User talk:Burkean

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: SigButt.png on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. Scream!! (talk) 12:14, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

New logo large.png Welcome to RationalWiki, Burkean!

Check out our guide for newcomers and our community standards!

Tell us how you found RationalWiki here!

If you are interested in contributing:

PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 17:09, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


Interesting word choice. Why exactly do you refer to liberals with such hagiographic terms? Wehpudicabok [話] [変] 06:10, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Because I never claimed to be of anything but average intelligence. It's a way of simplifying the difference between two visions as defined by Sowell. I thought since I seem to be the only one here who has actually read any of his books (as opposed to quote mining a few columns here and there), that I would employ his vocabulary in defending him, not that Thomas Sowell needs me to defend him. The use of the term refers to a distinction that Sowell himself draws between two different visions or schools of thought if you will, which have emerged in western thought, that of the anointed vision and the tragic vision. The anointed vision tends to subscribe to the view originally articulated by Rousseau.
Namely, that what ails or what ailed society was not mans own shortcomings, or the inability to obtain perfection in this world, but rather the institutions of society itself, it's religion, it's mores, economy etc. The tragic vision tends to subscribe to the view that there is a finite limit as to what you can improve and that we were able to escape from the brutal cave man existence by establishing a rule of law, a religious moral/ethical framework, and by having trade and free exchange among individuals and the attempt to interfere with that or perfect that tends to ignore that these things are not the cause of problems, but rather what accomplishments and stability we have in our civilization are a result of them, rather than geography or good fortune or random chance.
Rousseau's vision to me seems wrong because it operates on the premise that we were born free as noble savages but were then corrupted by institutions. It seems to me that scholarship, rule of law, private property, a disciplined society without anarchy and critical thought all come from institutions because that supposedly noble savage lived a harsh and brutal life where the rule of law was whoever was the alpha male or who had the harry chest, or the biggest club. Man did not have the ability to live under rule of law and there was very little but naked savage brutality, the struggle for survival and occasional cave painting. Only someone who has a distorted vision of civilization and morality or the economy or law could romanticize such a vision and while the left of today may not necessarily admire the cave man in the same way, there is a tendency to brush aside western civilization as constrictive rather than as guarantor of safety and prosperity.
The relativism concerning the west versus primitive cultures is alarming, as are their notions of just how much of the past we can throw away and how big the state can grow and their naïve beliefs about just how much we can constrain free market exchange and still be a viable society or how much we can move away from traditional mores, or how little we need defense all seem to me to come back to the Rousseau fallacies, while at the same time they claim the mantra of rationality for themselves. This is a vision I cannot accept. This anointed/tragic dichotomy is very much at play in disputes about what society's morals should be, and what consequences there are for changing them, or for moving toward a more state oriented economy in the name of progress, or changing what we teach and what consequences that will have.
The tragic vision, which is skeptical of how much things can be improved and tends to be more pessimistic (though tragic vision merely means limited and finite not tragedy per se), so the tragic vision tends to see military deterrents and a strong military ethic as a bulwark against conquest, ruin and anarchy, and an important element of maintaining a society as vital, healthy and free, whereas the anointed are more likely to trust that peace will keep itself, or to enter into international agreements rather than just maintain ones own national sovereignty. This of course is merely the tip of the iceberg which I'm touching. But this essentially, is why I'm a conservative, why I subscribe to the tragic vision and why I reject the liberal vision which it seems to me is forged by the Rousseau myths. You should read Thomas Sowell's book Intellectuals and Society if you want an in depth exploration of these ideas. Sadly, I doubt you will read it. Burkean (talk) 09:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Wow, that was a much more detailed answer than I expected! Disappointed by the potshot at the end though. I may read the book, or I may not; but my decision will not be influenced by your attempt to make me feel guilty for not having read the same books that you have.
I actually think you make good points about Rousseau. What I don't understand is why you're identifying modern liberalism with his views. I certainly do not romanticize the past and am glad that we have progressed beyond it. I also don't like to deal in abstractions like "corrupting institutions" or "constraining the free market". I look at what works, and what seems to work best to me are those societies which exercise moderate restraint over their economies, such as Japan and the Nordic nations. They have more efficient and safer health care systems, for instance. There are certainly some on the left who subscribe to that "noble savage" nonsense but in my experience they are very much the minority. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] 20:10, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
It is not my job to make you feel guilty and that was not my intention. If you interpret my attempt to point you toward someone who can give you a more articulate version of what I'm saying as an attempt to guilt you, then I think you have some growing up to do. Rousseau's vision of a noble savage has certainly fallen out of favor with the progressive vision, and yet we still see glorification of tribal cultures, many of the environmentalist still subscribe to some form of the idea that industrial society should be largely done away with and ignore the contributions it makes to people's lives. Another prominent influence of Rousseau on the contemporary left is the idea that traditional institutions, whatever we owe to them, are to blame for our problems, and that by changing them, you can make a better society. I don't understand your idea that only a minority of the left are Rousseau's children, because such an idea is right out of his playbook. By moving away from religious traditions we can create a better society, regardless of what our civilization owes them. By having a more controlled economy, we can better society, no matter what we owe to the market and what consequences there will be. You can create a more peaceful world by moving away from a national foreign policy, place trust in international institutions which support dictators, and call it responsible or more peaceful.
The major similarity between Rousseau and the modern left is an ignorant disregard and dislike of those things which have an established track record of their role in establishing and preserving civilization, a misrepresentation of that track record by disproportionately representing it's shortcomings, or by flat out misrepresenting them, and an untested naïve belief that by moving away from them you can create a better society. This has gotten even more pervasive in the last 100 years. It's all quite ironic, this throwing away of that which has done so much good, and has an established track record, because they will simultaneously call those who speak of radical reform, such as the founding fathers, or Milton and Hayek, as defending the status quo. Therefore, only those who agree with them are for change, only there change is meaningful, and anyone who disagrees with them is for some preconceived status quo, completely ignoring that the status quo is often communist, or anti-west, or anti-religious, or anti-free market, and so would not be in agreement with those who are conservative in the classical liberal or western conservative sense. Those with the anointed Rousseau vision only seem to be against the status quo when it disagrees with them politically because there are many other status quos which they defend. This goes to your point about how you don't romanticize the past, unlike Rousseau. Rousseau didn't romanticize the past, and he mocked conservative skepticism of the uncritical thinking that often goes with the march toward progress as those standing in the way of history, very similar to liberals criticisms of conservatives today. What Rousseau romanticized was the past that existed before the repressive western institutions (finance, rule of law, self-restraint, laws against murder, Christianity) came into place. What he and the left share in common is a belief that those institutions were backward and repressive rather than a necessary part of civilization and a civil society, which would be the conservative view (conservative in the classical western sense).
I don't think it's guilt mongering for me to recommend books. It has nothing to do with guilt. I find it ironic that liberals who are always accusing conservatives of ignorance, when presented with a book that may disagree with them, take the attitude of "maybe I will, maybe I won't". This reminds me of Paul Krugman being proud of not having read anything by Niall Ferguson. If you don't want to read something, that's fine. Free choice, free society. But to be proud of it? Whatever. Japan, as a viable competitive economy has very much fallen by the wayside. I'm trying to remember the last time I saw made in Japan an a product, when they used to make everything. If you actually want your worldview challenged, you might look at Pedro Schwartz who's done some great work on the Japan bubble. As for the Nordic model, they have not weathered the crisis particularly well, and big state policies have perpetuated same. The brick wall syndrome is inevitable, they will run up against it, because they are living off wealth they created in the past, before they became a supposedly stable democratic socialist model for the world. Yaron Brook has done some great work on this and if you look at youtube, you can find a video where he exposes the Scandinavia as a model theory. It is the progressives who deal in abstractions about what society ought to be, and whose to blame for why it isn't, and why we can do away with all sorts of important things, placing their faith in untried naïve notions while disregarding the wisdom accumulated through the experiences of individual interactions, the contributions of social norms and traditions, and those things to which we owe civilization. With that said, thank you for your reasoned response. Burkean (talk) 19:49, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
"If you interpret my attempt to point you toward someone who can give you a more articulate version of what I'm saying as an attempt to guilt you, then I think you have some growing up to do."
"Sadly, I doubt you will read it." you not understand the English language? (talk) 17:33, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Fucking tired of picking up after you.[edit]

Please sign your posts. Thanks. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 17:33, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Don't like red[edit]

We don't care for red round these parts, so I suggest you make yourself a user page. As soon as possible. Please. ClothCoat (talk) 23:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Liberal tolerance at it's best[edit]

Banned from commenting for pointing out that most support for helping radical Muslims in Syria comes from RINOs and Democrats. Apparently, according to Osaka Sun, I tried to blame support for intervention in Syria on Rationalwiki. I didn't. The next claim was that I talked about secret Mad Max societies. Didn't do that. The next claim is that I blamed polygamy on rationalwiki. I specifically said it was a violation of traditional family mores and behavior which the right, rather than the left, was involved with. So unless rationalwiki claims to be of the right, then it's a lie to claim that I blamed polygamy on rationalwiki. When I'm allowed to, I'll be calling out Osaka on this BS. Burkean (talk) 06:56, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Next time you get blocked.[edit]

Use these. PowderSmokeAndLeather (talk) 01:54, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Something you said about me.[edit]

"He may have "changed" it but the change just resulted in a statement which is even more idiotic. Maybe this teenage wasteland is just a wasted teenager" Here is the edit I made to the page in question. I do not see any evidence of idiocy, impaired faculties, or immaturity in that edit. Please provide me with links that justify your statement, or withdraw the accuscation like a gentleman. TeenageWasteland (talk) 12:42, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

It was a mistake on my part (confusing you with someone else making stupid edits, when it would have been perfectly easy for me to check) and you have every right to expect an apology (I'm sorry). Try not to wear your heart on your sleeve, though. I'm insulted regularly on this site (essentially for not being a liberal), and I am neither expecting nor getting any apologies. That however, does not justify my mistake for which I am sorry. Burkean (talk) 09:58, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

@TeenageWasteland: If you read on in the thread I pointed it out to him/her and he/she eventually admitted it was his/her mistake... sort of. Nullahnung (talk) 15:17, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

the results from my social attitude test[edit]

Progressivism 47.5 Socialism 6.25 Tenderness 50

Your test scores indicate that you are an open-minded cultural centrist; this is the political profile one might associate with a jaded materialist. It appears that you are tolerant towards religion, and have a generally optimistic attitude towards humanity in general.

Your attitudes towards economics appear laissez-faire capitalist, and combined with your social attitudes this creates the picture of someone who would generally be described as a paleoconservative.

To round out the picture you appear to be, political preference aside, a uncompromising radical centrist with few strong convictions.

This concludes our analysis; we hope you found your results accurate, useful, and interesting.

Unlike many other political tests found on the Internet which base themselves on untested (and usually ideologically motivated) ideas, this inventory is adapted from Hans Eysenck's own political inventory which was developed after extensive empirical investigations in the 20th Century. Burkean (talk) 07:56, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Have you ever been diagnosed with a social disorder?[edit]

I'm not trolling you I'm genuinely curious. Also, if you reply, try to keep it under 3,000 charactars please. ClothCoat (talk) 01:49, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

First off, no. Second, it's hard to believe it isn't trolling when you ask the question right below the results from my social attitude test. Results, by the way, which seem to indicate that I'm not the raving lunatic you portray me as being. Do you think Hans Eysenck's methods were faulty in some way? Burkean (talk) 08:21, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
While I think Cloth was a bit rude in the question, you do have an argument style that doesn't really change people's minds. Instead it makes you look like a complete asshole in a way that has been pointed out by numerous other users. As the exmaple above illistrates: Other people are not accusing you of being a raving lunatic, as that is something only you brought in, but by accusing people of what they didn't say you certainly make yourself look like one.
I'm sure you are going to portray me as saying something I didn't if you just want to continue acting like this. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 15:00, 19 December 2014 (UTC
You can say I'm reading things in between the lines that aren't there and maybe you're correct. I guess the flaw is on my part or my own intellectual deficiencies. It's hard to tell what is and isn't snark sometimes and what people really mean. I don't really understand how me making a joke about how you probably think I'm just another right wing racist (a trope overused by the left) constitutes me putting words in your mouth and this oversensitivity is quite strange from a wiki that really expects its opponents to have thick skin. My initial point was that according to a test devised by a well respected psychologist, I am not quite so extreme as people on this site have claimed. Burkean (talk) 19:46, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
No, the comment was about accusations based on nothing. Direct quote as example: You assume that anyone who disagrees with you is either a fraud, a liar, or is insane. and As for these other horrendous things Ron Paul apparently believes, perhaps you disagree with his economic views, but that isn't what's at issue here - based on nothing I have said.
Those are perfect examples of putting words in other people's mouths. I agree it can be hard to see sarcasm in a written medium, but I find straw manning people who disagree just stupid. I can’t remember anyone finding it funny actually. I haven't read what other people have said, or any supposed tests on the internet (and don’t remotely care), just your actions. People who disagree with you aren’t one big like-minded group. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 20:21, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Okay Emerald, I am not an expert on sarcasm, and the phrase was poorly put together. Let me say then that so many on the left (and rationalwiki) seem to think that anyone or indeed everyone who disagrees with a progressive view on any range of subjects is crazy or somehow mentally flawed. I have no doubt that I could find two people who themselves disagree on this or that but agree on the fact that I am wrong. I'll try and be humble enough to say that if my sarcasm merely comes off as distorting other people's views (and either deliberately or inadvertently misrepresenting them) then I should either polish up, or stop trying. Burkean (talk) 20:26, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
No Burkean we don't think everyone who isn't a progressive is crazy (look at the Right of reason category) I'm just wondering because of your ultra-long rambling posts that seem to jump from random point to random point and accomplish nothing. You have also outright endorsed conspiracy theories such as thinking that global warming is "pro-UN malarcky" so yes, YOU in particular (not everyone on the political right) come across as a bit unhinged. ClothCoat (talk) 00:11, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, I'm not sure your definition of reasonable is the most useful. Rockefeller republicans were notorious for big government and the war on drugs. I can't believe anyone would think Michael Bloomberg is reasonable (read Christopher Hitchens I fought the law in Bloomberg's New York). Perhaps rationalwiki is more specifically anti-libertarian than they are anti-right. The only two people on that list who could be thought of as small government would be Harding and Penn, and the only time rationalwiki praises Penn is when he is agreeing with the left. Those who very much believe in AGW also say that more and more climate change initiatives increase the power of the UN, only they think it's a good thing. I don't think like Alex Jones that they're out to take over the world, they're just another group of bureaucrats looking to get more power, a syndrome well documented in various bureaucracies and hardly indicative of conspiratorial thinking. I also don't remember misspelling malarkey, but if I did, thanks for pointing it out. I thought part of your point was that you folks weren't calling me insane, lunatic or un-informed; though perhaps those things aren't the same as being "a bit unhinged". Burkean (talk) 01:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
I kinda wonder what questions made your result so anti-socialist, though. (talk) 20:07, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
"Your attitudes towards economics appear laissez-faire capitalist". Questions concerning economics, no doubt. Take the test yourself and you'll get a fair idea of what answers I would've given that led to that score. Burkean (talk) 20:10, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
I had "Progressivism: 82.5, Socialism: 56.25, Tenderness: 59.375 — Your test scores indicate that you are an open-minded ultra-progressive" though the answers I gave weren't that socialistic, and I answered Strongly Disagree on the private-property-abolishment question. So then I'm kinda led to assume that you're so anti-socialist you basically want the poor to starve. I hope I'm mistaken on that point. >.> (talk) 21:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Whether or not the policies I favor would produce such a result, you and I can/may disagree. But as to the question of whether or not I gain pleasure from starvation, then no I don't. I am very much in support of the idea of private charity, even though I dislike many government so-called welfare programs for being wasteful, corrupt, and often leaving the recipients with less options than they would've had in a freer market rather than more. I think sometimes how we think about the issue is distorted, especially when we consider that many in what we call poverty today have access to more wealth and resources (not to mention food aka the poor have more than they can eat) than even the middle class did not so very long ago. This is why I also find arguments about the shrinking middle class rather implausible. Of course, that is also driven by a separate issue; namely, the misuse of statistics regarding "family income" as opposed to individual income. Burkean (talk) 22:20, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Results of my political compass test[edit]

economic left/right: 9.75

social libertarian/authoritarian: -3.59 Burkean (talk) 02:18, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


What? Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Floof!~) 20:47, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand why you blanked my pages and then put a comment on a talk page for a page that my main page linked to. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Floof!~) 21:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Because of the reason. Burkean (talk) 21:21, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Fuck you...[edit]

Why did you blank my talk page? KOMF 20:34, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Because of the Welsh. Burkean (talk) 00:28, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Damn, shots fired!— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Your insistence on dropping N-bombs on the "Slavery" article.[edit]

Please don't. Thanks. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 06:56, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, but like we need a manual. The Hitler article is full of jokes and gags but we have to stay straight faced for the slavery one? Starts with double, ends with standard, sounds like double standard. Burkean (talk) 06:58, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Not at all interested in your thoughts on the content of the wiki, or anything else, for that matter. Just knock it off. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 07:01, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Okay then, nice talking to you as well. Just enjoy that thoughtful quote where the great emancipator tells us of his desire to enslave people who disagree with him. Oh, yeah and uh...Peace? Burkean (talk) 07:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

This wasn't even the example I was thinking of[edit]

enjoy being wrong. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 13:24, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and the next time you cite any given website or publication, you have to therefore agree with and defend everything they've put out and said. Mighty impressive logic. Keep up with your democratic attempt to ban people from this wiki you disagree with. I also find your endless Islam apologetics quite entertaining. Burkean (talk) 18:26, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
We were talking about a broader aspect of them being an unreliable source, and that was one specific example you refused to believe. Don't be childish. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:37, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Ummmmm.......When did I say Breitbart never got it wrong? Where did I say I agree with them all the time? When did I discuss the Shirley Sherrod case? What did I refuse to believe and when? Childish, snarky. It's a fine line, isn't it? Burkean (talk) 21:25, 20 October 2015 (UTC)


When you link to YouTube videos, could you also post the title of the video (like this: [youtube_link title]), as a "naked" link does disturb the flow of reading.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 19:11, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about that Burkean (talk) 22:37, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
No problem :-):-):-)--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 23:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

John C. Calhoun[edit]

I have moved the John C Calhoun article to your sandbox. To access your sandbox by typing in User:Burkean/Sandbox.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 17:41, 6 March 2016 (UTC) 17:41, 6 March 2016 (UTC)


Your comments don't belong on the page. If you feel that they are important enough to be posted somewhere on this site, put them on the talk page.--JorisEnter (talk) 18:25, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Somebody made a joke about how I started 9-11. I thought it was funny and decided to join in, then you show up and claim my comments don't belong there. What? Burkean (talk) 18:40, 5 July 2016 (UTC)


  1. Blocks are pointless against sysops
  2. Protecting the Hitler page and reverting edits was to stop vandalism, it was in good faith.
  3. Don't go blocking people indefinitely that aren't vandalizing without discussing things first.

Hamburguesa con queso con un cara Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 02:39, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Your conservative self-victimization schtick is hilarious and absolutely adorable.[edit]

Please keep it up! :-) Lucas Donald Velour (talk) 12:34, 13 February 2018 (UTC)