Talk:Tomi Lahren

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.

Islamophobia

I saw this video titled "Muslims - Thank You Tomi" where she defended muslims so she doesnt really "hate muslims" - --XBandit97 (talk) 04:07, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Could you link to it here, please? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:08, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Tomi's more moderate past

I was disappointed that this article hasn't been updated to include reference to the videos uncovered earlier this year that revealed more of Tomi's inconsistent, most likely pandering worldview. I'll include a link to an article that featured them but I'd prefer if someone else added this information to the article since I can't write comedy for shit. (8/12/17) https://www.rawstory.com/2017/01/busted-white-grievance-warrior-tomi-lahren-has-a-secret-liberal-past/ DiabolikDownUnder (talk) 03:36, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Also, on talk pages please sign your comments at the end by using four tiles ~~~~. CowHouse (talk) 03:39, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Is Tomi Lahren really "far-right"?

Her positions mostly seem like generic conservative talking points, not the "far-right" extremism that this article claims she believes in. I suggested we change it to "right-wing" or conservative, but GrammarCommie reverted my edit. 24.46.30.248 (talk) 04:39, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I can't say I agree with your assessment. Ties to numerous alt-right figures with cospeaking arrangements, a consistent, and stupid zeal for right wing bullshit, and more than a dash of overt racism, it's hard to see what case there is to be made that she's got any moderation or reasonableness to her positions that justify your concerns. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 04:56, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@Ikanreed The first claim sounds like guilt by association. Also she has disavowed the alt-right, calling it "disgusting," so it would seems strange for her to associate with the movement. Do you have a source for that claim?

As for the assertion that she spouts "overt racism," please cite specific examples. Criticizing Black Lives Matter does not count. Thank you. 24.46.30.248 (talk) 18:10, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

You want to change a label from the semi-specifc (it isn't outright calling her a neo-nazi, which is basically what the alt-right is/was) to the very vague ("right-wing" is a massive catch-all, so hiding behind is just being a cowardly shit. and "Conservative" is such a useless label in American political discourse that it's meaning essentially amounts to the same as the former label of "right-wing", due to this exact bullcrap.) The answer is no. She meets the criteria to classified as she is, we aren't changing it just because it makes you feel bad. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 18:33, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie I still have not seen any evidence that Tomi Lahren's views are anything more than just standard Fox News Republican Party opinions. I don't care that "right-wing" is a broad label. It is significantly more valid than the inappropriate and hyperbolic term "far-right" which does not accurately describe Lahren's positions. If you disagree, it would be much more productive for you to actually provide some evidence proving that she really does hold far-right views, rather than suggesting that the only reason I might bring this up is because it hurts my feelings. 24.46.30.248 (talk) 19:44, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

"Criticize", she's not merely "criticizing", not when it comes to Black Lives Matter. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 19:48, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@LeftyGreenMario That's not the point. My point was simply that Black Lives Matter is a political group, and criticism of them is obviously not inherently racist. I was asking editor ikanreed to provide evidence for the assertion that Tomi spouts "overt racism," and all I was saying is that it would be invalid to bring up BLM as evidence, since hating them is not synonymous with being racist, obviously. 24.46.31.210 (talk) 16:15, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Not hard to find cases of her saying things directly implying all immigrants are rapists and drug dealers. like this. Or saying muslims are all potential terrorists. It's dumb stupid racism, and I don't think you're here making these points honestly. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:29, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Watched both videos and she didn't say any of those things. As for the statement that "I don't think you're here making these points honestly," there's really not much I can do about that if that's what you think. 24.46.31.210 (talk) 00:31, 2 March 2019 (UTC),

First off, you've made an assertion without evidence (The "one can criticize BLM without having racist motives" claim.) First off. Second off, this claim is a lot like saying you can criticize Feminism without being sexist. Technically it's true, but most people who bring up this defense are, as a rule of thumb, full of shit. Third off, you don't seem to understand the difference between "criticism" and "Dog-whistle rhetoric". This is right-wing political correctness, wherein they frame most (if not all) of their mudslinging as "criticism", solely so they can turn around when they get called out on it and go "Look, they're just emotional snowflakes who can't take criticism!" Fourth off, and here's the biggie, "standard Fox News Republican Party opinions" (as you put it) are inherently far-right. You got that? Good. The Democratic establishment, aka their senior leadership, are the center to center-right in the U.S. Shocking, I know. The Clintons are center to mid-right. Yeah, those Clintons. So can we quit the bullcrap now? The behavioral classifications are accurate, and you don't like them because it makes Lahren look bad. Tough fucking shit. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 02:18, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

It's fine if you think that Fox News and the Republican Party are far-right, and that the Clintons are center-right. That just means your political compass is further to the left than that of the average American (who would not be likely to agree with your assertions if asked). As for the statement that criticism (or, if you prefer, "mudslinging") of Black Lives Matter is not inherently racist, well, you explained it yourself: "[The claim that] you can criticize Feminism without being sexist. Technically it's true[.]" Exactly, just like you can criticize Black Lives Matter without being racist, since Black Lives Matter is not inherently synonymous with black people. Then you state, "but most people who bring up this defense are, as a rule of thumb, full of shit." This is just another baseless assertion. We have already established that you think I am "full of shit," so bringing this up is just another useless ad hominem attack.

Getting back to the right-wing/far-right thing, it should be noted that your standard for what counts as "far-right" is not even in line with RationalWiki's own standards. Here are several examples of individuals who, by your standards, would be called "far-right" but are instead just described as "conservative" or "right-wing" in their RW pages: Fox News pundit Tucker Carlson, radio host Glenn Beck, Fox News pundit Laura Ingraham, self-identified comedian Steven Crowder, author and political commentator Ben Shapiro, Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk, conservative writer Heather MacDonald, and former Fox News host Bill O'Reilly.

None of these individuals are described as "far-right" in their respective pages, despite the fact that most—if not all—of the people listed are actually even more right-wing than Tomi Lahren (see her stance on abortion and her denunciation of Roseanne Barr's Twitter comments if you need a few examples). 24.46.31.210 (talk) 22:34, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I changed her description, but I also don't want to tread the line that she's traditionally conservative. She's that wingnut brand of conservative that's pretty much illustrative of conservative thought in the U.S., so IMO, the distinction between far-right and right in the U.S. doesn't mean that much. I removed the far-right adjective but tried keeping the idea that she's bigoted and insane like the rest of them. Really, I don't think "conservative" describes these people enough, negative connotations associated with "conservatism" in America needs to be seriously drilled in people's heads. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 19:57, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

You changed it to "wingnut", which I would say is fair enough. The word "wingnut" is such a blatant epithet in U.S. politics that using that word to describe Lahren makes it far more clear what the intended meaning is. To me, the word "far-right" is best used to describe people on the extreme fringe and/or alt-right, like James Allsup or Vox Day. That is to say, people who hold ultra-nationalistic, xenophobic, or borderline white separatist/white nationalist views that are so outside the Overton window that they would be reviled by everyone in the political mainstream, including wingnuts. That's why Lahren denounces the alt-right, for example.

Funnily enough, the RationalWiki entry on the word "far-right" said it best: "Much like the term 'far left', if you hear the term 'far right' it's almost certain to be a slur directed at a conservative." At least everyone knows that "wingnut" is a slur; calling conservatives "far-right" as a slur is dishonest in my opinion.

While we're on the subject, I have a question. You mentioned "traditional conservatism" and contrasted it with "the wingnut brand of conservatism". So I'm curious: Who in the U.S. or otherwise would you actually consider a traditional conservative as opposed to a wingnut and why? I'm just wondering, thanks. 24.46.31.210 (talk) 16:14, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Guess we're on the same page here. I do think far-right should be for alt-right or ancap figures as well. I view "wingnut" not as a "slur" or "epiphet", just a way to characterize crazy right-wing people.

As for "traditional" conservative, I think they just hold views like they think there should be more border security, they don't like gay marriage (so homophobic but not talking about gay agenda and maybe they support civil unions), they don't like marijuana, they think there shouldn't be gun control, they like the status quo, they think regulations are too much, they like few regulations on the free market, they think industry should be supported, and they don't deny human caused global warming but they prefer supporting affordable gas and stuff. I mean, they don't express it in a loud obnoxious way that wingnuts do and they probably support some left-wing policy. In other words, I suppose that means they're just moderates, and I *think* Republican Party used to be a party of moderates before the Goldwater stuff. I think those views might more accurately characterize Republicans turned Democrats these days. I don't know WHO holds those views but I'm pretty sure these people are out there, and they reflect the conservative voter base better than they reflect the current Republican Party (e.g. polls show more support for universal health care, climate change policy, gun control from the voter base than from the party).

Also, I looked up "wingnut" and it does appear to say it's a term also for far-right people but IMO it's probably better to make a distinction between garden variety professional vomiters and people like Richard Spencer. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 22:36, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree, although I would add that the word "wingnut" is inherently a slur/epithet by definition since the thing it refers to (as you say, crazy right-wing people) is inherently derogatory. Other than that I would say we are on the same page. And thank you for your reply and for explaining your view of what constitutes normal/non-wingnut conservatism. 24.46.31.210 (talk) 00:13, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie This sentence is very poorly constructed: " Namely, black men should stick around to raise their children[7] and stop selling crack cocaine for over a decade to protect black neighborhoods.[8]" Maybe have a look & fix it.Ariel31459 (talk) 23:25, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@Ariel31459 I didn't write it, but I'll try to make it flow better (and not make crime apologia). ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 23:39, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

A Daily Beast article labels this person a "right-wing provocateur." Is that the same as far right? An article that refers to Lahren as "far-right" puts her on the progressive side of that clan because she agrees with some of the left's criticism of Roseanne Barr's racist tweet. I don't see why we are interested in her.Ariel31459 (talk) 02:22, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I now see why someone is interested in her. She does have nice legs, Can we at least reduce the size of this picture, say by half?Ariel31459 (talk) 17:17, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Allrighty then.Ariel31459 (talk) 17:19, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Was that misogynistic comment really necessary? Kuihniuh (talk) 21:46, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

It's not misogynistic. But it's off-handed. Please don't make that remark Ariel, that really shouldn't have happened. Just revert and move on. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 21:53, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Dude, you literally gave a compliment to a nutcase... Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 22:03, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Listen, I don't mean to offend. I thought it was a humorous comment. I didn't take the time to discover the dilation had only just been done. Although I don't quite follow the reasoning of any of you, please have it your way.Ariel31459 (talk) 22:21, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Hm, dilation. Well, not the word I'd to describe scaling an image. The photo itself has a resolution of 1,709 × 2,598 pixels and the editor tried to scale this at 1024 pixels (a good size for a video game texture since that's a power of 2). Dilation suggests there's an increased scaling with a sort of interpolating filter (bilinear, trilinear, bicubic and so on?) applied to it, which lends to the bloated look when you scale an image at a low resolution, but no, 1024 is smaller than either 1,709 × 2,598. Of course, scaling down ALSO has an interpolation filter applied to it (sampling I believe in Photoshop) so a scaled-down image isn't all pixely and nasty that it normally is when you try scaling in image, in, say, Microsoft Paint. So anyway the photo is still scaled down from the original so it isn't technically dilated, just another smaller scale than the original. We say "scale" rather than "size" because size often refers to how much space a file occupies in a disk drive. Yeah, I'll have it my way, that's the sage advice from Burger King. ;P --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 22:36, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh you have to go all technocrat on me. I used the mathematical jargon for the idea of image sizing:What is dilation in math? " Dilation is a transformation, which is used to resize the object. Dilation is used to make the objects larger or smaller. This transformation produces an image that is the same as the original shape. But there is a difference in the size of the shape." I understand that it is not standard computer programmer language. I am not, after all, a programmer. Ariel31459 (talk) 22:53, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Ah I'm not a programmer either, just a person who has some experience in Photoshop and video game asset making. I technically work with 3D geometry, but we don't use "dilation" as a common term for scaling. We DO have geometrical terms like "Normal (geometry)" though. "Scale factor" is another term: 3d modeling programs work in scale factors all the time though we don't do calculations in our head, we just eyeball really... --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 23:09, 15 January 2023 (UTC)