Talk:TFW No GF

Did you know nomination
Yeah, just after 3 of the most horrid mass shootings, including 19 children who got decapitated by the bullets, is totally the time to be promoting the culture that resulted in such mass shootings... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.166.7 (talk) 15:09, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * off of You do realize that there are mass shootings all of the time, in the United States and abroad? SL93 (talk) 15:22, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * DYK also features articles about murders, which by the way, seems to happen every day. SL93 (talk) 15:35, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure, the point is the ideology... this isn't a documentary which analyzes why, it seems to want people to sympathize with people who (although the ones talking haven't) are increasingly ending up committing murder... I suppose considering how every single one becomes so infamous after it in the US specifically (other countries might not be as widespread with the names, as with the recent Danish one, and just so happen to have less mass shootings, although that's also due to restrictions on weapons). And, sure, an encyclopedia has articles on everything, but the more this is more widely known by being on the main page (although, arguably mass shooters' names also being on many news sites' main pages is worse)... so, no, it's not like mass shootings will suddenly stop, but all of this simply contributes to more motivation for infamy... 92.14.166.7 (talk) 15:55, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You are being very oddly selective with your complaints about the main page. In the news on Wikipedia mentions shootings and other crimes. Even when the name isn't mentioned, it takes only one click to see the name. It could even be argued that even articles about violent films and video games shouldn't be on the main page as they could inspire real-life violence. This isn't just a DYK issue or even just a Wikipedia main page issue - it is an international issue. SL93 (talk) 16:49, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, in the case of Abe it doesn't stem from a whole culture, industry practically, whose end result always ends up in mass shootings (very rare in Japan), and it happens to highlight the victim, not the actors within this culture of horror in the US... to be honest, I barely think this qualifies as a documentary, as those usually have some sort of critical aspect... this is more reality TV, but as opposed to the usual waste of time it highlights jokes about killing women (clearly the start of radicalization). Well, ultimately it'll continue as politics just can't grapple with it, but I just thought of pointing out that, though unknown to us as to its origin, this might eventually lead someone to such drastic ends... 92.14.166.7 (talk) 17:25, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm referring to In the news in general, not just what is on the main page now. This conversation isn't getting anywhere and the only way to deal with it your way would be to mass censor everything that could result in violence - history that shouldn't be forgotten, books, movies, video games, music, and much more. SL93 (talk) 17:32, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The article is neutral due to not picking a side. Please read Content disclaimer which also applies to the main page. People who become upset by such content, when that content is neutral, really shouldn't be browsing Wikipedia. The reception section of this article clearly isn't positive about the film's content.SL93 (talk) 17:54, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I haven't said neutrality was the problem on this article (just the other one), the issue here is how prominent it suddenly is... it's one thing for people to look it up if they're curious about it, but to have it thrust upon them, with a 'documentary' (it has issues, not the article) that gives a platform to this culture... it might not be quantifiable, is what I'm saying, but the main page may lead some people susceptible to this sort of thinking to then go into deeper holes... in comparison, the one about artificial intelligence isn't at all likely to lead anyone into anything other than a technological hole... 92.14.166.7 (talk) 18:32, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You are ignoring a huge portion of my argument so I am done with this conversation. SL93 (talk) 18:38, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

One sided criticism
It seems like every criticism is upset that Moyer didn't spend more time vilifying her subjects and imposing left wing narratives about incel culture. It seemed to me like she was presenting things in a way that let the viewer form their own conclusions rather than appeasing the critics need to have someone constantly remind us that they think these people are bad. The flaws of the subjects are obvious and we do not need an "expert" to tell us how to interpret them. Calling her "confrontational" because she rejected this narrative in an interview is slander.

Also there should be mention of Ariel Pink's soundtrack and this can also be done without slandering Rosenberg. 198.184.147.58 (talk) 20:26, 7 November 2022 (UTC)