Talk:Shoe0nHead/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 27 February 2023. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Honestly

Honestly, is this really necessary? She isn't pushing any pseudoscience, she is not demanding that people conform to her worldview, she's calling some things you happen to agree with bullshit. Same with the Armoured Skeptic. He got put op on here as a GG supporter, when he mentioned it like one time in one video. The "anti-feminist" videos that they have done seem to just be calling out the stupider parts of that internet feminism and come across as fairly reasonable. Arawn Emrys (talk) 11:58, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Their views on feminism are certainly strawman-centric. Whether that's enough, I do not know. I included AS b/c he has good anti-religion work; IDK about S0H. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 02:11, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

There's nothing unmissional about this article. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:38, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

What's missional about it, and why is it that such people get trashed, while others, literal child-rape¹ aplogists² and blackballers of female skeptics get a free pass?³ ~ Aneris ✻ 18:54, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Aneris, state your complaint in 1 sentence without any allusions. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 19:13, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Better question to ask yourself: can you remember the last time Aneris contributed positively to any discussion, without being a single-subject obsessed whiner who hides every single assertion behind a wall of vagueness, and links to crappy sites? ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 19:33, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Here we go again, distraction and squirming. Can't you once address the issue? I will keep bringing it up, until some of you has grown a backbone and takes responsibilty for the smearing you so eagerly defend. I noticed something similar on Thunderf00t, where the RationalWiki currently claims all his work is effectively useless because he criticized Sarkeesian. I made a quick tally and was generous for your thesis and included everything that hinted at social matters, feminsm, so-called SJWs etc. I got to less than 20% of videos. Even at peak times, he was "obsessive" with Solar Roadways or some other thing he debunks.
     When I check Shoe's page, I see she made only 33 videos in 2 years. So her half-million subscriber base is due to the cross-over with Armoured Skeptic. You want to make an article, fine, but then put in some effort give it a fair shot. They do film reviews and stuff together. The complete absense of anything of merit in this article makes the typical smearing of disliked people even more obvious. And no, I'm not subscribed to her and find no value in her content. ~ Aneris ✻ 20:13, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

No, really, it's not distraction and squirming. You're just really that fucking useless. I'm so sick of your half-baked "but but but if you just ignore giant fucking reams of evidence this entire field of study is garbage because I have a massive internal conflation of everything I dislike."

I think we all vaguely tolerate you because the extent of your extended single-issue campaign is excessively vague whining, but do you really think you're adding anything here other than a martyr complex for alt-right assholes on the internet? Really? ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 20:24, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

That's utter rubbish. I am more motivated by your smears against Atheist Ireland and other people I know, who take to the streets for pro-choice, petition the UN and such. Or female skeptics who work on curing HIV and yet are lied about here. The reason has absolutely zero to do with politics. It has to do with an self-appointed clique who claim to be arbiters of what is "left" and exploit this to smear other people they dislike. By extension, I see how you produce a climate where first people are smeared, and when it is pointing out that articles are inaccurate, the smearing is extended to everyone who is seen defending the "wrong people". I know this social dynamic well, and it has produced a whole alternate universe where atheists are militant, fundamentalist alt righters who hate LGTB (even though from celebrity to common people, according to surveys, subscribe to the exact opposite). If you had something resembling facts on your side, you wouldn't need smearing. ~ Aneris ✻ 21:16, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Aneris: 1 sentence. No references to other articles, other social issues, nothing. Just tell us what your proposed changes to this article would be. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 20:54, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

That, at least, was pretty clear in post one. Aneris wanted it nuked. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 21:20, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't want anything nuked, I want that articles are true and fair. This article is at least not fair. ~ Aneris ✻ 21:36, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

On S0H

I'm the anon trying to scrub bias from the page.

1 the quote at the top was a joke. And the "context" is not context at all. It's someone's commentary on the quote.

2 She is marked an "feMRA". She has actively spoken out against some MRA's and has specified in the past she is not one.

3 "Right-o.[3] And the fact that she constantly, constantly, constantly attacks feminism definitely isn't ideological. Oh no."

How is this in any way appropriate for a "rational wiki". It is not professional. Showing clear bias not to mention the use of casual conversation. Furthermore she isn't saying she doesn't espouse some ideological viewpoints. But that she does not identify with any ideological parties. This ties back in with #2 as MRA is an ideological party.

4 Armored Skeptic has "Anti-feminist" prefixed to his name in the article. While he does do videos on the subject it is not fully representative of his work. And mention of it should be left on his page rather than this article.

All in all this page is being handled very poorly. With the notes clearly showing that this is maintained by people who don't share an interest in unbiased information.

things like "We figure it's pretty likely that one of them will notice this page and get angry" in the notations also irked me. Yes he got angry but his work was being misrepresented. It isn't as if he went and changed it to glowing praise of himself.

If you really are interested in making this a rationalwiki you will take what I've said into consideration. ^{— Unsigned, by: 63.155.246.107 / talk / contribs}

1: Would it be fairer to say "What Nicole misrepresents feminism as"?

2: That's fair, I tried to remove that earlier. Removed.

3: There is a semantic difference between "don't belong to an ideology" and "don't espouse an ideology". What is the actual difference? If someone does not "belong" to communism but won't stop talking about how great Stalin was, what does that make them? Almost every single one of her videos attacks feminism. At some point, she can safely be labeled "antifeminist" -- ie, ideological. And no, your semantic differentiation of "ideology" and "ideological party" is not present in S0H's text itself -- not is it in her rhetoric. Or do you disagree?

4: I've added "& atheist" to AS's description. It would be nonsensical to describe the fact that she's dating someone, unless it has some impact on her. AS is only significant to S0H insofar as he affects S0H's ideology (& vice versa). We don't mention every random YTers' love-mates, because it doesn't matter for most random YTers.

(5): And we tried to fix the misrepresentation -- which is why we preemptively attempted to solve any misrepresentation in this article, especially ones that AS might compare to his own article. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 19:32, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I had a few comments on the matter but they seem to have disappeared(or more likely I forgot to save page)

Basically I agree with most everything you suggested/changed. I agree that Shoe's relationship with AS is pertinent as their relationship colors their views when talking about each other. They are both large figures in the entertainment-debate part of youtube and thus their relationship requires some transparency. Last real issue I had was with this line "Right-o.[3] And the fact that she constantly, constantly, constantly attacks feminism definitely isn't ideological. Oh no." It isn't informational it's conversational. Not a professional approach for a wiki page. I'd rather phrase it something like "Though, through her repeated videos on feminism, shows a clear disfavor towards it" followed by references.

When I seen this wiki I was hopeful for a unbiased representation of many people and issues with the cooperation of all sides of the debate. ^{— Unsigned, by: 63.155.222.121 / talk / contribs}

Re: Right-O: RationalWiki has a snarky/humorous and semiconversational tone. Biased it may be, but it admits it's biased (inclined to a viewpoint). Biased -- like S0H clearly is -- but open to the fact -- unlike S0H. See? αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 00:04, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

First Major Edit

I added a section about her prior to becoming a libertarian feMRA, and added a little about her 2nd channel, but I'm not a very good writer, so I'll give it time for others to fix it so it meets the writing standard before I continue. I give the sources, you fix the writing, deal? Just to give a little preview, I plan to do a "what I say v. what I do" on few of her views when I have time to do a second large one, which will include how far she went on Jenny McDermott and Steve Shives... and I wanna do a gallery of slur-ridden tweets I grabbed off her Twitter at some point. There's also some sort of drama about her attacking critics she deemed autistic for being autistic, but I'm still researching that for if it's a footnote, or it's own section.^{— Unsigned, by: SonataBlack / talk / contribs}

Boxxy

Is S0H actually boxxy? I found no source of her being boxxy, in fact, the Wikipedia page says it's a person known as Catherine Wayne- this is confirmed on her website . From what I can tell, S0H only reenacted boxxy's video (source from the YouTube Reddit page). If no-one minds, I'm going to remove the 'Also knows a boxxy' and the redirect from boxxy as it might be a bit misleading.--WMS (talk) 00:53, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I do mind, but you can still remove it. TheAmazingSkeptic (talk) 00:58, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Lol, you're right — it appears she's not Boxxy after all. Fixing. Thanks for letting us know! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:14, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Glad I could help :).--WMS (talk) 01:15, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Hard-hitting criticism from the hyper-rational fellas over at /r/DrunkenPeasants

https://www.reddit.com/r/OfficialDP/comments/6m2rlg/rational_wiki_fails_again/ Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 18:09, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

The entirety of criticism offered by the 200+ livestream folks

[1] note that almost everything in this post is false ^{— Unsigned, by: 93.95.77.223 / talk / contribs}

[2] The one that wrote this is a moron. X ^{— Unsigned, by: 104.238.189.179 / talk / contribs}

[3] lol this wiki is a joke ^{— Unsigned, by: 192.252.160.67 / talk / contribs}

[4] The wage gap is simply the average earnings of men and women working full time. It does not account for different job positions, hours worked, or different jobs. It has nothing to do with the same job. It has nothing to do with discrimination. ^{— Unsigned, by: 74.101.244.122 / talk / contribs}

In addition to the rational and skeptical commentary above, I've learned that Shoe0nHead's followers are very smart and not racist in any way. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 07:50, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

That moment when you accuse a whole group of making fallacious arguments and then proceed to make one yourself in the same sentence. --70.179.169.251 (talk) 16:34, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Since you're too intellectual to mention said fallacy, I guess I lose. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 00:04, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Considering

Considering that Shoe0nHead has personally destroyed all the false, biased, and exaggerated character assassination bullshit contained in this article, does anyone have any plans to correct/update it? If not, I could take it upon myself to do so. --DeusKek1987 (talk) 19:32, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for linking the video. The article itself is locked due to high traffic. Please suggest changes here. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 20:04, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Given the above statement and your user name, one could be forgiven for thinking that you yourself are Shoe0nHead. Bongolian (talk) 23:40, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Let's not slip into conspiracy theories. There were about 200 people here. I give that low odds. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 00:10, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Vermin Supreme

Seriously, why isn't he in this article more?StickySock (talk) 20:05, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Fixed that shit. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 20:25, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Removing potential quote-mine

I'm going to remove the quote of her using a racial slur. From this archive, the account she is replying to has a Pepe the Frog avatar and is called "Deplorable Jack", which is consistent with Shoe's version of events (that the account she was replying to was alt-right who called her the N-word first and claimed Ghostbusters hated men). The archive shows "Deplorable Jack" complaining about Chris Hemsworth's character being "inferior to the women" and saying he "absolutely despise[s] feminists". I can't find proof that she was called the N-word first (and by someone who is very unlikely to be a black person), but I think she has a point that she has been taken out of context. CowHouse (talk) 11:26, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

That's fair. FuzzyCatPotato of the Retarded Bluejays (talk/stalk) 17:33, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm also going to re-word this part: "Lapine defended Trump's "grab 'em by the pussy" comments and shames a Trump critic for apologizing to a woman whom accused Trump of sexual assault." Lapine explains that she "shamed that Trump critic because that guy ended up being a sexual assaulter." Her blogspot does indeed discuss Devin Faraci who had been accused of sexual assault (link). The woman did not accuse Trump of sexual assault, she accused Faraci. CowHouse (talk) 02:15, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

8values results

8values puts her at "social liberalism". Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 13:44, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

She is no longer pissed at us

Not sure if this is worth mentioning on her page. Source: Shoe0nHead's ask.fm:

Question: Huh. RationalWiki actually revised or removed most of the inaccuracies you called out in your livestream. They're still kind of farting in your general direction, but they're farting on the REAL you, and in the end, [s]aren't you into that shit[/s] isn't that what's important?
Shoe0nHead: yeah i noticed they did a great job cleaning it up. i unironically like my page now.
CowHouse (talk) 03:28, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

How about this? Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 14:56, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this would come across as unnecessarily snarky instead of funny, but we could say "June Lapine, unironically posting RationalWiki shit" (as a callback to this tweet). Unfortunately, you'd have "unironically" in both the quote and the description, and she didn't actually post anything. So it's a bit of a stretch.

Anyway, I'm happy with what you added. CowHouse (talk) 01:23, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Removal of content

Any reason why you removed this content @FuzzyCatPotato? CowHouse (talk) 08:06, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Jenny McDermott and Drunken Peasants' Ben

If people are complaining that Vermin Supreme isn't in the article enough, it's only fair to point out that both of these incidents deserve substantial sections of their own. Especially Ben, since June tried to justify what she did to him by saying she's shy. In fact, are there enough credible sources on Ben's incident to include that? Because that's something that's seriously missing here... ^{— Unsigned, by: 174.19.243.40 / talk / contribs} 17:18, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're referring to but it sounds like internet drama. CowHouse (talk) 04:33, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Islamophobia?

She doesn't say much about Islam. She says it's not feminist and criticized a few MRA's for defending it, but anything that reaches the level of it being bigotry? ^{— Unsigned, by: 99.203.4.229 / talk 14:17, 5 March 2018 (UTC)}

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.

The Islamophobia category was more substantiated before @FuzzyCatPotato removed the "Islam" section without explanation. CowHouse (talk) 15:09, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

She's not extreme enough and it's not a large enough portion of her content to merit inclusion IMO. Contrapoints, Destiny, Hbomberguy, Shaun all seem not to think that she's terrible on this issue. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 16:07, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

No real rebuttals

Hey, I noticed that some of the talking points you bring up, such as that "[Shoe0nHead's] arguments consist mostly of tired talking points and strawmen", just have quotes from her within them. They are obviously meant to be in a negative light, but no reason is given for this. It just seems like this section is pandering to people who disagree with her. I would love to see something more developed. ^{— Unsigned, by: 47.41.168.123 / talk}

I think the way to go is probably to have, for each of her talking points, a link to other RW articles covering the ideas she brings up. I've made a start on this, but it could be improved (e.g. maybe "Oppression" or "Oppression olympics" could have its own article rather than just an entry in the alt-right glossary?) and I couldn't find a suitable article covering the idea that women have all the same rights as men. --Yisfidri (talk) 00:36, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

LaPorta or Lapine?

I was rather confused by the article referring to her real last name as "Lapine" everywhere except in the very first sentence of the lead, where it is claimed that her last name is "LaPorta". What is the reason for this confusing discrepancy and how should it be fixed? Jinx (talk) 19:28, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Donald Trump, Racism & Bullying

So I have some criticism, and I would like to share my thoughts on two sections of the article.

Number 1. Why is the subcategory "Racism and bullying" put under the Antifeminism category? I don't understand how racism and bullying are related to opposition to feminism. Somebody could be a feminist, and also be a racist and a bully. Somebody could be an anti-feminist, and not be a racist and a bully. Also, I think it is a bit unfair to call Shoe0nHead a bully, given that there is no evidence to suggest that she insults Lesley Brown on a regular basis or that she has some sort of power dynamic over Brown. Bullying usually involves malice, a power dynamic and that fact that the malice happens on a regular basis. I get that saying that a black person "looks like a gorilla" would be deemed as racist, but to be honest the "Racism and Bullying" incident just seems like a very random and obscure thing to include in antifeminism. Maybe consider omitting "bullying" from the name, and make this part of the article into its own section or put it under a different section to antifeminism? Perhaps this could tie in with Black Lives Matter? Just a thought

Number 2. In the Donald Trump section of the article, it says that "Lapine has occasionally downplayed the potential negative consequences of his presidency and has defended some of his controversial behaviour and policies". One of the examples given is "Lapine's video, "...the implication is that "the sudden increase of [air quotes] hate crimes [air quotes]" is not real. She repeated this on Twitter. The FBI reported that the number of hate crime reports in the US had increased in 2017, by 17% from 2016". I included data from the FBI in the article. Before I updated the information, it just said that there is a reason to believe that the number of hate crimes has increased because the data about 2017 won't be released until 2018. But I think the point that Shoe was trying to make is that, at the time, suddenly a lot of people were faking hate crimes to suit their own political agenda and make the opposing side look bad, after the 2016 election. Kind of like the Jussie Smollett case. She also talks about how the conservatives did this toward the end of the video, to promote the "tolerant left", in quotes. I think that's what she means by "sudden increase in hate crimes" when she says it sarcastically. I don't think that she actually meant that there was an overall decrease in the number of hate crimes nationwide in the US when comparing the years 2016 and 2017. I'm just not convinced by the first point. I think that this point should be removed or replaced with something more credible because the original meaning of what Shoe said seems to have been lost in translation.

Thank you for taking the time to read this, I know it was rather long. Take what I say with a grain of salt, it is not facts.^{— Unsigned, by: StellaArtois / talk / contribs}

Hey, thank you for taking the time and effort to write a helpful critique of our article. A lot of times, we just get rants on how "irrational" and evil RationalWiki is and we just end up dismissing those claims, so it's really refreshing to find much more thought put into critiques. I'll try to reread what's put in the article and try to reread your comments and see if it's fine and I might come back with more of a response if someone else hasn't already taken up the reigns. I'm a little tired right now so I just responded to let you know I'm paying attention. Again, thank you for taking the time to write this. Just remember to end your comment with ~~~~. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 23:49, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Too many blue-box quotes

I'm not removing all of them as I don't want to trash other people's work too boldly. But all the quotes just makes it hard too read. Also some people on here have a tendency to build up narratives through quote mining instead of stepping back and summarizing. Calling out is fine, but when it's 99% of a page from someone who probably is already on your political team, it's just hard to understand why you are doing it, as calling-out is inherently political.2600:8806:0:C2:15FD:8538:C153:D521 (talk) 16:10, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I mean, it's not like she's ever actually done anything. Her own words are pretty much all there is to hang her on. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:19, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm just suggesting summarizing her words if it's so important to "call-out" her, for readability2600:8806:0:C2:15FD:8538:C153:D521 (talk) 16:26, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

One could even keep all the citations2600:8806:0:C2:15FD:8538:C153:D521 (talk) 16:27, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to challenge this assertion that she is "...already on your political team..." (and point out that talking about politics is inherently political, thus making "...as calling-out is inherently political." something of a pointless statement without any real value.) Which political "team" do you suppose we're on? What exactly are the goals of said "team'? How does Lapine further those goals? Why exactly should we not call her out for her shitty views? I just want to be clear, since it sounds like you seem to be calling for a vague unity, one that appears to lack any substance thus far. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 16:31, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

She is one of only a handful of popular youtubers (I'm actually hedging as I think she might be the only popular Youtuber consistently) campaigning for sanders, and you all wrote this page like a screed for IDpol wrongthink. There's no point to that. Rationalwiki isn't Kiwifarms. You don't need to try to character-destroy someone that you already share almost everything in common with. But anyway I'm not saying to remove the "calling-out", just condense it, because the page is incredibly boring and poorly written with all the blue-box quotes.2600:8806:0:C2:15FD:8538:C153:D521 (talk) 16:36, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Are you one of those positivity type people? The ones who think if we just get rid of Trump we'll live happily ever after? Because that's what you sound like. Congrats to Lapine for doing one thing right. Stopped clock moment and all that. That doesn't change her past misdeeds. That doesn't alter the fact that she encouraged her fans to harass a woman off Twitter for being in a movie she disliked, or that she made racist comments and then doubled down on them when called out. That doesn't alter the facts about any of her shitty views. Calling her out for having shitty views is not a sin, it's simply holding her accountable for her words and their impact. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 16:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

It's not stopped-clock if she's consistently been an economic leftist since 20152600:8806:0:C2:15FD:8538:C153:D521 (talk) 16:46, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Also I'm not suggesting removing the "call-outs", just not making them 99% in terms of word volume, because it's boring. You can keep all the call-outs and reduce the page by 50% and still get your "message" about her IDpol wrongthink, and then the page might be readable again. Rationalwiki also isn't FSTDT2600:8806:0:C2:15FD:8538:C153:D521 (talk) 16:48, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I checked the page, I... don't think it's all that bad. We're not Kiwifarms no, but I don't really see necessarily what's wrong with this article per se? The way it's structured, it appears that Shoe0nHead just has a number of bunked views on feminism (which may just have originated from the sheer amount of feminist strawmans that have existed since before her), but at the same time has been moving away from these views over the years. As she appears to be a YouTuber with a decently sized following (a little more than a million according to YouTube's count at the time of writing), having a page on her seems warranted and on-mission. Describing her not so crappy opinions as a Stopped Clock moment is selling her short, just from reading this page at least, but that doesn't change she still holds some of those opinions. That said, I don't think the quoteboxes should be removed, all of them serve a purpose when it comes to illustrating certain points. The only thing I'd perphaps trim is her statements about BLM to just that first quote, repeating statements that are essentially the same point don't contribute much to my understanding of the article. The Crow (talk) 17:04, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Actually looking a bit more at her previous and current content, she seems to not know how to be diplomatic and seems to be hostile to almost everyone that isn't her. So I guess I'm not surprised she gets flak from everyone: feminists, MRAs, MGTOWs, politicos, etc, I'm not a fan of hers or anything2600:8806:0:C2:34F9:F3A5:B972:E6F7

Is she Tradcon?

Is she a tradcon? IE wants men to be breadwinners and protect women and women to live at home etc. In one of her latest video she seems against gender-neutral language. I honestly can't stomach her videos, so maybe someone else knows2600:8806:0:C2:34F9:F3A5:B972:E6F7 (talk) 18:50, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't think she has an actual ideology. Not beyond "Whatever benefits me." ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 19:23, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

yeah, the claims she is totes a leftist guys!!! reek of self-serving nonsense - David Gerard (talk) 10:04, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Update, she's not a tradcon. Well she said she's personally possibly traditionalist, but not at all for society. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyby_N9W0Zg Neiltyson1fan (talk) 21:40, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

The article currently says she only claimed to support Bernie Sanders, implying she didn't, which is innacurate

Her lefty rhetoric is increasing on her channel, and as she does this, this page increasingly stinks of personal gripes against her. I'm not a huge fan of hers, and find her grating, but the cancel-culture stuff in the article that keeps getting reinserted is tiring. She did support Bernie Sanders for at least 5 years straight, and that might not make her "left" or "right" on it's own, but the page should at least state she supported Sanders without insinuating she didn't. Because she did, she was obsessed with it, and was very thorough in defending him and promoting his campaign Neiltyson1fan (talk) 07:58, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

That was one of the things added by an editor who clearly has a chip on their shoulder. Most of their edits got reverted but that one didn't. I made an attempt to revert it myself. --Tirecredit (talk) 07:25, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Dear white people, please.....please...stop falling for this horseshit. Bigoted grifters are not to be trusted. Best regards, a black person.^{— Unsigned, by: 47.28.82.50 / talk}

Reverting back to version prior to edit war

This seems to have been misunderstood so I'm clarifying here. I was reverting the page back to the most recent version before the edit war started by 47.28.82.50 (seen here) due to their obsessive edits. Not an attempt to whitewash as the page still covers her various flaws and mistaken beliefs. --Tirecredit (talk) 07:15, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

This page is still trying to downplay this woman's pathological and abusive behavior. Labeling her racist attacks on LEslie Jones as "arguably racist", and claiming she apologized whilst providing absolutely no citation. What a joke. ^{— Unsigned, by: 47.28.82.50 / talk / contribs}

@Tirecredit Please explain what you mean. That BoN's edits were not obsessive. (At least their two most recent ones weren't...) --Goatspeed. _{See what I'm up to}CircularRasoning^{See my experiments} 00:32, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

IT HAS LITERALLY REVERTED BACK TO CLAIMING SHE "APOLOGISED" WITH NO EVIDENCE.WHY DOES THIS KEEP HAPPENING? ^{— Unsigned, by: 47.28.82.50 / talk / contribs}

Regarding racism

Regarding the racism category in the wiki, I think more information is required until one can definitively say that she is, indeed, racist. The video in question where Fluher and Lapine take a look at Milo Whatchamacallit's images comparing the ghostbusters actress to an ape is unlisted and I feel as though the information posted on the wiki is just too little to allow us to come to a conclusion. I can think of a good argument that would show her in a racist light, but it would only work if we know her intention when said that the actress looks like a gorilla. Did she say this with a negative connotation (as in, if she looks like a gorilla, she is a gorilla, like what a Spanish colonist [don't remember their name] said about indigenous people by comparing them to apes and saying that god made humans to conquer the world or some narcissistic racist stuff like that) or was it a comparison of looks (which in some cases can be racist, but I'm giving an exception to this one because she said she looked like a fake donkey)?

Anyways, until further information is discovered (or another topic regarding racism is brought up), it might be wiser to remove this category entirely. ^{— --EFB2 (talk) 04:08, 7 February 2021 (UTC), by: EFB2 / 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. --Goatspeed. _{See what I'm up to}CircularRasoning^{See my experiments} 03:59, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

@EFB2 Do you think racism can only be done intentionally? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 04:39, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

No, I don't think racism is only said intentionally, but that is not my point. As said above, I don't think there is enough information to call her a racist. Not saying she isn't a racist, but rather more information is required to authoritatively call her a racist. --EFB2 (talk) 05:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

@EFB2 In light of the fact that the ghostbusters video is now marked as private, I would agree that the case is slightly weaker. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 15:04, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I believe it can be removed. When someone says the N-word a decade ago, they generally change their mind and regret doing it, shouldn't that apply here too? It's the only case of racism in this entire article and it is several years outdated by now. I feel as though people should be categorized based on details of whichever rhetorics they push the most and she definitely deserves that title of anti-feminist, but not the title of racist IMO. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 15:39, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Alright, what happens now? This is the first time I ever created an account for a wiki, so I have no idea what common procedure is for stuff like this. Do I just remove the category, set up a pole, or wait until an admin does it? --EFB2 (talk) 20:38, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I see no reason not to keep it, nor any reason to trust a single one of sh0e's statements about herself. Whitewashing her extensive history of cover for totally-not-racists, videos with literal white supremacists and so on is ridiculous - David Gerard (talk) 21:31, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I feel like you miss the point of this discussion. I want to remove the current information in the racism category because there is too meager information to support the idea that she is a racist in that specific event (saying Leslie looks like a gorilla). Even if we had an entire record of Lapine acting like a nazi and explicitly saying stuff like, "I hate jews," or, "kill the homosexuals" , this little tid bit of information should still be removed. If you have solid sources proving that she holds a prejudice on someone due to their race, by all means write it in the wiki, but if this (being the current information in the category) is all we have now, then I think it is best that we remove it. Keep in mind I'm not saying remove her past associations with that dim wit Lauren Southern and other alt-right figures. She got herself into that boat all by herself, but being associated with them shouldn't mean they agree with them on all stances. ^{—--EFB2 (talk) 23:46, 7 February 2021 (UTC) by: EFB2 / talk / contribs}

Afaik she never commented on race in the last few years outside an immoral joke about a ghostbusters star, nor was the content of the text reverted addressed anywhere here. Not re-reverting cuz server owners (ie David?) have last say on things, but the previous text was more informative/accurate Neiltyson1fan (talk) 17:11, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Even if she was actively dating a Nazi, her channel is one of the loudest (if not the loudest) social democratic channels on youtube Neiltyson1fan (talk) 17:13, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Her last video was half an hour of defending "femboys" and non-binary men, (something right-identitarians just do not do), other videos vigorously defend progressive economic policy, and her 'brainlet' channel dunks on conservatives constantly. It's hard to imagine what else she has to do to get out of cancel culture jail for those who still want her in it Neiltyson1fan (talk) 17:18, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

The problem with shoe is that she basically has a problem of wanting to have her cake and eat it too. There's a discussion up above, in which it was basically concluded that Shoe doesn't seem to have much of a driving factor besides "this gets me attention/money". I would suggest looking through that again (even if I dissented on that at the time, I have since changed my mind), because Shoe is rather obviously motivated by that. Right now, being a left wing populist is a lot easier to get profit from than it is being a right wing populist, and suspiciously, her flipping on Trump seems to have occured right around the time that social media sites started getting fed up with hosting Trumpites and adjacent people.

Furthermore, she never actually let go of the grudge against people she disliked from back in the Gamergate days (look up her dunking on moviebob, irregardless of what you think of the man himself, a lot of it is still a ton of jokes at his overweightness and other inappropriate comments). She seems to have transplanted that stuff onto her new status as a "left winger", which given her audience seems to barely have undergone a shift would make a lot of sense, because they're the type who don't mind inappropriate comments as long as it's made to people they don't like (Shoe's current audience is basically that segment of Left-wingers that popped up during the leadup to the 2020 dems primary that I would say consists mostly of ex-channers who got fed up with the alt-right and headed right in the other direction, aka "dirtbaggers").

She's without a doubt someone I would describe as a grifter and we should treat the self-identification of her beliefs as such with scepticism. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 19:35, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

@Sirius With honesty, I don't have any interest in the character of Shoe0nHead. This entire discussion is just about the category regarding racism. I could care less if Lapine is a zoophilic horse rapist who posts obscene stuff on dark web marketplaces or a psychopath who encourages homicide and religious prosecution. What I care about is the racism category. Be skeptical of her actions if you want. This discussion is not about the validity of her current beliefs, it is about the words of her past (regarding racism) and wither they are in relation to what she has said in the present. Many people are sellouts (unintentional or not), that doesn't make them innocent and should be criticized for it, but, regarding the racism category specifically on Lapine, it doesn't matter. --EFB2 (talk) 01:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Can we not come to a conclusion that the stuff she [Lapine] had said about the Leslie was ignorant of the problems she was facing (as Lapine had clarified herself directly under the quote box on the article) and agree that this specific example of racism is too vague (as I explained above, if we had a bit more information / if the video was not unlisted then maybe we could create a much more thorough and detailed argument for bigotry) to directly call her out as a racist. I know the editors put in a lot of work to write down the arguments for bigger stuff like politics, evolution, and fallacies, but when it comes to writing articles on living persons, the quality in the writing drops down a noticeable bit. If you have sources on Lapine saying racist things, put it in the category, but, even then, remove the current information or find more information to support it directly. --EFB2 (talk) 01:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

"Even if she was actively dating a Nazi, her channel is one of the loudest (if not the loudest) social democratic channels on youtube" holy shitting christ - David Gerard (talk) 00:32, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Petra Kelly dated a nazi -shrug- Neiltyson1fan (talk) 01:25, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Nazis are bad tho yea. Regardless, relationships aren't a zero sum game. If shoe or any woman wanted, they could date 1 nazi per 300 lefty guys Neiltyson1fan (talk) 01:34, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

It's absolutly crazy to me. Who keep editing this article lying about her "apologising" on some neckbeard stream? No she didn't. THAT IS WHY THERE IS NO LEGIT CITATION. SHE'S A FUCKING RACIST. HER BRAIN WAS STUNTED BY THE 4CHAN INTERNET. Her acknowledgment of leslie Jone's harassment was telling her followers that she looked like a gorilla. Man, y'all are just gonna whitewash this racist, huh? NOT COOL. ^{— Unsigned, by: 47.28.82.50 / talk / contribs}

I fact templated it 10 days ago. Nobody has stepped up to fill it out further. Statement removed as per a lack of sourcing. If y'all want to add it back, add a source. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 12:56, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

   This is very much appreciated, thanks for the update 47.28.82.50 (talk) 05:43, 19 February 2021 (UTC)sinbadjones

Alright, I'm back, and since I don't want to have someone come to this talk page with a suprised pikachu face after they finish reading this topic, let's just say that calling someone a monkey/gorilla on the bases of their skin colour does indeed amount to racism. So, even though I haven't edit this page at all, I'm not going to attempt to do so. --EFB2 (talk) 02:25, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Y'all should mention the current Sargon drama

It seems to me that Shoeonhead definitely has moved more to the left and the article definitely reflects that but I think that the recent Sargon of Akkad drama should be mentioned because it definitely seems to be a pretty big turning point for her channel and the "skeptic community." In fact, I'm noticing that the "skeptic community" seems to be tearing itself apart to the point that even Armoured Skeptic has been getting cancelled by his own community which is interesting because with the current drama Shoe is getting accused of being a communist and people seem to think she most of become one because of her breakup with Armoured Skeptic (obviously this is all just baseless speculation from people are mad. It's honestly kind of amazing and I guess it kind of makes sense since while the skeptic community was pretty damn CHUDdy for a while with their anti-feminist takes. I don't think it was something done to be intentionally malicious but more of people being simply ignorant on the topic of politics. As Contrapoints pointed out the skeptic community got so used to shooting down beliefs that are so easy to shoot down (ie creationism, alternative medicine etc) when more complex political issues came up the community didn't know what the hell they were doing or responding to. This meant a lot of them including me ended up realizing how far to the right things were getting in the community and ended up jumping ship sooner or later especially with everything that is occurring at the current moment.

Of course not everybody jumped ship especially those like Sargon who realized if they kept releasing conservative bullshit they could just keep making money but a lot of people seemed to realize that they made a mistake in their past views.

Sorry for the rambling I guess what I'm trying to say is that this drama seems like it's going to have a huge effect on the skeptic community as well as Shoe herself to the point that it should be at the very least mentioned in passing. Not only that, but with how many people are jumping in it seems like this is only going to escalate in the time ahead. ^{— Unsigned, by: 193.148.18.76 / talk / contribs}

Requesting thread archival (why?) -- Techpriest (talk)

Regarding racism

This woman's grifting and racism is still being whitewashed in the intro to this article. IT rightfully called out her behavoir as not consistent with her identification as a "lefty". This was removed by some asshole 4chan racist. This keep happening. KEep coddling 4chan e-celebs who made thousands off of racism. What the fuck is wrong with you people? Why are you caping (again) for a sick demented racist? ^{— Unsigned, by: 47.28.82.50 / talk / contribs}

I guess they are being removed for lack of documentation, Cosmikdebris is not a 4Chan racist. :) The Wiki is more careful on unsourced statements regarding living people. :)

Now, personally, I have no idea why the white supremacist friendly nature of this is being removed when there's a whole documented section on her friendship with Lauren Southern. One problem with her is lately I guess somewhere she claimed to be a "reformed anti-SJW" skeptic, which Breadtube seems skeptical about. After reading her Twitter feed (headline: "i will never read a book", a statement that I would say based on her feed is rather accurate), though, I would throw her into the alt-right 4Chan edgelord category (virgin and Chad meme bullshit? "@HillaryClinton you're a demon"? Cheering Parler with a Pepe image? "Sargon was right"?). I didn't see much SJW type stuff there, so granted it's possible she's gone from anti-feminist to mere alt-right edgelord. I didn't see any anti-SJW stuff, either, so I'd call that assertion bullshit too. Anyways, doesn't seem to be a big reason to remove the headline altohether, seems pretty close to me and probably someone finding some references (on a Youtube personality though -- good luck, ugh) will be all that is needed here. That's "first impression", of course. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 00:31, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Don't call me a fucking racist, you asshole. @47.28.82.50 I simply got tired of seeing all those unsourced statements in the article. Many months passed after putting the "this article has unsourced statements" banner at the top of the damn page, and there were multiple statements in the article that were marked "citation needed." That's why I removed them. I have no personal agenda here. If you people would stop fucking whining and provide some citations for your unsourced claims, perhaps they can find a place in this article. Otherwise, fuck off. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 03:27, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

People (white people) on this website are still gaslighting their audience trying to cover for this vile racist. Shit, she started her career with GAMER-MOTHERFUCKING-GATE. Honestly if this horrible person is the hill you all are willing to die on (i'm talking to you pathetic edgelords). that's pathetic. ^{— Unsigned, by: 47.28.82.50 / talk / contribs}

I've sourced the statements of her long cover for and with friendships with horrible people and working on videos with a white supremacist. Nobody wants to die on this hill, we just really don't want any crank bringing the legal shotgun to us. RW is technically immune (the fault would be on the editor who introduced the edits), but nobody wants that headache. "Breadtube" the subreddit I can dismiss out of hand as a source because it's just not a significant one. If you can provide a reference for the gator stuff that would be great, as well as the stuff about her recent content appealing to channers (I tangentially know it's true, but I don't have specific references). I was able to source the opening paragraph with stuff from the article itself. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 08:11, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Okay I've sourced the GG claim too although it took a bit more work, it's still a source from the main text. I still would like a source about something to the present day. CCing @PanGalacticGargleBlaster since you did take a look at her account. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 08:21, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I added a rewrite after diving deeper into her Twitter. Honestly, she's a weird one. Kind of a 4Chan edgelord Bernie bro that is rebellious to a fault. It's hard screaming "racist" at her completely when she doesn't really post much on that angle anymore (she seems to have toned down some quite racist / anti-feminist shitty statements she was making circa 2016-2017), but she clearly can't let go of those shitty 4Chan memes. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 15:00, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Wow, i'm surprised, thank you so much for listening.Honestly, I didn't want this to end up like every other coner of the internet controlled by maladjusted gamergate weirdos. Relly, thank you! it really means alot.

ok so i'm trying to post a link citation and i'm failing. can someone help me out? I'd really appreciate it! ^{— Unsigned, by: 47.28.82.50 / talk / contribs}

You can post source links and related ideas for content to add to the article on this talk page, and others may help out with working it into the article text.

Also, as you can see, cosmikdebris has helped out a bit with the new content, but it may generally help to avoid accusing people in advance of racism and gaslighting if you want their help with stuff. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 14:46, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Wow, i'm like so impressed. Y'all give a shit. double thumbs up for all. No racism convictions here! ^{— Unsigned, by: 47.28.82.50 / talk / contribs}

AGE and CREEPINESS

She is thirty, and acts like she is 15. Judging by her audience, and the majority of her viewers seem to be teenagers. This is super creepy. I think this should be pointed out. ^{— Unsigned, by: 47.28.82.50 / talk / contribs}

: / 54.37.136.66 (talk) 15:17, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Bias

After reading it a few times over, I think this article is biased against shoe. I have to admit to having sympathy for "shoe fans" (shoeheads). However, after reading comments by various racists, this article seems to be projection. June is 100% (or more) pro-black despite blacks being responsible for most crimes. This doesn't mean that blacks commit all the crimes, nor does it mean that blacks are fundamentally low IQ. However, June has been a champion of leftist causes such as Huey Long for a while now.54.37.136.66 (talk) 15:19, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Firstly, no shit. Yes, the article ultimately takes a negative stance towards Lapine. Secondly, "despite blacks being responsible for most crimes." Is pretty ignorant. The methodology used to collect that data was, last I checked, hotly contested. Further, perhaps the overwhelming amounts of African Americans in poverty might account for those results results that are not contested, rather than them being "the blacks". Thirdly, IQ is a dubious metric to use in any of this, since it's most reliable usage is comparing testing averages, not criminality. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 15:27, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Yea so I think shoe should be given a break. 54.37.136.66 (talk) 17:07, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I've been around three black skinned people person in my entire life. The only one I got to know closely was ultimately not that interested in morals. Furthermore if we look to Africa, we can find multiple instances of Nazi style authoritarian regimes with practices of torture that equal that of Nazi Germany. So even if she was not a fan of hanging around blacks, she should be forgiven given she does not call for a white ethnostate, and black is just a color and has nothing to do with genetics, as the science clearly shows. 54.37.136.66 (talk) 17:11, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

This doesn’t have much to do with the article. You need to explain your problems with it properly if you want it to change. Christopher (talk) 17:46, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Surprise surprise, one of June's racist simps is coming on here spouting alt-right bullshit. The hell is wrong with these people....oh yeah, fucking 4(totally not racist)chan. Embarrassing. June's a POS with a long history of anti-black racism and this article only scratches the surface. Nice try though. ^{— Unsigned, by: 173.76.131.155 / talk / contribs}

I'm inclined to agree with Tuxer on this one

Though I admit the only thing I know about her is that she makes videos on the Internet I don't think hypocrisy is enough to say she's not a socdem. Although I'd rather just lay to waste this article, but I tend to hate YouTube articles anyway...GeeJayK (talk) 19:27, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

To cite the Category:Social democrats page: "This category is used only for typical 'European-style center-left social democrats' and 'very very moderate socialists'.". Shoe self-identifies as a social democrat but supports Sanders. Our category page also mentions this -> "people with strong democratic socialist personalities such as [...] Bernie Sanders [...], we recommend using the Socialists category.". I'm as a result agreeing with David Gerards original assesment of North Korea being a democracy. Shoe has no real ideology in practice; she just says what she says because it gets her an audience and money, with enough sanity behind it that being a populistic nazi doesn't really give you much longevity. Per the article itself; if anything she has a very "rebel without a cause" ideology (and unstated; because if she had a cause, she'd risk alienating her audience). She's not a socdem by any measure, far less our own category rules for the socdem category. Techpriest (talk) 19:32, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

That's some bold claims. And also a No True Scotsman. Are you suggesting the Soviet Union and all other totalitarian regimes were never communist? Because that is the argument used by a lot of moonbats, "we never tried real communism" Tuxer (talk) 19:37, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

(EC) I'm not sure if I agree, Techpriest. At which points does she contradict social democracy? GeeJayK (talk) 19:41, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

@Tuxer No it means I have the ability to read and comprehend what's being written. You evidently appear to lack the latter. This would be a no true scotsman if the measure of a social democrat we have written out ("European-style center-left social democrats" and "very very moderate socialists") already would apply to Shoe. Shoe's actual worldview (if we believe her twitter feed), to cite the article is "a curious blend of rebel-without-a-clue, often contrary, populism oriented viewpoints, calling herself a "left populist"" along with everything in her 2021 section on political views. Shoe is not a social democrat. Techpriest (talk) 19:44, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

@GeeJayK To further cite the actual article, "Lapine is anti-democratic in some tweets" (being anti-democratic is already fundamentally incompatible with social democrats if you know a mocum of history on how social democrats came about to begin with). Techpriest (talk) 19:47, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

First thing. I think you're being overly aggressive on this one, and that's unlike how you've always treated me and the rest of the community. Are you ok? Honest question. Second. Actually, social-democracy started came to being as something extremely anti-democratic, advanced by people like Ferdinand Lassalle. Indeed, the Bolshevik party was the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party. People tent do mistake the Post-War social democracy championed by Myrdal and Erlander with "how social democrats came about to begin".

Sorry yeah, I'm fine now, thanks for the callout. I got a bit angry because Tuxer is going in on full blast with bullshit fallacies and it got me worked up and Duce's usual anti-Youtuber stuff didn't help much either. Apologies for in part projecting it on you. Anyway, fair point. That said, the current definition of social democracy has to be by definition (...heh) compatible with democracy. Outside of that (even if it doesn't convince you/you think different), the literal only definition we have of her being a "social democrat", is a self-identification with the term from 2019, with everything else since landing her in well... "rebel without a cause" stuff; she's anti-corporate, supports technological luddism, makes up bizarre conspiracies about BLM support from corporations, has supported Parler, thinks democracy is a sham because corporations, and I could continue on. I guess the best definition for her is some form of anarchist, but only by definition of just not having any sort of straight answer about her beliefs that makes sense (and I'm sure some anarchist will get pissed when we categorize her as such so I am not recommending that either). Techpriest (talk) 20:03, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

The best definition of Lapine's politics would be "Ideologically incoherent" or "Dore style big tent populist". ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 20:29, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

@Techpriest That's more reasonable, but I'm not convinced. You agree with me that social democracy isn't immune to hypocrisy? If so, I'd like to know why she can't be a case of a hypocritical socdem. Many liberals supported dictatoships in some ways (although, granted, liberalism according to them is more concerned with a constitutional government than with democracy). Aren't they liberals? Going further in the past, John Locke said that atheists were inelegible for the basic forms of human rights he was postulating and we all support nowadays (although you can say that he was a pioneer, and despite the flaws his views were advanced by his time). We can even think about Trump supporters: the Capitol riot wasn't the most Burken thing in the world. GeeJayK (talk) 20:44, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, why don’t we just nuke the page? I see no reason why this person is notable. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 19:41, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Shoe is relevant in context of our coverage of Gamergate, the right wing corruption of the atheism movement (she used to date armouredskeptic) and a lot more of that sort of material. Stop your anti-Youtube hateboner for 5 seconds please. Techpriest (talk) 19:47, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Explicit pictures

So, I've read on her subreddit that someone hacked her snapchat a few months ago and decided to post her nude selfies, others say that ArmoredSkeptic is behind it. Is there any truth to this? If true, is it missional to mention the hack? 2A02:1812:2C66:D000:38FA:53CC:93EC:4D46 (talk) 20:34, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

If we didn't mention Amazing Atheist's banana and oil leaks in his article, we won't mention anything of the sort here. It's counter to missional to bring about such violations of someones private life. We also don't do porn. Knight Commander^{In Service}_{To Her}^Goatness 20:42, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

June's support for Tucker Carlson

June seems to support and like Tucker Carlson but, unfortunately, she has deleted many of her posts on Twitter. Does anyone have an archived version of her twitter feed or something to add to the article? Tuxer (talk) 00:01, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Techpriest

@Techpriest, here's "stupidpol" sources: the guardian, the Spectator, MacLeans and Vox. The dirtbag left is about being vulgar and eschewing civility. Tuxer (talk) 00:37, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Watched a couple of her vids

YouTube decided that I needed to watch her for some reason. Anyway, her videos don't seem that vitriolic to me, nothing compared to what I'm used to seeing from other parts. To me, I think she's a bit closer to Libertarian than Leftwing, but she's still further to the Left than the average person. I don't get the sense that she's the hateful transphobic neonazi the article here seems to indicate. Mostly I get the sense that she's a useful "mask" for some of the darker parts of the web; here she is, a cute bisexual girl saying a lot of things that MRAs have been saying, so they can use her as their shield. Am I wrong here? CorruptUser 18:18, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

The only factor you're missing is $$$. Shoe has no real opinions on her own besides "I support anything with the word populism in it". The charitable view is that she's a grifter, the uncharitable view is that she's actually that stupid. The reason our article largely makes her out to be a "hateful transphobic neonazi" is because that's where her carreer really started. Shoe became big on Gamergate, but conveniently bowed out of the anti-SJW era right before the Trump campaign. We did rewrite the lead of the article at some point, but someone else stripped it out because of a dispute on the word "dirtbag left". You can see that revision here. 20:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Meh, that's a bit of a non-argument against her. Parroting others' ideas without actually logically creating your own ideas is 80% of even the most educated person's thoughts, and virtually every person you meet on the street just parrots what they believe to be the argument that lets them justify their own personal failings or ensures their superiority over others. To call her "stupid" is to call almost everyone on Earth stupid. "Vapid, cute girl who says what people want to hear on topics people want to talk about", that's better than quite a lot of shite on YouTube, e.g., "reaction videos". CorruptUser 23:20, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

The idea that sh0e should be permanently lambasted for having supported "gamergate", is a strong minority opinion you cannot find pretty anywhere except rationalwiki and 1-2 reddit threads. The more plausible explanation is that at least one Rationalwiki admin has a grudge against her, and therefore that's why the article is the way it is. You could just make a section on Gamergate if Gamergate is so important (it isn't). If there's anything she's done in the past, which warrants the current article tone, except casual racism (which is not unusual or notable in America, particularly among people of color) it should be noted, otherwise this article reeks of pointless grudgesFallisBestSeason (talk) 15:03, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Gamergate holdouts (on both sides) have ruined both Wikipedia and many third party wikis. Please can people who care about gamergate should form their own section of the internet and never leave it FallisBestSeason (talk) 15:06, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

That said she does go out of her way to defend obnoxious individuals and does grift off Republicans in a seemingly opportunistic way (rather than principled way) FallisBestSeason (talk) 17:57, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Who are you and why are you obsessed about RationalWiki moderators --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 21:25, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Twitter image on her profile.

Is she seeking for attention or something? Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 16:46, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

It’s clearly a joke. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 19:30, 1 August 2022 (UTC)