Talk:Steven Crowder/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 12 December 2023. Please do not make edits to this page.

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

Potholer54 video

Potholder54 did a good video where he debunks Crowder's arguments on climate change being falsified here.-- Forerunner (talk) 02:13, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

this page needs to be bigger

Steven Crowder is such an influencial nutjob, he needs a bigger page exposing his stupidity GreatPerson (talk) 08:33, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

^^^ Or you could make a page that gives a holistic summary of his positions and views, and let people come to their own conclusions Waifu4Laifu (talk)Waifu4Laifu

THIS PAGE NEEDS TO BE BIGGER

See the main article on this topic: Law of exclamation

How come rationalwiki has long ass pages on stupid subjects, but one of the most notable and influentiual youtube conservatives, has a page of a few sentences. Please explain.

Go ahead and try to add something to the page. No one's going to stop you if it's reasonably sane and well-referenced. Bongolian (talk) 07:06, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

RW used to have long articles on YouTube personalities. I think it was ruled that as YT personalities they had only a marginal presence, with VenomFangX (one of RW's longest articles) being shaved of 90% content.-- Forerunner (talk) 22:07, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

WHY ARE WE YELLING Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:47, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

No one

"No one's going to stop you if it's reasonably sane and well referenced."

Horse shit. I recently made perfectly reasonable edits that did nothing more than remove unsourced and speculative material, and they were deleted. Twice. Irrational Wiki. ^{— Unsigned, by: Winter / talk / contribs} 05:36, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

@Winter Edit wars are pretty common. FuzzyCatPotato of the Rhyming Seaweeds (talk/stalk) 06:17, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

@Winter "I recently made perfectly reasonable edits that did nothing more than remove unsourced and speculative material". No. If you had actually done this then you might have a point. You added this line (which we were obviously going to remove): [...] as can be seen on the ironically named "Rational Wiki". You incorrectly described Cenk Uygur as "far-left" when Uygur considers himself a capitalist. You also removed a sourced and accurate paragraph about Ashley Judd. You later changed a quote from an article (although, to be fair, you probably didn't realise it was a quote). I could go on but I think you see my point. CowHouse (talk) 06:37, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

And you removed the SECOND edit, where I did indeed only remove material without a source, as well as the returning all of said biased and speculative material because...?

"I could go on but you see my point."

Whenever someone says that, I know for a fact that they can't, because they have nothing else. ^{— Unsigned, by: Winter / talk / contribs} 06:42, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

@Winter Please sign your comments on talk pages with four tiles at the end of your comment (Like this: ~~~~). If you are replying to another comment, you can use colons (:) to indent your replies so they are easy to read.

I've already demonstrated that what you said was untrue, so it is unnecessary to continue providing examples. I did not remove any of your edits actually, and I removed an unsourced paragraph. By the way, your second edit was where you modified a quote so that it no longer matched the source.

If you have complaints about the page, I'd focus on them instead of arguing about whether your edits were justified. CowHouse (talk) 06:53, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Yep, that's about the kind of dodge I expected. Okay, so you want to hear my complaints about the page itself? How about the fact that there isn't an objective or unbiased sentence in the entire article?

You'll no-doubt have some excuse as to why the absurdly biased and unprofessional writing on it is somehow justified, but anyone reading it can see how horrendous this article is. And I'm done trying to help you. If your own editors did their job, you wouldn't have so many people getting pissed off and calling you out on it.

Have a nice life. ^{— Unsigned, by: Winter / talk / contribs} 07:36, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

So if you paid me better, I'd do a better job! Bongolian (talk) 07:43, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

@Winter Sign your comments. It's not difficult.

What exactly am I dodging? I pointed out the problem with your second edit.

Be specific about your criticisms. Point out the parts that are either false, misleading or poorly sourced, and I will edit them if you are correct. I agree that the article could be greatly improved. CowHouse (talk) 08:05, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not conservative or liberal, but the liberal bias here is astounding.

Very ashamed that I used to come to this wiki for seemingly "rational" information when there's clearly a leftist agenda. Every single conservative commentator gets shit on while their liberal counterparts lack a single negative comment on their page. Trump's page is filled with hate towards him, yet Hillary's page is written objectively, almost defending her obviously corrupt actions. It's amazing to me how blind you all are to your own biases, and it's utterly IRRESPONSIBLE to call yourself the "Rational" Wiki when you are EVERYTHING BUT THAT.^{— Unsigned, by: 99.41.90.126 / talk / contribs}

Being rational has nothing to do with not picking sides.-- Forerunner (talk) 16:31, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

It is literally impossible to be apolitical or unbiased. There is no true neutral. just because you think unnamed far right classical liberalism is some kind of default doesn't make it so. It's ironic that you'd call others blind to their own biases (when they're clearly not) while you don't even recognize your own ideology. Being rational means adopting points of view that are evidence-based and objectively true. Some political ideologies are generally or wholly opposed to this, like Crowder's extreme Christian fundamentalism and far right Pinochetesque economic ideas. Being "neutral" politically is idiotic at best. I'm not a liberal, but pointing out the fact that Crowder's politics are nothing more than hateful, reactionary nonsense that would necessarily lead to a total collapse of Western civilization if implemented isn't wrong. It's rational. 72.181.99.6 (talk) 23:19, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh please. Every politically related page has very clear partisanship. What you're essentially saying is that a political view in accord with reason and logic is that of the Left which is complete bullshit. I wouldn't even have a problem, wouldn't be taking the time to respond if this Wiki actually rested on objectivity, listing the actual thought processes and reasoning behind all sides of various controversial issues. But that is the OPPOSITE of what's accomplished here. Instead, you choose to impose your political agenda under the guise of "rationality" which is incredibly disingenuous! I'm a libertarian and don't support Trump, but looking at Obama's page is one of the clearest indicators of this absurdity.

"Add in eight years of Obama's dithering in the White House, and you end up with rather fertile ground for "strong man" politicians who promise to get things done."

Are you fucking kidding me? Forget the general description of Obama's policies and accomplishments, lets get right to subtle (not really) Trump-bashing in the FIRST FUCKING SECTION. There's not even a single piece of criticism towards him! Where's the short excerpt about his unintentional but still fatal arming and funding of ISIS or the immense amount of drone strikes and civilian casualities? Only brief mentions of drone warfare are present, but not criticized which would be totally fine if the rest of the article remained bias-neutral. But it doesn't: "He likely would have won a third term if he weren't prohibited by the Constitution." Jesus Christ, you guys are pathetic and despite the fact that I liked Obama and some of his policies, it is utterly appalling all of this information is filtered through liberal bias.

Considering that "Obama armed ISIS" is one of those claims that pretty much only exists in the facts-can-be-made-up-freely-osphere, I'm not too worried about it. No serious fact checker I could find has backed that assertion. others have more-or-less refuted it. So if your main complaint centers on a conspiracy theory not being included: boo hoo. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 21:31, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that's my main complaint alright! Hilarious how you ignore everything else I've said, but nitpick a small example of an example I've made. But just to clarify, since googling "Did Obama arm ISIS?" isn't a sufficient fact-checking method, Obama's administration made plans to arm and train Syrian rebels (which totally failed as we know) and by July 2015, 54 troops were trained in Turkey. But in the recently released Podesta emails, Hillary Clinton (Secretary of State in Obama's administration) suggested using diplomatic and intelligence assests to "bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups in the region." This was in AUGUST OF 2015. In other words, she KNEW that Qatar and Saudi Arabia were funding ISIL radical groups, and they SHIPPED WEAPONS to these countries anyways, which indirectly armed ISIS troops. Did you actually read these emails? Or did you just Google "podesta emails debunked" because the implications were contrary to your political agenda? Because if you type in "Did Obama arm ISIS?", the sources you just posted are the FIRST links to pop up, quite amusing. A true rational minded person would be interested in looking at the PRIMARY sources rather than looking to news organizations to dumb it down for them.

SO I'll go ahead and correct myself. Sorry, Barack Obama himself didn't arm ISIS. But Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State in his administration, knew damn well of the possible consequences that could come of this operation, and one can infer that she wasn't the only person that had this information. Even so, the page on Hillary Clinton is no different, just framing her as an honest and brave woman who just made a few innocent mistakes. And you actually try claiming that this site is bipartisan? Rational Wiki my fucking ass. ^{— Unsigned, by: 45.16.198.59 / talk / contribs}

(Different person) Swearing, repeated use of CAPITAL LETTERS and accusing the diversity of people here of bias in a particular direction (rather than a diversity of opinions and 'a willingness to be amused by the range of peculiar opinions other people have and arguments used' and considering the flaws in their discussions) indicates you don't understand RW.

And, generally, politicians do not consider the unintended (even if logical) consequences of policies they take on (until said consequences come back to bite them). 86.191.125.168 (talk) 10:58, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Can we not...

Can we please not have arguments about how whether or not this is a hate page that exists just because he's a conservative vlogger? I mean, this is a guy that conflates Trans-acceptance with climate change - he's a verifiable nutter regardless of who he votes for.-- Forerunner (talk) 19:57, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm aware my argument with User:Christopher, and the far-less sane pal tagging along, are more to do with a completely off-topic debate. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 21:33, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

"Edit Wars"

Says page needs to be bigger, cries foul when page is bigger (lmao)

Never mind my account of his interactions with Dr. Patrick Moore (PhD Ecology), never mind the glaring logical errors, such as putting Comedy in quotations, nor the glaring misuse of the word 'irony' (This isn't even an 'our opinion vs yours' situation, the rationality just isn't there).

Just undo an hour of edits, which I thought were pretty 'Fair and Balanced', why don't you.^{— Unsigned, by: Waifu4Laifu / 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 indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line.) Thank you. Christopher (talk) 15:59, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Delaney Rohan?

"Steeped in bigotry and violent humiliation, the point of most of the clips seems clear: Liberalism is a threatening pathology in need of urgent, punitive extermination—by whatever means are at hand." As much as I despise Crowder and think he can be an asshole and an imbecile, the last part of the quote (cited above) seems to suggest that he is a genocidal maniac. Looking at the reference article, I don't know that the author is more distinguished than the typical editor of any wiki, revealing the quote to be an impuissant persuasion. I would clip off the part about punitive extermination, just to be on the safe side.Ariel31459 (talk) 00:44, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie The quote makes him sound like a Gestapo officer. He is a shitty comedian and a right-wing asshole. I am certain he is not frightening (to me at least).Ariel31459 (talk) 22:24, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

@Ariel31459 I think that rather than clipping the quote we should add the paragraph that precedes it from the article. This gives the quote context, so rather than sounding like he's a monster or some such he instead is revealed to possess a rather twisted sense of humor. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 02:22, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

change my mind

Rather a lot of these now. — Dysk (contribs) 22:34, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm wondering why this idea isn't more wide-spread? As a concept 'change my mind' sound like wonderful idea. Or am I wrong? 193.166.253.150 (talk) 12:47, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

It's a meme, in reality it's rather hard to change someone's mind once they're dead set convinced on something, even when presented with evidence that is contrary to their assertions. — Oxyaena ^Harass 12:50, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

True. Yet not impossible. Isn't changing even one mind (for the better, hopefully) worth it? 193.166.253.149 (talk) 06:50, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I just watched Daryl Davis on Joe Rogan. Talking to people you disagree seems pretty worth it. 193.166.253.149 (talk) 06:46, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Crowder promotes harassment

https://twitter.com/gaywonk/status/1134263774591037441

Twitter thread is a depressing read. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 01:59, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Definitely should be added to the page. Taberone (talk) 20:05, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

YouTube is also fine having this kind of content on their site: https://twitter.com/shaun_jen/status/1137489350734897152

Basically, Crowder making racist jokes and being a racist shithead. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 22:52, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Whoever wrote this has never watched a Steven Crowder video

That opening quote completely misrepresents Crowder's views. Not sure why my extremely reasonable edit was deemed Spam? But I'm new here so... I clarified that Crowder consistently speaks out against violence, discourages doxing, and is NOT a White Supremicist, Neo-Nazi or Alt-Right person. And putting comedy in quotes? All that passive aggressive stuff is just dumb. I would like to put my edits back in there, as I don't think it's your mission to misrepresent someone just because you don't agree with them.--LogicalLiberal (talk) 00:41, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Which edit? Link it. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 00:49, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

If you mean this edit, then I'll be blunt, it's crap. Nothing more than an unsourced digital blowjob. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 00:51, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

And it's not the first one by a longshot. So, ell oh ell. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 03:55, 13 July 2019 (UTC)