User talk:Flandres

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
New logo large.png Welcome to RationalWiki, Flandres!

Check out our guide for newcomers and our community standards!

Tell us how you found RationalWiki here!

If you are interested in contributing:

--Yisfidri (talk) 08:23, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Autopatrol[edit]

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 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!

Also, thanks a bunch for catching what was probably my mistake on WWI. 🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄Ask about our holiday specials! 23:00, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Discord[edit]

You on Discord? Oxyaena Harass 19:10, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Afraid not. Why?-Flandres (talk) 19:12, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Just curious. Oxyaena Harass 01:31, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Anarcho-communism[edit]

The IWW, antifa, and the SRA say hello. Oxyaena Harass 13:09, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

And how close are any of those organizations from achieving their stated goals?Flandres (talk) 13:22, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
They've made quite some progress. You can't achieve anything by sitting on your ass and moaning all day. Oxyaena Harass 13:35, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Um..like what? corporations are still fundamentally predatory. Fascists still speak without fear of reprisal(But clearly milkshaking is a amazing revolutionary act). The grand edifice of capitalism still exists and will continue to exist(Joe Biden says hello).Flandres (talk) 13:40, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
If you want to enact change, you have to build it from the bottom up. You're too blackpilled. Oxyaena Harass 13:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Considering the leftist political project of equality has had oh, around 200 years to make change from the bottom up and ideologies like social democracy kick your ass on the front of doing things for working class people("socialism like in northern Europe", for fucks sake socialism is like social democracy's deadbeat cousin), if i'm too black pilled maybe its because people like you constantly let me down by promising a utopia and falling whenever it counts. You know, I left behind depression and socialism at about the same time(well, other things were involved but no longer holding the world to an unachievable dream might have helped).Flandres (talk) 13:50, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
It's a fact history has a tendency to move left, you don't think the French Revolution, Haitian Revolution, American Revolution, Mexican Revolution, and Russian Revolution didn't ultimately have any long term effects? Of course it's a struggle, it's always been, don't give up now. Oxyaena Harass 14:20, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
No, history moves randomly and you rationalize as left after the fact because you are desperate to believe a utopia is around the corner. Was the spread of Hellenic civilization in the the former achaemenid empire "leftward"? Was the the destruction of Mycenaean Greece "leftward? This is just something you make uop after the fact, you are no better than some preacher who always believes this is a sign the prophesies within the Book of Revelation will come true because of some thing he over heard on the news.Flandres (talk) 14:27, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
False equivalency noted, and do you deny what the trend of history has been since the Reformation and Enlightenment? It used to be okay to own people as property, now it's not. It used to be okay to rape your spouse, now it's not. Oxyaena Harass 14:32, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Its not a false equivalency, first, its the same psychological triumphalist reflex. Second, the reformation was not a trend leftward and you are an idiot if you think that. Third, the enlightenment was just a social movement-if monarchy did not last forever, why should its successor? You are dealing in artificial constructs, not facts.Flandres (talk) 14:37, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
The Reformation was a response to the decadence and corruption of the late Medieval and Renaissance era Church, rebelling against authority and trying to reassert more egalitarian versions of Christianity seems like a leftist move to me. What was the successor to feudalism? Capitalism. By your very same argument why should capitalism last forever? I am aware that the Enlightenment was just a social movement, but social movements have effects that trickle down through history. Oxyaena Harass 14:42, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
The reformation also involved greedy noblemen in north Germany entrenching local privileges to defy the holy roman emperor and saw the implementation of horrifically theocratic laws and protestants lynching Jews. Is that anti-hierarchical? Also, if capitalism will not last forever why must socialism inevitably replace it? social democracy is doing better than you in every way.Flandres (talk) 14:45, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
We're all human. The Reformation also involved the DiggersWikipedia, an early religious communist sect, and one priest, John Ball, was a proto-socialist who helped lead the Great Peasant's Revolt. Of course it isn't inevitable that socialism will replace capitalism, but I believe that it's worth fighting for anyways, so that when capitalism inevitably dies what comes after won't be horrible shit. We're at a crossroads in history, why have you given up the fight? Oxyaena Harass 14:50, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
For every digger on john ball there were a lot more Henry the VIIIs and Gustavus Adolphuses. Also, socialism tends to fail. I have little as is, and I will not invest that in a sinking ship(Bernie 2020 demonstrated that excellently). I have my own plans for the future, or this "crossroads," as you call it.Flandres (talk) 14:59, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Nemesis[edit]

Do you know what "nemesis" means? A righteous infliction of retribution manifested by an appropriate agent. Personified in this case by an 'orrible cunt... me.
—Brick Top, Snatch

Felt appropriate given your reasoning for your vote in the coop :p. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 08:59, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Congratulations[edit]

You've been nominated to the RationalMedia Foundation election. Please accept or decline; if you accept, you may wish to campaign. Gunther1987 (talk) 11:16, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I honestly[edit]

appreciate your fair-handed approach towards things. Thank you. Oxyaena Harass 17:42, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Are you from Belgium[edit]

? Iwillprobablygetbanned (Reply) 10:08, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Not personally, though most of my paternal relatives still live there.-Flandres (talk) 11:46, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello[edit]

I've talked to you a few times before when I wrote on this website more often, and I've read a lot of conversations you've had. I can't help but notice that your both impressively well informed and depressingly pessimistic. You interest me because of this, and I'm wondering when you believe humanity peaked. Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 02:23, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank You for your interest! As for your question, I don't quite think humanity ever peaked per se(no part of history, no matter how prosperous at first glance, is free of horror and doom), but if I had to chose one era..it would probably be either the 90s or the 50s, with the caveat both of those times were hardly as good as the common man remembers. You could lie to yourself into believing humanity was on a "upward spiral" or whatever.-Flandres (talk) 02:35, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
Interesting. I've read authors who assert that humans were better off in the neolithic. Returning to your apparent pessimism, how do you imagine the near or far future? Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 02:43, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
Biden will implement short term fixes, not long term solutions. Things will go much more immediately worse, however, in other regions-economic instability tends to help authoritarianism surge in already vulnerable places. The world will not fall apart all at once-that is not how history works-but we are not heading into a new era of prosperity post-Trump. Of course the death star here is climate change. Most countries by now have some climate plan drafted but few of them are actually adequate, especially when this problem requires immediate action. Already in terms of committed warming alone, we have passed the point where subsistence farmers in developing countries, especially around the equator, are fucked. If you think there is a "refugee crisis" now, you are in for a nasty shock around 2050 or so. The 21st century is going to get a lot more unstable. Note this is not exhaustive.-Flandres (talk) 02:59, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
Firstly, I'm interested in your confidence that Biden will win. While the voting results look good for him, the GOP could still use the Supreme Court that they happened to have effectively hijacked. Secondly, I've spoken to you before about climate change. I remember you specifically stating that 'it will more greatly effect the future than any one political entity', and I think that's a fair judgement. This may sound bleak, but I reassure myself about this issue with the accurate understanding that mass extinction events only create a temporary (few million years) recession in biodiversity before new life tends to re-evolve. I have no doubt that the Earth will still be teeming with life a billion years from now. However, another interesting thing that will undoubtedly impact the immediate future is the rapidly declining human fertility rate. (source: https://www.visualcapitalist.com/world-population-2100-country/). This century, we will see a global sub-replacement fertility rate for the first time in human history. Fun! Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 03:22, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
The supreme court scenario is entirely possible, but that requires a lawsuit reaching them first. Besides, so long as the new democratic congressional majority is small enough to still be vulnerable to filibuster style sabotage tricks(so court packing and whatnot would be unlikely), Trump served his purpose-he appointed numerous judges that will stymie economic regulation, social progress, and climate action for quite some time. They can abandon him now. Chief Justice Roberts(who is very concerned with making the supreme court look "objective") can sacrifice him to look good knowing the long term damage to the right-wing political project is containable.-Flandres (talk) 03:39, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
What do you think about the two other things I mentioned? Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 03:44, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
I agree the damage to the biosphere will be recovered from even if what emerges from this disaster will be very different from what entered it-in fact, I find that interesting rather than bleak. Sub replacement fertility rate...that is quite the variable. My projections can only account for so much, though you could argue that is a stabilizing influence depending on how it comes about despite my usual pessimism. Of course, lowering population would be much more problematic if it is not accompanied by serious economic redistribution measures I am not seeing happening right now. I don't think human extinction is on the horizon, if that is what you are getting at(though some of our favorite luxury crops are not so lucky).-Flandres (talk) 04:08, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
What kind of economic measures do you think would eventually need to be taken? Judging by the article I cited, China will be impacted most by population decline over the next few decades. The one-child policy they implemented a while ago had serious unintended consequences, mainly a gender skew, but their economy is currently fine. Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 05:13, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
Well, actively encouraging immigration is at least a start. Of course, it would be nice if we did not lapse into nativist politics and treat these people like crap.-Flandres (talk) 05:41, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
Interesting. Well, I appreciate the discussion. While I'd very much like to keep bringing up other subjects to keep the dialogue going, I understand that this is sufficient. Despite your relentless pessimism, the existence of people like you makes me slightly less pessimistic. I appreciate your presence on this wiki and wish you well. 💚 Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 06:10, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

This might be a weird question[edit]

You know when we were talking about Venezeula on the Ilhan Omar talk page and I admitted I was wrong. Yeah I noticed you reverted the part where I said I was wrong. Like did I break any of RW's rules there or?Evilatheistheathen (talk) 11:23, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Wait, what? I thought you reverted that yourself. That's what it says when I pull up the fossil record anyway...-Flandres (talk) 13:23, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Yep looked over it again and it says I did. I can't even remember doing that either. Well, eh, sorry for the inconvenience lol.Evilatheistheathen (talk) 03:01, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

For not picking up on LT's obvious sockpuppetry[edit]

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

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

If you had looked at their mindless generic wandalism, you would have seen that this user was not just worthy of a short-term block; it was LT. --Goatspeed. See what I'm up toCircularREmail2.gifasoningSee my experiments 00:06, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Buckly and "right of reason"[edit]

OK, yeah, he wasn't that moderate, but, if you ignore the meaning of the actual words, he just sounded so authoritative and reasonable ... or is that patrician and condescending. 2601:285:8380:1AC8:D5A5:15FE:2810:8FBA (talk) 21:00, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Honestly, that describes far too many people usually held up as "sane" or "moderate" conservatives/right-wingers.-Flandres (talk) 21:06, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

My mistake[edit]

I pinged you on accident. Mea culpa. Oxyaena Harass 13:52, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Nice one[edit]

That line you put at the very end of the Burma intro is fucking good. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 00:05, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for noticing! I am quite the wordsmith, hmhmhm...-Flandres (talk) 00:11, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Ninja[edit]

Would you like have Ninja permission so that you can turn Bot permission on and off? This is useful when you have a lot of similar edits that are likely to be uncontroversial. Bongolian (talk) 05:17, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure...why do you ask?-Flandres (talk) 05:19, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
I saw you adding a category across many pages. It kind of clutters up the 'Recent changes' feed, which some people might find annoying. When one turns Bot rights on, it keeps that out of the feed but will still show up on page history. Bongolian (talk) 06:54, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Sorry for the late reply, but I don't think I need it. I just happened to make a lot of edits fitting your description because a category that actually covers a lot of our articles had just been created. I don't usually edit mainspace that much, at least as I see it.-Flandres (talk) 00:00, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
OK. You can always post in RationalWiki:Requests for user rights if you changed your mind and want it later. Bongolian (talk) 00:32, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

About the National Review[edit]

Hi, I saw that you advised another user about not using the National Review as a reliable source. Of course, their bias is a well-known fact, but according to MBFC they're mostly factual. So, for my future edits I'd like to know, the problem about sources like the National Review is the bias or that mostly factual is not enough? GeeJayK (talk) 06:41, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

The bias You can have mostly accurate data and then misrepresent it to suit your bias, especially if the audience does not have the background knowledge to call you out.-Flandres (talk) 06:46, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. But then should I also avoid for instance CNN and Fox News (almost as biased as National Review, and less factual according to MBFC) or the Jacobin (more factual, but even more biased)? Sorry if I'm bothering you with those questions. GeeJayK (talk) 06:52, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Definitely steer clear of those two; both are excessively paranoid attention-whores run by people who are deeply emotionally invested in politics and too often let these biases seep in and cloud their reporting, even if they need to stretch the truth at least a little bit. --Goatspeed. See what I'm up toCircularREmail2.gifasoningSee my experiments 06:55, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict)No problem! Most outlets have some biases, it's just a matter of finding the least worst ones. CNN is better than Jacobin, which is better than Fox. In fact most outlets with right-wing biases can be easily dismissed (a sad testament to the inanity of much of the modern right). With left-wing ones...that is a ticklish question. We have even had a few arguments about Jacobin (and the intercept) on this very site!-Flandres (talk) 06:56, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
It also depends on whether you're citing a news story or an opinion piece. Fox News and even Daily Mail actually do sometimes accurately report news. Also one has to cite Fox News if one is talking about Fox News itself. Opinion pieces are not inherently bad, e.g. Jennifer Rubin of The Washington Post sometimes writes about legal issues; she is a lawyer herself and she cites legal specialists to back up her writing, so the piece is usually reliable. Bongolian (talk) 07:55, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Fiscal responsability[edit]

Hi. Sorry for bothering you again. I think your latest edit on the Fiscal responsibility article has some problems. Most deficit hawks economists (and I'm not one) will agree that it's A-ok for the government spends loads and loads of money when there's a crisis, when the velocity of the circulation of the money is slow and when the economic activity is slow. Even Milton Friedman said that. Right now we have all the three cases. Meanwhile, most of those who support a strong fiscal policy also agree that we'll have to pay for the fiscal stimuli we're seeing right now and work on a tighter budget in the future. I believe that we can make some changes on that. GeeJayK (talk) 06:13, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Okay, if you feel that strongly about it..-Flandres (talk) 06:14, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
I'm not changing it right now though, I'll think about it latter. COVID-19 is a huge Black Swan, we don't know how things are going to be in the future. GeeJayK (talk) 06:16, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Was it really, though? Health experts have been warning a big pandemic would hit for years now...-Flandres (talk) 08:00, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
It was not a black swan at all. Precedents are: 1) The "Spanish" Flu pandemic, which killed 50+ million worldwide 2) The 2002–2004 SARS outbreakWikipedia (a coronavirus) (8000 deaths) 3) Three outbreaks of MERS in three different yearsWikipedia (a coronavirus) (close to 1000 deaths total). US Preparation was: the Obama administration Playbook for Early Response to High-Consequence Emerging Infectious Disease Threats and Biological Incidents.[1][2] There have also been a some of popular science books both reanalyzing the 1918 flu, and warning about future pandemics, books which predated COVID. Bongolian (talk) 18:12, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

On the subject of ancient history[edit]

I was wondering if you've read any of Sima Qian's writing. Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 06:30, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

No, but I'm familiar with it. My main area of expertise is the ancient near east from the Sumerian period to the early Islamic era.-Flandres (talk) 12:46, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Interesting. Everyhing I would know about the Near East would be historical events related to the compilation of the Old Testament, which is something you're also probably familiar with. Do you know much about China/East Asia in general? Because that would be my area of expertise. Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 18:49, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
I would normally say I don't know much, but I don't actually know that-I usually can only compare myself with peers, and back in school everybody just told me I seemed to know everything about every part of history.
Suffice to say I know significantly more than your average dude...but I would not call myself an expert.-Flandres (talk) 19:25, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Well I can't say I'm surprised. On the subject of your knowledge, I was wondering how you know what you know. Do you have a history in academia or something? Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 19:32, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Honestly? I am just one of the few people I have ever met how has, since childhood, unironically thought history was extremely interesting. At fourteen, I attempted to write a complete chronology of Arsacid kings-I just legitimately thought engaging in extensive research about the minutiae was fun.
If you add that obsessive level of interest with my abnormally large amount of free time you get a downright monstrous amount of knowledge even though pretty much no member of my family has ever been able to afford a college education.-Flandres (talk) 19:40, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Well I suppose attitudes like that are rare, unfortunately. Was history the only subject that you gave that level of attention? Like, would you have comparable levels of knowledge in other fields? Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 19:51, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Other than contemporary politics, which I usually just see as an outgrowth of my historical knowledge? No, though I know a lot of random trivia. If we are talking not-so-relevant-to-real-life fields though, I am notorious among my friends for my quick learning rate at things I am interested in-if you recommend a franchise you like to me and I end up liking it, a week later I will be able to correct you on lore. It reminds me of that old quote about Alcibiades, about how he had stunningly brilliant talents but could not long focus them on any meaningful purpose.-Flandres (talk) 20:07, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Would you know much about religious/philosophical ideas? And if so, are there any you prefer over others? I kind of consider ideas to be the driving force behind the unfolding of history, and the rudimentary base of most ideologies is always philosophical. Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 20:12, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Not really that much. I can tell you a lot about religious ideas as they pertain to historical events-talk of how the messiah prophecy was connected to the territorial ambitions of Josiah in the aftermath of the Median/Babylonian forces destroying the once supreme empire of Assyria or how eschatological tales of the Last Roman Emperor reflected Christian angst during the rise of Islam-but I can tell you little about the abstract ideas themselves.-Flandres (talk) 20:20, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Since I'd like to better understand your ideological framework, I was wondering how you'd respond if I asked you to give a philosophical worldview statement. Like why and how do you believe reality exists etc. You're clearly not sympathetic to religion, so I wouldn't expect anything fancy. Also, drawing back to my original discussion here, I was also wondering if you see modern China as becoming the next global superpower. Like the next America, or something like that. Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 07:22, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
I can see China rising in power, and the USA declining...but if you mean "unilateralism" I think that is a bit too far. The age of unilateralism is in all likelihood over. China will still have a big leg up over a lot of other countries though.-Flandres (talk) 13:27, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
You don't see the Belt and Road Initiative ushering in the Chinese Century, as some people predict? Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 02:42, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
It is a possible outcome, I will admit that. On the other hand, I can see some sort of hyper-nationalist reaction in various countries derailing that. It can be easy to forget, but the rise of the USA to "sole superpower" was the result of some very specific circumstances which may never be replicated fully again.-Flandres (talk) 02:52, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
While I'm not denying the peculiarity of the USA's political position, we should also acknowledge the peculiar advantages of being a gilded-age superpower in this time period. Technologies that would seem miraculous a century ago are now common-place, and China incarnates the negative outcome of that reality, being a cartoonishly dystopian surveillance state who claims to have developed laser guns and weather-altering technology and all. I suppose we'll have to wait and see, unfortunately. Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 03:30, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
True. But it will be fun to follow, at least...-Flandres (talk) 03:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
I suppose it will be. I'll bring up one last subject and then I'll stop annoying you. Our last discussion ended on the subject of human extinction. If you don't believe that's on the horizon, when and how do you think it will occur? Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 03:41, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Honestly? I don't know for sure. I have little doubt that it will be self-inflicted..but that would require a massive change in circumstances from what we have right now. A few Katechons that we probably don't even consciously notice would have to fall away.-Flandres (talk) 03:45, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
The idea of self-inflicted extinction usually revolves around nuclear/biological weapons, which makes sense, but do you ever worry about human technology going way too far in other areas? Like, is it inconceivable that we could create a technology that damages the fabric of space-time, or something like that? Or perhaps I'm just being over-imaginative. Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 07:03, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────That is a tricky question. I imagine some of these life threatening advances are so, well, advanced, we can't even conceive of them now. If an Akkadian has no knowledge of rocketry, how do you explain the underlying principles of a city being wiped out by a orbital kinetic weapon without resorting to religious terms?-Flandres (talk) 15:32, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Swiss IP[edit]

No, this is NOT me. He‘s from the french part, while I‘m from the german part of Switzerland. Kevs Ping! 18:15, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

@Kevlarstar Don't worry, I didn't think it was. I thought it was Raven, and the misunderstanding comes from Christopher not getting the reference to Switzerland.-Flandres (talk) 19:26, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Since you seem to get the idea that segregation is tied to conservatism...[edit]

I hope this video gives you a better picture of things:

UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 20:17, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, that explains a lot. Not the video's opinion, the fact that you cite sources like PragerU. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:22, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Meh, I'm not one who watches PragerU often or necessarily follows everything they say. Besides, the point here is the subject matter of the video, not that the video is from PragerU. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 20:25, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Look, I'm going to blunt. PragerU isn't simply wrong, it's actively dishonest. Cite better sources. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:27, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
You mean like The New American? UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 20:33, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
That's a shit source too. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:39, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
You're being lied to, UShistoryanalyzer. These sources lie to you. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 20:44, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Then tell me, which side of the political spectrum has been calling for nonsense like all-black dormitories, separate black graduations, etc.? Your cognitive dissonance certainly seems to be showing! UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 20:49, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Great video, UShistoryanalyzer.

In this instance, the genetic fallacy being employed followed by silence after a probing question is a hallmark of cognitive dissonance.Cggdss (talk) 17:24, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Ken. GeeJayK (talk) 17:26, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
You may need to read the exceptions section of the article on the genetic fallacy Ken. There's some important info there. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:36, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

FYI[edit]

Hi Flandres, great news! My user talk page says:

You have been topic banned from all articles relating to U.S. History and Politics. This means you are not allowed to make edits to these articles or edit their talkpages.

It didn't specify anything about user talk pages though, so I can still tell you the truth you need to hear!

So first things first, you seem to have the fallacious notion that the racist pro-segregation Southern Democrats were "conservatives" because they wanted to maintain racism. That relies on the presumption that conservatism isn't about any specific positions in particular and instead merely is about preserving the current status quo, which is highly faulty. After all, would a pro-abortion protester against overturning Roe v. Wade nowadays be considered "conservative"? No! However, by your vague type of definition, they apparently would merely because they want to preserve the status quo in terms of current laws in place.

I hope this clarifies some things for you for starters. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 00:07, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Somebody who wants to overturn Roe v Wade is a reactionary, not a conservative. They want to roll back social change to what they see as a older but better way of doing things. The terms are regrettably often used synonymously in popular discourse, much like "liberal," "progressive," and "leftist."
Please learn more basic background knowledge before you attempt to engage me on this topic, or any related topic, again. I only have so much time to waste with my inferiors, hmhmhmhm...-Flandres (talk) 00:15, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Wait wait wait, so someone who's pro-life and wants to overturn Roe v. Wade isn't a conservative even though they're advocating for conserving life? I thought that you guys on this wiki think that trying to overturn Roe is part of "conservative wingnuttery"? Do you ever read what you're typing for talk page comments before pressing the "Save page" button? UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 00:22, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Okay, that first sentence is so stupid I can't even respond to it other than to denigrate it. Do you have any idea what the etymology of the term conservative even is? "Conserving life" is not "preserving the status quo."
As for your second sentence, I said these terms are regrettably rolled together, even by people on this wiki. As much as I would like to, I do not control category names.
Three, given what you just posted that is not something you should be asking me.
In summary, please stop being an imbecile.-Flandres (talk) 00:29, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

???[edit]

Why? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:09, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

The revert button is fickle and it happens to the best of us. I blocked myself a few times for that. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 03:24, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie Nonetheless shouldn't this WIGO be on the WIGO elections? I'm asking because once one WIGO World of mine was moved to the WIGO elections. GeeJayK (talk) 04:55, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
@GeeJayK I thought about putting it there but the implications of Raisi taking the field seemed to warrant it going to WIGO: World. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 12:21, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Seranaf[edit]

He is very clearly an alt account of the person involved in the mass attack last night. It's the same sig vandalism. — Unsigned, by: Prpht mhmd / talk / contribs