User talk:Umaru16

Welcome
Welcome back, whoever you used to be (not sure why Kevlarstar pulled his welcome back, you don't seem to be undeserving of one). 08:47, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Look at his user page. Kevlarstar and his dog (Woof!) 08:58, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I had looked at it, hence the "whoever you used to be". So? 09:36, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see, thought this account is no longer in use. I'm sorry, KC and Umaru. Kevlarstar and his dog (Woof!) 10:17, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Minor Edits
Please read the section about what a minor edit is on this page and tag your future edits appropriately. 'Cause I'm a stickler for technicalities. SolPyre (talk) 16:36, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Autopatrolled
03:46, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

AOC claims
I'd still like citations for your claims that AOC called for "the dissolution of the police, the modern monetary theory, or the dissolution of the financial world". I'd like them in English so I can read them. Double checking my own sources has revealed that AOC called for defunding the police after the events of last year when they more or less acted like an invading army and had almost zero accountability, to the degree that an actual slap on their actual wrists would have been more substantial than what most of them received. And that's without getting into the problem of systemic corruption and racism here in the US, where I live by the way. As for the financial stuff, that really depends on what she's called for. 19:36, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Could you remember er the mission?
Hi.

When creating new articles it might be best if you bore in mind the RW mission:

Thanks! Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 09:55, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Categories for liberalism
Hi. Would you be interested in creating the categories Classical liberelism and liberal conservativism? I think I'll create them on the next few days and I could use some help. GeeJayK (talk) 01:49, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * OK. First, make two categories yourself. I'll intervene after that.--Umaru16 (talk) 02:08, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, just give me a few days, I'm extra busy right now. I'll tell you when it's done. GeeJayK (talk) 02:22, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, that was quick. I'll add a few other articles to the categories. In which one do you think we should put Eisenhower? GeeJayK (talk) 14:22, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Finish adding. You can check on my contributions, if you disagree with anything feel free to revert. GeeJayK (talk) 14:44, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Eisenhower is considered a centrist or a social liberal, so I think it's better not to include both categories.--Umaru16 (talk) 01:00, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Fine by me. I saw that you added again the category liberals to some of the articles. I believe that we shouldn't add both Liberals and classical liberals though. You can check to see the reasons. GeeJayK (talk) 01:21, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Among the centrist of One-nation conservatives and German CDU, there are many cases of social liberal tendencies. # And John Stuart Mill is a radicals. Radicalism was the name for left-leaning liberals or 'historical' far-left before social liberalism emerged.--Umaru16 (talk) 01:29, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm not denying he was a radical. My point is the subcategorization, Wikis usually don't add the category when you have already added the subcategory. GeeJayK (talk) 01:33, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Maybe it's the case for a new category for social liberalism. GeeJayK (talk) 01:33, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it's okay to use both categories because they have different purposes. This classification didn't matter on the wiki I use in South Korea. RationalWiki doesn't have to abide by Wikipedia rules. And I'm against creating a social liberal category. This is because social liberalism is often referred to as "liberalism" in the United States.--Umaru16 (talk) 01:37, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Of course I don't think characters like Milton Friedman should use the category Liberals.--Umaru16 (talk) 01:41, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, I've seen people doing this to subcategories, so don't get surprised if someone else remove these categories. Indeed, the word liberalism is (mis)used in US as a synonym of social liberalism, but again, citing Wikipedia, they do a good job in this regard. Milton Friedman himself has the liberalism template on his page if I remember correctly. GeeJayK (talk) 01:47, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Then wouldn't it be fair to revive the "Category:Liberal wingnuttery" document right away? RationalWiki is an American wiki.--Umaru16 (talk) 02:01, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Hum, I wouldn't call RW an American wiki, and I think most people don't see it as an American Wiki (although it's probably... too American, I think you can see the difference). Regarding the category, probably not as these categories keep causing bickering. Most of "liberal wingnuts" can be considered either centrist stupids, liberal moonbats or libertarian wingnuts. Categories for political insanity are probably going to be deleted soon if you want my honest opinion. In any case, that's just my opinion, we shouldn't treat liberalism as social liberalism just because Americans use these two terms as synonyms. I saw  mentioning today that liberalism is centrism, so not every American. GeeJayK (talk) 02:09, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Overarching (most schools of Liberal thought, since it can go left or right depending on how one applies the core principles of Liberal thought) it is pretty centrist. It evens out, and isn't very radical in terms of socio-economic observations or policy prescriptions. It's still funny (in my opinion at least) when people act like Liberalism is radical, since it really isn't. 02:32, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I think we should revive "Category: Liberal wingnuttery". There are many classical liberals who are close to center-right, not centrist, and many cases are hard to say that they are completely social liberal. In Europe, there is an awful lot of right-wing liberals. Not all classical liberals are libertarians.--Umaru16 (talk) 03:15, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * And, as you say, if you create a "Category:social liberalism" and apply it to most left-wing liberals, there is virtually no reason for "Category:Liberals" to exist.--Umaru16 (talk) 03:19, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * "RationalWiki is an American wiki" This is simply not true.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 07:43, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That would be interesting, but I'll have to take a break for at least two weeks because of some private issues, so I won't be able to help a lot at least until the end of the month. GeeJayK (talk) 15:02, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I changed my mind. RationalWiki is not unique to the United States, so we're creating a new Category:social liberalism to reflect your opinion.--Umaru16 (talk) 01:51, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Sysop
Christopher (talk) 18:10, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

The Republican Party
It's pretty extremely far to the right, with so called "far right" parties in Europe like the UKIP and National Rally being to the left of it. We can have a debate on how the Democrats stack up against international standards, but even if I grant you that the South Korean and Japanese parties are to the right of the Republicans, it still doesn't Mme them not far right by international standards. Plutocow (talk) 04:34, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Western Europe and Northern Europe are the world's most progressive regions. Don't you think we need to take this into account? Even right-wing populists in the UK and the US may be more liberal than South Korean left-of-center in some social issues such as LGBT.--Umaru16 (talk) 04:50, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The U.S. Republican Party is far-right by European standards. However, it is difficult to agree that it is far-right in international standards.--Umaru16 (talk) 05:00, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Social issues are one thing, but economic issues are something you also have to take into consideration, and the U.S. is one of the most neoliberal countries in the developed world, with it not even having free healthcare (which Japan at least does have). And you have to understand that the Republican Party isn't really pro-LGBT either. Plutocow (talk) 05:09, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * South Korea's liberal president, Moon Jae In, opposes homosexuality and does not respect transgender people at all. As far as I know, Donald Trump has never made any remarks against homosexuality or denying the existence of transgender people. In South Korea, the LGBT debate is not a bathroom debate or a same-sex marriage debate. Their existence itself is denied.
 * And I don't think South Korean welfare is better than the United States. That's right. South Korea has better medical insurance than the United States. The problem is that most of the other welfare is inferior to that of the United States. Find out how miserable the poor in South Korea live. Bong Joon-ho's movie is the reality of South Korea itself.--Umaru16 (talk) 05:23, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I think Japan is at least more progressive in terms of welfare than South Korea and the United States. However, the LDP is very Ultra-nationalistic. The majority of Japanese are much more socially conservative than Republicans.--Umaru16 (talk) 05:27, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * And we need to distinguish between economic and welfare policies. Neoliberalism is not popular in South Korea, but welfare is weaker than in the United States. This is because Korean vested interests are colluding with Chaebol. Also, look for data related to labor rights in South Korea.--Umaru16 (talk) 05:32, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * South Koreans and Japanese living in the United States often show liberal tendencies, but local South Koreans and local Japanese never do. As you will know when you travel to South Korea, there are few people with disabilities on the streets of South Korea. Do you know why? In addition, individual welfare for minority groups, not welfare for the whole nation, is much worse in Japan than in the United States.--Umaru16 (talk) 05:48, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * For this reason, the U.S. Republican Party is never recognized as the far right in South Korea and Japan. Many South Koreans and Japanese think the cultural position of the U.S. Democratic Party is very radical. There are so many ugly wingnut countries in the world.--Umaru16 (talk) 05:39, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * In conclusion, I think it is right to conclude in the article The Lincoln Project that GOP is far-right in European standards. It is very ambiguous and subjective that GOP is far-right in international standards.--Umaru16 (talk) 12:04, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Most people are going to assume that the political positions they hold are reasonable and logical - and the further other people are from their own "completely logical" position then the more extreme these other people are going to appear.  So what any individual considers to be "far right" or "far left" is going to be in relation to their own position.  Saying "in country X that wouldn't be an extreme position", while probably true, does nothing to change the perception of any particular individual about whether a particular opinion is objectively extreme or not.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 15:23, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Well... First of all, I think all the parliamentary parties in South Korea are cultural far-right parties by U.S. standards. Also, I think GOP is never a far-right party. East Asia is more conservative than Americans imagine.--Umaru16 (talk) 00:40, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That is my point. people consider things to be "far right" or "far left" based on some personal arbitrary cultural standard.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:43, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Banning IPs
It is standard procedure to not permaban them, and permabanning them won't work with our current spammer who is hopping between TOR IPs anyway. Plutocow (talk) 02:08, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

For banning Poczer
Please don't block people who insert content you disagree with. His edits were well sourced. -- Techpriest (talk) 16:45, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Chaebols?
Would you want to cooperate on an article regarding the Chaebols in South Korea? Adam Warlock (talk) 20:38, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Um...I don't have much knowledge in that field. It will be difficult to cooperate.--Umaru16 (talk) 15:09, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * All right then never mind.Adam Warlock (talk) 18:02, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Nominated
I've nominated you to serve on the rationalmedia foundation due to the quality and frequency of your mainspace contributions

More below Neiltyson1fan (talk) 13:35, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

That template is a bit confusing, you can accept or decline here  Neiltyson1fan (talk) 13:45, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I won't participate in the election.--Umaru16 (talk) 22:57, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I really believe that World War II would never have ended in 1945 had it not been for Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Umaru16 (talk) 04:08, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm tired
Seriously, it feels in our conversations you're always just talking past me and repeating the same points over and over again that I have already addressed. To illustrate this, let's go over your comments on the Hiroshima page, where you really only made the same three arguments over and over again, and I'll demonstrate with color coding:

Whataboutism

Argumentum ad populum

It was the only way for Japan to surrender

With Germany and Italy surrendering at the time, Japan did not surrender until the end. Many Japanese, and American leftists, may think this is a war crime, but it is a self-taught view of history. Almost all Koreans and Chinese, as well as the right wing of the United States, do not think this is a war crime. As a Korean, too, Harry S. Truman is convinced that this decision has reduced many human sacrifices many lives. There is no academic consensus that this was a war crime in the first place and it is still a subject of intense debate.

Let's think rationally. Can it be considered a normal "nationality" to defeat the United States even if all 100 million Japanese die with bamboo spears, even when Japan is it a normal "nationality"? How many alternative options were there for the United States? As you say, the war would have been about five years longer.

Without Truman's decision, more deaths would have occurred between Japan and the United States. In the meantime, Japan would have continued to conduct horrific massacres, sex crimes, and biological experiments among many Koreans and Chinese.

In particular, I can't agree at all that this is "racism". If Germany hadn't surrendered, Berlin would have been hit by a nuclear bomb. This case should focus on 'civilian overkill', not much to do with 'racism'. A similar case is Bombing of Dresden. Like the Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, many civilians were killed in the bombing. But was Bombing of Dresden a war crime? It would be very controversial.

The Japanese have no proper reflection on the past, and the American leftists are trying to apply excessive political correctness to the issue. Even if Japan were a white country, Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have been bombed by atomic bombs. It is NOT racism.

Do you know what racism is? Among the victims of the atomic bombings in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were Koreans. During the Japanese Empire, the Japanese brought Koreans to the city for labor exploitation. And now the Japanese government provides little support for Korean victims. Of course, the same Japanese atomic bomb victim can receive a lot of proper support under the leadership of the government. And Japan dismisses numerous war crimes committed in Korea as none. The Japanese government should give a lot of support to Korean victims before blaming the United States for the problems in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Japanese government officials are very anti-Korean racists.

Before considering the positions of the Japanese and Germans responsible for the war, it is much more politically correct to consider the positions of the unilateral victims, Koreans and Jews. Truman's decision was absolutely correct. This is at least the case for Koreans who were victims of war crimes in the Japanese Empire. Not only me, but most Koreans think Truman's decision was right.

We must remember two things. The first is Pearl Harbor. Second, how much more terrible did the Japanese do to Koreans and Chinese when the war was prolonged because Japan did not surrender?

You have a point, but I know that part is controversial in academia. In fact, even if Japan intended to surrender before it was hit by a nuclear bomb, some scholars believe that the war would have been prolonged if Truman hadn't dropped it, because the feeling of fighting without surrendering was given more priority, and they are not similar historians. In fact, the Japanese government insisted on mobilizing 100 million troops (一億玉砕).

It doesn't really mean 100 million. At that time, the Japanese government made an extreme claim that all Japanese should sacrifice their lives for the emperor. If you don't believe it, look for materials such as papers related to '一億玉砕' in Japanese. The Japanese never mention this in front of Westerners. The Japanese want themselves to be victims.

Japanese right-wingers instigate that they were the victims of the war and that World War II was a war to save Asia. Hiroshima and Nagasaki are also just such distortion of history, and the American leftists are being used for this. This is the view of the South Korean leftist.

It is a warning because Japan does not surrender even if it dies. But without the bomb, Japan would never have surrendered. Many civilians were also killed in Bombing of Dresden, and in South Korea, this incident is compared to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. At that time, as Curtis Lemay said, many Japanese civilians were producing military supplies at the order of the government. Almost all South Koreans think Truman's decision on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was right. Those who criticize Truman's decision are limited to less than a handful of anti-American far-left in South Korea, and the center-left are more active in defending Truman than the very very very very right.

Is it a fully recognized view in academia that Japan is likely to have surrendered before the nuclear bomb fell? It is only one argument. There is no consensus in academia as to whether Truman's decisions on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were right or wrong. So it's biased to regard this as war crime or racism.

So, of those three arguments, only one of them (Japan wouldn't have surrendered otherwise) is an actual point, and even then it's flawed (was bombing civilian centers really the only way the Americans could have ended the war, especially considering all the options they had on the table?). But hopefully, this will show you how repetitive your "arguments" have been and why it can be frustrating to argue with you. Plutocow (talk) 04:02, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Let me ask you one question. Is it an academic consensus that the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a war crime? Umaru16 (talk) 04:04, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * By modern definitions, it would qualify as a war crime due to its reckless targeting of civilians, but many of those codes weren't in effect during WWII and applying them recursively can be controversial. Plutocow (talk) 04:13, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * But overall, this isn't about that argument in particular (if I wanted to continue to argue it I would do so on the appropriate talkpage) but just me calling out a pattern involving you constantly repeating the same arguments while not engaging with mine, with me having a similar experience when we were arguing about whether the Republican Party was right-wing or whatever. Plutocow (talk) 04:15, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Many believe that the bombing of Dresden was also a deliberate retaliation against British civilians. This is not Neo-Nazi's view, but what I have seen and heard in the liberal-leaning media or in the main wiki of South Korea. If Dresden is not racist, why is Hiroshima racist? Because he is a right-wing Asian, he is applying too much political correctness. Umaru16 (talk) 04:16, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Whataboutism. But thanks for demonstrating my point. Plutocow (talk) 04:17, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hiroshima is not a war crime. That's a liberal view in South Korea, and your view is that of the Japanese right-wing. Does the U.S. Republican Party represent every right wing in the world??? Umaru16 (talk) 04:19, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Argumentum ad populum mixed with more whataboutism. You seriously do only have three arguments, don't you? Plutocow (talk) 04:22, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The problem is that in the current rational wiki, the Bombing of Dresden article does not use the same standards as Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Do you really think there was no deliberate slaughter of civilians by British troops in Dresden? As you say, this could be a logical fallacy. But even so, I feel a clear double standard on this. Think of the Japanese as white and not as Asians. Hiroshima and Nagasaki are not war crimes. Umaru16 (talk) 08:27, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hiroshima and Nagasaki should be very, very careful to discuss whether this is a war crime, as Japanese rightists are used to distort history as "victims" who were "sacrificed" in World War II. As a citizen of the affected country who has been severely damaged by Japan's war crimes, it is hard to accept your views easily. Umaru16 (talk) 08:31, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm on the other side of this. We should have bombed the Axis harder. 08:46, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I totally agree with Deuce. At that time, Japan was a Asian Nazi. Umaru16 (talk) 08:50, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * So let me get this straight: You believe that more civilians should have died for no strategic benefit? Plutocow (talk) 15:07, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, let me ask you a question. Do you really think that things in Hiroshima and Nagasaki are racist? Do you think Japan wouldn't have suffered that if it were a white country? Umaru16 (talk) 20:20, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * And you're dodging the Dresden article. I honestly don't think Dresden and Hiroshima are war crimes, even if they were meant to kill civilians. Because this is in the 1940s and the other side is the Axis powers, and it wasn't racist, like the Holocaust and Nanking, to exterminate certain races. Umaru16 (talk) 20:30, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Dresden is not a war crime. Hiroshima is not a war crime either. The Germans have no right to complain to the British, and the Japanese have no right to complain to the Americans. Compared to the fact that they started a war and slaughtered a lot of Jews, Chinese, and Koreans, they paid a very small price. Umaru16 (talk) 20:33, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

The Dresden thing is Whataboutism and not worth responding to (and like you're one to talk about dodging questions, considering you're dodging the very point of the thread) and I mentioned that they were planning on nuking Japan over Germany well before the latter's surrender. But again, thanks for demonstrating my point. Plutocow (talk) 20:35, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Don't you honestly think it's a double standard based on political correctness, before you call my words Whataboutism? Are German lives insignificant, and Japanese lives precious? Even though Japan was no different from just white supremacist Nazis at the time? Let's say Japan was a white country. The United States has done nothing wrong to Japan. Umaru16 (talk) 20:44, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Please stop repeating the same three arguments ad nauseam and engage with what I am saying. Barring that, bring the discussion to the talk page where it belongs. If you continue to repeat the same three arguments instead of engaging with my reasons for contacting you on your talkpage, then the discussion is done here. Plutocow (talk) 20:47, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * TG be fair, there were no B-29s in Europe to nuke Germany, and the Luftwaffe was far more operational than the IJAAF in 1945. GeeJayK (talk) 20:54, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You're right. If Germany had done something similar to the Pearl Harbor raid on the United States, and if Germany's surrender had been delayed, I believe that with a high probability, Germany would have been attacked by an atomic bomb. Umaru16 (talk) 21:02, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Let me be very, very honest. Here's the answer to your question. Even if there was no 'strategic benefit', I wouldn't consider it a war crime, even if the Germans and Japanese at the time were not only bombed to that extent, but were slaughtered by the Allies as many as Jews, Chinese, and Koreans died. It would be better if those things didn't happen, but that's the 1940s, and I think they could all be killed because they're Axis powers. There is nothing wrong with killing Axis civilians. They are not civilians in Iraq. This is because people living in Germany, Italy, and Japan are responsible for the war. Umaru16 (talk) 20:59, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Curtis Lemay said: "There are no innocent civilians. It is their government and you are fighting a people, you are not trying to fight an armed force anymore. So it doesn't bother me so much to be killing the so-called innocent bystanders". Curtis Lemay is not responsible for Hiroshima, but he is a man who used a firebomb to turn Tokyo into a sea of fire. Koreans like this person. Umaru16 (talk) 20:59, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I know I said I was done, but thanks for letting your mask slip and admitting that you're completely okay with killing civilians in wartime. It tells me all I need to know. Plutocow (talk) 21:02, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That is in 1945, not 2022. I would have been different in my view if that had happened in 2022. Is it wrong for Jews to be happy about Dresden? Is it wrong for Koreans to be happy about Hiroshima? Umaru16 (talk) 21:09, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * What is certain is that Hiroshima allowed Korea to become independent as soon as possible. Harry S. Truman prevented Korean from being killed and raped by the Nazi state of evil Japan. In South Korea, Truman is a super-hero. The statue of Truman is the only one in South Korea related to the president of another country. Umaru16 (talk) 21:14, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Whale
"I think they could all be killed because they're Axis powers" is flat-out genocidal rhetoric, and I don't want to hear any whataboutism about Imperial Japan's crimes or the bombing of Dresden or whatever. In fact, that makes it worse because the people who committed those crimes were saying the same things about Chinese people and Koreans. Don't ever say something like that again. Plutocow (talk) 23:12, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * "I wouldn't consider it a war crime, even if the Germans and Japanese at the time were not only bombed to that extent, but were slaughtered by the Allies as many as Jews, Chinese, and Koreans died." So what you're saying is that you think it would be okay if the Allies literally did the Holocaust on Japanese people, including children. (And no, your half-hearted "it would be preferable if this didn't happen" doesn't make it any better.) It's magic comments like these that get more despicable the more I think about them. Maybe I should take this to ATIM. Plutocow (talk) 23:31, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I admit that I went too far. Genoside to the Japanese is wrong. I just used disgusting expressions because I thought you kept ignoring my opinion that Hiroshima and Nagasaki's work was not a war crime. I will never use such an expression again.Umaru16 (talk) 02:34, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

You're a sysop
so you can just unblock yourself. Just a head's up. If wants to sysoprevoke you or whatever, they'd need to take it either ATIM or the Coop. Vee (talk) 23:18, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

All things in moderation
A case involving you has been raised at All things in moderation. Feel free to comment. Plutocow (talk) 00:28, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I admit that expression was too much. However, there is still controversy over whether Hiroshima and Nagasaki are war crimes. I used radical expressions because I thought you ignored my view. I acknowledge my fault on that part. Umaru16 (talk) 02:30, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I have never written in article that the Japanese are right to be slaughtered. Therefore, I think topic ban is an excessive measure. My acquaintance's grandfather is a victim of Japanese war crimes. Umaru16 (talk) 02:42, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I want you to take this into account. I am Korean. Unlike Germany, Japan has never properly reflected on anything about war crimes, but rather bothers South Korea. Even among South Korean liberal netizens, they often speak up for Genoside against the Japanese in World War II. It is mostly to mock the Japanese right, or an emotional response to Japanese imperialism. I don't really think genocide is right for the Japanese. But I don't think we should take the side of the right wing of Japan, which wants to treat Hiroshima and Nagasaki as war crimes.
 * This level of emotional response to Japan is common even for South Korean liberals. I am a transgender and mentally disabled person who has been discriminated against due to authoritarianism and conservatism in Korean society. And it is not irrelevant to the authoritarianism of past Japanese empires. Umaru16 (talk) 03:03, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * In the future, I will not make any explicit hate speech or remarks in support of the genocide against the Japanese. I think I'm really wrong about that. But apart from that, I think topic ban is too much on the subject of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Umaru16 (talk) 03:06, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

historical and societal context
This is how Koreans perceive history related to the atomic bombings of Hiroshi and Nagasaki:
 * At that time, the United States demanded Japan to surrender, but it did not surrender until the end and led the war to a prolonged war. Therefore, many Americans and Japanese are dying.
 * Eventually, the United States considered "Operation Downfall." As far as I know, this operation is to exterminate the Japanese by means of herbicides, chemicals, poison gas, bombing, etc. by all means until the Japanese surrender.
 * But Harry S. Truman was a humanist. Thus, the decision to lead Japan to surrender, while killing as few Japanese as possible, was the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
 * But Harry S. Truman was a humanist. Thus, the decision to lead Japan to surrender, while killing as few Japanese as possible, was the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
 * But Harry S. Truman was a humanist. Thus, the decision to lead Japan to surrender, while killing as few Japanese as possible, was the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

This is what Koreans think of as the Hiroshima Nagasaki atomic bombing.

Most Koreans think that even if the U.S. put "Operation Downfall" into action, it should not be considered a war crime. That's because there is no alternative because Japan was not surrendering.

Many South Korean liberal netizens also say things that mock those who died over the events of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. There are a lot of Korean-language tweets like that on Twitter. (In South Korea, liberals are more politically correct than conservatives on the issue of racism, but this is the opposite in matters related to Japan. South Korea's liberal movement has a strong anti-Japanese sentiment because it is rooted in the independence movement.)

This is because Japanese right-wingers never want to admit to the war crimes they committed, but they talk about Hiroshima and Nagasaki as if they were victims of World War II. In fact, many right-wing political forces in Japan think that Hiroshima and Nagasaki's work was the Holocaust.

This was what I was going to say at the time, but now that I think about it, I think it was a bit extreme. But my view is clear. Truman did not carry out Operation Downfall. Nuclear bomb attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki led Japan to surrender. Rather, Truman saved many Japanese lives.

If Truman had "Operation Downfall," it would have been a war crime. But he didn't do that, and he's not a war criminal.

The atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, a historian I officially learned in South Korea, is morally justified. Many South Korean historians think so, too.

I wanted to prevent Japanese rightists from covering up their war crimes, claiming Hiroshima and Nagasaki were war crimes. That's why the category related to war crimes and racism in the article was deleted. I felt tired of the argument with Plutocow who didn't understand it, and I couldn't control my emotions because I had anti-Japanese feelings like other liberals in South Korea.

It is an explanation of the 'historical and societal context' that Vee said. # Umaru16 (talk) 08:11, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * There may be a malfunction of the translator. Umaru16 (talk) 08:14, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

South Korea has a completely different history from Europe and the United States. Korea has been a Japanese colony for more than 30 years, and has suffered the most massacres and sex crimes during World War II. On the other hand, Europe and the United States have a history of leading imperialism rather than being colonized.

South Korean liberals are much more moderate about LGBT and feminism than conservatives. South Korean liberals, unlike conservatives, are very active in supporting immigration and multiculturalism. Looking at this, there may not be much difference from the political confrontation in the United States.

However, the view of "Japan" and "Japanese" is often hawkish enough for liberals to be close to the far right in the American political context. Hate speech at my level is common among South Korean liberals. Even Lee Hae-chan, the former leader of the main opposition Democratic Party of Korea, mocked and disparaged South Korean conservatives with dovish views of Japanese and Japan by comparing them to monkeys and pirates. ("Native Wokou")

South Korean conservatives are racist against all races, but South Korean liberals are extremely racist against the Japanese while being relatively non-racist against other races. Even among those who enact anti-discrimination laws and support the "civil union," most of them are more exclusive than conservatives in Japan.

The hatred of Japan by South Korean liberals has a historical context. If you know history like Kantō Massacre, you can understand that South Korean liberals don't even appreciate Japanese civilians.

I'm more of a socialist than a liberal. I became a socialist because of my transgender identity hate speech and prolonged online abuse by liberals (de facto social conservative DPK supporters) in South Korea. The problem is that South Korean socialists hate Japan more than South Korean liberals.

'''This is not to say that this is morally correct. But because I'm a transgender person, and I'm against the anti-LGBT conservatives who openly defend their hatred of LGBT, I think I've got South Korean left-wing camp logical thinking. Of course, I think that doesn't mean that my hate speech against the Japanese is defended. I'm sure I was wrong about yesterday.''' Umaru16 (talk) 10:42, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * In other words, as a transgender, I have become a left for my safety and the left are very extreme anti-Japanese racists. I don't like the conservatives and self-proclaimed liberal DPK supporters who bother me, so I seem to have unconsciously affirmed the anti-Japanese sentiment of the South Korean left. South Korean politics is really f**king complicated. Umaru16 (talk) 10:49, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

In short, I am angry that the Japanese right-wingers are using the work of Hiroshima and Nagasaki for historical revisionism, which denies their war crimes. But my remarks yesterday were obviously wrong.

So I want RationalWiki users to take that into consideration. I will never make such a statement in the future. Nor do I wholeheartedly endorse that statement. Umaru16 (talk) 08:28, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

I'll take some time to reflect on myself.
어제 있었던 일을 반성하고 있습니다.

I will reflect on what happened yesterday.

정신 건강도 나빠지고 스트레스도 많이 받아서 선을 넘은 것 같아요. 빠르면 내년 1월에 올게요. 그 사이에 로그아웃하겠습니다. 많은 Rational Wiki 사용자에게 죄송합니다.

My mental health has deteriorated and I'm under a lot of stress, so I think I've crossed the line. I will come as early as January next year. In the meantime, I'll log out. I'm sorry to many RationalWiki users.

--Umaru16 (talk) 08:55, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * If you truly renounced those views, I, at least, am willing to welcome you back. I do think it will be better if you take a break for a while. See you in January, hopefully. Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 19:56, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Please
Don't erase talk page content; it is considered community property. Consider adding an archive instead. If you're not sure how to do this feel free to ask. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 20:58, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The easiest way is to set up automatic archiving by adding this template to the top of your talk page. Christopher (talk) 21:01, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Question
Are you or are you not Storm598/Mureungdowon? You linked to a Wikipedia page written by them, and looking there your edits are quite similar. It wouldn't really matter for RW, as we don't block people for being banned on other sites. But I would like to know if you essentially tried to cite yourself in a talkpage argument. Plutocow (talk) 23:00, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Not the same user. Umaru16 (talk) 23:05, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

All things in moderation
A case involving you has been raised at All things in moderation. Feel free to comment. Plutocow (talk) 04:51, 25 May 2023 (UTC)