User talk:CorruptUser/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 21 January 2021. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<2>

, (new)(back)

Goldman Sachs

You will find better exposure at Talk:Goldman Sachs for the bit about whether commodity speculation led to the food shortage of 2008. In general, the one who added that bit, and who reverted your removal, seems sensible in discussion. It looks like he was asking for a non-paywalled source for saying there was a dispute. Thanks for your input! Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 00:00, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Man, your ass is everywhere

Hullo again, old friend.192.249.47.186 (talk) 00:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Where do I know you from? CorruptUser (talk) 01:10, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

cracked, david willis's comics, and xkcd. I'll PM you on xkcd, since I'm fairly paranoid about linking the IP I've edited gamergate stuff with to my main internet account, considering the shit it was subjected to even before GG. Probably a stupid worry, but eh.192.249.47.186 (talk) 17:10, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Vaccination and western medicine

Okay, so I guess I was being pretty harsh there. The problem with the edit is that it conflates the body of western medicine in practice, that is quite free with taking from sources all over the world, as long as they meet standards for effectiveness with actually being western. Which is what the crazies do. I guess I wasn't thinking about the possibility of satirizing the obsession with the west always being wrong or whatever, but I still don't think it helped the article. Sorry for being rude. Ikanreed (talk) 16:19, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Eh, accidentally posted on your talk about this before I saw I got a message from you. Meh, the problem of cyberspace is that it's hard to tell when you are talking over someone.CorruptUser (talk) 16:38, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, if you really want you can re-add it. I was definitely too harsh. Ikanreed (talk) 16:49, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Auto patrolled

Because of your edits to and time on the wiki, Autopatrolled has been added to your user rights. This lets you bypass most of the abuse filters, bypass the CAPTCHA, and edit more frequently. If you have questions, bleat ask away.

We hope you enjoy your newfound POWER — and these external tools:

• Google Scholar Button ^{(Chrome, Firefox)} searches your highlighted text in Google Scholar. Easily check academic citations!
• web.archive.org and archive.today, among other tools, can save permanent copies of webpages. Never lose a crank website or racist Tweet ever again! Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 22:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Apartheid article

Hi, this is 198.7.241.85 IP. I made recent changes to the Apartheid article under the Israel section. I don't think these changes should've been deleted because the long paragraph provided a finding by a respected human rights group. I think for people who are sensitive to using the apartheid analogy when used to describe Israel's matrix of control over the West Bank, it's helpful to provide a link by a human rights group as well. We don't want Pro-Israel wingnuts getting into a frenzy here.

I added the Occupied Palestinian Territories to the title because just leaving the section "Israel" as a name can be misleading and lead people to believe the policies behind the Green Line are also equivalent to apartheid when it should be strictly confined to the West Bank. Arabs have second-class discrimination in Israel, but they have greater political rights unlike Arabs in the West Bank who live under military law compared to the Jewish settlers who have full civil rights. The apartheid applies to the West Bank rather than inside Israel, which is why I modified the title.

Your reply would be appreciated.

BoN making edits on Israel is a big fat red flag. Especially when your edits don't really add anything. As for second class discrimination in Israel proper, not exactly. Israel doesn't allow significant non-Jewish immigration, but the non-Jews who do live there do have the same rights as anyone else. I agree the WB settlements kind of have to go, but most of the people criticizing Israel don't give two shits about the Palestinians.

Meh, I don't think BoN should be used as a discriminating procedure, but whatever floats your boat. I'm not going to get into an argument about second-class discrimination (I made the point in the article of saying Arabs in Israel had full political rights like voting and freedom of movement), but Adalah's 51 laws may be a helpful reference.

Hard to verify the last statement (I'm personally invested in the conflict in terms of reading several books and joining groups), but again, if you feel suspicious because I'm a BoN (you can check my history if necessary), not sure what I can do to convince you.

Your previous edits have been Hamas apologetics, and a diatribe about that Somali-Dutch politician for supporting Israel. It's not doing you any favors.CorruptUser (talk) 05:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, okay, since you question my motives, it's helpful to engage in constructive dialogue rather than engage in mud-slinging. I will go through this point by point.

Hamas apologetics - If I were committed to Hamas apologetics, I would remove the articles referencing their antisemitic stance (which I do not deny) and its assault on Shia worshippers. Human Rights Watch has a detailed reort on their torture, and can easily be cited. What you call "Hamas apologetics" is merely IDF Propaganda built to legitimize mass-murder and deflect Israel's responsibility for the lack of resolution to the conflict which is why I deleted it. I will explain below.

* So, let's go with an easy one, human shields. This propaganda point is constantly cited, but reputable human rights organizations have disputed this. Amnesty writes in the recent Gaza 2014 war, "Amnesty International is monitoring and investigating such reports, but does not have evidence at this point that Palestinian civilians have been intentionally used by Hamas or Palestinian armed groups during the current hostilities to ‘shield’ specific locations or military personnel or equipment from Israeli attacks" Source: http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/israelgaza-conflict-questions-and-answers-2014-07-25

* Hamas deserves all the blame for the suffering of Gaza residents. Amnesty writes, "While Israel has the right to check that no weapons enter or leave Gaza, it continues to fail to fulfill its obligations as the occupying power to provide for the safety and welfare of the occupied population and uphold their human rights because of its comprehensive closure policy, despite some changes in recent years. Israel still uses movement restrictions as a form of collective punishment, in a way that goes well beyond legitimate measures to address its security needs. The explicit and punitive aim of Israel’s closure policy is to entrench the separation between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, which are considered as one territory under international humanitarian law". Source: http://www.amnesty.eu/content/assets/Doc2014/Gaza_Statement_EN.pdf

* Continued from the last part, here's a US State Department Cable "Israeli officials have confirmed to Embassy officials on multiple occasions that they intend to keep the Gazan economy functioning at the lowest level possible consistent with avoiding a humanitarian crisis.. Israeli officials have confirmed.. on multiple occasions that they intend to keep the Gazan economy on the brink of collapse without quite pushing it over the edge" Source: http://www.aftenposten.no/spesial/wikileaksdokumenter/article3972840.ece#.U9ThOI1dVZY

* Hamas has not changed its aggressive tactics toward Israel. The International Crisis Group reports, "Fewer rockets were fired from Gaza in 2013 than in any year since 2001, and nearly all those that were fired between the November 2012 ceasefire and the current crisis were launched by groups other than Hamas; the Israeli security establishment testified to the aggressive anti-rocket efforts made by the new police force Hamas established specifically for that purpose." Source: http://www.crisisgroup.org/~/media/Files/Middle%20East%20North%20Africa/Israel%20Palestine/b039-gaza-and-israel-new-obstacles-new-solutions.pdf

The point is not to engage in apologetics, but to engage in constructive criticism. Just because it's unflattering to one group, say people who are offended by criticisms of Islam, does not mean it should be dismissed. The point is to engage in discussion and dialogue, not insinuating someone has an ulterior motive.

* I have a bias against Ali. Ali herself said Netanyahu deserved a Nobel Peace Price. For someone who champions human rights and defends a prime minister who massacred 2100 Gazans, I think calling her out on that is a legitimate criticism. Maybe you don't like it, but people are not exempt from criticism. I could also point out that Ali is a supporter of war criminal Henry Kissinger. Consider her quote, "I admire my husband, of course. In terms of political leadership, I admire Henry Kissinger, and this is relevant now because I ask myself, what if we had Kissinger as the secretary of state today instead of John Kerry, what would all this look like, what would he do? I think he would advise on a more comprehensive level. He has a very interesting and incisive view of what American power is, and what it can achieve if implemented well" Source: http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2014/08/05/its-a-good-day-to-not-have-any-heroes/

Heinlein?

From your addition to Fahrenheit 451: "This was based on Heinlein's own experiences of committees constantly forming to prevent books from being published for some silly reason." Are you sure that you've got the right author there? :D --ZooGuard (talk) 20:12, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah I fix'd it, before I read this. Sorry about that... CorruptUser (talk) 20:13, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Goat

You're right about the Yael, I stand corrected.Super ^{Dude,What does mine say? Sweet!} 16:43, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

You've been demoted.

You made me learn how to use the user permission tools, you jerk. Read the sysop guide. That's what we're s'posed to say, I think. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 21:08, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Twice! oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 21:29, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Great, juuust great. Now I have yet one more way to disappoint my father. CorruptUser (talk) 22:58, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi

Hi CorruptUser,

Can you please explain on the Federal Reserve talk page why my edits are incorrect?

Thanks--FedTruther (talk) 23:16, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

The whole "money as debt" crankery. "Money created from nothing". It's a very childish understanding of what money even is and it's annoying. It's basically a PRATT at this point, and is not up for debate.

You've been vandalbinned and banned for editing the Federal Reserve page before. Why don't you try contributing to a different topic?CorruptUser (talk) 23:28, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

So it's wrong but you refuse to explain why? I don't think you have any idea what you're talking about. I have outlined my reasoning here, feel free to enlighten me http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Federal_Reserve#Proposed_changes_to_the_article --FedTruther (talk) 23:32, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Nothing? You're just making things up on the spot here.--FedTruther (talk) 00:27, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

My talk page is not for discussing PRATTs. If you wish to talk about your crankery, find the appropriate page for it. That page may be on another website. CorruptUser (talk) 00:30, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

When he said may be, he meant is, FedTruther, if that wasn't clear. PacWalker 01:45, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Gamergate.

Best edit yet. Thanks. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 14:51, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

On that page or of mine? Either way the bar wasn't very high, but thanks :P CorruptUser (talk) 15:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Your summary. Perfect. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 15:25, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Tauroids

Neither cows nor toroids are thaaaaaat obscure. :P WalkerWalkerWalker 19:20, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

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.

Woot it works!

There's something fishy about you

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.

Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 19:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Daesh

You should probably add a note about who the "people of the book" are and add a source for the allegation that the Muslim Brotherhood wants to 'peacefully' eliminate all non-Sunnis (sounds a lot like genocide to me). 141.134.75.236 (talk) 16:50, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

We umm, kind of already have that source in the MB page. CorruptUser (talk) 17:12, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I copied it over. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 17:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

The distinction between Anti-Zionism and Anti-Semitism

So I'm putting this here, taken from the Zionism talk page. Basically, well-spoken anti-zionist ChrisAmiss more or less confirmed he was an anti-semite before whining about being called out on it. Cleaned it up a bit, you can go to the original talk page if you want.

Jews rank favorably among groups in Europe in polls, unlike say Muslims or Gypsies who are viewed less favorably. To call this antisemitism is just well, mind-boggling.ChrisAmiss (talk) 21:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Then care to explain why in France there were more hate crimes [against Jews than against Muslims]? CorruptUser (talk) 21:41, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

READ GUYS, READ. I said Europe, not France. Don't cherry pick. Again Avenger, READ. I said Jews rank FAVORABLY among in groups in Europe in POLLS. No group is going to achieve 100% favorability, that's impossible. I am, however, saying relative to other groups, they are viewed favorably. Source: http://www.pewglobal.org/2015/06/02/faith-in-european-project-reviving/eu-report-18/. ChrisAmiss (talk) 21:50, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Germany? And give that half of all European Jews live in France, it's not a cherry, it's a melon. I'd post the link the Britain, but the data quality is less than desirable ("other religions" stat includes unknown numbers of anti-semitic and anti-muslim together). CorruptUser (talk) 21:55, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

The point is not to deny racism or antisemitism, because these will always exist. The point raised is to what extent is such racism prevalent on a systematic level and what should the response be. Consider your source CorruptUser, hate crimes related to racism and xenophobia account 3 times more than antisemitism. And the polls I cited also apply for France, irrelevant of rate of attacks. My issue is not debating whether antisemitism exists, but to what extent the accusations of antisemitism existing are credible, and for that, I think the evidence is thin, both in polls and the fact that Jews tend to be affluent in society with regard to income earned and discrimination barriers falling down after WW2. ChrisAmiss (talk) 22:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

You do notice that there were more attacks against Jews thaen against LGBT people and Christian combined. Antisemitism is the second biggest category of hate crimes, despite the same report stating a lack of reporting and despite the fact that Jews make up scarcely two percent of the German population. On the other hand, people who have at least one grandparent born outside of the current borders of Germany on or after the 1.1.1950 make up what? Fifteen percent? Twenty? In short: There are an order of magnitude more possible victims of xenophobia and racism thaen there are of Antisemitism. Please don't misconstrue my statements as implying racism and xenophobia are not real problems in Germany - they very much are. But Antisemitism cannot be swept under the rug. If I read this report correctly, many German Jews say they have been victims in the past or fear being victim of Antisemitic attacks in the future. That is probably part of the reason why more and more German Jews are seriously thinking of making Aliyah... It would be a shame if Europe were to lose its rich Jewish heritage, but I am damn glad that those people that don't see their safety guaranteed in Europe any longer have a place to go to - Israel. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I addressed that above. Also see my post about whether Israel is a genuine place of safety. I am unaware of the security procedures in Berlin for a Jewish museum, would you go into this in more detail? Is it a recent thing? Does it apply exclusively to that museum or pther places? ChrisAmiss (talk) 22:15, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Please don't avoid the question. Are the more anti-semitic or anti-islamic hate crimes in Europe relative to the Jewish and Muslim populations? CorruptUser (talk) 22:19, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

That wasn't your question. The question was related to hate crimes in France, not Europe. My analysis was of Europe, not France. Don't change the subject. ChrisAmiss (talk) 22:24, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

"READ GUYS, READ. I said Europe, not France." CorruptUser (talk) 22:28, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Also your source for France states there are more hate crimes based on racism and xenophobia than antisemitism, as well as bias against Christians and members of other religions. ChrisAmiss (talk) 22:29, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

First of all, so what? The question was comparing Jews and Muslims, not Jews and everyone else. Second, are you going to answer the question or not? CorruptUser (talk) 22:34, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

...And the question is "Are there more anti-semitic or anti-islamic hate crimes in Europe relative to the Jewish and Muslim populations?" CorruptUser (talk) 22:40, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I am looking for the statistics in Europe but I am having difficulty. And sorry CorruptUser, you're not being intellectually honest here. The point of subject in my argument was that Jews were ranked more favorable than other groups, INCLUDING Muslims and Roma. Don't try to narrow the subject to Jews and Muslims without reading what I actually said (Jews in comparison to other groups). ChrisAmiss (talk) 22:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

If Jews are "more favored" than Muslims, why are there relatively more hate crimes against Jews than Muslims in Europe? CorruptUser (talk) 22:58, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Again, I am looking for the statistics to confirm this, but I'm still having a difficult time looking for genuine data. And hate crimes is one measure of favorability, you know that. The sources I cited were PEW, a respected poll analysis which indicated that Jews were viewed more favorable than Muslims or Roma. It's possible for a group to be attacked more and yet viewed favorably/have more influence among society. For example, in the US, it would be obvious to point out that whites are in a privileged position, yet more whites are killed than blacks in America, including by cops. Would this mean that anti-whiteism is on the rise? I think not. ChrisAmiss (talk) 23:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

The question is proportionately. Most people killed by cops are white, but black people are disproportionately killed by the police. CorruptUser (talk) 23:10, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I think you guys misunderstood what I said. I wasn't referring exclusively to the police, I said more whites than blacks are killed in a year, including by the cops. ChrisAmiss (talk) 23:24, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

And Chris, here you go. Or just google "hate crimes by religion". CorruptUser (talk) 23:20, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay but CorruptUser, those are the same stats we looked at earlier, with it still showing racism/xenophobia and Christians/other religious groups outnumber antisemitic hate crimes. Yes, but even then the white proportion has been dwindling with rising rates of immigration. Can anyone look up statistics to see the total number of whites killed proportionate to their share of the population versus total number of blacks killed to their share of their population. This does not include just police killings, but homicides, etc. ChrisAmiss (talk) 00:00, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

...

The subject was hate crime, but even then the definition of hate crime is muddy because a murder of any member of a group can be perceived as racially biased. And I brought in the example in order to determine how seriously we should evaluate members of a group without going to hysteric levels of there being a new antisemitism or Islamophobia on the rise. FYI, if I'm perceived as reluctant to embrace these terms, it is because they are usually used to deter or silence criticism (Israel or Islam in this case). ChrisAmiss (talk) 00:10, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

1) "racism and xenophobia" and "other religious groups" often INCLUDES Jews (and Muslims). You have to read each country at the original source. 2) So fucking what? The question was Anti-semitism versus Anti-muslim hate crimes. That is, in the context of 'is Europe more dangerous for Jews or Muslims'. Don't try to change the subject to say that transgender Romanis have it worse. CorruptUser (talk) 00:16, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Then why is there a separate group included for them and Muslims? Those are religious hate crimes, not race-based. No it wasn't, that's not what the subject was about. The subject was antisemitism in Europe and how seriously we should treat it. My point was about Jews in comparison to other groups, not to Muslims exclusively. I cited polls that Jews were viewed more favorably than other groups, INCLUDING Muslims and Roma, AKA NOT EXCLUSIVE TO THEM. ChrisAmiss (talk) 00:20, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Because of the data quality. Not all countries break out the data into each category, and of the ones that do, the crime itself may not be reported as one or the other. Is, for example, a German burning down a Syrian refugee Mosque an anti-Muslim hate crime, an anti-Arab hate crime or a xenophobic hate crime? CorruptUser (talk) 00:30, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

So if the data is inconsistent and unclear, then we cannot equivocally say whether more Jews were victims of hate-crimes of Muslims depending on the categories, because anti-Arab hate crimes could fall under xenophobia and yet the majority of those victims could also be Muslims, putting the advantage in their favor and potentially outnumbering antisemitic hate crimes (Islamophobia + anti-Arab xenophobia). To my knowledge, I do not believe Jews account for that much immigration in Europe to qualify under xenophobia compared to say Muslims who make up several of the immigrants to Europe. Or, the xenophobia could also include Christians who are seeking safety in the wake of persecution in the Middle East , meaning they could also outnumber antisemitic hate crimes (hate crimes against Christians + xenophobia). Well JFK is a president whose policies affect millions of people across the world, not a person whose decisions may affect 10 people at most. I don't think they're the exact same situation if you're trying to invalidate polls. ChrisAmiss (talk) 03:14, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

That's a cop out and you know it, because it damn well varies by country and the country I linked first, the one where half the Jews live, does have complete enough data to draw a meaningful conclusion. Here is the US statistics, which are far more complete. 60% of anti-religious hate crimes were against Jews. 14% against Muslims. So, answer the question. CorruptUser (talk) 03:20, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

No it isn't. You yourself admitted the data can vary country by country, so in Europe's case where Muslims make a fair number of immigrants compared to say Jews, it's a fair assumption to assume they could be subject to xenophobic hate-crimes as well as domestic Islamophobia. That answers your question, thank you. Also, if we're going with US statistics, consider that your sources states that there are more hate crimes against blacks and gays than Jews, but hey, ANTISEMITISM IS SPREADING!!! ALARM BELLS!!! ChrisAmiss (talk) 03:27, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

France isn't missing the information. The US isn't missing the information. You are avoiding the question once again, and trying to bring in other issues when this started because you said something along the lines of "Muslims have it so much worse than Jews in Europe" which, as the hate crimes stats show, is pretty much the exact opposite. In the broader context of "Zionism", it's clear you do not care about "justice" or "truth" or whatever fancy word you use to hide behind. It's clear that you don't care about the rights of Jews, at all. You want to outright deny any humans rights issues that Jews may have. You are not "just anti-Zionist not anti-Jew", you are a full blown anti-semite. CorruptUser (talk) 03:43, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Ah yes, the antisemitism card. Fucking crybaby. First, your analysis of the data is skewed (anti-Christian and other religious groups/xenophobia and racism outnumbering antisemitic hate crimes), which I have repeatedly explained to you but you have yet to come up with a rebuttal. The hate crimes statistics show the number committed against Jews does not out outnumber xenophobia or racism/anti-Christian or other religious groups. And you have made the concession that these statistics may include more of one group despite varying categories. This tells me the only racist here is you for trying to magnify the hate crimes committed against Jews while minimizing the hate crimes of others. So let me fire right back at you. In the broader context of Zionism, it's clear that you do not care about "justice" or "truth" or whatever fancy word you use to hide behind. It's that you only care to elevate the rights of Jews above others, not only here, but in your apologetics for Israel's military operations. You are a pseudo-liberal who throws around accusations of racism in order to end an argument. I may not like conservatives, but conservatives at least have a point when so-called liberals go overboard in accusing people of racism or antisemitism or Islamophobia. ChrisAmiss (talk) 04:12, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Uh... it varies by country, and the disclosures are there for each country. Some lump everything together, others don't. You would know this if you did more than glance at it. Never mind that I already gave you the FBI one which is indeed complete for the US, and once again, the one for France is also complete. We've been doing this for, what, how many hours now? And you can't answer the really simple question with a really obvious answer. So I'm not using the "antisemitism card" to stifle debate; you aren't interested in debate at all. I "used" it because it's what you are, and you should step back and ask yourself if you do have your own biases. CorruptUser (talk) 04:32, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Wrong, that's exactly what you used. You're not comprehending what I'm saying. I'm saying your analysis of statistics is flawed, and as you acknowledged, it varies so one group could be subject to more hate crimes because of flawed data categories, so you cannot make definition conclusions about the entire continent of Europe which your question pertained to. As I pointed out above which you did not address, Muslims account for a good share of immigrants to Europe, so it is very probable that they are subject to hate crimes related to xenophobia AND Islamophobia. You called this a cop out because you know you couldn't refute it and so you started throwing around accusations of racism like a little toddler. As I have stated fucking again and again, antisemitic hate crimes do not outnumber hate crimes based on race/xenophobia or anti-Christian/other-religious groups. This is what your sources confirm, and you refuse to acknowledge it. There are people who could fit multiple data categories, as I explained above with the case of Muslims, thus answering your question on whether Jewish hate crimes outnumber Muslim hate crimes. Jews do not have comparable rates of immigration with Muslims with regard to Europe. You have not rebutted this, so I can only conclude that the only one who isn't interested in debate is you. And that's mighty ironic to say I'm biased, coming from you of all people in light of the fact I repeatedly have to explain things to you. The only antisemite is you, because you hold Jews to a different standard compared to other groups. ChrisAmiss (talk) 04:46, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

ChrisAmiss made the claim "Muslims have it worse in Europe than Jews". I brought in the data that showed that no, in Europe, there are most anti-semitic hate crimes than anti-Muslim. Chris refeased to acknowledge the data, and while the data varies between countries (they may collect it differently as I said; the disclosures are located on each page), the data is still valid enough to draw meaningful conclusions. When I first brought up France, where HALF of the EU's Jews live, Chris ignored this as a "cherry". He repeatedly refused to agree that the data showed that, yes, there are more anti-semitic hate crimes relative to anti-Muslim hate crimes as well as in number as well. He continued grasping at straws or anything at all to avoid confirming that Europe is more hostile to Jews than Muslims. Why? Would this have any real bearing on the validity of the Israel-Palestinian discussion? An anti-Zionist that wasn't also an anti-Semite would be able to say "I oppose Zionism but I agree that there are more hate anti-semitic hate crimes than anti-Islamic hate crimes in countries that are not Israel/Palestinian Territories".

Just wanted to share that. CorruptUser (talk) 16:31, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Facts have a well known Zionist bias. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 16:34, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually, not really; Israel did indeed commit ethnic cleansing and many still continue to deny it. Just that Chris (and Mona) are just so out of touch with reality. CorruptUser (talk) 16:38, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I feel a need to answer this because it's a serious accusation. I referred to your data which told something differently (xenophobia and racism/anti-Christian and other religious hate crimes outnumbering antisemitic hate crimes, which you still have not refuted) about who suffers the most hate crimes. You tried to narrow the subject between Jews and Muslims for no reason because that's not what I cited. Even if I were to answer your point about hate crimes between Jews and Muslims, I was not gasping at straws, that's a weak attempt on your part to deflect the rebuttal I gave you. I did not indicate for certainty that Muslims have it worse than Jews, but I was saying that according to the data you presented and the inconclusive analyses one can make with the data (if a Muslim refugee has his camp burnt, does it count as Islamophobia or anti-Arab racism?) as you acknowledge, making definitive conclusions about who suffers the most hate crimes cannot be conclusive because the data categories vary in terms of who falls under which part. So while anti-Muslim hate crimes could be lower than antisemitic hate crimes, that still doesn't take into account xenophobic hate crimes against Muslims, which COULD change the numbers. You aren't listening to me. And that still wouldn't refute the PEW polls I cited on favorability. Do hate crimes against Jews happen? Absolutely. But is it warranted to say that there's a new antisemitism, in light of the fact that Jews are actually quite successful in society and do not face discriminatory barriers (many Jews make up a good portion of Ivy League, "elite" schools) like they used to when antisemitism was truly horrifying (in Europe in the 19th and 20th centuries)? I would say the answer is no, and those who dredge up charges of a new antisemitism are really trying to deter any criticism of Israel. You're much more likely to face discrimination if you're ugly, fat, or bald. ChrisAmiss (talk) 17:20, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Ah well, the headless chicken are spreading around... The fact is that when Antisemitism was worst, formal and legal discrimination of Jews was mostly over. Jews were given equal rights in France during the French revolution. This did not stop the Dreyfus affair from happening. Just like today many Jews in Europe cannot go to Synagogue without fear or passing security controls. How many churches have metal detectors? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 17:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

So many things wrong with what you are saying. If you were to have read the data, you would know that in each category, they have disclosures as to what's in there. France has the most complete data, and is also the best example because it has the largest population of Jews. You refused to even do the numbers. And even if you were to assume that ALL the racism and xenophobia hate crimes were all anti-Muslim, you get 926 hate crimes against "Muslims" to 450 hate crimes against Jews, while there are more than 10 times as many Muslims in France as there are Jews. In other words, even including all the racist hate-crimes as "Muslim" which is not even wrong, Jews are still five times more likely to be the victim of a hate crime in France as a Muslim is. This isn't all that difficult to comprehend. But you refuse to acknowledge it for some reason, even though as I said, this shouldn't have any bearing on Israel-Palestine. So why is it so difficult for you to admit that, yes, there are more hate crimes against Jews than Muslims in, at the very least, France? CorruptUser (talk) 17:39, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Well the Dreyfus affair was the last straw that made Theodor Herzl write his most famous book. And if there is no Antisemitism the need for a Jewish place of refuge diminishes. Hence some anti-Zionists may wish to deny the existence of present-day Antisemitism, without there being even more nefarious motives to it. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 17:42, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

The difference is during the Dreyfus affair, Jews were hated across sectors of public society for a majority. But polls taken over the last decades have shown Jews rank far more favorably than other groups, and this still hasn't changed. That was the original topic I was discussing rather than hate crime statistics between Jews/Muslims and whomever, regardless of number of hate crimes. Even taking that into consideration, Jews were targeted for more hate crimes in France in 2003 (72%) I believe, but that still has not changed the poll numbers which show a high liking of Jews in society. From Wiki: "According to a 2005 poll made by the Pew Research Center, there is no evidence of any specific antisemitism in France, which, according to this poll, appears to be one of the least antisemitic countries in Europe,[64] though France has the world's third largest Jewish population.[1] France is the country that has the most favourable views of Jews in Europe (82%), next to the Netherlands, and the third country with the least unfavourable views (16%) next to the UK and the Netherlands." The number of hate crimes committed against a group does not necessarily indicate a pervasive element of racism among society. Blacks may be killed proportionately more by police in the US for instance, but attitudes towards blacks have changed for the better both in civil rights and economic integration. No one would today seriously say that anti-black racism is pervasive to the extent it was in the old days, and I apply the same standard for antisemitism. ChrisAmiss (talk) 18:34, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I haven't closely followed this specific debate, but let me just add this: When you say you're arguing based on populational proportions and the main example you cite is France, which houses half of the European Jewish population (as you state), then you've just destroyed your argument. Even if your claim isn't factually incorrect, it's still misleading as hell. It's like saying "discrimination of black people by whites is a huge problem in the Americas" while you're actually just talking about the situation in the US. I, for one, live in a country where Islamophobia is rampant, but where antisemitism is almost unthinkable. The truth of the matter is; in some European countries antisemitism is a major problem and in some Islamophobia is a major problem and the two aren't mutually exclusive. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 19:04, 1 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

Long story short, the link I posted gave every European country, and not all of them split out the anti-semitic and anti-Islamic hate crimes. But every time they do, there is proportionately more hate crimes against Jews than Muslims. CorruptUser (talk) 19:08, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

But what exactly does that tell us? It could also just mean that antisemites typically act out their hatred in more violent ways (with one possible explanation for that being because their hatred clashes with the accepted norm). In my country, for example, you don't have raging bigots murdering Muslims. No, you have government officials instating policies that are very clearly very-thinly-veiled attacks on the Muslim community. And the general population jubilates over it. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 19:34, 1 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

Do not forget that given past history, European states are probably very weary of not tackling antisemitism seriously unless they want to be accused of falling into the old days. I do not think I would exaggerate if I said it's possible European states give big priority to tackling antisemitism in any manifestation. The same goes for the US in light of its immigration quotas during WWII. ChrisAmiss (talk) 19:47, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

If you read German this might be of interest. Also, have you heard what people screamed at the top of their lungs during some demonstrations in 2014? And no, some of those slogans had "Jew" in it, not "Israel" Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:50, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't read German, sorry. I'm sure there were extreme statements, but extreme protesters are generally catered to the fringes of society. I could point to the demonstrations in Israel calling for "death to Arabs", but I wouldn't use this to claim there's widespread anti-Arab racism within Israel's borders. That's the principle I apply, you might not agree with it. ChrisAmiss (talk) 22:04, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, if the recent antisemitic events were on the fringe and not worth speaking about, Merkel and Hollande did something uncharacteristic of both of them: Something rash. I can still vividly remember a high-ranking French government official (minister or above) saying "If the Jews all left France, France would not be France any more". People don't say something like that for no reason. Merkel in turn attended a rally against Antisemitism organized by the German Jewish community and some of their supporters and spoke words to the effect of being shocked and outraged at the recent rise in Antisemitism. Plus, you know; visit a random sample of five mosques and five synagogues and compare the security measures. If you are particularly curious, you might ask about attacks on the building or people associated with it. I have recently been to a Synagogue that is mostly open, but the person showing me around said almost verbatim "This of course would not be possible in Munich or Berlin". In the year 2015. In Europe, not some antisemitic enclave in Mt. Backwards. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:52, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Merkel and Hollande are also apologists for Israel's military operations and are too cowardly to defend Palestinians' right to resist a foreign occupation and blockade. I recall Kofi Annan, himself not the greatest fan of Israel, nevertheless tried to express concern about antisemitism during the early to mid-2000s even with public polls telling a different story. I would argue these politicians' actions were more self-serving in trying to appeal to concerns among Israel's defenders and secure lobby support rather than an altruistic intent. In events like these, politicians usually like to curry favor with lobbyists on behalf of ethnic groups (think CAIR for Muslims) in order to appear "concerned" and not lose credibility. Consider your quote: 'Merkel in turn attended a rally against Antisemitism organized by the German Jewish community and some of their supporters and spoke words to the effect of being shocked and outraged at the recent rise in Antisemitism.' There was a political stake in it for Merkel in trying to win appeal among the Jewish community, and it would obviously be horrible PR for any German leader to turn down a request by the Jewish community (for obvious reasons). The spikes in antisemitism usually occurs during a time when Israel's PR begins to fall, and this has been pretty consistent since the 80's. Rather than combating actual antisemitism, the claims of a new antisemitism almost always arise when Israel undergoes a public relations debacle. The ADL published a report on the new antisemitism following Israel's invasion of 1982 when Israel was widely condemned internationally. In other words, tastelessly exploit the suffering of Jews to immunize Israel from any criticism. We see this whereas during the intifadas and Israel's massacres in Gaza, a rise in antisemitic attacks increased. When people, like Netanyahu, continue to refer to Israel a Jewish state or state of the Jewish people (it's the state of Israel) and you engage in militaristic showboating in order to beat down a people you've occupied for nearly 50 years, then the distinction between Israel and Jews get lost, which is dangerous. One of the scholars on antisemitism, I believe it was Walter Laqueur, who came out with a book on antisemitism in 2006, says that while there may be some instances of antisemitism among Muslims in Europe, looking at the evidence the notion of a widespread or rising antisemitism is preposterous. ChrisAmiss (talk) 23:26, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

So would you use the same logic and say that when countries and terrorist groups commit crimes against humanity in the name of being Islamic states or in the name of Islam, they are responsible for the Islamophobia and anti-Islamic hate crimes? CorruptUser (talk) 23:34, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Given that I dislike the term Islamophobia as much as use of the term antisemitism, I would definitely say yes to this. The term Islamophobia should really be translated as a heightened awareness and criticism of Islamists, mostly reserved for jihadists, rather than irrational fears. ChrisAmiss (talk) 23:38, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Hooray we agree on more than one thing; I also agree that Israel's actions do indeed fuel anti-semitism (I was rather horrified by the 2014 Gaza invasion, being too bloody for what it was supposed to achieve, even though you and I will definitely disagree on the civilian counting). CorruptUser (talk) 23:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

So in your mind a minority that amounts to roughly 100 000 out of 80 000 000 (or one eight hundredth) is powerful enough to make the Chancellor do their bidding? Well, I don't know where I heard that one before... Also, if you don't believe Antisemitism to be real, try walking around with a Kippah in one of the major European countries for - I don't know - a week or two. Let's see how that goes. The state of Israel is necessary as a place of refuge for Jews. If Muslims get persecuted too much, I am sure there is more thaen one country on earth that will gladly accept them. Especially if they are being persecuted for being "too Muslim". Where will a poor Jew - especially if (s)he ticks off some of the other boxes like being religious and lacking formal education - turn if their place of birth and residence turns too hostile towards Jews? And don't you even dare suggest there are no poor or stupid Jews. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 08:36, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with you on several vital issues!

And I outrightly refuse to even remotely take your views regarding these matters in consideration! :P 142.124.55.236 (talk) 23:35, 2 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

And I must retort with unsettling comments about your parentage! ;) CorruptUser (talk) 23:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

And I shall link to logical fallacies! Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 10:57, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Moving pages

When you want to retitle a page, use the move feature. On the default skin here, it's in the drop-down tab at the top under "Relocate". Or, you can go right here and enter the page title. This is especially important if other people have edited the page, as the contribution history needs to be preserved for copyright purposes. (Yes, almost everything on RationalWiki is copyrighted. You've read the statements at the bottom of the edit window, right?) I was trying to figure out what happened to your sandbox until I realized you copied and pasted it. --Ymir (talk) 11:18, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, this is useful info. CorruptUser (talk) 12:53, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Treason defined at law

It's set forth in Article III, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court. The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

Edward Snowden has not even been charged with treason. Much less Greenwald.---Mona- (talk) 18:01, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

You're right; I've been sloppy, he committed espionage. CorruptUser (talk) 03:50, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

This is my exact reaction to people calling letter-writing to Iran treason. WalkerWalkerWalker 07:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

You're nominated!

Over here. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 03:47, 2 November 42015 AQD (UTC)

Woo! This is better than the time I ended up on Homecoming Court! CorruptUser (talk) 03:56, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

[Make your case for why you should win here!] Serocco 05:40, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Heh, I wonder if we can nominate campaign managers and vice-mods... CorruptUser (talk) 05:56, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ You've got the chance for another shot at becoming a mod (a modshot?) in the upcoming by-election. ScepticWombat (talk) 05:50, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Woot! I can still manage to disappoint my parents! CorruptUser (talk) 06:12, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

See CAIR talk page

We've been though the endorsements argument already, and it was settled.---Mona- (talk) 00:16, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

No, this is a different issue. The endorsements are fine, but you don't need to endorse Greenwald on the CAIR page. Save it for his own page. CorruptUser (talk) 00:22, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

What Mossad knew

Here's all four Carl Cameron reports, with transcripts:

HUME: Carl, what about this question of advanced knowledge of what was going to happen on 9-11? How clear are investigators that some Israeli agents may have known something?

CAMERON: It's very explosive information, obviously, and there's a great deal of evidence that they say they have collected — none of it necessarily conclusive. It's more when they put it all together. A bigger question, they say, is how could they not have know? Almost a direct quote.

HUME: Going into the fact that they were spying on some Arabs, right?

CAMERON: Correct.

...

HUME: Carl, I want to take you back to your report last night on those 60 Israelis who were detained in the anti-terror investigation, and the suspicion that some investigators have that they may have picked up information on the 9/11 attacks ahead of time and not passed it on.

There was a report, you'll recall, that the Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency, did indeed send representatives to the U.S. to warn, just before 9/11, that a major terrorist attack was imminent. How does that leave room for the lack of a warning?

CAMERON: I remember the report, Brit. We did it first internationally right here on your show on the 14th. What investigators are saying is that that warning from the Mossad was nonspecific and general, and they believe that it may have had something to do with the desire to protect what are called sources and methods in the intelligence community. The suspicion being, perhaps those sources and methods were taking place right here in the United States.

The question came up in select intelligence committee on Capitol Hill today. They intend to look into what we reported last night, and specifically that possibility – Brit.

HUME: So in other words, the problem wasn't lack of a warning, the problem was lack of useful details?

CAMERON: Quantity of information.

BTW, I don't think Fox scrubbed this from it's web site and suddenly this topic vanished because of ZOG! Rather, I suspect Jerusalem and D.C. were hot and heavy on the phone discussing what a PR disaster this is at a time when they need to be fighting terrorism together and "we just can't have this become a thing." Fox would totally take direction from the government especially that close after 9/11.---Mona- (talk) 06:40, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

That's still a bunch of JAQing off. Nothing in there beyond "Mossad may have been tracking someone, vague details". At best there's the "Mossad gave info but didn't say where it came from". Very different from "Mossad knew about 9/11 in advance!". CorruptUser (talk) 07:19, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

You repeatedly misapply fallacies and rhetorical ploys. This has no relationship to "JAQing off." Israel knew about a something that would turn out to be 9/11, and issued a general warning to Washington. It is well-established that Israel grossly commits espionage in the U.S. Based on the apprehension and interrogation of Israelis immediately post-9/11, coupled with the fact that Israel spies on it's ally the U.S. and on its soil, it is much more than "JAQing off" to report that D.C. sources are concluding that Israel knew far more than it revealed in it's warning.

But I came here to address your edit summary at the Greenwald article. You are adopting Sorte's peculiar accusation that I believe I own and control this wiki. Your problem, CorruptUser, is that you frequently foray into topics and areas in which I am exceptionally well-versed, and in which you are exceptionally... not. You don't see me challenging your knowledge at the GMO/GMF articles. No doubt if I did, I'd be left with egg on my face and lots of reverts. But, I wouldn't conclude from this that you think you own the wiki. What I'd conclude is that I should stay the fuck out of those articles.---Mona- (talk) 03:13, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Changed my mind

The snark is fine. Being embattled with an asshole stalker dented my sense of humor.---Mona- (talk) 22:53, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

You seem to get a lot of those... $5 on whether Sorte is Arisboch, Avenger or someone new? CorruptUser (talk) 23:09, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Possibly. He's said he's in "contact" with Avenger. And the Aris/Avenger BoN socks go running to wherever Sorte is. But he really does know tons of stuff about Icelandic literature. So he might really be an Icelandic guy.---Mona- (talk) 23:58, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Btw, I know you've been skeptical when I've said that hardcore Zionists really are horribly abusive and underhanded online, seond perhaps only the GG crowd. I've seen it a lot and many places. Including one who told me he hoped I'd get a disease and my kids had taken out a DNR. They've also started a web site calling people antisemites and manipulate Google to make sure potential employers are going to see it.---Mona- (talk) 00:03, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

(ec) I explicitly said that I'm Icelandic. That's no secret. And yes, as sorely as I miss Avenger and Arisboch, I've never been anything except Sorte, at least since I created me as a user. I'm in contact with Avenger, but unfortunately we don't converse very often. Still, Avenger shares some of my interests — to mention an absolutely neutral topic here — for an absolutely honest one, Medieval Poetry. And CorruptUser, if you want to familiarize yourself with the Chomsky mess and repercussions for those who do not toe Mona's line, just check the Fossil Record. I will absolutely stand by that. What's more, my views now are pretty much the same as when I started. Ask Mona to answer your question — it is apparently deeply buried. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 00:12, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Clarification, please

I replied on Weaseloid's page, but I'd like to ask you to tell me which rules you are referring to. If it is about the recent coop-decision, then say so. If it is for generally breaking the rules, I'd like to know that. I will not edit Chomsky for the time I said I wouldn't. I will not edit the other articles mentioned in the sentence, since they are really not of interest. So what do you want? If you want be punished in some way, please say so and state what is a culpable offense in the eyes of the crowd. I had already taken Castaigne's advice to heart, when Mona announced her departure. I won't do anything controversial for a couple of months — controversial meaning editing said articles — as much for the sake of my own nerves as anything else. So, to ask a direct question: What do you want from me and what is your beef with me? Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 00:19, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

You are not to engage Mona or make any major edits on the I-P related pages for next couple of months. If you can prove your worth to the wiki, then welcome! If not, well, then not. Don't step on anyone's toes, please. We could use more editors. CorruptUser (talk) 00:29, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Given that Mona is (or has said to be) on the way out and he doesn't call about I-P, I guess this will be rather easy, won't it? Pizzameister (talk) 00:31, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Pretty much. But he still has to contribute to the site or everyone will just assume he's here to troll or something. CorruptUser (talk) 00:35, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm arrogant enough to believe that my edits on neutral subjects speak for themselves. How often do I have to tell people that I won't edit those particular pages. As for not stepping on toes, that can happen quite accidentally with no malice intended. I'm quite familiar with that too. As for my neutral edits, they are not voluminous but considered quite acceptable, if I have understood the reception, or more precisely, lack of comments. Regarding potential, I'll have a lot of free time next summer. Is there anything particular within my scope that you want written? And for crying out loud, I did not want to break anyone. But being undone at every step does something to the mood if you have a temper, and I do. But I will prepare for a cold reception by you, when I do edit Chomsky — as repeatedly said in a couple of months. Even someone who knows nothing about him has to see how skewed that article is, and not to the benefit of RW. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 00:46, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm trying to avoid either a cold or hot reception at this point; both are bad for a number of reasons. But don't worry, as long as you don't disobey the mob rule, I'll welcome you here. As for articles that need work or creation, try here. Or really anything that's missional. Good luck! CorruptUser (talk) 00:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

(ec) :I made two short edits this evening to relax. This hasn't been any fun for me either. But I would suggest that you take a look at Gerald Ford and Greenland. They are typical for my short edits. Perhaps I wasn't funny, but can you find anything incriminating in those. You could also have a look at Henry Kissinger. This isn't anything earth-shattering but fairly typical of me. And I'd like to recruit you to my ever widening group of readers, now consisting of me and perhaps 2-3 others. If I actually do what I've been playing with in my mind, that is write essays on obscure topics, I would very much like you to read it. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 01:00, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

As an example of what my subjects might be, what would you say about a short article about Páll Jónsson, bishop of Skálholt 1195-1212? I'll be the first to admit that Páll is not prominent in the history of the world, but his way to the bishopric and his acts as a bishop are fodder for some branch of religion covered here. I happen to have his saga on loan right now — saga as in the meaning sagas of bishops. It's a genre in its own right. As I have to read it, I could perhaps amuse you with a take on Catholicism over here. In any case, his career is worth a few words. And I feel certain that obscurity should not stand in the way of a good story. I'll make that my next project. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 01:39, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Kurds ethnic cleansing

Please provide some sources for your claim, or revert your edit. This is serious, and it leads to the reader having an anti-Kurd bias. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 23:55, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Just provided two. Need a third?

For the record, I think we should back the Kurds. That's just how awful the whole situation is other there. CorruptUser (talk) 23:56, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/15/kurds-ethnic-cleansing-syria_n_7584810.html

Look at this. The main people saying the Kurds have done ethnic cleansing are the Syrian rebels, who have fought the Kurds many times and oppose Kurdish self-rule. Many of the groups making the accusation are al-Qaeda allies. Huh! Interesting!

https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/articles/middle-east/19356-is-there-systematic-ethnic-cleansing-by-kurds-in-north-east-syria

The source cited here is the Syrian Network for human rights, a pro-Sunni Arab rebel front group who hates both Assad and the Kurds. One can assume that since that source is biased, it cannot be used to show abuses by the Kurds.

Read these articles. They give a good summary of why these accusations are manufactured bullshit. The main source of these rumors is Turkey. Turkey is anti-Kurd and is against kurds having any kind of independence from neighoring countries. It has spread these accusations because it has a biased, anti-Kuird agenda. I am surprised you would fall for the claims of one Foreign Policy article which does not cite any physical evidence, only "he said, she said" reports from anonymous undisclosed sources. Show me pictures of the razed towns. Show me the mass graves. Oh wait, all of those pictures aren't of Kurdish crimes, they are crimes by Sunni Arab ISIS! Who would've thought!

CorruptUser, you are better than this. These false accusations and lies don't deserve to be in this wiki. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 00:04, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Alright, I'll revert them if you want. Not worth fighting over, but I don't hold any illusions about that region. CorruptUser (talk) 00:10, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

What about Amnesty International and the HRW link? Just so I know for future reference why they are wrong.CorruptUser (talk) 00:17, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

In other news, you should probably read up on Saddam's policy of Arabisation. Robledo (talk) 00:18, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh I know that Iraq tried to exterminate/assimilate the Kurds. Same with Turkey, and Syria. CorruptUser (talk) 00:21, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

First, let's look at Jalawla, shall we? These maps, from Columbia University, shows it as being a mixed Kurdish-Arab town, and this more detailed one shows it as being entirely Kurdish. How can the Kurds cleanse a Kurdish town? And do you really think the Arabs who used to live there want to go back to their town, which has been destroyed in the fighting and controlled by Kurds? Also, how do you know some of these Arabs aren't ISIS inflitrators who enjoy launching latent attacks against towns already considered secure? So I call BS on the Amnesty report. What about the HRW report? Can you link it to me? Pbfreespace3 (talk) 00:34, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

HRW link. CorruptUser (talk) 02:32, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

This wouldn't surprise knowing how often ethnic groups, which are extremely divided in the MidEast, tend to cleanse each other out of revenge for past wrong doings; the Iraqi Shia have been doing just that in response to the Sunni led ethnic cleansing in the Anbar. Also, Pb, not all Kurdish factions happen to be all inclusive, pro-democratic parties; look at the PKK who have been supported by Syria.--Owlman (talk) 02:37, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

How exactly is the PKK not an inclusive, democratic faction, Owlman? Also, I read the HRW report and I don't see anything wrong with the security cordons. It's being done for everyone's security. The frontline must move farther away before total freedom of movement is allowed. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:42, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

They are Kurdish nationalist and y'know they are ethnically cleansing the Arabs and Turkmen who you have accused of being possible agents of ISIS since ya never know. Besides they dislike the FSA, or whatever the fuck is still fighting Assad, and would be more likely cleansing these ethnic groups since they are more supportive of the FSA than a Kurdish autonomous state. Also the Kurds an Assyrians have recent fought each other over the Kurds claim to Rojava which happens to include their land; the same can be said of the Iraqi Kurds and Assyrians. Now I hate that Turkey has rolled back peace with he PKK and have collectively punished the Kurds, but that doesn't excuse the PKK's actions.--Owlman (talk) 03:02, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Listen. The PKK is gonna fight anyone who attacks the PKK. In every instance where there have been clashes between Kurds and rebels in Syria, the rebels have instigated it. "they dislike the FSA". No, they dislike anyone who fights them. The FSA was supposed to be some magical, competent, secular, moderate organization that respects everyone's rights, including Shias and Kurds. They have not at all lived up to that expectation. "ethnically cleansing the turkmen" show me one scrap of evidence that the PKK or allies are forcing turkmen from their homes and killing innocent turkmen or Arabs! Until you do, I won't give any credence to claims by Turkey, al-Qaeda, or its allies and sympathöizers. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 03:10, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Well I know that Amnesty International happens to be a bunch of shills for Turkey, but I will ink to them anyways. The Kurds never worked with the FSA because they wanted autonomy, and that is perfectly fine, but there is ethnic cleansing. The PKK were supported by Assad and that is always a red flag to me in my book; their past may not be relevant now, but they aren't some sort of magical democratic liberators of the MidEast even if Ocalan's ideas are supportive of a more inclusive democracy.--Owlman (talk) 03:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

so let me get this straight... a large minority of non-Arabs in the Middle East who have historically been fucked over by everyone are fighting for their own state after centuries of oppression and political homelessness. And now surrounding Arabs accuse said non-Arabs of war crimes and ethnic cleansing. Interesting to observe the opinions and the regard for the credibility of Amnesty International... 176.0.33.107 (talk) 03:18, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeah I know right. They would never report on the onslaught of Turkey is leading against the Kurds.--Owlman (talk) 03:56, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

So the PKK being supported by Assad in the past discredits them? No, it doesn't. Assad is a Shia and he funded the PKK because he didn't trust Sunni Turkey (how perceptive this person turned out to be). Besides, Assad certainly is not a gigantic fan of the Kurds now, seeing as they've taken one-tenth of his country away from him. The Kurds and Assad fought many times near Qamişlo and Hesîçe‎ cities in Syria, and Assad's airplanes have bombed a Kurdish neighorhood in Aleppo only a few weeks ago. You say "they aren't some sort of magical democratic liberators of the MidEast". Ok, but they're the closest thing there is in that area. They're actually better than Israel and the USA. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 03:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I didn't say they are discredited by this support, but it makes them less champions against authoritarianism and more equal opportunists when it comes to creating Kurdish autonomy. Let me put it this way, do you find anything wrong with Mother Teresa getting support from Papa Doc?--Owlman (talk) 03:40, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't like either one of those. "it makes them less champions against authoritarianism". Not really. Assad gave them some money and weapons and said "go fight the Turks!" And that's exactly what the PKK did. It's one authoritarian government helping a libertarian group fight another authoritarian government. Nowadays, the PKK is fighting both authoritarian governments. Look at how quickly the YPG (an ally) fought and captured Assad-held territory in the north. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 03:43, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I never asked if you if you liked Mother Teresa, but if you think she is a hypocrite when it comes to helping to fight against human suffering because she took money from a dictator I don't see how the same doesn't apply to the PKK. Let me establish my position here: I support Kurdish autonomy in all places where they reside, autonomy for all of the ethnic groups Syria greater federalization in Iraq, I think the PKK should be removed from the FTO list, and Ocalan should be let go in exchange for peace. Now let's stop moving the goalpost and talk about ethnic cleansing again.--Owlman (talk) 03:55, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Here's where we get down to it: it all depends on your definition of ethnic cleansing. I don't think the Kurds are guilty of ethnic cleansing going by international law definitions, but it's true life has been harder for Arabs living on or near Kurdish lands lately. That's mainly due to a good chunk (I would posit 10-20%) of them supporting and collaborating with ISIS. SOME Arabs (and some Turkmen) have elected to leave areas now controlled by Kurds, but that's mainly their choice. Also, guess where most of them go? ISIS-held areas. These people openly choose to live in a brutal totalitarian theocracy rather than a democratic state solely because the Kurds look and sound different. Some of these village Arabs even provide ISIS with food and shelter, and participate in looting!

Please read that article some more:

"While thousands of Kurds fled Zumar as Isis approached, many Arab residents stayed, some because they sympathised with the Sunni Islamist militants"

These Arabs knew that ISIS was coming. They knew what was going to happen. And yet they chose to stay. Did thay flee, like this guy?

"Sunni Arab Salem Ahmed, who served in the Iraqi army, was one of those who left. He fled his home village of Abuni, outside Zumar, as Isis – known locally as Daesh – made its advance, and returned with the other residents after peshmerga forces took Zumar and its surrounding settlements in October and early November."

Do you see? This is what you are supposed to do when a band of genocidal murderers comes to take your town. You LEAVE! You don't stay behind and wait for them to get there! If you do, you are a collaborator and get what is coming to you (not death). Pbfreespace3 (talk) 04:04, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

So what is coming to you if it ain't death? Again I understand that there is ethnic cleansing coming from all factions and that people have voluntaryingly left, but you orignally denied that the Kurds were committing such cleansing and doubted Amnesty's report.--Owlman (talk) 04:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

CorruptUser originally said "(the Kurds are) ethnically cleansing others". This is a misrepresentation of what has happened. That's what I objected to. I still maintain that the Kurds are not commiting ethnic cleansing. The evidence of an intentional policy of removal just isn't there, whereas it is there with Iraq, Syria, Turkey, and ISIS; where thousands to millions of Kurdish people were displaced or killed. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 04:35, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Well I agree that there is no policy to remove Assyrians, Arabs, or Turkmen and that any ethnic cleansing is probably from small, individual bands of Kurds without orders from those in charge of the PKK, for example.--Owlman (talk) 05:14, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

So to sum up: War is messy, Kurds and Arabs (and other groups in the region) don't really like each other and some Arabs have sympathies for ISIS. Is there an organised attempt by the Kurds to drive out non-Kurds? We don't know, but many non-Kurds leave when Kurdish forces arrive. Fair enough? Pizzameister (talk) 17:53, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not allowed, but you are

I took a look at Chomsky, just to see how it had changed. There's not much left of me there, but there is a footnote, which has been condensed to some powers of being ridiculous. I personally don't care at this stage, but you might want to inject some sense into "It was in the air" (see Lorentz and Poincaré). The footnote was quite a bit longer, and these two gentlemen were mentioned in the context of Special Relativity having been in the air. Neither said anything about language, ever. But it is quite funny as is, so perhaps that was intentional. As for the article itself, well, the least said. I am an experienced farm worker and cleaning out a cow-shed seems to be easy compared to injecting rationality into the article. You can rest assured that I won't touch it until I'm personally sure I have the energy to clean up and that could very well last months past the limit of a couple of months. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 17:37, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

PS: I never got around to ask, but who or what are FedTruther, Statetheist religion and Coopiter? Some shedding of light would be welcome. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 17:42, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

FedTruther was this loon we used to have at rationalwiki who had "discovered" that states were intangible entities, and since they didn't physically exist, they were all a giant hoax. Coopiter is just a joke I made up, sounds like Jupiter, so we can have our own wikigods beyond the FSM or her invisible pinkness. CorruptUser (talk) 01:23, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I did wonder. You won't see much of me for the time being. Mona may have left, but I'm tired of this whole nonsense, and I'm rather filled with disgust at the whole thing. I don't have a particularly bad conscience, but judging by the state of things, RW does not promise to be relaxing, and the rationale for my joining in the first place was having fun. As I see Chomsky, for the foreseeable future it will just be more of the same minus Mona, and I don't have the energy for that, at least for quite a while. Any tears shed will be interpreted as crocodilian. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 21:12, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I did take the advice to heart, just to write what I like and damn the rest. One of my interests are rímur. It is bad form to advertise one's writing, but I'm taking a break from RW with one exception. You'll find a link on my User page - nota bene not the talk page. I am convinced you are not interested, and I'm not particularly given to court the public, but if you take a look at that link, you'll see an unorganized page sorted by entries. If you do take a look, and I add entries which will eventually be an essay, do you think that will be enough to prove good faith? I'm not worried about what people think. Most probably think the worst. But the subject is dear to my heart and I would like to avoid conflicts in the future. Don't feel compelled to look, but an opinion would be welcome nevertheless. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 20:51, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

It occurred to me as I wrote the last entry that the reader should know that my contributions tend to be peppered with self-sarcasm, if there is such a thing in the English language. It is a very Icelandic phenomenon, however, and anything I write should be read in that light. Anyway, I've said what I have to say, and I'll leave everyone in peace unless my ironic self gets the better of me. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 22:45, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Heh, there are worse hobbies than poetry. Most hobbies are worse, actually :P. I believe you are allowed to write essays and use your own spaces for whatever, even if it's not missional. I'll take a look when I get some free time. CorruptUser (talk) 04:17, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Enjoy if you can. There are much worse hobbies, I quite agree. The reason I asked you to have a look was just to ensure, that at least somebody knows that I'm not gone and that I am being productive. I was just being practical and there is always the chance that some nerd wants to know obscure things although in truth, that would be an advanced case of nerdism. And — this may perhaps resolve any lingering doubts about my nationality. Mona was once involved in speculating whether I am who I say I am, but then she said something along the lines of, that on the other hand I did know tons of Icelandic literature, so I probably was from that country. :-) If anyone takes on the tedious task of reading everything I've written here, the only things missing from my description would be name, address and social security number. :-) In any case, I'll go easy on my nerves and stick to the uncontroversial for a long, long time. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 17:26, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

A question

First of all, thanks for taking a look. Second, Icelandic language, Icelandic poetry and so on, is a hobby of mine and I am studying it right now. If I stay with RW, do you think this could in a couple of years time become an essay published as such in the essay category? And, and I'm really not fishing here, but do you think there are enough hard core nerds to make something of a readership? Personally, I'd be quite satisfied with single figures — this is not your everyday stuff. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 18:05, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

N.Y. Times case on eminent domain page

Dear CU: I almost deleted something you added to the Eminent domain page last May, but thought I'd notify you first to see if you wanted to revise it or defend it. Please see Talk:Eminent domain. Thanks, Read-Write (talk) 17:55, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Tech time!

You're a tech! Don't break anything important.

The tech support page is at TECH.

If you happen to know JavaScript, it'd be great if you could edit MediaWiki:Gadget-HotArticleRate.js to use a combination of {{bronze}}/{{silver}}/{{gold}}+{{pri}} (both on mainpage) instead of {{bronze}}/{{silver}}/{{gold}}+{{rated}} (first on mainpage, second on the talkpage). The gadget isn't widely used, so it doesn't matter if you temporarily break it. Thanks!

Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 17:49, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Alright, I'm reading that code and only understand half of it. Need to grab a manual... CorruptUser (talk) 23:40, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

small thing

I dont think the hillary clinton article should be rated just yet, its still being heavily edited by a lot of people and isnt up to snuff just yet. Sandflapjack (talk) 06:10, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Rpeh

Blocking someone who is able to unblock themselves isn't an abuse of powers. Aceⁱ⁹ 21:31, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

yeah that's why I undid sysoprevoke CorruptUser (talk) 21:36, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

You will be sorry

When the protection lifts (you had no business doing that), I'll have ready a heavily sourced section on the absurdity of Zionists' preferred definition of antisemtism. You and Arisboch should have learned to compromise with me on these issues. All I'll do is add a good deal more, well-sourced text that you will deeply dislike, but which is relevant and and necessary to debunk your preferred "test." [shrug]---Mona- (talk) 21:56, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

If it's PROPERLY sourced, good. Then I have no problem with it. But knowing you, it's going to come from some neo-nazi quote-mine site, isn't it? CorruptUser (talk) 21:59, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

"You will be sorry"? I'm guessing Mona is about 12 yrs old at this point. Aceⁱ⁹ 22:10, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I actually have a half a mind to put her up in the chicken coop for her CONSTANT edit warring, even over painfully obvious and NOT controversial things like Cynthia McKinney. If you have any doubt that Mona is a loon, check the edit history for that page. CorruptUser (talk) 22:12, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Absolutely, see that page. My challenges compelled you to delete multiple claims that were false and which you could not support. ---Mona- (talk) 22:22, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, which of my claims ultimately got reverted? CorruptUser (talk) 22:30, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

EDIT: Oh wait, I found one that got deleted, but I have evidence for! Thanks for reminding me! Cynthia McKinney did believe in James Earl Ray being a patsy! What other claims did you have removed, maybe I can find more stuff on her! CorruptUser (talk) 22:34, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Ace, You're unaware of the history at the I-P articles. The Zionist have now seen that to insist on text that I argue (with facts and reason backing me up) is wrong, is simply to cause me to enlarge the article to include my copiously sourced discussion of why their claim is so lacking in credibility. Text they hate, and that would not be there if they had been reasonable in the first instance, ends up making the Zionist point look as vacuous as it is. There are only a handful of issues in which I possess encyclopedia knowledge and the ability to document the crap out of what I am convinced -- by facts and reason -- is the truth. This is one of those topics. So yes, not to compromise with me on this topic has made them repeatedly sorry. ---Mona- (talk) 22:19, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

(EC) Just gonna say it's pretty funny seeing that message accompanied by a link to a blatant Israeli propaganda site as a source. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 22:20, 17 April 42016 AQD (UTC)

Yeah I know UK media watch is mostly worthless as a cite source. The only use I've found is evidence that Mona gets around. CorruptUser (talk) 22:20, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I've used that rhetorical ploy many times again since those sickos at UK Media Watch glommed onto me. Whenever Zionist bigots begin ranting about the Evil Mooslims and the horrible Koran, I pull out that stuff the antisemites do with the Talmud. It can be most entertaining. Goose, gander.---Mona- (talk) 22:24, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

What the fuck are you talking about? Zionists? Making people sorry? What the fuck is wrong with you...Aceⁱ⁹ 22:29, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Long story short, Mona has tirelessy worked to add in a huge amount of biased sources like ElectronicIntifada into anything pertaining to Israel-Palestine. While I personally am pretty close to the Norman Finkelstein point of view, Mona is beyond Finkelstein. And only loons and anti-semites are beyond Finkelstein, just like only nutjubs and apologists are beyond Benny Morris. Though when I see people quoting Finkelstein, I'm also suspicious of them being beyond Finkelstein and only using him to say "look, we totally aren't antisemites here". When Finkelstein came out against the BDS movement (he agreed with the ostensible goals but felt the whole thing was a cover for antisemitism), suddenly most of his support disappeared. CorruptUser (talk) 23:02, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Ace, it's really very simple. When I arrived at RW last August, all the I-P-related articles were controlled by a handful of zealous Zionists. I challenged their grip on all those articles so that the majority point of view could prevail with sourced fats and reason. This did not go over well with the Zionists, and several of them ended up repeatedly binned or banned. Many eventually stopped challenging me because doing so simply caused me to dive into my vast knowledge of facts -- easily documented -- that are unflattering to the Zionist narrative. Yet here they are, doing it again. [shrug]---Mona- (talk) 23:04, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

CorruptUser, as is his habit, tosses in a non sequitur. Norman Finkelstein has nothing to do with the current discussion. However, CU is wrong about Norman's objections to BDS. He doesn't call it antisemitic; rather, he claims it is a "cult." And :

He accused BDS activists of “inflating the numbers” of Palestinian refugees and “want[ing] to create terror in the hearts of every Israeli” rather than resolve the conflict. “I’m not going to tolerate what I think is silliness, childishness, and a lot of left-wing posturing,” he said.

---Mona- (talk) 23:12, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm starting to think there is something wrong with you. Aceⁱ⁹ 23:13, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Me or Mona? Because I'll confess there some things wrong with me... CorruptUser (talk) 23:16, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Mona. Aceⁱ⁹ 23:44, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Al-Farabi

You said you were interested in the article on Al-Farabi, I've finally finished it, feel free to take a look and give me any advice or comments before I quash the typos and put it on mainspace. :) Lord Aeonian (talk) 22:50, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

First question. What time period was al-Farabi from? CorruptUser (talk) 02:49, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

He lived ~870-950, so early Golden Age of Islam. Lord Aeonian (talk) 03:19, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

That'd be something to include in the article.

It's currently better than a lot of the articles we have, so I don't think anyone would mind if you put it in mainspace. But it might make sense to focus on how much of his work informs modern Islamic (or possibly European) thought.

Also add the Islam template ("islam" in double curly brackets).CorruptUser (talk) 06:09, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to need a big ol'[citation needed] for the claim that Hillary is to Obama's left.

Here it is Typhoon (talk) 07:43, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton is not to Obama's left, and that Harry Enten bullshit is just that: bullshit.---Mona- (talk) 23:51, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I can link many other sources that put her to the left, and indeed I will once the article is unlocked. Your blogs suck. Typhoon (talk) 07:46, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I think the problem with this is that you are trying to objectively prove that Clinton is, in general, to the left of Obama.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 08:18, 12 June 2016 (UTC) 08:18, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

basic income experiment

Did you read about this? It looks interesting.---Mona- (talk) 23:45, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Experiments have been done before, and the results usually tend to be "people work less as a result", so I'm not holding my breath that it'll convince anyone. I have mixed feelings on basic income, mainly because we have a labor shortage and should directly hire the people instead; the problem is getting people comfortable with raising taxes to hire the people directly (and of course, politics of which district gets what workers).

I'm a futurist of sorts, and "what will we do when robots replace everything" has always bothered me, but my answer has always been "we have a nursing and teacher shortage to say nothing of police; just tax the automated industries and hire more detectives, teachers, and nurses". I think the biggest surprise I had was that Karl Marx's works were built on answering the question of technical employment, which is why I added that bit into his article. CorruptUser (talk) 00:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, but now a question on suggestions

Thank you for fixing the error on my list edit over in the To-Do list. Now I need to ask what can be done to prevent the text from loading like that again. Thanks. I'm a biologist... and a madman. (talk) 06:17, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

You forgot the closing brackets thing in the HTML. "<eg>Hello!" versus "<eg>Hello!</eg>" CorruptUser (talk) 06:23, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

In response to your vote

Hello CorruptUser! I've clarified the coop vote per your comments, (see new headline plus this and this reply I wrote to you) in the hopes that things have now been cleared up and your vote may be moved. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:32, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Yeah I think you should change your vote too. PBfreespace (talk) 00:34, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Since you changed your vote, could you please cross out the previous choice? That way, it's less confusing. Thank you! Nerd (talk) 00:45, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

That, and also, you forgot to sign when you wrote "Allright I've changed my vote". Just a friendly reminder. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:50, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Just a note of thanks

Hi CorruptUser!

I just wanted to tell you that I actually thought this edit of yours was good and improved the section. The problem is, it belonged to a larger portion added by a BoN who is not doing too hot right now at editing RationalWiki. But I still wanted to acknowledge the work you put in - I don't mean to just go on a reversion spree against good people's work. But that BoN really made that portion a bad overall addition to that article, so I'm sorry, it had to go. Thanks anyways buddy. And I love Dolph Lundgren. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:40, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

It's no problem. I also understand why you removed Dolph Lundgren. i originally added him as a joke because his real life biography reads like a terrible romance novel character. CorruptUser (talk) 22:00, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

A terribly awesome romance novel character, you mean! :D Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:06, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

He's awesome but the romance novel he's in is terrible because he's a real life Marty Stu :P. If you were to ask a bunch of 12 year old girls to clone the perfect boyfriend, you'd get Dolph Lundgren. CorruptUser (talk) 22:11, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

TIL I'm a 12 year old girl :3 Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for RationalMedia board election

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

--Owlman (talk) (mail) 19:10, 17 July 2016 (UTC) 19:10, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Aw

Thanks for running. I think you'd have made a good fit. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 03:21, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

"Can't perform duties :("

You don't have to share if you're not comfortable about it, CorruptUser, but are you gonna be okay? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 03:29, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I probably will, but I have a lot of stress going on in my life right now. Been through worse. CorruptUser (talk) 04:22, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Take care of yourself, then. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 18:58, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I also wanted to pop in and say: thanks for running, and I hope you're doing OK. If not, you can always write to me if you wanna. All the best buddy, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:00, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. One day at a time, I guess. Hopefully I'll make it through this month and next (no, not dying, but blegh). CorruptUser (talk) 22:28, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Mind if I ask if the affliction is mental or physical (or perhaps both)? I'd say "1 like = 1 prayer", but there's no likes or prayers at RW. So, I'll just say "get well soon". All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:21, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Neither; career headaches are the big thing. Still have the job, for now, but I hate to have this crap on top of my professional stuff, legal things, love life, then there's dealing with family, etc. So, you know, life, so I'm going to be a bit too preoccupied for a little while. CorruptUser (talk) 00:03, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for reverting the talk page bullshit. It really means a lot to me. PBfreespace (talk) 04:02, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

For science!

Hi CU! I was just wondering; do you plan to make use of the sources as you expand the nootropics article? I think that's the only way we'll avoid the article turning into broscience. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:44, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Not sure examine.com is the best source. But yeah, avoiding broscience is a good thing. CorruptUser (talk) 17:46, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Why do you say that? About Examine, not the broscience (on which we agree). Check this out, see what you think. I find them very reliable, not judging them by their stub articles but by articles like the ones they have on caffeine (424 unique study references) or omega-3 (736 unique study references), both of which supplements you already make claims about in the nootropics article. We should probably cite the literature for all that. Scroll to the bottom of the Examine articles and they list their sources (meaning; we don't actually use Examine as the source, we use the scientific literature as the source). All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:52, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Alright, I'll see what I can add. Need to work on the racetams, the main drugs touted as nootropics. CorruptUser (talk) 17:54, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Great stuff, buddy. Oh, and about the racetams — I got us started here. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:56, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Not to intrude...

...but I was wondering — you plan on voting here? I got the impression that you were in favor of a "Yay" vote, and I was wondering if there was any particular reason as to why you haven't voted yet? All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:28, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

It's more that I'm unsure what the best answer actually is. I'd be fine with those three knuckleheads all getting sysoprevoked, but IDK about banning outright and IDK if that will solve the problem. CorruptUser (talk) 00:44, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

If it's any consolation, I am also deeply conflicted about this vote. It's not that I don't think the charges add up, really. The intended goal is fantastic (though perhaps not attainable this way...). No, it's... something else. I think. I don't know. Bertrand Russel was taught never to follow a multitude to do evil by his grandmother, and I think it might have rubbed off onto me to the point where I may in fact not be following a multitude to do... good? Me right now. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:05, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

So basically, this vote is a metaphor for the current US election, maybe? CorruptUser (talk) 01:08, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Hah. Well, yeah, I suppose (though in the actual election, it's very obvious to me that Hillary deserves the office over Trump). But to play along with your analogy (for fun); if the current Coop vote was to be understood as Trump/Hillary, then, in that situation, I suppose I'm sitting here still Feeling the Bern going like Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:12, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Republican here, but actually more liberal than most Dems. Wanted Pataki but knew that would never happen, so I had to choose the least awful of a bad crop and went for Kasich. But nooope, the media ignored any non-Democrat that wasn't embarrassing themself. Now we have a situation where I actually can't tell which is more awful. That Trump is losing Republican backing right now is practically an endorsement because it means he will be too weak politically to do anything, but give Hillary enough rope and she'll have the entire system rigged so that we have to endure her for twice as long... CorruptUser (talk) 01:31, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Personally, I'd say I'm some kind of Nordic model-type welfare capitalist/social democrat/social liberal (with a marked tinge of civil libertarianism for all things regarding the governing of the individual, as opposed to the governing of society). Say what you will about these positions — there is much valid criticism to direct at Bernie (and the American left generally), for example — but I will insist on the one caveat that where I happen to live, this stuff actually works really, really well — measured by all global indexes, no less. And as a Swede — we can both agree the US "corporate media" circus is just astonishing. Guh, now I feel like such an unbathed hippie for using the words "corporate media"... Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:44, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I'd actually go further, but with a major focus on the long term; plunge a large portion of the budget into research into robotics and automation, invest in durable infrastructure, renewable energy (especially wind), electric cars and especially electric farm equipment (the wind turbines are RIGHT THERE). And when I say automation, I mean virtually everything, replacing as many jobs as possible to the point where menial labor is virtually obsolete. After a few years and the country/economy is actually capable of supporting this, provide a bare bones citizen's wage, something on the lines of maybe $1000/month, $2000 for couples, +$500 for each kid up to 2 kids (possible one). Gut most other welfare programs entirely as a result, roll up the medical portion of Medicaid with Medicare but expand that for everyone as a basic system for all. Free birth control. Vast majority of society will have to be retrained of course, but do not be afraid to have a significant number of state jobs. No make-work jobs like accountants. but jobs like police, detectives, teachers, nurses, etc.

The irony of this all is that this is practically Marxist. No, seriously, that's kind of the world he envisioned, though depending on how drunk he was on any given day with or without the government managing it. CorruptUser (talk) 02:07, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Well Marx does seem to have grasped the fundamental irony that all wealth in capitalism is ultimately derived from human labor, yet the logic of capitalism makes everyone try to get rid of human labor. One thing potentially missing in your system is a reduction of average working hours. If (almost) everything is automated, there is really no need for half a percent of the population working 40 hour a week and everybody else not working at all. another +++Swedish+++ conspiracy by +++Laurogeita Hamabost+++ 14:22, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Only half a percent working? Hardly. The robots replace most of the blue collar jobs, some of the white collar jobs, but barely touch the labcoat jobs. What do you do with the masses of people laid off? Hire them. You see a sea of unemployed people, I see a world where classrooms have a dozen students per teacher, where no police department has to ignore major crimes due to "lack of manpower", where everyone has access to their own room at a hospital, and so on. People will have to get jobs doing their hobbies rather than menial labor. No jobs in fast food, but there will be jobs in fancy restaurants, and not the $10/hr line cooks and dishwashers. No jobs making shoes, but jobs adding designs to shoes so that everyone has their own unique sneakers. And so on. CorruptUser (talk) 14:36, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Have you seen this? I am not sure the jobs you mention can be replaced in the short term, but a lot of others can. another +++Swedish+++ conspiracy by +++Laurogeita Hamabost+++ 16:07, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

minarchist criticism

How is this criticism? I agree to paying roads / public parks / healthcare voluntarily because I value it. If all people pay for an enterprise that does these things well, then the local area will benefit and prosper. The only thing minarchist has against is taxes for anything else but enforcing property rights.

Whether people voluntarily "pay taxes" or "pay directly out of pocket" -- both are equivalent and the same because they 'voluntarily' did it in the contingent sense that even if there were no "taxes", people would still be incentivized to pay for healthcare for a class or group of people because everyone enjoys reduced research costs / scale of economies / etc. 99.224.169.209 (talk) 21:23, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Crueller parts of you that have some...

Come on, don't leave me hanging here? Spill! Levi Ackerman (talk) 08:34, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

You've been nominated as a moderator

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

The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 04:21, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh my

As the one person currently endorsing Hipocrite for moderator, I figured that factoring in this may or may not be relevant to your continued choice in doing so. Regardless — a happy new year to you, bud! All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:05, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh dear, I either forgot or didn't notice that. Sorry RBP. CorruptUser (talk) 18:32, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Nemas problemas, buddy! You're the mark of integrity for acting according to your conscience. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 07:37, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Moderator alternative

When/if one of us goes inactive, we'll eventually remember that you're on the moderator alternative list. Enjoy your reflected power. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 01:14, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Congratulations.:)-💠💿☝️ (talk) 04:30, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Hooray, maybe. Also, definitely congrats to you, DD. CorruptUser (talk) 04:31, 14 January 2017 (UTC)