User talk:GrammarCommie/Archive2

Stop reverting my edits without reason/merit
You are being a bully and scientifically irrational, to the detriment of this Wiki and its content. You still haven't even addressed the outstanding issues on the Autogynephilia page under discussion, and you've reverted my edits to the TG glossary page without any legitimate reason. Multiple people here are accusing you of scientific disingenuousness and intellectual dishonesty. Knock it off, I am tired of being bullied by you. Such a proud fascist, too, with your symbols of the regime that massacred dozens of my ancestors in cold blood, purely for being Jewish. I doubt this Wiki would let swastikas fly, but you get to put hammer and sickles in your signature? Sickening. --LogicalNerd (talk) 22:59, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You are clearly confused, Communism is a form of authoritarianism true, but not a form of Fascism. More to the point, when did I ever claim I was a Communist? 23:05, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You have hammers and sickles in your signature. It would be like me surrounding my name with swastikas and saying "when did I ever claim I was a Nazi?" And no, sorry, Communism is fascism in practice, even if it is not in theory. This is simply irrefutable history of every so-called Communist nation. Regardless, it's irrelevant - what is relevant here is that you're some edgy teen idolizing offensive and murderous ideology in your signature, and bullying your way around this Wiki, removing legitimate edits without merit and worsening the quality of information due to your own personal opinions and agenda. --LogicalNerd (talk) 23:11, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * May I suggest that "SJWWiki" might be more your speed? You don't seem to be particularly interested in science or rationality, just personal ideology. --LogicalNerd (talk) 23:13, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You seem to be conflating Fascism and Authoritarianism. More to the point, have you ever considered that my usage of said words and images might be a form of satire? 23:17, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * So you and the other decision-makers on this board won't mind some satirical swastikas, then, I presume? The iconography of regimes responsible for the deaths of millions are just hilarious jokes, after all, right?
 * Very interesting how you can't actually address the real point here, and want to derail this into a discussion about fascism vs. authoritarianism. I know the difference, and your precious Communist utopias have all been fascist; sorry to break it to you. But yeah, go on thinking Stalin was a communist and not a fascist, lol. --LogicalNerd (talk) 23:21, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if you dislike my taste in humor (or lack thereof), but I firmly believe that any extremist ideology should be mercilessly mocked, it's failings pointed out, and it's adherents shamed. For if we as a species are to overcome such ideologies we must first be willing to put aside our fears of them, our hatred of them, and our disgust for them and expose them for what they really are, ignorant fools who are willing to let their emotions and ignorance control them. 23:54, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Wait, people cant take a joke? 23:56, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I can take a joke. I just don't think it's particularly funny to flippantly use murderous iconography, nor do I feel that it's at all necessary to do so if your intent is to mock them; but hey what do I know, I only had countless family members mercilessly slaughtered by these regimes, after all.
 * For the - what, fourth time, now? - enough about your tasteless and hilariously edgy 6th grade sense of humor; address the damned point already and stop trying to sidetrack the discussion. --LogicalNerd (talk) 01:31, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh that, you described ridiculously unrealistic scenario (your sex = breeding view came up again) and removed a valid entry. 12:51, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * "Ridiculously unrealistic" - how can you continue to be so obstinate and scientifically disingenuous when I've posted irrefutable evidence showing that over 90% of Americans either have children or want to have children eventually? Your situation of men mostly only wanting sex is the ridiculously unrealistic situation here, given that only six percent of Americans don't have or want to have children. Six percent! The vast, vast majority of American men will have children in their lifetimes. I very much hope you won't, though - at least not until you learn how to use and understand science and data. No wonder you think women are men and men are women - you're living in a fantasy world of your own creation in which men don't want to reproduce. Well, unfortunately for you, your fantasy world doesn't stand up to rigorous scientific scrutiny.
 * Now replace my perfectly valid edit back to how it was, or give a reasonable excuse as to why you removed it, since I just proved you wrong with hard scientific data. By extension, if the vast majority of men want to have children at some point in their lives, which I have demonstrated to be true, then the edit I made is absolutely valid, as the vast majority of men would find it concerning if the person they were considering dating as a long-term partner turned out to actually be biologically male and thus unable to reproduce with them, which means my edit was more true than what it replaced - and irrefutably so to boot. --LogicalNerd (talk) 19:03, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * - it seems GC and I are unable to reach an agreement yet again. Can we get some impartial observation here, please? Also, can you please let me know if it's acceptable on this forum to put swastikas in my signature, in order to mock Nazis? If not, can you please explain why it's acceptable for GC to do so with hammers and sickles, ostensibly to mock Communists? And maybe note how many other people here have recently been complaining about GC's inability to impartially moderate this Wiki? --LogicalNerd (talk) 19:23, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * A single gallup poll from five years ago used out of context in this debate can hardly be considered "hard scientific data." The fact is, this particular line of thought has nothing to do with the subject in the edit. I'd have reverted your addition to the article quickly if GrammarCommie hadn't gotten to it first. Denigrating GrammarCommie using pretentious and insulting language and appeals to the mods do nothing for your already flimsy justification. Finally, invoking Godwin's Law and whining about irrelevant things like hammers and sickles in a wiki signature make you look like a bozo. Cosmikdebris (talk) 19:36, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

LogicalNerd, whatever your argument was, it's not a good idea to revert the moment GrammarCommie's protection expired (as well as your initial edit war previously which you should've learned not to repeat). Don't do it again. Guidelines in most wikis apply: edit warring is a counterproductive means to contribute an article. What would be more appropriate would be to bring up the discussion to the talk page. Never use ad hominems to attack other people (personal attack being "you are a detriment to the wiki"), never ever give them a hard time for their reverts. They're not "agenda-driven" or "bullies". Being defensive and hostile about it will only be disruptive and start an edit war. On another note, your false equivalence between Communism and Nazism is strange and also another attack on someone. Hammer and sickle is generally not a hate symbol, although it's banned in a few countries.

I also think you're transphobic here regarding these edits
 * (your insistence that gender dysphoria is a mental disorder] even after I provided links on psychologists strongly disagreeing with you) and still making that claim later.
 * (fixation on anti-trans bullying)
 * (transgender women's minds is like a monkey wanting to be a rat; not a direct analogy, but use of analogy is problematic)
 * (reductionist reasoning, but still going on with it and the whole "genuine woman" thing note my response)
 * (transgender women didn't go through the initiation process of being a women including being sexually harassed by men and also having a uterus so they're not genuine women; poor reasoning, poor example, being the transrace thing, not pertaining to transgender people).
 * (Already linked above, but worth repeating. "[...] thinking you're a woman doesn't make you a woman. Period, end of case." i.e. self delusion combined with self-fulfillment maybe?)
 * ("a person thinking they are the opposite sex is simply always incorrect in actuality and is merely subjective personal perspective which is clearly and objectively not based in reality"; poor reasoning, with fixation on reductionist biology, which you've admitted earlier!)
 * "We can observe in the world that a man is a man and a woman is a woman, and it really is as simple as that." (no it's not simple; society constructs are so complex, you have entire fields of science within sociology and psychology as well as the weird sex stuff in biology like sex-changing clownfish and male seahorses giving birth, which would imply that transgender may not be that unusual).

For someone who constantly reminds everyone how logical rational and scientific you are, you're not very impressive. Constantly saying this as well as the "clearly" and "obviously" adverbs don't lend to stronger arguments.

GrammarCommie, I think it should be a better idea to also lock the page earlier and also make an attempt to bring up to the talk page rather than constantly reverting edits without an explanation. It's not only LogicalNerd's responsibility to go to the talk page, but yours too if a user becomes problematic. Please keep that in mind whenever you're edit warring, even if you strongly disagree with the opposing party. And I've seen you also revert edits without explaining. You might save yourself trouble if you simply undid edits the old-fashioned way and provide a good edit summary. Of course, don't converse through edit summaries, but a little explanation can go a long way.

I find the language of LogicalNerd questionable, but I generally assume good faith nevertheless. I think it's wrong to call people a troll or TERF immediately, not until at least you get a discussion from them. It'll only lead to them responding to you as an SJW and lead to this juvenile argument over the Talk:Autogynephilia, which is always a pain in the ass for me to read, whenever those kinds of arguments I see in GameFAQs, comments sections, or RationalWiki, they all sound the same. You also need to engage in argument, explain why his arguments are bad (which you've done, including your argument that the trans-ra, but only later) The more I read LogicalNerd's posts, though, the more I'm inclined to believe you.

So that's my takeaway on this issue. Additional input from other mods will be great. 22:50, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm sure attitudes about having children have changed so drastically in the span of five entire years that a supermajority of over 90% is now a minority. I'm also sure my "single gallup poll" worth of actual evidence is somehow worth less than the meaningless anecdotal opinions of a couple of strongly biased trans activists...at least when the administration of this place is a collection of tightly-knit radical far leftists. *roll eyes* This is obviously fruitless. Enjoy your SJW echo chamber. And here I thought this place might actually give a shit about evidence over anecdote. Obviously I was mistaken. You really ought to just change the name to SJWiki since nobody here is interested in actual science. --LogicalNerd (talk) 23:06, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

What was the edit in question? Something about people not wanting to date trans people because they want kids? Edit: I’ve seen your edit, and disagree with it. Although it’s perfectly reasonable to want kids (although adoption, surrogates etc are still options with trans people), no one is “trapping” anyone, there is nothing stopping the hypothetical straight guy in your scenario from simply breaking up with/not starting a relationship with the “trap”, and, although it’s clear what you mean when you say “biologically male” (a Y chromosome), the way you used it implies to many people that trans people being trans has no biological basis, which is simply untrue. Christopher (talk) 15:49, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The edit in question heavily implied men only date those they wish to have children with, and that sexual relations are only engaged in for the purpose of procreation. Both of these assumptions are patently false, in addition to the obvious transphobia. 15:59, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * LogicalNerd does actually believe "trans people being trans has no biological basis". It's not an implication. 18:47, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * My edit most certainly did not imply that men only date those they wish to have children with, nor did it imply that sexual relations are only engaged in for the purpose of procreation. I am perfectly well-aware that people have sex for fun and with no intent to procreate. My edit merely suggested that in a perfectly reasonable and commonplace scenario - a straight male who wishes to procreate and is seeking a long-term partner to do so with at some point in the future - if the trans individual in question does not disclose their status as someone who was born biologically male, then this hypothetical straight male might feel "trapped," particularly if he thought that trans person was born biologically female, and had already entered into a long-term relationship with this person and, presumably, fallen in love with them/moved in with them/made other life changes to accommodate their relationship; hence the origin of the slur, as a person in this situation would obviously feel to some degree "trapped" and deceived. Of course that straight male can simply walk away, but he might have something to say about "traps" while he's doing it, especially if he's invested time and energy into the relationship under false pretenses. It's also worth mentioning that when I made these changes, part of the argument for reversion I received was, essentially, that men seeking out women to procreate with is something exceedingly uncommon, and the vast majority of men are solely interested in sex. No sources were given for this suggestion, and it was presented as if it were common knowledge. I posted a Gallup poll that showed over 90% of Americans want to have children or have children already, to which I received feedback that the poll was five years old and that, as such, it was weak data. I really don't think it's logical at all to presume that our country's attitude towards having children has changed so drastically in only five years that a tremendous supermajority has become a minority.
 * As for the suggestion that trans people being trans has a biological basis,, I would urge you to review the materials I've already posted in the Autogynephilia talk page regarding this, which have been ignored and/or summarily dismissed as "weak evidence" by all others here whom I've asked to consider them; and, in my opinion, without basis. The long and short of it is that four out of five biological males in a study who were born with congenital disorders that caused them to, in essence, not have male genitalia, were "assigned female at birth," as was standard practice at the time, lived their lives as women, were treated as women by others, made to believe they were women, and never had any reported distress or dysphoria relating to their assumed identity as women, in addition to also having had brain scans that showed their brains were more similar to female brains than male brains, suggesting that nurture presided over nature as it relates to gender identity. It therefore quite simply stands to reason that if gender identity were biological/inherent at birth, nearly all of these individuals would have had severe distress over their situations, as they presumably would have had "normal" male brains and would have identified as male. Since they didn't, this virtually proves that gender identity is not inherent, and is instead subject to the personal beliefs of the individual, how they are treated within the culture, what happens to them/what choices they make/how they are born, as regards their genitalia, and - perhaps, I will allow - influences by a genetic mutation or recessive trait that causes them to believe they are the opposite sex, despite all evidence to the contrary. Which, I admit, would indeed be biological in origin, but as the result of a genetic anomaly, and not in the way you and others here are suggesting - LGMario's claim above that I do not believe this is biological is oversimplified. I do appreciate that this condition may be biological in origin, as mental disorder/anomaly, but I do not believe it constitutes legitimacy of their claims they are the opposite gender, any more than I believe a schizophrenic is legitimately Satan or God when he's standing on the street corner yelling at anyone who passes by that he is Satan or God. I don't say that to compare trans people to schizophrenics; merely to suggest that their delusions do not constitute objective reality. We can observe that the homeless schizophrenic is not Satan. We can also observe that a biological male is not magically a woman just because he puts on a wig and a dress, convinces himself he is a woman, and starts taking hormones and/or has surgery. Would you tell someone with bulimia or anorexia that, yes, you agree with their assessment that they look fat like a giant blue whale in the mirror, when they're actually under 100 lbs.? Or would you validly recognize it as delusion - their mind tricking them into believing something that is not the objective reality? --LogicalNerd (talk) 20:08, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I can’t find the article you linked on the autogynyphilia talk page, do you mind linking it again (bare in mind that even if there’s a decent study backing up your views, it doesn’t mean they’re correct when there’s all of these studies that go against your views)? Trans people do not believe they have any of the qualities you insist define a woman or man that they don’t actually have, they have brains similar to those of the opposite sex, which causes issues due to mismatching between the brain and (the rest of) the body, nearly all medical authorities define “woman” and “man” in terms of brain structure. The fact that trans people adhere to the definition of man and woman that competent medical authorities use instead of some random unqualified dickhead doesn’t mean they’re delusional. Christopher (talk) 16:35, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You think this will be more useful in the relevant talk page, not on this page, where we're giving everyone's favorite Grammar Person notifications?
 * BTW, GC, I caught you saying "it's" wrong AGAIN. Get another ban. 20:38, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure, here's a link to the study. Citation needed that medical authorities define woman and man in terms of brain structure. While this is one component, biology/physiology is absolutely taken into account, particularly as it pertains to diseases, illnesses and ailments that affect biological females differently than biological males. Moreover, brain structure can clearly be influenced by learned behaviors, drug use, personal beliefs, hormone levels, etc., so it is poor evidence to take this single component of what comprises a male or female, ignore everything else that comprises a male or female, and then conclude that some men are actually women when nearly every other factor besides brain structure indicates that the "woman" in question is actually a man. All kinds of things can cause brain changes, or cause the brain to not present normally/as expected in a scan; but do brain changes cause external changes in our reality? Because if not, then even if we presume that transgenderism is caused by inherent genetic factors present at birth, then it stands to reason based on A) the small number of transgender people in society and B) some of the conclusions drawn from the studies you linked to, that these are genetic abnormalities, i.e. disorders, and should be treated as such rather than as a legitimate identity. I keep bringing up schizophrenics and bulimics and whatnot, and nobody here - not a single soul - has been able to address these arguments rationally; in fact nobody has even mentioned them other than to flippantly write them off as completely different examples/circumstances, without actually explaining why or how transgenderism is unique from them.
 * FYI, I am an independent researcher who uses good science practices and have had my mind changed on issues a number of times due to good evidence, not just "some random unqualified dickhead" presenting uneducated opinions based on nothing. Critical thought is extremely important to me. I try not to speak on things I don't have at least some knowledge of, and just because someone is a medical professional it does not mean that they are infallible, nor does it mean they are free from influence of political/cultural pressure, even against conflicting scientific evidence. For example, I am sure there is a wealth of evidence to suggest that opiates, in retrospect, might not have been the best solution for treating chronic pain. And yet doctors across the country are still prescribing them like candy, because they get kickbacks from the pharmaceutical companies when they do. People can be influenced, and in all honesty, the link you posted to conflicting studies seems extremely weak to me.
 * We're proposing changing centuries of established medical standards based on a tiny handful of studies, with significant and meaningful dissent expressed by medical professionals, and typically quite forcefully shouted down by laymen and those with an agenda-driven reason behind their so-called science. Hell, the link you posted even references "a study by Hare [which] reported that trans women have a longer androgen receptor gene than cis men, which is less effective at binding testosterone, potentially preventing complete masculinization of the brain (prenatal androgen exposure or sensitivity, or lack thereof, is an often cited mechanism to explain observed brain-structure differences).[123]" Wouldn't this be a genetic brain abnormality, causing a person who is otherwise XY/male to develop a more feminine brain, and thus become more feminine/perceive of themselves as more feminine? That doesn't mean our entire society needs to restructure itself so as to treat that person as if they are a woman - it means we need to figure out a way to alter the androgen receptor gene's mutation so that it is more like a typical male's, so that the individual in question can develop a normal male brain and live as a normal male - not allow them to go on believing they're a female because their brain didn't develop properly.
 * One thing we haven't talked about yet is transgender suicide rates, which are at around 40%+ regardless of whether or not they go through surgery. This is far and away higher than any other demographic in the entire world. Black Americans, who experience systemic discrimination and racial abuse far more than probably any other minority in America except perhaps trans people, have one of the lowest rates of suicide statistically. Asian-Americans, who presumably suffer less discrimination than black people, and who typically enjoy greater wealth in this country, have similar rates of suicide to black people. White males, who have far greater privilege than most, if not all, in our society, are far more likely to commit suicide than not just black and Asian people, but any people, despite their privilege, accounting for around 70% of suicides, with a suicide rate nearly twice that of black people. Men commit suicide 3.5 times more often than women, another group of people who are discriminated against and abused in our society.(Source)
 * All this is to say that, if discrimination, bullying and abuse were to blame for the transgender suicide rate, then we would naturally see black people, women, etc. having similarly high suicide rates. Instead, we see the exact opposite, with the least bullied and most privileged class of people in our society suffering some of the highest rates of suicide. Thus, discrimination simply cannot realistically account for these massive discrepancies. There is clearly a biological factor at play here causing TG folks to kill themselves more often than others. We owe it to them to try to work on a genuine cure for their condition so that they can live a normal life, rather than normalizing it and hoping they're one of the lucky 60%...and we most certainly won't accomplish that by pretending that it's not even a condition that needs a cure to begin with. --LogicalNerd (talk) 01:14, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The problem of high suicide rates for transgender people is serious. But what can be done to ameliorate the situation? It would make sense to encourage people to treat transgender people decently as natural human beings rather than as disordered individuals in want of remediation. While I don't necessarily think you are transphobic, you seem to lack tolerance for things as they are, and you reflect the attitude found in right-wing opinion pages such as the Federalist. Your argument comparing the suicide rates of black people with transgender people is specious. There are many large communities of color in which individuals of color are socially accepted. To put it simply, your perspective effectively classifies a group of people as suicidal misfits and contributes nothing towards improving their likelihood of survival.Ariel31459 (talk) 03:12, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the well-measured response. I agree that transgender people should be treated with kindness and respect. Whether the phenomenon of transgenderism is due to nature or nurture - or perhaps even both - has nothing to do with disrespecting anyone. But this is a difficult conversation to have, especially directly with any individual who identifies this way. How do you tell someone with kindness, "I think that you are mentally ill?" without them being immediately offended? And yet, if you were to have that conversation with a schizophrenic who is currently coherent and lucid, or a bulimic, they'd probably deny it just as vehemently as the transgender person. In those cases, you would know that you are right despite their protestations. So what is the difference here? What's so special about transgenderism that lends it legitimacy when other mental disorders that cause dysphoria, or prevent a person from seeing reality as it is, aren't considered legitimate? A schizophrenic or bulimic surely would have a different brain scan than an average person, too - so what?
 * I want to emphasize that I can still respect someone's basic humanity without being "tolerant of the way things are." You are right, I do lack tolerance for things as they are, because I believe a grave error has been made that flies in the face of rational science, and that this error is to the detriment of both society and trans people. It does nothing to ameliorate the suicide rate, because the issue with their suicides doesn't seem to have much to do with societal acceptance. Gay people were not societally accepted not all that long ago, but they weren't killing themselves in droves. There are still countries where gay people are not accepted, and they aren't committing suicide in those countries, either. This lends credence to the idea that transgenderism is something different, and something detrimental, and that people with it shouldn't have their delusions humored, but instead science should be working on an effective treatment or cure.
 * I don't think trans people are misfits, but I do think they are people suffering from a brain condition that results in them having brains that more closely resemble the opposite sex's, but bodies that resemble their birth sex. Of course that is going to cause instability, dysphoria, and difficulty in life. I want to see them helped. I'd like to see them able to live lives that aren't marred by a 40%+ suicide rate. But I don't think pretending they're totally normal is helping them do that at all. And correct me if I'm wrong, but in countries that have gone so far as to legislate in favor of these trans delusions, where people can be criminally punished for misgendering someone, for example, there has been no decrease in suicide rates despite (presumably) increased societal acceptance.
 * If nothing changes, I predict that these societies will look back 20-30 years from now, when transgenderism is totally accepted by the vast majority of the population and bullying trans folks is mostly a thing of the past due to its effective criminalization, as it is in the majority of the West now with homosexuals, and realize that they screwed up when the suicide rates still haven't decreased substantially. --LogicalNerd (talk) 04:02, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * If nothing changes, I predict that these societies will look back 20-30 years from now, when transgenderism is totally accepted by the vast majority of the population and bullying trans folks is mostly a thing of the past due to its effective criminalization, as it is in the majority of the West now with homosexuals, and realize that they screwed up when the suicide rates still haven't decreased substantially. --LogicalNerd (talk) 04:02, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Re:Edit war on Last Thursdayism
Do not continue any edit wars. If someone is edit warring with you, continue discussion in the talk page, not through edit summaries. The person has invited you to the talk page (while a good step, person shouldn't have undone edits either and has also been given notification by me). Thanks. 22:09, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Do I really need to explain why overthinking parody is stupid? 22:15, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it's a big reach and leap of logic. Don't think the "you're a moron" remark was necessary though. 22:20, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Peace offering
I know there's been some bad blood between us, but shall we put aside our differences for the sake of the Wiki? --RWRW (talk) 00:36, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * What exactly are you talking about? 00:46, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I mean I think we should be friends (or at least allies). Maybe we could run on a joint ticket at the next moderator elections if things go well. --RWRW (talk) 01:07, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you trying to get me to stop calling you out when you say stupid shit? If so that's highly unlikely. In addition the next election is for the Board of trustees, which I will not be running for due to one of the requirements being the release of personal information such as real names and contact info. 01:15, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, a relaxing of your criticism of my so-called 'stupid shit' would be welcome. I wasn't going to run in the Board elections anyways (although I am confident that I could win). Its all about the mod elections #RWRW2018! --RWRW (talk) 01:31, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Just make up or stop talking to each other. 01:33, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You say something stupid or patently false, you get called out on it. If you were a left winger spouting on about how "autism causes cancer" or "the moon landings were faked" or other nonsense like that I'd call you out just the same. Sorry if you don't like that and no real hostility intended, I'm just not a big fan of bullshit and/or lies. 01:37, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * But the moon landing was fake--RWRW (talk) 01:47, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * But the moon landing was fake--RWRW (talk) 01:47, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Gregory Lauder-Frost
I don't know who you are but your disgraceful smear article on this fellow can only hurt his children. You should consider it in that regard. 86.133.110.28 (talk) 06:44, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

President Trump, MS-13, and animals
Hello! You may want to watch this clip where Trump talks on this very matter. Here is the politico article on this topic as well, titled Trump: ‘Animals’ comment referred to MS-13 gang members. Don't beat yourself up on it - we all make mistakes. --101.173.78.130 (talk) 21:34, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah... I read the article, Trump shot his mouth off again, got flak, then decided to try to back-peddle. Same as he's been doing since he announced his candidacy. Now go take your smug self-righteousness and shove it up your ass. 21:52, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * did you listen to the video footage I linked above where it is apparent he is talking about MS-13? --101.173.78.130 (talk) 22:57, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Would that be the one where he backsteps and covers his ass from the flak or the one where he actually makes the comment in question? If it's the former, I'm not watching it, if it's the latter, we'll see. 23:46, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * here is the associated press stating that AP has deleted a tweet from late Wednesday on Trump’s “animals” comment about immigrants because it wasn’t made clear that he was speaking after a comment about gang members. --101.173.78.130 (talk) 00:47, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Ben Shapiro weighs in for a couple minutes as well. --101.173.78.130 (talk) 00:48, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Quit abusing the enter key, it's a pain in the ass to clean up. 00:50, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * can you reinstate my edit to the blogosphere? --101.173.78.130 (talk) 04:31, 18 May 2018 (UTC):

David Irving
See: https://www.theaustralian.com.au/life/weekend-australian-magazine/im-a-holocaust-sleuth-has-david-irving-changed-his-mind/news-story/f9560bc91a1e1543cc957df5434469ed Looks like he's actually bumped up his tally to 4 million and acknowledges 6 million as possible. He's still understating the numbers, but he's not an outright denier anymore. --Sailor Haumea (talk) 22:55, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Cite it in the article then. But use a non-paywalled source. 23:39, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Would an edited version of a 2009 interview on YouTube suffice? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIdjRJMyByY --Sailor Haumea (talk) 00:25, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism
If you wish to vaporize a page on which I spent a lot of time working, please, discuss it in the talk page... Whiteness studies is a REAL thing. And definitely deserves to be on rationalwiki... Please, discuss in the talk page what you don't like about it --Kingdamian1 (talk) 01:32, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It reads like White extinction scenario apologia and other such nonsense. 01:34, 19 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Where? And also, if that is the case, why vaporize it? Whiteness studies needs to be on rationalwiki... if your problem was with a specific paragraph you can discuss it, instead of throwing my whole work into trash... --Kingdamian1 (talk) 01:36, 19 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Ok, so I reviewed the page again... And I do not see where you got the idea that it was about white genocide or other conspiracy theories... it is written with humor as many RW articles... Maybe you misread the intentions? Either way, if you still don't like it, just put it on the talk page... Kingdamian1 (talk) 01:45, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Your edit warring
Reading the above comments, I can see this seems to be a habit of yours, but revoking edits that you just happen not to like seems a touch childish. You asked me to raise my edit of the Bait and Switch page on the Talk page. I did. Were you able to explain why it wasn't a valid example? No. Was anyone? Apparently not. So I've re-added it. If this example offends you, or challenges your world-view in a way that you take personally, then by all means raise it in the Talk page like you yourself recommended. Otherwise, try and be rational, try and look at the logic of it, and try to remain emotionally uninvested. Isn't it a bit ironic that you won't accept any criticism of Atheists (as opposed to Atheism)? A bit zealous for a non-religious viewpoint, don't you think? Star Gazer (talk) 15:26, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * @ grammarcommie - im not weighing in on the validity of the edits but it seems like common decency to respond with an explanation of why you are reverting stargazer's edit. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:04, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm using my phone right now and cannot discuss anything in much depth, I'll answer later. 19:08, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Moonbert's harassment
We had a debate in which everytime we didn't see eye to eye, he called me a leftist ideologue, and then later finished the "debate" by calling me a fucking idiot, that people like me were why Trump won, and left in a huff. Later he comes onto my talk page and continues the same argument there in big ol walls of text, making some vague remark about "I see who I've been dealing with. I'll be checking your edits from time to time," which is stalkery enough as is and creepy as hell, to say nothing that I think it's rude and the discussion should stay where it belongs, not because he has some grievance with me. If y'all saw fit to block me over being rude to McLaghing over completely different circumstances (where he would later get nasty with LeftyGreenMario over an argument, the same person who had his back from the beginning I might add which is as close to a textbook sign of ingratitude as anything), then what's so different as to give Moobnert special treatment? James Earl Cash (talk) 00:49, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I haven't been following this for a long time, so I'll leave it to another mod to deal with this. I will say that Moobnert is clearly on the wrong site ideologically. 00:54, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * He was indeed rude, and the comment about checking your posts is worrying. However, he did apologize (which McLaughing did not) so I think it's best if you two stayed away from each other for a while and let things cool down a bit. I will request he do the same. 00:57, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * PS: I would concur with CheeseburgerFace on Moobnert's ideology. 00:57, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * He didn't apologize though, that's the thing. I was gonna let it go, but after I warned him he clearly decided to continue to talk down to me on my talk page without showing much, if any, remorse. His exact words were, "Fine, I'll stop with the name calling," as if I was inconveniencing him somehow, not taking into how much leeway I had been showing him by comparison. Someone who cops that attitude with me after I warn him to stop and continues to patronize me with his stalkery bullshit is not someone I'm inclined to look at in a favorable light and needs an actual warning or else he'll get the idea his nonsense can fly. James Earl Cash (talk) 13:45, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * "Fine, I'll stop with the name-calling for any future discussions and I won't continue conversations outside of their respective Talk pages, other than this final remark. I realize I was aggressive in writing to you, but I genuinely think you are not being rational on the topic of gender disparities in industry." Sounds like a belated apology to me. 13:50, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Pardon my ignorance, but he never once said, "I'm sorry," or, "My apologies." Considering the lengths he went at me, it seems nominal and insincere at best. I don't want him going at me again or trying to paint a false image of me given how quickly he went to insulting me based on no offense from my part and then stalking me with an off-topic conversation based on his petty grievances on my own talk page. I don't like pushing this but at the same time his behavior does worry me. James Earl Cash (talk) 20:23, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I probably know the Damore thing better than the other mods. I told him off about it by the way. I do hopefully apply my standards consistently has I did try telling off James Earl Cash earlier when he had a spat with McLaghing. 03:18, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Policy
Why was my restoration of legitimate discussion reverted? That seems to go against this policy.--William Grimes (talk) 00:42, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * This is why. Have a nice day!  00:45, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * So because she deleted it makes it okay? So much for a public forum. --William Grimes (talk) 00:46, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Her talkpage, her rules. Don't like it? Take it up with her. 00:49, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for dealing with this moron. Last thing I need is some good "Christian love" from NotElvis. I knew it was gonna be good when I got an email notification that he edited my talkpage. --Sophie (talk) 01:05, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The message constitutes as harassment and the user was blocked for a week as a result. If the user starts whining or makes similar remarks like this, the block will be extended. Here's a hat tip to ya, okey dokey? 01:07, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Given his track record, I imagine he'll be doing plenty of whining in a week. --Sophie (talk) 01:14, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * My two cents would be liberal homosexual planner / calendar / docket / schedule / agendum / order of business / list / listing / plan / program / programme and whatever else the thesaurus says about a certain a-word that rhymes with jenda. 01:17, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, hahaha. --Sophie (talk) 01:22, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Listen
I want my Username to be hidden in that particular edit... Thank you for understanding --Kingdamian1 (talk) 23:06, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Why exactly, are you trying to hide your username? 23:09, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Why does that matter... I do not want a layman to know that I was the one that made those PARTICULAR edits... it is not about everything... Just about these particular edits. Please, stop making it difficult --Kingdamian1 (talk) 23:11, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * If you will not explain yourself, then those edits will not stay anonymous. Explain, call for a Mod, or leave the edits alone. Those are your choices, Pick one. 23:16, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 23:16, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Do I not have the right to change visibility of MY own name? I am leaving the description and all, just my name --Kingdamian1 (talk) 23:18, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * If you're so concerned about this stuff, why don't you register in another account or upload through a proxy BoN? I do think you wanting to change revisions for whatever reason seems pretty sketchy. I don't know what you're doing at Conservapedia, and I don't want to be involved with those people. 23:31, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No, you don't have the right to change visibility of your own name, especially not without a coherent explanation. Hell, you can't even rename yourself without permission in the first place. 23:42, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * So now I am asking, can I change the visibility of MY OWN name on those particular edits? I am not doing it on every edit AND I am not damaging articles, just want it to be hidden from laymen... --Kingdamian1 (talk) 23:44, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No. 23:44, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, but why have I been desysoped? I did not know the policy, I kindly asked, you said no and I accepted, why have I been desysoped? --Kingdamian1 (talk) 23:58, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I shall inquire immediately, as I too am confused by this turn of events. 00:01, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't desysop you. You have to ask . 00:05, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

So...
So, you oppose communism but support socialism or Marxism? How does that work? --Kingdamian1 (talk) 04:29, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Marxism (being a form of communism) is doomed to failure no matter how many times it's tried. However, the right mix of Socialism, Capitalism, and Democracy works wonderfully. Many examples of this socio-economic political system can be found in successful countries throughout in Europe. 13:31, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

BJA2112
I've tried to have a word with about bad edits: adding categories that are either unsubstantiated or false. BJA2112 has been doing little else but this sort of thing. I'm glad you've noticed this activity by BJA2112 as well. gave Sysop privileges to BJA2112, but I'm beginning to think it was a mistake. Bongolian (talk) 04:38, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm very happy I asked for and received Ninja rights right now, because cleaning all this up is going to be an even bigger pain in the ass than cleaning up the CP articles. If you wish to help by all means please do so. 14:50, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Ref tags
What is a ref tag? (LuodiWang (talk) 01:38, 1 June 2018 (UTC))
 * 01:43, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you, comrade! (LuodiWang (talk) 01:46, 1 June 2018 (UTC))

EiK
Without going into detail for privacy reasons, EiK is from another state than I am. What he does is creates accounts "good hand" accounts that look like perfectly legitimate accounts, and then creates "bad hand" accounts to troll those accounts. Usually both have some fascination with Taylor Swift or Elvis Presley, but he seems to be drifting off to different things now. I could tell you which account is very likely his main account here, but you wouldn't believe me anyway, and since your site doesn't have CheckUser, you will probably never know. He's a sneaky little bastard, but I'm smarter than he is. He is more than just a "troll" because he hijacked someone's account on Conservapedia, and I suspect he is also behind the database breach on RationalWiki. His latest sock on Conservapedia was using a K-12 IP address and a residential DSL IP in the same geographical region that he is from, and while I gave the benefit of the doubt at first, it's too much of a coincidence that someone using the same IP on Wikipedia was checkuser-blocked for making good hand/bad hand accounts. For reasons I'm not going to get into, I do NOT think he is a K-12 student, so that means he either works there (I hope not) or he is loitering and using their wi-fi. What a Wonderful World (talk) 13:39, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Bullshit. 13:43, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The one he is picking on is his own freaking sock. I don't know how much plainer I can make this.... I am DMorris from Conservapedia. This guy. Not some Elvis obsessed moron. What a Wonderful World (talk) 13:47, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you have email turned on with your account? I'm going to send you a screenshot of the checkuser log of my own account to prove my identity. What a Wonderful World (talk) 13:50, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah... You aren't getting my email address. 13:52, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I get it, this guy is a weasel and you aren't quick to believe me. I too find the idiot very annoying. That said I uploaded it here, now let me know when you have viewed it because I'm going to delete it afterward What a Wonderful World (talk) 14:04, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * And for what it's worth, I would send copies of the checkuser logs for EiK over there to David Gerard or someone else I thought I could half way trust with private information, but I don't think Andy would approve of that. What a Wonderful World (talk) 14:06, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Vandal
Who is that guy whose edits you reverted on my talk page? What debate does he want about GenZ girls? --Kingdamian1 (talk) 19:16, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Probably a Grawp imitator back from school or something. He doesn't want a debate, just don't engage with him. RoninMacbeth (talk) 19:21, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok... But I unblocked this IP since he is not a vandal --Kingdamian1 (talk) 19:22, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. RoninMacbeth (talk) 19:26, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

The Bell Curve
Have you ever read or heard about The Bell Curve? --Kingdamian1 (talk) 20:08, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I have heard of it, however since intermediate to advanced mathematics is not my cup of tea I've never read it. 20:22, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Mathematics? It is a book by psychologists about intelligence --Kingdamian1 (talk) 20:25, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The name (as well as several of the ideas within the book itself) is derived from a mathematical concept known as standard deviation, an area in which I am ignorant. I prefer to study ethics, political theory, and language, among other things. 20:33, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Language? How many do you speak? --Kingdamian1 (talk) 20:42, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It's less focused on math and more focused on racialism afaik. 20:43, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I thought so too... But some people say that only a VERY small part of the book is devoted to race --Kingdamian1 (talk) 20:52, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Explain what you mean by "speak". If you mean to ask how many languages I understand words from, the answer is around six or seven. If on the other hand, you're asking how many languages I can hold a conversation in, the answer is one. 20:54, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I ask because I speak 3 (like fluently) --Kingdamian1 (talk) 20:56, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I like you
Why I like you, Good for you. Acei9 11:54, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I read Cracked.com and We Hunted the Mammoth for fun, not to mention I grew up hearing swearwords as a child, in the morning, roughly in the middle of rush hour. I've long since gained perspective on what swearwords are. 12:00, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * "We Hunted the Mammoth" and "for fun" sometimes don't go together.
 * Also, explain yourself for this crime. 18:44, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I can either laugh at the Manosphere and the Alt-right or weep for humanity, same with the more idiotic conspiracy theories. And in my defense I was fed up with Anna Livia throwing a shitfit over Ace's swearing, and so failed to proofread my post. 19:30, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You can do both. I laugh at awful bootlegs at Mario as well as cringe, for instance. What's going on in incel heads scare me though. 20:01, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Incels are indeed cringe worthy, however my current source of amusement is WHTM posts about a Neo-Nazi, PUA ("Pick Up Artist") who goes by "Heartise". This isn't because the subject is inherently funny however, but because he general writes in the most absurd prose I've ever seen. For example.
 * Think about the implications. Are you a high T man who’s within the formerly normal range of male serum testosterone level? Guess what, you’re now suffering from pathologically high testosterone. Report to your nearest feminization camp for the requisite T-lowering Mazeltov cocktail of beta blockers, SSRIs, estrogen, dissolved birth control pills drawn from the local tap, and opioids.

There is a Western-wide War on Men, because the effete low T Globohomo taintlickers that have somehow wormed their way into power and laugh at the plebs assaulted by Diversity™ from behind their gated communities know…they KNOW fam…that testosterone is the elixir of the god emperors, and a million god emperors whose veins flow with the power of T and whose hearts are opened to ethereal channels of connection to their mighty warrior ancestors through their shared high T heritage are the ONLY FOE WITH THE FORCE OF WILL to oust the degenerate elite from their plush sanctums.
 * That is something "Heartise" actually wrote, and yes, it does indeed read like the ramblings of a racist, sexist, redneck who is high on Meth. The comments on the quoted section are what I show up to laugh at, similer to how I laugh at the commentaries for Chick Tract dissections. 20:27, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * "low T Globohomo taintlickers" sounds like a name for a rock band. 20:32, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That, verbatim, was one of the comments on the WHTM article where I saw that quote. 20:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Dibs on using it for my band. 20:44, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I do hope I was the first to come up with that kind of remark. 22:05, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

User:SouthAfrica
This account's been polluting the WIGOs and been repeatedly banned despite being asked to knock it off, with no response. Is it time to coop the fucker? Cosmikdebris (talk) 01:12, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * If you or one of the other users opens a Coop case I'll likely vote bin or block, depending on the arguments raised. 01:16, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Moi
I am 'mostly harmless' - and I write proper when I wish (and use a glo'al stop if I wish to as well) - or I can get into a discussion on waxed cutlery if you wish. Anna Livia (talk) 17:07, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Leave my edits to the Requesting Rights page alone
You and your buddies have already humiliated me, at least give me some dignity and let my application be withdrawn.--Right-wing RationalWiki (talk) 02:05, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That's not how this site works, unless something counts as spam, harassment, or clear cut trolling we don't remove it from talkpages. 02:12, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

RWRW
Seriously, I honestly think he is a serious contributor. He's been here for a year, hasn't been an obvious vandal, and has actually made some meaningful contribs. At least let me autopatrol him. RoninMacbeth (talk) 02:31, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with giving him auto-patrolled rights, I'm just uncomfortable giving him access to user rights and the ability to block other users. 02:40, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Cultural Suicide
Now, I realize that you are likely NOT a right-winger. But I would like to know what do you think about the White Guilt (fear of being called a racist) that is forcing European Culture and Civilization to commit a cultural suicide? How is this tolerated in Germany? Why are white people (and I am white by the way) so scared of being called a racist? Literally, white people will deny their culture, nationality etc. to NOT get called racist. Why is it racist to suggest that hundreds of thousands of migrants from 3rd world countries pouring in is problematic and puts a nations independence at risk? Is it bad to want Ireland to remain Irish? Is it bad to want Germany to remain German? With its culture, values and symbols? Now, I think that the problem with all of this is White Guilt. Make NO MISTAKE, white guilt is NOT ABOUT empathy. White Guilt is about FEAR. Fear of being called a racist. Stanford University rejected teaching Western Civilization course. Pay attention, these people ACTUALLY believe that Western Civilization is racist, colonialist, imperialist etc. While these have been a theme in the West until modern times, it is CRAZY to suggest that imperialism etc is unique to West. Babylonians, Assyrians, Mongols, Egyptians, Numibians, Carthageians ETC ETC ETC ALL ENGAGED IN COLONIALISM AND IMPERIALISM! And all of them were "people of color". What about slavery? No European country practices slavery, ALL COUNTRIES WITH KNOWN SLAVES are again, people of color. Haiti has 300 000 child slaves AS WEI SPEAK. 17% of the population is enslaved in Mauritania, RIGHT NOW AS I AM TYPING THIS! So, what is to blame? Whiteness? Is it possible that slavery and colonialism are UNIVERSAL? On the other hand, democracy, the end of slavery, Geneva Conventions, Treaties of Versailles, UNICEF etc etc etc ARE UNIQUE TO THE WESTERN CULTURE. Is it racist to say that some CULTURES (not skin colors, racism is bullshit) are objectively better than others? Is it racist to suggest that there is no Renaissance of the Zulus? Or Baroque of the Pygmies? Or the Enlightenment of the Papuans? Is this racist and hateful? Usually liberals try to explain this away, by saying that we are brainwashed and taught to love Eurocentric culture. But is this logical? Is some Amazon Jungle Tribal Music on par with Beethoven, Hyden, Handle? Why is this racist to say? Where do you disagree? What's your POV? --Kingdamian1 (talk) 21:19, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you high? If so lower the dose, you're doing too much. 21:25, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * So where am I wrong?--Kingdamian1 (talk) 21:27, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You might want to stop, once and for all, typing random all-caps as I told you through block logs many many months ago. 21:57, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You know, none of these comments discuss any of my arguments. It is a habit for me to capitalize some words. --Kingdamian1 (talk) 22:05, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I also thought I was being polite and all--Kingdamian1 (talk) 22:22, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * If you are asking if less developed countries engage in practices which we would consider immoral, then the answer is yes. Partly because they are less developed and partly because they learned bad habits from the various world powers over the last three hundred or so years. If on the other hand you are trying to get me to say "dark skin = bad, light skin = good" you're barking up the wrong tree. Various countries have cultures that work contrary to what we perceive as moral and correct. I'm neither endorsing nor condemning them, simply stating facts. 22:29, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Because none of anything you ask sounds anything different from the typical xenophobic "white guilt" "cultural suicide" fearmongering nonsense. Your derisive, dismissive wording of "some Amazon Jungle music", for instance, is highly ignorant of cultural contexts, overarching art history and constantly changing standards of what makes "art" "art". As you know, there has been rejection of Classical Art as an entire movement ( and Realism) It's on the same line as people whining about the black box and "my baby can make that" or like that European guy who spoke derisively about an African tribal mask (thinking it's about brutality and demons) when the African tribe who made it talks about its spiritual festive qualities. Okay, I get that not everything about other cultures is great. But most whites that talk about "cultural suicide" think in absolutes with an ignorant understanding of perspective and history (especially history of immigration), so it's hard to take them seriously. You can say what your preferences lie, but you can't say as a fact that Beethoven makes better music than Amazon tribes as much as pink is a better color than red. 22:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Both of you conveniently ignored ALL OF MY MAIN POINTS. As I already said, I DO NOT believe in racism or racialism. And I do NOT think that people of ANY COLOR alone constitute any culture. Candece Owens is black, but she is more patriotic and in line with Cultural values than this gentleman. My main point really was that there is an objective CULTURAL (not racial, as I do not believe in racialism) hierarchy. And that the Western culture is at the HEIGHT of human civilization. My point was NOT that poor countries engage in immoral actions, my point was to show that ALL races and ethnicities have and do engage in immoral actions. For every racist King Fernando XXI there is an African Tribal king, so I dismiss the whole notion of white guilt as virtue signaling. No race should be required to feel the guilt of its ancestors. And I do not think that race is particularly helpful as a biological taxon, but I have no problem if some Anthropologists want to use it.

To get back, cultural relativism is absolute rubbish. Democracy, Freedom of Speech, Geneva Conventions, Civil rights Movements all come from the European Civilizations. There is a level of complexity, sophistication and aesthetics with which we can assess art. We can agree that the sophistication or aesthetics of this and this are NOT on par. One is a messy bed with bodily fluids and the other is one of the most respected sculptural works of all times. Also, my point was, is it inherently racist to want your culture and country preserved. Is it racist of Germany, for example, to want its German culture and identity preserved, to want limited, skilled, merit-based immigration, and is it racist for Germany to expect migrants to assimilate to its culture rather than demanding that Germany get used to the culture of whatever 3rd world country most migrants come from? Now that you do NOT ignore my main points, here is the summary.
 * Is it wrong to state that there is an objective cultural hierarchy?
 * Is Nationalism inherently racist? --Kingdamian1 (talk) 23:01, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * To answer your bullet points, in order: Yes, and yes (Nationalism is also Xenophobic). 23:12, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * With regards to the art point (because I don't have the energy to address the rest of this unhinged rant), you are presumably equating value with difficulty of creation. Now, one could certainly argue that David was harder to create than My Bed, but that does not make it inherently more culturally valuable. For example, if somebody spends 15 years building a tower and then it collapses, it's not of more worth (aside from as scrap metal) than a house built in 1 year, since it's completely useless for the original purpose. Art is art, and it's all equal in value so long as it performs its duty correctly. For some, this can be cultural commentary; others, purely aesthetic. Evaluate it on its purpose, not simply on effort or aesthetic for all of the pieces in the world. 23:15, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Please, do NOT take it personally, but your answers are part of a reason of why I consider modern liberalism a neurological disease --Kingdamian1 (talk) 23:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It's hard to take offense at something when it as an insult doesn't apply to you. 23:33, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Lmao, you clearly know literally nothing about either neurology or psychology. 23:44, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * In light of that fact, if you are attempting to administer a remedy, I don't think you are doing it right.Ariel31459 (talk) 23:59, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * To extend the above metaphor, you're also misdiagnosing me. 00:01, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It is possible that you do NOT consider yourself a modern liberal but what you stated resembles Cultural Marxism, something that is all too common in liberalism --Kingdamian1 (talk) 00:15, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You should lay off the repackaged WW2 Nazi propaganda. American Neo-liberalism is center-left to center-right at it's farthest. 00:19, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * KingDamian1: You seem to have a poor understanding of art. You really should take a modern art history course before you try to compare My Bed to Michelangelo and immediately dismiss My Bed. For what it seems, My Bed, which reminds me of seems to be a product of artists constantly challenging art standards, and I do think it has influence from  from the Dada movement, but you still have to go back even further to understand how we got here. So, let's add ignorance of art history on top of being ignorant of neurology/psychology. Try to get your facts first before you call liberals brain damaged because they think your questions are ridiculous.
 * Even if we get past the loaded dog-whistling of "preserving" culture, what exactly do you mean by "preserving culture"? How does one achieve "preserving culture"? Like, human history is all about mixing and mingling and change, evidenced by not just our genetics, but an elementary understanding of history, so whatever "preservation" people sought to achieve, well, it's impossible. It's not like nationality means anything really. It's just a geographic coordinate where you're born in, and nationalism pretends to be more than just that. Your question seems to be loaded, so that's why we're generally not answering them. You can believe "there is an objective cultural hierarchy", but I think it's just unfeasible to create one, much less an "objective" one.
 * Also, "Cultural Marxism", really? You know, accusing people of that is the one-way ticket to getting laughed out the chatroom, similar to unironic use of "SJW" and "virtue signaling" and "More like IRRATIONALWiki". 00:23, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * GrammarCommie Just lost the argument. Also, Nazism, seriously? I state in my userboxes that I am a libertarian. Nazism is the absolute opposite of libertarianism! Preserving culture is NOT about xenophobia it is about keeping your country. Nationalism is a NOT just a piece of land that has been arbitrarily marked by some people anymore than a house is a box of wood. Countries are large families with their values. I live in Canada, and Canadian values are incompatible with this. So, I ask, is it wrong to make sure that our Canadian and Western values of freedom of religion and freedom of speech be upheld? --Kingdamian1 (talk) 00:30, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * What are you exactly trying to argue when you say "our Canadian and Western values of freedom of religion and freedom of speech be upheld" because I don't exactly see blasphemy law being even slightly considered as law of Canada? 00:36, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not a Godwin if it's warranted. Cultural Bolshevism was a term first created by the Nazis, and cultural Marxism is a very small step from that. 00:38, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * "And that the Western culture is at the HEIGHT of human civilization."
 * I don't think any particular culture is the "height" of human civilization. I think it's a dumb characterization. Also, a lot of countries are happy to tell you what imperialism has done to them and which are still living the consequences of today.
 * And speaking as someone with mixed heritage, I also tell you to kindly fuck off if you honestly think anything else is somehow worse or more barbaric than "western culture". If you're going to backtrack or clarify on that, do it now. 00:40, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, you invoked it first You lose. In addition you should actually read the article you just cited, since it actually states that legitimate comparisons are acceptable, and even encouraged. "Cultural Marxism" is literally repackaged Nazi propaganda, and your offense on behalf of the term has some rather unfortunate implications, given I only criticized the term, not you personally. 00:42, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * There isn't even such a thing as "Western culture." The West is essentially an arbitrary grouping of liberal democracies that not everybody can agree upon. As such, saying "liberal democracy is exclusive to Western culture" borders on tautological. 00:50, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oooo yes I'll argue that liberal democracy is a high point of human civilization along with sushi, hot pot, tacoes, sriracha sauce, sliced bread, and duck meat. 00:53, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Right, I just LITERALLY googled the words "Capitalism is" and this is one of the first result I got, it is an article of the magazine teen vogue, a popular magazine for mainly teenage girls, which supposedly tries to explain what Capitalism is. Please, read it and tell me it is not a Marxist propaganda. As for you Leftie Green Mario, I myself AM NOT a western European, and am actually an immigrant (When I was 2 yrs old, don't remember a thing), whose parent were illegals for several years. And I do not understand why you have to go through ALL THESE mental gymnastics to deny a self evident truth. Can I ask you why there is no Zulu Renaissance, or the Enlightenment era of the Papuans? Why is it so hard to admit a self evident truth. You remind me of someone I had a Twitter debate recently, who tried to argue that Buddhist Terrorism was as big of a threat as Islamic terrorism. Why the mental gymnastics. As for the BS claim that Western Culture does not exist... Kingdamian1 (talk) 00:58, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

That isn't Communist propaganda, that's watered down political theory further dumbed down for teenagers. Also comgrats on failing to beat your own strawman, which as it happens is a tabloid rag. 01:06, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Please, understand CORRECTLY. I am not putting a culture down. Almost EVERY culture has contributed something to us. What I am trying to say is that there is a hierarchy of these contributions, where there are cultures that have contributed more and there are cultures with less contributions. And no, I do not believe in Alt-right propaganda, and NO the Bell Curve did NOT make me racist. I do NOT care about skin color or ethnicity. As I pointed out, many black people are part of the western culture. There is NOTHING wrong with being a multi-ethnic country. English was NOT even my 1st language and I speak 3. I am not your average Richard Spencer. --Kingdamian1 (talk) 01:14, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * So, you deny that some cultures have contributed more than others? --Kingdamian1 (talk) 01:15, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * "Can I ask you why there is no Zulu Renaissance, or the Enlightenment era of the Papuans?"
 * The problem with that question is that you're imposing different standards on another civilization especially when they have entirely different contexts they exist in. The Zulus had a big empire to govern, which is no small feat. It then broke, sure, and then it got absorbed by the British empire through . So yeah. Sure, they didn't cause the Enlightenment and therefore be a precursor to modern science. Sure. But at the same time, it's not meaningful to me and it's no reason to deride smaller civilizations or compare one with the other.
 * As for Papuans, I do suppose they don't have resources on the same level as the European empires, but to claim they are, like, low or lower points of human civilization especially using European standards of what constitutes "achievement" is disingenuous. They didn't invent a lot of things and don't play a huge role in world history, but to say they are "lower" than "western civilization", I can't say that's an accurate way to characterize, if it's even useful to characterize. 01:22, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * NOBODY is dismissing the achievement of the Zulus, that is why they fall somewhere in this hierarchy. Probably you are a rationalist, and you believe in freedom of religion etc. Where do these values come from? What culture are they disproportionately from? What culture was behind the Geneva conventions? The Magna Carta? The Enlightenment movement? What is the culture responsible for abolishing slavery? Fine, let's leave "patriarchal", white men and let's talk about a story of 2 black men. One is Martin Luther King Jr and the other Malcom X, both of these men lived in the same eras, in the same countries and wanted the same thing. MLK endorsed Western Cultural values of freedom of religion, freedom of speech, Malcom X was a black separatist. Who won in the end? MLK is a national hero with HIS OWN day, Malcolm X is a controversial figure. And that is what I want to say, it is NOT about color. My background is Georgian, and Georgia was Marxist Communist once. For you Stalin is a pejorative, but in Georgia some people are lamenting that Stalin does not get enough credit and there are statues of him (Stalin was an ethnic Georgian). But I have come to embrace the western values and capitalism, it transcends race and ethnicity --Kingdamian1 (talk) 01:43, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Let me try a non-ideological approach with you Kingdamian1. You claim there is a hierarchy of cultures/civilizations. Clearly there is one if you create one. One may create a hierarchy out of almost any set of things or ideas. One can choose between two faces the more attractive, or between two odors the more aromatic, or between two flavors the more palatable. But those choices are subjective. Different people will often choose differently. There may be no Zulu Renaissance, but try the Zulus at La Renaissance CafeAriel31459 (talk) 02:27, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Martin Luther King Jr.was. martyred. He was a controversial figure at his time too, believe it or not.  05:37, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Germany is committing a Cultural Suicide. German culture is one of the richest and highest known to humanity. Yet they are ok with denying this, as long as they do NOT get called racist. This is guilt at its finest. A nation that has lost faith in its own culture. Germany does NOT have control over its country if you have people of different backgrounds POURING into your country. There is NOTHING wrong with Germany wanting to remain GERMAN. Migration should be MERIT BASED. Because a country is like a family. You would not open your doors for anyone to come in and be a part of your family. I do not see why this should be different for a country. Especially, one like Germany. And, as I said, STOP doing these mental gymnastics to deny the undeniable. Western Culture is at the HEIGHT of human civilization. At the top of a hierarchy. --Kingdamian1 (talk) 05:25, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * If you're talking about the refugee crisis, it is merit based! They have the merit of fucking not dying like dogs in their homelands. I actually feel sorry for immigrants of all stripes, mainly because they actually believe the reputations half the western world has built up as being bastions of hope for those seeking it, but in reality are mostly self centered fucktards like everyone else. 11:46, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That is major league bullshit. Migrants have made Sweden the rape capital of Europe. Migrants organized one of the biggest mass rapes in recent German history. I am SURE that NOT all Muslims, or immigrants are rapists. Goes without saying. But when you got a bunch of people POURING in, and an OVERWHELMING majority of these come from shithole countries, you are bound to run into trouble. Remember, these are NOT Norwegians pouring in, it is NOT Australians who are pouring in. You got a bunch of people who come from, mostly, shithole countries. And you DO NOT have a country when you got 500,000 migrants, from mostly, shithole countries pouring in. Listen, let's assume that 80% of the 500000 people are cool people, that leaves us with 100,000 INVADERS. To put this number in perspective, the whole number of active armed forces of Canada is 99,000. And this number only grows. You HAVE TO have a merit-based, limited immigration. Again, immigrants need Germany NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. You can't have a country when 75% of refugees face long-term unemployment and life on benefits. You can't have a country when 2/3 of arrivals are ILLITERATE. You can't have a country when your politicians are treacherous. And remember why these politicians want these migrants to pour in? BECAUSE THEY ARE BRINGING IN FUTURE generations of voters! Vladimir Putin is a DICTATOR and likely a KILLER. But this is his quote. Please, read it, and tell me where do you disagree? And you know what? West is waking up. USA, UK, Italy and this will go on. Because this isn't brain surgery. THESE ARE UNDENIABLE FACTS! --Kingdamian1 (talk) 18:24, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah... you don't get to cite Breitbart then claim you have facts on your side. That's not how truth works. That's not even how Breitbart works. You might as well cite Whale.to and end the discussion. 18:35, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * PS: I am truly disappointed that you don't want to have a nuanced conversation on the variety of cultures around the world and their impact on each other (both positive and negative) and instead wish to take a dump on a bunch of panicking people who are trying to escape violence and war in their homelands, and who have bought into the brand that the U.S. and others have been churning out for over a hundred years. I honestly wish they would go somewhere else, because wherever it is it's better than this hypocritical mess of a country. 18:35, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You did NOT answer, where do you disagree with this sentiment? Kingdamian1 (talk) 18:41, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Those are memes, and therefore are invalid as evidence.
 * Even if they were actual quotes (which given the nature of memes is very dubious), getting your opinion pieces from Putin is like getting opinion pieces from Kim Jong-Un. It's probably horseshit, and you're probably being conned. 18:48, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No, I agree that Putin is a DICTATOR. But what is wrong with that sentiment? Why would it be wrong for Germany to adopt the SAME stance? Ultimately it boils down to this, does Germany have a RIGHT to remain GERMAN? Does Germany have a right to give priority immigrants who will BENEFIT GERMANY rather than have a bunch of people pouring in? Does it have these rights? If a country can't have these rights, YOU DO NOT HAVE A COUNTRY! And you might as well endorse open borders! --Kingdamian1 (talk) 18:54, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Please stop typing in all-caps. At least make an effort. 18:58, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

A) You just called Putin a dictator then asked what was wrong with Germany imitating him, read your own question for an answer. B) I am for open boarders! I thought that would be self evident what with my strong anti-nationalist/anti-jingoist/anti-Fascist sentiment. In addition go look at some maps of the ancient world, it's full of "strong" countries that don't exist anymore. ` 19:06, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Sigh... I asked what was wrong with the stance seen in that quote. Open borders are CRAZY. You will have people from shithole countries flocking to high-culture countries NOT THE OTHER way around. You HAVE TO have merit-based system. --Kingdamian1 (talk) 19:14, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Read: "Dark skinned people might come into our pure, pearly white country!!! The horror!!!" Yeah, dog whistle horseshit doesn't work on me. 19:19, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh by the way, ever think that if their countries are as bad you claim in comparison to yours that that might be the reason they're so keen on entering it? 19:21, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No, that is you reading between the lines. I have NO PROBLEM with black people! You just, literally, made that up! Do countries have a right to advance THEIR INTERESTS? Is this a right or not? Also, I have no problem with immigrants, per se. But you have to have assimilation. You HAVE TO have these people respecting your country language and history. If this is NOT a right, you don't have a country. Kingdamian1 (talk) 19:24, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No, I did not make that up. I inferred that subtext from the buzzwords you used. 19:29, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Calling someone a racist, does not constitute an argument. Quite frankly, "racist" should be included under Godwin's law. You have not answered my question, Do countries have a right to advance THEIR INTERESTS? Is this a right or not? Also,, why does my writing style bother you so much? --Kingdamian1 (talk) 19:37, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Probably because it is terrible prose. And nations do not actually have the right to advance their interests if that means hurting civilians, to use the military term. For example, it is in Russia's interest to conquer the Ukraine, except the the Ukraine does not wish to become part of Russia. What exactly, should they do? 19:43, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Now you are being stubborn on purpose. National interests WITHIN international law. --Kingdamian1 (talk) 19:49, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Random Caps Don't Help Highlight Your Points Or Make Them Any Stronger And They're Also Annoying To Read Constantly So That's Why I Take Issue With Your Writing Style. 19:56, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * And you up until that last comment were being long winded and vague, not to mention going on about complex sociological topics such as culture and expecting simple responses. Within international law? Depends on the exact circumstances. I mean the whole Iraq war kinda ignored international law, so does leaving millions of refugees to die in the ocean (human rights laws, look them up) so... No easy answer there. 19:58, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You think I justify Iraq war? The question is about nationalism? Does a nation have a right to be a nation? Does Germany have a right to bring in migrants who have favorable views of Germany? The ones that will benefit Germany? Now, you are someone who believes that nationalism is xenophobic and support open borders (though, I doubt you would support open doors for your family). But even you have to ask, does a country have a right to push its own interests and its own values. More importantly, should migrants coming in assimilate to being German or should we assimilate to them and change Germany and what it means to be German. Which one is it?--Kingdamian1 (talk) 20:17, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Both. 20:26, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, glad to see even you have some common sense left. But that is NOT happening. There are different reasons for different people. The government wants these people from shithole countries pouring in for a simple reason... POWER. Who do you think is gonna be voting for welfare state, redistribution of wealth, social benefits? It is not gonna be nationalist conservatives! Now, for other people, there is a different explanation, CULTURAL MARXISM. I know, you do NOT recognize that as a real thing, but I used to be like that too, not too long ago I myself would have told someone the 80's are over. But I you have to look into it. The propaganda is everywhere. Here is a buzzfeed video I was watching about blind people, here I will fast-forward for you, listen to what this blind girl says. She LITERALLY SAYS THAT CAPITALISM IS RACIST, and if you benefit from it, you are racist! What do you think Whiteness Studies or Gender Studies are? MARXISM. Whiteness and blackness are substituted terms for Bourgeois, and proletariat. What do you think the progressive definition of racism is? By there definition, black people can't be racist. What do you think this is? And it is yielding results, Stanford University students REJECTED "racist, and sexist Western Civilization Studies." Where does that come from? Did it just fly into their heads? MASS BRAINWASHING! Quarter of the English people think that their flag is racist. 51% of young people OPENLY do NOT like capitalism in America. This is the product of mass indoctrination. What do you think Black Lives Matter is? MARXIST PROPAGANDA! The president of my cities BLM movement literally tweeted that Allah give her strength not to murder white people. And this is their view of whites. What do you think feminist view of the patriarchy is? What do you think identity politics are? It doesn't matter whether the label is bourgeois, whiteness or patriarchy. It is the same philosophy. Cultural Marxism is what is forcing Europe into Cultural Suicide!--Kingdamian1 (talk) 23:45, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

WAKE UP SHEEPLE!!! THE EVIL COMMIE TRIANGLE GLOBALISTS ARE AFTER OUR FRIED PICKLES!!!!!!!111!!!1 00:29, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah yes the classical Appeal to shame fallacy. --Kingdamian1 (talk) 00:33, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No, the "I don't wish to argue with someone who is spouting conspiracy theories laden with vaguely racist buzzwords and soundbites" strategy. Or in short, you lost any credibility at "Cultural Marxism" aka "Jewsdidit". This debate is over, and you have lost. Good day sir. 00:39, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * "jewsdidit"? SERIOUSLY? I am one of the most pro-Israel people here. I LOVE THE STATE OF ISRAEL. LOVE THAT THEIR REAL CAPITAL IS RECOGNIZED. And I love Jews. I am a Jew LOVER! --Kingdamian1 (talk) 00:40, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Language
I can’t believe this shit is still going on. Acei9 12:22, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I can't believe it's not butter. Neither can I honestly. So you swear? Why exactly should we give a fuck? I mean it's not like you're Tisane (yes I know who Tisane is/was) or some shit like that. 12:28, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * fuck knows man. Acei9 12:32, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Just ignore it, it'll eventually die down. RoninMacbeth (talk) 12:49, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Or be more creative in language usage (Shakespeare's insults, various Blackadder episodes...). Anna Livia (talk) 13:01, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * ah so now you’re just following me around the wiki. Just a troll. I don’t have to do anything I’ll talk how I please you fucking gnarled geek. Acei9 13:07, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Really? You think that's going to make the situation better, Ace? RoninMacbeth (talk) 13:10, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No, I don’t. Acei9 20:02, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

please stop harassing me
You denied three of my contributions on JPs page and blocked it,, then removed my text from the nazism page. enough &mdash; Unsigned, by: 177.79.8.152 / talk
 * Which BoN are you again? 02:14, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * seriously, can you at least stop being so condescending to him with your reverts? Vorarchivist (talk) 02:23, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * What, exactly, are you two talking about? 02:25, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I personally don't see frequent IP protecting pages to be productive to wiki editing. Tell the person first to stop edit warring, message on their talk page, ping in the mainspace talk page, do those any of these three first. THEN if they continue their behavior, then ban. Protection should be reserved only if there are repeated BoNs or socks editing the page with similar disputed content in a short amount of time. 02:28, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * What the ever-loving fuck is everyone talking about? This is my block history, I've only blocked two users in the last twenty-four hours and only one of them was a BoN. In addition that BoN in the block log was blocked due to posting (probably fake) legal threats in an article. The BoN complaining on my page is one I made a relatively standard revert for less than two hours ago. 02:37, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Protection log? You frequently protect pages. 02:40, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Have you gone through the edit history for say... this one? Or this one? I thought I was doing everything right in both cases, if not please explain how I should have handled them better and what exactly I did wrong. 02:47, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * If it's just one user vandalizing, the best course of action is just to block them instead of protecting the page. I made the same mistake a while back. 03:17, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Well... I have been trying to be less block happy recently so... I need to find a middle ground? 03:20, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Try shorter blocks. 22:16, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok... How do I enter manual block times? 22:25, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I dunno, one-9 hour blocks seem to work for me. As opposed to IP locking, it affects only one person. 03:24, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Joey Watkins
Wikipedia is going to delete this, but it's a perfectly good article, ultimately about abuse of Gov't power. I'm new around here and not familiar with the rules. You're saying I can't rescue it by putting it here?TwoPlusTwoIsFive (talk) 17:39, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No. You are not allowed to simply copy a Wikipedia article and paste it on this site, that is known as Plagiarism and is generally frowned upon. 17:55, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Have you...
Have you heard of social media site Gab ?--Kingdamian1 (talk) 21:34, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

RWRW
I've noticed you have some stuff with. Even if they're a troll, be the better person. Ignore them and go take a walk outside. 01:54, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I have no life outside the internet! Actually all this happened while I was letting a Charlie Brooker Newswipe video load. Speaking of which I should get back to it, Ta! 02:06, 17 June 2018 (UTC)