User talk:Ariel31459/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 2 August 2019. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

What is going on? World Blogs Clogs Elections The Bar (talk) (talk) (talk) (talk) (hic) Welcome to RationalWiki, Ariel31459! Check out our guide for newcomers and our community standards! Tell us how you found RationalWiki here! If you are interested in contributing: Read what our articles are intended to be Check out the to-do list See our help page and Wikipedia's formatting cheatsheet If writing a new article, consider writing up a draft And most importantly: Pull up a goat and have some fun!

--JorisEnter (talk) 05:31, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

You know

Instead of writing "this article sucks!!!" a whole bunch, you could [1] fix the article or [2] give more constructive criticism on the talkpage. For example: "this article sucks because [X]!!!" Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 15:51, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

You know: I didn't really do that.: The article is a stinker. Wow. Free Thought Blogs has been abandoned to the slanderous ravings of Pissy Myers. Ariel31459 (talk) 04:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC) The supporters of this article are unconvincing. The blog is crashing and burning because P. Z. Myers is an hysterical and unethical feminist smerf.Ariel31459 (talk) 15:09, 6 April 2016 (UTCAriel31459 (talk) 15:57, 6 April 2016 (UTC) What do you expect? A link to a picture of PZ in his Papa Smerf costume?Ariel31459 (talk) 15:59, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that none of that is constructive. You say, "Myers is an hysterical and unethical feminist smerf". What does that comment tell us to do? How does the article change to make you happy? Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 16:28, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I should think that "Myers is an hysterical and unethical feminist smerf" is quite constructive: it is an accurate description. In the same way that the sentence "That tree is a white oak," is a descriptive sentence. The fact that Myers is a slanderous sycophant of feminist dogma is useful in understanding why his blog site is floundering.

Talk pages

Learn how to indent your fucking posts.--JorisEnter (talk) 21:17, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks.Ariel31459 (talk) 21:41, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

By the way, your comments tend to be the epitome of the unfunny. You ought to consider blocking yourself for a while. Maybe for the time it takes you to flip ten tails in a row. Ariel31459 (talk) 21:47, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Learn how to use the humble colon to indent. Colons have uses beyond keeping your head warm. StickySock (talk) 21:51, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks much. And may your socks remain sticky for many years to come!!!Ariel31459 (talk) 15:05, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

What's your point?

So you are saying that because women are a source of sexism against women, it's not a problem? StickySock (talk) 20:31, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I was not aware that anyone looks at my user page. The text you are inquiring about is a short contribution to the 'Privilege' talk page. It is unfinished. I understand your impression that it is related to sexism and the responsibility of women with respect to maintaining Patriarchy viewed as a complex of social constructs. It is not about blaming women for their own out-of-favor sexist behaviors. The last sentence states the point: the first example of privilege in the 'Privilege' article deals with this very issue. My point is only that it is an ambiguous and possibly incorrect example of Privilege: It is other women who will not accept promiscuous women as friends. It seems unreasonable to interpret this as an unfair advantage or privilege that men have, because most women don't want it. My point is, the reductionist approach characterized by " This seems unfair, therefore [privilege]" doesn't always work: not every objectionable behavior can be reduced to a priviledge in the sense that is defined. Ariel31459 (talk) 00:09, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

And how exactly does the gender of those discriminating against women affect whether or not women are discriminated against?

As I've said elsewhere...

1) It might technically not be privilege, but the difference is pedantry that matters about as much as whether the volcano next door is spewing magma or lava; the more important thing is that you do something about it, not whether you get the name right.

2) If you are getting this worked up over pedantry, chances are you don't really care about it at all and are trying to use the issue as part of some form of wedge strategy, whether that's denying there's gender discrimination of any form or some nonsense about how men suffer more than women from discrimination. Never mind that discouraging women from being promiscuous kind of hurts men too... CorruptUser (talk) 00:51, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't by definition. I honestly don't understand why you would suppose my answer could be otherwise. But you can't define your way out of the problem I have posed: the so-called privileged class is not the class denying the privilege to women, which ipso facto brings into question whether an actual privilege is involved. I am arguing about whether an example is a good example. This is meant to be a technical discussion about a single example. The point is not whether there is discrimination, it is whether the discrimination can rightly be called due to privilege. I don't see how it can. It is not meant to attack the idea of privilege. You actually write, "It might technically not be privilege," and I say fine, then we agree. Then maybe it should not be the first freaking example of privilege in the article on that subject. How deep do you want to bury the body? Ariel31459 (talk) 01:13, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey dude

Could you think about maybe indenting your posts a bit more carefully in the future? It only takes one more colon (:) to indent properly; you don't need like five more than the post you're replying to has. I'd appreciate it if you could stick to proper indentation, as it mucks up our talkpages when you add like a dozen colons at random every other post you write. Thanks in advance! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:36, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes. So, you got stuck with house keeping? Is it some kind of punishment?Ariel31459 (talk) 03:58, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Moved your article

To Everyone is racist, since people use different phrases for the second part (and that way the title doesn't have special characters like "-" in it).

Also: An easier way to draft your article is to use User:Ariel31459/sandbox. :) Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 17:43, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Sysop

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, goat ask away. Christopher (talk) 12:34, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm still high.Ariel31459 (talk) 18:25, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

OK! I'm down now.Ariel31459 (talk) 15:06, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Reformed troll?

Haha, "Ariel" is another example of a useless female messing with wikis. Sterilize girls!

Some articles could use a style editor

@Christopher Some of the higher priority articles in this wiki are in need of repair with regard to style. I think this is evident in highly contested articles, e.g., "Men's Rights Movement," which now has over 300 authors. I do not want to be seen as sea-lioning on sensitive subjects, and therefore my suggestion is not to change ideas structuring the thrust of an article, but to improve literal presentation. The problem, I think, arises when an article has been overwhelmed by authors incessantly revising it, making additions and deletions seemingly without regard for good style, mainly grammar, syntax, and diction. Balance in the emphasis on various subtopics, information content, and funniness, are also harmed by legions of authors, but improvement in those areas would require subject expertise to edit properly Ariel31459 (talk) 15:43, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Blocking James

Umm... why? You barely bother to provide a reason. RoninMacbeth (talk) 23:07, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I didn't get this either. I know sometimes tempers can flare and egos can get in the way, but when edit war gets so bad that someone calls on us to have a debate on a specific page to discuss it, I can't really do that if I'm blocked. James Earl Cash (talk) 23:14, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Please provide an answer in the next hour. If not, I'll unblock James since he has done nothing wrong that I can see. RoninMacbeth (talk) 23:20, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Apparently he's unblocked me. I really don't mind one way or the other, I just hope cooler heads will prevail in the end. James Earl Cash (talk) 23:35, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Sorry about intruding like that. RoninMacbeth (talk) 23:37, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

S'all good man :) James Earl Cash (talk) 23:38, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

@RoninMacbeth Perhaps I overstepped when I blocked James. I think he was being a vandal because I attempted to make the disputed text less one-sided. I didn't try to censor his opinions, but only correct a few errors, and added several clauses to remediate the mild hysteria being expressed in the Laci Greene article. This he regards as bad writing. I know, I'm not special.Ariel31459 (talk) 00:15, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I just want to add here, I think reverting someone's edits back to yours when they've made objections to you in the history section, without any argument from your part, and then going so far as to block them when they take issue with your silence and continued edits, is a bit of a hasty judgment. That's all, I didn't think the conflict would get this testy. Hopefully this can all get resolved shortly. James Earl Cash (talk) 01:12, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

RW interviews Ariel31459

Because I don't have a friend here to ask interesting and provocative questions I thought it might be informative and fun to ask them myself.
RW: How long have you been a ratwick?
Ariel31459: what?
RW: Oh! A rationalwiki member. Sorry. That's my pet name for us all.
Ariel31459: I see...
RW: So, anyway, how long have you been a member?
Ariel31459: On and off for about a year now. Recently a very nice person gave me a mop, and I am learning how not to make a mess.
RW: I see. Well let's hope you succeed at that, at least. But I must ask you about this "transphobe" thing you have.
Ariel31459: Yes?
RW: what do you mean by saying you feel transphobic sometimes? Do you hate trans people?
Ariel31459: It is a jest. More prescisely, it is kidding on the square.
RW: Meaning?
Ariel31459: Well, that I don't think I am a transphobe, but I might be one.
RW: that doesn't seem to make sense.
Ariel31459: that's right, now you are getting it. We all could be transphobic, even trans people, and not even know it. See, lots of people are called transphobic, and they don't even know about that because the people who think so are not well-enough connected to get their opinions "out there". But that doesn't mean they are wrong. For all we know everyone south of the Mason-Dixon line is a transphobe. But if they are, that would make being transphobic not much different than getting chicken pox. Yeah, there is something wrong about it, but everyone has it and it isn't your fault.
RW:So, you don't hate trans people? Ariel31459: I hope not.
RW: Do you want them in your bathroom?
Ariel31459: Well, not all at once. I don't know how many of them that there are, but it could get crowded in there.
RW: No, very funny, I mean for your sex, as an X, do you want transX people to use your bathrooms?
Ariel31459: Well yeah, sure, if they say they are Xs then that's what they should do. But then, I'm an X, I think I should only speak for Xs. Honestly I think Ys should feel the same way, but if they don't, well, there's that problem.
RW: So, great, maybe. Would you consider becoming a part of the transsexual awareness and advocacy movement?
Ariel31459: wait, is that a real thing? I mean is there an actual group going by that name?
RW: well there is the National Transgender Advocacy Coalition, among a number of others in the US. All together, you could refer to them as a movement. Ariel31459: Well, in theory yes. I'm a little old to go on long marches though. But I'm not going to just repeat stuff other people say about it. I mean, I don't know a lot about transgender issues. How do I know that the person educating me possesses the aegis of scientific opinion?
RW:I guess that's a judgement call.
Ariel31459:Yeah, but what if I'm not really good at that? But, say I am. I almost never meet trans people, as far as I know. My sister-in-law has a transmale nephew. But I never see him. He lives in New York. I'm a firm believer in taking care of the things nearby first, and I hate to travel. I don't make jokes specifically about trans people because as far as I know they are not distinguished in a way that even makes humor possible in any obvious way. I think its the people who make dubious claims about trans people that can be hilarious.
RW:So you have no experience with trans people at all, besides your sister-in-law's nephew?
Ariel31459: Yeah, except for movies and TV. Theatrical experiences, basically. Although, there was a person I ran into who took me really aback once in an out-of-the-way coffee house. I was there with some friends and this person who looked a lot like Howie Long, only wearing a pleated skirt, walked in and sat down at the next table from where we were seated.
RW:Howie Long?
Ariel31459:He played football for the Oakland Raiders for 13 years. He played a position called "defensive end" which you have to be really big to play well. He is 6'5" and close to 300 pounds, I think. And built like a rock statue. So,...anyway, I couldn't stop stealing glances because his appearance was so remarkable.I don't know if the term "trans person" would have been appropriate. It could have been that he was trying to win a bet. Something like,one of his drinking buddies made a bet like "You look so tough and intimidating, nobody in that coffee house will dare to say a word to you if you walk in there wearing a skirt." Back then, I wouldn't have even known what "transwoman" meant. Now I'm 6'1", 230lbs, and I was intimidated. You could call it an incidence of transphobia I suppose. Hell it could be a case of pediophobia. I guess you get used to these things. Then again, that was the only experience like that I can remember.
RW:You just mentioned telling jokes. Are you a comedian?
Ariel31459:No. Not at all. I just think that sometimes humor is refreshing, and I do like a joke now and again. What I was driving at was, if I really hated trans people I think I would make jokes about them, you know, given my particular personality. Instead, I see them having a handicap. Not physical, but social. I like to make jokes about people who should be able to take it in good humor. If I make a joke about someone and it hurts their feelings, I don't say "too bad kid, I thought it was funny!" I feel bad about it, and I don't make the same kind of joke again about that person. You don't know what you'll get sometimes. I guess that's what makes it interesting to me.
RW: So, how would you summarize your thoughts today about trans people?
Ariel31459: I would say that unless you go to YouTube and search for their videos, it is likely that you will never know for certain you have seen one or heard their opinions. From what I have been able to discover in the media, they hold a variety of diverse opinions. From what I can tell, there is no transsexual definity with regard to identity. Politically they are as diverse as any demographic group. It is probably a mistake to think of them as a similarity group at all, rather than as an ordinary demographic set. They are a set of individuals associated with the prefix "trans". There is no reason I can think of that makes them fit together in a group any more coherently than say, the set of all women and men
RW: Let's take a break.
@Koidevelopment It was kind of you to assist. Thanks.arielNoFlyingMonkeysPlease31459

I added the <br/> tags in because I think that's what you were going for. Vive Liberté! 02:44, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

@Ariel31459 No trouble at all. Glad to help. I have been known to impulse buy books 03:34, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Cluck cluck cluck

A case involving you has been raised at the Chicken Coop. Feel free to comment.

TestingAriel31459 (talk) 14:32, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Recent edit

Can you clarify what you meant in this edit? CowHouse (talk) 23:56, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

@CowHouse Thanks for asking. I don't want to fight with you about this. Let me start by saying I don't defend Thunderf00t for many of his attacks on certain feminists. I think he merits criticism. He can be a jerk. Is he sexist? Yeah, I think so, kind of. Is he a misogynist? No. I can't see it. While I'm being honest about him, let me say that I detest P.Z. Myers by reputation. Mainly because of this and the fact that he is a potty-mouthed, wanna-be public intellectual trying to make his reputation by destroying others. This is the Newt Gingrich theory of politics. Again, I won't fight with you, and thanks for asking.Ariel31459 (talk) 13:39, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I think you're getting ahead of yourself, I wasn't looking to argue with you. I was asking for you to explain what your sentence means. "Consider the source certainly applies to Freethought Blogs as it has been referred to as the Little Shop of Hatred." Consider what source? CowHouse (talk) 14:40, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry. I don't trust/respect the source of the controversy, i.e., Freethought Blogs and P.Z. Myers in particular. I'll try again.Ariel31459 (talk) 16:04, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello. An appeal.

Hi. You recently suspended my account for reverting edits on the page Dunning-Kruger effect (in reality, I was repeatedly adding edits, not reverting them, but that's just semantics). I would like to request that my addition be considered as a legitimate edit, rather than a troll, as it seems to be perceived. The addition was the following:

"Typically the people who wield the term as an ad hominem attack are the ones to whom it applies most accurately."

I am not sure if you have experience with this attack. But it is truly typical that, when a person throws Dunning-Kruger into a debate to shut down the opposition, they are doing so because they lack a substantive argument. In other words, when a person verbally attacks another by exclaiming "Dunning-Kruger! You don't know how stupid you are!", the reality is that the term best applies to the attacker themselves.

I understand how my handle JustOwnedYouSon probably colored my edits to appear as a trolling attempt. Indeed it is true that I made the edits during an online debate. Nonetheless, I stand by the assertion that I added, and would like it to be considered as a genuine addition to the RationalWiki page Dunning-Kruger effect; after all, RationalWiki is supposed to include a more nuanced and candid analysis of a topic (and especially how the topic typically applies in a rational argument) than generic encyclopedias like Wikipedia.

Thank you for hearing me out. JustOwnedYouSon (talk) 05:07, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

@JustOwnedYouSon I'm not involved in this and don't intend to be outside of this post, so sorry if this seems dismissive of the appeal you've made, but I just wanted to drop in and tell you that you can sign your comments using the sign button or ~~~~ (four tildes) after your posts instead of manually writing your username with links. Additionally, in case you weren't aware of this, you can indent successive posts on a talk page using colons (":"), one for each indentation. Thanks! Ⲥⲡⲣⲓⲅⲅⲓⲛⲁ (ⲧⲁⲗⲕ) (ⲕⲟⲛⲧⲣⲓⲃⲩⲧⲓⲟⲛⲥ) @ 04:43, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you I do appreciate the tips. --JustOwnedYouSon (talk) 04:46, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

@JustOwnedYouSon In my opinion, your addition would work better if it was quoting someone, rather than it being presented as a statement of fact. You said it was a verifiable fact yet you cited no sources for us to verify it.

If you want to avoid being treated as a troll then you should avoid repeatedly adding the same information after your edit is reverted. Instead, you should use the talk page. CowHouse (talk) 04:50, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

@CowHouse Fair enough. The issue is that the attack typically comes up in the midst of a debate, where you would need the entire context in order to see how it is merely being used to deflect from a lack of substantive points. I do believe it to be verifiable, but I don't want to take up a large portion of the Dunning-Kruger effect page by adding a long quote that establishes context. Do you have any further suggestions? Thank you.

Yes I have been notified of this via my talk page and am now aware. Thanks. JustOwnedYouSon (talk) 05:03, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Please reply after my comment, rather than breaking it in half. I will be able to work out which part you are responding to. If you think it's unclear just quote me and then add your response.

I see your point. However, that does not justify your addition. You said people who do this "are the ones to whom it applies most accurately" but this is conjecture. Even if someone's entire argument is "Dunning-Kruger! You don't know how stupid you are!" that has nothing to do with whether the Dunning-Kruger effect applies to them. How does it show a failure to recognise their own competence? All it shows is that they do not want to have a debate and would rather say something dismissive, or they are sick of having a debate. CowHouse (talk) 05:24, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

@CowHouse Typically in a genuine ideological debate, when someone chooses to attack the opponent's character as means of disengaging from the debate, it is because they lack the intellectual capacity to offer a meaningful response. If this were Wikipedia I would understand if you indicated that this is conjecture, but this is RationalWiki, which I am sure you would agree involves a more nuanced take that includes implications that are not typically discussed in more formal encyclopedias. That being the case, would you agree with the addition in question if I was to offer a citation along with it? JustOwnedYouSon (talk) 15:33, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

@JustOwnedYouSon It doesn't really matter if I agree to it. I'm not the boss here and other editors are free to remove it. You should raise this topic on the Dunning-Kruger effect talk page so you can try to reach a consensus with other users.

To answer your question, it would depend on the quality of the citation. CowHouse (talk) 16:29, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

@JustOwnedYouSon Thanks, didn't know Dunning-Kruger effect talk page was a thing, I'll check it out. P.S. GMO/vaccine corporations are bad mmmkay (aka I now realize this site is based on corporate propaganda but whatevs ;) JustOwnedYouSon (talk) 17:26, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

@JustOwnedYouSonWelcome to this Wiki. I advise you to listen to the active janitors like CowHouse. All of us are reverted from time to time. Good luckAriel31459 (talk) 14:33, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

@CowHouse Ooops. That quote attribution was just a mistake.Ariel31459 (talk) 03:58, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

No problem. CowHouse (talk) 04:04, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Jordan Peterson

@CowHouse Someone has reworked the entire J. Peterson article. They seem intent upon expressing pure contempt for the man. I'd like to see humor with more or less even-handed criticism. Should articles be reworked this way? It makes it very difficult to haggle over details in the talk page. Anyone who writes "Kermit the Fraud" as a middle name is not interested in discussion, not really. There is also ridicule in the revision for his family, to which I strongly object. Ariel31459 (talk) 15:02, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

To answer your question, my view is that an article can be heavily critical of someone as long as the information presented is accurate (and not taken out of context), relevant and well sourced. CowHouse (talk) 03:50, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

@CowHouse Thanks. I don't object to criticism. I don't object to snark. I object to ignorant criticism, incoherence and misrepresentations put together with snark. But I also will accept your judgment on how sketchy we let this article get.Ariel31459 (talk) 04:02, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that the content in our articles has to be, of course, related to our mission. CowHouse (talk) 06:45, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

@CowHouse This remark is addressed to the moderators, and I hope they will respond if this matter concerns them. In view of the fact that you have been sympathetic to all editor's honest efforts here, I would like to explain my point of view vis-a-vis a person like Jordan Peterson. It would be very easy to regard him to be a crank because he expresses unorthodox ideas frequently and has a Kermit-the-Frog caricature that some seem to like to use for contempt. He seems to be a person with encyclopedic quantities of opinion. So it seems natural that a number of those opinions would likely seem worthy of question. He is a respected scientist, yet some want to make a quack out of him ( Newton studied astrology). He is an advocate of Jungian ideas and studies mythology, which are not unorthodox among many psychological councilors, and yet not standard practice. Some of his ideas are quite worthy of criticism. It is certain that some users on this wiki regard him as the devil, mostly because of the Canadian C-16 law thing. Let's assume he was wrong. I don't think we can assume bad faith also.

My most important point: We should moderate the contempt expressed for this man because he is not a bad leader for conservative intellectuals. The KKK and Nazi-conservatives were driven from the American republican party in the 1950s by the followers of William F. Buckley, who founded the National Review, a publication which to this day regards the alt-right as beyond the pale. The National Review is very pleased with the appearance of Peterson as a public intellectual. Finally, I am not a follower of Dr. Peterson. I have a fairly neutral view of him because his views are supportive of conservatism. He has advocated public dialogue and strongly advised against violence. If I could choose a political opponent whom I could be certain would not attempt to assassinate me, it would be someone like Dr. Peterson. We cannot eliminate the Right, and although I do not align myself with conservatism, I would like the American Right to be more like him.Ariel31459 (talk) 15:09, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Is it worth the effort trying to fix the blatant anti-Peterson slant on the wiki page? There are some dedicated anti-Peterson editors on there. --Moobnert (talk) 11:21, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

@Moobnert Thanks for asking. You can't fight the sysops who are dedicated to one task. Peterson is becoming a hero to the American Right. We here are on the Left, for the most part. The article is going to reflect a lot of skepticism about Dr Peterson, make jokes about him, be silly and so forth. But being snarky doesn't mean you need to be fraudulently contemptuous. Really, if you remove any false statements I would appreciate it. If a criticism is at all justifiable it should stay, unless it is really trivial with respect to the thrust of the article. For example, who cares what Peterson's opinion is about the former Soviet Union? He isn't an historian. Just being wrong about some desultory fact is not noteworthy.Ariel31459 (talk) 14:50, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I reverted the recent edits because the presented information was not accurate, it was taken out of context, the criticism was highly ignorant (the purpose of the Wiki is to include opinion, but to be accurate and rational!), not to mention the editors are ideologically clearly not only anti-Peterson but what his ideas represent, not to mention how dangerous it becomes when such ideas become wrongly polarized. Note the recent article Social Media Is Making Us Dumber. Here’s Exhibit A. and a case of Steven Pinker. Such ideological polarization should not be tolerated on RationalWiki, and we should not tolerate such treatment of academics, were they called Peterson or Pinker.--RationalP (talk) 20:09, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

@LeftyGreenMario Thank you for stepping in. I tried to keep replies to IKR civil and responsive in the JP talk page, even though I was a little flippant. I just don't know how to respond to them in a way that will satisfy or calm them, so I will ignore them. I collapsed the section they created, I hope that was OK. There was no useful content.Ariel31459 (talk) 23:43, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

While I believe ikanreed is in the wrong for behaving the way he did, you need to figure out why he responded to you the way he did. Your argument on Talk:Jordan Peterson is flawed; the comparison to pseudoscience and your claim that "Jungian theory is not quite pseudo-science [...] [and it is the] interface of the philosophy of religion and the psychology of religious belief." is strange and... not well-thought out, frankly, and your support for that being a comparison to "Historical claims, religious claims, speculative branches of social science[...]" Still don't think it should provoke that kind of reaction. I wouldn't call out intellectual dishonesty on your part, giving you the benefit of doubt, though I also understand why ikanreed accuses of it because I keep seeing people pointing out problems with your arguments and saying "actually, that's not what I'm arguing" and "you missed the point" though to be fair, I think you made an effort to address the argument. I've dealt with some people who present weird arguments and repeatedly misunderstood what I argue and I've dealt with people I've called intellectually dishonest, though I usually assume intellectual honesty. --It's-a me 207.233.76.9 (talk) 01:55, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Finally, I do think there were some more informative things ikanreed posted and I agree with his reasoning and strongly disagree with your arguments, and you should also consider his argument (which you didn't), but it was sprinkled with abrasiveness; I wasn't intending to collapse it, however. I just wanted to send a signal that the discussion was starting to go nowhere. Again, if he acts this way, it's not wise to retort with another condescending remark. I told him the same thing. It doesn't matter how frustrated you are, and "I've engaged with this person forever and I know his debate patterns very well so he doesn't deserve civil comments" is not a valid excuse to bog down a discussion. I mean, the entire thing reminds me of people bickering on GameFAQs, so I know pretty well how they can go. As I said to ikanreed, however, if you ever disagree with my decisions, you can get another opinion from a disinterested party, such as another mod. 207.233.76.9 (talk) 02:05, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Look: IKR said that I was directly claiming knowledge that is not science must be pseudo-science. This is almost the opposite of what I meant: most of non-science is not pseudoscience. There is hard science, less exacting knowledge like history, sociology, economics, speculative scientific studies, etc. There are systems of ideas that are not even wrong, and there is a lot of unintelligible nonsense. And then there is pseudo-science, which is epistemically distinct from rational and artistic studies, which are assumed to be speculative. There is no connection between the bumps on your head and your personality; the stars and your future, This is what a pseudo science does, makes a lot of connections that are inoperative. If a claim is not falsifiable, then it cannot be called science in the usual sense. But, my point is that this is not enough to claim it is pseudo-scientific. That's it. Theoretical physics is replete with highly speculative mathematical theories that are in no way based on the real world, but are imaginative attempts at answering cosmological questions. String theory comes to mind. By the standards I have heard expressed here, String Theory is most definitely pseudo-scientific. It is certainly not falsifiable. So, I don't doubt that I have been unclear, careless, pedantic, even sarcastic. I have been arguing with people about what the working concept of pseudoscience should be.

I don't know what I have done here to make you think I would question your judgement as a moderator.Ariel31459 (talk) 03:19, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I think ikanreed misrepresented your position, but I think the "unfalisifiability" rule is a general good measuring standard for determining if most things are pseudoscience or not. I don't think it's pushed as fact either, unlike pseudoscience. It's, I think, better characterized as a thought experiment, at least in academia. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 19:24, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Then we disagree. What about philosophy and/or ideology? Almost none of it is falsifiable. We regard what we believe is the best approach to be true even when it doesn't work out. I don't want to end this by insisting that you are wrong. We'll just disagree, OK?Ariel31459 (talk) 19:43, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

On the other hand, philosophy and ideology aren't science either... but they're also thought processes too, a way of thinking, and they require good logic. Are you going to tell me art is unfalsifiable...? --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 19:46, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

There is art in science, and to some extent unfalsifiable principles are employed. Many a scientist has protested against a theory because they thought it was not beautiful enough. Einstein thought quantum mechanics was horrible because it offended his aesthetic sense. You forget that for every science there is a philosophy of science designed to support its modes of thought and theoretical designs. Some methods are excessively presumptive, such as some economic theories. There's a funny story about three academics trapped on a desert island who find a case of canned food. A physicist and an engineer discuss practical methods. The third, an economist says, "let's assume we have a can-opener!"Ariel31459 (talk) 20:09, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Stefan Molyneux "cleaning"

Hi, since you protected the page Stefan Molyneux could you please take a look at the motivations behind my edits? https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Stefan_Molyneux#Cleaning_2

I think that as soon as the protection will expire James Earl Cash will revert everything, and the edit war will restart. --McLaghing (talk) 09:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Protecting Jordan Peterson article

i'm not a mod, but please stop. you twice protected the article after making several edits to it – rather than after an edit war. the intent seems to be to stop @James Earl Cash and @Mrtonysinclair from editing. i've given them both sysop and unprotected the page. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 21:14, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

as an aside, re: "You'll just have to ask Fuzzy or another administrator to agree with you"

no user here has more power than another. everyone is an administrator, and the title signifies nothing. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 21:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

@FuzzyCatPotato So you actually want edit wars? Well I won't do that, but why do we have administrators at all? Those two guys who you just gave grenades to are not interested in editing, they are interested in dominating the articles they are interested in. I knew there was something I liked about you.Ariel31459^妈的！

Remember

4 tildes not 3. Christopher (talk) 11:17, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Damore

Is he actually autistic? RoninMacbeth (talk) 04:18, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

@RoninMacbeth Yes. There are a number of articles, and one very long detailed article in the Guardian. ^{— Unsigned, by: Ariel31459 / talk / contribs 13:49, 1 March 2018 (UTC)}

Yeah, see, funny story: I'm also on the spectrum. And when I act like a dick, I am rightly called out for it. Damore's social blindness isn't an excuse, no more than it is for me, or indeed anyone else with autism.

As a side note, I do kind of agree we shouldn't have a whole article devoted to him. I had kind of forgotten about him until I saw the "discussion" on the article's talkpage. RoninMacbeth (talk) 16:50, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

@RoninMacbeth I know less than you about autism. I see his autism as an extenuating circumstance rather than an excuse. Gifted people (he is a gifted engineer) often try to extend their mastery to areas that have hidden hazards for the unwary. Being wrong isn't being a dick. Being a dick is saying, I don't care about all the facts: this is my reality and it should be good enough for you. We all do that, more or less.Ariel31459 (talk) 17:00, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

You're right. Sorry I was a bit...rash in my response. I've been having a bad week. RoninMacbeth (talk) 19:23, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

@RoninMacbeth ^{— Unsigned, by: Ariel31459 / talk / contribs 20:08, 1 March 2018 (UTC)}

Unnecessary capital letters

I've noticed that you often use unnecessary capital letters in section headings. According to the manual of style, you should avoid unnecessary capital letters in article titles, headers, categories, text, etc. (e.g. "Jungian Psychology" should be "Jungian psychology"). Also, in the same edit, when you moved the section to the bottom of the page, you should have removed or changed the part that said "see below". CowHouse (talk) 16:14, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

@CowHouse OK! I think I fixed the mistakes. Thanks for pointing them out. Always glad to obey the style rules! I will do so in the future.Ariel31459 (talk) 21:19, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Autism Argument

The fact that people on the spectrum-like me-typically die at 36 is irrelevant to the argument. The fact that people on the spectrum-like me- say stupid shit is not an excuse for Damore to say stupid shit. Damore's autism should not be used to shield him from criticism because the rest of us who are like him don't get that luxury. Is there a problem with neurologically diverse representation and insensitivity to us? Yes, I will be among the first to agree with that. But that problem is that people look down on us for being, in general, awkward and introverted in social interaction, not because we sent out a memo that says, in brief, "Men and women aren't equal." If Damore actually wants to champion the rights of the neurologically diverse, fine, more power to him, Goat knows we need more people like that in the world today. But this...this just isn't how you do it. RoninMacbeth (talk) 14:15, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

@RoninMacbeth I am unsure of what you are trying to say to me. Is it, "don't mention a person's disability as a significant factor when determining how to regard that person?" My opinion is that Damore very possibly didn't understand what could be upsetting about his memo because of his autism. That thing about "Grand Dragon" being "cool"? That doesn't sound like Asberger's Syndrome to you? I don't "forgive" Damore for being wrong. Neither do I condemn him. I disagree with him. I'm just not sure he realized what he was doing would upset people. And then, to whine about Damore having the gall to complain about losing his job, it just seemed unreasonable to me. Isn't it enough to say that we don't agree with someone who was not in fact intent on causing trouble? Do they have to be a bad person too? Why can't he just be wrong?...Ariel31459 (talk) 14:41, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I dunno. I guess I'm just...frustrated. Frustrated that Damore gets to hide behind his autism while most of the people on the spectrum I know, including me, don't get to. Frustrated that this whole Damore thing that caused me to go on hiatus a while ago has come back up again. Frustrated that I have an English project due tomorrow and yet I'm still here, for some reason. Look, Ariel, I honestly don't care what happens to the article. As far as I know, Damore has long since ceased being relevant, and the article will be as antiquated as the Conservapedia stuff here in two years. I just don't want this thing to blow up in our faces, and I feel like the mods aren't really helping with that, and then I heard about the autism stuff you were saying and it just sort of resulted in the above. You understand what I'm saying? RoninMacbeth (talk) 15:35, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

@RoninMacbeth I think I do. I understand what you are saying. I am sorry that you have been troubled by this matter. Because you have been upset by it, I am sorry to have brought it up. Good luck with your project. All the best,..Ariel31459 (talk) 22:29, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

RoninMacbeth (talk) 22:48, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Got an A in both projects. RoninMacbeth (talk) 21:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

@RoninMacbeth That's the way ya do it.Ariel31459 (talk) 00:47, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Georg Friedrich Bernhard Riemann

Thank you for sharing the link to that fascinating article on the multidisciplinary work of Riemann. It was an eye-opening experience. I knew that Riemann anticipated the concept of a retarded potential in electrodynamics, worked on gas dynamics and studied special cases of ellipsoids of equilibrium, but this is awesome! Nerd (talk) 15:52, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

You are most welcome Nerd.Ariel31459 (talk) 18:11, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I mean do feel free to revert

But your reason for why they(the crossouts) were wrong didn't seem to address why they were included. (That he falsely claimed to be both of those things) ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 02:26, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

RW

You've been nominated in the upcoming moderator elections. See the nomination at RationalWiki:Moderator elections/Nominations.

— Dysk (contribs) 03:13, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Re:Unblocking Lankaster

Your reason is to "respect moderators" but I think you also have to respect my decision to block this person. If I make threats I have to follow through with them to have some clout. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 18:26, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

@LeftyGreenMario In particular, the user's talk page should be none of your concern as a moderator. Ikanreed showed more contempt for CheeseburgerFace, and really deserved to be blocked, just for being an asshole. But she was a good moderator and didn't take it personally. Up to now I have refrained from making Lankaster a sysops. Ariel31459 (talk) 23:07, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

When it comes to agitators like Lankaster, it's best not to show him when he's pushing your buttons. And don't make promises or warnings, because he'll push you on it and count it a victory when you oblige. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 23:34, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't know about that. I have been wondering if he...[has]... no real understanding yet of this wiki's community of assiduous progressives (if that's a way to describe them). He seems genuine enough. Ariel31459 (talk) 23:48, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

@141.134.75.23 which seems to have happened. Hope I won't do that again. Ariel, don't bring that sort of stuff up. It's sensitive information. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 23:27, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

@LeftyGreenMario Yes, about that. I expunge it with your approval. Thank you. Ariel31459 (talk) 00:18, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

"Let's not shall we"(re: fascism)

Fascism is back and saying it's a "20th century ideology" by way of dictionary definition is dumb as fuck way to deal with it. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 05:32, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

The point of the definition was never to do with the date of origin of the effect.Ariel31459 (talk) 15:38, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Ping

"I have already pinged a moderator" Did you? Maybe I'm missing it but it doesn't seem so from the list of your contribution. -Lankaster (talk) 20:01, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Hey, fuckwad, I got a bridge for sale. How much you willing to buy it for?--Don Juan (talk) 22:46, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

@Don JuanGot a photo?Ariel31459 (talk) 22:56, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Of course. --Don Juan (talk) 22:59, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Nice. You got a receipt? And, do you accept checks?Ariel31459 (talk) 23:03, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

I just so happen to accept checks and I have a receipt: --Don Juan (talk) 23:16, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Excellent. I happen to need some spending money. Can I write you a check plus say, $500 for cash? My bank is in New Foundland.Ariel31459 (talk) 23:24, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

You can't out-hustle a hustler, son.--Don Juan (talk) 23:29, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Could you send it to my Uncle in Nigeria?Ariel31459 (talk) 23:31, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

I think I know him...Don't tell me, your uncle's the PM of Nigeria, right?--Don Juan (talk) 23:37, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

No. He makes videos on YoutubeAriel31459 (talk) 23:49, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Make sure you send the check to my pet goat in Thailand. He's the one who handles the business aspects of my organization.--Don Juan (talk) 23:56, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Casa Ronin

Would you mind coming to my talkpage so that you and Ikanreed can explain to me what the flying fuck is going on at Laci Green? RoninMacbeth (talk) 18:44, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

A suggestion

I suggest not responding to James provocations. In particular, do not accuse him of being ikanreed, since this would probably (and rightly) turn some moderators against you.

If he is able to make an argument about why the quote of Obama is an example of rationalization, then he deserves an answer. If instead he keeps going by personal attacks and "it's textbook definition" or similar, he deserves to be ignored. -Lankaster (talk) 19:44, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I admire your reserve. Excellent...Ariel31459 (talk) 19:57, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Also, fuck if I have enough concern for my image or the popularity of my beliefs to use a fucking sock. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 20:17, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@Ikanreed The guy I asked didn't deny it, and I would have believed him had he done so. It was a civil question. It is, after all, not a violation to use a sock, except when voting, and that I would never assume you would attempt. Also, I don't blame you for taking offence given the ineptitude of that persona.Ariel31459 (talk) 20:33, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I wonder how someone can chronically offend every boundary of decency whether it's making snide remarks about trans and autistic people, in general being annoying for the sake of annoying while contributing nothing of value for anyone to willingly put up with your obnoxious behavior, show zero remorse for all of it, and still get away with it after all this time. 'Course we can't forget that good old fashioned edit warring either. And people get mad at me for making a call to stop the bullshit already? James Earl Cash (talk) 20:40, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I have no doubt that the irony of your comment is lost on you.Ariel31459 (talk) 21:41, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

You realize people can see you doubling down, right? James Earl Cash (talk) 21:42, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Please calm yourself James. Although I may appear to have been unfriendly I did not want you to be angry. Not very angry anyway. I find myself sympathetic to the humanity of any non-violent person. Let's try again to be civil tomorrow. Have dinner, watch a sporting event, kiss your sweetheart. Ill try not to offend you for a while.Ariel31459 (talk) 22:05, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I think whatever remaining positive impression I had remaining of this place has just gone up in smoke. What an awful lot the mods are to let these kinds of people run rampant with zero to minor repercussions. James Earl Cash (talk) 20:03, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Open debate, much as it attracts loathsome people, was a foundational aspect of this wiki. Because we saw places like conservapedia where they ban even the barest hint of dissent or reproach of power and you go "well, we don't want to be like that". And because internet-flavored right-wing ideology has evolved to attack that ideological receptor with noxious pedantry, anywhere that's just a little too adherent to tolerating difference of opinion gets filled with garbage that drags down pretty much all actual quality debate you wanted in the first place. You either put up with limitless boundary testing, time wasting, and noxious twittery, or you hate free speech. And I guess my solution to that is to be pissed at people, once they cross that line just a couple times. It's not a great approach, but it's better than pretending nothing's wrong. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 20:27, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Giving up

So I see you are giving up to edit either. -Lankaster (talk) 13:49, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

@Lankaster Not exactly giving up. I am no longer going to explain my points in seven different languages to rude crusaders. I have suggested using a pillory icon to warn off thoughtful people from tainted articles, but maybe a crusader icon would be better. Please don't get discouraged, there are many many articles that need plenty of work. If you apply your attention to many different articles and the same one or two people prevent your edits, then you have a provable case for harassment, which is a just cause for their expulsion. Nobody should presume it is OK to prevent your edits for antagonistic reasons. Ariel31459 (talk) 14:58, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

"I am no longer going to explain my points in seven different languages to rude crusaders." OK, but then you can't edit anymore if some "crusader" revert your edit (because in such a case you have to explain your reasons on the talk page, etc.)

"I have suggested using a pillory icon to warn off thoughtful people from tainted articles, but maybe a crusader icon would be better." I don't understand what are you suggesting.

"If you apply your attention to many different articles and the same one or two people prevent your edits, then you have a provable case for harassment" Well, that's what happened.

"which is a just cause for their expulsion." It has been proved that it is not the case. If you followed the coop case I made, the decision was to take serious actions against who reverts without motivations. After, reversion without motivations happened and nothing was done. -Lankaster (talk) 15:58, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Nevertheless I advise you to persist. Ariel31459 (talk) 16:27, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

You can do that officially. -Lankaster (talk) 18:14, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

GrammarCommie has blocked me from editing my own talk page

Is there a procedure here for me to dispute this? I have posted about our situation here: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RationalWiki_talk:All_things_in_moderation#Confused_about_appropriate_etiquette_here I would appreciate your recommendation. I recognize that it may be time consuming to continue trying to improve this site, but I'd like to see where it goes.Jsolinsky (talk) 03:29, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

@Jsolinsky Quit your bitching and drama. @Matty the Damned has unblocked your talkpage, you should fucking thank him for coming to your defense despite your differences. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 03:39, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

An overdue apology

During an earlier interaction between us you showed a video of Steven Pinker giving his opinion on a subject. Rather than hearing him out I completely shut down after he used certain buzzwords and later got into a fight with you about it. Looking back I should have listened to the entire video and then made my judgement. I formally apologize for my mistake and the fight that ensued. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 12:33, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Board of trustees nomination

You've been nominated to the RationalMedia Foundation election. Please accept or decline here; if you accept, you may wish to campaign.

Bongolian (talk) 05:10, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Board election

Since you are one of the people that accepted their nomination to the 2019 RationalMedia board of trustees election, you should go to the campaigning page and post your best propaganda post-haste. Good luck! — Dysk (contribs) 12:17, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for getting things interesting. Should be a lot of fun.Ariel31459 (talk) 22:24, 24 July 2019 (UTC)