Talk:Theodore Beale

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon internet.svg

This Internet related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Copperbrain.png
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.

This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page: <1>

Was this edit actually an improvement?[edit]

Compare. While the editorial formatting is less horrendous in the shortened version, I suspect whitewashing. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:00, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I vaguely mean to go through it and review closely, but that would involve bothering - David Gerard (talk) 13:10, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
You should. There's a dog buried here. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:02, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
I removed a few unsourced claims or claims which didn't match the links to avoid it just being a 'hitpiece' or containing libel (e.x. the article had said he was a PUA, but that wasn't actually correct, so I elaborated on his theory about a "social-sexual heirarchy"), but didn't remove any information just because it was negative, no - I also added more links to back the content up, so the article should be move informative on the whole). My goal is to make sure that negative claims about living people are sourced and worded factually rather than it reading as unsourced personal attacks, a la Encyclopedia Dramatica so that RW maintains good credibility and avoids any defamation/stalking allegations or lawsuit threats.--BrittanyPBone (talk) 13:47, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Mr. Beale, on the splendor of supreme whiteness[edit]

From here:

There are much bigger battles ahead than settling the question of whether Christianity is a necessary component of Western Civilization or not. Because we know the white race is absolutely a necessary component of it, and that is why, whether one is inclined towards the Alt-White or the Alt-West, every member of the Alt-Right who values both whites and the West has immediate and mid-range objectives remain exactly the same.

Though, to his defense, in an earlier, overtly apologetic post, he did say:

...I'm not inclined towards white supremacy myself. Most of the Alt Right is pro-white and pro-Western Civilization, but it is not white supremacist for the obvious reason that it does not believe racial supremacy exists any more than equality does.

But that's not the full quote. The full quote is actually:

I am an Anglo-Aztec-American Indian who is genetically superior to 99 percent of all blacks on the track and intellectually superior to 99 percent of all whites and Jews, so I'm not inclined towards white supremacy myself. Most of the Alt Right is pro-white and pro-Western Civilization, but it is not white supremacist for the obvious reason that it does not believe racial supremacy exists any more than equality does.

Nice save, dawg. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:37, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Those quotes aren't indications of white supremacy. The first quote is simply an acknowledgement that a civilization is the accumulation (sum, consequence) of its heritage (what came before and was pasted on and what one feels an inherent connection to) and a rejection of "Magic Dirt Theory". Vox Day doesn't believe that human beings are interchangeable. You can't take a cog from one machine and place it in a completely alien machine and expect the same exact results.
Your interpretation of the second quote is completely wrong. Although the first part sounds like white supremacist at first, a careful reader would recognize the following:
  1. Day begins by acknowledging his mixed heritage.
  2. 100 - 99 = 1, so Day is also saying that 1% of blacks are genetically superior to him.
  3. 100 - 99 = 1, so Day is also saying that 1% of Jews are intellectually superior to him.
  4. Day claims that he is superior to 99% of fellow whites.
  5. Day isn't comparing one race to another; he's comparing them to an individual (himself).
Day didn't claim that whites are superior to superior to anyone. There isn't "white supremacism" here. Day isn't saying that one race is better in every respect than the others or that one race deserves to dominate the others. Day's only claim (as stated in the first quote) is that whites are better at being whites than others; Westerners are better at being Westerners than others. The same can be said of all ethicities and civilizations. Japanese are the best at being Japanese. Thais are the best at being Thais. Somalis are the best at being Somalis. A Westerner could never be better at being Japanese than a genuine Japanese person can. --Idris (talk) 17:26, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Rolled back to version from January 8th[edit]

...while we discuss retooling it from here. I'm sure there are plenty of ideas, as said Jan 8th version of the article legitimately stands to be improved (indicated by the bronze rating, as contrasted to silver or gold). Which areas are lacking? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:37, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

+1 - let's edit this sensibly as needed, not drastic whitewashing rewrites - David Gerard (talk) 17:55, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
I disgress, the new version had more sources and extrapolated on him more, as well as corrected some misquoted sources (compare the sources from the Jan 8 version and the new version). Whitewashing would mean removing factual information, for example there is an editor here named Hipocrite who wants the word white supremacist in the article even if it's unsourced and therefore just opinion or soapboxing; I did some search and found this list of quotes from him and don't see any here which refer to "white supremacist", so I think something along the lines of "alt-right nationalist", or "Christian nationalist" is more accurate unless there are other quotes that can be used as supporting evidence.

From what I can tell the alt-right is a collection of various nationalist ideologies (e.x. Christian nationalism, white nationalism, Dark Enlightenment, etc), so white supremacy would be a subgenre of the group rather than the entire group:

https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/560412.Vox_Day

--BrittanyPBone (talk) 16:06, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I've reverted your whitewashing before, and I'll do it again. Just for context, you pitch yourself as one of the foremost experts on PizzaGate, which you describe as a nefarious underground ring of pedos based in a Washington DC pizzaria, correct? Hipocrite (talk) 16:09, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
But please, tell us a specific change you'd like to make and we'll discuss it. Hipocrite (talk) 16:11, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
You sound a little paranoid, and repeating "whitewashing" again and again doesn't make it true. By your logic if someone wrote "Mr X is a pedophile and fan of bestiality porn" without any sources and I removed it, then that would be "whitewashing". It sounds like you just want RW to be a "progressive" version of ED with no concern for journalism or factuality regarding living people, which I'm not sure is the owner's vision of the project, Hipocrite. My version has more sources and factual informaton, so I feel you're blackwashing rather than vice versa, but that's just me.--BrittanyPBone (talk) 16:13, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Do you know who the owner of the project is, BrittanyPBone? Your version is a whitewash. Hipocrite (talk) 16:20, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Toulose from NM is the owner, if it's a whitewash according to you then feel free to point out what facts I removed, none were removed and more sources where added. You seem just angry that the word "white supremacist" wasn't used, so just wondering, why don't you go to ED and write your own 'satire' article where you can say "He's a white supremacist pedophile kitten molester" or whatever you want?--BrittanyPBone (talk) 16:32, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
No, BrittanyPBone, that's not the owner. There is broad agreement about "white supremacist." If you have specific changes you want to propose, propose away. Hipocrite (talk) 16:34, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
I have a better idea, I recall a few quotes stating that Vox's views have been accused of supporting fascism, I think it would be fair to have that in the opening page of the article, but trying to conflate everything with 'white supremacism' without sources seems to be problematic. I'll see if I can find the sources stating some of his views resemble fascism though.--BrittanyPBone (talk) 16:18, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Present whatever you want, BrittanyPBone. Hipocrite (talk) 16:20, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Here you go, these bloggers say that his views are arguably fascistic, so it'd be fair to mention that somewhere in the articles:

https://camestrosfelapton.wordpress.com/2015/12/11/reading-vox-day-so-you-dont-have-to/

http://www.eruditorumpress.com/blog/guided-by-the-beauty-of-their-weapons-an-analysis-of-theodore-beale-and-his-supporters/

--BrittanyPBone (talk) 16:24, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

"So Beale is a sexist, racist, homophobic extremist and a jerk to boot." But let's not call him a racist! Hipocrite (talk) 16:30, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
The policy on living individuals here says:

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.

That's what I did in my edits, and you call it whitewashing, you seem to have too extreme an agenda here compared to the others. Find all of his racist postings and link them in the article; but if you just want to plaster articles with slurs just because the individual is someone you think is the devil incarnate then that seems problematic.--BrittanyPBone (talk) 16:40, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Plus for the record, I think racist and white supremacist aren't the same thing; racist is based more on the types of rhetoric the person uses (e.x. racist views or comments), while 'white supremacist' means a person believes whites are genetically superior to non-whites, right?--BrittanyPBone (talk) 16:46, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
BrittanyPBone, please propose a specific change and we'll discuss it. Hipocrite (talk) 16:44, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Fine, I'll review the older version and compare it and show what the actual changes are.--BrittanyPBone (talk) 16:48, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Changes in the new revision of the article explained[edit]

Hi, I'm going to explain the changes in the new revision section by section:

http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Theodore_Beale&diff=1794968&oldid=1783289

Introductory paragraph

  • Some of the claims seemed spurious or incorrect (e.x. the "stalker" allegation seemed to be a misquote from a blog where he was complaining about "being stalked", it's also a serious felony allegation).
  • I added a "list of quotes" section elsewhere in the article, and left all but one quote in the opening paragraph which I thought "summarized" his general nationalist views.
  • He's primarily known as an alt-right blogger or right wing nationalist; the claims about his blog posts about vaccine and moon landing conspiracies are more curiosities and not what he's primarily known for, so I emphasized his nationalist ideas while still including links to the articles on Anti-Vaxx and conspiracy theories such as the moon landing hoax.
    • I also added a completely new section later in the article with more information on his conspiracy theories
    • He also doesn't seem to be a libertarian, in fact most of his views seem very authoritarian and the polar opposite; but I did make a note that he seems to favor "free market economics"; other than that I'd say he's definitely an authoritarian nationalist.
    • I also added more information which wasn't there, such as how his dad Robert Beale was convicted of tax evasion and was a former CEO with connections to WND.
    • I also added the books that he's mainly known for, as well as piece about his expulsion from Hugo Awards (which is discussed in more detail in the later parts of the article).

Beliefs and views

  • I extrapolated on his views more since some of them seem contradictory (e.x. claiming to be an evangelical Christian, but supporting social Darwinist ideas about women and evolutionary psychology). No information was removed here, I also added links including a few Wikipedia articles on his philosophical ideas for further reading.
  • I don't think he's a young earth creationist as far as his Christian views go, so I removed "anti-science", he seems more like a theistic evolutionist (so this might qualify here as pseudoscience, which he's in the category of, but not anti-evolution itself) from what I can tell; I think I added a link to that as well.
  • The section on Pickup Artistry wasn't correct, since he isn't in favor or promiscuous sex due to his alleged Christian beliefs (e.x. I think a quote from one of his book is that he disapproves of Roosh V's "hedonistic playboy lifestyle" but considers him an 'iedologocial ally').

I did note that he buys into some of the same theories about "pop evolutionary psychology" or social Darwinism which are popular in the manosphere and PUA subcultures (and added a link to his Alpha Game Plan blog) and created a section explaining his 'views' in more detail; as well as adding rebuttals to some of his theories about "Alphas" from wolf experts which wasn't discussed in much detail originally. So he's not a PUA himself, though he some of the PUA/manosphere evopsych theories apparently.

Controversies

The Hugo section is probably what was shortened the most (which is why the new revision had less bytes); however all of the information and links are still there, and new links were added; it was just an overly-long summary so I trimmed the wording to keep the focus on the main points of the Hugo drama, with the links providing a lot more detail.

So I see it as a definite improvement with more links and content rather than a "whitewash". (In fact the original article never said "white supremacist" to begin with). If by 'white supremacist' one believes in Nazi-style racial theories or eugenics, I haven't seen anything from Vox regarding that, however I do recall a quote where he mentions "white America", as well as some critics saying his political views resemble fascism, so describing him as white nationalist, or neo-fascist might fit. (Per the RW defamation policy I made sure that all of the claims had accurate sources).

--BrittanyPBone (talk) 19:16, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Some more fun posts[edit]

https://www.reddit.com/r/BestOfOutrageCulture/comments/63nvd8/american_immigrant_to_italy_tells_immigrants_to/

https://www.reddit.com/r/BestOfOutrageCulture/comments/648gid/more_breivik_worship_from_vox_day/

Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 19:19, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm gonna add this to the current article - the version before I cleaned it up read like shit and doesn't have nearly as many sources.--BrittanyPBone (talk) 02:51, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
I wish you made smaller changes to the article. When you add and remove tons of content in one fell swoop, it becomes much harder to see what it's even good for. Something as simple as removing the snark from his portrait makes the whole revamp questionable. I hope you understand. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 09:27, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Oversized intro[edit]

Is there a reasonable way of cutting up that loooong intro section, or moving parts to sections in the body of the article? Leave the intro something that would work as a suitable short summary article, but not quite as massive and rambling as it is - David Gerard (talk) 15:07, 5 November 2017 (UTC)