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:Wingnut welfare

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

This Politics 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.


"No pages link to Wingnut welfare."[edit]

Please suggest some places where we could link to this. Thanks... P-Foster (talk) 17:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Sarah Palin comes to mind. Andy may also be a candidate, since he appears to be a bit short on marketable talents. In his case though he's kind of employed himself - at least in his educational ventures.--ConcernedresidentAsk me about your mother 19:43, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Let's see...National Review Online and World Net Daily come to mind (the latter being quite a bit down the food chain, obviously). There are plenty of individuals that are beneficiaries as well. I used this list to compile the article, so that's a good place to start. Colonel of Squirrels白山羊不山羊。商讨。 19:48, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


Does WND actually pay outside contributors, or just give them a platform to savour the resonating charm of their own voices? - David Gerard (talk) 20:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

New York Times[edit]

y'all were linked.

— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs 05:08, 19 October 2017‎

Milo the "Neo-Nazi"[edit]

Cat A. Lonia keeps changing the beginning of "Notable recipient" Milo Yiannopoulos as "an exposed Neo-Nazi..." and I keep reverting it: The links between Yiannopoulos and some Neo-Nazis are discussed extensively in his page and the conclusion is not that he is a Neo-Nazi (and, afterall, how could something like that be proved unless he does something extremely Nazist or declare himself a Neo-Nazi?). I think its quite dishonest to settle the question by putting the label "exposed Neo-Nazi" in another page. McLaghing (talk) 19:02, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Apart from him being strongly connected to Neo-Nazis and having a history of watering down their beliefs for the purpose of Breitbart, he also sang "America the Beautiful" in front of a bunch of people giving Nazi salutes (and claimed, straining credibility, that he couldn't see them do to "severe myopia"). And his passwords alluded to Kristallnacht and Night of the Long Knives (the purge of a gay nazi). It's beyond a reasonable doubt at this point to claim he is anything but a Neo-Nazi. Doubt is possible, but not reasonable doubt. Cat A. Lonia (talk) 07:24, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Jimmy Dore and Jordan Peterson shouldn't be on this list[edit]

They simply don't fit the definition of wingnut welfare. Neither are propped up by mega donors, the defining trait of being on wingnut welfare. I've never seen an example of Jimmy Dore having an example of being funded by such a donor and the passage in this article even points out that Peterson works as a professor and has crowdfunding to back him.

TL;DR - by definition they are not on wingnut welfare. I'm not saying that makes Jimmy Dore smart or Peterson less of a weirdo. — Unsigned, by: Kirbydenver / talk / contribs

I quote from the article itself " The term is limited to deals that are divorced from free-market business principles. Put simply, wingnut welfare recipients are not expected to generate profit or even make any money at all, but rather, to act as "loss leaders" in the promotion of right-wing ideas to the masses. The wingnut circuit isn't that different from the old (or current) Soviet propaganda apparatus."

Jimmy makes his living as a touring comedian. Jordan Peterson gets his funding from his own crowdfunding campaign. They are both generating profit on their own merits, as tenuous as they may be. Unless there is evidence I am unaware of linking these figures to some kind of wealthy benefactor they do not meet the criteria for being on "wingnut welfare".Kirbydenver (talk) 23:00, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I think you are correct, here. If anyone else takes offense they can revert away and talk about it here. Cosmikdebris (talk) 23:04, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
You're definitely on the wrong wiki if you assume that anyone who reverts your edits is doing so because they "take offense." This assumption about the emotions of all potential dissenters suggests projection. Cat A. Lonia (talk) 09:29, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

linked to from[edit]

idk how much traffic cracked still gets, just pointing it out in case the article needs tidying up/page protection--"Shut up, Brx." 02:31, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Wouldn't Charlie Kirk / TPUSA be good additions?[edit]

I mean, TPUSA is totally propped by Kochs, and not a moneymaking enterprise... unless holding Affirmative Action Bake Sales are big dollar happenings these days. I've always thought of Kirk as a fantastic example of WW. — Unsigned, by: Jspagna / talk / contribs

If you think it fits I can't see why not, Kirk is always a good person to criticize. — Dysk (contribs) 15:57, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Revolving doors[edit]

(The article was linked today by Paul Krugman in the NYT.)

It would be useful to specify how this differs from revolving doors and assorted corruption from corporations, as described e.g. by Glenn Greenwald's No place to hide. Nemo bis (talk) 08:36, 22 November 2019 (UTC)