User talk:Kazitor

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


New logo large.png Welcome to RationalWiki, Kazitor!

Please see our guide for newcomers and our community standards.

Tell us how you found RationalWiki here!

If you are interested in contributing:

ClickerClock (talk) 10:40, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Forex text[edit]

If you wish to do so delete my comment on the above talkpage (or equivalents elsewhere) - 'passing thoughts and doodles of no long term consequence.' Anna Livia (talk) 14:32, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Copyright violation[edit]

How was it a copyright violation? --Onacompass (talk) 02:21, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

@Onacompass all images are protected by copyright by default. From what I could tell, that was an image they used on their twitter profile with no conditions allowed for usage elsewhere. —Kazitor, pending 04:12, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Anarchism[edit]

  • Opening or attention getter - Address the individual: "Kazitor,"
  • State your concern - Express your analysis of the situation in a direct manner while owning your emotions about it. "I'm looking forward to becoming a regular editor on RationalWiki, in part by discussing with you the joke on the page on Anarchism."
  • State the problem as you see it - "The sentence 'By the way, any information relating to anarchists should be reported to your local police' is not explicitly marked as a joke, so RationalWiki might lose angered audience members or otherwise take this seriously."
  • State a solution - "Let's explicitly mark the sentence as a joke or delete the sentence."
  • Obtain agreement (or buy-in) - "How does that sound to you?"--73.252.167.210 (talk) 03:32, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
The statement is marked as a joke. Following the sentence is a little bit of superscript text saying "[note 1]". Hovering over it, or clicking it, reveals "This is a joke in reference to the Westminster, U.K. police issuing a memo stating just that." —Kazitor, pending 03:41, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Opening or attention getter - Address the individual: "Kazitor,"
  • State your concern - Express your analysis of the situation in a direct manner while owning your emotions about it. "I'm clarifying that the marking as a joke is not immediately visible."
  • State the problem as you see it - "Hovering over or having to click the superscript is a barrier to communication that the sentence is a joke. That one would have to hover over or click the superscript to know whether it is a joke is not actually obvious. For all an audience member would know, the superscript is just another citation."
  • State a solution - "Let's explicitly mark the sentence as a joke or delete the sentence."
  • Obtain agreement (or buy-in) - "How does that sound to you?"--73.252.167.210 (talk) 05:25, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
What is with your weird CRM thing? It's painful to read. Regardless, readers should expect a snarky tone on many of our articles. There are many "jokes" throughout the pages, and I believe the note is sufficient. Furthermore, I disagree that such a statement, if taken seriously, would have detrimental effects (I don't see how anyone would take it seriously, anyway). —Kazitor, pending 05:39, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
I've had trouble with task conflict on wikis ever since 2015. In my opinion, wikis are no more "free" as in "freedom" than any other enterprise, they're free as in beer. They have aspects of workplaces because they have collective decision-making, and like anything that has collective decision-making, like it or not, it has aspects of workplaces because it's a workplace. Despite the much smaller stakes here than in a cockpit, there is essentially the same problem, so I'm trying the part of their solution that I can understand.
My lame imagination's parody of Captain Al Haynes, who in turn was pilot of United Airlines Flight 232, credits Crew Resource Management.
the preparation that paid off for the crew was something ... called Cockpit Resource Management.... In Wikimedia, we kind of worked on the concept that the Tireless Contributor Barnstar holder or the person that on their userpage claimed to have accomplishments at university was THE authority on the wiki. What they said, goes. And we lost a few editors and audience members because of that. Sometimes the authority figure isn't as smart as we thought they were. And we would listen to them, and do what they said, and we wouldn't know what they're talking about. And we had 103 years of editing experience there in the content dispute, trying to get that decision made, not one minute of which we had actually practiced [under those failure conditions], any one of us. So why would I know more about making that decision under those conditions than the other three. So if I hadn't used [CRM], if we had not let everybody put their input in, it's a cinch we wouldn't have made it.--73.252.167.210 (talk) 19:57, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
I still want to discuss this with you, but I think maybe I should just leave otherwise. CowHouse just told me that the matter is settled, and openly threatened to ignore me as a troll if I persist. And they actually used the word "troll". Can you please teach me the organization's culture?--73.252.167.210 (talk) 04:41, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
You do seem to be obsessing way too much over a single minor detail. There are plenty of other statements like that and it's odd that you focus on that in particular. I do detect some slight hints of concern trolling. But hey, at least you didn't open with a five-line scaffold this time. —Kazitor, pending 06:14, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Concern_troll#Caveat_lector--73.252.167.210 (talk) 22:57, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Whether or not I am here and any course of my conduct whatsoever will not change that the lack of explicit marking will divide the community. I’m also recommending removal or explicit marking because of how the joke could represent the Guardian, and could be represented in debates in which at least one side uses RationalWiki. Also, not every reader of RationalWiki is familiar with the wiki’s culture, and because extremism is usually indistinguishable from a joke about extremism, someone may actually report any information relating to anarchists to police.--73.252.167.210 (talk) 22:05, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
"the lack of explicit marking will divide the community." You're not serious, are you? Do you seriously expect that such a small, insignificant statement could cause such a rift? Nobody cared about it until you began your odd obsession with it. —Kazitor, pending 04:21, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
If I had an obsession, exactly what type of obsession do you believe it would be?--73.252.167.210 (talk) 00:24, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────One where you focus on a single sentence far too much out of the entire wiki. —Kazitor, pending 01:14, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Kazitor, I think this BoN is sealioning. CowHouse (talk) 01:32, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Don't worry, I suspected as much a while ago. —Kazitor, pending 01:39, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
"A particularly toxic thing about sealioning is that people who are genuine newbies asking serious questions are easy to mistake for sealions." How much of a rift are we talking about, exactly? --73.252.167.210 (talk) 01:43, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Are you using the Texas sharpshooter's fallacy?--73.252.167.210 (talk) 06:11, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Something I've Been Thinking About[edit]

I've been mulling something over, and I wanted to ask you, spectrum resident to spectrum resident.

If they (or we) could somehow cure autism, should the cure be used? I'm fairly high-functioning, so I'm personally inclined to say no. But what about people who are non-verbal, or can't easily function in society? Such a cure could help them. But then there's the issue that autism usually begins to present itself during one's younger years. Parents might then rush to cure what they see as an imminent threat to their child's future. My parents certainly didn't know how I would end up. In fact, the person who evaluated me said I'd be lucky to end up as a factory worker in a group home. Does the elimination of a potentially severe hindrance to a person's development outweigh the removal of a part of what the person is, without said person's permission?

I wanted to get another perspective on this. I'll, uh, see you later. RoninMacbeth (talk) 06:25, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

First of all, disclaimer: I've never actually been officially diagnosed with autism, but it does seem likely.
I guess it's quite a big hypothetical to assume a working cure, it's not really that sort of thing.
I think it goes without saying that in some cases, autism can certainly be highly detrimental. But there's also the fact that, it some cases, autistic people have greater aptitude/skill for certain things. Would this cure affect them? However, I would certainly say that in the cases where the person is otherwise unable to function "properly" (whatever that means), it would definitely be helpful then. —Kazitor, pending 09:49, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
If I may chip in, autism is a disease. What do we do with diseases? --Onacompass (talk) 02:29, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
And as you are not diagnosed with autism, and therefore not under the eyes of the medical profesion autism, allow me to decree you, honorary autist. --Onacompass (talk) 02:30, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

White supremacist[edit]

Why did you revert my edits? Are people opposed to rapid White decline often dishonestly called "White supremacists" or not? 185.125.226.2 (talk) 11:44, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

For the simple reason that decline in proportion of white people ≠ white genocide. Genocide involves a group or groups actively trying to reduce the white population. I know of no such groups, at least not any responsibly for observed trends. —Kazitor, pending 04:15, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
That doesn't answer what I'm saying at all. Whether or not it's genocide or consciously promoted, and I would say it obviously is and obviously denied by those doing it, I asked "are people opposed to rapid White decline often dishonestly called "White supremacists" or not?" Answer this please. 131.251.254.93 (talk) 09:49, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Personally, I think it's a non-issue. It's not like any sort of "extinction" is imminent, or even likely. Hence there is nothing to be seriously opposed to. With nothing to be opposed to, they must have ulterior motives. Due to these motives being to counter a perceived extinction, they will enact actions to increase the white population. Such actions, privileging (oh wow, I actually just used that word) whites, would be fairly labelled as white supremacy, of sorts. —Kazitor, pending 11:44, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
It's a statistical fact that vis a vis other races the White race is in rapid decline. You're lying about that. The question is not whether you think that's an issue. The question is whether people who are concerned about that are dishonestly called "White supremacists". You're avoiding the question. Why? 31.55.63.252 (talk) 12:14, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm not avoiding the question. I thought I quite clearly answered it in the last sentence: "would be fairly labelled as white supremacy". That means "no", FYI. You have your opinion of the world, and seem to be unable to comprehend something that doesn't immediately agree with it. And of course, vis-à-vis "You're lying about that": see straw man. —Kazitor, pending 22:36, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Allow me to add this: your debate style appears to be

  1. Just ask questions
  2. Ignore response (even if said response answers the question)
  3. "You're avoiding the question!"

So, if your next response follows this style, I'm going to completely ignore it. If you don't want to discuss this properly, then I won't waste my time trying.

If, however, you manage to raise some interesting points, I will give them the attention they deserve. —Kazitor, pending 23:03, 15 December 2017 (UTC)