User talk:RainbowLorikeet

Your willingness to step up when asked to do so is mighty impressive.

What is going on? World Blogs Clogs Elections The Bar (talk) (talk) (talk) (talk) (hic) Welcome to RationalWiki, RainbowLorikeet! Check out our guide for newcomers and our community standards! Tell us how you found RationalWiki here! If you are interested in contributing: Read what our articles are intended to be Check out the to-do list See our help page and Wikipedia's formatting cheatsheet If writing a new article, consider writing up a draft And most importantly: Pull up a goat and have some fun!

Like I said Rainbow, I have no deep knowledge about the subject matter. If you wish to remove that section and you tell me that it does not represent his true views, I will assume good faith and take you at your word. Might I perhaps recommend addressing the incident in one of "the bad" or "the ugly" sections? Just a quick "Here's another example of one of his steaming hot takes when he opens his mouth before thinking." I suspect outright deletion would invite accusations from the other BoN that you are trying to whitewash... and at the end the of the day, their opinion and input deserves to be heard as much as anyone else's. Giving this "pro-genocide" clip a quick treatment seems like a happy middle ground between outright deletion and "ZOMG THiS maN iS NaZII Bad."

Peace. - Rairyu75 (Talk) 10:47, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the compliment:

I understand concerns of whitewashing, but should jokes that he takes back practically immediately before even knowing anything about the conflict be mentioned in these sections? I think I share the intuition with leftist journalist Nathan J. Robinson, who recently talked to him about the conflict, that this clip is not a ground for condemnation on the basis of bigotry, unlike with bigots like Ben Shapiro (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEuFqEErHno&t=220s).:

He & Benny Morris recently had a 5-hour debate with Norman Finkelstein & Mouin Rabbani. I think the best middle ground may be to reform the section with his opinions on the conflict with recent serious takes like from that debate.:

Reasonable minds may differ tho. - RainbowLorikeet (Talk) 11:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC):

"I understand concerns of whitewashing, but should jokes that he takes back practically immediately before even knowing anything about the conflict be mentioned in these sections?"

Call me an old man Rainbow, but the fact that he subsequently claimed "It was just a joke" is not really a mark in his favour. If anything it makes him a bit of a "Schrödinger's bollocks," to the point where any statement of his that attracts heat can subsequently be hand waved away as "I was only making a joke you fucking normies!!!" followed by the obnoxious sneering of his big fan base. "Foolish normies, don't they get it was LE EPIC MEME?!11!!?!!1!??1" Who the flippetty fuck opens their mouth saying something like that "as a joke" while giggling to themselves? Either this is a position he actually holds, in which case he is a bit of a cunt but at least he posses the quality of honesty (you tell me that's not the case, so fair enough) OR he can just claim he was joking after every single statement he makes, to the point where not a single one of his positions is worthy of analysis. Cause by that point, he doesn't actually holds any positions. He is just a Joker on the internet, a bit of a wildcard who will say anything as long as it will keep the views flowing.

"He & Benny Morris recently had a 5-hour debate with Norman Finkelstein & Mouin Rabbani." And now we get to the other problem with this man and the reason all the oldies like me roll our eyes to the heavens anytime one of the younger editors speaks his name. If I have to trawl through his entire back catalogue of lengthy videos to even get a vague idea of what he does and does not have in his head then it's better if I just don't start. Cause a quick check tells me that he is still churning out content at lightning speed; by the time I have watched one debate, I would have to watch another. It would be hypocritical of me not to, Rainbow, cause what if he says something that contradicts himself later on? A week or two will go by and a brand new BoN will be yelling at me about how I'm straw manning this bastard because "Ugh, there is a new video he put out only last week! It's an hour and a half long and you just, like, have TOTALLY no idea what you are talking about grandpa." Albert Camus might have imagined Sisyphus to be happy, but I sure as FUCK won't start rolling this boulder up the hill. We'll never get to the top.

4 years ago I tried to make the argument that this guy deserves to be in our crosshairs because you guys seem so passionate about him... and 4 years later that "Brain rot" template is still up because every time he U-turns, every time he is feeling a wee bit emotional, every time he "just makes a joke" it borderline renders the article redundant. "I'm being misrepresented!" he exclaims. "Yeah, he is!" cry his fans. "No, he is LITERALLY HITLER!" cry his detractors. And it's all so tiring Rainbow. I can't watch that 5 hour long debate. I'm about to step away from this keyboard to go to a friend's house. Afterwards, I'll be walking my dog. The U-turns, the jokes made in the heat of the moment, the uninformed comments he made that he subsequently feels genuinely sorry for... I ain't got time to verify any of it my friend. If you are right, or if the other BoN is right, or if neither of you is? I ain't the arbiter of that.

Whatever shape your edit takes, I will be at peace with it. The mere fact that you were willing to engage in a discussion about the topic before hitting edit on the article tells me that you are a good faith user, and that's sufficient for me. I can't guarantee that someone else won't come along to yell at you. But take a crack at it. Say your piece in the article itself. Do your best to analyse this little moment of his. And if after your edit someone else takes offence at it, keep communicating. It's all any of us can do in this place.

If you stay polite, bring the receipts and know when to step away form an argument that isn't worth having, you will do fine here. Wish you the best. - Rairyu75 (Talk) 12:36, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I think there was a misunderstanding, so let me clarify:

1. My use of the term "joke" was mainly my attempt to connect my question to Robinson's statement. In the timestamped video I linked he uses that term. I'm perfectly happy calling a comment/take/impression as I did before, I don't think it changes the point.

2. I didn't ask you to watch the debate and write the edit, I was willing to do it myself. After all, you made it clear you didn't have the energy to deal with this, and I was the one to bring the issue up in the first place (Frankly, I get it completely. I've had similar tiring conversations with fans of his about his veganism opinions).

My apologies, I should've made these intentions clear. Either way, I'll write a quick reformed summary for now. Have fun with your friend and dog! Wish you the best as well. - RainbowLorikeet (Talk) 12:56, 18 March 2024 (UTC)