User talk:192․168․1․42

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
New logo large.png Welcome to RationalWiki, 192․168․1․42!

Check out our guide for newcomers and our community standards!

Tell us how you found RationalWiki here!

If you are interested in contributing:

Now that's a clever username - David Gerard (talk) 16:40, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

It had me scratching my head when I saw it. Minoreditor (talk) 01:54, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for making me wonder how a BoN could upload a file... :) SophieWilderModerator 21:20, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Your spooky IP address[edit]


Ah, I just checked. is apparently reserved for private, internal networks only. Clever. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 05:24, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

So I guess[edit]

You were the original 142․124․55․236? Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 03:37, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Could be. It wouldn't surprise me if someone else found the trick earlier, but I haven't seen any here. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 03:04, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Fornicate thine own arse[edit]

Please kindly do, thou dost offend with the breath that from thy mouth reeks. (talk) 00:00, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Are you sure that a Tic Tac wouldn't be a better solution? 192․168․1․42 (talk) 00:06, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Nay. A bath of roses would smell just as foul were it to touch thine arse. I bite my thumb at thee, villain! (talk) 00:10, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
OK, but if you do not quarrel, I don't understand how your suggestion is supposed to help. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 00:14, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Alas help is beyond thee. Pray for thine lord and god to be thee merciful for men shalln't. (talk) 00:18, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

On the Danish People’s Party, persecution complexes and, well, persecution[edit]

Unfortunately, the saloon bar thread got archived before I could respond to your claims about the DPP and analogies to the DNSAP and its paramilitary arms. First off, the SA was most emphatically not illegal in the Weimar Germany of the DNSAP’s heyday, but had been back in the aftermath of the Beer Hall Putsch (hardly an overreaction to an attempted overthrow of the state me thinks). Furthermore, SA members and those of similar ultra right organisations were generally treated far more leniently than their ultra left counterparts by the legal system, since the notion that the right was acting from patriotic motives (unlike the left) was quite often used to justify lenient sentences. Similarly, the DPP’s opinions are not banned, as long as they do not advocate persecution or similar public denigration of specific groups.

The law that Camre was sentenced under (§ 266b of the Danish penal code) is quite specific in its focus on groups of people, not ideas. In my own inexpert translation it states: ”Whoever either publicly, or deliberately with the intent of spreading to a wider circle, speaks or otherwise communicates statements in which another group of persons are threatened, ridiculed or denigrated on the basis of their race, skin colour, national or ethnic origins, religious beliefs or sexual orientation are liable for punishment by fines or imprisonment for up to two years.”

Camre published a press release in 2001, in which he claimed that all Muslims (using the definite form “the Muslims”) are infiltrators into Europe who are just waiting to kill “us” (i.e. the “real” Europeans), though his verbal version toned it down to “remove us” (cf. The Great Replacement). But back then, he was protected by his parliamentary immunity (and the refusal to lift it was unanimous; so much for the supposed persecution of the DPP). His subsequent conviction was for claiming in 2014 that the Muslims (again, note the definite article) persecuting Jews in Europe was a continuation of Hitler’s policies and could only be solved by giving the Muslims the same treatment as the one that befell Hitler.

Note that I misremembered Kjærsgaard’s conviction. She instead lost a libel suit that she had pressed against someone who characterised her views as racist.

Furthermore, as to your hypothetical example of “Islamization of Europe” supposedly being a threat to the gay community, the latter is actually one of the groups specifically protected under this very law. And note that the law only concerns persecution of these specific groups of people, based on their background, not criticism of Islam as a religion or political ideology. Neither does it preclude either private opinions or statements of these kinds, nor criticism of individuals, their actions or views.

Similarly, invoking the Nazis highlights exactly why these laws were instituted in the first place: Because European governments thought it might be a good idea to put a brake on the ability to shout “Death to the Jews!”, declaring certain groups “enemies of the people” etc.

Finally, the DPP has never been absent from the media, indeed it has been the prime driver in moving the public discourse on refugees and immigrants ever rightwards for three decades. It’s ideas and ideology is not illegal and it has indeed has plenty of public boosters and the only time chilling effects come up are when the DPP and similar right wing groups claim that it is supposedly well nigh impossible to criticise Islam or whatever their favourite bogeyman is, while loudly doing exactly that and indeed using this persecution complex as justification for their own persecution of those very bogeymen. ScepticWombat (talk) 20:31, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

“Unfortunately, the saloon bar thread got archived” Yes, unfortunate that the archiving (which trimmed the Saloon bar to 14.4kb, the most severe in years, with the removal of exchanges less than six hours old) interrupted a discussion about free speech. The closest situation I found to this was here where, likewise, there was exactly one section removed past the recent discussion, with older discussion left unarchived.
“First off, the SA was most emphatically not illegal in the Weimar Germany of the DNSAP’s heyday” In September 1930, the National Socialist German Workers Party became the second-largest by seating in the Reichstag. In April 1932, Chancellor Heinrich Bruning (of an opposing centrist party) used his authority under Article 48 of the constitution to ban the SA and SS throughout Germany. The increasing popularity of the Nazis was why the chancellor acted to oppose them. But trying to legislate opinions like that often causes backlash, and the Nazis promptly became the largest party in the Reichstag. They later used Article 48 against their own opponents, as tends to happen with those sorts of mechanisms. The difference being that then, they had the support to make it stick.
“Similarly, the DPP’s opinions are not banned, as long as they do not advocate persecution or similar public denigration of specific groups.” Let me point out the issue here: “the DPP’s opinions are not banned, as long as they do not advocate”. See it? It has become normalized to restrict the expression of politically incorrect opinions to the point that you don’t even consider it to count as banning opinions. Maybe you agree with this particular case, but do you imagine that its future uses will only align with what you think is appropriate? Suppose the DPP gains control. With different people in charge, the notion of what constitutes politically incorrect speech would change. With their experience of being on the receiving end of such restrictions, perhaps they would turn the legal mechanisms used against them on their opponents, as has happened before in such cases. Can you articulate why they should not do this if given the opportunity?
“The law that Camre was sentenced under” would apparently make it illegal to say something like “Regarding the situation of the monastic orders in Europe, the Vikings are continuing where the Saracens left off. Only the same treatment (military opposition and the construction of fortifications in this case) will change the situation.” It’s clear that this is a matter of fact and analysis, and as such Camre’s statement carries attributes such as “true” or “false” independently of how offensive people find it. But because of the crimethink, people aren’t discussing whether his analysis of the situation is correct or not, leaving it unchallenged as an argument. Which people can witness and draw conclusions from.
““Islamization of Europe” (in scare quotes)” It’s important to acknowledge reality as a foundation for discussions. Islamization is a thing that has happened and is currently happening in various places. Demographic trends are empirically quantifiable.
“supposedly being a threat to the gay community” Again, it is important to acknowledge reality. You surely acknowledge that different cultures are capable of organizing themselves in different ways, don’t you?
”the latter is actually one of the groups specifically protected under this very law.” The issue is that, once Muslims reach a sufficient population to do so, they often form insular communities organized along their own cultural norms rather than the laws and customs of the larger society they live in. Again, different cultures can actually be different in significant, tangible ways. A society is made up of its people, and moving large numbers of people from Algeria to France will move Algerian society to France.
“invoking the Nazis highlights exactly why these laws were instituted in the first place” And that’s the irony. By attempting to legislate ideas, it creates a backlash that stands a good chance of recreating actual Nazi-style fascism including a preoccupation with final solutions. Ever heard the phrase, “To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize”? In a world where speech is free, a neonazi would have a hard time convincing anyone that, say, the Holocaust didn’t happen. But in much of the real world, contradicting that bit of history is illegal, as it would be in a world where it did not in fact happen, but where its myth is used to justify various policies that would otherwise be unpopular. When governments act like the official narrative isn’t convincing enough to stand on its own merits, or that certain groups need to be officially declared “most definitely not enemies of the people”, people take notice. On its own, even this wouldn’t amount to much, but when the “far right” is allowed to have a monopoly on such positions as the first duty of a country being towards its own citizens, and open borders perhaps not being very good for that, certain ideas can get carried along with what a lot of people see as reasonable policies. Do you imagine that people just voted for Hitler one day for no reason? Modern Europe is eagerly and self-righteously recreating the conditions for what it is nominally trying to prevent.
“It’s ideas and ideology is not illegal” Except for the ones found to be in courts of law.
“the only time chilling effects come up” It looks like you don’t really get what chilling effects are. Maybe read the Wiki article again. The gist is that it’s not a thing that “comes up”. It involves people NOT speaking up when they otherwise would due to a policy that discourages such speech. In this situation, people have been presented with a legal ruling where “racist” (as defined by the political establishment) speech carries a fine equivalent to a thousand or so US dollars. Can you see how that could influence people’s behavior? 192․168․1․42 (talk) 08:10, 3 April 2020 (UTC)


Dear BONnie,
Thanks for providing the refs. As for the speculated mechanism: Either it does catalyse the misfolding of proteins that cause CJD, or it doesn’t. If there is, currently, no evidence available to support this proposed mechanism of protein misfolding, then hypothesis non fingo. The Fonz (talk) 04:37, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

CJD typically takes several years from prion exposure to become noticeable. The higher spike protein exposure would plausibly accelerate symptoms vs. the normal course of the disease, but we're not at the point where such a thing can confidently be ruled one way or another. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 22:04, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

A piece of advice[edit]

When I get annoyed with you and tell you to fuck off, it means the conversation is over. Period. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:04, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie If you had just said that you didn't want to continue the conversation, I'd have stopped it. But instead of doing that, you used an accusation of not engaging honestly and an aggressive misuse of words as excuses. Really, what did you think would happen? 192․168․1․42 (talk) 10:54, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Holy shit[edit]

I thought you were an actual BON. Not just a smartass user. Clever though. Vee (talk) 00:31, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

All things in moderation[edit]

A case involving you has been raised at All things in moderation. Feel free to comment. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 15:39, 27 December 2023 (UTC)