RationalWiki's 2019 Fundraiser

There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff – we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.

If everyone who saw this today donated $5, we would meet our goal for 2020.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!

Donations so far: $2200Goal: $3000

User talk:Norman

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
New logo large.png Welcome to RationalWiki, Norman!

Please see our guide for newcomers and our community standards.

Tell us how you found RationalWiki here!

If you are interested in contributing:

Typhoon (talk) 17:57, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Blocked[edit]

You're right, Zero. It's your circlejerk. --Norman (talk) 10:32, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Stop whitewashing, and your edits won't be reverted instantly(well, at least I wouldn't)[edit]

When a gamergater doxxes someone, it's not "releasing reports containing their name and email addresses", okay. That's doxxing. When you attempt to make things more neutral by disguising meaning, and being tendentious. You aren't making any sort of factual corrections here, you're just trying to cover for shitty behavior by not calling it what it is. No one is going to put up with that and your edits are going to be reverted. Ikanreed (talk) 16:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't see how I disguised anything. In fact, I described exactly what Brennan did, so that anyone could subsume it under the definition of "doxxing". I did this for a simple reason: Because the definition of doxxing contains the compilation of a dossier. Brennan didn't compile any dossiers, though. He dropped names and corresponding e-mail addresses that were voluntarily given to him, as opposed to being leaked. One can make a strong case that this kind of behavior already qualifies as doxxing, but it's still not a clear-cut case. What I did was akin to describing a behavior such as "illegally taking another persons property by force" without subsuming it under the legal definitions of theft or robbery. No one would call that covering for shitty behavior.
I made a lot more corrections, by the way, and all of them were reverted by Typhoon, even the ones in an entirely different section, with absolutely no reason given. Judging from how quickly he reverted my edits combined with the fact that he reverted my corrections of spelling errors, I doubt he had a good reason. --Norman (talk) 17:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Harassment®[edit]

I never knew that publishing the comments other users have made constitutes "harassment", unlike being called a fuck, an asshole and a failed cum stain (seriously). All words Ryulong has used to describe me, among other things. You're a joke, Ikanreed. Ryulong is turning this site into shit, he routineously breaks the site rules and you even thank him for it by censoring his own comments if they put him in the bad light he belongs into. --Norman (talk) 20:08, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Look, any other editors are free to weigh in, but when your entire userpage appears to exist to antagonize someone, something is broken. It's not like you've got this history of editing this wiki and contributing that outshines Ryulong's not-so-great edits. It's 9 hours. It's long enough to rethink doing that kinda shit. Or doubling down on it in your head, making up a story of oppression and how we're not seeing Ryulong for the obviously problematic editor only you can show us he is. Look: people here disagree with Ryulong about his editing style. People call him on it. That's not what you're doing. You're going to have to come up with an excuse the passes the idiot test. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:16, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't have to show you shit, Ikanreed. You have three or four talkpages full of Ryulong acting juvenile as fuck. Besides, I still don't see how anything I did constitutes harassment. Is there any definition of it, or do you make it up as you go along? --Norman (talk) 20:28, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Enjoy your ban. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:29, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Check this out. And this. Ryulong called me a failed cum stain on the talk page of another sysop, albeit the most roundabout way possible. If you're okay with that, no problem, but then you shouldn't expect people to play by rules not even you adhere to.
Also, definition of harassment, please? --Norman (talk) 20:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure this is a good time for pointing at the damn dictionary.
to annoy or bother (someone) in a constant or repeated way —Harass
Getting into heated arguments is not harassment. Being annoying isn't harassment. Being rude isn't harassment. Developing any sort of targeted campaign at an individual in a hostile way is. Now please, use this information as a guideline as to what not to continue doing, rather than as a tool to wikilawyer a shortish, moderately deserved ban. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:44, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
So personal insults are absolutely okay, but harassment isn't? So it's fair game to call people names as long as you're doing it indiscriminately? Well, then I misunderstood the rules, apparently. My apologies! I will adhere to these rules in the future. --Norman (talk) 20:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
If you take a "follow strict set of rules, but otherwise be an ass" as a guideline, you're going to be totally astounded when you end up banned again. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:57, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
So I shouldn't do exactly what Ryulong is doing? --Norman (talk) 21:02, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Look, Ryulong makes contributions, gets contentious and has gotten numerous responses from the community for it. You can't drag him out as an example of someone gets special treatment, and if you could maybe not be creepy and obsessed with him, you could maybe not be banned for harassing him. It's not magic. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 21:12, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
So because Ryulong makes contributions, he is allowed to act like an asshole, but I'm not? How exactly is that not getting special treatment? And since when is it creepy and obsessed to point out the shortcomings of one of the most vocal members of this community? If you don't want to get criticized for petty shit, don't get into a leadership-position. --Norman (talk) 22:25, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  1. Be called a fuck, an asshole, and a failed cum stain is not considered to be harassment here. Man the fuck up, cockmongler. If you can dish it out, you can take it.
  2. No, Ryulong is not turning the site to shit. GamerGate is one article out of thousands...which you seem to have not noticed, as all of [ your contributions] are bitching at Ryulong and kvetching on GamerGate and 8Chan. Perhaps one would have more sympathy if you were more than a single-issue concern troll.
  3. You say, "You have three or four talkpages full of Ryulong acting juvenile as fuck." Our response to this is AND SO? What difference does that make to your actions. Ryulong is responsible for himself. You are responsible for you. Stop trying to dodge responsibility for what you edit.
  4. You say, "Ryulong called me a failed cum stain on the talk page of another sysop, albeit the most roundabout way possible. If you're okay with that, no problem" And so what? The fuck are you complaining about? I regularly call people cockmongler. And asshat. And shitstain cumbubbles. OH NOES. I call people MEAN WORDS. Dude, when you get out of high school, this shit is de riguer for dealing with the real world. Man it up, buttercup.
  5. You say, "So personal insults are absolutely okay". The answer is shit yeah.
  6. You say, "So it's fair game to call people names as long as you're doing it indiscriminately?" The answer is that this is not Wikipedia. This is a mobocracy composed of mostly anarchists and former punks. Clearly, you've never hung around punks before, or you would be used to being called a knobgobbler.
  7. Look, son, let's be clear. Don't be a concern troll, don't try to drive Ryulong - or anyone else - off the site/try to silence them, and make fucking contributions that aren't single issue. Is this not so hard? Or does this not fit your agenda here? Either way, pal, you've come to my attention, so I will be monitoring you.
  8. Last, this is a mobocracy - there are no leaders here. Only the mob and those who wield the mop. Maybe you should look at what RW is before you come to any conclusions about how things operate here. --Castaigne (talk) 22:40, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, if that's not a glorious shitpost, then nothing is. From what I could gather from your semi-coherent mess, being an asshole to people is okay, but "silencing them" by being too much of an asshole is not okay, unless you're doing it to someone no one likes. Also, caring about a specific topic is bad. Judging from what a politically correct shithole this website is, I also guess saying racist or antisemitic things is bad, too, because insulting people suddenly becomes bad when you insult lots of them at once.
Anyway, thanks for giving me a free pass on being an all-around asshole, kind of. Maybe I'll enjoy my stay here after all. --Norman (talk) 23:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
OK, you didn't get Castaigne's point, how 'bout this one: just be constructive and don't be so whiny. MarmotHead (talk) 23:06, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
I got his point exactly. He told me it was okay to insult people, albeit it took him eight paragraphs to say so. --Norman (talk) 23:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, that's only part of it. The other part is to not have such a thin skin. I'm not a major fan of Castaigne (he's ok), but he's not so easily insulted and whiny - an example for you. Further, he makes real positive contributions to things, too - another example. The rest of his point matters. MarmotHead (talk) 23:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
WRONG. If that's all you got from what I wrote, you need to have a remedial class in reading comprehension. I recommend, first, that you stop getting emotional about this. Remember, emotions are social justice. A GamerGator is cold, calculating, and logical, a real ManBro who doesn't give into womanly beta-male emotions. --Castaigne (talk) 23:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
More seriously, calm the fuck down and actually read what other people tell you. If you don't like to my combative style, then pay attention to what MarmotHead and ikanreed are saying. It's the same shit, different day.
Also seriously, yes, you can be as racist and anti-Semitic as you want. However, you will not be immune from the consequences of doing so. If you act racist and anti-Semitic, then I will treat you exactly as I treat Neo-Nazis, pedorapers, and pro-genocide activists. No, I will not give quarter on such an issue.
Pro-tip - Having freedom of speech does not grant immunity from the consequences of speaking the speech. --Castaigne (talk) 23:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
You're even dumber than I thought, Castaigne.
  1. Freedom of speech does not grant you immunity from the consequences of bla bla bla, no shit? Already knew that. Don't see how it's important, though, considering that I didn't invoke it at all. I know I'm not entitled to being respected by any of you. In fact, you can ban me any time you want without infringing on my constitutional rights. I, on the other hand, can freely post whatever the hell damn pleases me about you, Ryulong or Ikanreed without infringing on any of your constitutional rights.
  2. You think your writing style impresses me? It surprised me, true, but that's it. Tells you more about the standards to which I still hold this community then it tells you about whether I'm "thin skinned". If you want to debate on this level, no problem at all. Just don't complain about me being an asshole when I retaliate, and don't whine and ban me for being much better at being an asshole than you.
  3. No, what Ikanreed and MarmotHead said was way different from what you said. In fact, all of you said way different things.
  4. You guys invoked muh feels when you banned me for "harassment", i.e. posting completely freely available and not even particularly sensitive information about another user on my talk page, this information being a comment he voluntarily put online in order for other people to read it. Again, you can ban me for it in return, but not without looking like a bunch of idiots in the process.
  5. The difference between you and ED is one of quantity, not of quality. Step off your high horses. --Norman (talk) 23:42, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Anarcho capitalism[edit]

It probably took me less time to fix it than it took you to bitch about it. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 03:45, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

It's just that I'm aware that RationalWiki loses its mind when you change the tone of an article, and what's a better way to do that than to change the introduction? For all I know, two dozen morons may have sat down for weeks until they got this magnificent sentence together. Besides, I still had to fix it because you fucked the introduction up in another way, so don't act all fucking smug. --Norman (talk) 10:17, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
All I did was move stuff around, for the most part -- took stuff that was buried further down and put it in the fist graph. Didn't really "change" anything. And yeah, I made some mistakes writing about a topic about which I know nothing. Someone fixed it. No harm, no foul.
Also, I gotta wonder -- is the attitude you display around here reflective of how you conduct yourself in real life? Cause you act like more than a bit of a dick, and I can't imagine that goes over real well in face-to-face settings.... Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 14:17, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm a huge jerk in real life. Somebody stop me! Now, could you please stop undoing my edits on a topic you even admit you know nothing about? The article on anarcho-capitalism even admits that Somalia is doing better in many ways without having a state, then it points to anarcho-capitalists who say the exact same thing and proclaims them to be idiots. --Norman (talk) 14:47, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Doing slightly better is not necessarily thriving. MaillardFillmore (talk) 14:54, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Too bad the article says nothing about Somalia thriving, that's what RationalWiki made of it. The title of the article is very sensational, but that's it. --Norman (talk) 14:58, 21 March 2015 (UTC)