User talk:Reverend Black Percy

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Wave.gifY helo thar — you big, beautiful baby boy!
Looking for my David Icke sandbox? Laugh at how stupid it looks here. Play thumb war with me over it here.
This page is automatically archived by Archivist
Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>

Citations Needed.[edit]

Sorry for the minor conflict on "Men's rights movement" with respect to reference 4. I take it that when a link is dead it is not acceptable to replace it by a citations needed notation? The proper procedure is then what? Report the dead link on the talk page? All the best...Ariel31459 (talk) 22:24, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

It's fine, friend. What I reacted to was a compound of the following four factors:
  1. The apparent sloppiness of the editor before you (and me).
  2. The fact that searching Google for the terms "good mangina project" yields a TON of potentially citable results.
  3. The fact that the MRA page is HIGHLY beset by whitewashing attempts, sealioning and general whataboutery.
  4. While adding a [citation needed] is perfectly excellent for any less contested page, said template is commonly employed by concern trollsespecially when used to blank an existing source, expired or not — in order to cast doubt on the veracity of the article at large.

As such... In this particular case, my dream scenario would be for someone who isn't editing from a laggy smartphone (like myself) to just replace the old link with one of the apparently many candidate links Google may provide. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:20, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I understand. You may have noticed my comment on talk page of "Gender Pay Gap." About one third of the references there are ng. I didn't touch the article for something like the reasons you have listed.Ariel31459 (talk) 00:43, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

vandal binning without warning[edit]

this user took notice to the matter that user @Reverend Black Percy vandal binned this user without any prior warning and this user holds the opinion that all actions of user rights management should be preceded with a warning.FAMAS (Talk) (Contribs) [[1]] [[2]] 06:41, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Smart move trying to vindictively strip me of my user rights. That's how you lose yours, effective immediately. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 08:56, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
The question is: why did he give them back less than a minute later? Christopher (talk) 14:48, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Actually, it really isn't. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:52, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

FAMAS: Focus your efforts on making one (1!) article, rather than proposing 50 "policy changes" and protesting when we don't enact them. This is a waste of everyone's time. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 15:28, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

in reply to users @Reverend Black Percy, FuzzyCatPotato, RoninMacbeth, and Christopher, this user asserts the fact that this user was testing the sysop systems and this user notes the fact and not opinion that the user reverend black percy acted in bad faith in total ratio in that the user did not bother to ask this user the reason for the removal and immediate reinstatement of the privileges and the user proceeded to block this user with blocked access to own talkpage and proceeded to propagate the lie that this user is attempting to revoke the rights of user reverend black percy, which this user has proven to be a lie and thus now raises the question of what this puts the image of the user into. this user is requesting a restoration of the privileges of this user.FAMAS (Talk) (Contribs) [[3]] [[4]] 12:50, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Hey @Reverend Black Percy Is it possible that FAMAS was acting in good faith despite being dumb? FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 17:12, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
I say let him out of the bin, but don't demote him until he earns it back. RoninMacbeth (talk) 03:22, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
At this stage he's blatantly "testing the sysop systems" in his own words. He's trolling - David Gerard (talk) 12:15, 23 July 2017 (UTC)


Yeah, I forgot to unset it. Thanks! RoninMacbeth (talk) 16:14, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

No problem, buddy! Th hug.gif All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:44, 21 July 2017 (UTC)


This discussion was moved to Talk:Nazism.
Remember to leave an archiving timestamp or this'll stay on your your talk page forever. Christopher (talk) 14:01, 21 July 2017 (UTC)


What did he do to deserve another block? RoninMacbeth (talk) 22:27, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Starin' at my sandals? That's a paddlin'. (Jokes aside: Fuzzy mistook his own good intentions for good sense and decided to interfere unblock FAMAS prematurely. Facepalm.png) It's OK though, he acted out of love, as do we all. Even nobs. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:43, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
I think that we can all agree we need to keep FAMAS as far down the protection hierarchy as possible, but what happens after his block expires? Since demotion is not a possibility anymore, should this be considered the prelude to a permaban? RoninMacbeth (talk) 15:15, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm a firm believer in rehabilitation (with a demonstrable will to cooperate being its first step). I also know relentless trolling when I see it. Between these two facts, FAMAS will act to decide his own future for himself. Nobody could — nor has the right to — stop him from doing so. We can only wait and watch him force our hands, regardless of which direction he choses for them (by his own conduct). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:44, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Jim Sterling quote[edit]

I don't like that quote because there's no way to rationalise it: it's basically saying that, if person X is being persecuted, it no longer matters if they're right or wrong. The problem is, that locks out discussion in both directions: according to Jim, not only can I not disagree with Anita, I also can't agree with her. I have to coast around in some weird philosophical neutral gear until Jim decides it's once again time to talk about the merits of her arguments rather than some other thing we for some reason can't talk about at the same time. You can't just declare a line of discussion "invalidated" by something that has nothing to do with it, that's a clear and blatant logical fallacy. The basis of ad hominem being a fallacy is that the argument has nothing to do with the person making it: therefore, other things that happen to that person are, by definition, irrelevant. Nog Bogmire (talk) 12:36, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Sterling meant that GG's actions had basically shifted the debate from "are women represented fairly enough in video games" (which is, admittedly, debatable) to "is it OK for people to send death and rape threats to people you disagree with" (which is fairly clear-cut from a sane perspective). Jim isn't the arbiter of what the discussion is, he merely points out what gamers turned the entire thing into. Watch the video, it's pretty good. RoninMacbeth (talk) 12:51, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I just looked at that video and in that context it makes sense, but the quote doesn't have that context: the extracted portion alone reads very differently to the whole argument. Nog Bogmire (talk) 12:53, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
The first time I saw the quote, I'd never even heard of Jimquisition before. It made sense then. Still, we could add context below the quote, if that helps. RoninMacbeth (talk) 12:55, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
@Nog Well, of course your analysis of such an interpretation is right. But your 'literal' reading of the quote doesn't help Jim's words to achieve their most compatible meaning — in other words, your interpretation lacks charityWikipedia's W.svg. With proper charity (and having watched Jim's video in full context), I'm not reading his statement to mean that 'the discussion is now closed'; I'm reading his statement to mean that concerned cries of "Whoah, whoah , whoah, time out!" in response to the threats to commit mass shootings against venues she'll be speaking at cannot be sidelined with a gator Gish Gallop on how outrageous it is that her videos are factually wrong at points (or something). Like Jim, I'm saying — Oh, I'm sure they are! But everyone's lost their freaking perspective once the appearance of en masse death threats do not acutely redefine what this entire discussion is even about to begin with. And just in terms of outrage, threats of mass shootings are more outrageous than anything she's ever done. Nothing is able to set a new outrage ceiling past that point — it's simple argumentative inflation. Whatever was being talked about before is of less relative value from there on. TL;DR: I think we both agree with Jim's statement when given in context-and-all. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:58, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
See perhaps that's it, I hadn't seen any of his stuff either but I had heard he was a pompous asshole, so read it as a proclamation to the unwashed that the lord Jim has hereby changed the subject. Nog Bogmire (talk) 13:00, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
But just to add, at the same time it needs more context, there's not much point in extracting that portion of the quote if you have to watch more of the video to understand it. Nog Bogmire (talk) 13:03, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, Jim plays a pompous asshole. It's pretty much the show's shtick. So, how about I get to work on context? RoninMacbeth (talk) 13:04, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Sure, I'll return to my usual habit of editing things about the Bible. Nog Bogmire (talk) 13:07, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Draft Community Survey[edit]

I drafted another community survey. Since the first one was controversial, I'd love to hear your thoughts. I won't proceed without community support. Survey draft available here. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 16:27, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the link! Before we even begin, please allow me to ping @David Gerard, ping @Human and ping @Ikanreed (considering your survey seems to present itself as being official to the site). All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:33, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, hadn't gotten to ask all the boardmembers. FuzzyCatPotato of the Unrefined Cellulites (talk/stalk) 16:53, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
So, on the RWA page, almost every question is a locked binary that often bypasses options like "they're just people, neither good nor bad". ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:12, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
What if you support abortion rights but not animal rights? What if you think the effect immigration has on a country is impossible to calculate, or that it is a net negative for the country but still good because it improves the immigrants' lives? What if you oppose environmental laws for other reasons? Why is "page you spend the most time on" labelled "favourite page" (if you often only go on RW very briefly, the main page could be the one you spend the most time on but it's unlikely to be your favourite)? Why is there favourite and best page? Why is the goat question required? Christopher (talk) 21:23, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Ok, let's try and be sensible about this[edit]

Ok, first off, please look back through your posts: maybe you didn't intend it, but you did come across as talking down to me. Maybe you were trying to be flippant and silly, I see you're trying to do that now, but that can end up looking dismissive too. So, clean slate, I'm sorry if you are.

Now, regarding formal logic, you did make a mistake here.

Firstly, while "P is P and Q is Q" in the abstract, when transitioning from an actual, real-life statement to your initial formal symbolic model of that statement, you have to model it based on what those things actually are. You can't start with a complete abstraction where a word only has meaning derived from the statement itself and expect the result to be applicable back up to the real statement, it doesn't work that way around. Otherwise you end up with something like

"B was T. Now B is not T."

On the face of it this is nonsense. B is B and T is T and B can never be T, right? So clearly this is wrong and B and T were always distinct things. But that's because it's missed out an important point:

"Bob was tall. Now Bob is not tall." (he was in a car accident and lost his legs or something)

In other words, T is an attribute linked to B, which you can't turn into a separate abstract variable since you lose the relationship between B and T. So it's more correct to say B was once part of set T, and now is not.

It's the same with the "that cablecar is not a regular car" stated as "that car is not a car" example: to translate that into formal logic, you would have to determine the meaning of the statement and realise it's talking about two things, both of which happen to be called car, but which do not share membership in a set which is also called car. Same is also true of the example with gasoline and crude oil, the gasoline was part of the set called crude oil.

Note too that this isn't equivocation as you said several times: equivocation involves concealing that a second meaning is present, and must be used to make an invalid link between premises each only true of one meaning. Or, in the way I've been describing it so far, treating two non-overlapping sets with the same name as if they do overlap. This is just confusing.

So up to the actual statement: since we assume the law of identity and respect the principle of charity (we're not in formal logic until we finish making our model, so we can still make a strawman at this stage), we should first consider cases where the two France items are not the same. So we're trying to translate "something called France once was in a set with something else called France, but now it is not." Nog Bogmire (talk) 19:34, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

And now this[edit]

Everyone please sit back and avoid touching this page or this talkpage for a day. Come back tomorrow cool-headed. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 19:00, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
So instead you try to continue it on Reverend's personal talk page.

No reasonable person assumes that (though that's still far fewer people than you'd think). Certainly noone would assume Rationalwiki assumes that. As such, following another convention of informal bickering, any reasonable person would assume we're deliberately changing the meaning of his words to a literal one as a humorous way of providing demonstrational material. Which is what we're doing. I even offered to put "(if taken literally)" in, but Chris reverted it. ~ 17:44, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, but a blatant strawman isn't a good example for a logic page when I'm sure there's plenty of examples of people using real formal fallacies out there that we could use, and I personally find the "haha, Trump is dumb" jokes almost as played out as saying he's orange. Nog Bogmire (talk) 17:48, 27 July 2017 (UTC)}}
This is I think the third time something I've said that could end an argument in a single comment and it gets buried so deep by stuff further below by the time I add it that the troll is the only one who notices it and (besides (in two of the cases) responding) they act like they haven't seen it afterwards.
So this really all comes down to a matter of personal opinion, doesn't it? Nogmire, stop manufacturing points to fight over with literally the nicest person on the site just because you think he's 'talking down to you', and don't come back until you've found one of these apparently plentiful examples to replace the Trump quote with. ~ 20:51, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, fuck apologising and trying to explain myself, let's just keep potholing links to insults and behaving like jackasses instead. For the record, it took me a while to type that up and I didn't see Fuzzy's post before I made mine. Nog Bogmire (talk) 20:56, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Going by the fact that you responded, you saw mine, at least. More than an hour before Fuzzy locked the article's talk page, going by the timestamps. I'm...not entirely sure why you kept this thread (that is, apparently, at this point 100% detached from any actual discussion of the original topic; that being, what the quote in the article should be) with Reverend going, but despite your change in tone in the body of text you ended up having to divert towards Reverend's talk page, you haven't entirely convinced me that it is for wholesome reasons. ~ 21:26, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Because I was trying to explain the error being made and talk things out calmly. You're not helping. Nog Bogmire (talk) 21:32, 27 July 2017 (UTC)