Information icon.svg Our policy on articles on living people is under review. Your comments and inputs are welcome on the relevant project talkpage.

User talk:AgingHippie/Archive3

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 21 January 2015. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, (new)(back)

Well, well[edit]

Maybe rationality lives. JohnnyFrostbite (talk) 16:12, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Go eat a bag of cocks. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 16:14, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
What do you mean? I am trying to discuss the race concept. Why are you so hostile? JohnnyFrostbite (talk) 16:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Are we to take it that you are an unscientific ideologue? JohnnyFrostbite (talk) 17:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Oh shut your racist mouth. Go back to the 4th Reich where you belong.--Token Conservative (talk) 23:23, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Anything[edit]

You got anything you want to say to me? Hipocrite 10:26, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I love the way the sunlight reflects in your hair. And the way you smell when you come out of the shower. And that tiny, cute mole on your left shoulder. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 13:33, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Was there a point to your question? PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 17:17, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

You don't know fucking jack shit about Mussolini, this place's article prior to my edits was bullshit[edit]

Great to know that RationalWiki is not really rational, but just a site for people to post bullshit. Your fucking opinions about my writing are your fucking opinions. And your reverted article on Mussolini is full of bullshit. Keep your stupid dumbass article on Mussolini that is written by a moron. You guys are just another a mirror twin of Conservapedia, just not religious nuts. — Unsigned, by: 174.93.93.232 / talk / contribs

It is a fact that those edits are second-rate writing. More to the point, we are not trying to create an encyclopedia, and you removed a lot of what gave the article its distinct RW character. If you want to write encyclopedia articles, go edit Wikipedia. Peace. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 14:33, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I have a feeling our Russian-interested friend is going to make this the next Free Will around here[edit]

The quiet could only last for so long, I suppose. Ochotona princepsnot a pokémon 04:05, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Deletion[edit]

I don't blame you for it, to be clear. It seems that the users of Rational Wiki would rather be victim blaming toward Holocaust victims then possibly take even the slightest risk of being victim blaming against the people responsible for the genocide. That is very blatantly Nazi sympathetic. It's really sad to see such an attitude here.

I worry about people who think that the people responsible for the rape and murder of millions of people in eastern Europe are bigger victims then the people who they raped and murdered. –Александр(а) (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 20:40, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Just fucking stop. Get off your high horse, and stop fucking wrapping yourself in other people's victimhood. Nobody is "victim-blaming Holocaust victims." Nobody involved on that page has "Nazi sympathies." Either you are a petty concern troll, or you are using those words in a way that has nothing to do with what really mean, but there is no way a reasonable person would look at the criticisms of that article and deduce that the people making those criticisms were sympathetic to the Nazis. No way at all. Your article was deleted because it was a piece of over-wrought shit that had no real bearing on what this website is for. Odds are, nobody came to help you out on keeping it because your holier-than-thou, I-am-the-final-arbiter-of-what-is-a-bigot, disagree-with-me-and-you-have-Nazi-sympathies attitude has alienated every last person on the website. Stop it. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 20:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
And to be honest, EL, this has been the single biggest problem I've had with things you post. YOu try to show how bad some feminists are to other feminists, but in doing so, you are not actually listening to what any of us are saying about those individuals, why they say what they say, or if we do or do not support them. Then you go onto religion and do the same. If you want people to take you seriously, in saying "this is a good article', you might consider stopping your endless shreaking, "oh look at the victims of the church, therefore hate the church" crap, and listen. Listening to what people are saying about a topic, about bias, about their own views is a wonderful thing. Green mowse.pngGodot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 20:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't think that anyone here is a Nazi sympathizer. In fact, I don't think that many of the people I see doing things that amount to pro Nazi are Nazis or Nazi sympathetic at all. However, ignoring what reputable sources say about the Nazis and proclaiming their views to be "victim blaming" without providing mainstream sources that support that view amounts to acting in a way that supports Nazi views. @Godot That's good advice. I need to try harder to listen to what people say. I did do that on the talk page of the deleted page, though I could have done it better. I worked to address people's concern about being "victim blaming" to Germans by pointing out that it's far more victim blaming to the victims of Nazi genocide to do what they were suggesting. I'm thinking I could have done this better. I still also feel that no one has tried to understand that view. @both I feel bad that these sorts of atrocities happened against Germans, but at the same time I don't want to admit or feel even one shred of sympathy for the people who overwhelmingly supported the worst genocide in history. –Александр(а) (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 21:07, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
"That is very blatantly Nazi sympathetic." "I don't think that anyone here is a Nazi sympathizer." I'm not reading any further, as you are unable to keep your deeply-held opinions straight in successive posts. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 21:11, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't think anyone is being deliberately Nazi sympathetic. –Александр(а) (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 22:48, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
As opposed to... accidental Nazism?
"The Accidental Nazi" sounds like the world's worst historical fiction novel. "Through a series of wacky hijinks, German comedian Jungen Braun is accidentally drafted into the Nazi army. Will he find humor and love amidst an engine of mass suffering?" Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 04:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
The alternative is that people here are willingly promoting Nazi propaganda and engaging in victim blaming against Holocaust victims. –Александр(а) (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 03:02, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
I told you to stop saying stupid shit like that. You should be embarrassed. For Christ's sake, "people here are willingly promoting Nazi propaganda." Read that out loud to hear how wrong you sound. It's like you don't understand what those words mean. The nerve of you, coming onto my talk page to call an indeterminate number of this site's editors promoters of Nazism. At long last, have you left no sense of decency? PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 03:09, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
I do not think that people here are promoting Nazi propaganda. My point was to say that he should not be trivializing the "unintentional Nazi sympathy" idea. I don't think that anyone here wants to promote Nazism. As you say, that would be completely moronic. There are plenty of people, who as the result of Pommer's Law, eagerly recite nonsense that is Nazi sympathetic. There are also people who just don't understand the subjects well enough, who end up making the wrong conclusions from limited information. –Александр(а) (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 06:41, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
"I do not think that people here are promoting Nazi propaganda." What? You just said, and I quote, "people here are willingly promoting Nazi propaganda." Your explanations of your idiotic statements don't work. A better strategy would be to stop saying idiotic things, and then trying to claim you didn't say them. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 14:14, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Life of Pi cont'd[edit]

Because I like to argue -- [1] Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Replied. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 22:31, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

These are Only fews worlds about Reviews of Stalin by Russia ledders,please allowed me to put in.Not about world war II[edit]

These are Only fews worlds about Reviews of Stalin by Russia ledders,please allowed me to put in.Not take up to many space in rationalwiki.Please allowed me to put in.Only a few worlds.It aleady put in Wikipedia:中文(Chinese) (entry:Stalin) and (entry:Brezhnev) by me.

I am sorry. I am not sure I understand you. But you need to understand this - I don't care if it's in Wikipedia. We are not Wikipedia, and just because it's in Wikipedia, does not mean we need it here. We are not a general purpose encyclopedia. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 18:43, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Images[edit]

They're for an article about proportional suffering. Those are examples of why it's wrong, and why the people who believe it are fucked in the head. –Александр(а) (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 14:47, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I in no way trust you to use images like that in a way that isn't offensive, misguided, and problematic. Sorry. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 14:50, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Go to the file use section, look at what page it's on. That's what it's needed for. The purpose is to say that sort of thinking is wrong. –Александр(а) (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 14:55, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
You can say it without making the wiki host that kind of trash.PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 15:03, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
I just made a notice for explaining the purpose of the images.

User:Inquisitor Ehrenstein/ProportionalSufferingNotice

We can add to in that the files should not be used anywhere outside of the article where they are intended. Alternatively, you can ask a sysadmin to add Extension:Widgets so they can be embedded from another website. –Александр(а) (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 15:12, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Do you have any objection to restoration with the notice? –Александр(а) (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 15:29, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I do. Given your history of bating the entire community as Nazi-sympathizers and carving out your position as the only possible anti-racist, anti-sexist, anti-bigotry position, and thereby making anyone who disagrees with you into a misogynist bigot, I cannot imagine a way in which you could use images like that without being completely sanctimonious and totally counter-productive. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 15:34, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm only going to use the pictures in that article. So you're deleting the pictures because of what I might do? –Александр(а) (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 15:42, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
making anyone who disagrees with you into a misogynist bigot Remember what you said about Gender Identity Disorder? –Александр(а) (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 15:44, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm deleting the pictures because you have repeatedly shown yourself as being incapable of writing about racial or gender issues like an adult.PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 15:47, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Examples? –Александр(а) (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 15:48, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
So you don't actually object to how I intend to use them now. –Александр(а) (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 15:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Oh, no. I object to that too. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 15:50, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
I think you just added that. And you lack examples. –Александр(а) (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 15:52, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Why don't you just jump ahead to the part where you call me a Nazi sympathizer and get it over with? PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 15:53, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Because you aren't doing anything Nazi sympathetic. Your lack of examples suggests that you are wrong. –Александр(а) (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 15:57, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
How many times have you played the "Nazi" card to counter people who don't agree with your writing about the Eastern Front? How many time have you called people who disagree with you about abortion "misogynists." Lots. I'm not about to go and search through the history of incredibly misguided and most often downright creepy things that you have said in this forum to dig up examples. There are many I could chose from, rest assured. Fuck, the article that you're drafting right now has a sentence that reads: "Anyone who uses the fallacy believes all of these at some level, whether they admit it or not." Seriously, if you think an article that hinges on that disgusting bit of reasoning is going to last a minute in mainspace, you must be smoking better weed than I can get these days. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 16:06, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
How is that any worse than Political correctness that says that anyone who identifies as "politically incorrect" or disagrees with political correctness is closet racist and is thinking "this will offend the liberals in my mind?" –Александр(а) (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 16:46, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
It isn't. But that has nothing to do with you and your behavior. If I were "politically correct," or basing my argument on "political correctness," the point might be tangentially relevant. But I'm not, and I ain't so, so what? PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 17:05, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Who the hell is Keywanda?[edit]

Nice rename on that guy! d(^_^)b It did make the name available again for him though. –Aleksandr(a) Ehrenstein, Jewish Bolshevik 02:32, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Personal attack[edit]

"You're an idiot IE. A straight-up idiot."

M., this sort of comment is not acceptable. –Aleksandr(a) Ehrenstein, Jewish Bolshevik 23:19, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Shut up. Idiot. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 01:17, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

deletion of Dover Beach Revisited[edit]

I understand that you deleted my poem Dover Beach Revisited on the grounds that it was a copyright violation. I can assure you that it is entirely my own work. Do you have any other objection? Sesquihypercerebral (talk) 20:45, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes I do. It is completely irrelevant to the raison d'etre of this website. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 21:34, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Him[edit]

It's transparently him. Monclair, NJ is his hometown. Hipocrite 22:00, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

So what? A comment like that doesn't belong in an article. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 22:06, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Alberta[edit]

I suggest you look up today's election results. Osaka Sun (talk) 03:03, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit[edit]

Whereas adding vast tracts to articles in the wrong place culminating in "Quality videos for quality price, funding is easy using feminist popular words misogyny, online harassment, misogynist and bringing these fashionable words in use when contacting reporters to get media coverage! Promise them some questionably made stickers (Nintendo's IP)!" wins friends and influences people?

As per the Talk Page [2] I attempted to "salvage" the relevant parts. Koncorde (talk) 18:54, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

What can I say? That's what happens when a n00b makes a big edit like that on her first go-round. I guess the real shame is that, since everything on a wiki is permanent, and there is no easy way to fix what I've done, we're stuck with it forever. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 19:05, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

"I would love to see a study that addresses the relationship between education level, income, and belief in conspiracy theories."[edit]

Here ya go. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:58, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

"Over 85% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that African Americans are harrassed by police because of their race and that the criminal justice system is not fair to Blacks." Wow. That's supposed to be a "conspiracy theory?" PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 00:36, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps the conspiracy is that this differential treatment is an organised effort to keep minorities down, rather than the result of a disorganised collection of stereotypes and prejudices? Either way, if that's a conspiracy then I guess I am a conspiracist. Tielec01 (talk) 02:32, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Jesse Helms[edit]

You've got to at least admit that he was Democrat in his heart. He was just pretending to be Republican. The only racist Republicans have libertarian views or are Baptists. --24.229.153.221 (talk) 00:24, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Cool story, bro. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 00:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Smoker[edit]

I'm not aware that I made those edits. Who else could have my password?--The Madman (talk) 01:37, 30 October 2013 (UTC)The Madman

Call the FBI. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 02:43, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Unitarian Universalism[edit]

What could it offer an agnostic like me? I've read about it, and it intrigues me.--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 12:28, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I think that depends a lot on the congregation in question, so YMMV, but, my experience has been that it offers 1: a forum in which to engage with people who are trying to figure out some of the "big questions" about "Life the Universe and Everything" with an open mind/general curiosity; and 2: an infrastructure through which to put some of the values associated with a broadly liberal approach to those questions into practice, either through work in the community or political activism.
Unlike going to Catholic church, in UU the responsibility to figure out what you believe and how you're going to live that belief is entirely on you; there's no central creed, just basic guidelines about having an open mind and not being a dick to other people. Fot intelligent, curious and basically rebellious sorts, that's the best you can hope for in a religion. The thing that you have to be wary of is that because it's a religion that defines itself more in terms of what it is not than in terms of what it is, there are guaranteed to be things going on that you really disagree with, and so one has to learn how to focus on what you like and not get too bogged down with stuff you don't. I'm guessing that as a RW regular, like me, you'll have to be artful around some of the more "new-agey" type people you're bound to meet. Also, because UU is so damn ecumenical, there's a real problem, for me anyways, with it being very broad and not too deep. A service one week might deal largely in some Buddhist ideas and then the next week the service may be rooted more in Jewish thought. I'm an academic, and I tend to study one thing very closely for a long time, so that is really frustrating to me. That's why the middle-of-the-week reading groups, etc. can sometimes be a more satisfying intellectual experiemnce than the services. If you live in a bigger city on the east coast (I'm assuming you're a US-American), you might be able to check out a few congregations to find a better fit -- but, like I said, by its nature, UU cannot be a perfect fit for anybody. Hope this helps. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 13:46, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Very interesting. Thanks!--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 16:30, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Deffo very interesting. Hello! --Barryjon (talk) 20:38, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not writing an article about you on Bigotry Wiki[edit]

It's not for attention whores. Deliberately trying very hard to get an article about yourself results in not getting an article. –Aleksandr Ehrenstein ЯR 13:24, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about. Run along, now. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 13:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey[edit]

I no has sysop, can you fix this for me? Thanks. --Inquisitor (talk) 19:52, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Always on the lookout for recommendations for solid non-fiction comics[edit]

Ever read of Guy Delisle's travelogues? I think they'd be up your street. Check out Pyongyang, his experiences as an animator in North Korea. He's done some others (Shenzhen, Burma, Jerusalem) but Pyongyang is still the most eye-opening and entertaining.

For some jokey/satirical webcomics inspired by history & literature, try Hark, A Vagrant by Kate Beaton (archives by subject). ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:15, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I LOVE Delisle. Just finished his book on Jerusalem. Mrs. Leather reads HaV, been meaning to check it out... PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 19:47, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Cool. I got halfway through Jerusalem about a year ago & left off for whatever reason. Should probably give it another shot. WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:08, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is what you had in mind, but you should check out Chris Hedges' Days of Destruction, Days of Revolt. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:04, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Bought it, haven't read it yet; I've heard it described as the Let Us Now Praise Famous Men of our time. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 14:28, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Vandalize your own wiki?[edit]

I have no idea why you are vandalizing the subject lines I entered: http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AObama_citizenship_denial&diff=1257571&oldid=1257568

It is especially bad because you are apparently a sysop. Are inmates running the place? Why would you vandalize your own work?

Anyway, I've added several more aspects of the conspiracy to cover. I don't exactly know how to make fixes. I suspect there are reasonable explanations, but I've at least pointed out problems which is a start. KevinBerner (talk) 18:12, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

That's not "vandalism," pinhead. It's me having fun at the expense of a moron. There is no "conspiracy to cover," and any edits you make to mainspace are likely to get reverted within minutes. Any edits you make to talk pages are likely to be met with scorn and ridicule. Welcome aboard, dummy. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 18:18, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Seems like vandalism to me. Maybe we can get a second opinion. How do I go about doing that? I'm not going to make any edits to the main page anymore. If the overseer is crazy, then it isn't worth spending time to try to improve anything. Of course there is a conspiracy to cover. The article we are talking about has the word conspiracy in the name. BTW, just making insults doesn't work as well when you don't also point out flaws in what someone writes. See how I did it: First I pointed out your vandalism, and then I used it to show you are crazy. You call me a moron, etc., but you've yet to point out a mistake in what I've written. You don't really understand how to propertly ridicule. Don't waste your tiny brain trying to demonize me, you are just some random idiot on the Internet with more power than sense and so it doesn't bother me what you think. KevinBerner (talk) 19:18, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
"but you've yet to point out a mistake in what I've written." 1. You cited Brietbart as a source; 2. You confuse our title's use of the word "conspiracy," which is meant to debunk the foul bullshit perpetrated by folks like you, with an actually-existing conspiracy; 3.You insisted that there was a "conspiracy to cover" re: where Obama was born, when there is no doubt to any reasonable man that he was born in Hawai'i. Anything else? PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 19:22, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Kevin, what my esteemed colleague meant to say earlier was that RationalWiki uses something almost completely but not quite unlike the "Bold, Revert, Discuss" process found on the other liberally-biased wiki, the big one. Look it up. You've shown an interest in birtherism and libertarianism here, and expressed it in ways that make you look like a concern troll. That aroma does not play well here. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 19:25, 9 November 2013 (UTC)