User talk:FuzzyCatPotato

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
This page is automatically archived by Archivist
Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>

looking into issue[edit]

this user is requesting user FuzzyCatPotato to look into the issue of the most recent vandal-binning imposed upon this user, which this user considers to be a misplaced one. this user noticed that user FuzzyCatPotato possesses administrative powers over other administrators, thus summoning the user.this user might be on a wrong observation. — Unsigned, by: FAMAS / talk / contribs

A question about protection[edit]

I can't find any advice about when it is permissible to protect a page. The case I am considering is when a non-sysop writes aggressively unsympathetic text attacking the subject of an article and reverts efforts to moderate the tone of the article. Is it overstepping to make moderate edits and protect the page?Ariel31459 (talk) 19:09, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Why fuzz?[edit]

Why are you always after seeing what various parts of the internet think about rationalwiki? Like I get chasing after media mentions and academic citations, and serious and thoughtful criticism, but we're not going to learn anything by seeing that reddit and 4chan have deeply ingrained toxic ideologies that results in negative reactions to the purpose and current state of this wiki. You might as well go to kiwi farms and see which random users they've decided to elevate to the ones who control everything and therefor deserve their special brand of "investigation". ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 22:03, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

@Ikanreed
SERIOUS ANSWER: Most political discourse isn't academic. RW's credibility has almost nothing to do with how Slate talks about us -- and everything to do with Twitter users whining about us. In particular, 4chan wields excessive control over Twitter & Reddit and thus over political discussion. Idiotic far-right ramblings matter.
CORRECT ANSWER: watching people make a fool of themselves is A+ entertainment Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 22:11, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

clogosphere[edit]

There's been several reverting of edits by myself and grammar and chris on the clogosphere. What is your view on it all?--Mr1.136.108.2 (talk) 04:48, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I can't really follow it, but I suggest a stop to the edit wars over old posts -- all parties should stop it going forward. FuzzyCatPotato of the Moronic Peanuts (talk/stalk)
They are calling Ian alt right and he is not. I suppose a minimalistic approach would be best. --Mr1.136.108.2 (talk) 05:36, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
@Mr1.136.108.2 Ian Miles Cheong took a hard-right turn in the last couple of years. His opinions now have such substantial overlap with other alt-righters, and his tweets are sufficiently popular with the same crowd that fuels them, that to claim he isn't alt-right is to make a distinction without a difference. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 06:43, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
so that people in the alt right find some of his tweets agreeable makes him alt right? No. Your saying he is guilty by association, and not his association with them, but their what, liking of his tweets? What a crock of shit. Get back to me when you have something substantial on this topic. --Mr1.136.108.2 (talk) 02:48, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
though I am curious as to these nefarious tweets are. Show me five of them, which will be easy for you to do, since you have done your research into this topic. --Mr1.136.108.2 (talk) 02:55, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Nope. I'm a working adult with limited free time, which I spend as I choose. I'm not your research monkey. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 05:57, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
it would not be rational of me to believe your unproven assertion then. The "alt right crankery" edit will be reverted per it not being verified.--Mr1.136.108.2 (talk) 03:59, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Tweets overall aren't insane, at least the later ones (as of 12/11/17), but some are questionable. It seems like Cheong is a fan of DANGEROUS, the same site that seems to sponsor "Milo" which sounds like Milo Yiannopoulos to me. Some examples. Oh, wait, he WRITES for DANGEROUS. And his Twitter profile: "Writes about entertainment, video games, politics and culture for DANGEROUS. Also @dailycaller. Previously seen on @heatstreet, @thesun." His resume is lookin'-a good-a!
Thankyou for finding the above, it is interesting. The Wikipedia article on the alt right states that it is a white nationalist ideology. Any tweets of him espousing white nationalism? If not, then he is not alt right. --Mr1.136.108
Your definition of what's "alt-right" is rather narrow. I tend to think it's more of a combination of factors. Wikipedia defines "alt-right" as "a loosely defined group of people with far-right ideologies", that's Wikipedia's definition. White nationalism is the main crux, but other tenets of "alt-right" is sexism, anti-feminism, xenophobia (particularly Islamophobia), which Cheong definitely has those three) and he writes for far-right hatchet jobs such as the Sun, Daily Fail, and Heatstreet (the latter is the most indicative). I really hate how this twat tweets because he uses images and I can't find the Tweet he responds to because they're images. What is he, a coward that doesn't want people challenging him? If he isn't "alt-right" (like he's not insane enough), he's definitely far-right just from the garbage he writes for. Remember, though, "alt-right" was coined to make it sound more appealing than "white nationalism" or "far-right bigotry".
  • He cites Breaking911. Breaking911 seems supportive of Trump, but they're otherwise pretty bland.
  • Xenophobia. He agrees with "Nah... what needs to happen, is that if someone in your 'chain of immigrants' commits an act of terror, everyone in the chain gets sent back to the hell hole from where they came." That's ridiculous, creating unnecessary victims unless it's demonstrated that they indeed directly aid to the violence. Funnily enough, I don't think he'll have the same thoughts when native white terrorists commit an act of terror. What should their family members do?
  • This statement. He seems disgusted because the family apparently complained about the law enforcement. He conveniently ignores the entire statement, the family's complaint that enforcers held a 4-year old child out in the cold and took out a teenager from high school without the teenager's lawyer, parent, or guardian. Advocating due process of law isn't unreasonable. But his remark? "they should be locked up and deported!"
  • This is a retweet of "Meanwhile a man in Florida is going to prison for 15 years because he left bacon in a mosque." It's characterized as vandalism. It's not "whoopsie made a mistake", it seems intentional and aggressive. Did you know the guy also damaged the building by ripping down lights and smashing windows? I'm not sure the entire context, it seems like a poor analogy being made, like two different context. Apparently, the Wolfe guy had prior criminal history.
  • Snide Islamophobic tweet. Respondents are also Islamophobic.
  • Unironic use of "SJW". Again, he uses IMAGES to make his goddamn post, so I'm not bothering searching for post.
--It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 19:41, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
he certainly is anti SJW and anti progressivism. --Mr1.136.108.2 (talk) 21:16, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
No one is arguing that he isn't. There is a big overlap between proclaiming yourself to be "anti-SJW" (whatever the hell that means given how "SJW" is a patently stupid and vague term to begin with) and also spouting far-right views. But I've linked the evidence here that this person is at best, a far-right figure and if he's not "alt-right", he's certainly flirting with it. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 21:28, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Archivist and sticky topics[edit]

I have had to put sticky topics back four or five times now. Please fix the bot :) —Kazitor, pending 04:28, 12 December 2017 (UTC)