User talk:GrammarCommie

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>, <3>, <4>


Paleolibertarian Page[edit]

The Paleolibertarian page includes quotes and descriptions from a Paleoconservative. The article needs to be updated with actual Paleolibertarian quotes and descriptions. As of right now neither Paleolibertarian, Paleoconservative, Libertarian, or even Paleo is mentioned once on Phyllis Schlafly's page. — Unsigned, by: / talk


Why did you revert me? I was begging to get rid of snark from this site. What was wrong? — Unsigned, by: 2600:1:F169:AB59:374E:B385:4D81:BEA8 / talk

Troll ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:23, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Like I was expecting -_-. But don't you realize you are offending people with snark and you can just be polite? — Unsigned, by: 2600:1:F169:AB59:374E:B385:4D81:BEA8 / talk
On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: SigButt.png on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. Tone argument. Yawn. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:33, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Mike is butturt over something... again...[edit]

Why would you want to hide the important historical fact that blacks on Haiti immediately tortured and murdered the entire white population upon gaining independence? How can you be so dishonest, and hold so much hatred for white people? Actually I think you should be careful, you might find that you're wildly outnumbered. Papa Doc (talk) 12:47, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I think you should stop with the vague posturing. Fight me or don't, either way stop with the bullshit. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:03, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
What bullshit? You even lie about lying. Explain why you are hiding this fact. Papa Doc (talk) 13:12, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
What the hell is wrong with you? I know you're too scared to talk on video and show your face, despite saying "fight me". But seriously, what is wrong with you? Why do you hate white people? Why do you lie? What is it? Papa Doc (talk) 13:25, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Well obviously I'm "butthurt" or angry. You're an anti-white enemy agent acting with impunity. You should be executed. Maybe one day we'll identify you. Papa Doc (talk) 13:47, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
What are you, thirteen? Your impotent threats wouldn’t scare a toddler. Pizza SLICE.gifDuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 13:49, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Watch from 2:09, looks Aryan anorexic.Tobias (talk) 14:13, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
To lie is to spread misinformation with the intent to deceive, a charge which you actually have to prove. Further, "You should be executed. Maybe one day we'll identify you" Mike, I live in Texas, a state where I can legally shoot you if you attempt to harm me. Do you actually realize how hollow your threats really are? I've had people threaten me to my face and I laughed them off, what makes you think I'm going to take your empty posturing seriously? Either attack me or don't, either way threats are pointless. Finally, "you're too scared to talk on video and show your face, despite saying "fight me". But seriously, what is wrong with you?" Yeah, that's bullshit. You threaten to kill me (multiple times) then expect me to debate you? Are you an idiot? Seriously, in what universe does that line of reasoning even work? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:49, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
I think he's targeting you because you have "commie" in your name, but he doesn't understand its a joke or tongue-in-cheek (as is my page). The RationalWiki on communism isn't sympathetic and has many criticisms, so I've never understood why he still claims this wiki is Marxist or communist. And he's still claiming this on his Gab. Also very few sysops, if any, support Antifa (and I've always been very critical of them). So he's also mistaken about that as well, yet according to him we're all Antifa Marxists.Tobias (talk) 15:12, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Pointing out that Africans on Haiti had such a terrible life that they had to keep importing slaves because they were dying to fast to naturally reproduce. As well as the fact that Jean-Jacques Dessalines Actually tried to make peace with the white minority. His Lieutenant was the violent one. source Commie Lib (talk) 17:43, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for that...[edit]

I appreciate your thoughtful remarks about the Pinker video argument. I prefer to share common ground whenever possible. I'm glad you are not still pissed at me.Ariel31459 (talk) 00:05, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Ku Klux Klan[edit]

Per Wikipedia, "negrophobia" is the correct term for "anti-black hatred", and Wiktionary defines "immigrationism" as "A policy that favours immigration." "Anti-immigration" is an adjective, "Anti-immigrationism" is a noun, as in "The Klan are anti-immigration, as they endorse anti-immigrationism". The use of these terms in no way constitutes "butchering the English language". A gentle carving of it, perhaps.
Cordially – 2A01:388:289:150:0:0:1:54 (talk) 22:21, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Yeah.. No. Try "racist" and "xenophobic" respectively. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:31, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Patrol then delete[edit]

Why? What's patrolling for anyway? I've never done it and nobody else has complained. Avida Dollarsher again 19:35, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Please respond[edit]

Why was my topic at the Saloon Bar removed? I don't understand, please explain. Countryboi (talk) 19:38, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Don't bother responding. This is another Logic-boy sock, and I dealt with it appropriately. Pizza SLICE.gifDuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 19:46, 19 May 2019 (UTC)


I wanted to ban them with a Strawberry Fields Forever reference :) Anna Livia (talk) 12:22, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

@Anna Livia I only vandal Binned them, you can still Ban them with your chosen reference if you so wish. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 12:26, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
No matter (or use it yourself if appropriate) - but the 'ping' doesn't always work. Anna Livia (talk) 16:09, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh c'mon[edit]

Why can't I make fun of the troll? (talk) 15:57, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

A) You can (and in fact did), but it may be reverted. B) Your "joke" has all the creativity of a child hitting someone with a rock and then laughing about it. And C), it's not funny. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 15:59, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Cometan page[edit]

Dear GrammarCommie

Thank you for providing feedback on the biography page for Cometan just created and resubmitted. When you say "work on the draft more", could you provide more specifics? Do you mean to expand the article further by adding more sections to the contents? And also, would you be able to add a relevant image to the page to enhance it further. I look forward to hearing back from you.

Kind regards

--TIOTPOM (talk) 17:42, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

The article in question appears to be nothing more than a promotional piece for this individual, is absent RationalWiki's style, and appears to be almost entirely copied from these articles. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:01, 31 May 2019 (UTC)


Can you seriously block Oxyeana and oversight the dox he is posting in the coop? I'm afraid he is going to start doxing PSG too as he is starting to talk about her in real life and he should not be doing that. This is seriously against policy. Silver Belle (talk) 20:58, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

I have no idea who she even is irl you fucking ingrate, all the details I speak of you and her have admitted yourselves. Oxyaena Harass 21:01, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
You're an idiot. You start this drama over an email that has zero Doxxing and the user you accuse has at no point doxxed you on this website. You then bitch and whine about your ban (yes you did, don't lie, I can pull up the edits) and then get huffy when things escalate. I will ask Oxyeana to tone it down, but do not mistake me for a friend. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:04, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
He's gone. I've hidden the visibility of the revisions. Morris should be persona non grata. Good riddance. Oxyaena Harass 21:05, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Delete my account[edit]

Delete my account. There is nowhere a settings tab or menu where I can do it. I edited a page giving the same message and you just removed the message without deleting my account. Delete my account.

I am waiting -Allomar — Unsigned, by: Allomar / talk / contribs

@Allomar You're obviously new to the concept of wikis, as well as blatantly possessing little technical knowledge beyond simple account setting/preset interactions. You can't delete a wiki account. You can simply leave. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:22, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
I did the next best thing, it has the same approximate effect. :p — Dysk (contribs) 13:26, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Red link for protest[edit]

"If you don't know what a protest is and need an article to explain the concept to you, you sadden me." Haha, I didn't even realize it was a red link. I must not have reloaded the page before I submitted that. W.F. Tucker (talk) 15:13, 14 June 2019 (UTC)


Literalists be like spreading out their definitions thin, amirite? --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 01:08, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

My talk[edit]

Can you restore my talk page? It wasn't an act of harassment, it was a good-faith message to Oxyaena. - 2600:1:982E:FC6C:84F3:5D9F:1C9B:1738 (talk) 04:33, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Done. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 11:30, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! Best, 2600:1:982E:FC6C:84F3:5D9F:1C9B:1738 (talk) 00:25, 27 June 2019 (UTC)


@LeftyGreenMario@Bongolian If you and the other Mods would like to review my temporary promotion and block, that would be appreciated. If someone has a problem with my behavior they should have gone through proper channels. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:47, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Blocking abusers does not require discussion prior to implementation. I'll be happy to demote you in 9 hours. 142․124․55․236 (talk) 20:50, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
I merely blocked a persistent troll who had repeatedly edit warred and posted inflammatory comments, something I would have pointed out if you had either asked or brought my behavior up for discussion. Neither merits a 9 hour block. And further, given my cooperation in previous disciplinary actions, does not merit a promotion. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:58, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
So you stand by your false charges. In addition to practicing more discretion in the use of sysop tools I also recommend more care in evaluating other people's behaviour. 142․124․55․236 (talk) 21:03, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
@142․124․55․236 It's generally not a good idea to mess with other users' toolsets especially without hearing them out first. I don't buy the "false charges" either. Unblocked and reinstated demotion privileges. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 21:50, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
I can attest that beyond minor edit warring the charges are without any substance. GrammarCommie proved to resist any discussion prior to a block being handed out. Temporary desysops were also once a common practice when a regular user would earn themselves a serious block. 142․124․55․236 (talk) 21:58, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Okay, let me see the diff links. Please, guys, I might not even be looking at the same edits that caused the conflict. I need to make sure, not make assumptions. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 22:02, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
I suspect some executive overreach was due to an incorrect assumption conflating User:Communism with IP 2A02etc. The limited edit warring actually committed was due to disagreement about a collapse blurb. 142․124․55․236 (talk) 22:20, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
142, believe it or not I do understand why you blocked me, and calming down and engaging in further contemplation do not contest the block if you feel it is necessary. I am also willing to elaborate on my actions if you so wish, however I request a temporary reprieve, given that I am currently editing from a mobile device any I present explanation is better conducted via my computer. Until then if you wish to reinstate my block I will not contest it further at this time. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:08, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
If we've all come out of this wiser and calmer, I'm happy to let things stand as they are now. 142․124․55․236 (talk) 22:20, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
That's great. You guys handled this very well. Thanks so much for the cooperation. :) --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 22:24, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
I can't believe I am saying this, but what the actual fuck was this shit @ when Oxyaena and D do the same shit rampantly and get off scot-free? Doing this to GC was bullshit. Turtle Wax (talk) 03:31, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Somewhat inclined to agree, even if someone is rather quick to indef block fundies as spambots. — Dysk (contribs) 19:56, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
GC sometimes shoots first and asks questions later. Oxy is just plain a mad man, giving outright trolls administrative tools and overriding moderator decisions while blocking people for infinity for "vandalism" posting something he disagrees with, in direct violation of RationalWiki:Blocking policy, and I'm not talking about his blocking of certain trolls' sockpuppets. He has been warned about this more than once, but he retains tech status (that's right, same buttons as a moderator)... but GrammarCommie gets promoted? Does Oxy have something on Trent or something? (talk) 00:22, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
If you got any comments about how sysops in general are blocking vandals trolls for longer you could comment at RationalWiki talk:Blocking policy#Blocking duration where I brought up this issue months ago, if y'know, you think it's a problem. As far as Trent is concerned, we all know that he was caught in a compromising position with goats, and that's why he hasn't made any non-essential edits for six years. /s :D — Dysk (contribs) 11:14, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Morris, cut the fucking harassment out, and it's her, not "his." Oxyaena Harass 13:49, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
From your userpage: This user is transgender. I was correct in saying "he." Orange Slices (talk) 00:27, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Stop. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 00:29, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, please cease your misgendering twaddle on my talkpage. I know that you know better Morris, you're just acting like a 4 year old because you think there's nothing we can do that will actually hurt you (not true...). ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:32, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Hi. Thanks for editing my draft and showing me how to insert references properly. --Aporadox (talk) 19:12, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

It was a joke...[edit]

Not harassment. Chicken Nuggets (talk) 15:36, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

It wasn't funny. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 15:57, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

What did I do?[edit]

I was banned for an hour. Reason? Grammar? I seriously have no idea what I did. So what did I do? — Unsigned, by: Ajuran / talk / contribs

Repeatedly making comments that were not formatted using indents ":", placing new sections at the top of the page rather than the bottom as is customary on most wikis, and just generally making messes that I had to clean up. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:56, 8 July 2019 (UTC)


You've been nominated to the RationalMedia Foundation election. Please accept or decline; if you accept, you may wish to campaign. (talk) 23:03, 8 July 2019 (UTC)


Why did you undo that? It was referenced even... (talk) 03:10, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Because it was poorly written. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:12, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough. Too much alcohol. (talk) 03:13, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Specifically, "and straight men who were molested as a child or otherwise sexually abused by someone who is homosexual" is poorly phrased. It would be better to phrase it in a way that specifies that the reference is a male pedophile and a male victim, rather than invoking the "Homosexuals = pedophiles" trope, even if inadvertently. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:19, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Right... that wasn't the intention, sorry if it came across as such. I was reading the article and thought about people I know personally who are "homophobes," and not to excuse the behavior, but knowing their background (and without getting too specific on here), it's pretty obvious why they are that way. Which is a shame, but is is what it is. (talk) 03:22, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
It didn't read like you were intentionally trying to invoke that trope, just a poor choice of phrasing. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:34, 15 July 2019 (UTC)


As First Comrade of the People's Republic of RationalWiki, I hereby sentence thee to death by exile!!!!1! Oxyaena Harass 04:07, 18 July 2019 (UTC)


My bad I thought ya'll were looking to fit puzzle pieces together. You are correct on my lack of linguistics. I will leave you with a — Unsigned, by: Jaded / talk / contribs

Random link, no context. Point lost due to refusal to communicate. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:42, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
I got it with the goats, just seems silly to have all the power and use it to keep others down. Despite all my rage I am still just a rat in the cage. — Unsigned, by: Jaded / talk / contribs

"Your "unsourced" statement cites two sources."[edit]

Rough storm pirate.png Ahoy, matey!
Beware, for there be a great sea of
Concern Troll Bullshit ahead!

Actually, the sentence that is sourced is "According to current scholarship, around 5,700,000 Jews were killed in the Holocaust." The actual claim that the section supposedly exists to address is "Revisionists may point out that this number is less than six million" which is an unsourced, speculative strawman. Is the purpose of the article to expose the flaws in the arguments deniers actually make? Or is it to waste time debunking nitpicks concerning terminology and semantics they could conceivably make, even though they never actually have or will? "It's actually 5.7 million, not 6 million" and "It wasn't called the Holocaust until the 1970s" are absurd arguments that no denier would ever make, and wouldn't help their position if they did. (talk) 13:27, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Troll Oxyaena Harass 13:28, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Not trolling. It is precisely because these arguments are speculative, unsourced strawmen rather than actual arguments made by deniers that responding to them in the article is a waste of time and space, and does nothing to aid efforts to combat Holocaust denial. (talk) 13:30, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
If you have an actual argument to make, do let's hear it. (talk) 13:31, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Really, Mike? Oxyaena Harass 13:32, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

They thought of all places[edit]

Rationalwiki would be the place to spam "body cleanse in three steps". There's irony and then there's irony. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:33, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

@Ikanreed The irony is indeed quite amusing. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:36, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Why reverting slavery in the bible quotes?[edit]

On the Slavery in the Bible page, You reverted my edits twice with these comments: "The bible endorses and encourages slavery. Find a better source of morals." "Is it really so hard to say "Oh, an outdated book had outdated ideas, let's not do that sort of thing."? I mean really." I do not understand your revert or your comments. I think you misunderstood my purpose.

I agree the Bible endorses and encourages slavery. I'm attempting to use the article here to clarify that to apologists and it lacked the necessary quote text to make that clear to them. Without the full quote I added text for, it isn't fully clear what is wrong with their argument that the bible forbids kidnapping. The quote they cite (which is included in full above in the article) is misleading because this quote shows it only applies to not kidnapping hebrew slaves. In context, the quote apologists use matches up with this quote to show that it was in fact allowed to kidnap non-hebrews.

It seems like you assumed my intentions but I don't know how you could infer that from the simple purely informational edit I made which was to add the quote text that is alluded to in the existing text with a verse citation number, which I added text to but did not alter in any way. The description of my edit was: bible|Deuteronomy|24|7 quote for full context comparison. The second edit (I did not know you had reverted in the meantime) was to try to format it more appropriately using the bible code plugin which the wiki uses. I am doing my best to conform to the style and standards of the Rational Wiki. I'm contributing to help people debunk Christian apologetics explaining away the Bible's support for slavery. I can understand that the wiki is probably inundated with ill-intentioned sabotage, but my edits were not of that type. Do you understand my intent better now? Do you have any other issues with my adding the relevant quote in full to make the existing text as well-supported as possible? -Near (talk) 21:44, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

@Near You went straight to the "but it says otherwise once right here!!" quote. I have a pretty low opinion of that quote due its misuse. However, I admit I could have been a bit hasty in my reverts, given my opinion on the matter. I'll add it back and try to write some context surrounding the apologetics in question. My apologies. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:04, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie I did indeed want that full quote precisely because that is the quote the apologists leave out in favor of the Exodus quote that leaves out the hebrew/non hebrew distinction. Thanks for expanding it into its own sanction and clarifying further. --Near (talk) 10:40, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

reverting the Capitalism article[edit]

I know the new user who made the change had no edit summary, but if you check the talk page, there's a good reason to take it out. It's probably a misattributed quote. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:27, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Why did you revert the self refuing atheist idea?[edit]

Hey GC, You did not leave any comment on your reversion of the self refuting atheist idea. I haven't seen the movie, but I think "Atheists hate God" is a pretty good example of a self-refuting idea, since, if somebody believes in God enough to hate Him, then they are not an atheist. I would simply phrase it differently rather revert it (and I do prefer my "Machine thinking" text to theirs) --Bertrc (talk) 13:36, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

@Bertrc I might have been on the phone at the time and unable to edit it, then forgot to rewrite it later. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:40, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
@Bertrc Now I remember the other reason I reverted that example. Trying condense an entire section of the Atheists hate god article into a note is a pain in the ass. Specifically the fictional counter-examples section. If you can think of better phrasing and wording than my re-write, please edit it. I'm still not happy with it. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:05, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Tireless Worker Award[edit]

I don't need to know the specifics, I understand that you work your ass off. I do too, I work maybe average 45 hours a week, never fewer than 40 and I am the guy who grants time off at mu job. I have seven weeks of vacation saved up, it is a problem for payroll. I used to travel. This site doesn't operate without people who put in their work. I can't teach anybody else how to do my job either.

On whether strongly conservative people are far-right[edit]

I see you reverted my change renaming the "very far right" section to "ultraconservatives" in the Reddit article, and I want to see if I can convince you that I was right to make that change.

Obviously these things need to be judged on a case-by-case basis, because someone who doesn't know much about the political spectrum (or compass, or whatever) might have attributed something as "far right" when it isn't actually far right. I had a quick look at the 2 reddits mentioned in that section, and I encourage you to do so too.

I want to make two points:

1. People on the far right (Neo-Nazis, white nationalists, etc.) do not compare things they don't like to the Holocaust in order to make them look bad. They either deny the Holocaust, or even worse, they post anonymously about how they think the Holocaust was great! So this is some evidence that those reddits are not far-right.

2. In our Quillette article, we (rightly, in my view) make fun of Quillette for publishing a ridiculous article that lumped a bunch of far-right/alt-right people in under "conservative" to attempt to push a conservative victimisation narrative. This gives the impression that the RationalWiki community believes that the far-right are not correctly categorised as political conservatives, and indeed that the very idea that they are conservative is ridiculous. Yet your reversion suggested that these redditors, who I would think of as hard-right conservatives, are far right, or at least far right inclined. This seems like a massive contradiction on Rationalwiki - it looks like we are taking opposite views on whether the far right are conservatives in the Quillette article and in the Reddit article.

(I actually went ahead and wrote an entire article on the hard-right, because I had more to say about them, but you don't need to read it if you don't want to.)

So where does our disagreement stem from? Do you disagree that those reddits are conservative reddits, or do you think that a reddit can be both conservative and far right? From your edit message, I'm guessing the latter? --Greenrd (talk) 15:56, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Just going to commoent and say that anyone that you could call hard-right or ultraconservative is literally far-right, and should be described that way. Most conservatives are far-right. It's not complicated. — Dysk (contribs) 16:12, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
So you're going to delete that part making fun of Quillette for thinking that far-right people can be conservative then?--Greenrd (talk) 17:03, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
You don't seem to know what "conservative" means, rather you use it as a catchall for "right-wing". ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:09, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
@Greenrd No because neo-Nazis are a subset of the far-right whom are not generally conservatives (being instead generally Third Position). So for Quillette to hold up some neo-Nazis as an example of the entirety of conservatives, or even the entirety of the far-right, is disingenuous. However, it is absolutely possible for a conservative to be far-right, and yet not a "neo-Nazi", since these are not synonyms nor particularly even points on a linear left-right scale. — Dysk (contribs) 18:54, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
@Dysklyver OK, I took a look at the raw data, researched some of the people, read the Third Position page, re-read your reply several times to understand it better, and I think what you are saying sort of explains the discrepancy - but I'm still wondering if RW made a mistake somewhere. Are there any names on that list in the Quillette article who are "far-right conservatives", do you think? If so, then we're partially criticising them for classifying them in a way which is, according to you, valid - and we should fix that. --Greenrd (talk) 20:51, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie No, I'm not using as a catch-all for right-wing. I was claiming that the far-right (by which I mean neo-Nazis, white nationalists, etc.) are right-wing, but are not conservative, so conservative isn't a catch-all for right-wing. But according to NekoDysk it is more complicated than that. I am trying to learn. --Greenrd (talk) 20:51, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Edits on Anatoly Karlin[edit]

He is British Russian. He says that he has citizenship in both countries. Inthecave (talk) 00:33, 26 August 2019 (UTC)


Not that I care that much, but what was wrong with my edit on the WOMBAT page? -- (talk) 17:41, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

It didn't make sense. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:46, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Vandal Bin[edit]

You binned the K1410407 after just 3 edits and without even raising it on the users talkpage to give them a chance to respond. I have paroled them. Try take a lighter approach. The user may have been confused about our goals and style. Acei9 04:02, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

@Ace McWicked I'm not inclined to be gentle with hard green wackjobs who call me a murderer for eating meat and who would willingly stall human medical advancement for their own egos. They give environmentalists a bad name. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 12:46, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
That’s not a valid reason for a vandal binning and is poor form. Acei9 13:50, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
@Ace McWicked Very well then... ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:44, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

What's actually going on?[edit]

I've seen Point (clearly a kiwi) & ScSb's edits in the bar. This isn't the first time I've seen this (including me asking about this back in July, where my topic got erased by Dysk). From what I've been gathering after a quick google search:

1. Dysk & Discord member redacted got banned from Wikipedia. Something about russian bots (I don't even know what wikipedia is on about, but it seems to be something about Dysk having a sockpuppet named "redacted")?

2. Something about this redacted I just mentioned and a guy called "redacted" (that name is giving me tons of results via google (mostly reddit posts)) being brother & sister/cousins (don't know what redacted have to do with Dysk.).

3. Dysk being accused of having a double personality (That's a huge stretch, if you ask me)?

4. Dysk & redacted being the same person (which would mean that Dysk has 2 accounts on the discord if true (if Dysk is still a member from the discord))?

5. The site being in on it (the 1st nuttery BS. Also, you're making things worse if you're getting rid of these topics asap (saw several people doing this in the past, including my dmorris topic being erased by Dysk back in July...)).

6. Dysk, Oxy & redacted all being the same person (2nd nuttery BS).

WTF is going on? Why not just be open with everyone, on the site, about this whole shitstorm (anons WILL keep pouring in and they WILL keep posting claptrap) (the situation, that is. Not the crankery points that I summoned, although the whole Dysk getting banned from Wikipedia thing... They don't ban people for jiggs & giggles over there, so...)? Tinribmancer (talk) 12:44, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

@Tinribmancer I removed the content in question because it was A) in bad faith and B) harassment. I intend to do nothing more than remove such comments for the purposes of moderation, unless such comments escalate in their harassment. As for the events on discord, I am under the impression that both Dysk and redacted are banned there, though I wasn't a part of that. @Vorarchivist or @LeftyGreenMario may know more, though I am not certain. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 12:56, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
hi @Tinribmancer
1. if it wasnt obvious already, dysk is a crazy communist and russian bot sympathizer. they were banned from wikipedia in 2017 for chronic administrative disruption. some others may have been banned at the same time
2. imagine i dont exist, and shut up. i redacted your post
3. dysks mental state is not relevant
4. dysk was banned from the discord and that is why they left the site. they stayed for a short time because rwrw asked them to do the trustees election
5. every single thing about this has been posted by a small group of banned or troll users, namely aeschylus, dmorris, mikemikev, and two others
6. everyone is bongolian
"Why not just be open with everyone" - open about what?
"anons WILL keep pouring in" - short of neutralizing the trolls irl ye they will
"Dysk getting banned from Wikipedia thing" - it only takes 2-3 days to read the ban debates there
"the events on discord" - dysk was banned first, about a month later i wheel warred to unban them and others and was demodded and banned
EK (talk) 15:43, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry, who made you a mod? I can say whatever I wanna say, miss Fascist!! Tinribmancer (talk) 15:59, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
i was elected as a mod for the discord in april.EK (talk) 16:02, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Discord is not the site.. Tinribmancer (talk) 18:19, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
ye so what? u asked about events on discord and i told u in the shortest possible way some information. EK (talk) 18:24, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Mueller Talk Page[edit]

I am in need of assistance.--RipCityLiberal (talk) 17:16, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

@RipCityLiberal How may I be of assistance? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:55, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
@GrammarCommieWould you consider boxing in rob's many rails. We have escaped the purpose of the talk page almost entirely and he's whipped up at least three different random conspiracies that have nil to do with the topic.--RipCityLiberal (talk) 18:00, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
@GrammarCommieHe's back on his bullshit.--RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:41, 20 September 2019 (UTC)


I am the guy who edited the Yugoslavia article. I want to apologize for any inconvenience since I am no war crime apologist by any means. I really just wanted to point out the fact that EVEROYONE commited war crimes, not just Serbia. There is no part on Operation Storm, which was a horrendous cleaning operation commited against the Serbs. The Medjugorje massacre, for example, was also commited against Serbs. I know there was a crime commited in Srebrenica, but 8000 people do not really make a genocide per se (a genocide is a mass killing of an entire nation like the Holocaust, not the cleansing of a town with barely 15000 people). Also, what kind of language is "piss off"? I just want to be civil on the topic, not trying to outcuss everyone here... -- (talk) 16:55, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Terms like "countercleansing" sound like you're attempting to justify Serbian atrocities. In addition, the Holocaust was the attmpted mass extermination of people from ultiple countries, several of which willingly sent the victims to die in German camps. Finally, scale is irrelevant to the definition of genocide in the broad strokes. I use the U.N.'s definition. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:07, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Okay. I get it, really didn't know about the UN definition. Since the article is now locked, could you update it regarding the w:Prespa agreement which ended the (N)MKD - GR hostility regarding the name last year? -- (talk) 17:24, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
I will try once I get home. I'm currently unable to reach a computer at the moment, from whence I am able to edit more effectively. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:06, 17 September 2019 (UTC)


Thanks, wasn't sure how long to block him for (as a sysop I am hesitant to do more than 3 days unless they are a spammer, etc.). CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 00:52, 1 October 2019 (UTC)


Unfortunately the thank user contribution extension isn't installed on this wiki, otherwise I'd use it for your posts on the JG talk page. Instead I'll leave this message here. Consider this a "thanks". The entire chain was extremely amusing. -- Mocha2007 (talk) 23:32, 6 October 2019 (UTC)


Thanks for changing the visibility on those edits. I'm still pretty knew at editing and I wasn't sure if what I did was correct. CAPSlOCKrOXX (talk) 18:32, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

@CAPSlOCKrOXX You did fine. Blatant harassment, doxxing, or vandalism like that should be reverted without hesitation. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:39, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Nassim Haramein page[edit]

I am adding new research to the Nassim Haramein page supporting his work with legitimate physicists in reputable scientific journals. My intent is to simply improve the page. Please advise. Jahub (talk) 22:23, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

@Jahub Take it to the article's talkpage and discuss with the editors who dispute your edit. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:01, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

What's up?[edit]

I thought you would be interested in a mention of Rationalwiki in the scientific literature. Mediocre Bob (talk) 16:32, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

@Mediocre Bob Two Racialist idiots are still pissed at us. Who gives a shit? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:43, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

The Randi kook[edit]

I don't think they were engaging in any sort of talk page editing I'd call "vandalism" either. It seems excessive for what is a nattering nut. While I don't think I'd have any chance of persuading them that Randi's challenge is on the up-and-up, the extent to which they brushed too close to slander wasn't that close that it represents a risk to the wiki. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:07, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

@Ikanreed I just didn't want to slog through that wall of text to read the ineveitable "you're so biased! I'm going to take my ball and go home" post. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:10, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Also the whole "vandal" label was more me flipping them off than anything else. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:11, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Yeah don't call it vandalism either. Even if it's just your way of communicating, that wasn't clear to me at all. Anyhow, it's someone thinking they can fight with you and doesn't like having their comments collapsed with an insult. It's cute. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 18:12, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Are you okay?[edit]

That recent block got me really worried. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 20:42, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

See my last post in the Saloon. I can't bend on this issue. the world is a fundamentally fucked up place, and every day I continue living I'm reminded of that fact. Reminds me that acts of bravery we exalt in our media aren't rewarded in reality, but punished. Reminds me that there are people out there more concerned with "security" and "safety" and venting on those without power, who never wanted any of this, than for basic empathy. I had to learn empathy. I didn't get it originally. Yet even I understand this is fucked up. Yet those who are supposedly my equals or betters can't. It sickens me. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:47, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Can't say that's entirely accurate. We're always going to get people that live in a bubble and think immigrants ruin lives because they're not born to immigrants or never made friends with immigrants, they probably didn't spend enough time and appreciate cultural diversity's net positive effects. You should also be empathetic to them but I still think you should try coping with that depression, like maybe think about meds, drawing stuff, learning about community efforts to help others? --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 20:58, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm working on being more active, but it'll probably be in 2021 or thereabouts. If you ever see reports about a young-ish guy who looks like a bum calling our government hypocrites and cowards and cussing near constantly, that might be me. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:06, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Why are you reverting stuff that isn't vandalism or trolling?[edit]

Seriously, this is why I had to anti-endorse you. For all the good you do for the wiki, you really need to remember that not everybody who isn't a daily editor or edits from an IP isn't a troll or a sock of one of your "pals." And the reason for the IP hopping is because I work somewhere that uses a BlueCoat device; a lot of companies use them. Have a nice day buddy. (talk) 00:02, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Your aggression has been noted. Now, why do you assume I have a slant against IP editors? There numorious examples where I either patrolled an IP's edit or let another person who might be better informed deal with the edit. My current problem is that the Mod and board elections seem to attract what appear to be concern trolls, and your first edit consisting of using myself as a foil for your complaints seems... Iffy. Especially as you then admitted that I had naught to do with the matter. So, you see my dilemma now? I am not Oxy, and I do not appreciate being used as if I and she were one and the same. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:17, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough. It's just annoying that whenever I edit logged out (regardless of where I'm editing from) it seems I get mistaken for a troll. I get it, the trolls are annoying. But seriously, I'm just bored at work cause it is super slow right now, and I don't want my company looking into my political and religious opinions as expressed on RW (especially considering our CEO is a huge Trump supporter), nor do I care to have everybody getting excited and being like "OMG, you're back!" when I don't really intend to stick around. But I actually like you, I just think you're a bit quick on the trigger to be a mod, and that is meant as constructive criticism. As far as Ox goes, I'm not even going to go there because I've seen what happens when someone criticises her, and she does not take it well at all. Good luck in your race! (talk) 00:44, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
And, 'generally rather than specifically speaking' some things are 'not in the spirit of RW/sufficiently on topic for the specific article.' Anna Livia (talk) 13:12, 13 November 2019 (UTC)


What did you do that was different to what I did? (I am in favour of the week or month long block available elsewhere - long enough for the nuisances to get bored and go away). Anna Livia (talk) 13:12, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

@Anna Livia Which block? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:38, 14 November 2019 (UTC)


Maybe I’m missing the nature of this page? Pick any of the Feser sources mentioned in the article, you’ll see how terribly off base the objection is. Why should we allow an objection to a non-existent argument? It just doesn’t seem right to make fun of someone for making a claim he never made, right? Or is the point to discredit him regardless of what he actually says? Why don’t we make fun of him for saying Santa Claus exists (who cares if he actually said it!)? — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs


Why are you removing Dasnahmynay's post from the Saloon Bar. There is no reason for it so I have reinstated it. If you want it removed give a good reason. AceMcWicked 05:47, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

@Ace McWicked It looked like a concern troll. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 12:45, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
So? Just ignore it. Don’t start deleting comments just because you can’t follow the Don’t Feed The Troll mantra. AceMcWicked 19:26, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
I'd rather not have concern troll shit clutter up the Bar thank you very much. Oxyaena Harass 19:35, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
Talkpages, including the bar, are community property and as such comments should be left to stand as long as they don't contain racism, overt sexism etc etc. It's not the communities fault you can't ignore trolls. AceMcWicked 19:55, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
Quoting from the community standards: ...users should not delete or change another user's comments on a talk or discussion page. There are exceptions but the exceptions do not cover suspected concern trolling. So leave comments alone and if you can't ignore comments like the one being discussed then you are on the wrong site. AceMcWicked 20:02, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
Your obnoxious insistence we play by out-dated rules as if they were law is really pestering, as soon as someone does something you don't like you're there to hound them about it. Oxyaena Harass 09:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Ace has a point to some degree. I disagree with his absolutist stance, but he does have a point. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
By “outdated rules” you mean “the actual rules” right? AceMcWicked 19:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Does it not say right on the very guidelines page that "these rules are not binding and are only intended to serve as guidelines?" (slight paraphrasing) Oxyaena Harass 20:41, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
If you can't ignore simple trolls then this is the wrong site for you. AceMcWicked 21:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

My talkpage[edit]

You don't need to revert comments on my talkpage, I am adult enough to deal with trolls through not feeding them. AceMcWicked 21:23, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

@Ace McWicked I saw your edit summery. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:35, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
Can never be too sure if anyone reads those or not. AceMcWicked 21:43, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
I replied via joke block. Anyway, yeah... enjoy the drama. The last time I let them fight it out on my talkpage it took around a week to die down. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:45, 18 November 2019 (UTC)


I was right that you'd win, wasn't I?

I wonder what's going to happen, now that Ace became a mod and Oxy didn't... Tinribmancer (talk) 15:16, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

@Tinribmancer They'll likely keep going at it, and it should be the job of the Mods (other than, but possibly including Ace) to keep it under control. And yeah, apparently you were right. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 15:34, 30 November 2019 (UTC)


So, I haven't been here in, like 2 days (I think). And in such a short time, The following things have occured:

1. Oxy LANCB'ed (which I saw coming)

2. DMorris was unbanned thanks to Ace's stupidity (and getting pretty defensive about it on his talkpage (translated: "I'm old guard and do not need to take orders from anyone that isn't old guard!"))

3. Coop case being open after 90 days or so (and I knew that the first new coop case was going to be Oxy vs. Ace. They've been bitch fighting, since before the elections)

Since I have no idea if this is possible, could Oxy open some sort of "mistrust case" towards Ace (Probably thinking too much in the politics area), and demand his Mod removal and being replaced by either Scream! or RightBlue Luigi? Tinribmancer (talk) 20:24, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

@Bongolian @Spud @LeftyGreenMario Definitely. Oxyaena Harass 20:27, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
I don't know what "mistrust case" means. Bongolian (talk) 20:52, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Is there even precedent for this sort of thing? --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 20:52, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Was the original DMorris account permabanned? What was the account name? Bongolian (talk) 20:55, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
@BongolianSorry, I meant "motion of confidence". Tinribmancer (talk) 21:23, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
No, there's only the coop. Getting things approved by the coop can be difficult especially when there's no specific rules violation. Bongolian (talk) 21:31, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Coop me, bitches. If you want me removed from the mod position take me to the coop with specific breaches. AceModerator 22:21, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Don't assume that I have an overarching opinion on this because I don't. I am trying to offer impartial advice and gather information at this point. Bongolian (talk) 22:24, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

I just can't believe this shit is still going on and Oxy is spreading over multiple pages now. I'm just trying to get on with it. AceModerator 22:27, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Just thought you might want to know.[edit]

Some moron started a coop case against you. Literally nobody cares, but you might want to respond.Summa Atheologica (talk) 18:00, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Scream!! leaves[edit]!!

He's one of the alternates. Does this mean that another alternate has to take his place? Tinribmancer (talk) 14:00, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

As that was in 2015 I don't think it's really relevant, do you? Scream!! (talk) 14:27, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Why even keep it, if you're not LANCBing? Tinribmancer (talk) 15:44, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
What have the contents of my user page got to do with you? Scream!! (talk) 16:04, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
What is it with old guards and acting like assholes? Old fossils seems like a better word.. Tinribmancer (talk) 16:28, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Who is acting like anything but a misreported and rather offended person? Scream!! (talk) 16:58, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Scream has a point. False alarm, everyone take a break, calm down, and drink some hard cider or other substance of choice. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:04, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Reverting on Mormonism[edit]

Hi! Just wondering why you reverted my edits on Mormonism. I'm newish to editing wikis, so if I did something wrong I'd love to know what. LiteralBird (talk) 19:42, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

It looked like you were whitewashing the article. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:47, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Hm, that wasn't my intention at all. I'm exmormon, actually. I noticed that the word of wisdom part was contradictory (it says abstinence from caffeine is a commandment, then later says that caffeinated cold beverages are not disallowed). So I thought I'd correct that while also clarifying the language, and more starkly pointing out the contradiction between Mormon scripture and actual Mormon practice. For the Homosexuality part, I thought it was important to add how the "same-sex attraction" language is a weird type of mind control that prevents gay Mormons from seeing gayness as an okay thing. I thought the distinction Mormonism makes between gay attraction/gay action was necessary context, as well as important for understanding homosexuality in Mormonism in general. Idk maybe I misunderstand the tone or purpose of rationalwiki, but I didn't think my edits were very controversial. LiteralBird (talk) 20:01, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Nah, you're fine. It's just that we get a lot of random people who try to whitewash articles. 🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄Ask about our holiday specials! 20:03, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
I'll revert my revert. Between your explanations and my double checking the changes, it appears I was in the wrong. Apologies. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:09, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
No worries, thanks! LiteralBird (talk) 20:12, 15 December 2019 (UTC)


Morris still hasn't gotten one yet? Cool. Oxyaena Harass 18:59, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Apparently this is a "war." And here I thought it was a tantrum... ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 04:24, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Wow. Oxyaena Harass 23:49, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
And he says we take ourselves too seriously. Please. 🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄Ask about our holiday specials! 00:03, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
His one man circle-jerk is amazing. Oxyaena Harass 00:17, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Stop talking about him. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 02:01, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Look on the bright side of lifeAriel31459 (talk) 00:33, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Male circumcision[edit]

What is your rationalist's point of view on male circumcision?-- (talk) 06:49, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Why do you ask? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:22, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Because a rationalist is supposed to be against circumcision. -- (talk) 09:02, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Why are you asking me about circumcision out of the blue like this? What prompted this inquiry? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:39, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Sorry for late response. It is not because it's you, but because I wanted to ask a random administrator of RationalWiki (who happened to be you) to find out how rational RationalWiki is. One who is pro-circumcision tends to deny facts, believe more into pseudo-science and less into logic. One who is against it tends to be more of a rational and logical thinker. If you don't want to answer it, who do you suggest me to ask? -- (talk) 01:30, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Err... I'd like to see some data on that correlation... And proof of a causal link. Seriously, that sounds stupid. Holding a positive or negative opinion of circumcision has little to no correlation, let alone causation on one's mental facilities from... basically everything I've seen on the subject. I mean, your argument is a complete non sequitur. Which is a logical fallacy... ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:38, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
You're also likely invoking the No True Scotsman fallacy. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 02:47, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I feel somebody had their weenie whittled when they were younger...... Oxyaena Harass 15:29, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Another unkind cut?Ariel31459 (talk) 18:37, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
It's possible that BoN is a Nazi trying to poke his weenie into the flames here. The anti-circumcision movement has been adopted by some elements of the alt-right.[1] Bongolian (talk) 19:50, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Don't you mean "poke his weenie into the scalpels"? Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 20:07, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

why revert me???[edit]

Why me? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:29, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

@Ikanreed Your comments will be re-instated shortly. Our free-speech advocate seems to have censored me for some weird reason that I totally can't understand... ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:32, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
@Ikanreed Your comments have been restored Comrade! Glory to the Revolution! ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:34, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Excommunication Nazism[edit]

Look up the excommunication decree of the German bishops of 1931. (talk) 23:51, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Yeah... Citng a wingnut "news" site (go through their homepage) isn't helping your case. It also kind of hurts your case that the New American is founded and owned by the John Birch Society. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:05, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
I cited the site cause it references Gary L. Krupp`s book. I am not a fan of the John Birch Society at all.
Here is the book directly then.
It is referenced elsewhere btw. (talk) 00:23, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Here are further sources confirming the excommunication decrees of 1931:
I would look up Scholder, Klaus, The Churches and the Third Reich. (talk) 00:27, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Then don't cite them. Seriously. If you have better sources, use them. A small number of decent to high quality sources is better than a large number of shoddy to outright discredited sources. As for people talking about the book, news stories talking about a controversial subject doesn't necessarily give me any relevant information on said subject. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:30, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Also please indent your comments, it prevents the thread from becoming a mess and means I don't have to do it for you. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:32, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Those next two sources only tell me the book was published. One is again, a news story that a controversial book was published, and the book itself gives me no information as to its historical accuracy. I am going through the fourth source now. Understand that while I may come off as harsh to you, I have been presented with books and documents on multiple occasions, each with their proponents, and many (though not all, and not examples have been on this site) turned out to be incorrect. Thus I exercise caution, rather than sensationalism. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:57, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
The fourth source concludes that the Pope ultimately did nothing. Not that he did nothing wrong, but that he decided to ultimately not stand at all on this matter. As for the 1931 letter, it appears that at best a group of Bavarian bishops stated that the Nazi "Kulturkampf" was incompatible with receiving sacraments, which is not a formal excommunication. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:44, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
I did not mean to edit war but Gary L. Krupp is a valid historical source. Some of his claims may be disputed but so are some of the things that were said by Christopher Hitchens, John Lukacs and so forth. Do you have any historians or primary sources asserting the contrary? You may have been right it would have been better not to cite those sites, just wanted to show sites that referenced Krupp and confirmed what he said. The regular English Wikipedia also references the excommunication decree for what it`s worth,, (at least more than if Conservapedia said it of course). I understand your caution. I have a copy of the book at home actually. It directly quotes the excommunication decrees of the German bishops. I will try to find the drect texts if that`s ok, maybe we could discuss this further on the talkpage of PositiveChristianity. JohnLogan (talk) 10:28, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
I found some additional sources used by the regular Wikipedia on this issue.
Confirms some dioceses prohibited Nazi Party membership and refused the sacraments to Nazis.
John Cornwell affirmed this much:
"Into the early 1930s the German Centre Party, the German Catholic bishops, and the Catholic media had been mainly solid in their rejection of National Socialism. They denied Nazis the sacraments and church burials, and Catholic journalists excoriated National Socialism daily in Germany's 400 Catholic newspapers. The hierarchy instructed priests to combat National Socialism at a local level whenever it attacked Christianity."
Obviously Cornwell is not an historian and a highly disputed figure but he is often supported by Pius critics so it does seem relevant here, especially since Christopher Hitchens relied on him quite a bit. Here is an additional source that is more specific, the Fulda and Freising conferences decided excommunication was needed in 1931.
I will also try to find Yad Vashem`s sources on this. JohnLogan (talk) 10:36, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
I restored the revision based on the additional sources but have no desire for edit warring. If you have sources to the contrary please prove them. However the English Wikipedia confirms that the Fulda and Freising conferences excommunicated active Nazis. This was also attested by Donald J. Dietrich. Please debate with me further if you wish on the talk page of the article. JohnLogan (talk) 11:07, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Look, you seem like decent if a bit earnest, person. Krupp sounds like a well meaning person from what I've read of him. But, there are certain realities that cannot be overlooked. Firstly, no, the Vatican proper (as in the upper Cardinals and the Pope) did not excommunicate the Nazi leadership. That would have been a form of aggression by the church, and the church was officially neutral during WW2. Vatican City, being a semi-autonomous city-state doesn't have the military capacity to withstand an invasion, and is reliant on Italy to provide military aide. Given Italy was allied with Germany during WW2, it would have been unwise to openly challenge either power. It is also an unfortunate truth the Vatican was antisemitic as part of its official church doctrine. The whole "the Jews killed Jesus" thing... Though they were not alone in that regard as western society as a whole was much more antisemitic at that time. Finally, there is the fact that in the post-war years the church was notoriously stubborn about removing antisemitic doctrine from its teachings. Given I am writing this early in the morning without coffee there may be a some things I've missed, but at best you've got a scenario where the Catholic church didn't formally pick a side and as a result of both that, the news that they knew about the holocaust, and their post-war stubbornness to clean up their doctdrine, they ended up with a serious PR mess. That's at best. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:47, 11 January 2020 (UTC)


What's with the hate boner for Styxhexenhammer? You seem very angry at him, very irrational108.208.14.123 (talk) 12:33, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Other than when you show up to concern troll, or just outright troll given the aggression in most of your comments, I don't think of Stickyhooker888 at all. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:49, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Can I resume editing?[edit]


Hello. My ban just expired, so I was wondering can I resume editing? I promise never to welcome users again. Dino ((contribs)) 00:44, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, your block expired and you're free to edit. We appreciate your not welcoming spambots. Bongolian (talk) 00:58, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
@DeanHinnen Here's the thing. It wasn't that you "welcomed users", it was that you seemed to be going through the account creation log and copy/pasting a welcome template without really looking to see if they'd any edits yet, or if so of what nature. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:18, 20 January 2020 (UTC)


No, I just dislike people in general. -Xylophobe — Unsigned, by: Xylophobe / talk / contribs

@Xylophobe Elaborate. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Galileo Galilei Revision[edit]

On my edit you reversed the source was the same as my previous edit. As far as spelling goes wouldn't it be better to fix the spelling or tell me about it so I could fix it rather than revert it and remove context. If you would find my edit fixed by moving the source to the end of the paragraph and fixing spelling let me know post haste so I can preform the edit. — Unsigned, by: Jkevo / talk / contribs

Your edit made multiple unsourced assertions, including a tale involving a tangentially related individual. Cite sources. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Like I said it's the same source as the previous edit I made and it is one more source than the myth had, here are a few more:

Galileo at Work: His Scientific Biography

Heilbron, John L. Galileo. Oxford University Press, 2010, 195-196.

while Wikipedia mentions a second person who denied to look I found no conformation or mention of this person and this may be due a miss reading of Galileo at Work: His Scientific Biography.

Jkevo (talk) 04:03, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Edit request[edit]

"You don't understand how evidence works at all, your proposed edits will be denied."

First that hardly seems like a reason to deny an edit. Further Could you please at least put your denial in my topic asking for an edit. If I can ask for a further pittance could you please give me the reason your denying additional context to explain the existence of a common myth. sorry for forgetting to sign my posts.Jkevo (talk) 03:22, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

No. If you're going to say "God is real" you're going to have to do better than over 200 (I'm being generous) years worth of theologians and apologists. You'll need groundbreaking evidence that revolutionizes almost every field of modern science, and no, the Bible doesn't count. You'll need multiple papers on multiple subjects run through the highest quality peer review journals out there. You got that? Nope? Tough shit. As for how parasocial connections to fictional characters work, I'm not going to continue repeating myself while you tell me that I'm blinded because I don't agree with you. Request denied. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:29, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
you misunderstand I was never trying to propose an edit to Atheists hate god. I though you where trying to deny my Galileo Galilee edit. you can hopefully see my confusion. As far as apologists goes you can trace that back at least 2000 years. on the topic of science you are asking a tool that deals only in the natural to prove the super natural. science deals neither with the existence of god or all real things. to show my point, science dose not form the basis of ether math or philosophy but it rests firmly on these topics those if your only measure of truth is science then science can not hold true. furthermore science merely deals with the arrangement of stuff and does not necessarily have a stake in the origin of stuff.Jkevo (talk) 03:46, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Science is all you've got for evidence. If there's no evidence for something, it's bullshit. Also, no, science is a process to evaluate evidence to determine what is true or false. So it would indeed deal in "the origin of stuff". And if doesn't have the info, I'm betting the rambling myths of a bunch of bronze age primitives which was then badly translated and edited (and proofread) into a complete work by Iron age priests (who had every fucking reason to say it was true since it was their fucking source of income) and then translated (again) into multiple languages under less than idea conditions, in secret, by fugitives from said church, for their own political ends, is going to have anything better. Basically what I'm saying is the people who wrote the Bible didn't know how gravity worked, let alone the origins of the universe. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 04:00, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
"Science is all you've got for evidence." and what evidence do you have for that? Also The new testament is one of if not the single best kept ancient manuscripts of all time with 24000 manuscripts written within a hundred years of the originals which in turn where written between 40 and 80 years of the death of Christ. the manuscripts have contain from this time contain nearly the entire new testament. To claim our translations of the new testament is unreliable is deny almost all historical manuscripts before at least the printing press. Further more those iorn age priests at least at the beginning had no to proclaim Jesus as lord considering they could have merely been Jewish priests but instead chose to be tortured and eventually die because of their convictions. You seem to not know even the basics of apologetics but still you dismiss them out of hand. If you are to insult my intelligence and the intelligence of all who believe as I do could you at least skim the material you pass judgment on. It only seems to be the rational thing to do. — Unsigned, by: Jkevo / talk / contribs
"Further more those iorn age priests at least at the beginning had no to proclaim Jesus as lord considering they could have merely been Jewish priests but instead chose to be tortured and eventually die because of their convictions." Firstly, those weren't the ones I was referring to, that would be the Vatican. Secondly, you can be wrong and die for shitty beliefs, just ask ISIS. Whether they died nobly doesn't matter one iota, what matters is what is presented as evidence. You still got nothing but a Book and if you don't show better I'll start sending you other creation myths. As for reading the Bible, I've read it multiple times. That's the main reason I'm not a Christian anymore. Finally, half the New Testament is apocrypha depending on which version of the Bible you use, so much for perfectly preserved. I mean that by the way, between the various version of the Bible (not counting complications from languages) there's a fair number of books in the average Bible that are considered apocrypha by that version alone. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 04:49, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
First you didn't answer my question. What is your evidence for the statement "Science is all you've got for evidence."? Do you not have one because it's a self defeating assertion? second I agree you can die for shitty and wrong beliefs but for what reason would the apostles die for something they know is a lie considering they all claimed to know Jesus and said they saw him post resurrection. thirdly The bible is not the beginning and end of apologetics. There is this process called biblical criticism which is used to understand what the bible was trying to say those who wrote it and what it is trying to tell us now. Forth The whole new testament better be apocrypha considering biblical apocrypha means early writings by the church about Jesus and apostles lives and teachings. The apocrypha that does not appear in the bible does not because they are not written by or with the help of first hand sources. We know that the 27 books of the new testament are reliable sources of first century Christianity. If you want more than textual criticism and historical points here is a philosophical point.
When we measure heat we measure from some know points. we ether use use freezing/boiling point of liquids or the absolute ends of what is possible. All of these points give us reference to where we are absolutely on the scale from coldest possible to hottest possible and allows us to determine whether some things are hotter or colder than a given temperature. similarly we measure morality on a scale with some actions being worse or better. But we run into a problem when we try to reference the scale. The scale is not grounded in physicality. Their are no "good" vibrations or "bad" particles. We are forced to ask to what is the morality scale grounded. Is grounded in human understanding of good and evil? It can't be because their exist people who think baby murder is just dandy while Most everybody else dose not. That is to say p and not p are true if we take this as our grounding which violates the axiom of non-contradistinction. Is morality a false scale that is it is a delusion? If it is then every thing is permitted and nothing is truly wrong. No one actually believes this to be true given that their is something you could do that they would say is wrong. The last option is that the scale in some way supernatural. this would if true seem to be evidence for theism in some form given atheism seems to deny the supernatural. This is all to say that given our current understanding of science and philosophy it is either the case we all suffer from a mass delusion or we have evidence for at least one supernatural thing that would conform to theistic belief. give that the former casts doubt on our ability to know it would seem the latter is a more reasonable choice. Jkevo (talk) 06:09, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
My evidence is no one's proven that there's another viable method for determining truth from fiction than testing evidence, developing hypotheses, test those hypotheses, and developing working theories. Or, you ain't met your burden of proof. I know because you've been trying to do that this whole time. "second I agree you can die for shitty and wrong beliefs but for what reason would the apostles die for something they know is a lie considering they all claimed to know Jesus and said they saw him post resurrection." You haven't proven they even existed, let alone were correct in their beliefs. You aren't even close to being right. Not by a massive margin. "thirdly The bible is not the beginning and end of apologetics. There is this process called biblical criticism which is used to understand what the bible was trying to say those who wrote it and what it is trying to tell us now. Forth The whole new testament better be apocrypha considering biblical apocrypha means early writings by the church about Jesus and apostles lives and teachings. The apocrypha that does not appear in the bible does not because they are not written by or with the help of first hand sources. We know that the 27 books of the new testament are reliable sources of first century Christianity." I'll address this as one point that's what it is. The Bible is a novel. I own tons of them. Furthermore which Bible? Eastern Orthodox? Catholic? Protestant? King James? New King James? So many conflicting works all claiming to be the one true message, but many conflicting... Meaning you're nowhere close to being able to use a Bible as the starting point in your search for truth (Though why you want to use a crappy ripoff of the Epic of Gilgamesh is beyond me) let alone arriving at an ironclad conclusion.
Oh?... *He smiles wickedly* Are we doing the morality argument? Hehehe... Ok! If God is the basis of all morality then is killing your child if God commands you to morally good? (We'll assume God exists for the sake of argument, which your argument doesn't prove by the way.) Further, are things morally correct because God says they are or because we can determine the truth of whether they are morally correct on our own? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 12:59, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
"My evidence is no one's proven that there's another viable method for determining truth from fiction than testing evidence, developing hypotheses, test those hypotheses, and developing working theories." and how did you come to know this to be truth and not fiction? You are making a claim about the way we should test truth. I now ask you to test the truth of the claim by it's own sword and indeed we find it wanting. What you are engaged in is scientism. You define the world as having nothing outside of material things axiomatically and then demand proof of the things outside of material things when their is no proof which will satisfy you. This debate has been one sided I've provided arguments and evidence for my position while you have merely denied with unfounded assertions.
Your willful ignorance of the bible and textual criticism and history is galling. If you feel the modern translations are unfaithful to the original you can read the original Hebrew and Greek. The bible has many historically verifiable events and further it has internal factors that point towards being a reliable telling of history.Here are four things almost everybody agrees on.
1. Jesus died on the cross and was buried.
2. Jesus’s tomb was empty and no one ever produced His body.
3. Jesus’s disciples believed that they saw Jesus resurrected from the dead.
4. Jesus’s disciples were transformed following their alleged resurrection observations.
Can you give me an explanation for what happened?
The answer to your question is quite simple things are morally correct because they are what's best for us. God created us and the universe so he knows what is best for use and he does not lie and he is all loving so when he tells use to do something it is ether something that will be good for us or a test which will reveal a greater good. Let us take Abraham. God asked him to go up on a mountain and sacrifice his son. When he got their he was told to stop and instead was instructed to sacrifice a goat. His faith was tested and a great truth was revealed God does not want human sacrifice. In a region with a lot of human sacrifice the Jewish people did not participate. Now I'm not saying anyone who hears a voice in their head ought to act on it after all their is evil in the world. Jkevo (talk) 20:05, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Are you a troll? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:13, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
No, are you?Jkevo (talk) 20:34, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Are you sure? Because you're acting like a stereotype of a Presuppositionalist apologist who hasn't done any research on this topic whatsoever. If you're a troll trying to prank me please drop the act and let me know. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:41, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
"Presuppositionalist apologist who hasn't done any research on this topic whatsoever." says the man who claims the new testament isn't reliably translated. I have both gone to collage for philosophy and Do ongoing study of apologetics both from the textual criticism angle and the philosophical/scientific angle.
Appealing to your own authority is still an appeal to authority. Nor does going to a college mean getting a degree, nor does having a degree de facto make you an expert. I say this partly because your earlier argument was... Well it was stupid. Which university by the way? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
I was not Appealing to my authority to say i'm right I was merely pointing out I have some amount of education on the topic. I mean you literally called me uneducated on the topics. If you feel i'm being stupid please enlighten me on how. WWU.Jkevo (talk) 21:23, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Point one, You've proven nothing. This isn't denial, this is pointing out that you haven't proven anything.
Point two, even if the resurrection story is correct (which we have no evidence for outside of the Bible, thus making it unfalsifiable.) That doesn't prove God exists. It at most proves a dead guy stopped being dead, full stop. You'd need another set of evidence to prove God exists. Then more to prove what God's personality, if any, is like. Then another to prove heaven exists. Then another to prove what that's like. And so fourth and so on. You see what you're up against now? I haven't seen any of that in the years I've spent listening to people argue their religions to me. Not once. Sure, I've seen what amounts to hypotheticals, but they aren't logically sound. They're based on presupposition, or ignorance, or attempts at clever word play, etc. And given such a supposedly simple thing shouldn't be so hard to prove, I went from believer, to nonbeliever, to convinced that believers didn't have shit in the way of evidence.
Let's take this: "God asked him to go up on a mountain and sacrifice his son. When he got their he was told to stop and instead was instructed to sacrifice a goat. His faith was tested and a great truth was revealed God does not want human sacrifice. In a region with a lot of human sacrifice the Jewish people did not participate." Why? Why would an all knowing all loving god do this? Why not just tell people "don't do human sacrifice"? I mean, That sounds so convoluted and stupid. Why are you not bothered that ABRAHAM WAS JUST FINE AND DANDY WITH OFFING HIS KID BECAUSE SOMEONE TOLD HIM TO? Seriously. How is that different than the multiple cases of child abuse we see today? Exlain that to me. Explain how you know it really happened. Use your fucking brain and think for a fucking second. Don't barf up another spoonfed line. I've heard them all by now. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:52, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
You know what? If it's so easy, prove God is real without using the Bible, at all. That includes indirect references by the way. If the facts are on your side it should be easy enough. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:59, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
First thank you for reverting the block. I will lay to a brif over veiw of a set of arguments that point to a god if we are to get more specific than that we must test each religion's claims against these arguments. The most sound forms of the cosmological argument gives reason to at least believe in an uncaused cause and in addition might point towards that cause being personal.The fine tuning argument point toward a designer and to avoid a regress of infinite designers we must to come to the conclusion that their is an undesigned designer. The argument from morality points to their being at least one thing that is supernatural and further we know that inanimate objects can't be good or evil so the thing we pin our scale to must be an actor. Now given these three arguments it seems there are two competing explanations the naturalistic one and the super-naturalistic ones. Either the universe just is and we exist by blind chance and are all delusional or There is some being who is the uncaused cause and undesigned designer and arbiter of morality. I and many other just don't find the first explanation compelling and we don't hold naturalism axiomatically so we see no reason why we ought to deny the existence of a being we would call a god. Now as far as God as described in the bible goes he seams to be the best fit for these and other observations.Jkevo (talk) 22:49, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
So. Remember that whole thing about spoonfed lines? Yeah you just did that. Your overall argument relies on leaps of logic and non sequiturs to connect its component parts. However, I'll be generous and ignore that for now. Walk me through the cosmological argument. How do you know the universe had a cause? How do you know that the universe didn't create itself via an as yet unexplained physics? How exactly does any cause relate to us as individuals on a personal level? Remember, you haven't proven God is real at this stage of your argument, nor that such a thing is even possible. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:32, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Everything that comes into being has a cause. If it is otherwise then conservation of mass/energy does not hold. For example if a gear begins to turn without a cause mechanical energy has been created. If the first premises is true then it is either the case that their is an infinite stirring of causes stretching back forever or a finite string stretching back a finite amount of time. If it is the case that there is an infinite stirring of causes stretching back forever then we shouldn't exist because there are an infinite amount of causes before use which can not be transversed in a finite amount of time that is to say our place in causality can never be reached. Therefore there are a finite amount of causes before us which means There is some first cause and by the nature of being first this cause is uncaused. this first cause either has agency or it doesn't that is it is personal or it's not. If it doesn't have agency we are forced to ask why are we at this point in the causal chain and not an earlier or later point. If something could be otherwise it implies either a cause or an agent is involved. So it is either the case that their is some inherent reason that the first cause acted when it did or the first cause is an agent. It could go either way but I find agency to be the most reasonable explanation. Jkevo (talk) 00:19, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Don't pin your hopes on Aristotle. That "everything has a cause" is an assumption not currently held in physics. This fact has been known since the early 20th century. Here is Bertrand Russell giving the bad news to F.C. Copleston
Ariel31459 (talk) 00:52, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
The point of the argument is to show that it is not the case that "everything has a cause" indeed it tries to show that at least one thing is uncaused. If causality dose not hold true then large swaths of science if not the hole enterprise is a sham. First of all conservation of mass/energy is wrong and so to is anything based on it. Large swaths of physics, chemistry, and biology need to be rewritten at the least. Further any from of indirect observation is out because our observation could be uncaused. Our observations may just be random noise from witch we pick unconnected patterns from. So exo-astronomy, sub-atomics,and all related fields need to be thrown in the trash. What you are suggesting is sophistry of the highest order.Jkevo (talk) 01:42, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
You haven't demonstrated that whatever caused the universe to exist lacks a cause, you merely asserted that there is an uncaused cause. But by the logic of your premise it too must therefor have a cause, ergo whatever caused the universe has a cause, and so forth and so on indefinitely. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:53, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
The causes go back indefinitely then how did we get here? If what you say is true there are an infinite amount of causle states before us each of witch must be transvered before we come into being but you cant transverse an infinite series.Jkevo (talk) 02:15, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, people say that, but nobody bothers to prove it. On the other hand 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 +....+ 1/2n+... = 2. By the way, a witch is a supernatural human with magical powers. Ariel31459 (talk) 02:33, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Actually you can, it just takes awhile. And you haven't proven a prime mover yet. So we're still at the "everything must have a cause, ergo" stage. 02:37, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
If you start counting you will not ever count to infinite. In the same way moving through a set of causle states will never get you a infinite set of causle states. 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 +....+ 1/2n+... = 2 is a statement that the series trends toward two and is not a reflection of transvereing the set. take this set 1 - 2 + 4 - 8 + 16n+... = ?. Their is no answer but if we can transverse infinites we ought to be able to find an answer.Jkevo (talk) 03:03, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Pi goes on indefinitely. Besides which, you yourself argued that all thing must have a cause. Why exactly, is your prime mover an exemption from this rule? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:08, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
No I argued that all things the come into being have a cause. The prime mover necessarily always exists and thus never comes into being. Also I did not say that infinite series can't be defined merely that you can't transverse them. — Unsigned, by: Jkevo / talk / contribs
You can't prove either of those two claims. You have to assume they are true. Not being able to count to infinity is not a proof of anything except that the natural numbers is an infinite set. I have no idea what you mean by "traverse infinities." This is what we, in the math department, call mumbo jumbo. The expression you typed out is not a set. It is not even a well defined series. Perhaps you meant to sum the sequence { 1/ (-2)n}. That series sums to 2/3. Ariel31459 (talk) 03:29, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
So the Prime mover doesn't exist, gotcha. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:36, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
To transverse an infinity is to go from one end of an infinite to the other like going from 1 to the last number in the set of all natural numbers. The problem being that their is no end hence you can not transverse it. No the series I was describing was the sigma of infinite series, n=0, (-2)^n. that equation is divergent and does not trend positive or negative.Jkevo (talk) 04:54, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
So... The prime mover doesn't exist and the universe is infinite. Gotcha. Just to remind you, you were trying to show me a comprehensive theory that would prove to me that God exists. So far I've seen a lot of hypotheticals that I've seen before but nothing connecting "All things must have a cause" (which you haven't really proved but I'll let that slide as I have some other points you've tried to make.) to "an unmoved mover". I'm not impressed so far, but please continue. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 05:00, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
That not what I said at all. I said that if there are an infinite amount of causle states that must happen prior to our current state then we can never come to exist because the infinity of states can't be crossed. given we do exist that means their are a finite amount of causle states that exist prior to us. If a finite amount of causle states that exist prior to us there is necessarily a first state with at least one first cause witch is necessarily uncaused. Also All things must have a cause =/= all thing that come into being must have a cause.Jkevo (talk) 05:19, 31 January 2020 (UTC)


What's your account name and numbers on Discord? I wanna invite you to the Secret Club, but we're not friends on Discord and I`m not willing to take any chances posting the invite publicly. Oxyaena Harass 12:14, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Bad action by admin.[edit]

Why are you allowing trolls and vandals to insert false and unsourced information into the article while suppressing my sourced scientific papers? You could have locked the topic without reverting my edit. Go look closer at the actual edits and what you reverted. — Unsigned, by: / talk

Standard practice is to revert the article to the state it was in before the dispute arose. Take it to the article's talkpage, blah blah blah. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:38, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Mark Passio[edit]

Why did you remove him ??? (talk) 19:18, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I did not "remove him", I moved the article about him into draftspace because it wasn't ready for publication. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:22, 2 February 2020 (UTC)


Re: this

Marshall Applewhite.jpg Rational Editor Award for GrammarCommie

Despite upholding the highest qualities of the RationalWiki community, you upset a crazy person.

Cosmikdebris (talk) 23:18, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

"Despite" or "Because of"? Bongolian (talk) 00:13, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Has this award always been a thing? Because it’s so goddamn good.Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 00:46, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
@DuceMoosolini I originally intended for this to be a one-off award, but since you asked... see Template:CrazyEditorAward. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 01:09, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Blessed Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 02:09, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

And they're back[edit]

That "Research the Holocaust" clown you blocked came back under User:Israel_did_911. Vermilion (talk) 05:56, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Are you serious???[edit]

Ahem... You deleted an IGMChicago survey from sources because: "Questions in surveys use loaded language, no transparency for donors." Do you know what IGM Chicago is? It is an research center that hosts pollsIt is a poll of academic economists. And you deleted that because you think that those economists are paid to say something? — Unsigned, by: Unski / talk / contribs

@Unski You have an unfortunate habit of forgetting to sign your posts when you get upset. On to the subject matter... If a private think tank does not disclose donors or engage in transparency, it creates an impression of impropriety and conflicts of interest. Whether those impressions are founded or not is meaningless when the actions of the subject consistently give those impressions. Further, the surveys in question do indeed utilize loaded language in their questions, which in turn would skew the data gathered. I however, did leave the other citations that I haven't finished reviewing. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 15:54, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie Sorry about forgetting to sign. Like you probably see, I just made this profile, although I have been an active reader of this site for about 5 years. But again... It is IGM Chicago ffs. Do you think the wording affects the opinion of trained and widely published economists view of free trade? Many of whom are Nobel winners. And it is not a think thank. It is research center of Chicago university. Unski (talk) 16:10, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Since cognitive bias is a thing? Yes. Again, it is better to do due diligence than create even the impression of impropriety. Also, attempting to wave around their awards is meaningless. I don't care about awards, I care about what can be established as facts via evidence. Finally, while you are correct that IGM is not a think tank per se, as a private institution it does operate as a think tank. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:31, 15 February 2020 (UTC)


I see you reverted vandalism by . ("Butt hurt"). But you didn't revert his edits to various links in the article. Are they legitimate and not also vandalism? (Disclaimer: I didn't examine them, just noted that they changed.) Dave Wise 2 (talk) 18:08, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

@Dave Wise 2 If you're reffering to the edits by IP, it would be because they are not the same as IP ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:45, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie Oops, I guess my eyes just slid over those right-hand digits. Thanks. Dave Wise 2 (talk) 19:16, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

You're so quick[edit]

How on earth do you do it? I noticed that in "Feminist Internet Laws", you caught and reversed ""'s vandalism in one minute flat. Dave Wise 2 (talk) 18:43, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I use the vandal catcher. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:20, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
What's that? (Or, how can I do it too?). Dave Wise 2 (talk) 18:16, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
It's pretty easy to find. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:38, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll bookmark that. It doesn't show up in searches for "vandal catcher" or "vandal_catcher". Dave Wise 2 (talk) 20:15, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
You need to use the "RationalWiki:" prefix modifier. Example RationalWiki:Vandal catcher. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:26, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Hmm, why is the modifier necessary to find this page and not necessary for, say, "Neoconservatism"? When is the modifier needed? Dave Wise 2 (talk) 20:46, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
RWspace is like Funspace, Essayspace, or Debatespace. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:38, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Aha, thanks. There are quite a few layers of understanding necessary for effective operation here, and I've only penetrated one or two at most. — Unsigned, by: Dave Wise 2 / talk / contribs

Cheer squads[edit]

Since we're not Ron Paul's cheer squad, you might want to ask why we're Bernie Sanders' cheer squad ("The explosive repudiation of this rightward trend caused the Bernie movement to explode in 2016 and Sanders's positions to zoom into mass popularity, a socio-political reality reflected in recent elections. So - not an "establishment" politician..."): Talk:Bernie Sanders#Sucky aspects of this page. Bongolian (talk) 06:10, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Hey Im sorry. im new to this page and i dont know how to dm. im not sure what this has to do with sanders? all i wrote is that ron paul now just has a show and supports ending the drug war. its just some info as this is a wiki. I saw other libertarians with similar info like mises. — Unsigned, by: John-Paul / talk / contribs
What do you have against Bernie? Nothing of that is being of a "cheer squad." As GC pointed out, there are other, better sources that say the exact same thing. Oxyaena Harass 14:32, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
@Bongolian Are you asking me to say that both the left and right are equally bad? Because there's a clear difference between Trump or Ron Paul and Sanders in terms of policy goals and effect. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:45, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
I'd also like to point out we aren't steering people towards his campaign page, Sanders' equivalent to Ron Paul's blog/YouTube channel. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 15:30, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
wait what? what does this have to do with bernie? i dont have anything against bernie. All i said is ron paul now has a yt show where he discusses wars and federal reserve. its just a fact like rand paul isnt named after ayn rand.
im not sure what you are talking about? all i said is ron paul has a yt show after he retired from politics. im not sure how that makes me a cheerleader. im not sure what did has to do at all with bernie — Unsigned, by: John-Paul / talk / contribs
Have you considered the possibility that you are not the one who is being spoken to here, and that may be the source of your confusion? (talk) 16:01, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
No, I'm trying to make some equivalence between the two people, but rather the effervescent language used about Bernie. If your main complaint about the Ron Paul edit was the link to his channel, then I guess it's not really relevant.
@John-Paul, we usually put links like that in the "External links" section on pages unless they bear directly on text within the article, in which case they should be put in the References section. Bongolian (talk) 16:55, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
@Bongolian hi there. im very stupid. this system of communication is too convoluted for me. i added a fact that ROn paul has a YT channel. Was the problem that I linked it the wrong place? Also, i added a good thing that ron paul did was support ending the drug war. what was my mistake? i dont understand what anything i did had to do with bernie sanders/ ron paul cheerleader. — Unsigned, by: John-Paul / talk / contribs
@John-Paul As indicated above, the initial discussion here wasn't about your edits, but rather using GrammarCommie's rollback of your edit as an example. Since you entered the discussion, I simply gave you some advice about that link. You can take up the issue about the drug war with GrammarCommie, preferably on the talk page for Ron Paul (Talk:Ron Paul). Also, please sign your name on talk pages using "~~~~". Bongolian (talk) 17:24, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't cheer for Sanders. There is a certain way in which Sanders is like Trump: Trump entrains with neglect, while Sanders, as a generic socialist/democratic politician portends to entrain with kindness. There is no good reason to believe either candidate, though I would much rather believe Sanders. There is no one policy of Sanders that a working person would obviously disagree with. I like them all personally. I also know he is saying exactly what leftists want to hear. Why is that bad? It may not be very bad at the end of the day, but it is dishonest, like Trump is dishonest. They both say you'll get everything if you vote for them, don't they? I am skeptical that Sanders would, if elected, be able to accomplish anything any of the other democratic candidates would be unlikely to accomplish..Ariel31459 (talk) 17:36, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

The thing is Bernie has a mass movement behind him, one wherein Bernie is the compromise. That's something the establishment doesn't get, four more years of Trump and the people behind Bernie will be even further marginalized, marginalized to the point they're beyond Bernie, meaning they've been far too much radicalized. I`m nearly at that point myself, and I know for a fact so are many other people. Oxyaena Harass 17:46, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Hate to be the Doomsayer again but won't that happen anyway? Ariel is on the right track--given the current political climate I highly doubt even if Sanders has a Democratic majority in congress that he will be able to pass any lasting legislation. Too many centrists are willing to vote with Republicans against Bernie-backed policies. This radicalization will just happen a couple years later than if Trump was re-elected when they realize Bernie cannot deliver on most of his signature promises and lose faith in anti-establishment candidates all together. The USA is just trapped in a no-win scenario.--Flandres (talk) 18:26, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
To be the FOURTH person not even tangentially related to butt in here, the topic is not Sanders' chances or prospects in office but the contents of an article. If you want to discuss that it's for Saloon, not GC's talk page (even though this exact conservation has been had 100 times with the same people already there too) Minish (talk) 18:40, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
(moderator voice) Yes! This isn't a talk page for your intelligent and ridiculously confident hot takes on the enigmatic behavior of centrists. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 19:44, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes, but it helps to repeat your story (especially if it isn't true.) Ariel31459 (talk) 20:05, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Dear GC,[edit]

I reverted the edit that substituted "Islamophobic" for "critical of Islam". How has Maher crossed the line from one to the other? Do we really recognize such a line? If so, where is it?Ariel31459 (talk) 00:21, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

@Ariel31459 Back in 2008 or so, Maher went from criticizing Islam, to attacking Arabic people. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:55, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Attacking who? I attack Saudi Arabia all the time, for the murdering fuckers their leaders seem to be. Can you be more specific. Did he say Muslims should not be allowed into the US? That would be a reasonable minimum requirement.Ariel31459 (talk) 01:13, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
@Ariel31459 Here's a list The general gist is that Islam (Muslims) are a singular evil/danger, not say... just another manifestation of bigotry and control that is religion. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 02:56, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Individual Muslims are not a threat, and I don't think he says that they are. Islam also may not be a danger. What he ostensibly opposes is Islamism, a doctrine that entails the assimilation of non-Islamic states into an Islamic hegemony and ruthlessly administers brutal medieval forms of justice on helpless Muslims. I'd rather keep LBGT people alive. You should have argued your position on the talk page.Ariel31459 (talk) 03:25, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
@Ariel31459 As opposed to Dominionists, who aren't powerful in the US and just want puppy dogs and rainbows? Or maybe Hindu Nationalists, who are completely peaceful and have never harmed a Muslim? Seriously Ariel, it feels like you're going out of your way to make excuses for Maher. The fact that I'm even considering defending a religious group should give you pause and reconsider your position. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:07, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

"Who rights the laws? Me"[edit]

Not sure what that commit log in the title was meant to mean? I provided a reference from the British Medical Journal regarding victim blaming of Domestic Violence Victims who are male and how it affects male victims when they are trying to find support that treats them as a victim (rather than assuming "male=perpetrator because patriarchy"). As mentioned in the commit logs, I'm not sure how to properly format the reference so it shows the title and stuff but not just the link. I'm sorry for not being able to figure it out but not sure why it was just reverted, instead of fixing the format. — Unsigned, by: 2001:44b8:41aa:4f00:7103:411b:4c26:f3b8 / talk / contribs

That last word is a typo and should be "men". And I reverted because I'm not sure you know what Patriarchy or Toxic Masculinity are or how they work. This is due to comments like "Unfortunately, the focus on patriarchy as the cause of domestic violence often causes radical feminists to blame male victims for their abuse, discouraging them from seeking support" So, here's the thing. Most domestic abusers are going to be men. Men make the rules in a system built by men, for men. Which means men are incentivized more, given a free pass more, believed more when they conform to gender stereotypes. Which brings us to Toxic Masculinity. It is a sad fact that in our society (Europe and the Americas) men are still broadly expected to be the breadwinners, to do all the work, to be "strong" and not show vulnerability. So while there are male domestic abuse victims, saying things like "Unfortunately, the focus on patriarchy as the cause of domestic violence often causes radical feminists to blame male victims for their abuse" is more than a little misleading. Radical Feminists aren't mainstream Feminists (hence the "radical" in the name) and our society certainly isn't Feminist to a large degree, which means the ultimate cause for behavioral trends likely lies elsewhere. In summary, what I'm saying is that while domestic abuse can occur with and combination of partners, it's most common form is male abuser and female victim, a trend which affects social norms and prejudices. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:05, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Milton Friedman as a "wingnu"t[edit]

I'm not asking you to like him, but do you see how ridiculous this sounds? The guy won a Nobel Prize, is widely regarded as one of the greatest (maybe the greatest) of his profession of the second half of the century, was a professor in one of the greatest Universities in the world and is teached in every textbook. Either you think Economics is a wingnut subject or you agree that Friedman isn't one. — Unsigned, by: 2804:14c:5b72:8664:f008:a271:f388:b334 / talk / contribs

Lovely. Winning or being nominated for a Noble prize doesn't actually mean much. I mean, both Hitler and Stalin were nominated for Noble Peace Prizes, and we have whole articles about academics who've Noble prizes and then gone on to lose their marbles. Also Friedman was a fan of "deregulate everything"/"Invisible hand of the free market"/Privatization/Laissez-faire so... Maybe not say he was super smart given how abysmally those ideas have born out over time? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:23, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
So, I guess you haven't read him, huh? Friedman, just like Hayek, was a critic of laissez-faire and said more than once how regulation is important, you can read his explanation (the most accepted among scholars) about the Great Depression if you doubt. But is a very long book, and I'm not sure if you like this kind of thing. But please, don't have an opinion of someone you don't know the ideas. Now go, pick a couple of videos from Google and prove my point.
For Privatization, I don't think it's a wingnut thing, you can read Introduction to Economics by Mankiw, is the most important textbook, where Mr. Friedman is perhaps the most mentioned name. Again, do you believe the greatest scholars are all wingnuts? Because he's the second most popular name of the last century among those on the profession, after Keynes. 2804:14C:5B72:8664:F008:A271:F388:B334 (talk) 01:32, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Hayek was a moron. And um... Your definition of "greatest scholars" includes a lot of deregulation/privatization types. And pro-capitalist types. And Pro-"Corporations totally give a fuck about people and won't screw everyone including themselves over to squeeze out an extra penny" types. Basically, a bunch of people on the bottom right of the political compass. Which um... Yes, I do in fact consider most of those people "Libertarian Wingnuts" or as I prefer to call them, "dumbfucks". ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:42, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Aren't we on "rational" Wiki? Because, well, I think we should give more credit to the mainstream views, huh? Let's see if I understood. Those guys from Harvard, Chicago, Cambridge, LSE, Oxford, Columbia, Stanford, Princeton...
All morons because they don't agree with you? Which ones have you read? Do you know any ideas they support? Because your post is a huge scarecrow.
What's your definition of a "wingnut"?
Does supporting capitalism is enough to make you a moron? Do you actually believe that those who studied the subject more than anyone, including you, are morons?
Do you know how they use evidence? Can you explain their mistakes by complex regression analysis? I'm not even saying they are right, maybe they aren't, it's just that your Manichaeism and wrong statements about these authors prove that you're very uneducated in Economics and Economic History 2804:14C:5B72:8664:F008:A271:F388:B334 (talk) 01:52, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
First, indent your posts. Second, never appeal to the site name. That little bit of stupidity (my ideas are obviously rational, ho ho!) puts you in a basket with around 30 different types of cranks at this point. They were sure their ideas were "rational" too. I can start listing. Third, skipping towards the end, how the ever loving fuck does being a critic of capitalism make me a follower of an ancient Iranian religion? That's a complete non-sequitur. As to their Ivy league educations... Do I really need to bring up how the wealthy can just buy their way into prestigious schools? And given a lot of these people come from moneyed or semi-moneyed backgrounds... Um... Yes? They can be morons? And, assuming they got through on their own merits um... They can still be wrong... And that's another appeal to authority similar to your earlier attempts to appeal to Friedman's Noble Prize status, this time via credentialism. So what?
"All morons because they don't agree with you?" Of course not. They're morons because their ideas are stupid. Explain to me how running a for profit firefighting service without engaging in any underhanded or unethical practices is profitable. You know, that thing that corporations exist to do, make money. How about a private prison? Any way to run that long term without infringing on people's rights? How about private healthcare providers? The current pandemic is exposing just how incompetent and greedy they are. Basically, how does making a public service into a for profit service help the people or prevent problems in the execution of said service? Explain to me why a corporate executive would be any less cruel and exploitative without watchdogs keeping them in some semblance of honesty. I mean, most companies these days have moved their facilities overseas to avoid the meager excuses for labor laws we have here in the Americas. And no, it's not because of capital flight due to keeping them from implementing policies that literally led toWikipedia's W.svg the deaths of their employeesWikipedia's W.svg. At least not in the way you seem to think. It was so they could exploit people in say... clothing sweatshops in Taiwan, China, Vietnam, and India. Child labor for copper and colbalt mines in the DRC... Electronics manufacturing conditions so harsh that people started killing themselves rather than continue to live in such a hellholeWikipedia's W.svg.
"Which ones have you read? Do you know any ideas they support? Because your post is a huge scarecrow. " How many anti-capitalist authors have you read? Do you know which ideas they support? Because your post is a huge non-sequitur.
"What's your definition of a "wingnut"? " Far right, either statist or anti-statist. And that accounts for things like politics in the US tilting heavily towards the right. "Does supporting capitalism is enough to make you a moron?" I mean, given it's just feudalism and monarchism rehashed with a shitty new coat of paint... Yes? Seriously, how many anti-capitalists have you read?
"Do you actually believe that those who studied the subject more than anyone, including you, are morons?" Argument by assertion, you have no idea how much I've studied the subject matter, nor my level of understanding of said subject. Further, you have no basis to put these people on a pedestal and declare them above criticism. That is quite irrational. Again, credentialism.
"Do you know how they use evidence?" They notice problems in their system, and rather than think "hmm... I wonder why that happened and why the system seems to create these sorts of problems" they go "How can I plaster this so the system can continue." So... largely, ad hoc and with selective evidence.
"Can you explain their mistakes by complex regression analysis?" Can you create a complex sociological framework demonstrating hierarchies, privilege, power, and the interactions there of? Why does poverty exist in such a "good" system? Why is racism encouraged? Why does the gender wage gap exist? Why is bigotry tolerated and encouraged until and only until tolerance becomes profitable? Why do the wealthy avoid taxes? Should not those with more contribute more? If not, why not? What is the nature of value? Is it when the moneyed class buys something or is it a result of the worker's labor? Should someone really be called "self made" when the majority of their wealth came form the labor of others? Why do you assume that the capitalist system is the one true system? There have historically been other systems, and given enough time, capitalism will likely be replaced by a newer, younger system with it's own benefits and flaws. Should hierarchies exist for their own sake, or because they serve the needs of society? If they don't serve the needs of society, should they not be abolished or curbed? Is it not inherently unequal for one person to have more wealth than a a majority of their fellows could ever hope to achieve?
"I'm not even saying they are right, maybe they aren't, it's just that your Manichaeism and wrong statements about these authors prove that you're very uneducated in Economics and Economic History" Actually, you kind of are saying that they're right. Else you wouldn't be defending them as "...the greatest scholars... and holding them as above reproach. I mean, if you're going to defend them, don't half ass it and back off when I start bringing heat. As for my education... I confess to low formal education, but counter that I've received a more practical education by observing markets, coming up with hypothesis, and and seeing whether they play out. You know, the scientific method... It also helps that I don't put people on pedestals and declare them above criticism. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:14, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
So. I could continue to engage with you, but given you've ignored or truncated my points in your last post in order to strawman them I feel you've exhausted good faith here. So... Nope! Enjoy not having your changes made! ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 04:05, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
You either don't know what a strawman is or is in the end convinced that I proved you're wrong. I showed all your mistakes and you know it, but I guess it's just your ego... Whatever, I'll talk to another user tomorrow and we'll see. Funny how you gave up after I said that... 2804:14C:5B72:8664:F008:A271:F388:B334 (talk) 04:34, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
You quoted me only partially, cutting sentences off halfway and ignoring entire examples. How shall put this... That's called quote mining, something only you engaged in. The result is a misrepresentation of my argument, which is called a straw man. TL;DR, yeah you did. But if you want to deny it, that's fine, I can't stop you from engaging in ignorance or deceit. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 07:21, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I didn't quote everything because most of what you said doesn't have anything to do with the discussion. We're not dicussing capitalism here, we're dicussing if Milton Friedman is a wingnut, and if someone who doesn't know what he thinks is capable of deciding if he is or not. You're making a strawman because my argument is not that they are perfect, that's a slippery slope. As I said, I'll talk to another sysop, I hope he has studied more than you though. 2804:14C:5B72:8664:F008:A271:F388:B334 (talk) 12:41, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Fucking indent your motherfucking posts! ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:59, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Hey... I decided to make an account[edit]

So I never got a clear answer is it okay if I just make suggestions on the wiki? Because I'm really bad with structureSt.~Emi (talk) 19:53, 19 March 2020 (UTC)St.~Emi

Short answer: Yes. Longer answer: We do appreciate constructive edits to mainspace pages. Bongolian (talk) 20:39, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
We also appreciate destructive edits that are actually funny. At least I do. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:44, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

So what?[edit]

Even if it was a "coup", it does not mean RW should treat it as something bad given that Morales was clearly trying to be president for life. I thought left-wing dictators were treated as bad as right-wing ones.--Alfa913 (talk) 18:58, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

"Even if it was a "coup""... Sigh... It was a coup d'etat. It was a textbook case of a coup d'etat. It's like saying the French Revolution wasn't a Coup D'etat because you like the results. That's what the words mean. "it does not mean RW should treat it as something bad" I quote now RW mission statement, subsections 3 and 4: "Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism;" and "'Analysis and criticism of how these subjects are handled in the media.'" So, given coup d'etats generally lead to authoritarian regimes in a broader historical framework, and especially in a contemporary framework, yes criticizing the coup and all of its participants falls within RW's purview. "that Morales was clearly trying to be president for life." Hearsay. "I thought left-wing dictators were treated as bad as right-wing ones." Morales wasn't a dictator. He didn't have that kind of power. It's not like he made a second assembly stuffed with loyalists a la Maduro. Sheesh. Have you done any research on this subject? Because your argument seems to be "if people I like do something, it's good. If people I don't like do something, it's bad." ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:03, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Um, no. It's an absolute fact Morales wanted to perpetuate himself in power like his buddy Chavez, it's not hearsay. And no, again, Añez's government isn't "authoritarian". Something tells me you'd be applauding if it were the other way around, Morales (or other moonbat) taking out a right-wing president (by which I just mean remove from power, ok?). Not sorry about what I think, again.--Alfa913 (talk) 20:36, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Given your comments, you wouldn't care one iota if Morales was or was not guilty. He's a "socialist" and "socialism" is bad. Ergo, he is bad, ergo his enemies are good. Congrats, you're using the same logic that led to the US playing kingmaker during the Cold War. Also going out of their way to ally with Fascists. As for whether I would back left-wing dictators over right wing ones... You are wrong. You don't know my views on anything other than they clash with yours on Morales. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:22, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

For this. Cosmikdebris (talk) 03:07, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I was this [ ] close to collapsing it myself, but deleting it works too. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 03:11, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
@Cosmikdebris Don't thank me, thank that strange masked man, Zorro! ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:15, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Per last block[edit]

Not sure that that can be considered a "legitimate problem for the site," my dude. Explain your reasoning. /spɻɪgi:nə/ (/tɑ:k/) (/kɑntʃrɪbju:ʃʊnz/) @ 03:32, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

@Spriggina Simple. These constant fights in the Saloon do nothing for anyone. Not for the participants, and not for the lurkers who read them. They inflame tensions and cause unneeded stress and drama. This can be distinguished from mild venting or a heated debate by the levels of sheer toxicity. I'm serious, comments in the Saloon are starting to resemble some of the nastier comments from FSDT and WHTM highlight reels. So what am I to do? Let them continue? Tell them to stop? You and I both know people aren't listening to reason here. Ergo, we take the problem away, thus solving it. At least until after the primaries. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:41, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
I know I am not the user to suggest this, but be the change you want to see in the world and all that so here goes-maybe we should consider shutting down the saloon bar altogether, or at least on every election cycle that will have a democratic primary. Drama happened in 2016, it is happening now, and judging by the fact that Biden is a milquetoast I don't see this "world is on fire" mindset going away anytime soon, which will only make political discourse more toxic as the years go by as people are more passionate about what is at stake. I do not know what it was intended for originally but the saloon is right now is not only a lightning rod, there is really no scenario where it is anything else.-Flandres (talk) 04:07, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
I do understand the point GC is making, but I think you may be right - if our only two options to prevent this are mass blanking user discussions and shuttering the Saloon Bar for a year, I would prefer the latter. /spɻɪgi:nə/ (/tɑ:k/) (/kɑntʃrɪbju:ʃʊnz/) @ 04:41, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Article deleted for no reason?[edit]

Hi, can you restore the Jonathan Kane article Bongolian edited? It was deleted for false reasons by EK.

Ek claims the article "doxes" someone, but all his information is public and he discloses his Wikipedia activity/account.

There was no vote deletion page even made and EK continues to abuse their moderation by deleting pages for false reasons with no consensus.

Ek's dubious argument is it doxes a Wikipedia named Captain Occam as Jonathan Kane - but he identifies with his real name on various Wikipedia related blogs and forums:

"Hi, this is Jonathan Kane / Captain Occam. I've just stumbled across this post, and I've got an idea who the author is, because there are only a handful of people who know the details you've mentioned about Mathsci's family, and some of the other information here was only shared with selected people at Wikipediocracy. I won't say who I think you are in case you'd prefer to keep that private, but I will say that I think it's too bad you aren't very active at WO anymore. I'd have appreciated your help with the blog post we ran a few months ago about about Roger Davies. Metro2 (talk) 23:45, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie please also see Bongolian's talk. Metro2 (talk) 23:49, 1 April 2020 (UTC)