User talk:GrammarCommie

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page: <1>

Thanks[edit]

Not a complaint, but just saying thanks for doing the thankless job of adding those little digits and UTC at the end of comments and edits. — Unsigned, by: 149.150.236.80 / talk

Rome Viharo[edit]

I added a source for the claims. If you search Lumen Database you can find reports filed against his website for defamation, harassment and doxing. https://www.lumendatabase.org/notices/14711678 Debunking spiritualism (talk) 12:57, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

My question to your revert[edit]

Why did you ignore my question in Talk:Age_of_consent#Revert after you have reverted me without an explanation? --178.11.82.73 (talk) 10:33, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I've been busy ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 11:58, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Automobile revert[edit]

That was not vandalism. Old dog, new tricks (talk) 13:45, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

@Old dog, new tricks I never claimed it was. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:46, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Then why did you revert? Old dog, new tricks (talk) 13:47, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Because you are permanently banned from this site Grawp, now buh-bye!! ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:49, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Marx and homophobia[edit]

you need to re-read the source. It's all there. --The Rationalist 01 (talk) 03:46, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

The source states "Marx and Engels were personally homophobic, as shown by an acerbic 1869 exchange of letters". Are you saying the encyclopedia of homosexuality is wrong? --The Rationalist 01 (talk) 03:50, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

No, I'm saying you're putting words in their mouths. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:53, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

The quote "Marx and Engels were personally homophobic, as shown by an acerbic 1869 exchange of letters" is on the pages I cited. I'm not taking anything out of context here. --The Rationalist 01 (talk) 03:54, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Good point the rationalist 01, you were not out of context. --SouthAfrica (talk) 03:56, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Will you continue to defend a homophobe, commie? --SouthAfrica (talk) 03:57, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
@The Rationalist 01, do you have a publicly available source? He probably was homophobic given the time period but we should have sources anyone can verify. Christopher (talk) 16:02, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
@Christopher this was the source cited, though I was unable to locate the relevant information on the page cited, however I will admit that I only skimmed the page so I might have missed something. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:12, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
@Christopher@GrammarCommie I know I said I was leaving this site, but quite frankly, Christopher has shown himself to be really quite reasonable, so I'm going to try one last time to show the people running this site that GC is not doing his job well as a sysop at all by not giving serious consideration to facts that conflict with his worldview, and that in doing so, his personal political opinions are taking precedence over data quality on the Wiki. It took me all of five seconds to click that link, type "Marx" in the search bar on the left, and find the quote referenced by @The Rationalist 01 as one of the very first mentions of Marx in the book. You didn't "skim" this, GC - you didn't even look at it or you absolutely would have seen this. It's right there on the very first page of the book that mentions Marx's name. "There can be little doubt that, as far as they thought of the matter at all, Marx and Engels were personally homophobic, as shown by an acerbic 1869 exchange of letters on Jean-Baptiste von Schweitzer, a German socialist rival. Schweitzer had been arrested in a park on a morals charge and not only did Marx and Engels refuse to join a committee defending him, they resorted to the cheapest form of bathroom humor in their private comments about the affair. Similar lack of subtlety characterizes their views on the pioneering homophile theories of Karl Heinrich Ulrichs, in which they confused uranism with pederasty and pederasty with pedication (anal intercourse)." The implications of this are obvious and glaring: Marx was quite plainly a homophobe who compared homosexuals to pedophiles (and also a huge racist, but that's a topic for another thread), which was not at all unusual for his time, but there were many anarchists and other far-left extremists who did support homosexuals during this time period, and Marx was not among them, nor did he take a stand for them; in fact, he went so far as to eject these anarchists from the First International (also referenced in the source provided, one page later than the above reference).
This also begs the question: why are you so adamantly defending Marx if you aren't a Communist or Communist sympathizer, GC? You told me in the other thread that you just had to have your precious hammer and sickles so that you could mock these authoritarians, and that they weren't comparable to swastikas around a signature for this same reason...yet here you are, defending their thought patriarch without even bothering to give half a glance to check the sourced data provided? Very telling, I'd say.
For a savvy site moderator, the above should indicate that, just as in my complaint about him below, GC is far more interested in identity politics, personal opinion, and furthering his own agenda by preventing legitimate edits than he is interested in the veracity of data on this Wiki. --LogicalNerd (talk) 18:15, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
I skimmed over the page linked as a source, if it was the wrong page that is on the person who originally linked it. Please refrain from making an accusation of malice when the evidence points in a contrary direction. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:38, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
@LogicalNerd You could've just said the part where "it's right there on the very first page of the book" and went into detail and leave out the rest of that junk. GC, there's another source here that seems to talk about Marx's homophobia. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 18:41, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Uh huh. You're right, Mario, that I could have done that. I didn't because I am trying to show a broader case for malicious intent and/or negligence here. GC, the evidence here is that you claim to have "missed" the quote in question even though it's the third mention of Marx's name. I contend that if you would like for a rational observer to not assume this is due to malicious intent, then the only other conclusion that can be drawn is ineptitude. Neither is a good trait for a sysop, and in either case, you reverted a legitimate edit without giving the person making it due consideration, even after he came to your page to complain about it, until I made such a big deal out of it that another mod, Christopher, got involved and forced you to defend your statements. --LogicalNerd (talk) 18:56, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Since the user in question has/had a history of far-right ideologically driven edits, most backed by poor sources such as (but not exclusively) RT and Breitbart I was less inclined to assume good faith and as such was less inclined to believe they were telling the truth, which I admit was a mistake in this instance. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:03, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Here is a sincere tip you may find useful, if you would genuinely like to improve your abilities as a sysop in verifying information: you can take a quote, leave the quotes around it, put it into Google, and often find out if the quote is legitimate or not by doing so. If you'd done that with the phrase that The Rationalist 01 posted above, "Marx and Engels were personally homophobic, as shown by an acerbic 1869 exchange of letters," you would have seen that the second link in Google was the book The Rationalist 01 linked to...this "trick" is pretty common knowledge, so, again, if you were unaware you could do this, then if it's not malice on your part, it's surely ineptitude. --LogicalNerd (talk) 19:04, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
About the homophobia, might be worth looking into this, which disputes Marx's comments toward Schweitzer. Basically, contradicts the homophobia at least in that part. Either way, I think it's worth mentioning the homophobia, real or imagined. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 19:07, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Ah, that's fair. I wouldn't trust people who use Brietbart or RT, much less those who are transphobic on top of all of it. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 19:09, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
@LeftyGreenMario Should I revert my edits restoring the Homophobia section to the article then? Or should we add the countering opinion, with clarification that the the information is contested but not disproven? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:12, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
I think the initial edit shouldn't stay because it's a lazy no-effort one-liner. For a better edit, you can try to go into detail why Encyclopedia of Homosexuality Volume states Marx as a homophobe, go into detail somewhat about the affair with Jean-Baptiste von Schweitzer, and then you can try to use that blogpost I cited (if you think it's any good) to try to dispute the claim. I'm no historical scholar and I don't know much about Marx and all (wouldn't be surprised if he were a homophobe as he'd be a product of his time), and I myself don't really feel like diving too much into that factoid, at least not right now. You can also review the general Wikipedia article; seems like Ctrl + F + "Marx" is enough for me. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 19:20, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
I will say, too, that I can understand and appreciate your apprehensiveness towards believing a user's good faith when he has already presented poor sources like RT and Breitbart as if they were hard evidence. I don't know this guy from Adam; I just happen to know a lot about Soviet history, and knew that there is at least some evidence to suggest that Marx and Engels had homophobic tendencies. To be fair, in the historical context within which they lived, this was not uncommon and, as far as I can tell, despite how they may have felt about gay people, they weren't particularly virulent homophobes, especially not for their time. Others were calling for outright extermination of homosexuals while Marx and Engels seem to have merely found them to be degenerate/distasteful. And most of the homosexuals they insulted were also political rivals, so that element is at play here, too, for what it's worth. --LogicalNerd (talk) 19:45, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@LogicalNerd I thank you for understanding the matter from my point of view. Since the source is to the best of our collective knowledge trustworthy we should now endever to investigate the matter in depth. To that end we have three possible conclusions we can make. One, Marx and Engels attempted to smear Schweitzer because he was Homosexual. Two, they attempted to use Schweitzer's homosexuality to smear him because he was their rival. Three, the source is mistaken. Out of all three scenarios I believe One and/or two to be the most likely based on my understanding of the men in question and their society at the the time. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:10, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I would also agree with that assessment. --LogicalNerd (talk) 20:36, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

race realism archive[edit]

the edits on that are several years old, buried and no one views them. I thought it would be best to flush them for a clean redirect.Debunking spiritualism (talk) 18:29, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@Debunking spiritualism Doesn't matter if they're a hundred years old and sitting in a dusty bunker at the bottom of the Atlantic, you still don't up and delete archive pages. If you want more proof go check with one of the Mods. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:31, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
It's not an archive though. The original "Racial Realism" page was removed and redirected to the "racialism" article. There's no archived talk for the old "racial realism" pages, but edits for a deleted page left up on a redirect.Debunking spiritualism (talk) 18:36, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Archives are for talkpages, and talkpages alone. You never delete talkpage archives, which is very likely why the talkpage was never redirected in the first place. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:44, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Talk:Racial realism redirects to Talk:Racialism. What I removed was the obsolete Talk-page for racial realism, which isn't even a archived talk - some obsolete edits on that page were left up. There should be no edits on redirect pages. I think actual policy is to delete. Ask someone like :@Bongolian. Regardless, I was just trying to make pages more clean.Debunking spiritualism (talk) 18:51, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

dude, stop reverting or I'll make a coop case to de-sysop and block you[edit]

You're reverting stuff, including doxing. You have a history of reverting people, purely to annoy them.

You're an anonymous troll, so it doesn't matter what you do here. I/My family in contrast got doxed, we receive threats on a daily basis, are libelled and stalked all over the internet etc. Hence the stuff I'm deleting is done to protect me and family.

Please just fuck off and stop being a nuisance.Debunking spiritualism (talk) 02:03, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Back down kid, You didn't get the go-ahead to delete that content, quite the opposite in fact. And I would think twice about making accusations you can't back up. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 02:11, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't need permission to remove doxing. Perhaps read the rules. Like I said you're an anonymous troll. I'm sure you would rush to delete things if someone doxed your family members here.Debunking spiritualism (talk) 02:14, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
The only "doxing" I saw was the mention of the surname "Smith" which if you haven't been living under a rock you'll know is the most common surname in the English language. In addition I will once again warn you against throwing around the charge of "Troll" without any evidence. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 02:19, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
That's odd... I remember that you reverted my edits!(here) Note that the information is correct and the source is sited.24.217.122.12 (talk)
Generally, you're not supposed to reveal your own last name over the internet, regardless if it's an extremely common one. So I think any sort of surname reveal should be erased. It would be easier for me to see what other content GrammarCommie was trying to revert, though. When in doubt, GrammarCommie, provide a substantial edit summary by not clicking the rollback button. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 21:59, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Stop reverting my edits without reason/merit[edit]

You are being a bully and scientifically irrational, to the detriment of this Wiki and its content. You still haven't even addressed the outstanding issues on the Autogynephilia page under discussion, and you've reverted my edits to the TG glossary page without any legitimate reason. Multiple people here are accusing you of scientific disingenuousness and intellectual dishonesty. Knock it off, I am tired of being bullied by you. Such a proud fascist, too, with your symbols of the regime that massacred dozens of my ancestors in cold blood, purely for being Jewish. I doubt this Wiki would let swastikas fly, but you get to put hammer and sickles in your signature? Sickening. --LogicalNerd (talk) 22:59, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

You are clearly confused, Communism is a form of authoritarianism true, but not a form of Fascism. More to the point, when did I ever claim I was a Communist? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:05, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
You have hammers and sickles in your signature. It would be like me surrounding my name with swastikas and saying "when did I ever claim I was a Nazi?" And no, sorry, Communism is fascism in practice, even if it is not in theory. This is simply irrefutable history of every so-called Communist nation. Regardless, it's irrelevant - what is relevant here is that you're some edgy teen idolizing offensive and murderous ideology in your signature, and bullying your way around this Wiki, removing legitimate edits without merit and worsening the quality of information due to your own personal opinions and agenda. --LogicalNerd (talk) 23:11, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
May I suggest that "SJWWiki" might be more your speed? You don't seem to be particularly interested in science or rationality, just personal ideology. --LogicalNerd (talk) 23:13, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
You seem to be conflating Fascism and Authoritarianism. More to the point, have you ever considered that my usage of said words and images might be a form of satire? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:17, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
So you and the other decision-makers on this board won't mind some satirical swastikas, then, I presume? The iconography of regimes responsible for the deaths of millions are just hilarious jokes, after all, right?
Very interesting how you can't actually address the real point here, and want to derail this into a discussion about fascism vs. authoritarianism. I know the difference, and your precious Communist utopias have all been fascist; sorry to break it to you. But yeah, go on thinking Stalin was a communist and not a fascist, lol. --LogicalNerd (talk) 23:21, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry if you dislike my taste in humor (or lack thereof), but I firmly believe that any extremist ideology should be mercilessly mocked, it's failings pointed out, and it's adherents shamed. For if we as a species are to overcome such ideologies we must first be willing to put aside our fears of them, our hatred of them, and our disgust for them and expose them for what they really are, ignorant fools who are willing to let their emotions and ignorance control them. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:54, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Wait, people cant take a joke?Řïmũŗû ŢèmpéŝţRimuru Slime.png 23:56, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
I can take a joke. I just don't think it's particularly funny to flippantly use murderous iconography, nor do I feel that it's at all necessary to do so if your intent is to mock them; but hey what do I know, I only had countless family members mercilessly slaughtered by these regimes, after all.
For the - what, fourth time, now? - enough about your tasteless and hilariously edgy 6th grade sense of humor; address the damned point already and stop trying to sidetrack the discussion. --LogicalNerd (talk) 01:31, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Oh that, you described ridiculously unrealistic scenario (your sex = breeding view came up again) and removed a valid entry. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 12:51, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
"Ridiculously unrealistic" - how can you continue to be so obstinate and scientifically disingenuous when I've posted irrefutable evidence showing that over 90% of Americans either have children or want to have children eventually? Your situation of men mostly only wanting sex is the ridiculously unrealistic situation here, given that only six percent of Americans don't have or want to have children. Six percent! The vast, vast majority of American men will have children in their lifetimes. I very much hope you won't, though - at least not until you learn how to use and understand science and data. No wonder you think women are men and men are women - you're living in a fantasy world of your own creation in which men don't want to reproduce. Well, unfortunately for you, your fantasy world doesn't stand up to rigorous scientific scrutiny.
Now replace my perfectly valid edit back to how it was, or give a reasonable excuse as to why you removed it, since I just proved you wrong with hard scientific data. By extension, if the vast majority of men want to have children at some point in their lives, which I have demonstrated to be true, then the edit I made is absolutely valid, as the vast majority of men would find it concerning if the person they were considering dating as a long-term partner turned out to actually be biologically male and thus unable to reproduce with them, which means my edit was more true than what it replaced - and irrefutably so to boot. --LogicalNerd (talk) 19:03, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
@DiamondDisc1 @LeftyGreenMario @Christopher - it seems GC and I are unable to reach an agreement yet again. Can we get some impartial observation here, please? Also, can you please let me know if it's acceptable on this forum to put swastikas in my signature, in order to mock Nazis? If not, can you please explain why it's acceptable for GC to do so with hammers and sickles, ostensibly to mock Communists? And maybe note how many other people here have recently been complaining about GC's inability to impartially moderate this Wiki? --LogicalNerd (talk) 19:23, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
A single gallup poll from five years ago used out of context in this debate can hardly be considered "hard scientific data." The fact is, this particular line of thought has nothing to do with the subject in the edit. I'd have reverted your addition to the article quickly if GrammarCommie hadn't gotten to it first. Denigrating GrammarCommie using pretentious and insulting language and appeals to the mods do nothing for your already flimsy justification. Finally, invoking Godwin's Law and whining about irrelevant things like hammers and sickles in a wiki signature make you look like a bozo. Cosmikdebris (talk) 19:36, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Icon fedora.svg * dons Mod Hat *Icon fedora.svg

LogicalNerd, whatever your argument was, it's not a good idea to revert the moment GrammarCommie's protection expired (as well as your initial edit war previously which you should've learned not to repeat). Don't do it again. Guidelines in most wikis apply: edit warring is a counterproductive means to contribute an article. What would be more appropriate would be to bring up the discussion to the talk page. Never use ad hominems to attack other people (personal attack being "you are a detriment to the wiki"), never ever give them a hard time for their reverts. They're not "agenda-driven" or "bullies". Being defensive and hostile about it will only be disruptive and start an edit war. On another note, your false equivalence between Communism and Nazism is strange and also another attack on someone. Hammer and sickle is generally not a hate symbol, although it's banned in a few countries.

I also think you're transphobic here regarding these edits

  • [1] (your insistence that gender dysphoria is a mental disorder] even after I provided links on psychologists strongly disagreeing with you) and still making that claim later.
  • [2] (fixation on anti-trans bullying)
  • [3] (transgender women's minds is like a monkey wanting to be a rat; not a direct analogy, but use of analogy is problematic)
  • [4] (reductionist reasoning, but still going on with it and the whole "genuine woman" thing note my response)
  • [5] (transgender women didn't go through the initiation process of being a women including being sexually harassed by men and also having a uterus so they're not genuine women; poor reasoning, poor example, being the transrace thing, not pertaining to transgender people).
  • [6] (Already linked above, but worth repeating. "[...] thinking you're a woman doesn't make you a woman. Period, end of case." i.e. self delusion combined with self-fulfillment maybe?)
  • [7] ("a person thinking they are the opposite sex is simply always incorrect in actuality and is merely subjective personal perspective which is clearly and objectively not based in reality"; poor reasoning, with fixation on reductionist biology, which you've admitted earlier!)
  • [8] "We can observe in the world that a man is a man and a woman is a woman, and it really is as simple as that." (no it's not simple; society constructs are so complex, you have entire fields of science within sociology and psychology as well as the weird sex stuff in biology like sex-changing clownfish and male seahorses giving birth, which would imply that transgender may not be that unusual).

For someone who constantly reminds everyone how logical rational and scientific you are, you're not very impressive. Constantly saying this as well as the "clearly" and "obviously" adverbs don't lend to stronger arguments.

GrammarCommie, I think it should be a better idea to also lock the page earlier and also make an attempt to bring up to the talk page rather than constantly reverting edits without an explanation. It's not only LogicalNerd's responsibility to go to the talk page, but yours too if a user becomes problematic. Please keep that in mind whenever you're edit warring, even if you strongly disagree with the opposing party. And I've seen you also revert edits without explaining. You might save yourself trouble if you simply undid edits the old-fashioned way and provide a good edit summary. Of course, don't converse through edit summaries, but a little explanation can go a long way.

@Dendlai I find the language of LogicalNerd questionable, but I generally assume good faith nevertheless. I think it's wrong to call people a troll or TERF immediately, not until at least you get a discussion from them. It'll only lead to them responding to you as an SJW and lead to this juvenile argument over the Talk:Autogynephilia, which is always a pain in the ass for me to read, whenever those kinds of arguments I see in GameFAQs, comments sections, or RationalWiki, they all sound the same. You also need to engage in argument, explain why his arguments are bad (which you've done, including your argument that the trans-ra, but only later) The more I read LogicalNerd's posts, though, the more I'm inclined to believe you.

So that's my takeaway on this issue. Additional input from other mods will be great. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 22:50, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

@Cosmikdebris Yes, I'm sure attitudes about having children have changed so drastically in the span of five entire years that a supermajority of over 90% is now a minority. I'm also sure my "single gallup poll" worth of actual evidence is somehow worth less than the meaningless anecdotal opinions of a couple of strongly biased trans activists...at least when the administration of this place is a collection of tightly-knit radical far leftists. *roll eyes* This is obviously fruitless. Enjoy your SJW echo chamber. And here I thought this place might actually give a shit about evidence over anecdote. Obviously I was mistaken. You really ought to just change the name to SJWiki since nobody here is interested in actual science. --LogicalNerd (talk) 23:06, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

What was the edit in question? Something about people not wanting to date trans people because they want kids? Edit: I’ve seen your edit, and disagree with it. Although it’s perfectly reasonable to want kids (although adoption, surrogates etc are still options with trans people), no one is “trapping” anyone, there is nothing stopping the hypothetical straight guy in your scenario from simply breaking up with/not starting a relationship with the “trap”, and, although it’s clear what you mean when you say “biologically male” (a Y chromosome), the way you used it implies to many people that trans people being trans has no biological basis, which is simply untrue. Christopher (talk) 15:49, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

@Christopher The edit in question heavily implied men only date those they wish to have children with, and that sexual relations are only engaged in for the purpose of procreation. Both of these assumptions are patently false, in addition to the obvious transphobia. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 15:59, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
@Christopher LogicalNerd does actually believe "trans people being trans has no biological basis". It's not an implication. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 18:47, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
My edit most certainly did not imply that men only date those they wish to have children with, nor did it imply that sexual relations are only engaged in for the purpose of procreation. I am perfectly well-aware that people have sex for fun and with no intent to procreate. My edit merely suggested that in a perfectly reasonable and commonplace scenario - a straight male who wishes to procreate and is seeking a long-term partner to do so with at some point in the future - if the trans individual in question does not disclose their status as someone who was born biologically male, then this hypothetical straight male might feel "trapped," particularly if he thought that trans person was born biologically female, and had already entered into a long-term relationship with this person and, presumably, fallen in love with them/moved in with them/made other life changes to accommodate their relationship; hence the origin of the slur, as a person in this situation would obviously feel to some degree "trapped" and deceived. Of course that straight male can simply walk away, but he might have something to say about "traps" while he's doing it, especially if he's invested time and energy into the relationship under false pretenses. It's also worth mentioning that when I made these changes, part of the argument for reversion I received was, essentially, that men seeking out women to procreate with is something exceedingly uncommon, and the vast majority of men are solely interested in sex. No sources were given for this suggestion, and it was presented as if it were common knowledge. I posted a Gallup poll that showed over 90% of Americans want to have children or have children already, to which I received feedback that the poll was five years old and that, as such, it was weak data. I really don't think it's logical at all to presume that our country's attitude towards having children has changed so drastically in only five years that a tremendous supermajority has become a minority.
As for the suggestion that trans people being trans has a biological basis, @Christopher, I would urge you to review the materials I've already posted in the Autogynephilia talk page regarding this, which have been ignored and/or summarily dismissed as "weak evidence" by all others here whom I've asked to consider them; and, in my opinion, without basis. The long and short of it is that four out of five biological males in a study who were born with congenital disorders that caused them to, in essence, not have male genitalia, were "assigned female at birth," as was standard practice at the time, lived their lives as women, were treated as women by others, made to believe they were women, and never had any reported distress or dysphoria relating to their assumed identity as women, in addition to also having had brain scans that showed their brains were more similar to female brains than male brains, suggesting that nurture presided over nature as it relates to gender identity. It therefore quite simply stands to reason that if gender identity were biological/inherent at birth, nearly all of these individuals would have had severe distress over their situations, as they presumably would have had "normal" male brains and would have identified as male. Since they didn't, this virtually proves that gender identity is not inherent, and is instead subject to the personal beliefs of the individual, how they are treated within the culture, what happens to them/what choices they make/how they are born, as regards their genitalia, and - perhaps, I will allow - influences by a genetic mutation or recessive trait that causes them to believe they are the opposite sex, despite all evidence to the contrary. Which, I admit, would indeed be biological in origin, but as the result of a genetic anomaly, and not in the way you and others here are suggesting - LGMario's claim above that I do not believe this is biological is oversimplified. I do appreciate that this condition may be biological in origin, as mental disorder/anomaly, but I do not believe it constitutes legitimacy of their claims they are the opposite gender, any more than I believe a schizophrenic is legitimately Satan or God when he's standing on the street corner yelling at anyone who passes by that he is Satan or God. I don't say that to compare trans people to schizophrenics; merely to suggest that their delusions do not constitute objective reality. We can observe that the homeless schizophrenic is not Satan. We can also observe that a biological male is not magically a woman just because he puts on a wig and a dress, convinces himself he is a woman, and starts taking hormones and/or has surgery. Would you tell someone with bulimia or anorexia that, yes, you agree with their assessment that they look fat like a giant blue whale in the mirror, when they're actually under 100 lbs.? Or would you validly recognize it as delusion - their mind tricking them into believing something that is not the objective reality? --LogicalNerd (talk) 20:08, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
I can’t find the article you linked on the autogynyphilia talk page, do you mind linking it again (bare in mind that even if there’s a decent study backing up your views, it doesn’t mean they’re correct when there’s all of these studies that go against your views)? Trans people do not believe they have any of the qualities you insist define a woman or man that they don’t actually have, they have brains similar to those of the opposite sex, which causes issues due to mismatching between the brain and (the rest of) the body, nearly all medical authorities define “woman” and “man” in terms of brain structure. The fact that trans people adhere to the definition of man and woman that competent medical authorities use instead of some random unqualified dickhead doesn’t mean they’re delusional. Christopher (talk) 16:35, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Goodpost.gif
You think this will be more useful in the relevant talk page, not on this page, where we're giving everyone's favorite Grammar Person notifications?
BTW, GC, I caught you saying "it's" wrong AGAIN. Get another ban. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 20:38, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Sure, here's a link to the study. Citation needed that medical authorities define woman and man in terms of brain structure. While this is one component, biology/physiology is absolutely taken into account, particularly as it pertains to diseases, illnesses and ailments that affect biological females differently than biological males. Moreover, brain structure can clearly be influenced by learned behaviors, drug use, personal beliefs, hormone levels, etc., so it is poor evidence to take this single component of what comprises a male or female, ignore everything else that comprises a male or female, and then conclude that some men are actually women when nearly every other factor besides brain structure indicates that the "woman" in question is actually a man. All kinds of things can cause brain changes, or cause the brain to not present normally/as expected in a scan; but do brain changes cause external changes in our reality? Because if not, then even if we presume that transgenderism is caused by inherent genetic factors present at birth, then it stands to reason based on A) the small number of transgender people in society and B) some of the conclusions drawn from the studies you linked to, that these are genetic abnormalities, i.e. disorders, and should be treated as such rather than as a legitimate identity. I keep bringing up schizophrenics and bulimics and whatnot, and nobody here - not a single soul - has been able to address these arguments rationally; in fact nobody has even mentioned them other than to flippantly write them off as completely different examples/circumstances, without actually explaining why or how transgenderism is unique from them.
FYI, I am an independent researcher who uses good science practices and have had my mind changed on issues a number of times due to good evidence, not just "some random unqualified dickhead" presenting uneducated opinions based on nothing. Critical thought is extremely important to me. I try not to speak on things I don't have at least some knowledge of, and just because someone is a medical professional it does not mean that they are infallible, nor does it mean they are free from influence of political/cultural pressure, even against conflicting scientific evidence. For example, I am sure there is a wealth of evidence to suggest that opiates, in retrospect, might not have been the best solution for treating chronic pain. And yet doctors across the country are still prescribing them like candy, because they get kickbacks from the pharmaceutical companies when they do. People can be influenced, and in all honesty, the link you posted to conflicting studies seems extremely weak to me.
We're proposing changing centuries of established medical standards based on a tiny handful of studies, with significant and meaningful dissent expressed by medical professionals, and typically quite forcefully shouted down by laymen and those with an agenda-driven reason behind their so-called science. Hell, the link you posted even references "a study by Hare [which] reported that trans women have a longer androgen receptor gene than cis men, which is less effective at binding testosterone, potentially preventing complete masculinization of the brain (prenatal androgen exposure or sensitivity, or lack thereof, is an often cited mechanism to explain observed brain-structure differences).[123]" Wouldn't this be a genetic brain abnormality, causing a person who is otherwise XY/male to develop a more feminine brain, and thus become more feminine/perceive of themselves as more feminine? That doesn't mean our entire society needs to restructure itself so as to treat that person as if they are a woman - it means we need to figure out a way to alter the androgen receptor gene's mutation so that it is more like a typical male's, so that the individual in question can develop a normal male brain and live as a normal male - not allow them to go on believing they're a female because their brain didn't develop properly.
One thing we haven't talked about yet is transgender suicide rates, which are at around 40%+ regardless of whether or not they go through surgery. This is far and away higher than any other demographic in the entire world. Black Americans, who experience systemic discrimination and racial abuse far more than probably any other minority in America except perhaps trans people, have one of the lowest rates of suicide statistically. Asian-Americans, who presumably suffer less discrimination than black people, and who typically enjoy greater wealth in this country, have similar rates of suicide to black people. White males, who have far greater privilege than most, if not all, in our society, are far more likely to commit suicide than not just black and Asian people, but any people, despite their privilege, accounting for around 70% of suicides, with a suicide rate nearly twice that of black people. Men commit suicide 3.5 times more often than women, another group of people who are discriminated against and abused in our society.(Source)
All this is to say that, if discrimination, bullying and abuse were to blame for the transgender suicide rate, then we would naturally see black people, women, etc. having similarly high suicide rates. Instead, we see the exact opposite, with the least bullied and most privileged class of people in our society suffering some of the highest rates of suicide. Thus, discrimination simply cannot realistically account for these massive discrepancies. There is clearly a biological factor at play here causing TG folks to kill themselves more often than others. We owe it to them to try to work on a genuine cure for their condition so that they can live a normal life, rather than normalizing it and hoping they're one of the lucky 60%...and we most certainly won't accomplish that by pretending that it's not even a condition that needs a cure to begin with. --LogicalNerd (talk) 01:14, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
The problem of high suicide rates for transgender people is serious. But what can be done to ameliorate the situation? It would make sense to encourage people to treat transgender people decently as natural human beings rather than as disordered individuals in want of remediation. While I don't necessarily think you are transphobic, you seem to lack tolerance for things as they are, and you reflect the attitude found in right-wing opinion pages such as the Federalist. Your argument comparing the suicide rates of black people with transgender people is specious. There are many large communities of color in which individuals of color are socially accepted. To put it simply, your perspective effectively classifies a group of people as suicidal misfits and contributes nothing towards improving their likelihood of survival.Ariel31459 (talk) 03:12, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
I appreciate the well-measured response. I agree that transgender people should be treated with kindness and respect. Whether the phenomenon of transgenderism is due to nature or nurture - or perhaps even both - has nothing to do with disrespecting anyone. But this is a difficult conversation to have, especially directly with any individual who identifies this way. How do you tell someone with kindness, "I think that you are mentally ill?" without them being immediately offended? And yet, if you were to have that conversation with a schizophrenic who is currently coherent and lucid, or a bulimic, they'd probably deny it just as vehemently as the transgender person. In those cases, you would know that you are right despite their protestations. So what is the difference here? What's so special about transgenderism that lends it legitimacy when other mental disorders that cause dysphoria, or prevent a person from seeing reality as it is, aren't considered legitimate? A schizophrenic or bulimic surely would have a different brain scan than an average person, too - so what?
I want to emphasize that I can still respect someone's basic humanity without being "tolerant of the way things are." You are right, I do lack tolerance for things as they are, because I believe a grave error has been made that flies in the face of rational science, and that this error is to the detriment of both society and trans people. It does nothing to ameliorate the suicide rate, because the issue with their suicides doesn't seem to have much to do with societal acceptance. Gay people were not societally accepted not all that long ago, but they weren't killing themselves in droves. There are still countries where gay people are not accepted, and they aren't committing suicide in those countries, either. This lends credence to the idea that transgenderism is something different, and something detrimental, and that people with it shouldn't have their delusions humored, but instead science should be working on an effective treatment or cure.
I don't think trans people are misfits, but I do think they are people suffering from a brain condition that results in them having brains that more closely resemble the opposite sex's, but bodies that resemble their birth sex. Of course that is going to cause instability, dysphoria, and difficulty in life. I want to see them helped. I'd like to see them able to live lives that aren't marred by a 40%+ suicide rate. But I don't think pretending they're totally normal is helping them do that at all. And correct me if I'm wrong, but in countries that have gone so far as to legislate in favor of these trans delusions, where people can be criminally punished for misgendering someone, for example, there has been no decrease in suicide rates despite (presumably) increased societal acceptance.
If nothing changes, I predict that these societies will look back 20-30 years from now, when transgenderism is totally accepted by the vast majority of the population and bullying trans folks is mostly a thing of the past due to its effective criminalization, as it is in the majority of the West now with homosexuals, and realize that they screwed up when the suicide rates still haven't decreased substantially. --LogicalNerd (talk) 04:02, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Happy Victory Day[edit]

What kind of anti-Hakenkreuz activities are you going to be involved in, Mr. Commie? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 23:22, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I'll shoot Nazis in Left 4 Dead 2 as a celebration. БaбyЛuigiOнФire(T|C) 23:24, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
@LeftyGreenMario @BabyLuigiOnFire I went shopping, however I am thinking about shooting space Nazis later. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:58, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes yes yes 🚀🛸pew pew pew 🔥卐🔥 --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 00:07, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Re:Edit war on Last Thursdayism[edit]

Do not continue any edit wars. If someone is edit warring with you, continue discussion in the talk page, not through edit summaries. The person has invited you to the talk page (while a good step, person shouldn't have undone edits either and has also been given notification by me). Thanks. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 22:09, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

@LeftyGreenMario Do I really need to explain why overthinking parody is stupid? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:15, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
I think it's a big reach and leap of logic. Don't think the "you're a moron" remark was necessary though. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 22:20, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Gregory Lauder-Frost[edit]

I don't know who you are but your disgraceful smear article on this fellow can only hurt his children. You should consider it in that regard. 86.133.110.28 (talk) 06:44, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

President Trump, MS-13, and animals[edit]

Hello! You may want to watch this clip where Trump talks on this very matter. Here is the politico article on this topic as well, titled Trump: ‘Animals’ comment referred to MS-13 gang members. Don't beat yourself up on it - we all make mistakes. --101.173.78.130 (talk) 21:34, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah... I read the article, Trump shot his mouth off again, got flak, then decided to try to back-peddle. Same as he's been doing since he announced his candidacy. Now go take your smug self-righteousness and shove it up your ass. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:52, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
did you listen to the video footage I linked above where it is apparent he is talking about MS-13? --101.173.78.130 (talk) 22:57, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Would that be the one where he backsteps and covers his ass from the flak or the one where he actually makes the comment in question? If it's the former, I'm not watching it, if it's the latter, we'll see. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:46, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
here is the associated press stating that AP has deleted a tweet from late Wednesday on Trump’s “animals” comment about immigrants because it wasn’t made clear that he was speaking after a comment about gang members. --101.173.78.130 (talk) 00:47, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Ben Shapiro weighs in for a couple minutes as well. --101.173.78.130 (talk) 00:48, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Quit abusing the enter key, it's a pain in the ass to clean up. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:50, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
can you reinstate my edit to the blogosphere? --101.173.78.130 (talk) 04:31, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie

David Irving[edit]

See: https://www.theaustralian.com.au/life/weekend-australian-magazine/im-a-holocaust-sleuth-has-david-irving-changed-his-mind/news-story/f9560bc91a1e1543cc957df5434469ed Looks like he's actually bumped up his tally to 4 million and acknowledges 6 million as possible. He's still understating the numbers, but he's not an outright denier anymore. --Sailor Haumea (talk) 22:55, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

@Sailor Haumea Cite it in the article then. But use a non-paywalled source. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:39, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Would an edited version of a 2009 interview on YouTube suffice? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIdjRJMyByY --Sailor Haumea (talk) 00:25, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism[edit]

If you wish to vaporize a page on which I spent a lot of time working, please, discuss it in the talk page... Whiteness studies is a REAL thing. And definitely deserves to be on rationalwiki... Please, discuss in the talk page what you don't like about it --Kingdamian1 (talk) 01:32, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

@Kingdamian1 It reads like White extinction scenario apologia and other such nonsense. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:34, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Where? And also, if that is the case, why vaporize it? Whiteness studies needs to be on rationalwiki... if your problem was with a specific paragraph you can discuss it, instead of throwing my whole work into trash... --Kingdamian1 (talk) 01:36, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Ok, so I reviewed the page again... And I do not see where you got the idea that it was about white genocide or other conspiracy theories... it is written with humor as many RW articles... Maybe you misread the intentions? Either way, if you still don't like it, just put it on the talk page... Kingdamian1 (talk) 01:45, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Your edit warring[edit]

@GrammarCommie Reading the above comments, I can see this seems to be a habit of yours, but revoking edits that you just happen not to like seems a touch childish. You asked me to raise my edit of the Bait and Switch page on the Talk page. I did. Were you able to explain why it wasn't a valid example? No. Was anyone? Apparently not. So I've re-added it. If this example offends you, or challenges your world-view in a way that you take personally, then by all means raise it in the Talk page like you yourself recommended. Otherwise, try and be rational, try and look at the logic of it, and try to remain emotionally uninvested. Isn't it a bit ironic that you won't accept any criticism of Atheists (as opposed to Atheism)? A bit zealous for a non-religious viewpoint, don't you think? Star Gazer (talk) 15:26, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

@ grammarcommie - im not weighing in on the validity of the edits but it seems like common decency to respond with an explanation of why you are reverting stargazer's edit. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:04, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm using my phone right now and cannot discuss anything in much depth, I'll answer later. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:08, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Moonbert's harassment[edit]

We had a debate in which everytime we didn't see eye to eye, he called me a leftist ideologue, and then later finished the "debate" by calling me a fucking idiot, that people like me were why Trump won, and left in a huff. Later he comes onto my talk page and continues the same argument there in big ol walls of text, making some vague remark about "I see who I've been dealing with. I'll be checking your edits from time to time," which is stalkery enough as is and creepy as hell, to say nothing that I think it's rude and the discussion should stay where it belongs, not because he has some grievance with me. If y'all saw fit to block me over being rude to McLaghing over completely different circumstances (where he would later get nasty with LeftyGreenMario over an argument, the same person who had his back from the beginning I might add which is as close to a textbook sign of ingratitude as anything), then what's so different as to give Moobnert special treatment? James Earl Cash (talk) 00:49, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I haven't been following this for a long time, so I'll leave it to another mod to deal with this. I will say that Moobnert is clearly on the wrong site ideologically.—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3 Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 00:54, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
He was indeed rude, and the comment about checking your posts is worrying. However, he did apologize (which McLaughing did not) so I think it's best if you two stayed away from each other for a while and let things cool down a bit. I will request he do the same. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:57, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
PS: I would concur with CheeseburgerFace on Moobnert's ideology. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:57, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
He didn't apologize though, that's the thing. I was gonna let it go, but after I warned him he clearly decided to continue to talk down to me on my talk page without showing much, if any, remorse. His exact words were, "Fine, I'll stop with the name calling," as if I was inconveniencing him somehow, not taking into how much leeway I had been showing him by comparison. Someone who cops that attitude with me after I warn him to stop and continues to patronize me with his stalkery bullshit is not someone I'm inclined to look at in a favorable light and needs an actual warning or else he'll get the idea his nonsense can fly. James Earl Cash (talk) 13:45, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
"Fine, I'll stop with the name-calling for any future discussions and I won't continue conversations outside of their respective Talk pages, other than this final remark. I realize I was aggressive in writing to you, but I genuinely think you are not being rational on the topic of gender disparities in industry." Sounds like a belated apology to me. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:50, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Pardon my ignorance, but he never once said, "I'm sorry," or, "My apologies." Considering the lengths he went at me, it seems nominal and insincere at best. I don't want him going at me again or trying to paint a false image of me given how quickly he went to insulting me based on no offense from my part and then stalking me with an off-topic conversation based on his petty grievances on my own talk page. I don't like pushing this but at the same time his behavior does worry me. James Earl Cash (talk) 20:23, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Policy[edit]

Why was my restoration of legitimate discussion reverted? That seems to go against this policy.--William Grimes (talk) 00:42, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

@William Grimes This is why. Have a nice day! ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:45, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
So because she deleted it makes it okay? So much for a public forum. --William Grimes (talk) 00:46, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Her talkpage, her rules. Don't like it? Take it up with her. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:49, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for dealing with this moron. Last thing I need is some good "Christian love" from NotElvis. I knew it was gonna be good when I got an email notification that he edited my talkpage. --Sophie (talk) 01:05, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
The message constitutes as harassment and the user was blocked for a week as a result. If the user starts whining or makes similar remarks like this, the block will be extended. Here's a hat tip to ya, okey dokey? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 01:07, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Given his track record, I imagine he'll be doing plenty of whining in a week. --Sophie (talk) 01:14, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
My two cents would be liberal homosexual planner / calendar / docket / schedule / agendum / order of business / list / listing / plan / program / programme and whatever else the thesaurus says about a certain a-word that rhymes with jenda. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 01:17, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough, hahaha. --Sophie (talk) 01:22, 24 May 2018 (UTC)