Information icon.svg Results for the 2023 RationalWiki Moderator Election have now been posted. Thank you for participating in this election, and congratulations to the winners!

Talk:Ted Rall

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Icon media.svg

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

Icon sociology.svg 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.

Communist state[edit]

Wait if he's upset Nelson Mandela didn't set up a communist state is he a liberal or a communist cause liberals aren't exactly pro commie? ClothCoat (talk) 03:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I read his rant he clearly hates liberals as moderate "sell outs" and instead openly identifies with the extreme left. For evidence "Radicals and revolutionaries who betray their former militancy to become accommodationist scoundrels win Nobel Peace Prizes, high office and nice tweets after their die. That’s why former “terrorists” like Mandela, Gerry Adams, Gandhi and Yassir Arafat who stop fighting for their causes and accept establishment sinecures get lionized. Those who hold firm and keep fighting for the people, like Malcolm X, are scorned — compared to the relatively safe/peaceful MLK. The media loves the sellouts, hates the heroes." From his Nelson Mandela rant. ClothCoat (talk) 03:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
It's truly amazing how fucking despicable this guy is. I can't think of one good thing to say about him from an artistic or personal perspective. Scott Adams is a sucky artist and a worse person, but he at least writes jokes. Aaron McGruder is a despicable truther piece of shit, but at least his comic lead to a pretty good TV show in spite of his repugnant views. Ctrl-Alt-Del and VG Cats both have content and creators I loathe about as much as Rall, but at least they didn't openly endorse 9/11 conspiracy theories and mock widows of terrorist attack victims for putting on heirs.
With the exception of guys like Gary Glitter and Chris Brown. I can't imagine having any less respect for someone who gets paid for generating art. Fuck Ted Rall. *Asterisk* (talk) 04:21, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
You also gotta love how he not only grouped Mandela and Ghandi together with hateful thugs and crooks like Adams and Arafat, but he sees all four as sellouts anyway. I'm surprised he doesn't get attention comparable to Tinsley, he's Amazing Atheist level human garbage. *Asterisk* (talk) 04:38, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
I think it's cause Tinsley is more well known. This guy borders on complete fringe and is a perfect example of how the far-left and far right can be nearly indistinguishable with his combination of militant far left economics and racist views towards blacks that tend to be more oriented towards the political extreme right. Anyway I think Tinsley's publications are more well published, maybe because people want to use him as a "balance" to Doonesbury or maybe because right-wing publications will give anyone the time of day. ClothCoat (talk) 05:48, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Some of it might have to do with Mallard Fillmore actually adhering to standard newspaper censorship. I've seen both their comics in print, but while I saw Tinsley's work in the editorial sections of syndicated papers, I only ever saw Rall's in magazines like MAD and Playboy. It seems like his single panel cartoons run in at least one paper's online section. His fucking despicable "Terror Widows" cartoon is mentioned in this article as running in the New York Times's online section, but there's no mention of it being a part of some sort of feature, or weather it was just being talked about in the times.
I guess I could dig some more, but I'm just gonna hit the hay. Spending too much time thinking about people like Rall isn't healthy. *Asterisk* (talk) 07:21, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Racism examples[edit]

All four examples given were terrible. What the fuck? - David Gerard (talk) 16:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Hatchet job[edit]

This is basically a hatchet job. Tinsley? If you wanted his left-wing analogue, pick someone who does only cartoons. RW still doesn't have (I'm not saying "needs") a Gary Trudeau page. I'm a lazy lazy man, but this article is bad enough where I've become a user to fix it. I'll come back later to edit the article. Then all my changes will be undone because I'm a noob & Doing It Wrong. But I will have tried.MatsFan (talk) 12:11, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Good luck with that, and I mean that kindly. I agree that the article is deeply suboptimal, not at all up to RationalWiki's somewhat idiosyncratic standards. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 12:45, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Essayspacing is the nicest thing that could be done with it as it stands - David Gerard (talk) 15:32, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Go for it. After reviewing every reference in the "racism" section and seeing 0 out of 4 actually substantiated by the citations, I suspect there's rich pickings for culling large chunks of this. For best results, argue deletions in talk.
The actual Tinsley analogue remains Far Left Side - David Gerard (talk) 15:30, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, kids, this revision is not perfect, but it is a much better intro to Rall than the previous one, which was my short-term goal. Asterisk-dude - no offense intended. Reading all the etiquette tips, I guess I might have done all this in the sandbox and built consensus. Also, I didn't go over the racism bits in detail - time enough later. Just couldn't leave that steaming pile unquestioned. Off to make the proletarian scene, catch you later.MatsFan (talk) 18:18, 13 July 2014‎ (UTC)

Way less worse. Thank you! - David Gerard (talk) 10:08, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Hmmm, now that I've had time to actually research the subject it seems the guy who initially created the article did have a hatred of Rall taken to irrational levels. However I think it is worth noting some of Rall's more extreme viewpoints (see my above quote). ClothCoat (talk) 06:21, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Cut out more bullshit[edit]

There were lots of little blue numbers after the claims, but that's not the same as being supported; I've just cut more huge chunks where the references quoted don't actually support what's being claimed or JAQed-off.

Really, it's hard to see why this article is even here apart from being a venue for an attempted hatchet job - David Gerard (talk) 07:57, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the cuts. I had left some of that stuff in just for the irony - actually reading the linked material, it did a not-terrible job of supporting the opposite position. I would say Rall is worthy of a page cos

3. Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism. 4. Analysis and criticism of how these subjects are handled in the media.

But actually write something, when so far I've really only been refuting libel? Uuuuuuh, OK. No promise of blistering speed though. You might pass the time reading his 2024 - osmium-heavy sarcasm in cartoon formMatsFan (talk) 00:25, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

So is it ok if we mention some of his more extreme viewpoints? ALso we should mention that he's been accused of racism by Daily Kos, though it's probably more caused by his crappy drawing than Rall being an actual racist. ClothCoat (talk) 02:12, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Daily Kos is a group blog. I'd presume it'd need to be a post with some evidence of popularity as a viewpoint - David Gerard (talk) 08:13, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Here's the first accusation you can decided for yourself how bad it is. Personally I think him being an awful artist would explain it well enough none of the cartoons are a slam dunk but the site seems to generally regard him as a racist. ClothCoat (talk) 08:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
That last one is an assertion that would need more than a single post. e.g. "Several highly-rated posts on Daily Kos" or something - David Gerard (talk) 12:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

When not a load of BS hackjob, is this article pointless?[edit]

When you remove the BS unsupported by its citations, the article turns out not to have much to it. Is there any good reason to keep it? - David Gerard (talk) 12:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Honestly when this page first went up, I was surprised that it hadn't existed yet. I have added a little. I was picturing adding summaries of two more of his books, but I'm not going to bother til the shroud comes off. Meanwhile, revert, subvert, or pervert the page as needed. (This comment repeats in AfD.)MatsFan (talk) 00:47, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Asterisk is back, not engaging with talk page objections, blindly reverting - David Gerard (talk) 10:32, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Coming up next: Silk Road to RuinMatsFan (talk) 15:20, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Fucking Hell[edit]

If anyone else defended the Pauls, Vladimir Putin, and Bashar al-Assad in their work, they'd be pushed off a subway platform. Just because I'm not giving this stupid fucker a pass because he calls himself a leftist doesn't mean I'm wrong.

Fuck Ted Rall, and fuck anyone who defends the fuck. *Asterisk* (talk) 17:19, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

It would help if your previous pile of citations didn't turn out to be lies and bullshit. You started an attempted hatchet job with bogus citations; you are in no way starting from presumable good faith here. You really shouldn't put a fucking word on this article unless and until other people concur each of your citations is not bogus - David Gerard (talk) 18:10, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Since this page wouldn't have happened without you, I'm inclined to give you the benefit of any doubt, but there just isn't any. The "Rall is Racist" link a couple sections up is dodgy at best. ("He's drawing Obama as a racoon! Just look at the nose!" - If he was going for racoon, even a drawer as bad as Rall would have put the bandit-mask on him.) I checked the cites you give for "Rall defends Putin & Assad." There were Rall cartoons for those days, but not a Putin or Asswad in sight. If you have an actual point - beyond "Rall is poopy, me no like" - go ahead & make it. You might find a more receptive/gullible audience over at Conservapedia, where your lack of sources would be a positive boon.MatsFan (talk) 20:06, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Rall fanboy[edit]

Ok so now instead of being a crazed hatchet job the article reads very fan boy esque. I think it is worth noting in this article that based on what I've read Rall does seem to have some very extreme "left of liberal" viewpoints that could be genuinly criticized. As for accusations of him being a "racist" though, I'm not so sure if not outright doubtful. I hate losing all this added information but I'm thinking I should revert it all since it is now written from an almost radical "New Left" point of view. ClothCoat (talk) 18:05, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Hrrrmm. I won't pretend I have no point of view. In my opinion, a description of the book belongs in the article. And if you're going to describe this book, it's kind of going to come out the way it did. Feel free to change the review's tone, correct anything that's false, or *especially* to just make it shorter. Oh, and the liberal viewpoints wherever - criticize away.MatsFan (talk) 20:05, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Mostly I'm unconvinced the books are actually very important and rate that much article space. I was reading the book section and going "yes, but why are you telling me all this?" - David Gerard (talk) 20:54, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Now it can be told, The Radical Agenda: I think Rall rates an article because he knows enough economics and politics to ignore the chaff thrown up by Josh Earnest &co, ask the right questions and point out what's important about what's going on. An important thing the article should do is point out that he is not only or even mainly a cartoonist. (He is often shoved into that drawer, that drawer is often mistaken for a urinal.) To that end, a section on his books. Within that section, descriptions of specific books.
Why is the section on the one book so long? That book covers a lot of ground. Wasd it Faulkner or Jilly Cooper who said, "kill your darlings."? I couldn't, but go ahead if you like. I plan to write one last book description, Anti-American Manifesto. This one will be much easier to sum up quickly and I can see much more to criticize about it, if that helps. And just to point out: I don't think I've gone full fanboy here - I'm not, e.g., plugging his new book or crap like that. MatsFan (talk) 23:04, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
My bad I stopped reading after the first couple paragraphs because I figured it was just some fanboy rambling and it was going nowhere I just read the whole thing and there are genuine criticisms there sorry about that. ClothCoat (talk) 05:31, 26 September 2014 (UTC)