Information icon.svg

RationalWiki has reached 7,000 articles!

User talk:-Mona-/Archive1

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 1 May 2018. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page: <2>, (new)(back)

Contents

Archive 1[edit]

New logo large.png Welcome to RationalWiki, -Mona-!

Please see our guide for newcomers and our community standards.

Tell us how you found RationalWiki here!

If you are interested in contributing:

- David Gerard (talk) 09:29, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I read if I write something here my name will cease to appear in red. Let's see if that is so. -Mona- (talk) 16:09, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


PLEASE LEAVE THE FOOTNOTES SECTION AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE


The enigma of the red name[edit]

Dearest Mona,
I write to you

allright jokes aside this here ain't no 17th century letter to be read in the hold of some ship! Wadup. What you've got to do is create a user page! Your name is red since it doesn't currently lead to any page. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:50, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Be gentle with me. This is my first time. -Mona- (talk) 16:59, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Why would a letter be sent to be read on a ship? Holds were for cargo, why would the recipient of such a formal letter be in the hold with the cargo (and possibly rats). Why does the 17 century letter have significant conformity to modern English? How would the letter reach the ship?/Joke off TheAtheistPumpkin (talk) 17:17, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
By anachronistic radio. WalkerWalkerWalker 18:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
GTFOH. Like Abraham Lincoln I don't believe everything I read on the Internet.---Mona- (talk) 18:36, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
I beg your pardon, TheAtheistPumpkin! 17th century English IS modern English- early modern English, to be precise. I stick my tongue out in your direction, vibrate it, and cause (1) my saliva to travel from it and (2) a farting noise. Rand0 (talk) 13:30, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Autopatrolled[edit]

Because of your edits to and time on the wiki, Autopatrolled has been added to your user rights. This lets you bypass most of the abuse filters, bypass the CAPTCHA, and edit more frequently. If you have questions, bleat ask away.

We hope you enjoy your newfound ᴘᴏᴡᴇʀ — and these external tools:

  • Rbutr shows user-submitted rebuttals to your current webpage.
  • Google Scholar Button (Chrome, Firefox) searches your highlighted text in Google Scholar. Easily check academic citations!
  • web.archive.org and archive.is can save permanent copies of webpages. Never lose a crank website or racist Tweet ever again! TheAtheistComrade (talk) 18:47, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
True, few find me to be insane. Altho I can be difficult. Anyway, thank you for the release from CAPTCHA. Writing and editing are my strong suit, but learning the software, well, I can be an idjit. Still have to figure out how to blockquote here and other basic stuff.-Mona- (talk) 18:57, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
You can actually ask other people (and other sentient life forms I don't discriminate- although you may have varied success) on the site how to do things you need help with.TheAtheistComrade (talk) 19:02, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Blockquote can be <blockquote>bla bla paragraphs of bla</blockquote> or umm... I think there's some more sophisticated-looking version as a template somewhere; I'll go looking. WalkerWalkerWalker 20:11, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
And there is, and I really should've remembered where. Template:QuoteBox is a block quote in a box; I think it's ugly but it's the semi-norm here. Help:Quotes gives a brief explanation of some of the other quote templates and their use. For bonus points, Help:Contents has some useful links to RW help pages on other formatting-type stuff (I nearly always need to refer to the images one, still), although the most useful link there might just be that link to Wikipedia's formatting help. WalkerWalkerWalker 20:20, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Question: When I try to link to internal, RW links in my text for the Greenwald page (using the link icon), the software keeps dropping some text in the embed words, such as Snowden's first name. Ditto for Alan Dershowitz: they are coming out, respectively, "Snowden" and "Dershowitz" Wasup wid dat?
After I explained it to you more on my talk, are you having the same problems? TheAtheistComrade (talk) 18:49, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, thanks. Now I just have to try it. BTW, is it ok to go back to just one indent now that you got us up to 5?---Mona- (talk) 19:04, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

please[edit]

Use the proper pages to discuss an article, or at the least don't use the FORUM for something minor like that. Forums don't get archived and the less tiny forum pages we open the better, it just looks unclean, you know?--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 18:57, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Even if I'm just asking newbie fomratting questions?---Mona- (talk) 19:02, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Especially those. Or use one forum for it - like I said, we don't need a bunch of tiny forum pages, it just looks unclean (and makes it a chore to go through the forum. it's also why we ended up so harsh on zombies forum making)--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 19:05, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Ok. If I do something wrong it'll be b/c I have a disorder that makes multitasking hard and I can get paralyzed w/ confusion. Not stupid, just a weird sort of anxiety shit that fucks up my cognition sometimes.---Mona- (talk) 19:12, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Use Help. It's in the left column Scream!! (talk) 19:07, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I did see that, but several ppl also advised that I can just ask questions.
Questions are fine, just think about where you ask them.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 19:14, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


Refs[edit]

Nice job, you've learned how to do the refs finally. Just remember that there are far more than those two pages to edit if you want (if not, you don't have to it's entirely up to you). To find random pages that maybe can use some editing (references, spelling correcting, grammar correcting, red/broken links, stubs, general clean up, etc) click Random Page to your left under navigation. Also, recent changes can help you see the well..newest..changes to the site. It can be useful to find vandals and any possible mistakes editors made. TheAtheistComrade (talk) 19:44, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, and I'm just gonna do a bit more on Greenwald, then move back to CAIR, then continue looking for incomplete entries where I know a lot about the subject or topic. I really enjoy this.---Mona- (talk) 19:48, 16 August 2015 (UTC)---Mona- (talk) 19:48, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Alright, if you ever see obvious unfunny vandalism/trolling/etc you can revert the edit by clicking rollback. TheAtheistComrade (talk) 19:50, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Zionism article draft[edit]

That's what normally userpage-subpages are for. A userpage is for writing stuff about the user him/herself.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 10:34, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Is it some horrible breach of the etiqueete here if I keep it on my user page? With nothing else there it just feels cleaner that way. (And I totally disagree with you about Chomsky.)-Mona- (talk) 13:05, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Nothing ban-worthy or anything like that. Perhaps for the sake of clarity, you could create a section title "work in progress". CorruptUser (talk) 13:18, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm not the most knowledgable user when it comes to this, but one suggestion could be if you (at the very top of the "article-in-progress") add something like: {{messagebox|info|Place your message here, like "Welcome to my userpage - this is a draft of a thing, don't be alarmed, etc"}} Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:41, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
I'll make the point it does look cleaner to use things like sandboxes for this and not your own userpage. it's like writing the information to build something on your own body instead of in a notebook.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 13:43, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Ok, I just added "Work in Progress" to my draft header. Created different sub-header for talking about--ME! Also, too I intuitively glean that I'll feel more secure demanding no tinkering if I leave it on my page instead of the Sandbox-Mona- (talk) 13:49, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
I'd still suggest something like a messagebox to more clearly identify what the article is. I could add one at the very top if you'd like me to, and then you can just type what you like into it? Also, if your point with placing it in your userpage is to prevent people from tinkering with it yet, why do you submit it to RW yet at all? I've got huge articles that I'm rewriting that are just pasted to notepad. Whenever I want to edit further, I paste them in and edit while still in Show Preview mode, then I just update the paste in notepad and leave the editing page. It works better than you'd think actually. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:52, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
User:-Mona-/Sandbox is just as secure and safe from compromising edits as your own userpage is. I'll even watch the page so I get told when it's edited and drop super long blocks on people who compromise it--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 14:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Ok, I deleted from my user page and pasted it into Sandbox.---Mona- (talk) 14:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

You.[edit]

Talk page use it. No more edit wars.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 18:45, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I do and have. And what are "edit wars?" Are ppl just allowed to undo endlessly my sourced edits that improve upon the sourceles crap they replaced?— Unsigned, by: -Mona- / talk / contribs
When they think the sourced edits you made are worse than the unsourced crap you replaced, yes. Atleast until somebody with rights comes along and demands they stop seeing the article Zionism and lots of green and red numbers next to it on RC. This is a wiki, we work on the idea of a consensus for an article when disagreements take place, not one person deciding something and then stonewalling it. If this framework is unacceptable to you, leave. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 18:51, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Everyone here knows how to work a wiki. Do not paste your sections in the talk page again - you are breaking things. Hipocrite (talk) 19:11, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Who is "we?" Who can I appeal to that is in authority? Surely there must be a way to guide consensus-building and reach a decision? How is that done? (I am not leaving.)---Mona- (talk) 19:18, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
How about the RationalWiki:Chicken coop?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 19:20, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
"(I am not leaving.)" Hate to break it to you, but it's not your decision to make. If one of the sysops gets fed up enough, and no others feel motivated to unblock you, you're gone. The good news is that blocks tend to short duration, except in particularly annoying circumstances. The bad news is that petulance like this might just move someone to prove you wrong. Queexchthonic murmurings 19:24, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I said I am not leaving. I am fully aware I could be evicted. So, I've begun copying the press (journos who are critical of Israel apologists stifling debate and speech, much less documentable facts) on all of this. But I have nothing to say to them about it unless and until I am banned -- I simply want evidence of what I wrote and what was said. And in that vein, who is in charge here that I can take my position to?---Mona- (talk) 19:33, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
And about this: "Do not paste your sections in the talk page again" I'm working off the original, and rather than repeating all the work, I'd been just cutting and pasting -- but with much of the original retained. It isn't that different in end result from the changes I made that greatly improved the Glenn Greenwald entry, where I worked off an incomplete original.(talk)
Nobody is in charge. We are a mob, we make communal decisions. That is what the talk page is for. .--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 20:09, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Then how does anyone get banned? Who decides who's a sysop? Who decides when consensus is reached and what it is?---Mona- (talk) 20:16, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Also, if two people want to just keep reverting my edits all day and night, this is kosher? One person told me that anything that isn't supportive of Israel can't get approved here, and this would asem to eb the case based on my experience. Is it your view that this is, indeed, the case? I mean, Greenwald is polarizing, but nothing like this happened when I majorly overhauled what had been a pile of unsourced shit.---Mona- (talk) 20:16, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
They actually said that stuff that installs a particular leaning in that direction without at least some content leaning the other way would get reverted, if you look closely. We recently had a BoN who complained up and down that the existing article was too critical of Israel. We don't generally pay any lip-service to NPOV here, but you do at least have to appease the mob. Queexchthonic murmurings 20:20, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
You're a lawyer, but you can't tell the difference between "You're either going to be able to write something that satisfies people who think Israel is great, or you're going to get reverted a lot," and "anything that isn't supportive of Israel can't get approved here?" Go away. Hipocrite (talk) 20:20, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
The mob deciding somebody should be banned (either through inaction when somebody is blocked or through discussion in the coop), somebody giving them rights and the Mob agreeing through inaction, and the mob when an argument stops. I have no opinion in the zionism debate, all I care about is there is an edit war and an editor causing problems--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 20:21, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Mona, I get that you're frustrated with all the intellectual dishonesty, Gish Galloping and edit-reverting from some of the enthusiastic Israel supporters, but don't make enemies out of mostly neutral users by being too fervent about this. Calm and reasoned debate is the way ahead. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 20:27, 20 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
I hear you. But I've been trafficking in reason and fact, and couldn't understand why ppl were allowed to endlessly keep deleteing my edits -- which took a lot of work -- on an entry that had a notice saying it was unsourced crap. Now I've been blocked for "adding a new heading" on the Zionism talk page which no none told me is an offense - it was an attempt at a compromise! I'm sorry, but that's bullshit. How in the fuck was I supposed to know that attempting a compromise with a new header was some major infraction?---Mona- (talk) 20:31, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
You remember that?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 20:35, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
It's not an offence. Paravant just gets bothered by silly things like that sometimes. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 20:36, 20 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
I'm a big fan of trying to keep things organized looking. Having a bunch of new sections because people kept making new ones at the drop of a hat is disorganized ugly. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 20:37, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
"'Go away.' Hipocrite" No. And if it is true that failure "satisfie[] people who think Israel is great" means you have to constantly undo reversions to unsourced crap, and that Israel apologuists are sufficiently numerous that FACTS cannot be stuffed into unsourced pieces without all hell breaking loose, and now I'm blocked for something I didn't even know what an infraction, well that's all interesting in and of itself. Indeed, a matter of public interest, I'd say. We'll see how this all plays out, but as of now I'm quite disgusted.---Mona- (talk) 20:42, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Ok, bye. Hipocrite (talk) 20:43, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Mona, I am dismayed but not astonished by the vitriol splashed in your direction, and I think Paravant was hasty and excessive in deploying the banhammer for what amounts to a stylistic faux pas. That's all I want to say just now, and thanks for persevering in the face of it all. Alec Sanderson (talk) 20:52, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks very much, Alec. I know I'm not crazy, and nor am I unreasonable. What's been happening with this Zionism entry is unfuckingbelieveable, it just is. It seems that any documentation of where the current, public debate about Zionism has gone is expected to be shrouded here in order to, as one RWer put it, "satisf[y] people who think Israel is great." Increasingly, a lot of decent and reasonable do NOT think Israel is great, but it remains to be seen whether that large discussion going on in books, films and respectable online venues can be reflected here.---Mona- (talk) 21:14, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Something you need to know[edit]

Unlike over at WP (short term) blocks are sometimes made in jest. Some admins like to block each other for fun. If you were blocked for a couple of seconds, it might well have been to draw your attention to something. So carefully read the block rationale and try to modify your behavior or raise the issue on the appropriate talk page. I myself have been blocked like this as well. And personally I think doing it for newbies who are still "too green" when it comes to the way this wiki works may do us a disservice, but than again I am the Avenger of the BoNs, so I may be biased in favor of newbies (though not necessarily their opinion). Have a nice day Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:48, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

If it's just a zero-second block, there is no harm done, as even if the block is made during an edit, there will be no disruption, since the blocking time is zero zero seconds, AFAIK.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 22:52, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Yeah but I remember being a bit shocked when I was blocked for the first time, but than I noted that this is common practice over here... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:17, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Some Answers[edit]

To comment on some things that you've asked and said...
And in that vein, who is in charge here that I can take my position to?- Mona
No one. This is an anarchic mobocracy.
Then how does anyone get banned?- Mona
It's at the discretion of whoever wants to do so. Unbanning is also at the discretion of whoever wants to do so.
Who decides who's a sysop?- Mona
Another sysop. It's at their discretion. Generally, anyone who wants it who is not a troll will get made sysop. I personally refuse to be made one.
Who decides when consensus is reached and what it is?- Mona
No one. You just argue about it on the talk page until consensus is reached or people get tired of the argument.
Also, if two people want to just keep reverting my edits all day and night, this is kosher?- Mona
Ayup.
couldn't understand why ppl were allowed to endlessly keep deleteing my edits -- which took a lot of work -- on an entry that had a notice saying it was unsourced crap.- Mona
They very simple answer is that, in their opinion, they find the edits not worth being in the article. --Castaigne (talk) 22:16, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much for all the answers. So, if there is a totally crappy, unsourced page on "Zionism," and two individuals such as Arisoboch and Avenger of the BoN decide that nearly nothing I write on that topic will ever stand, they can simply do that. Thus, in this case if I wanted to make an example of this situation as one of intolerant Zionists stifling of speech and debate, it comes down only to those two and any vocal supporters, but not the site at large? (Or perhaps also, the others who were at least passive enough to prefer letting the pro-Israel faction do that rather than to see fleshed out, ample-sourcing take the place of unsourced muck.) Is that correct? ---Mona- (talk) 23:57, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Would you please sign your edits to talk pages? It is done by posting "~" four times in a row. like this ~~~~ Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:19, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
I usually do---Mona- (talk) 23:57, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Well it appears that you have forgotten it often enough for others to be annoyed by it. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:06, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
So, if there is a totally crappy, unsourced page on "Zionism," and two individuals such as Arisoboch and Avenger of the BoN decide that nearly nothing I write on that topic will ever stand, they can simply do that.- Mona
They have that power, yes. Other editors may revert their reversions. Or insert their own opinion. Whichever.
Thus, in this case if I wanted to make an example of this situation as one of intolerant Zionists stifling of speech and debate, it comes down only to those two and any vocal supporters, but not the site at large?- Mona
Absolutely correct. Although you'd have a very hard time proving they are Zionists. They may simply disagree with what you're writing or the slant you're putting on it. Or tbey may not like your abrasiveness. Or it's Wednesday.
I should note that the general response to "I will bring bad publicity to you because BLAH!" for ANY reason is usually responded to with "Bring it." --Castaigne (talk) 17:35, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Topics I can't post[edit]

My Talk page Edits are being Deleted!!![edit]

Comparisons between Zionism and Nazism[edit]

Anti-Semites have made the claim that Zionism is comparable to Nazism, but so have some who are not antisemitic, including the Zionist Israeli and former director of Shine Bet, Avraham Shalom. According to Shalom, Israel has become "a brutal occupation force similar to the Germans in World War II."[1] Additionally, the deputy editor of Haaretz, Aliyana Traison, wrote in 2012: "I am as afraid to live in the Israel of 2012 as any right-minded German should have been in 1938..." [2]

Zionism and Nazism are both forms of blood and soil nationalism, a 19th century enthusiasm that is no longer popular in the West.[3] (Indeed, Western Jews increasingly "don't believe that blood-and-soil Jewish nationalism should crowd out their Jewish and universalist values."[4]) Also, both Zionism and German National Socialism include an expansionist territorial project to "repossess" purportedly ancestral lands.

That all said, the comparison is most inflammatory when Israel's treatment of Palestinians is compared with the Third Reich's exterminationist Jew hatred that culminated in the Holocaust. For example, the journalist Max Blumenthal has been sharply criticized[5] for, in his book Goliath: Life and Loathing in Greater Israel, titling chapters “The Concentration Camp” and “The Night of Broken Glass.” Blumenthal, however, explains that he took the former title from "former Speaker of the Knesset Reuven Rivlin" who called Israel's internment camps for non-Jewish Africans "concentration camps."[6] Some pro-Palestinian activists do claim that Israel is and has been engaging in genocide, but there clearly has not been a policy remotely like the extermination camps of Auschwitz and Dachau put in place by Israel. It is not hard to see why survivors of those camps, and their descendants, would be offended by such a claim.

More Recent Anti-Zionism, Respectable and Not[edit]

While legitimate criticisms can be made of both Zionist goals and methods, such as the criticisms of Max Blumenthal[7][8], Glenn Greenwald[9] or Ali Abunimah[10][11], some conspiracy theories, particularly ones that revolve around the supposed "New World Order", frequently refer to a "Zionist conspiracy" or efforts to set up a "Zionist government." These people will often claim that "Zionists" control the United States, a feverish notion distinguishable from professional, fact-based, critical examination of the Zionist political lobbies in that nation[12][13] and the UK[14].

Many Neo-Nazi and other antisemitic groups have adopted the label "Zionist" as effectively a synonym for "Jew" and continue to spout the same old antisemitic conspiracy theories they have been doing for decades under that rubric. For example, their now-favoured phrase Zionist Occupation Government or ZOG — i.e. Jews secretly directing the US government.

=

Stephen Salaita[edit]

Chicken coop case[edit]

Mona, there's a coop case about running, you might want to take a look.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 22:54, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I already tagged her. I hope she noticed. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:57, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't think, that such "tagging" works on wikis.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 23:25, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
It works on the biggest of them all... If it could be implemented as an optional feature, this would be nice. in my humble opinion this is the quickest way to draw the attention of one (several) editors who are knowledgeable about a subject and/or experienced about a situation that occurs in the running of a wiki... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
You could raise that issue on the technical support page or on the saloon bar page.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 23:37, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
I shall do thusly. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:42, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

ok seriously[edit]

sign your talk page posts. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:48, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I concur. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:50, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Me 2.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 23:51, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Two more concurring opinions and we got ourselves a SCOTUS majority ;-) Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:56, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Let's call it "SCROTUS", so we can make more bad jokes about the Tea Party :D --Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 00:06, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
It's actually only a majority insofar as they concur, which can sometimes have interesting consequences/create interesting uncertainties. WalkerWalkerWalker 00:07, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
So that's settled than. Every time five (or more) people concur, we got ourselves a SCROTUS majority - but only insofar as people concur, which can create certain interesting uncertainties. Do we have tow more concurring opinions for that to get a SCROTUS majority for SCROTUS majroties? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:15, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Please be patient w/ the sig thing[edit]

I usually do sign, and have many times realized I forgot to and relatively quickly attached one and scanned to see if there are others missing. That said, in the heat of a debate my mind races and I just am going to sometimes drop it. It's not thoughtlessness, and I just can't let myself get trapped in "fear of commenting lest others jump on my ass b/c I forgot." I can promise I do not causally omit it (I don't see why the software cannot auto-attach which is what I'm used to when I'm signed in to my account at a site, but there we have it). I hope that suffices. Please Note:---Mona- (talk) 02:06, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I guess it dates back in part to the earliest days of wikis. In essence talk pages (where sigs are required) operate the same way as do content pages (where sigs are not used). While it is probably quite easy to implement automatic sigs on all talk pages, tradition seems to be a major thing standing in the way. But there may also be software reasons... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 02:11, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I've been blocked by Arisboch[edit]

Can someone please undo this?

He did. If you still encounter problems, tell me whatever autoblock number (should be four or five digits) it says to mention. WalkerWalkerWalker 17:40, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Actually, our friendly local 141/142 seems to have snagged that one too. Thank you 141/142/guy who counts years funny. WalkerWalkerWalker 17:52, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Salaita[edit]

We really don't need to justify his more problematic tweets. We can sketch the context while at the same time condeming some of his (explicit and implicit) polarised simplistic generalizations and his apparent approval for the removal of West Bank settlers from the face of the Earth. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 17:42, 23 August 42015 AQD (UTC)

Do you have any idea the crimes settlers commit on land -- theft, burning Arab olive croips, and unpunished assault and murder of Arabs in the WB? ANYONE would be driven to rage. You are judging a victim's anger at his oppressors and disallowing anything explaining his rage. I'm not even Palestinian, and that summer I watched those pictures from Gazan hospitals of dead kids and bereaved parents and was sobbing, angry and beside myself, you have no idea.---Mona- (talk) 17:46, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
There is liteerally zero excuse for racism of any form. Not sorry. WalkerWalkerWalker 17:49, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, West Bankers have committed some undisputably heinous crimes (which are certainly worth mentioning in the article), but that doesn't mean we should generalize those crimes to all West Bank settlers, let alone argue for their genocide. If one of his tweets also explicitly defends antisemitistic sentiment that is certainly something we should condemn, even though his "victim's anger" is certainly justified. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 17:50, 23 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
Palestinian rage at Zionists MUST be distinguished fomr the irrational antisemtism of Europeans. the Protocols & etc are bullshit. Jews didn't slaughter Xtian babies. But the Palestinqains ARE oppressed by land theft, assault, murder -- even burned alive. There are REAL reasons for Palestinians to be angry at Zionists. Salaita isn't some fucking Stormfront type -- he's enraged at ACTUAL oppressors who happen to be Jewish oppressors. To provide context is important, and isn't a mere fucking "excuse."---Mona- (talk) 17:53, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
European antisemitism treifa, Arabic antisemitism kosher. "Super".--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 17:57, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Wow, so you've justified opposition to Israeli foreign(ish... whatever) policy. That does not equate to justifying anti-Semitism, just as Stalin doesn't justify hating all Georgians. WalkerWalkerWalker 17:56, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
"his "victim's anger" is certainly justified." So say that. Let the context stay, and add but such sentiments are still wrong under any circusmstnaces. But let the context be stated. You just have NO IDEA what life is like for Palestinains on the WB as settlers, w/ impunity, demolish their homes, burn their crops, assault and even kill them. His anger cannot be understood without that context---Mona- (talk) 17:58, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
It can't be understood in light of it either; it's still completely unjustified idiocy. WalkerWalkerWalker 17:59, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Is antisemitic sentiment among Palestinians more understandable than the European antisemitic sentiment during and leading up to WW2? Sure. Should we approve of it? Hell no! 142.124.55.236 (talk) 18:01, 23 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
You just DO NOT GET IT. This is the policy of Israel, to promote illegal settlements and to not punish settlers' crimes against Palestinians. Who would not be fucking furious at each of those illegal settlers? They burn Arab kids alive and they ALL are stealing land. If you can't grasp that, you have an empathy fail.---Mona- (talk) 18:03, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
That I have an empathy fail is relatively well-documented, but is unfortunately thoroughly irrelevant. WalkerWalkerWalker 18:05, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
All? Even the kids? Mona, what you need to get is that justifying antisemitism will not help your position on this wiki. Condemn these heinous crimes as strongly as you can, but don't incite racial/ethnic hatred (or allow people to misinterpret you as inciting it). 142.124.55.236 (talk) 18:08, 23 August 42015 AQD (UTC)

I protected the page for a day. Chill out guys, won't cha. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Star of David.png That's why our council tax is so high 18:07, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

"Should we approve of it? Hell no!" No one is saying APPROVE of it. Explain the CONTEXT, which is not that of deranged, antisemitic Xtian Eurupe w/ the blood libels & etc. The Arabs ARE VICTIMS of Jeiwsh Zionists. many dead, maimed, and ethnically cleansed. Moshe Dayan said in '56: Let us not today fling accusation at the murderers [of and Israeli soldier]. What cause have we to complain about their fierce hatred to us? For eight years now, they sit in their refugee camps in Gaza, and before their eyes we turn into our homestead the land and villages in which they and their forefathers have lived. We should demand his blood not from the Arabs of Gaza but from ourselves. . . . Let us make our reckoning today. We are a generation of settlers, and without the steel helmet and gun barrel, we shall not be able to plant a tree or build a house. . . . Let us not be afraid to see the hatred that accompanies and consumes the lives of hundreds of thousands of Arabs who sit all around us and wait for the moment when their hands will be able to reach our blood. HE understood it. Let Steven Salaita have that context.---Mona- (talk) 18:08, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Let me again make an analogy. That Malcolm X lived in troubled times is not a secret. That black people in America were grossly mistreated is not a secret. None of that justifies, explains, or excuses a black supremacist ideology. WalkerWalkerWalker 18:14, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
"but is unfortunately thoroughly irrelevant." Not in the least. this is a matter of judgment, and lack of empathy is a critical flaw there.---Mona- (talk) 18:11, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
I love ableism. Makes me feel so happy in the morning. :) :) :) Really, though, you're saying an objective condemnation of racism is impossible? WalkerWalkerWalker 18:14, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
"justifying antisemitism will not help your position on this wiki." then it's good I'm not doing that. 1. Salaita was being snarky in the 1st 2 tweets -- he and I and all who sharply criticize Israel get called antisemites as often as you change your underwear. You have to be "in the fold" to understand those tweets, because of how casually the Zionists hurl that charge at us. We've begun to wear it as a badge of honor because of THEIR abuse of it. 2. As for his last tweet, he isn't wishing Jews per se to disappear, he's wishing the ILLEGAL SETTLERS stealing his people's land and killing and assaulting them -- who happen to be Jews -- would disappear. Anybody similarly situated would wish that. Let Salaita have that context.---Mona- (talk) 18:19, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Too pity he didn't wrote "illegal settlers", right?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 18:21, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Is there any reason to believe he was being snarky, other than that it makes him look better? Or can at take him at face value when he says things?— Unsigned, by: PacWalker / talk / contribs
"you're saying an objective condemnation of racism is impossible?" I'm saying empathy -- understanding being in the shoes of victimized Palestinians -- is necessary to make a judgment on those tweets. I'm also saying Julius Streicher is fucking inexcusable, but the Brit muttering about Japs while on the Bataan Death March is not. (And I'm also saying that Salaita, in any event, said nothing racist -- maybe callous, but not racist.)---Mona- (talk) 18:23, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
You think promoting anti-Semitism isn't racist? And yes, the Brit muttering about Japs is, in fact, making racist remarks. Wow, what a fokking surprise: racism is racism! WHOA! Furthermore, an appeal to emotion should not be a necessary part of your argument. WalkerWalkerWalker 18:27, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Do you all get this is Twitter? Tweets are limited to 140 characters. They need to be put in context of person's entire tweet history. Most settlers ARE illegal, and that's a word I would also leave out b/c redundant and character limitations.---Mona- (talk) 18:27, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm aware of what Twitter is, thank you. /s is two characters. #jk is three. If he meant to indicate that he was joking, he could've. He didn't. WalkerWalkerWalker 18:31, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
"Furthermore, an appeal to emotion should not be a necessary part of your argument" Juries are regularly called upon to use emotion in their judgments of defenses and mitigating factors. It's intrinsic. If you lack empathy you are unqualified -- you are a sociopath. But if you think the Brit on the Bataan Death March is inexcusably racist, can we include that Salaita is seen by some AS JUST AS RACIST AS THE BRITISH SOLDIER MUTTERING ABOUT JAPS on that march? Seriously, can we? Will you defend that?---Mona- (talk) 18:33, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
When a jury is swayed by appeals to emotion, than this jury is shit. Justitia is blind.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 18:35, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Hang on. I'm apparently unqualified to life. WalkerWalkerWalker 18:34, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
"If he meant to indicate that he was joking, he could've. He didn't." He wasn't joking. He was reinforcing the view often stated by the crowd he was addressing. I SAY THE SAME FUKCING THING A LOT because of how Zionists have abused the accusation -- I get called that a lot, we all do. Greenwald does, Blumenthal, all the time. It's bullshit, and we mock it.---Mona- (talk) 18:36, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
"When a jury is swayed by appeals to emotion" You mean when weighing mitigating factors? You mean then? Are juries about to be replaced by computers?---Mona- (talk) 18:38, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
I must go prepare dinner. I'm greatly disheartened by the unwillingness to grapple with what Palestinians suffer, especially the horror of last summer. No one seeing those horrible reports and pictures -- including dead infants -- of their kinsmen would have been the model of academic discourse you demand. Steven Salaita was on his own time, not in a classroom, and he was "watching" his people being destroyed. But those who will not, or cannot care about context, I can't fix that. Bye for now. ---Mona- (talk) 18:44, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Mona, no one is saying you shouldn't cite the context. And you're free to state in the article that he possibly didn't mean to advocate for antisemitism or the genocide of West Bank settlers, but made those comments in a moment of justified rage or cynicism. Just take care not to poison your own well in the process. This isn't a private venue where you can joke with your journalist friends about being called an antisemitist all the time. If you want to write something about how casually Isreal apologists abuse the antisemitism charge, you can certainly do so, but don't just assume that the RW readers are aware of that context. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 18:56, 23 August 42015 AQD (UTC)

He stated that actual anti-Semitism is "honorable". There was no jovial intent indicated, and there is no excuse for that statement, regardless of context. Saying that hating the Jews is honourable is not "justified rage" or some twisted version of cynicism: it's racism, plain and simple. WalkerWalkerWalker 19:01, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
The rage being justified doesn't make any of the rest justified. Lemme get back to you about that last bit in a sec. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 19:04, 23 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
Okay, let's go back to the quote in question: "If it's "antisemitic" to deplore colonization, land theft, and child murder, then what choice does any person of conscience have? Zionists: transforming "antisemitism" from something horrible into something honorable since 1948." Take note of the scare quotes surrounding antisemitic/ism. The context this quote alludes to is that of someone who condemns crimes perpetrated towards Palestinians ("colonization, land theft and child murder") being accused of being an "antisemite" by an Israel apologist for opposing the latter's dismissal of such crimes. The quote is the snarky/cynical retort offered in response to this charge that is commonly abused by Israel apologists ("since 1948" apparently). 142.124.55.236 (talk) 19:27, 23 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
The "context" also includes wanting people to disappear. That would seem to suggest that the scare quote meaning is not the only one meant, or, that shocker! he meant what he said. WalkerWalkerWalker 19:32, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Or here, have a look at him blaming actual, no scare quote, anti-Semitism on Zionists. WalkerWalkerWalker 19:39, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
We shouldn't let crimes committed against people be a tool for possibly contextualizing racism. Otherwise we're no better than Israel's apologists who invoke the Holocaust and exploit it at every turn to justify and contextualize Israel's actions. ChrisAmiss (talk) 19:43, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure how closely that tweet is connected to the others. And the population he generalizes (and wishes to disappear) in that tweet are West Bank settlers, not Jews in general; not that that makes it particularly less objectionable. Going back to the first tweets, I'm not saying that his snarky, cynical retort not being inherently racist means the guy himself can't still be antisemitic by the way. And his polarised generalization implying that all Zionists are Israeli-crimes-against-Palestinians denialists is also problematic. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 19:47, 23 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
The one I just linked is from just one day before the tweets quoted on his page, if that answers how closely linked they are. WalkerWalkerWalker 19:57, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
That looks like victim blaming to me, not antisemitism. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 20:01, 23 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
Saying the "Zionists" are the real reason for hating the Jews doesn't at all imply that he was defending actual anti-Semitism in his later tweets? WalkerWalkerWalker 20:10, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Both are retorts against the same sorta thing, so not really? Though I'll definitely admit the victim-blamish retort is facile and troublingly dismissive. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 20:18, 23 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
Let's take the wild stance that he didn't mean what he actually said about anti-Semitism being honourable, that he's just generally blaming Zionists for anti-Semitism. He can still easily qualify as personally anti-Semitic with his genocidal fantasies (i.e. wanting any (post-48, I guess) Jewish settlers in the West Bank to not go back but be disappeared), right? And he's definitely trying to blame that anti-Semitism on teh Zionists, right? WalkerWalkerWalker 20:24, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't think it's a wild stance to assume that what he meant was what seems most plausible given the context. Is it possible he was secretly thinking "hehe, I'm actually genuinely antisemitic and I'm serious about it being honourable, but people will assume I'm being ironic, hehe"? Um, I guess? Though it's rather unclear and a rather big stretch to make just based on these couple tweets. By the way, don't we have anything better to base our assumptions regarding his alleged antisemitism on besides some tweets? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 20:34, 23 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
He claims that "the Jews" place "an assidious emphasis on their specialness, which grants them access to exceptional privileges." This comes from his actual academic work. But let me guess: you want a better basis than anti-Semitic remarks on which to call someone anti-Semitic. WalkerWalkerWalker 20:48, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Pfft, please. All I'm suggesting is that you use more substantial/less ambiguous quotes to substantiate such claims. As a stickler to definitional clarity, surely you agree? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 20:53, 23 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
I don't see anything insubstantial about blaming Zionists for anti-Semitism, advocating either Houdini tricks or genocide, adn declaring the the Jews go about going on and on about how special they are in order to get special privileges. I'm also missing this claimed ambiguity. WalkerWalkerWalker 21:03, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Blaming Antisemitism on the Jews is one of the oldest tricks in the antisemitic book. That he refers to "Zionists" instead of "Jews" is immaterial. And no him having distant relatives in Jordan does not equal him being Palestinian. He has probably never been to Gaza, sees a couple of Pallywood images and as they confirm his preconceived notion, he goes on a twitter rampage saying the Jews are evil Antisemitism is cool and all "West Bank settlers" (where does the West Bank actually end? After all, Jordan is defined as the country east of the Jordan river... So the West bank would be....?) have to "disappear" which is a tried and tested way to "never say die" Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:05, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
And in the latest of bullshit arguing: In which PacWalker plays the fool and Avenger redefines people's ethnic identity for them (as well as some other terms). 142.124.55.236 (talk) 21:11, 23 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
Plays the fool? Pray tell how. WalkerWalkerWalker 21:13, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't give half a rat's ass what Salaita's ethnicity is, but him sitting in his pretty comfy armchair of privilege but claiming to be "oppressed by teh evul Zionist Nazi academia censoring communists" or something while User:-Mona- makes it appear as if he personally had been bombed is a tad distant from the truth. Israelis living in Sderot are dismissed, because they are only hit with "toy rockets", but some guy in the US becomes an authority just by virtue of his ancestry being vaguely middle eastern... Gimme a break, wontcha? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:20, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Really Avenger? Throwing the ethnic slur Pallywood (popularly known as accusing Palestinians of faking their suffering for the cameras) around? And you have the nerve to complain about antisemitism, you hypocritical piece of shit. And no I don't give a fuck if that's not polite or cordial. Fuck you for using a slur like that. ChrisAmiss (talk) 04:08, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

It's not an ethnic slur, it's an political descriptor (most peddlers of Pallywood didn't set foot on Gaza or the Westbank in all of their life and aren't Palestinians even by definition of the UN).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 10:36, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Salaita Critics Please Read[edit]

The best analysis (by Phan Nguyen) of Salaita's tweets, including his engagement with a Jewish anti-Zionist clarifying his tweets. Nguyen stresses that Salaita -- as I've repeatedly explained is also true for me and many other critics of Israel and Zionism:

That is, the term “anti-Semitism” has been distorted by Zionists into a label hurled against those engaged in something as “honorable” as “deplor[ing] colonization, land theft, and child murder.”

Salaita tweeted to his Jewish interlocutor, Michael Hessel-Mial his precise meaning:

By attacking the discourses of Zionism that cheapen anti-Semitism by likening it to principled stands against state violence

Nguyen then states:

Hessel-Mial tags Salaita’s response as a “favorite” and replies that he “can get behind that.” Salaita immediately follows up with another tweet, again addressed to Hessel-Mial

To which, Salaita replies to Hessel-Mial in the same hours he tweeted the two tweets everyone is jumping on:

My stand is fundamentally one of acknowledging and countering the horror of antisemitism.

Indeed, which is how a writer at Reason magazine understood it:

Salaita was criticizing what he sees as a Zionist tendency to accuse anyone who defends Gaza of being an anti-Semite. The "honorable" anti-Semitism he referred to was in relation to this first tweet—if supporting Gaza makes one an anti-Semite, then anti-Semitism is honorable.</br> And let's remember that we are talking about tweets, not statements Salaita made in the classroom or any sort of academic context.

(And again I say as Mona Holland the individua, this "antisemitism" accusation is promiscuously hurled at me all the fucking time and I have responded essentially as Salaita did. I totally get what he meant and why he said it. In our activist fold we have disdain for this Zionist ploy, and mock it with frequency -- and also warn that it is diluting the serious charge of potency.)

MOREOVER, two months earlier -- before all this controversy, in May of 2014, Steven Salaita tweeted about a grossly antisemitic headline at Huffington Post:

What's with this headline? #Macklemore wasn't mocking Jewish stereotypes. He was performing them.

As for the 3rd tweet everyone here is upset about, Nguyen writes:

Is expressing a “wish” that all West Bank settlers “go missing” truly “invok[ing] a violent response”—and more importantly, does it even matter? After all, if Salaita had expressed a “wish” that the Israeli military eliminate Hamas, would it have caused as much consternation.....?

Remember, these settlers are illegal. They are stealing yet more Palestinian land and assaulting and killing innocent people whose land it is. The settlers have no right to be there. Would you condemn a 17th century Chippewa who expressed a wish that European settlers should "disappear?" Is that Chippewa racist?

Stevean Salaita is not antisemetic, and his tweets were not either.

It's simply amazing that so many here read Salaita less charitably than the Illinois AAUP Committee:

Professor Salaita’s words while strident and vulgar were an impassioned plea to end the violence currently taking place in the Middle East. Issues of life and death during bombardment educes significant emotions and expressions of concern that reflect the tragedy that armed conflict confers on its victims.

And the entry at Rational Wiki on Steven Salaita should reflect all of these facts and logic.

Yes, that Chippewa is racist, wow, he has a Jewish friend, and wow! you found someone else who reads your way. It's like vox populi without the populi! WalkerWalkerWalker 21:05, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
And of course he doesn't embrace the label of anti-Semitic; that's like saying I'm not racist but. WalkerWalkerWalker 21:07, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
"And of course he doesn't embrace the label of anti-Semitic; that's like saying I'm not racist but" Except it's not, for all the reasons I set forth. And I don't for one fucking minute you think that Chippewa is racist but you are smart enough to know you cannot differentiate the two cases.. Nor did I invoke the "friend argument." Salaita doesn't need it. He just is not antisemitic and just does have Jewish friends. One is not related to the other and I did not in any way attempt to make the contrary argument. What total misdirection; you are simply not honest.---Mona- (talk) 00:56, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Of course I think that that Chippewa individual would be what the English language terms racist: prejudiced against others because of their race, and you definitely pointed out that "Oh look, he was nice to his Jew friend," which is a friend argument when used to argue that he must therefore not be prejudiced. WalkerWalkerWalker 01:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
"Oh look, he was nice to his Jew friend," Never happened, you are making shit up. A Jewish man on Twitter asked him to clarify his tweets, which Salaita did. The Jewish man on Twitter was entirely satisfied and endorsed Salaita's view. I have no idea whether they even know each other. "Of course I think that that Chippewa individual would be what the English language terms racist" No, you don't. No one in their right mind thinks Native American antipathy toward white settlers was racist -- or if they do, they think it was entirely understandable. But, Palestinians are not allowed to feel the same way about Jewish settlers, so you are pretending to believe something manifestly preposterous. This dishonesty is revolting.---Mona- (talk) 02:48, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
So now I am out of my right mind because I term racism racism. Is that to be taken as a serious argument? That because I call an ideology of prejudice toward others on account of race racism, I am not in my right mind? WalkerWalkerWalker 03:38, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Separately, on an obscenity[edit]

I've not yet looked at any response to the Salaita article I earlier posted. Something else is greatly bothering me and I wish to get it "out there."

As I was writing the Salaita RW entry and others began reverting and writing their own edits, someone -- I don't know who -- rewrote the sentence about the medical personnel who were up-loading pictures of dead and maimed Gazan children and women during the bombardment last summer. My passage also referenced photographs of bombed out homes, hospitals, taxis and huge crowds of terrified fleeing people. These photographs, which I watched in deep emotional pain as they came online last July and August, are no light matter.

One of the rewrites changed my words to the effect, that Gazans were "spamming" Twitter with pictures. That edit is obscene. No less so than claiming there is something wrong with Holocaust museums, films about the Shoah or photographs of death camp dead and survivors. Some antisemites trash-talk such things as Jewish attempts for sympathy, ignoring that evil is properly documented.

What so many refuse to see, is that Zionist Jews, Israeli Jews, are not the victims. They have destroyed over 200 Palestinian Arab villages and cities, and sent several million refugees into either the open air prison that is Gaza or into the West bank. (Some did flee all the way to Jordan.) As Moshe Dayan candidly declared in a eulogy in 1956:

What cause have we to complain about their fierce hatred to us? For eight years now, they sit in their refugee camps in Gaza, and before their eyes we turn into our homestead the land and villages in which they and their forefathers have lived.

And it continues. Yes, there have been suicide bombers. Yes there are Hamas' impotent rockets. These are the actions of an oppressed people, of a resistance movement. Resistance movements often commit atrocities -- see, e.g., the ANC or the IRA. That they do does not lessen the state-sponsored oppression and violence committd agasint them, nor lessen their status as victim.

The suffering of the Gazan people can really not be overstated. To describe their doctors and nurses -- and mothers and fathers -- as "spamming" Twitter and other social media during the horror that was last summer, is nothing short of depraved.---Mona- (talk) 22:58, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Umm... the nature of the content doesn't make it more or less spam; that said, "spamming" is probably still not a good verb choice. WalkerWalkerWalker 00:10, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
And someone has already fixed it, for what that's worth. WalkerWalkerWalker 00:14, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Wait, you actually like the IRA? I thought the only stance any genuine leftist can have about "the troubles" is that both sides are fookin' stoopid and that they should grab a beer and forget about religion already. Thankfully this has mostly occurred in the Good Friday Agreement... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
"Umm... the nature of the content doesn't make it more or less spam;" Jesus, there' just no end to the morally depraved sentiments from some of you. These weren't ads about erectile dysfunction. They were nearly real time photographs from hospitals, morgues and ambulances & etc in a scene of utter devastation and carnage. What the fuck is the matter with you?---Mona- (talk) 00:50, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Right, argue by just yelling that something must be wrong with me. I must just be a sick morally depraved individual because I don't agree with you. WalkerWalkerWalker 00:58, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
"I must just be a sick morally depraved individual because I don't agree with you." Yes, to the same extent that people who don't agree with me that European anti-semitism was vile are morally depraved. Yes, there are things I believe that, to disagree with, render you morally depraved. A number of things. Including the notion that nearly real-time pictures from ERs and ambulances of Arab victims of obscene Zionist carnage constitute mere "spam."---Mona- (talk) 02:52, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
As I said, what is being posted does not make it spam; the manner in which it is posted does. I also said that spam was not the right word choice for those uploads. You chose to just go about insulting me anyhow. Thank you. WalkerWalkerWalker 03:40, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Unverfied pictures that claim to be one thing but may well be entirely something else? Being posted in short succession by numerous people who have no connection to any of these events? I have pictures of the like "If you think cancer is bad give like!" or "If you love god post amen" in my facebook timeline every day. They constitute Spam. While the word Spam for the latest barrage of Pallywood blood and gore propaganda might be a tad harsh, it is not factually wrong on the face of it. How often do you see Israeli blood and gore propaganda after the last Palestinian made his "legitimate grievances" into a bomb and blew up a couple of children on a Sherut? Well yeah thankfully, suicide bombers have become a rare thought thanks to the security fence Israel has constructed. It is an eyesore and everybody in his or her right mind would wish it to not be necessary, but it has shown to be a necessary evil, as it drastically reduced the amount of suicide bombers. And of course instead of investing in bombs and rockets like Hamas to kill civilians on the other side, Israel invested in Iron Dome to protect its citizens - including its Arab citizens. Just an aside: What does Hamas do to protect the Jewish inhabitants of Gaza? In short, while Hamas cherishes and actively seeks for blood and gore images (so much so that they sometimes fake them) Israel loves live more than anybody on the other side loves death and they try to not only minimize the blood and gore images but also the actual blood and gore. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 14:10, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
BTW, there ain't no Jews in Gaza anymore, since ArikWikipedia's W.svg thought, that it's a good idea to deport the settlers of Gush Katif and let the Hamas or whatever burn synagogues and become Caliph instead if the Caliph in Gaza[15] (of course, according to the conspiracy theory peddled by Chris and "sourced" from some nice token (if you search hard enough, you always will find some wacko among us Jews to play the token for even the most insane kind of Israel-bashing), this was some kinda insidious plan to sabotage the peace process and let the Hamas shoot rockets ("toy rockets" according to Chris (or Mona, I forgot), since toy rockets always carry coupla kilos of explosives and are shot at civilian sectors)).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 14:27, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Aaaand we've gone from whitewashing straight into totally-high-on-drugs territory. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 14:31, 24 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
High-on-drugs? No thanks, the last "drug" I had was a few sips of wine and two shots of vodka on friday and saturday.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 14:34, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
And btw, you managed ton even outdo Chris in your apology for Steven Saladwhatshisname's rants.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 15:27, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
That's funny, because I only explained some context and pointed out and criticized several problematic elements. Calling that an 'apology' is rather blatantly twisting the truth. Not that I'd expect any less from you. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 15:45, 24 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
Shit, even Chriss did pull his head enough our of his ass to call Steven Salad's rants racist, but not you (and Mona, neither, but that was not unexpected).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 15:54, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, keep giving everything the spin you want it to have. As I said, I don't expect any less. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 16:14, 24 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
Is that satire? It must be, I guess. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 14:19, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
A thing that has always fascinated me about Judaism is the fact that it is - historically at least - a religion without an afterlife. If you read the old testament / Torah carefully, this becomes immediately evident. There it often says things like "And Abraham died old and after a full live". No "and than he went to heaven", no "and he spent fifty three years in purgatory". Just him dead. This is especially remarkable as the major contemporary religion Judaism arose with - the Egyptian religion - is positively obsessed with death and the afterlife. Judaism - whatever its faults - is emphatically a cult of life, which contrasts nicely with the cults of death that have come to dominate the world. And yes I know some sects of Judaism emphatically believe there to be an afterlife. But as with anything concerning religion - and especially Judaism - there is a lot of debate about that. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 15:41, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
"Oh, oops, I wrote down some blatantly ridiculous conspiracist crap. Lemme draw attention away from it by writing a non sequitur block of text about what a nice religion Judaism is." 142.124.55.236 (talk) 16:18, 24 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
blatantly ridiculous conspiracist crap- 142.124.55.236 You talking about Mona and her Reds Zionists under the beds?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 16:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Whew, and now through more detractions we've ended up at making sneers about Mona. Is all this jumping through hoops not tiresome to you guys? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 16:28, 24 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
Holding up a hoop There is no hoop. Hoop bends.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 16:29, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Of social media and vileness[edit]

This is a Facebook posting from August 11 from American philosophy professor Andrew Pessin, posted last August 11, 2014, during the siege of Gaza.

Here's some photographs Israeli soldiers uploaded online (yes, that T-shirt is a real thing), including on Facebook, along with the unspeakable commentary of their supporters.

Also making rounds were some utterly rancid Facebook postings from genocidally inclined Israeli teens lusting for Gazan blood. There were pictures and articles, in the Guardian and elsewhere, of Israelis hauling chairs and sofas up to the hills, where they brought beer, wine and snacks -- one tweep billed it as "Sderot Cinema." They partied, they laughed and applauded, as every bomb went off killing more Arabs in Gaza. And endless pictures of Gazan dead were coming out at the same time.

Steven Salaita was online and seeing all of this material. And worse. May I put all this, and more, in his RW entry to give readers an idea of the milieu for Palestinains at the time Salaita tweeted his controversial tweets?---Mona- (talk) 23:38, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

May you blame teh evul Zionists for his racism? No, sorry. There is no context which can justify it - see Chris above. WalkerWalkerWalker 00:00, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
It's worse than tu quoque. It's "look some idiots who I'm going to say represent all the Jews" quoque. WalkerWalkerWalker 00:02, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
You can put it but I object to the blatant association of that with the people of Israel! I'm a good ol' rebel! States rights! (The right to continue slavery, of course) (talk) 00:04, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Well it's a shame that I am not as obsessed with the issue as User:-Mona- appears to be... Otherwise, I would probably be watching MEMRI videos of Hamas saying and doing heinous things, day and night. And I would probably insist on "contextualizing" every bad thing Israel ever did or did not do with stuff Hamas said. As the sites Mona seems to frequent do not appear to be in the least bit neutral, it may not be entirely insane to assume that some "errors in research" may have occurred and some of the things they post may not in fact be genuine. Also, I don't see you addressing the point of people going out to picnic and watch the first Battle of Bull Run during the Civil War. Does that mean that the north was evil (it was mostly the high society from DC that did this)? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:21, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Could we please go back to debating each other's ideas and not each other? Thanks. WalkerWalkerWalker 00:33, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
I second this. The Union forever! Hurrah boys hurrah! Down with the traitors, and up with the stars! (talk) 00:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Great lyrics hamstrung by the tune they were set to. WalkerWalkerWalker 00:33, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
I third this. Glory, glory, hallelujah! (talk) 00:37, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Ah, now there we have a tune equal to the words it was given. WalkerWalkerWalker 00:39, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
"Otherwise, I would probably be watching MEMRI videos of Hamas saying and doing heinous things, day and night...picnic and watch the first Battle of Bull Run during the Civil War." That is depraved. For 51 days last summer real human beings in our time were bombarded with bombs, artillery, and white phosphorous. Human beings penned up in a small area of land from which they could not leave. Oppressed human beings, refugees from land appropriation. And their oppressors celebrated and partied as they died. You are dismissive of all of this. You are on the same moral level as a Holocaust denier or downplayer, one who blows you off with : "shit happens." Under discussion is a recent calamity that the world recently watched, and which especially transfixed horrified Palestinians all over the world -- including Steven Salaita. The context you would downplay is one that deserves to be set forth in any RW article about his tweets.---Mona- (talk) 00:47, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
As multiple people have pointed out to you, no context excuses racism. WalkerWalkerWalker 01:19, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Because Hamas would've never done anything like that. http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/755/turning-a-blind-eye-to-hamas-atrocities To nip it in the bud, you mean Hamas doesn't represent all of the people in it's regions but for some reason all Zionists are represented by the actions of some Israeli citizens and military members... Glad to know you feel that way. 20th Maine! Fix your bayonets! 'Give em hell boys! (talk) 00:52, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
White phosphor... You mean the same stuff that wasn't used in the bombing of Dresden yet is frequently used as a red herring in Holocaust denial Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:18, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
What the literal fuck does the bombing of Dresden have to do with this. WalkerWalkerWalker 01:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Well I was just reminded how white phosphorus is more often used as an argument against somebody who supposedly used it than as an actual military weapon. Apparently it is military worthless and not worth the PR disaster it creates... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:31, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
"As multiple people have pointed out to you, no context excuses racism. " Ok, here's what we'll do: We will say Steven Salaita's tweets were every bit as racist as a 17th century Chippewa who, upon seeing his land invaded and his people killed by European settlers, wished for the European settlers to "disappear." Salaita is every bit as racist as the black man in 1920 Mississippi who, watching white folk picnic at a lynching of his cousin, says he wishes all the whites would "disappear." We'll just say all that, because you believe it, right? — Unsigned, by: -Mona- / talk / contribs
I call bullshit. I don't think, that he's Palestinian even according to the UN, since he is an US citizen from birth (Bluefield, West Virginia) and did Chris claim, that the reason for the Palestinians being the only ones with an inheritable refugee status is, that some/many/whatever[Who?] of them are stateless[citation needed]. Really, he comes off a lil bit like the stuttering guy in the old Jewish joke, who was denied a position as a radio host and claimed, that it was because if the radio station execs bein "a-a-a-ntise-m-m-mites".--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 17:54, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Absolutely, or, more simply, just say he is a racist, as are all of the examples you provided. Don't grasp what about "prejudice on the basis of race" doesn't amount to racism. WalkerWalkerWalker 03:35, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
A racist in context is still a racist.[16] So why have the "context" as you call it in the first place? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 15:53, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
This a proposed compromise guys, and a yes or no will do: We will say Steven Salaita's tweets were every bit as racist as a 17th century Chippewa who, upon seeing his land invaded and his people killed by European settlers, wished for the European settlers to "disappear." Salaita is every bit as racist as the black man in 1920 Mississippi who, watching white folk picnic at a lynching of his cousin, says he wishes all the whites would "disappear." Yes? No? If the latter, why?
No, because "every bit as racist as a 17th century Chippewa who, upon seeing his land invaded and his people killed by European settlers, wished for the European settlers to "disappear." Salaita is every bit as racist as the black man in 1920 Mississippi who, watching white folk picnic at a lynching of his cousin, says he wishes all the whites would "disappear."" is an entirely redundant wording of the much simpler term "racist," a term which English speakers old enough to read RationalWiki are probably familiar with. WalkerWalkerWalker 17:56, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Probably. WalkerWalkerWalker 17:59, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
I find it remarkable how intent people are on specifying that the guy is racist when he's actually indicated something quite worse—genocidal ideations. And it should be noted: "went missing" is not the same as "disappeared". 142.124.55.236 (talk) 18:15, 24 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
"I find it remarkable how intent people are on specifying that the guy is racist when he's actually indicated something quite worse—genocidal ideations. And it should be noted: "went missing" is not the same as "disappeared"." Are you fucking kidding me? The man is referring to ILLEGAL settlers stealing more Palestinian land -- they raze Arab homes, burn Arab olive tress, assault Arabs, and even murder them with almost total impugnity. Who in their right moral mind would not want those people to disappear?---Mona- (talk) 18:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
(ec) (ec) The rants about my lack of morals grow really tiresome, ESPECIALLY when you're saying I'm an immoral fuck for not wanting an entire group of people to just disappear (or "go missing"). WalkerWalkerWalker 18:32, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the n-th attempt to use an appeal to emotion and he didn't use this cute qualifier you use (which would still include mostly innocent dudes living on a disputed piece of land).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 18:28, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm sure there are innocent ladies and children among the settlers too. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 18:31, 24 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
(ec) ...I call ladies and kids dudes also. WalkerWalkerWalker 18:35, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
You do that. Congrats. Doesn't change the crap Salaita wrote one bit.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 18:32, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 18:34, 24 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
^ WalkerWalkerWalker 18:35, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
"I'm sure there are innocent ladies and children among the settlers too." Children yes, adult women, no. They are well aware the international community says those settlements are both illegal and destroying the chance for a 2-state solution, and peace. They believe they are entitled to all of "Greater Israel" because their Holy Book tells them a god gave it to them.---Mona- (talk) 18:37, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
They built a house, ergo they should just "go missing" rite? WalkerWalkerWalker 18:38, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Or moved into one, cause it was cheaper.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 18:41, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm sure that part is true for almost all of them, Mona, but that doesn't justify "making them disappear under suspicious circumstances". I can very much understand wanting child-burning monsters to "go missing", but you can't generalize such heinous crimes to all West Bank settlers. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 18:39, 24 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
"when you're saying I'm an immoral fuck for not wanting an entire group of people to just disappear (or "go missing")" Jesus on a goddam crutch, I didn't say that. I said Salaita deserves a charitable reading of his tweet as member of the VICTIMIZED, OPPRESSED group those settlers are stealing from. That those settlers assault and murder with near impunity. These are aggressive colonialists who believe they have a right to steal other people's land because their bible is a land deed. How would YOU feel about a people behaving that to your people?---Mona- (talk) 18:51, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
"I'm sure that's true for almost all of them, Mona, but that still doesn't justify "making them disappear under suspicious circumstances". FFS, nit was rhetoric in a TWEET. Said in the heat of his people being slaughtered. he never developed a proposal to "disappear settlers under suspicious circumstances." He just wished for them to be gone, as his people were being killed!---Mona- (talk) 18:51, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
But that's the thing, "would go missing" isn't just "would disappear", it means that the disappearance happens under suspicious or even openly malicious circumstances. I'm not saying that he's making a well-thought-out proposal here. He likely did make the comment in the heat of the moment, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't still strongly condemn the actions the tweet seems to support. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 19:00, 24 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
"He likely did make the comment in the heat of the moment, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't still strongly condemn the actions the tweet seems to support." I don't think it "seems" to support that, but fair enough -- as long as it is agreed I may document the context of what he, I and all in our Pro-Palestinian circle were seeing and experience last summer. (Myself, I had to get offline for 24 hours because I was ready to tell a [non-Jewish] Zionist supporting the carnage that I wished him dead. It was time for me to step away and get centered -- it was that intense.) Because frankly, anything Steven Salaita tweeted last summer is AS NOTHING compared to what we were seeing documented in Gaza. Morality would be turned on its head to make a big deal of that without providing the hellish context. (and please see the new topic I added with a link to the Gazan doctor's Twitter account -- he provided many of these pictures)---Mona- (talk) 19:17, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, pity, that he couldn't use his brain before using his keyboard like you purportedly apparently did, right?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 19:20, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Come now Arisboch, it's not like I've never seen you post things that you would've rephrased or taken back if you'd thought them through more (like all those typos, eh?). 142.124.55.236 (talk) 19:22, 24 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
Good, that there's a spell checker built into the Linux-Version of Firefox, but even such a cool browser doesn't have a bullshit-filter built in (or else no extremist no matter on what side would use Firefox :D)...--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 19:28, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

When "Antisemite" is a badge of honor[edit]

WHEN ‘ANTI SEMITE’ BECOMES A BADGE OF HONOUR That's just one blog post at random -- this attitude is ubiquitous in the pro-Palestinian movement, and is what Steven Salaita was saying in his tweets. Again: Zionists who insist criticism of Israel constitutes antisemitism have made it a badge of honor and I, too, wear it proudly -- even tho I am not an actual antisemite (If anything, I'm a semitophile). But if certain people were not calling me one, I would not be speaking a moral position on Israel-Palestine. This is the commonplace sentiment in our circles that Salaita was tweeting.

And, Max Blumenthal:

There’s no Jewish consensus on Zionism, but these figures [Israeli politicians such as Prime Minister Netanyahu] claim to act in the name of all Jews. And it’s incredibly dangerous.


If anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism, then Zionism is Judaism. Who else says that? Anti-Semites. Because it’s anti-Semites— real anti-Semites, and they exist— who seek to implicate all of the Jews in the world in Israel’s crimes against Palestinians.


It’s anti-Semites who claim, contrary to the central underpinning idea of the BDS movement, that the source of the crisis in Israel-Palestine is Judaism, is the Jewish religion and the Jewish people, and not colonialism.


We believe here, those of us who support BDS, who support Palestine solidarity, that the problem is colonialism, and that, if Chinese people had come to enact a project of colonialism in historic Palestine, Palestinians would have resisted them as well. And they would have adopted, potentially, Sinophobic attitudes, because the people who were colonizing them, dispossessing them, moving them from their homes, were claiming to act on behalf of all Chinese people.


I mean, that’s not happening, but that’s what would have happened. That’s what happens in any case where you witness settler colonialism. It’s my understanding that Native Americans who live on reservations aren’t particularly fond of the white man. But we don’t run international campaigns to demonize them as anti-white; it’s kind of understood.

Zionism can and does generate antisemitism for the reasons Blumenthal states. But Steven Salaita is not an antisemite, because like Blumenthal, he knows the problem is settler colonialism, not Judaism -- even tho Netanyahu keeps insisting Israel represents and speaks for all Jews. That's not true. — Unsigned, by: -Mona- / talk / contribs

"Are Israeli Policies Entrenching Anti-Semitism Worldwide?"[edit]

Tony Klug in Tikkun:

Herein, I believe, lies the key to the conspicuous increase in anti-Jewish sentiment in a range of countries, most strikingly among Arabs and Muslims. What has triggered it is no more of a mystery than what lies behind the simultaneous upsurge in anti-Muslim and anti-Arab feeling among Jews. It's the conflict, stupid. More particularly, it's the Occupation. And at the core of the Occupation is the invasive settlement project and the whole hideous infrastructure—segregational and intensely oppressive—that has proliferated on its back.

The Jewish reality has changed dramatically since the end of World War II, with the establishment of a Jewish state and the entrenchment of equal citizenship rights in most if not all countries that Jews inhabit. Whichever way you look at it, there simply is no comparison in reality between past trumped-up accusations of abusive power leveled against a downtrodden, defenseless community that time and again was made to pay a heavy price for these baseless smears, and the current accusations of improper use of power against an advanced, nuclear-armed state which, for the past forty-two years, has enforced a harsh military rule over the lives of another downtrodden, dispossessed people, while relentlessly colonizing their remaining land.


Drawing parallels is treacherous territory, and I normally keep off it. But if there is any sort of parallel with the Mittel Europe of centuries past, the more compelling one is not between the subjugated Jew of then and the powerful, occupying state of Israel today but between the Jew of then and the occupied Palestinian of now. This is the parallel that much of international public opinion instinctively perceives, and it goes a long way to explaining the global switch of sympathy. To the extent that the Jewish world remains in denial, it is dislocating itself from the rest of the world.

And oh so ironically given the bullshit flying here, Steven Salaita is a centered and moral Palestinian man (his parents hail from 10 km south of Jerusalem, on the western side of the Hebron road) who has not allowed this gross Zionist behavior to turn him into an antisemite. And honest people will admit it.---Mona- (talk) 03:45, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Here's a fucking wild idea: anti-Semites are the ones responsible for anti-Semitism. In normal contexts, that would be a tautology. Let's go back to normal now, shall we? WalkerWalkerWalker 03:53, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Even if they do (I would not have a problem agreeing with this statement in light of the antisemitism card bring thrown around so easily), it's on those people not to let their emotions get the better of them and revert to possibly racist sentiments. Otherwise, they can just point and say we told you so (that they harbor antisemitic feelings). The same goes for any conflict, be it anti-Japanese and anti-German sentiment during WW2, etc. ChrisAmiss (talk) 04:18, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Realize this logic of some group that has been discriminated against causing it's own dislike can be used extremely widely. I'm sure you wouldn't be comfortable applying it to other peoples.Oh right down south in the land of traitors, rattle snakes and alligators! Where cotton's king and men are chattles! Union boys will win the battles! (talk) 05:18, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Interestingly enough the propaganda of Britain and the US during the second world war was notably more anti-Nazi than anti-German. Compared to the propaganda during World War I it was downright benevolent towards Germans and Germany. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 15:34, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
"Here's a fucking wild idea: anti-Semites are the ones responsible for anti-Semitism." Right. Because if the State of the Orwellian People steals the land of others, and locks them in an open air prison, bombards them with bombs and artillery, and has been oppressing them like that for over 70 years -- and just last year killed another 2200 of them including 500 children -- if any of those oppressed people say they want the Orwellians to disappear, why by god! it's those nasty, racist oppressed people who are morally at fault. Got it. And the fact that the person saying that is also seeing medical personnel from emergency rooms and ambulances uploading pictures of the dead and maimed of his tribe -- and Western journalists have videotaped 4 young boys getting blown to bits on a beach -- why, the only serious moral issue here is that a member of the oppressed tribe has said he wishes the Orwellians would "disappear." (I am Alice and I have fallen though the rabbit hole.) This oppressed member has also seen the Orwellian's press urging calm and telling them -- as they rain death and suffering on the oppressed -- to remember to tip the Sushi boy. Yeah, any anger by a member of the oppressed tribe at such glib and obscene statements from the Orwellian press, well it's all his fault. ---Mona- (talk) 18:02, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
(СУКА ПАДЛО edit conflict) Say, by whom was Seteven Salaita, an American (born and raised in the US, with his father probably from Jordan and his mother born and raised in Nicaragua) scholar, author and public speaker, oppressed? The evel Jewish Zionist lobby at his uni? Or did he throw a tantrum at the Israeli border security, too and was told to please bugger off like this George Currywhatshisname? And I also hear George Orwell spinning in his grave because of you insane misuse of his magnum opus (cause why not use "1984" to defend some bullshit claims about open air prisons and the like (and you forgot, that from 1948 till 1967, Gaza and the West Bank were occupied by Egypt and Jordan (and now Gaza is, according to the Fatah, occupied by the Hamas), btw, but OK, I'm not good with dates, too), right?).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 18:12, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
People are responsible for their own thoughts and beliefs, Mona. Israeli policy can the cause of a lot of harm and distrust of the Israeli government without being the underlying cause of fucking neonazis. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:04, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
People are responsible for their own thoughts and beliefs. Ikanreed, boldly stating what's obvious to everyone when Israel isn't involved. Thank you. WalkerWalkerWalker 18:06, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
They bear responsibility for them, yes. But people themselves don't cause their own thoughts and beliefs, you need environmental input for that. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 18:10, 24 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
The brain is a zero-noise environment? WalkerWalkerWalker 18:12, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Lacking any environmental input, what would your thoughts be about? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 18:19, 24 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
Masturbation, probably. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Star of David.png I suppose there is no fantasy like power fantasy 19:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
How would you be familiar with the concept if you'd never had the relevant environmental input? How would you even be aware that you possess a mind capable of thought if you'd never had any environmental input to bring about thought? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 20:44, 24 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
"People are responsible for their own thoughts and beliefs." Sure, so why was my edit reverted -- the one saying Salaita is similarly situated to the 17th century Chippewa, or the black in 1920 Mississippi seeing the whites picnic at his cousin's lynching? You make your point, and I make mine. Win-win, no?---Mona- (talk) 18:21, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Cause you neglected to provide sources for anything like that happen to any close relative of Salad Salaita.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 18:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Ok, we'll just say the Chippewa saw other Chippewa slaughtered and the black man saw other black men lynched. No suggestion of bloodline relationship. You've agreed in principle, so we can move it to the more general relationship you prefer. Ok? Salaita's parents, btw, are both from Beit Jala. So, we'll do it that way, ok?---Mona- (talk) 18:32, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Chippewa is fucking off-topic and has nothing to do with Salaita. And BTW, according to the WikipdiaWikipedia's W.svg, his mother was born an raised in Nicaragua and his father was, according to unconfirmed sources, from Jordan. He himself was born and raised in the US. So, where the hell is that super-close personal connection you attempt to pull out of your ass?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 18:39, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Steven Salaita's parents are Plastinian and he has always self-identified as Palestinian. You must SURELY be aware that many Jewish-Americans strongly identify with Israel? So, we can describe Salaita's reaction as the Chippewa or the black man, yes? This writer feels it adds a great deal of fair context. ---Mona- (talk) 18:51, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
They are Palestinian? Really? According to what sources? The Wikipedia says otherwise and why should I give a shit about the so-called "self-identification as a Palestinian" (no-one gave a shit about some NAACP-member's self-identification as black or Ward Churchill's self-identification as a Native American, once it was out) of a guy, who was born and raised in the US, who's mother was, according to the Wikipedia, born and raised in Nicarague and his father was, according to the Wikipedia, Jordanian, as claimed by... Someone. So all in all, Salaita is not much more than an Internet tough guy.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 19:00, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
I deeply apologize for that -- I misread the wiki entry, which says: "Salaita was born in Bluefield, West Virginia on September 15, 1975[7] to immigrant parents. His mother was born and raised in Nicaragua by Palestinian parents who originated in Beit Jala.[8] He describes his own ethnic background as both Jordanian and Palestinian, and an interviewer states that his father was from Madaba, Jordan.[9] His maternal grandmother "lost her home" in Ayn Karim outside of Jerusalem in 1948.[10]" So it is his maternal grandparents who are from Beit Jala. As I said, he has always self-identified as a Palestinian, and it is not my place -- or yours-- to tell someone they cannot identify as the ethnicity of their mother and maternal grandparents. After all, he'd be Jewish if the ethnicity in question were Jewish and have the right to make aliyah.---Mona- (talk) 19:08, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Well if "ifs" and "buts" were candies and nuts, we'd have all a merry fucking Christmas[17]... And what are the criteria for this whole "self-identification" thingy? How close must the relatives be, so that someone can self-identify as ethnos x or y and can start racist rants on their behalf on the net?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 19:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Again: After all, he'd be Jewish if the ethnicity in question were Jewish and he'd have the right to make aliyah.---Mona- (talk) 19:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Again: if his grandmother would've balls, she would've been his grandfather.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 19:29, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Again: After all, he'd be Jewish if the ethnicity in question were Jewish and he'd have the right to make aliyah. There's no basis for anyone who accepts that to deny Salaita his right to determine his own ethnic identification.---Mona- (talk) 20:27, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Again: If "ifs" and "buts"... Well, see above, but this discussion is going round in circles without any result (and btw, what did he said on that subject?).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 20:37, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Are Israeli Policies Entrenching Anti-Semitism Worldwide?
Answer - no. People are going to be anti-semitic regardless of what Israel does, or if it even exists. --Castaigne (talk) 21:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
What happens in the outside world doesn't affect people's thoughts and beliefs? Are these things genetically predetermined then or something? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 21:09, 24 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
It certainly does, but it behooves us to step away from our emotions and examine things as dispassionately as possible, in order to create as much objectivity as possible. --Castaigne (talk) 21:12, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
I imagine a lot of Romanticists would disagree with that. At least you implicitly acknowledge that objectivity is something constructed by subjective minds, so your goal is in essence the same as that of the Romanticists: to strive for a subjective ideal. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 21:20, 24 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
I imagine a lot of Romanticists would disagree with that.-
I honestly don't give a shit what a Romanticist would say.
At least you implicitly acknowledge that objectivity is something constructed by subjective minds-
No, I don't implicitly or overtly acknowledge that. Objectivity is fact. Subjective is opinion. --Castaigne (talk) 21:28, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
So objectivity is not created after all? Because it is, at least in the meaning of "human conception of objectivity" as you seemed to be using it. And all talk we may engage in about objectivity cannot in essence move beyond that: a mere human conception of objectivity. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 21:34, 24 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
Well y'all know that Antisemitism existed before the state of Israel was even a dream of Mr. Herzl. But ya know... facts have a well known Zionist bias... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:30, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Why hello there, blatant strawman. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 00:32, 25 August 42015 AQD (UTC)

Gazan Doctor and his Pictures[edit]

Belal Dabour - Gaza is one physician who uploads photos of Gazan victims, including many during Operation Protective Edge last summer. When the Salaita page is unprotected again, this is mostly where I will source to; I'll have to spend time going back through his media file, and those of others, to a year ago. There were ambulance drivers, nurses and other doctors, as well as Western journos, uploading as well, some of whom I'd likely use.

Twitter was suffused with these heartrending depictions last summer, and many of us -- including Steven Salaita -- were overcome with anguish and grief. And he's Palestinian, as I am not.— Unsigned, by: -Mona- / talk / contribs

Yes, cause unverified shock photos from Twitter gonna sway everyone, amirite?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 19:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
He's a Gazan doctor. Do you really doubt he deals with dead and maimed Gazan people? Do you really doubt the IDF was quite able to kill 2200 Gazans last summer, and maim many thousands more, and that it got very horrifying? Do you doubt the psychological impact this visual documentation has on morally sane people? ---Mona- (talk) 19:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
electronicintifada.net- -Mona- Siriusly Seriously, bugger off. Or use the goatseWikipedia's W.svg, cause that shock photo would at least be funny.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 19:31, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, but I am not swayed by appeals to emotion. --Castaigne (talk) 19:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
"Thank you, but I am not swayed by appeals to emotion" Nor should you be in many contexts. But you should apply common sense when considering the way humans react to pictures of their tribe being slaughtered. I believe there is some science on that, yes? maybe some profound arousal in the "lizard brain," that sort of thing? Other indicia of deep distress, right? You grasp whyy some people are allowed to plead to manslaughter rather than homicide, when the "heat of the moment" is understood to be in play, and are aware there is science on that as well right?---Mona- (talk) 19:32, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
"Seriously, bugger off." Oh, sure. Because the senior editor of Electronic Intifada, Ali Abunimah, is suitable for citing in The New York Times, and to have an op-ed there. But for the vanguard of anti-racism at Rational Wiki, for them, a cite run by and for Palestinians is to be mocked and ridiculed. Yes, I see how it is for some here. #nonedarecallthemracist---Mona- (talk) 19:36, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
OK, so this propaganda-rag (seriously, being called "electronic intifada" is the first warning sign, about the same as some Kahanist douchebag calling his webshite "price tag online" or some similar drivel) is run by a guy, who is cited by the NYT (in what context? As an example of an Internet nutcase?)? What of it? Appeal to authority won't make anyone budge here, either.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 19:46, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
These are some of the photos Salaita (and I and many) were seeing that were taken by Dr. Dabour and/or others and now placed in a Storify by one of his associates. Scroll all the way down -- this is what Steven Salaita and I were seeing for 51 days last summer as Israel bombarded and murdered the people of Gaza. https://storify.com/sabbah/gazaunderattack-july-9th-2014?utm_content=storify-pingback&utm_source=t.co&awesm=sfy.co_fmaS&utm_medium=sfy.co-twitter&utm_campaign=
"Appeal to authority won't make anyone budge here, either" First, have you been anointed to speak for anyone but yourself? And second, I am not appealing to authority; I'm pointing out the FACT that respectable outlets give space to and rely upon its writers. No, the fallacy here is your poisoning the well.---Mona- (talk) 20:17, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
You still can't sway anyone with some unverified shock photos and or the "intifada" (electronic, chemic, or ectoplasmic).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 20:37, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Stop sign.svg

This conversation is about to go badly downhill, inevitably ending in comparisons to Hitler, and hurt feelings all around.
Stop now. Step away from the keyboard.
Go pet a jerboa, or milk a goat.

|₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Star of David.png My life I trade in for your pain 20:19, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Banana.gif

This conversation is about to go badly downhill,
inevitably ending in comparisons to Hitler,
and hurt feelings all round.
CONTINUE. IT IS EVEN MORE AMUSING THAN THAT DANCING BANANA.

.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 20:37, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
These are some of the photos Salaita (and I and many) were seeing that were taken by Dr. Dabour and/or others and now placed in a Storify by one of his associates. Scroll all the way down -- this is what Steven Salaita and I were seeing for 51 days last summer as Israel bombarded and murdered the people of Gaza. https://storify.com/sabbah/gazaunderattack-july-9th-2014?utm_content=storify-pingback&utm_source=t.co&awesm=sfy.co_fmaS&utm_medium=sfy.co-twitter&utm_campaign= ---Mona- (talk) 20:24, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Here is just one NYT piece citing Abunimah in teh EI, and here is his op-ed.---Mona- (talk) 20:24, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
But you should apply common sense when considering the way humans react to pictures of their tribe being slaughtered.- Mona
I do not rely on common sense, no, just as I do not rely on my gut or take action based on hunches or speculation.
You grasp whyy some people are allowed to plead to manslaughter rather than homicide, when the "heat of the moment" is understood to be in play, and are aware there is science on that as well right?- Mona
The science is that it costs the state less to accept a plea for manslaughter rather than go through the cost of the trial for 2nd degree homicide. Yes, I understand that very well.
Frankly, you are failing to convince me that Israel is the Sum of All Evil, especially as my knowledge of the facts causes me to see Israel and the Palestinians as equivalent. The only difference between the two in terms of this conflict is that Israel is armed by the USA.
You are, however, doing a wonderful job convincing me that you have an anti-Israeli and anti-Zionist agenda. I'm starting to believe that you are one of those fanatics who would love to see the Palestinians execute every Israeli citizen, man, woman, and child, for crimes against Palestine. And then build mountains out of their skulls. --Castaigne (talk) 21:15, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

There Be at Least a Few Racists Here, Working Hard to Hide the Truth[edit]

I've deleted the Salaita article. Apparently, enough of the "rational" folk here feel only Jews can suffer -- a Palestinian watching the Jewish State commit war crimes on his tribe is to be judged a racist for feeling despair and anguish as he watched it. He didn't say anything antisemitic, and his wish for settlers to disappear -- these settlers are deeply anti-Arab racists who steal, raze Arab homes, assault and murder Arabs with near impunity. But here, well here, the death he saw is as nothing compared to some emotional tweets posted while seeing the carnage.


The Jews of Israel, and perhaps especially the settlers, are not the victims. The victims have names like Saliata, Mohammed Abu Khdeir (burned alive), his American cousin, Tariq, badly beaten, and endless death, maiming and suffering of an oppressed people held as refugees in the open air prison that is Gaza. They are 504 Gazan children slaughtered by The Most Moral Army™ last summer, and there remains some of their (devastated) families.

The Zionist went too far in the Salaita case -- the court has smacked them down and Chancellor Phyllis Wise was forced to resign in disgrace for the harm the firing did to the university's reputation (she could face charges of obstruction of justice or spoliation). They've been going too far everywhere, and except for very small fiefdoms such as here at Rational Wiki, the Zionists are losing. (They are losing badly in court and Steven Salaita is now a hero to many, one who is likely to be reinstated, or if not, paid many millions of dollars.)

They are also losing to BDS, which is taking off like wild fire, prompting the Israeli government to effectively declare it an existential threat. "Don't play Tel Aviv" is rising up as once did "Don't play Sun City." No Western democracy (so-called) can survive being made a pariah, and Israel won't survive it as an apartheid state, either.

So, those of you here who want to misdirect and prattle about Hamas, or whether an anguished man is "really" Palestinian, keep your heads in the sand, and safely buried here. Sustain your illusions, in this little pond where there are enough of you to stifle the truth. Zionism -- a racist, 19th century blood-and-soil, ethno-religious, supremacist nationalism -- is going to fall anyway. As the Jewish holy book says, the writing is on the wall.— Unsigned, by: -Mona- / talk / contribs

OK, so you admitted deliberately blanking the Steven Salaita article. This is a blockable offense, Mona, as per the RationalWiki blocking policy. I did never use my Sysop rights to win an argument (joke-blocks don't count and when I joke-blocked you for 1948 years and forgot to deactivate the autoblock out of a lack of experience in using the Sysop-tools, I admitted that and apologized for that right away, when I was told about it) and knew, what kinda vandalism is meant as a joke (such as defacing my fake new talkpage-messages message...), but just blanking a mainspace articles, cause you disagree with it's contents is not OK, don't do that again. If you want the article gone, make a deletion request and the mob will decide. If you want to change the article content and someone disagrees without, use the talk page. That's how a wiki works.
If you want your edits to be accepted, accusing the RW of being a "Zionist fiefdom" is not going to help.
Also, I don't think, that anyone here will by swayed by you posting Twitter shock pictures (unverified ones, to boot), ranting about the Endsieg against end of Zionism (dog-whistle for the destruction of Israel), your baseless accusation of Zionism in general being racist (e.g. Jabotinsky, which you love to slander, wrote a poem stating the fucking opposite!Wikipedia's W.svg) or the West Bank settlers being all some nasty, nasty motherfuckers (including children and people just living there, having not harmed a hair on any Arab's head) worthy to "go missing" (Salaita was talking about all settlers in his Twitter post, don't try to deny it), which constitutes genocide apology.
P.S.: Matisyahu was singing Yerushalayim on the music festival in Spain, so eat that, BDS (and you most likely using some hard- or software components from Israel right now, when you shitpost)!--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 22:49, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't think doing away with Zionist ideology would "destroy Israel". There's many countries in the world that lack nationalism and continue existing unabatedly anyway. Much rather, I think it'd be a good thing for Israel, as the Zionist ideology is one of the bigger pieces of the ideological pie that keeps this conflict going. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 22:59, 24 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
But that's how most of the ilk of Mona use that word and how does Zionism "keep the conflict going"??--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 23:10, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
The 'ilk' of Mona... >.>
It keeps tensions entrenched among the warring sides as the ideology implicitly ignores (and to some fervent Zionists, unequivocally denies) the Palestinians' right to live in their nation of origin. It's also a divisive issue among pro-Palestinian factions as some are willing to accept or tolerate Zionism, some unequivocally demand to see the ideology be renounced by Israel and others still are categorical in their refusal of any compromise with Israel/"the Zionists". 142.124.55.236 (talk) 23:24, 24 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
I don't deny, that extremists among the Zionists do exist, cause they do, as in any political movement and I don't think, that Zionism does clash with the rights of Palestinians (Herzl and most of the other people to shape this ideology were rather liberal in their views on society, hell, even the much-maligned Jabotinsky was, just read his poem "The East Bank of the Jordan") and a thing such as Palestinian nationalism wasn't around, when the ideology Zionism was formed. And the pro-Palestinian fractions can't just deny the Jews their nationalism while wanting one themselves.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 23:59, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm not saying that Zionism, in its non-extremist form, is an inherently severely problematic ideology. If the situation was different enough, it could be completely harmless. But given the current situation, doing away with the Zionist ideology could go a long way in helping to reduce the animosity between the warring sides. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 00:15, 25 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
How to do that? To be honest, I have no idea.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 00:19, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, it'd have to come from the Israeli community itself. There might be some hope in this respect, as Post-ZionismWikipedia's W.svg is apparently a thing. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 00:25, 25 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
Well and I call for a Brazilian state that advocates its own cessation of existence. After all, they are "illegally occupying" the rainforest and "taking by force" the land of many indigenous peoples. So the Brazilian "settlers" should just "disappear". See what I did there? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:40, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
No one here is arguing for the cessation of the Israeli state's existence, but thank you for supplying us with another blatant strawman. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 00:45, 25 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
In case of Mona, I'm not so sure of that.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 00:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
I just wanted to say that User:-Mona- has yet to say whether she wishes for precisely that or not. The way I read her diatribes, she wishes for Israel to "disappear" Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:56, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
She didn't say anything on the right for Israel to exist or not? That is rather strange, she's writing a lot and that is a rather central point in the debate. She was rather enthusiastic in her approval of Steven Salaitas rant, in which he wishes, that "all the fucking West Bank settlers would go missing" (which would include children and the vast majority of the settlers, who didn't harmed even one hair on an Arab's head), so I'm rather curious on her view of the right of the State of Israel to exist (she may try to dodge the question, though).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 01:04, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Though predictably the Zion-argumentalists (yup, I just invented a new word) slander it as just being anti-Zionism in disguise and call its proponents "self-hating Jews". >.> 142.124.55.236 (talk) 00:45, 25 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
My goodness, this is an ugly neologism. Couldn't you make up a word, that sounds better (hell, there are tons of people, who are named by some other people "post-Zionist", but refuse that label. This is a rather tricky issue, judging by what I gleaned from the Wikipedia article)?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 00:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, if you dislike it, all the more reason for me to use it to describe you. :P
And if there's anything to be learned from all this, it's that apparently everything related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is tricky. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 00:58, 25 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
The East is a delicate matter
—White Sun of the Desert[18]
--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 01:19, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
(fils de pute, edit conflict) Well I guess we can agree that anything even potentially related to Israel or Zionism in any way is bound to be controversial... And be it only the fact that Robert Kraft (the owner of the New England Cheatriots) is sponsoring Israeli Football[19] Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:10, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
"OK, so you admitted deliberately blanking the Steven Salaita article. This is a blockable offense," Oh, is it now. Well, **I** conceived it, and decided to abort it before it even implanted in the RW womb. This termination has saved it from becoming a worse abortion than the Zionism "article."---Mona- (talk) 01:07, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it is, read it here and even though you started the article, it is not yours, it is becomes part of the collaborative wiki project called "RationalWiki", which means, that on questions such as the removal of an article, there has to be an consensus of enough people of the mob.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 01:19, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Eh, thing is Mona, as soon as you post it in mainspace, it's no longer exclusively yours. If you'd worked on it in userspace you could decide to delete on your own accord, but that's not the case with a mainspace article. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 01:10, 25 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
(Chongqing! Yet another EC) Just because you created an article does not mean you can unilaterally blank it once things don't go your way... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:12, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
You're free to nominate it for deletion, though, if you want. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 01:14, 25 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
" your baseless accusation of Zionism in general being racist" A recent book written by an Israeli rabbi is extremely popular among the settlers, who tend to be wild-eyed religious fanatics. Torat Ha'Melech, or the King's Torah, is by Rabbi Yitzhak Shapira. Per Shapira (who leads a yeshiva in a settlement), "Non-Jews are 'uncompassionate by nature' and should be killed in order to 'curb their evil inclinations.'" "If we kill a gentile who has has violated one of the seven commandments… there is nothing wrong with the murder," Shapira insisted. Citing Jewish law as his source he declared: "There is justification for killing babies if it is clear that they will grow up to harm us, and in such a situation they may be harmed deliberately, and not only during combat with adults." Among Shapira's influential supporters is Dov Lior the leader of the Shavei-Hevron yeshiva at Kiryat Arba, a radical Jewish settlement near the occupied Palestinian city of Hebron . When Lior served as the IDF's top rabbi, he instructed soldiers: "There is no such thing as civilians in wartime… A thousand non-Jewish lives are not worth a Jew's fingernail!" Lior has further suggested captured Palestinians could be used as subjects for live human medical experiments. This is all documented on Max Blumenthal's book, Goliath: Life and Loathing in Greater Israel, and none of the many Zionist critics have found fault with the quotes or the sources cited.---Mona- (talk) 01:27, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Now that rabbi sounds like someone we could use a proper article on. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 01:36, 25 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
(PUTA MADRE edit conflict) Have you any kind of proof, that a majority of all Zionists agrees with this book? Or that a majority of Zionists agrees with Dov Lior? You see, Dov Lior has multiple run-ins with the law because of such and similar statements and was denied the election into the Supreme Rabbinical Council of Israel due to that massively fucked up "guinea pig" statement (in Gaza, saying such stuff about the Jews is a moderate position, at best). He had also no official position as "the IDF's top rabbi". And you also forget, that there are tons of Zionists, who don't base their Zionism on religion, so they wouldn't give a flying fuck, what such a rabbi says.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 01:55, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
If it stays, I will only use it as one of my examples. It's up to y'all. I'm not nominating anything -- I wash my hands of it, in disgust.---Mona- (talk) 01:29, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Oh you're still gonna report us to your "journo" buddies? And as for the "book" you quote... Well I am a (supporter of) Zionist(s)[20] and I could not be bothered to read a peace of paper with the words "greater Israel" scribbled on it. Let alone a whole book. You know the old Arafat story stating that the two blue lines on the Israeli flag represent Nile and Euphrates? And that Israel is totally for realz!!!!1111!!!! going to conquer all this territory? Well that's where the words "Greater Israel" originate. And hence I won't even give them the dignity of wiping my ass with this kind of waste of paper... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:34, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, your allergy for actual information on this issue is well-documented, Avenger. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 01:41, 25 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
Well, did you read any of the books by Stephan Grigat or people sharing his opinions on the state of Israel? No? Well because you are allergic to actual information... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:46, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
It's kinda hard for me to have read books from someone I've never heard of. But I wouldn't unilaterally refuse to read them, as you do with anything that even slightly suggests it doesn't match your pre-conceived notions. It's not often I see confirmation bias this blatant. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 01:53, 25 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
"Matisyahu was singing Yerushalayim on the music festival in Spain" Take all the comfort you can from that. Because the farmers of Israel, and even Netanyahu, are seeing BDS as an existential crisis. You can continue with all the Zionist gatekeeping you have been doing in this tiny place -- but you can't stop the BDS avalanche. The truth of Zionisms racism -- it's being an ethno-religious supramacist ideology rooted in the 19th century -- this is not something you can stop from becoming more and more understood. And, you can't do a thing about the Internet. In addition to all the carnage the world saw online coming from Gaza last summer, we see videos of Israelis behaving like Klansmen in films like this hosted by The Nation. It's stomach-turning. And it's been all over the Internet. You. Can't. Stop. The. Truth.---Mona- (talk) 01:40, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Really, now? What exactly did Bibi say about the BDS? And please with context to prevent the quote mining always do. Your Endsieg babbling doesn't become closer to the truth by repetition and so doesn't the baseless claim of Zionism being racist or supremacist.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 01:55, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Despite appearances, the state of Israel is to me not the most important thing in the world. However, it appears that to a significant number of its opponents destroying it is their main priority bar none. I much rather read weird books by authors you probably never heard of than wasting my time on the blatherings of some people who put "greater Israel" in the title. You haven't read the new book by Glenn Beck /Billo the Clown / the likes, have you? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 02:01, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Do you even know what is commonly meantWikipedia's W.svg with the term? Or do you just cover your ears and go LALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU whenever someone uses the phrase "Greater Israel"? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 02:04, 25 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
Greater Israel was a term used by some Zionists when claiming more than they ultimately got was just as likely to be successful as claiming just the beach of Jaffa. Nowadays it is almost exclusively used by anti-Zionist conspiracy theorists. Like Arafat in his worst days... Remember the ten Agorot coin? Oh yes, of course it is a deliberate ploy to call for borders from Rio de Janeiro to Hongokong and kill all Arabs.... That was the essence of Zionism all along, right?[21] Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 13:03, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Well Avenger, since you asked[edit]

BDS has started to loom heavily over the heads of many sectors of Israel, from farmers to government officials. From the Zionist Ynet:

Chairman of the Israel Farmers Federation, Meir Tzur, has encountered the boycotting of Israeli products too many times recently. "Just this month, three chains in England announced they won't work with Israel," he says with evident frustration."Every time I get a message like that, I feel the most hurt in the world, an outcast, and concerned. Thousands of farmers have already suffered in fields that until recently we were dominating; like flowers, cherry tomatoes, spices or peppers. But most of all my anger is directed at the government of Israel. We have been turning to any possible ministry for years now, warning them, telling them, asking for help, and it turns out we have been talking to a wall. The government is always indifferent; everyone is in denial about this, and not doing anything meaningful."



And Tzur is not the only one. The important battle against the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement (BDS) is being treated with reckless abandon, according to farmers, academics and others who have been suffering because of the boycott movement.

Netanyahu has decided he better stop listening to the voices of bright-eyed optimism on this issue becasue BDS has been catching the government up short:

The rift with the professional ranks became even more acute a year later, when at the end of 2013 the European Union decided to promote a proposal to mark products made beyond the Green Line.


In private conversations, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu described the actions of the Foreign Ministry's professional ranks as "the greatest oversight he ever encountered," saying they failed to warn the government on time, while then-deputy foreign minister Ze'ev Elkin appointed an investigator to look into this oversight - Harry Knei-Tal, a diplomat who retired from service not too long before. After a thorough investigation, Knei-Tal's detailed report found the political leadership at fault for the oversight.

[... ]

"That's the beauty of this process," Knei-Tal says cynically. "You can reject recommendations made by the professional ranks, but there is an accumulation of malignant and negative effects. At some point, there will come a moment that forces the political leadership to deal with this matter and take action."

Recently in The Washington Post:

an interview this week, ­Israel’s new deputy foreign minister, Tzipi Hotovely, told The Washington Post that the Palestinian campaign against Israel was nothing less than “diplomatic terrorism.” Hotovely described the efforts as an “existential threat” to Israel.


[...]

Michael B. Oren, a former Israeli ambassador to the United States, said in an interview that the boycott movement may appear to outsiders as inept or harmless, but to Israelis — living in a small country with 6 million Jews and 2 million Arabs — the threat of isolation looms large.

As I've constantly insisted, your Zionists here are totally unaware of the extent that the Internet -- and what was seen coming from Gaza last summer -- has put BDS on steroids. The Palestianins are FINALLY seen as victims, and Israelis as the death-dealing oppressor. 12-minute videos showing grotesque Israeli racism can and do go viral.

Stephen Hawking won't step foot in Israel for a conference. The list of scientists, academics, and artists who take the same position grows every day. Oh, but, an Israeli guy was allowed, after some controversy, to sing at a music festival in Spain. Well, take your comfort where you can, and above all, remain steadfastly at your posts standing guard over the Rational Wiki "Zionism" article. [eyes rolling]

Or, get on the right side of history and realize that the de facto one-state, apartheid state in Israel has got to go; the world sees some 4 million Palestianins suffering in Gaza and the West bank under Israel's brutal heel, and the world isn't going to look away any longer. The apartheid will go, the only question is how hard that journey has to be for Zionists and the State of Israel. — Unsigned, by: -Mona- / talk / contribs

Out of curiosity, what exactly is it you hope the BDS thing to do? SolPyre (talk) 03:27, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
She's pretty clear about it in the last paragraph. She hopes that it will contribute to ending the de facto one-state apartheid rule under the current State of Israel. Exactly what that'll mean for Israel is left an open question. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 09:44, 25 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
That still leaves a lot up in the air... Is change by electoral means sought? Is Bibi's sobering up sought (could be a long wait...)? Is change by revolutions sought? Am I totally off the mark altogether? And what final outcome is desired? Single-state? Three-state? Two-state? WalkerWalkerWalker 09:52, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Is it bad that this is left an open question? I suppose we'll see which solution turns out to work best for solving the conflict. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 09:56, 25 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
Y u maik sense WalkerWalkerWalker 09:59, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
So apart from her usual Endsieg blathering and just run of the mill arguments from authority (since when does Stephen Hawking posses any greater insight or authority on the issue of Israel?) you simply dodge the question of Israel's right to existence. You cannot even bring yourself to utter a statement between clenched teeth for tactical gain that amount to "of course it can if only in the 1967 borders without an army and paying reparations to Hamas for two thousand years" or some such. In short: Despite all your claims, you don't give a fuck about the Palestinians. You just hate Israel. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 13:10, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
I highly recommend this short, SIX minute clip of Jewish-Israeli David Sheen disusing racism in his country and a Q&A he then has with a Brit Zionist. Sheen's answer on the matter of "context" is the same as my own.---Mona- (talk) 14:11, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
And once again, you dodge the question. Is it beneath you to deign a Zionist with a response? Do you really fear the ZOoRW would "censor" you? For fook's sayk groo the fook up! Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 14:18, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
"And once again, you dodge the question." Er, you asked about Netanyahu/BDS and I posted a quite lengthy response. What have I supposedly failed to answer now?---Mona- (talk) 15:21, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Learn to fucking read. I asked a very fucking clear question. Do you or do you not support the right of Israel to exist in its current or any borders in the Middle East? You have repeatedly dodged this question. And the question about BDS was raised, but not by me. How's reading comprehension going in Mona-land? Better than tweeting competence or worse? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 15:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Sheesh Avenger, you guys keep littering Mona with questions and you get super upset when one of them isn't answered explicitly enough for you? Calm down already. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 15:55, 25 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
Wow, Avenger, I have been keeping up with the questions as best I can, and if I mistook someone else's question on BDS for yours, well, forty lashes, ok? Could you please first tell me what you consider to be the borders of the State of Israel?---Mona- (talk) 20:09, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
In one sentence: The borders of Israel are situated somewhere between the 1967 lines and all territory that was acquired in the six day war. Gaza and Sinai are almost surely lost in their entirety for the foreseeable future. The Golan, all of Jerusalem and some parts of the territory called the West Bank are or will be part of Israel if (when) a permanent peace plan is put into practice. However, it should be emphasized that the 1967 were emphatically called "not the same thing as borders" by the Arabs during the 1948 ceasefire negotiations Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:17, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
But, uh, those aren't borders. What you describe is an amorphous "could be this or possibly that." What </em>constitutes</em> the State of Israel right now, today? Is there a map showing the legal borders I could refer to?---Mona- (talk) 20:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Legal borders according to whom?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 20:35, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── (there was an edit conflict) Well what do you consider the borders of Israel to be? And which borders of Israel would you be willing to accept under which preconditions. You still have not answered the question whether in your world Israel has a right to exist or not. And once you are done with that, you could also point to a map with the legal borders of India, Pakistan, China, Russia and of course Serbia... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:36, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

"Well what do you consider the borders of Israel to be?" Um, that's what I asked you? Is there a map of Israel's current borders?---Mona- (talk) 21:23, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Of "quote-mining," quoting & context[edit]

Israeli David Sheen recently gave a talk in the UK on the rampant, virulent racism in his country, including among its highest officials. This clip is 6 minutes long. Sheen responds to a Zionist who complains that Sheen is taking statements "out of context." His answer would be my own. Again, it's just 6 minutes and most illuminating and instructive. — Unsigned, by: -Mona- / talk / contribs

Posting the same comment from above (and it's a youtube video, things we are well known for not liking) in an entirely new section is what i've railed against you for as frivoulous section bloat. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 14:27, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
!!!But it's MY section. Is this not my space?!---Mona- (talk) 15:22, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
They never said it wasn't your space, they complained about your use of it which they apparently dislike. Oh right down south in the land of traitors, rattle snakes and alligators! Where cotton's king and men are chattles! Union boys will win the battles! (talk) 15:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
"Posting the same comment from above" I posted it here first. And then considered it might not be noticed so added a comment in another section. And really, I don't care if you have some weird hostility to youtube. That's where Sheen's great clip is. Deal. Finally, I asked about this being my section because Paravant blocked me for what he considered to be excessive section-creating at the Zionism talk page. I wondered if he'd do it again because I operate as i will on my own page?---Mona- (talk) 15:37, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Maybe not, but maybe he will for your recent conduct. They have exactly 1,358 followers they told this nonsense to. How is this not a serious offense? Oh right down south in the land of traitors, rattle snakes and alligators! Where cotton's king and men are chattles! Union boys will win the battles! (talk) 15:41, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
You are fucking serious? An editor can get banned here because of what she tweeted about her experiences with Zionists at the site? Why, I'm heading right over to Twitter to tweet that at least one of you wants that!---Mona- (talk) 15:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
I for one would oppose blocking you. Dishonest debate tactics, disgusting Twitter feuds and edit warring may be blockable offenses in the eyes of some, but I would rather see you "leaving and never coming back" on your own account. And if that happens I will wave you goodbye on the way back ;-) Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 15:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Me 2. There was only 1 case of "unfunny vandalism" and it was already handled (5 minute block 'cause of first offense and little experience on wikis) and the other one was edit-warring, which, at my opinion, doesn't warrant anything like a ban, at least not as of now.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 16:05, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Alright, I suggest you go to their Twitter now and search @MonaHol RationalWiki on Twitter's search, for every tweet about it. The recent ones are worst and are about Zionists. I oppose banning too as well, because I'm not really angry any more. I'm just sick of these nonsense accusations and the blatant slander. I got too carried away in anger. Oh right down south in the land of traitors, rattle snakes and alligators! Where cotton's king and men are chattles! Union boys will win the battles! (talk) 16:01, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Ah, so you admit to waging a harassment campaign to get Mona to leave. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 16:03, 25 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
Nope, it was an overreaction but the facts are still there. Oh right down south in the land of traitors, rattle snakes and alligators! Where cotton's king and men are chattles! Union boys will win the battles! (talk) 16:05, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Nobody is advocating a harassment (with any number of r) campaign against User:-Mona-, all I say is that at some point she will pronounce to be leaving and never coming back. And I am sure she will be back in short order after that. She is that kind of whambulance drama monarch... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 16:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Let's get something straight about this charge that I was "edit warring." It takes at least two to do that, and I wasn't changing any edits any more than a whole lot of other folk were. ---Mona- (talk) 16:29, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
"all I say is that at some point she will pronounce to be leaving and never coming back. And I am sure she will be back in short order after that." Yes, you are "sure" about a great many unsupportable notions. But most of this certainty revolves around Zionism. You know, the topic? (I am not, contrary to what some of you are attempting, the topic under discussion.)---Mona- (talk) 16:36, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Look at the title of this page.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 16:37, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Er, yes, and? We're discussing Zionism and various issues related thereto. In any event, how silly to waste space posting speculation about what you think I might do in the future, speculation based on nothing at all---Mona- (talk) 17:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
I am not a psychologist, but you are a very interesting psychological case in many regards... I don't think that you will simply fizzle out of this here place; I am almost willing to bet that you will make a grandiose exit. à la the classic "leaving and never coming back" Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:21, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Ha! Ok, but I feel there's some wishful thinking going on there. But for now, I will be sticking around to do treat some unrelated topics as time permits, as well as to harsh the Zionist mellow with unpleasant facts when appropriate ---Mona- (talk) 20:28, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

can you people[edit]

try to actually wrap this nonsense up? This page is 10 days old and already looks like talk gamergate, let alone the mess on the Zionism talkpage. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 14:26, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

You do see the irony in posting this in a new section, don't you? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 14:36, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't fit the flow of any previous section, so not really. Any other one would be offtopic, while most Mona new sections could have, at worst, been subsections of a previous discussion--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 14:37, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
You may in fact be right, but it still looks funny. If I could, I woulda blocked you pie seconds for that ;-) Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 14:42, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Fucking Liar[edit]

No Zionists threatened to ban you over here at RW simply for not agreeing with them (you were edit warring repeatedly) as you post on Twitter to your hundreds of subscribers and Glenn Greenwald following (as well as other popular figures all over your Twitter). It already has favorites. I'm not going to post your Twitter here, but I took screenshots. What the hell is wrong with you? Oh right down south in the land of traitors, rattle snakes and alligators! Where cotton's king and men are chattles! Union boys will win the battles! (talk) 14:29, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Are you going to explain your actions, you deceitful filth? Oh right down south in the land of traitors, rattle snakes and alligators! Where cotton's king and men are chattles! Union boys will win the battles! (talk) 14:37, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Are you going to explain your actions, you deceitful filth? You stop that. Right now. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 14:38, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, cut it out. I get angry at dishonest people, but chill the hell out. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 14:39, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Autopatrolled and welcomed (once they were here, not the template) what seemed to be a potentially good editor. Taught them the format. They go and tell mendacious tales on the side. Oh right down south in the land of traitors, rattle snakes and alligators! Where cotton's king and men are chattles! Union boys will win the battles! (talk) 14:42, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, and? We aren't going to fall into calling other people things like filth, I thought we'd had enough of that kind of editor attacking when Nutty left. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 14:44, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict goatfuck!) Please don't use the l word. She may be selectively quoting and misrepresenting. She may furthermore be engaged in "I'll go tell mommy" antics, but calling her a liar? Why, that is just so uncivil. In all honesty, User:-Mona- is - if what I assume to be her Twitter - behaving in a disgusting and dishonest way. If and when new users of her ilk appear shortly (I hope not) or her "Journo-buddies" write the fierce op-ed that was promised, we know what to do... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 14:46, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Hopefully this slander is not a watershed into similar actions. I truly hope it's not. Oh right down south in the land of traitors, rattle snakes and alligators! Where cotton's king and men are chattles! Union boys will win the battles! (talk) 14:49, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
The funniest thing is that through he behavior User:-Mona- has almost ensured that future changes to the Zionism article will be monitored very closely and any standpoints as anti-Zionists as hers will have even more of an uphill battle thaen before her appearance... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 14:52, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Oh my goodness! Somebody does not like my tweets! Hey, if you think those are bad, you should see what I've been telling people in email. And Avenger, it would be impossible for you Zionists to be more stifling of unpleasant truths vis-a-vis anyone else than you have been in my experience. You and your fellow Zionist pals are very excellent gatekeepers of the glory that are Israel and Zionism. I'm essentially telling people that all, too. Your reputation is spreading. ---Mona- (talk) 15:32, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
@-Mona- and Avengerofthe BoN No, do you lack any reading comprehension? You are a complete liar, it's not that I don't "like" your Tweets. Please piss off and complain to your 1,358 followers about the evil Zionists. Oh right down south in the land of traitors, rattle snakes and alligators! Where cotton's king and men are chattles! Union boys will win the battles! (talk) 15:36, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Wait what did I misread now? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 15:50, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

It gets Better[edit]

[[Previous text removed]] They put more than I found! Oh right down south in the land of traitors, rattle snakes and alligators! Where cotton's king and men are chattles! Union boys will win the battles! (talk) 15:22, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Care to share? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 15:07, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Update[edit]

I found the tweets. Oh right down south in the land of traitors, rattle snakes and alligators! Where cotton's king and men are chattles! Union boys will win the battles! (talk) 15:03, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

This is some slander, can I post the links right now? I don't think it would be anything, as they're tweeting it publicly on a social media site. Oh right down south in the land of traitors, rattle snakes and alligators! Where cotton's king and men are chattles! Union boys will win the battles! (talk) 15:05, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Oh please please let me see it! I wanna have a laugh. I don't have a twitter account, so this may be why I can't seem to find the newer shit you are referring to... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 15:08, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Mod hasn't gotten back to me yet, I don't know if it would be "doxxing". Oh right down south in the land of traitors, rattle snakes and alligators! Where cotton's king and men are chattles! Union boys will win the battles! (talk) 15:10, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Kosterortiizbrock Oh please, User:Kosterortiizbrock. My tweet:

Mona Holland ‏@MonaHol Aug 20 Tweeps, Zionists at @RationalWiki are disallowing ANY edits unacceptable to "those who think Israel is great." (sic) Threats to ban me.

That's all true.---Mona- (talk) 15:44, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I am referring to quotes (plural). And no, that is not true. Oh right down south in the land of traitors, rattle snakes and alligators! Where cotton's king and men are chattles! Union boys will win the battles! (talk) 15:46, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

OMG! You guys are fucking hilarious. A tweet. A tweet has got you all acting like teeny-bopper girls waiting for their heartthrob to enter the stage. "Can I see it!?" "Oh, when is it coming?!" "Oh, please, I must see The Tweet!!!!!1111!!!"---Mona- (talk) 15:48, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

(John C. Calhoun those edit conflicts are annoying!) We've all seen that one. What about those that her anti-Zionist smugness cared to delete? And I guess by now any accusation of "doxxing" is well out of the question as the User in question has by now revealed that she indeed wishes to be associated with the Twitter account in question ....Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 15:49, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
There are already files by the names, I will try a link or renaming. Also note how she admits it right here "Oh my goodness! Somebody does not like my tweets! Hey, if you think those are bad, you should see what I've been telling people in email. And Avenger, it would be impossible for you Zionists to be more stifling of unpleasant truths vis-a-vis anyone else than you have been in my experience. You and your fellow Zionist pals are very excellent gatekeepers of the glory that are Israel and Zionism. I'm essentially telling people that all, too. Your reputation is spreading."

Oh right down south in the land of traitors, rattle snakes and alligators! Where cotton's king and men are chattles! Union boys will win the battles! (talk) 15:52, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

"What about those that her anti-Zionist smugness cared to delete?" I do not ever delete tweets, except for those with typos or errors that I immediately deleted and then reposted correctly. Once or twice I have RTed something I learned was not true, and undid my RT. That's it. So in your happy hunting of MONA'S TWEETS ABOUT MEEEEEE AND USSSS, what you find is all of it. (Yours is such adolescent carrying on, but I guess it is the Internet even at sites with "rational" in their name.)---Mona- (talk) 16:41, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

This from Castaigne is typical Zionist drama and hysteria[edit]

Yesterday I missed this; I've been expecting it to get this extreme -- the facts I have at hand almost always elicit this type of histrionic reaction:

You are, however, doing a wonderful job convincing me that you have an anti-Israeli and anti-Zionist agenda. I'm starting to believe that you are one of those fanatics who would love to see the Palestinians execute every Israeli citizen, man, woman, and child, for crimes against Palestine. And then build mountains out of their skulls. --Castaigne (talk) 21:15, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

1. Yes, I oppose political Zionism. And I oppose it whenever it comes up everywhere I go. You got me.

2. The rest, however, is like something out of the book of Revelation and I cannot help you with the chimerical visions that haunt you.

The overwrought, often bizarre reactions of Zionists to strong critiques of Zionism, its history, and the State of Israel really can be quite disturbing.---Mona- (talk) 20:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Well I for one see Antisemitism as the evilest and most persistent parts of the Nazi ideology. And I will fight it wherever I see it. And as long as Antisemitism exists, the state of Israel has to exist. I have two categorical imperatives: The first is to end all political and social systems where human beings are an oppressed, subdued and disregarded being. The second is that even in the state of lack of liberty, all has to be done to keep any thing similar to Auschwitz from ever happening again. The Shoah would not have possible had there been a nuclearly armed Jewish state. Hence why I am - in short - a Zionist. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, Avenger, we get to the nub. In your comment we see all the motive for the Arab Holocaust denial that exists among some of them (certainly not all). The Holocaust is often deployed as the Zionists' "get out of jail free card" for every atrocity, past and present, committed on Palestinians by Zionist Jews, so some seek to neutralize that weapons via denial. Moreover -- and more importantly, not even the Holocaust cannot square the moral circle in this matter: a "democracy" founded on ethno-religious supremacy over those whose land you've stolen and whom you lock up in an open air prison cannot ever be a moral society. Such a society becomes, as Israel has, rife with racism and obsessive concern over "demographic threats" from the "wrong" people -- whether Palestinian or African refugees. Racism inevitably will be entrenched in such a society. Give such a society one of the most advanced militaries in the world to unleash on those whom it oppresses, and the recipe for one atrocity after another has been made. If the Holocaust could undo all that hard reality it would be great, but it cannot.---Mona- (talk) 20:42, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
If Israel had been established in 1922 instead of 1948, do you think the Shoah would have happened? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:45, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm curious how you think there being a Jewish state in the Middle East would've stopped Nazi Germany from harming Jews in Europe. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 20:48, 25 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
One of the big problems back then was not only, that they couldn't get out, they had no place to go. A Jewish state could've served both as an organizer of an underground railroad, the destination of it and also provide support to other underground movements opposing the Nazis, provide a safe haven for other groups targeted by the Nazis (e.g. the Roma, the numerous political, religious and cultural groups persecuted by the Nazis) and also support the war effort.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 20:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
The huge problem is, that land -- whether in 1922 or 1948 -- was inhabited by indigenous Palestinians. Whatever we can posit in hindsight to take care of the Adolph Hitler nightmare, it can't be the atrocity that has befallen the Palestinians. Moreover, I've heard several Jews -- secular ones -- gaze at the gross iniquities of Zionism and declare that it destroys the Jewish soul.---Mona- (talk) 20:59, 25 August 2015 (UTC)---Mona- (talk) 20:59, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
(fuck these fucking edit conflicts and their fucking cunt mother pimp ass) User:Arisboch has hit on the most important points. The US used to be the country where most (political) refugees regardless of their background could find a safe haven. It isn't any more. As Jews are the group in the world most likely to be persecuted just for being member of said group, were also the only such group without their own state until 1948, the state of Israel is one of the few things that make me confident the Shoah could not repeat itself Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:01, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Or, at the very least, greatly reduce the number of victims using the means and aims I mentioned (does anyone here know a good alternate history story with an Jewish state coming earlier than 1948? I LOVE alternate history!).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 21:13, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
"the state of Israel is one of the few things that make me confident the Shoah could not repeat itself" And your confidence is purchased with the lives of thousands of innocent Arabs, and the brutal oppression and subjugation of millions more. That confidence is bought by Jewish/Judaism coming to equal vicious racism and a militaristic monster in the minds of many. That confidence robs many Jewish people of the universalist values so many of them have historically held and turns them intstead into some of most appalling nationalists the world has ever seen.---Mona- (talk) 21:16, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
This is kind of funny, considering I am not a Zionist. My actual favored solution is for one side to genocide the other, so this conflict ends permanently - and I don't care which side does it. Or, we could turn the entire area and the surrounding 100 miles into a glass plain. That would successfully conclude the argument for BOTH sides...
TL,DR - Not a Zionist. Don't care who wins. Still think Mona has a deep agenda here. --Castaigne (talk) 21:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
"one side to genocide the other ...glass plain"I see. Well then.---Mona- (talk) 21:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Hey, if both the Palestinians AND the Israelis are dead, and the Holy Land is irradiated for the next 1000 years, doesn't that end the conflict and argument? It's a solution! --Castaigne (talk) 21:33, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Well what User:Castaigne proposes - I hope in jest, though with this issue one can never be sure - is in short the "negative end" to Antisemitism. Antisemitism can theoretically "end" in one of two ways: Either there are no Jews left or there are no Antisemites left. I prefer the latter, as it can be achieved by changing of hearts and minds and not only by killing people Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
I am never in jest. I prefer expedient solutions to problems that irritate me. The most expedient way to stop assholes or anti-semites or whatever is to cause them not exist further. You can't do asshole things when you're dead. Nor can you persecute Jews when you're dead. Dead solves a lot of problems. And irradiating the Holy Land for the next 1000 years would prevent people from fighting over it.
Note that I also proposed the same as a solution to the Irish Troubles and the Bosnia conflict. Those were irritating too. In the former, you had people squabbling for longer than Israel existed. In the latter, for a few thousand years. One does get tired of it. --Castaigne (talk) 21:31, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Well you cannot stand complexity - which is btw a trait common with antisemites[22]; not saying you are one - I for one like complexity. Even complicated messes. If everything was easy to solve, life would be tedious and boring. Creating a better world for all ought to be a hard fought battle of the best minds. And usually violence is not necessary except in self defense Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:36, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Well you cannot stand complexity- Avengerofthe BoN
No, I can stand complexity. My employment involves a ton of complexity. If I could not stand it, I could not remain employed. :::::However, that does not mean that I am patient or that my patience will last 80 years.
If everything was easy to solve, life would be tedious and boring.- Avengerofthe BoN
And with far more unity and uniformity. Suits me fine. Life is tedious and boring anyway.
Creating a better world for all ought to be a hard fought battle of the best minds.- Avengerofthe BoN
I don't want a better world, just a calm one.
And usually violence is not necessary except in self defense- Avengerofthe BoN
I am neither a pacifist, nor am I a libertarian that believes in the ridiculous force axiom, nor do I believe that human life is sacred. (In fact, I consider all human life, including my own, to be disposable and replaceable.) Violence has solved plenty of problems throughout history; it just may not be a solution you like. But it IS a solution. So is an asteroid hitting us. --Castaigne (talk) 22:26, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

User:-Mona-, seriously, do you even notice your antisemitic slant? Have you ever been to Israel? Have you ever actually talked to Israeli Arabs? How often do you watch Hamas TV? Seriously, it would help you to get out of your BDS bubble. Post scriptum: Soda Club is a very fine product. And knowing where it comes from makes me more likely to buy it, not less ;-) Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:28, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

SodaStream? Ain't they making these home water carbonation machines (I faintly remember seeing an ad on the TV years ago)?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 21:34, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
User:Avengerofthe BoN: 1. I very much want a SodaStream machine and will not purchase one. 2. I have no "antisemitic slant." 3. Your inquiries about my associations are irrelevant to the facts I can and do document about Zionism and the fate of Palestinians. Palestinians founded the BDS movement and control it. I support them.---Mona- (talk) 21:38, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Ah yup. Soda Stream / Soda Club is a good way to get sparkling water without carrying tons of bottles. And they produced in "disputed territory" giving many Palestinians much needed work until quite recently. But of course what the Palestinians want is of no concern to BDS Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:45, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
BDS is a Palestinian movement foundeded Palestinians, including their trade union organizations. ---Mona- (talk) 01:39, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I missed out on this[edit]

Can someone explain what I've missed in a brief summary? The article is a little too long for me to process. FYI, I'm personally not a fan of Steven Salaita given that he wrote a disgusting article equating Alan Dershowitz and Norman Finkelstein (who couldn't be more apart when it comes to Israel-Palestine politics), so I think some criticism given his way is a nice act of karma. ChrisAmiss (talk) 20:28, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

One User (User:-Mona-) is virulently anti-Zionist and loves the likes of Steven Salaita or Glenn Greenwald (who she claims to personally know). She furthermore feels threatened and censored and has in turn "threatened" to "expose" our eeeeeevvvvvuuuuuuullll doings to her "Journo-Buddies" Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:46, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
I am a huge Salaita fan, and I'd be curious not know exactly what it is that Salaita said about Dershowitz and Finkelstein that so bothers you? Because in some respects Dershowitz and Finkelstein are not far apart on subjects relating to Israel. Moreover, invalid criticism as "karma" vis-a-vis some unrelated false equivalency you think Salaita committed is irrational.---Mona- (talk) 20:53, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
"(who she claims to personally know)" From Greenwald's Wikipedia entry: "in 1996 he co-founded his own litigation firm, called Greenwald Christoph & Holland." I'm the Holland. Additionally, I do not "feel threatened," in the least. But it's true I am keeping events here in the middle of my mind for use as an exemplar of certain phenomena relative to Zionist behavior---Mona- (talk) 20:53, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Calling Salaita an asshole would be a huge insult to a perfectly fine part of the human body. But Salaita was not the main issue here... The main issue here was what happened while User:ChrisAmiss was away Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:03, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Well Chris, YOU brought up Salaita and made a claim about him, and now you've labeled him an "asshole." Are you able to support the claim you made about him?---Mona- (talk) 21:19, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I am not Chris. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:21, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh geez, right -- I scanned that entry and saw his name in hyperlink and thought it was him, didn't read carefully enough. Sorry Chris.---Mona- (talk) 21:28, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Care to apologize to me as well? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:37, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

No. ---Mona- (talk) 21:38, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Why not? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:09, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
"Why not?"

There was no offense to you -- I did not make a terse address to you believing you were someone else.---Mona- (talk) 01:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC) Speaking of Steven Salaita Haaretz is just now reporting:

Executive officers at the University of Illinois have called for the reinstatement of a professor whose job offer was rescinded over his anti-Israel tweets.


The 41 department heads, chairs and directors in an open letter published Sunday said Acting Chancellor Barbara Wilson and President Timothy Killeen should call for the reinstatement of Steven Salaita at the next board meeting, on Sept. 10, the Daily Illini student newspaper reported.

Phyllis Wise resigned as chancellor about two weeks ago after being implicated in a scandal over hidden emails involving the rescinding of the job offer.
---Mona- (talk) 22:01, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Yo Mona[edit]

Have a look at that--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 12:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Why I joined RW[edit]

Because I have been so involved in articles touching on Israel and Zionism since I joined here, several have speculated to the effect that I'm some sort of anti-Israel troll. That is not the case, but it is the case that now that I've arrived you can expect me to pay some attention to that topic.

The initial reason I joined is stated in my post in the Forum titled "Targeted Individuals" (I can't seem to make a link to it work). I am a regular commenter at Glenn Greenwald's web site, and have been since he began blogging in 2005. In the wake of his Edward Snowden/NSA revelations he has attracted -- online and off -- members of an audience cult known as "Targeted Individuals." To my enormous disgust, these TIs infest his comments section and require routine pest control.

For several years I have consulted RW when looking for the best explanations of woo, logic, fallacies, some aspects of religion, and several political issues. Somewhat to my surprise, when I googled the site for an article on TIs there was none. There really isn't anything comprehensive anywhere online, although there are a couple of articles from some time ago in both WaPo and NYT. But they are not sufficient for a number of reasons -- insufficiently contextualized, skeptical or current.

I joined intending -- and I still intend -- to research and draft that article. However, I absolutely did not expect to find that articles on Israel and Zionism here are entirely obstructed from editing -- and effectively controlled by -- a handful of Zionists. (Among other things, the Sam Harris entry -- which I have cited all over online -- caused me not to anticipate this.) This will not do, if for no other reason than that the Zionist narrative is significantly challenged by newly popular criticism -- other views have emerged as legitimate competitors -- on campus and online. (Consult the just-released report from the Israel on Campus Coalition to see reflected this change in the parameters of the discussion -- and the alarm it is generating among Zionists.)

If a few individuals are going to be allowed to prevent the debate over Zionism to be made current here -- in part because many members say they are weary of arguing over it -- then so be it. But although fighting that reality is not what brought me here, neither is it a reality I can ignore. It's not who I am when I feel as strongly as I do about justice for Palestinians and events such as the obscene carnage Israel inflicted on Gazans last summer.---Mona- (talk) 20:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

TL;DR version, "not everyone agrees with my personal biases, so I'm now on a Crusade". CorruptUser (talk) 20:33, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
"TL;DR version" Fer shur man.---Mona- (talk) 20:41, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Well I for one think there is an anti-Zionist slant to everything related to Israel[23]. But do you see me crying or calling for my Journo-buddies? That's just the way it is on the Interwebz. Sometimes you have to accept that other people are wrong and powerful. And while you may be able to say something against their wrongness, you can't stop them from being wrong. And if you don't like a particular bias here, you will have similar problems over at other biased wikis... And as for the Sam Harris article... Well I can only hope, he hasn't read that particular smear-job, as parts of the article are simply beyond the pale. But I don't care all that much. I like him quite a bit on many issues, but out of the "four horsemen" I prefer Dawkins and Hitch. Harris is a bit to "Eastern wisdom" BS for my tastes - something RW seems to address scarcely in the article on him if at all Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
"I for one think there is an anti-Zionist slant to everything related to Israel" Of course you do. "But do you see me crying or calling for my Journo-buddies?" Crying? And my "journo buddies" are my buds because this is the sort of phenomenon they write about. So, yeah. That could happen. I'm not going to be backing away from that. "I like him quite a bit on many issues" Of course you do.---Mona- (talk) 20:57, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Are you done yet? You know your argumenta ad hominem and attacks on anything vaguely Israeli/Zionist are tiresome from time to time. I hitherto quite enjoyed your diatribes against me and User:Arisboch (or anybody else if you felt especially persecuted) but your tendency to not even address one of the points the other side raised gets old fast. Maybe you would like to reply here to the question of whether the Islamic Republic of Iran is a desirable regime and whether it should be a goal of policy or individual behavior to strengthen or to weaken it... But nah, you are probably just going to say something about how Israel is evil... Well, knock yaself out, will ya? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:06, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Says the person who tirelessly attacks anything vaguely non-supportive of Israel or Zionism... >.> 142.124.55.236 (talk) 21:29, 28 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
"Are you done yet?" Pretty much. It wasn't my goal to rekindle the Zionism debate on my talk page. My purpose is merely to set forth what I did so I that can refer people to it in the future when it is responsive to speculation and/or accusations. I do add, however, that ad hominem does not mean what you think it does.---Mona- (talk) 21:33, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Ah thankfully my viewpoint has never been misrepresented by anybody... And User:-Mona- once again fails to address a very clear and concise question. Because she knows or suspects that her answer to it would be unpopular... Well that's that, thaen Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
My views on the relative merits, or lack thereof, of the Islamic Republic of Iran have nothing to do with my post. ---Mona- (talk) 23:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Well the world still eagerly awaits your pronouncement. Is the current Iranian government kosher or treife? I certainly would like to hear. And it would be a nice departure from your stile of dodging questions. I would even offer to answer a direct question by you in return, but I don't think I have ever dodged a direct question while on here... If I a mistaken, please provide the link and I'll see what I can do. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:48, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
As an American any criticism of Iran I would offer could only entitle them to tell me to go fuck myself. ---Mona- (talk) 02:39, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Mona, I think you are doing a great job of fighting back against those Hasbara agents that want to turn this site into a cesspit of Zionist propaganda! Keep it up. Blacke (talk) 23:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Hasbara? That'd be nice. Where do I sign up?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 23:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
To start with, one should read the manual. I don't think you need to though, you seem already very adept at it. Blacke (talk) 23:39, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
The funny thing is that prior to User:-Mona-'s antics, I was completely unaware of the existence of Hasbara or their handbook. Now I am seriously considering making it my next bedtime-book. And all that despite the fact that I usually prefer incredibly pulpy fiction... Or the occasional Marx, Hitch, the likes... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:45, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Well well, a new account with only one edit and thaen that edit is something like this. I will refrain from commenting further at this point. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Either Mona's sock-puppet or one of Mona's journo-buddies?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 00:01, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Ssssshhhhhush. You are not allowed to say that. I did it on the talk page of the individual in question and I got firmly reprimanded for it! Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:15, 30 August 2015 (UTC)


Hasbara agents, maybe[edit]

Blacke: I'm not sure whether Avenger and Arisboch are that or not (and it's one of those things we know happens in general, but it simply cannot ever be proven in specific cases). Whatever else is true, however, they don't have much more seniority than we do. From what I can tell, the former joined a few weeks before I did this month, and the latter last March. With the discussion changing on the I-P issue and moving away from the Zionist narrative (at last!), we can reasonably expect more people from our position -- or somewhat sympathetic to it -- to be joining. In the meantime, I plan to not let them have their way without significant, fact-based rebuttal. At a site where people are dedicated to reason, then over time fact-based arguments should make a difference.---Mona- (talk) 03:22, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

They're not fucking hasbara agents, dipshit. --Castaigne (talk) 03:45, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Seriously, conspiracy fucking theories about users here? Fuck off, you gobshite fuck. --Castaigne (talk) 03:46, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Would you mind telling the same to AvengeroftheBoN who goes "You're a secret antisemite!" or "It's all Palestinian propaganda!" any time someone criticizes Israel? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 03:51, 30 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
"They're not fucking hasbara agents, dipshit" You really can't know that. I just left a post on the Zionism talk page with links on the topic of "hasbara agetns/trolls." That actually is a thing, and not at all a conspiracy theory. It's largely all out in the open, except for knowing when a particular participant is one of them. But the general practice/concept/program is publicly promoted. ---Mona- (talk) 04:06, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Well probably this will also be dismissed as the trolling of an Hasbara agent. Antisemitism is real, it is dangerous and people like Mona enable and spread it through their demonization and deligmitation of Israel. Maybe Mona has thus far been wise enough to not overly spread the old blood libel stories or compare the Jewish state and its leaders to Nazis, but she has come damn close. As has her Apartheid rhetoric that has about as much to do with facts as saying the Spanish state employs Apartheid against the Basques. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 11:37, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
I know for absolutely fucking sure that Arisboch isn't. I may not like him, but I damn well know who he is.
As for Avenger, give me a month with a PI and I'll confirm it. But right now, on the information I have of him, no. --Castaigne (talk) 21:12, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Considering that you and Mona sure fucking sound like antisemites under an anti-Zionist patina? No, I don't think I shall. --Castaigne (talk) 21:12, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure where you'd get that impression. I'm curious though; what does an antisemite sound like? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 21:18, 30 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
In addendum, I should note that Avenger's antisemitism-charges are far from restricted to Mona or me. I remember at one time where he suggested anyone criticizing individual banks for their conduct instead of going full socialist and condemning the whole capitalist system was probably antisemitic. Because "bankers" is always dog-whistle for "Jews"... Come on, really? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 21:24, 30 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
When did I say that? Care to link? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:29, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
JAQ off somewhere else.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 11:44, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Ah, Arisboch, your actual objection to my commentary is not that I ask questions so much as you dislike the answers I supply. In the case of hasbara agents, however, it is seldom if ever possible to determine whether site is dealing with one or more of them; all that can be done is document that they do exist and they are deployed -- which I've done.---Mona- (talk) 15:01, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Whatever. Zero fucks given. Peddle your conspiracy theories about the users of this site, teh great Ziooooooooooooooooonist conspiracy or similar bullshit elsewhere.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 15:04, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Not everyone with a hair trigger about criticism of Israel is a hasbara agent, as I'm sure Mona is aware. There are plenty of fellow travelers doing that work for them.
In the whole Zionism "discussion" here, most of the jumping up and down and shouting is coming from editors who are not Mona. Alec Sanderson (talk) 15:23, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
"There are plenty of fellow travelers doing that work for them." Yup, and they almost certainly outnumber the actual hasbara agents. It could depend on definition -- a Zionist who merely signs up for the hasbara talking-point emails isn't formally dispatched by an Israeli ministry.---Mona- (talk) 15:50, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
"Zero fucks given." Mmm, your behavior would suggest otherwise.---Mona- (talk) 15:53, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Oh jesus christ stop it, nobody is is a fucking conspiracy agent.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 15:59, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
"nobody is is a fucking conspiracy agent." Don't see how I can be more clear: it's not a conspiracy. Pretty much out in the open: "[Israel's Ministry of Public Diplomacy and Diaspora Affairs] boasts an advanced 'situation room,' a paid media team, and coordination of a volunteer force that claims to include thousands of bloggers, tweeters and Facebook commenters who are fed the latest talking points and then flood social media with hasbara in five languages. The exploits of the propaganda soldiers conscripted into Israel’s online army have helped give rise to the phenomenon of the 'hasbara troll'..." Even militantly Zionist sources go on about it.---Mona- (talk) 16:12, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Conspiracy, noun, "a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.". Unless you can actually give me evidence anybody here is a secret Hasbara troll, fuck off with that nonsense, it's a conspiracy theory.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 16:23, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Well we'll split the baby: I'll agree that Zionists are engaged in a conspiracy, one they publicly promote and reveal? Also, you may want to consult the RW page on Conspiracy Theories, where the " warranted conspiracy theory" is examined and many are listed. So, we could just call the hasbara phenomenon a "warranted conspiracy theory." Ok?---Mona- (talk) 16:43, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
No. Either prove, that someone here is a so-called "hasbara-agent" or fuck off.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 16:45, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Can't be done without investing far too many resources for no compelling reason. So I haven't claimed anyone here is a hasbara agent -- I've only supplied the evidence that such exist and argued that your behavior conforms. But as I agreed, you could just be a fellow-traveler.---Mona- (talk) 16:50, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Stop JAQing off. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 17:03, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
I will do that, when I've started.---Mona- (talk) 17:09, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
@Arisboch Stop taking things so personally? On a related note, we could probably use an RW article on this Hasbara stuff. We have plenty articles on Christian bullshit-pushery after all. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 17:09, 30 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
"we could probably use an RW article on this Hasbara stuff." It would have the virtue of causing some folks here to not only admit they have heard of it, but to suddenly know rather a lot of (justifying) shit about it. For I seriously doubt they'd be happy with my treatment of the phenomenon. ---Mona- (talk) 17:19, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Is Hasbara on mission? After all, the majority of foreign policy think-tanks aren't or am I mistaken? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 18:40, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Propoganda is usually missional. Suggest it in the to-do list, see if others agree with you, and if so, create the page. CorruptUser (talk) 18:43, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't think it is missional, so I won't suggest it. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:06, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
CorruptUser, I am most amused that you'd seriously suggest to Avenger that he propose a RW article on Zionist propaganda efforts online. I mean: HAHAHAHAHAHAHA, on multiple levels.---Mona- (talk) 19:44, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Well given the disaster that is our current article on Hamas (what nothing on their ethnic cleansing of Gaza and their murder of anybody who they disagree with?), I would like to have an article on the blatantly antisemitic BDS "movement", but I fear it would be taken over by Mona and her ilk and thaen for the sake of "balance" most of the stuff that we would write about it if it were about any other topic are going to be expunged or not even allowed in in the first place. Besides it will only create needless drama on a site that seriously needs some calming down... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:53, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
There's that "Mona and her ilk" phrase again. Call me paranoid, but might this be Avenger-dog-whistle-speak for "people that I think are antisemites"? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 20:04, 30 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
As this is a huge JAQing off circle already, let me just ask this: Why do you think I would think Mona is an Antisemite? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:12, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
I think the answer to that is obvious to anyone that's aware of your antics. The real question is: Why do you insist any opposition to Israel or Zionism amounts to antisemitism? Despite all the discussion that's taken place, that's a question that I still haven't seen addressed. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 20:30, 30 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
We'll get to the BDS article in good time. I'm transparent and have no problem showing all my cards, as it were, in the Zionism debates. Avenger, Arisboch et al. can likely guess what I'd edit into a BDS page. Seems to me they'd do better to be effecting some compromises now, but if not, oh well. Cuz as I said, I'm not going anywhere. Among other things, reading the talk pages has already gotten another pro-Palestinian member here - Blacke. So, I'm willing to allow for a bit more of that. Also, I won't be reading or revisiting the Salaita article -- an experience that taught me much -- until he is reinstated and/or been awarded a nice bundle of $$ in damages. (And seen what revelations of Zionist shenanigans to fire him discovery may yet yield.) I'm patient, and I'm not leaving. Finally, yes, this whole dynamic here is something that perhaps should ultimately be written about -- not a threat, just saying upfront (I'm no freakin' mole) it's in the middle of my mind as useful for several writers.---Mona- (talk) 21:07, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Well if what Blacke says is correct (s)he is not as much drawn to this site because of your actions but rather somebody who decided to come back. After all, (s)he claims to have been here before. We shall see in due time, whose alternate identity (s)he might be and what the reason for their earlier departure were and whether they apply again. As to the whataboutery above... Well, not all critics of Israel[24] are Antisemites, but almost all[25] Antisemites are "critics of Israel". And to re-state a famous "law" of the internet. "Any sufficiently 'out there' criticism of Israel is indistinguishable from Antisemitism" Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:17, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
"but almost all[25] Antisemites are 'critics of Israel'" This is true -- anti-Semites would hate any country that was majority Jewish, no matter what. Among the many unfortunate results of Zionism is that accurate criticisms of it, of the State of Israel, and of Israel's lobbies in the U.S. and UK, is that these justified and accurate criticisms eerily resemble certain anti-Semitic tropes. As Max Blumenthal poignantly and pointedly puts it: "Zionism destroys Palestinian bodies and Jewish souls."---Mona- (talk) 21:42, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Wow Mona admitting a point of mine - how minor it may be - to be actually true. There are still miracles! rejoice! But in all due seriousness. The rest of Mona's contribution is just the usual drivel ;-) Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:53, 30 August 2015 (UTC)


CorruptUser blocked me and it's bullshit, Please undo[edit]

This is bullshit. Corrupt User blocked me because he insists on reverting my CAIR edits for no good faith reasons stated.

Umm, read the statements, not "no reason". And for 5 minutes bro, for edit warring.CorruptUser (talk) 01:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

YOU are edit warring. Knock it the fuck off. I was answering your bullshit "reasons" on the talk page but they wouldn't post. I reverted you and will now go explain why your reasons are bullshit.---Mona- (talk) 01:34, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Well the good old tactic of "I am not doing what you say, you are!" - How old are children when they first utter words to that effect? Four? Five? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:41, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

SOMEONE PLEASE HELP ME[edit]

CorruptUser and Caistagne refuse to engage in good faith discussion of my edits to the CAIR entry. They revert me for no substantive reason and I get blocked each time i try to answer on the talk page. This is administrator abuse!---Mona- (talk) 01:38, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

You do realize that I have also had a block exceeding the usual seconds of duration? Just calm the fuck down, ask yourself what led to said block and try to be rational about it. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:40, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
(PUTAIN MERDE edit conflict) Actually, he is not a moderator, but a sysop.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 01:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Not interested in your block histroy. The reasons for their blocks are bullshit. They won't let my edits stand until the situation is argued out in the talk page. I asked for good faith substantive reasons and got assertions. Some administrator: please undo this and make them allow my edits until they will engage in the good faith debate I initiated on the talk page.---Mona- (talk) 01:45, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Mona, you are unblocked. Others, see RW:B: "Blocking should never occur if somebody is attempting to discuss an issue in a reasonable manner. Blocking is not to censor alternate opinions, but to prevent disorder." Alec Sanderson (talk) 01:46, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Mona isn't attempting to talk it out though. I'll lay off the banning for now, except to ban myself for a bit, but please, use the talk page FIRST. CorruptUser (talk) 01:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Mona has engaged in aggressive and highly disruptive behavior to spread her crank ideas. That she is rewarded by having a well deserved block prematurely rescinded is troubling. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:51, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Alec. The conversation should be going on at the CAIR talk page -- that's where i have been presenting my arguments for my edits, and have asked them to. ---Mona- (talk) 02:05, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Think nothing of it. You want I should add a topic to RationalWiki talk:All things in moderation, asking a moderator to lock the page at the mod level for a while? Naturally that's something anyone can request. Can't guarantee what state of the page will be frozen, though. Alec Sanderson (talk) 02:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Most likely the non-Mona state, as she has nobody on her side in this and almost everybody keeps reverting her... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 02:17, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

False. WalkerWalkerWalker and I are having productive discussion that you and your pals are not involved in b/c you mostly avoid it. You want war and thwarting me, not rational editing process. Alec: I am such a newbie I'm not sure even what your offer would do. If you think it's a good idea then I "request it."---Mona- (talk) 02:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't know if it's a good idea or not. If a mod takes it up, it would remove the temptation to revert reverts of reverts quant suff ad tedia, since it's a level of protection accessible to a handful of editors. I will hold off for a few and see if the atmosphere improves any. Alec Sanderson (talk) 02:51, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

NVM, I see Paravant has limited it to moderator edits only, for a week. Alec Sanderson (talk) 02:55, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, ok. I suppose that's a good idea. And thank you again for your assist. I don't grok that Castaigne dude who kept reverting me. He's foul-mouthed and appears to be quite right-wing in a nihilistic, misanthropic way. What does he see in this place? (Rhetorical question -- not asking you to gossip.)---Mona- (talk) 03:19, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
It's RationalWiki, someone will inevitably gossip about any given user now or later. I'm part of the problem but it's still recognizable to me at least I guess. WalkerWalkerWalker 03:21, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
What brings a Hamas apologist like you to this place? What? I thought we were JAQing off Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 03:25, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
"I'm part of the problem but it's still recognizable to me " But this place was founded largely to mock and debunk Conservepedia. In a lot of ways, except for the nihilism and foul mouth, he'd be more fit over there. There doesn't seem to be anything "progressive" about him. [shrug]---Mona- (talk) 03:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  1. Of course, I'm foul-mouthed, you blithering twat. hope I don't start sounding like Peter Capaldi playing Malcolm Tucker. Actually, that would be far more entertaining.
  2. Schlafly doesn't allow nihilism and foul mouthery at his place.
  3. I hate that Protestant fuckhole. Why the shit would I be on his side?
  4. I'm not just right-wing, I'm a pre-Burkean monarchist. Or a fascist. Or a promoter of democratic republics. Or an anarchist. Wait, that last one's a lie. I hate anarchy.
  5. How dare you call me nihilistic and misanthropic? HOW DARE YOU? I'm much worse than nihilistic and misanthropic. You waste of skin. :D
  6. No, I'm not a progressive. Arisboch might disagree with that statement. --Castaigne (talk) 06:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
I gave you a reason. See the talk page. --Castaigne (talk) 05:48, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Let's be real[edit]

I made a rough draft of what I'm thinking for the Zionism article, but realistically, I am simply not as familiar with the twentieth-century history of Israel as you seem to be. I'm also not in peak form right now, so I was wondering if you could help me out some with discussing that, since I agree (now, at least; don't rub it in too much? ;) ) with you that a discussion of what Zionism has led to (i.e. Palestinians being fucked over in most ways possible) is kinda an important part of an article on Zionism. I'd also love any general feedback you have to give (I'll try not to be an ass as usual) on it. WalkerWalkerWalker 07:21, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Ugh. Are you really trying to build a coalition with Mona? Don't say I didn't warn you, if it goes haywire... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 18:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
And it won't be just the two of us.---Mona- (talk) 18:55, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Time will tell. Inshallah! Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 18:56, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Let's be real[edit]

I made a rough draft of what I'm thinking for the Zionism article, but realistically, I am simply not as familiar with the twentieth-century history of Israel as you seem to be. I'm also not in peak form right now, so I was wondering if you could help me out some with discussing that, since I agree (now, at least; don't rub it in too much? ;) ) with you that a discussion of what Zionism has led to (i.e. Palestinians being fucked over in most ways possible) is kinda an important part of an article on Zionism. I'd also love any general feedback you have to give (I'll try not to be an ass as usual) on it. WalkerWalkerWalker 07:21, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Ugh. Are you really trying to build a coalition with Mona? Don't say I didn't warn you, if it goes haywire... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 18:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
And it won't be just the two of us.---Mona- (talk) 18:55, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Time will tell. Inshallah! Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 18:56, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
HabibiWikipedia's W.svg, this garbage is one of the worst hit pieces I saw on this wiki so far. No way in jehenna I'm gonna participate in this khara[26]!--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 19:22, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Arabic is a beautiful language. Unfortunately a lot of garbage has been said in it. But the same is true for English and - especially - German. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:26, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
There is no language whatsoever, that wasn't used for good and evil.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 19:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
True that. Though there might be some obscure conlang that has only ever been used for evil ;-) Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:36, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
I was only talking about real languages, but OK (although they've been surely used to squabbles against the users of other conlangs or dialects of the same, such circles are highly sectarian).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 19:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Infidel! They are not sectarian! Conlangs are a pastime of peace! Everybody who says otherwise has to be killed! Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

welcome[edit]

back to being autopatrolled. I also changed the protection on the Zionism article, but I can say don't edit it, focus on the version you have going in pacwalkers space because that's going to be the best way to get your version in at this point. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 05:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what "autopatrolled" is. I'm a reasonable person, and your suggestion is a fine one -- let Avenger, Arisboch and that crew go at it, and then we can compare versions. I'll stay away from there, except the talk page. I don't get why you didn't just say this to Avenger, i.e., go to the Zionism article and leave them be -- in the first instance when he kept messing with PacWalker's version? ---Mona- (talk) 05:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
I am at once sober in decision making and incredibly angry when I am tired. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 06:05, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
If the obvious has to be reaffirmed, it raises questions as to why. Just sayin' Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 10:42, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm really[edit]

not a big fan of Libel or slander, particularly when it ascribes things about me. But if you want to go down that path you can. I'm not a Zionist, I don't like Israel, I support the cause of a Palestinian State on the international borders and would rather 1948 had gone over with what the UN had planned. But if you want to be wrong, very wrong, and label me as a Zionist, you can, but it only makes you look like an idiot for doing so. When I called it our article I meant "Rw's current version" When i Said summarily rejected or accepted, I used the wrong word, and do apologize for any misunderstanding these have caused about that.

Now, stop calling me a Zionist, unless you actually want me as your enemy in this fight.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 01:23, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Heh, wow, that's actually fairly close to my opinion on Israel as well. Just that when people try to say that "Zionism = Racism", well... CorruptUser (talk) 01:26, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Libel. Really? My God, if that's libel then RW is in a whole lot of trouble. Tielec01 (talk) 01:44, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
"a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation.", It's wrong, and it's published, and it's about me. Therefor, afaic, it's Libel. i really don't want to be dragged into this shit fest more than I am, and being called what I'm not is really not ok.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 01:46, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
The idea that it's libel is amusing. It necessarily means you believe calling someone a Zionist damages their reputation. I'm sorry, but that's just too fucking funny -- and you would be laughed out of court.(But no lawyer would take the case anyway, so you'd never get there.) But fine. You are adamant that you are not a Zionist so I accept that. Do you want me to tweet a retraction about the unnamed sysop at RW and say this unkown person who declared my article would be summarily dealt with is not, in fact, a Zionist?---Mona- (talk) 01:53, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Stop digging mate. Mona, Paravant is not a Zionist (if that's even a bad thing?) as even a cursory examination of their contributions will tell you. Your descent into paranoia (over a simple turn of phrase non-the-less) is unseemly and diminishes your argument. RW is different to most sites and Moderators / Sysops largely only speak for themselves. If you write another article on any topic and editors want to discuss it, it will get discussed. In fact it may even override the current article in mainspace (sometimes called our article). On a personal note, your arguments are well constructed but you got to get a thicker skin - it's like you haven't been internetting very long. Tielec01 (talk) 01:54, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
I lean more in favor of your version so, I wouldn't say it being summarily dealt with is a bad thing for you.And jesus chirstI used the wrong word when i said summarily, stop fixating on it.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 01:58, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Man, Paravant, the mob owes you some fancy gold embroidery on your mod cape for all this. Thanks for stepping in and walking the fine line you have done.
Mona, if your patience is wearing thin, I think I can see why (and who, but I don't feel like going into that at the moment.) Thanks for your perseverance. Alec Sanderson (talk) 02:18, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Okay, okay. Fine, I accept that you did not intend to suggest my work would be summarily dealt with. But I reject that I'm paranoid. You were addressing people who are clearly antagonistic to my work and POV. And truly Paravant, if I mistook anything it is that you support them rather than being unhappy at anyone increasing your duties. The idea of a user whose views are unorthodox here addressing many articles with facts she documents -- that make many unhappy -- has greatly annoyed you. I was wrong about the reason for your dismissive pique, and on reflection it is the fuss attendant to my editing that has you so peeved. Let me suggest that an intelligent, fact-based set of arguments that rattles cages is part of the pursuit of truth. Perhaps individuals who find that unpleasant, unacceptable, unseemly or whatever, should reconsider what the role of rational people is in the world and whether I fit that role. I believe I do.---Mona- (talk) 02:26, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
I have commented before that I admire you perseverance and your patience Mona. I also though understand why some of your actions with daft little tweets off-site, and comments on-site, might raise the paranoia charge. You are surely mature enough to read carefully and reflect, and not react so impulsively. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 02:38, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
I'd actually planned to protect the CAIR article on your version (which is why it said "Deal with it")0 and if I could, would just blank the Zionism article until we decide which version, theirs (which apparently is just the Rw article as is) or yours should be on it. It is inherently unfair that one version gets to be "the article" but that's just a flaw in the medium and nothing I can realistically do about it for either side. | Honestly the only thing I have against you (and this extends to Avenger) is you are part of these fights and are sometimes overly conflict-provocking. IF it hadn't became an edit war I would have just ignored it and sat on my mod powers some more.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 02:51, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Respectfully, I decline that "maturity" is at issue. I'm a straight shooter, and too blunt for some. Pavarant keeps counseling me to interact with Avenger, which I will seldom be doing; it boggles my mind that he cannot grasp why. On topic topic touching on Israel -- including Muslims -- Avenger is one ongoing fallacy. Calling names, piles of straw, misdirection, whataboutery. I don't engage in bad faith exchanges -- it's an utter waste of time and energy. But Paravant has repeatedly told me that if I don't engage Avenger's utter bullshit I shouldn't be surprised if I "don't get my way." That, and the peevishness, did cause me to think Paravant is partisan on the Israel issue. But that's not it -- he's trying to make work for him go away, no matter how unreasonable it is to think I or anyone else critical of Zionism could make headway with Avenger (or Arisboch). It's preposterous to suggest it even once, much less repeatedly. Anyway, I was not paranoid; I was mistaken about the cause of an actual problem---Mona- (talk) 02:57, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Paravant: that's great news to me about the CAIR article. In addition to the Greenwald endorsement I'd like to add the ACLU's award. Maybe you and I should simply start over?---Mona- (talk) 03:00, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Sure. And you can't fault me for being an idealist on the negotiations front. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 03:03, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough, Paravant.---Mona- (talk) 03:07, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I know it's already kind of old but...[edit]

Just as friendly advice, since it's been a while that you've been having conflicts with several sysops maybe you might want to read our community standards. They're a little vague sometimes but I hope they can help, and if not just contact me or any other experienced user here in RW. Dandtiks69 (talk) 06:23, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

This comment is kind of funny coming from you Dand. BTW Mona, feel free to ignore this guide, certainly you won't be in a minority if you do. Tielec01 (talk) 06:30, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
I, too, personally think the guidelines are a joke. Just try and not edit-war, that's the main thing. Oh, and I know you haven't done this yet and I know you won't but please don't put people's real identities if it promotes harassment like someone tried doing at the talk page in Gamergate. Dandtiks69♪♫ (talk) 06:39, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Not only would I never dox, I am a crusader in favor of the right to online anonymity. I don't need it myself, but I understand why many do. The only exceptions I make are for really extreme harassers using multiple accounts such as on Twitter. But even in that case, he didn't do anything that merited contacting his employer and I totally disagreed with that. He may have lost his job.---Mona- (talk) 14:22, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Well well, the MOST MORAL EDITOR, vows to not engage in one particularly nasty type of nastiness. Does that imply everything else is fair game? Let's hope not... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 15:35, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Please do not do the whole personal antagonism thing. You only showed up to this discussion to continue a spat. If that's what you're doing at any point, stop and reconsider. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:38, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
What's a spat? Is that some British term? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 15:49, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
"Spat" = petty quarrel, fight, argument and so on.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 15:51, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Well the fact that there is not much love lost between me and Mona is something neither of us will deny. However, I still think it is worth pointing out when Mona engages in particularly weird shenanigans. Like solemnly swearing to not do something bad, when all other things on the bad things list have been done by her to exhaustion already. And all that in the short span she has been on this here site. But of course pointing this out would get some people annoyed so for the sake of peace and quiet I shan't Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 16:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
The community guidelines are basically what common sense your parents will tell you. If all of you lack common sense so as to loophole around the rules and harass others here on RW some of you will end up in the Chicken Coop. Since Mona is relatively new here we should go a little easy on this user for now. Dandtiks69♪♫ (talk) 18:07, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Or shoes for the discerning gentleman [1].--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 01:08, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Users you wont accept reverts from[edit]

Picking and choosing which users to edit war with is not the best way to go about things IMO. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 22:16, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Again, I do not waste my time with those who have demonstrated themselves to be bad faith actors. And vis-a-vis the topics I am most likely to edit, there are at least two such users. They cannot be reasoned with. One has point blank told me he would not accept the compromise proposed by you on the Zionism article because he and another will always, but always, refuse edits they don't like on the topic of Israel (or anything remotely related thereto). And they do. The end.---Mona- (talk) 22:29, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Who are you referring to, besides Avenger..... <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 22:31, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
I suspect their name also starts with an A... 142.124.55.236 (talk) 22:33, 2 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
Adam? Abdul? Anton? Anatoli? Arash?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 22:44, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
I think it's pretty clear we're talking about Angra MainyuWikipedia's W.svg here. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 22:53, 2 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
I'm partial to "Aholibamah" myself. You know, those biblical names that didn't make it into western culture and sound way better than the ones that did. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 22:55, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
I'll take "Anal Bum Cover" for $7000. CorruptUser (talk) 23:00, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
So expensive?! Is it sprinkled with Cocaine?!--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 23:23, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Must resist urge to post image of a but-plug for cheap joke... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 11:05, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

How to avoid an edit war[edit]

We can talk about it here :P.

When you make an edit, and someone reverts your edit, you should probably go to the talk page prior to reinstating your edit. Undoing their revert and going to the talk page at the same time is going to annoy the person, and ignoring their reasons is going to make them hostile to you and your edits in the future. We are people, and people take shortcuts; you get a bad reputation and others won't listen to your arguments. CorruptUser (talk) 22:20, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, if they haven't included an explanation in their revert, I don't think so. Or if it's manifest bullshit, no.---Mona- (talk) 22:31, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Thing is, you usually don't need an explanation to make a revert because around here we get hordes of vandals, so we don't waste our time. The onus is on the person that wants to change something that others here disagree with to prove that the changes are worthwhile, not the person reverting your edits that a "reasonable person" may find objectionable. And no, disagreeing with you does not make someone an unreasonable person. CorruptUser (talk) 22:34, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
I do not accept that the onus is always "on the person that wants to change something." Sometimes yes, but certainly not always. It depends. You and I have learned to work together reasonably well, and when you reverted me today you explained WHY. I restored it to see the link and go to my source. I told I was doing so, and changed the edit after I saw you had a point. It worked out fine.---Mona- (talk) 23:03, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
You don't determine what constitutes de facto policy and established practice over here. And you furthermore don't determine what constitutes legitimate reasons for reversion and what doesn't. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 11:07, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
I second Avenger in this. I am not required to explain myself to anyone or required to educate anyone, and I'm especially not going to do it for someone who continually proves to me that they're a crank with an agenda. --Castaigne (talk) 22:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Really it doesn't matter who's wrong or right for an edit war to happen anyway (one side is already namecalling), so the only solution is to come back to it later. Also, if somebody trolls, responding to him or her actually keeps the cycle of trolling going. Dandtiks69♪♫ (talk) 02:21, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
"someone who continually proves to me that they're a crank with an agenda" Oh, you wish that's what I was. But no, the outraged and angry reactions show what it is about me you actually find unpleasant, and it has nothing to do with my being an easily dismissed crank. In any event, my demands for documentation - - and refusals to accept unsupported extraordinary, derogatory or tendentious claims -- is not going to end, so you may as well get used to it.---Mona- (talk) 18:15, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
The ad hominem must cease. Dandtiks69♪♫ (talk) 18:33, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Cool off a little, Mona. I do not accept that the onus is always "on the person that wants to change something." - well, you're going to have to change that view. You can't just turn up at a website (any website) and say the rules or established way don't apply to you. Even if you've been here a long time, you can't do that. I could theoretically stomp up and down the wiki, wielding my moderator's whip and long-time user respect to get things done to my liking, but in the end I'd fail - I'd become unpopular long before the job was done, and I'd have pissed away whatever influence I have. So if I can't do it, do you really think you can? Like previous square peg users here (eg User:Tweenk who barged in changing stuff he disagreed with but then worked with the mob and got them on his side) you have to get people on your side if you want your stuff to stick, and fighting the mob head-on isn't the way to do that. BicyclewheelModerator 19:22, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Bicycle, I appreciate the input, but I am not in need of "cooling down." The reality here is -- and I have had this confirmed long-time user, I believe on the Cynthia McKinney talk page -- this place has become infested with reactionaries who are especially drawn to the topics that I, a non-reactionary, am also interested in. Many of these have not been here all that long any more than I have. I am informed that the old RW guard was not like this. And frankly, I won't tolerate this newer crew's obstructionism without a fight for the standards of sourced (credibly) fact-based edits. It'as the way I roll -- always have, always will. And trying to reach consensus with these types is a fool's errand. Indeed, two of them have taken a position that they will never, under any circumstances, permit arguments critical of Israel to stand -- they will always revert. A third consistently sides with them -- he otherwise takes the position that all humans are filth who should die, but his heart has an exception when it comes to criticizing Israel. So, there we have it. ---Mona- (talk) 19:48, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
"I am informed that the old RW guard was not like this."
For those other readers who may have missed the memo, RW has always been a wretched hive of scum (and villainy, but most of that does not appear in those archives.) SmartFeller (talk) 20:03, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Maybe basing off of user Ryulong would help a bit, Mona: he asserts the facts and yet keeps his "supporters". When someone pulls an ad hominem on him he will destroy the offending user if his helpers don't beat him to the punch (look at the whole Gamergate talk page). All of this is done without him influencing too strongly his helpers. Dandtiks69♪♫ (talk) 20:24, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Frankly, I really didn't want to get into all the shenanigans you've been up to, partly because I'm not impartial to the subject of Israel and partly beacause I did all my internet drama back when i was 15. However, I feel you are going too far. In the <3 weeks you've been editing on this site, you've been involved many edit wars, arguments and name calling. You've been repeatedly been told to calm down. I hope you'll agree that a person in genuine need of cooling down rarely sees the need at the time. Personally, I'm glad that there are new people coming in and contributing to the wiki, but causing drama is not helping. Personally I feel that you did not come to this site because you've liked it and decided to help it. Rather, it feels like you have an agenda and are trying to spread that agenda on the internet as wide as possible. I think that is why Castaigne thinks you are a crank. You have spent far too much time and effort on this to not have either an agenda or an obsession.

If you really want to help the site, starting arguments and edit wars in the name of a "high standard of sourced, fact-based edits" is a poor way of doing it, and might cause more harm than good. Also, continuously claiming that you will not back down from your position and "that's the way I roll" is certainly not helping you get any sympathizers.

My advice, as just a random (albeit Super) dude on the internet, is, in fact, to cool down: stop arguing with everyone over everything. If there are indeed people who will on principle revert any edit to some pages that they do not like on ideological grounds (I'm not saying there aren't) bring said changes to the relevant talk page, and enlist a larger majority of the mob to support you. If you can't- that means that you are, in fact, going against the mob -whatever their motives might be. RW does not have NPOV. Super Dude,Where's my car? 20:25, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

What he said, double. (although not all the beacauses[sic]) Scream!! (talk) 20:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Mona isn't the only one name calling, just saying. Dandtiks69♪♫ (talk) 20:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
First, I do not frequently "call names." But I do characterize people, e.g., reactionaries. The word exists to convey information. Second, I see a great deal of carping about Ryulong, claims that he's "obsessed," that he "has an agenda," especially since, as I understand it, he pretty much confines his editing to the Gamergate article. So, I am not the only non-reactionary target at this site. Third, if I had a dime for every Zionist who has claimed I am "obsessed," have "an agenda," and etc, I'd be the proverbial wealthy woman. Get this: I don't care what you think. (See the article I linked and quoted from below, by a former Israeli security chief about the crimes his country commits against Palestinians. So folks, I wear the disdain of Zionists as a badge of decency.) Finally, I am a very political person, and that's not going to change here. At all. But it is also true that for my entire adulthood (I'm 59) I've been a huge fan of James Randi and oppose every type of woo. But whether the Zionists here, or anyone else, believes me -- that I have a freestanding, independent affinity for the anti-woo nature of this place -- well, that's just too bad.---Mona- (talk) 20:58, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't care what you think.- -Mona- That's a bad attitude to have, when participating in a collaborative project such as a wiki..--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 21:01, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Oh please, Arisboch. You are one of them I meant when above I wrote: "And trying to reach consensus with these types is a fool's errand. Indeed, two of them have taken a position that they will never, under any circumstances, permit arguments critical of Israel to stand -- they will always revert. A third consistently sides with them -- he otherwise takes the position that all humans are filth who should die, but his heart has an exception when it comes to criticizing Israel. So, there we have it." That collaboration was never going to happen was made entirely clear by you and your Zionist friend (and a supporter) very early upon my arrival. I accepted that, and have modified accordingly.---Mona- (talk) 21:19, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Essay[edit]

Mona perhaps you should indeed write an essay here on Zionism as has been suggested before. It would be very interesting, as you seem to have made some legitimate points. You could also include your numerous sources. It would be a great way to express your opinion. I am convinced you have a chance of swaying other users. Note that I do not disagree with many of the things you said, but mostly with what I perceive as blatant libel and use of Zionism as a snarl word. Just an idea of course. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 22:50, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I guess you have been gone for a bit. Paravant has allowed me (and anyone else who wants to who tilts in my direction) to edit a draft of the Zionism page that PacWalker is hosting (this was his idea). When I'm done I'll present it for discussion. I have a lot of work to do yet but I do some every day. As for my use of Zionism sounding like a snarl word, no doubt. Zionists are oppressing and killing over 4 million Arabs, maintaining about a third of them in the open air prison that is Gaza. Last summer they slaughtered 2200 of them, and some Zionists pulled sofas onto the hills over Gaza and drank wine and beer, celebrating and laughing as the death and destruction from their first class military rained down on helpless captives. Today, their leader announced that Zionist soldiers may be permitted to shoot to kill any Palestinian kid who throws rocks -- which is already happening. I could go on, but you perhaps get why I snarl: Zionist Jews are not the victims here, they are the grotesque victimizers.---Mona- (talk) 23:13, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Foaming at the mouth again, huh?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 23:24, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Alright, but if the draft is not accepted definitely write an essay. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 23:24, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Arisboch, the problem for you and your friend is that I traffic in well-sourced facts. You wish it was mere foaming.---Mona- (talk) 23:30, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
No, I wish, you were not shitposting across pages.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 23:50, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Again Arisboch, what has you so unhappy is precisely that instead of posting shit, I know my shit. And document it. You do not respond to me as if I were ineffectual. In many areas I keep my powder dry, or post only tentatively, because I'm not as well-informed as one should be to reach a firm determination of the truth of things. But Zionism/Israel/Nakba is not among them -- I', quite knowledgeable that area.---Mona- (talk) 00:58, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
@Arisboch Stop the ad hominem. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 01:01, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

You do not know what ad hominem means. It is not mere name-calling or discussion of an interlocutor's deficiencies. It is arguing that X is not true because Y said it and Y is [fill in the blank with pejorative]. I do not argue that. I'm explaining why I do not believe you.---Mona- (talk) 01:26, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you should pay attention. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 01:38, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
What?---Mona- (talk) 02:31, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Wot m8. Update: my statement was clearly not directed to you. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 02:36, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

The thing is: Mona will never be happy with less thaen the mainspace page on Zionism being very close to or identical to her personal hatchet piece where she can really stick it to those pesky Zionists what with their human rights for Jews and their self defense and their light rail in Jerusalem (seriously, in the Middle East even building a light rail line is somehow seen as Zionist provocation). I would read, I would debate and I would probably enjoy an essay by Mona on Zionism. I might probably even write an essay explicitly to refute Mona's "points" if she ever were to write an essay. But she knows that for her side to "win" all arguments of the other side have to be eliminated from mainspace. I don't argue for Mona to cease arguing her pile of shit opinions. In fact, I encourage her to write an essay on them. What I don't want - and won't tolerate is her holding the RW community hostage and converting the article on Zionism into her hatchet piece more in line with the opinion of Hamas thaen that of sane people who look at the facts Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 11:13, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Of course. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 11:15, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
What are you trying to say by that? We are a bit slow in (probably not Estonia) Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 11:21, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm trying to say...in a nutshell...http://memegenerator.net/instance/64313893 <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 11:27, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't know which time-zone other people are in ;-) Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 11:33, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Are you "taking the piss" as the British say? <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 11:35, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Knock it off, both of you. Avenger, you do not speak for the RW community. You are a tedious dipshit who talks too much. Estonia is not Saxony, by the way. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 11:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Saxonia? Is that a stealthy "Ossi"-joke[27]?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 13:25, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
How do you know? Are you from Saxony? Or are you implying somebody else is? If so, that would be doxxing until and unless the person you imply it about volunteers said information Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 13:55, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Ossi-jokes ain't from Saxony, you might get beaten up, if you tell them there.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 14:08, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
"You are a tedious dipshit who talks too much." Crude but accurate. As noted before, Avenger is a litany of fallacies, misdirection, straw, whataboutery and ad hom. It's a total waste of time to engage him, so I generally don't. I'll be working on the draft for the Zionism article almost daily instead (and doing some other editing) and will offer it for consideration in due course. That is all a much more productive use of time and energy.---Mona- (talk) 14:01, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Well if I talk to much, thaen what about[28] Mona? And if you want to waste your time on the draft of your parallel universe Zionism article, please, knock yourself out. I don't know how you intend to insert your absurd propaganda and still make it palatable for the vast majority of editors here (obviously not including the number of editors who already hate your living guts due to your antics and those editors who heartily disagree with you on Zionism and Antisemitism). Maybe consensus will be redefined enough in your favor that one group of editors can overturn a longstanding article, but for the sanity of this site (and its ability to attract people who dare to support the right of Israeli Jews to live in their own state in safe and secure borders) I hope not. As I said, have fun. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 14:13, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
This needs fixing: "Maybe consensus will be redefined enough in your favor that one group of editors can overturn a longstanding article piece of poorly organized shit replete with UNdocumented assertions"---Mona- (talk) 15:09, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Is the "UN" thing on purpose? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 15:14, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes. After posting I quickly added it so the sentence would make sense.---Mona- (talk) 15:46, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
I thought it was a moderately clever way of complaining about the United Nations. But if anything they are not known for a Zionist or pro-Western bias, to say the least. Saddam and Qaddafi sitting on the council on human rights and lecturing the US and Israel, anybody? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 16:11, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Now we got such "delightful" countries such as Pakistan, United Arab Emirates, China, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Cuba and Qatar.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 16:15, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
And of course they are still hard at work condemning Israel and - on occasion - the US. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 16:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Israel’s former internal security service chief sees Israel collapsing[edit]

This is simply a must read for anyone interested in the State of Israel: THE TWO JEWISH STATE SOLUTION. Yuval Diskin desparately wants to save something of what he believes was the vision for Zionism of its founders. (He isn't facing the fact that no nation founded on ethno-religious supremacy that forciably takes the inhabitants homes, villages and cities -- and pens them up in Gaza and the West Bank -- can be anything but the proto-fascist mess it is today.) Excerpt:

The two-state solution is becoming true for the Jews: The State of Judea is being built de facto side by side with the State of Israel. These are two nations whose differences are eclipsing their commonalities, a condition that is growing irreversible.



The State of Judea has different standards, different approaches to democracy, and it has two justice systems, one for Jews (Israeli law) and the other for Palestinians (martial law). Whether we want it or not, these two justice systems have divergent measures to adjudicate identical offenses.

[...]

In the State of Judea, the laws are hardly ever enforced against Jews. In the State of Judea, there’s a gradual flourishing of anarchic, anti-authoritarian ideologies that are violent and racist and that are tolerated, from a legal point of view, by the Israeli justice system. In the State of Judea the (no longer tiny) minority of radical “Hilltop Youth” and their various supporters set the tone for the mainstream of religious Zionism.


Anyone who thinks we’re talking about no more than a few dozen wild-eyed youths is bitterly mistaken. In the State of Judea there are hundreds of young people (some no longer that young) who adhere to messianic and/or anarchic and anti-authoritarian ideologies. Among those hundreds are dozens who each day apply some level of violence or terrorism against the persons or possessions of Palestinians. Among them are dozens who would be willing, without hesitation, to apply violence and terrorism against their Jewish brethren should their idea of the sanctity of the land ever be put to the test. According to some scenarios, the ranks of these extremists might mushroom.

[...]

Religious Zionism still isn’t the majority in Israel, but as a very significant elite it has succeeded in making an ugly contribution toward the de facto establishment of the State of Judea, and it’s on its way to try and take over (democratically) the State of Israel. This, without a doubt, is a triumph for the ideology of religious Zionism, but it’s a Pyrrhic and tragic victory.


This is because religious Zionism has, unknowingly, sown the seeds of its own destruction. It gave birth to extreme religious nationalism, which in turn gave birth to its own right-wing competitor of extreme Jewish messianism, which itself gave birth to the Hilltop Youth, who are anti-authoritarian, violent, and extreme and who support the “revolutionary” values of Jewish supremacy (yes, Jewish supremacy) as well as a halakhic state, terrorism, hatred toward the other, and racism. Today, even the rabbis who delivered these wild-eyed ideologies are considered too soft and moderate for many of their followers.

Yes, this is all true. But overlooked is that many irreligious Israeli Jews have become just as fanatically nationalistic and accepting of unequal, even vicious, treatment of both Palestinians and "leftist" Jews. This ugliness Diskin laments existed at (before, actually) the founding in 1948, and the sapling is now a large but rotted tree.

Add in BDS, and this non-center will not hold.---Mona- (talk) 05:59, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

RW Manual of Style[edit]

Any fact should be referenced. This doesn't mean "delete all unreferenced statements", it means to at least be prepared to do some homework and back up our assertions. Any fact that disparages a person or organization should be referenced as soon as possible. [damn, forgetting to sig. beddy bye time]— Unsigned, by: -Mona- / talk / contribs

The concern trolling is strong in this one.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 12:53, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
You wish I was concern trolling, because my insistence on this standard affects the unsourced crap you prefer vis-a-vis your Zionist and related reactionary assertions. You can't get away with it without a huge ruckus from me. Deal with it.---Mona- (talk) 15:25, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Go electronic intifada somewhere else. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 17:18, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
I lack their serious talent for long-form, meticulously researched journalism. I'm happy here, thanks.---Mona- (talk) 17:33, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

A compliment and a comment[edit]

Mona your tenacity is impressive, it's always refreshing to see a new editor come in and challenge the RW orthodoxy. Continue to ignore the barbs and darts of lesser intellects who have run out of arguments and, thus depleted, must resort to accusations of trolling or logical fallacy bingo.

However, I have noticed you have a tendency to carry your arguments across talk-pages. It's the grandest of RW traditions that two editors engaged in a life-or-death argument on one page will carry on a convivial conversation on another. This is only the friendliest of advice, and feel free to ignore it; although weeks and weeks of unceasingly negative interactions may burn out whatever enthusiasm you have for the community in the long run. Tielec01 (talk) 06:24, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Mona has nit been "challenging the orthodoxy", she has been trying to insert her particular type of "Gleen Greenwald is god, Israel is EVVVVUUUUUULLLL" drivel into any article even remotely related to it (to wit). This as well as the manner in which she lacks all civility and will for compromise infuriated even some of the editors who agree with her on the issues and no less thaen two coop cases. If Mona were willing to chill the fuck out and keep Zionism contained to pages where it belongs, we'd all be having an easier time of it. I would still heartily disagree with her views on Israel and Zionism (which have a big deal of overlap with Antisemitism btw), but it would not be needlessly dragged across half of this wiki. What's next? A discussion on Zionism in our article on Neptune? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 09:34, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Stop giving her ideas.— Unsigned, by: Arisboch / talk / contribs
see below. I hate this tablet keyboard. Let me sy for now the same ISSUES ARE ON MANY TALK PAGES. SEveral here won't let ANYTHING any Israel critics or topics touching on Israel stand. THEY are on almost all the same pages, hence.... ---Mona- (talk) 18:32, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Install Swype, it's the best keyboard app eva.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 18:40, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
I can confirm this. Rumors of such things as starting with the letter I and going in the general shape of "install" turning into "unicycle" are unfounded lies.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 21:27, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not dead[edit]

Myhardrivecrashed. I'm writing this on a friendsfucking tabet. The new unit is on way fromfedex.---Mona- (talk) 18:24, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Good to hear. Hope you have your important stuff backed up.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 18:31, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
As a person who has had their fair share of problems relating to computers, I feel your pain. Not even my worst enemy should be dealing with the crap Windows or Mac tends to give people. Or in some cases the hardware...(I am writing this on a curious arrangement that bypasses a broken screen on a laptop old enough to soon start school) Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:24, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Ever heard of rooting? Dandtiks69♪♫ (talk) 21:08, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
It's just the hard drive you're ordering, right? Dandtiks69♪♫ (talk) 20:30, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

OSs[edit]

If you are still looking at this, here's some links for those OSs if you don't want to pay for the Windows OS.

http://lubuntu.net/

http://www.ubuntu.com/

http://www.linuxmint.com/

Just remember to partition the new hard drive you're getting, if it's just the hard drive you ordered. Dandtiks69♪♫ (talk) 21:12, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Ubuntu and Qubuntu are particularly well designed for those who are not experts when it comes to Computers and try to be rather easy on the resources a PC has. As such, they can be a good choice for an older or weaker model Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:15, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
I think you mean "Kubuntu," not Qubuntu, but yes: so long as one doesn't try to use the so-called terminals not much technical experience is necessary. Dandtiks69♪♫ (talk) 21:23, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Mint is a better choice, IMNSHO, but for "weak" computers, Lubuntu'd be a good idea.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 21:25, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Point is: Linux is better thaen Windows, but "wars" between different "flavors" of Linux can become weird rapidly. I know, because---- I'm a nerd (though not about computers) Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:28, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Linux Mint XFCE might be the best one for any computer, since it is so lightweight without looking as bland as Lubuntu. Dandtiks69♪♫ (talk) 21:30, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Has anyone mentioned they're free and open source to Mona? I sort of implied it in my first sentence. Dandtiks69♪♫ (talk) 21:31, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
MATE's easier to handle.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 21:37, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
I thought their free and open source nature is public knowledge... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:38, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
MATE's for medium computers. Well, as long as people don't know that Android is basically Linux, the public's going to assume anything computer related has a price tag with it. Dandtiks69♪♫ (talk) 21:40, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Installing the OSs[edit]

Now the question is if Mona is going to know how to install either of these OS we talked about in the previous section. Dandtiks69♪♫ (talk) 21:44, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

They all have installation-isos on their websites, which you can either burn on a CD or put on an usb-stick (the latter is rather tricky).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 21:51, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, if not we'll put up some videos here, apart from our help. Dandtiks69♪♫ (talk) 22:36, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Or we can ship her a CD. Dandtiks69♪♫ (talk) 22:37, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
I personally prefer the USB stick method. Dandtiks69♪♫ (talk) 22:36, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Me, too, costs less.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 22:39, 8 September 2015 (UTC)


Thanks for all the suggestions, but....[edit]

I spent lots last time on an HP and got a whopping 3 years and nine mos out of it. Screw that, I bought a Dell tower this time and will just plan on replacing the damn thing every three years.

It boggles my mind that anyone can work on a site like this from a tablet, especially the kind with the screen keyboard. The messages I left here last week were written on one of those and there was no way in hell I was going to try to make do with it for any serious output. So, I am returned only upon receiving and setting up my new desktpop.---Mona- (talk) 23:40, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

At least you're back with us. Yeah, one of us will use the updated Wikipedia software for this wiki: they have a cellphone/tablet page. Dandtiks69♪♫ (talk) 23:44, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
-Managed to make a Dell XP machine last from 07 to 14, only switching over because my parents got a new computer and their old one was marginally better. It all depends on how you're willing to go for it: all i did was put in another stick of ram and replace the power unit when that broke.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 00:19, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Or you can reinstall the OS: helps clear the garbage that causes crashes in the first place. 4GB RAM should be good, though. Also, another hard drive would be good too, when merged via RAID. Dandtiks69♪♫ (talk) 00:22, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
But this was a hardrive crash. Woke up Monday A.M. to black screen of death, white DOS-like letters telling me the BOOT disk was missing or broken, and that harddrive failure was "imminent." Good thing tho is I bought last machine on tail end of Windows 7 and this one is 10, so totally avoided the heinous 8s.---Mona- (talk) 00:25, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Just in case, another hard drive for your new computer would be good for backup. Dandtiks69♪♫ (talk) 00:28, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

User talk:-Mona-/archive2[edit]

So, I'm a sysop now[edit]

Indented line

Paravant cast the spell. Frankly, I'm not likely to figure out how to use it anytime soon. I see people blocking one another and I guess it's kind of a friendly game in the RW culture. Perhaps at some point I will figure it out. But not in any hurry---Mona- (talk) 02:06, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations on your demotion Mona. Blacke (talk) 02:15, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. The computer crisis, and a few other things I've had going on, have diverted me from the Zionism draft. But I will definitely be getting back to it, hopefully by this weekend. Hope to see you and some others there as well :) ---Mona- (talk) 02:53, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
@Paravant are you drunk??--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 11:01, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't have the money to buy alcohol. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:11, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
It must've been glue then. Does damage the brain more than alcohol and is cheap.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 15:24, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Why not Christal Meth? After all, it is almost as cheap as glue in some parts of Central and Eastern Europe.... Or so I've heard... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 18:52, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
No idea, I know very few about such drugs (even reading the Wikipedia article alone on them make me cringe and much more the (tv) documentaries on it on YouTube). I'd never even consider taking any drugs besides alcohol (in moderate amount, it's called "Green Serpent" in Russia for a very good reason) or hash/MJ (only in cookies, not by smoking it). I'm too afraid of fucking up my brain.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 19:19, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Hey[edit]

Though you're controversial and cause god awful headaches, you've definitly earned your sysopbit. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 02:06, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps it won't surprise you to learn I've been regarded as controversial in political circles pretty much my entire adult life. But at least the atheism thing is really no longer considered that remarkable. Anyway, thanks, and I shall (ahem) attempt to wield power wisely.---Mona- (talk) 02:09, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Meaning you won't banhammer anybody who dares to question the BDS Endsieg and has not marched on at least five al Quds dayWikipedia's W.svg rallies? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 02:44, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Don't spread shit.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 02:45, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Paravant, about the "shit," I have been largely ignoring all of that carrying on wherever it is. So, no pot can be stirred with that kind of baiting because I don't bite any longer (a total celebration of mixed metaphors, eh!). Substantive engagement is my thing and is what I'm reserving my energy and time here for.---Mona- (talk) 02:56, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Great to hear that. Would you thaen please refrain from disruptive edits to my talk page? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 03:00, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Huh?---Mona- (talk) 03:06, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Apparently he considers being proven wrong disruptive... 142.124.55.236 (talk) 03:16, 18 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
(gargh. I am getting old... Edit conflict is what I meant to say)You know what I am talking about. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 03:16, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Pretty much what 142 said. Avenger, if you ask a question and somebody gives you a relevant response, it is not derailing nor disruptive just because it's an answer you don't like. CamelCasePragmatist (talk) 03:21, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Please look at the fossil record. Mona spammed the same "answer" all over my talk page into sections where it clearly was not relevant. The fact that it might seem relevant to a casual observer just goes to show how far anti-Zionist whataboutery has come... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 03:26, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that. So what? Assume fat fingers before assuming bad intent, and your blood pressure will be in better shape. CamelCasePragmatist (talk) 03:30, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Well two verbatim copies of the same text in different places only happen if some copy & paste was involved. I am quite frankly unwilling to engage in copy and paste warrior debates where extremely disruptive "debate" tactics are used. And we all know Mona has disrupted debates more thaen once. Moving her contributions into a different section was an oft-employed and uncontroversial solution to that issue on the one talk page it all started at (I won't link, in fear of waking the dragon) Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 03:36, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
I never knowingly post duplicates. There was a flurry of edit conflicts and it looked as if my comment had disappeared. I had copied it so I pasted it in again. I did NOT intend for more than one. But even if I had, so what? The point is more hurtful to you if stated twice? pffft---Mona- (talk) 04:39, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Revision delete[edit]

Hi Mona, don't revision delete things unless they are very bad. (e.g. posting a person's private info like their home address or so on). Blacke (talk) 04:28, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

This is a special case. I founded this article but got into so many edit wars with AVenger and his pal Arisboch, who both insisted the article was off mission. So, I deleted it. Tonite then, Avenger mentioned that it still existed -- he and a few others stuck a bastardized version back up. I put it back to be more like what I originally had written now that they think it is on mission.---Mona- (talk) 04:42, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
That does not explain why you deleted that revision. Please don't do it again. WatcherIntheDark (talk) 04:45, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Mona, Avenger is a pain who just wants to edit war rather than discuss things intelligently. But, that still is not a reason to revision delete things. Revision delete is only used if someone posts private info (e.g. "so and so lives at 123 Main St, Somewhereville") , blatant libel (e.g. "so-and-so rapes babies"). (I'm not trying to have a go at you, I'm just encouraging you to follow the local norms, so your valuable contributions will have more success in being accepted.) Blacke (talk) 05:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't understand. We are not free to revise what we think are poorly or erroneously stated edits?---Mona- (talk) 05:34, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Hiding edits is not a thing RW does, short of information that has to be hidden for legal or moral/ethical reasons.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 05:44, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
You're free to revise things by editing the page, but we don't alter the edit history itself unless for very good reasons. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 05:54, 18 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

I mean look, Avenger seems to be allergic to search engines. He is really big on extreme assertions that he doesn't document. When I change something I freakin' document it almost always. How can revising unsourced crap and replacing it with fact-based, supported text be a bad idea? Paravant: Have I "hidden edits?" I don't know what that is and didn't intend to. All I ever do is revise the text and often give a reason in the summary. I'm not trying to hide anything---Mona- (talk) 05:48, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

According to the deletion log, you hid a revision. Maybe you did it by accident? Blacke (talk) 05:52, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
I think she used delete instead of undo without realizing the difference? Tielec01 (talk) 05:55, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
I suspect the same - an accident. Just be careful with the tools Mona.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 05:57, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
I went into the deletion log trying to undo my own deletion to retrieve the text, but whatever I did didn't bring it back so I could have a copy of my original. Honestly, I don't know what I did in there. I apologize if I did something seriously against norms. I didn't intend to.---Mona- (talk) 05:59, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
In short, Mona can't be trusted with the tools of a sysop, because she herself does not know how they work Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 14:45, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
What's that got to do with the price of fish?--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 15:02, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
It's true I need to learn the tools here better. But except for the messing with the deletion log I haven't tried to use the tools, and won't until I do know them. Even then, I'm not here to block, ban or otherwise discipline other users. If I happened to see an edit war going on vis-a-vis a topic in which I am not invested I would step in, but I won't be seeking out such opportunities. Editing and documenting articles is my purpose for being at RW, not moderating.---Mona- (talk) 15:23, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
RationalWiki:Sysop & RationalWiki:Sysop_guide <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 15:32, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I super appreciate that. I've bookmarked them and will use them.---Mona- (talk) 15:41, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

That Salaita guy is an antisemitic dipshit[edit]

Why do you feel the need to defend him? It makes your "cause" look worse thaen it does already Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:50, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Steven Salaita is a man of Palestinian heritage who was watching Palestinian women, children and innocent men being slaughtered, watching bereaved parents, dying and suffering in a small area in which they were trapped in an avalanche of armaments. Doctors in Gaza and others were tweeting this sort of photography at the time. (I was overcome several times and collapsed into weeping.) The Jewish State of Israel that penned these victims up in the open air prison of Gaza was inflicting the carnage. He tweeted that if opposing the acts of the Jewish State of Israel was antisemitic then antisemitism is not immoral. But no reasonable person thinks that is antisemitic. Only Zionists like you do. That was his point.---Mona- (talk) 01:33, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
His Palestinian heritage is questionable at best (and not all that relevant). And what exactly would you say to a Nazi posting pictures of e.g. the bombed Dresden saying that the Americans make Nazism a badge of honor? Hamas after is a vile organization that brutally suppresses dissent and keeps their citizens in a state of slavery far worse thaen any of the previous rulers of Gaza, including the time it was administered by Egypt. Also, don't forget to cry a few crocodile's tears about Egypt's role in keeping the Rafah crossing closed. And of course you should also ask, why Hamas does not let people they don't approve of (like Fatah sympathizers) use the terror-tunnels... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 14:42, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
None of that drivel has a thing to do with the reality of the obscene carnage the Jewish state inflicted on Gazans last summer and which was shown in pictures and videos on Twitter and elsewhere in close to real time. Steven Salaita is the son of Palestinians and he has always self-identified as a Palestinian. (It is not your place to "question" another's heritage.) He watched in anger and anguish -- as many of us did -- as the Jewish state (Get that? It calls itself the JEWISH state.) mercilessly slaughtered innocents. As for those so-called "terror-tunnels," for sure man.---Mona- (talk) 15:33, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Where you or was he picketing the Syrian embassy when the massacre against the Palestinian "refugee" camp in Syria happened? Conservative estimates put the death toll at higher thaen any of the Hamas wars of the last ten years and the Hezbollah war of 2006 combined Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 15:49, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Whataboutery is the Zionist's favorite fallacy.---Mona- (talk) 16:05, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
So you don't care about Palestinians in Syria? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 16:50, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
I have to ask; is missing the point something you do intentionally, Avenger? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 16:55, 19 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
I have to ask why people don't care about the dead Palestinians in Syria... They do care a lot about the dead Palestinians in Hamastan. Or at least they pretend to Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 17:04, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
If it were true that I didn't give a flying fuck about dead people anywhere but in Gaza, that wouldn't change a thing about Israel's depraved murder and devastation of Gaza. You are a package of fallacies tied with a bow of unsupported assertions.---Mona- (talk) 17:11, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
A war of self defense is quite distinct legally from murder. You of all people should know that! Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 17:23, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure, but by insisting on the legal definitions, you may be missing the point they're trying to make. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 17:39, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
The point I am trying to make is this: Why the undue focus on Israel? Is it because the Israeli railways have been neglected for a long time but are currently being upgraded? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 17:42, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
I know the focus you'd like it to have is it not being treated at all, but let me tell you, this "focus" of yours is all in your head. I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but RW has quite a few articles not about Israel or Zionism. The media also doesn't notably focus on Israel, except when it engages in gratuitous killings of Palestinians, because that's kind of newsworthy, despite what you might claim. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 17:53, 19 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
Regardless of what legal terms and definitions might be applicable (no doubt a sizable debate of its own), misrepresenting the gratuitous killings of Palestinian civilians as "a war of self defense" shows a rather thorough case of the point being missed. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 17:45, 19 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

"by insisting on the legal definitions" I no longer give a rat's ass what Avenger insists upon. He's not a clear thinker and can't/doesn't support his assertions. Moreover, the notion that what the IDF did in Gaza in the summer of 2014 constitutes "self defense" is too obscene to merit a substantive response.---Mona- (talk) 17:47, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh how the mighty Avenger has fallen. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 17:51, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Well Mona, what would you call someone (in this case a country) who is constantly being hit, who one day decides to hit back? And you still have not answered why you focus on Israel all the time. Why did I never hear a word about the massacre in Syria, killing more Palestinians thaen died in the recent Hamas war and the Hezbollah war combined? Why no denouncing of Hamas' domestic policies of brutally suppressing dissent? If I go through the streets of Tel Aviv and say "Netanyahu is an asshole" what is the worst that will happen? Even if I say it in Arab? Now imagine someone going through the streets of Gaza saying "Hassan Nasrallah is an asshole". What do you think would happen? I for one support the cause of the Palestinian people to be rid once and for all of Hamas. Free Gaza from Hamas must be the creed of all people who are interested in the area between Jordan and Red Sea and who care for the enlightenment and human dignity. If Hamas lays down the weapons tomorrow, there will be peace. If Israel lays down the weapons tomorrow there will be the end of the state of Israel and we all will find out what Hamas really means when it says ugly things about Jews in its founding documents Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 18:05, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

i wrote a thing[edit]

on the zionism draft, you should look at it. Also you should look into archiving some of this page --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 02:12, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Which draft? The one at PacWalker's or the RW main article? I can't find you in the fossil record of either, except for undoing Avenger's messing in the former. As for archiving, for what purpose do you propose that? And how does one go about it? Is there a page with directions?---Mona- (talk) 02:19, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
The talkpage for the Pacwalker draft. And to help size down this page from the god awful in one month size it is, since 86.2% of these conversations are currently not ongoing. To do so, make a page entitled User talk:-Mona-/archive1 and simply move the portions you want to remove to that page--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 02:24, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Or you could just configure User:Pibot. (If you need help doing that, I or someone else will be able to help you.) Blacke (talk) 02:28, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Pibot has been broken for a very long time, last I heard, and nobody is sure of what arcane magic is required to fix it.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 02:31, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
It looks to me like it is working?. Blacke (talk) 02:32, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Is it working now? But thats still waiting on a bot to do it for you, when manual lets you do it when you feel it's important and not rely on bots like what killed the Bar a few months back.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 02:34, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Ok, 80% of it is now at my Archive 1 page.---Mona- (talk) 02:59, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
86.2% was not a random number i pulled out, it's what i got when i went and got the percent :P God I hate this statistics class--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 03:18, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Questions about matters relating to GamerGate[edit]

So Mona, I understand you are a lawyer with an interest in civil liberties. Are you aware of the restraining order against Eron Gjoni, and the current litigation regarding it? His lawyers argue it is a form of prior restraint violating his First Amendment rights. Do you agree with this? Did you see Eugene Volokh's blog post on this topic, and the amicus brief he submitted (along with Aaron Caplan)? Do you agree with Volokh's analysis of this issue? If you look at the presentation of this issue on this website (in the article Timeline of Gamergate, see principally the entry under "August 25"), do you think that is a balanced account of the matter? Finally, are you aware of the apparent policy of this site that linking to Eugene Volokh's blog post or brief is not allowed? It has been banned because it uses the legal names of the parties to the litigation. Do you think that policy is reasonable? It seems quite standard practice for legal blogs to provide full citations for legal cases they are commenting on, including the legal names of the parties (except when they have been legally suppressed, which has not happened in this case). I don't see any problem with that practice - do you? If Volokh hasn't done anything wrong, does the ban on linking to him make any sense? Blacke (talk) 06:21, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Blacke, I'm not an expert on GG. As I said elsewhere, the whole controversy totally befuddled me (I'm not a gamer) until I read the entry here. When I tweeted it using the GG hashtag, some GG participants ended up engaging me, including Mike Cernovich. Only Zionists exceed these assholes in utter inanity and bullshit. Cernovich didn't realize I am a lawyer and tried to scare the shit out of another woman claiming something she'd said constituted libel and a threat and he was going to contact her college (she didn't say anything libelous or threatening in a legal sense and he knew it, conceding it after I intervened). I tweeted to her that making a complaint with the California bar about him would be something to think about, and he then blocked me (boo-fucking-hoo). All of this is to say I found the behavior of GGers nasty and entirely consistent with the description of them in the RW article. Finally, I assume the issue with the Volokh link-ban is a concern for doxing. I'd want to think about that more thoroughly before giving an opinion.---Mona- (talk) 15:17, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Are plenty of GG people assholes? I agree. But, there are assholes among opponents of GG as well. I don't know if you saw this tweet where one Twitter opponent of GG is being told off by Popehat for trying to get Volokh fired? (Was never going to get anywhere, sure, but even trying proves one an enemy of free thought.) I don't support GG - despite the insistence of Ryulong and friends that I do. Their paranoid conspiratorialism is similar to that of Avenger and other Zionists - if you say one thing remotely critical of Israel, you are part of the Vast Antisemitic Conspiracy. In the same way, you say anything to Ryulong that sounds remotely pro-GG, or any more than slightly critical of anyone or anything anti-GG, he concludes that you are GG and that is grounds for refusing rational engagement and assuming bad faith. People complain about the way you approach Zionism-related pages, but you will actually engage in rational debate with Zionists. Ryulong treats people who fundamentally disagree with him as unworthy of rational discussion. Blacke (talk) 22:51, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Meh, the Popehat Twitter account is used by various members of their blog, and I've gotten into a pissing match with one of them where he was an asshole. It depends -- sometimes that account is great and reasonable. Also, I don't know that I'd really categorize Popehat as core anti-GG. They're libertarian, not "SJW."---Mona- (talk) 01:10, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Why focus on Zionism and Israel?[edit]

Avenger has repeatedly asked why I am so aggressive in my attention to matters pertaining to Israel and Zionism. Altho I've answered that before here, I shall do so again. What follows is my personal journey away from vehement Zionism to outraged opposition to it. (A general explanation on why Westerners, especially Americans, are justified in focusing hard on Israel is found here. Tl;dr: We are complicit in Israel's crimes.)

I was raised in a virulently antisemitic home by Catholic wingnuts who thought Franco had a great government going in Spain. Very early, in my teens years, I came to find these views repugnant. I read everything I could get my hands on about the crimes of Nazis and the Holocaust, including, of course, The Diary of Ann Frank. In addition to rejecting my parents' politics and religion, before the age of 21 I particularly denounced their racism, including antisemitism.

My reading included Leon Uris and the novel Exodus. I also saw the film which swept the country and was met with approval and enthusiasm. In my young adult years I viewed the great miniseries Holocaust, and the TV movie A Woman Called Golda. Preceding and during the Oscars in (I think) '78, Vanessa Redgrave was demonized for her support of the Palestinians, and I bought that propaganda campaign wholesale -- she was "clearly" an antisemitic nutcase on the far fringe left. The Palestianins were a non-entity to me: I "knew" who the real victims were, it was the Jews because HOLOCAUST. Israel was their deserved compensation, I ardently believed.

In sum: I bought the Zionist narrative in its entirety, including the lie that there had really been no people in Palestine when the Zionists established Israel there. The motto "A land without a people for a people without a land" was utter propaganda, but I believed it.

The first serious second thoughts I had were when I befriended an Iraqi-American woman in the 80s. She insisted the Palesatinians existed, and asked me whether it would be acceptable to take a Scandinavian country because there were a few left the citizens of the appropriated one could flee to? For the first time I began to actually consider the Palestinians.

Fast forward to about 2006 or so, and on the Internet I'm running across intelligent people and sites advocating for the Palestinians and also setting forth some horrifying facts about Zionism and Zionist history of which I had been wholly unaware. Learning, e.g., that Albert Einstein and Hannah Arendt condemned Menachem Begin as a terrorist and fascist for his pre-state crimes against Palestinians stunned me. The supporting facts were unassailable. Ditto for the terroist Yitzhkak Shamir -- who innovated the letter bomb. So, the same Israel that relies so heavily on cries of "terrorism" to justify its crimes against the Palestinians, I learned that it elected two terrorists as Prime Minster. Indeed, the State of Israel probably would not have come to exist absent Zionist terrorism.

Additionally, I began to encounter intelligent and reasonable Jews and Muslims -- online and off -- who made compelling criticisms of Israel and who supported the Palestinians. This was not, then, some lunatic position; it had facts and evidence supporting it. My commitment to facts and reason in turn compelled a deep reconsideration of my Zionism. I began reading a great deal, including books like this and this. The result has been pretty well demonstrated here: I am no longer a Zionist. Quite the contrary, I am now a pro-Palestinian activist -- one who traffics in facts and documentation.

Finally, I'm done arguing with Avenger over Zionism; he's not reachable with facts or logic. I have a draft article of the Zionism page to tend to and then offer for adoption by the members here on whole or in part. (Others have also made excellent contributions to this effort and I hope to see them continue.) That should happen soon. As with nearly everything I write the documentation will be extensive ---Mona- (talk) 19:19, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Honestly you had no reason to justify Avenger with an answer to "why are you so big on this issue", it's none of his concern -why- you are. Though i would move this to your userpage or something, as it's pretty neat for something to be lost in an archive. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 22:58, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion. I posted all but the last paragraph on my user page. Is it protocol that I should then delete it here?---Mona- (talk) 23:15, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Your choice, though linking to it with one of those fun little notes (like what sophie did to the mod discussions in the Bar) wouldn't be a bad idea--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:16, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
No, it's not protocol. Calm down. There aren't that many rules on RW, just use common sense (as you already do). <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 23:17, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Ok, I'll just leave it then. I guess I'm still a bit freaked that I unwittingly did that thing with the deletion log so I'm a little hyper-vigilant about protocol.---Mona- (talk) 23:20, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
The way I read it, you are a sensible person who is getting familiar with the custodial implements (here usually called a mop) with some forgivable hiccups.
BTW, I'm pretty sure that "Sophie" is a pet name Paravant uses for Bicycle Wheel. Don't ask me how I know this, but those two should get a room already. ;-) Now I'm off to the bistro up at the corner to see if there is any live music to be heard... take care, and be well. Alec Sanderson (talk) 00:29, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
I enjoyed reading that Mona and am pleased you posted it. Knowing a little of the why and what which drive the motives of other editors cannot be a bad thing. I know that you and I have had some sparring matches here but it has always been polite (well, at least by RW standards :) and never on the Zionism article) , but I truly admire your tenacity and commitment. You will get used to the mop tools and no need to fret about that. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 00:33, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Aw thanks guys. Do we all sing Kum Bah Yah now? ;) ---Mona- (talk) 01:12, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
How about this song instead? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:19, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
I see what you did there :3--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 01:27, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
@Avengerofthe BoN I'm having a hard time taking you seriously. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 01:26, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
You know, when I joined RW a bit over a month ago I didn't realize that Avenger was also new; he'd joined just a few weeks before I did. I mistakenly got the impression that he and Arisboch had a longstanding lock on any article touching on Israel. My initial outrage at what I thought was the state of affairs here was misplaced and I see now why many normal people here were put off by my foot-stamping. All I needed to do was let Avenger continue to be Avenger.---Mona- (talk) 02:22, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

protection[edit]

What edit war?--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:31, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Of FFS, I wanted to undo that, I don't know how I managed it but I meant to protect the delete al Quds page, not the al Quds page.---Mona- (talk) 23:34, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Why would you want to protect the afd page? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:36, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
We really can't do that either though. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:37, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Because Idiots like you edit warred on it.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:37, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
I did not. What I did was that I misunderstood some of the needlessly confusing syntax Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:46, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
So then Avenger, just leave my announcement re: the Jeremy Corbyn talk page where it is. Voila! No edit war!---Mona- (talk) 23:48, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I were the one what moved that part into the "Jerboa" section, as is a RW custom I just invented. That said, I won't object to leaving it at the top, the way it is now. MaillardFillmore (talk) 23:55, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
You know, I think I need to just pretend I don't have sysop powers. Now I'm misreading fossil records and attributing to Avenger something he didn't do. [sigh] All I can say is I slept poorly last nite.---Mona- (talk) 00:20, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Na. It's nothing. Just chill and maybe look a little more carefully next time. Paravant (IIRC) is pretty reasonable, and he thinks you deserve to be one. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 00:26, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I think tho I'll just stick to editing for a bit. At least until I have time to internalize the sysop guide.---Mona- (talk) 00:43, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
K, you can't loose sysop powers just for not using them. It's pretty much just something trusted users get, not something to boast about (woo-hoo you're not an obvious troll/vandal). <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 00:51, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Using hide-revision?[edit]

Could you explain why you hid http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Steven_Salaita&diff=1515324&unhide=1 ? Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 14:29, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I think honest accident. See long discussion here.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 14:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
It's already been discussed and Mona has learned not to.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 14:34, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
I was trying to retrieve my deleted text to read it and went to do that in the deletion log. Whatever I did resulted in something wrong and unintended so I won't be using those tools again until I understand them better.---Mona- (talk) 14:45, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

The Truth[edit]

My friend, the truth can change people. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (administrator) (system operator) (talk) 05:06, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

A cliche because it is true.---Mona- (talk) 15:19, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

An acknowledgement[edit]

I beg forgiveness for invading your talk page, but it is hideously late over here, and I feel I have to get something off my chest. I grant you, that I have not seen you toss away insults for the fun of it. I cannot say the same for myself. I have a tendency to throw away insults, most often in the spur of the moment. Face to face, that isn't all that bad since in that case there is personal enmity behind it - a former office „mate“ springs to mind. Regrettably he was mostly too dumb to understand, but that's another story. But I apologize for my insults, which have never been sly. I'll try to be more civilized towards you, if we speak again. Having thought things carefully through and being of sober mind but tired, I can't say I bear you any personal ill will although we will of course never agree. Take this as you want, I can do no more, and this applies to you only of course. Good night. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 01:37, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorte that is extremely gracious of you. Thank you. I do understand the moral place you are coming from and the legitimate concerns that drive your position. There was a time I was you vis-a-vis this issue. It was emotionally and psychologically very hard for me to abandon the pro-Zionist views I had held for decades. All I can say is that the same deep dedication to justice and opposition to evil that drove my prior position also is behind the views I hold now. I accept that we are both good people who have not arrived at the same conclusions about a profoundly serious issue pregnant with legitimate concerns for two wronged peoples. ---Mona- (talk) 01:59, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Mona, peace be with you. It took me some time to decide whether to leave a comment or let be, but I thought it couldn't hurt. So, we're in agreement about your last sentence.
I just wanted to add something which has been pointed out ad nauseam, that it is very easy to sit far away in peace and security and pass judgment. I have that good fortune. This situation may be conducive to cooler reasoning, it sometimes is, but at the same time one can't experience the emotions involved. I'm not fond of Israel's settlement and if you look at a map of the West Bank with them shown in red, it looks like a tiny country with measles and geographically in a horrible situation. If Israel chooses to wall itself, then I can't say they don't have the right, but then recognized borders should be followed. Other countries have done the same. As for a solution to the problem, I have none. All involved have to find a modus vivendi willingly or there will never be peace. Regrettably, there is no sign of that. I may be falling into the some-of-my-best-friends trap here, but there are a number of Palestinians living up here, and they have all turned out to be good, productive, civilians. I don't dislike any nation, only individuals, and I have seen an enormous change of attitude since, say, the 70's regarding the attitude towards foreigners of all colors. A number of personal friends, relatives and acquaintances of the generation before me have moved from general prejudices to tolerance and in many cases openly welcoming immigrants. After all, to take an example, our largest colony is the Polish one, and they have certainly been of help. I'm reminded of the Osman Sultan of the time when Ferdinand and Isabella expelled the Jews from Spain. The Sultan gave immediate orders to welcome the refugees, let them in peace with their religion and give them opportunity to ply their trade. Then he had some harsh words to say about the intelligence of the Spanish royal couple. We have around 300 Syrian refugees at the time if I remember correctly. There is no question of sending them back to Syria, although the process can sadly take time. Every single one is just looking for peace and security. They find it here. They will become good citizens. OK, this is getting rather long but the main thing is, just remember to judge, appraise or whichever verb is appropriate individually. Don't feel compelled to answer this. We've at least made peace and peace treaties seem to be in short supply, so just let's be glad we did. Cheers (Yes, I'll admit, it's Saturday, it's early evening and I'm having a beer. I'll raise it in the general direction of America, as soon as I've signed out :-) Sorte Slyngel (talk) 18:46, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I was unclear on one point. I meant that sending the Syrians back is out of the question but the process of granting permanent residency is a too drawn out process. I've already drunk a toast. :9 And now I won't bother you any more. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 19:05, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Bunny.gif

You have been smitten by a bunny in accordance with the community standards for... no real reason. Feel free to revert this odd edit.

Thank you for the bunny! I, btw, am still working out how to put pics into my edits here.---Mona- (talk) 21:37, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
I used a template. To upload files, use upload file under tools to the left above special pages and the big donate button. To use files, [[file:file name here]] Don't use copyrighted crap. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (pretentious, unwarranted self importance) (talk) 21:42, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I've tried that. The trouble I'm having is related to my being a techie idjit. And believe me, I know better than to use copyrighted stuff. Was a time I sent out cease and desist notices for clients.---Mona- (talk) 21:45, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Coop[edit]

I am here to inform you that, due to the Zionism debacle, you have been taken to the coop due to your role in the issue. Please be civil so we can find a solution. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 00:38, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

My fucking "role in the issue." What bullshit.
Goodnight, Gracie.
— Unsigned, by: -Mona- / talk / contribs
You are involved in an editorial dispute which has time and time again devolved in edit wars and endless arguments. Thus, you have a role in the issue. This comment on your page altering you to the coop does not assign blame or any indication of whether you are right or wrong. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 04:25, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
I remain angry that nothing serious was done to stop it from continuing, and moreover, that Fedora twisted it around to make ME the malefactor. The whole thing is totally fucked up. It just is. I have a lot to offer this site in terms of knowledge and ability vis-a-vis many issues, but a good number are political and controversial. If my colleagues cannot be expected to behave in a way that lets me make my contributions in relative peace, well, that's just fucked up. Arisboch is a guy who told you basically he's just too lazy to write the article, but he can be a miscreant with the work *I* do, and when I want something done, then *I am the bad guy. Fuck. That. You either cater to the good faith workers, or you don't.---Mona- (talk) 04:35, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
I have asked the mob for input on a solution to this issue, and must abide to either wait for them to suggest one or leave it at the feet of the moderators to do something. This is how RW prefers to solve issues - with mobocracy, not Moderators issuing decree. This is how I want to solve this issue. I was asked to atleast try and give him a chance to turn away from having to have drastic action taken, and this is pretty much the last chance for diplomacy. It will be better to achieve your victory through community agreement, in which cannot be challenged so easily, than it will through moderator action, in which much is challenged and little faith is put. Please, be patient. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 04:44, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

There comes a point[edit]

when you are actually going to make things worse for your case by being this... much. your comment on Arisboch's talkpage really added nothing besides antagonization and is likely to keep things going while also lowering any chance he will listen to my request. Please, don't do that. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 04:40, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

In other words, if he is a miscreant, well, I made him do it. He lacks agency; Mona saying what she knows is his goal and letting him know it won't happen, that will make him have a meltdown into more bad behavior for which I am responsible. My, what a little boy you know he is. But fine, fine. I'm done. I did need to say that to him, but I am done now. It's off my chest and over. And now, after adding a fun bit to Rule 34, I have a date with a novel.---Mona- (talk) 04:57, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
wanna know the main reason I tried to ask him to stop? because starting a shitfest that removing his rights will likely cause wasnt something i wanted to do right before i had to be off site for 16 hours. I had no real hope he would listen and didn't consider it the actual solution, but I was still asked to try and it fit with my own needs of wanting to delay what I did. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 18:53, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Ok. Well, as I've repeatedly acknowledged, you bear the Burden of Power (ahem) and are willing to assume it (I wouldn't for anything). Last nite I was so incredibly frustrated (and Fedora's insinuations really got under my skin for reason of his techniques very much reminding me of someone who harmed me), and it looked as if Arisboch was both getting away with it (which meant it would continue) and *I* was being blamed for being outraged at the behavior and wanting a sufficient remedy. Oh well. If it matters, you have my vote in this election thing.---Mona- (talk) 19:03, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Arisboch was to be warned, and if he failed to heed that one, single, severe warning he would be de-sysoped as you had pushed for as has happened today. I was never opposed to him being de-sysoped if he continued, but instead I perceived you as being overly-eager to de-sysop him. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (pretentious, unwarranted self importance) (talk) 19:38, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
While it would be absurd for me to claim I am not pissed at Arisboch and his antics, my position on de-sysoping was not -- and still is not -- personal. (Indeed, I inquired about what blocking entailed when that was suggested, because I was not sure that might not be too harsh.) I simply wanted an effective solution to the obstacle he presented.---Mona- (talk) 19:50, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Well, regardless the situation is dealt with now. Hopefully from here it will cool down and Arisboch will smarten up, and if he shows that he is willing to act properly he will be remade a sysop. Avenger took a break for a few days at the recommendation of Sorte, maybe Arisboch will benefit from doing the same. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (pretentious, unwarranted self importance) (talk) 19:59, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I saw the Avenger and Sorte exchange. The truth is I totally grok why an ardent Zionist is going to flip out at the information I (and ChrisAmiss, when he has time, as well as a few others) incorporate, but this is happening all over the Internet, and really, in the whole world. The Zionist narrative was safely dominant for many decades but has begun a rapid erosion which is causing great angst in their ranks. I get that, but I can't change reality and must expect them to respect facts. Hopefully, they can get centered and return understanding that Zionism and Israel are in crisis and their attention should be on who and what is taking over in Israel. Because the world now sees the dead and oppressed Palestinians, all the time, every day. They are no longer an abstraction, a small player in the "Story of Plucky Israel." Reality must be accepted if one is to serve any valuable purpose---Mona- (talk) 20:19, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
K. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (pretentious, unwarranted self importance) (talk) 20:22, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Electronic Intifada does not constitute facts. How about the fact that Hamas keeps murdering children? How about the fact that Hamas uses human shields? (Which you of course constantly deny, even if provided with direct video evidence from reputable sources) How about the fact that Israeli Arab citizens enjoy more rights thaen Arabs in any other Arab country? How about the fact that Israel is one of the global leaders in making the desert bloom while cutting down on water usage? What about the fact that a Palestinian living in the West Bank has more water today thaen they had in 1948? What about the fact that Assad and the IS are slaughtering Palestinians by the hundreds and thousands? None of these facts seems to be allowed in Mona-land. But please, delude yourself into a BDS-Endsieg. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:54, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry Aveneger, EI enjoys a good reputation for being accurate. On the rare occasion it errs, it post corrections. I value my own credibility and would not make use of that source if it were replete with lies and/or misrepresentations -- which it is not.(As is true with many Zionist sources, there are unreliable pro-Palestinian ones all over the Internet . I don't use them.) The rest of your comment is largely yet more whataboutery. Zionist and Israeli crimes against Palestinians do not disappear because of -- and are not redeemed by -- your own (partially misleading) statement of facts.---Mona- (talk) 21:34, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Which crimes? And please don't link to your echo chamber of Electronic Jihad or Hamas TV again... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:46, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Coop[edit]

Avenger cooped you, and neglected to inform you as should be done. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (pretentious, unwarranted self importance) (talk) 20:52, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Stop[edit]

Seriously, stop adding to it to the Archived coop. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (pretentious, unwarranted self importance) (talk) 21:47, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Are you fucking insane. Howe dare you? I will fucking comment in my own coop case.---Mona- (talk) 21:54, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
It has been closed and archived. For whatever reason. But that's usually the end of it. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:56, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
fts is right - Stop. There is nothing you need to add. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 21:58, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Well I didn't know that. It just looked like he was constantly reverting me for no fucking reason. Couldn't someone have told me the whole thing was going to be chucked?---Mona- (talk) 22:10, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
You were when we were--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 22:18, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Jesus Christ. ALL I WANT TO DO IS WRITE INTELLIGENT ARTICLES AT RW AND INSTEAD I'VE BEEN CONSUMED WITH THIS BULLSHIT. There is no doG.---Mona- (talk) 22:27, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Wut? <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (pretentious, unwarranted self importance) (talk) 22:29, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
ALL I WANT TO DO IS WRITE INTELLIGENT ARTICLES AT RW- -Mona- Do You Believe That? Ah, vraiment?!?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 23:09, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Mona have you suffered brain damage? Are you under the influence of some substance or other? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:00, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
So now you're down to making cheap insults and insinuations? Sheesh, man. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 23:04, 27 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
I think, that was his reaction to Mona typing in all-caps (that's screaming loudly on teh net).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 23:09, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
That was a terrible reaction and he should feel ashamed for it.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:11, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Her contribution seemed to be incomprehensible gibberish to me. And it was in all caps. I have heard that suddenly screaming incomprehensible gibberish is a symptom of having brain damage, being drunk or being PegidaWikipedia's W.svg Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:14, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Not wanting to be consumed with your bullshit seems incomprehensible to you? Hmm... 142.124.55.236 (talk) 23:16, 27 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────What is "there is no doG" supposed to mean? Who was talking about a dog? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:19, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

... 142.124.55.236 (talk) 23:21, 27 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

I don't know this AD guy. But does he typically come back claiming an article is shit and needs to be trashed? With a whole lot of support from the two who are desperate for that outcome? I think he was lobbied unless this is his usual way. After all, a seasoned editor should know that edit disagreements often cause clunky sentences. I have strong confidence in my writing and research skills (for justified reasons of academic and professional affirmation), and that version I submitted is incomplete but is not the shit he announced it to be. And, I can't fathom why he said a new version must be written without me or Chris participating? That is, if he's neutral and this activity is all in good faith?---Mona- (talk) 23:24, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

He's one of the 7 arrogant fucks. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (pretentious, unwarranted self importance) (talk) 23:25, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
A very old editor who has a proven track record of not being a prick. One wonders how (or why, more importantly) AD was lobbied by people when he had not edited in... what, a year and a half? Don't go looking for ghosts where there are none. And Frankly, how YOU find your writing to be is irrelevant to its actual quality, as if we left the deciding factor on what quality writing is to the writer we would never get a legitimate answer. — Unsigned, by: Paravant / talk / contribs
Think you can trust AD - think he's wrong in this case but, if memory serves, he was always pretty good in former times. Scream!! (talk) 23:36, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Mona are you having a very small persecution complex maybe? I mean, you basically came here and accused everybody and their mother of being Zionist Hasbara shills... (When in actual fact I for one did not even know what Hasbara is). And now you try to put an editor proposing a solution who had thus far not been part of the whole kerfuffle into some connection with lobbying by? Whom? what? why? when? where? As someone once put a headline on my talk page of "I fear for your moral well-being", well Mona, to be honest, I fear for your... something. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:40, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Thats enough from you Avenger. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:43, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Well, that was fucking patronizing of you, Paravant.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 23:48, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
True, but folk exhibiting infantile traits deserve to be patronised. Scream!! (talk) 23:55, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
It's this topic. I've seen the skulduggery it inspires all over the Internet. It causes me to be very suspicious for reasons of history. And Paravant, what I'm saying is I do not accept AD's dissing of my abilities. It is not true: I am an excellent writer, whatever other talents I lack. I say that not to boast, but because this has been proven in the real world. It utterly floored me when he declared that I should be kept from editing the article at all, and that he seems unaware that mob editing results in clunky prose. If he's such a veteran, how can he not know that controversial topics with many disagreements will see that reflected in the text -- which is going to be less than elegant -- at least until it is cleaned up at the end of the arguing. Why would he think that clunkiness was due to me?---Mona- (talk) 23:59, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Just a meta point: I worked so hard on that draft. But it's not done; I should not have acceded to Parvant's suggestion that I propose it before I was thoroughly finished and had a solid and polished piece. Now, it's under attack and some Big Guy here wants the whole thing jettisoned because it is "incoherent" and "clunky." Nevermind that I found 4 dozen sources and rewrote a whole lot to make it sensible. To be blunt, that is very upsetting to me. This guy has basically said I'm for shit and shouldn't even be involved in the piece. Well, what am I to make of that? (I'm ignoring any replies from the Ususal Two.)---Mona- (talk) 00:07, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Yea, you are for shit, but Paravant does not think so, which is because you're allowed to turn the Zionism article into your propaganda piece. And about you being upset... Well, cry me a Nile and an Euphrates. If you don't wanna get contradicted, bugger off from RW into your cozy little BSE BDS echo chamber.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 01:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
EC)Arisboch, before all this Zionism Scheisse started (and before I'd read the Zionism article that's how to do a footnote on a talk page - or this is) I quite liked your style. Avenger has turned you into something not very nice. Scream!! (talk) 01:18, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Avenger isn't a fucking wizard capable of "turning" me into anything. The edit wars did begin with Mona.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 01:25, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Alternate theory, they started when you entered the article. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 01:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
That would make Avenger a fucking time wizard, actually, since they were here long before Mona showed up, spewing pro-Israel propaganda and making ridiculous antisemitism accusations (as well as talking about trains and bikes). 142.124.55.236 (talk) 01:29, 28 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
Actually if we want to get down to it, YOU ARE where the edit war came from, because You were the first one to throw the revert brick. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 01:30, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Just one revert doesn't make an edit war.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 01:36, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
The next couple dozen do. The early history of the conflict is littered with you going "no you are all wrong because i say so".--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 01:39, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
It's the facts I have at my command. The Zionist narrative has been dominant for decades, but is rapidly collapsing. What's happening here is just a microcosm of a larger, bloody battle that's happening online everywhere, on college campuses, in governments, among human rights organizations and advocacy groups -- who have all begun intense examinations of the treatment of Palestinians by Zionists -- historically and currently. Shining light on the facts of history robs Zionists of their false narrative and they are not going to accept that without a fight, as nasty as they can get away with. I've encountered numerous Arisbochs. Zionists have told me they want my kids to take out a DNR on me, called me a Nazi, and wished me a painful death. That's what this issue turns them in to. Max Blumenthal has made an observation which I find to be totally true: "Zionism kills Palestinian bodies and Jewish souls." ---Mona- (talk) 01:31, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Judging by your posts, the BDS did kill your brain...--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 01:36, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Do I see some psychological projection there, Arisboch? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 01:43, 28 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
Nope. I ain't the one with the internet hero pathos and the Endsieg dreams.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 01:48, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Are you sure? 'Cause you kinda play the 'hero' for Avenger and Israel a lot. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 01:51, 28 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
You won't find even a percent of the Mona's self-aggrandizement and Endsieg-rethoric in my posts.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 03:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
And this is why I find you unpersuasive. There is no "Zionist narrative", or more accurately, Zionist conspiracy theory. It's no "larger, bloody battle".
Here are the facts:
  1. The current nation of Israel was created arbitrarily. People got displaced.
  2. Israelis were beset by enemies. They retaliated.
  3. Palestinians got treated badly by Israel. Palestinians retaliated against Israelis. Israelis retaliated against Palestinians. Rinse, repeat for decades.
  4. The whole situation is no different than the Irish Troubles or the thousand-year war between Bosnians and Serbs.
  5. No one has clean hands anymore. There is no justice to be had, there is nothing that will "settle" the dispute except for genocide of one side or the other. It is a war with no winner. They can either make peace and start afresh, leaving their grudges behind, or continue as they do now.
  6. And if you were to leave it in my hands? Both the Israelis and the Palestinians are guilty. Let the whole of both of them be washed clean and purified with atomic fire. Then deed the land to the Jordanians - they seem level-headed. End. Of. Conflict. You can't fight when everyone is dead. --Castaigne (talk) 03:44, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
'And this is why I find you unpersuasive. There is no "Zionist narrative."' No, you find me unpersuasive because you are a nihilistic misanthrope and quite crude weirdo. That there has long been an established Zionist narrative is easy to demonstrate, but you are not amenable to fact or reason so I decline to waste my time. Just call me a cunt or otherwise insult me again, getting on with your usual vicious prattle. But don't anticipate that I'll be responding as if you are a good faith and reasonable interlocutor.---Mona- (talk) 04:14, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
No, I'm simply not amenable to your PALESTINE = AWESOME whitewashing. And you do that. Just as Avenger "stans" for the Zionist side of things.
Also, I've never called you that. You're confusing me with Arisboch. I'm just saying you're full of shit and very partisan.
As for good faith, everything I do is good faith. Reasonable is just in the eyes of the beholder. --Castaigne (talk) 14:30, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
"PALESTINE = AWESOME whitewashing. And you do that. Just as Avenger 'stans' for the Zionist side of things." Bullshit false equivalency attempt. Avenger, and also Arisboch, do not traffic in facts. I, on the other hand, am loaded with them. Facts they react to much as the vampire does to the crucifix. Moreover, I do not argue that "Palestine = Awesome." What I do argue with support is the reality of how the land now called Israel went from Arab hands to Zionist (mostly) Jewish ones, and how it stays that way. The narrative about that that which Zionists have peddled for decades is crumbling, and I have the facts to tell a truer version. That's why Avenger and Arisboch: 1. can't abide my presence, and 2. cannot write their own version of a Zionism article; they don't have a fact base that's not easily attacked as wrong or insufficient.---Mona- (talk) 15:14, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Just asking, what's wrong with Castaigne's points 1-5? In wikis a lack of sources isn't the only thing preventing people from doing detailed research. Many people are active on talk pages (Explicitly stated: Not only here), because something is close to the heart and they can write a response fit for talk pages, which doesn't take all that much time, but don't have the time searching libraries. I know I don't, and this very modest „contribution“ of mine is an example of that. There is something to be said for balance. If one side has the time make a wiki a major occupation, then there is no competing with that. The Apartheid-article is a good example. I just did a quick word count by way of Word and the headings Its nature and Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories are about equally long. I'm not about, note not about to spew venom here, just asking: Is this balanced? Is this the proper place? The answer to the first question is clearly no. The answer to the second one has been explained to the effect that there wasn't enough material for a separate article. There are certainly shorter articles than that in RW. So why? Cheers and softly and suddenly vanishing away Sorte Slyngel (talk) 19:50, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorte, I can't wrap my head around your point! This is a wiki. What are users here to do, if not to draft articles with sources? If an individual lacks time for that, why are they member-users here? As for Castaigne's enumerated assertions, I decline to treat every controversy with the dismissal: "it has ever been thus among humans." Such world-weary shoulder-shrugging generally works to the benefit of victimizers, but very seldom to the victims. Not to mention, that it smacks of a a very low level of intellectual curiosity -- a wiki is meant to satisfy higher amounts than evinced by that attitude.---Mona- (talk) 20:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
The point is mostly, that even as throwaways his first five point merit consideration. If problems are to be solved, those points, and that applies to every conflict, need to be considered. The second point is that many members are not that active, because they, as said, simply lack time. As for intellectual curiosity, I won't go into an argument about that. Still, the hic et nunc need to be thought about in view of history. And the Apartheid article is imbalanced. You didn't reply to that fact. I think I can safely assume that you do have the time to write as much as you wish. And I believe you when you say that it's an arduous task. Still, that wasn't really an answer. Cheers, and I hope I can vanish away in the way I mentioned. :-) Sorte Slyngel (talk) 20:24, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Well, I don't know what it practically means that for every apparent conflict Castaigne's five points "need" to be considered (and I don't agree with all of them in any event). All liberally educated people are aware of the eddies of human history; that nothing is new under the sun. And again, if some members are inactive because they lack time, well, then, the active ones do the work. If someone lacks time to research an article and/or meaningfully edit for an extended period of time, this is then not the right place for him or her (unless they are here in an administrative role). As for the apartheid article, where is it written that an apartheid piece must be mostly about South Africa if there is a new apartheid on upon the world, as agreed is so by no less than the ANC and Desmond Tutu?---Mona- (talk) 22:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
As Apartheid was an official designator for a set of policies originally intended to give them a positive PR spin, surely there has to be a similar term for the thing Israel does which you call Apartheid (which a great many Palestinians and Israeli Arabs do not consider to be Apartheid, btw). Why not deal with it under this heading? Words should have meaning, after all... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:26, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
"which you the ANC, Desmond Tutu, Bradley Burston (Senior Editor of Haaretz.com), Former Israeli Ambassador to South Africa Alon Lie, Former Israeli attorney general Michael Ben-Yair, Jimmy Carter, Former Israeli Minister of Education Shulamit Aloni, call Apartheid " Fixed that for you.---Mona- (talk) 23:41, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
still bullshit.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 22:00, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Hey, Mona[edit]

Maybe next time you could tell them on their talk. It didn't really look like vandalism or anything, instead it looked like they were confused/making mistakes. They shouldn't be blocked for that stuff usually. Just so you know in the future. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (pretentious, unwarranted self importance) (talk) 04:34, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, they keep linking to a "copy pasta" RW articler Aging Hippie keeps deleting, and they've tried to embed it before and been reverted. But you's still say something on their talk first?---Mona- (talk) 04:37, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (pretentious, unwarranted self importance) (talk) 12:06, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Apologies[edit]

I want to formally apologize for unintentionally offending you. I communicated poorly, and I should have made it clear I was not referring to you in my first post in that thread.KrytenKoro (talk) 19:54, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh geez, forget it! I've accused people of calling me a cunt when it was actually another user. I accused someone else who informed me it was actually Arisboch. That's possible. It was someone who didn't like my Israel-related edits. Some of the Zionists who hate me run together in my head. :) ---Mona- (talk) 21:00, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
So the Zionists on occasion become one giant indistinguishable behemoth intent on crushing poor Mona by using mean words and taking away her toys? Interesting. Is this behemoth made of clay by any chance? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:45, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Gold, Silver, Bronze, Iron and Iron-clay.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 21:47, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
KrytenKoro, Avenger is definitely one to ignore. With a few exceptions on occasion, that's what I do. He's wholly unreasonable and has had his privileges here removed more than once because he can't control himself on several issues, Israel being one of them. (He also gets weird about both proper English and footnotes on user talk pages (much discouraged), but I barely paid attention to the infractions he committed regarding those topics)---Mona- (talk) 21:54, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Paravant decided to single-handedly make a policy where none was before and did this by enforcing it first and foremost against my humble self. This as well as my opinion on the matter of Zionism was his "justification" to remove my sysop-privileges while Mona still enjoys hers that were granted to her in the first place with the only reason as to provide "balance" to me being a pro-Zionist sysop. But please, don't let any facts get into the way of a good tale, Mona. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:03, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
"But please, don't let any facts get into the way of a good tale" Haha, you have no idea how strongly that applies to yourself, do you? Oh, the irony. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 22:07, 1 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
@142․124․55․236Not at all.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 22:10, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, don't let any facts get in the way of telling that good tale of yours, Arisboch. ;) 142.124.55.236 (talk) 22:12, 1 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
That was a b-joke (in Germany, b-jokes are a genre on it's own just like "b-movies" in the US or k'sogeWikipedia's W.svg ("shitty games") in Japan).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 22:16, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
@Avenger, you can continue to both espouse the narrative everything that happened to you was just mean old me, with no community support, being a dick to you and that Mona was only sysoped for balance reasons, but saying it a lot of times makes neither one true. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 22:20, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
@Paravant It makes it very true.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 22:27, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
The way I recall it was Paravant was unhappy with Avenger but Avenger still had his privileges at that point. Paravant felt I merited them and the bit about Avenger was an aside (as if to say if the misbehaving Avenger can have them, his behaving antagonist certainly should also now have them. I have not abused my privileges. Anyway, that's how I recall it, and don't really care. It's stupid to spend time on this: Avenger lost his privileges for cause. End of.---Mona- (talk) 22:26, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
And the cause were you being able to turn the Zionism article into a Electronic Jihad hit piece.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 22:27, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
And yet, here we are, more calm over the wiki than there had been in a month, interestingly having been achieved first by removing the rights of avenger and then your rights. Was it the right choice? No idea, but the problem seems to have been solved with less fuss.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 22:33, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes. Arisboch literally would not accept it that 3 other editors disagreed with his reverts and were undoing them. We'd keep undoing and he'd still revert, endlessly. There was no choice but to take him out of the editing loop.---Mona- (talk) 23:53, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

By the way, Aridsboch. On my User page I have stated my position on the Electronic Intifada site. I won't be arguing it with you any further.---Mona- (talk) 23:56, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Could you at least have the common courtesy of spelling a user name correctly, Monna (sic!) ?Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:47, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Yo[edit]

I noticed the Zionism article was protected from edits and could only be edited by some syops or whatever they call it. I actually had time last night to add Israeli scholarly sources like Benny Morris and Zeev Maoz, but this stubborn protection prevented me. Is there still PacWalker's draft that is still being worked on? ChrisAmiss (talk) 23:02, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

You should have sysop status now if I did things right. You clearly merit it.---Mona- (talk) 00:11, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Yay for yet another sysop created mostly on his anti-Zionist "credentials"! Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 10:26, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
You aren't doing much to get your own back.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 13:18, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Believe me, Avenger, I get it. So does everybody else. You don't like Mona, and your dislike has not brought out the best in you. Carrying such a grudge does nothing to advance your case, and twists your view of reality. Lashing out when hurt is classic dinosaur-brain behavior. The good news is that, with proper effort, you can probably get over it. CamelCasePragmatist (talk) 13:41, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Wow. I couldn't be that condescending if I tried. And I fucking descend from a pastor. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:49, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Chris deserve it more than some who have/had it. While I'm not in love with him I have learned a few things from him, so he's useful in some fashion. CorruptUser (talk) 19:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Blocking[edit]

You were right, the block of the Israel article has been fiddled with, that is to say removed. Is there any way to come to an agreement about this for all included? I favour blocking. For how long is another question, but the intention was cooling, and I think you agree with me on that. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 22:18, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Blocking, in most cases, sucks balls.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 22:20, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
I mean I could mod lock it so none of ya could edit it, though that seems a tad excessive. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 22:28, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
I did say agreement perhaps to the surprise of everyone. Is there any chance of that? Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 22:41, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
@Paravant: If there is no chance, then a mod lock for a week or so might be helpful. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 22:43, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
That's not gonna solve it, only delay it.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 22:44, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Sysop locking pages sure seemed to solve any issues you caused. Wikis been so much nicer since you lost those rights. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 22:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, having the RW being filled with more pro-Hamas propaganda is so much nicer. Sign0017.gif--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 22:50, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, if that was the cost of seeing the great endless edit war of Zionism end, so be it. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:24, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────No that is not going to solve it. But we might all need a break to read something else or watch a beautiful sunset. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 22:49, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Now, that would be at least more than nothing.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 22:50, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
I just restored a 2-week block. And I alerted Aging Hippie to see his talk page. At lest 3 sysops want some period of protection on this page.---Mona- (talk) 22:55, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
As myself and a human being I particularly like agree: There can never be too many sunsets... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:10, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Blocking[edit]

Stop abusing your sysop-tools, asshole.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 22:53, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Don't be silly. ChrisAmiss was putting 3-month blocks on all the Israel-related articles. I agree that's too long. But right now we need some.---Mona- (talk) 22:56, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 22:57, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Mona given your history, abusing your sysop tools isn't something you should even appear to be doing. Or do I need to find me some "Journo-Buddies" of my own? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Says the patrolled guy and former sysop.---Mona- (talk) 23:22, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
That wouldn't have happened, if you wouldn't have Paravant whiteknighting for you.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 23:43, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
If you feel I have abused my Mod and Sysop tools, please, by all means, take me to the coop or AtIM. If you believe this would accomplish nothing because I won't be punished, perhaps you should turn to some introspection on who is wrong here. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
You of course, but cause you have popular support and the mod-hammer, nothing's gonna happen. And I have better things to do than that kinda shit.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 23:50, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Arisboch translated: "I know almost no one agrees with me, but I'm going to hurl baseless insults and whine all over this site because that's just how I roll."---Mona- (talk) 23:54, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

argumentum ad populum FTW!!!--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 23:56, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
The difference between you and Galileo was that He was correct. What mona said was not in any way a Fallacy. Then again, you subject any mention to "we have our own culture" to "APPEAL TO TRADITION" like a fucking idiot, so you know, not surprising. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 00:05, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── What I said isn't a fallacy because I didn't invoke majority view for the fallacious purpose of proving that this or any majority is right and true in any moral sense. Merely observing the fact of a majority -- which Arisboch does not have here -- is not fallacious. To claim otherwise demonstrates unclear thinking on his part. A statement is fallacious or not depending entirely on its purpose.---Mona- (talk) 00:23, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

The shystering is over 9000.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 00:26, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Logic 101. Undergrad. Law school had nothing to do with it. You obviously have never taken logic if you don't know that purpose determines whether a statement is fallacious. I, however, have taken logic, and so do know that you were simply wrong to call my argument fallacious; it isn't.---Mona- (talk) 00:31, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Cause the part RW-mob is always right, amirite?Wikipedia's W.svg--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 00:11, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
It should be telling to you that you claim I am abusing my powers, and yet not one person has stepped up to give you back sysop. Please, consider why this is. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:52, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
And why is that so?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 23:54, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
If you consider Rw to be so lost that I cannot be punished for my flagrant abuse of powers, one wonders why you stay.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 00:07, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Your inability to use terms of your own mother tongue exactly is stunning for a person who claims to be a former lawyer. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:31, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Oh fer shur man.---Mona- (talk) 23:34, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Avenger, please! Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 23:37, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Avenger go sit down, good lord. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:40, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
inability to use terms says the special snowflake who made up his own word to proclaim how right he is, and to avoid admitting he has problems with dann/denn/then/than. Dude, take a break, get some sleep, go talk to somebody in a cafe, just stop making an ass of yourself on RW. SmartFeller (talk) 23:42, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
My own word? And there is a reason why I pointed out that Mona - unlike my humble self - is writing in her mother tongue. A language to which she seems to have an all too casual relationship for someone who used to work in a field related to speaking... Or so one would think. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:52, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Arisboch, why involve gender? Paravant acts according to bis own guidance and claiming he plays my "white knight" is demeaning to him and to me.---Mona- (talk) 23:50, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I didn't. "White knight" as a verb is (mostly) used regardless of gender in today's net lingo (YAY, now I'm not only an evel Zioooonist, but also a sexist. How you're gonna play the victim next?).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 23:54, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────There apparently is no end to Arisboch's ability to mislead and outright lie. Whiteknighting---Mona- (talk) 23:58, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I can faintly remember e.g. Ryulong using it once to attack some GG clowns helping other GG clowns. It's either not that black-and-white as described in the article or a mistake in English, my 3rd language or both.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 00:04, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I see. So you feel you can't be held responsible for what you say here, even when it flat-out contradicts a non-controversial, straightforward RW article. Well, why then do you also feel you are competent to edit English language articles?---Mona- (talk) 00:12, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Argumentum ad dictionarium? We've now got them all, haven't we? Also, if I am a hyper-nationalist for advocating the removal from the list of nations of three separate nation states (The Saudi entity, the Islamic cancer dominating Persia and the German abomination[I would elaborate in a footnote, but alas...]), Arisboch is apparently a sexist evil Zionist... something...Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:02, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Before the revoke of my sysop-right, I was also a shapeshifting lizard (remember the text-form goatse in my sig?)!--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 00:04, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Well I always thought your loss of sysop rights was unjustified... But now... STOP THE LIZARD THREAT!!!!!!!!!!!!11111Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:06, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

The block must be kept in order to stop the Zionist editing on the articles. --Gh1900 (talk) 00:05, 4 October 2015 (UTC) ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────The blocks are not necessary to "stop the Zionist editing" articles. Zionists have no more or less rights here than anyone else. The problem has been several particular Zionists, not with Zionist users per se. (Tho I grant, and know from experience, that this sort of reaction is not uncommon among them -- the unpleasant facts of Zionism and its history do seem to drive many of them into fits of unreason.)---Mona- (talk) 00:27, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Not sure, if trolling os just plain stupid.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 00:06, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
RationalWiki was created to fight wingnuttery, but articles obviously used to be pro-Israel, which contradicts the mission of the website. --Gh1900 (talk) 00:08, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
I am a leftist. I support Israel. Is your worldview disintegrating already? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:11, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
You can't be leftist and support Israel, since it's an expression of imperialism and colonialism. --Gh1900 (talk) 00:13, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Israel was ruled by social democrats for a few decades. The kibbutz movement is not only leftist, but clearly socialist. The left was very strong in the Zionist movement and is still there. You don't know, what you're talking about.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 00:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
People who claim Zionism is not leftist and can't be leftist are ignoring thirty years of Israeli history. To say nothing of the decades of Zionism before the emergence of the Jewish state. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:23, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Supporting Israel is supporting apartheid, racism and persecution of indigenous population. That's why it's not compatible with the left-wing. --Gh1900 (talk) 00:28, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Supporting Israel is supporting apartheid, racism and persecution of indigenous population.- Gh1900 [[[bullshit]]]--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 00:38, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Gh1900, there is a long history of "leftist" Zionists who tried to square the moral circle by, e.g., supporting labor rights but only for Jews; they rejected the univeralist values of leftism and adopted ethno-religious supremacy. Zionism is, as you say, incompatible with leftism except in Zio-world, where words mean what they want them to, nothing more and nothing less.---Mona- (talk) 00:39, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

When a Communist party was founded in the Mandate it was one of the first entities of any kind to openly admit both Jews and Arabs. It was of course denounced as all bad terms the Leninists and Stalinists could think of and denied admission into the Comintern. Why? Because it was Jewish. The fact that they rejected Zionism mattered little to the Supreme Leaders of the Soviet entity. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:41, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

A legit point Arisboch raised[edit]

According to a popular legend an insane asylum in East Germany once had a banner saying "Was wir sind, sind wir duch die Partei" (translation in footnote... oops...) on it. So, please sing this on your next Parteitag of the learned elders of anti-Zion. It may also serve you as a good night song... Die Partei! Die Partei! Die Partei! - Oh god how I hate cheesy German agitprop... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:39, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd respond if you didn't bitch about footnotes where you could have been helpful to people instead, but thats not you, you want to be a child. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 00:41, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Denounce his purported childishness by being childish... YAY!--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 00:47, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Says the guy who hurls sexist and demeaning insults then lies about doing so, thinks only lawyers understand logic, and has several times only tonight wrongly claimed to see a fallacy where there is none because he does not know what the term "purpose" means. That's no better than middle school level lack of knowledge and behavior.---Mona- (talk) 00:52, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

The "sexist" insult either wasn't one or was used in error, according to the RW article, at least, shysters ain't only lawyers and no-one's gonna be fooled by your denial of implying, that I'm (also) wrong, cause I failed to get a majority of votes.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 00:57, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
It means "What we are, we are due to the Party". (Though you probably already knew that.)
Not sure how that'd be a particularly relevant point in this case, though. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 00:45, 4 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
I may speak like a 5 year old, and my German may be limited to whatever School thought was important to teach me, but I do know it. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 00:47, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

As a further aside, you can actually vote for "die PARTEI" in Germany. They are even represented (with one seat) in the EU parliament... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 12:35, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Calm[edit]

Starting over, how about everybody has a beer or whatever their poison may be? I'm really beginning to understand Paravant, when he said he was tired. Cheers (following my own advice) Sorte Slyngel (talk) 23:47, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I would reccomend you all take this advice, lest I actually do something abusey to give you all time to calm down. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 00:10, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
I won't drink today. This is no day for celebration. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:11, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Do you drink to commemorate the time we bombed the shit out of Dresden and justifiably killed a bunch of Germans, who, as you've noted, DESERVED death because Nazis?--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 00:15, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
I drink when the Giants win the Super Bowl. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:21, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Avenger, you are no leftist. Leftists do not endorse collective punishment which is a moral abomination. Many Zionists, especially in Israel, however, do celebrate collective punishment of Gazans, so you are right with your team.---Mona- (talk) 00:34, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

They did, they do and they will. And btw, who the fuck are "Gazans", ain't they supposed to be Palestinians?--Arisboch ☞✍☜

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Arisboch, are you under the impression that Floridians are not Americans? How...odd. And btw, you again wrongly claim fallacy where there is none. Seriously, have you ever taken a logic course? Or do you simply fling fallacies about as if doing so makes you seem sophisticated?---Mona- (talk) 00:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC) ☞✉☜ 00:39, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Has the title of this section been lost in translation? Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk)
Calling people to be calm causes for opposite to happen. At least that's what they tell you in marriage counseling... Or so I've heard. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:43, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Since you know that intellectually, the logical thing to do is temporary self-imposed restraint. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 00:48, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Really Avenger? Alright, then be obstreperous. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (administrator) (system operator) (talk) 00:49, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
I am sorry, but this particular word is in no dictionary I currently have on my shelf... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Dictionary.com kicks ass.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 00:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
It might be etymologically related to "stroppy arsehole." SmartFeller (talk) 00:57, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Well I've been called worse. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:00, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Regarding my supposed advocating for collective punishment[edit]

I never said so. All I did say is that I think the bombing of Dresden was an ok decision when all's said and done. Maybe not the wisest decision in 20/20 hindsight. And maybe a few innocent people who did not deserve to die died. But on the other hand, who knows the number of people who were saved by taking out the military capacities there and making sure no further Jews could be deported through the railway hub that was Dresden? And yes, I stand by my statement that the civilians that resided in Dresden at the time were not entirely innocent. Nor was the city. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:59, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Last I checked you outright said Germans DESERVED death for being Germans and because some people voted Nazi in 1933. Something about deserving what they voted for.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 01:01, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
If you're actually gonna name the civilians living in a city and the city itself separately, then I disagree. How can a bunch of non-sentient buildings be anything but innocent? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 01:05, 4 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
While I agree that a building lacks agency and hence can't be "guilty" of anything, this is mostly to counter the right wing talking point of the "innocent" "city of culture". The fact of the matter is that Dresden in 1945 did not just contain opera houses art galleries and overrated churches. It also contained military industry and army barracks. That's what I meant with the city being "not innocent" Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 12:32, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

And I stand by my statement that...[edit]

...saying Dresden was guilty or innocent is both bullshit. If you look at the military and industrial resources in Dresden in that time and the military technology and customs of war of that days, I also don't think, the bombing of Dresden was a war crime. No-one in the RAF/USAAF gave a flying fuck, whether the people of Dresden voted for the Nazi party, the Zentrum or for the warts on Hindenburg's ass (which contained more braincells then his head[citation NOT needed]).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 02:15, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Luckily the aguement that it was a innocent city was one nobody here ever made except in Avengers head. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 02:22, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
That's not quite true, at least not, if you count in all the right-wing kooks roaming the net.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 02:30, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Luckily we weren't talking about them, but us here, where he spent a lot of time arguing a point nobody had made. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 02:31, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
The argument started when someone removed a contextualization of the PRATT of the "innocent city" - that contextualization was the results of the 1933 election as the best (though sub-optimal) proxy for Nazi sentiment in the city. So yes, I was explicitly addressing the point of the "innocent city" that is a frequent right wing talking point in debates about Dresden in Germany. And it also pops up as a left wing talking point in debates about Dresden in the US. Look no further thaen Mister Vonnegut. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 12:34, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Why I think the 3 month protection should be maintained[edit]

Because in all honesty, it's a waste of my time to edit articles that I feel are unbiased, and I'm sure others feel the same regardless of their point of view, be it pro-Israel or pro-Palestine. And I don't think people, myself included, are coming to settle on what we feel is a reason-based article immune from propaganda or distortion. Why not put it out of its misery? Do we really need more edit wars? I'm getting a little tired of it, and I was especially pissed when Avenger decided to remove scholarly citations from two historians I included in the Zionism section. When scholarly citations are removed, then any pretense of having a reason, fact-based article on challenging political topics that deserve discussion kind of vanished for me. That's my rationale for protecting the page for that long. ChrisAmiss (talk) 01:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Good post. Others do feel the same regardless of personal sympathies. The article has to be protected as long as feuds are involved - and yes, I'm not looking at my non-existent halo. I can forget to be kind. But this particular subject, that is the block, not the article's content, is necessary. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 02:34, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
The thing is Chris, then why not 6 months, a year, or a permanent block? A few weeks for reasonable people to get finished polishing the Zionism article is sensible. Other times, it makes sense to break up edit wars with protection, sysop-level or complete. This can induce people to thrash it out in talk and hopefully stop the warring. It cools the heat. But at some point, blocks that are too long simply become a frozen article. If the problem is Avenger -- and perhaps also another user -- then they need to be dealt with as miscreant users. Long blocks are not an ultimate, or even medium-term solution. Problem users, after all, won't stop at one article -- how many are we gonna slap long blocks on? In sum: I don't think long blocks solve the problem and in any case are contrary to the ways of this wiki---Mona- (talk) 04:12, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
look at the list of protected mainspace articles. It is populated entirely by stuff that attracts driveby BoNs who post racist/misogynist stuff, articles about people the RWF has legal beef with, and other vandalism targets. None of which apply to the articles in question. Work out your petty differences for yourselves, or better yet, go start mideast wiki somewhere, and let us gat back to what this place is really about, letting Ruylong live-blog something about video games. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 04:34, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Aging Hippie, are you a moderator?---Mona- (talk) 04:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Nope. Used to be. Been here since 2007, though. so i think i have a bit of a clue about how the place runs. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 05:24, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
I see your point on the level of criteria and what warrants protection. Still, I'm not confident Israel-Palestine pages will be resolved, but nevertheless, let's see if the talk pages will mitigate the damage....again. ChrisAmiss (talk) 04:52, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
AH, I certainly respect that you've been here for a long time and know the place and its history far better than I do. But I'd ask you to consider that both Chris and I are extremely well-informed on matters pertaining to Israel-Palestine, and that this level of knowledge and ability to document what we know meets the same reaction from Zionists all over the Internet: they really do -- and I've documented this here before -- assign propaganda artists to sites considered sufficiently high profile. Moreover, otherwise reasonable people who are Zionists frequently become highly unreasonable in the face of someone like Chris, and I will add, like me. This Internet phenomenon I know a great deal about. All of which is to say, Israel-related articles may merit some of the same sort of ongoing protection those others on your list receive. Not yet. But perhaps at some point -- and at this juncture already, there is a need for elevated attention and some protection.---Mona- (talk) 05:35, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Work it out on the talk page, or get used to rolling back BS edits. Politically, I'm on your side, and know at least about the issue as you, if not more. But the kind of long-term protection you are trying to impose is not how this place rolls. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 05:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm concerned that you are not listening AH. It has repeatedly been impossible to work it out on the talk page. Doesn't get worked out. Several Zionists literally will not stop no matter what. That's why they've both been de-sysoped and have red exclamation marks by their names (or at least one of them does). There will be more of them, and may be another here already -- the dude you just reverted at the Sam Harris page. Telling us to continue to do what has not been possible to do is, to understate, not helpful.---Mona- (talk) 05:56, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

If they have a problem with an edit on a page and wish to change it, ask them to debunk it WITH CREDIBLE CITATIONS while STAYING ON TOPIC (i.e. no red herrings or whataboutery). That's the only way I feel things will move forward in a civil exchange because then we'll at-least be exchanging evidence and factual material. ChrisAmiss (talk) 06:02, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
As I think youn know Chris, they won't conduct exchanges like that. They just will not. They rant about jihad and call names and go on and on with lengthy non sequiturs. And revert. And revert. And revert. If able to.---Mona- (talk) 06:10, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Well it falls on them. If they continue to do that, they'll look less credible. ChrisAmiss (talk) 06:15, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Mona, this is how it works here. If someone is edit-warring, bin them, and undo their edits as needed. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 08:32, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok. But I had gotten the impression binning was considered very extreme and not meant to last long. I do, however, agree that's a better solution than lengthy blocks in most cases. Not entirely -- we still, on the Israel-related pieces, sometimes need recourse to shorter blocks.---Mona- (talk) 15:20, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Vandal binning[edit]

Stop abusing your sysop-tools, asshole.--129.69.212.19 (talk) Arisboch 16:42, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Ah, if it isn't Arisboch's IP with previous incriminating edits. ;) If you read the last bits of the section just above this one though, you'll notice Mona is just following AgingHippie's advice. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 16:51, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Yup. I'd been skittish about that tool but AH said it's the solution.---Mona- (talk) 17:09, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Well done, -Mona- Scream!! (talk) 16:48, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

How long is reasonable?[edit]

A few hours? A day? There's Arisboch's recent history, and then today he and Avenger tag-teamed to vandalize the Whataboutery article such that the "definition" would be warped in a way useful to the Zionist argument they were engaged with in the Saloon. I reverted. Weaseloid did. Arisboch wouldn't respect that and repeatedly reverted Weaseloid; as "explanation" in the summary he prattled glibly about the FSM. So, given his history and today's antics, how long?---Mona- (talk) 17:32, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

A day. That expires tomorrow. Not longer in any case. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 17:35, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
I was also thinking a day. But he used a different account to deny the misbehavior on "Arisboch's" User page. Now I'm thinking 2 days. There's no indication he won't repeat if he still defends what he did.---Mona- (talk) 17:44, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps. In any case make it just a blink of an eye in the larger setting, i.e. don't impose anything too long. A week would for instance be far too much. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 18:00, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
No, at this point a week would certainly be too long.---Mona- (talk) 18:05, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

These guys are just all in. Avenger just reverted Weaseloid again now that Arisboch can't, and said it was in response to me vandal-binning his pal Arisboch. Now Avenger is VBed as well. They must get off on feelings of being persecuted? [shrug] Two days, both of them.---Mona- (talk) 18:11, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe they do get off on those feelings anymore than Palestinians do. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 20:08, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Except of course, Palestinians actually are persecuted. Murdered. By Zionists.---Mona- (talk) 20:16, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
The comment was about getting off. I don't really think anyone does. And Jews are persecuted in various countries. Anti-Semitism hasn't died. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 16:31, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
I doubt antisemtism or any racism will ever completely die. But right now, Palestinians have the most cause for bad feelings against an oppressor.---Mona- (talk) 16:35, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
That would most of two. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 16:46, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Antisemitism will not die before capitalism dies. It is a weak attempt by some people to personalize the non-personal forms of rule and economic operation that exist in capitalism. Most of the faults of capitalism cannot be blamed on any one individual. Antisemitism tries to put the blame of the real (and perceived) ills of capitalism on one rather specific group of people. And as long as Antisemitism exists, the state of Israel must exist. Because in a capitalist world, we can't trust people to not kill Jews unless there is an armed deterrent that stops them from making their murderous fantasies reality. And this armed deterrent is Israel. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 18:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Antisemitism is far older than capitalism, in any modern form of the term. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 18:28, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Avenger is so fuckin' funny. Israel must exist because capitalism. HAHAHAHA---Mona- (talk) 18:43, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Jew hatred (usually grounded in [pseudo] religious reasons) is older thaen capitalism. Antisemitism on the other hand only arose in its modern form in the 19th century. As did the personalizing "critique" of capitalism that is its bastard sister. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 18:54, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

So how will socialism cure jew hatred if it can only cure antiseminitism?--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 19:02, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
The notion that any political or economic arrangement will eradicate bigotry of anyone is hilarious. It must be a matter of faith for Avenger. Or, he's just spouting crap for why Israel has to remain an ethno-religious, supremacist state -- any bullshit will do.---Mona- (talk) 19:18, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Anti-Semitism in the modern form or other isn't really a product of the 19. century. It's been with us since Hadrian at least. Still, excepting socialism, Avenger is basically right that hatred of Jews exists and that it is equally horrendous as anything anti-(insert group of your choice) else. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 19:59, 5 October 2015 (UTC)Sorte Slyngel (talk) 19:55, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

The difference between Antisemitism and any old hatred against Jews is that there is no way out for those persecuted by it. In Medieval Europe a Jew could save their live by a few dashes of holy water. Dito in Islamic regimes when the Jews were to be killed once more... Antisemitism on the other hand can hit you even if you have just one Jewish grandparent and no conversion - not even a sincere one - can get you of it. And this type of hatred against people perceived to be Jewish arose in the 19th century together with the term Antisemitism. And it was roughly contemporaneous with nationalism, capitalism and the emancipation of Jews in states like Prussia. What the ultimate reasons for this are we can of course disagree on, but in my humble opinion there is a connection between Antisemitism and capitalism or rather a wrong kind of "criticism" of capitalism that criticizes several aspects of capitalism but stays silent on the whole issue of capitalism itself. Or rather the errant belief that you can "fix" capitalism by introducing a Tobin tax, outlawing certain types of banking or the likes. And to be clear on that: I dislike capitalism, but it is still the best and most advanced system of economic and political organization that humankind has come up with so far. Just like the Roman Empire was that in its time. But I for one don't subscribe to the old-Hegelian belief that the thaen current economic and political system is the non plus ultra and the best imaginable system. I for one think we can do better thaen capitalism. And of course what happened in Leninism was not and is not better thaen capitalism. Nor is the stuff Chavez or Ortega did and do. And on the latter one: Trust me, I know. I hope I could shed some light on this. I could also link to some lectures on that issue, but they are all in German and have rather long sentences in them... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:45, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Sorte, it's certainly true that antisemtism has been around a long time, altho Hadrian didn't like Christins either. Anyone who was not of the Roman religion was not secure. Also, in the 19th century, bullshit racial theories added a pseudo-intellectual patina to most forms of racism, including antisemitism.---Mona- (talk) 21:48, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Seriously Avenger, you actually went back to this... I don't know what to call it... that asserts any attempt to restrict/regulate capitalism without completely doing away with it is antisemitism? Well, if you like looking stupid... >.> 142.124.55.236 (talk) 21:53, 5 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
Plenty of people who weren't roman cult were secure, it was a exception not to be because roman tolerance, what it was, was great for an empire, and romes dislike of the jews they brought it on themselves with all those rebellions while the Christians were new and thus obviously evil (being "atheist" didn't help them). --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 21:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
@Avenger, Wold you like some literature on the decline in Pirates and subsequent rise in global temperatures since the 18th century Avenger? If we want to tie the rise of antisemitism to anything in the 19th century, it is scientific racism and nationalism (you know, which would be greatly interested in knowing who is "a jew, aka "not us" even if they convert), not an economic theory. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 21:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Moreover, I don't give a rat's ass about anything Avenger has to say about economic or political systems. ---Mona- (talk) 22:01, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Mixing political visions (socialist in this case) with idealism in another case is never a good idea. I don't agree with Avenger's politics but I think he's mostly right about the current situation. I mentioned Hadrian because he was responsible for the forced diaspora. He didn't like Christians, and how could he be expected to given his point of view? Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 17:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Just providing this link No further comment. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:26, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Article for deletion not at deletion page -- wassup?[edit]

Somebody put a deletion template on the Tim Tebow article, but I don't see it proposed at the RW proposed deletions page. What am I missing?---Mona- (talk) 00:00, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Probably needs to be updated. Larry/Jack! - (talk) 00:07, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, I removed it. Not sure why anyone would think it isn't missional.---Mona- (talk) 00:11, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Drive-by tag from a fairly obvious concern troll, one who was too lazy to complete the process. SmartFeller (talk) 01:09, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Ayup.---Mona- (talk) 01:16, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

And now for something completely different[edit]

I'm not going to mention the war and instead reach my own point: I'll be holding you to what you said earlier at some point. Woo is both fun and important to cover! And if nothing else, it'd allow you to get out of the argument clinic and interact with some fresh-faced, apple-cheeked men of the cloth. Pip-pip cheerio! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:51, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I'm gonna do it. That really is why I joined. Then, lo, I discovered that one of my two or three political passions were treated very badly here -- as in, just awful. But as a young adult I was militantly anti-woo. I'm less militant now simply because I no longer think it can be significantly eradicated; too many human beings want to believe that shit. But I went batshit at the "Targeted Individuals" who have infested the comments section at my usual playground, Glenn Greenwald's comment space. They'd be banned, and just return, with back-up legions ranting about this covert torture and stalking bullshit. They are utterly crazy and when I Googleds RW for more info -- there was none! So, I figured I was a fine person to do it, and I will.---Mona- (talk) 02:08, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Do you have to mention Glenn Greenwald on literally every topic you write about? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 11:14, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
You may not have noticed, but my political views and passions are 85% identical to Glenn's. It's been that way since we met over 20 years ago. When he started blogging in '05 I happily parked my online self in his comments space, and have been a regular there ever since. Moreover, the stuff I know a lot about, well, it is frequently also the case that he has written something (often a lot) about it as well. He's a respected source and so I use him which makes it easy for me to, in turn, write about those issues because I know Glenn's oeuvre so well.---Mona- (talk) 15:09, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
The fact that you respect him does not necessarily make him a respected source. And it is well known that people who are sensible on one issue can be batshit insane on another. Or people who once held reasonable opinions turn to outright bullshit. Or the other way round (as seems to be the case with Moonbeam who seems to have dialed down on the woo a lot in recent years. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 17:08, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
That fact that you don't like or respect him greatly increases the likelihood that he merits respect and is reliable.---Mona- (talk) 17:13, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Wow, I think you just personally created a logical fallacy that RW does not yet have an article on. And for that matter: I care rather little who holds a particular opinion, as long as it is sound. However, when there are statements of fact, I tend to look very closely at the bias of the source in question. I wouldn't trust the North Koreans on the number of hole in ones the Kims have made. But if North Korea says renewable energies are the way forward, are they wrong just for being North Korea? And even if Hitler says that a goose is always a goose (which he in fact, did) is it wrong just because I hate the guy who says it? And to be perfectly clear of course Hitler says this perfectly banal sentence to make his racist points... And those are of course wrong. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 17:26, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
The fact that you think that means it is very likely not true. Now, good day. Wasted more than enough time on your prattle.---Mona- (talk) 17:29, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Wait what exactly has become disreputed by its association with my humble self again? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 17:49, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────No, it's a very old fallacy. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 18:52, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorte, you repeatedly fail to understand what makes a statement fallacious. It is not fallacious to note that: "Person X is repeatedly wrong in his fact claims, and to therefore hold that his future fact claims are unlikely true." An ad hominmen would be, e.g., claiming: "Israel is racist because many of their prime ministers have been really ugly." There is no logical relationship between the nature of Israel and any politician's lack of physical beauty. (So often here I feel as if I'm a professor of Logic 101 at the local community college. Accusations of employing this or that fallacy are almost as frequent as they are incorrect.)---Mona- (talk) 18:59, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, well, expect your students to fail, Professor. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 19:13, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
PS: I'm old and I forget, but it seems to me you view everybody in the same fog. I can't recall having mentioned logical fallacies by name to any extent. I have called you out on simple things like division, you know a/b = c. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 19:28, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Don't be silly. I've always Aced any tests of logic. Undergrad. Admissions tests. Law school. Bar exam. You name it. (Psst. This is not the anecdotal fallacy, because it is a specific example about an individual -- me. Another fallacy you've misused and I patiently corrected you.) In fact, to my annoyance, throughout the years some doofuses have thought to compliment me by saying I "think like a man." As if women can't be very logical.---Mona- (talk) 19:56, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Nobody gives a shit about what tests you supposedlyWikipedia's W.svg aced.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 13:38, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I think we've had this discussion before. Thinking like a woman and all that. Who cares? In any case, you perhaps aced your tests but how does that show? You seem to be some kind of megalomaniac. And as before, regardless of the generality of your anecdotes, we still have to take them on trust and why should we? You haven't been all that logical yourself. A hint: Masses of words don't equal logic. And that was an ad hominem straight out of the book. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 20:16, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Pretty reliable. This isn't braggadocio simply a statement of facts from which one may make reasonable inferences: I graduated from a top tier law school such that an ace grad of NYU law (Greenwald) wanted me for a professional partner. I suppose I could have suffered a traumatic brain injury since all that and become a clinical moron. So yes, you'll have to trust that that did not occur. Also, my "masses of words" are nearly (sic; another thing I almost always avoid is absolutes) all logical and suffused with facts that are overwhelmingly accurate. (And I immediately concede it when I've made a manifest error of fact.) There's a reason I've so significantly prevailed in defense of my edits. You might want to think about that before you (again) sneer about my purported lack of logic and mere "masses of words."
Adding: About this: "And that was an ad hominem straight out of the book." Your referent is utterly unclear. In any case, I made no ad hominem. My dear, you are absolutely crippled in your (lack of) understanding the fallacies.

---Mona- (talk) 20:58, 8 October 2015 (UTC) ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Clarifying: Of course I meant your original dismissal: Avenger says X, therefore X is wrong, or the other way around as the case may be. If I'm the reliable one, of course I am. So are you. Of course this is braggadocio - thanks for that word. You're your own sincerest admirer, which makes a happy relationship, but others aren't impressed. Cheerio darling Sorte Slyngel (talk) 21:18, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorete, the proof, as they say, is in the pudding. My facts and arguments usually prevail among reasonable people. In part because I very infrequently make arguments about issues where I'm not secure in my knowledge base, and also because I have a demonsatrated ability to think and argue logically. These are simply facts. (shrug). Well, enough. The last word, if you want it, is yours here.---Mona- (talk) 21:23, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Ah and three guesses as to who defines who constitutes as "reasonable people".... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:55, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
We know. One rarely sees such self-congratulatory essays as these, but here they are. :-) Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 21:57, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Self-congratulatory essays being rare at the RW? Nope.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 13:39, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Well some more thaen others... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:49, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

You seem to be misunderstanding the question[edit]

I don't want to hear some hoo-boo cry me a Jordan about your (probably invented) journey to just become the same as your parents. What I am really asking is this: There is so much bad in the world. So much human rights abuses and violence and stuff. Why don't you seem to care about dead Palestinians that were killed by e.g. Bashar al Assad? Why don't you care about Darfur, Congo, Rwanda, Bosnia, East Timor, Pakistan, the global war on Atheism and many many more things that are much worse thaen even the imagined and invented things Israel allegedly does. (Unless of course we count UNRWA schoolbooks as reliable sources). So what has Israel ever done to you (or indeed anybody) that it is worth focusing on more thaen real ills in this great world of ours? In short: Why do you look at the splinter in the eye of the Jew and ignore the logs in the eyes of many other people? But I know I won't get a response that is any different in substance from an accuse of Whataboutism, so I guess I am wasting my time, ain't I? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 02:23, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

You are pitiable, but also somewhat amusing. ---Mona- (talk) 02:26, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
I should go into the prophecy business. A non-answer was what I was expecting, a non-answer (and an insult to boot) is what I got... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 02:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Alternative Theory Time with Avenger!: The problems involving Israel are real-world ills worthy of focusing on. Then again, you're the same person who argued that because we lack an article on one countries leader another countries leader was not missional. Also, don't complain about people calling you out on Whataboutism when you are actually engaging in whataboutism. "but these other places suck!" is not a justifiable reason to tell somebody to not care about something.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 02:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
It's not whataboutism to point out hypocrisy. Nowadays people who have been caught being hypocritical yell "whataboutism" and are done with it. I won't give you that cheap satisfaction. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 15:08, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
"It's not whataboutism to point out hypocrisy."Correct. But that's not what you are doing. You are trying, very hard, to change the subject.---Mona- (talk) 15:39, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
No, it isn't Whataboutism to point our hypocrisy. the difference is, you aren't. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 15:41, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually, lets toss that question of yours back at you[edit]

Why do you focus on the things you like and not others? Why do you focus on the things that interest you the most and not other things to the exact same amount? Why am I a historian when I should also be as interested and dedicated to the fields of Anthropology, Geology, Physics, Xenohistory, Philosophy, Biology, etc? Why are there concentrations inside of Majors, after all, according to your logic they should be just as into the other parts as well. You literally asked the most inane question you could ask, and yet expect non-mocking answers? --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 02:38, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

A good friend of mine is a vegan and completely opposed to animal cruelty; he spends a good deal of time and energy working to stop it. He does also have strong views on the rights of human beings and has given his time to that as well, but a number of people have criticized him for his animals activism when there are so many humans who are suffering. There really is no end to whataboutery once one starts down that path.---Mona- (talk) 02:59, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't give a fuck about animals. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 13:45, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Way to avoid the question Avenger - Why do you focus so hard on some topics but not others? Yu admonish Mona for it but I don't see you having a PHD in every possible college degree on earth. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 14:37, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Which topics would that be? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 14:55, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Avenger is simply an extreme example of the general Zionist love for fallacies. In my experience they are devotees of many of them, with whataboutery high on the list, perhaps second only to the ad hominem by disingenuous accusations of antisemitism. The non sequitur is also popular, as is Arisboch's favorite, the argument from sarcasm and straw manning.---Mona- (talk) 14:57, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Any topics that interest you Child. Why them, and not others? Why them, and not others as well? If Mona is to be criticized for focusing on the hardships of Palestinians under Israeli occupation and not also railing every moment about the many other suffering people, why are you immune to criticism for also focusing on certain topics and not others? Do you also complain that people who focus on the issues of black people in america should be focusing on the sufferings and plights of others to the same degree? You must, if Mona is to be criticized for not giving the same effort to all the other suffering people.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 15:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────If Mona cares about Palestinians, why not all Palestinians? Why not those that want to live in peace with Israel and are killed by the more radical elements for their trouble? Why not the Palestinians killed by Assad ISIS and god knows whom in Syria? Why not focus on the corruption and dysmal human rights record of Fatah, Hamas and Hezbollah? Have they not hurt the Palestinians worse thaen any single thing Israel has ever done? And you Paravant have yet to say which of the topics I have shown interest for does not deserve interest to be put into it. Unlike Mona I am not monomanically focused on one single subset of one single topic and wish to only see one single side of said topic. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 15:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

"Have they not hurt the Palestinians worse thaen any single thing Israel has ever done?" Not in the estimation of any Palestinian I have read or engaged. Many are disgusted with the corruption in both the PA and Hamas, but overwhelmingly consider Israel the greatest blight on their lives. And for very good reasons. Palestinians founded BDS and continue to promote it. ---Mona- (talk) 15:15, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Because if you try to cover -all- the suffering people, you won't save any of them, and the best shot at improving the lives first is with Israel, who is in theory a free democracy which should be able to change, and not the corrupt family dictatorship in Syria, who would require a regime change to make things improve. I never once said you shouldn't put focus on topics, I ask why those topics but not others? Which was your question at its core: "Why do you ocus on this subject but not others", which is an inane question reflective of somebody who is not going to go anywhere in life until they stop thinking it--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 15:19, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
If you care about the plight of people in the world like Darfur, why aren't you protesting in the streets and organizing rallies? If you care about the Palestinians in Syria (which I would agree with by the way, Assad needs to be taken out), why aren't you doing something about it? Why are you focused on police violence committed against blacks but then ignore black on black crime which is statistically greater? I can keep going with this but a sign that you've lost the argument is when you begin arguing that you're being unfairly singled out rather than actually disputing something. ChrisAmiss (talk) 15:20, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Ah the good old black on black crime distraction.... Guess what. The single biggest criminal activity in the US is white on white crime. Do you ever hear talk of that? And how do you know that I am not organizing a rally against Assad as we speak? Trust me, I live in a place where a political rally is only ever a short bike ride of distance and a week of time away. Of course Mona's token Palestinians hate Israel. That's what they are taught in school, that is all they ever hear on Hamas TV. If Palestinian TV were even a slight bit less antisemitic, the chances of peace would be way better. But alas... Have you ever noticed the fact that many Palestinians who don't hate Israelis were rather surprised when they met the first Jew face to face? There are even sentences like "I was surprised they don't have horns" uttered. Have you ever wondered why such words are said? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 15:31, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
"Ah the good old black on black crime distraction" No insult meant: I'm seriously beginning to consider that you are simply very dumb rather than entirely disingenuous. ---Mona- (talk) 15:38, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Way to change the subject my friend. You still didn't answer my question. You're so focused on police violence against blacks but then dismiss black vs. black crime as a distraction. Do black lives really matter if you take that stance? Why are you singling out the police? Answer the question. And right, hating the occupation, land theft and settlements is antisemitism. It has nothing to do with those factors at all. ChrisAmiss (talk) 15:40, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Most crime - especially most murders - happens among people who know each other well. And as black people tend to know other black people more thaen white people (the same is of course true with whites knowing more white people thaen blacks) it is a sad fact of live that black on black crime will be more commonplace thaen white in black or black on white. However, the issue of black on black crime is only ever brought up as a distraction by Fox News types to stop any debate of police violence. Just like the supposed "all lives matter" movement that suddenly became eerily silent when a white person was killed by police (a fact that many black people pointed out using the black lives matter hashtag. But this of course is whataboutism...) And just to be clear: There should be something done about crime. Period. But crime is a complex issue. It has socioeconomic factors, it has mental health factors it has a connection to culture, it has a lot to do with law enforcement and it is a societal problem. Claiming that "blacks" as some amorphous mass are to blame for higher crime rates in certain places is highly disingenuous and racist. In the 19th century the same could have been said about Italians and Irish. And in that case as well it was mostly socioeconomic factors. Nowadays of course, the disproportionate effect of "tough on crime" laws on black and poor people (and poor black folk in particular) of course reinforces the issue even more... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 15:57, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure why it's a distraction. Granted, I don't watch Fox News, but not everything they say should be dismissed because of its political position, albeit sometimes taken to the far right (if we're talking about the human rights abuses Islam commits against people for example). The focus of protests from black lives matter is to achieve reform in the criminal justice system, better forms of equality, and an awareness of police brutality. I don't agree that most crime happens among people who know each other well, because the facts say otherwise. The Handbook of Crime Correlates released in 2009 mentioned that in the studies examining ethnic/racially heterogeneous areas, most often neighborhoods in large cities, these areas have higher crime rates than more homogeneous areas. If the findings are correct, most studies find that the more ethnically/racially heterogeneous an area is, the higher its crime rates tend to be. So, black on black crime is an issue that merits attention, and if the Black Lives Matter is to be consistent, it should address these problems because it accounts for 93% of deaths compared to say the rest (7%). I would agree with Richard Sherman in this regard because the movement damages its credibility. ChrisAmiss (talk) 17:42, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
"and if the Black Lives Matter is to be consistent," Chris, that's pretty appalling. As a white woman I'm not going to tell black activists they should not only protest armed agents of the state killing them, but also spend time objecting to their own criminals. Nope, not gonna be so arrogant as to go there.---Mona- (talk) 17:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't have a vested interest in arguing the ethos of Black Lives Matter since I was using it in a partially hypothetical way to highlight Avenger's hypocrisy and tendency to JAQ off. It's not a stance I devote analysis or am willing to devote time to. But if I am to argue it, I like to consider the quantitative facts and relevant information. The person I mentioned who said that there are internal problems (Richard Sherman, football player in this instance) to be focused on is black himself. Certain communities are hurting from a lack of economic attention given to them, so there is a structural bias involved. ChrisAmiss (talk) 18:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Sherman was speaking in a very specific context, having been involuntarily dragged into some call to kill cops. But anyway, this is tangential. BLM is something I support but I don't claim to have a great deal of insight on the topic.---Mona- (talk) 18:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Emboldened by Paravants vandalbinning of Avenger[edit]

You blocked him, again abusing your sysop-tools.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 17:43, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Nope. He once again vandalized a WIGO. After Paravant VBed him for the same thing. Child cannot learn.---Mona- (talk) 17:47, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
though I wouldn't have dine a notalk, he should have known better.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 18:02, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Was undecided about notalk. Then figured it might cause him to actually get it. Nothing else has.---Mona- (talk) 18:12, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Clearly i've a hard on for Aris, right?[edit]

Why i've been so soft on him--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 00:25, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I dunno, but you do have a soft spot for him. You didn't like that he got himself lumped in with Avenger, But that's all irrelevant. You have to provide a 1-size-fits-all rationale for reverting edits and giving people a chance to document. And you are not doing that. It looks highly arbitrary and thus unfair.---Mona- (talk) 00:28, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, give her new rules to shyster over.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 09:17, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
If i expected them to add sources, I might be kinder. They made no promises, only a vague sourceless declaration that they spoke the Truth. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 00:31, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
It's not a matter of "kind." It's that it is a plausible argument, and one that is no more or less worthy than half the other stuff on that page. Let him have a chance, and if it doesn't happen, then that and, frankly, other shit on that page should go.---Mona- (talk) 00:36, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

And writing is a strong suit?[edit]

The last comments on various pages don't indicate that it is, or at least you don't take pride in it. Also, rational thinking is supposed to be another strong suit, and you've convinced everybody you've ever met that your view is the right one, or so you say. That is not obvious either. It is a well known fact, that people who are bombarded with witless logic just say „OK, fine with me“ to escape, unless they are already converts and actually don't need the speech. You preach to the quire, they agree, and the rest really wants to flee. You are probably more to be pitied than censured. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 00:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Uh-huh.---Mona- (talk) 00:43, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
That would be an Americanism for „I agree“. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 00:53, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Sure.---Mona- (talk) 00:55, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Well I find it almost hard to believe that Mona is - as she claims - good with the words thing. But thaen again, it seems that more and more we've come to expect less and less of each other... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:57, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Crushed, I am.---Mona- (talk) 20:06, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory experts wanted[edit]

Generally, I'm best at collaborative writing, and I'm looking for some assistance. Currently I'm pulling together sources for an article on the topic of "Targeted Individuals." The contours of this phenomenon can be gleaned here in two entries, one by a sane person and another by a devotee. (One adherent of this bullshit, a mentally ill young prosecutor, recently went on a Florida shooting spree.Cops killed him so this has the TIs in even higher conspiracy mode.) This crap is a global belief system and they have just held their first convention in Berlin.

The RW "Conspiracy theory" article is excellent and I anticipate drawing from it. My take is that these people explain things they experience thru the lens of modern "scary things" like the CIA and actual weapons militaries are experimenting with. In bygone eras people attributed the same phenomena to demonic possession and then to UFO abductions and aliens. (Which is to say, it is likely true that some of these people are actually experiencing voices in their heads and a sense of being tortured and stalked.) These freaks are all over the Internet and some have decided that Edward Snowden is a CIA plant, because if he wasn't he would have disclosed the NSA documents on "touchless torture" and "mind control" programs.

So, if anyone else would like to get into this with me I'd be happy.---Mona- (talk) 20:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

First of all please sign your contributions to talk pages. Secondly, this might have been better suited for the Saloon Bar, but who am I to judge? And thirdly, you might be interested in the works and opinions of Ken Jebsen Jürgen ElsässerWikipedia's W.svg and a couple of other folks... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:58, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Rather obviously I know to sign on my talk page since I've almost always done so since I arrived. I was writing running late for my kickboxing class. (Shit, put in a page break instead of sig)---Mona- (talk) 20:06, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Hey Mona, just wanted to notify you that I've replied to you on my talkpage. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:18, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Don't[edit]

See the Israel article. Something has to be done about you, if continue in this manner. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 18:01, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

The facts are what they are. The British left Palestine because of Zionist terrorism. And the quote following the spot you want to change is about ZIONIST terrorism. That's what drove the Brits out. That's history, like it or not.---Mona- (talk) 18:04, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Erasing Arab terrorism from history again, huh? Not, that's anything new with you, you try to erase Arab terrorism from the present.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 18:33, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
You can continue with the straw manning all you like. But I stick with the facts.---Mona- (talk) 18:37, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
But I stick with the facts- -Mona- [Lie] [Bullshit].--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 18:42, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, you aften claim that, but as usual, cannot point to any lies of mine, or any non-factual "bullshit." Indeed, it is the facts I (and Chris) supply that make you unreasonably and even unhinged.---Mona- (talk) 18:47, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
don't make me VB u. I don't want to- -Mona- And they say, that Israelis have chuzpah...--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 19:03, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Not becasue I care in particular about you -- you are not amenable to reason on this whole topic and the place runs more smoothly without you in this area. But I don't like having to act in a manner that risks making me look as if I'm too quick with the VB button or abusing it re: opponents. So, for self-interested reasons I don't want to do it.---Mona- (talk) 19:10, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, of course it runs smoother with less people reverting your pro-Hamas shit. That way, you can more easily transform RationalWiki into JihadWiki.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 19:25, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Predominately just two. You and Avenger. With Sorte occasionally backing up. How pitiful that a smart man like yourself accepts an idiot ally like Avenger, but he's mostly all you've got. That, and lots of name-calling and hand-waving. Don't you ever wonder why this all is? ---Mona- (talk) 19:41, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Shove both your flattering and your insults where your ideas seem to come from (hint: not the orifice, that is only required to be covered in Saudi-Arbia or DAESH-land).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 19:46, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
No flattery; factual observation. You are not stupid but Avenger is not, um, any intellectual giant. But Unlike Avenger you are only an overwrought moron in this one area. Brains on Zionism can appear slow, including yours. ---Mona- (talk) 19:50, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Great leaders like having smart people who disagree with them around them. Simple minds want conformism. Cheers. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:40, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

What makes you think I'm stupid?[edit]

You know Mona hiding our mutual dislike for each other is not doing anybody any good. That being said, how do you draw the conclusion that I am stupid? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:00, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

A link that might be helpful for you...[edit]

I know you pretend to ignore me if it suits you, but given your recent accusations hurled at good Arisboch (who did in fact never bring up his own gender, heritage ethnicity or religion to score discrimination points on spurious grounds) it might interest you that "JAQing off" is something that has been linked to quite some times. It would be a nice day if could let facts enter into your personal bubble for once... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:53, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Citation needed[edit]

I have never said RW shouldn't have an article on Gamergate. I have said, in fact, that because both geek culture and feminism are topics that appeal to core users, we need to have a good article on Gamergate. I have complained that the article we have is too long, over written, poorly written, to convoluted, and written so that it is only useful to, of interest to, and graspable by, people who are already Gamergate specialists. I have complained that the fact that 3 of our 10 longest articles are on the same topic speaks to the wiki being used to live-blog and record the micro-details of one event which, while being of appeal to core users, is not part of RWs core mission. That is no anywhere near the same as saying we shouldn't have the article. If you are going to take it upon yourself to speak for me, at least have the courtesy and the integrity to put correct words in my mouth. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 08:00, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

RW seems to do worse thaen average on subjects that are not part of its core mission so to speak. For example everything related to GG and Israel/Palestine... And I am sure Aging Hippie who's been around longer thaen my humble self would know of other examples... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 13:24, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Yup, you are dead right avenger. Mona you are a considerable intellect but AH has the right of it here. Keep fighting the good fight though.Tielec01 (talk) 13:34, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
I never "spoke for you" AgingHippie. Rather, I spoke my own understanding of your position as a reason for the inquiries I was making as a prelude to forming a position on issues pertaining to Ryulong and the Gamergate article -- especially the coop case. Moreover, you had not denied my understanding that you hated hosting the article here when you told me you did care about the writing. As to that writing, the article is pretty good but I do agree some line-editing is indicated. Ryu does not seem to oppose that; I read him as feeling you were interfering with his drafting process. Is that not the case? And is there not a long history of acrimony between the two of you? (Given that GG is ongoing and dynamic I can see why keeping our material current would feel to you like live-blogging, but this is not necessarily a bad thing.)---Mona- (talk) 14:25, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
And Avenger: The Israel/Palestine articles thoroughly sucked until I arrived and battled down and through the Zionist squad (duo?). Then, I, Chris and other knowledgeable people began redrafting and sourcing what had been piles of steaming shit assertions. Many of these articles, therefore, are no longer excrement at all. ---Mona- (talk) 14:31, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Before you came, they were not shit, after you came and Paravant did purge me and Avenger from the ranks of the sysops, it became worse than any shit.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 14:46, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
You were purged for your edit warring, Avenger was purged because his sysop was premature.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 14:47, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Arisboch, your brain on Zionism is literally repulsed by facts and sourcing. You are entirely unable to evaluate the quality of any article -- here or elsewhere -- touching on Israel. Unless, of course, it issues from the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs. ---Mona- (talk) 14:52, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Arisboch, your brain on Zionism- -Mona- <snark>Achieves super-falafel powers!!!!!111</snark> My god, how many times did you steal the line from the silly anti-drug campaign vid now?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 15:02, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
It works so well. And is accurate. I see your brain frying in a pan with a blue-starred bottom. It's a terrible thing to waste.---Mona- (talk) 15:07, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Our articles on Zionism before you came along looked like articles at RW about topics the community at large does not particularly care about on issues that are - at best - indirectly related to our mission look. Just click on "random article" if you doubt me. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 15:09, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I completely agree those articles looked like that. But a significant amount of the community cares a very great deal. And now we've been able to make the articles look and read much, much better.---Mona- (talk) 15:20, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

To you and to Jürgen ElsässerWikipedia's W.svg maybe Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 15:28, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Just wondering what the basis for Mona's „considerable intellect“ is. If she has one, it's not being used , and as she herself has stated in other words, a mind is a terrible thing to waste. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 16:21, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Fucking stop it - Now![edit]

This edit warring bullshit stops now. End of story. No buts. PsyGremlinTal! 15:58, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I just told Paravant I won't revert that again. But I will NOT post anything related to Israel-Palestine in that ghetto, and will not tolerate it being "relocated."---Mona- (talk) 16:00, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Why not? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 16:01, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Fuck yourself. That you WANT the topic moved is all the reason any rational person should need to know why it's a bad idea. So now, I will continue posting topical I-P related posts, you will delete, and Paravant has now just ensured never-ending edit wars. Thanks to you.---Mona- (talk) 16:06, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Most of all I don't want you to disrupt community consensus. Therefore (to enforce community consensus against one lone dissenter) I reverted. ONCE. But of course you have to make this about something else, don't you? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 16:09, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
there is something funny about you defending community concensus and mob politics.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 16:10, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
I have nothing against a consensus (which you btw spelled wrong) that is really there and not just some figment of your imagination... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 16:16, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, yeah, says he who desperately tried to get Israel articles deleted as off mission. You want this, and I'm not having it. I'm not going to put topical political comments in some topic ghetto.---Mona- (talk) 16:11, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Have you read our mission statement? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 16:16, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Have you??!?!? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 18:14, 18 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

PsyGremlin reinstated the last I-P section and I'm perfectly happy with that. One section, the active one, is fine. The rest can and should be archived.---Mona- (talk) 16:25, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

So many I-statements are seldom seen. „I want this“, „I will not allow“ all taken together amounting to „I'm the great mind of our century as well as the previous one“ - and therefore never mistaken. Pure dictator material, that's certain. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 16:35, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Another wild-eyed Zionist who dislikes me. It's about me, always about me with him rather than about the ideas. Yet amusingly Sorte accuses me of referring to...me.---Mona- (talk) 16:39, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Well if this one may butt in with their opinion.... It does appear as if Mona likes to talk about herself and her opinions an awful lot. It would almost seem as if she considers her opinions to be somehow more important and more worthy of praise and attention thaen those of others... But thaen again, what does this one know? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 16:43, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
„Wild-eyed Zionist“? That's the best joke of the month. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 17:43, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
BTW what are wild eyes? Dontcha mean wide eyes, dear English native speaker accusing others of lack of language ability and stuff Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 18:03, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
"Wild-eyed" is an English phrase describing lunatics, generally of the manic sort. Now you know. SmartFeller (talk) 18:07, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Well I am, as you know exceedingly stupid. So I was not aware that both exist and one of 'em (the one that seems to be more uncommon and to have less applications) to simply be a malapropism by Mona... And given that she has accused my humble self of stupid wide eyed (sic) idealism as well as radicalism it does beg the question what exactly she did mean in all her bilingual glory. I shall never accuse her of monolingualism even if she never does say what the second language she speaks is Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 18:21, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Are you seriously trying to shame people for not knowing a bucketload of languages? Christ. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 18:31, 18 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
I wouldn't call the amount of languages the European Commission deems necessary for an engaged and active citizen of the EU to be a "bucketload" (sic!). Unless of course languages come in buckets with more air in them thaen bags of potato chips... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 18:39, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

"wide eyed" I never wrote that; not about you or anyone else.(Or if I did, it was a typo, but I doubt very much that it happened.) In any event, you are monumentally stupid and therefore I usually do not engage your claims or your whining. Your commentary is mostly one long non sequitur and various other fallacies. I begrudge you every second I do spend replying in order to make sure no one credits your nonsense about me.---Mona- (talk) 18:29, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Stick to the essentials. I cited you correctly about me being a „wild-eyed Zionist“. You can believe what you want, but the people I know IRL would be very, very surprised. :-) Sorte Slyngel (talk) 00:30, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for sharing.---Mona- (talk) 00:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm always glad to. Strangely enough, browsing the article of the day, I stumbled upon this which has a double significance, since it both a reference to you and an example that your contributions here could easily be made an article in itself, although that was, in an apparent self-contradiction, rejected because of insufficient length. And, as I said, the talk page of the latter article is a clear example of appeal to authority. Jimmy Carter is just a former President, no more no less - similar remarks apply to others in your list. Is that precise enough or do I have to cite the number of characters? The last remark was made in reference to the alphabet, not any personal character, just in case you wonder, I've already counted yours and found {Ø}. By the way, just to make a comment on your preference for common law instead of the usual continental system, the common law isn't any fairer than the other. Strangely enough, those countries which inherited the Roman system more or less seem to enjoy more protection from legal bullying. Cheerio Sorte Slyngel (talk) 18:11, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Ah, I forgot, this strangely seems to apply to you as well, switching back and forth. It's nice to have a fallback position. Cheers again Sorte Slyngel (talk) 18:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Why[edit]

Did you revoke the sysop-rights of Let Them Eat Cake?!--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 18:32, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

His abuse was literally mentioned in the summary. Why are you asking redundant questions? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 18:34, 18 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
[ec] Because he dropped a three-month block on a non-sysop for the "crime" of rolling back his (LTEC's) edits. What business is it of yours? Alec Sanderson (talk) 18:36, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
He was edit-warring against several reasonable editors and then he blocked SmartFeller, who wasn't yet a sysop, for 3 months. As 142 notes, I put that in the summary. ---Mona- (talk) 18:37, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
I have given him his mop back. I suggest that unless he do something egregious again, it stays that way. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 18:50, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Considering who gave him the mop in the first place, the reason Brx gave for doing so, and Let Them Eat Cake's actions in the past hours or so, I would say Mona's action was not too badly out of line. I would have been tempted to do the same. On we go... Alec Sanderson (talk) 18:53, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Fine with me. Now he knows one more like that and it goes. ---Mona- (talk) 18:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Goddamn it[edit]

The Coop case is still open, the mob didn't decide yet. Stop this shit.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 19:01, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

The longer I observe Mona's shenanigans the more I question the wisdom of her sysop-hood... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:05, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
I did that from day one.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 19:25, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
142 and I disagree that simply initiating a coop case means someone loses their mop. It's absurd. LETC did far worse.---Mona- (talk) 19:11, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Mona please argue the case in the coop and don't spread the discussion elsewhere. Thanks. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:13, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
When there's a Coop Case, you have to wait for the Coop Case to come to a conclusion.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 19:25, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
He never should have had it removed in the first place. For one thing, alla person has to do is remove sysop status and tehn start a coop case.---Mona- (talk) 19:28, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
It's clear that Mona is right here. Ryumanga (talk) 00:45, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
A user whose talk and user page redlink? And they agree with Mona...? No further comment. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:10, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

You might....[edit]

..... just be interested in this article. Maajid Nawaz is a man I find both annoying and inspiring, usually within a period of about ten seconds :) Inside the Mind of Israel/Palestine . --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 03:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

The man is horrid. My Twitter feed is often teeming with the latest antics of that shill. Of the many Western Arabs and Persians I follow not one has any use for that man. The reasons reduce to his being the Muslim version of an "Uncle Tom."
Adding: I read that. It's ok. ---Mona- (talk) 03:23, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Haha :) . I thought that might be your reaction. I fully understand why he is viewed that way, although my own opinions are a little more sanguine. He is something of a bete noire in liberal left circles in the UK also. Do feel free to add to the RW article if you feel so inclined... it is little more than the bare bones I initially wrote.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 03:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
I can't say I know a great deal about him, only that the Arabs who have my ear can't stand him. One in particular, Canadian journalist Maz Hussain.---Mona- (talk) 03:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Those lucky ones who „have [your] ear“. Doesn't that leave the sensible people out? Don't bother answering - I can't waste twelve hours a day writing here from selected sources. But how do you manage? You're an ex-lawyer, so you say. You can't really have much time left for something constructive. So you're either financed from somewhere or you have nothing else to do. Tragic in itself. Still, it's good that you spend your time here rather than doing anything significant. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 01:26, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Sorte, you have made it clear you are eager for my attention. But your commentary has completely devolved into name-calling and insults, which I usually ignore and seldom engage. My early retirement was forced, and not by anything due to bad character much less criminal, but I do not care to elaborate on it here. (Pity is abhorrent to me.) Finally, as a result of your very unpleasant deluge of nonsense directed at me I have added you to the Avenger list and will be usually -- but not always -- ignoring you. Bye.---Mona- (talk) 01:53, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Wait, you dislike name-calling? Judging from the recent coop case (where you attacked Aging Hippie of all people) and your conduct towards my humble self and to a similar though lesser degree Arisboch that - and misspelling "nite" (the "gh" in night is there for a reason. If you had any semblance of understanding of etymology, you'd know that) - is pretty much your raison d'être over here... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 14:17, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm quite content with the company. But you get your share of pity, however you may behave, since pity is a human reaction. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 17:21, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
If I could chose the emotion people feel towards me, I'd prefer envy over pity... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 13:35, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
I can tell you any envy points you had accumulated went down with that comment, while mockery went far up. Pity also went down with that statement. Please do not ever be a Bard in a campaign with me. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 15:26, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── What? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 15:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Mona[edit]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2ZW_uTlhEQ 112.172.232.217 (talk) 06:27, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you!---Mona- (talk) 06:28, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

im actually going to ask[edit]

if you could stop using outdent so much when it isn't needed? Your comments to a 3-4 deep stack of short replies are not so important they require them to be the start of a new stack--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 18:12, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I hadn't realized it is considered poor form? Often I do it so the formatting in the blockquotes works. I don't know how to format blockquotes if the comment is preceded by a : or several.---Mona- (talk) 18:17, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
You can put :s in front of <blockquote> no prob, though. Just use <br/>s instead of carriage returns. Here's an example:
bldokgo
ngfngkf
You can also use the {{cquote}} template (which is automatically centered) in between two indented posts, e.g.:
Something something.
Quotation
—Person who said this
Yadda yadda. —sig
Hope that helps. ;) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 18:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks so much. I'll consult your instructions next time I'm tempted to do that which annoys Paravant. ;)---Mona- (talk) 18:36, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Any or almost any template of note has a documentation, so if you gonna go on Template:Cquote, you see the documentation on how to use it.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 18:38, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Not necessarily bad form, but somewhat annoying and unnecessary when done frequently or early in a stack.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 18:43, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Ok, and thank you also Arisboch. Some of the lingo at that template page is foreign-ish to me, but I imagine I'll figure it out. I've always used html for blockquoting here, the <blockquote> thingie.---Mona- (talk) 18:47, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
No problem, there are many kinda syntaxes on web fora and so on (many forms of BBcode, many kinds of castrated kinds of HTML ("<blockquote>", e.g.), WikiSyntax, the CamelCase abomination used on TvTropes and so on).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 18:55, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Er, um, sure. I was just decrying the "CamelCase abomination" the other day.;) ---Mona- (talk) 18:59, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

A topic that might be worthy of (part of) your attention[edit]

Since you have until now not stated which the second language you speak actually is, I will just assume it to be Spanish and link to this without any further comment. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:19, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

To insert links to Wikipedia[edit]

Use {{wpl}} (click on the link to read the documentation. It's, IMNSHO, easy to use).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 01:29, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again, but that's not entirely clear to me. I'll have to play with it, maybe in my sandbox. The intricate ways of software and shit is not exactly my strong suit.---Mona- (talk) 01:36, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
No problem, wiki-templates are often rather complicated and I linked some of the templates to my user page, so I have easier access to their documentations.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 01:57, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Fake name[edit]

Go to Gadgets, "User interface gadgets" and check "Display a warning on usernames inserted by javascript" Scream!! (talk) 02:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

What? Um, where is this advice coming from? I'm not sure why you posted this comment to me?---Mona- (talk) 03:21, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
I think it is about this. SmartFeller (talk) 03:26, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Ah! Thank you both.---Mona- (talk) 03:29, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
BTW, you know that absurdity Netanyahu spewed about the Mufti making Hitler kill Jews? Sorte Slyngel is at the Israel article edit warring and insisting the Mufti's picture be there with a caption about Nazis. Alec Sanderson deleted that caption last month, Sorte reinstalled it a few weeks ago, and only Sorte and the handful of usual Zionist want it. We already have a majority for either no picture on the Israel page (irrelevant) or with a caption not ranting abut Nazis, just saying who the Mufti was in Palestine (a leader of Arab opposition to Zionist immigration, land purchasing etc.) But if you'd weigh in that would be helpful to maybe make Sorte stop reverting. He may edit war more anyway until Paravant or someone stops him, but it wouldn 't hurt. ---Mona- (talk) 03:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Are you crying foul??? That's the closest you've come to showing a sense of humor so far, or to quote you from just below on this page „HAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH“. We don't want to forget the CAPS - we might miss the joke. You are easy to play. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 21:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

eliminationist[edit]

I've never heard of this word, and while it might be used in scholarly sources, it's not really want the "average person" would use, I think? I always try to write pages in such a way that as many people as possible can follow it (some of whom may have English as a second language). Not saying we should "dumb down" things, just avoid "complicated" terms when possible.

Anyway, bit of a nitpick, but think about it ;-) Carpetsmoker (talk) 19:22, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Don't you think the word's meaning is intuitively obvious? While I also think we shold write in plain, accessible English I don't see why we should not introduce readers to non-esoteric, accurate terms. But I don't hold a strong opinion on this.---Mona- (talk) 19:25, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
It's fairly obvious in the context, yeah (which is why it's a bit of a nitpick), but it still takes a few seconds of brain power, at least, it did in my case, and I haven't even finished my first beer of the evening ;-) Carpetsmoker (talk) 19:28, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Saw this.[edit]

Remembered you when I saw this. I think it'd be an interesting read. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-zionist-case-for-boycotting-israel/2015/10/23/ac4dab80-735c-11e5-9cbb-790369643cf9_story.html?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_wemost You mean to tell me the tamales were spiked?! Say hi! Look here! 21:06, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

EDIT: Sorry, I misread the link, and now I look like a big pile of dung. I'm a little confuzzled now... You mean to tell me the tamales were spiked?! Say hi! Look here! 21:18, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't know what you are apologizing for! That is interesting. Zionism and Israel are huge in the news these days, and many Western Jews are either abandoning Zionism altogether, or they, like those authors, believe BDS and other pressure on Israel is necessary in order to save it. (Of course, the Palestinian founders of BDS do not see it as a tool for preserving Israel as it is currently constituted, i.e., as an ethno-religious supremacist state.) Thanks for the link. Ima gonna tweet that.---Mona- (talk) 21:42, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
ethno-religious supremacist state- -Mona- Mona spouting bullshit for the over 9000th time.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 21:48, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Uh-huh. Such "bullshit" that you will not answer this question: "Does Israel maintain policies and laws to secure its 'Jewish character?'" You won't substantively answer that question because to do so demonstrates that Israel is, indeed, an ethno-religious supremacist state.---Mona- (talk) 23:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Troll--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 09:55, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
What's that, Arisboch; you don't want to be fed? ;) 142.124.55.236 (talk) 10:00, 25 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
Now, the word troll in Arisboch's Zio-world means only (or especially) anyone who documents the unpleasant facts of Zionism and/or who asks the questions he will not, under any circumstances, answer about that topic.---Mona- (talk) 14:38, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

HAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH You two are so easy to play. Panties in a twist, are they?---Mona- (talk) 16:54, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Nope, why you ask?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 16:59, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
It's endearing how you come to the defense of poor Avenger. I'll bet you are also kind to small animals and cried watching Beaches.---Mona- (talk) 17:04, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
That's so childish. You're either not 59Wikipedia's W.svg or starting to go through your second childhood.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 17:10, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────No adult takes Avenger seriously, unless like Chris, they have the kindness and patience of Mother Teresa. You also know better than to take him seriously, but you are so short on allies for Zionism you have little choice.---Mona- (talk) 17:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Mother Theresa [Ha! Avenger knows her so darn well he can't spell her name correctly. ed. ---Mona- (talk) 17:43, 25 October 2015 (UTC)] who gives a crap how Anjezë Gonxhe Bojaxhiu chose to call herself. She was an Albanian ghoul who loved to embezzle embezzled dictator money and preach against contraception...Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 17:46, 25 October 2015 (UTC) was a bitch who hurt poor people more thaen helping them... But of course it does not surprise me that you don't know that, Mona... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 17:33, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Given that Mona can't answer simple questions and instead decides to play silly games, we may ask what 59 is in dog years... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 17:15, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Well it's not like you who is inventing things to come to the aid of Hamas and Hezbollah... But what do I know? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 17:06, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Mona you still have not answered the question about the number of Jewish citizens of Gaza... And here comes the next one: How many Jewish citizens do you think a Palestinian state should or could have? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 16:16, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


Mona how many Jewish citizens of Gaza are there? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:49, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Mona, you're a lawyer, you should know this[edit]

Winning an argument is (almost) all about strategy. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 05:18, 26 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

Yes, I had that thought all the time last nite. For some reason, AH bugs the shit out of me. Which is to say, I let my anger run things which is always a bad idea.---Mona- (talk) 14:56, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

You find AH intolerable?[edit]

You'd have hated Nutty then, man was self-assured of his rightness to a fault at times and was not afraid to misuse his tools to remove people he disliked from the wiki. Be lucky all you have to deal with are people who act like AH these days. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 15:12, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

AH literally says one thing then does another. He lays down one set of rules and then completely ignores them himself and for those whom he likes. Ain't no way to run railroad. But he's the Old Uncle here, so people are going to refuse to criticize him too strongly. It's politics; I'm new and polarizing, so I can't prevail when my popularity is pitted against his, which is what this is, i.e., a popularity contest. And he loves you especially, so you aren't going to take any position against him. That's just politics, of the prevalent sort I despise. Truth and reason have nothing to do with it.---Mona- (talk) 15:18, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
I won't take a move against him because I have no current stance on Avenger being sysoped because I simply don't have the time at the moment to both worry about Ryu trying to fuck up our MLP article and make an informed opinion on Avengers actions. It's why i'm not voting. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 15:21, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Er, it has nothing to do with your not wanting to oppose AH, your patron?---Mona- (talk) 15:33, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
I've been here for nearly 5 years, I don't need to lean on somebody elses weight. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 15:37, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Piss off your patron more and you might loose your "mop".--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 15:41, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Arisboch, when I arrived here I was told no edits from those who didn't think "Israel is great" could stand. That did not turn out to be so. And it won't be. Learn to accept that.---Mona- (talk) 15:44, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

My new policy[edit]

If Avenger, or anyone else, spews lots of bullshit about foreign languages, or tendentious and repeated questions, or otherwise mucks up my talk page with excessive bullshit, I'll revert those comments. My authority for this new policy is AgingHippie:

Please note that as per the standards of the website, a user may delete talk page comments if he or she deems them to be trolling -- given that you have made noise about me on at least two pages today, repeating those comments on a third fell well within the bounds of what I reasonably consider to be trolling, and I thus removed them. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 05:10, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

With some frequency I deem Avegner's comments to constitute trolling and Sorte's as well on occasion. So, be advised: I will now revert trolling.---Mona- (talk) 16:01, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Yay, so you're gonna more or less turn your talk page into your own personal echo-chamber or is this just a way to get back at AgingHippie for not letting you tar and feather Avenger?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 16:05, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
No, I'm gonna keep it un-trolled.---Mona- (talk) 16:22, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Mona translated (I stole that trick from you. Sue me.): "Yes".--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 16:24, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Better translation: "Yes, I'm going to keep it trolling-free."---Mona- (talk) 16:28, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Even better translation: "I'm gonna carve this talk page into my own little echo chamber and continue my jihad on the RW".--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 16:51, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

That's just stupid. I'm an atheist, you idiot. I don't "jihad" or any other religious practice.---Mona- (talk) 16:55, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

You're free to remove all those comments, Mona. Arisboch is trolling as usual. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 17:01, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, he trolls as well. But Avenger's shit is so incredibly dumb, about Spanish, German, and German history, and rambling non sequiturs that just clutter the page. He's a freak. And Sorte is obsessed with me, and oblique insults about me.---Mona- (talk) 17:05, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Ni recuerdo haber referido a la historia Española si quiera una sola vez... Pero bueno... ¿Quién soy yo para saber esas cosas? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:48, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

[2][edit]

Then whoever you saw do that was a noob that didn't know how discussions are formatted here (yet). Didn't Paravant complain a couple sections higher about your overuse of outdent? I know it's a lame style over substance argument, Mona, but that's how a lot of users think here. If someone is going around 'un-prettying' their wiki, they're not gonna be very inclined to take your side, even if you are in the right on the substance part. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 20:09, 26 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

Ah, my comments below intersected with this one. Carpetsmoker (talk) 20:12, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, regarding who started what coop: [3]. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 20:20, 26 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

Could you please not abuse the poor {{outdent}} template so much?[edit]

On the coop page you're using {{outdent}} far too much, and insert your comments in between conversations. This makes conversations *even more* difficult to follow than usual. For example, with this edit you added your comment smack-bang in the middle of a conversation I was having with Avenger; it looks really weird and it's difficult to see who exactly replied to what.

Thanks ;-) Carpetsmoker (talk) 20:10, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok. But I don't know what to do then when my reply is to something in the middle of the thread. Avenger is actually the one whose use of outdent showed me the way.---Mona- (talk) 20:13, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
One convention I've seen used, and which I use myself, is to put my comment at the bottom, indented one more level than the one I'm replying to. If it seems like there could be a possibility of confusion, there is always the good old @ sign, as in @Mona, I gotta give you credit for sticktoitiveness. Thank you, Alec Sanderson (talk) 20:17, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
p.s. (and EC) I reserve the {{od}} template for times when the indentation gets too deep. No fixed depth, but eight or nine colons is usually too many. AS 20:21, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Mona, Avenger is a horrible example to follow on any issue. >.> 142.124.55.236 (talk) 20:19, 26 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
I usually use outdent once I can't be bothered to count the number of colons... They are just some sort of disease, those colons... I don't know... Maybe tuberculosis... or AIDS... And usually the reply to any given comment is beneath it and one indent deeper... But my replies are sometimes more thaen one indent deeper, because counting colons is not the fun part of wiki-editing... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Copy, paste, add one? No counting involved. Carpetsmoker (talk) 22:21, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
I have done that in the past, but I have found that copy & paste does not always work (my Laptop is rather old and I would replace it if other ways to spend my money weren't more pressing), so I often use "cut" to see whether it worked... This won't work for the indent, for obvious reasons... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:24, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Just type some colons and remove/add until it looks about right. If you're not sure, you can check by using the down key or with preview if yours has the right amount of colons. At no point is there an actual need to count 'em. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 22:30, 26 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
I sometimes edit for the express purpose of fixing indent, but usually I can't be bothered. I tend to err on the side of too many, though Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:33, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Way back (2007!) when I was using a phone the outdent would have been very welcome. I'd often be trying to read a page one word at a time down the right hand side of the screen. Scream!! (talk) 19:51, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

WAKE UP SHEEPLE[edit]

...As detailed here. Don't forget about this, the realest of all the real causes! We're through the looking glass here people.. *enthusiastically scans room with EM meter as facial tics worsen* Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:47, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Chris fucking lift that![edit]

It'a all been settled. What the fuck are you doing blocking people. AgingHippie mediated and it's all over. Lift the fucking blcok. And don't do that again.---Mona- (talk) 19:00, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

There were counter-productive edit wars, the block was temporary to calm you guys down. ChrisAmiss (talk) 19:12, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
We didn't need it. Don't do that again. And I was quite calm, thank you. That article remains poorly sourced and some of the prose is clumsy. I fixed some but won't get to the rest. Maybe AgingHippie will. It definitely needs editing as to form, and sourcing. ---Mona- (talk) 19:16, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
You're still a sysop Mona, so you can go to "Special pages" in the left menu, find "Unblock user", and, well, unblock yourself. 82.95.88.48 (talk) 19:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
I did unblock myself (ahn!), too, coupla seconds ago.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 19:20, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I did that. It just took me a bit of time to locate the link I have archived to the block tool to unblock it and I wanted to post something about Ben Carson in the WIGO talk page -- so was annoyed. Chris also protected the Palestine page to sysop level, which is moronic since all involved are mopped. The whole thing was just unnecessary.---Mona- (talk) 19:22, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Oh but hey, thanks for pointing out the "special pages" link on the left. That makes thing easier.---Mona- (talk) 19:24, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Removed the block, since it is, as Mona pointed out, completely unnecessary. No users below sysop-level are involved in the newest edit war skirmish (which was solved by 142. Thanks, 142, for that).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 19:27, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, on that we agree. It didn't rise to a "war." But I over-reacted to Chris's block because I was trying to post a comment about Ben Carson and got this "you are blocked message." Distracted me from what I was doing and honked me off.---Mona- (talk) 19:57, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I saw reversions on the recent changes pages and I thought, oh shit here we go again. I'm going to make some changes to the Zionism page soon. It won't be complete but I think it will help us take a more evidence-based approach to the conflict. ChrisAmiss (talk) 22:57, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

No problem, Chris. And I apologize for over-reacting. As noted above, I was trying to post something, got that message about ebing blocked, and had a little fit of temper. And yes, there are sections of the Zionism article that are still incomplete.---Mona- (talk) 23:01, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I added some parts about the idea of transfer. It's incomplete, so it's a rough draft, but give it a look if you think it's appropriately and professionally written. ChrisAmiss (talk) 23:28, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

You still like Iran, don't you?[edit]

In case you missed it this is what the country you want to give an atomic bomb to does for fun. Nice, innit? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:00, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

They've been hanging, stoning and whatever gays, "uppity" women, Bahai, Sunnis, occasionally Jews, leftist activists and other political opponents since eva and she doesn't seem to give a fuck, why should she start to do now (probably she'd cite this Naturei Karta loon frenching Ahmadinejad)?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 01:05, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, I was just trying to pierce her bubble with a bit of facts... Iran is now killing more people thaen even "under" (the supreme dipshit is still the same, mind you) the Dinner Jacket... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:08, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Sniff sniff, I sense a straw-man brewing here. ChrisAmiss (talk) 01:52, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Executing -- in cold blood -- wounded Palestinian young men who were writhing on the ground is what The Most Moral Army™ in The Only Democracy™ does. Yet my country gives these war criminals over $3 billion in military aid every year. Do see the video at that link to see the IDF you love so much simply murder someone. ---Mona- (talk) 02:03, 1 November 2015 (UTC).

It is possible to think that the Iranian government is horrible in its treatment of its own citizens, and yet simultaneously that it is a victim of US double standards. For every horrific thing that Iran does to its own citizens, Saudi Arabia does even worse - yet the US has never been anywhere near as critical of Saudi human rights violations as it has of Iranian human rights violations. Iran lets women drive cars; Saudi doesn't. While Iran can be criticised in its treatment of religious minorities, it is light-years ahead of Saudi on this front (how many churches and synagogues are found in Iran? How many churches and synagogues are found in Saudi Arabia?) Iran can be considered a semi-democratic system - it has elections, and while the regime deliberately limits the choices on offer, and at times does various underhanded things to try to get the outcome it wants, it doesn't do this to the extent that election outcomes are totally pre-determined. By contrast, Saudi Arabia thinks that elections are of the devil. (((Zack Martin))) 02:10, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the United States' hypocrisy where the Saudis are concerned is astounindg. We love them up every chance we get. The single most astonishing thing I've seen in that regard really has to be read to be believed. (This contest was rescinded after the public's reaction was unpleasant.)---Mona- (talk) 03:22, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Utterly disgusting. No different than were the Pentagon to organise an essay contest in honour of the memory of Fransisco Franco or Augusto Pinochet or Ruhollah Khomeini. (((Zack Martin))) 05:06, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I think we should boycott Saudi Arabia and implement whichever policy leads to regime change with regards to the Islamic Republic... And one of those things we can - and should - do is stand by Israel and make sure it is strong enough to defend itself against Iran, the Saudis and their proxies... But of course saying that whenever you put the pedal to the metal you are aiding and abetting the Saudi terrorists is apparently not a popular viewpoint around here... Or in "we don't want to be a country driving small cars" Germany Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:50, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

About Avenger's mop[edit]

What the hell is it with this shit, the Coop case ended in Avenger's favor.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 01:02, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes it did. However, subsequent to that, on Friday night, he caused all sorts of trouble, largely in the Saloon that Paravant mostly dealt with. (This was repeat behavior of trying to stir up I/P shit over arguments had lost on the relevant talk pages.) I and Chris did a bit as well. CamelCasePragmatist decided enough was enough and de-mopped him and put back on patrolled status. (I had sent out a joke begging Paravant to do it, but didn't do it myself.) Carpetsmoker re-mopped him earlier today and I reinstated it and explained to Carpetsmoker about Friday night that no one had disagreed with what CamelCasePragmatist did. So in sum: this had to do with events of Friday night and then some more of Avenger's reversions today, even after he saw Chris protect the page (without knowing Avenger had his mop back).---Mona- (talk) 01:53, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
What exactly did he do? I wasn't here neither Friday evening, nor Saturday morning or day.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 01:58, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
I suggest you look through the Saloon FR to start, and then check the convo in the block log. Some days before that Paravant (and I) had to also keep reverting his bullshit that didn't belong there. ---Mona- (talk) 02:05, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
He'd done the same thing last Wednesday in the Saloon. Necessitating Paravant and I to both keep reverting him. Doing it again Friday, and not taking no for the community's answer, coupled with today not accepting that he isn't a majority on the Israel page (and so Chris protected it after I reverted and Avenger fought it). He just doesn't get it. Arisboch, we are just sick of it.---Mona- (talk) 02:23, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
The royal we, huh?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 16:28, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
CamelCasePragmatist said something to the effect that this was enough bullshit when he de-mopped Avenger. And we are not the only two sick of it.---Mona- (talk) 16:29, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
I tried to raise a debate about de jure and de facto and despite me chosing examples deliberately in a way as to not involve Israel, Mona cried fould and had a whambulance drive around... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:51, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

"who gave him the mop back? community said no"[edit]

Go check the archives.Eleven votes for the mop, seven against. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 04:46, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

She's referring to more recent activity. *points up* Also this. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 04:50, 1 November 42015 AQD (UTC)
That's not the same thing as claiming the community said no to him being a sysop. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 05:06, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
It's admittedly a rather inaccurate description of "some people reverted him, someone took away his mop and the other people online at the time seemed to tacitly approve since no one objected/gave it back", yes. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 05:15, 1 November 42015 AQD (UTC)
The community also said no to keeping Ryu de-mopped. But, as with Avenger, subsequent misbehavior caused the mop to be taken again. Coop cases, as I understand them, are not a mop-in-perpetuity card.---Mona- (talk) 16:23, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I highly recommend you[edit]

to not do stuff unilaterally and claim to have community support. I checked the pages you cited and they do not constitute evidence of community support. Stop. You will piss off people with even less patience than me. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Star of David.png Meme on or be memed on 22:48, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

You stop. This was agreed to. You didn't rtaise this when Ryu was again de-mopped. Stop it.---Mona- (talk) 22:50, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
How silly. I'll get it back as soon as someone reasonable shows up.---Mona- (talk) 22:55, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Mona, I think you should in general step away from fighting with /against me. I am trying to do that just now... You do not have community consensus to back you up. But you are of course welcome to put forward what you claim to be consensus in a new coop case... Be informed that some around RW are "tired of this shit" already, and I really can't predict the reaction of people in this mood... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:03, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Okay, so I'm cranky and you're thick and seem to live in your own little world but let me explain it simply this way: in no way or form did Avenger abuse his sysop tools after being mopped. The only evidences you cite are the SB incident which consists of Avenger talking about the Israel article and you reverting him and talk pages with people disagreeing with you and even one of the members of your clique admitting that it was a very flimsy reason for demopping him. Since you don't seem to grasp what warrants desysopping, let me explain it like this: Ryu was demopped for abusing his sysop tools; you're demopping Avenger over a silly SB dispute. You are indeed wheelwarring without an excuse to do so and are claiming community consensus the Ryulong way: listen only to your usual acolytes and ignore everyone else that shows up later. Hell, this warrants the heavy guns.
Rainbow trout transparent.png Whack!
You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Somebody just wants to let you know you did something silly.

|₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Star of David.png I AM VERY DISGUSTED WITH THE TRASHY MAN 23:10, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
[ec] Take it easy, Avenger. In a measuring contest, you are not all that and a bag of chips, so keep away from proclaiming impending victory for now, OK? I have high hopes for you, if you manage to use your natural smarts without being a dick about it. Even Zack Martin is showing signs of coming around and being an asset to RW, which I never woulda thunk. CamelCasePragmatist (talk) 23:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
What I wanted to say with my last sentence is "tired of this shit" could easily result in banning both me and Mona to "make it stop". At least one user has previously floated a similar idea on a different issue, so that's what I meant... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:21, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Avenger's mop[edit]

I think you make a positive contribution to this site. And I know Avenger can be a pain. But please don't take his mop off him again when it is obvious a number of other people don't agree with your action in doing that. If you still feel strongly he needs to be demopped, either take it to RW:COOP, or ask/wait for someone else to do it instead of you. (((Zack Martin))) 23:08, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

A number do, but not the majority, including those who have to deal with Avenger. In any event, will you please re-mop me? I won't de-mop Avenger again, but I wills seek to have another do so.---Mona- (talk) 23:12, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
I have remopped you. If other people agree with you he needs to be demopped, they'll do it instead of you having to. If no one else does, that would be a sign others don't feel about it the way you do. (((Zack Martin))) 23:14, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
That's fine. But we simply can't have a coop case every goddam weekend. Avenger has been nothing but trouble since he got here. Uncooperative, and Paravant had to take away his mop and patrol him several times. How much does it take before we are not required to be afflicted with this bullshit? It was not me, you know, who de-mopped Avenger in the first instance Friday night. If no one again de-mops him right now, I guarantee you it will happen again. Soon.---Mona- (talk) 23:28, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
ADDING: The other thing we cannot do, is seek a vote every time Avenger goes on a spate of bad faith edits against what he knows is the majority perspective. We just had one, and he lost. But we cannot do it every single day. How do you suggest he be made to stop a rampage of edits he knows full well only Arisboch would defend?---Mona- (talk) 23:37, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm not saying Avenger is not difficult. But, since you and him are known to clash a lot, it actually is more effective when someone other than you takes action against him than when you do it. Maybe the answer is to demop Avenger, but if it is, that will only stick if it is seen as coming from someone other than you. (((Zack Martin))) 00:07, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
I really do understand that. And that's precisely why I sent out a general plea to get him under control on Friday night and did not myself take action. CamelCasePragamtist saw fit to do it. All I did was reinstate what he did. In any event, I have now begged Paravant to do something.---Mona- (talk) 00:12, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
The stalking horse calls for her patron... Nothing new here.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 07:17, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

A long-due apology[edit]

As you might have noticed, my userpage (until very recently) contained several snippets mocking things you'd said in our discussions. While we were certainly somewhat brusque with each other at times during the great shitstorm surrounding all things Middle Eastern and beyond, I do now realize that memorializing and mocking things you said while presumably somewhat tense/emotional/frustrated/whatever (although the principle holds even if you were never any of those) served no substantial constructive purpose (and any good it might have done (i.e. helping me be calmer) could have been better accomplished in other ways) and was rather mean and impolite. I do apologize for that, and I will try to deal more politely with you and others in the future. I must also say, using the gift of hindsight, that you handled being dealt with rudely and/or shortly/unaccommodatingly by myself/others far better than I could've, and I want to thank you for your patience. WalkerWalkerWalker 12:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Apology accepted. And how very kind and honest of you. All I wanted to do was break the strangle-hold a minority held on those topics; I first assumed that must be the majority view, and then was greatly surprised to see it was simply that the majority (including moderators) was quite willing to sit back and let a handful of people-- mostly just two-- veto any edits they didn't want. The shit directed at me was for calling attention to it; for making a ruckus. Unfortunately, however, the dynamic that caused that stranglehold was merely a symptom of a larger problem. After nearly three months here, I've concluded that smart people like ChrisAmiss -- with vast knowledge and an ability to source even with major books -- are not especially appreciated at RW. Users who do very little but constantly disrupt, as well as those who flatly state they do not do research or documentation, these are equal here. Even esteemed, provided they are "fun." All are tolerated, no matter how much disruption they cause short of technical vandalism and edit warring. No particular support exists for those who bring quality, knowledge and sourcing ability. Perhaps worse, is the one kind of inequality at this site; some are allowed to do things with impunity that the community would sanction from most others. But, those who come here and find this entire state of affairs attractive, they stay and now certainly constitute a majority. It's too bad, because something like what Rational Wiki could be is so needed.---Mona- (talk) 19:44, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
I strongly object to moving the rest of this discussion off of my talk page. Whatever "punishment" it is thought this metes out to several others, that is not my idea of punishment. It protects them from being seen, as well as the fine admonishments they received. I realize my preferences really do not matter here, but let's be honest, shall we? "Shitfests" of personal abuse take place all the time here. A most salient comment was made about that here by a respected user. Now it is gone. I very strongly feel it should all stay, especially given that the object of the abuse -- me -- wants it to. ---Mona- (talk) 01:02, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Mona, if you want to put the discussion back on your page, you need to do it yourself. I think you have the Rationalwiki legal recourse to do so yourself. I did it once, but I am not going to damage myself by becoming too involved in this. This is your choice. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 01:17, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
I doubt that. Paravant says he has "pulled rank." He's a moderator. ---Mona- (talk) 01:20, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
What is it you doubt exactly? Pbfreespace3 (talk) 01:22, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
(ec) Or perhaps just post a link to it? --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 01:24, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
You seem to have, if I may grossly oversimplify, stumbled upon the conflict between community and project. WalkerWalkerWalker 01:31, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
PacWalker, that put's it most succinctly and accurately. The rules controlling who may remain in the community in good standing, and under what terms, are at odds with the project.---Mona- (talk) 03:15, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Seriously[edit]

you spend a good long while complaining about how the wiki tolerates people causing shitfests, say you will propose no way to change this issue and then when we actually try to rein some of the shitfest you get angry. And yet you complain of us giving you mixed signals. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 01:07, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

You did not understand the nature of my criticism if you think merely moving a few of the frequent insults and tirades those direct at me is in any way a solution to what ails this site. But, it has been made quite clear to me that fighting for an actual solution would be futile. "Mob rule," and all that. The mob is what the rule here has attracted. You, Paravant, have a hard chore here and if you want to be re-elected moderator you must conform to the mob's expectations. Not just you -- anyone who wants that position. I understand that and hold ill will toward you.---Mona- (talk) 01:19, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
I act the way I do because MODS ARE NOT RULERS. Even if I wanted to massively upset established ways of doing things on RW I can't because that takes the mob to do, not mod fiat, and what mod fiat can do is severely limited by mobocracy on purpose. So what I do have available to me are established methods such as shunting unproductive discussions into a forum space for unproductive users. If you want change you have to work inside the system if you want to -see- any change, Mona. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 01:24, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Oh my stars 'n garters, Paravant, this sentence should read: "I understand that and hold no ill will toward you." As I said, I understand -- you try to stay within mob rules. (Altho, you seem willing to control Avenger rather often, then other times, not so much. And AH is very partial to near-total laissez-faire.) Anyway, no, I won't be the one leading a charge against the mob's preferences. I've done enough charge-leading here and it is not how I wish to spend my time. I never even wanted to use the sysop tools, but did because otherwise it seemed no one else would deal with the particular plague I attracted. But that's it. I want to write, and write good, sourced pieces of text. Not spend every weekend in the coop or fighting to keep disrupters under control; this place too much resembles some of the worst comments sections where trolls are allowed to troll. What prevails here is far beyond having to collaborate with folk who may sometimes disagree. We all know this. And I decline that.---Mona- (talk) 02:47, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Sorry to see you feel that way, Mona. Quarantining loquacious tendentious users has a fair bit of precedent on RW. See e.g. RationalWiki:Robrail and Forum:Dirk Steele said something. Alec Sanderson (talk) 01:30, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Wait Mona, you hold ill will towards Paravant? How come? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:49, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Generally, she doesn't like it when someone deletes portions of her user page, regardless of whether that person is a mod or not. You are framing Mona as the bad one here. Why? Why are you saying "Wait Mona, you hold ill will towards Paravant? How come?" What kind of response are you trying to elicit? A mean one, I suppose, which will further reinforce your point-of-view that you are trying to present that she is bad and you are good. In the end, you are doing this for your own gain, not for the community's gain. Such selfish, egotistical behavior has no place on this wiki. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 01:52, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
It's called trolling and is what this user spends most of his/her time doing.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 01:57, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Does this person really think that what they are doing is funny? It isn't. It is mean, serves no useful purpose, and should stop. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 01:58, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
One wonders to your sincerity to see it stopped when you wont let people try to make it stop. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 02:01, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Just to reiterate: Paravant, I meant to say I hold no -- NO -- ill will toward you. That was a terrible typo.---Mona- (talk) 02:49, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, it would be rather unwise to hold an "ill will" towards your patron, right?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 14:47, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
The Israel embassy in the UK so loved academic Samar Batrawi's article on the Islamic State's appropriation of the Palestine question that they asked her to meet with them. Her reply is magnificent.---Mona- (talk) 16:05, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
If she wants the DAESH to play soccer with the heads of Palestinians (which they do anyway already)...--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 16:22, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps, but they are not her oppressor, her torturer, the thieves of her family's land -- she identifies Israel as those things. And gloriously told her oppressor: No. ---Mona- (talk) 16:29, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Is there a biography of Samar Batrawi written by a more or less neutral party, so we can really know, who (if anyone at all) oppressed and/or tortured her (we have nothing but her word for it) or who (if anyone at all) stole her family's land? And how did the Israeli embassy in London "oppress" her? If she wants really to be oppressed and tortured, she should head to DAESHistan. And she wouldn't even need to buy a return ticket (these fuckers don't like women, who're educated... Or know how to read... Or don't wear a burqa...).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 16:50, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
No, Ms. Batrawi is yet another Palestinian liar. As is the Israeli journo Ari Shavit -- the guy who brutally documents all the horror Zionists impose(d) on Palestinians, but who defends it. They're all lying. The only thing that matters is that IS would make Batrawi wear a burqa, but she's too much the fool to grasp that that is the only thing which should concern her.---Mona- (talk) 17:00, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

FFS, I do not give a flying fuck if those two call me names and say "mean" things. I. Do. Not. Care. I seldom have replied to it; it's too stupid to address. No, that nonsense is simply a symptom of what they are. I object to their role here, and that it is allowed. Not the fucking, juvenile name-calling. So, if Paravant thinks removing that bullshit is something that I seek or that it even remotely solves the actual problem, well, no.---Mona- (talk) 02:53, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

So mixed signals of wanting change but being pissed when change takes place. Alrighty then. We have a precedent of moving conversations such as was here to other locations to keep them from overtaking pages, I acted on this precedent. If you don't like that I did, oh fucking well.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 03:00, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Please, stop misstating my views, Paravant. When -- WHEN?-- have you ever heard me complain about the abuse those two or anyone else directs at me? I'm a big girl and this is the Internet. Spiking a few personal insults is, I dunno, like first putting a Band Aid on a kid's stubbed toe when s/he is bleeding from the knife wound in her abdomen. If you think your action here constitutes significant "change," well, okey dokey.---Mona- (talk) 03:11, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Small change tends to work better than big change when starting change. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 03:15, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Commons[edit]

I saw that you uploaded this file last month. There's no need to duplicate files from commons, just using [[Image:filename_on_commons.jpg|...]] will also work. If for whatever reason you want to duplicate a file anyway, then make sure you add a copyright/license template. Carpetsmoker (talk) 08:30, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. At the time I didn't really grasp how this worked and that it was a duplicate. I also, at the time, didn't know how to locate the templates. But I do now. Thanks again.---Mona- (talk) 15:54, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Look who admires Zionists, Arisboch[edit]

Israel's model of ethno-religious supremacy inspires envy. "...conference speakers agreed that white nationalists could learn quite a bit from the Jews."

“The opposition to intermarriage. The creation of their own state. The recreation of their language. This is the greatest triumph of racial idealism in history. All we’re asking for is equality. The same right that Jews claim for themselves,” said Sam Dickson, an attorney who advocates for breaking up the United States to create a white ethno-state.

German Zionists -- as I've shown you before -- in the early '30s also wrote to the Nazis as coming from the same ideological place. But just keep shrieking that it is not ethno-religious supremacism; that will make it so.---Mona- (talk) 18:04, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Cool, now you're idiotic enough to believe some Neo-Nazis, which isn't surprising at all, you also believe any number of Islamist terrorists.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 18:06, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Why should I not believe what they say they admire? What they describe is accurate and in obvious conformity with their thinking. Moreover, I generally believe the reasons terrorists -- from Zionist ones, to the IRA to the Islamic variety -- give as their motives. Why shouldn't I?---Mona- (talk) 18:19, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
If you use the ramblings of Neo-Nazis as a proof for Zionism being anything, then you're even dumber than I thought. These guys want the Jews dead and the Zionism theyy admire only exists only inside their own twisted minds.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 18:32, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Mmm, I don't think you believe, for one minute, that I'm dumb, or that it's dumb to believe what Nazis say they admire. Nope, I don't think so. Why wouldn't racial supremacists like what they see in the Zionist model that is Israel?---Mona- (talk) 18:40, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't give a shit, what you believe or not. --Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 18:45, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Yep, the neo nazis are more related to israel than the guys with the stated goal to kill the jews. Sure, makes sense.--Irian (talk) 18:57, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
They are ideologically related as to form; they simply want to oppress (and even kill) different Others, and maintain ethno-religious supremacy for different Us. Content, not form, are greatly different.---Mona- (talk) 19:03, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Somehow it's ironic that there is one group with the stated goal of killing the other - but without the means to do so, while the other group has the means and is accused of wanting to do the same thing - but somehow just doesn't. --Irian (talk) 19:11, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
They not only have holocaust envy, the also use the Jews Zionists to project their wishes into.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 19:17, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I thought our editor base was smarter than to engage in this line of reasoning. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 19:13, 4 November 2015 (UTC) ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────AH, our wiki says that fallacy takes this form: "A is a member of group B, A is a member of group C, Therefore, group B is C." Basic reading comprehension should alert you that this is not the form of my argument. My argument is: "Both A and B embrace idea X in it's form." You know, it's lazy argumentation to just throw out fallacy-term word salad; the claim you're addressing should actually be fallacious.---Mona- (talk) 19:49, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

They don't.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 19:52, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
That's what Mona does from day one.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 19:17, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Basically the Neo-Nazis seem to follow the old canard of "White Jews Brown Palestinians". Which is so laughably false, I don't think I have to mention Ethiopian Jews.... As for Mona citing them to somehow poison the well... Well, what is there to say about that? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:26, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, I could start farting and talking shit and then proclaim my love for Mona, which would, according to this argument, somehow have some influence on her credibility. Sorry, that seems like South Park logic to me... 1. NeoNazis said that Israel is great. 2. <magic happpens here> 3. Israel is bad. --Irian (talk) 19:28, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
AH, it's not an "association" and it's not "fallacious." These cretins really do admire the Zionist model; it's not the first time their ilk has said so. So far, no one has identified what in Mr. Dickson's enthusiastic description is in error, or what there is in that description for him not to want to emulate. I'll wait.---Mona- (talk) 19:32, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
The "association" is the one you are making in your brain, and that's where the fallacy lies. The attitude of neo-Nazis towards Zionism is in no way relevant to a debate on the merits of zionism or the crimes committed in its name. Don't give your political opponents easy ammunition. I'm on your side and I'm embarassed to see this line of reasoning being pursued. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 19:46, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Please, do not be "on my side." In any event, I had thought skeptics generally eschewed mind-reading. In any event, no, that is not the "association in my brain." Zionism is ethno-religious supremacy, and that is why parallels have been drawn by both Zionists and Nazis.---Mona- (talk) 19:55, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Zionism is the movement for Jews to have a state. One. One place of safety and refuge. Not the movement for Jews to take over the world. Not the movement for Jews to make every state Jewish. How does a movement for one state constitute ethnoreligious supremacy? And also: Wouldn't the same apply for the movement for Palestinian statehood? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:57, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
The usual way of dealing with idiots here is snark. How much of it do you want? Or do you expect us to take that bullshit seriously just because it fits your personal agenda? --Irian (talk) 19:37, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Troll, that's the solution, Irian.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 19:40, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Snark? Meh, I'm used to those who find my facts unpleasant trying to make me the issue. If that's all you've got, go ahead.---Mona- (talk) 19:41, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I was talking about the neo nazis talking bullshit there... --Irian (talk) 19:56, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

German Zionist Federation[edit]

They sent this letter, in June of 1933, to the Nazi government:

Zionism has no illusions about the difficulty of the Jewish condition, which consists above all in an abnormal occupational pattern and in the fault of an intellectual and moral posture not rooted in one's own tradition. Zionism recognized decades ago that as a result of the assimilationist trend, symptoms of deterioration were bound to appear, which it seeks to overcome by carrying out its challenge to transform Jewish life completely.

It is our opinion that an answer to the Jewish question truly satisfying to the national state can be brought about only with the collaboration of the Jewish movement that aims at a social, cultural and moral renewal of Jewry--indeed, that such a national renewal must first create the decisive social and spiritual premises for all solutions.

Zionism believes that a rebirth of national life, such as is occurring in German life through adhesion to Christian and national values, must also take place in the Jewish national group. For the Jew, too, origin, religion, community of fate and group consciousness must be of decisive significance in the shaping of his life. This means that the egotistic individualism which arose in the liberal era must be overcome by public spiritedness and by willingness to accept responsibility.

So, "association fallacy" that.---Mona- (talk) 19:38, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

And that is how a proof, that Zionism is as evel as you describe? Sounds to me more like them trying to placate the Nazis, but we all know, that it didn't work.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 19:40, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Well we all know, that Chamberlain was the top-Nazi of Britain, because of Munich 1938. Also, Obama is secretly an Iranian Muslim because of the nukes deal... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:42, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
What it is, is evidence of the ideological level at which the two groups understood one another.---Mona- (talk) 19:42, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
It isn't. The first one is some Neo-Nazi fucks bullshitting about Zionism to whitewash them being racist morons and the 2ns one is an attempt to placate an hostile government.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 19:46, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Um, no. Since when do neo-Nazis give two shits about "whitewashing" their racism; it is to laugh. As for the second, the reasoning in the letter is entirely accurate. Or can you say what in it is not true?---Mona- (talk) 19:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Jesus Christ, Mona, that is some specious reasoning on your part. That kind of national-renewing-in-a-distinct sphere is pretty much the norm for pre-1939 or so political discourse --- liberal multiculturalism wasn't invented yet. Check out the things that Marcus Garvey said to the KKK about a decade earlier, they were similar in character, boiling down to "we need our own space so we can thrive much as you having your space has allowed you to thrive." At the time, this gave Garvey's liberal African-American opponents some ammunition, but no serious historian of the UNIA equates the movement to the Klan because of that. Also, it's silly to use something from 1933 as evidence for some link between contemporary neo-Nazism and contemporary Zionism. Neo-Nazis use ideas, aesthetics and images lifted from the Nazi era, but need to be understood in terms of the time in which they live and act, not the framework of their great-grandfathers' era. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 19:57, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, you've got it! "That kind of national-renewing-in-a-distinct sphere is pretty much the norm for pre-1939 or so political discourse." National Socialism didn't spring from a vcuum, you know. This shit was in the air and popular in that era. Precisely. It took WWII for it to fall into disapprobation. Except for Zionism.---Mona- (talk) 20:16, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Not to mention that openly saying "fuck you and your Nazism" in 1933 was bound to be suicide for all German Jews - they ended up mostly dead anyway, but they did not know that back thaen.... Also, outside of Germany the "Let's ally with the Nazis" faction was a tiny fringe minority within Zionism at all times... You are making about as much sense as someone citing David Duke and Donald Trump as representative of all American politicians... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:01, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

The words of Reinhardt Heydrich, chief of the SS Security Service.

"After the Nazi seizure of power our racial laws did in fact curtail considerably the immediate influence of Jews. But ... the question as he sees it is still: How can we win back our old position ... We must separate Jewry into two categories... the Zionists and those who favour being assimilated. The Zionists adhere to a strict racial position and by emigrating to Palestine they are helping to build their own Jewish state."

“The time cannot be far distant when Palestine will again be able to accept its sons who have been lost to it for over a thousand years. Our good wishes together with our official good will go with them.” ---Mona- (talk) 20:06, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Mona you go around saying that Hamas' Charta matters not, because in your mind their actions differ from it. So why should the words of one mid-level Nazi be more important thaen the actions of the top level (namely murdering Jews)? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:09, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Actually, it's ChrisAmiss who provided the copious documentation on how Hamas ignores it's charter in practice. In any event, I'm simply showing how the Nazis understood the Zionists as "adhering to a strict racial position." This is true.---Mona- (talk) 20:21, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
The Charter/ Charta / whatever is still there, though. And it says what it says. And you know it. And as for Zionism "adhering to a strict racial position", well tell that to the law of return allowing for people with no Jewish parents being eligible if they converted to Judaism with the whole Shebang. Also: How many countries on earth (including, ironically, the Palestinian national movement) have ius sanguinis? And of course I did not even mention Israel offering citizenship to all the people on the Golan and the parts of Jerusalem under Jordan control prior to 1067.... But that would not fit your narrative, would it? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:26, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
I dunno, Avenger. Tell that all to Moshe Feiglin, in the section below.---Mona- (talk) 20:36, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Nice way of not responding to my questions Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:40, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
The leader of Hamas itself has disavowed this charter and says it no longer applies. It was hastily written in a time of conflict, and thus extravagant statements such as "we do not recognize the Israeli state" are to be expected. Nonetheless, Hamas has repeatedly stated it is willing to abide by ceasefires and recognize the Israeli state along the 1967 borders. Since the last war, when was the last time Hamas fired a rocket into Israel? 14 months ago. That's a pretty good record of following a ceasefire, even when the other side has continued to attack you. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 22:55, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
If the Chartear dos not matter, why is it still there? Also, why does Hamas fire rockets in the first place? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:09, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Don't unilaterally remove contributions of others to your talk page[edit]

Especially not after you viciously attacked Paravant for moving talk page contributions... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:03, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

WTF are you ranting about? I haven't removed anything. Fuck yourself.---Mona- (talk) 20:05, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Quietly links to diff Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:08, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Honestly, perhaps a page somewhere explaining the social dynamics of this kindergarten you call a wiki would really be nice to understand 90% of the stuff that goes on on the talk pages here. Or perhaps working to change that number to a lower one, but that might be utopian. --Irian (talk) 20:09, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
It's discussions about Zionism on the internet. What do you expect? Adorno? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:11, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
And before that it was f... cartoon horses. Pun not intended, just happy little accident. --Irian (talk) 20:15, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
According to RW lore, Gamergate and before that some other stuff were even uglier fights... And as to the MLP thing.... That was mostly one user IIRC Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:16, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

This doesn't make you look good.[edit]

Calling out a user in the title of a thread, and then removing a two-word comment that in no way can be construed as trolling ("they don't") that said user posts in reply to the thread where you called him out by name. I'm not saying you can't do that; I'm saying that it doesn't make you look good. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 20:07, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

That's what I talked about in the section above. But I am glad more thaen one user sees it the same way... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:10, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
I DID NOT REMOVE ANYTHING---Mona- (talk) 20:11, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
How often do we have to link to this diff ? Or was it your little sister editing? Or were distracted by a bumblebee? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:14, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
i DIDN'T EVEN SEE THAT COMMENT. IF IT GOT DELETED IT HAD TO BE WHEN I WAS INSERTING SOMETHING.---Mona- (talk) 20:13, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
You didn't? Cat got your tongue glasses?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 20:16, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
That's right -- I didn't see it, and it is of no consequence at all -- why would I fucking delete that?---Mona- (talk) 20:18, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Dunno, but you clearly used the "undo" button for whatever reason. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 20:20, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I was reinstating my outdent. I didn't see any comment with it.---Mona- (talk) 20:22, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, cry me a Jordan. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:27, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
"This doesn't make you look good" sounds a bit overly dramatic given the excessively minor nature of the 'offence' in question. (What you could say is that the overuse of outdent doesn't make Mona look good, but that's just lame style over substance.) 142.124.55.236 (talk) 20:57, 4 November 42015 AQD (UTC)
Well it's factual and accurate. Or does it make her look good? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:02, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
142BoN. Only a few people here are allowed to delete comments. I'm not one of them. AgingHippie is, but I most certainly am not. It's not something I'd do anyway, but also for the reason that I'd likely be cooped if the comment was any length of text and I did it wittingly. The sole reason AH is now arguing it is something I could do but merely look bad, is because he deleted one of my comments several weeks ago and claimed justification. "Some animals are more equal than others."---Mona- (talk) 22:09, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

My God, when can we stop accusing each other of wrongdoing and start actually talking about the issues? Pbfreespace3 (talk) 22:58, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Four months ago when this nonsense started. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 22:59, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Stupid question: Who started it? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:08, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
You did. Or are you suffering from amnesia? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 23:11, 4 November 42015 AQD (UTC)
What let's you draw the conclusion this is my IP? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:41, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
How long will it take you to invent the time machine required to get there, though? ;) 142.124.55.236 (talk) 23:02, 4 November 42015 AQD (UTC)
@Avenger, all of you, but you were in the wrong so I blame you more. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:11, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Moshe Feiglin[edit]

Here's some more "association fallacy" for you, AgingHippie: The Deputy Speaker in the 19th Knesset, Moshe Feiglin, as reported by Haaretz:

In describing Adolf Hitler, Feiglin is quoted to have told her, "Hitler was an unparalleled military genius. Nazism promoted Germany from a low to a fantastic physical and ideological status. The ragged, trashy youth body turned into a neat and orderly part of society and Germany received an exemplary regime, a proper justice system and public order. Hitler savored good music. He would paint. This was no bunch of thugs. They merely used thugs and homosexuals."


The time has come to break free from the shackles of politically correct speech and call these people - Feiglin and his cronies - by their explicit name. They are not "radicals" but fascists by any acceptable definition. And had they not been born - through no fault of their own - to Jewish mothers, they would have been damn anti-Semites to boot.

"There can be no doubt that Judaism is racist in some sense," Feiglin went on to say in that interview. "And when they asserted at the United Nations that Zionism was racist, I did not find much reason to protest. The people who take racism to mean a distinction between races - and this is a very primitive distinction - must argue that Zionism is racist."

Later in the interview, Feiglin addressed the Palestinians. "There is no Palestinian nation. There is only an Arab-speaking public which has suddenly identified itself as a people, a negative of the Zionist movement, parasites. The fact that they hadn't done so earlier only serves to prove how inferior they are. The Africans have no nations either. Only Zulus, Tutsis."
---Mona- (talk) 20:32, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it is association fallacy and also nutpicking.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 20:38, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Sure thing. "Nutpicking" the words of the man who was elected Deputy Speaker of the Knesset. Uh-huh.---Mona- (talk) 22:01, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Which is still no proof of this or similar attitudes being popular in the Zionist movement. Nice try.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 22:05, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Didn't I already reply to this same downplaying tactic back with that racist Justice Minister? Even if it's not a majority view, it's still highly problematic and the high number of Israeli officials that show this kind of extremism and the way this is apparently tolerated attests to the severe extent of the problem. What is your answer to this, Arisboch? If I recall correctly, you conveniently ignored my post last time when I raised this same point. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 22:25, 4 November 42015 AQD (UTC)
the high number of Israeli officials that show this kind of extremism- 142․124․55․236 [citation needed]--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 22:31, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, trying to make you see the truth is kinda hard if you keep shutting your eyelids so intently. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 22:37, 4 November 42015 AQD (UTC)
Wake up, Sheep, huh?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 22:38, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm not a mind reader, Arisboch. Whether your willful ignorance is due to gullibility or something else, I don't really care either way. It is what it is. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 22:43, 4 November 42015 AQD (UTC)
Shhhht. Pointing out fallacies is evul and Jewish Zionist! Don't you dare do that. Also: fat props to Mona for her ability to dig up obscure Zionists nobody has ever heard of Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:03, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Mona, there is a difference between using words spoken by neo-Nazis as a way to associate Zionism to Nazism, and using the words of an actual ("controversial") Israeli politician to do the same. In the first case, the words of neo-Nazis are of no bearing on the merits of Zionism, which, I will point out to you, is not something I have ever defended on this wiki or elsewhere; at least in the second case, the opinion is being expressed by someone who does have some sort of relevance to the topic, though, as is pointed out elsewhere, not all adherents to the ideology agree with him. You are comparing apples to oranges/ Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 21:41, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Oh no, AH. What I'm showing is continuity of National Socialists and Zionists as belonging to -- and some admitting it -- the same 19th-century derived, blood-and-soil nationalism church. As you yourself said, this hyper-nationalism among ethnicities was extremely popular back then. Zionism is anachronistic; it hearkens from the same well that produced National Socialism. Arisboch strenuously denies that, but it is manifestly true. Finally, as I told you, I know more about this topic than you do, being far more current and well read on recent scholarship and reliable activist journalism. Seldom do I wade into controversial waters without the float of solid facts. In fact, on the few occasions I did so here I beat a quick retreat.---Mona- (talk) 21:59, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Even if you gonna spout the same bullshit another 100 times, it still stays bullshit. The idea of the Jews being a race ("blood") was never popular in Zionism.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 22:07, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Wrong Arisboch. You've been shown otherwise several times with copious documentation, and not even primarily by me. Basically, all you are at this point is my foil; you are immune to reason and facts on any derogatory fact about Zionists or Zionism.---Mona- (talk) 22:11, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
I've been shown shit. A deputy speaker of the Knesset talking crap is no proof, that Zionism is racist, it is proof, that this guy is (maybe) racist.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 22:17, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Mona, your argument from assertion style of "reasoning" continues to amuse me... sadly you seem to have some people still following your inanity... But it appears that more and more, we've come to expect less and less of each other... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:44, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
As if you are better, Avenger, --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 22:50, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Paravant, there is no "thing" for Avenger to be better than. I do not argue from assertion. Virtually never. No evidence will ever convince these two; it is not possible. On this topic they are like creationists. Palestinians say Zionism is racist. The UN says Zionism is racist. Many learned people assess Zionism to be racist. A recent Deputy Speaker of the Knesset has gleefully agreed that Zionism is racist. Nazis, past and present, see their own ideology (as to form) in Zionism. This is all because Zionism is ethno-religious, supremacist nationalism -- and racist. ---Mona- (talk) 23:09, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
I do not argue from assertion.- -Mona- Do You Believe That? Ah, vraiment?!?
Palestinians say Zionism is racist.- -Mona- What of it?
The UN says Zionism is racist.- -Mona- What of it? And they took it back.
Many learned people assess Zionism to be racist.- -Mona- [Who?]
A recent Deputy Speaker of the Knesset has gleefully agreed that Zionism is racist.- -Mona- What of it?
Nazis, past and present, see their own ideology (as to form) in Zionism.- -Mona- While murdering them. Are you fucking retarded???
This is all because Zionism is ethno-religious, supremacist nationalism -- and racist.- -Mona- Do You Believe That? Ah, vraiment?!? You did never bring proof of a majority of Zionists claiming, that the Jews are a race or anything like that.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 23:25, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
"or anything like that" Careful there, Arisboch. That could prove to be a fatal weakness you just added to your arbirarily chosen standards. ;) 142.124.55.236 (talk) 23:42, 4 November 42015 AQD (UTC)
If an elected speaker of a party in a parliamentary body makes statements saying that the ideology endorsed by the majority of the party is something, then it most likely is. Why else would the party elect that person as their speaker if they did not think that person represented their overall views and goals? The pro-Israel people here are essentially saying Mona is cherry-picking, because just 1 person said this, not 40 or 50 people in the parliament, so therefore the majority or even a significant portion of the Knesset obviously doesn't think that. That is ridiculous. Do we have to show you 50 different signed statements, each from a different member of the Knesset, just to prove to you that a significant portion of Israel's leadership believes in ethnolinguistic superiority of the Jews over the Arabs? This isn't some federal case here. I think it is reasonable that a good portion of the Knesset thinks Jews are inherently better than Arabs, as it shows in their policy of continuing settlement building on majority-Arab land, as well as bombing of densely populated Arab areas. The accusation, that of Zionist ideology being racist, is pretty well borne out by the facts and evidence presented here. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 23:08, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
If an elected speaker of a parliamentary body makes statements saying that the ideology endorsed by the majority of the body is something, then it most likely is.- Pbfreespace3 So a speaker of a parliament gets only elected, if 100 % his statement of past, present and future are in line with the always changing majority of a parliament? Are you retarded??
I think it is reasonable that a good portion of the Knesset thinks Jews are inherently better than Arabs- Pbfreespace3 Why?
The accusation, that of Zionist ideology being racist, is pretty well borne out by the facts and evidence presented here.- Pbfreespace3 The "location" "here" is apparently your and Mona's vivid fantasy.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 23:17, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Arisboch, yes, in '91 the UN revoked its resolution identifying Zionism as racist. As the NYT then reported:

For the United States, the heavy vote in favor of repeal was a demonstration of its diplomatic power. After President Bush called for the repeal in September in a speech to the General Assembly, United States embassies around the world were instructed to put maximum pressure to secure the repeal. The 111 votes recorded today were about 11 more than the United States mission to the United Nations had predicted last week.

This sort of thing is merely one of the myriad reasons Americans especially should be critics of Israel and proponents of BDS; Israel has already been "singled out" for special treatment. Also, you obviously do not know what it means to "argue from assertion." Gish Galloping with various allegations of fallacies is not something I generally engage. The reality is obvious to intelligent readers not blinkered by your ideology.---Mona- (talk) 23:49, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I never said "a speaker of a parliament gets only elected, if 100 % his statement of past, present and future are in line with the always changing majority of a parliament?" Stop strawmanning and shoving words down my mouth that I didn't say. I merely said that a representative of a party tends to represent that party's views. That's not retarded; that's common sense. "Why?" you ask. I just said so, because of the settlement policy. If you are militarily occupying land of an opposing ethnic group and trying to force demographic change, it presupposes that your ethnic group is superior to the one who's land you are occupying. The last one doesn't ask a question, so I won't respond. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 23:57, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
How can you occupy an ethnic group?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 23:59, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
I never even said that they were occupying an ethnic group, so stop strawmanning. I said, and I quote, "If you are militarily occupying land of an opposing ethnic group". Never that they were occupying an ethnic group itself. Look at this map, Arisboch. It pretty clearly shows where Israeli Jewish settlements are on Palestinian Muslim Arab land, namely the West Bank. Not the entire ethnic group. It seems this is the only thing you can argue with right now, until you present something else. I don't see how my statement could have been any more clear than it was. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 00:04, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
The United Nations are - and have sadly never been anything but - a bunch of dictators giving each other blank checks. And sometimes they like to hit on their two favorite punching bags. Israel and the US. During turmoil and war and incredible human rights violations all throughout this world, the UN has always found time to condemn Israel (usually against eh veto of the US and some sane states here and there). Unfortunately the majority of the population of earth lives in countries with defective democracies at best. And the voting record in the UN reflects that. the UN is worse thaen useless. Sadly nobody has the guts to call it quits and replace it with a "club of democracies". How can we ever mistake national sovereignty for popular sovereignty? Just because people have their own state, it does not mean they are free. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:48, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
The UN is actually pretty soft on Israel. Israel hasn't been put under sanctions like Russia has for its actions in Ukraine, like Iraq has for its actions in Kuwait, etc. Israel also hasn't had its leaders sent through a war crimes tribunal, though the UN did so for Milosevic and attempted to do so for Omar al-Bashir. The UN did place sanctions on the Palestinians, which is unique in that it's the first time an occupied people have been punished. ChrisAmiss (talk) 00:54, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Are you implying that all of these green countries are dictatorships? South Africa? France? Ireland? Norway? These are democracies. Your accusation that "a bunch of dictators...like to hit on their two favorite punching bags" is a pretty big misrepresentation of the fact that most of the world thinks Palestine should be a state. Also, so what? The fact that they are dictatorships doesn't matter. What matters is the veracity of the claims of human rights violations by Israel. The UN is totally content with sanctioning Iran for having a nuclear weapons program, but not for Israel, the first country to introduce the existence of nuclear weapons to the Middle East. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 01:00, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Life and Loathing in Greater Israel[edit]

Pbfreespace3, for excellent documentation of how views such as Feiglin's resonate with much of the Israeli population, you should read Max Blumenthal's undisputedly accurate book, Goliath: Life and Loathing in Greater Israel. (And believe me, Zionists pulled out the stops trying to find errors in this work.) Peruse the inordinate number of customer reviews at Amazon (the link) to get a sense of what the work demonstrates -- and why Zionists therefore hate it.---Mona- (talk) 23:55, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

So Mona, tell me...[edit]

Is the blood and soil nationalism of Palestinians who claim that refugee status can be inherited (through blood) racist? Or will you once again not respond to clear and direct questions? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:42, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm answering this only because it allows me to flag that ChrisAmiss has just updated the Zionism article to explain that Palestinians became nationalistic in that era and also wanted their own state. But I shall usually ignore you.---Mona- (talk) 23:12, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
No, it's not racist, as Palestinian nationalism does not hold as a core tenet superiority of one group over another. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 23:13, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Zionism doesn't either. #rekt --Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 23:18, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Though Islamism does, sort of. CorruptUser (talk) 23:19, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
That depends on what definition of Islamism and what interpretation of Islam you're using. But then most of this section is a semantic argument. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 23:31, 4 November 42015 AQD (UTC)
Almost all people who politicize their religion (with the exception of maybe some on the Christian left) think that either their religion or the people who believe in said religion are superior to other religions (or none at all) or to people believing in those religions (or none at all). Just think of the "you can't be moral without religion" types in Christianity. And the same goes for political and politicized Islam, Hinduism and pretty much every religion there is... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:39, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
If what you're suggesting is accurate, and since you're not citing Judaism as one of the exceptions... ;) 142.124.55.236 (talk) 03:42, 8 November 42015 AQD (UTC)
Zionism is not based on religion. It has historically been a largely secular movement. Only after the establishment of Israel did such a thing as religious Zionism gain any traction. There is a throwaway line somewhere in the Talmud that says something along the lines "Jews have to keep the laws of the country they live in, they can't emigrate to Palestine en masse and non-Jews have to not be excessive in their persecution". This line ensured that for a long time the dominant view of religious Jews towards Zionism was: No way José. Secular Jews on the other hand, saw that Jews would need their own state, because the Goyjim can't be trusted in the "not killing Jews" department... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 18:45, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
I never said it was, Arisboch. So no, not rekt. Stop with the ad hominem attacks and strawmen. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 23:52, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Mona says Zionism is racist. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:35, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Right now I don't care what Mona says, I care what you implied I thought. Anyway, let's talk about something more substantial. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 00:46, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Zionism was racism in its earlier day because it required an expulsion of the Arab majority in order to create a Jewish majority because of the high birth rate among the Palestinian Arabs. As I've documented in the transfer section, transfer was a chief component of Zionism and it produced resistance among the Palestinians because they feared they would be displaced, and indeed they were. Zionism as it operates in the occupied territories is also a form of racism in that Jewish settlements are allowed to proliferate while Palestinians who apply for a building permit are routinely denied, forcing them to build structures that end up getting demolished. In addition, the Jewish settlers are treated under a separate system of laws from their Palestinian neighbors. Zionism as it operates in Israel proper is not what I consider racism, though there is definitely institutionalized discrimination against Israeli Arabs. ChrisAmiss (talk) 00:50, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
That's bullshit. The Zionists did not consider the Jews a superior race or anything like a race at all.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 00:57, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Transferring an ethnic group in order to position another ethnic group in its place is racism. ChrisAmiss (talk) 01:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Ah, because that has only ever happened once and in one place of the world.... You know what happened to the Jews in Arab states after Israel was founded? Or how pretty much all "New World" states became a thing? Your definition of racism is insane. But thaen again, you are probably among those who call the moon American occupied, because they left a flag there. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:18, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Are we really going back to the notion that because everyone allegedly does it, it can't possibly be a bad thing? I thought we've gotten over this, but apparently, there are still some closet racists here who will justify expulsion because it's the popular thing to do or whatever garbage. I happen to know a little about the status of Jews in the Arab world. Most historians, even Zionist ones like Segev and Porath, recognize it as a nuanced picture (in terms of decolonization, the work of the Jewish agencies especially in Operation Magic Carpet, poverty, etc.) compared to the Palestinian situation, so I'd say it's more a comparison similar to the plight of Turks during the Armenian Genocide than a legitimate equivalence. I haven't seen great scholarly evidence on if there was a plan to expel them, but even if there were, it wouldn't be moral. There's no justification for ethnic cleansing. Also, please provide scholarly evidence for unsourced statements, and not a Wikipedia page either or from an Israeli MFA page or Israeli ambassador. ChrisAmiss (talk) 01:22, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Zionism in the Palestinian area was unique because Jews were not a majority group in the area, and the only way they could achieve a high demographic status in the area to form their nation-state was expulsion. ChrisAmiss (talk) 01:27, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
The Zionists' actions against the Palestinians seem to contradict what you say, Arisboch. They ethnically cleansed Arab areas and Muslim areas with the purpose of ethnically changing the region. Whether or not they consider themselves racist is irrelevant. Did slave-owners consider themselves racist? If they didn't, that doesn't mean they're not racist. In the same way, just because Zionists don't consider the Jews to be a superior race, doesn't mean they didn't engage in criminal behavior by cleansing large areas of certain types of people of a certain language (Arabic) and religion (Islam). Zionists did this, and that's what matters. Not if they are 'racists' or not. Stop with the silly semantics argument. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 01:09, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
These people of a certain language (Arabic) and religion (Islam) have in Israel more rights than anywhere else in the Middle East.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 01:31, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Changing the subject to the present, so red herring fallacy right there. You might want to talk about how Arabs in Israel from 1948 to 1966 had to live under military law, and the discriminatory laws against them (http://www.adalah.org/en/law/index). Or the rights of Palestinians under Israeli occupation. ChrisAmiss (talk) 01:40, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
In the first half of the 20th century, Zionist Jews routinely referred to the indigenous Arabs as "savages" and like that there. All the time. Even Judah Magnes. (Yes, yes, Arisboch I can document this.)---Mona- (talk) 01:12, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
It reminds me of white treatment of black slaves during the 18th and 19th centuries, and also European treatment of native Americans. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 01:17, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Also, there has always been a hierarchy among Zionists in which the Ashkenazi Jews are at the top of the racial ladder. Sephardim, not so much. And others, well, African Jews are pretty much at the bottom. See, e.g., this. http://www.mintpressnews.com/israels-white-supremacy-agenda-targets-jews-arabs-africans/199858/---Mona- (talk) 01:22, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
If they hated the Black Jews as much as you claim, why the fuck did they risk life and limb of their soldiers to have them saved from conflict spots of Africa and/or the Middle East? And calling MintPress News is putting it mildly.--

Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 01:31, 5 November 2015 (UTC) ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Arisboch, you'll have to ask the Israeli Ethiopian Jews why they march against anti-black racism and and align themselves with BLM. I'd suggest that, in addition to reading our own BLM article, you could find much more on the topic if you Googled, but you've repeatedly said you don't do research. Guess you don't know how teh Google works, eh?---Mona- (talk) 02:28, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Another red herring... I never denied the existence of racism in Israel, I just don't agree with you either tarring Israel or Zionism as a whole as racist. --Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 02:34, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Arisboch, I know you are familiar with our Black Lives Matter article. Please see what it says about Ethiopian Israeli Jews protesting entrenched racism. As for the racial hierarchy among Zionists in which the Ashkenazi sit at the top, this is old news.---Mona- (talk) 01:52, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
This is not an answer to my question! If they hate Black Jews that much, why did Israel risk life and limb of their soldiers to get them out of Africa into Israel?! And, shit, Ashkenazi Jews don't consider themselves a race!--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 01:55, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Probably because they wanted to live in a first-world country, Arisboch. But basically what you are doing is saying "Look at how great the Israelis are! Look at how beautiful and wonderful and magnificent their land is! Look at how people all around the world are flooding to be a part of their great nation! The Israelis are just the best thing ever! And, well, you know, you know how those Arab Palestinians are (that is implied). This is really heavily implied by your previous text. You are asking a leading question by implying the black Jews went to Israeli because it was so great. This is also a version of the not-as-bad-as fallacy.
Also, you could say the same thing about the Soviet Union. "Why was everyone so quick to join the USSR? Why did the Chinese, and Koreans, the Vietnamese, and the Cambodians want so much to become part of the USSR? Russia risked life and limb to help these poor oppressed people in their countries. They gave them a future, a life worth living." You sound like a propagandist trying to get people to join your movement. Do you realize that you sound like a religious person or a cult member? Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:06, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
The African Jews I was talking about didn't "go there", they were fucking airlifted from crisis regions under high risk, the rest of your diatribe is heavy strawmanning of my post.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 02:19, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Exactly my point. You were being propagandistic, not talking about facts and instead focusing on ideology. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:26, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

"European treatment of native Americans." Yes. And many Native American activists are strongly pro-Palestinaina, seeing their fight as essentially against the same thing. I've encountered many Zionists who are very cool to the truth about what was done to the "Indians" here, for the obvious reasons. (Yes, I'm gonna toss in one anecdotal. I can document the general claim if asked.)---Mona- (talk) 01:25, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you digging up obscure or complete frivolous sources is infamous on the RW.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 01:31, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Oh yeah, Haaretz, the Times of Israel, John Judis, just a bunch of obscure nutjobs. Need I remind you of Max Blumenthal's Goliath? He interviews and quotes prominent members of Israeli civil society, including Knesset members. It ain't pretty.---Mona- (talk) 01:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Ok, Arisboch, here's an impeccably Zionist source, and here it is again. Or, watch the six former Shin Bet directors in the documentary, Gatekeepers. One of them says of von Clausewitz that: "he was clever even though he wasn't a Jew."---Mona- (talk) 02:03, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
You cite sources about Ultra-Orthodox hating Sephardis as an example of "the Zionists" being racist? What the hell??--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 02:10, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes. They are showing that there is racism in the Jewish religion. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:12, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Nope, it doesn't. It shows, that there are people from the Askenazic sect of Judaism hating people from the Sephardic sect of Judaism.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 02:19, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
And that the Ashkenazi are superior. This is old stuff. The Shin Bet director in that film didn't see a thing wrong with what he was saying to a an Israeli Jewish interviewer. Herzl was quite emphatic that it was to be European Jews who created a European Jewish state. an outpost of Europe in the ME. (Arisboch, please ask me to document this.)---Mona- (talk) 02:23, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, Zionism originated in Europe, this is true and Herzl wanted to get the European powers to support him (and the local powers, too), which doesn't mean, that he gave a shit about Ashkenazi, Sephardi and so on (he was rather indifferent towards religion) or thought, that non-European Jews were any less Jewish than the ones from Europe.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 02:34, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Arisboch, you don't think one group of Jews hating another group of Jews proves that racism exists within the Jewish community? You're dumb. Or did you not just read the article? Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:26, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Nope, it doesn't, since they don't do it not on racist grounds. Jewish racists exist and I never denied it, but the examples you bring ain't about it.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 02:34, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Maybe I should rephrase. What I mean to say is that many Jews think some groups of people are inherently better than other groups, rather than judging people solely based on individual virtue or group achievement. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Just an aside: Ultra-Orthodox Jews are usually anti-Zionist. In fact at the beginning of Zionism, it correlated negatively with religiosity. Some of the most notable Zionists in the early days are or were very secular or even openly atheist. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 02:37, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

"or thought, that non-European Jews were any less Jewish than the ones from Europe." Oh yes, Herzl thought the other Jews were, in fact, Jewish. But he considered the Western European elite ones better. Top of the heap.---Mona- (talk) 02:38, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

And regardless of all of this, the point here is that Israel is wrongly treating Arabs living in the West Bank and in Gaza, along with Israel's allies Jordan and Egypt. This needs to stop, and the only way for it to stop is for Israel is to withdraw from the West Bank (and stop attacking Gaza) and recognize the Palestinian state. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:48, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Oh, and Jabotinsky wrote in opposition to Ashkenazi marrying other Jews. He felt it would imperil the purity of the Jewish race, engendering a "dull race."---Mona- (talk) 02:49, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Massad, huh? Of course you would cite such a propagandist (and according to a quick Google search, this quote only written in his book, not in any of the many collections of Jabotinsky's works on teh net. I wounder, why).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 03:33, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Massad is a scholar and has no reputation for fabricating quotes. You simply don't like the words.---Mona- (talk) 04:14, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't like, that these purported words of Jabotinsky aren't written anywhere but in his books (at least not online). Ol' Ze'ev wasn't a nobody, you know.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 16:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Arisboch, if Joseph fucking Massad -- of all academics-- fabricated a Jabotinsky quote, THAT you would find all over online.---Mona- (talk) 17:03, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Arisboch, Jabotinsky was a font of repulsive statements. His Zionism was driven by internalized antisemitism: "I am a Zionist because the Jewish people is a very nasty people, and it's neighbors hate it, and they are right."---Mona- (talk) 04:27, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Again, the only hits I can find are not from primary sources, but to a guy who claims to have quoted Jabotinsky.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 17:04, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
That quote is footnoted, tho can't be consulted in that Google Books version. Anyway, there were racial claims made by many Zionists. There still are -- and a deep anger at intermarriage. Lehava is extremist, but their anti-miscegenation views are not rejected by many (most?) Zionists.---Mona- (talk) 17:19, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Why do you think....[edit]

The Palestinians should get a second state (after the one they already got in Transjordan) if you don't like the Jews having one? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 18:47, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

The Palestinian-Jordan canard is a favorite talking point of the Israeli right (forgetting the fact that Palestinians only became a major demographic in Jordan because they were ethnically cleansed and not allowed to return home). Let me ask Avenger, Jews make up a substantial demographic in NYC. Why do they need a state in Israel if they already have one in NYC or Miami (535,000 Jews approximately) for that matter? ChrisAmiss (talk) 18:56, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Because, as I believe I've mentioned somewhere, she thinks the Israelis should be deported or that Israel should disarm itself. The first solution is rather fraught with difficulties - where do you find a place to dump seven million or so people? The second is more promising from her point of view, as it would be a collective suicide of the same millions of people and that's apparently OK. That Amiss mentions New York is neither here nor there. Just to refresh memories, a number of nations have a sizable diaspora. In any case, King Hussein thought he had too many Palestinians, and indeed he had. They were disrupting Jordan. Does Black September ring a bell? So, Avenger, Jordan is just barely a Palestinian state. Anyway, the Palestinian Authority has been recognized by multiple states. As nobody seems to regard that as a solution, the Israeli state's responsibility is the same as any other's - to ensure survival. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 19:12, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't think any reasonable person would suggest deporting Israelis. And the US wouldn't allow it to happen. ChrisAmiss (talk) 19:15, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Well where do you think Mona wants to put the Israelis if all of the "refugees" are to return. And corret me if I'm wrong, but for quite some time, the Kingdom of Transjordan defined itself as the "Palestinian state". And on a further aside, there already is a de facto state on the territory of the former British Mandate (in its borders as of 1930) that disallows any Jewish permanent residency, let alone citizenship. Given Mona's love for the current de facto strongmen in Gaza, I think it's safe to say that she wants all of Israel to be governed by the same type of people. And we all know what that would mean for Jews in Israel. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:23, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Chris, don't accept anything Sorte, Avenger or Arisbich claim about my statements or views. They are unhinged, at least on the topic of me and anything I/P-related.---Mona- (talk) 19:24, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Interesting choice of phrase. You don't say that I am factually wrong (or where I am wrong) but rather chose to do an ad hominem... Why is that? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
No, they didn't. Transjordan preempted the creation of a Palestinian state in collusion with Israel before the 1948 war, and that's why they annexed the West Bank. No there isn't any laws forbidding Jewish permanent residency or citizens (unlike Saudi Arabia). There are actually some hundred of thousands of Israeli tourists who visit Jordan and Israeli companies have been allowed to work in Jordan. And you still haven't answered my question. Why should Jews have a state in Israel when they already have one in Brooklyn or Miami? There's no rocket attacks in those areas nor any occupation, so Jews should feel compelled to live in these areas to feel safe. ChrisAmiss (talk) 19:31, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, it seems Mona's allowed to dish out judgment about the sanity of others. Perhaps we should question hers and see if we get slapped. Anyway, in the real sense, I'd rather be unhinged and lying in peace rather than being hinged and open and flapping with every breeze. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 20:56, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

You do know that the Nazis called the Weimar Republic a Judenrepublik... Just pointing this out. Whether you draw any conclusions from that is your problem. And as for New York and Miami (which don't even have a Jewish majority) constituting a Jewish state.... Don't be ridiculous. Jordan for quite some time (btw, its peace treaty with Israel dates to the 1990s, Jordan has attacked Israel in 1948 and 1967 as well 1973, like the rest of them) called itself the Palestinian state. And never did New York call itself the Jewish state city or anything. And I am quite sure the Irish in NYC would be offended to be ignored. As would the Cubans in Miami. Israel is the first time since the Bar Kokhba revolt, that there exists not a state with Jews in them, but a Jewish state. A state with a Jewish majority. Some people seem to hate the very thought... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:43, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Godwin's law. I was pointing out your faulty logic in declaring a country to be an ethnic state on its demographics or that a group can't declare a nationalist identity for itself on the basis of where its diaspora (key word here) lives. Jordan doesn't call itself the Palestinian state. It calls itself the state of Jordan and much of its population are natives living in the area since before WWII and refugees from war-torn areas, not just Palestinians. And your history is faulty to say the least regarding 1948, 1967, 1973 (that was Syria and Egypt, not Jordan), so I'll push that aside. Again, if substantial amounts of Jews live in NY or Miami, using your logic, why can't they declare a nationalist identity and carve out a state for themselves? Why should Kurds carve out a state for themselves when they already have substantial shares of its population in Turkey? ChrisAmiss (talk) 21:57, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
never did New York call itself the Jewish state city or anything- Avenger
Wasn't there a NYC mayor (Ed Koch?) who said to an Israeli PM (Shimon Peres?) "You don't impress me. There are more Jews in my city than in your whole country." ?? CamelCasePragmatist (talk) 22:06, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
If Koch ever said that, he should be embarassed of himself, because the numbers just don't add up.... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

"Left of Reason"[edit]

If you don't get jokes that are based in a website's local culture, even after being told so, don't edit those jokes. a good chance to read more and edit less, and maybe actually learn something about how the place works. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 19:02, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Don't be silly. Avenger isn't the one to instruct me on the culture here. Anyway, I had already determined that he was correct about that and reverted Weaseloid saying so. You may want to drop in on Weaseloid's page, however, and take him/her to task.---Mona- (talk) 19:13, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Somebody has to instruct you. Why not him? Sorte Slyngel (talk) 19:30, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
And a nice trolling comment from Sorte... 142.124.55.236 (talk) 19:32, 8 November 42015 AQD (UTC)
If that constitutes trolling... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:42, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
He's seeing ghosts in broad daylight. He's just become enamored of the word trolling and can't stop using it. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 20:20, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Anyway to try out this neat thingy, Mona is wrong almost everywhereWikipedia's W.svg, which does leave her with a set of measure zeroWikipedia's W.svg where she's right. I had to try this template for once. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 20:29, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Dlagon Dlagon[edit]

I blocked this user for some time for trolling and for letting others feed the troll. Ryulong blocked him for the same amount of time, too. Others defended this person, but hasn't contributed for days after other blocks. *gasp* Are you defending him? Dandtiks69♪♫ (talk) 06:24, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Well shit, I blocked myself but didn't stifle myself here. I hope you saw I didn't intend to block you; I was intending to only change Dlagon Dlagon's block so he'd have access to his talk page. Anyhoo, I know nothing about that user at all, except that when I checked his contributions since his last block I saw nothing warranting a block. In any event, it seems Gooniepunk unblocked him. Now, before I inadvertently block every other user for eternity, I'm going to bed. Good night.---Mona- (talk) 06:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello. I forgot to mention this user has done off-wiki harassment, and his username here is just one example. Just letting you know that people commonly defend his trolling by saying he's from a different wiki and that his username is different and that his contributions don't amount to much, etc., etc. This wiki isn't the only page out there, you know. Dandtiks69♪♫ (talk) 05:31, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
No-one cares. If he does something on this site, he shall be sanctioned on this site. If you're pissed about his behavior at some other sites, go there and speak to the people in charge.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 05:40, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
He was harassing Ryulong in here, you know. Dandtiks69♪♫ (talk) 07:53, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
I looked at his edits and he has only 5 edits and the only edit, which is related to Ryulong is nominating him for the mod elections (which Ryuliong could've just declined). So what "harassment" you talking about??--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 13:13, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi Dandtiks read this page for some more information on when and when not to block people. Typically in the past off-wiki activities are not taken into account when determining whether to block someone or not barring some extreme example. Tielec01 (talk) 08:00, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
I seriously considered lifting the block myself, but I'm still a bit new. Fortunately, Gooniepunk took care of it.---Mona- (talk) 16:06, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

The issue[edit]

is that the wigo doesn't tell me anything about -why- we are caring, why it's getting coverage. Why the fuck do we care that some random college students made racist statements and were arrested for them? This happens to plenty of people all the time, the WIGO should in some way atleast hint at why the fuck its a big deal. Going "but the media is talking about it!" doesn't mean anything, the media talks about hundreds of things every day which we fail to mention on WIGO. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 01:06, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I get all that, and agree with it. But I assumed most people were aware of the situation in Missouri and all the hoo-ha going on about it. That is, to my mind it was obvious that this isn't about Just Some Guy Who Said Something Dumb and Got Busted. It's part of an ongoing race-issues conflict in the state's university system.---Mona- (talk) 01:19, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
In news never assume the people know anything, otherwise they're getting the news from somebody else. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 01:21, 12 November 2015 (UTC)--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 01:21, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Part of the problem is the brevity required on the WIGO. It limits how much explanation is possible, but I could have put it in the edit summary.---Mona- (talk) 01:23, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
But all I have to base on is the wigo, not the edit summary when looking at the wigo page. A few words tying it into the wider issue of why these two people matter would work, you could also merge the two sentences into one summary or find a link mentioning both, to free up some space. It's just not a very good WIGO as is because it simply doesn't give any reason as to why it matters that these two random nobodys are being talked about over the rest. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 01:29, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

A view[edit]

Is this correct?

I don't mean to offend you or anything, but I don't know anything about Israel of Zionism (I have never really gotten into that, until now). I have trouble picking a side (if any) so I am neutral. However, on a tour I was going around various UC campuses, I found this mini-poster in one of the university bus stops. Is this information accurate? Are the views in here the ones I'm supposed to believe (dare I say it, rational view)? Dandtiks69♪♫ (talk) 04:14, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Your graphic does not display. At any rate, the information I find most pertinent is found, in order of salience, at these RW articles: Zionism, Israel, Apartheid and Benjamin Netanyahu.---Mona- (talk) 04:32, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Give it time, that happens all the time (it's either the MediaWiki software here being buggy or the server being slow or both).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 04:41, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
You forgot ponies and GG.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 04:41, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
It's showing up in my browser. Dandtiks69♪♫ (talk) 04:58, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I see it now. And yes, that poster is accurate. You will learn why if you read the articles I cite above. There are a few users here, such as Arisboch, who strongly object to much that is in them. But they have not been able to show that the artivles are factually inaccurate.---Mona- (talk) 05:08, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. I'll get to reading those articles you suggested to me. Dandtiks69♪♫ (talk) 05:37, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Targeted Individuals[edit]

Hi Mona, you can insert the {{WIP}} template onto a page when you are doing major revisions and want other people to wait before editing. You can insert your user name as follows and it will tell people who's making the request: {{WIP|-Mona-}} Bongolian (talk) 17:35, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Rev wants me to wait until tonite for more editing, which I'll do unless he's ok with the "kernel of truth" section I want to finish this afternoon.---Mona- (talk) 17:38, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
...aaand the other team enters the court! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:18, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

A big reply from a tiny man[edit]

Check it! All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:17, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Replied to you once more on my talk page, in case you missed it. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Wow. Seriously? An amicable solution[edit]

How about you atleast warn me next time - never mind ask me - before you copypaste an entire section of my talkpage (never mind cut and paste, as you did) - a segment containing replies I was in the middle of editing, mind you, edits which were now lost to the wind due to the unexpected edit conflict in my browser and the error message stating that the content in question was no longer where it was just a moment earlier. On my own talk page, about the one place on this entire wiki where I really don't expect other people to be messing around, from out of the blue, as I'm doing things. I'm honestly annoyed that you didn't even ask either, you just assumed it was fine with the disclaimer "unless anyone objects". Why? I get that the offer to object was directed at the people on the talkpage for the TI article - and that's an honorable thing to say to them - but what about me? It's no big deal but, come on Mona. Use your head - we're in a live discussion on my talk page. What are the odds I'm in the process of writing a couple thousand letters? Somewhere between "high" and "it's in the bag, buddy"? Or, was. Siiiigh. Seriously, Mona. The fuck. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:01, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry! I just thought we were discussing stuff that should all be there. Feel free to return it.---Mona- (talk) 21:03, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
...Sigh. It's not that it didn't ultimately belong on the TI page, it's that you just acted - without thinking, Mona. Sure, it belonged on that page. But that's not AT ALL what I'm talking to you about here, you do understand that right? I mean, you just said yourself "I just thought we were discussing" - which is why it was a bad [daffodil] time to just CUT stuff off of another person's talkpage without asking, without even warning! The dissappointment and frustration was PALPABLE when I realised what had happened to all I wrote (for you no less), and how that happened. Why. Who did that, and what their thoughts might be on this once they realise the extent of how I was affected. Now, I hate to have to milk an apology out of people, especially one I'm going like this just waiting for, because I've had to earn that apology and thus I'm waiting eagerly to see it delivered with generous enthusiasm. I'd be on my hands and knees if I were in your shoes right now, and it's not because I'm your "enemy" or you are "mine", or some hierarchical crap. It's because I don't even want to be upset at you, accidents happen! I'm so ready to ACCEPT that good apology that would've taken more effort than two fast words and what might as well be a shrug. Now, I've literally had zero bones to pick with you on RW thus far, a tradition I aim to maintain, so I know that I've got goodwill with you - so your failure right here and now to apply yourself to your own apology to me is preventing this burning sensation of understandable annoyance from dying down in me as fast as it could (and the faster the better, right?). You caused me this annoyance, atleast help hasten its departure from my mind. I respect your intention by offering me a simple sorry, I truly do - but in text communication, things can easily get lost in translation, and what I think I just got from you was what looked like the laziest apology, which means you're letting this nagging little acidic glow die down on its own in me, letting it take its sweet old time eating away at my evening, rather than you just standing yourself up with some zest, showing me some energy and snatching yourself a big ass bowl of time-tested, good old fashioned express apology water and honorably and painlessly dunking that [daisy] right over that festering little pyre, letting this - in the large scheme of things - truly minor setback be over in an instant for all parties involved - and it would be, thanks to you showing some initiative and some active participation in making this right with someone who calls you friend (instead of prolonging the subsiding of my irritation meaninglessly). And look, it's not like this shit ain't trivial, but it's not trivial until you make things right. All I know is what I'd be doing right now, if the roles were reversed. Hell, I'd have foam sprayed any annoyance I caused purely by my own stupid accident for someone else by taking the time and commiting to an excuse. And I'm still sitting like this right now, and I hate the fact that I feel that way right now, especially when I don't even want to be mad at you, or in general. Sigh. Basically, I'm making you aware of how I feel. You have this information now, clear as day. And you have my undivided attention, if you see fit to utilize it. Your friend, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:53, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

......Look, I apologized. I said I was sorry. I meant it: I'm genuinely sorry. My comments are seldom especially long, unless I'm quoting sources or something. Yes, I should have asked first; I was in a hurry because I had someone coming to my home in a few minutes (which is why I've been absent for a bit). It could have waited, but I got what I thought was a "great idea" and acted impulsively. I don't know why length of apology is so important to you, but I really am sorry.---Mona- (talk) 22:16, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

That is one outstanding apology. Thank you. And I'd like to add - I'm sorry also, for even getting upset like that. Screw lost text, accidents happen and text can always be rewritten. Now I know that I can always trust you to handle the facts when you DO upset me, and conversely, I won't ever leave you hanging if I fuck up and it ticks you off. I may not agree but I won't leave you all messed up if I can help it. Thank you, again. Now, time to forget this whole nonsense. As far as I'm concerned - lady, you did the right thing today. Not everyone can pull themselves together like that, no matter how warranted said togetherpulling of self may be. Also, I saw you moved the discussion back to my talk page. It can stay there, or it can go back on the TI page, or whatever really. I'm fine with everything, it's what people want and the discussion is public property. It's all fine - just remember now - we ASK before moving talk page text, just in the odd scenario that someone is typing in the ol' edit box. Or atleast drop a warning first, though that is more risky. And if we DO move text anyway, we use copy and not cut, just to make sure. This might sound patronizing but it's really not meant that way at all, I'm elated and proud of you today. I stay out of all the infected areas of RW, I like to interact with people when it's just our business to see who they really are. Anyways, I've taken enough of your time now. Run along! All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
"I'm elated and proud of you today." [sigh] Rev, we have entirely different styles and personalities. I do not understand you -- I don't mean that rhetorically, I mean, you are a personality it is hard for me to get used to and figure out. (You've previously accused me of being condescending, and I just was writing as I generally do, intending nothing personally insulting, at all.) That kind of thing is emotionally draining, and the last, very last thing, I want is more fucking drama in my interactions here. The Israel-Palestine thing is far, far more than enough for me. Let's leave it like this: We should keep our discussions of articles to the point and not get into extraneous discussions about our reactions, feelings and etc. No crossed wires should occur if we do that. We should stay tightly focused on the issue at hand, and only that. That's what I think would be best for two people whose communications styles are as different as ours are.---Mona- (talk) 23:25, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
That all sounds mighty fine to me. Now, I hope I didn't cross a line by using the "P" word like I did. I just wanted to give you that extra confidence that I wasn't being sarcastic - text based communication and all. Like I've said previously (and as per my record), I chose to stay out of the worst quagmires as best I can, instead trying to cultivate a kind of "one-on-one" relationship with any and all participants on this site. It's not why I'm here, but it's who I am. It sounds pretty clingy perhaps, but it's not that advanced. I try to pay the utmost attention to what I chose to communicate to others, and I expect them to dignify that by doing the same. Now, I'm not exactly psychic here, nor do I expect anyone else here to be. Telepathy is an overrated means of communication, and text on a screen is pretty much stripped butt-ass naked of any and all emotional cues. Still; the one thing that shines through, even through text, is effort. Effort, real effort, is self-evident. It's not something we always have over to give, but atleast I always try to make mine show. But I digress. I think that what you're saying right now is fully reasonable - as far as I'm concerned, we're on good terms. I'll honor your suggestion, friend. And the counterweight to my dispositional awareness is that I'm a hell of an easy guy to set things straight with. And I'm generally way harder to annoy than you may think (though MY TEXT!!!) and untying any knots one has with me is a fairly straightforward process, although I can concede it's not always self-explanatory (though I never pass up an invitation to explain myself). Setting the record straight with me, as far as I'm concerned, takes about a fistful of effort with just a pinch of humility, letting it bake somewhere I can't miss it. And I am relatively attentive, too (we all do the best we can). That's pretty much a surefire recipe for water under the bridge. Another feature (or bug, for that matter) in how I function is that; as much as it might sound very draining to interact with someone who tries to pursue that much of the human element of communication, even over text - I'm actually the one that stays the furtest away from the truly stanky infected mosh pits. I think I'd probably blow a gasket in a nanosecond if I was to genuinely apply my heart and mind as much as I do when I've picked my fights, while also going jousting windmills in an edit war of biblical proportions. Nah, I like your point. I'm quite content sitting around like Ferdinand the bull, just smelling the roses. That, plus making useful contributions. And backhanding those who would go out of their way just to deny me even the most common of courtesies, of course. Anyhow; I'm with the program, Mona. Good call. And I'm still turd polishing on my reply to the TI talkpage, and to some expansions to the actual article page as well. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:08, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
And, for what it's worth - don't underestimate the wonders that cultivating meaningful allies can bring a besieged mind in a place like this. That's not solicitation for the record, just a general thought. It's at least as fun as cultivating meaningful enemies is, I assure you. [Horseplay-y body language goes here]. And what's that old pseudo-Sun Tzu saying, never deny yourself the pleasure of employing the strategy of your opponent to your own benefit. Can't remember if I just made that quote up (though I do own The Art of War...). Oh well. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:14, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Rev, I want allies, of course I do. But I'm not good at politics. I'm far too much a "say what I mean, mean what I say" sort. The idea of "cultivating" people sort of revolts me. There's no reason you and I cannot collaborate compatibly just because we are both smart, reasonable people of good will who share some common interests. Anyhoo, let's see how the TI article progresses, now that this distraction is resolved.---Mona- (talk) 00:42, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Now, hold your horses - who mentioned anything about "cultivating people"? I'm no Soylent Green farmer! If you mean what I said, I spoke in quite plain english of cultivating relationships - an abstract term - and while "cultivation" as a word may bring forth internal imagery of some kind of pre-planned final intent (like every person is as clear-cut and homogenous as a straw of wheat in an industrial field of wheat). No, no; I mean it more like the way an innocent child learns to care for a houseplant. Y'know, testing your way forward, sticking with what provides maximum benefit and learning from your mistakes, building towards no certain or pre-decided future, but atleast knowing that you're building that path with stones that you know don't hide any overt underbellies. Experiencing the joy of growth, all that. Sounds kinda corny (pun intended) but I just had to tip the scales back into coherency here after you just said "cultivating people". Said with a smile! All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:50, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
And just for the record - I'm about the opposite of a politician. Guh, I feel dirty for even using that word. If you're no politician, we can't be all that different. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:14, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Alan Deshowitz[edit]

If you'd actually look at other edits i've made to other pages, you'd know that i have no problem with the sites point of view and it's biased nature. I've never advocated for that. And simply using an appeal to age to discredit any revisions i made is silly and makes you look like a bully. I didn't remove any of the edits you made or remove any bias. I just moved them to their own section outside of the introduction and gave that section a more appropriate heading. Your new heading doesn't actually describe all that it contains. I get that you are a critic of Israel, i am too, but your banning of me simply for moving text to better reflect the sites overall style is absurd, just because you perceive some small about of pro-Isreal bias that wasn't actually there.--Petey Plane (talk) 19:34, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Owlman for moving this. I'm dumb :P Petey Plane (talk) 19:41, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm not appealing to age. A few weeks ago you deleted a claim I don't care about just because it was unsourced. I told you, we don't generally do that with edits that have been there a while -- you stick in a "citation needed." It just seemed to me you are not yet entirely familiar with the conventions here. (And, I'm not banning you!) The section is about what Dershowitz did to Norman Finkelstein. It was and is outrageous.---Mona- (talk) 19:43, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree with you completely on deshowitz. That's not my issue at all. I just think the heading should more broadly cover his views on Isreal, since they go beyond finklestein, and the finklstien situation would be a sub heading. And i'll own up to the citation needed flop, my understanding of some of the formatting conventions is not fully developed. That being said, i think it's unfair to say that i don't understand the general vibe of RW, considering my edit history.Petey Plane (talk) 19:51, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, I don't know your whole editing history. If you want to expand on Dershowit'z Israel position that's fine. It is a huge aspect of who he has been in the last 15 years. But I didn't write any of that -- all I added was the Doctors Without Borders material. If you do write about his Israel stuff, no doubt I'll feel compelled to toss in my own tweaks.---Mona- (talk) 19:56, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

On the importance of legal aspects[edit]

Hello Mona! I would much appreciate if you could find the time to join the discussion on the condition of the article on Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and the - by our standards - clearly warranted drive for change that I would argue can be motivated in this article. I've also reached out to 142, in the hopes that we can all congregate (alongside the community) to atleast safeguard that the legal (as well as the purely qualitative) considerations are not disregarded too lightly, especially considering the recent discussions that have rightfully taken place on the standard of sourcing and the utilization of legal insight on our content. It's not something to scoff at, as I'm sure you're aware. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 04:16, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Rev, I don't see any particular legal issues with that poorly written article. It does desperately need editing. (And sourcing, altho there are a moire citaion neededs than are needed!) At some point I'll try to get back to it -- I took care of some issues a few weeks ago.---Mona- (talk) 04:24, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for seeing the broad strokes of my concern. I've contined this discussion on the article talk page. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 05:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Jesus Christ[edit]

If fuckin' MONA is taking my side, I must be doing something right. ;-) Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 05:10, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Now, now, I always said you have strong editing skills. That's just a fact!---Mona- (talk) 05:21, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, that entire situation escalated pretty quickly ... :-/ Carpetsmoker (talk) 05:50, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
He was super pissed. But anyone who's been here for any amount of time knows you can't just trash your whole talk page. I know it upset him, but that article just was very poor. [shrug]---Mona- (talk) 05:51, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks both for helping deal with that. I stepped away when it became clear he was well into the mashing-on-the-keyboard phase (...and prolly could have done so earlier). Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 05:54, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
It's Saturday night. People sometimes do their editing with a beer or ten.---Mona- (talk) 05:58, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
I hate to be "that guy", but was all of that really necessary? Reversing the deletions is fine, but why not just let them blank their talk page instead of reaching for the banhammer over it? Everything is still in the history. I prefer deescalation when possible. Over on English Wikipedia, the general consensus is to let people blank their talk pages freely. This was decided after several big edit wars over user talk pages. Of course I know this is not Wikipedia and we don't have to do things just because they do them, but I agree with the thinking behind it. --Ymir (talk) 06:03, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
I've been here for a bit over 3 months, and it was made very clear to me that "our" user talk pages are not really our own and that I couldn't revert anyone I wanted to. (I don't think I did that back then, but the prohibition got through to me quite early.)---Mona- (talk) 06:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
That's indeed how it is. But it's pretty clear this guy didn't know that. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 06:11, 15 November 42015 AQD (UTC)
Hm. He was mopped. And he was reverting AH for no good reason. And then when that wasn't allowed, he kept trying to blank the page. And with an IP account as well. He really needed to stop.---Mona- (talk) 06:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
He's been here since 2012 and had a welcome template on his page, if he didn't know how thingw work here that's on him, not us. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 06:19, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Also, Owlman friendly blocked him and told him he couldn't do that to his talk page.---Mona- (talk) 06:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Friendly blocks are rather "invisible". If you don't know it exists, you don't see it. I didn't know about it until after a year, and found out I received a number of messages this way (I was also a bit confused as to what it means, had I done something wrong?) Carpetsmoker (talk) 06:42, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Shrug ... Maybe not. But it's the wiki equivalent of having an meeting with a few co-workers, and a minor disagreement pops up. In the middle of the discussion someone stands up, says "This discussion is finished, all of you stop talking, for I have decided", goes off to do whatever the discussion was about, and then leaves the building.
Edit: Perhaps you're right; I was somehow under the misapprehension he would "snap out of it", which was obviously wrong. I don't think that talk pages should be "lost in the edit history", but reverting it the next day or some such would have been better. Carpetsmoker (talk) 06:42, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
In my view, we just should not allow the reversion in the first instance. First, because otherwise some (maybe even me!) would start doing it to "make a statement" and edit wars commence. Second, then someone has to remember to revert the page back. All in all, it's best to just not permit it.---Mona- (talk) 14:39, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
It's about giving someone who is very emotional some space. You would do the same thing in a face-to-face meeting; give them some space, and come back to whatever your were discussing later. The problem on the internet is that it's more difficult to see someone's emotions ... :-/ Carpetsmoker (talk) 08:36, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Quite apart from your views...[edit]

... have you considered the way you post? You seem to respond with what seems to me to be a wholly unnecessary level of aggression when challenged on pretty much anything. Even in situations when you're right, this is means an increasing chance that the thread is going to descend into a screaming grudge match and lose sight of the original point. I'd seriously suggest that you take a breather and count to 10 before writing each post, perhaps introducing a self-imposed cool down period every time you feel especially upset. Your current style unnecessarily alienates other editors and is simply not conducive to getting your point across. ScepticWombat (talk) 05:13, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Of course, this isn't the first time I've heard that. It's just my personality; I'm very direct and blunt, and some people take it personally. Generally, folks have to get used to me and realize my writing style is naturally aggressive, and then accept me, or not. I've been arguing politics online since 1993 and the persona you read is just how I've always rolled "out here." Believe me, I know some can't stand me because of my approach. But, honestly, it'd crab my writing if I had to consciously try to be anything other than myself.---Mona- (talk) 05:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
The "It's just the way I am" is about the lamest excuse for poor/bad communication "out there", since what I'm referring to is not about simply "being blunt", but about actually escalating a conflict to the detriment of the subject under discussion. In other words, you can be blunt and still keep your eye on the ball, rather than start gunning for your opponent personally. However, if you care less about getting your points across than about having a good row (plenty of people do, after all), then your current style is a good way to go about it. ScepticWombat (talk) 05:55, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, I guess I'm not understanding you. I very, very seldom "gun for my opponent personally." In fact, the only name-calling I can recall doing here has been directed at Avenger. (And I believe everything I say about that...difficult person.) Really, I've been the object of a great deal of name-calling and what some sites would characterize as abuse. But I almost never respond in kind. So I honestly do not know what you are talking about. Indeed, this is confusing because up in my talk page (or the archives; I don't recall) is an apology from an editor who says that I handled myself well when I first arrived, and with more restraint than he would have shown in the face of such abuse. I guess different people see me differently. [shrug]---Mona- (talk) 06:03, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

BLP revdels[edit]

We do in fact have reason to take BLP stuff seriously at RW. Desysopping someone arbitrarily for that is an abuse of your power. Please don't ever do that again. If you really, really think it's appropriate, put it up for serious coop discussion - David Gerard (talk) 22:56, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

The ONLY reason I won't do it again is because of who YOU are. That's the same reason no one will do anything about the obvious and persistent problem. Congratulations.---Mona- (talk) 22:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
DG is not the persistent problem. People having tantrums when they don't get their way about a revision that could cause legal problems for the RWF is the persistent problem. Smarten up. Queexchthonic murmurings 23:52, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
We are not going to agree on the nature of the problem. I saw no legal problems with those edits.---Mona- (talk) 00:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC)(JD)

Gamergate pages[edit]

These articles had a great deal to do with my attraction to this wiki. They do explain many things in depth and well. But, after being here now for over eight 3 months I have come to see a very, very serious problem with how those pages are edited about which nothing meaningful can be done.

Fortunately for me, GG is not a topic I have any particular expertise in so it's relatively easy for me to ignore those pages and the turmoil and many injustices that go on pertaining to them. But, just seeing a new user blocked for 3 months because she made edits disliked by two other editors -- after negotiating them on the talk page -- is very hard for me to stomach. This is simply something I wanted to share.---Mona- (talk) 23:28, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Almost everyone is aware of this issue, welcome to Gerard wiki. It's embarrassing if you care about the wiki, but it is interesting to see people become what they once despised. Tielec01 (talk) 23:35, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I'n not really sure how to take your comment. That last bit, if you meant me?
No not you, but give it time. This wiki used to encourage dissent and abhor banning people for made up reasons. There was always a propensity for the place to end up an echo chamber though. Tielec01 (talk) 00:54, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, I'd de-mop Ryu in a heartbeat, and ban him if that proved to be insufficient. But, I advocate concrete policies for being rid of actually problem users who cause extensive, ongoing disruption. That was not, however, not remotely, present here on the part of the banned individual -- and I don't even have a dog in this hunt. It's just the principles involved that get me so riled up.---Mona- (talk) 01:02, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
"Gerard wiki" made me laugh (true!). Mona is correct on this one. The editing rules are obscure and are obviously far more expansive than what is stated on the can. It's also interesting to learn that mona is a GG crank. That explains it then! I'm somehow surrounded by these people, who flock to my pages and when I notice their particular "scent of crazy", they pretend they're normal users and claim I was imagining things. — Aneris ✻ (talk) 02:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Right. Let's make this about you. Too bad you're an unreliable narrator of a particularly smelly sort. I doubt you could say anything relevant or interesting if you tried. SmartFeller (talk) 02:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
"It's also interesting to learn that mona is a GG crank. " Um, what? I have very little to do with Gamergate.---Mona- (talk) 03:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I was wondering about that too, but then I remembered that Aneris pulls everything from where the sun don't shine. I agree with Gerard's assessment that A✻ is incapable of joined-up thinking. SmartFeller (talk) 03:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
I'll say this for Aneris, s/he has brought a Peace of Westphalia to this wiki. We've all laid down arms to marvel at his/her antics.---Mona- (talk) 03:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

My No Platforming AfD comment[edit]

That wasn't you, that was me. I made the mistake of contributing to the current squabblefest way of doing things here, and then reverted myself. BicyclewheelModerator 12:27, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh! I thought I'd done it! One should never underestimate my lack of facility with software, so banking on it being my boo-boo made sense. Thanks for telling me.---Mona- (talk) 16:35, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

What is hypocrisy then?[edit]

To avoid further muddling up calling out Aneris for his bullshit reasons for having the page I'll pose this question to you here:

How is Richard Dawkins not being hypocritical when saying Germaine Greer shouldn't have her speech petitioned (which apparently happened this past Wednesday regardless) because people find her views on gender identity wrong when he personally petitioned UVM because he (rightfully) finds Ben Stein's views on creationism wrong?—Ryulong (talk) 08:40, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Because commencement speeches are an honor and one is addressing a captive audience of students who have a right not to be offended by the person speaking on "their day." Stein is literally a charlatan peddling, in an film, pseudo-science. Dawkins has never, as far as I know, asked that Stein, or anyone, be denied any platform to speak at a university. Moreover, I fully opposed Brandeis awarding Ayaan Hirsi Ali with an honorary degree and her speech attendant to that honor. A buncha people had hysterics that this was a heinous violation of free speech, but it is no such thing. The university itself told her she was welcome to give remarks there, but they were withdrawing the honor. In the same vein, I fully supported denying the war criminal Condolezzaa Rice the honor of giving a commencement address, but would just as fully oppose trying to prevent her from speaking on campus at all. Therefore, whatever the merits of her arguments in favor of no platforming, Lees misses a critical distinction that invalidates her hypocrisy charge against Dawkins.---Mona- (talk) 16:05, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Richard Dawkins called for Ben Stein's speech to be cancelled and that he not be honored with an honorary degree because Stein is a creationist. Transgender students called for Germaine Greer's speech to be cancelled because Greer is a trans-exclusionary radical feminist. Stein is dangerous to science and rational thought. Greer is dangerous to the LGBT community. Dawkins said to UVM President Daniel Fogel in 2009,
"I am dismayed to learn that the University of Vermont has invited Ben Stein to give the Commencement Address, and to receive an Honorary Degree...consider whether you do not have a duty, to your university (whose reputation is in danger of being besmirched), to your graduating students (whose big day is in danger of being sullied), and to the other recipients of Honorary Degrees (who would have to shake hands with this odious liar), to withdraw your invitation."
It's clear he does not want Stein to talk in front of a university ever just as much as it's clear transgender student groups in Cardiff didn't want Greer to talk. It's therefore hypocritical that Dawkins is protecting Greer's freedom of speech and expression (while she's on the BBC complaining about the students who petitioned to have her uninvited after which she just cancelled the talk herself) and that when he says "They should not censor views they think are nonsense." when he did the exact same shit to Ben Stein, regardless if you personally think he's justified in doing so because Stein is wingnut but Greer is a (mostly) respected feminist scholar who happens to be highly prejudiced against transgender women, which she has described as "man's delusion that he is female" and "Just because you lop off your dick and then wear a dress doesn't make you a fucking woman." So is it that you refuse to acknowledge that Dawkins doesn't want Stein to speak in front of students at all or that the distinction you're holding is that you think his only point of protest was the honor Stein was receiving from the university?—Ryulong (talk) 03:21, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


Good on you[edit]

Hello Mona! I'm not here to kick up a lot of dust (as I sometimes clumsily end up doing, even when I'm out to only and entirely provide warranted accolade), but; I'd like to say that I think you are handling the current revisions to the Sam Harris article with a lot of maturity. I don't lambast your views on the man, and I think you know I'm certainly no "fanboy" of Harris'. From the get-go, you and me - while often focusing on remote sides of the wiki - have echoed perfectly in our call for sources, our willingness to review them, and our academically inclusive attitude. Meaning, a willingness to produce nuance from good sources over the willingness to artificially prop up criticism (even criticism that we ultimately agree with) with sources that wouldn't even pass scrutiny in a local paper. You're the last person here that needs that explained back to you, I'm certain. The problem is, this could "in parable" be argued to be relatively novel here. So, it takes work from those able to promote this process to make it the standard operating procedure.

As you will see - to your relief, I hope - this text really has less to do with Harris per se, and a lot more to do with the lessons learned from having attained a relative age of maturity and from possessing a relative proficiency in writing. Now, regarding Harris, I'm certainly willing to argue that more than a few words have left his mouth in the entirety of his career that most certainly warrant consideration. For one (to draw an example from the hat), in the current article he scarcely recieves a single word of recognition - nevermind even of description - of the frankly respectable rebuttals he has repeatedly and publically provided to the abhorrent viewpoints of various misogynist, homophobic, rape apologist fundamentalist christian creationists. But again, I'm not at all unaware of what the likes of Greenwald state about Harris, and I'm not blind to those points. And I've read enough of Greenwald to know he would consider any obsessively juvenile goose chase for "free pwning points" to lack mention as being worthwhile reading - or even to conclusively be stupid to the point of causing literal embarassment.

In fact, the best points of criticism against Harris reap their value when given in the context of an overall article on Harris that can even be called modestly comprehensive on the totality of his viewpoints. And totality inherently does not mean giving exclusivity to an overgrown quote section (however funny and important I find that section of the article to be!). And the bloating of that section doesn't come without a cost in terms of the further edits it attracts - you yourself have recently come under fire for what I percieved as you simply maintaining that; seeing ghosts everwhere is so undignified as to suck the fun out of even the well-phrased criticisms. I mean, it's reached the point where you're being reverted for reverting additions that aren't actually quotes, that don't follow the quiz format, et cetera... This is a design flaw of the article, structurally, that needs to be balanced out. We can't just allow people to grow that section infinitely, with a constant loosening of quality control, and just leave it at that.

Figuratively, I sometimes discern the existence of a particularly uncultured "style of editing" that sometimes shows its face, wherein you get seen as some kind of stopping block - even when all you defend is a standard of analytic quality that atleast a college freshman should be able to follow. But no; you're "in the way". Things having fallen this far is purely detrimental, and it's a breach of prudency that all editors (who have grown to demand maturity of themselves) need to enforce as unacceptable behaviour. I think you agree with me that there has to be a difference between good and bad additions, at a level where personal like or dislike of a person or topic is frankly a non sequitor. Savour your ability to see this nuance; scarcely any activity rejuvenates this wiki as effectively as that.

I just find it obvious that, as a current student of theology, there is a clear tendency on RW right now to minimize Harris' actual points that are made by him inside the - admittedly esoteric - field of metaphysics and theology. We name him an atheist and then give no mention of his ideas, ideas which have large amounts of sources, are fully quotable and explainable, and indeed appear with consistency throughout his work and have recieved comment from relevant theologians on both sides of the debate. And that's uncalled for; it's even shoddy editing of the kind that simply represents an absolute inexperience in editing to me, almost to the point of revealing a quest against the man from the responsible editors.

What I do know is that his current article is essentially lying by omission, and it needs work from editors that know the difference between a good and bad article, e.g. to move it towards the quality of the Glenn Greenwald article. You know the drill; sources upon sources, a critical eye that extends equally to his critics, an insistence on context, and an unwillingness to go on extreme accusatory tangents based on polemical snippets. Basically, an intellectually defensible awareness of his body of work, and indeed controversy, always trumping the occations where an edit can safely be called a smear. Regarding that estrogen statement, even his most vocal third wave feminist critics have conceded that he was indeed joking when he said that;

"He starts with saying the “estrogen vibe” thing was a joke. Okay..."

...so your instict that he wasn't serious when he said that was very well placed (nevermind his own public apology). Now, do the two links I provided here provide any kind of "finality" on these issues? Of course not. I'm just saying that the one side I can claim to always be on, is the side of people who are old enough and frankly talanted enough to tell a shitty smear article from a truly descriptive orgasm of snark, analysis, relevance and indeed high-quality bits of information per a plethora of sources that represent the spectrum of opinion surrounding the person in question. Now, I hope to make a lot of qualitative (even uncontroversial) additions to his article sometime before I die, because as of now it doesn't even mention a single portion of the numerous theories of his that he is consistently and reliably bringing up in debates, and which one has to agree indeed represents his position as he himself attempts to make it.

Not withstanding that Amanda Marcotte has a very clearly stated and self-ware - thus, honest - mission against Harris; a coherent goal of hers that not only extends to the points she decides to argue, but also to an uncontroversial admission from her of representing a kind of clique vanguard, armed with a sort of general polemic from which she initiates her conduct. There's no intrisic flaw with that whatsoever, and she's certainly not a bad writer; it's just that even she herself would agree that she isn't representing the full body of his work, or indeed how it relates to theology. This can easily become the case where even fully lucid criticism of Harris is spun from selective paraphrase into full-on original research, via the type of edits that you yourself rightly tried to revert just previously today.

And further - importantly - Amanda Marcotte is not the final arbiter. She also has to argue for her case (which she does with perfect fluidity at her best). We need to stop making Harris' critics out as saying more than they say. Doing so is, frankly, a form of academic abuse. And we don't provide Harris that same analytic right (or even challenge!) of getting to actually take his own points from start to finish even once without the retrospective addition of the axiomatic objective of derailing his every word. As the article stands now, analysis is not able to be offered in any contextually meaningful way whatsoever, and that saddens me. Criticism is important, but criticism starved of description becomes, at best, a footnote and nothing more.

Analysis, and equally important - criticisms against him deserve the reach that they can only gain from hooking onto a genuinely meaty body of theory that is simply representative and nothing else. And I say this with conviction, even as a most comfortable critic of Harris on a number of topics. The due process for the future of Harris' article has quickly become a question of professionalism and of character, above all else. There's not even any opposition to snarking the man (I Ben Stiller'd him twice in my most recent edit, and I haven't even gotten started yet). There can't, conversely, be silence from serious editors in the face of the patently shoddy state of this arguably important article.

And again; I'm not even reverting smears against him, but the fact remains that any moderately serious editor on this site cannot be pleased with the article as it stands now, nor with the tendency to go overboard with "building a case against him" while, for example, leaving his summary two sentences long and without sources. And again, I know you have serious bones to pick with him, some of which are bones I share, and some of which are not. But I'm just going to say that: I'll stand by you against potential edit-warring vitriolics who really just want a dumping ground that revolves around lying by omission, over-interpretation, and a complete condemnation of the ability of a person to update their views and even apologize for stupidity. Indeed, criticisms that do not even attempt to travel through the "prism of comprehensiveness" are per definition made terribly weak; there is literally no reason for that type of neutering to be encouraged anymore.

Several of the claims made against him, correctly, have recieved future comment from him - sometimes in direct reply, often indirectly mentioned in various mediums - comments that are perfectly omitted from the article as it stands now, as if it was an absolute open and shut case regarding the validity of anything he suggests, ever. For a person that actually has such a relative body of logical argument published, the article is sliding worringly towards a type of genetic fallacy - and not even by any apparent intention, as if the quotes given lacked sources (which they largely do not); instead this troublesome decay of quality occurs simply via the non-juxtaposition of "everything stupid he's ever said" (which is plenty) with "absolutely nothing else he's ever said in any context, ever". This is not any type of defensible basis for analysis.

The current article as a whole is just maddeningly cherrypicked at this point, which - again - damages even all the rightly sourced crap the man has said. Indeed, anyone who actually understands what the genetic fallacy entails knows that it is precisely the fallacious suggestion that a person who was said stupid shit in the past is only worth quoting on that. To go full Godwin here; even wastebasketing Hitler's arguments a priori on the principle that he was verifiably an absolute monster is a mistake most likely to be made by a highschooler, and one that - even in his case - isn't anything approximating sound reasoning. I find that the - not even rhetorical (as may be well deserved in the form of snark), but indeed logical mistreatment of a person with no notability conflict and with a sourcable body of work (even a person I don't agree with) is intellectually dishonest to the point that acts of moderation are literally required from myself and anyone else who shares a proverbial "common tier" of (in lack of a better word) "professional intent" in the production of atleast decently academic compilations of text.

So, Mona - don't lose sight of the article (and I say that doubly in the case that you disagree with me on Harris; though I suspect we differ mostly on semantics, as I lie much closer to the Greenwald crew than you probably suspect) - I know I won't lose sight of it, and I appreciate your input on it generally, as I think that - regardless of what the man has said and what "level of respect" he deserves - we cannot let the article deterioriate into an outright shitstorm of minimization directed at him. Even as a person holding almost confusing amounts of nuance in my viewpoints, my suggestion here and now only gains clarity. This is about writing quality and about professionalism. About holding people to actually having their edits reverted if they evade the talk page at all costs. Every editor here has to live with disagreement, argue for their case and so on, but the team everyone here is on is the one which strives for quality in formatting and indeed overall academic honesty. Never mind, in Harris' case, the very real rules that literally do befall articles on living persons apply in full (not that I'm invoking that right now or anything).

And misunderstand me correctly - my goal when writing here is never a neutral point of view; my goal when adding to RW is an article that isn't cringeworthily selective and underworked to the point of contradiction (e.g. the implicit suggestion that he is a nobody in all his fields of discussion and generally considered a fringe loser in said fields, while at the same time diligently making a huge deal about his opinions and statements on these topics that he a moment ago barely appeared to meet the notability requirements on). All of us allowing an article to drop below even essay quality, as it currently has, is to me one thing and one thing only - an indictment against us editors and against the process by which we claim to be able to fairly consistently arrive at articles that meet any type of basic style requirements.

And, personally, I like to take pride in actually knowing quite well the difference between a shit essay and an actually comprehensive snark article, regardless of whom said article concerns. This is a call to quality of editing, something I know you've already championed for a long time here, a disposition that I hope you've found I also represent to the best of my ability. But as the article stands now; corner-cutting to specifically repel nuance of all things - nuance, against which only exaggerations shirken and the truth fortifies - is intrinsically moronical, and no person that overtly champions such poor style of writing is even likely to be allowed to legally purchase beer in the US yet. Yet, this foul play goes on if there are no editors that literally champion tangible quality and due academic process over the masturbatory pleasure of just collecting all the freebie points that dignity could ever allow and trying to pass them of as anything to base an analysis on.

In the end, collegiality and professionalism in writing delivers the best articles, the best overviews, indeed the best criticisms, period. This is not a viewpoint that hack editors, never mind those with an agenda to confirm rather than one to improve with continual nuance, share with us. Which is why I've always respected that you are a person of action, you believe in the enforcement of rules. And we need to enforce editorial quality at this point, starting with this article. Harris isn't going away, and Harris isn't sacred to anyone here. The people, in my view, that find him "sacred" here (as he lacks overt fanboys here as far as I'm aware) are the people that are on a crusade against him and need him to be nothing but their perfect nemesis. As if a literal fanboy (just, of bashing) doesn't still walk into all the pitfalls of fanboyism. They provide edits of the same high school quality as fanboys would, merely trading dubious toxicity for the otherwise dubious romanticising. So, stay vigilant. No criticism stings so hard as the one that builds upon a review of a person that can actually be called comprehensive, even academically sound - indeed, it is the only style of article writing that only an adult worthy of the word would choose to painstakingly produce.

I can't consider a person that would so willingly construe even suspiciously low hanging fruit into a headline to be likely to even approximate the writing skills required for even a mediocre researching journalist. (On a side note, I have great respect for that profession, all too inanely ridiculed at times). Anyways, I'm preaching to the choir here. So, "in short" (<--- yeah, right); join me in (continually) taking a stand against the greed of shoehorning in any and all attacks at the literal detriment of the entire article. Maybe I've been outside of the quagmires for too long? God knows this site needs more people who actually respect coherent formatting and research over the grabbing of maximum cheap points (even against a person we would universally consider a dangerous dickhead). People who aren't here for more than to see their own echo chamber dreams set in viewable text (regardless of their writing talent, or as is often the case, lack of it) are literally deranging and mucking up the entire page. The recognition of a defensible article with patent academic virtue goes far beyond a willingness between editors to cooperate; this is rootable down to - I almost say - the level of basic ability to comprehend and indeed gauge text present in each and every editor.

And PS - I know I risk wierding you out a little by giving too coach-y "thumbs up", but I really mean to take a high road with you here and actually appeal to a fundamental vein in you - the ability to prioritize your professionalism over a personal quest for vengeance - and as important, prioritizing professionalism over the personal quests of others. In the end, it's from each according to ability. And I just mean; we're both level enough to literally be unable to call a shit article a good article and still look ourselves in the mirror. And that is a quality that needs to be harnessed, doubly in relation to people who either lack or dismiss that very same feature. That's all. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:17, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

As a lurker here on Mona's talk page I am intimidated by your massive text wall. SolPyre (talk) 03:37, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
...I'm scared too. Hold me! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 03:50, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Wow, Rev. That's mighty long. It will take me some time to digest it all.---Mona- (talk) 04:41, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Give me some time too. I think I may need to read what the hell I just wrote. But I stand by it! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 05:09, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


Hey Mona----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why did you remove some quotes Sam Harris made?

Obviously I understand SHORTENING quotes, but why remove entire quotes instead of just shortening them? ESPECIALLY the one where Sam VERY CLEARLY says "Ethnic profiling" from his "bombing our illusions" article.

Well, there's still a Harris quote about profiling, I believe the last one. If you look at the talk page for that article you'll see there is much support for shortening the list, not just shortening some of the quotes. This is the editor in me acting -- we don't want to tl;dr the section. ---Mona- (talk) 17:51, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
If this is about that damn stupid Harris or Malkin section, you may want to consider incorporating discussion of that quote into prose elsewhere in the article if Sam Harris's similar ideas aren't already covered. That section is already a mess of quotation without analysis, comment, or... anything, and I stand by any move to shorten it, moving quotes into prose with analysis/comment elsewhere if they're worth it. WalkerWalkerWalker 18:07, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
@Unsigned poster Consult the Sam Harris talk page to understand how the mobocracy decided to proceed. Don't worry that the Harris page is "completed", however; it is in fact barely begun upon.
@PacWalker Yes, that whole segment is an absolute mess, a situation made worse by how very little the article says beside that pile-up of negative quotes. It really is a shitty article right now.
I'd also like to say, generally, that I think it's important that we do not lose track of what Harris has actually said (with specific emphasis on the quote segment) - it's very important that the article doesn't grow into some kind of atrocious whitewashing operation. He needs to be held accountable for what he's said - not forgetting the totality of what he has said, and (importantly) the order in which he has said things (since he's had to back off on several of his more moronical statements). Most importantly of all, to me, is that the article is edited with sense, that it is comprehensive, and that it really should not rely on what is basically a quote dump, when we could and should incorporate all he's said into an actual analysis - and, where fit, refutation - of the man's claims. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:54, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
I could not more strongly disagree that the article is "shitty." As I've said before, it is one of two articles I liked so well it is part of why I joined. Moreover, I specifically liked the "Harris or Malkin" device because, in fact, it is easy to suspect these are Malkin's words unless one has been exposed to the depraved side of Harris; this very pointedly makes the, er, point. Finally, additional material is fine, but the article is far from incomplete.---Mona- (talk) 19:50, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Regardless, PacWalker has a point. The article needs to be taken closer to Gold quality, is my own position. I do not find the current article particularly linkable yet, even with the recent and major addition of a summary that's actually not useless. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:53, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

What's your opinion...[edit]

On the Palestinian sentenced to death by the entity calling itself the government and judicial system of Saudi Arabia? I might have missed your statement on it, but was curious as you have very often defended what you perceive to be the rights of Palestinians on this wiki... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:09, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia is a fucking disgrace. That we -- the U.S. -- lavishes love on a tyrannical place like that, as well as it's vile and corrupt ruling family, is beyond appalling.---Mona- (talk) 00:19, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Do you think a boycott of Saudi Arabia is a good idea? (I do btw) Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:30, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
The U.S. will never do it: Oil.---Mona- (talk) 00:31, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
I am not talking countries boycotting Saudi Arabia, I am talking individual people choosing to limit or reduce the number of Saudi goods they buy... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:33, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
If the Saudi people call for such a boycott I'd seriously consider it.---Mona- (talk) 00:35, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
If a Saudi citizen calls for such a thing (s)he has to fear for their live... So it's unlikely "the Saudi people" are gonna say that... And regardless, most victims of the Saudi entity are Syrians, Lebanese, Egyptians, Afghans or people in other places not Saudi Arabia... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:40, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Saudis elsewhere could call for such a thing. So could the Syrians, Lebanese, Egyptians etc.---Mona- (talk) 00:42, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
You know, Americans could also call for this. Or Europeans. Or people who were born on a base in Antarctica... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 12:52, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, I came to support BDS because it is a Palestinian project first and foremost. I don't want to be engaged in any "white savior" behavior. It does matter what the victims themselves want.---Mona- (talk) 16:48, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Palestinians are mostly victims of Hamas... But of course arguing that with you is like talking to a wall of bricks... And I don't have to be brown in the face (which btw. most people in the Middle East aren't) to notice that Saudi Arabia (or the entity calling itself that) has mostly been a force for bad lately... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:42, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

"lately "--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 21:49, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
"Palestinians are mostly victims of Hamas" Uh-huh. Except for one problem: Palestinians themselves do not see it that way. Oh, a lot of them are pissed at the PA, Hamas and all the "leadership." But they tend to be crystal clear as to who their primary problem is.---Mona- (talk) 21:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Well let's leave you with that faith in the goodness of Hamas... But the fact that the recent announcement of yet more scheduled executions in Saudi Arabia barely caused a drop in the sea of newspaper coverage... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:06, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Again: Palestinians themselves do not see Hamas as their primary problem. I've documented that many times, as you know somewhere in your Zionism-addled brain.---Mona- (talk) 19:33, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
What people perceive to be a problem and what actually is a problem are often very different things... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:45, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, well, I'll take the positions and perceptions of the Palestinians I know and read over yours. They are generally more wed to facts as well as coherent thought.---Mona- (talk) 19:54, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
I for one don't think only people personally affected by something can say something of substance. I don't have to be Rwandan to know that the Rwandan genocide was partially enabled by French inaction or outright support of the murderers... And I don't have to be Saudi to see that the Saudi regime is one of the vilest things on this earth and certainly up in the ranks of vilest state-like entities with the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Islamic "State" and North Korea... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:53, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
"I for one don't think only people personally affected by something can say something of substance." Few people would disagree. As the Roman playwright Terence put it: "I am human, I consider nothing human alien to me."---Mona- (talk) 22:38, 28 November 2015 (UT