User talk:Pbfreespace3/Archive2

cooped
. Hipocrite (talk) 22:19, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Good call on that IP
I don't quite get what they were trying to accomplish but it all had this alt-right crazy slant. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:06, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't bin IPs, ban them.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 20:07, 22 June 2016 (UTC) 20:07, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Most of the claims in this article: Society of St. Pius X have not a single source to back up its claims. Where is the problem with reverting it? 193.62.251.21 (talk) 01:25, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

What are you doing?
If this is the BoN you said was you then this is becoming a recurring problem. You previously made a sock called BurgerDominar as a "social experiment". You need to stop impersonating people because it will cause unnecessary contention.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:39, 23 June 2016 (UTC) 01:39, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Please re-mop me
I had no idea I'd been de-mopped -- Weaseloid, who's a mod, had no problem with my de-moppoing Typhoon for a brief period when she kept blocking me (both of us, if you recall). But some time when I was gone David Gerard de-mopped me for that, which is preposterous. What else could I have done to make Typhoon stop blocking us?! I had to keep going into the block command to remove it, and she would not stop no matter how many times you or I asked her to. This is just bullshit, especially to do it when I'm not here and not around to explain and defend myself.

FFS, we needed a mod to rein her in, and there just wasn't one here that whole afternoon. So to protect myself from constant blocking I briefly removed her mop. What the fuck is wrong with that? She was abusing her mop status! Without it, she couldn't block us anymore.

I swear to Christ, this place is insanity-inducing. I wasn't the one blocking 2 other people some 10 times each. But I get de-mopped, and her nothing. ---Mona- (talk) 05:24, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Given DG is a mod, you should ask (1) another mod, (2) preferably DG. 06:56, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Comment indenting
Once again, please don't wrongly re-indent other people's comments. Also in general if you modify others' comments it's good etiquette to notify them. --Ymir (talk) 20:04, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The indentation was wrong! I've had people change my indentation multiple times! 20:15, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * No it wasn't. If other people don't notify, go yell at them. --Ymir (talk) 20:20, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Blocking
Was it really necessary to go all trigger-happy on ? We try to keep blocking as a last resort, no? I was just leaving a talk page message to them to ask them to discuss edits, I edit conflicted with JorisEnter, and then I refresh to find out you blocked them. --Ymir (talk) 20:20, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It totally was! The person vandalized the page to imply the New World Order is real! They obviously have absolutely nothing of any value to contribute to this wiki. How can you not see that? Are you blind?! 20:21, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Reverts are cheap. Have you read the whole blocking policy? The idea is to try to engage people, not just block as a first resort. I certainly admit there's a good chance they won't listen, in which case I would have binned and then blocked if that didn't work, but the point is you don't know they won't listen until you actually try to communicate with them. --Ymir (talk) 20:26, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * If they want to make actual edits, they can say so on their talk page and get someone to unblock them. Until then, it's not my business and I don't want to deal with them. 20:36, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

I have unblocked them for now.--JorisEnter (talk) 20:37, 25 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Watch. Let's see if this person makes another useful edit. Let's just fuckin see. 20:38, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

MIsogynistic language
Really? You used the c-word in a coop case? You should be banned. You have made this an unwelcome environment for women. Go to hell, you pig, Taba (talk) 21:00, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I never used that word in a coop case. Laurogeita Hamabost did. Perhaps you should direct your comment at that person. 21:03, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I did. If you think the word for a body part is offensive or vulgar the problem is with you not me. I quite like cunts. Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 21:05, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Um, no. It's the English language. Delete your account in shame. What are you, some MRA? Taba (talk) 21:08, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Not ok at all. Go away. It's not framing, it's misogyny. Pure and simple. That you are complicit with it is awful. Taba (talk) 21:13, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it's ridiculous to use the work "dick" for unpleasant people and I think it is ridiculous to use the word "cunt" for unpleasant people. They are two body parts. Two nice body parts that can be used for great pleasure if their owners so chose. I think we should fear being called an unpleasant person more than being called a genital. Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 21:17, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Taba, are you for real or just trolling??--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 22:33, 28 June 2016 (UTC) 22:33, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Request For Explanation
I do not provide reasoning for my votes. I vote in accordance to what I deem. --Castaigne2 (talk) 21:06, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * OH MY GOD I must bow, BOW before the MIGHT of CASTAIGNE!!!!!!!!!!! OOOHOOHOOHHHHHH........ the POWER!!  21:08, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't say that. I do, however, become irritated when a person like you thinks I'm required to explain my votes. Or anyone's votes. You don't pay me my salary, so you're due jack-crap. --Castaigne2 (talk) 21:26, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I asked you why you voted the way you did, and your response was "I don't have to answer to you! I do what I want!" 21:44, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * No, my response was "I'm not fucking telling you and you shouldn't ask in the first place." Did you accost people coming out of the primary polls and demand explanations from them as to why they didn't vote for Sanders? --Castaigne2 (talk) 21:47, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't, and that's irrelevant. I just wanted to know why you voted the way you did. Calm down. 21:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Vandals
Hi, Pbfreespace3! I was about to undo that act of vandalism but you were quicker than I was. Well done! I just have a question. I have been noticing quite a few random vandals on RW recently while on patrol. (But other editors are more experienced than I am currently so I only undid just a couple.) How common is this on RW? Is there a pattern to it, perhaps seasonal? Nerd (talk) 01:19, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Vandals are fairly common. Just pick up the mop and fix, only takes a couple clicks.  Warnings and the occasional light banning/vandal binning are usually enough.  If they IP switch and are relentless, just restrict the page to autoconfirmed users for a couple hours.  Eventually they'll get bored. CorruptUser (talk) 01:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks, CorruptUser! I'm still feeling power flowing through my veins. Ha ha ha! Nerd (talk) 01:31, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Soon... Soon you will succumb to the dark side. Let the hate flow through you! CorruptUser (talk) 01:33, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Power! Unlimited Power! What? I thought we were siblings. I will do what I must. Don't underestimate me! Nerd (talk) 02:05, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Vandalism occurs here on a near-daily basis. Sometimes it goes undetected, but folks like you and me that watch the recent changes page help stop the vandals. The real sight to see is the sockpuppet vandals. There have been 30 sock accounts created in a day just to post personal information of users here in order to harm them (although the sockpuppeteers have said that it's for sick fun). I've had my talk page vandalized in one of the infamous incidents; go see for yourself in the edit history, although you may not want to view the crude image that troll posted. PBfreespace (talk) 01:35, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * They hit you and -Mona-, too. Wow! (No, I did not look at the image. I wanna sleep well.) On the bright side, they make good target practice for our sysop tools. Nerd (talk) 02:05, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * @Nerd "I used to bullseye womp rats with my sysop tools back home. They're not much bigger than two blanked pages." 10:48, 14 June 2016 (UTC)Reverend Black Percy (talk)
 * I've often been accused of being a little too bantrigger-happy, but I really disagree. People say they're angry that the website is not what it used to be, but then some people criticize me for trying to hold down the fort. But I've said enough, methinks. PBfreespace (talk) 02:15, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * @Y'all Also, while I support using the vandal bin whenever needed ("We need more people in the bin for longer periods of time!"), just make sure NOT to (accidentally) mark the "Automatically block..." checkbox, or the binning (if permanent) will also act as a permaban... Which is rarely called for. You're welcome. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:48, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Reverend! But do we really need more people in the bin for longer periods of time? Are the vandals that hard to handle? Nerd (talk) 23:57, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Weeell... Actually, that litte thing I said there is an obscure reference, to a quote from crazy ol' toothless Joe Arpaio (who, in the Penn & Teller: Bullshit! episode he features in, on the failed War on Drugs, says "You wanna know why crime's gone down? I tell you why crime's gone down... More people are in jail for longer periods of time!"). He's nuttier than squirrelshit, but I wanted to play the reference game - so I just switched "prison" out for "vandal bin". Heh. But honestly, to answer your questions? No, and no. I mean, the bin isn't OVERused in any way at the current time. It's our useful tool, and we should utilize it. But I'm not actually pushing for anything like an "inherent increase in binnings", no. Heh. :3 All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:11, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Phew! The ones I encountered so far seem to be one-time random vandals. Nothing serious just yet. By the way, sorry about that Paulbots thing. I forgot about it. You are right; that does seem weird. Nerd (talk) 00:14, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * No, don't worry, it's perfectly fine buddy... It had stood there for a long time before I hit upon it earlier today; clearly an easy thing to miss... And the fact was that it really was an odd thing to claim, and the source didn't even back it up (the source was on Ron Paul and Bernie fighting, never mind a word on how chummy their prospective voters might be), so I chucked it into the wastebasket. And added actual sourced stuff on the Nordic model. Good riddance! All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:17, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Now that's someone who should be banished to the depths of Tartarus for insulting our Goat. But since you froze them, ... Nerd (talk) 03:44, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I think I have an idea of who you might be, but I don't say. All I will say is welcome back. 03:49, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your support of minor revision of main page!

"Never address the king directly" Be well

Purebread who?  04:06, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Alright. You're welcome. 04:07, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Can you or I actually effect the main page change? How? Purebread  who?  21:33, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You can only edit the Main Page, if you're a sysop.--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 21:38, 14 July 2016 (UTC) 21:38, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Saloon Bar comment
I refactored your comment on the Saloon Bar. Since you were replying to me, your comment should go in the same thread. See this if you don't understand the idea. --Ymir (talk) 23:18, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Cool. 00:11, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Sysopping Mona
Mona is sysoprevoke, sysopping her changes her functional rights not at all. 17:03, 22 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Seems about right FCP. 17:26, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Munich attack
Can you submit evidence onto the WIGO that it was a shooting committed by the German far right?-- Forerunner (talk) 19:07, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * OK. 19:10, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Britain is full.
Hi, I see you are a communist and a socialist, so am I.

I have some questions about your speedy reversion of my good-fate edit.

1. Do you agree that the world, including the UK is overpopulated?

2. Do you think a statistic like "people only take up about 7% of the countryside" in Britain conveys real, meaningful information? If humans took up 7% of the planet, it would collapse immediately and we'd all starve. As I said the percentage of a country being taken up can not be treated as like rooms in a hotel.

3. Why don't you care about the woodland? It's just dismissed as being "actually increasing", as if it were some unimportant thing, being taken from the brink of disaster. It's the wealthy landowners you need to go after.

4. Do you disagree that British people can take a rational view that they don't want more people coming into the country?

As a socialist and communist I'm sure you're aware that for a good world, there cannot be too many people. I'm sure you're familiar with the demographic transition model of nations, don't you think mass migration might interfere with that model?

Virtually every western country has been undergoing a big shift in migrant policies lately, with most revising them to stop migrants from coming in as easily. What would have to occur or change for you to say "ok, maybe britain is full at this point". Are you an expert on the subject, with some kind of model of how it's all perfectly sustainable or is it just an irrational ideology?

SuperInfinity (talk) 20:42, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * All of your points are correct. For example, I'm not going to dispute that overpopulation is a problem right now.


 * The issue here is the point of this. Some people will use these points to say "and that's why we should ban immigration from Muslim countries!" No. Migration is why we survived as a species. The British people should not be able to decide who to let in or out. Why? They're stupid, as are most. This is why an intellectual elite should rule for now; the masses have been blinded by capitalist anti-Muslim rhetoric from the media. The popular will can't be the decider if the people have been blinded. 20:54, 22 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Which specific number (or density) is "too many people"? Can this number be increased? If so, how? Has it been increased in the past? If so, how and when? What is the general trend of population in the West in general and in Britain in specific? another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost)))  (talk) 23:37, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you asking me or him? 00:06, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Both. Since both of you seem to think "overpopulation" is a meaningful and helpful term to describe a real and existing problem that is not more accurately described by other terms. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost)))  (talk) 00:09, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

The capitalists don't push "anti-Muslim" rhetoric, that would be counter-productive. Ever since 1954 the West has been shutting down secularists and backing Islamists in the Arab world, if anything the capitalists are pro-Islam. Lord Aeonian (talk) 00:20, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about CNN, FOX, and the six o'clock networks. They say "fear Muslim terrorists!". That's why I can't trust popular will. People are biased, and don't have a good view of this issue.
 * By overpopulation, I mean that the amount of wealth humanity has isn't enough for all people to live in comfort, out of poverty and hunger. I have no problem with 7, 10, 100 billion people, so long as we can feed and house them in a sustainable way. 00:23, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Who creates the wealth humanity has? Is it a static or dynamic thing? another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost)))  (talk) 00:47, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. Your point being? 00:49, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You did not answer my question. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost)))  (talk) 01:17, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Dynamic. I don't think we allocate our resources fairly among the world population. Their are rich guys on Wall Street, and starving children in Africa. That needs to be fixed. I'm saying it would be better if we could manage the amount of people there are in the world right now. Then "overpopulation" wouldn't be a problem if we had the resources and infrastructure to accommodate them, but right now we don't. That's what I'm getting at. 01:25, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * And how do we get more resources and infrastructure? another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost)))  (talk) 01:27, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I would say the move towards robots and quantum computing is a gift. Not a silver bullet exactly, but the greatest gift we have so far. Once we can get supercomputers that are 10 times as fast as current US military mainframes, we should be able to come up with a whole host of statistics as to how many people is a good amount, and how we improve our resources.
 * Before we get to that point, we should wean ourselves off of fossil fuels so we don't kill ourselves. Solar, wind, geothermal, and most of all, nuclear. Once that's done, we should change our urban paradigm to align with the goals of New Urbanism. Right now suburban sprawl is straining our natural resources, forcing us to cut down forests to make way for suburbs. This is stupid, and if we plan on having a population of many billions, then we should condense our civilization so most of us live in cities. This is already happening by the way. 01:37, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * ...and it seems I've won the argument. 17:20, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Declaring that you've "won" usually means that you've lost. There is no upper bound to the number of humans. There are upper bounds to the number of nuclear power plants, cars and the likes, but humans don't need those. The only thing that has ever created human wealth was human work. And for that you need more humans, not less. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost)))  (talk) 17:26, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * How do you think we should take care of the poor people in Africa? Do you think things are fine the way things are right now? 17:29, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * No. But in many places things have actually gotten better. And higher standard of living and lower birth rates actually correlate... another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost)))  (talk) 17:34, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * There's no point in continuing this conversation anymore. You're just outright obfuscating at this point. Bye. 17:43, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It may be that I am not understanding your points. But I am not entirely sure you're understanding mine... another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost)))  (talk) 17:46, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * So you're avoiding your talkpage in favor of having a spar here? Typhoon (talk) 17:50, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I caved in for curiosity's sake and had a look at this page. PB and I are old friends. As I understand it from his comments sovereign states should not have a say in who or how many immigrate, they should just shut up and take it. That is a kind of solution, which unfortunately begets many more and much graver problems. Britain can be said to be at its limit regarding population and the same applies to all of Europe. Check the inhabitant densities of Denmark, Germany and Holland to get the point. I'm sure PB thinks he's being altruistic at the expense of others, but altruism is one thing, demanding suicide is another. Cheers Uppivindinn (talk) 19:21, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey Sorte, I think the best idea is to just take the 2 million Arab refugees and put them all in Iceland. All the white Icelanders can move to Greenland, Norway, or Denmark. Then the refugees can have a place to call home. I'm sure they will like the cold weather, as it's a nice break from the hot desert sun. 19:42, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * A brilliant solution, until you have a look at the geology and geography. Glad as I would be to to welcome two million refugees, the country can't carry that number. And the whether isn't really cold. Refreshingly cool would be better, considering all those immigrants from hot climates who discovered after arriving, that they had had headaches all their lives. In the old country it was just the way things were, but after immigrating they realized that something was missing, i.e., their headache. And although I used to be Sorte, now I'm Uppivindinn. That actually contains an insult against myself, so you should be glad to use it. Please continue providing me with witticisms. I might end up checking RW more often. Cheerio Uppivindinn (talk) 16:46, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Britain isn't "full" and all attempts to say so are xenophobic nonsense. The real problem is that the refugees are religious conservatives and start off economically disadvantaged; they don't integrate as a result. This would not be a problem with a solid educational system and strong support for immigrants. Each refugee should be able to learn English, and have housing solutions (not refugee camps ffs) until they can be matched with employment. The government could do all of this, but it would require drastically limiting the amount of refugees so that adequate services can be provided for all. It would take time, and education would only affect those young enough to be enrolled in school, which makes dismantling religious conservationism a multi-generational process.

But, thanks to the "SJW" attitude in the West, nothing will change regardless. I even noticed that Western Marxists clamor on about how wonderful the regressive left is...even the tankies. I'm talking Maoist Third Worldists, traditional M-Ls, etc...how on Earth do you support the USSR and Mao-era PRC, and also support fascist religions at the same time? Do not they realize how Stalin and Mao viewed religion? I will never understand Westerners. Lord Aeonian (talk) 23:52, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Quiz me Aeonian, quiz me! You Arab. You want to understand how an unrepresentative Westerner leftist thinks? Ask me. 00:04, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Hey, psssst
If people on this wiki called you crazy for thinking that Pennsylvania and Virginia are going for Trump, then they're completely right about you. I mean, for fucks sake, even a boring loser like John Kerry managed to carry Pennsylvania. And Kaine just delivered Virginia (not that there was much doubt before). Bye! Typhoon (talk) 20:09, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Kerry won Pennsylvania by 2 damn points against someone less charismatic than Trump. How do you think a more populist Republican who appeals more to Pittsburgh steel workers put out of work by Hillary's NAFTA will do? Better I say. Winning.
 * Why do you think Obama won the areas of Ohio and Michigan where manufacturing was biggest? It's because he bailed out the auto industry and started saving their jobs. OK now flip those 2 candidates. 20:13, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Less charismatic than Trump? Pretty sure people wanted to have a beer with Dubya. Trump repels anyone who isn't batshit crazy. Typhoon (talk) 20:26, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Chipbag 01
You seem to be confused there. Could you please reply on his talk page to clear this up? I don't want the wiki to lose a potentially helpful contributor over something like this. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost)))  (talk) 21:59, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Hey.
Are you fucking five years old? If you have a problem with my "argumentative style", or if you wonder what my opinion on a certain subject is, come talk it over with me, don't shittalk me behind my back with Aneris hoping I don't look at that particular discussion thread anymore. You come across as a snivelling little dickhead when you do that. NewFrenchHotness (talk) 17:51, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * ?? I wasn't trying to hide anything, or even shittalk. I said that the style that you use to analyze things is lackluster and could use some improvement. There's a big difference between that and "oh, NewFrenchHotness is bad and has a small dick". <--shittalking. Get it? 21:15, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You litterally said I just pointed out how stupid NewFrenchHotness', attitude about everything is, which as namely "everything sucks, so we shouldn't try to do anything to make the world better". If this is not shittalking behind my back, I don't know what it is: my attitude towards the world is not that I think everything sucks or that we can't make them better, no matter what your bloated sense of self-righteousness warps my opinion on marijuana laws in Los Angeles into. Admit that you were being a cunt for no other reason than to take an insulting potshot at someone you don't like. NewFrenchHotness (talk) 21:39, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Shittalking is not saying you have a bad way of looking at the world. Shittalking is qualitatively far worse than that. It's also not behind your back: everything on here is public. Had I emailed, say, Aneris and told him you were a POS, that would be shittalking. Why don't you understand this? Why are you so sensitive? You could call me far worse and I wouldn't care. In fact, seeing as you obviously want to blow off steam because I criticized one aspect of your behavior, feel free to shit all over the Saloon Bar about how bad I am. Until then, I'm not interested in responding anymore. 23:30, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Quiz
Quiz me Aeonian, quiz me! You Arab. You want to understand how an unrepresentative Westerner leftist thinks? Ask me.

I am referring specifically to the what appears to be the "vocal" left, especially from the perspective of someone looking again. Especially regarding the European immigration problems. I admit much of it is just ignorance, but it gets annoying hearing Western media outlets blast the latest round of pro-Islam hypocrisy. Now for context, I am a Marxist-Nasserist and pan-Arabist. I say this not because I fully agree with all the concepts and policies associated with any of those terms, but because they describe me "best." I want a socialist, pan-Arabist, anti-theist state across the Middle East. My political positions more or less represent a very large proportion of Arab Marxists, as pan-Arabist anti-imperialism is still a very important trait in Marxism here.

Now, to the point. The Western left - with some exceptions - does not appreciate the fact that Islam was on the decline post-World War II, and was revived purposely by NATO and other Western actors as a weapon in the Cold War. In blunt terms, Islam is Western imperialism. This make perfect sense in the ideological context of the Cold War and traditional Marxist analysis of religion, but the Westerners are so myopic and Euro-centric they abandon Marxist positions against superstitions because something something something WESTERN XENOPHOBIA. Not to mention the travesty that is pro-Islam "postcolonial studies" and "cultural imperialism" and other nonsense, which play into imperialist hands with their naive and patronizing assessments of non-Western societies.

Let's zoom out for a moment and understand the Arab position...and the Western understanding of the Arab position. This piece is one of the best Western perspectives I have found. Let's take a look:

The ideological vacuum created by the collapse of secular nationalism and the search for “fresh ideas” created an opening for the Islamists. While the far left could have occupied this vacuum, as the following section will show, they squandered their credibility and thereby ceded ground to the Islamists.

Again Egypt demonstrates this dynamic well. At about the same time that the economy began to decline, Islamic Associations (Jamaat Islamiya) started to emerge in student circles in the main cities. The regime of Anwar Sadat, helped nurture and support the development of these groups, in an attempt to make a sharp turn away from the secularist and statist policies of the previous period. These associations recruited students who were growing increasingly disillusioned with left politics, and trained them in the “pure Islamic life” at summer camps. In order to gain broad support in a climate where the left still had influence, they offered what they called “Islamic solutions” to the crisis facing Egyptian universities. For instance, students had to deal on a daily basis with an inefficient and overcrowded transportation system. For women, this was particularly difficult as they were often harassed in these situations.

The “Islamic” solution was to transport women in minibuses brought explicitly for this purpose. Once this alternative mode of transport became popular, however, the Islamists restricted this service to only those women who wore the veil. The privatization of transport was thus a way of responding “Islamically” to a social problem, and of placing women students in situation where they had few choices but to adopt the veil. A similar approach was used with dress and gender segregation. It was a combination of social services and moral instruction that advanced the agenda of the Islamic Associations. Soon chants of “Democracy” began to clash with “Allahu Akbar” (God is Great) at student demonstrations. In a matter of a few years, the Islamists were dominant on campuses and the left were forced into hiding.

So, good assessment so far. But the piece goes on to absolve Islam - almost in a strategic way - and argues that the failure of the Arab left was due to Soviet sycophantism among Arab Marxists, in addition to the economic failures of those groups when in power. These were certainly factors...but why no mention of Western support of the Islamists? It briefly skims the idea that Islamists often collude with imperialists, but never calls a spade a spade. I will quote myself in another circumstance;

Long story short, in 1954 US President Eisenhower authorized the use of religion - especially Islam - as a means to fight the Soviet Union. Islamists, such as the House of Saud, were funded, while secularists, such as Muhammad Mossadegh, were removed in Western-backed coups. The idea was that religious theocracies would not align with the atheist USSR, and would be easier for the West to control by controlling cash flows. Starting with the secular foundations of many Middle Eastern countries after the end of the Second World War, the Middle East was getting more progressive and less religious. Western pro-Islam actions are what reversed this process, and resulted in ever more extremism.

Consider Southwest Asia. As soon as (secular) India sided with the USSR, it became in Western interests to push Islam on the subcontinent. I would direct you to Husain Haqqani's book Pakistan: Between Mosque and Military which explains how Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq's 1980s Islamification of Pakistan was the ultimate product of a long history of Western actors supporting Pakistani Islamists - including Abu Maududi and Zia-ul-Haq himself. Any history of Pakistan would probably cover this to some extant; Western support was essential for Zia-ul-Haq and he never pretended to be anything other than an Islamist.

And how can we neglect the role of the West in subverted secularists in the Maghreb, such as Habib Bourguiba? A friend on mine in Tunis told me that in the late 1960s, Bourguiba came on national TV and advised Tunisians not to fast during Ramadan, as it is bad for the economy. He referred to the hijab as "an odious rag." By October 1985 the US was fully supporting Israeli attacks on PLO bases near Tunis - and then claimed Bourguiba was at fault when he decreased relations with the West.

These are just specific examples from the top of the my head - but what about the most egregious of all? The Western propping up of Saudi Arabia? Do you think it is only about cheap oil? Is that why the Saudis enjoyed such close connections with US leaders up to and including Bush and Obama? And when the House of Saud was propped up from the verge of collapse post World War Two, when the West decided they need the Wahhabi state to counter Marxist secularism in the Arab world? No no my friend, the West know what it was doing. Every miserable dollar that the West sends the Wahhabis, they know it would be used to fund Islamists and spread Salafism through the Arabic speaking world (and beyond). And do you think it ended it 1991? No, Ergodan himself had Western support during his first elections with the Islamist parties in Turkey in the late 1990s.

And, ironically, Deepa Kumar again, from the Politics of Empire:

One lessor-known aspect of the Eisenhower Doctrine was "Islam strategy." This strategy consisted of bolstering Islamist organizations against secular nationalists and trying to create an Islamic pole of attraction in Kind Saud of Saudi Arabia...The Orientalists who helped shape this strategy were convinced that the secular ideologies of nationalism and communism would hold little weight in [a] Muslim world....and concluded that the United States must use religion to win hearts and minds, ignoring the popularity of secular nationalist movements.

So, your quiz is: Why is this so rarely discussed in leftist circles? When did historical materialist Marxists become pro-superstition? Why are leftists bending over backwards to defend the biggest tool of Western imperialism in the modern era? Why does the regressive left even exist? When did Western "progressives," formerly outspoken defenders of Enlightenment and the International Proletariat, become nihilists, theist sympathizers, and traitors? Lord Aeonian (talk) 00:54, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The average leftist in America/Canada/Britain/Australia simply does not know the above information. They're uneducated because of a school system that doesn't want them to know these things. The more Marxist leftist circles actually support the secular nationalists you're talking about, like Nasser for example. So much so that he won the Soviet Union's backing. Only recently have the hard left actually come out in favor of Islamists like the Syrian rebels, Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Hamas, and the like, mainly because the leftists view these groups as genuine national liberation movements, regardless of religiosity.


 * I initially supported the Syrian rebels back in 2012 when they weren't dominated by al-Qaeda and Islamists. I made a damn FSA logo in PowerPoint for crying out loud! But when I actually starting researching the conflict, I realized the rebels didn't hold the moral high ground. The Marxist website disagrees with my current view, mainly because the Ba'ath Party doesn't give a shit about the workers and poor. And that's an understandable position, but these people are simple-minded. They tend to think in economic and social terms more than religion and human rights. But guess what? That same Marxist website is now neutral on the Syrian conflict, seeing both sides as imperialist puppets.


 * The regressive left takes the position it does on Islam mainly because of the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, which happened under right-wing leaders. Because of this, they thought, the logical side for what you call the "regressive left" to take was to be sympathetic to Islamists. Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt? Support. Syrian rebels? Post supportive messages on Facebook. ISIS? Well, they're so bad most leftists have been quiet, but I've been angered by Twitter leftists saying "Evil US imperialists kills kids in Syria bombing. End bombing!!", when they have no earthly idea how bad who they're defending is.


 * Did any of that make sense? 01:34, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It does, but what I am referring to is not the "average lefist" so much as the leftist academics and intellectuals who should be guiding the rest. Surely they know of the above issues; they are well known aspects of the Cold War in the Middle East. You would think the left would be ever more united in anti-theism considering the role of religion in supporting capitalist reactionaries in the exploited world. If not ignorance, what is their excuse?


 * Also, these are my thoughts on the regressive left. I disagree with your position because I view the regressives are inherently populist and less focused or concern on broader, global picture. What do you think of my assessment? Lord Aeonian (talk) 01:54, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to Chomsky when you talk about intellectuals, or is there another person/group you're talking about? Also, I agree with your above assessment on Reddit. 01:55, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * No, I actually like Chomsky, I'm referring to the general state of Western academia and such regarding Islam. Lord Aeonian (talk) 01:59, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Leftists, or liberals, tend to be "do whatever you want man, it's cool bro, just believe what you wanna believe, and it is true if you believe it". Because of this ideology, this group tends to think it's wrong to oppose Islam. They're willing to be tolerant of other people's intolerance because they don't want to be intolerant themselves. I would liken this to a society in which the only rule is "don't coerce or hurt others", and the good citizens do nothing to stop the few rapists and murderers because they don't want to impose on them, despite what they're doing being wrong. Make sense? 02:04, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, except if they were "to each their own" people, how can they continue to criticize Christianity? And, by extension, patriarchy, racism, etc? I know many of the people you describe, and their view on all of these things is quite literally "believe whatever you want, just don't try and disenfranchise others." It's a consistent worldview. But the Western leftists seem to have a consistent worldview against social conservatism...but with "exceptions." Lord Aeonian (talk) 02:09, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You are correct. Said group exists, and it is sad for the left. But that won't change me from being a leftist myself. I criticize Christianity and Islam both, and a lot. 02:12, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I am obviously still a leftist myself regardless of what the West does. But you didn't answer me - now that we're talking about the same group, *why* do they behave like this? Lord Aeonian (talk) 02:15, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * They criticize aspects of their own society, yet refuse to criticize aspects of another, especially if it is in Asia or Africa. They feel like criticizing other societies isn't their problem, but their own society is. In short, they only care about their continent and not others, because they think only their surroundings affect them. 02:32, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * But what about in places like Sweden and the UK, where Muslim communities are more extreme than in the Magreb or Middle East with regards to social conservatism? Lord Aeonian (talk) 02:44, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I do not know about these place. Maybe I will one day become a Swede and tell you why. 02:48, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Well I am mainly referring to Western European "liberals" who criticize Christianity but ignore the very conservative Muslim minority (which is quite substantial in some places). Lord Aeonian (talk) 02:54, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I agree that that's stupid. I can't answer why that is though. Sorry. 02:59, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

To interject: From a "freedom is good" perspective, it makes sense to simultaneously defend Muslims in the West (because they are minorities that are attacked by powerful right-wingers) and attack powerful Muslims in the East (because they attack minorities). A bit like defending blacks in the US and hating African dictatorships (though not entirely comparable same, it's a useful parallel). I think the current problem is that most political views are very simplified -- either Muslims are good (left) or Muslims are bad (right), either blacks are good or blacks are bad -- rather than "there are good and bad people, Muslims of both, blacks of both". 03:08, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Nice interjection from someone I don't always agree on. Welcome to the intellectual discussion, FCP. 03:14, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * FCP is correct about the over-simplifications and such, though part of the problem is that I don't see the leftists attacking "powerful Muslims in the East" at all. Anyway, PB3, you never answered my question about what you think of my assessment here.
 * I basically agree with it. 02:22, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Just testing what is I hope, an improvement on you
Hi!

The changes I made to my signature can be seen on my talk page, but just do get an opinion, do you thing that the King-addition is enough? Cheers 16:03, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * eh, I thought you didn't want to edit here much anymore anyway. Whatever you say. 16:34, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Correct, I didn't and I don't. But this random name trick was just for fun — it's neat. And the only thing I asked was the very neutral question: Will this do? Cheers 16:41, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, just to be precise: I'll take a look every now and then as I have done. If I think of something, then I'll edit. I have no taste for controversy, but I do admit that I threw a small barb in your general direction. That was just mild wordplay. You can't object to my presence or absence on any constitutional grounds. Whether you like me or not (you don't) is absolutely irrelevant. Cheers 18:50, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I forgot to say that the only reason I sent this to you is because you appeared on my talk page. I came here to seek an opinion. As for my very lousy joke, just think of what Pb stands for. It's my only sin in this particular RW-life, as far as I am aware of. Cheerio 19:47, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Pbfreespace3/Trump Quote Predictor
Moved, didn't think it's quite ready yet. move back anytime. 21:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You borked the purge function by changing the URL. Care to fix it? 01:34, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Done. 15:17, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi!
What do you think about this? Typhoon (talk) 06:57, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Based on a look at the Real Clear Politics polls, Trump is still up by 4 on average. Here's the poll you're talking about, specifically this. The margin of error is 3.5%, and note that the poll still actually has Trump leading by 0.2 points. Note based on RCP that the local polls show more of a tie, whereas the Public Policy Poll has Trump leading by 9 points. Every other Georgia poll ever conducted shows Trump in the lead, most outside the margin of error. The WSBTV poll didn't talk about their polling methods (i.e. did they use only cell phones?), so I can't tell if the poll was conducted well. Also know that the pollster that notes the poll (Harry Enten) is a noted Hillary-supporter. I think it's a statistical fluke that will go away in future Georgia polls, and Trump will win Georgia handily. 23:47, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * LOL, nice goal-shifting. Also, Harry isn't a HillaryShill, you're just mad at him for correctly predicting that Sanders would lose the primary. I mean, you sound fucking desperate when you launch attacks on Harry, when all he did was just mention a Georgia poll. Typhoon (talk) 08:22, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Why are you getting so angry? What's the deal? Also, please explain how I shifted any goals. (The correct term is shifting the goalposts, not "goal-shifting") 00:13, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Well well well
Things are looking pretty grim for good ol' Donald over there, uh?

P.S I know this is stupid, because it's the "now" forecast. Just to show you the sheer degree of stupidity that your arguments reach for the rest of us.NewFrenchHotness (talk) 18:04, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Source predicts Iowa and North Carolina will vote for someone other than Trump. Your argument is invalid. Nate Silver and his posse have lost all respect and legitimacy after their 2016 primary predictions. I'm surprised anyone still links to them. 00:10, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * And let's be honest here. The same source you linked shows Hillary tied in Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, Iowa, and Nevada. Can you imagine the 2012 predictions if it showed Romney tied in these states? Romney was always behind in those places, and Trump is tied in them. I wouldn't be shocked if, in the next 3 months, Trump develops a solid lead in 3 or more of these 5 states. 00:21, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The salt, it is delicious. It's funny how you feel respectful enough of Nate Silver's predictions to try and rub them in FCP's face, making a gigantic clown out pf yourself in the process, but now he's magically lost all your respect due to a couple of flukes. Your cheerleading for Trump is disgusting and reveals just how little you care about your fellow humans put against your self-righteous fantasy. I'll leave you with this quote from a French philosopher:

'''Utopias have no obligations of result. They only exist to allow their proponents to condemn what exist in the name of what doesn't.''' TL;DR grow the fuck up. NewFrenchHotness (talk) 01:04, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * How does saying that Trump will win count as cheerleading for him? I absolutely fucking despise him, have you even looked at my userpage? One of the top icons I made specifically to say I oppose him! I was just using Nate Silver's predictions to "rub them in FCP's face" because he is so stupid with political issues that he actually thinks O'Malley would've been the best president for the Democrats. 01:13, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't give a single fuck about the stickers you've put on your user page. They're meaningless, worthless compared to the stuff you say. What I do care about is your bullshit downplaying of the danger of Trump's policy (because, apparently, while "we know what we're getting" with Trump, people thinking that he'd do the things he claims he'd do are "taking him way too literally".) Which is it? Apparently Hillary is pure evil when she talks our of both sides of her mouth to appeal to some people, but Trump appealing to the alt-right is no big deal. Why would you smear Tim Kaine, trying to paint him as an anti-abortion zealot who wants to ban it even when he's done nothing to that effect, if you aren't actually trying to make sure the other side wins?. You are cheerleading for Trump, because of your accelerationist bullshit. Also, I'm gonna nicely inform FCP of your opinion on him. Replace "Martin O' Malley" by "Bernie Sanders, a man who's done nothing to actually help the NDP but still requests the red carpet": you'll note no one ever called you stupid for supporting Sanders when the primary was happening. NewFrenchHotness (talk) 01:28, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think the nominee of the party should be chosen based on how much that person has done to help to party, rather it should be what the people want. There's a big difference between O'Malley and Sanders. One of them is actually worthy to be president, and actually won like 22 percent of the country. 01:52, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd personally say that being mayor of Baltimore and governor of Maryland, areas with actual minorities and poverty and obtening actual results there would make one more worthy of being a Democratic president than being Senator from one of the smallest and most overwhelmingly White states in the US (very establishment, don't you think?), but I know Saint Bernie is just intrisically worthy of being president, experience or anything be damned. Fucking dickholes are so pissed Bernie lost that they're ready to take gigantic dumps on anything with a (D) before their name. NewFrenchHotness (talk) 02:13, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You're a self-hating racist. "Oh, he's a white man, therefore don't nominate him!!!" I hate to break it to you, but Martin O'Malley is a white man. Hillary Clinton is white. And Bernie is more anti-establishment than any of the other candidates in the field. So shut up, you racist. 23:08, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That is in not even close in meaning to what I stated. Yes, I am aware every candidate is white, thank you. The question is thus: what makes Bernie more worthy than Martin O'Malley? How does the former's career as a senator from one of the smallest, whitest states in the USA compare to being mayor of Baltimore (a city that, you know, kinda embodifies some of the problems the Dems seek to fix and has as many inhabitants as the entire state of Vermont) and governor of Maryland? How is Bernie more "worthy"? NewFrenchHotness (talk) 10:30, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Poll: Clinton up 4 points on Trump in Georgia. Remember when I posted that link that showed Trump tied with Clinton in Georgia. Well, it seems that it got even worse for Trump... and you too. Remember when you laughed at me and said that I'll be "crying on November when Trump wins"? Remember when you whined that people think you're "crazy for insisting that Virginia and Pennsylvania are going for Trump" and got mad at Castaigne2 for claiming that Georgia is a swing state in this election? Pbfreespace3, are you taking lessons from Bill Kristol on being absolutely wrong in every prediction? AHAHAHAHAHA! Typhoon (talk) 14:29, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It's going to be Prez Hillary all the way. --Castaigne2 (talk) 14:33, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, at the very least it's not Trump.--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 15:54, 5 August 2016 (UTC) 15:54, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The map you link to still has Georgia going for Trump, though. Even though Russian President Putin is very unpopular in Georgia due to the whole South Ossetia thing... another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost)))  (talk) 16:56, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Georgia is not going to go to Clinton. You're insane, Typhoon. 02:07, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * So you've moved the goalpost from "Georgia is not a swing state" to "Clinton will not win Georgia". LOL. Typhoon (talk) 07:54, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

The New Election Paradigm
I've noticed it this year. if person Democrat and person Hillary-supporter then At least that's what I've noticed. 23:17, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Link to biased 538 polling that shows Hillary is ahead (even though 538 got Republican and Democratic primaries wrong)
 * 2) Claim Trump is too unpopular to be elected *cough cough*
 * 3) Smear anyone who claims Trump has a good chance of winning, regardless of ideological affiliation, as "cheerleading for Trump"
 * 4) Profit
 * 1) Profit
 * Stop lying, you sniveling asshole. The reasons why I stated you were cheerleading for Trump are:
 * You -and these are your own damn words- stated that with Trump, the man who has become infamous for his tendency to say incredibly offensive things first, try to justify them later, then perhaps forget all about it, the man with one of the biggest Pants On Fire/False ratio on Politifact, a man whose political positions have flip-flopped wildly over the years to a degree Hillary has barely even brushed, "we know what we're getting". You also downplayed the impact of his wall-building and Muslim-filing plans (since the first'd be just "a crappy fence" and the second a "clever ploy".) You put him in direct opposition to Hillary Clinton on these matters.
 * You have tried to smear Tim Kaine (and Hillary Clinton in general), attempting to paint him as an anti-abortion zealot who'd ban all abortions despite all evidence to the contrary, admitting that "[You] do only want to mention negatives and not positives." Then you were caught red-handed lying and showed zero regret.
 * You take every occasion you can to go on about Trump's victory, in a way only someone who desperately wants to see him win would do. You're willing to show stunning levels of stupidity to that end, linking to 538 predictions (I guess it's not that bad after all, uh?) that were far from telling what you thought they told (and you only had to click once to confirm it).
 * You have admitted your accelerationist leanings, despite how obviously stupid they are.
 * So, do tell me... Why should I think you're not cheerleading for Trump? NewFrenchHotness (talk) 00:03, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Because I don't fucking support him. I absolutely hate him, I won't be voting for him, and I disagree with 86% of what he says (political test). I don't want him to win the election, as I would rather have Hillary win. I'm simply telling the Hillary Camp to not assume they have this election in the bag, because they don't. It's a coin toss, but my hunch tells me Trump will win due to fascist and anti-establishment fervor. 00:03, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * And also, the beloved "Why should I not . . ." fallacy. 00:06, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll up my bet to $200.00. $200.00 that Hillary wins. Real money, a real bet.
 * If you're so sure Trump will win, it's easy money, a sure bet.
 * And before you start counter-offering user page nonsense or whatever, remember that old Southern maxim. "Put your money where your mouth is." ;) --Castaigne2 (talk) 00:25, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You haven't answered any of the points I've raised. I don't care if you disagree with Trump personally: you have admitted your accelerationist leanings before. It is only normal to assume that you wish for Trump's victory. NewFrenchHotness (talk) 00:31, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Please show me where I admitted accelerationist leanings before. Until you do that, I can't accept your premise. 01:56, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * |"I do think that a Trump presidency could yield some good results on our side politically though" -Pbfreespace3. Of course, you insist that wishing for an anti-progressive extremist to become president isn't accelerationism. You've deluded yourself into thinking that spewing textbook accelerationism isn't accelerationims as long as you don't call it so. But you can't have your cake and eat it too. Just FYI, Trump stacking the Supreme Court with outright fascist will be a set back for progressivism in America for many, many decades and will realign the US even further right than the Reagan era could. Of course, you don't care about this, since as a white guy, you will be the least affected by this. Typhoon (talk) 08:07, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It's hard to take "leftists" seriously when they rail on against political fascists but then line up behind religious fascists. A materialist critique reveals both groups are the same if anyone was interested in a Marxist perspective, but it seems to me certain elements of the Western left have little care for actual leftist ideologies. Lord Aeonian (talk) 23:33, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It's hard to take "leftists" seriously when they rail on against political fascists but then line up behind religious fascists. A materialist critique reveals both groups are the same if anyone was interested in a Marxist perspective, but it seems to me certain elements of the Western left have little care for actual leftist ideologies. Lord Aeonian (talk) 23:33, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay a lot of this is dumb
But, at this point, it is statistically silly to predict a Trump presidency. PB, your forecasts are simply unrealistic. For example: in your 270towin map, a Trump victory without Virginia requires winning Ohio AND Pennsylvania AND Florida, all of which Obama won twice. Even in the friendliest but reasonable scenario (Clinton loses 1 in ME, loses PA, NC, FL, NV, IA, and wins OH) she wins. Note that this is 538's current prediction. 04:19, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

What do you think of this?
Earlier, you emphasized that you have not seen the so called regressive left in the United States; I agreed that it seems to be a European problem. But today I read this story from an ex-Muslim American socialist, who was ostracized by other American socialists who insist there are no problems in Islam, and everything from patriarchy to racism (in the Muslim community) is more or less due to Western imperialism. She made it seem like this is a substantial problem among American leftists - even the dominant view. What do you think of this? Lord Aeonian (talk) 00:33, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I think these American socialists, and American "commie/socialist" types in general, are stupid and don't know what they're talking about. They probably don't have a very good knowledge of other cultures and don't understand Islam very well. They don't know a lot of world history outside of their ideology's history, and as such haven't been exposed to the bad parts of Islam. At least these socialists criticize American foreign policy in the Middle-East; their criticism in this area is a good thing generally. 20:30, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Bank names
Lloyd Blankfein was the name of the person running Goldman Sachs. I kept the link to our page on GS, however. What are the other problems with the edit? Nerd271 (talk) 02:13, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Removal of grandmother clause 17:00, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Ha ha ha! Feel free to put it back. But to be honest, I had misgivings about that 'grandmother clause'. I'm not sure how the fact that she is a grandmother is relevant here. Nerd271 (talk) 13:53, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

The collapse of the Kurds
I was curious what your thoughts were on Assad's government's bombing of the Kurds. Turkey are aligning with Russia and Iran against terrorism which will likely mean Russia pulls their support for the Kurds.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:36, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Fuck 'em. I believe that the better option at this point is for the Syrian Democratic Forces to control Hasakah and Qamishli, even the Arab areas. I'm sure the residents would be much happier under the representative administration of the Syrian Democratic Council than the Assad government. Also, don't believe any of the shit about Turkey switching sides. They're housing thousands of illegal mercenaries to fight against Syria as we speak. If they really are now on the side of Assad, why aren't they advancing on the front against ISIS and al-Qaeda? ISIS controls a 57 kilometer border with Turkey, and that border has been static for 2 years! Turkey has thousands of tanks and hundreds of airplanes they could use against terrorists at any hour, but they don't! This is because they secretly support the terrorists in Syria. 01:19, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, no, I don't believe Turkey, a country that has invested large amounts of money and weapons in exchange for domestic insecurity, would ally with Russia and Iran to preserve Assad's regime. What I do believe is that this detente with Russia will help them to force the Kurds out in exchange for undermining the rebels, and those the US, in some way. See, Turkey has a lot of business interests at stake with a transitional government and I doubt Putin appreciates Assad's idiotic use of chemical weapons since it gives the US leverage to topple the regime and begin anew; this new, pro-American Syria would no longer host Russian ships or, at least, not give them military bases which would hinder Russia's navy and bring an end to Russia's offshore bases. Iran, on the other hand, just wants the Shias to rule and they would be perfectly fine with a Russian puppet being installed as long as the Sunnis don't take over.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:47, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure, both Turkey and Assad don't like the Kurds, but that doesn't mean they are going to 'force them out'. Turkey is in no position to attack the Kurds in Syria or uproot them. YPG alone has 50,000 fighters experienced in guerilla warfare, and the US isn't going to allow Turkey to invade their key ally in Syria. No, the Kurds will continue advancing, seizing town after town from ISIS. Turkey will continue support for the rebels, even ramping it up as ISIS begins to collapse in Syria. Russia will continue to throw everything they have behind Assad as his army desperately tries to pull something together in Aleppo and the frontier against ISIS. This is a true game of will: whoever blinks first loses. It sure won't be the US. 01:55, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course, Turkey will continue to arm the rebels since Erdogan still insists that Al Nusra (renamed Fateh al-Sham in order to avoid being associated with Al-Qaeda) is not a terrorist group. I doubt that the US will muster anything without an agreement with Russia or annexation of parts of Syria; the Kurds want to establish Rojava, not to reclaim Raqqa so they will only do so much. There are ways, though, that Turkey can undermine US efforts: they could intensify the conflict with the PKK and the Turkish Kurds, interfere with the arms being funneled to the Kurds, or they could directly bomb the Kurds in Syria and Iraq for hosting the PKK like they have previously.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 02:23, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * They could try, but they'd have a very bad ground for doing so. The thing is, PKK actually has bases in Iraq and is present in multiple areas there. PKK has very little, if any presence in Syria, and is probably restricted to a couple of neighborhoods of 1 city. They don't have any bases in Syria. Plus, US has 3 bases in Syria already, and the Syrian Air Force almost bombed the US Special Operations forces because of how embedded they are with the Kurds there. US can also supply the Kurds in Syria all they want. Remember the airdrops of weapons to the Kurds in the past 2 years? 02:26, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I do remember the intense fighting in Kobane but the Turks did not participate in the attacks on ISIL while the were besieging the city. The Turks don't need to actually extend much, all they need to do is be aggressive enough in order to force the US into an ultimatum, do they condemn the Turkish attacks and risk losing the airbases and supply lines they are using to fight or do they stay silent and risk alienating the Kurds once again?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 02:48, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Turks are too much intimidated at the idea of going up against an actual Kurdish army that they've literally been taking potshots across the border for a year. That's been the extent of their aggression. Also, Turkey begged the US not to let Kurds cross the Euphrates, but the US told the Kurds to do so, and Turkey can't do anything about it. Now the Kurds are going to take some more major towns from ISIS, and despite Turkey whining and crying in the corner, Turkey is too scared to do anything about it. 11:44, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, the Turks have begun to shell Manbij in order to keep the Kurds away from the Turkish border; these alterations will come to a head sooner or later. I think the Rojava's best chance is whether Russia believes that it is worth protecting them and they may since they helped to convince Assad to give up Hasakah.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 03:40, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

And weeks later, the Kurds are doing just fine. Advancing against ISIS still, in fact. 03:42, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The YPG's reliance on the US will inevitably doom them since the US is only concerned about them as long as them are concerned about Syria. No worry about Syria, no reason to support the Kurds.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:23, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * A well-trained, decently-equipped fighting force of 50,000 motivated troops (including women) isn't going to disappear in a few years, even if the main benefactor withdraws support (which I doubt it will). 04:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * No one would have thought the Soviets would've betrayed the Republicans in Catalonia.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:49, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying we won't betray them, I'm saying it's unlikely we'll betray them. They're the most powerful group in North Syria, dominating the political landscape. They haven't had any ground losses since January 2015. When ISIS really collapses, the SDF will get a decent chunk of the pie. 04:59, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not saying that they will collapse. I think you should really consider how global warming will affect the Kurds since they may not be abe to feed their populace and Assad, or whoever replaces him, will likely help them. Remember the civil was sparked because there was a famine.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 05:11, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * First, global warming isn't going to hurt the Kurds much. They control massive grain-producing areas, including dozens of grain silos and millions of acres of farmland. Êfrin Canton has been besieged on all sides for over 3 tears, and it's sustaining itself still. Also, Rojava gets smuggling from Turkey and food shipments from KRG, with whom they share a large border. Second, drought was only one level of the war, and it's a lie to say it started for that reason. There were a ton of other factors involved. 05:18, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure, global warming wasn't the only reason but it was a major factor for why the protests started. But the Kurds didn't try to raise funds for farming for no reason. If a famine were to occur, it would cause ethnic tensions that could result in violence.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 06:17, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Laurogeita?
This may not be the best place to ask it, but how do you know Laurogeita is a sock of Avenger? I can't find any information that proves such a claim. Jagulard (talk) 23:09, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to find it in the Chicken Coop edit history, but that thing is a bitch to navigate. 00:03, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not a sock of anybody. At least not to my knowledge. I do on occasion wear socks in real life, though. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost)))  (talk) 18:49, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * If you are the sock, of course you would deny it. Your humor won't help you. 20:35, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * What would I do if I were not a sock, in your opinion? only the true Messiah denies his divinity? To state it once again: I did not smoke pot with that woman. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost)))  (talk) 20:41, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I dunno. The point is your saying you aren't a sock changes nothing. If you had said you were, then it'd be a different story. 21:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Demopping
Stop it. Now.--JorisEnter (talk) 23:11, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * He could just revert a temporary ban it he hadn't been demopped. The ban is now up. Here, I'll remop him myself.


 * Actually, I'd rather not given your personal insult towards me. 23:14, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Please fucking stop 1) Edit warring with multiple editors 2) Blanking talk page posts 3) Desysoping and blocking and vandal binning the same user in a row. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:18, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Can we talk about the problem you apparently have with me? I am not the Ombud's man 23:21, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The Coop case result was clear, so stop this shit.--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 00:30, 26 September 2016 (UTC) 00:30, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't be so sure, person who the community voted they thought was Arisboch. 00:35, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It was 4 for yes and 10 for not. Don't be a sore loser.--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 00:40, 26 September 2016 (UTC) 00:40, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't - 01:33, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * But is FUN!!--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 02:14, 26 September 2016 (UTC) 02:14, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Hey Arisboch. 7 voted yes, 1 voted no. The person who voted no said "monopolies are boring". Eat it. 02:36, 26 September 2016 (UTC) The link you cited was for Laurogeita, not yourself! Most people know and think you're Arisboch! Your understanding of English is so bad because you speak German. 02:37, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Drunk ramblings at the Saloon Bar and therefore infra dig for me.--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 14:37, 26 September 2016 (UTC) 14:37, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I find it abhorrently distasteful if someone who speaks English and nothing else makes fun of the foreign language prowess of someone else. I am not the Ombud's man 19:01, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Excusez-moi, je parle le français assez bien. Vous êtes trop naïf, jeune homme. 02:47, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I take back my earlier statement. - 03:26, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Nah, people who speak French will just end up surrendering; no need to fight. I am not the Ombud's man 15:10, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Jaysus, you really ARE all about the "Ready, Fire, Aim!" bit, ain't you? --Castaigne2 (talk) 15:22, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I am sorry I do not quite understand. Who or what is a "Jaysus" and what do commands of early modern warfare have to do with anything? I am not the Ombud's man 15:33, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

France has actually won a majority of the wars it's fought, so the surrendering thing is a myth derived from France's performance in WWII. 20:13, 28 September 2016 (UTC) And since you're the German Avenger, "jaysus" means Jesus, said in an American country accent. 20:15, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * France since 1750 (what came before were various kingdoms of varying Frenchness) has lost The French and Indian War, lost the Napoleonic War, lost the Franco-Prussian war, was at the brink of surrender and had to be bailed out by the British and the Americans in the First World War, surrendered in the Second World war, lost the Indochina wars, lost the Suez crisis, lost the Algerian war for independence, lost its "war" against Greenpeace about nuclear testing in the French South Sea islands. Quite a record there. Now which wars did they win without even trying to surrender once? France is good at losing wars and still coming out ahead, though. I am not the Ombud's man 20:49, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Watch this. 22:20, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * "France has been around since 982" WRONG. Which definition of France counts 982 but not the Frankish rulers before? And what about the House of Bourbon having origins in Navarre which would come to rule over France eventually? Is Navarre France? Is the Alsace? What is "France" if we try for an a priori defintion? If you only take the wars since 1789 (when France became a Republic for the first time and left behind feudalism), France's record is not that stellar, to be quite honest. (Note that the video never says what it counts as a "war" and that according to the method of counting apparently used both WWI and WWII in which France either surrendered or damn near surrendered count as "wins"). Also, my point was partially in jest to begin with, as I hope you have noticed by now. I am not the Ombud's man 15:42, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I can't even believe you're spending your time arguing about this. 00:22, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * "Arguing for the sake of argument" used to be my signature, remember? It's probably because there is some (((Judaism))) a few generations back in my ancestry somewhere... I am not the Ombud's man 01:10, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Imminent Hilary collapse!
Word one from bros over at Real True News! CLINTON COLLAPSE!!!! None of the old strategies work on Trump! Breitbart beats all other news output! Even Hillary's blackmailed FBI agents can't pull it through! Plus, she's going to die of THROAT CANCER! Just thought you might be heartened by all that. :D It sure heartened the Freepers. --Castaigne2 (talk) 23:04, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you think I actually believe any of this shit? Are you trolling? 02:10, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You know, I was right about you. You don't have a sense of humor. --Castaigne2 (talk) 16:13, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Throat cancer? Did she blew ?--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 13:00, 11 August 2016 (UTC) 13:00, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Nah. New blather being thrown about. See here. --Castaigne2 (talk) 16:13, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Wrong. She will die of pneumonia.- 15:34, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I thought she had brain concussion cancer. Or some venereal disease. I am not the Ombud's man 17:38, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Her subcortical vascular dementia is causing her brain to rot and draws flies. The fly on her abdoman was drawn to her colostomy bag. nobs 18:31, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Perma-banning Laurageita
The coop isn't done. So why exactly have you done that on your own recognizance? --76.17.68.100 (talk) 04:18, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The reasons have been explained on Weaseloid's talk page, as well as in the ban summary. You also misspelled Laurogeita's name. Why aren't you signed in, Castaigne? Also, what does recognizance mean? 16:25, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Because I wasn't (and am not) at a computer where I'm signed in and it's too much fucking trouble to go through my encrypted password sequence. --205.145.18.4 (talk) 23:44, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh brave surrender
(Source) Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:01, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * RIP Trump's victory plan.- 02:54, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I've paroled you
- 19:52, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

What news do you read?
? 13:50, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * All sorts of stuff. I'll read right-wing outlets just to poke holes in their stories, but one can only take so much of that. I tend towards left-wing outlets that talk about important stories, but I lost trust in the Washington Post, which I thought was a pretty good outlet at the time, because of their blind support for Hillary and Russia-Trump conspiracy theories. Same for Bill Maher, who is just running out of jokes at this point. I used to be into Raw Story and The Young Turks but not anymore, because I hate the obvious bias that isn't presented tastefully. Today I'm a fan of Secular Talk and DP Action News. I was just watching the former and am about to watch the latter. I also watch CBS This Morning for 20 minutes, and either CBS Evening News or NBC Nightly News when it comes on. PBS Newshour is also pretty decent except they're like a Galapagos tortoise in their pacing.  02:46, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your endorsement!
- 23:49, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Dude, don't
Don't remove fucking negative comments about yourself on the goddamn moderator election page and call them "vandalism" or "disruptive". That's not cool. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 21:20, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * "Do not delete public comments, add that contradicts RationalWiki Community Standards." 21:49, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Long Time, No See
Where have you been these past few months? It's good to see you again, BTW. RoninMacbeth (talk) 03:19, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Focusing on politics outside the wiki. It has been declining noticeably. I just popped back here because I noticed a horribly inaccurate statement on the election page. I'm sure there are more, but I'll get to them later. 03:31, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, if you see something, remove it. Fuzzy's actually been talking about revamping politics significantly. If his plan is approved, changes sure will be happening. RoninMacbeth (talk) 03:36, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Has Fuzzy or any mods for that matter changed their opinion vis-a-vis Sanders v. Clinton? Cuz although Fuzzy tried to be neutral, he was pretty pro-Hillary. Any changes I should know about? 03:42, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Weaseloid's been gone since May, I think, and the good Reverend's been AWOL for the past week or so. The whole Sanders/Clinton debate has been dead for months now. Fuzzy, CheeseburgerFace, DiamondDisc1, and myself are trying to streamline our articles by expanding/getting rid of stubs. Do you remember FAMAS? He got in an edit-war with back in July and fled when the backlash of his attempted desopping of RBP failed. There's that EvilZionist guy, who may or may not be an Avenger sock, but I really doubt it. Oh, and there are repeated legal "threats" on the talk pages for John Fuerst. That's about it. RoninMacbeth (talk) 03:51, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * One more thing: User:Kingdamian1. He's nice, if a bit eccentric, and he writes essays. Lots of controversial essays. RoninMacbeth (talk) 03:56, 8 September 2017 (UTC)