User talk:OnlySortaDumb/Archive1

Topic
I don't disagree with you on your comment on the Talk:Trans-exclusionary radical feminism though I suggest you break it into paragraphs if you can't show brevity. 21:12, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * same here. i also agree that terfs are terrible, terrible people. 21:24, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I’ll make sure to do that, and sorry about all that. --Only Sort of Dumb 16:53, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I tried to do some editing and changes but it was quickly reversed. --Only Sort of Dumb 03:53, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I thought it was some random BoN vandalizing comments. 03:56, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * PS: 03:56, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I have restored your edits. Again, my apologies. 04:01, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It's okay I didn't realize I forgot to log in before making my edits. --Only Sort of Dumb 07:28, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Autopatrolled
Bongolian (talk) 06:18, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh! Well I appreciate the advancement though I don't know if I deserve such power. --Only Sort of Dumb 02:09, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

FYI
Don made you a sysop a while back, although he did briefly remove it while you were having that flame war, I have restored it now. 12:32, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know if I should really have sysop powers anyways. I haven't been an active user on this wiki for long. - Only Sort of Dumb 09:15, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Hey, man
I didn't expect to see you here anytime soon. How's it going? I`m making you a Ninja BTW. —  Palaeonictis  Fossil beds  14:46, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Discord
How's things faring over there these days? — Oxyaena   Harass  02:46, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Welcome back
Long time no see, Dev. — Oxyaena Harass  08:49, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Oxy! I hope you are doing well! --Only Sort of Dumb 08:51, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You as well. Contact me on Discord if you want to talk and catch up I guess. — Oxyaena Harass  12:48, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I am actually not sure how to contact you on discord as you are not under my previous contacts list, but as I have your attention do you mind helping me out a bit on the Hyperianism page? I think it would benefit from having some images and what not and as you can probably tell I don't entirely know all the script commands for the site --Only Sort of Dumb 01:09, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Somehow I must've missed this. I'm sorry. What is your Discord username and ID? Figure it's long since due we catch up. As I'm sure you are aware I've matured considerably since I was an idiot teenager on ratcord. I've also radicalized a lot, I'm probably more radical than you in some ways lol :p. — Oxyaena Harass  06:59, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not really on ratcord and or any casual discussion discords anymore. I don't really want to post my discord ID on here, but I hope you are doing well. I am a bit busy with uni as this is my last semester before I have my degree.  -- Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 01:18, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Your signature
Could you go into preferences and untick “sign exactly as shown”? Currently your signature doesn’t link back to your account in any way, and is the same colour as normal text (making it harder to tell when comments end and begin). Christopher (talk) 22:25, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * yes, sorry I didn't know that was a thing I can do from preferences. I hope you can excuse my ignorance here - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 23:56, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello
Why the last comment of your on the Saloon Bar? Why jump to conclusions about intent and personality so quickly? My preceeding comments were a bit dry since I'd lost my more detailed one to an edit conflict and wasn't too enthusiastic about retyping it on my mobile again, but I don't think it was that bad. Was it the mention about (part of some of) the US culture? Yes, I'm actually familiar with the concept of (american) food deserts, I'd read that wiki article before. I hope you understand we don't all share the same cultural references. I'm exposed to american culture every day, so I might understand a little of it. I know more about the history of the democratic and republican parties than about my own country's parties (slight groan). I'm not so sure you're exposed to my own, which is not your fault anyway.

No, I don't believe in pulling yourself up by your shoelaces, especially when you (generic you) have no shoes. I also don't believe that we should accept we have no agency and let ourselves lapse into learned helplessness. In any event, no hard feelings on this side, I don't think those help. And g'morning to you, BTW! UninspiringNickname (talk) 14:01, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't particularly like your attitude if I am going to be honest. I think it may be a genuine blindspot for you, but you seem to over-rely on anecdotal information and personal experience lacking any sort of sociological perspective to which you won't even acknowledge. You seem also to struggle to frame an issue in a way without making it about yourself. That's not exemplifying any sort of epistemic virtue or epistemic responsibility. I appreciate people who choose to think critically about their own beliefs as best as they are able with means at their disposal and acknowledge nuance where nuance is present. You are simply not displaying that, like why does it matter if you are vegetarian and have been for 10 years? What purpose does any of that have to the discussion? You missed what the actual point of the analogy was, and that does not speak favourably to your ability to engage in good faith. My criticism was not even about you thinking people can "pull themselves up by their shoelaces". I can give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you lack the ability to comprehend my argumentation but that does not speak particularly flattering to you, and I genuinely think you are more intelligent than that. Your intentions just do not seem to be in a good place from the outset. Either you genuinely don't get it, or you just don't care. You seem way more focused on what I think about you than whether or not fatphobia is real - that would entail you are responding to my arguments in bad faith. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 01:38, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Hey
I hope you've been well. 13:50, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Hey! Sorry for the late reply. I have been swamped with work. I have been well though, hope the same is true for you. Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 09:08, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Eh, same old same old, alternating between ok and annoyed at people. Other than that I've been fine. 11:59, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Deleting from your talk page
We prefer that you not delete comments from your talk page unless it's spam/trolling/doxing or the like. I have added an auto-archiving feature to your page so that the older comments will get archived instead. Thank you. Bongolian (talk) 01:47, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Hereditarianism article
Everyone seems to agree this article should not be uncritically presenting Robert Plomin's genetic determinist viewpoint, but I've been reverted twice while trying to correct that. How do you think we should proceed with correcting that part of the article? CBH (talk) 03:32, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Edits
Please do not revert my edits without a reason. Fargggu (talk) 21:16, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Please do not make edits that have worse grammar and make harder to justify claims than the previous version - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 21:18, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * There was nothing wrong with the grammar and both of those statements are factually correct. Anarcho-primitivists (sometimes) do attempt to answer that. The second edit is also true. Fargggu (talk) 21:38, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You took several concise informative sentences, and then bloated them with unnecessary verbosity and bracketed statements. This makes them a lot harder to read, and doesn’t actually add anything of quality. You edited the anprim paragraph to the challenge of who of the 7 billion people would need to die, to the allegation that all 7 billion people would die. That dramatically changes the meaning of the rhetorical question to something far more absurd. On the face of things these are not justifiable edits, if I didn’t revert them someone else was going to.  - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 21:46, 17 May 2022 (UTC).
 * I didn't say they would die, I said that the idea that they would die is a common criticism. The original paragraph already said this with "we simply could not grow enough food for everyone". The original statement was unnecessarily snarky, as well. It was not difficult to read what I wrote. Fargggu (talk) 22:31, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You can not be a unbiased judge of your own writing, you definitely violated some of the norms of good writing by replacing concise writing with with more verbose writing. It’s not your call to judge the readability of your own writing, of course you understood it — you wrote it!! Also, no that’s not a charitable presentation of the criticism directed at anprims. You wanted a reason to why I reverted your edits, you have one. Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 22:34, 17 May 2022 (UTC).
 * The snark is not a charitable presentation of the criticism either, nor it is it one of anprim ideology either. The next paragraph indicates that there is an answer to it. If it's not my call why are you even trying to convince me? Fargggu (talk) 22:40, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

I feel offended
By you remotely suggesting that I support any sort of dictatorship just because one revert, when my edits on the subject (including on Latam's dictatorships) prove pretty much otherwise. I am actually angry now (and a bit drunk too), so I'm sorry if the next lines do not sound polite, that's not what I want to do.
 * 1) The claim wasn't sourced, there was no link to Wikipedia. We expect competent contributors to post actual sources, not just links to Wikipedia, but that editor add any source. I didn't even see that link before you mention it, and we can't expect our readers to do the same.
 * 2) The Wikipedia link says 60-80k deaths and does not mention anything about deaths on the Easter bloc. We shouldn't accept the worst scenario blindly. That would be political slant.
 * 3) And perhaps more importantly, I'm rather skeptical on the Wikipedia link. We know for sure that 3.2k people died under Pinochet's rule. The Dirty War in Argentina killed a lot more, something between 10k and 30k. Let's put median of 20k deaths. The Brazilian dictatorship killed "only" 434 people. In the longest dictatorship, in Paraguay, there were less than 400 deaths (although in Brazil and Paraguay the dictatorship started before the Operation Condor. In Uruguay, 180 deaths. Where does the 80k number come from? Even if we assume the worst case scenario in Argentina this number is impossible. GeeJayK (talk) 21:10, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, I just found the source from the Wikipedia article and it's honestly extra, extra weak. It's a book by a journalist (read, not a historian or political scientist, with little to no academic value) and it's not about the Operation Condor, but rather about Suharto and his US-backed terror in Indonesia. GeeJayK (talk) 21:15, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

I think you betray your lack of good faith in your behaviour.

I agree that wikipedia shouldn’t be treated as a primary or citable source on it’s own, but they are sure as hell more reliable then we are and the site is used often by professional fact checkers. If they accept a given source and the page is given adequate attention from editors and moderators then we should deeply consider the legitimacy of that source. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 21:37, 6 August 2022 (UTC).
 * 1) I never suggested you “support a dictatorship”, I said you had a political bias (which is true of anyone). Honestly sort of confused how you got support a dictatorship out of that.
 * 2) The user clearly attempted to link our other pages, and to wikipedia with how they formatted the entry.
 * 3) You didn’t just edit out the inaccurate numbers, you removed the entire section and you didn’t even attempt to find primary sources for  the claims. You just dismissed it as absurd despite more reliable wiki’s than our own taking it seriously.
 * 4) Your counter examples are little cherry picked and a bit of a red herring.  Conflating the deaths attributed to Pinochet in one country as interchangeable with the deaths attributable to an operation that spanned across a continent  doesn’t exactly scream “principle of charity” here. Editing the addition would have been fine but reverting it and removing it all together reads like an attempt to bury any authoritarian associations to the US and neoliberalism.
 * 5) I removed the comment on the eastern bloc, which you don’t seem to have noticed.  I also lowered the number of the deaths in the East Timor genocide to being hundreds of thousands from millions to more accurately represent the death toll, and removed the comparison to the Khmer Rouge.
 * 6) Journalists can be relevant authorities on certain subjects provided they have the adequate training and educational background. (Some journalists “specialize” in a a given subject, i.e. science journalists, economic journalist, etc). Not every reliable source is restricted to only the content creators for a large academic publishing company.
 * 1)  Can you please explain to me how is my bias relevant then? I didn't deny I have a bias. I'm not a super-rational human being without biases, I just didn't understand what you mean
 * 2) Now that you said, he did, but that's not how we should use sources. is how we do. That's why I thought he didn't use sources.
 * 3) I just did it in fact.
 * 4) The Operation Condor didn't happen in every Latin America country. If that was true, the deaths in Guatemala under Reagan would be enough to reach the 100,000 number IIIRC. It happened mostly on the, and every other source I can find disagrees with this number.
 * 5) I didn't in fact. For that I apologize.
 * 6) I'm sorry, but I cannot agree with this. Ever. I've been called out before for asking too much for credentials here, indeed, but I don't see this as a bad thing. My opinion is that we should always follow mainstream academics whenever is possible. Don't get me wrong, I love  books on wars (I've even used them as sources a couple of times), but I know you just can't compare them with actual sources and academic research. GeeJayK (talk) 21:47, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, I found this interesting passage from the NYT:

In case you wanna read the whole thing, here it is. GeeJayK (talk) 22:01, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * (EC) Your bias is relevant because I know you are anti-communist/pro-capitalist and you reaction was pretty knee jerk and hostile. Also your assessment of the book doesn't seem like it is actually accurate. You are either assuming that no primary sources exist within the book, and/or that the book itself is not in fact about both operation condor and the east Timor genocide -- which is based in what exactly? You didn't read an academic review of the book did you? or read the book itself? You just saw it was by a journalist and thought that was "good enough" to dismiss? Also calling academic sources the only "actual" sources is just kind of epistemically whack.  Academics don't just study any and everything and create data and information whole cloth. Do you just completely disregard current events until it appears behind a pay wall? Where do you think academics get their sources on history, politics and current events when they can't empirically study it directly? I'll give you a hint it includes something that starts with a "J" and ends with "sources". - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 22:02, 6 August 2022 (UTC).

Citing one of the most neoliberal news organization after dismissing journalism as not being an "actual" source, isn't really helping your case here in terms of demonstrating a lack of bias or lack of hypocrisy. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 22:03, 6 August 2022 (UTC).
 * I still don't get what does being pro-capitalism has to do with it? Again I feel like you're suggesting that, because I support capitalism, I feel like the section was too harsh on dictatorships. You can just see my latest edit on the article if you believe I support them (or any dictatorship ever), or what America did to these countries. I'm well-aware of the importance of journalism on the academic field. But that book is not a primary source. It is in fact an original research done by a guy with a litte to no academic credentials, and I believe that if we're using number, we should stick to academic research whenever possible.


 * Also, I have in fact found the book. The author just gives us a map with the number of deaths, but he doesn't mention his sources on the subject. Last but not least, I don't think NYT is a neoliberal journal. GeeJayK (talk) 22:14, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You edited the article now citing the BBC, so are journalistic sources reliable or aren't they? But also like keep in mind what started this was your initial behavior, following through and editing it with actual sources should have been what you done in the first place instead of removing the section all together. You don't get brownie points after the fact, when you know full well I am responding to what you initially did. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 22:18, 6 August 2022 (UTC).

I think you didn't understand what I meant, or I wasn't clear enough. Of course journalism is reliable! Original research books done by journalists are often low-quality, when compared by academic research. I'll check on JSTOR and on Ebsco if they can (unlike Mr. Bevins) post actual sources. GeeJayK (talk) 22:21, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * As I thought, I couldn't find any academic paper using this number (or any number) though I could find some academic estimates for some of the dictatorships. Britannica, for instance, uses the 10k-30k number to Argentina, which is fine.
 * Two last thoughts. 1 I don't like you didn't answer my question here. And 2 I don't think that I should provide the sources since I'm not the one backing the claim of the 60-80k deaths. All we have is a book written by a nobody, and even he doesn't give us the source to this number on his very book. If anything, those backing up the number should come with the source. GeeJayK (talk) 22:42, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, I could find the source used by the book. It's a Venezuelan journal, if you want to check. Honest question, do you think this source is on the same level as BBC? Gonna stop bothering you now since I've already let too many messages on your talk page. GeeJayK (talk) 22:59, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The pro-capitalist bias is relevant because the talking point of “American imperialism is just as murderous” or “global capitalism’s death toll is comparable to communism’s global death toll” are really common anti-capitalist talking points. Someone with a considerable anti-communist/pro-capitalist is far more likely to respond harshly, or react dismissively on the grounds it conflicts with their prior bias for belief bias is a thing. I would think you would get a similar response from a communist in attempting to debunk or criticize those claims, because that’s how bias be.
 * And you know what you did. You only started acting scholarly after you were called out, and sure you aren’t required to provide sources for someone else’s claim but if the claim is being made on a collaborative wiki that you are a part of you arguably have certain responsibilities vetting information — which you didn’t do by calling the information absurd on the face of things and removing it entirely. I did a cursory factcheck before making my edit, I didn’t cite any academic sources because I started editing on my work shift and didn’t have the freedom or means to but considering the overall quality of this wiki overall I saw information that needed fact checking and correcting, not a sudden impulsive need to have any reference to operation condor and the east timor genocide removed full stop. That former behaviour wasn’t called for, and is deeply suspicious on the face of things. The best explanation for such behaviour would be a political bias toward neoliberalism and a need to have it depicted favourably void of any authoritarian associations another possible place for political bias. The size of the death toll has no bearing on it’s classification as authoritarian, so why remove all reference to it? - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 23:22, 6 August 2022 (UTC).
 * I think you might be unfamiliar with my editing style as I've rollbacked other edits for making unsourced claims before many times. I hope that my last edits, on this article and on your talk page made clear that I'm not neglecting the disastrous effects of the Operation Condor. I just want a decent source of this number, something that I couldn't find. The best explanation is what happened. A used made a claim, didn't add references and I reverted the edit because of that. later on, I found out (because of you) that he actually had a source, which I deemed as unreliable (Wikipedia quoting a book that is quoting an article on a Venezuelan journal). Anything else is, I believe, a slippery slope. GeeJayK (talk) 23:34, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * If you are referencing the slippery slope fallacy, then no it’s not. That fallacy is taking the claim A leads to B, and claiming therefore C,D,E from B without any prior logical connective. You don’t have to cite every claim in an academic paper, only that to which you only learned from a given source and that which could be seen as contentious; basic facts for example don’t have to be cited. If I see someone making a good faith effort into an edit but I don’t feel the source is adequate then I add a because that is exactly what that command is for, I regret not using it before but honnestly that should have been your first instinct because given the context you know for a fact that such a operation and a neoliberal backed genocide would be prime examples of authoritarianism and were topic appropriate. You could have edited the entry as to void any comparisons to communisms or direct death tolls all together but you didn’t and I think your tendency just to revert anything that isn’t sourced is generally bad policy unless it is already apparent the claim is false or presented in bad faith — which was definitely not the case here. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 23:55, 6 August 2022 (UTC).

You're correct it was not a slippery slope, it was more like a non sequitur since, as I believed I've showed you, my revert wasn't related to political beliefs, like you suggested on the summary, but whatever, that's a minor point of the discussion. Also, as I said in my summary, I do believe that the edit was not only unsourced, but also grossly incorrect, hence the revert (I believe I said it was an "absurd"). Since other sources apparently account for less than half of the number, with most of the deaths coming from a single country, I stand by my actions. So, I did pretty much what you've suggested, I think. Unless you have something else to add, I think we can finish this conversation and focus on the article, preferably on its own talk page instead of here. GeeJayK (talk) 00:08, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It’s not really a non-sequitor either unless you expect every judgement one makes to be a strict deductive inference from whatever is supposed to be the premise here. There was nothing on the face of things that made the claim absurd, having knowledge that conflicted with details of the claim was all the more reason to correct it — not revert it.  You haven’t really demonstrated that political bias was not a factor here only that you don’t believe it was.  I don’t buy it, political bias is the only explanation to me that makes sense to find the claim itself “absurd” on the face of things.  Having conflicting knowledge wouldn’t be on the face of things, nor would it be grounds to prefer a revert over a correction considering what aspects about it were factually wrong and the topic of the article itself. We have more then one secondary source of varying reliability that repeats the claim, so it doesn’t on the face of things seem intuitively implausible to be untrue or completely baseless. We have allowed even less credible claims on this wiki before, this wasn’t that egregious. I respect the commitment to being fact based, it’s a value I share but we also have to keep a somewhat rationally open mind and be willing to consider the evidence — which you have, but only after the fact. I am happy with the end result.   - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 00:35, 7 August 2022 (UTC).
 * You both need to learn how to format sources instead of dumping bare links. 00:47, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * GJK bein all holier than thou about sources, then drops a bare link without proper formatting. 00:55, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm not racist, but...
I have one perspective on racism, and it is my own. I was taught it was incorrect, I grew up next to a Shawnee reservation and went to school with reservation kids. I am not saying I'm not racist. I've grown up in the American midwest. I grew up hearing Shawnee and maybe Pawnee myths. I know a lot of people, all of them are cool. I know Mexicans are terrified of horror movies that involve possession. I know black people make fun of white people for not using washcloths in the shower. I know a lot of white people who are scared of all these other people. I have also heard a lot of white people say a lot of horrible things. If the dumbest thing I can do is make a joke that says all these people I've met and lived with and learned from meana white supremacy is stupid, while also implying I've met some of the worst natured, dumbest, and least sophisticated white people, I don't know how to make a joke that is explicit enough for you. That is on me, I like to use a lot of words, but when I find a joke that really works, it's usually pretty succinct. Commander Sprace (talk) 05:33, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Dunno if you've seen this or not
but it's fucking hilarious. A Dagoth Ur shitpost video that honestly deserves more views. Vee (talk) 02:47, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I appreciate you sharing this, I was plenty amused. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 05:59, 14 October 2022 (UTC).
 * Ayy. You have a Discord? Vee (talk) 06:30, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I have an account on Discord if that's what you mean. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 23:42, 14 October 2022 (UTC).
 * What's that like? Vee (talk) 00:02, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it's just I think you're really cool, and was wondering if you'd like to be friends on Discord? If not that's ok. (Tbh I kind of regret asking in the first place, cause it makes me look like a fool. Again, I'm really sorry.) Vee (talk) 00:12, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * No need to apologize it's fine, I have a lot of different randos on Discord. I can add my Discord ID to my page for others if they interested in adding me which I will do in a few hours. I find discord to be a distraction sometimes depending on the type of servers I am on, but at this moment it seems to be the social media I most commonly use. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 00:19, 15 October 2022 (UTC).
 * my username is Dev™#3938 - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 15:25, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Didn't work. Vee (talk) 18:45, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Dev ™#3938 try copy and pasting this. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 00:00, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Figured it out. Would it be ok to send you one now? Vee (talk) 02:02, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yee that's fine. I am just wat work atm so it may be awhile before I respond to the request. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 02:57, 9 November 2022 (UTC).

Read the fucking page
Here: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/User:Ace_-_Test_Account.... Acei9 19:46, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * ....or just don't. Use your sandbox not the fucking main space. This site isn't your playground. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 23:40, 19 October 2022 (UTC).
 * Oh but it is. Acei9 23:53, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * According to what? - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 23:56, 19 October 2022 (UTC).
 * According to fucking me. Give it 48 hours and the terribly offending material will be removed. Acei9 23:58, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay you are just being an entitled child. I think this is sufficient grounds for a block. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 00:12, 20 October 2022 (UTC).
 * You know I can unblock myself, right? Acei9 00:17, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Alright considering the massive block log, I will just bring this up to moderation to have you removed permanently. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 00:18, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Good luck, pal. Acei9 00:19, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * How did removing me permanently work out for you? Heh... Acei9 02:16, 20 October 2022 (UTC)