User talk:Spriggina

From RationalWiki
(Redirected from User talk:LynnR)
Jump to: navigation, search

Archives: <1>


Are you also User:Aschlafly? I really need to know. RoninMacbeth (talk) 03:43, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

It's possible that I'm Aschlаfly, but I'm definitely not Aschlafly. Spriggina (beszélgetés) (közreműködés) @ 12:05, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm right and you're wrong, cause I'm smart and you're not[edit]

Having first hand knowledge of Predictive Programming, and putting the entry into Rational Wiki, what am I supposed to think? "Lukewarm" reception? Meaning what? A skeptic using Occam's Razor ending up being totally wrong? We could go down the Rabbit Hole with this one, so instead tell me where or how I can post an entry that won't be excluded for what is plain as day, aside the CIA and its illegal domestic spying upon its own US Citizens via Facebook, Wikipedia, etc to end up Cambridge Gate, in the idiocy of Congressional investigation at waste of tax dollars in what Rand Corporation advises them in the long run of ending up with blind mindedness and eyes... being the logical fallacy as dupe the irony of Spriggina, unless actually complicit to such chicanery as 'filter' in edit? LOL... — Unsigned, by: Raymond D Howard / talk / contribs

"being the logical fallacy as dupe the irony of Spriggina, unless actually complicit to such chicanery as 'filter' in edit"
That's golden, wow. I'm starting to get the feeling that you're just a poorly programmed Markov chain bot. Spriggina (beszélgetés) (közreműködés) @ 15:55, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
How did that GC guy got the first "you're" wrong but the second one right? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 15:59, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm only half awake. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:06, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Democratic Socialist[edit]

Wow... That is a huge surprise that you recognize the benefits of capitalism, but Socialist Democrat is like an inch away from actual socialist --Kingdamian1 (talk) 01:00, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Like many in the United States, you clearly have no idea what any of those ideologies are. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:03, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Social democrat, not democratic socialist. There is a large difference -- I do not believe in democratic reform to bring about socialism, because I don't think socialism is usually beneficial. There are cases where it may be, but it doesn't really work on a sustained large scale without a pseudo-capitalist economy behind the scenes (as demonstrated by the Georgian SSR being more prosperous than the others due to its capitalist economy behind the scenes). However, I'm not a laissez-faire capitalist and do believe in plenty of regulation, mostly for environmental purposes. Spriggina (beszélgetés) (közreműködés) @ 01:04, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
@Spriggina As a third way style Socialist I would agree with that assessment of the failings of pure socialism. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:06, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Yeah. I do think market socialism could be feasible in smaller countries, but would require extreme bureaucracies in some larger ones like the US, so that's the only form that I could really get behind. Spriggina (beszélgetés) (közreműködés) @ 01:08, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
By the way, you don't need to ping me; you're on my talk page. Spriggina (beszélgetés) (közreműködés) @ 01:09, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
In my view the ideal system (taking into account past socialist failures) would be a mix of capitalism and socialism (varying by country), with a transparent (as in at least 80% of all dealings) government to monitor and regulate the system. There should also be safeguards against populist leaders coming into power and fucking the whole thing up. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:18, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
No, socialism rewards people's laziness... I do not want someone's hands in my pockets because they are too lazy to work and now have to depend on welfare. --Kingdamian1 (talk) 01:34, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
I hate this attitude toward the poor or dependent. You know, you're going against the Bible when it comes to having a lack of a charitable attitude. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 01:42, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
What does religion have to do with this? What attitude do you hate? Why should someone who doesn't work have their hands in my pocket? I don't get it. There are losers and winners in life just as there are in sports. Why should someone's laziness and some loser be milking a country and have his hands in pockets of people who bleed and sweat to create something while these people act as leeches? I don't see your logic. I am sorry. Also, charitable attitude? I support charity and would gladly donate. I oppose welfare! --Kingdamian1 (talk) 01:45, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
You know, using KD1's logic we should just let children starve to death, the damn moochers. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:50, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Are you just making things up as you go along? I wish to be an Emergency Doctor, seems like a complete opposite of letting anyone starve to death! --Kingdamian1 (talk) 01:52, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Kids don't work, ergo they rely on welfare, ergo they're moochers in your system. Ergo they should starve. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:54, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

You are being obtuse on purpose, but I will explain. Capitalism is an economic system. Economic system should take a back seat to human rights. That is why I support free healthcare, because healthcare is a right, right to life is a right, right to basic education is again a right, right to breathe air is a right. Now, living in luxury, living off someone else's brilliant ideas and achievements is not a right. --Kingdamian1 (talk) 01:58, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Congrats, you support a socialist idea. In addition, you still haven't explained how children aren't "living in luxury, living off someone else's brilliant ideas and achievements" and thus are different than those whose lives you so casually toss aside. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 02:00, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Children are dependent on their parents and thus their parents are responsible. I did not toss anyone's life aside, you made that up. --Kingdamian1 (talk) 02:04, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
You said and I quote "No, socialism rewards people's laziness... I do not want someone's hands in my pockets because they are too lazy to work and now have to depend on welfare." Given the bulk of welfare recipients are children, the elderly, families whose breadwinners have died and now lack a source of income, the disabled, those who are unemployed for extensive periods of time (Trump's coal miners for example) and require money to feed themselves and their families... Yeah, you basically said they should all die. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 02:09, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Wow. I said that people's laziness should not be rewarded and that equals wishing them death? How is that reasoning a sign of a healthy mind? --Kingdamian1 (talk) 02:13, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
How are they to get food? How are they to pay their rent? How about how those people are supposed to get healthcare, or even just afford the trip to the local medical facility? I guarantee that if you abolished every single welfare program in the U.S. this instant that within the year you'd be guilty of mass murder. I say this because I've actually done my homework and researched this topic, unlike you who seems to rely on far-right blogs. The days when the right could make believe their policies would not have consequences is over, the dog whistle days done, either own up to the results of your platform (mass murder) or abandon it. It's that simple. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 02:24, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Okay, hold up just a moment hyar. You're claiming socialism rewards people for doing nothing? How in the world does democratic control of the means of production qualify for that? And what does universal healthcare have to do with socialism? Spriggina (beszélgetés) (közreműködés) @ 02:27, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Exactly, Damian. Liberalism is a mental disorder. All they want to do is reward lazy people for nothing! Godspeed, --Andrew L Schlafly.svg Andy Schlafly (talk) 02:30, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree. Universal healthcare is a right. Far-right blogs? Seriously? I do support helping the needy, when that means helping them survive, because again it is a right. And if you think conservapedia represents mainstream conservatism there might be something wrong with you --Kingdamian1 (talk) 02:33, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, unfortunately Conservapedia doesn't represent mainstream conservatism anyore. There are so many CINO's (Conservative In Name Only) in the world today. But healthcare is not a right, and you should work for it if you want it. Godspeed, --Andrew L Schlafly.svg Andy Schlafly (talk) 02:36, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Actually I was talking about Breitbart which you've linked to multiple times in the past. CP has no influence at this point. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 02:38, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── In addition to the above I'd like to point out that socialism is primarily concerned with empowering the workers, i.e. those who work. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 02:44, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh. I cited that about immigration policy. What does it have to do here --Kingdamian1 (talk) 02:45, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Breitbart is a shit source for news. It would be the equivalent of me citing "Addicting Info" or "Occupy Democrats" (both shit sources). And with that I bring us back to my last point concerning socialism, i.e. that it seeks to empower the workers and lower the upper classes down to their level in order to abolish the corrupt hierarchical class structure and create a more egalitarian and just world. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 02:51, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
No. It rewards people's laziness. It perpetuates this myth that we are all winners. We are not. There are losers and there are winners. For example, I want to go to University and then a Graduate university to earn my MD. But if in Canada we had to vote for free education, I would not blink, I would vote no. wouldn't even blink for a second. Because higher education is not a right, it is a privilege. you have to work hard for it, nobody owes you that. That is why I do not like socialism. It hands out participation trophies like free education, basic universal income, it's bullshit, some are winners some are losers. I do not want to be a loser! I don't need participation trophies to lie to myself that discrimination is what prevents me from being Bill Gates and that Bill Gates or Elon Musk, literal geniuses who have bled for their work, need to have their wealth taken away and redistributed to help a leech like me! And again, capitalism works! It's like evidence based medicine, it is not the best system, it is the best one we have! And I am sure even you realize that, you just prefer to deceive yourself that "IF ONLY my ideas were put in practice and not [insert every failed socialist leader/state] then everything would be fine." --Kingdamian1 (talk) 03:03, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
You know, I could debate a brick and get the same results. I already stated that pure socialism is doomed to failure, partly due to its rigid structure (ironically like the very system it seeks to replace) and partly due to its economic theory being completely naive in how human nature works (again, also very much like pure capitalism), I then stated that the ideal system would be a hybrid of the two. You are intentionally strawmanning my position to fit into your narrow understanding of the world. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:10, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
So you support capitalism? --Kingdamian1 (talk) 03:11, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
You also need to read up on poor people because it must suck to live in a zero-sum world (a.k.a. winners vs losers) where you think poor people deserve to be poor or remain poor or high tuition is justified in any way, shape, or form. Unlike what you think, we don't live in a world where if you work hard enough, all the miracles in the world will materialize. There are people have to work two shifts to even have a decent living (all while billionaire scum get stratospheric pay raises and tax evade and otherwise hoard their money) and no, it's not easy as "just work a better job". "Just try harder" is a really rancid mindset to have toward struggling fellow beings and the worst part is that it's not even correct. Your views on the poor are an utter disgrace but I can't be surprised because conservatism viewpoints are always about punching down and assuming the worst in everyone, especially blaming the victims. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 05:42, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Actually @LeftyGreenMario Conservitism is about maintaining the status quo, regardless of how horrible that may or may not be. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:53, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Since someone mentions Canadian universities, provincial residents enjoy subsidized tuition fees. Making public universities free for all Canadians is not that big of a step. Americans attending public universities of their states get the same, although prices there are higher. Higher education is indeed a privilege, because you have to make the grade. Education is an investment, a public good, not a commercial product or service. Nerd (talk) 03:51, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
@LeftyGreenMario Look, you are making stuff up, I don't want people dying, and I understand that some people are affected by disability etc. Everyone's basic needs and rights need to be met. Basic education, healthcare, and life are rights. Higher education is not! So we have healthy young people who go to college to study whiteness studies, gender studies, queer musicology etc etc and then expect the government to pay for them and find them a job? NO! Capitalism forces people to play chess (incidentally, a zero-sum game). It is not perfect, but it is better than the alternative. I already said, I do not want to pretend that discrimination is what keeps me from being as rich as Bill Gates and it is greed and hate that made Elon Musk a millionaire. I do not think that we should ask them to redistribute their wealth to leeches like me, who refuse to do anything! Who like being losers and wait for the government to help them! In life there are winners and there are losers. Participation trophies don't work! Or let's continue this cult of perpetual victimhood, minorities are kept away by institutional racism, women are oppressed by the patriarchy, workers are oppresed by the bourgeois, middle class is oppressed by the 1% etc etc... You can play that card. I want to go and work hard for my medical degree, and if I do that, if I succeed and with my sweat, blood and tears I succeed, I should NOT be required to redistribute what I earned with my blood to some leech who chose to study queer musicology and now complains about discrimination. Where do you disagree? Kingdamian1 (talk) 20:54, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
You do realize that queer musicology isn't a degree offered at any reputable institution, right? It's a few classes at most. Spriggina (beszélgetés) (közreműködés) @ 21:26, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
I don't know,... heard it here --Kingdamian1 (talk) 21:30, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
You're the one "making stuff up". You're the one making malicious assumptions about people, assuming they're stupid and since they take "worthless classes" they deserve to be poor. That's not true. I don't understand why you people rip on gender studies and are often the same people who rip on feminism and transgender people but this seems like the perfect class to take if you want to understand feminism or transgenderism more and therefore you're better equipped to either refute feminism or even agree with it. You even fucking mocked "women oppressed by the patriarchy" at the same time also disparaging gender studies which is supposed to examine this sort of stuff in the first place! How can you be so ignorant of such basic ideas like this? Capitalism is inherently unequal. It's complicated, but racism dies very hard and so minorities were treated bad and are still healing from their wounds. Minorities were denied opportunity at every turn and they were stuck in clusters of places that are poor, aren't well-kept at all, including the schools, that made it difficult for them to achieve what they want. This also includes things like requiring a driver's license to vote, voter ID in general, and other ways Republicans try to disenfranchise minorities (again minorties are disproportionately in poverty). This is why the "working hard" narrative is so naive and frankly so dismissive to poorer people (which minorities are overrepresented). Given the income inequality and the circumstances that's wrought on them, it's only fair that the rich share the wealth but they don't and they continue to make record profits while everyone else, median wages are sluggish and aren't keeping up with rising costs of everything. Your viewpoint in life, "there are winners and losers" are not correct or justified viewpoints in a very unfair system. Oh yeah, even people with degrees... likely even medical degrees... have trouble finding a job, and the ridiculous cost of tuition and criminal interest rates is keeping them paying and paying. Believing and working for it is becoming less and less feasible when in the end, thanks to income inequality and rising costs of everything in the midst of stagnating wages. As long as you and similar conservative voters keep your illusory attitude of "they just need to work harder", I believe this unjust income inequality is going to get worse. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 21:41, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Uncle Napoleon says "you must work harder!" ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:00, 22 June 2018 (UTC)


I'm adding a new subtopic down here so you folks don't have to scroll up and down a lot to find the edit button and your comments. Spriggina (beszélgetés) (közreműködés) @ 22:29, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

This paltry "debate" with Kingdamian1 is a waste of time. I do not understand why you fellows are even concerning yourself. It's clearly not going to be productive. —ClickerClock (talk) 03:58, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
@LeftyGreenMario to address your points
  • Modern feminism is a mental disorder, I understand not all people who call themselves feminists support modern feminism (and I, myself support equal rights for women), but it is lunacy... Just listen to this blowhard. Yup, that is your average gender studies professor. In the very same article she tells us what to do if we as men do not want to be hated (which includes not running for office and voting for a feminist), as if I cared what this unfu*kable zoo animal, who holds a college degree that should be used for wiping a rear end thinks about me...
  • I am strictly opposed to racism, but not made up definitions of racism. I do not buy into this bullshit that white people are out there to put a black person down and we are scared of successful blacks... Racism is prejudice/discrimination based on race, that is the correct definition, and I am strictly opposed to this. Any candidate denying the holocaust, or introducing racial laws would automatically lose my vote, no matter the party or ideology or the race that is being affected. The following definitions of racism, however, are ad-hoc inventions[1][2] Also, I do not suffer from white guilt and have NOTHING to be guilty about in front of minorities.
  • I live in Canada, but even I know that all founding members of the KKK were democrats and Abe Lincoln was a Republican. You seriously think that Republicans have been a problem for minorities?
  • No. Bill Gates earned his money through his hard work, he should NOT be required to share anything! It is his money, that is why capitalism is better, less people have their hands in your pocket.
  • My voting rule of thumb: Any political party, candidate etc, which uses slogans like "Going forward", "Progressive", "Better Future", "Right Side of History" is worth staying away from. Any political candidate that, under no or little pressure from journalists aligns themselves with modern feminism is already 90% less likely to get my vote on that fact alone, even if they have otherwise sensible policies. Generally speaking, any party or candidate that is likely to get a stereotypical gender queer person to say "Fuck white males etc" is likely my choice.
  • You are probably talking about the recent wave of conservative voters. Your liberal media did not prepare you for Brexit, Trump, Italian far-right government and Euro-skepticism and now you wonder why this is. Well, part of the reason is that conservatism attracts younger people, because we have seen the failures of liberalism, in other words, it is the new counter culture, new way to be original. Another part is, that conservatism just looks better, don't lie, even you see that part. The confidence, the suits, the politically incorrect sentiment, go and check out videos on YouTube with the title "feminist cringe" or "SJW failures" etc and see how many views and likes do they get? Then go and check out feminist humor, and see how many dislikes it has, allow me to help.[3][4][5] Just look at the dislike-like ratio. Who do you think those are? Old white males?
  • Also, you have some misconceptions about voting, you seem to think that I vote for our future. Hate to break it to you, but that is not the case. I am an individual and I vote for myself and as a my own statement. And you already know my voting criteria.

To be fair to you, I do NOT believe you are a man hating, mentally ill feminist type. I suspect you were raised by liberal parents, with liberal friends, and you can't imagine how someone can think any different from you. Just try to remember that we are as convinced in what we believe as you. I could change my mind, after all, just months ago, I described myself as "centre-left", thought that Bill Gates should have to share and that communism made sense and was a good idea to have (No! I am not making that up). It is possible I will change my mind again, though, unlikely. Once you are red-pilled, you usually stay red-pilled! --Kingdamian1 (talk) 04:14, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Generally you are not suppose to delete comments, that's against RW norms. We really should move this to a debate page. —ClickerClock (talk) 05:08, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Yet another completely unfounded "anything I disagree with is a mental disorder!" One example of a crazy person, another unsourced claim that this is what all gender studies professors are like.
  • That's acceptable.
  • Southern Strategy. Republicans were originally the party of civil rights, but they largely flopped around the 1960s with Democrats taking that place.
  • So you think he shouldn't have to pay any taxes at all? That's sharing his money.
  • What do you mean by "modern feminism"? And basing your vote on somebody's slogan unless it's something explicitly bad like "kill all Jews" is generally not something you should do.
  • Hahaha, source? Being "anti-SJW," as much as I despise that terminology, doesn't necessarily make one conservative.
  • Well, I was raised with a moderate immediate family and conservative extended family on one side with mostly liberals on the other, and ended up becoming a flaming liberal. It seems like you're the one who can't deal with people having different opinions without accusing them of being mentally ill with literally zero backup.
RIP. I hope you recover from your horrible "red-pilling." Spriggina (beszélgetés) (közreműködés) @ 13:20, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
What's with the RIP? --Kingdamian1 (talk) 20:54, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
It symbolizes the death of logic in your mind. ;~; Spriggina (beszélgetés) (közreműködés) @ 21:19, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Stop stigmatizing mental disorders too while you're at it. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 23:59, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Whenever I see the word Socialist I cant help but think of what my friend from Russia who lived in the times of the Soviet Union said, "Socialism is pure evil, we were all equal... in poverty"--リムルテンペストRimuru Slime.png 00:20, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Authoritarianism is bad, but I'm also leery of full-on socialism. I hate capitalism so much though.
By the way, for anti-feminists
A)shit on gender studies classes
B)make a well-informed critique of feminism
Pick one. You can't do both. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 00:23, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Hey, I have a mental disorder, btw. I am just pointing out. Also, hate capitalism? The very system that has lifted so many countries out of poverty? --Kingdamian1 (talk) 02:41, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Which makes it all the stranger that you use terminology stigmatizing mental illnesses. Spriggina (beszélgetés) (közreműködés) @ 02:44, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
There is nothing stigmatizing about pointing out a disorder in thinking. I personally have panic attacks and agoraphobia (quite sever actually), and use RW sometimes to distract myself... I think some forms of radical feminism and liberalism show signs of disorders. I don't think that liberals or all socialists are crazy. I just feel like some radical leftists are crazy and they do believe in what they say, making them sincerely crazy. --Kingdamian1 (talk) 03:01, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
So you think they have mental disorders which cause people to believe in those ideologies, not that those ideologies are mental disorders. I would recommend not saying you think the latter because it makes you look like an ableist moron. The first is still wrong, but slightly less offensive. Spriggina (beszélgetés) (közreműködés) @ 03:08, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
They exist on a spectrum, like religion. Would you say that religion is a mental disorder? Probably not! But religious hallucinations, and sudden radical religious stance are sometimes seen in schizophrenia. I do NOT think that mainstream liberalism is a mental disorder. I do not think that even hardcore, respectful liberalism is. But sometimes the line is clearly crossed. Like with that female gender studies professor. I think certain forms of liberalism certainly do show some levels of disorder. But again it exists on a spectrum and most people who call themselves liberal do not fall into this. --Kingdamian1 (talk) 03:25, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Good, I'm glad we've pounded (metaphorically) some sense into you. Valerie Solanas, a radical feminist author who wrote a book about killing all men and eventually shot Andy WarholWikipedia's W.svg, was definitely mentally ill. However, that doesn't mean radical feminism is a mental illness, as you've claimed before. I could see it attracting people with mental disorders more than other ideologies, as with the militia movement and Nazism, but correlation is not causation. Spriggina (beszélgetés) (közreműködés) @ 03:32, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Even if you're a psychiatrist with all the medals and degrees in the world, even if you have the same disorder as others, and even if you have a mental disorder yourself, you're still not qualified to speculate on anyone else's mental health unless, you, as a psychiatrist with proper training, have thoroughly evaluated a person's behavior through screening and tests. I also don't think conservatives have any mental diseases. I just disagree with them very strongly. For the record, I'm disgusted by people who try to diagnose my political opponents, especially with speculations about Trump's personality, with any mental disorder. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 03:35, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm pedantic on not misusing words. I have a distaste of the misuse of cult and mental disorders in particular. I despise the alt-right however I do not call it a cult or a mental illness. I'm also mentally ill. Scientology is a cult but it's not a mental illness. Radical feminism has never been classified as a mental illness by any professional body of psychiatrists. Use words properly. —ClickerClock (talk) 08:55, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

My Esperanto translation is now in main space[edit]

Here it is at Kristnaska Viro. You are, of course, most welcome to edit it further. And I'll ask you, what should I translate next? Halloween, Lewis Carroll or Oscar Wilde? Spud (talk) 12:30, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Or the Loch Ness Monster? Spud (talk) 10:19, 18 July 2018 (UTC)