|
Nominations and Campaigning for the 2024 RationalWiki Moderator Election are now open |
Talk:For Britain
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Possibly will expand the article, now there is a Jack Buckby article.M87 (talk) 22:24, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia[edit]
By its own terms, "Wikipedia is not a reliable source." Citing Wikipedia as if it were a reliable source is therefore not rational. Curious (talk) 22:48, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
- I wouldn't characterize it as "not rational" but to dismiss Wikipedia all together doesn't seem very reasonable to me either. --It's-a me,
LeftyGreenMario! 22:50, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
- As I stated on the original poster's userpage, I am not using Wikipedia as a primary source (that would be stupid), I'm using them as a litmus test for the OP's opinions. This is because A) Wikipedia, due to it's NPOV has to treat opinions in a fair and impartial manner, and B), when they deviate from that pattern it usually means whatever the subject is, there's enough evidence to force Wikipedia's hand in one direction or another. So, with that in mind, "For Britain" is Far-right, and even Wikipedia won't mince words on this matter. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:59, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
- Relying on a source that says it is not reliable is not rational. RationalWiki promotes (or claims to promote) critical thinking, which the "For Britain" article needs more of. "For Britain" policies are mostly liberal, but Wikipedia calls them "right wing" for no reason other than that they criticize (or blaspheme contrary to) Islam. On your User page, you wrote that "all religions are a form of psychosocial control and are therefore inherently bad for you." Does calling Islam "inherently bad for you" make you right wing? Curious (talk) 01:23, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
- I will only repeat myself one more time, I am not citing Wikipedia as a primary source. Further, if you accuse me of doing so one more time I shall end any and all discussion on this subject and merely revert your edits, as I will have determined that you are acting in bad faith. I and another editor have added three sources total that support the current classification, if you wish to challenge that you must provide evidence to the contrary. repeatedly stating that Wikipedia is not a reliable source is not evidence to the contrary, nor is whatever is written on my userpage. (For the record, I can be against both Islam and conspiracy theories about Islam, those two views are not mutually exclusive.) Next, "For Britain" split off form the far-right party UKIP and outright stated that htey wished to replace the EDL. And finally, before you go lecturing me about primary sources (again, I never cited Wikipedia as one, just as a litmus test of your opinion on a platform that has to be fair and neutral), it would behoove you to not cite a political party's website as a primary source since, shocker, those types of websites are generally puff pieces made to draw in voters, and may in fact outright lie. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 02:07, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
- You are repeating a straw man fallacy, and accusing me of bad faith. You have established that a party that campaigns for mostly liberal parties has been called "right wing" simply because it opposes Islam, which you also oppose. Then, you threaten to revert automatically anything I say, and in fact you have already started following me elsewhere on RationalWiki to revert automatically my edits. That is neither rational nor conducive to open discussion. Curious (talk) 02:22, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
- "You are repeating a straw man fallacy" I have not done anything of the sort, link the exact edit where you think I have and explain how said edit meets the criteria for being classified as such. "and accusing me of bad faith" You're a single issue editor who wants to change the POV of articles you personally disagree with, the majority of those types of editors are acting in bad faith. However, I have not gathered enough data to determine one way or the other, merely I warned you what your behavior looked like. "You have established that a party that campaigns for mostly liberal parties " Assertion, unproven. "has been called "right wing" simply because it opposes Islam" A) Islamophobia, that is conspiracy theories about Muslims (the people) and pushes for them to be expelled from countries that have a majority population of individuals of Anglo-European descent is a primarily far-right position, and is not the same as B), criticizing Islam, the ideology which is riddled with primitive thinking, barbarism, and immorality. Or, to put it more bluntly, "For Britain" doesn't oppose the ideological baggage of Islam, it dehumanizes and hurts Muslims. "Then, you threaten to revert automatically anything I say, " If you are acting in bad faith then it is unlikely that many edits you made are worth keeping, however, as I stated before, I have not determined one way or the other yet. "and in fact you have already started following me elsewhere on RationalWiki to revert automatically my edits" You took the same worldview to another article rather than explain why we should accept it, what exactly did you think would happen? Again, you appear to only care about softening our articles' descriptions of Islamophobes, not actually explaining why you think such a major shift in our POV is necessary. "That is neither rational nor conducive to open discussion" You haven't proven your worlview, thus your assertion can be dismissed, again. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:12, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
- You are repeating a straw man fallacy, and accusing me of bad faith. You have established that a party that campaigns for mostly liberal parties has been called "right wing" simply because it opposes Islam, which you also oppose. Then, you threaten to revert automatically anything I say, and in fact you have already started following me elsewhere on RationalWiki to revert automatically my edits. That is neither rational nor conducive to open discussion. Curious (talk) 02:22, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
- I will only repeat myself one more time, I am not citing Wikipedia as a primary source. Further, if you accuse me of doing so one more time I shall end any and all discussion on this subject and merely revert your edits, as I will have determined that you are acting in bad faith. I and another editor have added three sources total that support the current classification, if you wish to challenge that you must provide evidence to the contrary. repeatedly stating that Wikipedia is not a reliable source is not evidence to the contrary, nor is whatever is written on my userpage. (For the record, I can be against both Islam and conspiracy theories about Islam, those two views are not mutually exclusive.) Next, "For Britain" split off form the far-right party UKIP and outright stated that htey wished to replace the EDL. And finally, before you go lecturing me about primary sources (again, I never cited Wikipedia as one, just as a litmus test of your opinion on a platform that has to be fair and neutral), it would behoove you to not cite a political party's website as a primary source since, shocker, those types of websites are generally puff pieces made to draw in voters, and may in fact outright lie. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 02:07, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
- Relying on a source that says it is not reliable is not rational. RationalWiki promotes (or claims to promote) critical thinking, which the "For Britain" article needs more of. "For Britain" policies are mostly liberal, but Wikipedia calls them "right wing" for no reason other than that they criticize (or blaspheme contrary to) Islam. On your User page, you wrote that "all religions are a form of psychosocial control and are therefore inherently bad for you." Does calling Islam "inherently bad for you" make you right wing? Curious (talk) 01:23, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
- As I stated on the original poster's userpage, I am not using Wikipedia as a primary source (that would be stupid), I'm using them as a litmus test for the OP's opinions. This is because A) Wikipedia, due to it's NPOV has to treat opinions in a fair and impartial manner, and B), when they deviate from that pattern it usually means whatever the subject is, there's enough evidence to force Wikipedia's hand in one direction or another. So, with that in mind, "For Britain" is Far-right, and even Wikipedia won't mince words on this matter. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:59, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
POV[edit]
GrammarCommie says, "That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." Contrary to that assertion, GrammarCommie insists on an irrational POV in this article, even reverting and protecting to prevent the article from having a rational or even neutral POV. Also, GrammarCommie insists the article must say there is "not much difference between Islam and Catholicism". That assertion would be blasphemy in Pakistan, where blasphemy is a capital offense, as per Islam. GrammarCommie insists on asserting it without evidence, even reverting and edit warring to maintain it. Obsessively calling a party "right wing" simply because it opposes Islam is not rational. Curious (talk) 01:59, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
- That's not how you link stuff on an article talkpage, and you don't need to "cite" another user's user page.
DuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictatormoderator 02:04, 5 June 2019 (UTC)- This is stupid. Repeating yourself verbatim is not rational Nor is asserting what is and is not rational. You're not the first person to try this trick, you won't be the last, so don't think I'm impressed. I deal with people on a near weekly basis who are utterly convinced that their pet obsession is completely rational, while I (and any other editors who get involved) are lying/deluded/deceived/shills/part of some group they don't like/etc. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 02:20, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
- Why do you insist on deleting the link to The Guardian? Are you afraid that linking evidence might cast doubt on your claims when you call me "stupid" and accuse me of a "trick", while also accusing me of "bad faith"? Curious (talk) 02:27, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
- I called your actions and opinions stupid, not you. The phrase "this trick" refers to an attempt at manipulation, i.e. asserting that something is not rational, rather than merely showing how it isn't rational, which is a logical fallacy that you should read up on (I've linked the article twice now.) As for accusing you of bad faith... you are a single issue editor who shows up out of nowhere and demands that we accept your massive POV shifts to are articles without discussing them first, then sets up not one but two discussions (they are both concerning the same issue) and you expect that to just fly? Seriously, it makes me wonder whether or not your a troll or acting in bad faith, given the nature of your edits. As for the link, someone has already explained this to you, perchance you should try reading their comment again, and perhaps analyze their edits to this talkpage subject. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 02:43, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
- Why do you insist on deleting the link to The Guardian? Are you afraid that linking evidence might cast doubt on your claims when you call me "stupid" and accuse me of a "trick", while also accusing me of "bad faith"? Curious (talk) 02:27, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
- This is stupid. Repeating yourself verbatim is not rational Nor is asserting what is and is not rational. You're not the first person to try this trick, you won't be the last, so don't think I'm impressed. I deal with people on a near weekly basis who are utterly convinced that their pet obsession is completely rational, while I (and any other editors who get involved) are lying/deluded/deceived/shills/part of some group they don't like/etc. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 02:20, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
