User talk:NameThatNobodyTakes/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 9 October 2016. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Pegida

I just wanted to say that you're doing a nice job over at the Pegida article. --JorisEnter (talk) 17:35, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, it was actually fun to do the research and stumbling on news which were even new to me. NameThatNobodyTakes (talk) 18:56, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Autopatrolled

Because of your edits to and time on the wiki, Autopatrolled has been added to your user rights. This lets you bypass most of the abuse filters, bypass the CAPTCHA, and edit more frequently. If you have questions, bleat ask away.

We hope you enjoy your newfound POWER — and these external tools:

• Google Scholar Button ^{(Chrome, Firefox)} searches your highlighted text in Google Scholar. Easily check academic citations!
• web.archive.org and archive.today, among other tools, can save permanent copies of webpages. Never lose a crank website or racist Tweet ever again! Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 19:24, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Zionism

Are you now or have you ever been in favour of the continued existence of the Jewish state of Israel and its continued maintenance of armed forces? ^{— Unsigned, by: 192.99.150.7 / talk / contribs}

Is that you Avenger? TheAmazingSkeptic (talk) 00:52, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah. He's been making several socks in the past month. He is butthurt that he got permabanned for harassment of Mona, so he's resorting to trolling and creating 'noise' to disrupt this wiki. He will not succeed. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 22:40, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Rephrase your question and maybe I might respond with a thoughtful answer, otherwise I consider this a waste of time. NameThatNobodyTakes (talk) 09:56, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

RAF

Have you heard of this? I think we should debunk that on its appropriate page, shouldn't we? Pizzameister (talk) 21:14, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Never heard of that, great find! Sure, let's do it, this should be entertaining. NameThatNobodyTakes (talk) 22:07, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Anarcho-

Why? Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 00:23, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Because! NameThatNobodyTakes (talk) 07:22, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

So how do you feel about other anarchist schools of thought?--Owlman (talk) 07:26, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I see anarcho-syndicalism basically not as separate from anarcho-communism (just focused on economic issues), as its end is also to get rid of the wage system and I see no reason why this current wouldn't propose a gift economy like anarcho-communism. I don't call myself a syndicalist only for the fact that I'm not a member of a syndicalist union (which I wouldn't out-rule in the future though).

My issues with collectivism and mutualism stems from the approval of some kind of wage system and wages will be determined on the difficulty of the job and how much work has been done. But who determines the difficulty of a job and further how much different jobs differ in difficulty? As this is anarchism, wages have to be mutually agreed upon. But then you run into the problem why people responsible for cleaning toilets should decide against their own interest that their job is less worth than that of a caster. Also everyone who would vote on deciding the worth of jobs, would necessarily have preconceived ideas of a particular work's worth from a capitalist society they grew up in and I see no reason why that should change the longer a non-capitalist wage system should exist.

Mutualists still cling to private property, and depending on how much private property someone possesses, this will lead to unequal relations between people because someone with more property than someone else will obviously have a more powerful standing in a mutualist society. Also no one can claim 100% might over a means of production as basically anything is a social product created by the work of multiple people. I see no reason why proponents of private property should have any issue if all of the means of production are public - they still have as much access to them as before, just that they have to share it with others.

I understand the notions of individualists of being left to their own devices, but this current just places too much emphasis on the individual over the community and would most likely lead to the accumulation of wealth which would sooner or later also lead to an hierarchical society.

Don't get me wrong however, I think life in those societies is far more desirable than capitalism, or worse fascism and state socialism and I have no issue with people forming these communes on their own who desire these concepts - hell, people could also form their fascist states but who would like to live voluntarily in these nightmare visions of society is another question and it's highly probable that such a state would try to conquer egalitarian communes as a means to expand its "Lebensraum".

Anarcho-primitivists would love to rewind time back to some idealized notion of what human society was like before civilization (allegedly very egalitarian), and there is quite a number of them who want to force it on others, which is absurdly non-anarchist to say the least. But if the earth was brought back to that state who says that society wouldn't evolve in the exact same way as it did when all civilization and therefore all knowledge is destroyed? It really seams like a movement which doesn't realize that it's entire ideology is built on naturalistic fallacies and the noble savage stereotype. Ironically, the Unabomber wrote an essay which details that many "natural" tribes aren't egalitarian at all.

As for anarcho-capitalism, or libertarianism or objectivism or whatever they want to call it, I believe if any of these ideas were ever enacted that it would result in the most terrible tyranny imaginable.

And at last anarcho-nationalism is just a new name for nationalists to adhere to who do not seek to expand their territory in my opinion. NameThatNobodyTakes (talk) 21:22, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

So do you vote?--Owlman (talk) 08:15, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Even though I think most social change isn't really achieved through the ballot, I believe it's preferable to have the lesser evil in office as its probably more susceptible to protests and strikes. Therefore I vote occasionally, mostly if something important is on the line like voting for the party which promises to not enter a war or to keep a far-right party out of the parliament - ∈ NameThatNobodyTakes (✎) 08:47, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

As an American expat do you feel the Bern?--Owlman (talk) 04:50, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I think someone like Sanders, a social democrat, what he would rather be classified as in Europe (even though I believe that he's to the left of most Western European social democrats) is great for the fact as it's long overdue that an actual left to the center point of view is present in mainstream US politics because what is considered to be center in American politics is still ridiculously far to the right compared to other countries. Even though I do not expect anything policy-wise from him, as the odds are too much stacked against him as I do not believe that he could get much done even in a Democrat-controlled congress, I still hope a Sanders win in the General Election would shift the political climate to what would be considered a more regular state of affairs like in the rest of the developed world.

He definitely gets props for managing to make the s-word unscary again for a lot of Americans for the first time since the late 19th century.

So in conclusion, yeah, I do feel the Bern in the hope to create a saner political environment in the USA. Also he seems obviously way more sincere than Clinton. However I kinda think it's unlikely for him to win the primary - he certainly has the momentum (and is closing in on Clinton) but it would have worked more in his favor if he had it way sooner, probably around the time when Trump started to have his. ∈ NameThatNobodyTakes (✎) 22:26, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeah I am skeptical of him succeeding, but I think he is the most viable leftist the US has ever had, at least since McGovern ran. I have a lot of hope in the future even if he loses since a popular, leftist movement has reawakened in the US. I hope that if he loses he won't shepherd anyone to Clinton; I also realize that it may not be possible to reform Dems, but I know that leftist parties can benefit from this momentum. I have generally disliked most of the contemporary leftist parties in the US since I dislike Troskyistes and Maoists.--Owlman (talk) 23:11, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Sanders hasn't said outright that he would support Clinton if she got the nomination, but these comments here seem like he would indirectly support her to prevent another Republican from entering the White House. If Sanders shouldn't get the nomination, my hope isn't really that any other party would pick up Sanders' steam but that people would become more autonomous from the electoral system, hoping that more grassroots movements like Occupy Wallstreet, BlackLivesMatter, etc. are created to force society and politics further to the left. However I wouldn't mind if another party would keep the left trajectory alive in the media, hell I would welcome it if Sanders would still be visible afterwards and maybe four years of building his name recognition and reaching out more to minorities (it's undeniable that he was way too late in doing that despite his great civil rights record) and a further societal shift to the left he maybe could have a better shot at winning the nomination if he should still care at this point in his life.

I don't worry about all these parties which adhere to Leninism or its ideological offshoots as these have been on the decline for decades now and I doubt they will ever move beyond a fringe status as they have been completely incapable to influence popular uprisings during the past few decades (which is a good thing) and the left seems to be steadily moving towards anti-authoritarianism ever since the dawn of social media.∈ NameThatNobodyTakes (✎) 13:30, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Former anti-Semite...?

So If I read your user page correctly, you consider yourself a former anti-Semite or something of the sort... Could you elaborate on that? Pizzameister (talk) 15:26, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

If you mean in terms of ethnically opposing Jewish people?, Naww, I was never like that. I was pretty much engulfed in the Jewish conspiracy without hating Jewish people as human beings (even though I admit these days it is anti-semitic to believe in any version of "Jooz run tha world"). You have to take into consideration that I mostly grew up with male adolescents from a migrant background (largely from the Middle East and Eastern Europe) and listening to Black Nationalist hip hop, and in both of these cases sentiments like these are sadly quite common. ∈ NameThatNobodyTakes (✎) 07:15, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I get that. And only a minority of anti-Semites ever actually say "I hate Jews". One of the sad things about anti-Semitism is that it is a master of disguise and appears within (almost) every political movement or group. Some more so than others. And not only since Jesse Jackson do we know that some parts of the Civil Rights Movement (especially its fringes) are vulnerable to that. Which is tragic considering Jews were one of the "white" groups in both South Africa and North America most likely to support the struggle of Black people. Not that there weren't (and aren't) Jews who are racist against Blacks... Pizzameister (talk) 15:35, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

This is exactly one of the many reasons why I changed my mind, because you can find people from any background either supporting or opposing any cause and as you pointed out, there have been many Jews throughout history which were either supportive of struggles which didn't directly concern them or were part of the working class movement in the early 20th century (the latter is one of the reasons why Nazis thought that communism was a Jewish conspiracy...). It's just ridiculous to single out one ethnicity for having this hive-mind like mentality where all of its people are working towards the same goal independently from one another.∈ NameThatNobodyTakes (✎) 22:03, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

CounterPunch

You cited a blog post from CounterPunch which is generally considered an unreliable source here. (See webshites) Now it isn't wrong to cite them for anything, but more often than not users here will oppose it.--Owlman (talk) 20:22, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

What is CounterPunch? Pizzameister (talk) 20:55, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I was aware that Counterpunch could be seen as problematic but thought as it was an opinion piece that it wouldn't be off limits to the WIGO:Blog section.∈ NameThatNobodyTakes (✎) 07:01, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

It isn't a problem to post it and I can't guarentee that is the reason it was down voted, but it may be why. Mainly, I assumed you were a reader if CounterPunch so I though I might warn you about citing it.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 13:40, 2 March 2016 (UTC) 13:40, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up! I really appreciate it. ∈ NameThatNobodyTakes (✎) 21:20, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Again: What is CounterPunch? Pizzameister (talk) 22:03, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't know, maybe a desperate attempt to react to a suckerpunch.∈ NameThatNobodyTakes (✎) 22:25, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

@Pizzameister CounterPunch is an American left wing (socialist) magazine that has been consistently antiwar and anticaplitalist. Its main problem is that it tends to endorse conspiracy theories and has some underhanded antisemitism.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 19:53, 3 March 2016 (UTC) 19:53, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Pizzameister (talk) 20:25, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

GTA

Can I just offer you a scotch for that insanely huge article out of the gate? Bravo mate. Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 16:18, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate the gift but I've been sober for a decade now, but a glass of water will be fine, too. ∈ NameThatNobodyTakes (✎) 05:43, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Sysop

Because of your edits to and time on the wiki, wizard Sysop has been added to your user rights. Feel free to let your newfound POWER course through your veins. Once the high wears off, see RationalWiki:Sysop guide for more information. If you have questions, bleat ask away.--JorisEnter (talk) 17:21, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad my apparatchik credentials have been noticed. Time will tell if my new powers will have a lasting corrupting influence on my behavior... ∈ NameThatNobodyTakes (✎) 06:03, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely - luckily, you do not have absolute power (yet?)--JorisEnter (talk) 11:57, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Media

I was curious of what kind of media outlets you read. You seem to imply you have read some Trot and anarchist outlets; any recommendations?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 22:53, 26 March 2016 (UTC) 22:53, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

No matter what happens on any given day there are three I always read. The first news outlet I frequent every morning is Reuters, where I usually read the international and US articles from the US edition and the domestic articles from the German edition. The other one is FAZ, a conservative-leaning German newspaper and even though its orientation shines through on issues like economy, migration, etc., I still deem its news coverage to be fairly neutral most of the time. When I have more time I also read the Süddeutsche Zeitung, which is the FAZ's liberal counterpart. I used to read the English version of Al Jazeera but its uncritical coverage of the Muslim Brotherhood became annoying during el-Sisi's power grab two years ago. When I'm done reading I tend to listen to Secular Talk as Kyle's take on issues tends to cheer me up.

As for Trotskyist outlets I used to read, is the World Socialist Website. It is laden with conspiracy theories when it talks about the political establishment and seems almost proud in using no true Scotsman arguments nearly every time the site speaks about left competitors. Also the site's robotic scholarly way of writing can be quite off-putting. It would make good RW-article-material in my opinion.

Anarchist websites I read are Libcom, which is mainly anarchist but also leaves room for other anti-authoritarian leftist currents. It can be slow in posting new stuff which it usually makes up by re-posting articles from other websites. Comments posted below articles and the forum can very often result in pages-long theoretical disagreements if someone is interested in that sort of thing... The other one is Anarchist Writers which also does post news articles in rare occasions as it is really more about anarchist theory. ∈ NameThatNobodyTakes (✎) 07:30, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I assumed you would have read Libcom; I had it suggested to me not to long ago. I have also had anarkismo recommended, but I haven't read it regularly. I accidentally stumbled upon an article by WSWS and found it to be arrogant as hell even if it was right. I have also seen Indymedia and Infoshop regularly cited, but from what I have heard they have endorsed several cranks.

For socialist opinions I generally read the Jacobin since it doesn't carry the conspiracy theories that Z magazine, CounterPunch, Adbusters, and Dissident Voices contain. I will still occasionally read Truthout as well.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 07:54, 27 March 2016 (UTC) 07:54, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

It's hard to fathom now but I used to be quite impressed of WSWS's condescending writing style when I was younger and drank their brand of kool-aid, even translated a few articles for them! I seem to stumble over Jacobin every now and then and it seems to be rather reasonable in its analysis. I've known about anarkismo but haven't taken a closer look because its multi-language design makes it cumbersome to sift through and the language filter on the left seems to be not working, but I'll check it out more thoroughly in the future. ∈ NameThatNobodyTakes (✎) 17:48, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

That is one of the reasons I hate the Trotskyites because they always deem their understanding of Marx to be the true way; they blame Stalin for everything, but lack the self-awareness to see that Leninism led to his rise. I think Orwell put it best when he said that the Trots really wouldn't have produced anything different even though they were persecuted.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 17:58, 28 March 2016 (UTC) 17:58, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

What about taz, konkret, jungle world, junge welt, bahamas? Pizzameister (talk) 19:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

For reasons unknown to me I really don't frequent German left publications although I should. Actually taz used to be my main news outlet back when I was younger. But I should get back to it though. junge Welt never appealed to me as it always seemed to be apologetic to the GDR and other state socialist regimes. I never read the others you've mentioned. ∈ NameThatNobodyTakes (✎) 19:06, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Trotskyists either cry 'historical revisionism' or deliberately ignore all the developments of the police state which was a perfect fit for Stalin because all of it happened under Lenin's and Trotsky's watch. Lenin knew Stalin was a thug but still kept him around and promoted him. It seems hypocritical he started complaining about him when he was on his death bed. As for Trotsky/Left opposition, a case can be made that their policies were pretty similar to Stalin's and even if they weren't there's enough evidence to suggest a Trotsky rule being no different because he already got his hands bloody with the Kronstadt sailors and the black army. ∈ NameThatNobodyTakes (✎) 19:06, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Well hopefully you never have the pleasure of meeting a Maoist.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 19:34, 29 March 2016 (UTC) 19:34, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't rule it out to never meeting one, as I only met a single-digit number of people in real life who openly considered themselves socialists.∈ NameThatNobodyTakes (✎) 20:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Well if you enjoy leftist, self-deprecating comedy then I would suggest reading Great Moments in Leftism. It is quite humorous if you understand what they are talking about.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 03:58, 30 March 2016 (UTC) 03:58, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, actually I read GMIL, and even made an article about the comic some time ago.∈ NameThatNobodyTakes (✎) 08:10, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Leftist irrationalism vs moonbattery

I don't think it's entirely possible to form any coherent united Left organization without a few assorted cranks and conspiracy theorists in there. It might be idealistic, but I don't think their beliefs should have any impact on the validity of a tendency's main ideas or its criticism of capitalism (though their actions are more important). My first question is: as an anarcho-communist are you willing to work with people from the various ML tendencies or communists as a whole? I'd also like an explanation of what you consider to be true "moonbattery" amongst the left, and I'm not talking just about individual beliefs, I'm talking about entire ideologies and movements you'd dismiss out of hand and what leftist ideas you'd consider irrational. Withoutaname (talk) 12:13, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

It really depends on the people who adhere to any form ML'ism. I believe there are many whose views can shift to anti-authoritarian ones if they are confronted with them because I have been a ML'ist for a longer period in my life. So therefore I'm not unwilling to have a debate with them, but wouldn't work with them when their immediate goals are authoritarian in nature. So very likely I would dismiss many of them right away. On the other hand I don't really have any issue with libertarian Marxist tendencies which have a huge overlap with anarchist thought anyway.

If my choice is constrained to labeling entire ideologies as moonbatty then I would name something along the likes of Primitivism and Posadism. Perhaps there may be more but these are the ones which spring to my mind immediately.

As for irrational leftist ideas I would say Trotsky's deformed workers' state and degenerated workers' state theories. These are bunk because they still try to ascribe these "worker states" a progressive nature when in reality these states are way more toxic to the proletariat than any liberal capitalist state has ever been.

From a scientific point of view I think dialectical materialism should be abandoned completely (because I think it's silly to assume that "contradictions" are the scaffolding of every aspect in the universe if at all) and historical materialism shouldn't be seen as the sole way of looking at societal developments. Also the 20th century has proven that Marx's assumed stages through which society would pass didn't happen at all - states led by a vanguard have just turned back to capitalism in bite-sized steps.

At last I would like to mention the worship of leftist thinkers and leaders - of course you can always take inspiration from somebody but that should never lead to willfully overlooking someone's ideological flaws or worse even embracing them.

And I agree that it will always be impossible to not have any amount of cranks and conspiracy theorists among the left; the only thing you could do is that they eventually change their minds when reasoning with them could hopefully penetrate their stubborn minds or make sure these ridiculous ideas have no influence on any actions a leftist group takes. Just like it's nearly impossible to have religion go extinct in the near future, but that's why I'm an anarchist as I surely do not have the authority to tell others what to think or how to act as long as nobody transgresses someone else's freedom. ∈ NameThatNobodyTakes (✎) 15:35, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

"these states are way more toxic to the proletariat than any liberal capitalist state has ever been" I'm assuming you mean the USSR and China, but would you also dismiss the ML states established in Eastern Europe (Albania, Romania, Yugoslavia), Southeast Asia (Vietnam), and Latin America (Cuba, Chile)?

I'll respectfully disagree with regards to dialectical materialism, because I think it is useful as a social science when looking at a purely capitalist phenomenon, but it's not a universal for all the social sciences.

"the 20th century has proven that Marx's assumed stages through which society would pass didn't happen at all" I thought Marx was referring primarily to Britain, the United States and Germany? In which case, the Communist political projects of the 20th century, which occurred mainly in the third world, have not necessarily proven or disproven Marx's theory.

"states led by a vanguard have just turned back to capitalism" I thought vanguardism was specific to the Leninist variants, Orthodox Marxism and libertarian Marxism makes no mention of vanguards at all.

Perhaps it is naïve but I desire the same, that individual differences in belief will not affect a tendency's support for a genuinely anticapitalist revolution. Withoutaname (talk) 12:43, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Did you see this?

Sorry if you already did but apparently Libcom and several other leftist groups signed a statement saying they would no longer write articles critical of Sanders or Corbyn in order to prevent right-wingers from winning. I was curious what your thoughts are on this?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 03:46, 23 May 2016 (UTC) 03:46, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm aware of the article. It was a pretty good April Fools joke, even a little obvious but it still delighted me. ∈ NameThatNobodyTakes (✎) 04:23, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought I would share it since it was pretty funny. Anyways, on a more serious note, I posted a Jacobin article by a Trot who went to North Korea to the WIGO:Blogs, I thought that would interest you.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 05:05, 23 May 2016 (UTC) 05:05, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I thought this was generally an interesting read. I do have some issues with the article though - it was pretty objective for the most part but still managed to deliver the same tropes which I came to expect from most orthodox socialists. It's baffling how the author can go into detail about North Korea's cultish elements, yet cites Marx and Trotsky just like religious zealots who cite passages from their ancient texts to prove they've been right all along. The last bit irked me the most however:

"But there is still hope, however distant, of an alternative. Tourists to North Korea are allowed to bring books as long as they are not religious. So the writings of Trotsky, in which he calls for the overthrow of the bureaucracy, would be legal gifts for our Korean hosts.

I am eager to travel to the DPRK again, this time with Trotsky in my luggage."

Oh, the irony. ∈ NameThatNobodyTakes (✎) 13:08, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Crouching Cops, Hidden Badges

That's some splendid work creating us a Steven Seagal article! I'll be helping you polish it in the morning. For now, you've earned this, buddy:

All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:35, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the rough edges! Originally I wanted this to be like two paragraphs long, but after realizing him being nuttier than I remembered him to be, I spend half of my free day on researching and writing the article. I thought this was hilarious when I first saw it in the late 90s. ∈ NameThatNobodyTakes (✎) 10:49, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Ich dachte das könnte dich interessieren

Da du einem gscheitem Deutsch sprichst, habe ich hier einem Link für dich. Jah!

https://tapferimnirgendwo.com/2016/07/21/juedische-siedlungen-eine-verteidigung/ 149.210.131.21 (talk) 23:46, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

A blog which links to Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter & right-wing blogs - really? This screed could have been cut down from its current tl;dr version but as I'm polite I read the text and endured the author repeating the same arguments over and over again. Not to be mean but the writing style reminded me of a German new age Christian crank website I thoroughly read last year for libidinal reasons.

I'm going to keep my response brief. I have no issue with someone living wherever they want. My problem with Israel's settlement policy is that it seems to me that one of its underlying motivations is to drive the remaining Palestinians away from the West Bank.

But the author goes further and believes it would be better if Israel ruled the entire region spanning a near continental area encompassing Turkey and Egypt. Okaaaayyy... Middle Eastern countries outside from Israel have a tiny population of Jewish people. If they controlled the outlined area in the video posted in that article it would be an undeniable apartheid regime and seems like imperialism. Don't tell this will finally realize the ideals of the Arab Spring. Arabs don't need outside saviors to finally have freedom. Just stop meddling in their affairs (and I mean all sides, not only the West), let them overthrow one authoritarian government after another, no matter if it's secular nationalist or Islamist conservative, and eventually they will find their own way to "our" values because it's impossible to completely block the access to social media.

I view a quasi-no-state system like it's practised in Rojava/West Kurdistan/Northern Syria, as the ideal solution, not a centralized right-wing apartheid regime spanning the entire region proposed by the clown Andrew Klavan which will only lead to a situation like China, a large region governed by one ethnicity discriminating all the others. I will be the first to admit that Rojava is far from perfect, but I see at as a more ideal way to get a stably functioning Middle East which is socially libertarian than a proposal which will utterly fail and plant more seeds of mutual hatred. ∈ NameThatNobodyTakes (✎) 19:38, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Wenn es um Landverlust geht, sei dir das zur weiteren Bildung anempfohlen: https://lizaswelt.net/2015/10/01/antizionistischer-kartentrick/ Zeigt für mich sehr klar auf, wie ein gängiger Narrativ eben die Fakten mindestens verkürzt darstellt. Dieser Blog geht nochmal auf ein paar andere Details ein. Zum Thema Israel im Allgemeinen finde ich es schwierig, seine Quellen nach "rechts" und "links" zu sortieren. Es gibt Linke Antisemiten und es gibt rechte Antisemiten. Manchmal hat eine "rechte" Quelle recht und manchmal eine Linke. Man muss nur bedenken, dass die ersten Waffen der israelischen Armee aus der CSSR kamen um zu sehen dass eine links=antizionistisch rechts=pro-Israel zu kurz greift. Auch hier auf RW. Wie dem auch sei, ich wollte dir auch diesen Artikel nicht vorenthalten: http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/inland/f-a-z-exklusiv-amoklaeufer-von-muenchen-war-rechtsextremist-14359855.html#GEPC;s6 auch das, wie du vermutlich weißt eine "rechte" Quelle. Allerdings ein Qualitätsmedium. Und bei manchen Punkten sollte man Rechte zitieren, um zu zeigen, dass "sogar die" die Wahrheit erkennen können. 107.170.215.131 (talk) 21:32, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Hey thanks for the links, I'm going to read them tomorrow however from glancing at them they seem more reasonable than the link to which I responded to. But I will definitely reply after having read them. I know this is a very complicated topic and you can easily slip too much into one side or the other if you're not careful.

Randbemerkung: Warum schreibst du auf Deutsch? Ist mir eigentlich schon egal aber irgendwie will ich dass andere auch zu der Konversation beitragen können.

I agree that you should also cite right-wing media when their content is truthful, no question about it, however I wouldn't equate the FAZ with the likes of nutjobs like O'Reilly and Coulter. The FAZ is a moderate newspaper which is pretty neutral with a conservative slant to it. Not only do I read it daily, I have often used it for references for German-centric articles here.∈ NameThatNobodyTakes (✎) 22:36, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Was soll man dazu noch sagen?

http://www.juedische-allgemeine.de/article/view/id/26220 107.170.215.131 (talk) 14:37, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Was sagst du dazu? Ich weiß dass es Iraner gibt die eine Affinität zu deutschem Rechtsradikalismus haben, ich erinnere mich z.B. an den Gründer von StudiVZ der damals vor ca. einem Jahrzehnt paar Domains mit derartigen Inhalt geschaltet hatte. Deswegen hat es mich auch nicht überrascht als diese aktuelle Offenbarung ans Tageslicht kam. ∈ NameThatNobodyTakes (✎) 18:12, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Und hier noch ein Link zum Thema "Pinkwashing" http://www.mena-watch.com/mena-analysen-beitraege/pinkwashing-und-andere-absurde-vorwuerfe-gegen-israel/ (was hier unter anderem im fürchterlich geschriebenen Artikel über Israel und dem noch schlimmeren Zionism reproduziert wird) und noch ein Artikel (diesmal auf Englisch) über Iran's fortgesetzten Menschenrechtsverletzungen. http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Iran-News/Iran-executes-gay-teenager-in-violation-of-international-law-463234 107.170.215.131 (talk) 18:58, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Ich weiß dass der Iran eine ultrakonservative Theokratie ist die Menschenrechtsverletzungen begeht deswegen bin ich mir nicht sicher was der gepostete Artikel für einen Zweck hat außer um nochmal darauf hinzuweisen. Mit Pinkwashing ist das so eine Sache - warum wird genau ein Bild von Soldaten verwendet um zu zeigen wie homophil Israel ist? Warum hätten nicht zwei Unternehmer oder ein jugendliches Paar Hand in Hand gezeigt werden können, wo die Konnotation mit Krieg bzw. der Nahostkonflikt nicht vorhanden ist? Es ist korrekt auf die Diskriminierung von jüdischen LGBT hinzuweisen aber das bei dieser PR-Kampagne genau ein Bild von Soldaten verwendet wird (die nicht mal ein Paar waren) muss du zugeben dass das Leute stutzig machen kann. Lese z.B. diesen oder diesen Artikel warum skeptisches Bedenken von diesen Kampagnen legitim sein kann. Um es noch hinzuzufügen: Ich bin mir bewusst dass Bewohner in palästinensischen Gebieten mit hoher Wahrscheinlichkeit konservativere Einstellungen haben als die in Israelischen Gebieten; jedoch tut das nicht kollektive Bestrafung entschuldigen. ∈ NameThatNobodyTakes (✎) 19:49, 5 August 2016 (UTC)