User talk:Ikanreed

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

If you leave me a message, I will be unreasonable and pretend answering your post is an enormous pain. This is a lie, do not believe me.


[edit] Okay, so I'm curious

What's your perspective? (talk) 17:31, 25 August 42015 AQD (UTC)

I could say I'm a utilitarian humanist(with a mind towards sapient life) but I suspect you mean something more specific, like this squabble that's going on. In which case: oh my god it's so exhausting, and I have opinions about the subject that spawned the arguments, not the argument itself. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:00, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, I can certainly agree about the exhaustingness. There's many interesting things we can discuss about morality and Israel, but for now I'd like to address just this one topic: what's your opinion on Avenger's antics and the overly apologetic perspective he pushes? (talk) 20:58, 25 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
eeeeeeeeeeehhhh. I don't much like like any whitewashing of crimes against humanity, but I'm not going to get going to get incensed at every single change that moderates our phrasing about Israel, given how complex the broader context is. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 21:07, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
I just don't like the incessant de-legitimizing and demonizing of Israel that has been going on in the antisemitic recesses of the Internet for way too long. I was shocked to discover that even though RW has its fair share of this already, it is even able to attract people like User:-Mona- who think there should be even more of that Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:10, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
So... you like playing Israel's PR agent? At least you're honest about not being primarily concerned with what is factual and what is not. (talk) 21:13, 25 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
This is a false dilemma.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 21:17, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
It is? If the primary concern is to depict a subject favourably then it follows that the primary concern isn't to depict things factually. (talk) 21:21, 25 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
(edit conflict) Most of the claims of the anti-Zionist crowd are simply factually wrong. Those that aren't are presented in a way that they could at least be considered misleading, if not wrong. And if we had the same standard that is applied towards Israel towards all other countries in the world, there would be hundreds of pages of legitimate criticism against Sudan, Saudi Arabia and North Korea... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:18, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Sure, some regimes are more often publically criticized than others. The way to solve that isn't to lie more about the regime you think is getting too much attention. (talk) 21:25, 25 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
Care to quote me on a lie to prove the error of my ways? I have tried to the best of my knowledge and ability to be factually accurate Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:06, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Ugggggggggggggggggggggggh. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 12:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
You were saying? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 14:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

[edit] You've been nominated!

Thought you could escape from it, eh? ;) (talk) 02:08, 10 November 42015 AQD (UTC)

Oh, fine. I could be one of those moderators who doesn't do anything. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:16, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Active techs

Yea, was just basing it on edits. Also, people tend to seek out the active techs, so. :L RW needs moar Ikanreed! FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 23:02, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Good call on the RV talk page

As you could probably gather quite clearly from what I wrote, my dox/troll/offsite drama alarms were starting to flare up as well... About the last thing we want is any of that infecting the site. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:02, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:05, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Your concern of RW's political articles

I think there is a point to be made that covering these articles isn't missional but I think we need to spotlight certain politicians who are involved in actions that result in authoritarianism or who's careers are marred by conspiracies. I would support cutting down various articles but we would have to compile several pages. The most likely way to do this would be to concentrate on policies they support or oppose and compile those issues in sections. I doubt this will happen since the community didn't care about various political edit wars until they became a continuous problem.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 19:26, 23 June 2016 (UTC) 19:26, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Nomination for RationalMedia board election

You've been nominated to the RationalMedia Foundation election. Please accept or decline; if you accept, you may wish to campaign.

Pls? oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 14:52, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry for this word vomit, but I'd like your input

Hello Ikanreed! You seem a knowledgable person, and I was wondering if you could give me an honest appraisal of Aneris' statements here (never mind the video the thread is about, unless you want to of course, though I haven't seen it). But first, some background. Why do I ask you this? Well...

What was first intended to be the short question posed to you above somehow branched out to a much more general (series of) question(s), I suppose partially inspired by the discussion held between you and Aneris on the Intersectionality talkpage (in which I found myself in agreement with you). Now, it's pretty rude to ask a (series) of semi-vague questions accompanied by this much text, but since I somehow already wrote it, I might as well let fly and see what happens... TL;DR is a valid reply. Excuse the rambling nature of the whole production.

First of all, I'm a voting feminist, and I see the validity of approaches like intersectionality (e.g., your points made on the Intersectionality talkpage). On the other hand, I'm a natural science geek, and vehemently not a postmodernist (and realise that my university background is in philosophy, logic and the history of ideas and learning) in the same way that I'm a fan of the analytic school of philosophy, and less of the continental school (varying from "that guy is a crank" to "this guy is a mixed bag of awesome and derp" when perusing continental thinkers). Analytical philosophy has its cranks too, of course. But shooting from the hip, my general impression is that analytic philosophy is woo (quite a lot) less often than continental philosophy is (some of which is notably woo).

However, I do have a some nostalgia for figures like Marx (and quite a lot for Freud and psychoanalysis in general), though my overall appraisal of these figures and the schools they spawned is rather snarky when push comes to shove, and lots of their specifics were (and are) of course way off. Regardless. I certainly count myself as a classic rather than a romantic thinker (I'm about 85% classical and 15% romantic based on that video), appreciating enlightenment values over woo-laden romanticism.

Most of all however, I'm very socratic towards all of this. All knowledge is stipulative, as I learn new things I learn the extent of my ignorance at a greater pace, I see myself as a student and not a teacher, I'm not politically active at all (outside of voting every four years) because I don't know if I'll ever reach the stage where I feel sufficiently confident about any particular view to act on it in the real world... And so on.

My question is the following - what's your take on the quote and the sources brought up by Aneris? As someone who seems to be in the "gender studies loop", are you hostile to enlightenment values, and if yes/no - why/why not? Why would someone imply that you are, if you aren't?

In my own admittedly broad (yet atleast somewhat comprehensive) studies of feminism (based largely on these two neat books, aside from my courses in History and The History of Ideas and Learning) which coincided with my path to becoming the feminist I am today, I learned that there are many crank schools of feminism. I've also learned that these aren't mainstream by any stretch, and naturally, I know that the problem with those interpretations aren't any real impediment to the actual mainstream project of feminism (just as perpetual motion machine cranks aren't a threat to the enterprise of actual physics).

Anyone with even a basic understanding of feminism knows that, much akin to science (though more to philosophy at times), there is fierce internal debate over everything. This is, of course, very good. Whatever the problem may be, it's certainly not that "some viewpoints aren't allowed" (Galileo gambit?). If that's all you've heard, you've been preached to by zealots (either fringe feminists who actually think that, or by MRA's dissapointed that their "egalitarian" views weren't well recieved).

To me, "Feminism" is as wide a term as "politics"; you don't claim to be "for" or "against" politics (a truly meaningless hipster statement) - you place yourself on the spectrum of politics (unless you're a crank, that is). The same is true for feminism, in my view; saying you're "against feminism" just means you've understood nothing about the plurality within feminist thought, let alone implying either that: you're against social justice (in the race/gender/class supremacist sense), or that: you argue that any meaningful conversation on social justice could somehow be held outside of the scope of feminism (which I highly doubt). But I digress (and don't get stuck on the false dilemma I just gave you).

During my time at university, I was bullhorned by a rabid Feminist InitiativeWikipedia's W.svg supporter (which is a fringe crank party about as respectable as the US libertarian party, and I say that as a feminist and politically a social democrat/welfare capitalist/social liberal). She insisted that HermeneuticsWikipedia's W.svg were literally "more important than all of physics" and abrasively argued that atoms didn't exist, trying to Alex Jones me into admitting that "water wasn't H20" and so on. As an empiricist, rationalist (and anti-idealist), I thought this was nuttier than squirrel shit. As a feminist (and I don't mean of the Christina Hoff-Summers type either, mind you) I didn't at all feel a compelling connection between having to deny the existence of atoms to being a "non-shill feminist", as she put it.

On the other hand, I'm also very wary of MRA-esque STEMlords and their ways of viewing the world, in the Sargon of Akkad and GamerGate sense. To me, they come off as just a ****hair away from unironically using terms like "cuck" or "cultural marxism". At university, I've also met STEM people who were perfectly nice, but who - for some reason that psychoanalysis can probably explain - won't relinquish some odd neoreactionary/antifeminist streak. And that freaks me out a lot, actually.

My impression from hearing them discuss feminism and "social justice warriors" is that; these people have absolutely no idea what they are actually against, to be frank. And, mind you, the hermeneutics girl couldn't even name the four fundamental forces her ideology treated with such disdain if her life depended on it. And I bet she considers herself educated in the least, probably even an intellectual of some stature. *Sigh*

Now, I know I'm all over the place here in a sense (they called Socrates "the gadfly", aka "annoying dickhead", for a reason). And I'm not saying you're an authority on any of this, just as Aneris isn't one either (nor am I or anyone else). But that's fine, because I'm not here looking to get further "nailed down" than I already am (and thankfully that's not much, in most senses).

I'm here because I just wanted to ask you to weigh your view against his on the matter, and to flatly ask you if what he cites is - in your opinion - pure manufactroversy, or if it is actually impossible to hold (my words) "enlightenment-oriented, postmodernist-critical, romanticism-critical, continental philosophy-critical, pro-analytic philosophy convictions" yet not agree with Aneris' conclusions? Because I know I do the first (I hold the general views listed), so I wanted to ask you about the second (is he really entirely right?) because I trust you to help me make sense of this. Would you disown me for holding the general views I just listed within quotation marks, or do you perhaps even share them with me to some extent?

Because so far in your and Aneris' discussions, I find myself agreeing with you, even though Aneris claims the side most in line with the views listed above (my views). And to adress the hypothetical, I wouldn't be comfortably deaf to the implications that would need to ensue if you yourself chimed in with him here; basically agreeing that his quote there (the initial link) was highly relevant (and not a quote mine), and that it should powerfully inform the views of someone like me in regards to the whole thing being discussed by Aneris in the link I gave. That would freak me out. I'm just not convinced that that is the actual case at all, so I want your two cents here.

Because as a sceptic and a syncretic thinker, I'm happy to introduce myself as an actual feminist (aside from just being a supporter of the cause), while at the same time loudly bashing pseudoscience and atom denial. But in real life, I keep running into these homewoven sack-wearing hermeneutics muppets and these STEMlord alt-righters, who both try to convince me that I'm a walking paradox for not skipping out either on the science or the feminism, and I don't trust either one of those two types of people to give me the time of day, let alone to educate me about anything.

But I'm intellectually honest enough generally, as a person, to say that if something has to go, I have to first be shown how come it must go. Which ties into Aneris' disconcerting quote (atleast it's disconcerting to someone with my general views).

Regardless, I hope this has given you some kind of view on where I'm coming from asking you all this. I'm just trying to stay attentive is all. And not put all my eggs in one basket (though try to populate good baskets with atleast a few!). Ultimately though, long before (and after) any other label applies, I am a firm sceptic. So, I'd like to collide your views with Aneris' here, in the hopes that doing so, I learn more about all this.

I'm sorry if this post comes across as a feverish mess (as you can perhaps tell, I'm not at all used to "taking camps - I just wanted to give you some kind of rundown of perspective), and I hope you feel like taking the time to reply to it. Thanks in advance buddy. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:36, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Nobody waterboard me over anything specific in this post, I'll go all politician and breakdance free! This is what happens when you give a keyboard to a man with ADHD and beer. Don't give keyboards to people like that. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:38, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
It's hard to give an answer here. For one thing, I'm neither post-modernist nor "post-modernist critical". Post modernism arose because many of the "objective" answers that 20th century modernism proposed were no such thing with further serious philosophical analysis. To "go full post-modern" and jump to the pseudo-skeptical conclusion that no claims have any more objective merit than any other is also absurd.
As such I tend to find anyone shrouding themselves in claims of being purely modernist tend, in general, to be full of it. Absolute bullshitters with less objective credibility than the post-modernists they denounce as too free with the truth, but they themselves often just cover their assumptions in a few half-hearted "science".
There is no answer to this. Radical skepticism about all claims of science happens, and it is a misapplication of the concerns that raised the post-modernist flag in the first place. Stemlord assholes who can't appreciate that there is nuance to virtually everything also exist. And they're not always alt-right, many of them are self-styled leftists.
So when you're looking at critical theory academics who are utter nutballs, and being concerned, remember too that there are PhD-having, nobel-prize-winning scientists who think that AIDS isn't caused by HIV. People making bad claims happens. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 22:37, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Wow, thank you for a great reply to such a shitty barrage of text and questions from me. And I do mean that, I'm humbled, not sarcastic. Whatever my question was, it probably wasn't very intelligent (to be honest). In retrospect, the reply you give contains an obvious right answer, though no less credit goes to you for formulating it so well.
And I mean obvious as in familiar - it is akin to how I already think. As you may have noticed above, I tried to apply all those labels because I thought they were helpful. Turns out, they only muddled the soup - a parallel to the argument strategies used by certain sea lions, I suppose, as a way to further induce the need to rally in any and all prospect converts.
You're right about the constant need for nuance - I've actually still got two other books on my reading list (I own all the Oxford Very Short Introductions and all of Icon Books' Introducing series... fills half a bookshelf on their own).
You also make a valid point about one of the threads that weaved postmodernism in the first place; one of the lead assignments I did for logic class was to study precisely why logical positivism didn't work, and why falsificationism wasn't the final answer to the philosophy of science. It is for good philosophical reason we find the (near-)objective via the intersubjective these days.
Now, I've already covered a lot of both postmodernist thought (and especially continental philosophy) in my prior university courses, or I wouldn't have been comfortable even using the terms; that being said, there can never be too much nuance for a skeptic. You are also right about STEMlords from the left; one industrial chemist I knew is practically a Stalin apologist.
Regardless, thank you again for your reply; I hope you don't think less of me for pressing Save page after having produced this banal brain fart of an essay. I do value your reply a lot, and I can't give you enough credit for taking these thoughts of mine for a spin. All the best, your friend Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:08, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
See the additional material I added to Talk:Intersectionality. But did you know that Objectivity can be oppressive? That's from the popular intersectional Everyday Feminism. You'll see familiar names in there, I mentioned before, too, like Patricia Hill Collins. Enjoy this quote:
Patricia Hill Collins gives a brilliant explanation of how positivism – a school of thought that values objectivity and provable arguments – benefits white men the most. She also points out that black feminists and womanists have developed an alternative form of epistemology, or way of understanding knowledge, that she refers to as “black feminist thought.” At risk of oversimplification, black feminist thought centers the lived experiences of marginalized people. It argues that subjectivity is valuable because people’s lived experiences are valuable – because people’s spoken truths are, in and of themselves, truths. And it argues against the idea that objectivity – which involves an emotional detachment from knowledge – is important in all academic fields. And this is an important perspective, particularly when exploring social justice. […]
Well, told you so. How long will RationalWikians remain in absolute denial? Need another one? How about 3 Reasons It's Irrational to Demand 'Rationalism' in Social Justice Activism. The three subheadlines say:
  1. Being Rational Has No Inherent Value
  2. Rationalism Is a Tool Made to Hurt Us
  3. We Are Enough Without Rationalism
/popcorn. Your turn, or perhaps go into ignore/block/shives mode, that's what your fellow SJWs would do by now. ~ Aneris 23:41, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to reply, here and at the talkpage you linked. That being said, I wish you wouldn't nail yourself to a cross every chance you get. It really turns me off. Furthermore, you happen to be discussing epistemology with a philosophy student here. One thing is certain, that positivism is crap and doesn't work. To your credit however, the suggestion that positivism somehow "benefits white men the most" is plainly nonsensical; near word salad. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:56, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
@Aneris: You calling others too smug to educate themselves about subjects may be the biggest hypocrisy I've ever fucking seen. I've never seen a argument by you that isn't a massive, gigantic and totally undue strawman entire fields of inquiry or classes of belief. You tend to be the most condescending ass this side of me. And when I'm condescending towards you, I at least feel like your own statements and arguments tend to justify it. Your thoughts tend to be almost impressively naive. Here, for example, you make the claim that "SJW's" are anti-rational. You back this up with nothing. Guess what dumbass: universal human equality is an enlightenment ideal. Proposing that society should value it more is about as anti-enlightenment as suggesting that governments should be more democratic, or that religion shouldn't dominate society. The philosophical basis for the ideal called "social justice" is well grounded in both philosophy and empirical observation. Your flabbergastingly dim-witted views are really getting exhausting and I wish sincerely you'd attempt to understand what the enlightenment is before accusing anyone of being opposed to it. I suspect your whole reason for claiming it is because you buy into stupid-ass narratives where criticism is denial of free speech. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:57, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
FuzzyCatPotato “almost wholly agreed”. I derided your usual cocksure denialism in a sentence or two, which is really the least problem (small selection) and you get caught up on a mild sting? How come you are buddies with abusive editors that are internet famous? Of course, this too, is well known (“the ingroup can do nothing wrong, but there's always an issue with outgroupers”), as is your displacement strategy (“I was in argument with someone and my own shortcomings made it more heated than it should have, but now that I ran out of arguments, I hate the other person because we had an argument”). The simple point is: my proposal was moderate, substantiated or can be assumed to be knowable or researchable. The only open question really is: to which degree is SJWism related to CRT, not whether it is. RationalWikis position is eccentric and paired with the usual cocksure attitude gives a strong Dunning-Kruger effect impression. I mean, how difficult is it, to glimpse at a postmodern encylopdia article, run an google errant on CRT etcetera. ~ Aneris 04:22, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Congratulations!

RWCrown.jpgᴠɪᴄᴛᴏʀʏ ɪs sᴡᴇᴇᴛRWCrown.jpg

Welcome to the 2016-17 RationalWiki board! Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 20:45, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I reiterate my campaign promise: it's a dull, tedious, and necessary job that needs to get done, and needs volunteers willing to do it. But thanks ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 21:09, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

[edit] A toast!

Congratulations, my friend! We made it. You made it! Th hug.gif

*Sniffle* You may now kiss the goat. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:53, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
I got beaten to it, but congrats!-DιαμοπdDιςc1(talk) 00:35, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
I scrolled really fast and my brain tried to convince me that you just wrote "I beat off to it". I need to undrink minus one fewer beers. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:38, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

[edit] A small suggestion

Now that you're a Board member, I think it'd be appropriate for you to say so at the top of your user page, along with maybe a disclaimer that what you say on-site isn't necessarily the official position of the Foundation. I also suggest, once DavidGerard gives you your fancy Foundation email address, linking that on your userpage, with an open invitation for questions.

(I mean, that's what I did. Though odds are you won't actually get questions. I had mine up for three years and I don't recall anybody ever asking me anything. It's more about letting people know you're open to questions in the first place.) Star of David.png Radioactive Misanthrope 19:12, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

An excellent suggestion. At the moment I still don't have a clear picture of my duties, but I'll do both of those. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:36, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Fuck you up the ass

Hldhkvg— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Freud would note that you have a fixation on male-male sexuality. Why do you think that is? ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:19, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Gay pride muthafucka.

We also support gay pride! :D You go, girl! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:37, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Alrighty then. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:41, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

[edit] (i'll pass on this slur though)

Hi. You're all a bunch of lying anti-White (slur) right? Just curious because I was going to put up a poster to that effect around my university. So if you could disprove that I would appreciate it. (talk) 19:04, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

BTW I'm at the Universities of London. (talk) 19:11, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Don't worry I'll photograph each one and send it to you. (talk) 19:12, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
If you'd be so kind as to sign each poster with your real name so your fellow students and administrators know who is providing them this wonderful service, I'm sure it will only turn out better for you. I mean, how else are they going to know that you've got the skills to identify random strangers on the internet as Jewish for debunking neo-nazi conspiracy theories. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:16, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Anything that gets people to visit the site would be great, thanks. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:22, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Very interesting response. You hate the term "(again removed)", and request people use their real name while you anonymously demonise White people. Very interesting. (talk) 19:24, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Yep. I'd prefer it not be on my talk page, thank you very much. And the demonizing white people bit makes me think that maybe you can't read sarcasm very well. Please, by all means, continue to make wild accusations about my ancestry and/or religion. Ooh, maybe I can make you even more sure that your dumbass ideas are true: I've been inside a synagogue on at least one occasion in my life. Look, your paranoid mind is even more sure now! ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:34, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Authoritarianism

I think you need to reread even rationalwiki's article on authoritarianism, because:

  1. Advocating mass murder =/= authoritarian (e.g. Sam Harris)
  2. Enforced position =/= authoritarian (e.g. Free SpeechTM)

Withoutaname (talk) 19:57, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Er, no. I'm pretty sure that, at the very least, an ideological perspective forced onto everything with government authority, such as described in lysenskoism is overwhelmingly authoritarian. I went a bit far reverting because I assumed you were making mass changes without having discussed it first, but a couple of those really were false positives. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:10, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Does Valerie Solanas support an ideological perspective being forced onto everything using government authority? Withoutaname (talk) 23:56, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Eh, probably not. Like I said, I went too far. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 01:27, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Why I blocked you more than zero

Your block looked to me to be longer and I wanted to draw your attention to the fact that your block reason was rather - I am sorry to say - stupid or at the least misguided. So could I please have my mop back? I won't block you for longer time again. This week. I am not the Ombud's man 21:46, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Haah! Don't be a dick to Ikanreed in the future, k? Th hug.gif Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:15, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Will try. Th hug.gif I am not the Ombud's man 17:22, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Meritocracy

I am not disrupting to make a point. Whether you realize it or not, rule based solely on merit (whose unconscious determination is based on some underlying axiom or dogma) is an authoritarian philosophy. Withoutaname (talk) 20:18, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

What is your point? I am not the Ombud's man 20:21, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Ikanreed is invoking No True Scotsman on meritocracy being an authoritarian philosophy simply because it offends his highly ideological libertarian viewpoints. He has yet to use any sort of contorted logic to explain how rule of the meritorious over the non-meritorious is not authoritarian. Withoutaname (talk) 20:26, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
How many times do I have to tell you guys? Troll Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:29, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Maybe we should coop the troll instead? I am not the Ombud's man 20:30, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
...But he's the funniest crank since Ken Ham! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:13, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Can I just be the first one to laugh at calling me libertarian? ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:39, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, you're stuck with a silver medal. I already ROFL'd hard at that jonanist. 21:12, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
But Ikanreed was the first to write it. And you know how the internet is about "first" I am not the Ombud's man 21:15, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Allright, fine, I'll go second.
@Withoutaname Serious.gif
Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:28, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Okay ikanreed, where do you fit on the political compass? Smug centrism? Withoutaname (talk) 22:54, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Hahaha. "Smug". 'Cause he's an asshole, right? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:02, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Are you ikanreed? Have you taken the political compass? If not, then shut the fuck up. Withoutaname (talk) 23:07, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Could you please maintain an minimum of civility? I am not the Ombud's man 23:33, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Why? Withoutaname (talk) 23:41, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
A prophecy that came true in the end, eh? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:44, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Are you ikanreed? Do you have anything to offer other than sarcasm? If not, then shut the fuck up. Withoutaname (talk) 08:31, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
THIS Political Compass? I'm sorry I thought you had a 1 dimensional oversimplification of politics, your 2 dimensional oversimplification is so much better. I'm a boring-ass liberal progressive: I believe in allowing individual freedom when those freedoms don't seem to unreasonably come at the expense of others(i.e. the liberal part), with a goal of developing a government that does as much as possible to improve the lives of all its citizens, attacking each current potential flaw with the best approach that the best analysis available implies obvious incremental improvement on that issue. I appreciate the idea of a marxist dialectic as a tool for analyzing those flaws, but don't really buy into the notion that a true communist society is possible or sustainable given human nature. And socializing the means of production should only be done when warranted by specific problems for which it's the best solution. If that sounds lame and boring, it's because it is. If that sounds libertarian, it's because you're a crazy tankie. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 14:23, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Blocking Aneris

Visual depiction:

[your wrist]   slap
[your wrist]  slap
[your wrist] slap
[your wrist]slap

Tsk. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 00:48, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

No seriously, he can go fuck himself with that duplicitous shit. I really really don't care. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 04:07, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
mildly You are not the only person done with him --Castaigne2 (talk) 20:52, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
What did Aneris do? Worzelpete (talk) 20:56, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Honestly, there's no harm to the wiki. I'm just tired to hell of the process he takes on talk pages. He's very willing to ascribe extreme positions to anyone and everyone for the sake of some ambiguous ultimate aim of defeating social justice. It's exhausting, it never raises any interesting points, and it is always the same subjects.
Like, I'm aware of the fallacy of suppressing dissenting views because they annoy you and how that undermines challenging yourself. But aneris does things like "So why you calling them 'racist', huh?" when I accuse people who say all of Islam is dangerous of being bigots, as if I failed to make that distinction. I just haven't seem him honestly represent the positions of anyone ever. And it's not adding to the discussion. I de-sysopped him so that next time I block him for that for a few hours, it can stick long enough to think about it. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 21:04, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Censoring, demopping Aneris

[your wrist]   the law
[your wrist]  the law
[your wrist] the law
[your wrist]the law

pls stap, this is legit against the rules FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 23:13, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

oh, and if you check User talk:Aneris, you'll see i agree with the problems Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 23:27, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
ugh, fine. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 04:34, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Just a Question

Hello, I'm kind of new here, so I'm just wondering: What's wrong with Aneris? I'm seeing this banner mentioning him in the Saloon, and the above discussion is about him. Just want to know. Thanks! RoninMacbeth (talk) 15:51, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

He's mostly just obnoxious as hell, with very little willingness to take an intellectually honest position, and has a strange obsession with the quite vague straw-men he calls "post modernism" and "relativism". It makes him exhausting to deal with (at least to me) because you never know what arbitrary belief you're going to be charged with having next.
All that would be fine, because hell, I make that kind of error from time to time myself, and don't expect perfection, but it gets tedious because all I've ever seen him do is bring up those boogeymen on talk pages or misrepresent what someone says.
So, I, personally, am really really reaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaalllly sick of him. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:07, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the welcome

Hi Ikanreed, thanks for your welcome. I answer you here, since I'm not sure what are the usual way to communicate in this vast world of wiki. PHP career is not so bad, but I guess it depends on the companies. If you do cool stuff and open source stuff, then you can be quite happy.

Since you proposed your help (On the other hand, if you need help with related to the Foundation or RationalWiki in general, please do not hesitate to contact me) and I'm a very new comer, I just have a question about RatiolalWiki policies and I don't know where to ask it.

I tried to edit the Wine article, just to add a "[citation needed]" about biodynamic wines supposedly "usually quite delicious". I saved it as a minor change with an explicite summary of the edit, but was warned that 'Warning: This action has been automatically identified as harmful' and I was asked to contact an administrator. I could not find where to ask. Could you help me and maybe give me a clue about the problem?

Thank you very much in advance :)

--Einenlum (talk) 19:23, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Dishonesty

You've claimed repeatedly, I was dishonest in some way. Of course I have a different view on the matter and it's also silly as far as I'm concerned since my argument and evidence is all I have, as opposed to your gang of mobsters. Since this looks like an area I can easily clarify or fix, I ask you straight away what you mean. Try to be as concrete as possible. I can help you out. You are free to revert this request and make it disappear, and I won't bother you again. But then I conclude that your accusation was just hot air. So what do you mean? ~ Aneris 00:39, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Why should he bother with you? --Castaigne2 (talk) 00:43, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
I mean, whether through incompetence or malice you seem to rarely approach the positions of others as they are actually presented. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 00:57, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
That's not concrete at all. I assume you mean the spat about Nawaz and racism that has led to the situation a few headlines above. I can explain that. First, there is context and I make it simple (yes, that's a lazy hedge, but I don't know how I can at once try to cut down on words and convey every nuance). Islamophobia is typically seen as a form of racism, as derived from bigotry against Muslims. You may not see it that way, but the islamophobia article specifically discusses it, and it's a common position of the so-called regressive left. Do you agree, or do you already dispute this? Now, you wrote these terms: "sighed the bigot", "not-racist-butt". Again, I don't mean to quote-mine. Everyone can please check the full context.
      Therefore, I see your comment in that tradition, and understood your comment as an accusation. In addition, you wrote your comment in reply to my spoof which made fun of a double standard, namely the curious attitude of those of the regressive left to always demand to treat muslims as diverse (where I actually agree), but then are then quick to denounce "whites" or "males" (or both at once) with a broadest brush possible. Okay, it flew over your head, fine. But I still wonder what was dishonest about it. Given the context, and given the words, wheren't I justified to ask you whether you “really regard Nawaz and Hirsi Ali as racists (and those who appear to doubt your assessment)?” This was not entirely a rhetorical question, you could have walked your assertions back a notch or two. ~ Aneris 01:30, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Whether type-of-discrimination-X counts as racism is wholly dependent on what definitions of race and racism you're using. The more pertinent question is, when considering solely the morally relevant elements, whether it's comparably deplorable. (talk) 01:45, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
For this question it's unimportant how you define it or whether this definition is acceptable, the connection is given through context (and article). ~ Aneris 02:05, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Eh, you were intentionally shifting the langauge away from anti-Muslim attitudes to a general accusation of racism because the latter was harder to contextualize. And now rather than trying to defend that decision, you're trying to pretend that my issues were with the difficulties of context, rather than you being obnoxious about the above. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 14:56, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Did you write "not-racist-butt" or did you not?
  • Do you know that islamophobia, which is the context around Islam-critics (Nawaz & Hirsi Ali in this context) carries the implication of racism? Do you follow the discourse? Did you read at least Wikipedia on IslamophobiaWikipedia's W.svg, which also points out that "[s]ome scholars have defined it as a form of cultural racism"? Did you see the Islamophobia article and read it? Did you notice that "racism" is the first headline?
How can you, in light of this possibly maintain I was somehow conjuring this out of thin air, as you imply? I've seen lots of bizarre things on the RationalWiki regarding denialism and I'm occasionally on the verge of thinking some people here are mentally challenged in some way, but this is one of the stranger things. You appear to not even have a zone of "reasonable leeway", which would allow you to see at least where other people are coming from. You literally used the word "racist" yourself and when played back to you are are completely unable to see why this could ever be? I'm sorry. Are you afraid that I carp on it when you just admit it was misunderstanding? I had (and have) no intention to do that. I wanted to have it cleared up, because this kind of "mindset" genuinely puzzles me. ~ Aneris 19:08, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Ooooooooooooh because I backhandedly implied that you're racist, that excuses your dishonest assertion that I said Ayaan Hirsi Ali was. People don't call you racist because they call everyone they criticize racist, that was pretty specific to you and your "oh the poor white men" routine that came out of nowhere. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:09, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Alright, in other words we needed half a dozen or so exchanges until you recognized your own assertions and you've upgraded from dishonest to racist now!? And this comes because you apparently never heard of the (fucking) "white male" talk of the SJWs? I don't believe it, but it's amazing! Thanks a lot for this powerful demonstration. ~ Aneris 00:42, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Oh look, Aneris trying to drag random-ass internet nobodies via youtube video(out of context no less) into to completely unrelated discussions because he simply can't differentiate the people he disagrees with.
Aneris, look, there's really only one solution here: go fuck yourself.
You might be thinking "ikanreed is just being insulting(again!) because he can't win a debate with me."
This is a mistake. I'm actually telling you to go fuck yourself
You might be thinking "I need to reply to this and deconstruct it with my superior logic, then I'll finally defeat the 'postmodernist' 'sjws' who are illogical, because I know it in my heart they are"
This is also a mistake. What you need to do, is go fuck yourself
You may also be thinking "You're using strawmen yourself by inventing these hypothetical replies for me and you can't actually know what I'm thinking and isn't that hypocritical?"
And that at least would be correct, but even then you really ought to still go fuck yourself, because I'm just so sick of you, and I swear I'm not the only one. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 01:45, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
"can't differentiate the people he disagrees with" Wait, could it be? Is Aneris an ideological racist*?(!!!) (talk) 04:19, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * By which I mean "prejudiced against an 'ideological race'", not ideologically committed to regular-style racism. (talk) 18:28, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
The orthodox understanding is that which you mock and critizise is rather the opposite of what you believe. Also, my comparison between two sets of broad brushs “The Muslims vs The White Male” which I mocked, had nothing to do with Ikanreed. At all. Ikanreed threw racism around afterwards, and masked that with the additional charge that this wasn't asserted (denialism), so that “dishonesty” was in the foreground. Confronted with it, Ikanreed responded according to DARVO (look it up), that is, after denialism, from “I did nothing, you wronged me” to Attack “I meant you as a racist”. Unless you are spreading more falsehoods, I leave the stage to you and you can now flip out as much as you want. ~ Aneris 05:52, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Oops, you didn't go fuck yourself. Seriously, you couldn't last the conversation about the subject of your dishonesty without drawing out even more intellectual dishonesty. I know you feel like I'm libeling you by telling you to stop being a dishonest piece of shit in conversations here, but I'm really just sick of exactly what you just did. Please just stop. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 14:58, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Adding a space

I don't that will actually work -- the spamtext variable is parsed through "rmspaces" which, well, removes spaces. (Otherwise something like S P A M wouldn't be recognized as SPAM.) Not sure how to fix -- any bright ideas? αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 18:39, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm one step ahead of you there, I tested it on the valid case first; it works. The trick is I think the routine strips spaces the user adds, but not for spaces added to the spamtext field. Honestly I'm a little wary of talking about all this where one of the obnoxious monadoxxers can figure out exactly what I changed and exploit it. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:44, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
What are monadoxxers? Worzelpete (talk) 18:53, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
They were BoNs and rednames who'd come in and post identifying personal information(which may or may not have been accurate) about User:Mona, after Mona had mostly LANCB'd. Presumably because they had some connection to the Israel/Palestine arguments Mona got themselves into. It was stupid. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:58, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Reminder cough

Meeting tomorrow. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 19:29, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Didn't I already confirm via email? ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:38, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Speaking of a mandate

It took six days after the election to announce Trump had one.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 02:28, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Not even one week. I shouldn't have been so damned generous. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 02:53, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

[edit] New World Ronin

This stuff is just a wondrous pyrotechnics show of dumb and cringe. We need an article on this site. Thoughts? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:27, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Could probably survive with just a listing on webshites. If you want to go through the effort of making a full page, I won't stop you, but I don't create a lot of articles myself. I think Fake news is my first and my second was a duplicate article for Quack Miranda Warning under a different name. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:51, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Fake news

I feel like the {{bs}} template could work well here: see Template talk:Badsource. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 21:19, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Mastering Swedish

All five episodes here. Best of luck! Th hug.gif Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:51, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

[edit] You've been nominated as a moderator

You've been nominated in the upcoming moderator elections. See the nomination at RationalWiki:Moderator_elections/Nominations. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 04:21, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

aww jeez, with my getting angry at people for being obnoxious I'm probably not the best choice, but for 8 slots there aren't a whole ton of nominations. I'll think about it, and maybe try to nominate someone better instead. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:35, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Spell checking is wonderful

Thanks. --Season03 (talk) 15:59, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

[edit] What's up with all the captchas

? NaughtyRuse (talk) 22:17, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh. Yeah. I can make those go away since you're clearly not a bot. Just a second. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 22:21, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

[edit] For your article on millennials

Ran into this today. I hope it's of any use, buddy — maybe to just get some neat quotes from:

If you liked this one, don't miss the "companion vid" that reflects further on comments left by viewers on the main video. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:59, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Oh, and here's a link to that other guy's lecture, "Millenials don't exist!". I haven't seen it myself, but — there you go. Apparently, it's by the same guy who's behind this (which I haven't seen, either). Oh well. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:04, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Man, what's with you and youtube videos lately, Percy? IdeaChannel is at least modestly well-editted infotainment, but it's still man-rants-at-camera format. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:43, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
It's the future, man. What, you think we'll have less digital media content in five years? Ten? Fifteen? More like; obligatory Google glass to even be able to interact with the hologram of Ken Ham in our augmented-reality article on him! Also, while that entire channel is indeed man-rants-at-camera content, your entire article is man-rants-on-webpage content. No biggie. Also, I kinda hoped that the thought would've mattered to you. Just wanted to show my support and all that. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:49, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Here's the thing about video formats: they're great for idly entertaining yourself, or communicating one or two stories about a subject. There awful at presenting information in an easily backreferenced, reviewable way. I don't mind they exist, but when it comes to using them as what you might call "sources" there's a degree of forced linearity to the information that makes it very hard to treat with any sort of structured analysis.
Podcasts, pundit shows, lectures, vlogs, and even documentaries all share this failing. They don't necessarily share the format that I've got active disdain for(opinionated person rants at camera, cut to vaguely related imagery), but none of them are things I'd cite. Not even on a site like rationalwiki. Others might, it's a wiki afterall. But I wouldn't. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that
Fair enough! And let me be clear that I don't confuse YouTube content for peer-reviewed research, exactly. Just like I don't confuse RW with an academic journal, exactly. Half the point of quotes are that "someone said something", however. That's the beauty of it — anyone can qualify! Regardless, I respect your choice. And when your millenial article reaches mainspace, I'll be there waiting... Hehe Th hug.gif Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:03, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Do feel free to contribute you see fit. It's not my article. It just looks worse than I'd want an actual article to be right now, so I'm keeping it out of mainspace. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:19, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

[edit] Someone got mad Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 18:59, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

"[Re: violence to trump supporters]", I kinda wanna know what lying ass submitted that. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 06:38, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Joey Salads? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:03, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
The actual context.— (talk) 18:21, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I seent it (though I might be totally missing something). Remember Salads' fake "social experiments" that meant to prove that black people are violent towards Trump supporters? He's done the same "violence-against-Trump-supporters"-schtick before as well (that time, faking violent Bernie supporters). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:54, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

[edit] I really wanted to answer the punching Nazis question

I really wanna punch him right in the face. I'm glad it happened. When your life is existent on literal white supremacy and you invite violence as means to your end, you should get a punch in the mouth. Also, no, that wasn't good, shouldn'ta done that.

Happy he got punched, really, but our team can't really be doing that shit. It's a stigma, like all liberals are pussies or complete hypocrites for not being pussies.

Not a solution, just a response. Gaul Dernitt (talk) 05:13, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

The only people disappointed with punch a Nazi are A. Nazis, and B. Liberals concerned about image. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:06, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Running joke today at work was "now get out there and punch a Nazi!" Still, to people who don't quite understand what's going on (usually because they aren't... beholden to facts or logic(or reading)), it adds legitimacy to Spencer's pseudoplight. Like, hey, he can't be a literal Nazi, so he's just being attacked murdered for having conservative opinions and liberals are terrorists. Super frustrating, because that's not really even a minced version of what my boss says. And he says it a lot...
So as much as I'd like to see Punch-a-Nazi packaged and sold, being concerned about image from a simple I don't want to hear about how the white man is oppressed standpoint, a cuck like me has gotta stay true to my general cuckiness.Gaul Dernitt (talk) 01:09, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

[edit] Your sig

Currently contains a link to [[Usertalk:Ikanreed]] instead of [[User talk:Ikanreed]]. Just to let you know. Christopher (talk) 08:35, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

My mistake, you appear to have fixed it. Christopher (talk) 08:38, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

[edit] What about?

You said he was right about somethings and wrong about others, what exactly are those things? — Unsigned, by: Machina / talk / contribs

[edit] This could be my hangover talking

But I'm sorry for not getting it faster (perhaps ending up hurting the joke). I actually hate taking over someone's joke, so that only happens by accident.

As "repayment" of sorts; I did Google it, and — dunno if you've already seen this, but regardless — this definition from UrbanDictionary left my sides split.

All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:59, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

[edit] Are you able to call now?

Re: board discussion. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 23:10, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

[edit] About Nazis and Tankies

Posting my comment here to get away from Rob.

Political violence on the left seems to be caused as a direct response to oppression. Communists recruit communists on Tumblr. Many LGBT+ minors on Tumblr are communists; my observation. There is jokes about being comrades, tankies, "red nightmares", killing the rich, and bringing on a bloody revolution. They have no friends who are affected by communism. They and their friends are only affected by the downfalls capitalism + society. Positivity posts state "Don't let society, your family or capitalism make you think you are worthless"; repeating the message the capitalism is bad over and over.

There is little support for the LGBT+ community. Communists; many of them LGBT+ themselves; on Tumblr have built a support network for LGBT+ people. They compose lists of suicide helplines, run advice blogs, help minors get away from abusive parents, talk each other out of suicide, and post positivity.

They see friends hurt by capitalism and society, therefore they want destroy "crapitalism" and replace it with communism. There are antifa recruitment posts on Tumblr, and antifa blogs.

I have seen minors suicidal because of Trump's victory. I thought my friend killed himself. There were suicide notes. When people are in danger; violence is justified, doxxing is justified, death threats are justified.

Many people seem to come to Tumblr as liberals and come out as communists.

Dismissal is to their standard response to criticism about communism. A survivor of a communist regime posts about how people shouldn't romanticize the Soviet Union- harassed and "oh that is false communist states so communism is awesome". And this somehow involves shoplifting. Shoplifting is justified as political action against capitalism. A woman gets fired as she couldn't stop a shoplifter; dogpiled. Her concerns dismissed as false, and lying. A response on how real shop employees that this communist blog knows doesn't care about shoplifting and how the reason the woman was fired was really capitalism, not shoplifters.

After all how could a community; communists; who benefits you, benefits your friends, and helps you in times of trouble be the villains?

And that's my nonsense grumblings about Tumblr.

ClickerClock (talk) 08:38, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Personal tools