User talk:Darth Ravigious
The "Problems" section, immediately below the section you edited, consists of several different criticisms of trigger warnings and safe spaces. They are well written, well sourced, and reasonable. Your edits were not. B) talk 00:32, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
- Well, mine were most certainly reasonable and adequately written, although, I admit, there was no sourcing. I have noticed that there are many sections of articles on this website that have little to no sourcing at all, instead incorporating humor. The section that I wrote was supposed to come across as rather humorous. Darth Ravigious (talk) 00:37, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
- I've replied regarding the Trigger Warning article on my talk page. You're certainly right that many articles here are inadequately sourced. It's important that we continue to source what we can, and remove what we can't. Also, humor and sourcing are not mutually exclusive. B) talk 01:08, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Ronnie's leftist politics?
There was an attempt
Because of your edits to and 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 ᴘᴏᴡᴇʀ — and these external tools:
- Rbutr shows user-submitted rebuttals to your current webpage.
- Google Scholar Button (Chrome, Firefox) searches your highlighted text in Google Scholar. Easily check academic citations!
- web.archive.org and archive.is can save permanent copies of webpages. Never lose a crank website or racist Tweet ever again! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:37, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Discussion of "true" ideological bent
The "ranty" articles are the bad ones. If you think that AFA slanders its opponents as fascists, then try to back it up with citations (good) or direct quotes (better) or side-by-side comparisons (best). FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 01:07, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Right, so I noticed three of your userboxes were showing up as redlinks. I corrected the deism one, so that should be good. There isn't really a "liberal" userbox, but there are some others like "This user is hella liberal" that might fit. See RationalWiki:Userboxes/political for some examples. There also, as far as I can tell, isn't one for the VA, but I could be wrong. I should also note that it is possible to make a new userbox from scratch. Sincerely, RoninMacbeth (talk) 15:59, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Removing sourced content from Alcoholics Anonymous
It's fine to add more sourced content. It's fine to remove badly-sourced content. It's not fine to delete sourced content without any reason. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 02:12, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
John Stuart Mill
Your edit asserted that it was simplistic to call the alt-right a far-right movement, but I want to posit that maybe your understanding of the term "right" is simplistic. Right-wing and left-wing both encompass a very broad range of ideologies, both individualist and collectivist, both economically liberal and corporatist, both authoritarian and libertarian. The right can't be reduced or simplified to individualist economic liberalism; more than anything, the most consistent part of all right-wing ideology has always been about the preservation of tradition. It's obviously a complicated subject and you could probably say that the right and left wings form fuzzy sets more than they meet strict criteria. But there's really nothing about the alt-right that is uniquely left-wing. Neither their economic views, nor their collectivism. For that matter, you can find plenty of individualism on the left, plenty of libertarianism, and even plenty of economic liberalism as well. Cat A. Lonia (talk) 15:52, 16 March 2018 (UTC)