User talk:Milesmcstylez

What is going on? World Blogs Clogs Elections The Bar (talk) (talk) (talk) (talk) (hic) Welcome to RationalWiki, Milesmcstylez! Check out our guide for newcomers and our community standards! Tell us how you found RationalWiki here! If you are interested in contributing: Read what our articles are intended to be Check out the to-do list See our help page and Wikipedia's formatting cheatsheet If writing a new article, consider writing up a draft And most importantly: Pull up a goat and have some fun!

Nullahnung (talk) 23:19, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Your welcome to RationalWiki is lukewarm at best, Milesmcstylez. 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.

Hipo^crite 21:53, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Stop reverting and discuss on the talk page. Hipo^crite 21:53, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I used to visit this site fairly often, and left off for a couple years. I enjoyed the combination of unapologetic facts mixed with just the right amount of snark. I was not thrilled to return recently to see both have seemingly been replaced with an excess of political correctness and cultural relativism. --Milesmcstylez (talk) 22:01, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

So then you were being ironic when you wrote "this is also RATIONALwiki" Hipo^crite 22:03, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I think part of being rational means avoiding double standards. Mercilessly criticizing all religions except one, which is given a pass, does not strike me as rational. I realize there are a good number of atheists who take criticism of Islam to some fairly dark places (hello Ayaan Hirsi Ali) but rather than trying to strike a balance between anti-theism and accommodationism this site seems to have doubled down on the latter.--Milesmcstylez (talk) 22:53, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you "used to visit this site fairly often." Hipocrite (talk) 12:30, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Who knows, maybe he/she did it with a different standard from what you would consider "fairly often" (maybe like... a few articles read per week for a few months?), which is a subjective description, and only really read anything to do with atheism and Christianity, because of this apparent interest in anti-theism. This was a pointless thing for him/her to tell us and a pointless thing for me/you to question or care about. Nullahnung (talk) 12:36, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

It was actually the anti-science/woo refutations that I found this site the most useful for, though I would also use it as a point of reference when dealing with christian/muslim apologists. I recall it as being pretty evenly harsh across the board, which when I returned to the site this week was emphatically not the case.--Milesmcstylez (talk) 16:48, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Not actually a double standard

This site intensely CRITICISES Christian beliefs and things Christians do, but that doesn't mean we start being Christianophobic, which I imagine is also a thing that's out there (particularly among some cultural extremists in Europe, and people like Varg Vikernes, but we don't have an article about Christianophobia yet because it's not a popular term yet... and also nobody could be bothered to write one yet).

We are not against criticising Muslim beliefs and things Muslims do, but we do not condone Islamophobia, just like we would not condone "Christianophobia" (in quote marks, because I've just thought this term up). Nullahnung (talk) 23:18, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

"Christianophobia" is not really a common term, but "Persecution of Christians" is a term that gets thrown around a LOT. While there are bona fide cases of persecution of Christians in the world today, a hell of a lot of the time you hear about "Persecution of Christians" it's being used by Christians to describe people saying things they don't like. If you were to ask anyone at, say, Conservapedia, if RW persecuted Christians, you would almost certainly get a resounding yes. Islamophobia likewise exists, but the term is also used very often to describe any and all unwelcome criticism of Islam. This website doesnt have an article about persecution of christians, but it does talk about a christian persecution complex. If Islamophobia was discussed with as much skepticism as the Persecution of Christians, I would be content ^{— Unsigned, by: Milesmcstylez / talk / contribs}

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you.

I was talking about Christianophobia, though, not "persecution of Christians", which appears to be something different. Christianophobia (an analogous term to Islamophobia, that I've made up) is when some Pagan extremist goes on a long rant about how Christianity is the vilest thing on this world and prompts people to kill each other as well as ruins cultures, societies and nations, "Christianity is inherently a violent religion" and other bullshit like that. Similarly, I've seen people go "Islam is the vilest thing, it makes people kill each other as well as ruins the minds of the young and is inherently just a violent religion", which is not much different to me than some cultural extremist in Europe going on about Christianity. Nullahnung (talk) 23:44, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

What proponents of Islamophobia and Persecution of Christians have in common is that they never seem to delineate where legitimate criticism stops and Islamophobia/Persecution of Christians begins. It seems as though, on this wiki, "The Bible contains many violent doctrines" is legitimate criticism, while "The Qur'an contains many violent doctrines" is Islamophobia. "Catholicism is sexist for not allowing female priests" = valid criticism, but "Sunni Islam is sexist for only allowing women to inherit half of a male inheritance" = racist Islamophobia. Unabashedly condemning Christian dogmatism while pussyfooting around Islamic dogmatism is the epitome of a double standard.--Milesmcstylez (talk) 23:58, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok, so the Qu'ran may contain violence, just like the Bible contains violence, sure. And a lot of practices in the name of Islam are sexist, sure. Can you actually point out where, specifically, RW denied any of that?

(In fact, instead of denying any of that, RW outright points this stuff out here: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Islamophobia#Islamophobia_versus_criticism_of_Islam) Nullahnung (talk) 00:06, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

That discussion is pretty promptly undercut by calling Sam Harris a racist. The disagreement section of that article reads more like "Some people don't think all criticism of Islam is racist, and here is why those stupid people are wrong" Coupled with the introductory paragraphs slant (which was even worse before I added the bit about snarl word) The article in general comes across as something that belongs on Islamophobia Watch rather that RW. There are some RW articles where the author's balls didn't drop off at the first mention of Islam, such as Jesus and Mo --Milesmcstylez (talk) 00:27, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree that that section is not really cohesive in what it is trying to say... it needs a rewrite and elaboration of the point that valid criticism of Islam is not the same as Islamophobia, as well as expansion with details. Nullahnung (talk) 00:46, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I vote we try to hash something out in the talk section before putting it into the main article. I'll start a new section and we can go from there.Milesmcstylez (talk) 01:03, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Maajid Nawaz

Thank you for edits at Maajid Nawaz. It's a new article that I really just wrote the bones of, hoping to encourage more input. With the current clamour over so-called "cultural libetarianism", I suspect Nawaz will become much more of notable figure in the future.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 05:17, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

"Undoing Cenk's self-edits"

Can you identify any particular user who has actually contributed to the TYT article as being Cenk Uygur? If so, please provide something resembling evidence. If no, or if unable to provide any evidence, maybe stop saying that you're undoing what he did. Thank you. WalkerWalkerWalker 05:48, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Intended as sarcasm, it just read like Cenk popped over and airbrushed that section as much as he could.^{— Unsigned, by: Milesmcstylez / talk / contribs} 05:51, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Ah. Oopsie. Internet + me + sarcasm = almost certain confusion. Sorry about that. WalkerWalkerWalker 05:51, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Yah.

No. Stop. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 02:23, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Read this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_on_American%E2%80%93Islamic_Relations

Then read this. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/CAIR

One reads like a balanced, nuanced article. The other is on RW.^{— Unsigned, by: Milesmcstylez / talk / contribs}

Well if I go by the edits I reverted ours became a piece of trash with what you added. We call that vandalism in these here parts, --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 02:29, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Not disagreeing. Those were there to be reverted. There is one user in particular who has been editing the hell out of that article, including deleting everything remotely critical of CAIR, and those were strictly for her benefit. I was trying to make a point about how ridiculous her edits were, from saying everyone agrees Glenn Greenwald is the greatest thing since sliced bread to saying only wingnuts deny that the sun shines out of CAIR's ass. I figured I had maybe five minutes before she spotted them, but evidently you got there first.Milesmcstylez (talk) 02:34, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Vandalizing an article is not going to win you points. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 02:37, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Wasn't about winning points. I had asked her on the talk page, since she reverted all of my and others' actual changes (which included citations and a lot less sarcasm), to take a stab at amending the article to address the various allegations against CAIR rather than ignoring 95% of them. I'll admit I was frustrated when I made those edits, but it seemed like a good way to make my point that an insanely slanted article is not exactly a compromise.Milesmcstylez (talk) 02:40, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

We compromise and balance?--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 02:45, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Hell yeah.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 02:47, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

On areas of actual controversy and nuance, yes. I'm not saying start giving equal time to creationism, but RW never struck me as a haven for rigid ideologues of either the left or right variety. A puff piece and a hit piece both seem like bad ideas to me.Milesmcstylez (talk) 02:54, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

We don't do the balance fallacy here. Facts and reliable sources are paramount. Many of your claims either referenced articles that didn't support the claim -- didn't even mention the key term(s) -- or were to dubious wingnut sites. Further, you made claims that are false. The one you made that was true and supported, was left intact. (The former CAIR employee who was actually deported for the explosives charge.) But I'm not arguing any of your specific gripes here-- everyone intersted can consult the FR at the CAIR page, as well as the talk page. Additionally, users may not vandalize an article to "make a point." You are pulling some of the same shit at the Sam Harris article and Aging Hippie just entirely reverted you. You are headed to the vandal bin if you don 't stop your bad faith behavior.---Mona- (talk) 05:23, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

You are not the sole arbitrator of who is a reliable source and who isn't. I don't see you disallowing any use of the Guardian despite them being highly partisan, and less and less respected in Britain as time goes on. (I'm fine with using the Guardian, because they, and their counterparts on the right like breitbart and worldnewsdaily, are required to maintain certain journalistic standards or they can get landed on for libel/defamation.) Having hopped on over to your page, I can see you think that citing Electronic Intifada is kosher (if you'll pardon the pun) because just because they're biased doesn't mean they're wrong. So for you to hand-pick which sources you will accept, and then say anything not supported by those sources is a baseless allegation, is the kind of echo-chamber confirmation bias this site is supposed to debunk. If wikipedia accepts the sources that say CAIR founders previously worked for the IAP, we shouldn't have to pull non-public IRS documents to corroborate that claim here, just because the people who actually did the research on the matter happened to be conservatives. Same goes for you scrubbing all mention of Elashi because CAIR says he just barely worked for them. The only thing you actually refuted was Rabih Haddad being a fundraiser, and I conceded that point already.

On the Sam Harris thing, I've noticed a trend of reeealllly controversial people being taken as an authority on certain people/issues. PZ Myers being given the final word on Sam is a bit like Ayaan Hirsi Ali being given the final say in an article about Islam. The way you close out the CAIR article by saying they have Greenwald's stamp of approval is another example. And no, it's not only newsbusters that has a problem with the guy http://thedailybanter.com/2014/11/faced-radical-islam-glenn-greenwald-buries-head-sand/ http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/133107/glenn-greenwald-terrorizes-logic https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/01/09/glenn-greenwald-pro-israel-sentiment-in-the-u-s-is-at-least-as-bad-for-freedom-of-speech-as-islamist-terrorists-murdering-cartoonists/ https://medium.com/@AryehCW/why-glenn-greenwald-is-wrong-about-charlie-hebdo-anti-semitic-cartoons-and-satire-b654796a0080Milesmcstylez (talk) 06:18, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

That's another thing that bugs me btw. When dealing with criticism you disagree with, you immediately jump to the MOST wingut source you can find (eg. Pam Geller or Newsbusters), and try to make it look like they're the only critics as a means of poisoning the well. If I set up the article so that the ONLY praise of CAIR mentioned is that from Electronic Intifada, you'd probably see that as a form of misrepresentation.Milesmcstylez (talk) 06:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

About the CAIR article

Please do not revert any more text on that page without first seeking a majority consensus on the talk page. Also, please do not make any more additions without discussing it first on the talk page: your history of false claims, and/or unsupported ones, and/or citation to wingnut sources has caused a waste of time reverting that crap. Finally, if you revert any more of the text where others have already rejected your revert I will have to place you in the vandal bin for edit warring.---Mona- (talk) 22:27, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Believe her, she put me in the vandal bin for not writing exactly as she wants. She just loves to abuse her sysop-tools to push her pro-jihad views--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 22:31, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

And after I set forth my reasons, others permitted that you stay there. So, it was not just me. Which means, the congregation of other sysops do not regard me as abusing the tools.---Mona- (talk) 22:48, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

For that to work, Mona, you're going to need to accept a few things first. One, between wiki accepting it and CAIR not denying it, and that Castaigne guy confirming on the IRS website, several CAIR founders were at IAP prior to founding CAIR. That's not even in dispute. Second, CAIR saying someone "barely worked for them" is not a reason to scrub all mention of that person from the wiki. Third, worldnews daily or jihad watch isn't automatically wrong anymore than electronic intifada is automatically wrong. Fourth, RW isn't intended to be just as biased as conservapedia, just in the opposite direction. Fifth, if a given allegation is completely unsubstantiated, why not just say so in the wiki? That makes a lot more sense than deleting it entirely. Sixth, Glenn Greenwald's seal of approval doesn't really mean that much. He's known for being a TFI on right wing Islamists just as much as he's known for breaking the NSA surveillance story. Seventh, if Castaigne, Arisboch, Avenger, and I all agree, and only you disagree (that ChrisAmiss guy seemed reasonable and impartial; he could go either way), then you are outvoted, and you don't have veto power over the article anymore than I do.Milesmcstylez (talk) 22:51, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

This is not a wingnut site; it was founded in part to mock a wingnut site. Your wingnut sources do not have a reputation for accuracy and reasonableness among reasonable, non-wingnut people. As to the tax documents Castaigne claims to have, he should provide them in a form that we can use as a source -- or locate the information elsewhere from a credible source. Greenwald is a devout civil libertarian and, as the article documents, recognized worldwide as such; civil libertarian cred is relevant to his endorsement of a civil rights organisation. You should see my discussion on my user page about Electronic Intifada if you have any questions about that source. Finally, that two deeply problematic Zionists who are now well-established to be unreasonable and irrational on this sort of topic agree with you is not persuasive. If ChrisAmiss, Paravant (who has reverted you) and others find something of yours acceptable, they would have reasons and I'd leave it. But that is not the case.---Mona- (talk) 23:07, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

You see, she won't listen to anyone, who is outside her echo chamber and continue to try to kiss Greenwald's ass using her keyboard.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 23:11, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

This is also not a Hamas spokesperson site. You seem to be confusing emulation with mockery. The objective is not to out-bias conservapedia. I've asked Castaigne to provide redacted versions, but as I have access to similarly proprietary information at my work, I know that's an awkward request to make, and I can't blame him for being hesitant to publish content without authorization. Argument from authority aside, Glenn's claims to be a universally renowned civil libertarian went out the window with his commentary on Charlie Hebdo. And you are no position to be accusing anyone of being unreasonable or irrational. I'm going to make a draft on the talk page probably on the weekend sometime, and I'm going to be as fair as I possibly can. But I'm not CAIR's lawyer, and neither are you. Milesmcstylez (talk) 23:13, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I made no argument from authority. Endorsements, by definition, are proper invocations of an authority. (A statement is fallacious only if use for a fallacious purpose.) As for Charlie Hebdo, I disagreed rather strongly with certain of his views on that matter, but his reputation as a civil libertarian remains intact. Nothing he said undermines a commitment to civil liberties; the disagreement was about the nature of Charlie Hebdo and the merits of their PEN award. Nothing more. He remains as thoroughly a supporter of free speech as ever.---Mona- (talk) 23:27, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I wonder, if a self-proclaimed feminist said of a rape victim "it was not okay to rape her.........but she really shouldn't have dressed like such a slut", if you would think that impugns their claims to feminism in any way. And endorsements can be fallacious if they are used as a substitute for an argument. Now, if you had just said "Glenn Greenwald likes them" it probably wouldn't be fallacious. But to say, or even to imply, "They're civil libertarians because Glenn Greenwald says so" is fallacious. Particularly if you then imply the only people who have criticized Glenn on matters of free speech or Islamism are far-right wingnuts, which is not even remotely the case.Milesmcstylez (talk) 02:19, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

And also of Putin and Assad.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 23:38, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

You, Arisboch, are pretty funny in your thoroughly bilious and absurd declarations.---Mona- (talk) 23:40, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

La vie est drôle.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 23:42, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

"But to say, or even to imply, "They're civil libertarians because Glenn Greenwald says so" is fallacious." What I've said is what the reality is: the ACLU (for whom Greenwald has been a consultant) both recommend and endorse CAIR. That is, they lend their credibility to it. This is a salient fact when a civil liberties organization is controversial and under attack. No matter how many times you call it fallacious, it is not.---Mona- (talk) 02:54, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Nice bait-and-switch between Greenwald and the ACLU there. Those two are not equivalent any more than CAIR and Ismael Royer are equivalent. Now, when I draft an amended article, I'll for sure leave in the ACLU endorsement. I'll probably also leave in the Greenwald endorsement, though unlike you I'll do it in a neutral way. Not "known terrorist sympathizer Glenn Greenwald" or "world's foremost authority on civil liberties Glenn Greenwald", just "Glenn Greenwald".Milesmcstylez (talk) 03:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

You do not know what a fallacious argument from authority is, nor what constitutes bait and switch. Your reasoning skills have not been shown to be especially competent and I don't care to waste any more time on your meritless text. Please abide by the reasonable requests in my first post in this section. I've nothing more to say to you here.---Mona- (talk) 03:41, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

So, if you were criticizing, say, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and I responded by saying "The Dutch Parliament has a stellar reputation", that strikes you as a valid rhetorical move? Also, you do love to flounce off in a huff, don't you?Milesmcstylez (talk) 03:57, 7 October 2015 (UTC)