User talk:CorruptUser

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page:
New logo large.png Welcome to RationalWiki, CorruptUser!

Check out our guide for newcomers and our community standards!

Tell us how you found RationalWiki here!

If you are interested in contributing:

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. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 00:00, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the info!--CorruptUser (talk) 00:10, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Yer unner attack![edit]

Or something to that effect. Please scroll to the bottom of that thread. (Read: not to the bottom of the entire page). Thank you very much. Th hug.gif Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:55, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm still searching for what's being said in that topic (and I still have a fever)... Feel free to stop by the thread again later if you reckon you could shed some light. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:15, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
He's arguing about how male promiscuity isn't a privilege. He's sort of right on that (like I said, double standard), but it seems like he's trying to use it as a wedge issue to deny male privilege altogether. CorruptUser (talk) 17:21, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. At this point, all I'm convinced of is that this isn't really a topic for me to insist on engaging with while also fighting a fever. Thanks for the time taken, anyways. Th hug.gif Here's something very different, for your enjoyment. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:30, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Message from CoroftUzer[edit]

this guy is thieving — Unsigned, by: CoroftUzer / talk / contribs 09:54, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey bud[edit]

I haven't spellchecked this too closely. Apologies in advance if it's a mess or unclear. If in doubt at any point, please assume error/stupidity over malice. Thank you. Th hug.gif All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:20, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Complimentary hug[edit]

Thanks for endorsing me! (Sorry this took so long)Th hug.gif-ⅅℐᎯℳᎾℕDⅅℐЅC1 (talk) 04:10, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

New template for you[edit]

{{tech pledge}}. —Kazitor, pending 01:46, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Discord[edit]

Would you consider reconsidering? Again, it tends to be easier for me to communicate certain things via voice than via text, due to the more fluid nature of vocal communications. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:21, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll try to find my old discord thingy. Work at the moment, will have to do it later tonight. CoryUsar (talk) 13:40, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Mod nomination[edit]

I nominated you for moderator. Bongolian (talk) 20:02, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Yay, thanks. Haven't decided if I want to be a Mod though. CoryUsar (talk) 20:16, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Mods help?[edit]

@Bongolian So... haven't had any love on the talk page, but not really sure where to post this. GC's been going a little crazy with the banhammer and blocked me and Circular. Would've just viewed it as just a random blockwar the way we had in the past, plus I did a stupid. But he's promoted Circular. I can unblock myself and I think tech powers allow me to demote/promote even if I've been de-mopped, also not sure if I can be de-mopped if a tech, not sure. If the punishment is reasonable, sure, I'll accept the block. But is this punishment reasonable? Does GC, as a board member (in an unopposed election) have the authority to make that call? CoryUsar (talk) 21:11, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Why are the posts of both of you showing up as unpatrolled? I didn't touch your privileges and I only removed Circular's mop, not their autopatrolled rights. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:19, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Also I unblocked you after talking things out with Circular. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:39, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

For prematurely closing the Mob v. GR case[edit]

Rainbow trout transparent.png Whack!
You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Somebody just wants to let you know you did something silly.

Next time, wait until a coop's time expires before you act. --Goatspeed. Stalk me🎃CircularREmail2.gifasoning🎃My experiments 22:16, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Incoming shit.[edit]

Shit's about to go down. Help, please. — Unsigned, by: Twodots / talk / contribs 15:49, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

FUCK YOU![edit]

John McCain[edit]

Your userpage says you supported McCain. Was it McCain specifically you supported, or was it in opposition to Obama, or support for neoconservatism/Bushism in general? Do you agree with your decision now? Just curious, I have a lot of relatives that were a)strong Bushites and McCainies, or b)liked McCain specifically and hated nearly everyone else in the Republican party. IveBeenFrank (talk) 16:24, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I supported McCain all the way back in 2000, and would've rather had him than Bush and wasn't going to stop supporting him because the media told me to support someone else. I opposed Obama in 2008 because I saw him as an empty suit who was being foisted upon us by the media (his greatest accomplishment up to that being an immigration reform bill known as McCain-Obama), however I held my nose and voted Obama over Romney in 2012. In retrospect, while Obama was better than Bush (slightly), I still think McCain would've been better than either.
I mentioned elsewhere that I saw Obama's tenure as Bush 3.0; bailouts of mega-corps, getting the US involved in likely unnecessary wars in the MidEast, but with gay marriage and a haphazard attempt at expanding healthcare. I view Biden as being more of that, so, well, 2020 was just the worst. CoryUsar (talk) 16:41, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
So was it McCain's specific positions, or the fact that he wasn't part of the status quo / establishment (like Bernie) that made you support him? IveBeenFrank (talk) 16:43, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
As a side note, great Keynes userbox. I can't believe it didn't exist before, and I'm definitely adding it to my userpage. IveBeenFrank (talk) 16:49, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
He was part of the establishment, don't let the propaganda fool you. Heck, it was Governor Reagan who got McCain into politics. What most appealed to me wasn't his positions (though I agreed with many), but his long history of working with Democrats. He made it very clear he had no interest in the hyper-partisan bullshit that's overtaken the US lately.
Plus, for years one of the most widely spread arguments against the Iraq War was that only 1 Senator had a child that was in the military, and that lone Senator was McCain; in retrospect I find that I am manipulated by propaganda in the form of propaganda-blowback. Speaking of Iraq, for instance, I grew up for a decade with Liberal teachers complaining about how "vile" the US and Bush Sr was for not taking out Saddam when we had the chance, how we didn't care about the oppressed Iraqis, etc. So when those very same teachers suddenly changed their tune in the buildup to Iraq 2.0, saying we shouldn't do the very thing they had been complaining that we hadn't done in the decade prior, well, that didn't sit well with me.
And as for Keynes, thanks. I actually don't know what we should do with it. What would be a better color? Phrase? CoryUsar (talk) 16:57, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Interaction ban[edit]

This is a formal notice that you are hereby banned from interacting with User:Oxyaena.

Specifically, you are banned from doing the following actions:

  • Edit their user talkpage. This extends to subpages in their userspace and essay talkpages.
  • Reply to them in discussions. Participation in the same discussions is still permitted, but direct responses are not.
  • Reference them anywhere on RationalWiki, directly or indirectly.
  • Revert their edits in any shape, way or form through the mediawiki interface.

Violation of this sanction can be enforced by any sysop with incrementing blocks and attached talkpage notices. Repeated violation may result in another Chicken Coop or ATIM case being raised against you with the potential for further sanctions. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 13:09, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

There's no Omelette[edit]

So, what, you're supposed to be the heel? You're no nobs. nobs at least believed the things he was saying. It's really hard to fake that, especially when something you believe in comes around. If you want to pretend to be a heel, you don't EVER get to have an honest opinion. nobs had an honest opinion every time. It's too much for anybody sincere to fake, and your sincerity is hanging out of every seam of your supervillain suit. Nobody will be upset with you for giving it a shot. But you can see how I'm upset with you for giving it a shot, right? Not only being disingenuous, but taking time away from people to engage in real conversation with fake bad-faith arguments, for the sole purpose of being the bad guy nobody asked you to be? I honestly do not believe you. I think you are a bad liar, and I think you can't honestly put yourself in the position of somebody who holds the beliefs you are pretending to hold. I think what you're doing is stupid, pointless, and not good for you or anybody else. I think you'd do better to actually talk to somebody you disagree with rather than pretend to be a person everyone disagrees with. Hang it up, everybody loved nobs for being so honestly wrong when he was wrong. And it happened a lot, nobs wasn't fun because he was wrong about everything. It was because he had an honest take on everything. Just be honest. nobs wasn't a heel, the world doesn't need bad guys. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 08:08, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Pain afd[edit]

I’ve nominated pain, an article you created when your account was a month old, for deletion.

Whilst I’m here I’ll mention you should probably update your archive template, Archiver hasn’t worked in years. Christopher (talk) 21:59, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

That article was basically abandoned by me, it's not even on my list of created articles. I'm actually not going to defend it as is, though it could be something if beefed up. Cortez (pester) 22:39, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Silly question[edit]

How many signatures do you have? How often do they rotate? GeeJayK (talk) 15:55, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

They are randomized from a list. 14 for the second half of my name, 5 for my talkpage. Cortez (pester) 15:59, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Added a few more. Cortez (pester) 19:52, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Nice! GeeJayK (talk) 19:57, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Award[edit]

HardWork.jpg Tireless Worker Award
We, the unseen godless cabal at RationalWiki (there isn't one), hereby recognize CorruptUser for helping to reform our article rating system.

--Goatspeed. Stalk me🎃CircularREmail2.gifasoning🎃My experiments 20:04, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Trying to get it to work. I think it may be fitting that the first topic covered is a genocide denial article... Cortez (pester) 20:06, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
I’m on mobile right now. Can you add Tiananmen to the articles for demotion? Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 02:00, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Sure can! Cortez (pester) 02:01, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 02:02, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

"Corgi pester"?[edit]

Why would anyone pester poor innocent corgis? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:04, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Because they are bad people? Cortez (pester) 21:05, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie, huh, I think we could use a puppy slideshow gif or something for the Wiki, with extra corgis. Like, someone is having a bad day, and you just give them the {{puppies!}} template. Is that something you also think we need? Cortez (pester) 01:08, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Corgis are adorable so... Sure? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:50, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

THANK YOU![edit]

For this. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:37, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, it was indeed very good. I'm also writing a section, but my argument is slightly different. Basically I argue that is not a coincidence stateless societies never evolve into anarchy. Authority is a natural monopolyWikipedia, and there's no power vacuum. When state falls, another authority rises, except in very small communities, and even these societies face many problems because only the state can provide publix goods. I'm not sure how I'm going to concatenate with Cory's contribution yet though. GeeJayK (talk) 23:46, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Yes but my main critique of anarchism is its problem with scalability. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:51, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
And I'm now pleased that someone listened and added it. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:55, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
I APPRECIATE YOUR APPRECIATION!!!Cortez (pester) 16:44, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Anarchism work[edit]

HardWork.jpg Tireless Worker Award
Thank you for putting in the effort in the Anarchism page.

Finally it's starting to become a page that I think the wiki (but you especially!) should be proud of instead of the bloated edit warred mess with a bad history it was almost a year ago. Keep up the good work, I'm legitimately impressed. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 19:50, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

@Sirius
Ah, thank you. I still need to clean up a lot of the anarchist library links, and so forth. I'm just glad it's no longer a puff-piece, anyone reading it would understand why there was such hostility towards the movement, and anarchists (and others) reading the article learn that violence is a piss-poor strategy for convincing people to like your ideas. CorSock (talk) 21:05, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Anarchism article[edit]

The article is looking good. Critical without going into absolutism that it might have trouble backing up. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:18, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Nothing should ever be too sacred to criticize. Cortez (pester) 04:16, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Apologies[edit]

I do not recall reverting your edit. Might have happened because I’m using a touch screen atm. LeucippusTalk 20:27, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Eh, happens. Cortez (pester) 20:35, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

"people championing it don't actually want to solve it"[edit]

This sort of shit is getting old. You provide fuck all evidence for these accusations of bad faith, meaning you're engaging in well poisoning. It's entirely possible for people to think "hey, all those poor people not being poor could boost the economy and therefor help with this other adjacent problem". Now that we're clear on that, knock off the spurious attacks. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:21, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie Al Gore's house infamously has ten times the electric bill of the average Joe. Greta Thunberg's yacht trip involved several people flying across the Atlantic to sail it back to Europe. Leonardo DiCaprio has numerous mansions and beach houses. They care about the environment only so long as not their lifestyle that needs to be curtailed.
I support the Environmentalist movement. I agree we need and some sort of "New Deal". I absolutely do not support using the Environmentalist movement to push through social changes. We need to keep Environmentalism a non-partisan thing, we all need to agree that the Environment is important not chase people away because supporting Environmentalism will mean, say, they also have to support abortion or oppose gay marriage or give up their guns or scrap social security. Detach it from all other politics so that we can get it done...Cortez (pester) 18:35, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Have you perchance considered that these people are just dumb and didn't think this shit through? Further, you're taking a small number of public figures and using them to represent a much larger sample pool. I'm going to go take some aspirin to deal with the migraine your stupid talking points have given me, you stop making overly broad and reductive generalizations ok? Ok. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:20, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie
Before we continue, can we agree that Inductive Reasoning is possible, and that we don't need a Manichean view of the world? That is, first, evidence can be used to draw conclusions even if no single piece of evidence is incontrovertible proof, and second, that the world is nuanced and full of shades of grey. If we can't agree on those two things, we should discuss those instead. Otherwise, continue.
I'll start off with something we probably agree on. Trump is a man-baby that the Republicans propped up. This isn't 100% incontrovertible proof that all Republicans are a bunch of man-babies themselves, but it certainly is strong evidence that a lot of them are and that anyone who did vote for the guy is at least willing to tolerate a Man-Baby in power.
Likewise, the people I mentioned have become the face of the environmentalist movement, and whatever merits a movement has, we judge on appearances. Just because I don't have a scientific study showing that, e.g., 73.4% of all Environmentalists are either glamour-hogs or "watermelons" (green outside, red/commie inside) doesn't mean that I'm "wrong" for getting that impression given what the Environmentalist movement has propped up.
Is it entirely possible for those people to merely have gotten there by chance, whereas 98% of the movement actually is made up of eco-minded people who truly want what's best for the environment even if it means drastically altering their own lifestyle? Yes, it's possible, and that the faces of the movement don't isn't proof that the rest of the movement is just as bad. But it's not likely.
I've met numerous environmentalists both in and outside of school. Sure, some did care genuinely care about the environment, but a lot of them did not, were refusing to discuss or listen to reason, and so forth. Personal experiences aren't proof of how the world is, but they are certainly strong hints. Cortez (pester) 19:53, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Anarchy[edit]

Other than the articles I've mentioned, I think Hayek's point here is also better than Dunbar's Number. GeeJayK (talk) 20:52, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Oh god, Hayek. He's the opposite of a good source. Oxyaena Harass 21:17, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
But he was an awesome rapper!Cortez (pester) 21:21, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
If you want my opinion, the comparison is absurd and I never got this meme, sounds like an Austrian astroturfing. I'd never put Hayek on the same level as Keynes. Hayek had some important contributions, but Keynes, with all his mistakes, was the greatest economist of the XXth century. GeeJayK (talk) 21:32, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Well yeah, that's why I created a Keynes Banner but not a Hayek one... Cortez (pester) 21:36, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Nomination[edit]

You've been nominated to the RationalMedia Foundation election. Please accept or decline here; if you accept, you may wish to campaign. Bongolian (talk) 03:16, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I've withdrawn my nomination. You're welcome to nominate yourself. Bongolian (talk) 19:42, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Yeah I deserved that for being a twat. Cortez (pester) 19:45, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
In regards to your uncertainty, I'd definitely consider voting for you. Not as the first choice but not necessarily the last either. I disagree with you a lot of times, but I think you have the best interest of RW in mind. And you've impressed me couple of times by the fairness of your comments or by accepting opposing arguments. Knight CommanderIn ServiceTo HerGoatness 14:00, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

The big party swap[edit]

Do you actually want to learn more about it? Or do you just want to shoot your mouth off? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:54, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Sure, we can talk in a bit when things calm down. At the moment I'm not sure USHA should've been weekly banned, nor everyone's posts deleted. Should we take this to ATIM? Really rather avoid coop drama... Cortez (pester) 20:57, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
No, I'm cutting his bad faith ass out of the conversation. Wikipedia's article on the Southern Strategy gives a decent overviewWikipedia, but there's some nuances, debates, and background if you actually dig into the issue further. Firstly, this was 30-40 years worth of realignment. Secondly, this was more than one or two minor planks changing, but historically major planks being swapped out for their complete opposites. Thirdly, there's some debate as to whether Southern politics was merely pandered two vs whether they were spread out across the nation's rural districts. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:06, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Oh and fourthly, there's a bunch of internal party disputes that led up to these major shifts in party platforms. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:07, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Of course, don't forget Reagan pandering to the Religious Right and throwing the Rockefeller Repubs under the bus.
But right now we have to table this, stupid coop drama. Couldn't these stay in ATIM first? Cortez (pester) 21:09, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
The rise of evangelicals was a just a part of it. And since he's insisting, fine. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:13, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Anarchist society[edit]

Perhaps add a note here questioning the basis for this reasoning? Generally this conclusion has always seemed a bit of a spurious reach in my experience. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:22, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie Which part, that people will always be flawed, or that anarchists think there will be less flaws? Cortez (pester) 19:25, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
The Anarchist conclusion that there will be less flaws under an Anarchist system. This belief is held by the proponents most political ideologies, though the basis is generally questionable. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:28, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Anarchists specifically say this, though their basis for this sort of proclamation seems to mainly be based in ideological conviction rather than any real data. At least, that has been my observations thus far. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:31, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie Made it a bit snarkier. Let me know your opinion. Cortez (pester) 19:33, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Change it to "almost everyone" as there are ideologies that openly embrace racism and other forms of bigotry. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:36, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Done, mostly. Cortez (pester) 19:40, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

What with the socks?[edit]

BeardOfZeus (talk) 00:42, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Socks don't matter as long as you don't use them for brigading votes. Knight CommanderIn ServiceTo HerGoatness 00:54, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
I'm one of the Techs. I needed an non-autopatrolled, etc, account in order to test a change to the edit filters. The change worked, so we should get a bit less spam/vandalism for a while. Cortez (pester) 03:01, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Cool. BeardOfZeus (talk) 04:59, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Your awesomeness knows no bounds[edit]

You've been nominated in the upcoming moderator elections. See the nomination at RationalWiki:Moderator elections/Nominations. ShabiDOO 16:43, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Grump[edit]

I’m not a grump. I’m just Ace... same as I was here nearly 14 years ago when I joined. Just Ace, my man. Although being 40 with an ex-wife makes me grumble somewhat. That said I have a wonderful daughter, a good job and alcohol to balance it all out. Acegodfuckingdamnit 03:53, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah I know but others around here act as if we personally ran over their puppies or something. And yes, I too have a chemical imbalance in my brain; my body produces insufficient ethanol, which I have to treat with an over the counter prescription of Dr Dewar's, and sadly the copays on that have gotten out of control. Cortez (pester) 04:32, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
My very presence does seem to aggravate people. But fuck that man - I’ve earned my stripes. I’ll be whatever the fuck I wanna be hot damn. Whether that be swearing at someone on RW or yelling at a slow person in the supermarket. Live goddamn, live. Acegodfuckingdamnit 04:50, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Congratulations[edit]

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

cosmikdebris talk stalk 23:29, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Was actually expecting to be an alt. Thanks all! Cortez (pester) 01:23, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

wrt article for demotions[edit]

Why are you removing the LA template from your demotions? It's not the first time I've had to correct it on a demotion submission. Is it an accident or...? It's kinda important since it provides links to lots of relevant information about the page itself. -- Techpriest (talk) 12:40, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Didn't remove them; didn't add them in properly in the first place. It's kind of silly because I made the damned AfDemo system, but it's not quite intuitive... Cortez (pester) 14:20, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
Hrm, I was trying the templates in my sandbox, LA at least seemed to load in properly there. Maybe I'm missing something? -- Techpriest (talk) 15:33, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm not adding in the template, I'm creating it manually. Ugh. Is the template {{LA|article}}? Should add that to instructions. Cortez (pester) 15:47, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
Yeah it is. -- Techpriest (talk) 21:54, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Your sysop vandal bins me for no reason whatsoever[edit]

It seems like going against the viewpoint of one editor warrants your account to be restricted despite only calling out a very irresponsible act by NATO, especially for the reason of "suspicous". If you're going to censor someone, be upfront about your intentions. INTO THE BREACH (talk) 21:17, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

This keeps happening for sometime. I think most of them deserves a collapse rather than removal. You can always bring it up here. TranslationForAll (talk)
Except the message that shows up when I attempt to edit is that if I believe it to be in error, I can contact a sysop, which likely has a faster response than waiting several days because one person didn't like me. INTO THE BREACH (talk) 21:21, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Troll ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:24, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie@INTO THE BREACH ITB, your first edit indicates probable trolling. However, I don't think we should ban on "probablies". I'll remove the ban. Grammar, if he does actually troll, you have my blessing for returning the ban, but only if he actually does and not just likely will troll. Cortez (pester) 00:06, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Update, ITB isn't banned. GC, wait for him to provide more evidence of trolling before reverting. But if he does, like I said... Cortez (pester) 00:07, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
This is re re-registering of one of the names of the repeat username vandal. Unlikely to be benign, but I'll reserve judgement. Queexchthonic murmurings 00:08, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Oh that's different. If so... Cortez (pester) 02:15, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
@Queex If you mean the edit filter log, I tried to register and was told that "INTO THE BREACH" was prohibited. This is my first and only account. This is mainly over the binning, especially while an active discussion on the matter is happening (and any attempts to discuss or dispute the block are met by accusations of trolling by GrammarCommie. INTO THE BREACH (talk) 02:44, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Going into "censorship" accusations does not improve your credibility. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 03:14, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
And here we go with the semantics. Do you have any refutations of my points against the binning rather than picking apart the terminology that I use? INTO THE BREACH (talk) 03:19, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
@CorruptUser Understood. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:41, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
I want to say for the record that I did not ban or rename the user I believe to be a troll after agreeing to leave them be, that was someone else. Blame them. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:55, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Fair enough. Cortez (pester) 18:58, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Sysop GrammarCommie keeps reverting my edits for no reason[edit]

I made a single edit which was reverted for no actual reason by the aforementioned sysop. No explanation was given and I was not messaged on my talk page, nor can I contact them because of a locked user talk. Is this a trend with this user? Horry95 (talk) 18:32, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

A brand new account shows up, makes turbo-2A talking points, and has no other edits to their name? Wow, it's almost like people have done this before... ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:34, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Horry, your post reads like a spam advert. Cortez (pester) 18:37, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Almost like I created an account to respond to that saloon bar post after lurking the wiki because... I don't like my IP being exposed? Also, what is "turbo-2A"? Horry95 (talk) 18:39, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
What does an SMG have to do with the topic that was being discussed? Cortez (pester) 18:41, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
The Luty SMG was created by a pro gun activist to be easily made by essentially anyone with access to a hardware store anywhere at any time. I was using to to prove the impracticality of arms restrictions. Horry95 (talk) 18:43, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
In a topic that had nothing to do with gun control? Cortez (pester) 19:00, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
@CorruptUser The original post in the topic was a joke about people who are turbo 2A. The original poster said as much. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:04, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Also, I just triple checked, my talkpage is not currently locked. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:10, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Nomination[edit]

You've been nominated to the RationalMedia Foundation election. Please accept or decline here; if you accept, you may wish to campaign. GeeJayK (talk) 13:40, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Good work with the anarchism article[edit]

I'm quite new to the wiki and I don't have many edits under my belt, but you did a lot of good work on the anarchism article. I applaud it. I'm more to the left side of the spectrum but it definitely critques anarchism fairly without devolving into less positive ideologies. Good stuff, I'll take notes on how to make edits to wiki pages in the future from it. ---Ozzyboo (talk) 17:28, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Sure thing. I'm not even sure what my ideology is. I used to be a libertarian, but even then not really. Cortez (pester) 17:39, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Clarify the trans stuff[edit]

You said some pretty weird shit about transgender people in the Saloon and I want you to clarify your positions. 1: What do you think of minors transitioning through hormones? (not surgery) 2: What do you think about transgender people in sports? 3: What do you think about transgender people requesting others use their pronouns? I want to discuss this in good faith. ---Ozzyboo (talk) 20:34, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

1) I think it's something that should be regulated by every state medical board in terms of what's considered the standard of care in each state. That said, I think it should be the same age as age of consent, e.g., if your state says 16, then you can begin hormones at 16.
2) It's important to understand that women's sports are their own league in order to allow women to be able to compete at all; if the schools had simply changed Men's Track&Field into the Open category, women would almost never get any chance to play, let alone win once in a while. That's why Title IX is there. So there is a rationale to preventing transwomen from competing in women's sports, on the condition that the trans athletes are still allowed on the men's team.
3) If the person presents as female/male, I'm using she/her|he/him regardless of their history, because what's in their pants are private for a reason. I can respect the use of "they" if the person really wants their gender to be private. I will not use neopronouns; sorry, you ain't special enough for me to remember a unique set of pronouns. Cortez (pester) 22:20, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
1) What is your reasoning for this?
2) I haven't seen anyone rightfully argue pre-transition trans women should play in women's sports unrestricted, but there is an argument to be made that HRT substantially reduces any advantage transgender women would have. The jury is still out on it, it needs more research.
3) This is just ignorant, honestly. People can also use they/them pronouns if they don't want to use he or she, and that's alright, nothing wrong with it and it's not that difficult. Neopronouns aren't an exception to this. Saying "you aren't special enough for me to remember a unique set of pronouns" is as asinine as saying "I won't use your name because you aren't special enough for me to remember your unique name."
I also want to posit an additional question. Do you believe that the aims of transgender rights activists go against the interests of the majority? And if so, is it a bad thing? ---Ozzyboo (talk) 18:18, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
1a) From what I understand, the overwhelming majority of people with gender dysphoria of some kind "grow out of it". Being confused is part of adolescence, and for those that grow out of it, you are doing them a horrible disservice by permanently altering them. All the sex hormones have permanent effects, anyone telling you otherwise is lying to your face.
1b) As for why 16 and not sooner, or whatever each state decides, I believe that that is the point where (the state believes) the person is truly mature enough to make such a life-altering decision as the hormones. As for surgeries, again, that's even more drastic.
2) The "jury isn't still out", transwomen retain massive advantages over ciswomen even three years later. It needs to be on a sport-by-sport basis, as the advantages are not equally valuable in every sport.
3) No. I've no problem with, e.g., referring to Caitlynn Jenner using her pronouns, but I'm not going to memorize a new set of pronouns nor stop a conversation to tell someone what a particular person's pronouns are if I'm talking about them. They/them is perfectly valid for someone whose sex I don't know, and I think it's fine to extend that to people who want to keep it that way.
4) The question is asinine because there isn't one single set of aims of every transgender activist. Some are trying to get simple, reasonable things, while others... less so. Cortez (pester) 18:59, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
1) This is why hormone blockers exist, so transgender youth don't make drastic, life altering decisions without figuring themselves out. But you yourself have stated that you don't support hormone blockers because you think they have irreversible effects, despite evidence to the contrary Also, I never said minors should have elective cosmetic surgery.
2) The study you linked has been criticized as having a conflict of interest.
3) Again, then why memorize people's names? You're applying this line of thinking solely to neopronouns without considering how asinine it is.
4) Clarify what "simple, reasonable things" are and what things are "less so." ---Ozzyboo (talk) 19:54, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Aside) I think the main issue I have with Trans is that I believe that we should be focused on getting people to accept themselves as they are. We aren't all smart, tall, attractive, or absolutely everything we want to be, and we need to come to terms with that. It's why I believe that magazines/adverts shouldn't have significantly altered images of models on the cover, and especially we should not allow plastic monstrosities such as Kim Kardashian to be on TV; this warps the public's perception of what the perfect human body even is. Yeah, I'm squicked out by the gender reassignment surgery, but I'm just as disgusted that we live in a world where breast implants, face lifts, botox, rhinoplasty, and so forth are some of the most common procedures in the hospital. Heck, I'm even disgusted by Elon Musk's hair surgery, the phony.
Yes, sometimes, being Trans does mean the person is, in fact, accepting that they aren't the gender their body is, but I don't think that's anywhere near the number of people who are now identifying as Trans or NB. But in keeping with my philosophy of "aksept yerself", even if a person needs to surgically transition, at some point they can once again cross over into the "too much fakery" part. I get that no one wants to be ugly, but if you can pass for an ugly woman then the gender-affirming surgery ceases to be about gender affirming and is once again in the territory of plastic fakeness.
1a) Mayo clinic disagrees.
1b) Meh, in all honesty, I'd be more comfortable with youth hormones and so forth if I could be assured that there is, in fact, some form of "gatekeeping" such as a psychiatrist actually signing off that the young patient needs X treatment. And only escalated to HRT if therapy alone isn't able to help the patient lead a healthy life.
2) It's hardly the only study. The differences do shrink, and again, it should be decided on a sport-by-sport level.
3a) Your brain stores a person's identity in 3 different locations. That's why you sometimes can remember what a person looks like, what they did, but for the life of you you can't remember their name. I don't think pronouns are anywhere nearly unique as names when it comes to that.
3b) Languages are about communication, and unique pronouns do nothing to make communication any easier. Imagine trying to explain to an EMT about a person's medical history, and having to fumble over an entirely new set of grammatical rules; even if the EMTs are already familiar with the new pronouns, you are only slowing down the transfer of information. Especially if the person you are talking about does that dumb shit where their pronouns are dependent upon their mood that particular day. There's an argument to be made about why we even have gendered pronouns to begin with as opposed to only they/them, but just be glad that otherwise, English got rid of most of the gender rules.
4a) Simple, reasonable; being able to change gender identity on driver's license. Adoption and marriage.
4b) Less simple; the nonsense with neopronouns.
4c) Harmful; bringing kids to drag shows. Trying to redefine rape-by-deception. Cortez (pester) 21:21, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Alright. I have no further desire to discuss this on your talkpage after this. I raised the issue in ATIM. ---Ozzyboo (talk) 21:37, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
LOL @ the statement "I want to discuss this in good faith", and then throwing an ATIM a day later. What a bunch of horseshit.
I have issues with some of Cory's statements (hormone therapy is relatively accepted in the medical community, for instance, and fuck you Cory for dissing the entirely age appropriate drag queen pepperpots of Monty Python), but crying for mods after so little discussion is left-wing epistemic closure at its finest.
The Lia Thomas situation shows some of the challenges with the whole transgender-in-sports thing, for instance. It's not cut and dry.
That's the problem with social media these days, so much virtue signaling, grandstanding, and narrow-minded clustering... 8.19.62.204 (talk) 03:26, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Who are you? Cortez (pester) 03:33, 30 September 2022 (UTC)