User talk:Gogogogo

Ayaan Hirsi Ali
Have you considering reading the cited article? It might help you calm down and stop trying to whitewash the article. 18:03, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Consider reading the book (if you can be arsed) she (a black women) wrote herself though I suspect you consider her whitewashed also. 18:03, 16 October 2019
 * If the dispute is the whether the subject is truthful, why would I rely only on her word? That's not a very good argument or approach. 18:20, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Why should I rely on your word if the only thing you have shown me that you can do is block me from editing the article. It gives me the impression that you are ignorant and want to stay that way. Like all communists 18:03, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Because I pointed to the citation? Also,  18:27, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * P.S. Why would you think I'm a Communist? 18:28, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for telling how to do this I am new to Rational Wiki unlike you who probably spend your life on it. The reason I think you are a communist is because you have the hammer and sickle round your username and you are intolerant to different points of view Gogogogo (talk) 18:34, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Gox4 - your attitude is not other-user-friendly (and mostly the procedures that work elsewhere in the wikiverse work on RW).
 * Have a nice day. Anna Livia (talk) 18:41, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * A) Many points of view are intolerant of others. B) Me reverting your edits for significantly altering the article in a way not supported by the citation isn't intolerance, it's moderation. C) So what if I have Communist iconography? That doesn't mean anything by itself. D) So, going back to the meat of the matter, you're going to refuse to read the sources because I have Communist iconography in my user sig? 18:44, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * So RationalWiki users can’t handle sass. Thank you I hope you also have a nice day 86.147.184.98 (talk)|
 * (Interpolation) 'Me reverting' is bad grammar, and using 'you' when there are several persons in a discussion (and you, Gogogogo, are not replying to the immediately previous comment) can be 'confusing.' Anna Livia (talk) 12:18, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok let’s get to the meat of the matter. I do not disregard your opinions because you are a communist I am only saying that your intolerance to ayaan’s book written by her about her own life is similar to the intolerance found in communists. And I have already said why I think you are a communist. If you are not then it’s a bit misleading to have hammer and sickles round your username and not be one. If someone wore a swastika on them as a badge you would assume they are a Nazi. Ok now that’s out of the way I think you have motives for wanting to disregard Ayaan Hirsi Ali book and you are not as rational as you think you are. 86.147.184.98 (talk) 19:20, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No. It's like you're hung up on the style of my appearance and rhetoric of the substance. You aren't rational. I presented you with a citation for the article's side (which I never said whether I agreed with, so yeah...) and you said that her book says otherwise and therefor the citation is wrong. (Side note, are you an atheist?) That isn't how evidence works. If I claimed I was president, and then someone countered with there was not only no evidence for that claim but also evidence to the contrary, we do not deffer to my original claim. 19:33, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * My evidence about Ayaan Hirsi Ali comes from the book she wrote about herself. I think this is a credible source. Your citation is biased and lacks evidence I am sure it is politically motivated probably written by someone like you. Your other source in the article is the documentary made by Netherlands media which is DEFINITELY politically motivated. Made at a time when they had to justify the decision to take away Ayaan Hirsi Ali's citizenship and when immigration was a big issue in the Netherlands. Reading your article I see it is full of venom and a desire to smear and not understand where Ayaan is coming from with dodgy sources to back up your biased views. Gogogogo (talk) 19:45, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Is the Quran proof the that Quran is true? (For the record I'm going to ignore your insults from here on out, as they are merely attempts to poison the well and attack my character without addressing my arguments.) 20:04, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Good for you it’s good to get a backbone. No the Quran is not evidence that the religion of Islam is true because by just reading it flaws of logic shout out at you. When I read Ayaans book I can find no flaws of logic and I trust Ayaan that she is telling mostly the truth. I do not trust the Zembla documentary as it is politically motivated when the Netherlands media we’re afraid of being islamopbobic or racist of anti immigrant so they persecuted people like ayaan who tried to warn against the dangers of Islam ect which is non enlightenment
 * BTW why does it matter what religion I do/do not have ? Gogogogo (talk) 20:16, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Secondary sources are necessary for accuracy. I could write a book about myself and make all sorts of claims about who I am or what I do. Just because I can make it sound trustworthy, doesn't mean it's a good source. If there isn't a secondary source that can confirm the claims made by the primary, then there's no way to say that the primary source is accurate. CAPSlOCKrOXX (talk) 20:21, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * And the Zembla documentary is accurate?
 * I wasn't arguing points in the article, more so saying that the sources chosen were poor. Also you're lacking tildes. CAPSlOCKrOXX (talk) 20:36, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * So you agree with me
 * I have to go now but I would like to say this I don't like to see an article that is written by someone who's main objective is to smear the person it is written about when the writer can't be bothered to check their facts or read a biography. Some hapless people will come across this crappy article and it will further tarnish the reputation of Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
 * I hope you read this and consider my view. You probably won't, your idiocy was confirmed when you used that lazy and devious term 'whitewashing'. Don't worry your safe from the article from being 'whitewashed' you have made sure of that when you blocked edits. Although maybe it was someone just trying to give a balanced view. Goodbye I'm Bored Gogogogo (talk) 20:53, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I never said I agree with you as I don't really have a horse in this race, I just think you're being ignorant to the legitimate criticism people are giving you. But whatevs. You do you. CAPSlOCKrOXX (talk) 20:55, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Dear gods you're dense. The article is critical of her claims. Just because it doesn't claim she walks on water and shits rainbows doesn't mean its smearing her. Your complete ignorance of acceptable behavior, evidence, and logic betrays your extreme stupidity. You changed the article to remove sourced criticism merely because you don't like what it says. That is the textbook definition of whitewashing. Go read an actual book, like the thesaurus or the dictionary. Is the subject a liar? I cannot say for certain. Are you too ignorant and pigheaded to even check? Yes, yes you are. Hurl not stones within palaces of glass, lest ye harm yourself. 21:28, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry to break it to you but calling someone dense isn't an argument. In fact you haven't been able to make a single point about the article being correct during this whole useless discussion. You have told me to read the cited article I have and it's got a lot wrong with it so I had a look at the references these news sources are dubious to say the least. i have been the only one to have made some actual points instead of the inane chatter that's being going on. I will make some more now, the paragraph I correct it said that Ayaan was upper middle class. This is an outright deception upper middle class gives you the idea that she was living in a cool detatched house with essentials and luxuries in actual fact she was living in Kenya and only had enough money to get by relying on her father's clan to keep her family with a house. The claims she makes that you say you refute include the fact she said her husband was abusive. This comes from Ayaan's story when she tried to seek asylum which she later admits to being false anyway sorry but that is just discovering water. In conclusion this article makes only 2 points the fact that her asylum story was false which she has already said publicly thousands of times and the second that sometimes she's a bit too contraversial to which it backs up with zero evidence. The rest is smearing garbage.
 * Despite this I do think it is important to have articles that criticise people but not just for the sake of always being on the fence so you can tell yourself "'wow I'm such a sceptic! I believe nothing!" But the criticisms must be real. I also regret deleting the article I will read it however bad it is.
 * HAhahahahahaa maybe I should read a real book like a DICTIONARY? Why yes I love settling down to read a good captivating few pages of dictionary sometimes when I'm feeling groovy I crack open a thesaurus with a nice mug of hot cocoa! Lol. There are two definitions of whitewashing one involving race one not I thought you meant the former so chill Gogogogo (talk) 23:13, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for at least agreeing to check out the source. 23:37, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * That's ok. I'll assume you are not going to read the book. The article about ayaan on this website is an unreasonable hit piece it looks bad.Gogogogo (talk) 23:49, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No. Why would I just take someone's word for it when the topic is whether or not they're being truthful? That's as dumb as a Muslim telling me I should just take the Qur'an at face value. 00:05, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Fine be ignorant, block yourself off from new ideas. I won't stop you. Gogogogo (talk) 07:43, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not being ignorant or blocking myself to new ideas. This is why I called you dense. Because you, consciously or sub consciously, refuse to get this simple system. When a politician's honesty is in question, you don't simply take their word for it. You check what they're saying using secondary sources. This isn't complicated. This is logic 101 level stuff. I earlier asked if you were an Atheist to better understand your worldview so I can try to convey this concept in a manner that makes sense to you, but I think politicians will do better. 11:23, 17 October 2019 (UTC)