User talk:Ikanreed

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

If you leave me a message, I will be unreasonable and pretend answering your post is an enormous pain. This is a lie, do not believe me.

You've been nominated as moderator[edit]

You've been nominated in the upcoming moderator elections. See the nomination at RationalWiki:Moderator elections/Nominations.CorruptUser (talk) 03:36, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Conservative tag[edit]

Is there a reason why we'd list Sargon as a conservative despite holding majoritively left-wing views? "pft. ha" isn't very informative. Draevan13 (talk) 17:30, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

His primary advocated positions, in virtually every published video are outrageously conservative, consistently favor conservative candidates and parties, and any liberal or left positions he claims to hold almost entirely are brought up as a defense for his consistent and constant bemoaning of various minor kinds of social progress that would nominally be considered left or progressive. There's very very little merit to calling him liberal or suggesting he actually holds left-wing views.
To put it another way: if you could name even one kind of progressive reform or change he favors making instead of just "protecting" the hard work of those before him(by attacking left-leaning people), I'd be fucking goddamn astounded ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:33, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
What positions are you refering to? All I can think of that he's conservative on is immigration. Though I haven't watched him since Trump got elected, so maybe he went full right in the interim. Draevan13 (talk) 18:52, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
What positions am I not referring to? No really, I want to know a single goddamn thing he's said to suggest a positive reform, not just pro-status-quo "I'm a liberal because I don't hate gay marriage like I hate women," fucking ever. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:56, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
You're getting way too worked up over him, I'll just drop it on the "Conservative Wingnut" tag.
But to clarify something, for one to not be conservative in your eyes one must want reform, and can't be content with the status quo? Draevan13 (talk) 19:13, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Look at the forest not trees, buddy. If you consistently make a big deal out of your outrageously conservative views and then come back and throw up some wallpaper at the end as a qualifier about how something that you can ignore totally and not work on at all makes you a liberal, you're probably a conservative.
But also yes, a broad-based acceptance of the status quo and a rejection of progressive change is a hallmark of conservatism regardless of the particular status quo defended, at least when the term was invented, and, entirely separate from the point I'm actually trying to make, I might half-assedly call him a conservative purely on those grounds too. (also for gods' sake he was a trump supporter) ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:01, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
You know what, I just saw a recent edit on Sargon's page linking to a video he posted last week where he flat out says "Fuck it. He (Trump) is my guy. He's doing what he said he'd do, and he's turning the left fucking crazy." I'm going to need a moment to process that, but after hearing him say that, I take it back. He's a conservative. Draevan13 (talk) 20:42, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you.[edit]

I don't know if you have any say in this matter, so if I'm just bothering the fuck out of you, feel free to say it and I'll piss off elsewhere.

That being said, I'm having a bit of a conundrum. There was recently a page added for James Damore's memo and the original page author was very keen to downplay the more unpleasant aspects of Damore's personality and outright removed any mention that the original thing was racist and sexist as hell. We had a heated discussion at the talk page, after which the author whined about me to the mods because the discussion wasn't "rational" enough despite that there were points even in-between the spittle flying, resulting in me getting me blocked for an hour. All the while, the original author himself hasn't responded to any of my points and is trying to cast the memo in a favorable light, to say nothing of how he always tries to whine to the mods whenever I disagree with him or insult him while he has an inflammatory user page that openly mocks liberals and castigates them for wanting safe spaces. He also links to racist websites as his sources for some of his edits. I'm seriously starting to think this place has gone to the dogs if the mods here can't openly detect an arch-conservative smearing bullshit all over the site. Is there anything at all you can do, or any advice you can give me? James Earl Cash (talk) 21:12, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

The mods just have decorum poisoning. It's not deadly, just super annoying. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:54, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Shit, that's the state of things huh? Might be time for me to throw in the towel. James Earl Cash (talk) 21:56, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Maybe I should do a call-out thread and actually discuss the issue instead of sitting on my hands. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 22:06, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Meh, apparently my issue with the James Damore page has settled down (for now), but I still think there was too much bullshit to go through and not enough paying attention to the obvious statements that I had both brought up and were cited in the actual article in question. James Earl Cash (talk) 22:14, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't know how to exactly respond to this recent edit to the talk page, which Moobnert used to justify his changes on James Damore. You might know more what's going on here than I do though, and I'm guessing you care about the quality of such articles, but... yeah. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 18:49, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Thank you so much for taking your precious time on that comment. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 23:19, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

New template for you[edit]

{{tech pledge}}. —Kazitor, pending 01:47, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Pledges are silly. All sysadmins barely tolerate users as an unfortunate necessity. DELETE FROM wiki_users WHERE name=='Kazitor' ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:36, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 :( '); DROP TABLE user; -- at least research the schema first! —Kazitor, pending 22:58, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Coop[edit]

I'd appreciate it if you stayed out of the Chicken Coop unless absolutely necessary. Thank you. Bongolian (talk) 00:46, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

It is absolutely necessary. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 00:51, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Calm the ever-living motherfucking Gods and Goddesses damned fuck down!!! None of this shit is worthy of HCM. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:52, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
It's pretty fucking bad. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 00:53, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
@Ikanreed: Please explain and prove why it's necessary, and I will take action.—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 00:54, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
I did that in the first coop that was instantly archived with no one bothering to look into it at all. A drive-by MRA who thinks they've got the whole world figured out because they watched some youtube videos came by the the misogyny article to whitewash and throw some weird biotruths bullshit in. Then ran to the misandry article to rewrite the etymology(i.e. first) subsection with a phrasing intended to imply the fairly common MRA refrain that feminism is a movement intended to destroy men. A conspiratorial sentiment so well rebuffed in this very wiki as to not warrant further discussion.
I reverted it. It was a garbage edit with no value.
Nerd reverted that on the grounds of my edit summary mentioning that the tone wasn't necessary.
I replied on the talk page making clear the exact nature of why it's awful garbage. Nerd took the fact that I swore about it being shit personally(near as I can tell), and proceeded to edit war like hell and only complain about my tone on the talk page, while simultaneously demand debate they themselves weren't offering. Edit warring is bad, edit warring for gobshite conspiracy theories is just awful. They need a "cut it out" about 100 times more than I do. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 01:03, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Icon fedora.svg * dons Mod Hat *Icon fedora.svg
Take this discussion to the article's talk page as it deserves to be there. We can restart the discussion granted it is calmly discussed. As for edit warring, it takes two to tango. @Nerd and @Ikanreed do not edit war.—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 01:10, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Oh good. I can be condescended to more without addressing content. yay. You've very successfully solved the problem of hearing about the actual problem. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 01:13, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm here to solve the problem. It sounds like you're just here to whine. Move the discussion to the misandry talk page.—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 01:18, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Icon fedora.svg * dons Mod Hat *Icon fedora.svg
If ikanreed or anyone brings up this discussion outside the misandry drama outside the article's talkpage, any user should archive the discussion or revert the edit. If topic on this talkpage is continued, revert the user's edit.—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 01:24, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

A question[edit]

I'm curious about your statement in the topic I made. I'm sorry if I'm bothering you or being nosy/intrusive, I was just curious as to what experiences you had with transhumanists. Towards-the Unknown (talk) 16:50, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Nominated for RMF Board[edit]

You've been nominated to the RationalMedia Foundation election. Please accept or decline; if you accept, you may wish to campaign. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 06:54, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I second your nomination. Bongolian (talk) 19:31, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

IPs creating pages[edit]

They used to be able to edit all of the templates that appear on the main page, believe it or not... What a Wonderful World (talk) 18:00, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Friendly heads-up[edit]

Yes, an Afghan is a kind of blanket, but more importantly it is a person, probably able to speak Pashto, living in or from Afghanistan. The Afghani is the currency of that country. Anonymous User (talk) 19:01, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:05, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

For the sake of argument.[edit]

We can debate whether Psychologists should call themselves biologists, meaning they have adopted a biologist's point of view in interpreting psychology, in which case, a university biologist, without psych training is, in fact, giving personal views on the subject, outside of their expertise as well. But I just don't like crossouts, especially in the first sentence. It is, lazy. I told the person who inserted them to write out their view in the text. I don't want to have a long futile argument. I would always rather compromise.Ariel31459 (talk) 14:35, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

  1. That's an important debate, and, if you take the position that people should mislead national audiences on their expertise, we should probably hammer out why. Context does Peterson no credit, because it was a broadcast segment and made no effort to qualify that he merely "understood" evolutionary biology, but claimed to be a biologist a term implying credentials and career focus. Nor did his host make any effort to clarify to his audience what his expertise actually was.
  2. I love crossouts. It's a great way to show ways in which people lie without having to waste 30 words to explain that in precise detail. I mean, I get that for being an information source, tell, don't show. But for being an effective communicator, show, don't tell. The latter is more important to me than the former. "Jordan Peterson has claimed to be X, Y, and Z, but is in fact none of those things" is sooooooooooooooooo boring. I practically fell asleep writing it. And when it's not quick snide commentary, you actually have to go further than just saying it, you have to put it into a larger context of dishonesty or something similar. It's exhausting, not as fun, and only really has the merit of being less open to quibbling on technicalities.
As I implied before I think it's okay if you remove it, but I don't think it's an improvement. Not by a long shot. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:54, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. As I said, I am not trying to win a point on this question. I will leave them for a while. Eventually I will create a section listing such nominal claims without prejudice.
A relevant generic argument I mention in passing: There is a paradox that often can not be teased out of most criticism of any person with real academic credentials: their detractors themselves often lack sufficient academic expertise to make their authoritative assertions stick, e.g., Myers is not a psychologist, yet he routinely makes pronouncements about evolutionary psychology as a discipline. Also, the author claiming to be a "marine biologist" is a graduate student in marine biology with some expertise in crustacean evolution. That is not entirely in their favor, especially because marine ethology is a related field not typically part of a marine biologist's training. Just something to keep in mind Ariel31459 (talk) 15:38, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
It is okay to speak outside of your field of expertise. It's not okay to misrepresent your field of expertise. Also, I don't know if you know what graduate students do, but it's safe to say someone pursuing a phd in Xology is, in their working hours, acting as an Xist, with only the rarest exceptions. Being a grad student is a research job. You can, in fact, be a marine biologist with just an undergrad degree in marine biology, or even just ecology, and a work-life focused on marine biology. It's not really comparable. I feel like you know that. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:49, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Sure, it is clearly OK. The weight such opinion is given by the academy is often proportional to the academic prestige of its author. But the issue of authority can not be settled by those outside any field in question, especially when said field is as narrow as marine ethology or comparatively when two fields are as distinct as general biology and evolutionary psychology. Peterson engages in scientism to advance his particular ideology. I don't blame you for rejecting that.Ariel31459 (talk) 16:14, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
If it weren't for a broader context of Peterson constantly being a crank about practically everything, it'd be easier for me to take that stance. Scienctism is not the word I'd use, since that at least entails a respect for the sciences and scientific consensus and rigorously applied scientific method. He's really more of a pseudoscientist in his popular discussion, making claims with support that looks superficially scientific but are not actually empirically established to any meaningful degree.
It's an odd case, because pseudoscience usually comes with more markers us skeptics are used to: misused terminology(esp. energy or quantum), invocations of the spiritual, claims of medical breakthroughs, argument by thought experiment, you know the kinds of giveaways I mean. His claims don't have those, but it's still absolutely pseudoscience to conjecture that, say, "seretonin levels in lobsters correlate well with quantity of protected territory therefor humans evolved to be happy in power structures" because it uses neither an established theory coupled with appropriate evidence to draw a preliminary conclusion(you know, like observing shape of an orbit to determine mass of the bodies involved by applying newton's laws), nor is it a hypothesis that he then applies tests for. It's conjecture written to sound like it has scientific backing. Pseudoscience. So with that context it makes him seem like a pseudoscience peddling nonsense to back conservative Christianity. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:51, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes. Apart from Peterson's academic work, he seems to be going about a greater project of influencing culture with his view of how people should approach their own lives. This is moral philosophy, of course, and not a scientific project at all. For me, pseudoscience is a nonscientific system applied to the physical world such as a method for turning lead into gold, palmistry, astrology, numerology and the like. Such systems are neither sciences nor can their practice be deemed scientific. But when both scientific and unscientific methods or assumptions are applied to the understanding and improvement of human beings, then traditionally, religion and philosophy are called upon to testify. To assert a fact without evidence is not pseudo-scientific. it may be unscientific.. It is a gamble against being proven wrong. In fact, this is done frequently in the the non-intuitive sciences such as particle physics, cosmology and quantum mechanics, where the oddness factor is large. All non falsifiable claims must, in the light of reason, fall back into the realms of ideology, philosophy or religion. I would not call it pseudo-scientific to make a claim one cannot substantiate, or even one that even is unlikely to be true. Using scientific factoids for heuristic purposes to support a particular ideology isn't science, of course: it is something between the swamp of religion and the meadow of philosophy. Ariel31459 (talk) 00:09, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Lobsters[edit]

I think that consistent with your views about misrepresentation of credentials: a graduate student is not a marine biologist in any authoritative sense. On the other hand, I am interested in what she has to say and just writing " real marine biologists call bullshit," is a puerile attempt at journalism. The main problem I see with this lobster faux pas of Peterson's is it can lead writers with meager backgrounds in science to think he is saying humans are descended from lobsters as is suggested by the quotes in the Lobster section.. He might believe that, although he does not state it as such. I think the response is his own fault for being vague. Probably convergent evolution is behind solitary and social species the latter of which display ostensible social orderings. Peterson makes a mess of it. It should be made obvious in the section. Not to be rational (I'm drunk already) but to be scientific. Put in all the ridicule and lobster jokes you want, but in general quotes from magazine writers don't seem authoritative and it would help if they were at least funny: why don't lobster people like to share with others? They are shellfish.Ariel31459 (talk) 16:46, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

You might think this is me trying to be insulting, but it's not. It's really damn hard to appreciate where you're coming from with all the misunderstandings you've taken along the way to get where you are. No one is accusing Peterson of assuming we're descended from lobsters. No one here is following the "why are there still monkeys" logic. They're accusing him of gross and insane overextrapolation of shared characteristics based very, amazingly, long separated common ancestors. We're not even the same fucking phylum. This is dimmest mists of multicellularity first arising separation. Our eyes don't work by the same paradigm but our brains do? Insane. It's not vague, Peterson made a preposterously dumb misunderstanding his central dogma. He's spoken on it and written on it at length, and it's exactly the thing the biologist in the article rebuffs quite thoroughly.
"Bullshit" is the most appropriate term. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:59, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
" for a man to emulate a lobster is like a woman treating the existence of the praying mantis as a license to eat her husband." Yeah, I don't think everyone is as with it as you are. Please keep in mind that I can be insulted, but I am never insulted by disagreement. Of course it is funny-odd to bring up lobsters in connection with humans. But it is hardly shocking. Like a joke some of us laugh at and some do not, there is not much there to discuss. Believe it or not, I am sympathetic to your antipathy toward Peterson. It just isn't all relevant. Peterson could have mentioned any social species close to humans or far away. Lobsters is a funny one. I am reminded of Howard Dean's last speech in Iowa. It seems to have ended his campaign. I have never understood why people thought so.Ariel31459 (talk) 17:11, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Side note: If one wanted to use animals to help explain ones point about human behavior there are not only plenty of examples in the Ape family, but throughout all of Mammalia. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:12, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes. I believe I noted that fact. Ariel31459 (talk) 17:14, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
@Ariel31459 My last comment was written (but not submitted) before the post in question. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:19, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes, and if he had mentioned other social species closer to humans, he'd have to deal with radically different social behaviors from the sweeping generalizations he wants to make. Meerkats communally raise young. Bonobos famously fuck to solve problems. Chimps will spite "higher status" males who treat them unfairly. Gorillas will use aggressors' babies as shields. Crows will teach cousins how to make and use tools. There's such a wide range of non-simple-hierarchy in social animals that undercut his point, but he's a psedusocientist and happily over-extrapolates from poorly selected evidence. That's the whole point. He selected a very simple animal to make the case that humans are simple animals. He's a professional bullshitter, Ariel. And I say this a fucking Hobbesian dumbass who thinks that disorganized societies will collapse or be invaded.
...your last sentence. I assume you mean Peterson is a "Hobbesian dumbass, etc." That would be a nice conclusion. Some evidence for the dumbass part would be nice. I don't doubt he thinks disorganization can lead to some social collapse. I see him as overgeneralizing in some cases. He presents as an expert in everything which always smacks of scientistic homile. Ariel31459 (talk) 18:47, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Gonna not even read your whole post, I'm the Hobbesian dumbass. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:49, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:24, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Why mention crows? Our common ancestor goes back to before the dinosaurs. See how silly of an objection this is? If you think lobsters are a silly example to compare to humans (they are) then make that point. But make it on the basis of how they compare socially to humans, not how related they are. Else you might as well be arguing that we should all live like bonobos. We share 99% of our DNA, after all. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 17:48, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Oh Jesus Christ, I'm not making the case that we're similar to any of those things neurologically. That's the job of evopsych nutters who can't stop extrapolating from practically zero data. I'm highlighting the diversity of behavior as you get away from painfully simple creatures, and the ways drawing those conclusions in the first place is either naive or purposefully dishonest. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:54, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

How Did You Know?[edit]

I kept telling my friends this was my main fear, but here you are predicting it. Damn you, good sir. RoninMacbeth (talk) 04:42, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

What language are you speaking? I don't understand it. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:34, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Sorry. I wrote that at 11:00-ish, while procrastinating on a paper on the Trojan War. What I meant was that I feel validated by someone else sharing my opinions, so thank you. RoninMacbeth (talk) 15:39, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
@RoninMacbeth I think you missed the joke. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 15:42, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Sort of. I couldn't tell if he was joking or being serious, so I treated it as serious. RoninMacbeth (talk) 15:44, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Thus proving me right. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:08, 12 September 2018 (UTC)