User talk:Aneris/Archive2

Feel free to stop the missionary work any time
At times like this I wish I believed in hell. The one I'd devise for you and Ryulong is that you be forced to spend eternity locked in a room together with no capacity to stop hearing and seeing each other, and with nothing to do but argue in an Internet forum used by only the two of you.

We here at this wiki are in no need of your proselytizing to save us from the dread scourge of the po-mo, "SJW" affliction; the many, many sermons you've been taking up bandwidth with are beyond tedious. You seem to suffer from the delusion that you alone have previously read and appreciated Alan Sokal or Bob Altemeyer. Or who thinks much of academic postmodernism is bullshit.

All that can come of your continued "spreading the word" at various and sundry articles -- via edits that have nothing to do with "SJWs" -- is to get you vandal binned, and even blocked. So I strongly recommend you change course. (Though I doubt you are psychologically capable of it. Missionary zeal can seldom be reined in.)---Mona- (talk) 01:34, 22 November 2015 (UTC)


 * ✻ And where would that be? I have not even touched the SJW articles, have made no changes to Antia Sarkeesian's or Eris forbid, GamerGate, (i.e. the typical hot button cases), didn't plan to, even though I was asked to add to the SJW one. I suspected from prior knowledge that this would turn into a major dogpile-edit-fest (of course it did, hence I ported my material to my user page to defend myself). I mostly wrote up a few fallacies, Chomsky Rule and Postmodernist views, an improved evolution section (which I now undid again). A lot of wind was made around one example in one article the stalkers didn't like (and didn't understood, comically). So where is the heavy bias then? One sentence? Wow, I'm impressed. Major bias! Recently, there was course, the "no platforming" article about a straightforward practice with reputable sources which should be easy to describe. Reputable, like the Guardian, Why Evolution is True and other far out.. oh wait. The practice made a lot of news in the secular movement. Sounds like a perfectly legitimate article. What could possibly be wrong? It seemed almost as easy as boiling water in a hot kettle.


 * ✻ Little did I know how anti-liberal, anti-democratic this site really is. It would have been okay for me to delete the No-Platform thing for "off mission" (hah!). But it was curiously turned into an article mocking fundamental democratic rights. Well, good job there! Someone introduced the anti-pluralist "Freeze Peech" concept where I noticed that the Hollow Man fallacy (which is a thing) was also missing, so I added that, and used this as an example. How did that have to do with SJWs? Around the corner maybe, but it's not that I attempted to say a bad word about Saint Sarkeesian or debunk "special ways of knowing" from "lived experience", which is obviously the "rational" standard here. It's telling that someone deleted the freeze peach debunking who believes the Theory of Evolution was just like a "theory" from gender studies. Another major point scored. That makes it anti-democratic, and anti-science. The next edit war participant doesn't know the connection between motte-and-bailey and no-true-scotsman, but deletes stuff anyway. By now I can put anti-intellectualism also onto the list. If you want more lolz examples, look for "dictionary" conflicts in the Racism article, and compare with the prejudice plus power article. I find that stuff amusing, but how can I correct it (or why should I now)? Leave it there and embarass yourself!


 * ✻ You could make yourself useful and delete the "no platform" article which is flagged as delete and "off mission", and has enough votes for delete. I wish to not be associated with this anti-democratic drek it turned into. — Aneris ✻ (talk) 02:37, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * As I said, missionary zeal can seldom be reined in.---Mona- (talk) 03:19, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "I have not even touched the SJW articles, have made no changes to Antia Sarkeesian's"
 * —Ryulong (talk) 09:57, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Ryulong is technically correct. I moved quotes around (the red block, seemingly written by me copied from above to below, check it!), and placed the quotaton that is being commented on above it. I forgot these trivial formatting edits. These count as "changes" I guess, even when nothing in the content was changed. I also genuinely added something to the article: an "anti-" to a list of several anti-s where it was missing. Even when Ryulong is technically right, he's just the typically disingenuous little liar that wants to make it seem as if I edited the article as it is commonly understood (as in really writing things into it). Replaced his video embed with link. Aneris ✻ (talk) 12:13, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Adding a quote, at a certain very specific place in the article, is more than just "formatting". No, it doesn't matter if the words were in the article some other place where they were actually given context. Your reasoning for adding that quote is... quite transparent. You don't really think you're fooling anybody, are you...? Your missionary work is failing because your basic assumption is that everybody secretly thinks you're right. Similar to why most christian missionary work fails.Dendlai (talk) 13:51, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course there's a reason for moving the quote a paragraphs. It's still disingeneous to make it seem as if I edited the article as the term is commonly understood. Not that I have to justify anything even when Ryulong thinks the article was "his". On the rest: "the SJW's favorite activity of all is to dogpile", remember, even with newly created or old dusted up sock accounts. I also don't care if people "believe" me. SJWs are relatively new and articles and news keep pouring in. Some communities are already over the hill. Currently the A/S community is in a hangover from this (the SJW faction is now in a disarray, Atheism Plus is practically dead, PZ Myers is a has-been, FTB is dissolving, ratings are plummetting etc.) Give it some time. I only need documentation, which is provided aplenty — Aneris ✻ (talk) 14:15, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You added a quote at the start of a specific section to give readers a certain impression, disregarding the quote being contextualised later in the article to not quite mean what you think it means. Yeah, you edited the article as is commonly understood, since you altered the meaning. Also, your persecution complex is showing. Dendlai (talk) 14:23, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "Ryulong is technically correct." In other words, Ryulong is correct. You my dear are one of those secularists who cannot live without a Satan to rail against. You've found yours in a largely manufactured, po-mo, SJW Inferno that is going to consume us all if we do not heed preachers like you.---Mona- (talk) 16:46, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You wrote "dear Satan consume preachers." didn't you? Technically you wrote all those words, so don't deny it! Hey, I just adapt to your intellectual level. Further, this Wiki documents stuff like what Raëlians or Truthers are up to. What kind of obsessive missionary work is that?! But but but! reasons reasons. Stop embarassing yourself mona. I know you are a tad smarter than Ryu (which is admittedly not that difficult). Have you never wondered what are you even arguing about? I mean, what's your point? — Aneris ✻ (talk) 02:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You wrote "dear Satan consume preachers." didn't you? Technically you wrote all those words, so don't deny it! Hey, I just adapt to your intellectual level. Further, this Wiki documents stuff like what Raëlians or Truthers are up to. What kind of obsessive missionary work is that?! But but but! reasons reasons. Stop embarassing yourself mona. I know you are a tad smarter than Ryu (which is admittedly not that difficult). Have you never wondered what are you even arguing about? I mean, what's your point? — Aneris ✻ (talk) 02:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Good news! Rejoice!
You're right! The SJW army has in fact taken RW after a bloody six-day tank battle. Enjoy your time as a slave to the evil black trans lesbian lysdexic feminist women who deny objective truth! SJW army spokesman (talk) 01:58, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, I'd just like to remind our new master mistresses that, as a marsupial, I'm totally not involved with any of the SJW army's quarrels with RW and that, indeed, I could be helpful in rounding up the pitiful remnants of the discredited RW regime and putting them to work in the postmodernist salt mines. Your obedient slave, ScepticWombat (talk) 15:51, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Re: my talk page
—Ryulong (talk) 16:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Stop redirecting and reverting comments
I suggest you be absolutely certain that any comments you revert would be considered to constitute trolling or spam by me and others. Because if you redirect once more, or revert again -- for anything other than trolling or actual spam -- I will vandal bin you. You've used up the freebies as well as the benefit of the doubt. Proceed accordingly. ADDING: Also, no more "revenge" spamming others. Not even once more, or into the bin you go.---Mona- (talk) 17:53, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * What? I added {hat} around Ryu's spam and Typhoon and Ryulon reverted MY edit. Or do you mean something else? — Aneris ✻ (talk) 18:07, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I mean stuff last nite, as well as spamming Typhoon today.---Mona- (talk) 18:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * For the record. Other people have removed selectively an example on an article I wrote, gave a bullshit reason. I took it as a drive by, but still fixed the complaint that was given (e.g. examples invalid for being generalizations, or sourced) and put the article back into a consistent state, with the "issue" resolved. It later transpired that the editors were of course disingenious, as it is commonplace here, and simply removed it for ideological reasons and were too coward to say so upfront. That however came out later and I made no attempts to go against the consensus that emerged then. /Case Closed. — Aneris ✻ (talk) 18:41, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Uh-huh. The warning stands.---Mona- (talk) 18:46, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Be careful -Mona-, we're dealing with a celebrity here.—Ryulong (talk) 00:12, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Sort of. :) — Aneris ✻ (talk) 00:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Aneris has been trying (and failing) to "dox" David for years now, so watch out indeed, Mona. Typhoon (talk) 00:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * ? ? ? — Aneris ✻ (talk) 00:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Bonus Content
I wrote this, and it was completely removed. I guess I can place it here as "bonus" content, like the hidden track on a CD. So much for the fabled "SPOV". Same reason as always. The justifications will also, as always, turn out to be obscure rationalisations.

Coyne & Pinker Tag Team

 * Before it was killed off in full, Typhoon removed the last sentence of paragraph one, claiming it wasn't sourced. Of course Atheism Plus has a complete own article. This sort of flak is however typical for him. The article was here. In case you wonder, note the other debates and disputes under which I added it.

Even though Jerry Coyne is a critic of Evolutionary Psychology himself, he began in late 2012 to defend the field against criticism that he saw as "ideologically-motivated", as he explained in a later post. Evo-Psych came into controversy in the atheist-skeptics movement when the faction around Skepchick and Freethought Blogs (mainly Rebecca Watson and PZ Myers), began to incoroporate social justice topics into their atheism.

Jerry Coyne wrote his first defense amidst a "lot of kerfuffle" incited by a talk by Rebecca Watson, called "How Girls Evolved to Shop", however declined to comment on it directly. He sorted out what he believes are worthwhile fields within Evo-Psych. The discussions around the talk still spilled over into his comments. In this main controversy, different sides either defended Rebecca Watson's talk, or supported Ed Clint's rebuttal, in which he accused her of "science denialism". This core debate reverberate several times later through the community.

In 2013, the continued criticism of Evo-Psych from the same "quarters" — this time from a panel at "Convergence 2013" conference — motivated Jerry Coyne to team up with Steven Pinker, author and critic of the blank slate view on human nature. They commented on PZ Myers' report from the event, and presented a defense "mostly by Steve Pinker". Jerry Coyne retates his view that the rejection of the field was for reasons that he sees "not as scientific, but as ideological and political". Pinker added "PZ is engaging in prosecution here, not analysis" and much later endorses Ed Clint's rebuttal. PZ Myers and other bloggers from his side naturally replied with several blog posts. . The topic continues to be controversial.


 * Little lagniappe. After the paragraph was kicked out, I updated that Coyne is now Emeritus (no I don't plan to edit the ^ back in). Since my edits seem to draw a lot attention, someone now went over that, too, and felt it must be changed to past tense. It's now "Jerry Coyne was a Professor Emeritus". I shall inform PCCE that the RationalWiki has decided that he's now an Ex-Emeritus. /facepalm. Aneris ✻ (talk) 01:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Wow!
You're still here? 12:21, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi. — Aneris ✻ (talk) 17:00, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Email
y u no has 04:02, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Apparently, I hadn't confirmed mine but I did that now. Your mail hasn't arrived, so maybe you need to send it again. Thank you. :) — Aneris ✻ {talk/ideas} 16:11, 15 December 2015 (UTC)