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

Think you'll like this[edit]

Ɖøn Ĵuan (talk) 13:32, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
@Don Juan Glory to the Educated Proletariat!! Another Comrade has joined our cause!! ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:11, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas[edit]

Merry Christmas, GrammarCommie. I hope that you have a fantastic Christmas and a happy new year! Season greetings! 2Cute4U (talk) 12:44, 20 December 2018 (UTC)


You are reactionary scum! — Unsigned, by: / talk

Actually I'm quite moderate. That is to say I am not the Neo-Conservative you accuse me of being. You on the other hand are a troll seeking to inflame emotions for your amusement to compensate for stunted social growth. When you're ready to grow up and actually debate I may actually be interested in discussing points, but until then your opinions and assertions mean jack fucking shit. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:07, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Restore my spam![edit]

I fully recommend restoring the Dove Rose Smith article. This is a notable person. 2Cute4U (talk) 14:20, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

@2Cute4U Bullshit. Do I need to start listing your other accounts or are you going to behave? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:23, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Why do you have to be have that conscending tone? I do not appreciate that! why can't we just be mature and speak like proper adults? 2Cute4U (talk) 14:25, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
@2Cute4U Because you're a troll. Your edits on this site under your accounts have only been to disrupt others and amuse your own childish ego. And if you keep edit warring with me when you were too lazy to set the topic I will block you for an hour. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:29, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Well I won't then! Can we get along, please? 2Cute4U (talk) 14:30, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
@2Cute4U Probably not, but you can start by improving your behavior. That means not trying to make your attention seeking vanity articles. That means actually doing something besides sitting on your ass or trolling. That means quitting your sealioning bullshit. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:34, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Why do you hate me? I will stop the bullshit! Just, please, let's get along. I will prove to you that I am mature. 2Cute4U (talk) 14:35, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Troll Ɖøn Ĵuan Harass 14:37, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Scientific racism[edit]

Enlightenment "scientific racism", which includes the work of Linnaeus and Darwin, does not meet contemporary standards of formal science. But it is false and misleading to dismiss it all as "pseudo-scientific bull shit". This is a forum for discussion, not defamation. — Unsigned, by: Jstrocchi / talk / contribs

@Jstrocchi Darwin? A racist? In which universe? That aside, calling the idea that skin pigmentation has anything to do with neurological and psychological capabilities bullshit is calling a spade a spade. The mere idea of it is ludicrously childish and naive, such that it has nothing to add. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:16, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Race is primarily about geneological ancestry, not skin pigmentation. Indians, at least of high caste, likely have darker skin than Japanese. Yet they are racially closer to Europeans, as they are both descended from the Yamanaya, the proto-Indo-European race that erupted out of the Ponti-Caspian steppe in the Chalcolithic Era, migrating West to Europe and East to India.
Darwin was a racist by contemporary standards in the universe I inhabit (dunno about you comrade) He posited that regionally segregated interbreeding populations of hominids inherited adaptive traits specific to their ecological niches, causing racial differentiation.
Darwin is pretty clear on this from the get go. The title of his magnum opus is: On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life emphasis added.
He fleshed this out in his great book on human nature. The Descent of Man
The variability or diversity of the mental faculties in men of the same race, not to mention the greater differences between the men of distinct races, is so notorious that not a word need here be said. There is however no doubt that the various races when carefully compared and measured differ much from each other as in the texture of the hair, the relative proportions of all parts of the body, the capacity of the lungs the form, and capacity of the skull, and even in the convolutions of the brain. But it would be an endless task to specify the numerous points of difference The races differ also in constitution in acclimatisation and in liability to certain diseases Their mental characteristics are likewise very distinct chiefly as it would appear in their emotional but partly in their intellectual faculties Every one who has had the opportunity of comparison must have been struck with the contrast between the taciturn, even morose, aborigines of S. America and the light-hearted talkative negroes.
Just a friendly suggestion: tone down the vitrioloc rhetoric to 11. You might learn something, or at least save on orthodontic expenses if you tried that on in bars I used to frequent.Jstrocchi (talk) 06:02, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
@Jstrocchi Learn to format, I just spent two minutes reformatting your last post. On "The origin of species", that would be the name of the first edition, all subsequent editions dropped the second half of the title. This is mainly because "races" in this context is an antiquated colloquialism for species and anthropological classification as a whole, one that was quite obviously misleading to later readers. Also, don't just bring up a book just to quote the title then move on to a quote from another book, that's just lazy. On the quoted section of "The Descent of Man", it would appear as if you have a point, though there are other on this site who might be better equipped for slogging through the entire volume to be sure. As for my "vitrioloc rhetoric" as you put it, what has been uttered thus far isn't even close to my worst, so I would appreciate it if you would knock off the tone policing, since you appear to be quite deaf on the subject. Finally, why is this on my talkpage rather than that of the article in question? The subject of this disagreement is not I but a portion of the "Racialism" article. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 15:26, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Science 2.0 is STILL GOING![edit]

Hey, I thought you might just want to know... LogicNSuch/PsychicLie/whatever you want to call him is still making videos over on Science 2.0, and they're really bad. Pathetic. Willthenut (talk) 23:25, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

@Willthenut My response is complete and utter apathy. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:59, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
The latest one on Bigfoot is the worst I've ever seen. Willthenut (talk) 04:57, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
@Willthenut Let me put this in more blunt terms. I don't giving a god's anal-humping rat's ass about those channels. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 05:05, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, Ok, sure. Willthenut (talk) 18:07, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Is the Bigfoot one really stupid, though? It is, right? Willthenut (talk) 20:23, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
@Willthenut Here's a tip, since you want me to give you the benefit of the doubt. Don't act like that self-promoting, unimportant, childish, moron. Or, if you are that person, get lost. I don't exist to feed people's need for approval, nor do I intend to. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:26, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Well, I'm not LogicNSuch, so i'll just step out of your talk page, here, and let you rant. Willthenut (talk) 20:33, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
@Willthenut You can prove that by not behaving in the same manner as them. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:36, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
You can rest assured now, GC, dipshit here has been binned in honor of his commendable contributions to our glorious wiki. Ɖøn Ĵuan Harass 20:43, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Apologies for an accident[edit]

Ooops...sorry. I removed too much of the line. Thanks for fixing it.Ariel31459 (talk) 01:56, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

@Ariel31459 It's fine. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 02:40, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Self-fulfilling prophecy[edit]

In an earlier conversation, you suggested that the stock market was about to crash and cause another major recession. I would like to point out that this may well be an instance of a self-fulfilling prophecy, as our expectations may well become reality. If people become pessimistic, they tend to save more and invest less. Lower demands for stocks cause their prices to fall. This leads to a vicious cycle that becomes a recession. Nerd (talk) 17:42, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

@Nerd I am aware of the potential impact of my statement. The reason I went ahead and made it anyway is because I don't think my podium is large enough to have that big an effect overall, meaning it's relatively safe. That being said, I have this on good authority, as well as checking this on my own. the upper classes are already beginning to behave in a manner similar to how they behaved before that last crash, (investors avoiding their clients at rubber chicken dinners, more panic than usual on the trading room floor, a slow but steady drop in the overall market that last time led to a major crash, etc) This leads me to believe that the panic has already begun and that my on cynical noting of this will have little to no affect on the market as a whole, though I am somewhat flattered that you think I'm that important. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:51, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Actually, Comrade, what I had in mind was that the collective mindset of individuals can certainly have a big impact on the market. If only a handful of people are pessimistic, then their effect could be immaterial. But if a critical mass of people behave this way, we could see a chain reaction. I generally do not pay attention to short-term trends in the stock market, knowing how volatile it can be. People panic or cheer just because of something in the news which may well have no effect on their lives. Its long-term trend is what interests me. Stocks being worth more than they were, say, ten years ago, means that the economy has grown. High prices mean higher demands and overall confidence. Nerd (talk) 18:11, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
@Nerd My point was that there appears to be a lack of confidence due to certain market behaviors, that lack of confidence exasperates the existing market behaviors as people panic, i.e. panic of a major stock dip causes a loss of confidence in that stock, which causes it to drop further than if panic had not set in. This is panic appears to be spreading, causing even more panic, further increasing the scale of the problem. This pattern of behavior was observed prior to the previous major crashes, and is thus likely to indicate another crash. Me noting this on my proportionally tiny corner of the internet is unlikely to influence the larger behavioral trend one way or the other. Thus I felt justified in noting the larger behavioral trend on a few related topics. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:22, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm not disagreeing with you, mate. I was merely describing a possibility. I will point out, however, that the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 has seen is disapproval ratings dropped when people realized how much more of their money they get to keep, though this comes at the expense of spiraling federal debt. It is definitely something to look into. Some people definitely want a crash. For example, if a housing bubble bursts, houses become more affordable. Nerd (talk) 18:33, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
The stupid tax thing was exactly why it's a bubble now. Moreso at least than an internet rando posting a vaguely accurate prediction that no institutional investor will ever see. Stock buybacks became the predominant way to spend the corporate tax cut part. What do you suppose above-market buybacks due to the short and long value of a stock? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 05:13, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I already vandal binned them.[edit]

They wasted their only edit for the half hour on calling you a commie. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 22:07, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

@Ikanreed I always found such childish testing to be rather odd. I mean think about it, only on the internet could someone warn you to not behave in a certain way or suffer stiff consequences... And then be completely ignored in favor of stupidity. When you apply this same logic to real life such behavior doesn't lead to repetition, if only because humans dislike painful lessons enough to only need one or two in order to get the message across. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:36, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Catch 22[edit]

The quote is from the book. (my favourite book of all time - I've bought it at least five times after wearing it out or losing it) Scream!! (talk) 17:54, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

@Scream!! Then the quote should list the title and then state the chapter or page number. Making sure quotes are properly sourced is my latest pet peeve. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:56, 6 January 2019 (UTC) Scream!! (talk) 17:57, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
@Scream!! Thank you! I'll add it immediately. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:03, 6 January 2019 (UTC)


I'm sorry about the confusion on Zionism. I'm trying to make the page better by removing overly-biased content with sketchy sources. I don't want to edit war, or constantly get reverted. I'm on the talk page with ikanreed, if you'd come join me.
And the whole different IP thing is dynamic IPs, not me making any effort to evade scrutiny. I'd make an account, but I got burned by Wikipedia and I don't want to deal with all this again. (talk) 23:34, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I tend to get finicky about removing sourced content. Add to that the fact that multiple individuals have attempted to remove "bias" (read as "stuff they don't like about things they do like") from articles and I tend to be especially wary. That being said I didn't see the talkpage discussion so... I'll remove the article lock and restore the changes for now. Not accusing you, just letting you know where I'm coming from. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:38, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Oh, absolutely! I get that. The thing is, what I was removing wasn't sourced (the "bloody hands" thing wasn't in the source, questionable as it was, and the "nazis similar to zionists" a nasty bit of snark) or it wasn't mentioned in the source given (the F-16s). There's stuff I don't like in the article, yes, but that's not what I'm removing. I'm removing the toxic 'and' false stuff, and I'll leave edit summaries summarizing that. (talk) 00:16, 11 January 2019 (UTC)


If you are born in a certain country and live there for much of your life, at least, then you have every right to be considered a "native inhabitant" of that country and call the mainstream culture(s) and customs of that country "native". That was my point. We talk about the status quo, and such terminology is perfectly appropriate. Moreover, the "conservative view" by definition opposes change, and so should be described as such. There is no need for inflammatory language. Nerd (talk) 04:49, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

@Nerd Look between the changes, look long and hard, then go look at similar changes to the article. (There should be a few.) It practically screams whitewashing and excuses for "Blood and soil" type nonsense. Further, I hope you are aware, given that it has come up in the saloon bar, and you participated in the discussion, that the common definition of Conservatism and U.S. "Conservatism" are not one and the same. The former definition favors the status quo with a slight tendency for gradual social change over time, while the latter definition is an umbrella term for a hodge-podge alliance of right-wing factions with little to no clear ideology beyond "left-wing bad". ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 05:03, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I am aware that there is no clear direction for "conservatism" in the U.S. at the moment because the movement is quite diverse. But then again, the movement is quite diverse. Not everyone opposes illegal immigration for racist or xenophobic reasons. Check out the poll results I linked in the Saloon Bar. A clear majority of Americans think illegal immigration is a problem, and "conservatives" are not the majority. But no, I will not contest the edit.
Speaking of political polarization, from my personal observations, "liberalism" in the U.S. at present is much the same way, except with opposite views. Some people want to do something just to spite the other side, dubious benefits to the country be damned. Binary thinking is not your friend. No wonder why some folks tune out, sometimes even during elections. Nerd (talk) 15:34, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
@Nerd I don't necessarily disagree with you, illegal immigration is a clear issue with no easy solution sight. However, the toxic rhetoric from the more xenophobic elements poisons any discourse on the matter, throwing empathy away in the name of "purity". Likewise, a noticeable portion of "Liberals" (read: the loose-knit left-wing coalition) fail to understand that letting immigrants in automatically simply isn't practical, given the needs such a wave of human beings would require. The moderate, centrist, position is to reform and streamline the process by which new citizens are admitted, a grey area which few are willing to commit to it seems. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 15:47, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Yeah. Results from that poll show that a clear majority wants to fix that in a sensible manner, using electronic verification of immigration status before hiring and giving a path to citizenship for those already in the country. But it is a minority that is the most vocal. I suspect this is part of the reason why the U.S. is considered a flawed democracy; the correlation between public opinion and official policy is tenuous. Nerd (talk) 15:55, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Stop changing my indentation![edit]

I mean to reply to who I thread to reply to. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 03:43, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

@Ikanreed Fine, but I'm filing this with the Party. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:44, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Inquiry on retirement[edit]

May I ask why you are leaving? Nerd (talk) 15:58, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

@Nerd I'm done with UT's and similar terminally stupid bullcrap. I can't fucking handle people losing their shit every time some hollow meaningless drivel gets pumped out, just because they're too intellectually shallow to understand how a psychological campaign works. I'm also tired of this stupid "change bad, progress bad, encouraging people to improve themselves and others bad" mentality. It's getting to the point where the stress is messing up my ability to sleep effectively. So I'm done and I'm out. I wish everyone in the project the best of luck, and hope you try to look at things from multiple angles, not just the common or appealing ones. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:06, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Sorry I'm not up-to-date. But what's UT? Nerd (talk) 16:28, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
@Nerd UT is UnlicensedThinker. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:28, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Hello GrammarCommie, we didn't always agree but you were a valuable sysop, the wiki will be worse without you. Commie Lib (talk) 17:34, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── If you wish, come join me over in Wikipedia. I have been spending more and more time over there. There may be fewer opportunities for contributions but the community over there is rather nice. Nerd (talk) 17:42, 18 January 2019 (UTC)