User talk:Ariel31459

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Archives for this talk page: , (new)

Unacceptable username[edit]

Firstly it wasn't an unacceptable username, secondly that's not a valid reason for an infinite block. AceModerator 01:32, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

@Ace McWicked OK boss. I assumed it was was used as a form of address, in which case I think it is unacceptable. But, that's just a guess. I yield to your better judgement.Ariel31459 (talk) 01:47, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Normal behavior[edit]

So this just happened based on a very benign reference including a cited article and he kept trying to remove it from the conversation. Is this normal behavior? This seems indicative of some major issues here (Censorship topic below was left on my page via that user) Einlanzer (talk) 01:39, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

@Einlanzer I'm noticing that you have a weird aversion to actually talking to me. Talking about me, sure, but definitely an aversion to conversation. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:42, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
GrammarCommie is an energetic critic of newcomers who look like trolls, or so he thinks. He will get used to you if you persevere ( I hope). — Unsigned, by: Ariel31459 / talk / contribs
I also have a low tolerance for political illiteracy. Which this person expounds. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:28, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Elizabeth Warren[edit]

Why are you so adamant on stating that her claims of Native heritage weren’t false? We discussed it here, and came to the conclusion that the best way to categorize that particular claim was “false”.TheLeftIsIrrational (talk) 03:35, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Allow me to explain: The claim may be false , but the expression "to falsely claim," means about the same as "to claim falsely," which has the implication of being intentionally misleading. Since you are new here you need to be aware of the fact that we tend to give progressives the benefit of the doubt. Ariel31459 (talk) 18:06, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Excuse me, she fucking lied. It was a false claim that she had native heritage. It was a harmful lie at that. It’s cute that you think you should give a white woman the benefit of the doubt for stealing indigenous identity for her own benefit, but that’s a terrible stance and not one any rational person should make. It isn’t something that should be justified or given the benefit of the doubt. Further, your semantics are beyond stupid. I stated, verbatim, that she claimed falsely (in that order, though it would mean no difference if I put “falsely” first). I did not say “she meant to lie to her constituents”. A false claim is a false claim regardless of intent. And in this case, it’s harmful regardless of intent. TheLeftIsIrrational (talk) 01:01, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
The case is clearly stated that Warren took advantage of her situation. Get over yourself.Ariel31459 (talk) 17:52, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, which is established in the simple fact that she had falsely claimed to be Native. I don’t get what’s not clicking for you. TheLeftIsIrrational (talk) 01:26, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Something else will be "clicking" soon... (talk) 13:12, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Don’t be shy, tell us what you mean. TheLeftIsIrrational (talk) 18:54, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Behind a bunch of numbers. I wouldn't expect this one to elaborate but who knows. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 16:37, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
nudge nudge wink wink say no more say no more, a nudge is as good as a wink to a blind man — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs


What are your thoughts on his recent three part essay on O'Keefe and Project Veritas? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:53, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie: I watched the first and most of the second. Looks bad on O'Keefe, though the titles might make them seem to be eulogies (Ten Years of Truth). Before I go back for the rest, is there anything in particular you want an opinion on?Ariel31459 (talk) 04:47, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
I just wanted your general impression. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 12:27, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie: OK. The series is open ended, with at least one more part to come. Our wiki article on O'Keefe is very incomplete compared with these three videos, which total about four hours. The stuff in the third video is about George Soros ( a big O'Keefe fuckup ) and also, the 2016 Presidential Campaign. Watch the third video if you haven't gone through it. There is a lot in there not mentioned in our article (which can be improved). If you are feeling creative you could use the series as a guide to rewriting the article, or just adding the more recent stuff. My impression is the series tells you everything you would ever want to know about O'Keefe's dishonesty, and his continuing pernicious influence in American media.Ariel31459 (talk) 01:08, 23 August 2020 (UTC)


Hi, this is just to say that while you tried to contact commie about a discussion you had on a talk page he is currently under LANCB status and he told me to tell you.Vorarchivist (talk) 19:19, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Mod nomination[edit]

I have nominated you for moderator. Bongolian (talk) 20:55, 2 November 2020 (UTC)


Per the documentation, it is closed with Template:Collapse end--Hastur! (talk) 02:48, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I was struggling to get it right.Ariel31459 (talk) 02:50, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Sig/DocYankemPrevent Truth Decay!16:48, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Paradolia or, more likely, Agnosia[edit]

The pictures on your user page are prime examples of paradolia. They're just fucking rocks. Oxyaena Harass 04:05, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

It's "pareidolia". Twodots (talk) 04:16, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Cool. Oxyaena Harass 05:35, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Well that wouldn't be a reasonable explanation if there were not over 100 such rocks in a dig about 15"x 8", most with red and black paint smeared over them with clear tool marks throughout. Anyone who took the time to look should be able to recognize the deeply engraved appearance of the bears with bees stone. The others have signal tool marks as well. What ever gave you the idea that you would have anything useful to add here? Aren't you 19 years old? Ariel31459 (talk) 06:09, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, but she was a qualified neurosurgeon at, like, 13 years old, so fUcK yOu AnD tHe CeNtRiSt DuNnInG-kRuGeR hOrSe YoU rOdE iN oN. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 03:07, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Is it possible she meant she was interested in neurosurgery and not claiming to be a neurosurgeon? If not, thems is some god-tier lolz. Twodots (talk) 03:22, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
GTL ftw. Weird kid's gonna weird. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 03:34, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

From a rational point of view[edit]

An Introduction[edit]

The scientific study of cultures of ancient peoples makes demands on the types of questions that might be presumed to be answerable. We can create a profile of what the environment might have been like during the period in question. The weather patterns and vegetation would be important in establishing the types of game available. The natural resources, such as steatite, graphite, flint, chert, banded rhyolite, quartz, obsidian, etc., would determine the kinds of weapons and tools that would be possible to manufacture and use in the life ways of the people. Would they make improvised homes of animal skins, thatched huts from stout hardwood branches for warmer environments, or pit enclosures for colder ones? The active archeologists must begin by imagining what is even possible for an early people to accomplish as the physical evidence is laid before them.

The method of science is humanity's most powerful tool yet, when some empirical studies are disregarded, difficulties in our understanding may result. By this I mean that the patterns all scientists look for, at some point, may be dogmatically applied to all situations, when they are only useful rules of thumb. This is not news to any scholars who have surveyed the general fields of the humanities. The general principal here is that it is difficult to revise scholarship and historical narratives once wide acceptance has taken hold of the educated public. It is more typically the case that our academic determinations are overall correct and our understanding substantial. It is not the general rules that tend to change however, it is the particular cases where the weight of evidence can force a change in our common sense judgements.

A contemporary example of this type of event relates to the theory of the land bridge of Beringia between Siberia and Alaska. The oldest secure habitation of human beings in Alaska dates to about twenty to twenty-five thousand years ago. In contrast "Material evidence gathered at Monte Verde [at the southern end of Chile] has reshaped the way archaeologists think about the earliest inhabitants of the Americas. Radiocarbon dating has provided a date of 14,800 BP and possibly 33,000 BP, establishing Monte Verde as the oldest-known site of human habitation in the Americas." The point here is, the narrative has been contradicted by some physical evidence. There is at least a possibility then, that the narrative is somehow incomplete if not incorrect. We must remain aware that the first of these two conclusions is not only possible, but more than likely to be true. In other words, one should always be prepared to accept that there may be facts to learn, or unlearn among those facts that are currently held to be certain.

My last romance[edit]

I begin my romantic vignette with an apology. Too often, even in scientific discussions, the rational objections of our critics are met with irritation and even outright hostility. When such objections themselves are couched in spiteful or dismissive language, so much the worse for the hope of fruitful discussion. I am now relating some information about my attempts at objective investigations of a site in southern New England. In a stretch of active brook about 20x10," I began to collect unusual rocks that I will here call image stones. By image stone I mean a stone with the appearance of a representation or picture of some common object, in this case, wild animals or people. We may assume that such a stone is a natural creation of stochastic processes. In fact, this is a common assumption among some archeologists.

I should begin by saying that I have no native American ancestors. My people trace themselves back to the shores of the Baltic. There were Vikings settlements along the Baltic coast, north of Palanga. A people known as the Curonians or Kuršiai , related to the Western Balts, spoke a language similar to the modern languages of Latvian and Lithuanian. The visits of the Vikings to North America are documented as historical fact. Around the year 1000 A.D., Leif Erikson, sailed to a place now known as the province of Newfoundland. I imagined myself associated with Norse settlers in America of one thousand years ago. This act of pure imagination, attempting to see oneself connected to a narrative of an early culture, might be an aid to developing sympathy for, and intuition about that culture.

It is difficult to identify or accurately define a culture that has been lost to history for many centuries, or thousands of years. What remains is hardly detailed enough to suggest even a vague picture of what life might have been like, long before the written word appeared, in a land inhabited by humans since the beginning of the Holocene. The materials I have found date to some time between the the Archaic and the Late Woodland periods. I have no relation to the people who made them, if people did make the items I had discovered. Yet I felt myself following the path that could be described as psychological displacement. I was there, then, transported in imagination. The people could have spoken to me as though I were a traveler in a land of travelers. There is a native American belief about animals. Larger animals, like the bear, are considered to be cousins, and are like people mentally. But animals are given to acting on their own non-human designs. Bears understand human language, though they speak their own language among themselves. Though I was not like one of the people, I might have been like one of the bears.

The bridge to somewhere[edit]

The property I had been working on is adjacent to a long series of streams and ponds. The brook through the land empties into a large pond and I was considering some kind of bridge to join both parts of the property. It occurred to me that a stone bridge would be possible. It would allow the water to pass through and be sturdy against fast currents. It was plain that many large stones lay at the bottom of the brook. I determined to collect stones and place them across a narrow part of the brook near the mouth of the stream.

Your awesomeness knows no bounds[edit]

You've been nominated in the upcoming moderator elections. See the nomination at RationalWiki:Moderator elections/Nominations. ShabiDOO 16:42, 1 November 2021 (UTC)


Wigorw.svg Congratulations on your election as alternate Moderator in 2021. Good luck on your mission, and always remember, all the goats are here to back you up.

cosmikdebris talk stalk 23:31, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Gullotta's article[edit]

Hi! I know I've suggested this before, so I don't want to come off as a broken record, but I'd highly suggest you read Richard Gullotta's response to Carrier's book. Regardless of which side you fall on, I think it does a great example of at least giving a look at the kind of research and evidence Biblical historians use vs. the standard of evidence for more hard sciences. I'll leave the link here if you want it. Friedman (talk) 01:43, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Are you a Jungian? What exactly is your opinion of Carl Jung?[edit]

You seemed to have reverted some of my edits on Carl Jung’s article, plus the video you cited on The Jung Cult and The Aryan Christ seems to endorse MBTI. You seemed to have fixation on Neolithic artefacts and their mythological meaning. Plus some of your expansions to the Jung article seem to be sympathetic to Jung. Just need to know before the community can make a consensus on Carl Jung. What exactly is your opinion of Jung? --Jakester499 (talk) 20:44, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Also please tell me if I come across as rude. I try to be as sensitive to everyone as possible--Jakester499 (talk) 20:46, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
I don't want to be unclear about Jung, I don't know a lot about him, as I suspect is the case with most rationalwikians. I have been offering, in the article, his own view of basic analytical psychology. That is not sympathetic so much as an accurate attempt to express what his views appear to be. I am not competent to criticize it, except where it seems to stop being practical and becomes hyper speculative, which is a rational complaint about some of his writing; Though some of his ideas are not widely held, he is no "shyster" and though often criticized for being unorthodox, he is still widely respected as one of the founders of modern psychology and I regard it as disingenuous to suggest otherwise. From WP: Jung's work has been influential in the fields of psychiatry, anthropology, archaeology, literature, philosophy, psychology and religious studies. I am not a Jungian, though I am interested in learning about his theories. In psychologies "theory" has the implication of academic speculation. MBTI is nothing I have studied. The references were chosen for general topic consideration. The "fixation on neolithic artifacts" comment is a peculiar one. I would say I was delighted to find them. It doesn't really relate to our discussion on CJ. I am glad to discuss the artifacts if it is an interest of yours. Finally, my opinion of Jung is that he was very important in 20th century psychology in ways that reach into the present. Like any subject in a vast field it can be complex to present a complete picture. I have been planning to continue to add to the description of Jung's analytical psychology. As far as I know, his theories are neither hateful nor dangerous, and are in fact particularly helpful for artistic or creative people undergoing therapy.Ariel31459 (talk) 21:52, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

well well well[edit]

I'm warming up to your efforts at keeping civil discussion. I like it. Now I feel bad for being a little snappy at you years ago. Here's a cute goat badge for you. Goat from Super Mario.png --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 02:29, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Lefty. You are a sweet person.Ariel31459 (talk) 00:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Indeed, you've a very lucid person, I wish you were more active. I think you would make an excelent job as a moderator too, if only you were here more often. GeeJayK (talk) 01:14, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Just here to hop on the compliment train. I'm also appreciative of your presence here. Friedman (talk) 15:25, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks friends. I'm trying to be here more often.Ariel31459 (talk) 22:49, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

AT&T troll[edit]

You might want to protect his talk page, and be prepared for a rangeblock when he realizes he can reboot his phone and get a new IP. FranceGlass (talk) 18:31, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Done.Ariel31459 (talk) 18:31, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
You're welcome. I actually do know how to format this stuff, I just didn't want people to know that. ;) FranceGlass (talk) 18:31, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
He's still able to edit it for some reason. FranceGlass (talk) 18:33, 22 January 2022 (UTC)


any idea why my edits were reverted here? I responded to you.Brain Galaxy (talk) 21:43, 14 April 2022 (UTC)


It's all good. Mop back is fine. Lately I mostly just edit psychiatry/psychology related pages but can help with vandalism if/when it's needed Neiltyson1fan (talk) 22:17, 10 June 2022 (UTC)


Nominated you for mod. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 22:25, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

You dropped this[edit]

1 IluzasipalStone them! 16:39, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

All things in moderation[edit]

A case involving you has been raised at All things in moderation. Feel free to comment. Bongolian (talk) 07:05, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, but the discussion on the talk page is clear enough. I would note that I never meant to revert anything but the terrible style point, i.e. use of the pejorative "bigot" in the first sentence. Editing out muckraking content has always been an interest of mine. Some people call that "whitewashing." I don't like underhandedness, which I fear is preferred on the wiki. Ariel31459 (talk) 13:56, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Mod notice[edit]

You've been nominated in the upcoming moderator elections. See the nomination at RationalWiki:Moderator elections/Nominations. --RWRW (talk) 17:18, 7 November 2023 (UTC)