User talk:Pbfreespace3/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 23 July 2016. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<2>

, (new)(back)

Welcome

What is going on? World Blogs Clogs Elections The Bar (talk) (talk) (talk) (talk) (hic) Welcome to RationalWiki, Pbfreespace3! 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!

Welcome to the wiki. Pull up a goat and try not to make trouble. :) Cømrade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 00:46, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Agnostic Anti-theist

I noticed you described yourself as such (I do as well), I was wondering how you justify it. Most anti-theists I meet are exclusively strong atheists.

Theists typically ask me how I could support anti-theism without "knowing for sure;" they are making what I call the apologist's fallacy, which is when an apologist assumes the existence of a deity proves their particular religion. The existence or non-existence of a higher intelligence, over even a creator, does nothing to prove the nonsensical human religions, much as their arrogant adherents may feel otherwise.

What are your views on the matter? I should point out that I am essentially an atheist regarding human belief systems, and my agnosticism is more meta-physical than anything. Just interested in your perspective, since we are so rare :) Lord Aeonian (talk) 08:06, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Technically, every human being on the goddamn planet is agnostic. They don't know. No one knows. So me saying I'm an agnostic is actually something of a dry joke on my part. I used to be afraid of the word atheist, but now I'll gladly accept the label. It's just that anti-theist is hard-hitting and sends the point across even more. Eh. I'd really only call myself that in text though, not in everyday conversation. 'Atheist' is a far more common label.

Oh God. Pun intended. Describe my view in a short bit of text. Ok. I don't believe in this character "God", and I think any strictly theistic view of the world is patently ridiculous. I don't mind legitimate middle-of-the-road people, but the deism-pantheism is getting far too dangerously close to the people who'd like to tell you how to act and behave in your personal life. It's too anti-scientific and wooey to be accepted as a respectable viewpoint. Y'know, the "oooh, man... the universe is soo... cool... and everything is all one and we all are part of God". I'm not a fan.

As far as entomology, I just don't know. What matters is the way I behave, or rather lack of it. I'm far more likely not be anti-abortion, anti-gay, or anti-freedom. In the end, that's all that matters: actual policy substance and societal behavior. I'm against both organized and unorganized religion for this reason: they just stand on the wrong side of the aisle (another pun!) on like 95% of the issues, regardless of what their holy books might say. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 22:18, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

German

German has ruined my capitalization.--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 00:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

In Soviet Russia Eastern Germany, Capitalization ruins YOU!!--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 14:45, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

There have been scientific studies showing that German capitalization makes reading easier even in languages that don't usually employ it... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 02:06, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Cool. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:40, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

So

1) As mod, my job is first and foremost to keep discussions from going insane on the wiki. I've not done that enough because I've been weary of pushing to far in doing so. 2) I have available to me a certain amount of initiative and discretion on how to best come about enforcing this. This includes doing things such as removing unproductive discussions to another page and pulling rank when needed. Before telling us what mods should and shouldn't do, perhaps you should learn so yourself what we say mods should and shouldn't do?--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 01:33, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand me. I believe that a person's talk page should be respected by the rest of the community, including moderators. I don;t personally believe that mods should remove stuff from people's talk pages just because it is an insane discussion. It seemed to me very disrespectful of the user in question. I would not do that, and many other people would also not do that, not because we're better or something stupid like that, but because we have a basic, understood respect for what we call each other's property. Now I can just feel you saying "but mods are supposed to break up insane shitfest discussions". Sure, but at least have the common decency to notify the user to disengage in the discussion first rather than suddenly moving an entire discussion just because you feel it is your right and your job. And look! You ended up creating more of a problem than you were trying to get rid of. So back to my main point, which is that I personally, not professionally, disagree with your action. I think that freedom of speech is paramount and should be treated with respect unless the case of a clear vandal or troll exists. This is not that case. This was a vitriolic discussion on someone's userpage, and you removed it to make it seem like nothing happened at all, not even leaving a link behind to where you moved the discussion. This is very suspicious to me, and you should link to the discussion next time.

A users talk page, like all other pages outside userspace, are community property, not user property. Telling them to stop implies I believe it would accomplish anything, we're long past the point of such assumptions And yes, i should have linked to the forum page but was lazy and forgot to do so. Next time I shall. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 01:44, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I think the bulk of our disagreement has been resolved. Sorry to cause you too much trouble, Paravant. I will try and avoid it in the future. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 01:48, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Avenger Arisboch

If that BoN is him Arisboch, he's still learned nothing. Including that I can and will document the shit out of my claims and generally just add more that he dislikes. He shouldn't attract my attention to I-P pages if he wants to avoid that. I hadn't previously thought to see if this wiki had a Mossad article. ADDING: Carpetsmoker is right; this one has Arisboch's voice.---Mona- (talk) 03:40, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

You have a mop

I had no idea you didn't have one. Now you do.---Mona- (talk) 00:41, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Just an observation

If you block someone because of blindly undoing, you might want to look at the recent undo-history first. Mona started by undoing what I had edited, not undone. When I checked next, she had undone my edits, so I knew what she had undone. So I was not undoing blindly. If you impose further unwarranted blocks I'll take that up. For now I'm not going to engage in revenge-blocking. It serves no purpose. Happily I have non-Chomsky things to do today, so I'll see you tomorrow or Wednesday. And just to mention it, I did ask for a reason for every piece I had inserted in the article, should that edit be undone, as is Mona's habit. She gave none. But this is a warning. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 16:52, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I noticed that you also blindly undid. See this user's blocking history for reasons. That is too vague and could be applied to any number of users, including Mona. Still, do behave within the limits of allowable vandalism. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 16:55, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

"That is too vague" No it's not. Not for an edit summary. And to repeat, all I intend to do henceforth is link to the Saloon when I revert you. You are an abusive and bad faith editor, especially where I am concerned. My purpose in starting the discussion at the Saloon was partially realized simply by standing back and letting you reply as you did. That's my primary exhibit for anyone who questions my position vis-a-vis your editing of articles where I am active.---Mona- (talk) 17:07, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

That was a brazen abuse of power, and will not be tolerated. Now that you and Pb3 can divide the work of blocking me, you have some interesting possibilities. As I said, I won't be editing much of anything today, but just checked, whether you had popped in on this page - you are pretty reliable. See you later. We are not done with your attempts to turn sections of RW into your personal police state. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 17:42, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

An observation from me: As I look at the first edit you made on the Chomsky article that Mona reverted, it is clear that you have a personal bias against the subject. Chomsky has condemned the atrocities of "someone else", namely ISIS, Turkey, Russia, Syria, Indonesia, Egypt, etc. So your statement is totally wrong and deserved a revert. Then, you immediately reverted Mona and continued to make a slew of other edits. You continue to edit war again and again. You later continue to edit war with Mona in dozens of edits. This is blockable behavior and could easily be construed as harassment towards Mona. "This is not "your article" and it is not supposed to be a propaganda piece. Refrain." This shows your animosity towards Mona and your intent to slant the article a certain way. Indeed, you even egg Mona onn to revert your edits! This clearly demonstrates that you do not show good behavior on this wiki.

When I said "see this user's blocking history for reasons", I meant you. That should be obvious, as you were the one reverted.

Sure, I agree that Mona seems somewhat possessive of the article and that Mona wishes that you do not slant the article in a certain direction, but it really doesn't matter who started the edit war. What matters is that you participated in it for 9 days, through dozens of edits. That's bad behavior, and it ought to stop. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 23:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

So Mona goes scott free ad I am being blocked. You are on thin ice. I just want her to present her case. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 01:53, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

She doesn't go scott free. I blocked her for 3 seconds to send a message. The edit warring and unusual focus on Mona needs to stop. If it does, there is nothing else to talk about at that point. If it doesn't, OK, bring a coop if you are so eager, but otherwise stop bothering Mona, me, and the rest of the community. You are/were a net negative to this place as of 90 minutes ago. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:01, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

FCP just told him to stay away from anything related to Israel-Palestine for the next few weeks. Maybe that will work to end this insanity.---Mona- (talk) 02:13, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Fuzzy Cat asked politely. I was not blocked, banned nor thrown in the vandal bin. It seems Fuzzy Cat has a sense of proportion. For those in the audience who don't know, I gave him a personal promise not to meddle with Chomsky for three weeks. He accepted that. Enter Mona: „Sorte, stay out of Chomsky, Muslims, New Atheists who are aligned with pro-Israel people, e.g. Harris. Just back off. Those are my usual editing topics; they have not usually been yours.“

So, don't edit what Mona edits. I can't be the only one who finds this ridiculous. Cheerio, dear girl Sorte Slyngel (talk) 18:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Trolling

Not banworthy on a talkpage, methinks. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 03:12, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for using neutral language in your notifications. Even if I think you're wrong, I appreciate the honesty in operating on a level playing field. Hipocrite (talk) 23:24, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks again

Thank you for taking aggressive action against the BoN invaders. We appreciate it greatly. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 04:37, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Blocking for simple wandalism....

Try not to do that. Use the mop and bucket, and bin 'em only if they are persistent. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 07:39, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

So what are your political leanings?

I am curious since your userbox says your are a communist, but your userpage claims you are a socialist-leaning social democrat. I also found it odd that you don't consider yourself to be an anarchist since most of the commies I know lean towards anarchism. You seem to support national liberation movements as well. I also find it odd that you seem to be more loyal to the Dems than most leftists I know.--Owlman (talk) 04:34, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello Owlman

I've pretty much always been a liberal due to family influences. I used to call myself an anarchist, but I don't know if I would use that word anymore. I wish people wouldn't control each other and let each other be free, but I have grown far more pessimistic since then, more towards the Hobbesian view. Most people tend to go through a phase like that at some point. SDP in Sweden is about right, from what I've read. I tend to support technocratic ideas like basing government policy (such as drug policy) directly on scientific studies. You need a powerful government that also directly answers to the people. I'm left of the American Democratic Party on basically all issues. But it's on a case by case basis. It's hard for me to delineate my views without being asked about policy positions. I'd urge you to prompt me on that, as that's probably a better litmus test than asking a general question "what are your political leanings". Pbfreespace3 (talk) 04:47, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Well why do you support the Houthis, for example, but not the Syrian rebels (mostly Islamists at this point); aren't they both just as theocratic?--Owlman (talk) 04:50, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Theoretically, I would support a religious partition of those countries. I think the Houthis should control all Shia areas of Yemen, and the moderate Sunnis should control the rest. I tend to support the Houthis in general however, because they fight the Saudis (who are the definition of theocratic), and they fight Al-Qaeda. When one side (pro-Hadi) fights alongside Al-Qaeda, Saudi Arabia, and similar shady types, I'm gonna favor the other side, even if it is the Houthis.

On the Syrian rebels, I don't support them because they're terrorists. ISIS, Al-Qaeda, Ahrar al-Sham, and Salafi groups compose greater than two-thirds of the opposition, and if they defeated the government, the result would be an Islamist hellhole like Afghanistan and current ISIS areas. But again, an ethno-religious partition in Syria would be ideal. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 05:01, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Well when you say partition do you lean more towards some form of federalism or a complete separation of what we know as Syria and would you extend this plan to Yemen, Iraq, and Libya?--Owlman (talk) 05:06, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Total separation. I wonder if Google Drive will work. This is what Syria should look like, for example. (a map I made myself) Each color a different country. Federalism works crappily, except in Bosnia, and even there it doesn't work great. That's after massive NATO intervention and occupation. No, partition is the way to go. In fact, the region actually naturally partitioned itself over the past 5 years. Libya doesn't need a partition, as everyone is the same religion and ethnicity. The Tuareg region can separate into a larger Tuareg state however. There should also be partition for Israel/Palestine. The West Bank/Gaza should be Arab-ruled and Israel Jewish-ruled. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 05:12, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Well I, personally, can't imagine how those countries would be self sustaining outside of the Kurdish regions. Also Libya contains many Copts and the Tuaregs are currently at war with the Tebu and the Azawad, a modern Tuareg state, failed. I oppose the two state solution as a doomed solution. It is clearly just a talking point to gain support and not a solution any politician actually takes seriously; my full opinion is available on ChrisAmiss's talk page. I general favor federalism oover complete separatism.--Owlman (talk) 05:29, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Speaking of Kurdistan would you support an independent Kurdistan or something more akin to Ocalan's democratic confederalism?--Owlman (talk) 05:29, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Totally independent Kurdistan. Completely. I'm sorry, there's really nothing else to be done at this point other than that. Ocalan was great, but he was almost too visionary. Just do a simple, dirty ethnic partition, and wash our hands of the matter.

To the first comment: Azawad failed because every Western country and their mother opposed it. Later jihadis infiltrated, and AQIM should be destroyed sure, but if all Tuareg regions were one country with international support, it could make it through tariffs and that one uranium mine (exports). The two-state solution is predicated on both sides being militarily equal. Either Israel must demilitarize to some extent, or the West Bank should be militarized like Israel is now. Both sides must be unable to conquer the other. This is how a lasting peace will develop. Is your opposition to the two-state solution because it hasn't worked in the past decades? BS. That's because the US, South Africa, and Israel didn't want that. They don't want a 2-state solution.

By the way, here's one political test I took. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 05:38, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, comrade. Коммунисты будут контролировать этот веб-сайт 𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈 (talk) 05:44, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

No, I believe that the one state solution has already been established and we should just federalize the country. Gaza and the West Bank are to dissimilar at this point to even unite as one country and their trade would be complicated; Israel would never allow for military build up in the West Bank and Jerusalem couldn't be shared between two countries. I don;t want to get off tangent though so if you are really curious you can check out the discussion I had with Chris. Anyways, I agree that the Azawad should be independent as well as SADR, Biafra, West Papau, Kosovo, and I would support an independent Kurdistan and Tibet if it could be achieved.--Owlman (talk) 05:58, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

It appears you are quite the protectionist and you support subsidies more than I do. I am also against weaponized drones since they cause a lot of civilian death.--Owlman (talk) 06:17, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

People with no regard for others are a bane to our society, so I don't see how it would make sense to federalize them. Comrade ☭ ☭ ☭ Вы должны положить конец этой капитализма, который потворствует расстройство! Прямо сейчас в западе капиталисты ложь в мире! Все должны подчиняться Серп и молот! ☭ ☭ ☭ 𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈 (talk) 06:23, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I guess my last question would be what you think Sanders is lacking?--Owlman (talk) 06:31, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I hope comrade Pb does not support Sanders, he is a pseudo-communist. Он является поддельной 𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈 (talk) 06:36, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I support Sanders. I think he's a little weak on memorizing proposed laws he would sign, meaning his debate performance is a little subpar when compared to his stump speeches, which rival Trump's in their effectiveness. He's a little uninformed on GMOs and nuclear power, but on almost every other issue he's the ideal candidate, if there could ever be such a thing. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 07:26, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

So his stance on Palestine doesn't concern you?--Owlman (talk) 07:29, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

It's America. No one with any chance at the nomination is going to be pro-Palestine anti-Israel. Sanders supports the 2-state solution anyway, and has criticised Israel far more than Hillary, Trump, Cruz, Bush, Rubio, Kasich, or anyone else in the field. Even on this issue alone, I'd support Sanders. The Jewish thing and spending time on a kibbutz doesn't bother me too much. He is most likely to have his UN ambassador vote yes on the Security Council vote on Palestinian statehood. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 23:00, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Well what should the US do to help rebuild the African American and Native American community?--Owlman (talk) 23:08, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

With regards to blacks: step 1 is total desegregation. America's cities are still segregated. Blacks make up 12 percent of the population. Each and every city neighborhood should be less than one deviation away from that. There should be no ghettos. The government should offer massive tax incentives for black people to spread out/move out of inner cities, and for white people to move in and repopulate those areas. The government should be aggressive as possible without literally busting down people's doors and forcing them to move. Once all blacks are evenly spread out, we should increase taxes on those making over $150,000/year and redistribute the money in the form of temporary welfare programs, infrastructure spending (roads, bridges, lead water pipe replacement), and other means. Police should also be retrained by the military, but should be trained to use diplomacy and tasers before guns. Demilitarization is a must, the MRAPS and such need to go. Police department "internal investigations" need to stop being a thing; rather, other departments and review committees should investigate the departments in question. This would drastically reduce buddy-buddy investigations where the head of the investigation is friends with the officer who shot an unarmed black kid 9 times.

Et cetera et cetera. I also don't claim these proposals are a fix-all, but they'll do a lot to improve the current situation. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 23:29, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

So if Sanders loses the nomination and refuses to run third party who will you vote for?--Owlman (talk) 04:17, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I am not able to vote. If I was, I would vote for Hillary Clinton. I don't think any of the current Republicans are even remotely voteable for me. She would be good on nominating Supreme Court justices. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 04:37, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Really? Wouldn't her militarism turn you off; I mean she is more hawkish than Obama and actually convinced him to attack Libya.--Owlman (talk) 04:42, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Hah! "Turn me off". Like I ever was turned on by Hillary Clinton. She is too militaristic for me. If Bernie can't win I am just going to have to accept the fact that the American president is going to be militaristic no matter what. She is more hawkish than Obama, and believe me, it pisses me off. It pisses me off that the Democratic Party is willing to nominate or even take seriously a person who supported 4 useless wars in the past 16 years. It bothers me that American pacifists and non-interventionists don't have a party that represent their views. But I would have to vote for her. I'd pick her over Trump, Rubio, Cruz, Bush Kasich, or anyone else the GOP nominates. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 05:02, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

By the way, this is what I think Yemen should look like. Based on religious groups. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 05:04, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Well I wouldn't for her ever. I promised myself that I would never vote for someone who voted for the Iraq war and that has extended to a war with ISIS. I will only vote for Sanders, Warren, Stein, or Supreme. To your position on the partition of Yemen I have to say I would agree with a breakup of the historically Southern Yemen and a combination of the Shia community in Saudi Arabia and Northern Yemen, though I think federalism is the more viable solution. Also your early partition plan for Syria appears to give Israel the Golan Heights which I wouldn't allow.--Owlman (talk) 05:14, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Hey, I'm pissed about the Golan too, but I was simply dividing it based on the current ethnoreligious divide. According to a source I have found to be pretty reliable, the Golan is exckusively populated by Jews and Druze; all the Sunni Arabs have shipped out decades ago. That was a sparsely populated region anyway, and still is today, even with population growth and Israeli settlements. Going solely by my previous standard, I would have to give the Jewish parts to Israel. In the real world, I personally believe it should be Syria's. Maybe it's too late for that. We'll see. P.S. note that in my map, I gave the Druze portion in the north to Lebanon to act as a sort of buffer against any future Israeli or Syrian invasion. Eh. We'll see. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 05:44, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

What are your feelings on free trade?--Owlman (talk) 05:48, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Oppose. NAFTA, CAFTA, and TPP are bad. I don't mind America existing in a virtual unity state with Canada though. NAFTA didn't do that, but I personally believe Canada and the US should just tie the knot already. Sure, we may have our disagreements and disputes, but most married couples do. It'll be better for both.

On a serious note, I oppose TPP greatly. It gives corporations way too much power (than they already have!) and will screw over American workers and Asian workers. The only beneficiaries of that agreement are the elites. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 05:56, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

So even if a free trade agreement was established strong labor and environmental regulations? Free trade can prevent currency manipulation and trade wars while encouraging industrial policies, employment, and wage growth.--Owlman (talk) 06:05, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

In theory, yes. In practice, this is rarely so. Most of the time, the reason a free trade agreement is even conceived in the first place is because a businessman in America says "Gee, I don't want to pay my workers seven dollars an hour. I know, I'll bribe Congress to pass a trade agreement with some Asian countries that will allow me to exploit the labor of tens of thousands of children who get payed next to nothing, all resulting in a 15% increase in profit over the next ten years!" This is literally how TPP was birthed. These goddamn multinationals, with billions of dollars in the bank, can't possibly bear to pay a goddamn tariff for shipping their goods across an entire ocean, so they lobby to get abolition of tariffs just to get more wealth and power. It's disgusting, and I can't support anything that is remotely tied to it. Today's trade agreements are that and only that. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 06:16, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Agreed.--Owlman (talk) 07:03, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

All of that time waiting just for that? Another! Pbfreespace3 (talk) 07:09, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

So what left-wing party or parties, if any, do you align with? I don't care how relevant they are or if they are foreign.--Owlman (talk) 07:14, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Why should African Americans be so pressured to spread out, what is wrong with black communities? 𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈 (talk) 07:17, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Swedish Social Democratic Party, French Socialist Party, Finnish SDP, German SPD. I align most with the Green Party in America, but will vote for the Dems. Labour in Britain is way too weak and conciliatory for me.

The existence of black ghettos in major cities tend to result in mutual distrust. A lot of white people are very careful what parts of the city they drive through (Chicago), and where they live. They actively avoid areas based solely on race. People have been separate for too long, and now the races fear each other. We've lost a sense of community and solidarity that we ought to have. A lot of white people are scared of black people. It would not be 10% of what it is if everyone was evenly, statistically distributed throughout the space. Familiarity leads to commonality and mutual respect. This fosters a peaceful environment where everyone can work and live together with no fear.

Ttyl, maybe 36 hours, maybe less. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 07:33, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't really understand this. What makes you think Black people will disperse from each other when they change their locations? 𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈 (talk) 07:49, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Well most of those parties have become increasingly neoliberal AFAIK. I would probably vote Green Party since I care about the environment a little more than economics, but I generally like SPUSA. Since the Dems are the only viable party atm I would most likely fit into the Democratic Socialists of America. I generally dislike Trotskyists and Maoists so I won't even think about those parties, but in the end I will probably always be an independent. On your idea on moving people out of the ghettos I would say that would destroy the culture that has been created there and would increase racial tension. I would use a stronger welfare state, infrastructure, and reparations to naturally and pragmatically coax racial minorities into other communities. Of course I would have to enforce anti-discrimination laws more.--Owlman (talk) 08:34, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Good job!

Thanks for constantly banning vandals and reverting their edits.--JorisEnter (talk) 15:18, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, great job comrade. 𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈 (talk) 15:21, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

To be "that guy", I question your blocks of 172.6.165.80 (talk · contribs · block  · rights  · rename) and TheDonkey (talk · contribs · block  · rights  · rename) . Are you sure the IP address isn't LukasMaps logged out? The IP address has edited the user page before, and the edits were just changing userboxes. As for TheDonkey, I fully understand they're probably somebody here to try to whitewash the est page, but isn't the attitude that we should try to engage with such people before reaching for the block button? --Ymir (talk) 01:17, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ymir

When an unknown IP edits a user's page by, for example, deleting userboxes, I'd say some consequences are warranted. If that user wants to change their userboxes, they should do so while logged in to avoid any confusion.

With regards to "TheDonkey", it appeared to be one of many dozens of users registered over the past few dozen hours. This user's actions could reasonably be construed as vandalism, so that's why the action was taken. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 03:14, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I guess my point is I prefer to try communicating first. I think blocks should be a last resort. Reverts are cheap. I was under the impression that this was generally RW's attitude towards blocking. Am I wrong? --Ymir (talk) 04:07, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeah I am not sure why you binned TheDonkey and that IP. TheDonkey didn't do anything worth a binning and that IP seems like LukasMaps.--Owlman (talk) 04:48, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

You have also caught my eye for banning a 'troll' based only on a relatively benign username (Hero of the patriarchy). Perhaps reserve your bans only for obvious spam for awhile to get a better feel for the communities expectations around banning. You can also check with other sysops first if unsure about the right course of action. Tielec01 (talk) 05:43, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Well it was only for 5 minutes.--Owlman (talk) 05:59, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not a big deal, but the block reason gave the impression that they needed to rename themself or get blocked again. Tielec01 (talk) 06:32, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Some light reading

Hi mate, it might be worth giving this page and also this interesting little vignette a quick glance. All the best. Tielec01 (talk) 05:54, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Pbfreespace. The gentle protestations above have not sunk in so I'll speak plainly. Don't block IPs for months on end, it's a waste of your time and could potentially cause a new user to be inadvertently blocked. Don't VB IPs, there are the very rare occasion where it might be appropriate, but 99% of the time it isn't. Named spam accounts can be blocked safely for long periods, otherwise aim for never blocking over 3 days. Longer blocks do nothing except harm the wiki's ability to attract new editors. Tielec01 (talk)

"Vandal binning IP addresses and using the autoblock feature is discouraged, because those IPs will remain in the bin forever (until somebody notices and takes them out), and this may affect innocent users in the future. Using short blocks for IPs is preferred."

This is direct from the help page on vandal binning. Since you seem determined to ignore the friendly advice you have been given I will henceforth undo every vandal bin you make until you indicate that you understand the reasons why you don't vandal bin IPs. Tielec01 (talk) 03:53, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Please don't do this

http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:David_Gerard&curid=17201&diff=1641737&oldid=1641736&unhide=1

Just roll it back! Deletions and suppressions are supposed to be for legal threats or dox. Thanks! =) Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 00:43, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Glad Tidings

A man can only cover a limited number of interests. Since LaTeX is an old hobby, one which needs to be refreshed, since that's about the only way to get good output, you need not quiver in your boots. I have better — much better — things to do than to quarrel with you. Some of the results might end up as an RW pdf bit, but don't count on it. You are one of the people who have confirmed me in the believe that RW is mostly a herd of sheep.

But as this was meant to be a cheering message, I will not make you (small potatoes and all that) a target of „victimizing“ on my part, mostly because you're not worth it and never will be, and I have to freshen up on LaTeX — the coolest word processing program system in the world. That was an easy choice. And sleep well, my friend, in spite of an probably bad conscience, assuming you have one. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 00:17, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Huh. Ok. Bye. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 00:34, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome. You won't be bothered, but that doesn't mean I'm quite gone. I suppose you can be summed up as „he's sort of a kind soul and means well“. I don't know about your culture, but where I come from that's the bottom of the barrel — there is no greater insult. And I do want you to know that you've been insulted — it wouldn't be polite not to. Cheerio deary Sorte Slyngel (talk) 18:30, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Why?

Why did you ask for dox? You should know better than that. For this I have RationalWiki:Chicken_coop#Pbfreespacecooped you.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 05:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC) 05:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

It was a tongue-in-cheek remark. I was asking the person to reveal their true identity since they were so quick to reveal Mona's but not their own. It was a rhetorical device I decided to use in order to point out the blatant hipocrisy and misbehavior of this person. I don't see why soliciting someone to reveal their own identity would qualify as doxxing, especially since it was in jest (albeit a dark humor jest). Pbfreespace3 (talk) 05:06, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I know you assume it is Arisboch, but... whatever. I assumed you were joking, but we should have a small discussion on that; I don;t expect the case to come to a vote and it will most likely end soon.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 05:11, 23 March 2016 (UTC) 05:11, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

With regards to the identity of the troll, you don't need to worry about it. Action is being taken that renders it irrelevant. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 05:14, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Email me about how so.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 05:16, 23 March 2016 (UTC) 05:16, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Just did, if you didn't catch it. I'd rather not discuss it further. It doesn't pertain to this website at all. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 05:18, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah I saw. If you need assistance then talking to a mod would be best then.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 05:21, 23 March 2016 (UTC) 05:21, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry

I apologize for using as bait in order to weed out the BoN. I knew that your legal threat was a mere suggestion and dox request was factious, but I cooped you assuming the BoN would be open to actually having a dialogue under their original account. I only expected a wag of the finger and luckily no one threw the book at you, but it was still a dick move.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 22:16, 23 March 2016 (UTC) 22:16, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok. Well I believe the situation has basically been resolved at this point. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 01:44, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah I doubt he is coming back.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:49, 24 March 2016 (UTC) 01:49, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

This may be block evasion, but someone seriously needs to call you out on your bullshit and no one else has. Queex thought I was User:Fat Aardvark, and Pbfreespace3 thought it was User:Arisboch, both being blocked from editing. Those users obviously would NOT have used their original accounts to participate at the coop. I could have participated as an IP, the reason I did things the way I did is because I just don't feel like being investigated by authorities for Arisboch's blatant cyberstalking. You say I am a bad friend to my peers yet you coop your peers and then lie to them claiming it was all part of the plan? The difference between me and you is that she (you know who I mean) did something that really upset me and she was well aware that I was angry at her for at least a month over it. She is a nice girl so I forgave her and made up, but while I wouldn't want anything bad to happen to her, and I care about her, I guess a certain degree of animosity is still there no matter how much I want it to go away. If she became aware, I would not try to hide it, I would just tell her I'm sorry. You, on the other hand, want Pbfreespace3, your peer, to believe you were just setting me up rather than admit you gave a scumbag troll a little credibility. 71.3.168.31 (talk) 04:55, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I didn't make some master plan for you to reveal yourself, but you said you would pull out your original account if Pb was actually serious about his legal threat. I don't particularly care how you would react to her finding out, but I am apologizing to Pb because I cooped him for something frivolous and I could have led to unintended consequences. I was hoping that you would have actually been responsible enough to have a civil discussion, and you did.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 05:09, 25 March 2016 (UTC) 05:09, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Images

Give it time, this always happens. Blame Gerard ;P 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 15:21, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Coop

A case involving you has been raised at the Chicken Coop. Feel free to comment.

FuzzyCatPotato of the Pretty Raids (talk/stalk) 16:56, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Removing talk page comments

As per the community standards, don't do it. BoNs have as much right to comment as you. 120.16.25.24 (talk) 13:08, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Who are you? Pbfreespace3 (talk) 13:09, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

You might need to start doing range blocks. 120.16.189.164 (talk) 13:30, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Bahahahahahahahahahaha

The Sockfinder General is indefinitely b& at TOW for sockpuppetry and ban evasion. Glorious stuff. I particularly enjoyed this bit on your talk page (emphasis mine):

"You are well aware of the processes around here and decided to ignore them because you think you are right. Your behavior on my talk page has made it quite clear that you are operating under a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality which is incompatible with Wikipedia and you are wholly unwilling to listen to polite requests to desist.

In all, this all comes back to an intractable megalomaniacal point of view on your part in which might makes right and the ends justify the means. But that stops now, or you no longer are welcome on Wikipedia."

You're possibly my new favourite internet idiot.

All my love, Robledo (talk) 01:38, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

If you want to discuss that whole situation, I'd be happy to do it with you at length, because it requires a good deal of time for explanation. I can present my viewpoint here to you if you really care, but if you're just pointing it out to laugh at it, that's another matter. Which is it? Pbfreespace3 (talk) 01:47, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Pointing and laughing, son. Pointing and laughing at you. Robledo (talk) 01:55, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

From a quick glance, it looks like you were uncritically inserting information from pro-Assad sources... 142.124.55.236 (talk) 01:58, 17 April 42016 AQD (UTC)

I know nothing about that situation at WP. But as to the larger policy, if they disallow socks for ban evasion, good for them! That's downright rational, unlike the insane policy here.---Mona- (talk) 02:00, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

To be honest, I’m surprised someone hadn’t mentioned this before: it was ripe for the picking.

I had begun editing at Wikipedia because I had a profound interest in Middle-East conflicts. I noticed a map there of cities and towns, and who controlled them. This was my favorite place to edit. I always used sources when I changed the control of a place, and the only time I didn’t was when I reverted someone else who had made a change without a source. If you look at my contribution history there, you can see that I reverted a user who had changed the control color of several towns without providing any sources. In the edit rules for that map, you were exempt from the 1 revert per 24 hour rule if the user you revert was clearly vandalizing the map. The user I reverted was doing this. However, I was blocked for breaking the 1 revert rule and edit warring, even though the person I reverted was the one doing the vandalizing.

I tried to appeal many times, but ended up failing because one mod without any experience in this particular article didn’t believe the edits I reverted were vandalism, but thought they were good faith. So I kept looking at the article, when suddenly I found I could edit pages. Unusual. I had thought my ban was up, so I started editing again. Lo and behold, I was IP editing. I didn’t know it at the time, but I was technically editing while banned (my ban was still in effect). When I was found out, I was perma-banned.

Ironically enough, one of the main editors of the Syrian Civil War Detailed map, Deonis2012/Hanibal911, is a notorious sockpuppet who used many accounts over several years to continue editing the article. He has been banned many times, but has continued to reappear under different account names, and is currently running the page under the account Sûriyeya. He happens to be a VERY good editor who is also biased towards one side of the war (part of why he was banned), which influences his edits. And he’s still there, editing daily.

How does this all connect to the situation here? Good question. If you want to laugh at my behavior there, fine. But do we criticize a former heroin addict for speaking out and calling for harsh punishment of heroin dealing? We shouldn’t. In the same sense, criticizing me for what I believe, and what many other editors there believe to be an unjustified ban, doesn’t really matter in this case. It’s not affecting this coop case, and isn’t really relevant. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:06, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Your complete lack of self-awareness is a thing of beauty. Please, please carry on. You must prosecute this coop case with extreme prejudice. Robledo (talk) 02:16, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Pb3, don't worry about it. You're not the only editor here who's gotten kicked out of WP. I believe even a mod or two has held that distinction. Indeed, I've seen people argue that So-And-So should be banned because he was banned at WP, and references to poor behavior there. Every time that's happened others jump in to say that's all irrelevant, that this isn't WP, and WP history has no bearing here.---Mona- (talk) 02:54, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Leave my user page alone

Please. rpeh •T•C•E• 20:55, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I would like an apology

When I joined I was welcomed, however you accused me of being another user and having edited pages that I did not edit. You continued to insist I was this user without proof and that I had edited the page, only stopping when I showed undeniable and freely available evidence that showed otherwise. However you then told me You didn't care, that despite your lack of proof for any of it you knew I was this user you do not like. I want an apology for your rudeness. Thank You. --Die Züge über alle! 03:47, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Chill it

I will sue you and take you to court. I know your real-life identity. If you stop, no action will be taken.

Not cool. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 04:35, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

If it was Trump v Clinton

Would you not prefer the shinier turd? αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 02:53, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

What are your parameters? Everything depends on the scenario. If you put a gun to my head and forced me to choose, I would tell you to pull the trigger. I would be screwed either way. You need to set up the circumstances. Let's assume you say "hey, it's election day, Trump and Hillary are dead even in the polls, and you live in Ohio. Go." That would be enough for me to hold my nose and vote for Hillary. But living in a red state, I'm encouraging everyone I know well to not vote for Hillary, since my stupid state will go for Trump no matter what. Everything depends on circumstances. I'd much rather vote for Jill Stein or write in Bernie Sanders. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 23:18, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

@FCP The way Clinton discusses foreign policy makes me think that she is willing to steer us into a second cold war because she is that incompetent. I think 4 years of Trump would teach Americans how destructive anti-immigrant policies are.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 23:49, 8 May 2016 (UTC) 23:49, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Stop using your sysop tools...

... as a means of revenge against people you or Mona dislikes. Give me my sysop tools back, since I didn't abuse them.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 01:24, 31 May 2016 (UTC) 01:24, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Do not desysop anyone w/o a coop vote, such an action is an easy way to be cooped. I agree that he is an asshole but that doesn't give you the unilateral power to desysop him.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 02:39, 31 May 2016 (UTC) 02:39, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Acknowledged. Raising awareness. Please let me know if he uses his sysop tools in some good way, as it'll be a milestone. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:41, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Suuuuure, cause using sysop tools too satisfy your or Mona's grudges totally using the sysop tools in a good way, amirite?--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 10:45, 31 May 2016 (UTC) 10:45, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I've cooped you for this. Hipocrite (talk) 13:34, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Trololo YTPs

I haven't been looking at YTPs in a long while, so there's probably plenty more I don't remember, but this one made me fall out of my chair back in the day. Acquiesce ^{/ˌakwɪˈɛs/} 01:28, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Too chaotic.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 01:59, 1 June 2016 (UTC) 01:59, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

"The snippet reads like it's from her PR person"

Actually, that's directly quoted from the referenced article. Before I added that, there was absolutely NO explanation of what the "Clinton Foundation" is. Is that OK with you? To intentionally hide what the purpose of that foundation is? I call that "lying by omission". Typhoon (talk) 14:56, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Also, you didn't stop at removing just the info about his well documented Obama-hatred, you also deleted that Sanders wanted those two politicians removed because they were mean to him. Nice, really nice. Typhoon (talk) 14:59, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

If you want to include the purpose of the Clinton Foundation in the article, then go ahead. You just need to do it in a way that isn't biased in favor of it. Hey go look at the Mitt Romney article, and look for what I just inserted there. Do you see my point? It would be better if we had a Clinton Foundation section or even separate article. I support the creation of said section if it will resolve this dispute.

Me and Owlman agreed to not edit the page for some time. You'll have to rewrite or restore it. I'm not gonna break my promise just becaus you decided to erase my edits. Typhoon (talk) 15:17, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

The bit on Sanders was biased. Sanders had ideological disagreements with the people he wanted off the committee: it wasn't simply a personal grudge as you make it out to be. As such, I removed the information, and I may rewrite it if I feel like it. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 15:12, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

See the Bernie Talk page Typhoon (talk) 15:17, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Do we seriously need an article on the Clinton Foundation? Unless there's genuine conspiracies involved (more than just "allows extra money in the elections" or something) it would only be an edit war magnet.--JorisEnter (talk) 15:15, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

We really don't need one. All that is needed is one sentence explaining what it is. There was one, quoted from the Washington Post that was referenced, but Pbfreespace deleted it because he found it too positive for his liking. Typhoon (talk) 15:18, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

We can do a section in the Hillary article (or perhaps the Bill article). Typhoon can write it if he wants. I and others should review to make sure it fits our liking (ie isn't totally sucking up to it and mentions true bad things about it). Fair? Pbfreespace3 (talk) 15:19, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I reiterate for you to go to the Romney article and read the bit of heaping praise I put for Bain Capital there. But wait, it's not biased! It's just a sentence explaining what it is since there isn't an article or section on it! Do you see my point? The sentence you quoted from WP is very biased in favor of Hillary and the Clinton Foundation, and I don't think that particular sentence should be there. We need to talk about it in a way that isn't biased. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 15:22, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

The "purpose" of Bain Capital was not even described by Bain Capital to be "helping companies run well again." It was to make money for Bain Capital. Please don't disrupt articles to make a point. Hipocrite (talk) 15:44, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Talk page indenting

Why'd you reindent someone else's post? In case you think the "proper thing" is "every post goes on a new indentation level", it isn't. See here. --Ymir (talk) 05:28, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Huh. I must've been too insanely baked at the time. Well IAM now to. So watevs, Russian emir. Pbfreespace (talk) 05:31, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Voting standards

Quoted directly from the source:

"In order to vote in policy votes, which seek to change the Community Standards or similar official policy documents, or penalty votes, which seek to penalize (or change existing penalties for) a user, you must have at least 75 total edits and a registration date at least three months prior to the conclusion of the vote."

Sorry, but the CS say registration date, not date of first edit. Yellow (talk) 23:51, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

The guy set up the account as a sleeper. Damn shame. Pbfreespace (talk) 23:55, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Let's get those rules changed then. ;) 142.124.55.236 (talk) 23:58, 3 June 42016 AQD (UTC)

Pb, you're a fucking loon. I obviously set up this account as a sleeper way back in May 2007. 35 more edits and it even gets to vote... Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 00:07, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm basing my assumption on Pizzameister and Kugelschreiber's behavior. They are sockpuppets of AvengeroftheBoN and Arisboch, respectively. Their old accounts were binned, banned respectively. They made sure to edit with their new accounts enough to vote in coop cases 3 months after registration. And that's exactly what they did. Note Conscience actually passed the 75 edit minimum while the coop case was going on. This further indicates this account's malignant purpose. He deliberately posted a bunch during the coop to pass the 75 edit limit so he could vote. That's ratfuckery if I've ever seen it. Pbfreespace (talk) 00:14, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

The witch hunt continues.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 21:37, 4 June 2016 (UTC) 21:37, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Great news! I've remembered the password to a one-off joke account from July 2008 as well. Only need 73 more edits on this one... Rakim (talk) 00:22, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Omfg stop worrying who's who. (Sorry tired.) Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 06:03, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

FYI

If you don't know, arguing with Rob is mostly pointless. He inhabits another plane of reality, and, as you have probably noticed, all he does in an argument is throw out breathless non-sequiturs. See his page if you're not familiar with him. I've just been tweaking him for personal amusement. --Ymir (talk) 02:10, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Pro-Trump, anti-weed. General overview.

I wonder at what point in your life is it permissible to just dismiss a whole category of people, for the sake of prioritizing? If you were on your deathbed, and had a choice between talking for a few minutes with a loved one, or talking for a few minutes with some right winger who wants to berate you for being wrong, is it then ok to choose the loved one?

If so, then how about doing it a few years or months earlier? Would that be all right?

I've spent much of my life enjoying the way I learned from discussions with people who strongly disagreed with me. And I do in principle agree with those who say it's dumb to surround yourself only with yes-men.

But at the same time I feel like I'm at an age now — and living in an era now — when those discussions with 'conservatives' serve no actual purpose, except to pretend that their ideas are legitimate. Those talks were had already, 30 years ago or more. And: today's 'conservatives' are even stupider than those of a generation ago. So what's the point of trying to reason with a heartfelt 'conservative' at all? Life is too short. It didn't use to be, but it is. Pbfreespace (talk) 02:17, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, he has this weird enmity towards ganja, but is he really pro-Trump? I experienced him more as anti-Hilary than pro-Trump.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 11:39, 6 June 2016 (UTC) 11:39, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

He said as much on his talk page. He was one of the right wingers holding off on endorsing Trump until the very end, so maybe there's some respectability there.

Also, I did not name my username after lead. Lead = soft and malleable, but stable. Me = hard and set in his ways, and stable. PB = perfect and boastful. Pbfreespace (talk) 00:34, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Judging by his talk page he thinks, that Trump isn't as radical as he claims, that the party isn't gone too far in his eyes to break party discipline and that third parties are fruitless and futile.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 01:47, 7 June 2016 (UTC) 01:47, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with him on points 1 and 3. Agree on 2. PBfreespace (talk) 02:02, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Accelerationism and you

Are you an Accelerationist? Because you sound awfully like one when you talk about how America ought to suffer under a Trump presidency so that a true left-wing movement is then supposedly created from the ashes, instead of voting for Clinton and building upon Obama's legacy. Personally, I think it's incredibly selfish of you; you know that as a white guy you will suffer the least, whereas LGTB, blacks, muslims and women will suffer horribly while Trump stack the Supreme Court with ultra-conservative judges who will turn the country backwards for many, many decades. Basically, I'm saying that only people with White Privilege can afford to sit out the election, such as you.

P.S.: What you're trying to do had been already tried many years ago, and 8 years of Reagan was the result. We were still recovering from that when people like you gave us 8 years of Dubya in 2000. As November 2016 draws near, everyone who cares about preserving and expanding equality and progressive ideas not only has to defeat Trump, but also the holier-than-thou Accelerationists such as you, who only care about purity tests, who fail to realize that Hillary is already to the left of Obama. Typhoon (talk) 13:17, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Why do you keep lumping "Muslims" in like some sort of ethnic group? Try being a Somali or Sudanese Muslim in an Arab country and see how racially unified Muslims are. Or an LGBT person, for that matter, since you include them all in the same group. It's a shame the Marxist-Leninists didn't win the Cold War. Lord Aeonian (talk) 22:10, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Seems like a bit of an odd objection to make here. Typhoon lumps Muslims together because that's what basically everybody (Western) does. And most relevant in this case; it's what Trump proposes to do. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 22:25, 4 June 42016 AQD (UTC)

When Bush could not tell Sunni from Shia people were calling him stupid. Now it's suddenly okay to just say "Muslim" and be done with it? Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 00:53, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

As LH said, there are 1.6 billion Muslims from many different areas, cultures, and sects of Islam. It really doesn't make any sense for anyone to lump them all together. I highly doubt any racist policies would make it hard for a Chechen Muslim who looks white, for instance. I commented because Typhoon is a known theist sympathizer, I wonder why she doesn't complain that the Christians are being duped by Trump's populist narrative, as he has no intention of installing a Christian theocracy. Lord Aeonian (talk) 01:40, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

"known theist sympathizer" <- BWAHAHAHA, I'm loving this. This is the best stupidity brought by your paranoid anti-theism. You're deluded if you think a Trump presidency won't launch a anti-muslim witchunt so large and wide that even people who are devout christians wouldn't get labeled as "secret muslims" and deported. It happened in Spain after the Reconquista.

Make no mistake, if I was an American scum I would vote for Sanders, not Trump; I'm just being honest when I say that everyone can tell Trump talks out of ten sides of his mouth and doesn't believe anything he says. Lord Aeonian (talk) 09:30, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

What's worse: A Trump who says all those things to get votes or a Trump who honestly believes all this shit... Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 17:13, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Obviously the second. If he believed what he said, he would still get votes from it...and if he wins, he'd implement it. Lord Aeonian (talk) 22:36, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

To answer the question: no I am not an accelerationist. I do think that a Trump presidency could yield some good results on our side politically though. Just like Bush brought Obama's hope and change. Just like how Obama got the right the Tea Party and Trump, a very electable candidate who willkeep them in power for 8 years. Pbfreespace (talk) 04:31, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Hey, we could get lucky and Trump could turn out to be another Jesse Ventura; joke candidate that was actually pretty decent because the serious ones were all crooks. CorruptUser (talk) 05:11, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Nice for you to evade the question of Trump's supreme court picks. Trump is a completely different beast to Dubya. Anyway, for you to claim that electing Trump will somehow magically help progressives is THE DEFINITION OF ACCELERATIONISM. Typhoon (talk) 07:35, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

'Hillary is totes not to the left of Obama'

Hillary to the left of Obama? I'm skeptical, but even supposing it were the case, is she also determined to translate these leftist views into actual policy? That's what really matters. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 22:32, 4 June 42016 AQD (UTC)

Yeah, I'm going to need a big ol'^{[citation needed]} for the claim that Hillary is to Obama's left. CorruptUser (talk) 22:41, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Yeah Hillary will build on Obama's legacy of mass deportation, mass surveillance, and assassination, only now we get to see more wars in MENA.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 00:18, 5 June 2016 (UTC) 00:18, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Hillary is to the left on many thing to Obama. The individual mandate in Obamacare is one. She came out against Keystone XL before than Obama, after trying to give him time to make his decision. The American Conservative Union rated Hillary as a more liberal senator than Obama. Oh and did you know that she's been now campaigning against TTP? WHich is being pushed by Obama. I'm honestly shocked that you guys are so clueless about Hillary's positions... wait, if you weren't clueless then you wouldn't be Bernie supporters. My mistake. Typhoon (talk) 07:36, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

That establishment shill Nate Silver has some words for you:

To see how these different issues fit together to form an overall political ideology, we usually use three metrics: one based on congressional voting record, one based on public statements and one based on fundraising.

Clinton was one of the most liberal members during her time in the Senate. According to an analysis of roll call votes by Voteview, Clinton’s record was more liberal than 70 percent of Democrats in her final term in the Senate. She was more liberal than 85 percent of all members. Her 2008 rival in the Democratic presidential primary, Barack Obama, was nearby with a record more liberal than 82 percent of all members — he was not more liberal than Clinton.

Clinton also has a history of very liberal public statements. Clinton rates as a “hard core liberal” per the OnTheIssues.org scale. She is as liberal as Elizabeth Warren and barely more moderate than Bernie Sanders. And while Obama is also a “hard core liberal,” Clinton again was rated as more liberal than Obama.

Sometimes I wonder whether people are confusing Clinton with her husband. Bill Clinton’s statements have been far more moderate. He has also had a more moderate donor base, according to Adam Bonica’s fundraising scores.

Typhoon (talk) 07:42, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Except she has flipped on the Keystone Pipeline, after endorsing it, and has flipped on the TTP, after calling it the gold standard of trade deals. I could care less about her stance Obamacare unless she plans to either repeal it or bring back the public option. Rating sites are largely arbitrary and I would call someone who supports the death penalty a "hard core liberal". I may like Carter but I wouldn't vote for him because he doesn't support abortion and he was considered quite liberal for the time. I am surprised at how ignorant you are on Clinton's positions, oh wait she has none.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 21:44, 7 June 2016 (UTC) 21:44, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

You support the Houthis?

Are you fucking serious? Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 15:40, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Alright, according to Wikipedia, this is their logo and it read as following: "God is Great, Death to America, Death to Israel, Curse on the Jews, Victory to Islam". So this is Islamists (Saudi Arabia) fighting Islamists (Houthis). FUCK THEM BOTH.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 15:57, 7 June 2016 (UTC) 15:57, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Find a Yemeni whose attitude towards them is "A plague on both your houses". Make him/her President of Yemen. Back them up with all weapons necessary. Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 16:07, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Let me explain myself. I'm being presented with a conflict, and my 2 choices are:

1. Tribal fighters backed by the worst theocrats in the Middle-East, hired blackwater mercenaries from Latin American countries, a genocidal neo-Caliphate dictatorship, another genocidal dictatorship, and al-Qaeda.
2. Fighters who are generally aligned with Iran, Syria, and Russia, and explicitly reject global jihad, Wahhabism, and a Caliphate ideology.

Do you know who I'm gonna pick if I'm forced to? I'm gonna pick the side that isn't uncomfortably close to terrorists who hate us.

I think you'll find that the Houthis' slogan is rather irrelevant here, but let's talk about it. "God is great" is a fairly common phrase in the Middle-East, and there's almost no way around it. "Death to America, Death to Israel" is basically an Arab movement's way of saying "we're popular and hate who you hate, so come join us!". There's no way they'll be able to accomplish those goals. Granted, ISIS can't achieve those goals either, but ISIS can and has tried through massive terrorist attacks in Europe and America. ISIS also loves to terrorize its neighbors through use of coordinated suicide bombing on a massive scale, and mass killing of innocent civilians. Saudi Arabia has intentionally targeted civilians in Yemen, and they have blocked off ALL humanitarian aid to Yemen, basically besieging the entire fucking country and starving it of food and resources just so the rafidi don't rule a bordering nation. The Houthis don't do this. They don't have a violent expansionist ideology that threatens the region, and they pose no real threat to Saudi Arabia's existence beyond border territories. They choose to be better. They're an authentic popular movement that coincides with the will of most Shias and many Sunnis in Yemen.

The only somewhat-likely alternative to the current situation is Saudi-backed Sunni rule over all of Yemen, which necessitates large-scale political oppression that we shouldn't tolerate. PBfreespace (talk) 21:00, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

These Islamists not wanting to export their Islamism (yet?) are still fucking Islamists (with a topping of anti-semitism, and since there are a few Jews left in Yemen (about 50), these dogs ain't just barking, they're biting) and can go to hell for all I care, together with their Sunni counterparts. There are NO sides in this conflict worth the support of anyone and thanks goodness, that the US stayed out of this mess (although there are persistent rumors, but they're unconfirmed).--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 21:34, 7 June 2016 (UTC) 21:34, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

The US supplied GPS coordinates and bombs to Saudi Arabia. Sure they haven't provided airstrikes, but I wouldn't call that staying out of the mess. You just hate the Houthis because they hate Israel. I'll bet that you wouldn't mind the Houthis if they had no ties to HezbollahHouthis. You don't mind the Iraqi government or al-Hashad al-Shaabi, and they're pretty similar to the Houthis' minus the anti-Israel language. PBfreespace (talk) 21:39, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I hate them because they're Islamist garbage with a toping of antisemitism, no matter how you or they wanna sugar-coat it as anti-Israel sentiment (cause "Death to Israel" is totally OK, amirite?). And no, given a cursory reading, these Popular Mobilization Forces are too sectarian and too chummy with Iran for my tastes.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 21:54, 7 June 2016 (UTC) 21:54, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

You hate them because you're Arisboch. Face it. PBfreespace (talk) 21:57, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Stop being a wanker.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 22:02, 7 June 2016 (UTC) 22:02, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Why do you think you have to chose a side? Sometimes there is literally a war between evil and evil. And the lesser of two evils is still evil. In this war, both sides should lose. And the best way to ensure this is making sure no weapons flow into this mess. Oh and giving a safe harbor to those fleeing this mess, because who flees from that has a higher chance of sharing (some of) our values than someone who participates in this. Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 22:26, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

You appear to need a side to root for in any armed conflict you turn your attention to. It makes you look a bit mental. Robledo (talk) 22:13, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 22:27, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Due to the nature of civil wars and the state structure, most of the time someone wins. Who wins is important. I wouldn't fight for the Houthis if given the chance, as I dont believe their cause is worth fighting for. The Kurds are different though. PBfreespace (talk) 23:07, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Christ. Stop dicking about on the internet, then, and join the fucking Marines. They should be able to turn you into something the Kurds could actually use. Robledo (talk) 23:46, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I've considered service before, tbh. I try to keep my options open. The main thing stopping me is seeing all the total dickwads that join ROTC and the military, and the type of people who end up in the Marines. I'd willingly take a desk job as an officer if offered. But the main American people in Syria fighting with the Kurds are either volunteers, Green Beret/SEALs, or Army engineers (they actually helped the Kurds fight ISIS by helping them use pontoon bridges to cross the Euphrates and repair an existing one). PBfreespace (talk) 00:15, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Aye. Nowt wrong with ambition. Tonight's homework: learning the Kurdish for "Sir! Yes, sir!" Robledo (talk) 00:29, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

(This isn't it) Biji berxwedana YPG! Biji berxwedana Rojava! = Long live the resistance of YPG! Long live the resistance of the West! (West Kurdistan) Te fehm kir? PBfreespace (talk) 00:33, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Well there were volunteers in the Spanish Civil War and they did not have Ryanair flights for twenty Pounds back then. And don't worry about luggage limits, in those places you won't need much luggage... Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 15:53, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Re: About Bahrain

(I didn't know if you got a message alert after I replied to you in my own talk page, so I copied and pasted my response here.)

I disagree with any kind of rule that involves giving privilege to one sect or religion over the other, so yes, I disagree with Sunni rule, but I disagree with Shi'ite rule if it will undermine the Sunni populace. I certainly oppose any kind of theocratic rule, as well. I live in the United States, but before that, I lived between Saudi and Bahrain. The events of 2011 were a ticking time bomb that happened to explode. It wasn't a protest that came from absolutely nowhere. There were issues from way back in the 60s and 70s, and then when the Islamic Republic emerged, and Arab Shi'ites demanded their rights, they were immediately quashed by their government using Iran as an excuse. Many are afraid that states similar to Iran would emerge in the Gulf. I do, too. But even those protesting who are sympathetic to Iran are a minority, and the bulk of the protests weren't driven by Iran as many were trying to have people believe. Even the Bahraini-government sponsored report following the events cleared Iran, yet they and the Saudis have arrested, executed and stripped people of their citizenship under false charges of terrorism and taking directions from Iran. I don't buy the Iran story one bit. While I'm certain Iran has ambitions in the area, they're not the ones stirring the majority of dissenters. Besides, they're using Gulf autocracy to their advantage, so the ARab rulers are effectively shooting themselves in the foor. There were similar events in Bahrain in the mid-90s, but they were quashed. Then they worsened things by giving non-Bahraini Sunnis citizenship in an attempt to conduct a demographic change. This all, of course, is exacerbated by the Americans, the Brits, the French, the Germans, etc., not only failing to condemn them with harsh language, but they're continuing to sell them arms, too, which are used on the dissenting populace in a continuation of the fucked-up Arab Gulf circle of "life."

President Obama was correct when he said, "I think the biggest threats that [Arab Gulf countries] face may not be coming from Iran invading. It’s going to be from dissatisfaction inside their own countries" during an interview with Thomas Friedman. --Nay1989 (talk) 07:59, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Also, I saw the caption under your Syrian flag and it seems web-translated. It should probably say something in the vein of "Aashat Suriya!" if you're trying to say "Long Live Syria!"--Nay1989 (talk) 08:01, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much Nay. PBfreespace (talk) 03:04, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

"He has a plan, and she doesn't"

That's pretty rich, considering which of the two candidates has given more details about their policy ideas. If Trump couldn't name the Fed, would you calmly explain that that's what advisors are for, or castigate him for being an inexperienced buffoon? FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 22:25, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Cat, have you considered that I actually don't like Hillary's policy proposals? Her plan to cut college tuition involves permitting refinancing of existing loans, allowing Pell grants to cover housing and food, and providing grants to states to lower tuition. Never does she explain how she will pay for it.

Sanders, on the other hand, has set forth a proposal which will make all public colleges free, and pay for it with a Wall Street speculation tax. Not only will this greatly improve education, it will also help the economy by disencouraging risky bets on Wall Street. Do you know what? I think both proposals are good, but I prefer Sanders' proposal. Why?

1. It's more left-wing, and I'd most like European-style system where all college is free. This would be ideal, but likely unachievable in America, bringing me to this:
2. Staking out a position farther to the left sets the point of compromise more towards what we'd like, whereas starting out with Hillary's proposal would give us a barely OK compromise. Imagine if in the recent healthcare debate, the Democrats in Congress started out with this proposal: elimination of private insurance and establishment of a socialized, single-payer system. The resulting compromise might be public option, or something better than ACA. Instead of doing that, the Democrats conceded the public option and disallowance of private insurance right at the start of the debate; dooming us to a bill that has no public option, allows states to deny Medicaid expansion, and has barely covered half of the ultimate goal.

Do you understand why I support more left-wing policies and candidates now? Its because the compromise with the other side ends up being better than starting out with a moderate proposal. PBfreespace (talk) 22:52, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

WTF

You're who's edit warring right now. Back off already. Typhoon (talk) 20:26, 11 June 2016 (UTC) MODS! PLEASE PROTECT THESE PAGES!!!!!!!

Eh? Nerd (talk) 15:33, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Comrade!

I thought you might be interested in attending Socialism 2016 in Chicago, IL; it is hosted by ISO, a Trotskyite organization, but it has other tendencies as well. Also, since you care about the Kurds in Rojava so much, they have been crowdfunding in order to solve their food problem. They are asking for $180,000 and there are only 6 days left.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 21:35, 11 June 2016 (UTC) 21:35, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

"criticize him on his policies"

wtf do you think that she's been doing good god Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 05:08, 14 June 2016 (UTC) moreover, if you do actually think she hasn't been attacking trump enough -- perhaps there's another man to blame for that, huh?? Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 05:16, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

First, I never said she wasn't attacking him enough. I just think the attacks she's been mindbogglinly stupid ads that come from a PC viewpoint. She did an entire goddamn ad about the disabled reporter, rather than doing an ad about his wish to lower taxes on the wealthy. Her attacks so far have been largely based on broad, ideological disagreements rather than pointing out how his proposals are illegal and criminal. She's focused too much on the "let's unite America, be bipartisan, work towards the future as one country, we need a champion" bullshit rather than the straight-talking, simple rhetoric that Trump uses. She's hoping the Obama-style hope and change rhetoric will work this election, but it won't. Americans are tired of hope and change, and Hillary has too much baggage to tout herself as some king of great figure like she's doing now. She needs to be running negative ads rather than positive ones. Attack Trump's business record the way Obama did with Mitt Romney and Bain Capital back in 2012. Runs ads like this. Say he supports genocide of millions of Muslims (he says he does, not in that language). If she can scare the shit out of people about Trump, she can win simply by getting people not to vote for him. PBfreespace (talk) 05:31, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

PC, tame ideological disputes http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/06/11/trumpu-mock-infomercial-ad-nr-brown-sot.cnn Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 05:35, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Attacking Trump University isn't going to win her the general. Saying over and over and over and over again "Trump went bankrupt 5 times Trump went bankrupt 5 times Trump went bankrupt 5 times Trump went bankrupt 5 times" will cause her to win. You have to hammer something home so it sticks. Obama's was "Romney fired people" "I like being able to fire people". People really didn't like the way that that smelled, because it was a subconscious operation. People didn't actively say "oh, he fires people, therefore he's bad". They thought it. In the same way, people won't say "Trump University kinda ripped some people off, therefore I won't vote for Trump", but they will think "Trump wants to kill civilians, that's bad". You absolutely have to get at that subconscious bit. It scares me that Hillary is so focused on herself, because that all becomes moot when Trump attacks her terrible record and mistakes. Trump has been given a golden opportunity to fight his exact opposite at a time where people with his message are popular. Believe me, when Trump wins this thing, you're going to be thinking "damn, PB was right". PBfreespace (talk) 05:48, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

No, when Trump wins this thing, what everyone with half a brain will actually think will be "fucking hell, if people like PB had decided to let go of their blistering and irrational hatred of Hillary and actually cast a vote for the fucking liberal candidate rather than allowing this fucking fascist to take over America, then Trump wouldn't be president." But Trump's presidency won't actually affect you all that much, and what you wish is for minorities to get slapped around enough for them to allow themselves to become the cannon fodder for your revolution. You're like every salon revolutionary, manipulative and despisable. NewFrenchHotness (talk) 03:02, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

So the implication is, that anyone not voting for Hillary is racist and nastily privileged? Cool, that's what some Republicans claimed about how the Democrats talked about Obama. Hillary has to deserve people's votes and many are not swayed by this "lesser evil" thinking and think, that it'll push the Democratic Party to the right (cause why should they change if they're gonna be voted for anyway by screaming loudly AT LEAST WE'RE NO REPUBLICANS!!!!!!!!111).--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 13:52, 15 June 2016 (UTC) 13:52, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I think you'll find a great many Sanders supporters, independents and moderate Republicans are unshakeably convinced that Hillary is a lesser evil than Trump. Because, you know, they're not batshit insane... Robledo (talk)

As a Sanders supporter, obviously Hillary is a lesser evil than Trump. But that doesn't warrant me voting for her. NewFrenchHotness, your criticism of me is invalid: I live in a red state that's gone for the Republican in the past 87 elections. Voting for Hillary would make utterly no difference, as all the electoral votes would still go to Trump. So Stein or Sanders write-in for me this November. PBfreespace (talk) 03:07, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I think hammering home "Trump hates the poor" works pretty well αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 12:17, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

He doesn't though. He loves them. No one in America loves the poor more than Donald Trump. PBfreespace (talk) 19:05, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh, definitely! He easily identifies with them because he had to take small loan of a million dollars back in the day. Nerd (talk) 23:59, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Snark PBfreespace (talk) 00:02, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:12, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

50 states

It's funny to hear Bernie argue for a 50 states strategy after he and his supporters spent the primary dismissing "the South" and the democratic voters in there. Typhoon (talk) 08:50, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

And you have claimed that Sanders winning Alaska, Hawaii, etc constituted Sanders only having white supporters.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 08:56, 17 June 2016 (UTC) 08:56, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

So you have no response to Sander's hypocrisy? OK. Then again, I'm more currious about Pbfreespace3 opinion. Typhoon (talk) 09:00, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Well I don't disagree.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 09:04, 17 June 2016 (UTC) 09:04, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

On the other hand, we can also talk about Owlman's hypocrisy in supporting Tim Canovan, a Zionist and ultra-warhawk who wants to rip apart the Iran nuclear deal. Typhoon (talk) 09:13, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I never said I supported Tim Canova.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 09:16, 17 June 2016 (UTC) 09:16, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

You made a big deal about Hillary's hawkish views and the nuclear deal, only to completely gloss over Sanders supporting hawks too. You never denounced Sanders for that, and silence is passive acceptance. Typhoon (talk) 09:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Again, I don't think those are comparable examples based on context. I am concerned about Canova's views on Iran but that isn't why Sanders is supporting him. Have you denounced Clinton's support for DWS who supports payday loans? I have criticized Sanders many times for his own militarism.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 09:37, 17 June 2016 (UTC) 09:37, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

So this is where the conversation is. Nerd (talk) 01:04, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Yeah. PBfreespace's talk page, home of the most intellectual discussion on RationalWiki! PBfreespace (talk) 03:04, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Lets play "What do the guidelines say!"

Actually lets not and just tell you what they say - Users can remove outright trolling from their talkpages, which I did. Reminding you of the rules is not trolling, so you can't remove that post. Of course, you can't just vandal bin people you don't like either, but that's a very different problem. Now, I continue to await for an apology for you outright ignoring my contributions list and accusing me of things I never did. --Die Züge über alle! 18:17, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Please both be civil. I let you out of the bin, Züge, because I thought Pb overreacted. Obviously there is some animosity between the two of you. I don't care about that. I don't care who started it or who is to blame. Sometimes it's a wise choice to just walk away from a fight and be the saner man. Please act like grownups. Both of you. Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 18:22, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Overreaction is a strong word for "Abused his sysop bit because he thinks with zero proof that I am another user" and the grownup thing to do is call him on it given he has a long history of using his tool incorrectly. Dragging this into the coop would be the immature thing to do. Also, who was not being civil? I clearly was, the only one who has been uncivil is the one who has lied about my contributions, declared he didn't care that he lied, called me a douche for calling him on ignoring the guidelines and then even used sysop powers to improperly punish me. I have been nothing but civil and remain so. --Die Züge über alle! 18:27, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I can understand that you are upset, but I still advise you to stay out of the way of plumbum. It's just not worth getting blocked over. You are out of the bin and you will likely not get an excuse out of him. Further engaging him cannot possibly bring you anything you would want and is likely to be misinterpreted by others. Just leave it be and continue your editing. If and when he bans or bins you again, I will raise the issue myself in the coop. Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 18:54, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Zuge, I have been hostile towards you because I believe you are the maliciously created sockpuppet of a user here who was vandal-binned for edit-warring and colluding with another user who wrongly revealed personal information about another user here, causing that user severe emotional distress. 48 out of your 65 edits are to useless pages like your userpage and user talk page.

But let's assume you aren't a sockpuppet, eh? Even so, You have contributed very little to the wiki in the 2 months since you joined, but you're just about to reach the cusp of 3 months and 75 edits (interesting, you could vote in coop cases then). Compare this to my more-than-a-year history of over 2,000 edits. You, who say you aren't a sockpuppet, come on here knowing that I've abused my sysop and knowing the details of the Community Standards after only 2 months of being here. When called out on it, you engage in turtleshell mode: claiming you have no idea what anyone is talking about, asking who Pizzameister is, and claiming total and absolute innocence whilst making it out as if I'm some evil baddie who's come to cause you pain and misery for no reason other than my own paranoid delusions. Why? PBfreespace (talk) 18:56, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Plumbum, just leave him be. If he is what you claim he is, give him enough rope and he will hang himself. If he isn't, there is no reason for you to get all that upset about it. Just try and stay out of each others way and calm down, please. Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 19:00, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

The funny part being that I have never gotten into Pbs way but he has gone out of his to get in mine repeatedly.--Die Züge über alle! 19:04, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

The community standards are linked on my talkpage and are not very difficult to understand, so 2 months is more than enough time to understand them. Your talkpage aand its archive is public record and easily accessed, and filled with repeated reminders you should stop abusing your sysop bit. That I am almost at the ability to vote in coop cases that get auto-closed is irrelevant.

And I am a sockpuppet, this is true and i did feign ignorance to the situation, but only because you accused me of being the puppet to the wrong master and outright ignored that I had never posted in the coop, repeatedly accusing me of doing so and when you realized that yes, you were an asshole making up shit, declared it didn't matter because I am truly evil and here to get you. If you don't want to be perceived as a evil baddie, you shouldn't blindly accuse people of doing things they have not and then abusing your rights over it. --Die Züge über alle! 19:04, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Listen, I will once more tell you nicely to please leave it be. Plumbum obviously made a mistake. He has not apologized and seems unlikely to do so. What do you hope to gain from further messaging to his talk page? I will unbin you if he bins you again, but only if you leave it be. Even if he is wrong and you are right, you should not engage in this kind of provocation that you know cannot possibly bring any good. Please. Just let this not descend into needless fighting. Just this one time. Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 19:12, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Enough is enough

United we stand, divided we fall. All the best, your friend Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:31, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Just an update: since posting this little notice to your talk page, Typhoon has officially been cooped. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:16, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Explain

Could you explain how this was even remotely helpful towards working together to make this site better? Hipocrite (talk) 21:50, 20 June 2016 (UTC) FLIBBBADIBBADUB WUB WULLLUBAALUBBB!!!!@!@!#!$!%@^$&*%*U PSURG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11!1!!!!1!11!!!!!!!!1!!!111!!11!! FLILILILILILOLOGOGLOLOLOGY!!!!! GFWSGWAREGHRAEVFDAGRAEYHTFRJGFJYTDYHERUTRFESA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Hipocrite is a

Hipocrite is a

Hipocrite is a

Hipocrite is a

Hipocrite is a

Hipocrite is a

Hipocrite is a

Hipocrite is a HYPOCRITE!!!!!!! MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! PBfreespace (talk) 21:54, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

You were looking for "you know what, that was a mistake. Sorry." But, your defensive reaction is as expected as it is repulsive. Hipocrite (talk) 21:55, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure if putting people in opposing camps is a such a good idea, PBfreespace3. Nerd (talk) 00:48, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Yep, you're right. PBfreespace (talk) 00:49, 21 June 2016 (UTC)