User talk:-Mona-/Archive2

Coop
--JorisEnter (talk) 23:13, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm mildy disappointed in your position, but at the end of the day, I'd have to care enough about the antics here to also care much about your position.---Mona- (talk) 00:07, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Zealots
Look no further than the fossil record and talk page of the regressive left article. It started when Typhoon and Castaigne2 started messing up the page and reverting all of my work, the page was protected and I asked everyone to come to the talk page. Castainge2 had nothing to offer save insults and his usual behavior, but Typhoon did present sources for their side so I agreed those should be in the article.

After further zealotry I even agreed with the view that the term "regressive left" is only used by the ring wing and "Islamophobes" as a snarl word, dubious as this may be, and I moved the legitimate content to the bottom of the page, placing the Typhoon and Castaigne2 approved content in the forefront. But that wasn't enough, was it? A few weeks later Typhoon showed up on my talk page complaining that my discussion of the theory behind such an idea was "unsourced" and should be removed from the meager space it already occupied.

So I just took it all out myself, took everything out that went against their view, and abandoned the article. I'm not gonna fight an edit war every week to be slowly pushed back like some Western Front trench campaign.

I hope you see now why zealots - of any stripe - annoy me so. They are anathema to a cooperative project. Lord Aeonian (talk) 20:44, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I took a look. I can't figure out how to add in the stuff about acadamia. It belongs there. Please put it back. I have a lot of objection to many uses of "regressive left," but it has some application.---Mona- (talk) 20:52, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * By the way, if I'm a Zealot about anything, it's civil liberties. But I'm entirely fact-based, or really try to be, and when I see my judgment is getting eroded by feeling embattled, I have been trying to take breath and a pause.---Mona- (talk) 20:53, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Why bother to put it back? Typhoon said very clearly that "This whole section is overanalyzing and overcomplicated." If that isn't anti-intellectual I don't know what is, and how could I possibly fight with someone who literally thinks anything above Slate and Buzzfeed is "overcomplicated?" It's a meaningless endeavor. And the reason I tried to talk to you about zealotry, and not, say, Typhoon, is because I thought you might actually listen and improve. Lord Aeonian (talk) 20:59, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Put it back because with me you have 2:1. I'll support the edit and say so. That's how she gets away with this -- she did the same thing on the Post-modernism page until I joined with Aneris (who I frequently disagree with) to get some reason there.---Mona- (talk) 21:02, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Alright, but be ready. The zealots know no rest, no pause. Lord Aeonian (talk) 21:15, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I put it back with the way I see it.---Mona- (talk) 21:20, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi
Please read this (and don't take the headline too seriously. It's not anti-Sanders, it's actually very neutral.). I'll be slowly adding stuff from it to the Sanders article at RW, if you don't mind. Typhoon (talk) 15:58, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Testing
testing---Mona- (talk) 00:01, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello again
Please read this. I'm not here to attack you. Typhoon (talk) 17:16, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Postmodernism
I addressed the other stuff on my talk page, but I wanted to clarify that Typhoon is hardly a postmodernist. Postmodernism says that all viewpoints and perspectives are equally valid; if a postmodernist got into an edit war, they would simply make sure all viewpoints have space and representation on the relevant page. After all, no perspective is less valid than any other. By contrast, Typhoon's approach is blatantly "I'm right and you're wrong." Doesn't sound postmodernist to me. Lord Aeonian (talk) 01:09, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, "I'm right and you're wrong" is a fairly apt description of postmodernism. CorruptUser (talk) 01:33, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Lord Aeonian, I guess it could be said that Typhoon doesn't practice what she preaches. She has no basis to say she's right, about anything. Or that any of us are wrong, about anything. She can only have quirky preferences. ---Mona- (talk) 03:07, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

This is incredibly hypocritical of you both. A guy who who uses words like "regressive left/postmodernist/SJW" like a club against anyone who dares to criticize him and a fanatical Bernie zealot who embraced the tea party's obsession with purity tests. How can you accuse others of being "I'm right and you're wrong" without self-combusting? Typhoon (talk) 10:53, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe he learns from you, all zealots alike after all.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 12:01, 5 May 2016 (UTC) 12:01, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Postmodernist/SJW? Lol, you can't even tell me apart from Aneris. Jonanism much Typhoon? Lord Aeonian (talk) 18:16, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

If you're not emotionally invested in the election...
...Then why did you see fit to throw a massive temper tanthrum on the talk page of someone who couldn't possibly give a flying fuck about it, and /then/ post on it again ? Oh, that's right, that's because you are a vile, obsessive, lying bully. You embody litterally everything that is wrong with Bernie-Bots - self-righteous douchenozzles who'll bend over backwards to blame litterally everything on HRC and ignore the fact that she and Sanders (a white, old, privileged man from a tiny and overwhelmingly white state who hasn't worked in the private sector for a single second of his life and hasn't been able to answer the question of /how/ he's going to implant his policies even /once/) voted the same 93% of the time (but that's okay if Sanders backed the crime bill). But sure, she's "very right-wing". Who of the two has been endorsed by Karl Rove's PAC again ? NewFrenchHotness (talk) 09:22, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey. That's not even nice. 18:08, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * "privileged"? Bernie is Jewish...ish.  He grew up in a time when blatant antisemitism in the universities and housing agreements was written in to their rules.  Really shouldn't use that word. StickySock (talk) 18:14, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

"hasn't been able to answer the question of /how/ he's going to implant his policies even /once/" Is that why Bernie's website proudly details how he will pay for his policies and proposals? I'm not even an American but even I can see you Hillary supporters are full of it Lord Aeonian (talk) 21:49, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Or that Clinton would never be able to get anything she wanted done because the Republicans would make everything she does a scandal. These are people who believe her and her husband literally murdered someone and ought to be in jail for something.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 21:59, 7 May 2016 (UTC) 21:59, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Something you should know
I was never a Hanbal'i or Athar'i. When I was a Muslim I was very progressive, I wanted to bring back the Mu'tazili school and to see the Ashar'is flourish again. I supported gender equality, accepted evolution as guided by Allah, and decried those who committed violence in the name of their deen. I embraced the Sufi view that the Qur'an was an onion which held many layers of meaning, and could not be taken literally as the Salafis say. There are many Muslims and Christians and Jews like I was.

It was the naive, optimistic voice of faith which first guided me to the conclusion that many Westerners espouse - all we have to do is encourage the progressive interpretations to emasculate the Western religions. But it was only after I abandoned delusion that I beheld the truth - in many ways, moderates are the worst of all. It is the moderate behind whom the literalist stands; it is the the veneer of modern compatibility, the embedded promise of change, which hides the true filth and depravity of the Abrahamic religions.

So don't bother to mention the munafiqeen and their warm and fuzzy interpretation of their religion. I know them very well. Their existence is what prevents the well meaning and ignorant from recognizing the foul stench of misogyny and tribalism, and what allows traitors and misanthropes to ascribe imaginary decently to the those ideologies. Lord Aeonian (talk) 22:29, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Come back!
Pointless, probably unsuccessful plea:

We've had a significant drop in editors and edits lately. A large number of people here would be very grateful if you returned in a quiet fashion to edit non-controversial articles. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 15:36, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Damn, I even see you active on the Intercept, with 21 posts today. Please. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 03:18, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

And now for something completely different
Hey Mona, don't know if you're still around, but I wanted to point this post I made out to you personally, as I gather we both enjoy things on the absurd side, and since I know you've been very vocal about the election... Just for the record, I'm not a US citizen. I'm Swedish, so my opinion doesn't matter. That being said, just for the record once more - I've been feeling the Bern. So, why am I here? Well, Bernie is one of all the people who get his share of absurd followers! As the video I'm linking you to will perhaps demonstrate. Especially Trump, hah. His followers are a classic in this video. And the Rubio supporters get violent... Anyways, it's not the Schindler's List of comedy exactly, it's just a fun clip on the election featuring a funny Canadian comedian I love since way back. I hope you see this, and you watch it, and you enjoy it! That's all. Oh, and in case you don't get this before the Saloon Bar threads get archived, here's a link directly to the clip. Oh well. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:37, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Closure on a silly topic

 * ...So, did you ever get a chance to watch the humor clip in question? Nobody payed any mind to it in the Saloon Bar. I guess I'll just go sit alone and gently dangle my legs from a stationary swing... Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:04, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Since you are interested in criminal justice
I thought you might like the Marshall Project. They are a non-profit press outlet which reports on criminal justice and hosts op-eds by prison guards, prosecutors, cops, prisoners, and judges.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:45, 11 June 2016 (UTC) 04:45, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi
Since you're supporting Tim Canova, what do you think about his ultra pro-Israel positions and his calls to rip apart the Iran nuclear deal? Typhoon (talk) 10:06, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't like it. But he's good on virtually everything else. Debbie Wasserman Schultz is a depraved and corrupt creature quite across the board.---Mona- (talk) 14:20, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Glad to know that you're fine with Zionists as long as they shit on people you hate. Typhoon (talk) 19:11, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Bernie Sanders
Hello and welcome back! I would like to praise you for your aggression. I was not willing to go that far; in fact, in many cases, I only mollified his/her wording. Truth be told, I share the same suspicion you stated in the summary of your edit. But without evidence, one has to give that person the benefit of the doubt. Peace! Nerd (talk) 14:39, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm actually being snarky. Typhoon is a gender-tribalist. She supports Hillary because vagina. She's like that about EVERYTHING. And yeah, she may be working for the campaign, but she's been a loony tunes on all things pertaining to gender here for quite some time. She has no basis to think Margaret Thatcher was anything but a totally awesome choice for the people of the UK. Because Maggie had a vagina.---Mona- (talk) 14:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * That's a lot of bullshit you're spewing here. Also, nice misogny: "HURRR, YOU LIKE HER ONLY BECAUSE SHE'S A WOMAN". Fuck off. Typhoon (talk) 19:11, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Typhoon, sweetheart, you are a wingnut! As long as the candidate has a vagina, all manner of bullshit is fine with you. Tell us, do you have a picture of Maggie Thatcher in your bedroom with votive candles lit in front of it? And Typhoon my turtle dove, I'm not gonna be here as much as before, but neither am I gonna "fuck off." You are WAAAY too much fun and easy to toy with. You are EVERYTHING I despise in political women. I have deep contempt for you, and am having a lot of fun making your head spin with mere truth.---Mona- (talk) 19:17, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Your unhinged behavior is increasingly creepy. Now I'm actually afraid that you might hurt yourself after Bernie eventually endorses and begins campaigning for Clinton. Typhoon (talk) 19:20, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * No you're not. You are vicious ACTUAL feminazi, and I despise everything you and your kind stand for. Sweetums, the Hillary era is gonna end, because millennials have several clues about her wingnuttery and reject it. It's not going to stand as my mother's generation, and then my own, dies off. And I plan to be here to watch it happen -- and to see your head spin.---Mona- (talk) 19:24, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I can't wait to see Typhoon (gender?) shake and cry when the Trumpster wins this election. Ohh, what a joy it will be. PBfreespace (talk) 19:26, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The good thing about that would be watching Typhoon and those like her suddenly get progressive religion, other than "Vaginas are Good."---Mona- (talk) 19:27, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

You guys are both losing it right now. And I'm genuinely worried about what you'll do to yourself after Bernie helps Clinton defeat Trump. Typhoon (talk) 19:34, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * No you're not. You are posturing. You don't give a rat's ass about me, Pb3, or anything but your gender-tribalism and its QUEEN HILLARY!!!!---Mona- (talk) 19:36, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Typhoon, I am in a sound psychological state. I an very displeased at your questioning of my sanity. It's really uncomfortable, and I'd really appreciate it if you stopped. PBfreespace (talk) 19:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Loudly fantasying about an improbable Trump victory and me being distressed about it is not sane. Typhoon (talk) 19:54, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Pb3, ignore her. She's vicious like that and long has been. Mock her, ridicule her. But do not take her seriously. She's not worth it and literally does not care what you think or feel.---Mona- (talk) 19:56, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You're being extremely creepy and unhinged. Seriously, fuck off this wiki, it'll do everyone a lot of good. NewFrenchHotness (talk) 23:56, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Is this how we welcome people these days? Boy, this wiki has changed. You're seriously giving the people who hate this place *cough*kiwifarms*cough*  ammunition. PBfreespace (talk) 00:01, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Pb3, NFH is another one whose opinion of me matters to me not at all. Really, it's surpassingly rich to see all of this concern for how mean I'm being to poor, poor Typhoon. Because I've had been beset by, you know, actually vicious people, multiple times here, and you know who objected? Almost no one. Certainly none of these. Indeed, they have had not problemo uno with my worst abuser waltzing right back in here. So, it is actaully NFH and an assortment of others who can do the fucking off this wiki. I will never, not ever, behave as multiple vile people have behaved toward me, because it is not part of who I am -- but I also am not going to sit quietly and tolerate all this self-righteous pontificating about my contempt for Typhoon. Not fucking at all. You, however, are a gentle soul, and always are. So I do feel a bit bad about offending your sensibilities.---Mona- (talk) 01:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

What are you doing here?
Mona every time you show up, this wiki goes to more shit than it already does and afterwards you cry about being prosecuted. Look. No offense, but you being here obviously does you no good, it does the wiki no good and the only people who might remotely enjoy it are those sharing a laugh at your expense in the dark corners of the Internet. Why are you doing this to yourself and others? I am not saying this to threaten and intimidate you, but as an honest piece of advice for you to take an mull on or leave and call me names for. I think your talents such as they are have much better places to go to and be than Rationalwiki and they have much better things to do than edit war about Jews. Sincerely, a friend you'd not call a friend. Pizzameister (talk) 20:51, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Here's AvengeroftheBoN again. How's the weather? It'll be raining soon. You should be going to bed. Being on technology so late is bad for you. PBfreespace (talk) 20:53, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Isn't he cute?---Mona- (talk) 20:55, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Arguing about things
You can argue about things all you want at RationalWiki:Monarail. Please go there instead of the article talk page. Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 18:15, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Friendly advice regarding your mop
Please be patient. Your plight has shown up in my Watchlist several times now and I don't think those that think you should not have a mop like your style, tone or way of handling this situation. Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 14:04, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't care about those who do not "like my style, tone or way of handling this situation." This site is dying, and if I don't get my mop back I will simply chalk it up to another example of the wholly arbitrary and capricious nonsense that has driven me away before, and has been causing a hemorrhage of good editors since I joined here last August, and well before. David Gerard...well, do you know who Ryulong is/was? Not likely -- you've been here, what, a month? So it would appear you lack any context to adequately judge the various personalities involved here. (Let's just say David had long made it impossible to stop one of the most abusive and insufferable individuals here from misbehaving, a person who drove many good editros awau. David did so for reasons of personal allegiance that no one has ever been able to figure out.)


 * I have a large circle of contacts and friends-- smart and reasonable ones -- whom I had briefly been inviting here in the first weeks after I joined. That totally changed and rather quickly, and now I bad-mouth this site every chance I get, including to some 1600 people who follow me on Twitter. This absurdity about my mop is just another reason why that will continue. It's annoying, but at the end of the day I don't care enough to "play all diplomatic and nicer=" to get it back. Either someone will re-mop me because it's the right thing to do, or not.


 * This is a very small and getting-smaller pond that really does deserve to simply evaporate. Ask some absent people like TheRoadtoWiganPier, AgingHippie, Paravant and any number of others. Decent, reasonable people do not stay.---Mona- (talk) 14:30, 25 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you should try talking to other moderators, Mona. Granted, not all of them are active. But you will miss all the shots you don't take. Good luck! Nerd (talk) 15:29, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Never mind. Pbfreespace3 gave you your sysop tools back. Nerd (talk) 19:27, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * David put sysoprevoke on Mona, for taking away Typhoon's mop, meaning putting her in the sysop group does nothing. --Ymir (talk) 19:59, 25 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Good. Please leave, and never come back. For reals this time. (Of course you probably will come back again after a week or two, because of your pathological need for attention.) --Ymir (talk) 19:59, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Ymir is stupid. I hope Ymir leaves this wiki for good and never comes back. 20:17, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Mona should have her mop back. I say this as someone who disagrees with her actions in areas such as the I-P issue. If people like Typhoon can have their mops, why not Mona? Be consistent. Lord Aeonian (talk) 20:22, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

RationalWiki sux!!1!
https://mobile.twitter.com/MonaHol/status/746751215124439040

http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:-Mona-&diff=prev&oldid=1690876

Mona, most people don't react this way to negative tidings. 18:35, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Most people don't accuse pretty much everyone that disagrees with them of being a Zionist.--JorisEnter (talk) 18:42, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Being a self absorbed narcissist, Mona is incapable of realizing that those people left BECAUSE of the Monadrama. StickySock (talk) 19:28, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Aside from the free (and obvious) point made in underscoring that Ruylong indeed is a pig of a person... Well, there just isn't that much that can be said in the defense of those banal quotes. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:38, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * ...weren't AgingHippie and Paravant usually critical of Mona's part in all the drama? And Mona repeatedly called them the scum of the earth? Somehow now she's claiming them as proof that she was right? WTF.KrytenKoro (talk) 14:08, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Whom except her minions PBfreespace and ChrissAmiss didn't she call "Zionist", "vile" or whatever insult she was able to think of?--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 17:50, 28 June 2016 (UTC) 17:50, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Aenonian. But then, ideologues of whatever stripe tend to stick together. --Castaigne2 (talk) 17:59, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Question for FCP: why do you care what Mona wrote on her personal Twitter? Do you intend to take some of her criticism seriously, or are you just shit-stirring? Yellow (talk) 20:52, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Hey FuzzyCatPotato! Should I find your Twitter and post on your talk page about how silly you are? 21:06, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * If he was talking asinine shit about the wiki, then sure. Really odd that you're trying to defend Mona here, though, her post was a pack of lies from top to bottom.99.112.111.41 (talk) 22:06, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * My point was it was a sort of character defamation. I wouldn't like it if someone posted on my talkpage something I had said on a social media network critical of the site. Why? What's the point, IP? 20:41, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * No, it is not character defamation in the least. Actual quotes are not defamation. Please don't even try to go down that route; I'll have to mock you for trying to use GG libelslander tactics. --Castaigne2 (talk) 20:46, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I gotta agree with Castaigne and FCP here. It's not irrelevant, nor in any way malignant, to ask people follow-up questions about the conclusions and implications of actual verified quotes of theirs. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:25, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * "David did so for reasons of personal allegiance that no one has ever been able to figure out." — Mona. :D That was cute, otherwise, correct. ~ Aneris 00:35, 31 July 2016 (UTC)