User talk:Aeonian/Archive1

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 15 February 2019. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)


New logo large.png Welcome to RationalWiki, Aeonian!

Check out our guide for newcomers and our community standards!

Tell us how you found RationalWiki here!

If you are interested in contributing:

Sorry for you being stopped by the edit filter, I'll fix it to allow subpages like your sandbox!

As to your article, it might go well in Category:Apologetics and counter-apologetics. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 01:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Re: RW and pol[edit]

Double colons don't work:

  1. test
  2. test
  1. test

Pound-colon works:

  1. test
  2. test
  3. test

32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 00:48, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Using <br/> also works. (talk) 00:50, 10 February 42016 AQD (UTC)
Ah, but I wanted everything in line, as in your first example. I think it looks better that way. No worries though. :) Lord Aeonian (talk) 01:19, 10 February 2016 (UTC)


I've noticed you constantly using this term as a snarl word whenever you object to something. Care to explain why? Typhoon (talk) 19:44, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

First of all, sorry for the long response, but others might be thinking the same thing so I'm going to address this thoroughly for anyone who visits this page. I don't use it as a snarl word. Postmodernism is the ideological archetype of many positions today, particularly those based on relativism. The Encyclopedia Britannica has an excellent definition; defining it as "characterized by broad skepticism, subjectivism, or relativism; a general suspicion of reason; and an acute sensitivity to the role of ideology in asserting and maintaining political and economic power."
"Postmodernism as a philosophical movement is largely a reaction against the...general philosophical viewpoints that were taken for granted during the 18th-century Enlightenment."
My problem with such affirmation of relativism is that progressive positions cannot be advocated. Relativism is the default view in history and an excellent approach to anthropology, but it has little value when applied to current issues in the name of a goal. For example, isn't advocating for LGBTQIA+ rights an infringement on the cultural practices and values of the Christians of the United States? And if we advocate traditional liberalism - i.e., everyone can do as they please provided they do not force themselves on others, is that not an infringement on groups (especially religious groups) which demand more power? A line must be drawn somewhere.
Liberals today have tried to solve this problem via critical theory, in particular intersectionality. With Islam in Europe, it is often pointed out that, regardless of immigrant communities' disagreement with gender equality, LGBTQIA+ rights, etc, the fact that these groups are disadvantaged and the target of racism is more important. This makes sense, at first, but it's hard to maintain on a case by case basis. A good example is Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Her views are blatantly Islamophobic, but why wasn't intersectionality applied to her? Not only is she a migrant, and a woman, but she refers to personal experiences with Muslims in East Africa, a place more conservative and economically disadvantaged than most of the Muslim world. Why wasn't it said that her views, though she claims otherwise, do not refer to Islam as a whole but only to East Africa, and that they are valid for East Africa?
I'm using Islam in Europe to explain because you made points about the New Atheists. Islam is an Abrahamic religion which, theologically, in incompatible with LGBTQIA+ rights, gender equality, etc. The New Atheists (bluntly) pointed this out, and were deemed Islamophobic not only for their clumsy approach, but also because their criticisms could inspire more Islamophobia among those with less noble intentions.
But this is one of the problems with the current postmodernist stance - which values should be enforced, and which should be dismissed as important cultural differences? Is racism a more important problem than gender inequality or LGBTQIA+ rights? Academic postmodernism doesn't try to answer such a question, and popular liberalism certainly can't justify its apparent choice.

What does any of this have to do with the regressive left, and my edits on it?[edit]

The idea of the regressive left is that there is a group of liberals which apply this postmodernist viewpoint...but they apply it selectively. Or, that some liberals really have made choices on which forms of equally are more important. Now, no one actually' says things like "I think racism is a more important problem than LGBTQIA+ rights" or such, so a regressive left doesn't exist in a strict sense, but that seems to be the attitude popular opinion ends up taking. Thanks for reading :)
Disclaimer: I am no way saying gender equality/LBGTQIA+ rights/etc are more important than racism, or vice versa. I am only saying that the public attitude in the West seems to be have made such a statement, and that Postmodernism is a problem for progressives precisely because it results in people making such relative statements, if they advocate anything at all. Lord Aeonian (talk) 20:50, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm... confused. First you define postmodernism as relativism. Then you describe a position which prioritizes fighting racism over fighting for gender+sexuality rights and call that postmodernist. But isn't asserting that X is more important than Y across the board a non-relativist position? If relativism is bad and this race>gender position is also bad, which is the absolutist position you propose as the right one then? (talk) 21:46, 10 February 42016 AQD (UTC)
I think they're saying that not fighting for LGBTQ issues and race issues amounts to sexuality-ism and racism, and postmodernism makes it impossible to fight for said issues. No? FuzzyCatPotato of the Forbidden Dishrags (talk/stalk) 22:03, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Exactly. This is the regressive left. As I said, "The idea of the regressive left is that there is a group of liberals which apply this postmodernist viewpoint...but they apply it selectively." You're very correct in saying that asserting Y is more important than X is a absolutist position, which is the problem I see. The reason I pick on relativism/postmodernism is for two reasons;
In theory, relativism would prohibit advocating gender/LGBTQIA+ rights/etc, because those ideas go against some cultural groups, and
In practice, some liberals use relativism to try and not step on the toes of certain cultures/groups. This is the whole "racial problems > other problems" choice I was referring too. You are correct in that it is not relativist, but they use cultural relativism to reach the conclusion about not trying to impose "Western" concepts of gender/sexuality on other cultures. It's contradictory.
Finally, I personally don't believe either of those positions are correct. I would support a more balanced focus on equal rights as applied to all groups, including non-dominant groups, in addition to continuing to fight racism. In essence, I don't believe we should prioritize racial, gender, or other issues above each other in the name of cultural relativism. Thanks for asking! I should have clarified more. Lord Aeonian (talk) 22:10, 10 February 2016 (UTC)


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:

"The Stronger Case"[edit]

Hello, you wrote: "I think the issue isn't your edits as much as your attitude. You'd have a much stronger case against Typhoon and such if you didn't start bringing up postmodern ideology at every opportunity, and just focused on the facts. Would make your posts shorter as well. :)" I hope it's okay that I had to laugh when I opened your talk page and saw right on top "I've noticed you constantly using this term [ Postmodernism]" (haha, same problem?) I am really curious. What would be this stronger case? ~ Aneris 05:05, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

As I explained to Typhoon and .236, I do use the terms to refer to others. I only used them in relevant context. Many of links Kitsunelaine provided in the coopcase featured you calling other users such. If you didn't do that, and focused solely on the facts of your respective edits, you would have stronger cases on those talk pages and (probably) wouldn't have a coopcase. Lord Aeonian (talk) 05:14, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
You only show that you know essentially nothing. Ever heard of the Deep Rifts™? Do you have an idea what the major controversy is about with Richard Dawkins and the NECSS? Any idea what the panel would be about they suggested? And so on and so on. I only grant that the low-level minions here are probaby powered by buzzwords and trolling. But in short, I wouldn't even know where to begin to explain anything. (BTW: there were five socks made at the time, the mods know this, there was also a shadowban "glitch", and people also attempted to delete personal user space pages etc. and maybe you don't know this. When there is an edit conflict, one user reverts, the other blocks me for a few minutes, and a third, e.g. Kitsu makes a coop case etc) ~ Aneris 00:16, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
A quick google search answers all the questions you posed. All of them can be summarized as real life consequences of the ideologies we have already discussed in detail, which is hardly a basis for you to claim I "know essentially nothing." I am not aware of the current trends in the atheist community because I am not interested in participating in it outside of very general avenues.
To answer your concern, you're doing exactly what you say you aren't - trying to explain things. Why else would you bring up postmodernism on talk pages? Why else would you give long screeds on the SJW types? Defend your edits with sources, and move on. There's no need for calling people adherents of one ideology or another, especially when you say they won't understand anyway.
As for your edit, why didn't you discuss your concerns about sockpuppets and "shadowbans" in private with the mods before ever talking to anyone else? You're mistaken if you think everyone is against you - the last coopcase proved that - and even if they were, there are clearly major divisions among them as well. The tag teaming is more believable by itself, but again, right now a majority of people are voting to have Castaigne2 punsihed, in a case started by an important person in the community. I don't believe they would allow the things you describe if your edits were legitimate and you dealt with controversy in a civil way. I could have ranted at everyone in the regressive left edit war, but I didn't, and we even reached an agreement. I have not been shadowbanned, nor have my continued edits to the page been reverted.
My best advice to you is not to go out of your way to argue. Focus on editing things other than social justice/politics. Write a few essays. That's what I do, and no one bothers me. Lord Aeonian (talk) 00:47, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
This is your problem, Aneris. You sound like some guy who is eager to rant about the NHK conspiracy, and tries to tie it into goddamn everything. Leave the 1,000+ word vomit about how Typhoon is a lizardman in Essayspace and get to the point like a sane, rational human being.Keter (talk) 00:48, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
You could just look at the facts. If you feel like it, google Ryulong. Or take a look at some recruitment here. Typhoon makes false claims all of the time, and even though he never touched articles before, he expertly whitewashes/smears when needed. This has led to this. So much for conspiracy theories. Of course just a tiny tip. ~ Aneris 02:48, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
I have googled "Ryulong" and read the ED page, probably the most anti-Ryulong biased page out there. Even if everything in there is true...he was banned in the end, wasn't he? And you still have people against him enough to derail your own coopcase to fight over him. As for your other links, we have the usual zealots - the same ones I addressed in the tag team section. You know. Like the one who's having a coopcase right now, with the majority (11 vs 4 atm) voting to punish him. As opposed to your coopcase, in which the majority voted no action on you. It's like the Alex Jones types who go on about the all-powerful Illuminati without mentioning that said all-powerful Illuminati would have taken them out loooooong ago. Or, maybe the Illuminati just wants you to think that! Yeah, there really is a conspiracy against you Aneris, the majority that pardoned you and the majority that are condemning Castaigne2 just want to trick us. The post you linked says RationalWiki is controlled by the SJWs, but then you gave me this link where they were recruiting to defend their precious GamerGate timeline. Pray tell, why would they need to recruit others to defend their favorite page? Surely the SJW overlords of RationalWiki could muster enough RW volunteers interally to do the job! Same thing with the five socks. Why do they need socks, if they already have an echo chamber? You only use socks when you want a minority opinion amplified. And finally, I have a challenge for you:
Why don't you go to tumblr, make an account, start debunking the SJWs and making sure everything you say has their hashtags plastered on it so they'll see.
What do you think will happen? Do you think a majority of Tumblr SJWs will step up and say "we disagree, but let him talk?" Or, for that matter, "some of our own are getting pretty crazy, let's forget about this guy and deal with them instead?" That's what's happening in these two coopcases. I don't see any conspiracy against you, I see a few zealots circle jerking on their favorite pages. One of which is about to be punished by majority vote.
Again, stay away from their circle jerk and you'll be amazed how fast they disappear. Try it. Write about apologetics, that's what I do :) Lord Aeonian (talk) 04:00, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Now you are confusing different things and ironically agree with what I wrote. Most people here indeed don't care. They do what you do, editing some unimportant special interest subject nobody will ever read. I did that, too. In fact, most work went into such things (relatively). The “circle jerk” however controls the visible and currently relevant articles, and they whitewash in one direction, and smear in the other. You know, Dawkbro bad, Aneeda the holy saint. The connection and indeed the conflict isn't some conspiracy theory, as RationalWiki people insist. That's just ludicrous to the extreme. It only shows just what kind of bizarre echo chamber this is inside here.
Dawkins was no-platformed because he retweeted a video from Sargon of Akkad's channel. The GamerGate dude. The whole thing is of course marked by tribalism, and not by politics, hence SJW imbeciles occasionally think people are “gators” when they meet disagreement. They believed that about me, too — I have nothing to with this, either. So in short, there is a larger conflict and it's tribalist offshoot can be felt here, too. The reason why I limited the editing now is that the smearing and whitewashing is now far beyond what is true. It's smearing good human rights activists and others with complete, unsubstantiated fabrications. ~ Aneris 05:56, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
This is where we're going to flatly disagree. See, from my perspective it's the other way around. You talk about apologetics and pseudoscience and such as "unimportant special interest subject[s] nobody will ever read," but that stuff is why I came to RationalWiki. I've used RW for a few years now, before I signed up a week ago. I read it for the absolutely superb debunking of religious nonsense, like this exemplary article. The people I know like to read rebuttals like this one, because those are the arguments religious believers actually use every day.
When I thought of RW all these years, I thought of the teleological argument. I thought of the argument from morality. I thought of the thorough refutations of presuppositional apologetics. Sure, RW isn't the Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, but you know what? Our article on William Lane Craig is amazing. Most Christians can't even understand his arguments because of his mathematical formulation, but I've linked the article to human resources type people and they've actually told me they felt smart after reading it, because they were able to understand both his arguments and why they were wrong. To me, that's enough to justify the whole wiki's existence.
You and your sparring partners, however, are in a different world. A world where the Anita Sarkeesian article is " visible and currently relevant." The vast majority of the human race doesn't know what buzzwords like "MRA," "SJW," or "GamerGate" mean, nor would they care about the cause if you told them. The SJWs are derided literally everywhere except the college/university ecosystem (and that even that ecosystem is not as supportive as people think), and Gamergate is, well...completely unknown outside of reddit if you don't count the people who saw a hashtag on twitter one day and forgot about it afterwards. And the best part of it? No academic takes their views seriously, because they fall apart under scrutiny. You're literally arguing about populist conceptions from teenagers like they're some amazing epistemological philosophy that needs to be addressed. Applied relativism is a position that academia moved past a while ago, and honestly it was never really a thing to began with among intellectuals. If you're worried the general public is taking it up, keep in mind that the general public has always taken up ideas dumbed down to the point of blunt retardation and ran with them. I don't believe PC is the next big cultural shift because people are too divisive to actually do it. Even now, they only thing keeping it going is the tolerance point competition. You want them to actually drop any objective morality and love everyone who disagrees with them? Hahahaha. And of course there's the whole reactionary segment, who hate anything new. No, PC isn't going anywhere.
Look at this "Timeline of Gamergate" article. Look at it. Scroll all the way down and force yourself to stare. No one will ever read all of that, except the zealot editors who wrote it and any of their friends unfortunate enough to care. It's not even pathetic. It's hilarious. I actually chuckled when I saw how long it was. That is an "unimportant special interest subject nobody will ever read," Aneris. The Gamergate/SJW split is so niche the political parties actually give lip service to both sides and no one notices, because the politicians don't really understand it and nor does anyone else. If the general public knows about it through some late night television show or trending hashtag, it's an incredibly shallow understanding of an already shallow topic. And yet this is what you find "currently relevant."
The majority of the world's population believes in some form of creationism. Millions of people every year are swindled by pseudoscience crystal energy type woo. Everyone in a democratic state cares about the differences between liberalism and conservatism. Those topics are important. The things you, Typhoon, Castainge2, Kitsunelaine, etc. spend your time edit warring about? They don't even register on the scale. Lord Aeonian (talk) 08:04, 18 February 2016

[citation needed][edit]

That's the biggest problem of the entire section. It's a mess of random unexplained terms (what even is a "relativist progressive"? any examples?) and has zero sources. Well, except one. That doesn't even talk about "regressive leftism" at all. And for some bizarre reason it's an archive link instead of a proper one. Typhoon (talk) 10:12, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

To add, there's serious problems with the supposed "legitimate" definition. What I see is an attempt to bury it with academic terms that seem to have different meaning from person to person. I've noticed that there is an extremely selective criteria for what is "regressive". Right now even the "legitimate users" prefer to use this term when discussing Muslims in America. I don't see them use the term when a leftist advocates certain policies against freedom of speech or religion. This might have to do something with how these particular policies are aimed at hurting Muslims. And last but not least: an example of Trump supporters calling people who are against Trump's Islamophobia to be "regressive leftists". Typhoon (talk) 10:21, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Actually, my understanding is that RationalWiki allows and encourages original research. The Trump supporters link is irrelevant, because the article has a section titled "Popular usage" where it would go nicely. It seems to me that most of those people using "regressive left" to refer to "religious freedom for Muslims" are the same Trump supporter types, and could go into the Popular usage section as well.
If you you've seen reactionary behavior ("leftist advocates certain policies against freedom of speech or religion."), why don't you add that to the "Legitimate use" section as an example, instead of butchering the section? Unless, of course, you believe "regressive left" is solely an Islamophobic snarl word and cannot mean anything but. The problem with that attitude is words like "socialism" would be redefined as snarl words by their popular use, which is why we have two sections in the article. You said you've seen reactionary leftists, so you agree they exist, why try to say (essentially) that there is no "legitimate definition" of a regressive left? I just don't see why you'd try to eviscerate the section rather than add your own examples of reactionary behavior. Lord Aeonian (talk) 22:33, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

"Regressive Liberals": The New Mantra of Islamophobia by Khwaja Khusro Tariq. Typhoon (talk) 08:00, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Dawah man[edit]

Good article. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 05:03, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

(: Lord Aeonian (talk) 07:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


Because of your edits to and time on the wiki, wizard Sysop has been added to your user rights. Feel free to let your newfound ᴘᴏᴡᴇʀ course through your veins. Once the high wears off, see RationalWiki:Sysop guide for more information. If you have questions, bleat ask away.

FuzzyCatPotato of the Worthless Aviators (talk/stalk) 20:55, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


Do you know, or merely quote? (JW) oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 22:02, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

So... What does that quote translate to? Also, Aeonian is a capitalist? Dang. :( (talk) 22:04, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
The quote is actually from a debate during the Golden Age of Islam. Al-Razi was debating a Muslim apologist who brought up the "miracle" of the Qur'an as proof for God, to which he replied:
"You claim that the evidentiary miracle is present and available, namely, the Qur'an. You say: "Whoever denies it, let him produce a similar one." Indeed, we shall produce a thousand similar, from the works of rhetoricians, eloquent speakers and valiant poets, which are more appropriately phrased and state the issues more succinctly. They convey the meaning better and their rhymed prose is in better meter. By God what you say astonishes us! You are talking about a work which recounts ancient myths, and which at the same time is full of contradictions and does not contain any useful information or explanation. Then you say: "Produce something like it?!"
I can read Arabic but have difficulty speaking or typing it. Lord Aeonian (talk) 23:12, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't like it.[edit]

I don't like your respect for Ataturk. He fought on the side of the Triple Alliance, disliked democracy, and helped ethnically cleanse Armenians. I only admire the secularism (supposedly) and the Westernization efforts. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 01:36, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Haha my friend, no one is perfect. I don't think the Central Powers we're all that bad, this wasn't the Nazi era after all. As for democracy, do you think he would have been able to modernize Turkey if he let the religious demographics vote on whether or not to dismantle the Caliphate? Idealism is fine, but there are limits. I do agree with you on the Armenian genocide though, it's shameful that Turkey still denies this. Lord Aeonian (talk) 01:44, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

You get jailed if you insult him in Turkey. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:31, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

It's one way to keep the Islamists in line, they'd have to tarnish him to create a theocracy. Lord Aeonian (talk) 02:33, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
And yet an openly Islamic party is currently in charge of Turkey... (talk) 20:13, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Turkish politics is quite different from Arab politics. Nationalism and Islamism are a lot closer than in Arab countries. Such a conflict as the Nasserist-Islamist conflict never happened in Turkey, because nationalism an Islamism were close to the same thing. The Turkish revolution was a unique event that slowly devolved into what we have today: a national Islamist neo-Ottoman authoritarian state. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 20:26, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Actually, Erdogan had to court the kemalist vote by advocating economic reforms which most religious voters aren't concerned with, and the fundamentalists are outright opposed to them because they violate Sharia financial laws. Furthermore, the last time Erdogan got elected more than 3.5 million people protested him and the Islamists. Islam is "nationalist" insofar as it is considered a part of Turkish identity, but nationalists will not let it get in the way of Turkey's future. That isn't to say they will win, only that it is not a "Islamist neo-Ottoman authoritarian state." Lord Aeonian (talk) 20:31, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
That you can just substitute "Erdogan" for "the AKP" in a sentence should tell you enough. Once Erdogan's done taking over the media and labeling all the Kurdish opposition as terrorists, there will be virtually no challenge left to his rule. Turkey will be a de facto dictatorship and Erdy can change the constitution to whatever he wants. And guess what that'd be... (talk) 06:25, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Sure, Erdogan wants to the next Sultan and he may get his way. I'm not saying that. I'm saying that Ataturk's secularism still has support, and his legacy of secularism *is* a bulwark against the theocrats. Whether it is enough of a bulwark is a different story. Lord Aeonian (talk) 06:33, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Hmm, fair enough. (talk) 06:43, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Defending Erdogan and Ataturk just because they're against Islamists isn't regressive? Typhoon (talk) 18:47, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

More like the lesser of two evils and Erdogan is Islamist enough to reject him as an secularist.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 02:03, 5 May 2016 (UTC) 02:03, 5 May 2016 (UTC)


I read on her talk page that she's accused you of "recruiting me. She has to know that's bullshit. I have a quite different take than she does on topics like Post-modernism -- I pretty much disdain it. I restored that section on the Regressive Left that multiple of us worked on -- she has no business overturning text -- wholesale -- that at least three people worked out satisfactorily.

That said, when I have time I want to add some discussion of the myriad bullshit ways the label "regressive left" is hurled at good and smart people.---Mona- (talk) 00:09, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

You mean on the regressive left talk page? That's where she said "he's now even canvassing support from Mona becaus ehe knows that she hates me and will ignore my criticism and edit war against me on his behalf." I was going to try and compromise with her by removing the reddit links - despite those being acceptable sources on the other social and political articles - but she stated my other sources were invalid as well, before I could even propose that. But she got to the point in her latest comment - ex-Muslims are, in her own words, "nobodies" and thus all of my sources are invalid. Hilariously enough, the "Usuage" section above is sourced with blogs and even 4chan comments, yet Typhoon doesn't seem to have a problem with those. Anyway, go ahead and add your discussion to the usage section, that's where the other problematic use of the term is covered. It's pretty good, I wrote some of the criticisms myself, of course Typhoon will still insist I'm far right :/ Lord Aeonian (talk) 00:56, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Every time a RWian says "[X] is trying to form an army against me", a little bit of anti-conspiracy rationality dies. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 01:22, 5 May 2016 (UTC)


I've been having a conversation elsewhere that includes a former Muslim who is now an atheist. But he takes my position more so than what you described at my talk page. I'll just repost what I said there:

Thomas Jefferson proposed castration for “sodomy” in the State of Virginia, which was arguably an improvement over it pervasively being a capital crime. Jefferson, as is well known, was not a Christian; he was a deist and approved only of the non-supernatural elements of the New Testament. But he was a man influenced by the Christian culture out of which the Enlightenment developed in the West.

Many Muslim countries are awful on gay rights, the rights of women and issues like alcohol and drugs. But the West has so exploited Muslim peoples we have little moral authority to lecture them about their moral errors (and I do emphatically believe they are profound errors).

There are a few ex-Muslim New Atheists who argue with Glenn Greenwald on Twitter, one of them apparently from Iran. A big part of me understands why a gay, atheist ex-Muslim would think New Atheists are the greatest thing ever — they attack everything he hates about his culture and that oppresses him.

But I’ve sort of been where they are at, and briefly took a similar wrong road. I was reared in the most reactionary and punitive Catholic tradition that still exists — so extreme they reject most modern changes in the Church and hold on to, e.g., that antisemitic crap about Jews killing Jesus. I decreed a pox on all of it.

For about five years, in my twenties, I could not tolerate to be around Catholic priests. My outrage and anger at the Church was boundless.

I got over it. I’m still an atheist, but since then I’ve formally studied religion as a sociological and historical phenomenon. Religions constantly change, and any particular creed is what people do with it, including with their sacred text, in any given era. (And that’s usually a variety of things depending on discrete populations.) That includes many good things.

At the end of the day, we are talking about human cultures evolving (or devolving) with religion both impacting the culture and being changed by it. The less savory aspects of the Koran, or any particular Muslim culture, have their analogs in Christian Western history. If the West hadn’t imposed itself via colonialism — both physical and cultural colonialism — I have little doubt there’d be less resistance to embracing much of what is perceived as Western morality. Both in terms of individual rights and equality before the law regardless of irrelevant characteristics such as gender or sexual orientation.

I’m reminded of the anti-Communist hysteria in the 50s and 60s. Sexual liberation and civil rights were identified as values of the “Commies.” Which, at least in theory, was true. Many Westerners, therefore — and ironically — rejected those values as inimical to the “free” West.

That’s how humans operate — any good ideas of their enemies are generally rejected. That leaves them wide open to be reactionary in ways they often don’t see. Many New Atheists are reactionary, but I can understand why a gay ex-Muslim in Iran isn’t going to grasp that.---Mona- (talk) 21:02, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Whataboutism and blaming the West for all the problems of the Middle East. Textbook example of the regressive left. And talking about your Lord and Savior Greenwald, he looks like a inverted version of Milo Yiannopoulos (being a gay Jew kissing up to people who want you dead).--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 22:17, 11 May 2016 (UTC) 22:17, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
No, Arisboch, whataboutism is the attempt to deflect from a criticism by saying "what about what they do!" By contrast, my argument is that as a matter of psychology and sociology, this is what humans do. Those they perceive, rightly or wrongly, as their enemies cannot be said to hold ANY decent views or values; this is pervasively true in human history, save for the rare, enlightened thinkers in our species. As for Glenn Greenwald, he is not tribalistic, either about his Jewishness or his sexual orientation. He is first and foremost a Western civil libertarian concerned with civil liberties in the West where he has the knowledge and obligation to speak out about such issues. He is also deeply concerned about America's foreign policies which have often been evil and generated so much understandable resentment and anger from Asia, to the Middle East, to Latin America. We have long been friends -- well before his international celebrity, Pulitzers and other awards and such -- because we so often (but not invariably) agree. Always been that way.---Mona- (talk) 15:25, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
"Not tribalistic"? It's going to bed with people who would KILL him for being a Jew, gay, American, atheist, liberal and a few other things I forgot. That is not "not tribalistic", this is retarded.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 15:37, 12 May 2016 (UTC) 15:37, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
P.S.: And they'd ice you, too, for being an "uppity" woman, American, atheist, not wearing a burqa/hijab and so on. And talking about Jewishness, your family name sounds kinda ... interesting, perhaps you should take a look into your family history, you may even qualify for aliyah under the Israeli Right of return. No idea, if you'd want to or not, but it'd be totally hilarious.--Kugelschreiber (talk)(mail) (block) 15:49, 12 May 2016 (UTC) 15:49, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
1. Glenn Greenwald has never identified as an "atheist," tho he may be. 2. Greenwald and I both have Muslim friends, so we know you are sick and bigoted. 3. As it happens, my great-great-great-grandmother was nee Solomon; she converted upon marriage. But I do not claim to be Jewish because I am predominantly Irish and was reared Irish-Catholic. 4. Again, Greenwald rejects tribalism and has a reasoned view on why many Muslim countries are retrograde in their laws. For example, nations like Iran and Egypt were more secular -- in the latter women used to wear bikinis. Then a bunch of Western-led bullshit happened in those nations, including deposing Iran's democratically elected President in 1953. He doesn't care if Jews are "supposed to be" as viciously anti-Muslim as you and many Zionists are. ---Mona- (talk) 01:32, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
"Anti-Muslim"? Hehe, guess in what country in the Middle East Muslims enjoy biggest amount of civil rights. Hint: It is not your beloved theocratic shithole Iran and also not the worse theocratic shithole Saudi Arabia.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 01:38, 13 May 2016 (UTC) 01:38, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Even if your overwrought generalizations were anywhere accurate, how would that even matter? You're basically saying the exploitation and mass murder of various indigenous peoples throughout history was justified as long as they were notably hostile towards outsiders. Speaking of tribalism, yours is really showing. (talk) 16:38, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
That's absurd. My "generalizations" do not constitute a "justification" for anything. They are an explanation. Accurate ones.---Mona- (talk) 01:35, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
...That was a reply to Kugisboch, Mona. (talk) 12:23, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
She's apparently used to getting flak for defending all kinds of nasty terrorist groups and regimes there and starts to see that kinda criticism, where it isn't directed at her :D--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 12:30, 13 May 2016 (UTC) 12:30, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
No, I'm saying, that it's retarded to give people who want to kill you any kind of support whatsoever.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 17:15, 12 May 2016 (UTC) 17:15, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I believe you missed the point. I am very well aware that religions are cultural constructs, which ebb and flow. But you do not seem to be aware that the literalists have not only theological support, their views are giving legitimacy by merit of association just because religion is given legitimacy. Besides, the progressives are munafiqeen - hypocrites - who barely study their religion. It is no wonder they stay religious at yet espouse contradictory values. Lord Aeonian (talk) 23:44, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I completely disagree with your analysis. Progressive Muslims, or Catholics, or Jews or anyone else who adheres ot a religion, are human beings who are religious by temperament and express that (usually) in the religion they received in their culture. There is nothing "hypocritical" about taking what you need and leaving the rest. That is the very essence of religious evolution as a sociological phenomenon.---Mona- (talk) 15:25, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
P.S.I have had a hard time getting my head wrapped around progressive Catholics, such as the gay writer Andrew Sullivan, and a gay man in my family. But they just are religious. The Church continues to officially prohibit contraception, so as a woman that just frosts me. Nevertheless, priests like this are the salt of the Earth. Religion is integral to human culture, and many very good humans are strongly drawn to it. So, to oppose religion per se is misanthropic.---Mona- (talk) 15:32, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Except Mona, you state "but the west has so exploited..." This ignores that the west has been doing FAR worse things to nonmuslim countries for far longer, yet you don't see Guatamalan terrorists killing people in the US. Japan was NUKED, twice, had their state religion basically dismantled and their 'pope' renounce divinity, forced to host an orgy afterwards, and yet they love the US now. South Korea had an economy based around whoring to American soldiers and suffered under a brutal dictatorship for decades (that was not as bad as the north), yet they also love the US. Sort of. China had a friggen war to keep them addicted to opioids, two actually, and they are somewhat friendly now. Dear god, Latin America might as well be "marine target practice". And seriously, sub Saharan Africa, but do you see people in the Congo blowing up Belgium? Have you considered the possibility that maybe Islam has something to do with the actions of the people who say they are doing things in the name of Islam? StickySock (talk) 18:47, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
To be clear, I don't think it's Muslims that are the problem, but rather, the culture that permits/encourages/glorifies the violence. Baha'i is one answer; glorify Mohammed not for being what he was (a violent mass murdering warlord with delusions of grandeur) but how much better he made his world (gave women and minorities partial rights rather than none at all), encourage people to be like Mohammed by being better than what they started as rather than glorifying how things used to be (coughSalafismcough). StickySock (talk) 19:03, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Mona are you seriously using the old "religion is natural" argument that the apologists love so much? I honestly expected more. Lord Aeonian (talk) 20:50, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

"This ignores that the west has been doing FAR worse things to nonmuslim countries for far longer, yet you don't see Guatamalan terrorists killing people in the US." No, it ignores nothing. Surely you are aware that many in Guatemala -- and other Latin American countries -- are fiercely anti-American? They don't exactly trumpet the glories of U.S. civil liberties. Moreover, the issue I've been discussing is WHY Muslims reject Western Enlightenment values, not what causes terrorism. A hated enemy's values are very frequently rejected. Moreover, there are 1.6 billion Muslims in the world, and damn few of them commit terrorism in the U.S. Muslim terrorism significantly started here in the 90s when the world was becoming smaller and travel easier, and the interference in Latin America less extensive. And the fact is that a Defense Science Board study commissioned by Donald Rumsfeld when he was Secretary of Defense, found that America's ongoing and pervasive fucking around with Muslim nations, including ridiculous levels of tax-payer money and diplomatic cover for Israel, is what primarily causes anti-American animus among the world's Muslims, and terrorism. Greenwald discusses that study and links to it here. ---Mona- (talk) 01:54, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Of course it makes them angry, that the US interferes with their goal to drive the Jews into the ocean and also to replace regimes bad enough with even worse ones.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 12:18, 13 May 2016 (UTC) 12:18, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

What a load of bullshit from greenwald as usual. "Religious fervor isn't enough"? Then care to explain the acts of conquerors? What did India do to provoke the Mongols? Or medieval Mediterranean to the early Muslims? Oh and since you seem to love the tidbit "most terrorist victims are other Muslims", that whole piece falls flat. If the person wants to conquer the world, everything else is a post hoc justification. Could be religion as a post hoc justification, could be something else. What the Islamic terrorism is really about is a number of things. "Revenge" and so forth against the west isn't the number one reason. It's glory and the desire to be loved. That's what motivates the people involved. Seriously, the terrorist groups are cults. You have disaffected young men who don't fit in with society; maybe they are unmarried, maybe then are gay, whatever doesn't matter, they are looking for meaning. And you have these people offering them sacrifice, offering death, offering immortality of a sort. Eerily similar to the fascists. Religion is just an excuse, but the culture the religion is a part of is not. To repeat myself, I don't hate Muslims. I think it is indeed possible to live in peace with Muslims; for the most part Southeast Asia, Turkey, Albania, Khazakstan, even Jordan are proof of that. It's fundamentalist Islam that can't live in peace with anyone; especially not other Muslims given that "the vast majority of victims of terrorism are other Muslims". Note that I have the same view of fundamentalist Christianity. StickySock (talk) 13:57, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Good post! --Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 15:22, 13 May 2016 (UTC) 15:22, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Seeing Westerners argue about Islam is always funny. Some basic facts for you guys to base your arguments on:

1. Islam needs to go

2. Most Muslims think Islam means peace and such, and thus are not bad people

3. Despite 2, Islam still needs to go because the above Muslims are still misogynists and such

4. Islam is not the only problem in the Muslim world, honestly it's not even the main one (economics is), but is a very big problem

5. You shouldn't let religious majorities vote on things. It doesn't really make sense.

6. Many people join communist or far left groups because of anti-theism, not because of communism per se. The communists are the only people who have the spine to oppose the Abrahamic religion. If the West wanted to fight communism, and not cause jihadi blowback, they should have encouraged anti-theistic groups instead of driving anyone with a brain to the communists and everyone else to the radicals

7. Most westerners don't know wtf they're talking about, come visit a Muslim country sometime, you won't be killed, but you will get some perspective

8. Most importantly, Islam needs to go Lord Aeonian (talk) 21:31, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Islam needs to grow. Up, not bigger I mean. Personally I'm a fan of Baha'i as a reform of Islam. Not perfect but it's a start; Islam needs to give up this silly idea that Muhammed is the final prophet. From there, convince people to always move forward rather than cling to a static past, to always make the world better rather than return to the backwards ways of our ancestors (aka, Salafism). CorruptUser (talk) 16:36, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Aside from whether or not "Islam needs to go" is a 'basic fact', I'd just like to note that it's very much an unrealistic goal at the time being, with Islam currently being the second most populous religion on Earth. CorruptUser's suggestion is probably more realistic. By the way, much of what's said here about Baha'i also seems to apply to the Ahmadiyya. (talk) 19:31, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Wow, you guys proved my point about Western ignorance. Baha'is and espicially Ahmadis are despised as kuffar and murtadeen, if not outright mulhideen. Christians are looked upon as better than them. Also, the idea that Muhammad is the final prophet is literally central to Islam. When you say the Shahada in Arabic, you are affirming that Muhammad is the final prophet. When you say "peace be upon him" after his name, it is inferred that you are giving peace to both Muhammad and all the prophets before him, because, as the Qur'an says very clearly, Islam is the final revelation. You guys think making Islam disappear is "unrealistic," but turning people into Ahmadis who abandon basic tenants of the faith isn't? LMFAO. Let me tell you, anti-theism could succeed beautifully if implemented well. There is much more logic and reason in rejecting religion than converting to another sect. Lord Aeonian (talk) 20:09, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I'm well aware of the typical rejection of these groups among Muslims, but the point isn't to make the latter join the former, but to change what tenets/beliefs are prioritized in mainstream Islam. (talk) 20:29, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Alright, but instead of that dubious goal, why not just promote anti-theism? Example: A state could require all students in secondary school to study comparative religion, the history of religion, and other religious topics from a sociological view. In the later years, they would look at cognitive biases, logical fallacies, and general philosophy, including religious philosophy. Finally, they would explore apologetics and put these tools to use. That would eliminate religious belief in about three generations (my estimate), and have the nice effect of having a population which is capable of discerning the tricks and fallacies used by politicians, advertisers, etc. Lord Aeonian (talk) 20:44, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
You're much too optimistic.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 21:02, 14 May 2016 (UTC) 21:02, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
You'd probably still have a small group of nostalgists that want to be religious just for the heck of it. And if you allow freedom of expression, the religious will still be proselytizing among the masses, inevitably enticing some people. Not everyone's a good student, after all. (And that still ignores the trouble of getting your educational plans implemented to begin with.) (talk) 21:14, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Sure, but the'll be a small minority. Just as importantly, those so enticed will at least be more...self aware then most religious are today, regarding the limits of their beliefs. Lord Aeonian (talk) 23:10, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
What's most likely is that it will take another thousand years for Islam to 'grow up', much like Christianity, and that there will be a lot of bloodshed and chaos in-between now and then. I predict violent civil wars/uprisings in Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Iran, and Afghanistan within the next 100 years. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 22:20, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
That's actually a worst case scenario, it will will only happen if the West continues to push Islam (regressive left) and continues to fund those who push Islam (Saudi Arabia and other theocracies). Dawkin's the God Delusion was just put out as an Arabic PDF, and reached 10,000 downloads in a few days - 30% of which went to Saudi Arabia. There are many smart people who see through religion, but the Western governments need to do their part as human beings and implement anti-theism in their internal and foreign polices. Lord Aeonian (talk) 23:54, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Hope these people downloading it from Saudi Arabia won't get caught, as being spotted as an atheist by the authorities there severely limits one's health and life expectancy.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 01:00, 16 May 2016 (UTC) 01:00, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
As long as you don't offend a bunch of people (such as via a twitter account which gets reported often) you'll be ok. Most of the Saudi royal family are either non-believers or very weak believers, after all. There is a much bigger threat from vigilante justice, but again, if you stay out of sight you're fine. They won't track you down unless you basically tell them where you are, and sometimes even then they don't. Even I get death threats all the time, but the worthless trash are easy to trick, just mention you live in X place when you don't somewhere. They dig through your internet history to make up for their total lack of human value, and it's hilarious when they threaten you talking how they know where you some other country. Of course these scum wouldn't even get into a fight unless it was 20 vs 1 anyway. The ones who talk most about how tough they are always the biggest cowards. Lord Aeonian (talk) 04:52, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── That is exactly how I pictured that aspect of Saudi Arabia... CorruptUser (talk) 06:27, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

That's how theist scum everywhere are, though. The kind of people who would actually harm you are very different from those who spend all day trying to prove their fairy tales over the internet and sending death threats to anyone who doesn't agree. Lord Aeonian (talk) 19:19, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Am I doing this right?[edit]

Paging, Lord Aeonian! LogicallyRational (talk)

Yup! But just fyi, custom is to put new content at the bottom of the page. Also, make sure you edit your user page to personalize it :) Lord Aeonian (talk) 02:17, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello hello[edit]

Just thought I'd let you know I replied to your inquiry on my talkpage. ;) (talk) 17:00, 19 May 42016 AQD (UTC)

Oh I know, but it quickly digressed into a tangentially related discussion I have no interest in :) Lord Aeonian (talk) 19:39, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
You're free to disregard all the tangential stuff, though. Feels a bit silly writing a substantial response without getting a reply back. :/ (talk) 20:08, 19 May 42016 AQD (UTC)
Ah well, I was just curious, not really looking to debate. I agree with you but feel that your conclusion is more or less intuitive, i.e. everyone has their own, emotionally and cultural backed, perspective. In my opinion, this fact supports an empiricist position more than a relativist position, because the existence of multiple, equally valid perspectives necessitates the discovery of universally valid facts in order to get anywhere.
But, you should know that I support a one world government, which would require some level of cohesion in order to get anything done. If you support nation states and what I call "group self-determination," you'd have little reason to care what those outside of your group believe or how they behave. Group self-determination is more or less prerequisite on cultural relativism, so if you'd support the former it's no surprise you'd support the latter.
Also, keep in mind that I am in a highly religious, conservative country with a collectivist culture. My experiences certainly contribute to my support of heavy handed solutions to problems, because in my world, things don't change unless they're forced to. If you are in the West, and used to a more individualistic culture, and one built on diversity, you might disagree simply because you never saw a heavy handed state as needed.
The point is that positions on relavitism vs essentialism are no doubt based on our background. For instance, if you feel religion is a personal choice, why would you support state anti-theism? If you see religion as a social and cultural construct with implications for everyone, as I do, then state anti-theism makes sense. So you see that while I disagree with you, our differences are likely due to fundamental premises and thus somewhat pointless to argue over. Lord Aeonian (talk) 20:35, 19 May 2016 (UTC)


Are you Gooniepunk? Gooniepunk left on December 30, and you arrived on February 3, 35 days later. You use a similar signature (Lord Goonie vs. Lord Aeonian) , and appeared just after he left. He also said he'd be back under a new username. Are you? (talk) 01:35, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

No? Sign your comments so I know who is accusing me out of nowhere. Lord Aeonian (talk) 00:58, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

There, I signed it. (talk) 01:35, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Why would you believe that?[edit]

Having just looked through the sewer in the coop, I see that some account, "Zuge," is being attributed to me. I did not write that. Why would you think I had?---Mona- (talk) 20:29, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't know what incident you're talking about. I was in multiple conversations in the coop and elsewhere. Edit: I found what you're talking about; the edit was not made by Zuge but by a BoN, I trusted CorruptUser that it was you. Lord Aeonian (talk) 20:57, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Pb admitted to it and I have warned him to not impersonate others.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 21:17, 24 June 2016 (UTC) 21:17, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Oh FFS, why would he do that?!---Mona- (talk) 21:22, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
I believe it was CorruptUser linking to "me" saying something insulting, and you joined in to note what "I" supposedly said about Israel. It was some BoN at that "Zuge" account talk page, and most certainly not me stating: "I hope you fail in all of your endeavors, and that Israel does too." I would have thought that by now you had a better sense of me and what my values and sensibilities are. Corrupt User and a few others who detest that the a majority ended up agreeing with me on Israel-Palestine will attribute anything nasty to me -- indeed, if he called me sub-human it wouldn't shock me. You really have no idea the sheer venom and unreasonableness I encountered when I joined here last August. None at all. If you think Typhoon is bad, well really, you should try being on my side of the I-P issue. Rightwing Zionists have become truly vile, and not just here. ---Mona- (talk) 21:21, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
"I would have thought that by now you had a better sense of me and what my values and sensibilities are"
The thing is nothing surprises me. I thought Hippocrat was a reasonable person for a few months, nope, he's not lol. Was I surprised? Nah, I'm used to things like that. So if I thought you said "And I hope Israel fails too!" I would not only not be suspicious, but would find it quite funny (as I did). It's really nothing personal, I've found almost everyone has one issue they go crazy about. Lord Aeonian (talk) 22:23, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
I'd never state a desire that another person fail in all their endeavors, short of that person being a literal Nazi and all their endeavors being Nazi ones. As a for Israel, the "right" solution for and about that country can't be stated with glib, insensitive dismissals about wishing to see it "fail." I'm not even anti-Zionist, if by that one means the spiritual Zionism of, say, Albert Einstein, which included a significant amount of Jewish immigration to Palestine to found a Jewish cultural and spiritual area.---Mona- (talk) 00:32, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Cause it totally worked out for all the minorities living in the Middle East, amirite?--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 15:16, 26 June 2016 (UTC) 15:16, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Coop Case[edit]

Not sure if that was the best idea, you know. He's a moderator cleaning up the page. Nerd (talk) 20:02, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Not sure if being a hawk on the recent changes page and constantly letting everyone know what they could do better is the best idea, you know. While you're at it, could you visit this guy's page and give him some advice? PBfreespace (talk) 20:18, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Not sure if that was the best idea, pbfreespace. Being a sanctimonious ass, I mean. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:21, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Just trying to cloak a real criticism with snark, ikanreed. I don't mean to be hostile here. PBFЯЗЭSPДCЗ (talk) 20:22, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
And I was just trying to engage in the activity you were proscribing because it seemed fun. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:23, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
More fun! Do you want to hear a joke?
Congress. PBFЯЗЭSPДCЗ (talk) 20:25, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Chill folks! I thought Aeonian had mistaken one of our moderators for a vandal, so I gave him a friendly reminder. No big deal! Nerd (talk) 20:26, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Let me make sure I understand[edit]

Unless the article is satisfactory to you, it will be reverted to your version, and any attempt to note the dispute on the article page will also be reverted by you, to your version? Is that accurate? AlexanderHamiltno (talk) 02:40, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

You're an obvious sock which hasn't made a single edit to the regressive left take page to justify your vandalism. Lord Aeonian (talk) 02:47, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Regressive Sources[edit]

Here's some potential sources for your quest. Good luck.

~ Aneris 20:15, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

It would be all well if the regressives practiced what they preached, i.e. not "condemning any culture," but it would mean that they would be unable to criticize Western social issues. There are many people who do indeed not care what others believe and advocate, and they are not regressives. The key to treachery is hypocrisy. Lord Aeonian (talk) 21:53, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
But they can't for socio-psychological reasons. Unquestioning solidarity with the right cause is sacred to them, which is pronounced in the so-called “Safe Spaces”. Not only that, they see any shortcomings as tantamount to betrayal. The well-known effect is that they see those who merely agree 98% as The Enemy. They'll fully project the other into the other person, which is always the opposite of what they think of themselves. That has the effect that they want to always stay on the “correct” side of their congregation, in best Sunday clothes. In addition, nothing can be gained from being a contrarian or asking questions. It does not yield any SJ points they crave so much. As a consequence, when antiracism clashes with feminism, the regressive will prefer silence on that matter and channel pent up anger onto “Islamophobes” because here they can win SJ points for their self-aggrandizement, and thereby can show they truly belong to their congregation. Besides, I have the slightly eccentric view that for these and more reasons, these people are structurally Right Wingers, and only left by legacy (though I know this is arguable, but Horseshoe Theory provides a framework). ~ Aneris 07:09, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
That's an interesting theory about the SJWs being right wing, but I think you should keep in mind that in the West "left" and "right" are used as synonymous with (socially) "liberal" and "conservative." Of course, what is "conservative" is defined according to the traditions and background of that society, and what is "liberal" is defined in terms of what is "conservative." Hence why "classical liberalism" resembles modern "conservatism" in many aspects; in the Enlightenment ideas like unregulated free markets, free speech, etc were radical, liberal ideas. But I otherwise agree that the SJWs are not really affiliated with any political movement except their own virtue signaling in their homogeneous white, midde-to-upper class social group. Lord Aeonian (talk) 22:51, 28 July 2016 (UTC)


I've started a talk page discussion at The Amazing Atheist article. It's of great interest to you, as I'm sure you want to fight against the regressive leftists bound to scurry there to defend the current article. PBfreespace (talk) 00:22, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Wait; do you mean to say that anyone who doesn't want all of this to simply be blanked out for whatever reason is (a priori) a regressive leftist? (Here's hoping you're just snarking :3) Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:27, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I've no interest in this individual, sorry. Lord Aeonian (talk) 02:08, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

A-HA! A member of the progressive right, are we? Shill, shill! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 08:08, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
No, I've just never heard of him. I don't really watch English videos on those subjects, Arabic material is more relevant to me. Lord Aeonian (talk) 19:05, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the vote[edit]

Does reading this affect how you cast your vote? If so/if not, what's your reasoning? Thank you. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:14, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

No, and why would it? Lord Aeonian (talk) 01:50, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Just trying to form a better view on how to vote, and what people's reasons are for voting the way they did. Thanks, anyways. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:17, 12 October 2016 (UTC)


Liberals broadly take five positions:

  1. Reformable (mostly), let's fix it.
  2. Unreformable (mostly), let's try to fix it.
  3. Reformable (mostly), but interventionism is bad.
  4. Unreformable (totally), and interventionism is bad.
  5. Islam is cool, kids!

Which, if any, do you accept? Why? (Also, critique my ideological map if necessary.) Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 00:53, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I support a pan-Arabist anti-theist state which combats religion (and ignorance as a whole) with an education system focusing on critical thinking and reasoning skills rather than rote learning or "college preparation," in my opinion those logic skills are the foundation of all life skills and people will a solid basis in them could and would be able to educate themselves further if needed, i.e. for the workplace.
What the theist sympathizers and "reformists" don't understand, or perhaps don't like to admit, is that religions are cultural constructs and the prevalence of orthodox or liberal viewpoints will depend on the larger cultural context. We can clearly see this by comparing the dominant schools and opinions in Islam during the Medieval period with the current, post-Salafi revival aqidah. A more self-contained example would be Muslim communities in the West vs the same communities in Muslim countries - in the West, Muslims tend to adapt their religion to fit the cultural norms around them. Of course Muslims in Muslim majority countries do the same, but the cultural norms around them will be closer to Islam itself by merit of the often (sometimes explicitly) theocratic tendencies of democratic governments elected by religious majorities.
The point of all this is that religions are ultimately cyclical. Let's imagine the Western liberal "reformers" succeed in making the majority of Muslims adhere to whatever they think is progressive, the problem would be that such progress is ephemeral. Restoring the Islam from the Golden Age would only imply an eventual collapse into some new brand of Salafism. Now, one might say, "if religions behave as culture does, than surely singling out religion itself is futile." The problem here is that the Abrahamic religions provide the moral premise for many of the nasty cultural attitudes the West ignores decries. It is true that believers may conform to the culture around them (perhaps due to ignorance), but the realm of reinterpretation instead of dismissal falls to a handful of progressive theologians among a majority of conservatives. In any case, the most religious individuals in society invariably fail to adopt the cultural norms at the same pace as the less religious.
Or, in much simpler terms, people can ignore or deny all they want but eventually someone like Muhammad al-Ghazali or Ibn Wahhab will come along and actually read the texts to see what they say and not what the reader wants to hear. And since the texts themselves were created by their own cultural context...what are you gonna get? Seventh century khaleeji morality, that's what. Among the reformists are people like Hassan Radwan, who flatly acknowledge that the Qur'an is man made and point out its flaws and moral issues as a result. This type of 'progressive' Islam may be resistant to Salafi revivals...but Radwan calls himself an 'agnostic Muslim' and openly says he remains Muslim because it's all he knows. If such agnosticism took hold in great quantity, the following generations would simply abandon religion all together.
Also, a word for the West: In the Americas and such, where Christians are far more liberal, it may seem difficult to imagine a return to Middle Ages Christianity. You may know many very progressive Christians and so on. Ah, but the 3rabs are much wiser! For this was the picture of Arabia 900-1100 years ago. If the West should lose its economic and cultural dominance...what do you think will prevent a revival of conservative Christianity? Individual rationality or some sort of anchored liberal morality? Hah! Lord Aeonian (talk) 02:31, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Going to need a big citation about that last paragraph. CorruptUser (talk) 02:38, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
For what? Do you believe North and South American Christians could never embrace a much more conservative form of their religion in the future? So did al-Razi, Omar Khayyam, etc :) Lord Aeonian (talk) 02:44, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
That Middle Age Islam was tolerant/liberal. Maybe in comparison to "CONVERT OR DIE, HEATHEN SCUM!" Europe, but non-Muslims were still second class citizens, slavery was still rampant, etc. CorruptUser (talk) 02:57, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, let's see what al-Ghazali, widely considered one of main figures in the end of the Golden Age theology and thought, was complaining about. You can read a good translation of his autobiography Munkidh Min al-Dalal here. Let's see what he has to say about the academic and intellectual climate, in his philosophy section Divisions of the Philosophic Sciences:

Mathematics comprises the knowledge of calculation, geometry, and cosmography: it has no connection with the religious sciences, and proves nothing for or against religion; it rests on a foundation of proofs which, once known and understood, can not be refuted. Mathematics tend, however, to produce two bad results. The first is this: Whoever studies this science admires the subtlety and clearness of its proofs. His confidence in philosophy increases, and he thinks that all its departments are capable of the same clearness and solidity of proof as mathematics. But when he hears people speak of the unbelief and impiety of mathematicians, of their professed disregard for the Divine law, which is notorious, it is true that, out of regard for authority, he echoes these accusations, but he says to himself at the same time that, if there was truth in religion, it would not have escaped those who have displayed so much keenness of intellect in the study of mathematics.

Next, when he becomes aware of the unbelief and rejection of religion on the part of these learned men, he concludes that to reject religion is reasonable. How many of such men gone astray I have met whose sole argument was that just mentioned. And supposing one puts to them the following objection: "It does not follow that a man who excels in one branch of knowledge excels in all others, nor that he should be equally versed in jurisprudence, theology, and medicine. It is possible to be entirely ignorant of metaphysics, and yet to be an excellent grammarian. There are past masters in every science who are entirely ignorant of other branches of knowledge. The arguments of the ancient philosophers are rigidly demonstrative in mathematics and only conjectural in religious questions. In order to ascertain this one must proceed to a thorough examination of the matter." Supposing, I say, one makes the above objection to these "apes of unbelief," they find it distasteful. Falling a prey to their passions, to a besotted vanity, and the wish to pass for learned men, they persist in maintaining the preeminence of mathematicians in all branches of knowledge. This is a serious evil, and for this reason those who study mathematics should be checked from going too far in their researches. For though far removed as it may be from the things of religion, this study, serving as it does as an introduction to the philosophic systems, casts over religion its malign influence. It is rarely that a man devotes himself to it without robbing himself of his faith and casting off the restraints of religion.

The second evil comes from the sincere but ignorant Muslims who thinks the best way to defend religion is by rejecting all the exact sciences. Accusing their professors of being astray, he rejects their theories of the eclipses of the sun and moon, and condemns them in the name of religion. These accusations are carried far and wide, they reach the ears of the philosopher who knows that these theories rest on infallible proofs; far from losing confidence in them, he believes, on the contrary, that Islam has ignorance and the denial of scientific proofs for its basis, and his devotion to philosophy increases with his hatred to religion.

Besides the preponderance of non-religious intellectuals and the "many men who have gone astray" because of them, we can also turn our gaze to the artisans such as al-Ma'arri or Omar Khayyam, who praised the hedonistic lifestyles of the Abbasid and Umayyid rulers and openly mocked the religious. And were these poets hated or ostracized? Far from it! Their fame was widespread and even today some of them are considered among the finest Arabic writers. Now you may ask is there proof besides poems and personal accounts? Well, we could take a look at something like paper, which examines the percentage of Arabic books about various topics other time. During the Golden Age period scientific and philosophical literature was at a height, and afterwards religious literature took precedence. Would that have been possible under modern theocracies like Saudi Arabia? Nope.

We can also look at the forms of Islam which dominated. Al-Ghazali and friends devoted a considerable amount of time to attacking rationalist maddhabs like the Mu'tazilia school, which valued reason even over the Qur'an (a classic example is the question of the Qur'an's creation - the Qur'an implies it is uncreated and existed forever, yet the Mu'tazilia contended that Allah could not have always existed alongside his own speech, since it must logically follow from him in time). And yet even al-Ghazali himself was a Sufi, a follower of a sect which argues that religious literature is metaphorical and open to many different interpretations; and he was also a man who greatly respected the Christian scholar he studied under in his youth. You can also look at the Muslim philosophers themselves, like al-Farabi, who argued that religions, while divine, were merely simplistic analogies for the masses and unneeded by the philosophers.

While social attitudes may not have been as progressive as the modern West, the Arab would was undeniably leading the world at the time - and intellectuals like al-Razi wagered that religion itself would go extinct among Arabic speakers within a few generations, along with its cultural baggage. But it didn't - instead, people transitioned from tolerant Sufism to intolerant Hanbalism, from celebrating poets and intellectuals to burning their books in the late Middle Ages and to the very present. Lord Aeonian (talk) 03:34, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Except for the Sufi nutters that were going around defacing "pagan idols". Never forget the Sphinx... As for leading the world at the time, it was certainly more 'progressive' than Europe at the time, which as I mentioned was in the middle of a genocide of pagans so thorough that virtually no one today even cares that it happened. Truly a high bar to beat.
It also ignores the geopolitics of the middle east; Islam's relative tolerance of minorities was the result of two things. First, it was the result of Mohammed not being a fool and learning from the mistakes of Persia and the Byzantines, where they both had repressed minorities too hard which led to constant rebellion. The second being that Islam was itself a minority in the lands it conquered until roughly 200 years later, meaning that it would've been a really bad idea to piss off the locals too much.
In comparison, medieval Islam was morally superior to Christianity, but it still had a huge number of faults. Brutal tactics for brutal times. Islam became the majority religion through a combination of importing muslim families from Arabia into newly conquered territories (aka, colonization), better economic status due to the Dhimmi system which in a pre-industrial society meant that minorities tended to have fewer kids survive to adulthood, and the whole "tax credits for conversion" thing. CorruptUser (talk) 06:07, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
I think you're really missing the point completely. The point is that religious communities can and have gone from a liberal state to a conservative state. There is no inevitability of cultural progress towards some moral goal. Lord Aeonian (talk) 06:57, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
I understand what you are getting at, that society can go "backwards". I just don't think that the Islamic world was nearly as liberal as the apologetists (apologists? apologeticists?) claim.
The crux of the issue isn't that a society "develops" or "undevelops", but rather that morality is itself based on what the environment a society is in allows for. We have the views we have about sex today because we live in a world where condoms and penicillin are a thing. We have things like "stable food supplies", without which constant warfare with your neighbors during famines would induce rather tribalistic viewpoints. So when Islam had its golden age, it was because the environment and technology was such that it was capable of having a golden age. I'm going to make the conjecture that the reason the Islamic world couldn't recover from the Crusades/Mongols was the Bubonic Plague, which disintegrated the Mongol Empire as well by cutting off the trade routes, and thus the Silk Road ceased to bring the wealth it once did, which triggered the Age of Discovery in Europe, and thus the Islamic world went broke. CorruptUser (talk) 08:06, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
While it is true that Pax MongolicaWikipedia did come to an end mainly due to the spread of bubonic plague, it is also worthwhile pointing out that not everything is reducible to, nor determined by, the structural perspective of historical materialism. Policy also makes a differenceWikipedia. And for the record, while the Umayyads and (most notablyWikipedia) the Abassids did enjoy some comparatively great approaches to religious tolerance, ain't nobody got an edge on the Mongols. Just saying out of friendly trivia reasons; not taking a side in the discussion. Carry on, gentlemen/-women. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 08:20, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

While you're at it, take a look at this: Field Guide to Anti-Muslim Extremists by the Southern Poverty Law Center. It lists Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Maajid Nawaz! ~ Aneris 09:06, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't have a formal education in the humanities; history was a hobby, not a major. So that last part, uh, what. Had to actually look it up. I think you just called me a Commie, which I don't think is what you meant. The "mode of production" is one part of society, yes, but it is far from the only part. I'm positing that morality an evolution of sorts, where the morals "evolve" to fit changing niches. CorruptUser (talk) 19:33, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Morals do evolve, in that they change. The fallacy would be assuming they are moving in any direction over the long term. Lord Aeonian (talk) 23:32, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
I'd say as technology becomes more advanced and the potential for destructive abuse increases, a morality that ensures a stable peace becomes more and more a necessity. Though that's not to say future civilizations need to be leftist or progressive; authoritarian societies can be stable too. (talk) 01:47, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Christianity doesn't seem to be sliding back to conservatism[edit]

But Islam did/is/has/etc. You proposed that this is because of economic decline, yes? Then would it make sense to provide more aid to the region in hopes of solving unemployment etc.? 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 23:35, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

From above;
Now, one might say, "if religions behave as culture does, than surely singling out religion itself is futile." The problem here is that the Abrahamic religions provide the moral premise for many of the nasty cultural attitudes the West ignores decries. It is true that believers may conform to the culture around them (perhaps due to ignorance), but the realm of reinterpretation instead of dismissal falls to a handful of progressive theologians among a majority of conservatives. In any case, the most religious individuals in society invariably fail to adopt the cultural norms at the same pace as the less religious.
Economic success is a short term bandaid on an underlying problem. Lord Aeonian (talk) 23:45, 27 October 2016 (UTC)


Putting aside the endless discussion about the nature and history of religion, you said you'd support a "pan-Arabist anti-theist state which combats religion (and ignorance as a whole) with an education system focusing on critical thinking and reasoning skills". A nice enough idea(l), but how do you envision it becoming a reality? (talk) 01:05, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't see an easy/probable way to accomplish that at the moment - I just know what will work, as opposed to Western hyper-tolerance, Soviet/Chinese style "burn all the mosques," etc. I would like to add that in 1912, no one thought or saw a way for Russia to turn into a Marxist superpower, but it happened anyway :) Lord Aeonian (talk) 01:42, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Lol @ "Western hyper-tolerance". When it comes to Christianity, maybe. (talk) 02:12, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm not talking about fringe idiots who think Sikhs and Muslims are the same and all of them terrorists, I mean on average. Lord Aeonian (talk) 04:26, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Hah, I think you're vastly overestimating the average Westerner's knowledge awareness of the existence of Sikhs. (talk) 05:11, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Excuse Me[edit]

I hope you don't mind my intruding but could you please explain your point of view on us Westerners? I'm not looking to start a fight or anything, I'm honestly curious about your viewpoint. Thanks for your time. MyNameIsMudd (talk) 02:27, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I think Western culture is hyper-tolerant, cowardly, self-centered, euro-centric (dare I say colonialist?), hypocritical, patronizing, and generally pathetic. Look no further than the SJWs and regressive left, who conveniently embody all of the above at once. And examples such as Levi Ackerman are truly insufferable. Lord Aeonian (talk)2:59, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Is there anything I can personally do to be better in your opinion? MyNameIsMudd (talk) 03:16, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Sure. Fight against the things I mentioned. Many Westerners do already. Just not enough. Lord Aeonian (talk) 04:04, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Alright. Thank you. MyNameIsMudd (talk) 04:07, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Mistaken reversion[edit]

Sorry about the reversion in the Saloon Bar. I'm not sure what happened. Please restore your entry if you're so inclined. Sorry about that. Bongolian (talk) 21:27, 20 May 2017 (UTC)