User talk:Mikemikev

Your welcome to RationalWiki is lukewarm at best, Mikemikev. This observation is due to the nature of your initial edits. Pull up a goat and try not to make trouble. We realize it is possible that you do not understand the nature of the site or our objectives. Please see our guide for newcomers and our community standards to clarify things for you. If you're still interested in contributing, please see what our articles are intended to be.

. So you're a racist, eh? What's that like? Did he doubt/Or did he try? 14:09, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Well considering the word "racist" is applied to a range of views from stating biological facts to advocating genocide I guess you will have to explain what you mean. Mikemikev (talk) 09:04, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

You believe that one "racial" group is somehow inherently superior or inferior to another. You believe that there are physical or social generalizations which can be applied to all members of a "racial" group. You believe that political action should be taken to prevent "contamination" or "forced integration" of a "racial" group. If any of those apply, we'd pretty much regard you as a racist, and by our standards, an irrational person (as your beliefs are not based on reason, but derived from emotion). VOX^HUMANA 09:12, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

The only one I have a clear opinion on is forced integration. For example, if there was massive immigration and forced integration of Caucasians and East Asians to Sub-Saharan Africa I would regard it as a blatant genocide attempt against Negroes. Mikemikev (talk) 09:36, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Your example is not "genocide" - no one is being killed (the latin cognate -cide" means "killing"). Massive immigration and subsequent integration are inherent human traits which have happened throughout all human history and will continue to do so. I'm a white (->Anglo-saxon) Australian because my ancestors immigrated here. I married a Turkish girl because she moved here. In a hundreds year's time the concept of a "white Australian" will probably no longer exist. I don't care. Why should I? VOX^HUMANA 10:00, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

In fact the UN definition includes reducing birth rates in the targeted group, similarly many biocides operate in the same way. So you wouldn't care if there was a one way massive immigration and forced integration to Sub-Saharan Africa? Do you think the Negroes would agree? In fact at no time in history has any place seen the level of immigration Europe is experiencing. Mikemikev (talk) 10:20, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

LOL, relative to the base population, history is replete with similar examples. The Native Americans, the Australian aborigines, etc. Anyway, enjoy your paranoia, little racist boy. VOX^HUMANA 10:38, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Both of which fought a bloody resistance, and rightly so. Mikemikev (talk) 10:41, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Mainly because the invaders starting shooting at them first. So far, the non-white immigration to Europe and elsewhere has been peaceful, and in my experience, very positive. Your problem will be that the majority of the people you are trying to "protect" (ie. people like me) just don't care. Multiculturalism and integration means I eat thai food, lebanese kebabs, and sushi while enjoying Brazillian music with my Turkish wife. Among my "white" friends, roughly half have married someone who isn't white. My olive children will probably end up marrying other olive children. And I support that. So how do you stop this "genocide" when people like me (and there are huge numbers of us) are quite pleased at how things are going? VOX^HUMANA 11:32, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Not in all cases. I disagree it's positive and would prefer Europe to maintain its European character. You can do what you want in Australia, I wonder how many agree with you? Mikemikev (talk) 12:01, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Over 80% based on 2008 data. See http://epress.anu.edu.au/multiculturalism/pdf/ch05.pdf However, we expect that immigrants will generally adopt "the Australian way of life". For the most part public opinion opposes the idea of "hard multiculturalism", where people live here but exclusively maintain their original cultural traditions. VOX^HUMANA 12:45, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Can I also add that massive immigration to Europe has occurred on a tissue of lies and broken promises against the will of the majority of people. Furthermore you list only superficial positives (can we not cook Thai food ourselves?) and ignore the social and economic costs. Mikemikev (talk) 12:06, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

BTW I'm officially a "racist" because I oppose forced integration? Not that I really care too much about name calling, just curious what people mean by this vague and somewhat ridiculous word. It seems to have so many meanings. Mikemikev (talk) 16:30, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Just so we know who we're dealing with...

For all to enjoy, here's a little history of Mikemikev at TOW.

• The 'Race and Intelligence' arbitration case which got him site-banned
• Separate to his arb-com ban, he was community banned
• His relentless sockpuppetry history
• His Wikipedia talk page

And despite all this drama, he contributed barely 100 mainspace edits. I'm so thrilled he's turned up here. VOX^HUMANA 10:05, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

He's active on Metapedia too Sophie^Wilder 10:10, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Just deal with his edits on the merits. Don't let his past behaviour or his POV influence whether he has made good edits or not. --Damo^Hi 10:11, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

(EC) Although, as with Abd, it can show us how the whole interaction is going to go. Sophie^Wilder 10:14, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Damo, that's what I call rational! Mikemikev (talk) 10:13, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Relax, SW. The civility charges are trumped up and my opponents were worse. It's just that my views are not exactly politically correct (though they may be scientifically correct). Mikemikev (talk) 10:18, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

The beauty of those wikilinks are that anyone can go and see *exactly* what you did and said. Damo - that's exactly what Wikipedia did. Of course I'm not suggesting pre-emptive action, but just be forewarned of the endless stream of self-righteous racist bullshit that is coming. VOX^HUMANA 10:35, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

So far all I have seen is a legitimate edit to an article pointing out that certain races tend to be better at running than others and an addition to an article on IQ that looked perfectly reasonable and seemed to have no race element at all. If he starts making bad edits then revert them, otherwise you are reverting perfectly good edits because he was a bad boy somewhere else. Damo^Hi 10:41, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

You missed all the IP ranting over Einstein. Editing as an IP is a common tactic. VOX^HUMANA 10:44, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't care. His edits today are fine and should not be reverted just because you suspect that his edits in the future will be unsavoury. Damo^Hi 10:47, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

What the fuck are you on about? I haven't reverted anything. VOX^HUMANA 11:19, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Well I was using the royal you. --Damo^Hi 11:22, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah. Fair enough then. VOX^HUMANA 13:03, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

My IP is blocked if anyone can fix that. Mikemikev (talk) 12:05, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I have vandal-binned you

This means you may only edit once every 30 minutes, so use it wisely. is not due to the disgusting content of your edits, but rather, because of your edit-warring. Learn not to do that and we can go back to normal. Did he doubt/Or did he try? 12:51, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing disgusting about my edits, other than in your PC warped mind. What's disgusting is the transparent nonsense you support because it's "not racist", whether or not it's obviously false or speculative. Sure, West Africans do not dominate sprinting because of their demonstrable physiological differences. East Africans do not have a build suited to distance running. It's all "culture". Where is your evidence for that? Oh, you don't have any, but it's "not racist" so it must be true. Some scientist you are. I am trying to present both possibilities, you are just making shit up. The funny thing is that your website loses credibility by including this rubbish. Mikemikev (talk) 13:19, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Like I said, my blocking you has nothing to do with content, and everything to do with your violations of the community standards in edit-warring. I am not interested in discussing race with you. If you want to discuss editing practices, I'm all ears. Did he doubt/Or did he try? 13:28, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Racism

Hi, I have some responses on the article talk page but I am blocked. Mikemikev (talk) 10:33, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely Pathetic

I see PowderSmokeEtc. has blocked me for winning the debate on the "Racism" article. Obviously rational debate is outside his limited capability and he has to silence anybody that intrudes into his delusional echo chamber. Mikemikev (talk) 08:29, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Winning? Oh I see, you mean in the "incoherently rambling Charlie Sheen" sense of "winning". I agree. VOX^HUMANA 09:27, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

[1] Captain Swing (bringer of nachos) 01:25, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

So, you wanted the article to talk about how there are racial differences. The article has no section which addresses racial differences. I see that you have, indeed, won a decisive victory. If the thunder don't get you/Then the lightning will. 01:51, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

The real victory is that you are proven incapable of debating your lies. Mikemikev (talk) 02:18, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Holocaust denial

Blocked 3 months for adding material questioning the holocaust by user:Hipocrite (who is suddenly such a self-appointed expert on iron cyanide chemistry that nobody is allowed to question his wisdom). I wonder how most editors feel about that? Mikemikev (talk) 00:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Good call. VOX^HUMANA 02:48, 21 April 2013 (UTC)