User talk:Moobnert

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome[edit]

New logo large.png Welcome to RationalWiki, Moobnert!

Please see our guide for newcomers and our community standards.

Tell us how you found RationalWiki here!

If you are interested in contributing:

FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 01:29, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Jordan Peterson, Marriage tweets[edit]

Someone will probably revert your edit on the Peterson marriage tweets. Why not go to the talk page for that article and make a case?Ariel31459 (talk) 19:43, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, I hope they concede the point made. --Moobnert (talk) 21:37, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Please indent your talk page comments with colons. L̤̈ÿ̤n̤̈n̤̈R̤̈ (̈ẗ̤ä̤l̤̈k̤̈)̈ (̈c̤̈ö̤n̤̈ẗ̤r̤̈ï̤b̤̈s̤̈)̈ @ 21:54, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

JEC[edit]

Please refrain from engaging with JEC and let things cool down. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:51, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I've already made my final remark to him as indicated. I intend on being impartial from now on. --Moobnert (talk) 08:35, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Please keep in mind that in some ways this wiki tends to be quite leftwing. Please don't complain about a user's opinions for that reason. It is not however, untoward to question the validity of any argument.Ariel31459 (talk) 14:41, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Sometimes I regard what I read on here as a manifestation of left bias rather than rational inquiry. I don't mind left bias if it can be rationally vindicated, but sometimes it's not. For example, Jordan Peterson's page prior to my edit explicitly stated "Opposition to gay marriage" using a source that doesn't vindicate the claim that Peterson opposes gay marriage. So what is the cause of the apparent misinterpretation of the source? I would say it's left bias, which led to exaggerating a description of Peterson's nuanced views on gay marriage to mean 'opposition'. That's an example of having left bias manifest without rational vindication. So I guess my focus is restricted to vindicating instances of left bias. I've known this wiki to be left-leaning since I made a user account, and I'm fine with that. I would go to wikipedia if I didn't accept left bias. --Moobnert (talk) 15:21, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Your "I already made my final remark" isn't compelling the mods (like me) to you, but it will fly this time. But cool it and don't accuse anyone of being a "fucking idiot" or "you are irrational" and "you deserve no place here as an editor". Make an inflammatory statement like that again and I will have no other choice if it means keeping the flame slinging to a minimum. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 02:21, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Brevity[edit]

Please try not to use so much text that other editors will not read it, but instead they revert your work without a second thought. I'd like to say I went through what you had written on the talk page for Damore. But I did not. I think you put a lot of effort into your work, which could lead to some improvement here.Regards--Ariel31459 (talk) 21:50, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I mean, yes, brevity is good. But also no, a second thought was still warranted and suggested some very serious problems, in spite of the attempt to frame everything fairly. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 22:00, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Adding to that, it's inappropriate that you'll disregard the entire length of scientific literature that was referenced in the main James Damore article. Your statements are baseless and have been refuted before next to the sheer volume of information present, so deciding to press onward regardless with your own studies, which either comes from shady sources or involves you misrepresenting them (yes, I have read Schmitt's statements from the first time you mentioned him back in May, and not once did I ignore what he said) all the while flagrantly dismissing well documented articles like the Recode page and accusing them of lying or being leftist propaganda simply because you don't like their conclusions, isn't going to earn you any points.
In addition to the long reply I already gave you in the talk page, I checked your long message again, and some of those studies, like the Berenbaum study, have absolutely jack to do with the Baron-Cohen study and actually contradict it. That some girls which were influenced more by testosterone in their early years leads them to preferring typically male toys shuts down any narrative that women typically prefer people vs things. Same thing for your quote from the Beltz study, the actual quality of the study be damned. Even the Hines study admitted that socialization choices can affect the biology.
Funny thing, I focused a lot of time on my reply to you, and in between the undaunted size of your response which needed culling in and of itself, as well all the points needing to be addressed, dedicating my time and effort to that alone wore me out. But the truth was when I simply looked at what you excerpted from your studies without sighing and saying to myself, "Goddamn, here is yet another point I have to address, do I really feel like doing this AGAIN for the millionth time?", I realized you handed me victory on a platter. Multiple times. So needless to say, that's another area you could be working on. James Earl Cash (talk) 23:25, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
@James Earl Cash I read your response on the Damore Talk page a few times. You've unfortunately ignored many of the points I made to you (apparently without realizing it) and you've gotten a lot of things flatly wrong, particularly on scientific grounds (I wonder how often you engage with scientific literature, for example, based on your comments). It's almost like listening to a climate change denier. I am quite impressed honestly that you are seemingly incapable of recognizing just how biased you are, and I believe this bias prevents you from thinking rationally. Is it even worth responding to? Probably not, but you've made some egregious errors that need addressing, and it's these errors which I argue reflect on the poor quality and bias of the Damore article. I'll keep the response short, so that everyone can feel freer to engage without feeling like there's too much content to address (my prior response length was admittedly ridiculous). I would be interested in us finding common ground as far as the scientific literature is concerned, although for sure we will not find much common ground at all in anything relating to social relations/politics (you called Milo a "literal fucking Nazi", among other examples, so our calibrations for behaviors that vindicate a particular label is completely out of sync), so I will try my best to address only the science. --Moobnert (talk) 13:17, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Whenever you're ready. Looking back on it, I deffo made some mistakes, even on this talk page here after looking through what you quoted more closely, but at heart, I still stand by what I said. Men and women are not necessarily more oriented to people or things, as the methodology of said studies like Baron-Cohen and others, is absolute bunk. Shit, check out the cognitive differences between sexes article. That should get you excited and hopefully point you in the direction of somebody other than me. But you're seriously trying to tell me Milo Yiannopoulos of all people isn't a fucking Nazi? Man oh man, this is good. I'm starting to get, at least, why you harp on "leftist bias" all the time. James Earl Cash (talk) 02:10, 29 September 2018 (UTC)