Jump to content

Talk:Lauren Southern

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Lauren Southern isn't part of the Alt-right, she's part of the dissident right

    [edit]

    Dissident right is a range of people on the right unsatisfied with the neocon status quo that covers more populist views all the way to the alt-right, alt-right is a fringe idea within the dissident right. Lauren has criticized capitalism on numerous occasions. She's actually more of a socially conservative libertarian social democrat. Lauren supports Russia and is a fan of Alexander Dugin, someone who many American communists (Caleb Maupin, Jackson Hinkle, Haz al-Din) are fans of. She was friends with some people who were friends with Nazis (like Brittany Pettibone, not a Nazi herself but chummy with some of the more "moderate" ones like Lana Lokteff who for some reason affiliates with Nazi scumbag David Duke). If we run through the transitive property, then isn't most of BreadTube part of the alt-right because after all, shoe0nhead, a BreadTuber, is friends with Lauren Southern. 72.72.201.226 (talk) 13:26, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Excellent. Please reference some credible sources that identify her as part of the "dissident right", we'll be able to make the change. Robincantin (talk) 23:59, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Is Lauren's own word not credible? If someone isn't having major news sources posting articles about them, does that mean they never change from a wikipedia standpoint? Brids17 (talk) 20:30, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    russia pays her money

    [edit]

    see above 2604:3D08:267B:670:8932:48F5:C7D9:3867 (talk) 15:18, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Conspiracy theory wording

    [edit]

    I believe that the words "conspiracy theory" used "in passing" violate NPOV. If we want to make the observation that certain things are conspiracy theories, we should make it explicit, say who said so and source it. Otherwise we are injecting a claim (or worse, an opinion) without evidence.

    Nothing is lost in this article if we only say "Great Replacement theory".

    For what it's worth, I think there are plenty of awful and implausible theories out there. But I don't think it ever serves the cause of a rational argument to label something a conspiracy theory in passing. There are other ways to talk about the epistemic status of a theory that are more precise and less condescending. Olivergoodman (talk) 13:37, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Both of those terms are defined in the wikipedia article about them as conspiracy theories (in the lead, with multiple solid references), so there's no need to source it again here. Mentioning that both of these elements are conspiracy theories in this article provides useful context, especially since several sources use the term to refer to Southern's work.
    There are certainly other ways to designate them, but the discussion should take place on the discussion page of those articles, not this one. If it's changed there, we should change it here. Meanwhile, I think we're good. Cheers. Robincantin (talk) 00:30, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    "Propagandist"

    [edit]

    Really? We're stooping that low to smear her character when she didn't even make a single video on Tenet having to do with Russia? She is a victim in the scheme and had no idea what was going on. And if you believe the contrary you would need proof. It's not on me to prove she didn't know. Using that heavily loaded term should have a credible source next to it. 142.120.85.124 (talk) 21:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree "propagandist" is unsourced, removing it was correct.Robincantin (talk) 00:29, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not arguing it should go back, but The Atlantic used the term- it was the article title at one point, and is still in the body: "Southern was among YouTube’s most effective and sophisticated extremists—an alt-right propagandist who masqueraded as a run-of-the-mill influencer." And NBC News, talking about Tenet Media: "Lauren Southern, once known as the alt-right’s most notable female propagandist". tedder (talk) 01:04, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Point taken. Still, can we agree it's bad form to string a succession of loaded epithets in the lead, even if each is actually sourced? Also, looking at the article on propaganda, that designation could be applied to a surprisingly large number of people. Robincantin (talk) 00:37, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Number or percentage of votes

    [edit]

    It says that she got 535 votes in the 2015 Canadian federal election, giving her 0.9% of the total. I found it highly unlikely that only approximately 59,444 ballots were cast in the election, so I checked the numbers on the Elections Canada website. To put my doubts in perspective, in the 1867 election, when the population was 3,230,000, there were cast 268,387 ballots.

    In 2015, 17,711,983 ballots were cast, making 535 votes not 0.9% but 0.003% of the total. Carissimi (talk) 12:40, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    She ran for MP in the riding of Langley—Aldergrove, not sure why you would use the population of the entire country as divider. The information appears to be correct. Robincantin (talk) 03:50, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Wikipedia page says “ In 2015, she ran as a Libertarian Party candidate in the Canadian federal election.” If this was a local election, the section should be changed. The federal election is, well, the federal election. Carissimi (talk) 01:12, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to be under the impression Canadians cast votes for PM during a federal election. They do not, they only vote for their local MP. The sentence is correct. Robincantin (talk) 00:18, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Only 17 million votes? Why don't you count all the votes that were cast in the entire world that year? Then, the percentage of the votes Southern received will be even more ridiculously low. That would match your conviction of how unpopular Southern is. Congratulation on solid algebra but, your logic strength is certainly below 0.003% of anyone's potential. 74.14.215.83 (talk) 21:10, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]