Conservapedia talk:RobSmith/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 30 March 2024. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page: , (back)

Merge

Could we merge this article with Essay:RobS is Bat-shit Insane for economical reasons? Maybe if the author grants his consent. JJ4e^1yearASaRAT 22:47, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

Is rap music tortue?

The author states, "As Flippion, I argued with him for this edit conflict [9] where he claimed Eminem was a form of torture commonly used against prisoners. If you read the entire entry, it becomes clear, he completely misunderstood the article he cited."

This of course, doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Using Wikipedia's standard, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources", the point under discussion was the sources for the claims of torture which, per the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, can not be disclosed. Only very recently, with the release of the Torture Memos, do we have something closer to an actual paper trail during the Bush Administration. RobS 22:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

BADSITES

How come none of this material appears in this article. There waa a time highlevel WP cabalists errantly beleived I hosted a WP:BADSITE and proposed a policy to deal with it. The whole Arb case and failed policy proposal are integral parts of Wikipedia's development & history. nobs^{don't bother me} 17:57, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Shameless plug

Hey, how's this,

Rob was fired from his position as director of counter-intelligence at Conservapedia on the 12th of August 2011, after a protracted period of internecine strife with CP's other two remaining active sysops and his wp:Deviationist tendencies. [1] RobSmith^{I have been defamed by anonymous CP trolls} 19:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Blocks given/blocks received

Just reviewed the Blocks received and Blocks given log in the upper right hand template box. Impressive. nobs^{It all depends what ISIS is.} 22:00, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Bizarro world

According to RobSmith, InfoWars does quality investigative journalism, while The Washington Post is just a CIA operated fake news outlet. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:24, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Fuck ya, now you're putting words in my mouth. Where the fuck anywhere, ever, have I ever said anything positive about InfoWars? Fuck you and your goddamn communist, fake news, bullshit. nobs 14:05, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Seriously, you have to stop making everything about communism, from what I know RBP is in favor of Welfare capitalism, not a communist, and the Cold War is over. Diacelium (talk) 14:54, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

@nobs First of all, my mistake! I thought the entire post was made by you — it wasn't. So allow me to retract what I wrote above; it was a completely human mistake on my part. Sorry about about that. Secondly, however — you did say that (quote):

“”[The Washington Post] is little more than a CIA mouthpiece now. As it long has practiced externally, the CIA purchases a newspaper (like La Prensa in Central America) to shape its version of news to convert the masses to its policy perspectives.

And that statement is notable on its own, if you ask me. Also — if it's any comfort — as something of a civil libertarian/social democrat/social liberal/wellfare capitalist, I don't have a communist bone in my body. All the best buddy, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:01, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Pending confirmation

Not sure if sarcasm or actual worldview. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

That came up from a 3rd party in a discussion where one party claimed that pyramids being built by slaves was myth, the argument being pyramid building was simply a government funded stimulus project. For all evidence available anyone has, the dinosaur bit seemed plsusible to settle a host of unanswered questions. nobs 14:22, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Really? Because my impression is that the dinosaur hypothesis kinda raises more questions than it answers... Anyhow, just going to point out that we know that slaves did not build the pyramids. See:

All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:37, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

So the pyramids were a gigantic infrastructure project which the government (in this case Pharaoh) allowed to trickle down to the working man. Pharoah must've been filthy rich, if the funding didn't come from domestic or foreign borrowing. His wealth accumulation and property rights must've been equitible and legel, and not from exorbitant taxes, otherwise it would have been a slave system. nobs 13:43, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, you have to keep in mind that the Great Pyramid of Giza was built at around 2580–2560 BC — that's 4500 years ago (!) — during the fourth dynasty, which oversaw a sort of golden age in the Old Kingdom. No wonder pyramids could be afforded.

This was an early pinnacle of classical civilization, still millenia away from even feudal governing principles (never mind early modern period concepts like "social contracts"). This was an outgrowth of temple culture. In those times, the concept of "borrowing money" — abroad or domestic — didn't really exist, as money wasn't even really in use the way we picture it today (see below). They did trade a lot, though.

Regarding administration and commerce, TOW sums it up (though, not with any specific care to the fourth dynasty):

The pharaoh was the absolute monarch of the country and, at least in theory, wielded complete control of the land and its resources. The king was the supreme military commander and head of the government, who relied on a bureaucracy of officials to manage his affairs. In charge of the administration was his second in command, the vizier, who acted as the king's representative and coordinated land surveys, the treasury, building projects, the legal system, and the archives.[88] At a regional level, the country was divided into as many as 42 administrative regions called nomes each governed by a nomarch, who was accountable to the vizier for his jurisdiction. The temples formed the backbone of the economy. Not only were they houses of worship, but were also responsible for collecting and storing the nation's wealth in a system of granaries and treasuries administered by overseers, who redistributed grain and goods.[89]
Much of the economy was centrally organized and strictly controlled. Although the ancient Egyptians did not use coinage until the Late period, they did use a type of money-barter system,[90] with standard sacks of grain and the deben, a weight of roughly 91 grams (3 oz) of copper or silver, forming a common denominator.[91] Workers were paid in grain; a simple laborer might earn 5½ sacks (200 kg or 400 lb) of grain per month, while a foreman might earn 7½ sacks (250 kg or 550 lb). Prices were fixed across the country and recorded in lists to facilitate trading; for example a shirt cost five copper deben, while a cow cost 140 deben.[91] Grain could be traded for other goods, according to the fixed price list.[91] During the fifth century BC coined money was introduced into Egypt from abroad. At first the coins were used as standardized pieces of precious metal rather than true money, but in the following centuries international traders came to rely on coinage.[92]

Note that it took until the fifth century BC — that's two millenia after the pyramids were built — before coined money was even introduced to Egypt.

While a system like this — seen through the lens of 21st century humans like us — might just ring a few bells of Communism, that'd be an utterly pseudohistorical view of classical civilization. In fact, these type of big gubmint organizations was about the opposite of what Karl Marx was referencing when he wrote of "Primitive communism". Not that Marx is any guide to history; the man was incompetent as a historian. But I digest.

Regarding the Pharaoah's "property rights" (as you call them), TOW explains:

The head of the legal system was officially the pharaoh, who was responsible for enacting laws, delivering justice, and maintaining law and order, a concept the ancient Egyptians referred to as Ma'at.[88] Although no legal codes from ancient Egypt survive, court documents show that Egyptian law was based on a common-sense view of right and wrong that emphasized reaching agreements and resolving conflicts rather than strictly adhering to a complicated set of statutes.[97] Local councils of elders, known as Kenbet in the New Kingdom, were responsible for ruling in court cases involving small claims and minor disputes.[88] More serious cases involving murder, major land transactions, and tomb robbery were referred to the Great Kenbet, over which the vizier or pharaoh presided. Plaintiffs and defendants were expected to represent themselves and were required to swear an oath that they had told the truth. In some cases, the state took on both the role of prosecutor and judge, and it could torture the accused with beatings to obtain a confession and the names of any co-conspirators. Whether the charges were trivial or serious, court scribes documented the complaint, testimony, and verdict of the case for future reference.[99]

Hope this helps. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:09, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

What about social welfare? Workers must've been recruited from the classes who didn't go on to be mathematicians, lawyers, physicians, etc. But this project required teamwork and safety. As in all populations, there must've been person's with 'diminished mental capacity' (so-called ' retards') who would be a hazard to themselves and others on the job. What do we know about them? Were they fed out of a collective pool of funds or resources, or did society have 'alternative modes of relieving its burdens' (to use a euphemism), or nobody knows and it hasn't really been investigated? nobs 14:46, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, as it were:

Egyptian society was highly stratified, and social status was expressly displayed. Farmers made up the bulk of the population, but agricultural produce was owned directly by the state, temple, or noble family that owned the land.[93] Farmers were also subject to a labor tax and were required to work on irrigation or construction projects in a corvée system.[94] Artists and craftsmen were of higher status than farmers, but they were also under state control, working in the shops attached to the temples and paid directly from the state treasury. Scribes and officials formed the upper class in ancient Egypt, known as the "white kilt class" in reference to the bleached linen garments that served as a mark of their rank.[95] The upper class prominently displayed their social status in art and literature. Below the nobility were the priests, physicians, and engineers with specialized training in their field. Slavery was known in ancient Egypt, but the extent and prevalence of its practice are unclear.[96]
The ancient Egyptians viewed men and women, including people from all social classes except slaves, as essentially equal under the law, and even the lowliest peasant was entitled to petition the vizier and his court for redress.[97] Although, slaves were mostly used as indentured servants. They were able to buy and sell, or work their way to freedom or nobility, and usually were treated by doctors in the workplace.[98] Both men and women had the right to own and sell property, make contracts, marry and divorce, receive inheritance, and pursue legal disputes in court. Married couples could own property jointly and protect themselves from divorce by agreeing to marriage contracts, which stipulated the financial obligations of the husband to his wife and children should the marriage end. Compared with their counterparts in ancient Greece, Rome, and even more modern places around the world, ancient Egyptian women had a greater range of personal choices and opportunities for achievement. Women such as Hatshepsut and Cleopatra VII even became pharaohs, while others wielded power as Divine Wives of Amun. Despite these freedoms, ancient Egyptian women did not often take part in official roles in the administration, served only secondary roles in the temples, and were not as likely to be as educated as men.[97]

On finding notable overlap between "retardation" and the topic of ancient Egypt, see this. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:26, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Sarcasm?

Reading through the above quotes, I really think most of them are meant to be sarcastic. I always got that impression when I saw some of nobs' comments before anyway. Lord Aeonian (talk) 07:58, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I certainly agree that RobS invokes Poe's law on a daily basis. Though, keep in mind — Poe's law does not imply that something is in fact a parody. It really just captures that sense of "...are you shitting me!?". That being said, however — CP is a truly bizarre "microcosm", and this guy's been involved there for years (even becoming part of the top brass). He's also been here for years, and the "realm" of RW can be quirky enough on its own at times. While RobS could certainly be the most dedicated troll of all time — and call me credulous if you want — I don't think that he is. I also don't think that — outside of practicing one's "troll detection heuristics" to perfection — it's generally useful to sort views as parodies just because they come across as dumb/extreme/deranged/inconsistent/psychotic/self-serving/offensive/ridiculous. If your entire spectrum of human belief were to consist of either "rational people's rational opinions" or "rational people pretending to hold irrational opinions in an attempt to pull your leg", not much is left. I also find that "diagnosing" truly weird views as parodies becomes both a conversation stopper ("why waste time discussing with a parodist?") and a science stopper ("why keep examining what it is if we know it's a parody?"). Then there's a dimension of reciprocal altruism, of giving people the benefit of the doubt. Ultimately, dismissing views that you could never hold as being "clearly not possible to be held by anyone" is in essence a failure of empathy. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:46, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Certainly true. the Idea that Nobby Nobs might be a bored and very dedicated troll is a very alluring form of mental protection. I don't know why, but a part of me really wants to like nobs. Like he is some kidn of Grandpa who grew up during different times and in an extreme enviroment and don't even realize he has a "weird" worldview even among his age group. But it is scary at the same time.--Benaresh (talk) 15:45, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I never said he was a troll, I said most of his more extreme positions were made in jest. For instance, the toilet paper one. When I first read that, I immediately assumed it was meant as a joke. It comes out of nowhere, has no suggested way of implementing the 'solution,' etc. It struck me as a way to mock the climate change consensus by proposing an absurd way to cut down on environmental destruction - a slippery slope argument which a conservative like nobs could easily get from things like a carbon tax, in the same way they ask loaded questions like "why not make minimum wage $100?" to try and show some idea doesn't work by merit of invoking its extremes.

Another obvious (to me) is "DAESH is a CIA front, haven't you heard? No wonder Trump has vowed to destroy them." He's obviously (to me) playing on leftist and Islamic conspiracies which say the CIA created ISIS because the imperialist USA ruins everything for the poor Arabs. Yet another is when he said "Good question. It takes faith, my boy, not reason, to understand.," which was made to a comment pointing out a very clear contradiction in the fringe young earth creationist worldview.

And finally, nobs has been proven to use sarcasm in this way - when RBP asked him about the "dinosaurs built the pyramids" comment, and he explained it was supposed to imply that dinosaurs building the pyramids is more plausible than a government stimulus program actually accomplishing such a task. It's a clear case of using extreme hyperbole to make a point - a conservative point which a conservative would make. Lord Aeonian (talk) 00:09, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

It's called the nobsian method, a school of rhetoric founded by me. It is easily adaptable to any point of view, provided there is consistant logic and a coherent thread. Meant to shock? Why should people with no morals or values be shocked? 'Shocking', is in the ear of the hearer. nobs 01:23, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I love the fact that you (of all people) have founded an eponymous method based on "consistant [sic] logic and a coherent thread".

I must admit that this system intrigues me, and that I would gladly apply to become a student of it. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:48, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

To lay it all out would probably take an essay (I'll give it some thought). But here's some teasers why you'd be a good candidate: it takes an absolute commitment to one's beliefs, thorough understanding what and why, including the foible that you and others of your beliefs are not absolutely right, and your adversaries are not absolutely incorrect. Likewise it takes the same careful study of opponents with the caveat of being realistic, conceding points when they are correct and sincere. The method doesn't work so well for moderates cause they appear wishy-washy and trolling. And importantly, the aim isn't to destroy, but to convert or neutralize by causing someone to question their beliefs. nobs 13:05, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, I couldn't picture anyone better suited to the task of exploring the finer sides of rationality and the precise art of cultivating one's reasonableness. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:06, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

It's a bit like a presidential candidates who say lots of weird things when they are campaigning but which people really understand are hyperbole which will never really get implemented. They just say outrageous things to get noticed and we can just dismiss them as exaggeration as we can tell ourselves they don't really believe them. ... Mmmm Maybe I got that wrong.--Bob ^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 16:20, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Alexa

Chart furnished by RonLar.
When in doubt, RonLar sorts it out.

As predicted in several places on RW, isn't it noteworthy that RobS took CP's ratings out of the dumpster and boosted them back up into the top 50,000 of Alexa in the later half of 2016? Andy says CP got 20 million hits in November 2016 alone, most likely to inform voters of the uncensored, unexaggerated truth about Hillary Clinton unavailable elsewhere. nobs 23:45, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Reverend Black Percy (talk) 04:43, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

So they let you back in if you installed the Alexa toolbar?

Surely if you can put all this together, you can do some basic research on what year it was when the first FISA warrant was issued to monitor the communications of one particular Russian intelligence asset going by the name of Carter Page? Here's a hint: It starts with '20' and ends with '14'. I know Conservapedia's evidentiary standard essentially boils down to 'all the worst things we can think about our enemies of are true' (see Hillary's 90+ murders), but ignoring the fact that Carter Page has been a paid Russian agent for years smacks of cognitive dissonance. Semipenultimate (talk) 21:01, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I'd ask this on Conservapedia itself, but the cowards there wouldn't talk about it and would outright 1984 the question, so maybe I'll get some form of insight here, on Rationalwiki's totally open forum. Semipenultimate (talk) 21:03, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Is the header appropriate for this article in particular?

Nobs is kind of effectively "necessarily the focus of RationalWiki today." by way of being here and constantly having very nobbish opinions. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 19:50, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

It's the generic Conservapedia header, so I guess it belongs, and it says "not necessarily" just so that Nobs' ego isn't unduly inflated. Bongolian (talk) 19:55, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Defended Alex Jones? No wonder nobody takes you guys seriously.nobs ^{piss in my ear} 04:22, 3 January 2019 (UTC)