User talk:GrammarCommie/Archive5

An apology
I didn't say or imply that you were either dishonest or a conspiracy theorist. I was, and I am claiming the argument that the activities of a group of youtubers afford some sort of gateway process leading to the alt-right is ill-conceived and scientifically unsustainable. There is nothing Nazi-like about any of the central figures. I would also claim that to attempt to maintain such a hypothesis would seem to me to be of rhetorical value only. I am willing to ignore my own reservations on this subject should it become necessary. Close analysis however, is not a product of democracy. I suppose I ought to state my genuine opinions. To refer to them as talking points might imply to some readers that I cannot back up my claims. I can, to the point where the controversy becomes ambiguous. I prefer to be friends rather than adversaries.

A word about Dave Rubin. He is not what I would refer to as an intellectual. His personal idol is Larry King. I take it as given that he is right of center, has overloaded his podcasts with right-wingers, but also that he has interviewed a number of the so-called IDW. He is a frontman. He is an MC. He has served that function with IDW people like Harris, Douglas Murray, and Jordan Peterson. Sometimes it seems to me that some people want to frame this wiki's POV as "us and them." That is not my personal POV. For me there just are not that many bad people. I confess to being an optimist. It's a lot easier, I admit, to just mark someone as a Nazi sympathizer, and leave it at that, than it is to editorialize on their entire opus. I am not saying that you are doing or ever have done that. However, I do get the impression that some people prefer it that way. Ariel31459 (talk) 21:43, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I accept your apologies and I will admit that there are those on the left who seem to think that being left and supporting something other than capitalism makes one "good". I of course, given my habit of trying to be skeptical about even my own "side" disagree. I do however maintain that some on the right, such as the IDW have been trying to normalize Fascist rhetoric and ideas, something that I see getting overlooked all too often. In a nutshell, it's the Bell Curve fiasco all over again, and I wish that those in the center would actually push back against these things.   21:57, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for accepting my regrets. For me fascism is a form of regulation, usually governmental, always authoritarian and based on some kind of nationalism. The Japanese and the Italians also had fascist periods. You can argue that Trump and the republicans look like fascists. I would probably agree. In my opinion, intellectuals do not seem to fall into those lines, and I don't think many, if any, of the Americans are Trump defenders. In the 20th century, many intellectuals have been communist sympathizers (until Stalin's non-aggression pact anyway). No one of note was a Nazi sympathizer.Ariel31459 (talk) 23:00, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Ariel31459 Err... I can bring up many (then) respected Eugenics intellectuals who were not only nazi sympathizers but active collaborators in some cases. And Fascism doesn't really work like that. It's a highly flexible form of ethno-nationalism (usually white, though that can be changed) which is extremely opportunistic in it's methods of seizing power. Election or coup, it doesn't matter which to them. I actually know of a video essay based on several books written on the subject. I can link it here if you want. 23:15, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Famous American intellectuals? I'd like to see that link. I don't think there are many Americans in that list None of note listed on Wikipedia anyway. Certainly no famous American intellectuals. Scientists are not typically intellectuals. Bad scientists, even less so. I think that fascism really works like that. I don't see that it is a useful category for classifying bad ideas. So many ideas are bad that have nothing to do with fascism. Any old bad idea was bad long before the Nazis came around. What was bad about the Nazis was how they treated people. Right now, North Korea, China, Iran and other non-European countries could be loosely described as under fascism after the classic model. As a psychological note, Europeans and Americans like to think of themselves and their adversaries as historically great, and that even their demons are rivals of the devil Himself. Ariel31459 (talk) 00:14, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, Fascism doesn't work like that. Your definition is too broad, and seems use Fascism as a synonym for authoritarianism, which is a slightly different beast. Here's the video essay (yes, it's an essay in video format, complete with sources) laying out its deffinition of fascism. It will take me a while to compile the list of eugenicists that cross pollinated with Nazi Germany. 03:12, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * A fascist state has a number of qualities that are typical. First, it is presided over by an authoritarian autocrat, as is China, opposed to democracy and liberalism. Secondly, it is highly militaristic and nationalistic, like China. Thirdly, the rule of economy is divided among party leaders who are proxies for feudal nobility, while the people are subordinated to service to the state.  There are a variety of other unpleasant possible features such as racial identity ( see China), but these three are generally enough to call a state fascist.Ariel31459 (talk) 23:54, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Why do you do this to me? 01:08, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Treasonous communist terrorist
This david gerrard guy sounds pretty good. Maybe we could get him to come to our wiki. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:27, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Recent Revision on Far-right page
Would you mind clarifying exactly why you reverted it? It didn't seem that far off the mark to me. RoninMacbeth (talk) 01:03, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It was made by a user of dubious credibility. This is the same user who made a thread on my talkpage complaining that I killed their hate/troll article on Boomers and claimed they were "alt-left". 01:06, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. But is the information itself inaccurate? RoninMacbeth (talk) 01:13, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe? None of it is sourced but some it sounds like stuff I've heard from better sources? 01:17, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll check it, but do you mind if I restore it provisionally? RoninMacbeth (talk) 01:49, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * If you're sure. 01:59, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Excuse Me
Why was my edit reversed? It was not a vandalism. --189.46.1.193 (talk) 01:05, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I never said it was. In fact, the reversion occurred because the previous version was better. 01:16, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Melanin Theory
Why was the edits reverted? Was there something I did incorrectly.

Citation for Behe quote
http://wasdarwinwrong.com/korthof86.htm#3 &mdash; Unsigned, by: 106.210.166.80 / talk


 * https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Behe:_The_Edge_of_Evolution,_Interview Read his position on Common descent &mdash; Unsigned, by: 106.210.166.80 / talk
 * 01:08, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I read it, he's waffling, he's still a shit source, you still cited a denialist site, the quote is still shit. Anything else? 01:10, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, then block me. I have reverted your reversion of my reversion of your reversion of my edit. 106.210.166.80 (talk) 01:14, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * If you're just going to edit war, I don't need to block you. I can just lock the page and force you to explain yourself or not get your way. 01:21, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * WasDarwinWrong.com is run by Gert Korthof. He was a contributor to the anticreationist book Why Intelligent Design Fails. He is a proponent of Extended Synthesis. 106.210.166.80 (talk) 01:25, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * So he's a denialist and a moron. You don't seem to be good at arguing your side. 02:12, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe the the quote serves no purpose. But it is genuine. You caan check by borrowing a pdf of The Edge of Evolution from archive.org 106.210.166.80 (talk)
 * Even if it is genuine, it is from a a person who a has crappy views on the relevant subject. Would you quote a pedophile's views on child rearing? Or might there be an inherent conflict of interest there? If someone talks out of their ass on the subject of physics a lot, is it a good idea to quote them on the subject of physics? 02:46, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you even know why quotes exist in articles? 02:47, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I give up. 06:53, 27 April 2020 (UTC) &mdash; Unsigned, by: 106.210.166.80 / talk

Censorship on Talk page
I need to understand why you're attempting to do this, please.Einlanzer (talk) 01:06, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not censoring you. Anyone at any time can click the little "show" icon and see what you wrote. It was just stupid and irrelevent, and derailed an ongoing debate. Further, the last time I was accused of censoring someone it was because I wouldn't let a fan of an antisemitic libertarian whitewash said subject's article. I don't know, maybe learn how words work before using them. 01:11, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Whining
you traitor, you had the bo winegard wikipedia article deleted. R2D279247959 (talk) 20:45, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm going to be honest, I completely forgot about that until now. Glad all that information you fed me went to good use. As for traitor... You connot betray that which you never declared loyality to, as that's sort of a prerequisite. 20:50, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Following up on IDW
Just to let you know, I am listening to the first video on Rubin now.

I came across this video by Robert Wright and Michael Brooks (Brooks is a Leninist?), both critics of IDW, that you might find interesting. They seem intelligent enough. I don't agree with some of it, but that's intellectualism for you.Ariel31459 (talk) 13:40, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

First take on Part I: no complaints. I agree with this guy and subscribed to his channel (although "Timbah on Toast" sounds a little silly). He seems more of an Eric Weinstein fan than I am.Ariel31459 (talk) 14:18, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

First take on Part 2: Good evidence that Rubin is exploiting interest in right-wing ideas when he has right-wing guests. Criticism of Rubin with the one good guy, Stephen Fry, was not entirely convincing. I have to say that I have never listened to those interviews, because I expected to hear lies from those particular people. And also, I don't follow Rubin or try to watch interviews of anyone I don't already think is worthwhile. Ariel31459 (talk) 18:00, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm glad to hear we are both wary of these sorts of bad faith actors. What were your thoughts on part 3? I was originally waiting for your impressions on that before I replied. 10:45, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Glad to see you are still keeping an eye on things here. I just now finished reviewing part 3 of the Rubin Show critique by Timbah. Some points immediately come to mind that I consolidate into a few paragraphs.

The Rubin guests Timbah chose to highlight struck me as extremely obnoxious: Tommy Robinson, Tommy Sotomyer, Stefan Molyneux, and Candice Owens were cherry picked to high-light Rubin's interview technique with right-wingers. It would however, be a statistical blunder to assume that Rubin's guests are typically as bad as these four persons. It would have been better to briefly review a few bad ones like Molyneux, and then follow-up with an inventory of a few dozen guests with the same or similar reputations. Instead, the viewer must assume that the miscreants Timbah is focusing on are typical in some real way. Maybe they are, I don't really follow Rubin. My evidence has been skewed by the Rubin videos I have viewed of people who Timbah does not regard in the same way as the four villains mentioned so prominently such as Eric Weinstein, whom Timbah has not criticized. Indeed, there is over one half hour spent on describing Molyneux's unscrupulous performances, which really tried my patience. By focusing long and hard on a few really, really bad guests, we can conclude that Rubin is lazy, does not do his homework, and is probably intellectually incapable of performing on a competent level.

But can we infer anything sinister about Rubin's motives? Clearly Timbah implies that is a very real possibility that the unwary viewer is being proselytized. We are told that there is a danger that unsuspecting youth may be attracted to Rubin's generally cheerful and good-natured demeanor and find themselves transported toward the likes of Stefan Molyneau. This is the portal theory, but not really well argued, as if it were tacked onto the end of the video as an afterthought. Rubin is averse to what is vulgarly known as sjw points of view, and is shown to say so. Conspicuous in his absence is Jordan Peterson, who only appears in images, sometimes along side Molyneux. I went to review some of Molyneux's interview of Peterson after seeing that. In this interview segment, Peterson responds to Molyneux's claim that there are great differences in IQ between races and sexes by saying, there are only nominal differences between the sexes, and there is a large difference between Ashkenazi Jews (higher) and White Europeans (lower). Stefan didn't seem too happy to hear that and from what I can tell, is no longer a fan of JP. One might hope that some of Molyneux's regular viewers feel differently about Molyneux as well.

So, to conclude, I give this video high marks as one side of a debate, though the argument of the debate remains unstated. It could have been, Resolved, David Rubin is a political opportunist only interested in enlarging his audience for financial gain by exploiting right-wingers on YouTube. He appears to be more charming than intellectually talented, though he is, like Peterson, discomforted by activist-left politics.Ariel31459 (talk) 19:34, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I felt Timbah gave Weinstein and Fry a fair shake, considering some of the controversies surrounding their views. I do agree that he should have tackled the Peterson angle more, again, given the associated controversies. It's possible they got cut due to total runtime, but I can't say for certain. 21:25, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Community Standards
You wanna weigh in? It's up for vote now. 16:09, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I read the recent debates and voted. 16:16, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I just want to make sure that every major user gets a chance to vote on this change. 16:19, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

A debate challenge
The article Why RationalWiki is dying appears to be very upsetting to you. You seem desperate to not to let others see it.

Second, you seemed very eager to want to debate me yesterday. So let's have us debate about whether RationalWiki is dying or not and whether or not the underlying reasons I gave for its dying were legitimate.

You do admit that a website losing a considerable amount of traffic and global market share while massively losing inbound links shows the public is losing interest in it, don't you? And you do admit there is data showing this taking place, don't you?GiuocoPiano (talk) 17:34, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No. You were too scared to debate, so we aren't doing that. 17:54, 16 May 2020 (UTC)


 * -- Goatspeed. 06:44, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Undoing posts
However despicable he is you should not do so, I believe it is against site policy.--Mercian (talk) 18:51, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * when has it been site policy to provide a platform for human dogshit? AMassiveGay (talk) 19:02, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If Ken can post more than a few sentences without it going off topic or into ad hom attacks, it can stay. Otherwise, I will treat him as I would a small child. 21:12, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * RationalWiki is capricious and authoritarian. Your new rules prove this.


 * I had no idea that some factual posts of mine would cause RationalWiki to adopt authoritarian rules. This reminds me of something that Vox Day said, "...I will not destroy the Hugos, I will make them do it."GiuocoPiano (talk) 21:22, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Ken, LiberalTears undid my edits fact checking you, Karajou blocked me against your community standards, and you hid the relevant logs and lied to me. Shut up, mkay? 21:29, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You'll probably succeed in driving him off, but it's not because you're right. It's because you're a bully making up rules as you go along. You have no basis for unilaterally dictating that you have the authority to edit anyone else's comments. The community standards are crystal clear that there are very few reasons to delete posts, and you being a tough guy isn't one of them. Please just stop. 2601:249:8D80:3194:FD13:2CB5:66E6:9C2A (talk) 22:16, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Explain how I'm a bully. Explain how forcing Ken to stay on topic and not ramble like a lobotomy patient is so wrong. Explain why I should give a rat's ass about preserving a lying hypocrite's ad hom attacks. Go on, I'm listening. 22:20, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You're a bully because you mistakenly continue insisting on your right to violate one of the few explicit policies RW has in a manner calculated to harass and assert your dominance over another editor. Forcing Ken to "stay on topic" isn't your prerogative. It just isn't. If you think it is, show us the rule that permits it. You don't need to give a rat's ass about anything Ken says. You do need to follow the Community Standards relating to talk page posts. 2601:249:8D80:3194:FD13:2CB5:66E6:9C2A (talk) 22:25, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * None of the rationales you keep bringing up allows you to remove others' comments. Can you just knock it off already? 2601:249:8D80:3194:FD13:2CB5:66E6:9C2A (talk) 22:41, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * "You're a bully because you mistakenly continue insisting on your right to violate one of the few explicit policies RW has in a manner calculated to harass and assert your dominance over another editor." Dear lord! What have you been huffing? Can I have some? I don't know if you've noticed but not all of Ken's posts have been deleted or edited, just the ones consisting of Ad Hom attacks and tangents. Why? Because he's being a little shit, and I'm keeping him in line. If you don't like it, there are Mods, bring this up with them. Oh, and given the kind of shit Ken gets up to on CP, where he hides the edit logs (which I haven't done), where he acts like a spoiled brat because no one there will house train him, yeah, I think I'm a better class of scum. 22:49, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You're arguing against a word generator, GC. 00:42, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

😂Bongolian (talk) 00:59, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Or as the Ken quote generator would say:
 * Bongolian (talk) 02:59, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Bongolian (talk) 02:59, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Way are you removing my edits
all 6 of those actors are conservative or Republican? &mdash; Unsigned, by: 24.105.237.213 / talk
 * Because you're edit warring with Bongolian. Take it to the talkpage and ping them. 20:25, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * What does the word Bongolian mean? &mdash; Unsigned, by: 24.105.237.213 / talk
 * They're the user who reverted your edits before I did. 21:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Unsigned, by: 24.105.237.213 / talk
 * Before you redo my edit. I talked with Bongolian, I just need to put links in and thats it. OK we talked about it.
 * I know, I've read your conversation as I reformat your comments. By the way, indent and sign. 02:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, I can’t find the definition of Bongolian on Google, but I found a music artist named The Bongolian. His full name is Nasser Bouzida. According to Google, he is in the band "Big Boss Man", a funky music band formed in 1998. 2001:56A:774D:8F00:E8AE:ACF5:866C:8F1E (talk) 22:55, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I always thought he was from the Democratic Republic of Bongo --Hastur! (talk) 23:06, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Your behavior
I think you’re fine. I’ve had to stop you from being heavy handed in removing talk page comments, but that’s only been like twice or so. Just know that from my perspective you don’t have anything to feel bad about and I’ll vote in your favor in a potential coop case. 17:28, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Though I appreciate the sentiment I want to wait and see what Nutty brings to the Coop before people start declaring sides. 17:32, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * unless nutty has a miraculous gift at writing coop cases I think it's safe to say that it's not going to get anywhere. EK (talk) 20:23, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Since Mussolini already said they would vote against the coop case, I'll make sure to declare that I will vote in favor of it. — Godless Raven 🌹 Heretic 09:27, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Dearest Raven, I knew exactly how you'd vote before you told me. Of course you'd vote to desysop me and/or ban me, it's what you do. 12:20, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Go back
to RatWiki Support Chat, Em's requesting you. — Oxyaena Harass  16:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No. 16:17, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Pi block has happened to other 2001 thingy
A Pi block is a block encountered and expires 314159 seconds...away. Another 2001 starting IP address thingy user has been blocked. That block is a Pi block. Why you did that?? 2001:56A:774D:8F00:B418:EEF1:1622:BD79 (talk) 18:42, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * What? 18:45, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I meant this: "A Pi block’s a block that expires 314159 seconds (or 3.6 days). This user got a Pi block for the reason "Mindless generic vandalism". 2001:56A:774D:8F00:B418:EEF1:1622:BD79 (talk) 19:23, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you the same user? 19:25, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Nope. The user I’m talking about cannot create an account, cannot edit his talk page, and the block filter is anonymous users only. Conveniently, it said that blocks avoid editing every page except the talk page. In this case, the case also avoided the user’s talk page, which means that YOU blocked that user for vandalism (on all pages of RW with user’s talk page). &mdash; Unsigned, by: 2001:56A:774D:8F00:B418:EEF1:1622:BD79 / talk
 * Two major points. A) Yes I did. And B), try not to reuse the same IP range when lying. 19:34, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Lies??? Not lies!! Do you know why you blocked that user for 314159 seconds??? 2001:56A:774D:8F00:B418:EEF1:1622:BD79 (talk) 19:41, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I forgot to sign here. 2001:56A:774D:8F00:B418:EEF1:1622:BD79 (talk) 19:46, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

I have a website for you!
I need you to come to my website here! (I’m an anonymous user, and I do a CAPTCHA every time I edit. Linking to external sites have an extra CAPTCHA, too. But I have already one!). 2001:56A:774D:8F00:E8AE:ACF5:866C:8F1E (talk) 22:46, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * What? 22:50, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh shit is it Logic boy? 22:52, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No idea. 22:52, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * GrammarCommie, and DuceMoosolini, can you see this? Just search in the bar, look at how many pages (the "[number] pages" but they are content pages or articles), look at one article named Gremener, and do you want to make a Fandom account or no? Or do you have a Fandom account? But the Fictpedia Wiki admin has extra things to do. 2001:56A:774D:8F00:E8AE:ACF5:866C:8F1E (talk) 23:03, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I promised
... and I delivered. EK (talk) 13:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * As will I. 13:13, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I assume that's over (?) so u can resume whatever you were doing :) EK (talk) 15:45, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring solves nothing
As I said to Godless Raven. 21:08, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I cannot hold a conversation with those who lack the ability to hear. Furthermore, the draft says it's free for anyone to edit. So I'm editing out the shitty bits. I left the antisemitism thing in, I just added a template to hide it until it looked less like an argument between children. 21:16, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Why
Why do you keep reverting talk page edits for no reason? There aren’t any slurs or threats, so there shouldn’t be any reason to suppress other users’ comments. 21:36, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I was seeking advice from LGM in her capacity as a Mod to seek a way to resolve the dispute. 21:56, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No, you blocked me and EK repeatedly. Why are you lying? It's in the logs. 21:58, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * but GC, you reverted my complaint about you on LGMs talk page. EK (talk) 22:03, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

GC: Can you provide some details to your objections to what the other editors are doing? I would like to help if I can.Ariel31459 (talk) 23:51, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It's mainly that my attempts at discussion have been ignored, or shouted down, and when I edit on this topic, to remove content that I have repeatedly explained was low quality, in articles and in drafts that say "anyone can edit", they are reverted. This may not be "RadicalWiki", and in some ways I am glad it is not, but it should not be "RavenWiki" either. But please, tell me what to do. I beg of you. I have asked of others, and been attacked. I have stated my unease, and been attacked. If you have some insight that I do not, please enlighten me, for I am near my wit's end. All of my attempts critique Raven's edits concerning anarchism have been met with accusations of bad faith. I have considered leaving the wiki, due to the stress, and Raven has responded with unprovoked bile. I cannot speak with those whose ears are as if stone! I cannot! It is not possible! 03:55, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Are you okay?
I can't contact you through DM. 22:30, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I hope you come back
No need to stay retired for good. Shabi DOO  22:34, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I also hope to see your full return GC. 22:14, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No. I do not use those templates lightly. 22:24, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The fate of Trotsky, he presumes. HairlessCat (talk) 22:32, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * So, he wants to flee to Mexico, and then get assassinated by a Soviet Agent? Thunderclapper (talk) 16:05, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * RationalWiki is communist, so yes, his time is coming. HairlessCat (talk) 20:06, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Small lesson for today
Since you seem to not grasp what "distancing from" means, let me pick up a dictionary for you since you refuse to do that. https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english-thesaurus/distance-yourself-from-something-or-someone distance yourself from something or someone (phrasal verb) in the sense of disown
 * Definition
 * to separate oneself or be separated mentally from
 * The author distanced himself from some comments in his book.

Synonyms: disown, reject, separate yourself from, wash your hands of, dissociate yourself from.

ADDITIONAL SYNONYMS in the sense of reject Definition: to refuse to accept, use, or believe Paloma has rejected the values of her rich parents. Synonyms: deny,decline,abandon,exclude,veto,discard,relinquish,renounce,spurn,eschew,leave off,throw off,disallow,forsake,retract,repudiate,cast off,disown,forgo,disclaim,forswear,swear off,wash your hands of  If I could write even larger, I would, but I can't. Next time use a dictionary when you think you somehow caught me being wrong on something. 22:09, 25 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Stay off my talkpage. 22:14, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You don't own your talkpage. 22:14, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't harass me. 22:15, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Ey. Stop. GR, trying to do a "taste of your own medicine" is not recommended at all. 22:18, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * There was nothing to "distance themselves from" in the first place. — Oxyaena Harass  14:58, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Ok, you're wrong. 16:21, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Talk page comments
You are repeatly removing other peoples talk page comments, for example mine, and Ravens, from mods talk pages, your own talk page etc. This is against site policy as you are well aware because you have had others blocked for it. Please don't do it ok. EK (talk) 17:15, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Next time this happens it will be a depromotion and a 9h block. 17:20, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * this right here is genuine harassment. well done. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:39, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * As we all remember, GR got so much support when he tried to promote GC last time.-Flandres (talk) 17:41, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You think everybody will cover up his ass forever? 17:43, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * over you? yes AMassiveGay (talk) 17:44, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Unlike others who hide their plans, you are open about it. Thank you for confessing to bad behavior. ;) 17:45, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * you asked a question you got an answer. hows that bad behaviour? actually dont bother answering, i'm sure gc doesnt want to prolong your presence his talk page. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:47, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

deleting talk page comments is against the rules. 17:50, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, GC's talkpage isnt "his" talk page. He doesnt own it. 17:50, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * But you can archive threads on yours just for displeasing you. Self awareness is not GR's strong suit, hmhmhm...-Flandres (talk) 17:52, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Is archiving against the rules?  17:52, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No, but when we all point out you archive threads that just started because you can't handle them you would go on about how your talk page is inviolable.-Flandres (talk) 17:55, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You should've stopped at "no", because everything you said after is irrelevant. I don't violate the rules, GC does and you're a bootlicker who covers up the crimes. 'nuff said. 17:56, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * pretty sure you can still delete vandalism or harassment, which at this point it, your continued posting here counts as. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:57, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * if GC deletes it, there will be consequences. 17:58, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It was relevant to stifling debate which is what is going on here. Also, you need to learn this is a mobocracy. The mob is sovereign, not the rules, and if the mob consensus is the rules need to be violated in this instance then it is perfectly OK.-Flandres (talk) 17:59, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

That's fine, the mob can be wrong sometimes. If the mob wants to defend child porn being posted here, you would defend it and I wouldn't. That's the logic you're defending here. 18:02, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That's more common on Wikipedia, we have only had that a few times here actually. >.< EK (talk) 18:04, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * But could it still happen here?-Flandres (talk) 18:06, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and if GC did it, you would defend it.  18:07, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I mean in theory yes, in practice it would probably be oversighted out of process by someone and hushed up, which is basically what happened last time. The person in question did not iirc get banned until months later. EK (talk) 18:09, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * LOL and I thought I was being hyperbolic. So someone actually posted child porn here and didn't get banned? 18:11, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait, what? Who posted CP? Thunderclapper (talk) 18:13, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * So, GR, when did you stop beating your wife?Soundwave106 (talk) 18:16, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

It was EK who stated it, not me. I am just asking. 18:17, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, JAQing off, I see. Soundwave106 (talk) 18:18, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. 18:18, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Stop
The section above was a simple warning, not an invitation for a heated debate over how breaking the site rules is actually ok. Shut up and do something more productive. EK (talk) 18:01, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * haha funny. thats not your call AMassiveGay (talk) 18:09, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It is her call. 18:14, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * nope. it really isnt. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:17, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh my sweet jesus, nothing in recent changes has anything to do with anything but this stupid rules-first, content-of-dispute-second spat. It does not matter.  It is completely without substance rules lawyering and is obviously so.  "I'd really like this deleted point taken seriously" might be worth concerning ourselves with, but "IT GOT DELETED" is, frankly not important to anyone.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:22, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * i see what you mean (said while adding to it). AMassiveGay (talk) 18:26, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Then change the rules. As long as the community defends a bloodsucking opportunist like GC (he knows people love to defend a criminal, they are like trump supporters to trump), this will be a problem. 18:24, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * there is an on going conversation on the mod noticeboard. suggest all further comment to take place there AMassiveGay (talk) 18:27, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Not your call to make. 18:27, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * note the choice of words - 'suggest' vs 'Shut up and do something more productive. '. see a difference? i'll not reply any further here AMassiveGay (talk) 18:29, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Good. Your replies don't make any sense either. Also, not your call to make. 18:30, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Please stay
There are countless of lurker people like me who appreciate your work. Dogeatsdog (talk) 04:49, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Nomination
—cosmikdebris talk stalk 14:48, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Ouch
Still recovering from those burns i was given &mdash; Unsigned, by: TheFonz / talk / contribs

Troll?
Not really trollish behaviour, as no-ones even has given me a word of welcome I just decided to do it my self, that has to be legal, right? TheFonz (talk) 13:32, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It's 8:30 in the morning, I've only just finished coffee, and I'm in a bad mood. Don't fuck around with me. 13:36, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Is that a threat? Also its 2:46 in the afternoon here. TheFonz (talk) 13:46, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No, it's a warning. You're acting like troll, quit it. I don't really care if you stay or not, but I do want you to stop acting like a troll. 14:05, 13 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Fucking hell your harsh, well i could say I dont care about any of you because I've never met you, but I dont rub it in because I'm not a dick (feel free to verify this). But i dont want to leave on a bad note so sorry? TheFonz (talk) 14:08, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This isn't harsh. This is me giving advice through a bad mood. Stay or go, that's up to you. But messing with templates and fighting over trivial crap doesn't make a good impression. Talk to people, work out why they do what they do, try to communicate. You might also want to read some of the pages about the site and its community. 14:16, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the links, sorry &mdash; Unsigned, by: TheFonz / talk / contribs
 * Like I said, I'm in a bad mood. That doesn't mean I can't give advice. And I'm sorry if it seemed I was trying to bite your head off. 14:26, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm always in a bad mood after losing anything or (more often) made to look like an idiot. :) TheFonz (talk) 16:38, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I apologize if I caused offence
but I was actually supporting you in the argument. Fuck these idiots is right. — Oxyaena Harass  17:59, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Call here
1-800-273-8255 Call here. They will listen--Hastur! (talk) 18:06, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No they won't. They won't fucking get shit fixed. Those with power will keep fucking us over, then they'll fuck our kids over. Then they'll fuck their kids over, assuming anyone fucking lives that long. Because no one cares about anything but their own fucking egos. 18:09, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * They are non-profits funded by donations. Give it a try. It is easy to forget how a lot of Americans are standing in solidarity when the media circus is about orange Mussolini in the oval office. Call there, it can't hurt and at worst it won't help; and very likely you will find an ear that listens and cares. 18:12, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * None of you get it. Not You, not Hastur, not Ze, not Duce, Not Oxy, none of you. My problem isn't that I want to die. My problem is what makes me want to die, what makes me view death as preferable to living. I know what causes my problems, and it isn't just emotional issues. 18:23, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Give them some credit, they've received training to discuss all manner of issues. Anyways, you have nothing to lose.  And they're certainly more qualified than we are to listen to you--Hastur! (talk)  18:25, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Comment
Why delete my edit? I sourced it and shows another side to China? I'd call that vandalism.
 * Your edits are of poor quality and appear to be apologism for the PRC regime. Also, reverting isn't vandalism. 23:43, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It may surprise you to learn this, but the PRC is not in fact better than the US. Their foreign policy, while less overtly aggressive, is in fact, just as ruthless and hegemonic. Their domestic policy, is actually worse, and is part of (only part, Trump being a fucking idiot for months on end certainly helped) why we're dealing with a worldwide pandemic. And that is without going into the human rights abuses that the PRC is at this point quite infamous for. 23:49, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't deny all of those statements, but considering the trans rights issue I think it's quite disgusting that you would delete my edit. If an LGBTQ person wants to go to China and see it for themselves then they should have that information. I am a new user and I guess "poor quality" is part of the learning curve, you don't need to be such an arsehole about it though. As I can see from your talk page you appear to be one. How sad, I joined this for a debate. Not insults and revision.Junfa (talk) 00:01, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I have not been an asshole. "...but considering the trans rights issue I think it's quite disgusting that you would delete my edit." And I find it quite disgusting that'd you use a trans person to defend a regime that oppresses LGBT+ people such as myself. "If an LGBTQ person wants to go to China and see it for themselves then they should have that information." Firstly, I doubt most of them have that ability, capitalism and all that. Secondly, given that the PRC blasts propaganda from multiple outlets 24/7, I think finding accurate information in that regard would be quite tricky. So, you've basically said they should be able to "do their own research", an argument I quite clearly frown upon. 00:10, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Stop assuming, my LGBTQ friends ask me about visiting China, I warn them for the reasons that you point out but adding in a trans celb is to do with the article. You are witholding that information for your own poltical bias. Again, ironic freedom of speech is fine only when you say it. Junfa (talk) 00:13, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * A trans celeb can be little more than a token, someone who has succeeded despite the odds, not because of them. By your own logic, because the US elected a black president (mixed race actually, but you know, one drop rule), racism is solved here in the US. The truth of the matter is almost always more complex, and rarely if ever pleasant. 00:16, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Also to follow up on "not being an arsehole" I quote you "It's 8:30 in the morning, I've only just finished coffee, and I'm in a bad mood. Don't fuck around with me. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:36, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

"Is that a threat? Also its 2:46 in the afternoon here. TheFonz (talk) 13:46, 13 July 2020 (UTC) "

Seems like your a classic internet tough guy. Sad, I thought better reading this site.

Also, I agree with that trans statement, but your hostile attitude doesn't make me happy about it. Junfa (talk) 00:24, 3 August 2020 (UTC)&mdash; Unsigned, by: Junfa / talk / contribs
 * If you read the thread in question you would see that I clarified my position. I am not in fact a tough guy (I'm openly a coward), and in fact am just prone to an abrasive temperament at times. As for any hostility in my tone, it was not intended. 00:26, 3 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Well, we all are. I was just annoyed that I was trying to contribute something that didn't paint 1.4 billion people as evil slave drivers, but I get your point when you used Obama as an example. That being said I'm new and don't know the layout of wiki like software or what will be "okay" to write. I made a few edits on other less partisan pages that seemed to go okay. So i guess not all my edits are bad ;). Junfa (talk) 00:30, 3 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Sorry that I deleted the comment thread. I didn't realise they are public record. &mdash; Unsigned, by: Junfa / talk / contribs Junfa (talk) 01:12, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Bro
You need to ease off the rollback button. Consider the edit. Can it be improved? Where is it coming from? Is there nuance involved? Stop being so damn trigger happy--Hastur! (talk) 00:07, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hustar is correct, why can't people disagree with you? I didn't delete half the China artcle even though I disagree, I added a valid point.Junfa (talk) 00:11, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Which one? 00:12, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This post was unrelated to your edits, Junfa. Your edits are bad and you should feel bad.   Norman Finkelstein being the latest example--Hastur! (talk)  00:12, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Says man who is attacking me when I just just started using wiki softwar in the past half an hour, from the long list of complaints I can see my edits are no worse than your control freak nature. Take your own advise on your page and maybe step away from the screen for a while. Do us all a favour. Junfa (talk) 00:15, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Somebody pro-CCP who criticizes somebody else for being a control freak is hilarious--Hastur! (talk) 00:16, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Not pro anything, just saying what I think. Junfa (talk) 00:19, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The relevant statements were backed by citations from what I saw, and as far as I'm aware they were accurate. Perhaps I should have taken the time to write out an edit summery explaining such reasoning, in which case, I apologize and will try to avoid such mistakes in the future. 00:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Junfa, new users are quite welcome here and your eagerness to help improve the wiki is appreciated. GC wasn't being rude...just direct. Consider letting this revert and response go and looking for other articles to help improve. Shabi DOO  02:16, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Smh
Hi, that is all &mdash; Unsigned, by: 104.243.212.165 / talk / contribs 12:20, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I really am getting frustrated now
Can you please take us seriously when we ask you to stop arbitrarily removing talk page stuff? You not liking it isn’t a reason to delete other users’ messages. 17:10, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yup!! Scream!! (talk) 17:18, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh no, not muh freeze peach. — Oxyaena Harass  04:58, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That has nothing to do with what I commented. 07:10, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

For edit warring
It doesn't matter what kind of grand point you're trying to make and that hastur is behaving like a clown, you don't edit war or you're also part of the circus act. 20:21, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, but now I have fish. I shall not starve!!! SALVATION!!! 20:23, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Just put it in the freezer for a few hours. It kills the tiny worms inside of it. Then you can cook it and eat it and pretend there aren't dead tiny works in it while you eat it!!! Shabi  DOO  20:26, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

User:2406:3400:20f:ffc0:1847:821a:37fc:f287
Why did you block this user for Pi times 0 seconds? Kiko4564 (talk) 16:26, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It's a way of commenting to a user without using their talk page. Read the 'reason' for the block. Scream!! (talk) 17:11, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Criticism of incitement by Arab Palestinian Street
See PalWatch for documented constant racial incitement in mainstream Arab Palestinians. MariAnna (talk)
 * I do not accept this as a reputable source, based on what background information I have been able to uncover on it. Further, this should be taken to the talkpage for the Ben Shapiro article, not my personal talkpage. 15:03, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Please unblock 2001:8003:59DB:4100:977:D10:88E6:EC25
Hi GrammarCommie, can you please unblock 2001:8003:59DB:4100:977:D10:88E6:EC25? Thanks! LTMay Dataclarifier be well! 04:46, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No. he's evading a Coop sanctioned ban. 12:25, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The mod says no. 19:10, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

RationalMedia Foundation 2020 election
Congratulations on your election to the foundation board. If I can be of any assistance, please feel free to ask. I have the credentials for updating the foundation's website at rationalweb.org if that site requires any updates. Regards, —cosmikdebris talk stalk 01:36, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It remains to be seen if GC still wants the post. 04:26, 25 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Do you guys suppose GrammarCommie will even head back here to see this post? LTMay Dataclarifier be well! 05:18, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * GC has accepted. 23:26, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Dear GC
Heya GC, I almost forgot, but I couldn't leave without telling you this first. Fuck you, fucking ass shit. I sincerely hope you go get Covid and die. Fucker. 10:54, 28 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I think what D is trying to say is: "all of the above...but with rainbow unicorn sprinkles on top! Shabi DOO  11:51, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * OK. Now for something completely different, in case you missed it: I left you a more detailed answer about O'Keefe on my talk page. Ariel31459 (talk) 16:38, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Topic ban
As a result of this vote you have been topic banned from "reverting or making edits to articles related to far-left politics and ideology." Regards. --RWRW (talk) 18:28, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Great to see you're back!
Hi GrammarCommie, it's great to see that you're back from retirement! LTMay Dataclarifier be well! 21:45, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Shit from Mikey
Why did you put that comment back? It's rude, irrelevant, and completely groundless. Please self revert. Red Squirrel (talk) 17:09, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It isn't worth removing at this time. 17:33, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Red Squirrel is almost certainly Michael Coombs, aside from the fact the account types like him see this edit, then search "Linnean taxonomy" for his blocked socks such as this IP using the same term. There's then the name - red squirrel, it's a name the British far-right often use and Coombs has before mentioned. Red squirrels are native to UK but their existence is threatened by grey squirrels (their population has massively declined). The far-right use this an an analogy to argue against non-white immigration to UK. There's more evidence if someone requests it. 109.123.74.96 (talk) 17:54, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * All taxonomic links on Rationalwiki redirect to Linnean taxonomy, I noticed it from another page. Really, you think I'm someone else, because I used the same phrase as them? Who even are you? Are you the person who wrote the spiteful mutant article? Is this how you avoid criticism? Red Squirrel (talk) 18:38, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Could you two take your bickering elsewhere? 18:54, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Cartoons don't count as freedom of speech?
Don't cartoons count under freedom of speech? &mdash; Unsigned, by: 2001:8003:59DB:4100:E4DD:9FC9:F6C9:EA4A / talk
 * Define freedom of speech for me. 21:24, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm serious, until I know what you mean by "freedom of speech" I can't answer your question accurately. 21:28, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Freedom of speech is the right to communicate with any other person, or persons, without fear of unwarranted restriction, censorship, or organized reprisal.
 * That's a rather broad definition. Do you think the distribution of child porn should fall under that definition? If not, why not? 21:33, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * that definition is from this website, and if your going to use child porn As your "rebuttal", I know you cannot be taken seriously. Goodbye. &mdash; Unsigned, by: 2001:8003:59DB:4100:E4DD:9FC9:F6C9:EA4A / talk
 * It's not a rebuttable. You're definition is rather broad, and I'm trying to understand the intricacies and limitations of it. Also, not everyone on the site agrees with the article's definition, but that's not really relevant to exploring the limitations of the definition itself. The reason I asked "If not, why not?" was to get your potential reasoning. You seem to agree with a specific definition, and I want to answer your question by working through that definition. To do that, you'll have to humor my questions in turn. 21:41, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * the definition given here mentions 'without fear of unwarranted restriction'. thats not free rein to say anything you like, suggesting to me 'warranted restrictions' are acceptable. ive no doubt missed the specific argument or event that spurred the question 'Don't cartoons count under freedom of speech?' broadly speaking yes they probably do. specifically though, surely must depend on the content of the cartoon, and what would you could consider reasonable grounds to censor to some degree. i can envision a racial inflammatory cartoon falling afoul of hate speech in my locale of the uk or elsewhere in europe. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:11, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

The LANCB couldn't stay away :( (also I had an alt already, so there's that), and I want to ask for permission
According to guidelines, I have put my opinions in the talk section of Age of Consent. I have not yet touched the page itself. I believe my suggested changes fit the requirements/norms of the site. If you have the chance to, can you please check it? Sorry for being cheeky. I was, and still am, kind of mad at the article... but I gotta play by the rules if I want it to stick, yeah? Also, if I get your blessing, I assume it's less likely my article is gonna get reverted. Thanks mate. ThisSiteRuxExDee2 (talk) 23:46, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Quick question
While browsing, I happened upon a BoN ranting. (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Privilege#Complaint) I was wondering if they showed up for the debate or not. Monke (talk) 21:57, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * They did. 22:12, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Did anything interesting happen that you'd want to share? Twodots (talk) 20:53, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No. 20:59, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

How does the paper I cited not show prion disease caused by nanoplastics
For instance, the prion disease bovine spongiform encephalopathy17,18 can be traced back to transforming the membrane protein PrPC into the scrapie PrPSc through converting α-helix residues into β-sheet structures17,18. Similarly, in Alzheimer’s disease the analysis of amyloid filaments indicated an induced β-sheet formation of helical proteins19, which was linked to the abnormal plaque formation in neural tissues, further showcasing the gravity of induced changes in the secondary structure of proteins. Since our simulations showed here the same kind of transformation for the model peptides, it is reasonable to assume that the molecular biological effects of nanoplastics are more severe than thought before, urgently requiring further molecular biological, theoretical and ecological studies.

From the paper Sievert 81 (talk) 00:35, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I made a typo while checking the paper. 01:02, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * So can the edit stay? This is the second time someone has reverted me for no reason other that their mistakes.Sievert 81 (talk) 01:03, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

The Guy who Edited Last's Article
I am not as you say, some "weirdo Last stan". I have indeed legitamitely spoken to Last. If you'd like to talk to him, his discord is "sean#7678". Also, I am the famous "Alden's Number" kid from this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDE3h20WUkk. &mdash; Unsigned, by: Alden's Number Kid / talk / contribs
 * Look, I'm going to be honest. I don't really like Vaush, but I very much doubt you "BTFO'd" him. Also, no I would not like to talk to yet another white supremacist with a shitty paint job, thank you. Also, you're not really famous. No, seriously, I've never heard of you. 03:41, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Never heard of Alden's Number? &mdash; Unsigned, by: Alden's Number Kid / talk / contribs
 * Nope! 03:58, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, watch the debate and check the Vaush subreddit. You'll know. &mdash; Unsigned, by: Alden's Number Kid / talk / contribs
 * Curb your self importance. IveBeenFrank (talk) 12:13, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't write false things about people you don't know. Let me edit the Last article.
 * -- Goatspeed. 22:09, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Okay--Alden&#39;s Number Kid (talk) 22:22, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Deleting a necessary page
Just like there is an entire (LARGE) section of the 9/11 page that includes conspiracy theories, there needs to be a detailed one abou the 2020 election. Thats the point of this site. To debunk bogus claims. You said it should be concise but the claims are not concise. Let me completey start over. &mdash; Unsigned, by: IntellectualBlackhole / talk / contribs
 * Start with a subsection, and if it gets too big we can consider turning it into its own page. It's just what you had to start with works better as a subsection for the time being. 02:23, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Copium
You can't Stump the Trump.


 * Now you must really be getting desperate to try and cope. Your precious orange Messiah's presidency is done for. (Trumpist snowflakes triggered in 3... 2... 1...) -- Goatspeed. 23:41, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

buh bye calvin
btw have fun stalking my wiki 14:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * How do you know his name's Calvin, and are you comfortable with this? IveBeenFrank (talk) 14:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * My name is in fact not Calvin, Raven is either assuming that's my name based off of my Discord handle, or he's just making up a (dumb) nickname for me based off the same. He's also throwing a tantrum rather than being an adult and re-examining his worldview (also like a skeptic and rationalist, both schools of thought this wiki is built on) and I'm largely indifferent at this point. 18:12, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, just wanted to make sure he wasn't doxxing you or something like that. IveBeenFrank (talk) 18:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I have used Calvin as an alias/handle a few times. That's as close as it gets. 18:22, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Reverting reversions to Alan Sokal
Hi, I noticed you reverted my changes to Sokal, which I think I have justified on the talk page. I am happy to merge them into the discussion rather than removing it but I think that the whole section isn't useful. -- Synapse (talk) 16:44, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

PS: Also, I thought the edit message "this criticism was already repudiated by Sokal and Bricmont in the chapter of FN about Ingaray" was explanatory, if not clearly written - there was no edit message, notice to me, explanation or justification for why my edits had been reverted. -- Synapse (talk) 16:50, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I've replied on the article's talkpage. 17:09, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

== Private firearms ownership decentralizes coercive power, transferring some of it from the state to the private individual. Naturally, political regimes oppose this. But even many non-Americans embrace private arms. ==

That is all. Peace out. --2001:8003:59DB:4100:64BB:E3AB:3AF2:AF83 (talk) 09:38, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Somehow I'm less than compelled by your "argument". 12:55, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Except of course, there are tons of healthy democratic countries where people don't own guns and everything works out really quite fine with the added bonus that there's next to no gun violence, gun accidents, gun suicides and the general fear one might have knowing lots of people around you could be legally carrying a weapon of murder. So what would I choose
 * 1) Be a super awesome paranoid hero warrior with my gun ready in stand by in case the government tries to oppress me for some unfathomable reason
 * 2) Live in a safer and less violent society without guns
 * Fuck that is such a fucking tough choice! Shabi  DOO  13:01, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I mean, you do know that drones exist right? And missiles, bombs, tanks, etc? This isn't the 1700s anymore kiddo. 13:03, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I mean, there's also the fact that most gun nuts (not gun owners) are also "support the troops" "thin blue line" jingoists who literally supported Trump threatening to throw votes out... 13:06, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Asymmetric warfare is a thing, GC. — Oxyaena Harass  13:49, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah I know. I spend and unhealthy amount of time studying this stuff. However, you can't just say "asymmetrical warfare" and have it poof the enemy's munitions out of existence, munitions they will use if they were actually tyrannical enough to march troops in the streets. Unless your going to dispute that the wave of police abuse and shows of force in the wake of the BLM protests weren't an indicator of potential tactics? Are you? 14:03, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

"Unless you are a moron with zero understanding of PolSci"
Then you will understand that Christianity is associated with the right-wing, and that censoring such a neutral and seemingly obvious statement as "subjectivity of what can be considered hate speech is present on both sides of the political spectrum" is preeeeeetty damn biased. Przciąszczłóśćiek (talk) 17:24, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * So. As I said in my first edit summery, it's more complicated than that. PolSci doesn't use the spectrum model. Hell, most Political Scientists don't even use the Political Compass model. Too simplistic. So "both sides" implies a binary that is in fact a complete oversimplification. That's thing the first.


 * Thing the second, and I'm sure this will blow your mind, is that Christian Communists, Christian Anarchists, and Christian Socialists exist. Not "Christians who are also these things", but full blown ideologies. So that sort of blows "Christianity is associated with the right-wing" out of the water. That's very location specific, with different areas having different combinations of beliefs due to cultural influences and social norms.


 * Thirdly the disputed section is not in fact neutral. It's weighted toward centrism, which isn't a neutral school of thought but in fact is a mix of the two main wings of the traditional left/right axes. That mix can vary by time period and region, which can lead to some pretty weird outcomes. There's also the fact that centrists can themselves be bigots, depending on (again) time period and region, as well as other contextual modifiers. If you had instead something like "the subjectivity of hate speech can be found in various camps throughout the traditional left/right axes" that would be more accurate, though it'd still be oversimplifying and somewhat redundant. 17:47, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * None of that changes the fact that, in modern-day politics, two dominant factions exist ─ the modern left and the modern right ─ with whether or not a given person holds any position associated with either faction (e.g. whether or not they are Christian) being a great predictor of whether or not that same person will hold all the other positions associated with the same faction (e.g. if they are pro-life, if they are anti-gun-control, if they believe PC/victim culture is a greater issue than racism and sexism, if they believe that rape culture is a myth, etc). You don't need to tell me that the left-right model or the Political Compass model is too simplistic, because around half of my own positions are associated with the left, while the other half are associated with the right (same for libertarianism vs authoritarianism), and the fact that there are Christian socialists will absolutely not blow me away (I myself am an atheistic free-market-ist). Przciąszczłóśćiek (talk) 22:17, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe you said it yourself: people blend positions from different ideologies into a coherent whole. While groups may be associated with different political parties, that is not universal truth, merely regional constructs. For example, statistics will tell you that blacks generally vote Democrat. Yet look at the huge stir that has been made from black conservatives. The point is, universally characterizing the politics of any large political group that is not explicitly political in nature is bound to fail. Geography is the key. For example, many American Christians (especially those in the South) are very conservative, far more than their equally numerous counterparts in Europe. Just because a part of a group is associated with a political party or ideology does not mean the entire group is. So saying, especially from a global perspective, that Christians reside firmly on the right-wing is improper. IveBeenFrank (talk) 22:28, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * For the third time, I did not make the implication that "Christians reside firmly on the right wing", because it is of course not the case. Like I already said, I myself am an atheistic capitalist, so I couldn't possibly imply anything of that sort. I merely added a neutral statement to wash away any hint of a potential bias (and given that the article mentioned Christian ideas of hate speech without mentioned liberal ideas of hate speech, which are much more widespread and significant, it had much more than a "hint" of bias). I don't see why the discussion that we are having right now is even necessary. Przciąszczłóśćiek (talk) 22:50, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe you said "Christianity is associated with the right-wing" Not only did you claim that Christianity, not Christians, is right-wing, but that the entirety of all the many practices and sects practiced all over the world, that are commonly considered under Christianity, are right-wing. In regards to what this whole issue is about, I think talking about politics obfuscates the point: different people have different definitions of what constitutes hate speech for different reasons. To force those reasons to be political is to claim that everything is political, a ludicrous overarching statement. And finally, if you feel so strongly about liberal ideas of hate speech, then add a section on that instead of trying to surreptitiously shove it into the page. IveBeenFrank (talk) 22:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've already explained how your edit wasn't neutral so I'm not really going to repeat myself. Your second response in this thread completely misses the point I was making. Being a centrist doesn't confer some special understanding of political classifications or measurements, it just means you're a centrist. And even that statement is wrapped up in the foundational assumption that things can be neatly plotted within a left/right (and/or up/down) axes. Again, this simply is not the case. Where do you map out using these metrics? Are you still a centrist? Does the term centrist have any meaning at this point? And that's still not a proper metric and classification system. As Zizek might say, "you are trapped by your ideology, unable to see beyond it", meaning your foundational assumptions blind you from understanding my point. To your third post. Yes, you are conflating Christians (the umbrella category) with Conservative Evangelical Christians. You are not entirely at fault here, as RW articles do not clearly delineate between these two group in general, which is a failure of the site as a whole.  23:17, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That would depend on what you mean by "political". If you mean a sort of contest between two opposing groups, then off course Christianity isn't political. However, if you define politics as the application (and competition) of various values, beliefs, and opinions, then the answer switches to yes, sort of. This video goes into this conflict of definitions somewhat, though it is important that even the expanded definition of "political" does not (outside of certain people online) claim that literally everything is political. As for a section on liberal ideas of hate speech, that's probably fine. 23:25, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I suppose I should clarify what I said: Christianity can't be placed on a right or left axis, or even on a larger scale like the 8 values; while there may be some correlations, due to the magnitude of influence different interpretations of the Bible can have, Christian political beliefs cannot be "set" or "defined" into any one category. The only method of associating Christianity to these political spheres is to devolve into regional trends, influenced by a host of other factors. And even then, you're only going off of what is popular, which may not be the "true" definition or example of any given thing. IveBeenFrank (talk) 23:52, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a very American phenomena. Most democratic countries have multiple parties that fall all over the spectrum (and defy the spectrum) as well as special interest parties. Few other developed countries have such a two grand political groups problem: left vs. right or liberal vs. conservative polarisation. Especially when most other governments are formed by large coalitions, include regional and special interest parties and where in fact the difference between most parties are actually minuscule compared with American style red vs. blue. And it doesn't have to be that way. The US so desperately needs to become a multi-party nation. It's the only way actual change (at the pace other western countries are doing) is fathomable. Shabi  DOO  00:12, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see! Then we are in, if not complete agreement something passing for it! 00:27, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Re: Privilege and Intersectionality discussion on the BLM talk page
Didn't want to go on a tangent on the talk page, but I'll do it here. I find the verbiage and assorted expressions of the term "privilege" to be extremely easy to dismiss, ridicule, or ignore. Things like the intersectionality diagram make people think that you're trying to say that "whiteness" and other traits they possess are somehow negative, or harmful. It was the midwife of Gamergate, and formed the bulk of the endless Internet SJW-ridicule. I believe that many people are willing to address racism or harmful discrimination, but expressing those concepts in that manner makes them too easy to ignore or ridicule, turning people off from ANY expression of such an argument and TOWARDS the alt-right. Your comment in particular doesn't help things, by indirectly implying that social norms or expectation of any kind are bad. I know you didn't intend this, but reading this statement from the point of view of the people I grew up with, it's full of escape hatches so they can dismiss it easily. I agree that there are long-standing beliefs that oftentimes lead to discrimination, and that it's important to address such issues. But for maximal success, we must address them in the proper way.

On a personal note, I find the "privileged" mantra flows quite easily into wholesale identity politics, which are even more of a turnoff. The dismissal of class is to me a fatal error. While classism may be rooted and expressed in a way similar to racism, a homeless white man is discriminated against FAR more than a wealthy black man. IveBeenFrank (talk) 21:49, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Stop. I know that these terms are very prone to misuse or ridicule, which is why I'm very rigid with my definitions. If you with to critique or challenge part of my definition, please quote the relevant portion and then go into what you find objectionable. I'm not trying to shut you up, it's just easier to follow this way. 21:57, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * All right, though most of my objection to the term is in its implementation and usage, to the point that no definition can save it. But specifically regarding your definition, I have a couple objections:
 * When you discuss how certain social norms benefit certain groups, there's an implicit assumption that those norms, or possession of traits or behaviors within those norms, possess no inherent morality or other quality as to make them justifiably superior. Though this is true in many cases (gender, race, economic status, all of which you mention in your example), this doesn't apply to practices like monogamy, which one can reasonably argue is simply the best thing to do.
 * This is more minor, but when discussing people that don't fit social norms, you say that they "exist in a sort of perceived inverse of that social ideal," and include a graphic that shows exactly that. These people don't exist in an inverse to these norms, they are perceived as being entirely outside it, and thus an "other" to be ridiculed and distrusted. There's no convenient traits or attributes that are "priveledge opposites" of each other, because such relationships just don't exist: traits not viewed as "normal" aren't locked into being opposite or even contradictory - each connotes a level of understanding about the trait that doesn't exist from the one discriminating. To them, they're the dark unknown, outside their universe - aliens, to be treated as such. IveBeenFrank (talk) 22:32, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * To argument the first, yes, you are correct.
 * To argument the second, you've just described my explanation with slightly different wording. 23:10, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Why is monogamy "the best thing to do," as opposed to, say, polyamory? — Oxyaena Harass  14:21, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No! If you want to have this argument, have it elsewhere. I'll not have this discussion derailed. 14:28, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Why did you revert my edit?
Curious. — Oxyaena Harass  14:20, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The original revert was pretty clearly undoing apologia. 14:23, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Cory
Don't dogpile him. 18:42, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by that, chum. Twodots (talk) 18:44, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I assume he means not to insert yourself into the discussion, as it is unproductive and harmful. IveBeenFrank (talk) 18:46, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah. Okie-doke, I'll shut up now. Twodots (talk) 18:50, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You're all jumping on his case, including a certain someone who shall remain nameless but everyone can predict who they are. And to answer your question, yes I got pissed at his attack on my character, as well as the bootstraps style nonsense. Shit is more complex than that. I also resent the unstated implication (I don't think Cory meant it, because he generally doesn't think that much before he shoots his mouth off) that one's input on how society works is predicated on one having a job. 18:53, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It's good that you've calmed down a bit. You are right; I don't know your particular situation, and I apologize. CoryUsar (talk) 18:54, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * And I apologize for losing my temper. Though you were correct that my anger issues are part of why I'm unemployed. (Also I literally can't manage my own finances, including buying groceries.) 18:57, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * One of the things I think upsets you (not in this particular instance, I think) is when things aren't a "right" and "proper" way, because that's what used to upset me to no end. What helped me avoid seeing the world in the Black and White, "right and wrong", is coming to the realization that the world is full of bullshit.  People don't have time to think through every little thing and they just go with whatever is convenient for them and then done.  In terms of the bullshit interactions, there's a method to the madness even though we Aspies have trouble with all the nonverbal cues and protocols and so forth.  Mostly it comes down to "you do the thing you are expected to do because it's what people expect you to do".  Why is it so important that clothes are ironed, if they are clean?  Why can't I wear socks with sandals if it's so comfortable?  If I'm clean, why is it so important for my hair and beard to be trimmed?  It's all bullshit, but it's bullshit that does serve a purpose; people aren't able to judge you based on who you are, only what they can perceive you are, and without doing all the "pointless" bullshit all they will perceive is "someone who has trouble with the pointless bullshit". CoryUsar (talk) 19:13, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Why don't you just say who this nameless person is Grammarcommie, that person need not stand by you again if you just say the person's name. Shabi  DOO  05:15, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Quick question
What do I do if I'm pretty sure a user is a sock of another user? Twodots (talk) 04:03, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It depends on the evidence. If it's something like "these people have X number of overlapping interests", that's a weak case. On the other hand, if it's something along the lines of "these people agree on almost everything and use almost identical writing styles", that's a relatively strong case. 04:29, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Okie doke. I had a theory (which, to be honest, I was only somewhat entertaining) that Catgrrl is an Oxyaena sock that Oxy's using for the purpose of being able to air her more controversial views without fear of her main account being banned or losing privileges. They seem to agree on pretty much everything, share an interest in cats, and share a habit of insulting people with terms such as liberal and/or centrist. Additionally, Oxy | welcomed Catgrrl to the site. Of course, it's possible that they simply share many interests and beliefs and, as a result, she welcomed her to the wiki, seeing her as a kindred spirit. Twodots (talk) 04:37, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I can realistically assure you that Catgrrl isn't Oxy. Oxy can talk a whole lot but isn't above listening to reason. Catgrrl outright dismisses anything contrary to their beliefs with the reasoning "you're a liberal". I doubt that it's Oxy. 10:57, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Trolls
Hey why did u delete my bootiful edits.😡
 * My reasoning was given in my edit summery. Sicking your followers on me would be a bad idea. 17:52, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

About the archiver bot that's supposed to archive your talkpage
Hi,

I think the reason why this talkpage doesn't seem to have been archived in a while is because your auto-archive template uses a now-defunct bot. I'd recommend changing it to the currently-operating archive bot like I did for my own talkpage, because this one is getting really huge. -- Goatspeed. 22:50, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

BoN vainly attempts to whitewash his own stupidity; fails.
So according to you everyone calling me dumb is fine but the moment I decided to defend myself then you ban it and call it harassement also how do you block people from this site I so call block bullies and trolls for being annoying, stupid and mean to everyone STOP CENSORING ME AND TAKING AWAY MY FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH!!!!!!--2607:FEA8:2BA0:1F6:85F9:FE3A:1E2D:B72F (talk) 21:57, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Read the Constitution. We're not an arm of the government, we're a privately owned entity; you don't have a right to speak here. IveBeenFrank (talk) 21:58, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * If I was taking away your rights I'd be in public office trying to pass legislation to repeal or nullify an amendment, not forcing you to halt borderline harassment on a privately owned website. 22:04, 21 December 2020 (UTC)


 * The reason y'all censor me is because I hurt your little feelings with my amazing roasts and you know y'all are all jealous of me. I DESTROYED and EXPOSED this site of lying, misreprensentation,bullying and ad hominem attacks on everyone they disgaree(BURN!!). Please stop talking it makes anyone who has graduated kindergarten know that y'all are dumb and jealous of me (DOUBLE BURN)!!!--2607:FEA8:2BA0:1F6:85F9:FE3A:1E2D:B72F (talk) 22:08, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Why would I be jealous of you, a hormonally disturbed youngster who cannot manage to form grammatically correct sentences, and writes insults so weak he needs to call them "burns" for anyone to know they've been insulted, rather than just rambled at? If anything, you make me feel so much smarter by comparison. IveBeenFrank (talk) 22:10, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh my gawd LULZ we have been ROASTED derp de derp LMAO LOL ROLF we are so roasted by logic and rationality derp de derp. My skin is burnt from this clever anonymous genius! Shabi  DOO  22:52, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I hope this kid never finds KiwiFarms... Twodots (talk) 23:04, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Let's hope KiwiFarms never finds him. They'd tear him to shreds. IveBeenFrank (talk) 23:09, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's what I mean. He's really easy to get a rise out of. Twodots (talk) 23:13, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Firstly again no defence after I destroyed this page, I can form gramatically correct senteces I just don't feel like it when editing a wiki, and I'm smarter than you (OBJECTIVELY) soooo thanks for calling me dumb again. Secondly, I'd destroy Kiwifarms and make him cry that he'd resort to strawmaning and ad hominem attacks like everyone else here sooo idc.--2607:FEA8:2BA0:1F6:99BD:DF76:EF41:12F (talk) 23:40, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Kiwi Farms is a website. Don't go to it, please. Twodots (talk) 23:46, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh my bad lol, what is Kiwi Farms? and why should I not visit it? Also what does BoN mean? --2607:FEA8:2BA0:1F6:99BD:DF76:EF41:12F (talk) 23:49, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * BoN is an acronym for "bunch of numbers". Your username is your IP address, which is a bunch of numbers. It's a term we use for random anonymous editors Twodots (talk) 23:51, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh ok that makes sense but you didn't answer my questions about Kiwi farms, also conservepedia has me banned until 2026 :( because they are also scared of me --2607:FEA8:2BA0:1F6:99BD:DF76:EF41:12F (talk) 23:54, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * KF is a site dedicated to harassment and doxxing. Please don't visit it. Conservapedia banning you isn't an accomplishment. They ban practically everyone who does anything that could even possibly be perceived as vandalism infinitely. Twodots (talk) 23:56, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * OH MY GAWD not only have we been burnt to ashes DERP DE DERP but we've been totally destroied by the BON's genyus and gramatikal derp. We are objectively ANIHILATED LOL DERP DERP LOL! Run for cover this BON is so not dumb that they are OBJECTIVELY off the scale intelligent DERP DE DERP! Shabi  DOO  23:58, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh noez!!!one!eleven!!!! Twodots (talk) 23:59, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Firstly, you don't need to be so condescending and so insufferably arrogant, like wow you need to work on your personalities clearly, secondly don't tell me what to do I can visit Kiwifarms if I want and I got banned from Conservepedia because I called young earth creationism pseudo science and I called Candace Owens dumb.
 * Woah, you nearly got through a whole sentence without a spelling mistake! Congrats, dude! Twodots (talk) 02:41, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Again I don't make spelling mistakes when I'm trying but again you feel the need to be a condescending arrogant prick for no reason mostly because you know I'm right and y'all have no arguments. Please stop being an arrogant pseudo intellectual please learn to be humble also I have dyslexia and I still spell better than you when I'm trying you're a high school drop out so calm down bud I graduated from an IVY LEAGUE UNIVERSITY.--2607:FEA8:2BA0:1F6:DDAA:70F:AF90:2821 (talk) 02:46, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You know I can trace your IP right? Especially if you give me a fuck ton of samples, which you have. I'm not going to dox you, just going to point out that I backtracked your IP and know who you are. Also you're dumb and only use your IP when your main account is blocked. That also helped me nail it down. Get off my talkpage Eric. 02:56, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Which university? Show me a diploma. What was your major? Any extracurriculars? Got a picture of your yearbook? Twodots (talk) 02:59, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * So Grammar Commie, you clearly don't know who I am and thank you for calling me dumb however my name is not Eric so I have no idea where you got that from. I do have a picture of my yearbook and my diploma, I majored in Biology at Harvard.--2607:FEA8:2BA0:1F6:90E8:2120:6BFD:BDD0 (talk) 14:16, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Then show us that picture. We'd be very appreciative of it. IveBeenFrank (talk) 14:26, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

With regards to your question on the Chomsky Talk page
Firstly my comment was misguided and impulsive. Secondly, I placed it on the talk page because I knew it was vague and not suitable to the standards of a proper debate. My criticisms of Chomsky are the following: (1) his reliance on mentalism i.e., his positing of innate ideas, and in particular, his innate grammatical structures (2) his recourse to intuition and introspection as reliable methods of acquiring data (3) As a consequence of (1) and (2), his support of rationalism over and against empiricism and behaviourism. I believe that his arguments against Skinner and Behaviourism in favour of his methods, has led to vaguer methodology in linguistics and science. The positing of mental entities fails to have the explanatory force that science requires. Moreover, Chomsky fails to acknowledge that the modern behaviourist is, so to speak, up to her neck in innate structures e.g., innate dispositions to learning, as these are necessary to round out our explanation of the data; the modern behaviourist does this without recourse to innate ideas or innate grammatical structure ( I mean, how exactly is grammar inherited via genes?). Be this as it may, the modern empiricist or behaviourist does condone introspection, that is, insofar as it leads to inter-subjectively verifiable hypotheses. — Leucippus 17:49, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Your still not being specific, just repetitive. Let's take example one. Show me an example, then explain why you think it's wrong.  18:03, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Firstly, thanks for responding and merry Christmas! An example of mentalism: Chomsky's "innate ideas". Why do I think they're wrong? Chomsky's innate ideas, and mental entities more generally, do not explain psychological processes e.g., the psychological processes involved in learning a language. This is because mental entities have no connection to observation i.e., mental entities cannot be explained using observable features of the world. Mental entities and mentalistic language are incommensurable with the physicalistic language of science i.e., there are only physical entities in science, entities that can be strictly explained by causal-nomological laws. Mental entities can neither by definitionally nor nomologically reduced to physical entities. Moreover, mental entities are a folk-psychological theory put forward to attempt to explain how, even when silent, humans can engage in intelligent behaviour i.e., mental entities are put forward as causal explanations of our actions, and yet they cannot provided an adequate explanation. Mental entities do not refer in the first place, as a consequence when we explicate 'mental entities' we eliminate them in favour of the superior explanatory tools of science. Additionally, mental entities violate the principle of extensionality, which leads to a violation of identity criteria, how are we supposed to make sense of entities that lack clear identity conditions.
 * Nevertheless, mental entities are indispensable to our common sense interactions using ordinary language. Chomsky's subscription to Cartesian Rationalism viz his use of mental entities highlights a common feature across his work: the utilisation of uncogent, unsound and invalid reasoning. Chomsky's innate ideas can only be satisfactory, if and only if, they can be paraphrased in terms of dispositions to observable behaviour. — Leucippus 16:49, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No offense, but the more you explain the less clear you become. Define the term "mentalism", then explain how Chomsky is engaging in it, then and only then explain why you think he's wrong. As it stands you've written a single sentence proposing that Chomsky is engaging in a set of behavior, and then entire paragraphs proselytizing about why you think that's wrong. You are failing to utilize language to convey ideas. It would also be prudent to have this conversation on the relevant article talkpage so that others can follow along should you make a case. 17:36, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * None taken. What I hoped to convey, was a summary of the manifold issues with Chomsky's brand of 'mentalism'. I wanted to argue in favour of behaviourism and empiricism. Tbh I've struggled to see how I could provided a concise argument here, hence the paragraph. You say I'm "failing to utilize language to convey ideas," this sentence is concerning, it seems that you are clinging to an archaic notion, that language conveys ideas; language simply conveys words. Are you a follower of Chomsky? I think I've achieved what I set out to do, so I shan't be continuing this discussion. You may be right, regarding the moving of this to the talk page. In conclusion, I think its worth mentioning the following: there's a reason Skinner never bothered replying to Chomsky. Good tidings to you — Leucippus 18:53, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll kindly overlook the inference of a potential conflict of interest. As for your explanation, there are multiple meanings to the word "mentalism" and you yourself haven't really demonstrated that Chomsky is engaging any of them. I can quote back your attempts administer the charge in question if you need it illustrated how heavily you're relying on assertion rather than demonstration or corroborating evidence. 19:02, 24 December 2020 (UTC)