Talk:SlutWalk

Bullshit on stilts
Here's an example of what these "freedom fighters" are really all about.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhdBkPFoOwQ Burkean (talk) 19:02, 18 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh God damn it I actually clicked that link out of morbid curiousity and now my YouTube account is going to keep recommending a bunch of Breitbart bullshit. Thanks a lot asshole. ClothCoat (talk) 19:15, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I guess it's true what they say about liberals blaming other people for their own behavior. It's supposed to be my fault that you clicked a link. In any case, you no doubt approve of the wonderful non-shaming way the slut walk suffragettes dealt with malcontents. Encircling people, jumping around them, and trying to take their sign, is how a Kindergartener deals with people. As for being flooded with Breitbart recommendations, oh well. I guess it's just the price you pay if you want to listen to anyone who is the slightest bit different from yourself. Like when all those retarded Noam Chomsky videos or Young Turks stuff gets thrown in my face just because we agree on foreign policy. Don't ever change, asshole. Burkean (talk) 19:24, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm very curious to hear about your opinion on Noam Chomsky and the psychology of liberals. Could you elaborate further on both? ClothCoat (talk) 19:56, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't really understand how what I said about Chomsky was convoluted. I said I agree with him on foreign policy, not so much on domestic issues, although his criticism of feminist approaches to studying western literature was also insightful. No reason to be condescending. I wasn't trying to psychoanalyze liberals. I'm really interested to know why someone's an asshole for putting up a link. Burkean (talk) 20:26, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Because Breitbart apparently offends them and they don't want it to have in their "recommended videos" section, perhaps?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 20:36, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, considering rationalwiki is supposedly not one single monolithic mindset, there are bound to be recommended videos some people like that others don't like, and so on. Why this means I should be called an asshole still isn't explained. And as you could tell above, my point was that if I click on videos I want to see from the young turks or Noam Chomsky because I agree with them on foreign policy, I can't really get mad if videos about other things they say are then recommended to me. It was a stupid comment on his/her part. He already knows he probably won't like the video. Change the channel. Shut your mouth. What a whiny little bitch. Burkean (talk) 02:40, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That's about the right reaction for people who would knowingly present doctored videos under the guise of "journalism" as a general rule. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 21:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, when people post things you don't like or disagree with, mature adults usually call them assholes. Please feel free to share what was "doctored" here (cue crickets and tumbleweeds). Burkean (talk) 02:44, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Citing Breitbart is a tacit admission that one has given up on life. Queexchthonic murmurings 21:07, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, thank you for giving me my answer queex. But we have folks who are literally having their sign taken out of their hands and you think Breitbart are the crazies? Burkean (talk) 02:37, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh no, someone literally had their sign taken out of their hands! Must be censorship! Meanwhile Breitbart publishes a hit piece on a Muslim kid because he built a clock and peed outside the toilet? Withoutaname (talk) 03:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * They were acting like assholes and trying to use the law to shut people up who were ruining their precious slutwalk. Bill Maher has already talked about how the muslim clockgate bullshit was a complete put up job. It looked just like a bomb. He knew what he was doing. It was intended to be provocative. The teacher is supposed to go, "Who cares if it looks like a bomb, I don't want anyone to think I'm racist/islamophobe or what the fuck ever." He wouldn't talk to the teacher. If a right wing person did something this provocative, they would bash conservatives as absolutists on free speech for defending it. Hopefully, I'm still allowed to link to a Bill Maher video, or maybe now he's just the equivalent of Breitbart.
 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGit-XltUB4 Burkean (talk) 04:34, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * See, believing egregious nonsense like that demonstrates how reading Breitbart can erode critical thinking skills. He was a kid, doing what kids do, dicking about and pushing boundaries. The scandal was how the teachers flipped their wigs and demonstrated a lack of sense that questions whether they're suited to handle the responsibility of classrooms full of kids. Post-hoc conspiracy theories about it being a put up job make a political point belong in the Stupid Bin with anti-vax and moon landoing hoaxes. Queexchthonic murmurings 11:20, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Wow, so now we're condemning teachers who see something that looks a fuck of a lot like a bomb and the kid is not forthcoming, and they're the problem, not the kid. If some kid had white supremacist parents and brought a bunch of racist shit to school and said it was part of a history project, you know damn well what the left would do. In fact, similar such incidents have occurred. I didn't mean put up job in the sense that it was a conspiracy or that the government was somehow involved. I meant the kid knew exactly what he was doing and was trying to prove some point. To say that's the equivalent of saying the moon landing didn't happen shows how completely out of touch with reality the left (and yourself) are. People across the political spectrum on Maher's show agreed and the only descending voice (Ramos) basically had no argument other than "hey, he's 14, it was prejudice!". Burkean (talk) 18:21, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Bill Maher is a moron. Your argument is terrible, and a complete false dichotomy. The main reason people know that the school staff are assholes is because if they thought it was a bomb, they didn't fucking act like it, and still suspended the kid after the police told them it wasn't a bomb.
 * Claiming the kid knew he was going to get this response and was conspiring to trick people into it is literally calling it a conspiracy, you dipshit. And to make it worse, even if by broken clock it turned out he was conspiring? The school staff would still be assholes because instead of either trying to be prudent OR be cautious and treat the clock as if it could be a bomb, they recognized that it clearly wasn't a bomb and still chose to grind the kid's ass.KrytenKoro (talk) 18:36, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * To paraphrase the great William Shatner, double dipshit on you. A conspiracy by definition has to involve more than one person. I didn't say the kid conspired with anyone to do anything. He thought this all up on his own. In your world, the teacher isn't supposed to say anything. And if a teacher or someone you're supposed to respect asks you a legitimate related to school business sort of question, since when do you refuse? Do you honestly see this kid as some sort of symbol for the struggle for freedom and human rights? To your other point, as I've already said on this page, I disagree with Bill Maher 2/3rds of the time. That's more than most people here on rationalwiki who agree with Maher most of the time. So, you want to talk about stupid shit that Maher has said, not a problem. That's not happening here and Jorge Ramos can't think of one reason why the kid shouldn't have been forthcoming. If you think Mark Cuban, Chris Matthews and Bill Maher are racist right wing lunatics, then fine. Welcome to fantasy land! Burkean (talk) 22:44, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * ...um, no, "in my world" if the teachers think it is a bomb, then they should actually take precautions to protect the children; if the actual experts have already told them it's not a fucking bomb, they shouldn't insist on punishing the kid as if he had brought one in. The kid didn't refuse, he told them the truth -- it was a clock. No, I don't see it as a freedom struggle, I see it as a "teachers shouldn't fucking abuse kids" struggle. I didn't say anything about Maher being a racist right wing lunatic, I said he was a moron.
 * In fairness, you're right that your fictional version of events would not qualify as a conspiracy. So that's 1/5 where you managed to respond to something I actually said instead of a ridiculous strawman. You dipshit.KrytenKoro (talk) 12:35, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, if they took precautions people like you would bitch that they were "scaring the children" but yeah I agree with you on that. They shouldn't have needed the experts. The kid initially wasn't forthcoming and didn't talk to them. I guess responsible security would be that when a kid tells you he doesn't have a bomb, just believe him. And what is your thesis exactly? They knew he didn't have a bomb and just wanted to make him suffer a little? Evidence? And they weren't asking the kid to get on his fucking knees and beg for permission, they just wanted him to check in with somebody first. Yours is the kind of logic that says we have to search 90 year old white women as much as we do young muslim men (Oh my God! Racial profiling!). I invented nothing. And I can't believe how naïve you are. As if "how was the kid supposed to know it would raise red flags?" Really? Really? Again, if somebody walks around with a toy pistol that really looks like a gun and starts waving it around, yeah something bad might happen. Fucking fuck. And I love how outraged you moonbats apparently are about child abuse when the democrat machine has over and over defended teachers that have a horrible track record, abused or mistreated children, and are so horrible they pay them to sit in a room and do nothing because they can't get rid of them. And I know you can't wait to shout something about the priests, but a lot of them were Catholic democrats. Can't seem to find a new insult but dipshit, huh? Oh well. If somebody gave you a penny for your thoughts, they'd probably get change. Burkean (talk) 17:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * See, having been in Ahmed's situation, and getting to hear why they expelled me (by Catholic democrats!) for a laughable rumor started by a kid the school knew hated me, I will again state -- I don't think Bill Maher's argument is moronic because I'm a moonbat, I think it's moronic because the school was extravagantly incompetent, and pointing fingers at the kid is Maher completely misunderstanding what the actual issue with the situation is. My "thesis" is they were incredibly lazy/stupid, and punished the kid afterward because they were embarrassed. "Responsible security" is that if they for a second thought the device was a bomb, they should have followed procedure and evacuated the school, i.e. doing their fucking job to keep everyone safe. Not keep it in the office waiting for the police to show up, or all the other bullshit they did that kind of clearly indicates they didn't see the bomb as a fucking threat, but were still determined to punish somebody for the inconvenience. But when the police tell them "no, it's nothing like a real bomb, hollywood isn't real", and the kid tells them "it's just a clock, I didn't think anyone would think it was a bomb, I would never bring in a bomb", the rational thing to do is for them to say "oh, we made a mistake, sorry everybody, lesson learned", not go "well, the fact that we egregiously violated our safety policy is definitely your fault somehow kid, you're suspended." You have consistently failed to respond to any of the arguments I'm actually making about the incident, You. Monumental. Dip. Shit. Stop guzzling the ill-informed diatribes of extremely partisan armchair generals like Maher and Breitbart, and actually do research or listen to those who do.
 * Christ on a stick, your reliance on strawmen and ad hominem is exhausting. KrytenKoro (talk) 18:37, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You treated me like I was full of shit, and I responded accordingly. If you adopt an attitude with people of "you don't know what the fuck you're talking about", they're likely to treat you the same way. What points? The school could've handled it better? Point taken. They were trying to save face? Point taken. You don't even acknowledge that the kid knew what he was doing. The reaction was disproportionate. The toy gun example. Yeah, people don't usually brandish guns around in public places cause this isn't "Hollywood" but you get a realistic gun, people will freak out. Saying they could've handled it better is not some comprehensive argument. If Ramos had some slam dunk argument as to why the kid wasn't forthcoming, or that he actually was, why didn't he speak up? The ignorant morons drowning him out? Was his voice to worn out from attempting another Donald Trump ambush? When did I say the school was blameless? What other amazing points do you have? I don't personally like Maher, but he's considered well informed by a number of liberals as well as non liberals. Very few people that rationalwiki holds in high esteem would consider Maher extremely partisan. I love how people were constantly defending the guy as a witty thinker and comedian whenever the right disagreed with him, but any time Islam comes up, he's magically "uninformed", though little "evidence" as you would say, is given for this. It was a misunderstanding. The idea that the school was like "let's get us a mooslim!" is a stretch. I'm happy for them. Now they're moving to Qatar, where people treat each other right...Burkean (talk) 22:34, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You explicitly complained that people were saying the school was at fault, rather than the kid. Don't try to fucking shift the goalposts now. I don't give a shit about Ramos, and never said I did - I said it was moronic for you and Maher to pretend that the fault of the issue was with the kid trying to "manipulate" the school, rather than for the school blatantly failing their due diligence in taking the bomb threat seriously, then trying to punish the kid to cover up their embarrassment at being called out for it. It's a quite simple argument -- I've summed it up in a single sentence for you. It's also the main thing pointed out by people criticizing the school, not some bullshit about the school "criticizing an ethnic kid and not just naively taking him at his word".KrytenKoro (talk) 04:28, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Your argument rests on the false premise that I think the school shares none of the blame. The school was incompetent. Doesn't change the fact that the kid knew he was being deliberately provocative. I cannot find it in my heart to feel sorry for him. He's gotten major exposure, been treated as a hero by politicians. They complain about how he was treated and then proceed to move to a draconian oil country. The kid's a fraud who lied about building a clock as anyone who has youtube can find out for themselves. Never mind his shameless self promoting father lying about being a prominent muslim leader in texas when most people hadn't even heard of him. It's not shifting the goalposts because I never said the school was blameless. You truly are a legend in your own mind. Burkean (talk) 07:14, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It is amazing. People have been bringing this exact thing up for almost a year and either he hasn't gotten it...or we actually think eventually pointing it out enough times might actually get through to him.  Look at his talk page or Ron Paul if you want to see the glory.  -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 18:44, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * What's amazing is how other people of various stripes were pointing out wild inaccuracies in the article, such as claiming Ron Paul did something shifty with expenses when he didn't and claiming he as intimates with neo-nazis he had barely ever met or associated with. But let's leave that on that talk page, shall we? Burkean (talk) 22:34, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Wow. That discussion is a sight to behold.KrytenKoro (talk) 18:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Uh huh. What's even more amazing is that Bill Maher is a "partisan" source whereas a show of imaginary people called the newsroom where people say things like the tea party is "the American Taliban" is considered reliable. Ye old central nervous system is shot to buggery. A meccanoid ye always will be! Damn I'm racist! Burkean (talk) 22:34, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You have this amazing talent to claim I hold positions I absolutely don't, and never once said I did (i.e., I have always thought Maher was a contrarian twatpumpkin, even when he's championing nominally positive causes). I'm going to take Emerald's advice and, seeing that it is absolutely impossible to get you to process input rationally, leave you to devour yourself like an Ouroboros. Hopefully you'll finish the job this time and disappear.KrytenKoro (talk) 04:28, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Still haven't provided any evidence why Maher isn't just as good a source as any other garden variety prog. Nothing rational about believing a kid made a clock when he didn't and then goes on his "all I did was make a clock" tour of America. Maybe someday you'll get sick of throwing out insults that would barely impress an average 7th grader. Rational inputs indeed. Burkean (talk) 07:14, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The only reason for a sentient being to cite Breitbart is to demonstrate what Breitbart is -- namely, wingnut bullshit---Mona- (talk) 22:16, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, people who claim Zionists are taking over the world should be selling pencils from a cup and don't have the right to call anyone nutty. You've been called out on this bullshit several times. Backslapping with fellow proggies won't change it. Please fucking dry up. Burkean (talk) 02:35, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Since I've never stated or implied "Zionists are taking over the world" you can't mean me. Indeed, they are losing the narrative war -- not taking over shit, except for more West Bank land from its owners. Anyway, I'm delighted top see that a Breitbart aficionado is also a Zionist. Most are like you (including two here), that is, lunatic wingnuts verging on fascism.---Mona- (talk) 05:51, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * People who are far from far right have called you out on your lies. Last time I checked, somebody who thinks Israel should never have been created in the first place and they shouldn't get a dime of American money should not be considered a Zionist but you betray your ignorance again. Keep cheerleading for a society that uses women and children as bomb fodder in order to cynically galvanize support from people against their rivals. Invoking the F word is also ironic since the Palestinians have basically elected fascists to represent them who have now abolished elections. [redacted] Burkean (talk) 08:25, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * [redacted] :D--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 14:04, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * [redacted] Burkean (talk) 18:23, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Anyone else think Burkean and Arisboch need a little break after seeing this? ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:08, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Banning users for a diverging opinion? Are we here on Conservapedia or what??--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 18:15, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * As long as the trolls stay on the talk pages I could care less. It was my mistake for engaging him at all. Calling Mona a "stupid bitch" and worse than a "dog" does make me more sympathetic to giving them a vacation though, especially since they don't seem to contribute anything else to this wiki beyond trolling the talk pages. ClothCoat (talk) 18:32, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * So, you can call me asshole but I can't call her bitch. Redact yourself, hypocrite. So it's okay to insult people as long as it doesn't infringe on feminism (which I guess is what I did). You also apparently think that you can just call someone a Zionist without any evidence Burkean (talk) 22:07, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't care much about *dumb opinion* type trolling because hell, I like engaging bad ideas to test my own, but personally attacking users like that is setting off "intentionally trying to disrupt" alarms. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:35, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Then redact yourself for constantly insulting me. I did not engage mona in conflict she engaged me, and lied...AGAIN, because I'm not a Zionist. Women can't handle the "snark"? Bitch doesn't count as snark? Burkean (talk) 22:07, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it's better than my way of dealing with people who I think are there specifically to disrupt and troll my activities. Of course, I'm Southern; we favor 2nd Amendment remedies here. --Castaigne (talk) 20:08, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * So, the slutwalkers should've shot them. Brilliant strategy. Thanks Napoleon. Burkean (talk) 22:07, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Like I said, it's what we do down here in the Deep South. You get uppity, we shoot you. --Castaigne (talk) 20:08, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Please shoot yourself. Burkean (talk) 00:20, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The price you pay if you want to listen to tabloid bullshit. Really, dude, there are better conservative sites than Breitbart. Even Free Republic and American Thinker are better sites. Breitbart is no different from WND, the Enquirer, Weekly World News, or the Daily Mail.
 * When the hell did I act like Breitbart is a fucking godsend? You act like I linked to a half dozen of their videos or something. I never held them up as some golden standard of journalism. But we don't need Walter fucking Cronkite to see that the slutwalkers were acting like complete assholes. Burkean (talk) 22:07, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You linked to them. Don't link to them if you aren't onboard with them, it's that simple. --Castaigne (talk) 20:08, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm either with Breitbart or against them. Nuance much? Burkean (talk) 00:20, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, considering you keep defending their version of events when people bring up new examples of their egregious misconduct....KrytenKoro (talk) 12:38, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * People have actually talked very little about their conduct. In any case, I was using one video. I never actually defended anything else on Breitbart. I rarely look there. They have a few writers I like. Some I don't. I never actually cared that much for Breitbart himself. So, keep defending what? Saying the slutwalkers are full of shit is not the same thing as saying that Breitbart is right about everything. They're not. See where I discuss political compass test results. I part company from right wing orthodoxy on many occasions. What a dark and confusing place the Krytenverse must be. Is that you spare head III? Burkean (talk) 17:59, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Ikanreed brought up one on your talk page. The whole Ahmed discussion was started by people pointing out that Breitbart was a shithole. You keep saying "I don't always agree with Breitbart", but as with Maher, you don't actually point out how, and instead follow that up by defending when you think they're right. It's disingenuous at minimum to get all in a tizzy when people interpret that as you being on board with Breitbart.KrytenKoro (talk) 18:43, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Interesting logic. I use one of their videos, I never defend the video ikanreed mentions, and I'm on board. Impressive logic. You and Emerald just keep back slapping about how "irrational" I am. Drink! Okay, how I don't agree with Breibart. Many people who write on Breitbart are total whores for the war on terror. I'm not on board with that. Although I believe there are some problems with immigration, much of the language about it on Breitbart is overwrought with paranoia (the brown menace!). I think there are also some anti-vaxxers on Breitbart. Don't support that. And so on. With Bill, it's easy. He's well to the left of me on a number of issues, economics, guns, PETA, I agree his statements on vaccines and germs don't make sense and I'm not even a fan. Maher trashes people who think like me every week. So, that's kind of the point where you try to listen to people who disagree with you. I don't know what the point of ikanreed mentioning videos I never defended is. I think Eric Hobsbawm had some insightful things to say about economics and was an entertaining historian. Does that mean I have to follow his rather cherry picked and partisan line on the Soviet Union? No, I do not. Nuance much? Burkean (talk) 22:08, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * My rule, if it's legal, it's legit.
 * I really have no interest in what that anti-vaxxer and germ theory denialist has to say, much as I have no interest in what Alex Jones has to say. --Castaigne (talk) 20:08, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, when the fuck did I say I always agree with Bill Maher or that he is some end all and be all? I only used his video because he used common sense to refute Ramos' ridiculous assertion that clockboy was some angel who didn't know what the fuck he was doing. I disagree with Bill Maher 2/3rds of the time. To compare him to someone who thinks FEMA is on the verge of committing a holocaust, the trilateral commission and the Bilderberg group want to start world war 3, and aliens have visited earth, is a failure on your part to compare like with like, vaccine and germ comments aside. Burkean (talk) 22:07, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, you linked to the guy. I don't link to him, even if he's right, because I don't agree with cranks. As for him being unlike Alex Jones, dude, you've obviously never heard Maher. He makes Jones look SANE. Not that it matters, since they're both cranks, and all cranks are equivalent to me. --Castaigne (talk) 20:08, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you read? I DISAGREE WITH BILL MAHER MOST OF THE TIME. Burkean (talk) 00:20, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * So, do you have actually anything of interest to a conservative like me, or are you faux-conservative like most internet denizens? --Castaigne (talk) 20:08, 20 October 2015 (UTC)|
 * There is no way I could even begin to answer that question because the word means so many things to so many people. In the Soviet Union in the 1980s, the communists were the conservatives. I would put myself politically somewhere between libertarian and dark enlightenment. Whether or not you consider that legitimately conservative I don't know and could frankly care less. If you're like most people around here, you consider something called the political compass reliable. Here were my results.
 * Economic Left/Right: 1.63
 * Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 3.9. You crunch those numbers and decide for yourself if I'm a real conservative. Meanwhile, look up no true Scotsman Burkean (talk) 22:07, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Conservatism is easy to determine. Conservatism is defined by American conservatism, as American conservatism is the only true conservatism. The maxim of conservatism is that conservatism cannot fail; it can only BE failed.
 * Nope, definitely not conservative. Faux-conservative. You engage in too many libertarian heresies; see Russell Kirk and his article "Libertarians: The Chirping Sectaries". --Castaigne (talk) 20:08, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No. True. Scotsman. And let's see just exactly how many libertarian "heresies" I engage in.
 * Believe corporations should be regulated, especially as concerns the financial sector.
 * Think globalization should benefit humanity rather than corporations
 * answered no to the freer the market, the freer the people
 * Believe abortion other than in life threatening situations is wrong
 * Believe in hierchy, order, structure, the primary point of child rearing is discipline etc. I'm not really sure if you're critique of me as faux conservative holds much water, since your definition of conservatism (American only) would exclude Stefan Georg, Edmund Burke, Peter Hitchens, Roger Scruton, Michael Oakeshott, Enoch Powell, Disraeli, CS Lewis, Tolkien, Tocqueville, Acton, Spengler, Scheler, Klages, Junger, Spann, Freyer and whole scores of other writers that Kirk himself would find indispensable. Ya aint much fer fancy book lernin is ye? Burkean (talk) 20:27, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No, you just don't meet the conservative definition.
 * Corporations should not be regulated. Regulation is liberal socialism and thus antithetical to conservatism.
 * Globalization and so-called "free trade" are harmful and should be abolished.
 * The freer the market, the freer the people. A free people will not engage in immorality.
 * Abortion is always wrong, no matter the situation. Should the mother die as a result of the pregnancy, it is the Will of God. A conservative obeys God without question, obeys God without question.
 * It should be noted that the only correct conservatism is pre-Burkean. Thus, conservatism is absolutely defined. If you do not meet the definitions of pre-Burkean conservatism, you are not conservative.
 * That seems a tad inflexible. Burkean (talk) 00:09, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That isn't "no true Scotsman"; it's "This is what a Scotsman is and nothing else meets the definition." --Castaigne (talk) 20:44, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * With the help of your immediate family, I hope that you find sobriety. Burkean (talk) 00:09, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * So if I go by your and his definition of political camps, than he is neither on the conservative, not the libertarian party line?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 20:50, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I would describe myself as one of the following:
 * Small c conservative.
 * Paleolibertarian.
 * Kind of a low fat diet dark enlightenment. Burkean (talk) 02:16, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * So, with that last bit, does that mean you want to revert society back to monarchies/aristocracies or just that you're critical of democracy as it's currently implemented? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 02:22, 23 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
 * That would depend both on the democracy and the monarchy you're talking about. Ancient Greece is preferable to the sun king of France. But life under King James I was preferable to the democratically elected governance of North Vietnam. Burkean (talk) 08:41, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Paleolibertarian.
 * Kind of a low fat diet dark enlightenment. Burkean (talk) 02:16, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * So, with that last bit, does that mean you want to revert society back to monarchies/aristocracies or just that you're critical of democracy as it's currently implemented? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 02:22, 23 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
 * That would depend both on the democracy and the monarchy you're talking about. Ancient Greece is preferable to the sun king of France. But life under King James I was preferable to the democratically elected governance of North Vietnam. Burkean (talk) 08:41, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

A way to keep your video recommendations clan from stuff you don't like
Open them in the "private browsing" mode any decent and indecent browser has. Or use the Tor Onion browser pack, but that'd be overkill, IMNSHO.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 20:35, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Exactly. This is the guy/gal/other (clothcoat) who keeps bitching about me not editing pages when I don't like something, then he can't even handle recommendations. Burkean (talk) 02:32, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "recommendations". You misspelled far-right propaganda that no normal person would/could ever cite as a reliable source. And yes as far as I can tell you are useless to this wiki. In fact you are less than useless because you waste everyones time talking about your bullshit on the talk pages. Thank you for the heads up though Arisboch. ClothCoat (talk) 05:23, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I see, so someone can be a tone troll but not a spelling troll. Congratulations. I'm sure you got first prize in the 8th grade spelling bee. I can understand how one can misspell words but how does one misspell propaganda? It almost sounds surreal. And apparently people holding a sign amidst a bunch of wacko women who say hanging your boobs out is in no way sexual...are the real troublemakers. Come again? And if I swing my cock around and a women interprets that sexually, then she's a sexist. I don't have to defend everything on Breitbart to present this video. Please point out what dangerous hateful propaganda was evident and why the slutwalk crusaders were so well within their rights to fucking harass them. Yeah didn't think so. I'm useless. How very original. Just fulfill your fantasy and go back to the seventh grade. You and the boys can call me pussy and then listen to some Korn. Bitch. Burkean (talk) 08:32, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Damn dude, off the meds and now more NERD RAGE! than before :-p -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 18:28, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Not really. I just don't take 7th grade insults from people who act as though they're intellectuals and then just try to make themselves look clever by calling their stupid self righteous immature behavior "snark". Burkean (talk) 21:28, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Right dude. You best check your own behavior after your hour ban for calling people naughty things :-p  -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 21:45, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Naughty things? What the fuck are you a schoolmarm? And I'm sorry, fuck you. People insult me I have a right to respond. One person does it you call it snark, the other person does it, you act offended. Go. Fuck. Yourself. Burkean (talk) 22:12, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * checks U.S. Constitution* Nope, no right to respond in the Bill of Rights. No, freedom of speech does not apply to private entities.
 * Although it should be pointed out that you have never, since 2013, used snark. Someone uses snark, you prefer outright roid-rage hostility. --Castaigne (talk) 20:08, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * LOL, when I invoke the constitution? The constitution also technically doesn't say anything about right to privacy (except about troops quartered in your home). The phrase "separation of church and state" also never appears but that doesn't change the fact that they didn't want religion and government meddling with each other. The idea that when someone attacks you either verbally or physically you have a right to defend yourself did not originate with the constitution. I guess that's you people's idea of being clever? I'm a private individual. I was under the impression this was a public wiki. And I'm sorry, the visceral over reaction here to everything I say is probably where some of that "roid rage hostility" you mentioned comes from. Now's the part where you insult me and tell me it comes from the fact that I...(oh let's see some of the snarky favorites from these folks at rationalwiki who aren't overly aggressive at all)


 * Have a disorder
 * Cannot find a sexual partner
 * Live with my mother
 * various other sexual innuendo
 * General attitude of shut the fuck up this is rationalwiki. This is how it goes round here. I'm glad I've never used snark because people who pat themselves on the back and call stupid nerdgasm 7th grade insults snark, belong in the rubber room with people who call themselves "brights". Burkean (talk) 19:38, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The lack of self-awareness here is surely worthy of some sort of award. ClothCoat (talk) 21:44, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You mean the lack of self awareness that comes when you actually blame someone for your own ass voluntarily clicking a link? The lack of control over one's own actions is surely worthy of some kind of award. Burkean (talk) 22:19, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "listen to some Korn" hhmmmmmmmmmmm, is that an eastern thing? SolPyre (talk) 20:18, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I think Korn's lead singer once claimed their music is all about inner peace, but no real connection to the non Abrahamic main wisdom traditions, if that's what you mean by "eastern" and given your talk page where you speak of your interest in such things, I'll just assume that's what you mean. Burkean (talk) 21:30, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Christ, I'm tired of people equating dicks with breasts. If a TV show shows off some boobs that doesn't mean they need to show dicks to 'even it out'. They're not equivalent. And no, boobs aren't inherently sexual. There's plenty of African cultures, for example, where women walking around topless is the norm and isn't considered sensual at all. Western civilization just has this fetish for bags of fat (or silicone, as the case may be) on top of a female torso, for some reason. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 21:45, 20 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
 * Boobs don't have to be sexual. The nipple is almost universally recognized as sexual. The nipple was highlighted. It's have it both ways bullshit. They were dressed in clothes that many of them purchased from a fucking sex shop. And if you think the male obsession with breasts is confined to the western world you really need to get out more. And they were showing off their cunts too. I don't really care, just don't tell me it isn't sexual or that I'm evil if turned on by it (or, if they aren't attractive, not, as the case may be). Burkean (talk) 22:17, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Be careful not to cut yourself on that edge deary. ClothCoat (talk) 22:54, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Veiled threats and you reveal your Englishness. What's next, going to call me a bugger? Burkean (talk) 23:39, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you actually dumb enough to think that was a threat? I honestly thought a wannabe-4chan-troll would get the joke but oh well. ClothCoat (talk) 23:49, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You see it's interesting you calling me dumb when you assume I'm a 4 chan loser and I have nothing to do with it. Fine, I'm dumb and you're a shitty comedian. Burkean (talk) 01:30, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * A weird-looking little bump surrounded by darker (and sometimes wrinkly) skin? Hell, a (clean) bellybutton can be more attractive than that. I personally find boobs attractive, and I admit nippleless boobs would be kinda awkard, but nipples universally sexual? Pfft. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 23:02, 20 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
 * I am actually with you on that on a personal level. The only point was that there were many things which have always been sexy throughout time, history, different cultures. This is really separate from how the slutwalkers were acting. I don't care what they wear. Just stop saying men are pigs if it makes them feel horny and don't drown out opposition like a spoiled child. But I'm not trying to tell you you have to like boobs or nipples. Burkean (talk) 23:39, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd agree that shaming people as 'pigs' for not being asexual is wrong. But it sounds kinda like nutpicking/strawmanning. After all, wouldn't it be super-hypocritical if vocal opponents of slutshaming were to shame others for their sexual feelings/expression? That sounds more like a position some second-wave feminists might take. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 17:09, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, you're right. But the point is Milo doesn't really give a shit if they want to dress like this, but then on top of if they spew bullshit. To me, they're the hypocrites, because they dress like that, claim there's nothing sexual about it (when the clothes were specifically fucking designed to invoke sexuality), go on and on about their own sexual freedom, and then say "this is why it's wrong for you to feel this way, and to have this fantasy blah blah blah don't tell me how to dress blah blah blah when I'm married no sorry when I chose to get married I'm keeping my own name which was bestowed on me by my father so there's nothing completely bonkers about that blah blah". I mean they wont' even let Milo hold up a fucking sign! Burkean (talk) 19:21, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It's about that being dressed like "sluts" means a person deserves to be raped and assaulted. No one deserves to be raped for what they dress like, male or female, and calling people hypocrites for believing that is a new low.  All jokes and humor aside, you are defending the idea that it is okay to rape people for their dress.  -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 19:31, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * If Milo actually said (or you can produce evidence that he said) raping women should be legally sanctioned then I will renounce my support for him. Dan Savage thinks people deserve to die for being republicans. Way fucking worse position, in my opinion, but they're both wrong ones. And for these women to act as though most men in the western world think rape is okay (and these women frequently pretend that this is the case) is complete bullshit. Interesting time to raise awareness when rapes and violence against women (especially on campus) has, to paraphrase you, "hit a new low". What's low is to act like rape is becoming more and more commonplace when it isn't. Interesting how these women are fairly silent about the cultures and parts of the world where rape actually is socially acceptable and commonplace. It kind of reminds me of "We know most men don't like drowning puppies and way less puppies are being drowned than before. But there's still some who think it's okay. Protest time!" Women don't deserve to be raped no matter how they dress and men don't deserve to be categorized as subhuman because they find that alluring, or look or say something, so long as it isn't intimidation or harassment (and no, one offhand comment does not count). They also aren't subhuman if they say "you know, some girls can pull off that outfit a little better than others". And this isn't a men vs. women thing. It isn't even a liberal versus conservative thing. Middle class educated women who vote democrat are also a little sick and tired of 500 pound women with bad skin walking around with nothing on but a t-shirt and pink underwear with "juicy" written on it. Me, I could fucking care less. The fucking end. Burkean (talk) 20:00, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * A new shitfst besides Israel/Palestine is in the making and I wasn't even invited. So mean.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 19:42, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I invited you but my invitation was redacted. Burkean (talk) 00:36, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It was? I didn't see you editing my talk page, e.g. (your name isn't in the page history of my user talk page)--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 02:35, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * LOL, you're right I was joking. Of course, I can understand why you thought I actually did, considering how trigger happy they got with the redactions for a second. Next time, when the PC dawn patrol come out to play, I actually will drop you a line :) Burkean (talk) 08:16, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Everything is a shitfest when he is on a high cycle and no meds. He's already hopped to things no one has ever brought up (like political compass test) for no reason at all.  It's like talking to CleverBot when it's malfunctioning.  -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 20:09, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It's a shame that your capacity for wit peaked in early puberty. The political compass test came up within the context of somebody claiming I wasn't conservative. The political compass test is considered a legitimate way of assessing political allegiance for most people here at rationalwiki, or so I thought. I'm not sure meds is really the problem, because clearly snorting Ritalin has done you no favors. Burkean (talk) 00:25, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That's why I stopped debating you, you just make shit up and pretend like it is fact. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 13:48, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Somebody was claiming I wasn't a conservative and was whining on about Bill Maher and alex jones, and claiming there are no conservatives besides americans despite the many names I provided. Many people have described the political compass as reliable. Love for you to provide examples. Burkean (talk) 17:37, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You mean Milo "prominent anti-feminist" Yiannowhatever? And maybe the message on the signs downplaying the problem of rape had something to do with people not approving of him and his female accomplice holding them up? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:45, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, by that logic, encouraging women to take a self defense course is downplaying rape. Damn hard to downplay something like rape, not only because it's serious, but because it has been in steep decline for decades, and most of the rapes in the west that do occur don't occur on college campuses. Make of that what you will. Burkean (talk) 02:10, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't let him hold up a sign either. Hell, I wouldn't let him sit foot on my property or my employer's property. Nobody who's sane wants that sleazy tabloid asshole around. Worse, you have to go to court to get him to pay you for work he's hired you for. --Castaigne (talk) 19:46, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, but if you owned a restaurant you'd have to serve him, yes? He could claim you were refusing him service because he was gay. And milo could be the most hateful human being in the world (maybe he is) and it would change...NOTHING. From what I've gathered from what Milo said, he was against what's going on now. Not all feminism that ever existed for all time. Was he your boss? Did he try to make you suck his dick? I warned him about that, the little queer. I'm still waiting for you to use my political compass test to prove I'm not conservative or what the fuck ever. Burkean (talk) 20:03, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That would be remarkably difficult, because I'd also be filming and uploading to Youtube the removal of "BASED MASTER MILO", as the GGers so love to call him, whilst loudly declaiming why I was booting him. He can hardly complain when I'm telling the truth about him being a weasel shit-fuck who welshes on his obligations.
 * Of course, he would be asked to leave first. Then he would be told to leave if he refused. If he refused further, well, if it's anywhere but Georgia I'd play it safe and taze him in the face and drag him out. In Georgia, I'm absolutely entitled to Castle Defense if someone is told to leave and refuses to do so. Trespassing in Georgia, whether there is violent intent in the trespassing or not, may be met with gunfire at will. And since it's legal, it's legit.
 * And before you make cracks about how killing is wrong, blah, blah, I remind you of two things - 1) 2nd Amendment freedoms and 2) life is cheap, plentiful, and everyone (you and me included) is infinitely replaceable.
 * I've found him to be a lying tabloid hack who will say anything to make a buck, just like all tabloid hacks. So yeah, it changes a lot. I don't trust anything he says or believes because he believes whatever makes him money. I give him enough money? He'll sing SJW praises all night long. That's what tabloid hacks do.
 * You're not. You're just another libertarian. *shrugs* What boots it? --Castaigne (talk) 20:34, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with you on castle law and the 2nd amendment. I found him humorous and engaging. So what if he isn't an ideologue? Produce some evidence that he will magically turn liberal, if you can. Cheap with his employees? Well, that clearly makes him Satan. I guess you lost me when you started claiming that Michael Oakeshott and Enoch Powell were communists. Burkean (talk) 00:25, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You're not. You're just another libertarian. *shrugs* What boots it? --Castaigne (talk) 20:34, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with you on castle law and the 2nd amendment. I found him humorous and engaging. So what if he isn't an ideologue? Produce some evidence that he will magically turn liberal, if you can. Cheap with his employees? Well, that clearly makes him Satan. I guess you lost me when you started claiming that Michael Oakeshott and Enoch Powell were communists. Burkean (talk) 00:25, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with you on castle law and the 2nd amendment. I found him humorous and engaging. So what if he isn't an ideologue? Produce some evidence that he will magically turn liberal, if you can. Cheap with his employees? Well, that clearly makes him Satan. I guess you lost me when you started claiming that Michael Oakeshott and Enoch Powell were communists. Burkean (talk) 00:25, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Is dis article a stub?
I think dis article is too short.--Deli-delibirda! (talk) 08:08, 15 December 2019 (UTC)