a white majority environment by some imagined group of white people. I asked specifically about and out-and-out white nationalism. People who openly self-identify with and adhere to the explicit ideology of white nationalism. This whole refusing to provide good faith responses because you deem me a fanatic is not really painting yourself well as this "rational" open-minded figure you are desperately trying to present yourself as. If anything it's making you look like you ran out of things to obscure yourself with so now you are relying on attacking my character instead of offering a justifiable explanation for the things you are saying. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 22:21, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Wait, are you calling yourself an expert in rhetoric? Get the fuck out of here. You have no discernable character, apart from being a narcissist. Nazism is a subset of white nationalism.Ariel31459 (talk) 22:25, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Subtly works better if you are going to strawman someone. Also I specifically was asking about neo-nazism not nazism. Sure you can say both are subsets of white nationalism but neo-nazism is broader in ideological scope given it’s not restricted by geography and time period the way traditional nazism is. You have to establish how someone as explicitly white nationalist as Southern cannot be a neo-nazi in order for your responses to make any sense. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 22:51, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Both of you chill out! Edward the eight (talk) 23:07, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, thank you Edward. To the matter, white supremacy ideology is very old, and is implicit in all white societies ( though they need not be all white). Certainly is true of Eastern societies, though they are not usually referred by color (yellow supremacy?). Ethnic societies in general behave that way, with nationalism a confounding factor. Nazism originated in white Nationalism for Germans, but it was for Germans only, not because they were white, but because they were white Christian Germans. The Maga crowd, for instance have many of the characters of Nazis which is where we get neo-Nazis: dedicated to a leader, willing to be violent and captured by the Party rhetoric and also, white supremacy. Can one be a white nationalist without being a neo-nazi? Yes. I'm certain many such people exist and think Trump is an idiot. They are just run of the mill racists. The Neo-Nazi is something much more well defined: brutal and feudalistic.

If you have an argument, you can attack another argument with it. If you have no argument you can attack the other person instead of his argument, which is what you have been doing. Why? I have no idea. Maybe you believe you are right and that is more important than anything to you, you are still young enough to think that is important. I don't really care about either of these two woman. I'm not trying to prove a point, or get under anyone's skin. I was just injecting my thoughts into a conversation that has become horribly malformed. But I don't mind. I will keep an eye on you from now on.Ariel31459 (talk) 23:43, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I did have argument(s) hence all the premises and various conclusions. All an argument is is a series of declarative sentences in support of a given conclusion. I wasn't the one calling the other a fanatic narcissist and openly declaring how I don't need to provide an serious response, so it's a bit pot calling the kettle black to allege that I am the one attacking the other person "instead of their argument". The thing you kept repeatedly stating you didn't have to provide to me. Also you keep doing this subtle change where I ask for something like white nationalism specifically and you go off about white supremacy and nationalism (which are not interchangeable individually or even simply combined to form white nationalism). The fact you tie neo-nazism as something almost originated from Trump and the MAGA crowd shows you have no idea what you are talking about. This is a movement that started in the latter half of the 20th century; have you never heard of a skinhead? Nazi Punk Rock? Are you not aware of the Oklahoma city bombing? Do you actually understand what the connection is between those things MAGA, Trump, and the Alt-right? Or are you just assuming it's all about these contemporary examples because you literally never looked into the history of neo-nazism in america and what it actually amounts to? There is no prerequisite for brutality or feudalism to be a neo-nazi (though it can be argued to be a consequence of the ideology when successfully implemented into political structures). You are literally talking out of your ass. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 00:19, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

You did have arguments. Just not very good arguments. And don't be pedantic. I get my hands dirty when necessary Mr Kettle. Get used to it. Words are never interchangeable unless you want to get cute about something. "The fact you tie neo-nazism as something almost originated from Trump and the MAGA crowd..." What the fuck, man can't you read. It's supposed to be a paradigm not a historical dissertation. Skinheads? What the hell man, those people were not a movement. And if neo-Nazis don't have to be brutal and feudalistic as the MAGA folks certainly are they are really not much like Nazis. Don't give me this Skin head bs. They were always just assholes with a look. Man you really know nothing. Be seeing you.Ariel31459 (talk) 00:36, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

This conversation is about to go badly downhill, inevitably ending in comparisons to Hitler, and hurt feelings all around. Stop now. Step away from the keyboard. Go pet a jerboa, or milk a goat.

--It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 01:43, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Back on Lapine we suppose

Vee, I don't know why you reverted me pointing out she was celebrating Trump's Twitter account reactivation, but she did do that, and should she reactivate her account and not delete tweets, that would be obvious 2600:4040:403C:F300:3C2C:3E07:B22C:9280 (talk) 04:15, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I reverted cause there was no citation offered. Vee (talk) 04:29, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Because she deactivated her Twitter account the moment I went to archive it. It's fine, but to be consistent if she keeps her account offline for more than 2 months (when Twitter perma-deletes an account), we need to delete 43 non-archived Tweets in the article 2600:4040:403C:F300:3C2C:3E07:B22C:9280 (talk) 04:32, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Let me put it very simply; leftists don't typically end up joining a group that literally backs the wp:NYYRC (New York Young Republican Club) only to then cower out with the organizers still claiming she's friends with them. Regardless of any imagined idea of ideological infighting with leftists, I think that if you live in the US and if you support the fucking Republican Party you can't really call yourself a leftist (and in fact I'm pretty sure the majority of Republicans would take offense with the association). Lapine is a financial grifter. Anyway BoN, could you give a link to the tweet where she alledgedly claims that Trump getting his account restored is a good thing? I could run it through some archive sites and see if someone picked it up (if it's that controversial, it almost certainly would've been lol). -- Techpriest (talk) 21:52, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I once watched one of her videos and it was very cutesy. I see that there is no question that Lapine has made a number of racially insensitive comments, and makes money on YouTube. Says nice things about republicans too? Oh well, that makes a difference of some kind. All that makes her worthy of an article, I suppose. But why such a long article? Is she really that interesting? I know, I know, I don't have to read it. You can count on that.Ariel31459 (talk) 22:20, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Then why bring her up if you're not that interested to begin with? Vee (talk) 23:21, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I very often comment on the changes, which I monitor. It's somthing sysops are expected to do. The first experience I had of Lapine was a video with her boyfriend. I thought they were a cute couple. Come to find out she has some not so cute ideas. Oh well. That answer your question?Ariel31459 (talk) 23:51, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Lapine was mainly relevant during the Gamergate days I think. I don't think is terribly relevant anymore. The article's probably good to keep around though in one respect, because it seems to have a history of irritating the stans. :)

Presently, I still think her current stance is shitposter above anything else. That being said, she seems to have a reflexive "ew gross LOL" social conservatism that seems to play better with the alt-right. I know she's claimed some socdem stuff, but it seems like her Twitter "circle" is hardly such.

For instance, the only major news for Lapine of late was some controversy for luxury fashion shop Balenciaga, concerning a photo shoot with little kids in "bondage gear" or something, where she stuck her nose in. Most of the major bruhaha with this scandal seemed to involve the usual outrage figures on the "conservative" side flipping out (Tucker Carlson, Libs of TikTok, Ye, Andrew Tate, QAnon, etc.).

Now, I don't know much about this controversy personally. It looks like Balenciaga, who has tried to play the "edgy" card in the past, went a wee bit too far. However, honestly, it's hard to take any "think of the children!" pearl-clutching of the alt-right Internet universe very seriously, considering that the "online centers of the alt-right" (4chan, 8chan) is notorious for CSAM material as well as plenty of other really nasty edgelord bullshit. Hell, Lapine shat on Elon Musk immediately after shitposting on Balenciaga simply because Musk's "unban everyone" actually didn't extend to Alex Jones, due to his concerns for Jones exploiting a mass school shooting. She's really concerned about "the children", I see. My assumption is "oh noes European fashion designer" played just as much of a part in the !!!OUTRAGE!!! as "oh no bondage teddy bear!".

At any rate, her Twitter is (temporarily?) dead. So not much more to be said. BobJohnson (talk) 23:53, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Why such a long article -> Guess there's quite a bit to talk about with her. Criticizing an article on length is a bit silly. -- Techpriest (talk) 17:09, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Not all ratwik fans operate on advanced interests I suppose. My criticism was that the article is long for someone so uninteresting. So maybe I'm an intellectual snob sometimes. Sorry. Ariel31459 (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Her Twitter is now back and she's rushing to make further ties to alt-righters and various sociopaths through replies 2600:4040:4030:5000:45ED:FEA5:C288:448D (talk) 01:32, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Including intentionally misreading an obvious die-hard MAGA propagandist and alt-right account as socialist, if this continues, I wouldn't oppose calling her a right-liberal or an alt-lite person or something 2600:4040:4030:5000:45ED:FEA5:C288:448D (talk) 01:35, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

She's actually deleting a lot of this stuff now so I dunno if she just has bad fashy-radar or is just coralling simps, possibly both or neither, but not interested in further pursuing this 2600:4040:4030:5000:45ED:FEA5:C288:448D (talk) 02:02, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you provide some examples of how that's true, rather than resorting to name calling and assumptions of bad faith. YXTQWF_climbThe^Stairs 04:40, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

January 6

She was incidentally in D.C. for a separate protest during the January 6, 2021 Capitol riot. It was a pro-Assange protest. I don't know whether she was close enough to the Capitol building for her firsthand account to be notable, but it's at least interesting. Chillpilled (talk) 03:19, 27 February 2023 (UTC)