User talk:Duke

Your welcome to RationalWiki is lukewarm at best, Duke. This observation is due to the nature of your initial edits. Pull up a goat and try not to make trouble. We realize it is possible that you do not understand the nature of the site or our objectives. Please see our guide for newcomers and our community standards to clarify things for you. If you're still interested in contributing, please see what our articles are intended to be.

P-Foster (talk) 17:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I expect to be banned shortly because I expressed a view, I know what my view is and I know its ok but liberals are complete nazis. Duke (talk) 17:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I sort of get the feeling that you are trying to test our liberal values.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 17:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Say, your first name doesn't happen to be David? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Your liberal values seem to manifest itself in ban of my article, unfortunately for you my voice is strong despite your repression. Duke (talk) 17:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Just so you are aware of our rules I suggest that you read this. By extension racist comments, opinions and propaganda are not welcome anywhere on the wiki.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 17:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I restored the article because I wasn't aware of the "no racism" policy. Seems like bullshit to me. Not allowing a debate about racism prevents refuting it, which I'd think is a goal here. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Complete nazi, you call yourself a liberal? I am not racist, I am a realist. Duke (talk) 17:40, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Also here. --Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 17:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

This is serious joke, omg you don't even see it your just like them. I raise the reality of the situation, how every country outside christendom is poor, ignorant and violent, and I get persecuted. Duke (talk) 17:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome to start a debate on racism. You can not start a debate with a statement in favor of it.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 17:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Wow, that's a fucking doozy. Duke, you're free to debate so long as your premise jibes with Bob. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:49, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

No, they must jibe with the rules of the site. this is not a complicated case.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 17:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 17:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that's pretty much what the rules say, I'm just saying that the rule is bullshit. According to you, can we even debate the merits of racism in order to overturn the rules? Occasionaluse (talk) 17:51, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Then take it up at community standards. --Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 17:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 17:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

In order to overturn the rule, the merits of racism would have to be examined. Do you agree? Under current policy, is that permissible? Occasionaluse (talk) 17:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

So I'm allowed to start a debate on racism, but only if I condemn it? This is like something out of 1984, you people are so stupid and lack perspective. I've already said I'm not racist, blacks can live in shitholes if they want to and take drugs and murder each other, I don't care. You talk about crime and all when its fact that only blacks in cities in America cause disturbances and murders. Duke (talk) 17:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Every murder in my state I can remember was done by a white person. ħuman 03:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

"Duke", you lose credibility when you deny that London is atheistic. I've analyzed your unconcise replies and I haven't seen a single insight from you yet, so there's a 95% chance you're not here to substantially contribute to this project. Furthermore, you deny that pregnancy deters autism. As I've said before, humor did not exist prior to Christianity. --Andy Schlafly 20:17, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

The rules state that overtly racist statements are not allowed. You may take the matter up at community Standards if you feel this is a bad rule.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 17:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure you won't just say that comments for the allowance for debate about racism are racist and delete them? Occasionaluse (talk) 18:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

You are filthy nazi and run this website like a concentration camp. You, Bob, are the Gestapo and the thought police. Duke (talk) 18:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm impressed that you've formed such a good opinion of me so quickly! :-) --Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 18:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I have proposed a slight adjustment to the community standards to prevent their future misinterpretation. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

PRATT

What you say is nothing new. If we wanted, we could go into how centuries of colonialism and oppression have created the unequal society we see today. We could remind you of all the different counter-examples, of the George Washington Carver's, and the Neil deGrasse Tyson's. We could even bring up artificial selection, and how the suppression of "prime black specimens" has led to the present (illusory) dearth of accomplished African-Americans.
Personally, I would bring up the class struggle. I would remind you that it is poverty that holds us down, white and black alike, and that rich children simply perform better than poor ones because of their environment. We'd tell you all this, but we won't, because it's been said again and again. And we shouldn't have to. We don't wish to legitimize your bigotry by debating you.--Brxbrx (talk) 18:07, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

It's kind of like saying we should zap everything related to creationism (or psuedo-science in general). It's all PRATT, so it's not worth refuting, amiright? Is no one up to easily dismantling racism for the 1,000,000th time? Occasionaluse (talk) 18:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The artificial selection you speak of, combined with Africans' genetic diversity, has led to their descendants dominating every professional sport in America played in relatively warm weather. "Suppression of prime specimens"? I think not. ħuman 03:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I did say illusory, didn't I? Perhaps English is not your native language? It isn't mine. Mine is French (though I'm far better at English). In French, quotation marks and parentheses are rarely, if ever used. Perhaps your native tongue excludes these as well?--Brxbrx (talk) 19:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I may be paranoid, but

Duke here has all the trappings of an MC sock. In that he is obviously an MC sock. Blue (pester) 05:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Don't be silly. Name three? Duke is his own special person. ħuman 05:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Don't be silly yourself, you old goat. Blue (pester) 17:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Does that mean I'm Duke??? Occasionaluse (talk) 17:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

You aren't being paranoid. Occasionaluse=MC=David Gerard. Duh. Тy^Talk. 17:59, 19 April 2011 (UTC)