User talk:Ikanreed

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


 * User_talk:Ikanreed/Archive1
 * User_talk:Ikanreed/Archive2 (2015-2017)

You've been nominated as moderator
CorruptUser (talk) 03:36, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Conservative tag
Is there a reason why we'd list Sargon as a conservative despite holding majoritively left-wing views? "pft. ha" isn't very informative. Draevan13 (talk) 17:30, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * His primary advocated positions, in virtually every published video are outrageously conservative, consistently favor conservative candidates and parties, and any liberal or left positions he claims to hold almost entirely are brought up as a defense for his consistent and constant bemoaning of various minor kinds of social progress that would nominally be considered left or progressive. There's very very little merit to calling him liberal or suggesting he actually holds left-wing views.
 * To put it another way: if you could name even one kind of progressive reform or change he favors making instead of just "protecting" the hard work of those before him(by attacking left-leaning people), I'd be fucking goddamn astounded ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:33, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * What positions are you refering to? All I can think of that he's conservative on is immigration. Though I haven't watched him since Trump got elected, so maybe he went full right in the interim. Draevan13 (talk) 18:52, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * What positions am I not referring to? No really, I want to know a single goddamn thing he's said to suggest a positive reform, not just pro-status-quo "I'm a liberal because I don't hate gay marriage like I hate women," fucking ever.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:56, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You're getting way too worked up over him, I'll just drop it on the "Conservative Wingnut" tag.
 * But to clarify something, for one to not be conservative in your eyes one must want reform, and can't be content with the status quo? Draevan13 (talk) 19:13, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Look at the forest not trees, buddy. If you consistently make a big deal out of your outrageously conservative views and then come back and throw up some wallpaper at the end as a qualifier about how something that you can ignore totally and not work on at all makes you a liberal, you're probably a conservative.
 * But also yes, a broad-based acceptance of the status quo and a rejection of progressive change is a hallmark of conservatism regardless of the particular status quo defended, at least when the term was invented, and, entirely separate from the point I'm actually trying to make, I might half-assedly call him a conservative purely on those grounds too.  (also for gods' sake he was a trump supporter) ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:01, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You know what, I just saw a recent edit on Sargon's page linking to a video he posted last week where he flat out says "Fuck it. He (Trump) is my guy. He's doing what he said he'd do, and he's turning the left fucking crazy." I'm going to need a moment to process that, but after hearing him say that, I take it back. He's a conservative. Draevan13 (talk) 20:42, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you.
I don't know if you have any say in this matter, so if I'm just bothering the fuck out of you, feel free to say it and I'll piss off elsewhere.

That being said, I'm having a bit of a conundrum. There was recently a page added for James Damore's memo and the original page author was very keen to downplay the more unpleasant aspects of Damore's personality and outright removed any mention that the original thing was racist and sexist as hell. We had a heated discussion at the talk page, after which the author whined about me to the mods because the discussion wasn't "rational" enough despite that there were points even in-between the spittle flying, resulting in me getting me blocked for an hour. All the while, the original author himself hasn't responded to any of my points and is trying to cast the memo in a favorable light, to say nothing of how he always tries to whine to the mods whenever I disagree with him or insult him while he has an inflammatory user page that openly mocks liberals and castigates them for wanting safe spaces. He also links to racist websites as his sources for some of his edits. I'm seriously starting to think this place has gone to the dogs if the mods here can't openly detect an arch-conservative smearing bullshit all over the site. Is there anything at all you can do, or any advice you can give me? James Earl Cash (talk) 21:12, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The mods just have decorum poisoning. It's not deadly, just super annoying. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:54, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Shit, that's the state of things huh? Might be time for me to throw in the towel. James Earl Cash (talk) 21:56, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe I should do a call-out thread and actually discuss the issue instead of sitting on my hands. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 22:06, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Meh, apparently my issue with the James Damore page has settled down (for now), but I still think there was too much bullshit to go through and not enough paying attention to the obvious statements that I had both brought up and were cited in the actual article in question. James Earl Cash (talk) 22:14, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know how to exactly respond to this recent edit to the talk page, which Moobnert used to justify his changes on James Damore. You might know more what's going on here than I do though, and I'm guessing you care about the quality of such articles, but... yeah. 18:49, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for taking your precious time on that comment. 23:19, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

New template for you
tech pledge. —Kazitor, pending 01:47, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Pledges are silly. All sysadmins barely tolerate users as an unfortunate necessity.  DELETE FROM wiki_users WHERE name=='Kazitor' ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:36, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * :( '); DROP TABLE user; -- at least research the schema first! —Kazitor, pending 22:58, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Coop
I'd appreciate it if you stayed out of the Chicken Coop unless absolutely necessary. Thank you. Bongolian (talk) 00:46, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It is absolutely necessary. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 00:51, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Calm the ever-living motherfucking Gods and Goddesses damned fuck down!!! None of this shit is worthy of HCM. 00:52, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It's pretty fucking bad. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 00:53, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Please explain and prove why it's necessary, and I will take action. 00:54, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I did that in the first coop that was instantly archived with no one bothering to look into it at all. A drive-by MRA who thinks they've got the whole world figured out because they watched some youtube videos came by the the misogyny article to whitewash and throw some weird biotruths bullshit in.  Then ran to the misandry article to rewrite the etymology(i.e. first) subsection with a phrasing intended to imply the fairly common MRA refrain that feminism is a movement intended to destroy men.  A conspiratorial sentiment so well rebuffed in this very wiki as to not warrant further discussion.
 * I reverted it. It was a garbage edit with no value.
 * Nerd reverted that on the grounds of my edit summary mentioning that the tone wasn't necessary.
 * I replied on the talk page making clear the exact nature of why it's awful garbage. Nerd took the fact that I swore about it being shit personally(near as I can tell), and proceeded to edit war like hell and only complain about my tone on the talk page, while simultaneously demand debate they themselves weren't offering.  Edit warring is bad, edit warring for gobshite conspiracy theories is just awful.  They need a "cut it out" about 100 times more than I do.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 01:03, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Take this discussion to the article's talk page as it deserves to be there. We can restart the discussion granted it is calmly discussed. As for edit warring, it takes two to tango. and  do not edit war. 01:10, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh good. I can be condescended to more without addressing content. yay.  You've very successfully solved the problem of hearing about the actual problem.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 01:13, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm here to solve the problem. It sounds like you're just here to whine. Move the discussion to the misandry talk page. 01:18, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * If or anyone brings up this discussion outside the misandry drama outside the article's talkpage, any user should archive the discussion or revert the edit. If topic on this talkpage is continued, revert the user's edit. 01:24, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * If or anyone brings up this discussion outside the misandry drama outside the article's talkpage, any user should archive the discussion or revert the edit. If topic on this talkpage is continued, revert the user's edit. 01:24, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * If or anyone brings up this discussion outside the misandry drama outside the article's talkpage, any user should archive the discussion or revert the edit. If topic on this talkpage is continued, revert the user's edit. 01:24, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

A question
I'm curious about your statement in the topic I made. I'm sorry if I'm bothering you or being nosy/intrusive, I was just curious as to what experiences you had with transhumanists. Towards-the Unknown (talk) 16:50, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Nominated for RMF Board
06:54, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I second your nomination. Bongolian (talk) 19:31, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

IPs creating pages
They used to be able to edit all of the templates that appear on the main page, believe it or not... What a Wonderful World (talk) 18:00, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Friendly heads-up
Yes, an Afghan is a kind of blanket, but more importantly it is a person, probably able to speak Pashto, living in or from Afghanistan. The Afghani is the currency of that country. Anonymous User (talk) 19:01, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarification. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:05, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

For the sake of argument.
We can debate whether Psychologists should call themselves biologists, meaning they have adopted a biologist's point of view in interpreting psychology, in which case, a university biologist, without psych training is, in fact, giving personal views on the subject, outside of their expertise as well. But I just don't like crossouts, especially in the first sentence. It is, lazy. I told the person who inserted them to write out their view in the text. I don't want to have a long futile argument. I would always rather compromise.Ariel31459 (talk) 14:35, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That's an important debate, and, if you take the position that people should mislead national audiences on their expertise, we should probably hammer out why. Context does Peterson no credit, because it was a broadcast segment and made no effort to qualify that he merely "understood" evolutionary biology, but claimed to be a biologist a term implying credentials and career focus.  Nor did his host make any effort to clarify to his audience what his expertise actually was.
 * I love crossouts. It's a great way to show ways in which people lie without having to waste 30 words to explain that in precise detail.  I mean, I get that for being an information source, tell, don't show.  But for being an effective communicator, show, don't tell.  The latter is more important to me than the former.  "Jordan Peterson has claimed to be X, Y, and Z, but is in fact none of those things" is sooooooooooooooooo boring.  I practically fell asleep writing it.  And when it's not quick snide commentary, you actually have to go further than just saying it, you have to put it into a larger context of dishonesty or something similar.  It's exhausting, not as fun, and only really has the merit of being less open to quibbling on technicalities.
 * As I implied before I think it's okay if you remove it, but I don't think it's an improvement. Not by a long shot.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:54, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. As I said, I am not trying to win a point on this question. I will leave them for a while. Eventually I will create a section listing such nominal claims without prejudice.
 * A relevant generic argument I mention in passing: There is a paradox that often can not be teased out of most criticism of any person with real academic credentials: their detractors themselves often lack sufficient academic expertise to make their authoritative assertions stick, e.g., Myers is not a psychologist, yet he routinely makes pronouncements about evolutionary psychology as a discipline. Also, the author claiming to be a "marine biologist" is a graduate student in marine biology with some expertise in crustacean evolution. That is not entirely in their favor, especially because marine ethology is a related field not typically part of a marine biologist's training. Just something to keep in mind Ariel31459 (talk) 15:38, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It is okay to speak outside of your field of expertise. It's not okay to misrepresent your field of expertise.  Also, I don't know if you know what graduate students do, but it's safe to say someone pursuing a phd in Xology is, in their working hours, acting as an Xist, with only the rarest exceptions.  Being a grad student is a research job.  You can, in fact, be a marine biologist with just an undergrad degree in marine biology, or even just ecology, and a work-life focused on marine biology.  It's not really comparable.  I feel like you know that.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:49, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure, it is clearly OK. The weight such opinion is given by the academy is often proportional to the academic prestige of its author. But the issue of authority can not be settled by those outside any field in question, especially when said field is as narrow as marine ethology or comparatively when two fields are as distinct as general biology and evolutionary psychology. Peterson engages in scientism to advance his particular ideology. I don't blame you for rejecting that.Ariel31459 (talk) 16:14, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If it weren't for a broader context of Peterson constantly being a crank about practically everything, it'd be easier for me to take that stance. Scienctism is not the word I'd use, since that at least entails a respect for the sciences and scientific consensus and rigorously applied scientific method.  He's really more of a pseudoscientist in his popular discussion, making claims with support that looks superficially scientific but are not actually empirically established to any meaningful degree.
 * It's an odd case, because pseudoscience usually comes with more markers us skeptics are used to: misused terminology(esp. energy or quantum), invocations of the spiritual, claims of medical breakthroughs, argument by thought experiment, you know the kinds of giveaways I mean. His claims don't have those, but it's still absolutely pseudoscience to conjecture that, say, "seretonin levels in lobsters correlate well with quantity of protected territory therefor humans evolved to be happy in power structures" because it uses neither an established theory coupled with appropriate evidence to draw a preliminary conclusion(you know, like observing shape of an orbit to determine mass of the bodies involved by applying newton's laws), nor is it a hypothesis that he then applies tests for.  It's conjecture written to sound like it has scientific backing.  Pseudoscience.  So with that context it makes him seem like a pseudoscience peddling nonsense to back conservative Christianity.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:51, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. Apart from Peterson's academic work, he seems to be going about a greater project of influencing culture with his view of how people should approach their own lives. This is moral philosophy, of course, and not a scientific project at all. For me, pseudoscience is a nonscientific system applied to the physical world such as a method for turning lead into gold, palmistry, astrology, numerology and the like. Such systems are neither sciences nor can their practice be deemed scientific. But when both scientific and unscientific methods or assumptions are applied to the understanding and improvement of human beings, then traditionally, religion and philosophy are called upon to testify. To assert a fact without evidence is not pseudo-scientific. it may be unscientific.. It is a gamble against being proven wrong. In fact, this is done frequently in the the non-intuitive sciences such as particle physics, cosmology and quantum mechanics, where the oddness factor is large. All non falsifiable claims must, in the light of reason, fall back into the realms of ideology, philosophy or religion. I would not call it pseudo-scientific to make a claim one cannot substantiate, or even one that even is unlikely to be true. Using scientific factoids for heuristic purposes to support a particular ideology isn't science, of course: it is something between the swamp of religion and the meadow of philosophy.  Ariel31459 (talk) 00:09, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Lobsters
I think that consistent with your views about misrepresentation of credentials: a graduate student is not a marine biologist in any authoritative sense. On the other hand, I am interested in what she has to say and just writing " real marine biologists call bullshit," is a  puerile attempt at journalism. The main problem I see with this lobster faux pas of Peterson's is it can lead writers with meager backgrounds in science to think he is saying humans are descended from lobsters as is suggested by the quotes in the Lobster section.. He might believe that, although he does not state it as such. I think the response is his own fault for being vague. Probably convergent evolution is behind solitary and social species the latter of which display ostensible social orderings. Peterson makes a mess of it. It should be made obvious in the section. Not to be rational (I'm drunk already) but to be scientific. Put in all the ridicule and lobster jokes you want, but in general quotes from magazine writers don't seem authoritative and it would help if they were at least funny: why don't lobster people like to share with others? They are shellfish.Ariel31459 (talk) 16:46, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You might think this is me trying to be insulting, but it's not. It's really damn hard to appreciate where you're coming from with all the misunderstandings you've taken along the way to get where you are.  No one is accusing Peterson of assuming we're descended from lobsters.  No one here is following the "why are there still monkeys" logic.  They're accusing him of gross and insane overextrapolation of shared characteristics based very, amazingly, long separated common ancestors.  We're not even the same fucking phylum.  This is dimmest mists of multicellularity first arising separation.  Our eyes don't work by the same paradigm but our brains do?  Insane.  It's not vague, Peterson made a preposterously dumb misunderstanding his central dogma.  He's spoken on it and written on it at length, and it's exactly the thing the biologist in the article rebuffs quite thoroughly.
 * "Bullshit" is the most appropriate term. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:59, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * " for a man to emulate a lobster is like a woman treating the existence of the praying mantis as a license to eat her husband." Yeah, I don't think everyone is as with it as you are. Please keep in mind that I can be insulted, but I am never insulted by disagreement. Of course it is funny-odd to bring up lobsters in connection with humans. But it is hardly shocking. Like a joke some of us laugh at and some do not, there is not much there to discuss. Believe it or not, I am sympathetic to your antipathy toward Peterson. It just isn't all relevant. Peterson could have mentioned any social species close to humans or far away. Lobsters is a funny one. I am reminded of Howard Dean's last speech in Iowa. It seems to have ended his campaign. I have never understood why people thought so.Ariel31459 (talk) 17:11, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Side note: If one wanted to use animals to help explain ones point about human behavior there are not only plenty of examples in the Ape family, but throughout all of Mammalia. 17:12, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. I believe I noted that fact. Ariel31459 (talk) 17:14, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * My last comment was written (but not submitted) before the post in question. 17:19, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, and if he had mentioned other social species closer to humans, he'd have to deal with radically different social behaviors from the sweeping generalizations he wants to make. Meerkats communally raise young.  Bonobos famously fuck to solve problems.  Chimps will spite "higher status" males who treat them unfairly.  Gorillas will use aggressors' babies as shields.  Crows will teach cousins how to make and use tools.  There's such a wide range of non-simple-hierarchy in social animals that undercut his point, but he's a psedusocientist and happily over-extrapolates from poorly selected evidence.  That's the whole point.  He selected a very simple animal to make the case that humans are simple animals.   He's a professional bullshitter, Ariel.  And I say this a fucking Hobbesian dumbass who thinks that disorganized societies will collapse or be invaded.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:24, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * ...your last sentence. I assume you mean Peterson is a "Hobbesian dumbass, etc." That would be a nice conclusion. Some evidence for the dumbass part would be nice. I don't doubt he thinks disorganization can lead to some social collapse. I see him as overgeneralizing in some cases. He presents as an expert in everything which always smacks of scientistic homile. Ariel31459 (talk) 18:47, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Gonna not even read your whole post, I'm the Hobbesian dumbass.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:49, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Why mention crows? Our common ancestor goes back to before the dinosaurs. See how silly of an objection this is? If you think lobsters are a silly example to compare to humans (they are) then make that point. But make it on the basis of how they compare socially to humans, not how related they are. Else you might as well be arguing that we should all live like bonobos. We share 99% of our DNA, after all. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 17:48, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh Jesus Christ, I'm not making the case that we're similar to any of those things neurologically. That's the job of evopsych nutters who can't stop extrapolating from practically zero data.  I'm highlighting the diversity of behavior as you get away from painfully simple creatures, and the ways drawing those conclusions in the first place is either naive or purposefully dishonest.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:54, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

How Did You Know?
I kept telling my friends this was my main fear, but here you are predicting it. Damn you, good sir. RoninMacbeth (talk) 04:42, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * What language are you speaking? I don't understand it. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:34, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I wrote that at 11:00-ish, while procrastinating on a paper on the Trojan War. What I meant was that I feel validated by someone else sharing my opinions, so thank you. RoninMacbeth (talk) 15:39, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you missed the joke.  15:42, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Sort of. I couldn't tell if he was joking or being serious, so I treated it as serious. RoninMacbeth (talk) 15:44, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thus proving me right. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:08, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Tackling arguments on sex-differences and stuff
I feel I'm ill-equipped to argue against the likes of Lankaster, Mclaghing, Moobnert, AndyChrist, and Nerd (to an extent) especially since their edits, at face-value, seem okay. Do you suggest any resources for me? I'm afraid I'm not that well-suited to dissecting papers either, but reading that one paper in Fake News was fun. 21:03, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately the currency of science papers is tedium. It takes seriously sitting down with them, reading them, understanding the author's own analysis, and trying to grapple with how their data supports that analysis.  There's no "here's how to read a paper" tutorial out there.  I'm pretty sure I get my own analysis wrong occasionally, but not quite as much as the lankasters of the world.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:17, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

BJP
I made an erroneous edit. Thank you for making the correction. --ThisIsYeah2 (talk) 21:47, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I know you know already :)
03:16, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

What do you know about fascism?
This is an interesting question. You talk like you know something about it. It is commonly considered to be a modern form of feudalism, and so it has always been with us, in practice: only the word "fascism" is relatively new. I had family who were sent to Dachau for opposing Hitler, so I have some interest in this kind of history. I wonder how much you have been oppressed in your life. I have been very lucky, myself.Ariel31459 (talk) 15:23, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * "Commonly considered to be a modern form of feudalism" is perhaps one of the most nonsensical things I've ever heard. I don't think I've read a single scholar of fascism who's ever even approached that idea.  Not a goddamn one, and that's after putting up more than one right wing propagandist whose put out books trying to allege it's a left wing phenomenon, because of things like "there were gay nazis".  No fascist government was defined by delegation downward of divine authority, it was always the aggregation towards a single individual based on the image of strength.  Fascism was best defined, at its core, by Umberto Eco.  He very correctly notes that the elements of Ur Fascism are present a lot of aspects of politics, but it's when they're brought to the forefront as an aesthetic ideology that the metastasize into fascism.  GamerGate was fascist, but stupid and lacking a government body.  The neonazis who follow trump are fascist.   Bolsonaro is super fascist, and anyone who disagrees is sandbagging;  unlike Trump he's sending military and police to attack press he doesn't like, instead of you know practically begging for home grown terrorists to do it. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:10, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It's one thing to consider Trump a fascist, but I'm not sure what purpose is served by labeling all his supporters fascists/neo-Nazis when approximately none of his supporters see Trump or themselves as fascist. Seems like a good way to keep everyone in their own bubble I guess? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 01:20, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Well you could catch up with your reading to discuss it then. I looked at Eco. Not much that makes sense to me there. Feudalism came with racism as an underlying assumption. Gamergate was a bunch of imbeciles acting badly.Ariel31459 (talk) 17:01, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * That paper isn't making the case that it's a form of modern feudalism. It's comparing a few elements (Specifically Nazi fascism) has in common with feudalism, namely the obsession with individual loyalty to individual instead of to a state and a system of honor, instead of a system of laws.  Nice quote in the conclusion though

National Socialism is to be understood, then, as an effort of a disorganized society to repair itself, or rather, as an effort of certain of its members, whose own experience and character were the product of the very disorganization they sought to repair
 * Sure reminds me of a certain slogan on a hat. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:20, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmm, there might be something to this idea of Nazism as neo-feudalism. And it wouldn't be wrong to call Trump a Nazi in that context, since every action of his has been aimed at uniting a variety of old and new political constituencies (noble houses if you will) under his rulership. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 17:25, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Nah, that doesn't seem compelling at all. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:14, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * That might be because you constantly are using "fascism" to commit the nominal fallacy.Ariel31459 (talk) 23:07, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * That also seems really uncompelling. Are you sure you think about the things you say?  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 05:04, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Have any of y'all even read fascist literature ? You should 100 questions answered by oswald mosley. It gives a lot of insight into fascism. (You should probably read all of Mosley's works tbh). &mdash; Unsigned, by: 24.126.244.107 / talk


 * There's a limited amount of understanding to be gained from reading the fascists themselves, because their whole worldview relies not just on positive spin of their ideology(something every ideology does) but glorification of their views, and related cultural baggage, as in the range of grossly overstated to literal divine perfection. Like it or not, and I know the answer is not, Umberto Eco did a far better job of describing the nature of fascism than any fascist ever did.  Mosely praising the crimes against humanity and monarchy as good because they reflected the true people of britain is just bullshit.  It adds nothing.  It's garbage.  You can read Mein Kampf and realize, that, no, Hitler had no ideas, and was just a dimwitted racist with a oversize ego.
 * There's no substance to fascism past the incredibly basic realization that the ultimate arbitrator of society is violent force. And that's not a terribly novel idea.  Fascists suck, English Fascists suck, reading all their works when there's good, insightful political theories out there that incorporate criticism effectively, rather than dismissing it as conspiracies against the state makes you a goddamn moron wasting your time.
 * That's not to say I don't see your game. You want to portray me as intellectually incurious by citing a less well known garbage purveyor, demanding I read their entire works, and when I refuse, you can gloat about how much more informed you are.  But the fact is that Mosley was demanding respect for his shitty ideas like enslaving africans and offering hindsight solutions for how the Nazis could win WW2.  He was run out of office, loathed, and useless.  The commies who hit him in the head with a brick while he advocated Germany invade his own country were heroes.  In the 30s before the war started, he played the same dumbass games you losers do now.  "My free speech is being threatened when parliment passes laws against incitement."
 * Being born to a rich family is this guy's only real claim to fame. His writing is garbage.
 * It's a loser ideology, and has never offered anything to make it worth the deep dive your loser ass is demanding of me. If you'd found a real argument in his work, you'd use it.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:16, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Lauren Southern
You read the wrong section. It's the section "Leaflets" that contains my comment and the discussion I'm talking about. - Tneduts (talk) 15:58, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Nah, buddy, you're just a lying shit. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:10, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Lol, RW's conversational health is doing awesome today as usual. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 17:07, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually Tneduts is correct, they did indeed make a comment there concerning the section in question. 17:10, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

You have a friend in me...
...well not really a friend. I just don't wish you any specific harm. But yeah - the civility guideline idea is fucking awful idea. Acei9 04:22, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed. RoninMacbeth (talk) 06:09, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Allies in the fight against people working together harmoniously are always great. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:06, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Civility at the cost of honesty is nothing but polite insanity. You may quote me on that if you wish. 16:15, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I can say with certainty you're right because, well, 2018 shows me constant polite insanity. We're fucking swimming in it.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:18, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Being a scapegoat sucks
Hey, just wanted to extend my sympathies, because it seems everyone's made you a scapegoat for their own shitty behaviours. Which is odd, because I've never really objected to anything you've said (at least that I am aware of). So, condolences. —Kazitor 21:24, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually it rules. We like goats here.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:44, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

My ideology
Don't take this as me wanting to engage in a squabble, because it's a sincere question. What do you think is "my ideology"? -Lankaster (talk) 17:59, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, you're one of those people whose introduction to atheism seems to have taken a course in rabid anti-religiosity. Which is reasonable and fair, but it's also taken possession of a fair amount of extreme Islamophobia in that course of building that antitheism.  To that end you've got a clear pattern of editting articles to justify demonizing and attacking Islam in a broad aggregate, and in this particular case you're willing to step over factually incorrect statements that paint an unfair picture to reach that point and justify someone else saying it.  Classically, I'd call that kind of behavior ideological.  Ideological isn't always bad, mind you, it's okay to have encoded ideas and principles you believe in.  In this particular case it seems to be chasing the ideology past the point of fairness, and giving a little too much slack to someone saying something kind of unreasonably antagonistic?  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:27, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * To better understand me:
 * "one of those people whose introduction to atheism" I have always been an atheist, my parents cared less or nothing about religion and (luckily) they did not indoctrinate me. In particular, this makes me find atheism somehow obvious. In fact, if you see my contributions on RW, I'm not particularly interested in debunking religious beliefs.
 * "of a fair amount of extreme Islamophobia" Really? My position on Islam is something like Sam Harris' concentric circles (sorry but I'm a bit in a rush and I only found the annoying clip with Affleck).
 * "in this particular case you're willing to step over factually incorrect statements" Actually, I was the one asking to look at data, betting that the 70% figure was wrong, and I also proposed a way to refute it quickly. Note that I also praised CowHouse and DuceMoosolini for the job they did on improving the section with more data. So, I sincerely don't know where do you see my stepping over data. What I'm thinking right now is just that probably Ali made a hyperbolic (and absolutely false) statement during the interview (as often happens) having in mind the 70% figure about terrorist attacks. -Lankaster (talk) 19:29, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You wouldn't like my opinion of Harris. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:59, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know. I only said that my position on Islam is something like Sam Harris' concentric circles, not that I embrace every Sam Harris' idea. For example, I disagree with many of Harris ideas about objective morality. I always try to make my own mind, if I refer to some public figure that doesn't mean that I agree with them on everything. -Lankaster (talk) 22:21, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for endorsing me!
Congratulations, you can read.- 01:05, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

woo glossary
u should use sbs it's prettier 23:29, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * also sbs-title 23:30, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Here's your free (picture of a) pony

 * I'll take pone. Willthenut (talk) 19:43, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Being Egalitarian is not a bad thing
Hey dipshit you are aware that just because one doesn't follow lok and steo with feminism doesn't make them a bigot or a liar. Especially when your savior Anita lies about video games like Hitman. TheDarkMaster2 (talk) 14:45, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it pretty much does. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:34, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Feminism isn't a unitary ideology so "doesn't follow lock and step with feminism" is not even wrong. Not sure what to make of the second sentence, beyond that DarkMaster is the worst possible advocate of his own ideas. *grimacing emoji* 141.134.75.236 (talk) 18:56, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I mean, I'm convinced from the name alone that they're 13. It's pretty easy to shrug and go "yeah I'm glad there wasn't an internet where I could voice my opinion when I was in middle school"  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:10, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Voice chat for clarity
Given several discussions in the saloon bar appear to suffer from some ambiguity in my phrasing, or some other miscommunication on my part, would it be possible to discuss these subjects via voice chat? If so I have discord an am willing to use it to clarify my positions. If you are interested you can send me an Email (my Email address is located in my account's contact info) with information allowing me to set up such an exchange. 04:49, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Not a huge fan of voice chat. If you're referring to the Aquinas thing, I don't think clarity of wording was the problem, just clarifying your underlying point.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:51, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

 * Merry Christmas, Ikanreed. I hope that you have a fantastic Christmas and a happy new year! Season greetings! 2Cute4U (talk) 12:43, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Is Science 2.0 real?
There's this channel called Science 2.0 which was created by some troll on here. Do you think it's serious, or could it be called satire? Willthenut (talk) 18:59, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I see you're still engaging in self promotion of your nothing YouTube channels. All so someone, anyone, will pay attention to you. Get a life twatwaffle. 19:47, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No, just wondering if it's serious or not- and it's not my channel. Willthenut (talk) 19:52, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Is it your newphew's channel? That's the excuse you used last time. Or maybe it's just some nobody you found on the internet and, for some wierd reason that totally has nothing to do with pathetic self promotion, deciding to talk about? Hmm? Because I've seen the channel, it has less than five subscribers. It's a nobody. Just like you. 19:56, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I saw a page on here where you referenced Science 2.0, went over and watched the videos, and they were just as bad as I expected. My nephew didn't make them, I have no idea what you're talking about. Willthenut (talk) 20:05, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Show me the edit in question, now. 20:07, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * This one: https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=RationalWiki:Saloon_bar&oldid=2023670#This_YouTube_channel_looks_like_it_deserves_a_page Willthenut (talk) 20:13, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

"Sorry I deleted your article"
'''The first thing that I want to understand is what that even means. Possible alternatives and interpretations: '''

I'm sorry but I was forced to delete your article

Sorry-not-sorry I didn't like your article so I just deleted it haha

Sorry, I meant to click another part of the screen and then wheel of fortune was on so I got distracted and forgot about it. Will fix later.

I'm sorry that I ended up deleting your article for whatever reason. I promise that I will return to undelete your article as soon as I get the chance. Peace

'''The second thing I want to understand is what you deleted. I don't see a link that leads me to what you deleted. '''

'''The third thing I want to understand is why I'm getting advice later on in your private comment to me about on how to make a proper article when I'm not sure what was done incorrectly in the first place. You have to be specific - one should know that. '''

Cheers, Ikanreed

-TheNextGenWins

I really don't understand why people don't like you?
like I've been reading your posts and you seem like a reasonable person? I really really don't get it. anyway I don't really have that much to say other than that. Transbeeism (talk) 01:54, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm abrasive, not willing to back down when I feel certain of my own correctness, and tend to view what I deem intellectual dishonesty as a deep character flaw that completely undermines my respect for people as individuals. All of that is bad for getting along with people.  These are real flaws, and the reason I don't work on them like a decent person should is I have a hard time seeing a circumstance where the latter 2 are negotiable to my ethics.  And the first one feels better than pretending I feel respect when I don't.
 * Anyways, thanks for the kind words, but it's important to remember that people usually have good reasons for things. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 02:25, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Chinese transliteration
Which system of Chinese transliteration do you prefer: pinyin or Wade-Giles? Personally I prefer Wade-Giles, but that's mostly for aesthetic reasons. —  Ɖøn Ĵuan  Harass  15:43, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Too much of a novice to have a strong opinion. I use pinyin because everything I deal with is pinyin.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:59, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Point. I`m not exactly sure why Mao sought to replace Wade-Giles with pinyin, but it probably has something to do with Beijing chauvinism. Let me explain, the reason Wade-Giles and pinyin are so different is because Wade-Giles is based upon Cantonese, while pinyin is based upon Mandarin. Both are closely related languages mind you, both belonging to the Sinitic branch of the Sino-Tibetan language family, but they're distinct enough to not be mutually intelligible. The reason the Sinitic languages often get lumped together as the "Chinese language" is more due to politics than any actual reflection of reality, and it just so happens that Mandarian happens to be the tongue spoken in Beijing. Either that, or Mao hated Wade-Giles because Western intellectuals invented it, and so was therefore somehow "bourgeois". —  Ɖøn Ĵuan  Harass  12:52, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Wade-Giles isn't "based on Cantonese". It has always been used for transliterating Mandarin. For transliterating Cantonese, Jyutping and other similar systems are used. Superficially, Jyutping seems to be more similar to Pinyin than to Wade-Giles. For instance, to differentiate between unaspirated voiceless stops/affricates (全清) and aspirated voiceless stops/affricates (次清), Wade Giles marks the latter group with an apostrophe: p-p', t-t', k-k'. Pinyin and Jyutping uses lenis-fortis pairs like b-p, d-t, g-k.
 * There were many competing romanization systems when Mao came to power. Wikipedia lists EFEO, Gwoyeu Romatzyh, Latinxua Sin Wenz, Postal romanization, Wade–Giles, Yale romanization, Lessing-Othmer, and Legge romanization. On the Mainland, Zhou Youguang and his committee of linguists initially couldn't produce "satisfactory results", but by the 1950s, Pinyin was developed and promoted. (Wikipedia). At first Mao wanted to have Pinyin replace Chinese characters entirely, but that was deemed too impractical. Meanwhile in the ROC-controlled territories, Zhuyin Fuhao is generally used in education to annotate a character's pronunciation. Hence, comparatively, there's less of a need for romanization to be standardized in Taiwan. (Wikipedia).
 * China's capital has been within its Mandarin area (a huge area stretching from Manchuria in the northeast to Yunnan in the south, which contains about 70% of China's population) for most of the last millennium. Some variety of Mandarin has served as a national lingua franca since the 14th century. (Wikipedia). Beijing Mandarin gained more prominence over Nanjing Mandarin by the 19th century. In contrast, Cantonese is only mainly spoken in the southeast region. Westerners are perhaps more familiar with Cantonese because many overseas Chinese happen to be descendants of people who come from that area, and because of Hong Kong's prominence during the 20th century. Wataa. 77.111.246.59 (talk) 02:13, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

If you want to, it might be possible to reboot an Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez article
Hi Ikanreed,

I noticed your comments on the deletion of the stub on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AO-C) and it would seem you had a point on how an article on her could be missional, i.e. by focusing on the conspiracy nuttery directed at her. Hence, I don’t think that such an article would be off the charts for RW, if you were to create it.

Basically, such an article should be quite brief on her actual background, policies, achievements etc., as those things are mainly either not missional or rather thin for the moment (she is a freshman Representative, after all), and instead document and elaborate on the conspiracy theories and similar stuff that invokes her as the Great BeastTM. ScepticWombat (talk) 09:32, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Alright, but I'm super-duper slow about making drafts. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:43, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

You're a racist
LMAO. So in a discussion of how "you're a racist" doesn't mean anything, you use "you're a racist" as a reason to desysop me? You can't make this up. Radiant Orb (talk) 20:01, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, because you're a fucking racist. On the basis of the shit you fucking put into the page.  It's actually a great and compelling example of how you're wrong to treat it as thought terminating.  Get fucked.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:02, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * How does calling people names establish anything? You're a fucking fraud. Radiant Orb (talk) 20:05, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not calling people names to say that those who assert "different races are inherenntly unequal is a fact" is racist. That's called a definition you dumb piece of shit.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * But people like you leave it there. You say you're a racist and you act as if you've scored a point. It's laughable. Yeah so not thinking races are equal is racist. So what? Why even say that? It's fucking stupid. This is your idea of science? Banning people who disagree with your half-assed emotional/political opinion? You're a fucking clown dude. Radiant Orb (talk) 20:11, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you feel bad that you're being judged a priori for a single characteristic? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:17, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh I hadn't considered the precious feelings, science master. I really am laughing out loud now. My only question is whether you're intentionally screwing up people's ideas or whether you're just a complete moron. I tend towards the former, in the Jewish Bolshevik tradition. Radiant Orb (talk) 20:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You know, I was almost tempted to give you the benefit of the doubt and Ikanreed a good talking to. Then you said "Jewish Bolshevik tradition." So, yeah, fuck off. RoninMacbeth (talk) 20:24, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * LOL I knew it. You're just a bunch of nation wrecking kikes. Why don't you ever show your faces? We'll find you. We always do. Radiant Orb (talk) 20:25, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh shit! Gotta watch out for the badass over here! 20:26, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Wow, what a moron. 20:42, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * They have no clue how to act like normal, non-horrible human beings for longer than a minute. It's almost funny. 20:44, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * This one in particular cracked pretty quickly. RoninMacbeth (talk) 20:45, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * And yet you were going to "give me a talking to". :-/  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:48, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I was, until I saw the edits to the Darwin article, which made me suspicious. Then this conversation got uglier... RoninMacbeth (talk) 20:51, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I apologize for any Jews who have to read from this racist turd blossom. You are lovely people. 21:57, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Orb is Mikemikev. Not clever to have given him sysop powers, although he was impersonating an anti-racist/hereditarian in his earliest edits, so he probably tricked someone.Arcticos (talk) 23:56, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Which sock of yours got blocked such that you're back to this one? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 02:25, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

My List (of doctors to kill)
I didn't get there on time for your Turing Test response. It was very complete, I don't know how to jump in with the sophistry left in your wake. You are a monster. I always appreciate your deep cuts, this one especially baked my noodle. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:36, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, very kind of you, but I don't feel like there was particularly much sophistry, just people having a joke or two. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 01:34, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Re:UnlicensedThinker
Demonstrate that his edits to the Saloon Bar actively pose a threat to the integrity and stability of the wiki. I will not tolerate a moderator-only decision to ban him for anything less. RoninMacbeth (talk) 17:23, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It doesn't. It's "just" trolling.  One that goes crying to the mod board every time it gets collapsed with a, on perfectly reasonable grounds.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:27, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Continued collapsing sounds like a reasonable approach. Just don't expect us to adjudicate on this quite yet. RoninMacbeth (talk) 17:45, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Three people I am not
Recently, some of you have accused me of being either Noah Maxwell, Nathan Fielder, or Alan Resnick. I would like to end these rumors here and now. Alan Resnick is a dirty hippie. I am not a dirty hippie, I am a Conservative. Nathan Fielder is a Canadian. I am not a Canadian, Canada is for draft dodgers in the Vietnam War and people who refuse to accept Trump as their glorious leader. And, as for Noah Maxwell, he's a hipster elitist snob, and I am a Trump supporter. I am neither of these three individuals and I am shocked at your insane suspicions that I could be Alan Resnick, Nathan Fielder, or Noah Maxwell. Because I am not these individuals. Please cease these strange comments and keep in mind, I am not Noah Maxwell, Alan Resnick, or Nathan Fielder. I am a conservative and I am not a joke, and I am not Alan Resnick or Nathan Fielder. Thank you for listening, and please stop harassing me with your comments about how I could be Nathan Fielder or Alan Resnick or Noah Maxwell, because I'm neither of the three. I'm not. OK? Great. Klutz3 (talk) 15:41, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure who you think I am, but I definitely don't engage in accusing anyone here of being any specific other person, whether by online identity or real name. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:11, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Obvious troll/Poe is obvious. 16:18, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Stop with the accusations
"And besides, we're getting lectured by a very very white someone who has said on these very forums that he thinks white people sexually harassing black women is good(or maybe never happens; he was vague on why he thinks it's not a problem). I don't really forget the incredibly stupid, unthinking bigotry I've been exposed to by this fuck easily.  Either way, it's hard not to recapitulate that UT should shut the fuck up." ikanreed 17:50, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Why are you telling these lies? I never said such a thing. Thinker(unlicensed) 18:34, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think lying is good. I very much prefer to never lie.  Honesty is very important to me.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:45, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You are a liar, and you made a very serious accusation. People can have disagreements, but why did you make up that I said "white people sexually harassing black women is good" ? How can you be so dishonest? Thinker(unlicensed) 19:18, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Have you ever, in your entire useless waste of time here contributed anything that wasn't either A. overt bigotry against various kinds of minorities, or B. playing the victim.  Ever?  You're such a goddamn shit.  Give me one goddamn post of yours that wasn't one of those two things.
 * You have complained so much about how unfair I am to you, but have you ever, even briefly done anything that warranted more than complete contempt of you as a person? Did I miss an edit where you contributed valuable insight?  A moment's self reflection?  I call you a racist because that's what you live and breathe.  You're also transphobic, misogynistic, and a whiny baby.  You don't, to my recollection, have any redeeming characteristics.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:27, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "Have you ever, in your entire useless waste of time here contributed anything that wasn't either A. overt bigotry against various kinds of minorities, or B. playing the victim.  Ever?"
 * So you are allowed to make up things I never said?
 * "I call you a racist because that's what you live and breathe. You're also transphobic, misogynistic, and a whiny baby."
 * Have you forgot something? Thinker(unlicensed) 19:47, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah yes the "making up" of linking a direct quote. I don't want to win some contest with you.  You're just kind of a shit person.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:51, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "Ah yes the "making up" of linking a direct quote."
 * I have no idea of what you mean... your accusations are supported by no link, and no direct quote. I never said "white people sexually harassing black women is good" or something that would imply that. Thinker(unlicensed) 19:59, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Any articles I can illustrate?
I won't put anything without your approval, but, again, is there anything I can do? It's getting a bit boring. Johnnyart (talk) 02:36, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Carnivore diet edit
Hi Ikanreed.

I am quite puzzled by the reversal of the edit I did on the carnivore diet page. None of those edits were contrary to the terms of use, it only added precision, accuracy, and information.

Why the decision of considering that vandalism?
 * Well, that's quite complicated isn't it. The "Thought to be" bit has thee distinct problems
 * It's in passive voice, it doesn't attribute that position to any particular people, particularly not scientists with an appropriate credential(or better yet, their published findings), and is
 * Weasel words, doesn't express a strong position, and let "thought" do heavy lifting. This doesn't specificy any level of certainty or truth to the words.  Pretty awful for a lead section, and pretty iffy for anywhere.
 * It directly contradicts the comprehensive meta-analysis of dietary literature published by the US department of agriculture every 5 years. See this excerpt of the top level summary:


 * As you can see, that contradicts several article principles we have here, most importantly, the scientific point of view. Now, if you have a credible citation that eating vegetables has a nutritional risk inherit to it, we'd be happy to discuss that on the talk page.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:40, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Describe your politics
Do it. Do it now. Please and thanks. Satan is Cool (talk) 18:30, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Technically speaking, I believe in liberalism. That's never really changed.  The notion that society should be constructed in a way to let as many people explore as many different choices as possible.  That freedom is innate to the human condition, and that if you have a society built with unnecessary constraints on people, it limits not just individual happiness, but the transcendent ability of humanity as a whole to achieve great things.  However, I feel there's a number of "freedoms" we grant to people that represent gigantic, morally repugnant repressions of innate human freedom, all wrapped up in ideological bullshit.  The freedom to hoard property far beyond your ability to individually use, combined with a legal definition of property that allows you to deny others the ability to use the property as they wish, creates huge unconscionable quantities of oppression for no reason.  In this way I'm aligned with communists and anarchists(more on that later).  And the ability of factions to create intolerant societies through nominally "free" individual choices of "free association" can create swaths of deprivation and radical elimination of freedom.  Thus I come to hate libertarian and right-wing views on race, gender, and many other things.  De facto social oppression is repugnant crime that can be treated with incredibly simple non-intrusive limitations on individual freedom.  It's really no different from the freedom to murder once versus the freedom of another to live their entire life once without murder.  The scales don't balance
 * Thus, while believing, at my core, that freedom is essential, naive prescriptions of freedom are bullshit that remove people's freedom, rather than add to it. This brings me into another area of rather extreme conflict I have to other ideologies, anarchistic ones.  The assertion that the removal of power from above to impose restrictions upon human beings innately improves their freedom is, after some examination, foolhardy.  Because every person, given the intent and forethought, has the ability to create deprivation of essential freedom to others, often with personal benefit.  It must have a structured means of being opposed.  Ad hoc, temporally focused remediation of it are all but impossible to guarantee, and any society so built will eventually be seized by the ambitious to catastrophic effect.
 * This shouldn't, as Hobbes suggested, be a justification for arbitrary authority. But instead, for considered, enlightened-self interest, democratically limited authority.  None of this is particularly profound, the founding fathers of the US pretended to care about it while owning human beings.
 * But what makes it create a predisposition for radicality, is two things 1. The moral certainty it brings to positions and 2. just how far from that ideal the "center" (and the right) is.  Bombing people for their own good, tolerating intolerance, letting runaway social problems like inequality or climate change be unaddressed.   These are not just unacceptable, but inexcusable.  And those that voice support for these things have to be treated like the goddamn scum they are.
 * Skepticism, if anything, makes it more extreme. In addition to detachment from the nominal values listed here, there's factional "truths" that are outright in direct opposition to undeniable scientific fact.  And they almost exclusively come from the right, and the extent to which they come from the left seem to be policed back to sanity.  It's not just climate change.  It's creationism, it's flat earth, it's vaccines(as much as the media acts like it's a left phenomenon, the evidence says otherwise), it's brain death being death, it's the history of the civil war, it's economics, it's anti-semitic conspiracy theories, it's genetic science, it's everything.  It's all but impossible not to be radicalized to see conservatism as actual enemies of humanity at large.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:55, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * How do you envision realizing this wealth/property redistribution (without discouraging free enterprise/encouraging job flight preferably)? And if the oligopoly on property by the rich is to be replaced by a government monopoly, how would you prevent corruption from turning the system into rampant kleptocracy? 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:2876:3C83:70A9:92EA (talk) 02:53, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

I Wrote a Thing
In response to your question. Just my ramblings, but well, I hope they answer it for you. RoninMacbeth (talk) 23:04, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Interesting and personal. It reminds me of the saying "If you're the smartest guy in the room, you're in the wrong room".  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 23:32, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Ever heard of "What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It? "
https://pages.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/agre/conservatism.html

Any comments on this? 04:06, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Went into a rabbit hole on that one. Shortly after publishing that, Agre left his job, and didn't seem to get another one.  A few years later he completely vanished with no trace for several years.  Then was found with no news.  And this weird quote from someone who posted the missing person's report

For several reasons we cannot provide details, but what we can tell you is that the police did talk with Phil for a few minutes," she said. "Police standards for removing a missing persons notice is quite minimal. Those of us guiding the search for Phil have more detailed information about the interaction between the officer and Phil that is not being made public. The information we did receive gave us no evidence that he is actually "safe". Therefore we are continuing to search for him.
 * That's a weird mess. No more information sense 2010 either.
 * But yeah, that essay does recapitulate some things I said(or rather I recapitulate him, if linear time is real), but it also goes into weird-ass tangents like "stop defending snoop dawg his music is bad". ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:40, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Let's break it down into a simple question
Which outcome is best and/or most democratic: A lot of tiny democracies which live in peace without getting involved in each other's affairs (too much), or one big democratic government which disempowers all smaller-scale democracies that don't happen to agree with the will of the (supra/inter)national majority? 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:2876:3C83:70A9:92EA (talk) 22:25, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Seems kinda like an excluded middle. Stable, robust democracy, representative of the human beings living in the system being ruled applies at any scale, and can even be federalist in design.  Those things don't actually need to oppose each other.  Though one could intuit you shouldn't have too many such layers, because each one introduces a possible point of corruption, minimizing them doesn't necessarily serve that purpose as well as, you know, fighting corruption.  If the majority of the entire world manages to form a meaningful coalition with a singular aim, one might suspect it's good for most people, even if arbitrarily chopping the world up can find places that don't want it.  But we don't have such a democratic representation in the world.  It doesn't exist.  Worth noting, in case you have a gotcha, that a democracy that doesn't respect the right of individuals to make up their own minds, can't still be considered a democracy.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 01:57, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If all the spoiled city-dwellers, downtrodden city-dwellers and elected grifters of the world got together and agreed on something, the result could be something grand or it could be something disastrous. Probably it would be a messy mixture of both. What's a given though is that many minority interests and practical issues will be overlooked. My preference is obviously local democracies that don't extrapolate their limited realities onto the rest of the globe. 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:2876:3C83:70A9:92EA (talk) 03:18, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That's dumb. If you don't believe all of humanity is basically decent, get off your high horse and advocate the death of mankind.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:14, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think most people are generally well-intentioned. Which is something wholly different from being sufficiently competent, responsible and informed to bring such goals to their intended fruition. And the potential severity of adverse consequences increases disproportionately at larger scales. Plus, power blinds the mind and corrupts the soul. Now what is this Nazi BS you propose of genociding people for being morally imperfect? That's some of the dumbest stuff I've heard yet. Why not kill all the animals too since they lack morals? Smh. 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:2876:3C83:70A9:92EA (talk) 16:21, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Congratulations on invoking Godwin's law. Genocide is act that has been perpetrated by people of multiple creeds and stripes, for multiple reasons. Calling such an act "Nazi" is fallacious and poisons the well. 16:31, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I was pretty sure Godwin's law had died from a stroke after all the Trump=Hitler stuff. Thanks for reviving it. Now if we could get back to the point... 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:2876:3C83:70A9:92EA (talk) 16:38, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Speaking of, I tend to remember ikanreed saying all Nazis belong in a hole in the ground and also justifying the murder of monarchists. Clearly he doesn't believe "all of humanity is basically decent" himself. In retrospect I guess I shouldn't be surprised. 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:2876:3C83:70A9:92EA (talk) 17:21, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * To be fair, nazis aren't humanity. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 02:46, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You'd be surprised how much of humanity would turn towards ethno-nationalism given the right opportunity. The whole German population (or very close to it) did it once. Dehumanizing Nazis is basically second-nature now in our society, but would you have supported the genocide of all Germans after WW2? 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:2876:3C83:70A9:92EA (talk) 03:01, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The whole german population went along with a suddenly empowered fascist state because they were not specifically threatened by it enabled by the insertion of a "strong leader". It's one of the goddamn reasons you can't have monarchists going around believing their own bullshit.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 03:04, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * But that's precisely the best argument for ordered monarchy. People tend towards following leaders and the most famous, wealthy or charismatic ones aren't typically the most sane or moral ones (they have a whole life experience of getting what they want through manipulation and privilege, so this is no surprise). So instead you set who the ruler is in stone but at the same time imprison them within a rigid system of rules and manners meant to turn them into a responsible leader. 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:2876:3C83:70A9:92EA (talk) 03:22, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * (Not that I'm arguing for turning any current democracies into monarchies though.) 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:2876:3C83:70A9:92EA (talk) 03:25, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, ethno-nationalism appeals to many people not so much because of leaders but due to affirming an identity which entails a shared destiny. And it's popular to this day in many places/avenues. Hindutva, the Khalistan movement, Islamism, Zionism are just a few examples. Now that I think about it, American identity politics is basically an amalgam coalition of various ethno-nationalisms. 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:2876:3C83:70A9:92EA (talk) 04:09, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Got your message.
That's what a publicly-edited wiki is all about. No worries. :)

UT
Do you want to take this subject to the coop? Because I'm not sure we should be unilaterally revoking sysop rights from people. 19:48, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Ugh, fine, give the racist shit his rights back. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:49, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * But seriously, how can you not be tired of his shit by now? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:49, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Trust me, I'm not any fonder of him than you are. I'm just concerned about the precedent it sets. 19:52, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * *Sigh*, yeah me too. I know it's not right, and if it were done to any other user I'd be up in arms about it, but fuck.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:56, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Sea lions make moderation really really hard. Holy hell, I wish I can do something about it but I don't want to come off as suppressing speech or just banning people I don't like. 23:43, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't suppose we could JAQ off in his talk page, or continuously ping him in trout posts? Féinléiriú (talk) 23:57, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Good idea.Summa Atheologica (talk) 16:26, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Are you involved with Adbusters?
One of your edit reasons for the Adbusters page literally states "No, let's not. Let's not do this "too critical of israel is the same as people who call for gas chambers" thing. We're the top result for this, and it's uncited."

Not to sound like a wingnut, but are you involved with Adbusters at all? --2601:199:4302:ABE0:50FF:ACE4:1178:FC3 (talk) 16:06, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Full disclosure: one time, a decade ago, while I was in college(oh god, college was a decade ago, I'm so old), I was in the waiting room for a haircut and picked up and "read" a copy of adbusters. I found it kind of fun, but also full of itself.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:14, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Goat
Goat
 * First flawless reasoning I've ever seen. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:22, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

About that Biogeography Draft
You said something on Draft:Biogeography's talk page about being able to figure out prehistoric sea boundaries from rock character and how sometimes the layers go from ocean to land to ocean again. I have had trouble finding a source for that. Can you please direct me to one?Summa Atheologica (talk) 22:32, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll see what I can find. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 04:00, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Seems like I was talking out my ass and that kind of stuff is firmly considered geology. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:12, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Board
RoninMacbeth (talk) 21:10, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * If you're board, you should get something to do. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 00:14, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Hey there!
Hey Ikanreed! Thanks for the welcome. Trying to sell me a "pseudoscientific shamanic pipe" that would cure lung cancer? Just kidding haha. Monotremic (talk) 17:47, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Just the literal meaning of "monotreme". Probably should have said something like "Go lay an egg" instead.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:40, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Crowder fandom.
Do you know if Crowder has mentioned his RW article recently? Or is this latest cheersquad perhaps merely an insecure individual? 18:31, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I do not pay that much attention to his show. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:48, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Has Crowder ever mentioned his RW article? — Oxyaena Harass  21:30, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Why do you people keep asking me about a shitty pay-per-view right wing talk show like I'm an expert? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 22:12, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I asked one question and was satisfied with the answer. 22:30, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I assure you I am not making anything up
RationalWiki privacy policy states"if you are logged in with an account then only the information you provide about yourself, and your identity, will be made available. Your friend Oxy has made available informatiom allegedly about me as well as some outright libel. Furthermore, the RatiomalWiki privacy policy states "we will go to Guantanamo Bay Detention Centre en masse as enemy combatants before revealing that information to any Government, another thing you friend Oxy has threatened to do. Not only will he get about as far as the Conservapedia:FBI Incident, wasting the authorities' or my employers' (one of which is a government agency) time with bogus allegations would also violate the privacy policy. The board can be held accountable for his actions because Oxy, who is admittedly and observably mentally unstable, has negligently been given user rights that give him access to suppressed information, which would include any dox posted about me by trolls. Lastly, about what Oxy is saying about my real life identity, he doesn't have any idea what he is talking about. I repeat what I have said before, he needs to go take the meds he has said he takes and follow the good doctors' orders. WD40 (talk) 15:36, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I have the following prepared response: "lol". There will be no follow up questions.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:08, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * So much for assuming good faith, also it's "her", you prick, not "his." Furthermore you assume too many things about me, since when were you a psychiatrist? — Oxyaena Harass  17:24, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * you linked to your Twitter account and describe yourself as having autism and mental illness. This was really no surprise from my encounters with you.Foots (talk) 17:10, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Still a bigot, and do you not understand that insanity is different from merely being anxious and autistic? You're a dangerous person, Morris, just ask those women you stalked and harassed. After all you admitted it yourself, do you really want me to upload those screenshots? — Oxyaena Harass  17:23, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Phrenology
Craniometrics (as used by bio-archaeologists and forensic scientists) isn't phrenology. What you wrote on the Quillette article turns it into a joke and is already being ridiculed on Twitter. Idiot. Foots (talk) 17:08, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh no, just like the creationists mock us mercilessly for our ignorance of there still being monkeys. I know there's no actual neural activity firing in that brain of yours, but I'd love to know what branch of craniometry covers "broad germanic forheads" and their relationship to superhumanity.  Does the gray matter leaking out your ears still provide signals to your muscles, or was this post made by the involuntary spasms of your limbs against a keyboard as the pizza roles react violently to last night's chicken tenders?  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:23, 26 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Quillette comment about Boris was obviously tongue-in-cheek so posting about it as if it was literal turns the article into a bigger joke; my criticism is this line: "[Phrenology] Yes, as in the actual discredited 19th century pseudoscience. Accusations about Quillette's publishing phrenology started near the plausible-deniability territory when they stated that "researchers can classify human variation by continent quite accurately using only data from the human skull." - This isn't phrenology but craniometry, although Quillettes statement is inaccurate since determining biogeographical ancestry by continents from skull measurements has a low not "quite accurate" accuracy rate (this is covered on racialism). However, this still doesn't make craniometry, phrenology, nor the former a pseudoscience. You're basically retarded, have no understanding of science and have a history of destroying articles on this wiki; articles I might add I created (I'm the creator of Quillette and hereditarianism). The original Quillette article I wrote was a criticism taken serious, now the article has been destroyed and is laughed at on Twitter. You did much the same to the hereditarianism article, although I managed to partly salvage it. Skye (talk) 17:47, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Lol, the only people talking about rationalwiki on twitter in the past couple days are a creationist who @s us literally every single day to say creationism and science aren't incompatible and Rome Viharo. Your writing sucks, your brain sucks, and you really need to find a new hobby.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:10, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Every time I search for rationalwiki on twitter, it's a rabit hole of "Wow, these are some great enemies to have". EMF cranks, creationists, neonazis, cultural marxism conspiracy theorists, and nazis.  Also one communist who thinks we're too hard on communists.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:25, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * To be fair, we should clarify that the initial post about skull sizes seem to pertain to the racialist nonsense of predicting ancestry to skull size rather than outright phrenology before they sealed the deal with other posts. I don't buy the whole "they were being tongue in cheek" either, however. This is racist crap, they tend to mean what they say. 05:40, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

(in)sanity
I mean, they did respond to complete gibberish as if it were an actual statement... 03:17, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

It's OK
I have so little interest in the OK to be white article that I post my reply here. I am done amusing myself with it. You seem to think it is useful to try to exert your moral authority over any discussion. To what end? Such arguments are never convincing to a skeptical mind. You willingly take the easy way, resorting to anger and accusation in place of coherent argument. The detail I mentioned was only an initial detail. You did ask for one. One doesn't need to go very far with you before Godwin's Law takes effect.Ariel31459 (talk) 15:42, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Why do you support these racist shitheads, Ariel? — Oxyaena Harass  17:47, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not any specific racist shitheads, he's defending. It's just a stupid dumbass meme created by racists for people like him.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:02, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Debate in Morgellons
Having read much of your talk page, I feel that our disagreement is purely with that, and not entire belief system. You won't see me claiming vaccines cause autism or other such quackery. So basically a TL;DR of my post on that page is that the article makes assumptions based on an old study that does not reflect the non-assumption made by various medical institutes or hospitals such as the Mayo Clinic or the Royal London Hospital about the causes of the disease. Gustav Kuriga 147.26.251.150 (talk) 21:31, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Email
Hey man, sorry for the mad email, I’m an anxious fuck who makes rash decisions based on impulses when it comes to my stupid brain. Sorry for the inconvenience mate. Hope you’re having a good day man.—WMS (talk) 00:09, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Impulsiveness gets me stometimes too. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 04:37, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Happy you understand mate :).—WMS (talk) 15:27, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Template:br
Hello, how are you? Can you delete the page Template:br e Template:br/doc? I relocated the template to the "pt" initials, because the "br" was too restricted and redirect is useless. Smalkade • Contribs • Sandbox • EC 20:22, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That image didnt age well at all 92.0.201.76 (talk) 14:35, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Black Voters
A couple weeks ago we had a dispute on the Saloon Bar about my perception of black voters. This new piece from FiveThirtyEight, generally discusses my observations and experience with some actual data -https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-do-black-democrats-usually-prefer-establishment-candidates/--RipCityLiberal (talk) 23:11, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * This is perfectly in line with Five Thirty Eights drop from rigorous statistical analysis into narrativizing bullshit punditry with no value. That editorial, if you're pardon the bluntness, is complete and utter garbage that fails to deliver even the slightest bit of actual numeric analysis.  Why?  because if you look at actual polls with cross tabs, you find that black people support a wide array of candidates with less uniformity than white voters, and do in fact favor so called "outsider" candidate Sanders more than white people do  (Question 34 A-M).
 * Looking at numbers reveals narrative analysis to be full of shit, 99.99% of the time. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:52, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It definitely makes that clear that there is an age difference.--RipCityLiberal (talk) 16:46, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Whatever, as long as you get past the idea that black voters are a monolith who all act in unison, I'm happy. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:09, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Something Awful
Hey, I've seen you post in C-SPAM. I've been lurking for a while, and occasionally felt like ponying up the $10, but certain users there have scared me off. Colossal Squid (talk) 05:57, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * C-SPAM has less empirical skepticism than I like, here has less materialist realism towards politics than I like. Gotta get both for a well rounded internet self-radicalization diet.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:16, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Good addition to Schlockumentary draft
Thanks! CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 20:25, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Sockpuppet
That sockpuppet is Morris btw. — Oxyaena Harass  15:51, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Can't say it's worth tracking. There's just kind of a really obvious "signs up only to participate in drama" red flag, which doesn't require further inspection.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:53, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Ban Evasion
You blocked for Ban Evasion. How do you know this is a banned user? Acei9 04:39, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * That's a trivial case of signing up only to suggest banning a user(who has had a consistent issue with offsite stalkers no less). There's literally no reason anyone else would make that their first edit.  With even the barest attempts to disguise what they're doing through normal wiki interaction, I'd have been forced to give the benefit of the doubt.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:56, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * That's not a valid reason to ban someone. Acei9 19:23, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is. Said person harasses me in particular. — Oxyaena Harass  19:35, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It's absolutely a very sound reason to block someone, and I cannot fathom what kind of advantage not doing it could possibly provide. It does no person any good to let serial trolls be serial.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:48, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Show me in the community standards or any other part of RW policy that says that is a valid reason. You could do what normal adults do and just ignore the person until such a time where, if they are a legitimate problem, violate the RW CS and ban them then. Acei9 19:52, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I find that trolls that try to get others punished in talk page, while not explicitly outlined in our policies or standards, to be harmful for the wiki (reasons: instigating drama, regregging under a clearly single-purpose name with no substantial page, being a time waste -as with the troll's intention-, and also targeting our users behind anonymity and very probably ban evasion) and should get blocked. 19:56, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Posts from users who have been blocked from the site, but are circumventing the block by using an alternate IP address or sockpuppet account. Deletion of such posts is mandatory, as this is considered necessary for the proper enforcement of blocks.
 * It's pretty goddamn clear we want blocked users to be actually blocked. For god's sake, I don't know what you want other than to make some point about how we're being oversensitive or something.  Even if Oxy has leaned way too hard on blocking new accounts instead of trying to get them to engage, you're on a misguided crusade now.  Or as Oxy put it below "oh my god, shut the hell up".  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:59, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Posts from users who have been blocked from the site, but are circumventing the block by using an alternate IP address or sockpuppet account. Deletion of such posts is mandatory, as this is considered necessary for the proper enforcement of blocks. Herein lies the problem - we don't have checkuser and the above could be applied to any user as all could be suspected socks accounts. So blocking at first site is problematic. Just ignore said user - do not feed the troll until necessary to block. Acei9 20:05, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Man, if only human judgement existed, and some cases could be clear as fucking day like the one you're griping about right now. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:06, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You know what would also be handy? If people could just ignore things and not let small things like comments on an open wiki by users that may or may not be sock accounts rile them up into a lather. Why can't the human condition be that simple! Acei9 20:18, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I guess in the broadest sense because Rousseau is full of shit? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:23, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I was always a fan of Hume myself. Acei9 20:25, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Me too, until such time as someone tries to define an explicit utility function. Then I start looking for emergency exits.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:28, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh my god, Ace, shut the hell up. — Oxyaena Harass  15:04, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, probably that too. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:10, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Brownpenny
Thanks. Acei9 19:29, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Normally I'm down with one word posts, but... what? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:51, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You changed an infinite block to 9 hours. So thanks. Acei9 20:06, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, I do think rolling blocks down is an important mop duty, see mod board. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:07, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Template for trigger warnings?
Hi! I'm coming here to ask about this edit you made. You said you think we have a template for upsetting material. Do you know where it is? If you find it, please tell me. I have a few articles in mind that probably deserve flagging so people don't read the nightmare fuel at night. Thanks! Luna Rose Say hi 17:45, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I couldn't actually find one, closest choice was Template:Messagebox. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:47, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Also maybe we should have a community discussion about whether content warnings are appropriate for our wiki. I suspect the conclusion will be "yes".  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:48, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I think yes. I added one on Roosh V's article. It's a crude one but I couldn't find anything better at the time. 18:03, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

SSC
What did you mean by your comment in the Saloon? I'm not really familiar with them to be honest. 21:33, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * They're a lesswrong adjacent antifeminist rant-monger. That's not to say they can't ever make decent posts, but the most reasonable interpretation of their posts should start with that understanding.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 02:31, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

2019 Moderator election
Sorry for the delay. Ariel31459 (talk) 00:25, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Some BoN
Seeing as you are in the running to become a moderator I suggest you read community standards sub-section conduct paragraph three "Discussions here sometimes get heated, but resorting to personal attacks is strongly frowned upon, however justified they may seem. In particular,...insults are not tolerated." I will freely admit to having violating some of the community standards but I plead ignorance at the time. I believe that someone who is to be raised to a position of power such as mod ought to know better.Jkevo (talk) 13:59, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Allow me to use another, I'm not running, dumbass. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:53, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * And I do wish to stress the relevance and importance to the matter at hand that you are a dumbass. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:55, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * your Still insulting me. My point still stands that insults are a violation of Community standards. also two points. first changing the title makes your first reply make no sense because "Allow me to use another" has no context to refer back too. Secondly I genuinely appreciate making a point that was not entirely ad hom.Jkevo (talk) 15:29, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * No, you don't genuinely appreciate it. You're one of those people who has just discovered fallacies and think they're "I win" buttons for arguments rather than context specific tools for understanding when statements and deductions are misleading.  And I'm insulting you because you're trying to stir up shit, and I don't appreciate it.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:46, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry Ikanreed, but I’m gonna have to take you to Wiki jail for violating the Community Guidelines. Remember that you did this to yourself. 16:04, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Is being concerned about how an ideology that is flagrantly pushing the violation of medical ethics to push a solution that does not alleviate the problem stirring shit? Or was it the part where I called you out for calling me out? If you would like to talk about the first part i'm all ears but otherwise i'm out.Jkevo (talk) 20:38, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, you're gonna have to be way more specific about that medical ethics thing. I've got lots of opinions about medical ethics. Things like "They're good!" and "Most ethics boards at research hospitals are on top of the issues of the day" and "Boy am I glad for the Declaration of Helsinki". Judging by your edit history, it's gonna be something like "treating trans people according to APA guidelines based on current best practices is unethical actually". ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:56, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm just going to point out that coming out of nowhere and attacking ikanreed, while making false statements about them, is kinda in violation of your own views. You bit first, don't be surprised when they bite back. 21:02, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That's a nice story, but I am happy to call people dumbasses for all sorts of reasons if they're revealing themselves to be dumbasses. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:05, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * There has never ever been a medical procedure pushed on the mentally disabled. What are eugenics or lobotomys? Also their has never been medicine pushed without regard for efficacy because questioning it's efficacy makes you a bigot. Pills like addyi are totaly a myth.


 * Gender affirmation surgery is meant to alleviate the mental disconnect of a person with gender dysphoria and through that reduce the chance that they will kill themselves. The problem is that when we track suicide rate between pre and post op transgender people over two decades we see no drop in suicide rates. They are still 20 times more likely to kill themselves. So we have an invasive irreversible surgery with little to no efficacy. On top of that we have public pressure to uniquely not do tests or try therapeutic methods instead jumping to medically dubious radical surgery. And on top of all of this we have transgenderism being pushed on children as young as three years old.


 * Our treatment of transgender people violates several rules of medical ethics. First do no harm. If a procedure is to be as destructive as gender affirmation surgery it ought to have an accompanying great good but it does not. Second because children are still developing it can be hard diagnosis them and often with therapeutic support a child can ether grow out of/ overcome a mental problem. It is immoral to give children a drug that will mess them up with out knowing with great serenity that it will help them in the long run. Most kids with gender confusion grow out of it once they hit puberty.


 * You'll excuse me if I step out on a branch and say it's mortally dubious to make exception to medical rules, which are their for a reason,on the grounds of ideology.Jkevo (talk) 22:40, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That's not what the study you think you're citing actually says about suicide, as the controls aren't non-transitioned people experiencing gender dysphoria, you absolute shitheel. I will not engage you further unless you acknowledge this point.  Seriously, admit you were wrong about the one small thing and we can talk about the rest, otherwise shut the fuuuuuuuuck up.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 01:59, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I will admit I was wrong on that point. Now can we talk about how they are still 20 times more likely to kill themselves than the normal population even after surgery. We have little evidence for the long term efficacy of gender confrontation surgery. The studies we do have focus on Satisfaction rather than actual health outcomes.Jkevo (talk) 03:11, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Just throwing this out there, but maybe the reason for high suicide rates among trans people is the fact that bigots such as yourself treat them like crap and try to dismiss them and shove them back in the closet? Just a wild, crazy, far out there idea. 03:34, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait - is some user complaining that insults are against the community standards? Wow - dumbass. AceMcWicked 03:42, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Alright, good we have a starting point. 27x suicide rates is extremely high, but it's worth noting that being trans has a number of common commorbidities associated with discrimination.  suicide among homeless people have extremely similar rates, and one fifth of all trans people suffer from homelessness, of due to active discrimination.
 * And, of course, we can check the papers that cite the plos paper you referenced.  Then we can start finding papers that go into more direct causation analysis.  That paper is basically open and shut on the "concern" you've raised.  All of the following are demonstrated
 * Having social support: 75% reduction in risk
 * Receiving government identification with gender identity: 62%
 * Going from decile experiencing most subjective transphobia to least: 65%
 * Being less subject to physical assault: 45%
 * Completing transition: 69%
 * There are a number of other things they identify as possible interventions with huge risk reductions, but suffice it to say the evidence that transitioning is somehow dangerous in terms of suicide not only doesn't exist, it's the opposite of real rigorous findings. It's not the only paper among the scholar search I linked above with similar findings.  Or at least findings that corroborate one of the above numbers.
 * It's safe to say that, indeed, medical ethics are on the side of gender confirmation surgeries where best practices are followed. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:58, 15 November 2019 (UTC)


 * On your first point can you provide evidence of discrimination? Your link just asserts that it's but their are other possible explanatory factors like the high rate of substance abuse. Out of the first page of results you linked me to few where long term, those that where just reiterated that yes post op transgender people killed themselves at 20 times the rate of the normal population and have a high rate of suicidal ideation, and non of them tackled the efficacy of gender affirmation. As far as the specific study you linked there are several confounding variable most importantly dead people don't fill out surveys, the surveys where done over only a couple of years, The data was interpreted using a tool without the base data being given. To explain because dead people can't fill out surveys we have no idea of the prevalence of people who killed themselves because they where disappointed with the surgery or who where denied surgery. Being taken over only a few years It could not make discoveries about the long term efficacy of gender affirmation surgery. Finally the problem with putting date through a toll is that by tweaking certain parameters slightly you can make data say what you want it to say. I'm not saying they purposefully or even did bend the data to fit a narrative but it gives use reason to doubt because it is possible even subconsciously that they fudged some parameters and without the original data we can not check. All this taken together means we still have little good data on the efficacy of gender affirmation surgery.Jkevo (talk) 21:33, 15 November 2019 (UTC)


 * See, here's where I start to write you off as not being honest with me again. I'm not really in the mood for dealing with someone who will take rigorously connected and analyzed data and say "well can you really trust statistics?"  Go fume about being ignored and disrespected, you dumb fucker.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me
 * "On your first point can you provide evidence of discrimination?"  AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!  You cannot be fucking serious. 00:54, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * ^ yes I am as I pointed out their are other explanatory factors. To look at any difference between two groups and conclude it must be because one grope is discriminating against the other without any further proof is to commit a god of the gaps fallacy.As far as statistics go I never said you can't trust statistics I merely said your statistics didn't say what you thought they said because of confounding variables and that we need to be careful when manipulating data to guard against bias especially in softer sciences.
 * "Pardon me good sir, why are you mad because I gaslight trans folks? It's for their own good! Conformity and all that. Cheery oh my good fellow! 02:00, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I live outside of Dallas. A trans women was beaten to death, in broad daylight, in Dallas, while passersby cheered it on and yelled slurs. There's your evidence, you entitled gaslighting fuck. 02:00, 16 November 2019 (UTC)


 * A few things. Nationally Transgender people are murders at a lower rate per capita than the wider population even when you take into account factors like sex, race, and socioeconomic conditions. Dallas in particular assuming it has an average rate of trans gender people has a high murder per capital rate of trans people this year but that can be explained by the fact that 1 murder would put them at double the yearly rate because of the small population sample. I will note that of the two out of three Dallas cases I found details for both the perpetrator and victim where black so if we are to draw any conclusions it is that their might be a transphobia problem in the black population of Dallas. This does not provided evidence for wide spread systematic housing discrimination. All together your anecdote gives as much evidence for class discrimination against trans folk as The story of those black kids torturing the mentally disabled white kid does towards the idea that whites as a class are discriminated against. Finally how is it gaslighting to point out that a medical procedure is supported more by ideology than evidence?

Go away. You've blown the entire extent of assuming good faith I was prepared to extend. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 03:39, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * OkJkevo (talk) 05:14, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Happy Holidays
Miss you, my guy. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:41, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Not gone, just a parent now, and thus quite busy. But thank you.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:08, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Congratulations, Ikanreed. — Oxyaena Harass  15:09, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Congratulations! 16:14, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * My first child very much felt like it changed my life for the better. Here's wishing as much for you. Ariel31459 (talk) 17:46, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Breadtube and the Inevitability of Drama
So it's pretty clear that "Breadtube" is readily torn apart by drama and infighting, and you said something along the lines of this development being inevitable. What did you mean? How was it unavoidable, at least more so than any other online community? RoninMacbeth (talk) 00:18, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * YouTube is an inherently destabilizing force, politically. What draws an audience and what makes sound arguments, what I'd argue are "left" arguments, are opposed on some fundamental level.  You might think that would mean breadtube would never rise, but short term the contradiction doesn't hold.  Short term, people could be fed up with obvious right wing clickbait like Sarkeesian 2 minute's hate, and hungry for the opposite.  But long term, the youtube video form is a fundamentally authoritarian format, with a superior expressing their ideas on an inferior.  And it's on a platform that demands constant views.  It's a recipe for inevitable conflict.  Do I think any given youtuber is going to become centered in drama because youtube is bad?  No.  Do I think if you construct a large enough group within YouTube it's inevitable?  For sure.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 13:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Archiving
You might want to archive some of this clutter. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  17:28, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * But what if I want to find my old newspapers? They need to be on the living room floor!  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 01:04, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Pseudointellectual
You do know, don't you? Thoughtless (talk) 16:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I mean, yeah? There's not some magic genius drink that makes you smarter than everyone else, and therefor in tune with all the greatest minds of history like some kind fucking channeler.  All any of us have is applying the best methods we've got for understanding the world.  I superficially like "intellectual" subjects marginally more than proletarian ones, thus am a pseudointellectual.  Trying to pretend there's an elevated state above that kinda sucks.
 * Regardless, you, specifically, are a fucking moron, and your condescension does nothing but elevate my self worth. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:25, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You don't apply methods for understanding the world. You bullshit people with superficial fake intellectualism and hope they don't see through you. Thoughtless (talk) 18:54, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Wow, restating your original premise without any new information! My favorite flavor of internet argument!  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:39, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Transgender Discussion
I came across a discussion you were part of here on the rationality of the transgender page's point of view. I was impressed with how clearly you were able to explain the issue, but the discussion didn't seem finished to me. Did it continue anywhere? Have you had similar ones elsewhere? As not to make you go and read a 5 year old conversation I'll summarize it with: you were able to pose a clear distinction between sex (biological), gender (social construct), gender identity (intuition + sense of self), and gender roles (social construct(?)). Where I think the conversation was missing was a discussion of how (or why) gender is a social construct, ontologically. I've struggled to justify this when talking to people who believe that TG people are just "making shit up". I realize this isn't really the most useful discussion (i.e. even if TG people were "making shit up", we should still respect their views as not doing so has measurably terrible effects, remember the human, etc.) but being that we are on RW here, I was wondering if you could help me out? I've read up a bit on Social Constructionism and Social Constructivism (not quite understanding the difference) but have yet to come across a good explanation. I think I'm confused on where to place social constructs in my inventory of reality.

(I realize I may be stretching the limits of a Talk page here. Does RationalWiki not support email?) Th3j4ck4l (talk) 06:22, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Re: Email. It's over on the left side of the page when you visit a user's page or talk page: "email this user" is what the link says.
 * As far as your main point is concerned, I don't think I've continued that conversation. And it's rare to run into people with good faith questions about the subject like that user did, to be honest.  And I personally believe social constructs are easy to understand at their core.  They're anything that if there was no humans around to describe and understand them, wouldn't exist.  Peace, music, borders, love, war, government, art, language.  All constructed by our shared understanding of things.  They intersect and contain the phsyically real, but they aren't physically real themselves.  Framings we all use to understand the world.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:53, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Editwarring
Stop editwarring on Karl Marx. I don't care about your accusations of me being a "liar" (all racist statements by Marx were sourced anyway), but the wiki is a cooperative project and, as such, you shouldn't just remove stuff you dislike. Make your case on the talk page. 15:25, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Shut the absolute fuck up. You lied.  For no reason.  You're a liar. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:28, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * What is the lie? Did Marx call Lasalle a "Jewish n-word" or not? Did he not say that "Slavs are inferior to be dominated by the Turks"? 15:31, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * When it comes to On the Jewish Question, which was a reply to one of his contemporaries, the controversy surrounding it was with Marx adhering to the money-grubbing Jew stereotype. If I recall correctly, the original essay Marx was rebutting was saying that in order for Jews to become accepted, they would need to abandon the trappings of their religion and culture.  Marx instead argued that in order for Jews to be accepted, they would have to stop being capitalistic.  So it is true that the quote Ikanreed pointed out was taken out of context; it is also true that On the Jewish Question was anti-semitic.  I see this as simply an error made in haste, rather than something born of nefariousness.  Ikanreed, I suggest you look at the sources provided in the article.  They definitely point to Marx having been a racist, like others in his time.  Whether or not it's worth including in the article or what our article on Karl Marx ought to look like is another debate entirely.--Hastur! (talk)  15:48, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Fine, but I reiterate my extreme distaste for liars. There's nothing more contemptible to me than knowingly engaging in falsehoods for the sake of something you believe truly.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:52, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think he was lying. He probably just read it quickly because he was eager to make his point--Hastur! (talk)  15:56, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Except Marx said that Bauer's anti-semitic tropes were accurate. So, is racist Karl at the same time a racist but also super woke and cautious with post-irony? 16:07, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * So, just to be clear, I definitely noted that Marx was being anti-semitic. It's just one of the quotes you used wasn't particularly meaningful given the background.  Don't be tedious, Raven.--Hastur! (talk)  16:18, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Thought-terminating cliche
You might be interested in responding to AMassiveGay's comment since you seem to know about this subject. 21:54, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Mod nomination
I have nominated you for moderator. Bongolian (talk) 20:54, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know, I'm still pretty angry about the whole stupid Biden being a rapist piece of shit, and hating someone for defending it is "too far" thing. I still see certain names and think to myself "Oh yeah, this nominally nice person is A-OK with raping someone as long as there's someone worse out there."  Hard to get past to moderate fairly.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:33, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Especially now that it's clear I was blessed with the gift of prophecy. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 03:23, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Your Philosophical views
I see that you're a fan of Kant. Do you have any thoughts on Hume? I tend to agree with Russell's battle cry when it comes to continental philosophy or extravagant metaphysics (which as I dimly recall went something like this): "Back to the eighteenth century; back to Hume!" →§ Leucippus 11:53, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Not so much a fan of Kant who was frequently full of shit(e.g. I'd call his attitude on free will nuts), as gradually becoming aware of the value of categorical imperatives specifically. Utilitarianism is 100% correct in the kind of boring world where you can see all the consequences of your actions clearly ahead of time, though I think getting a sound utility function would still be hard.  But here in this world, stifled by ignorance and uncertainty as we are, there's something to be said to "If everyone acted this way then how would to world change" as a way to think about right or wrong.
 * If you never incorporate the lessons of utilitarianism into your moral philosophy, your moral philosophy is quite immature. But if you get off the trolley there, you end up simultaneously setting an impossible standard, and not answering a lot of moral questions you run into.  The moral cost of a bad imperative is high, which means culling and curating your stable of particular moral ideals every time you see one fail.  But it's much closer to how we mentally operate than "Maximize some function you don't even really know how to calculate correctly".  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:44, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I must admit I was once entranced by Kant's philosophy: it appeared to be in harmony with my 'need for cognition' i.e. it seemed to offer answers to my own longing - for answers to the 'deepest' and most general questions. In particular, Kant's 'transcendentalism' - his distinction between 'appearances' and the "thing-in-its-self" (ding an sich); between our representations and noumena etc; and the quest for what was 'really-real', all hypnotised my eager mind (and appealed to my dispositions i.e. highly introspective, needing cognition...which I must confess are at once both blessings and curses). Indeed, even whilst typing this out, my mind is already becoming stimulated ("I feel like I might study Kant again"). I have ADHD. I think you mentioned that you have ADHD, which as I'm sure you're aware can be deeply psychologically-painful. Us people with ADHD are so good at finding interesting-exciting thoughts: thoughts that lead to us constantly shifting viewpoints, always seeking something better, more perfect. Never settled. Always agitated (well this is me at least). Back to the topic at hand - As I intellectually matured, I became thoroughly disenchanted with Kant, as a consequence of my gravitating towards a scientific approach to philosophical questions. I saw Kant's philosophy as incoherent and exactly the kind of malignant metaphysics that Russell and Quine sought to shore from philosophy.
 * When I say "my gravitating towards a scientific approach to philosophy", I am referring to my discovery of the Logical Empiricists, in fact I decided to sign up here because I saw, on this website, the same spirit that motivated them i.e. amongst other things, using our best science and rationality to improve all aspects of human life! However, as I further matured, I became, like many, reluctantly disillusioned with such ambitious quests; I was convinced against my will by W.V. Quine's work and other things, of the folly of Logical Positivism. R.e. your comments on utilitarianism: I agree that utilitarianism is in general, not a tenable ethical approach, and as you quite-rightly point out - an unrealistic one. Perhaps, as you state - Kant's categorical imperatives may offer a better approach to ethical questions. P.s. Sorry about the lengthy tangent → Leucippus 17:02, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I need to do some homework before I can properly reply to all your thoughts. I'm not a super in-depth student of philosophy.  But, I can still agree that almost any sort of transcendentalism is intensely frustrating as a component of a philosopher's work.  It almost always somehow invokes or excuses the supernatural, completely without justification.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:27, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Moderator
19:50, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

February 2022
--Andrew5 (talk) 01:38, 5 February 2022 (UTC)