User talk:RWRW/Archive1

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 13 May 2019. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page:   , (new)(back)

Topic[edit]

New logo large.png Your welcome to RationalWiki is lukewarm at best, RWRW.

This observation is due to the nature of your initial edits. Pull up a goat and try not to make trouble.

We realize it is possible that you do not understand the nature of the site or our objectives.

Please see our guide for newcomers and our community standards to clarify things for you.

If you're still interested in contributing, please see what our articles are intended to be.

Why is UKIP not batshit crazy? Christopher (talk) 17:29, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

More importantly, how are they not homophobic, and how is it small-minded to note their members promoting homophobia? oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 17:31, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
So you classify UKIP as homophobic, but Islam isn't in that category. --Right-wing RationalWiki (talk) 17:33, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Contrary to popular belief, not all Muslims follow the Qur'an. Just like not all Christians follow the Bible. Christopher (talk) 17:35, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I disagreed and added homophobia and sexism to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 17:39, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I think that was a bad idea, it implies the vast majority of Jews/Christians/Muslims are sexist homophobes which, unless you've got data, is clearly bullshit. Christopher (talk) 18:10, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
I think there's a strong case that Judaism/Christianity/Islam helps strengthen sexism and homophobia among Jews/Christians/Muslims. Historically, certainly, Judaism/Christianity/Islam have each been used to justify sexist regimes. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 18:25, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Saying that "Oh, but Islam isn't categorized as X" isn't really a refutation even without FuzzyCatPotato's edits. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 18:49, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Who cares about what happened historically? Surely modern religious attitudes to subject X are what matters. Christopher (talk) 18:51, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
I repeat: I think there's a strong case that Judaism/Christianity/Islam helps strengthen sexism and homophobia among Jews/Christians/Muslims. FuzzyCatPotato of the Pyrrhic Scrolls (talk/stalk) 22:13, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
I can tell our friend Christopher has never visited a Muslim country, or even looked at the surveys regarding the attitudes of Muslims in the west actually...I really don't know where Christopher gets his ideas. Lord Aeonian (talk) 00:58, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

You've been removed from the vandalism bin[edit]

Typical leftists -- suppressing your free speech one moment and then wholeheartedly giving it all back the next. FuzzyCatPotato of the Tense Wieners (talk/stalk) 13:35, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

FREEDOM!!! Thank you, FuzzyCatPotato. Don't worry - I know you're not a smelly lefty like the others. You're clearly a proud, upright conservative! --Right-wing RationalWiki (talk) 14:12, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Actually 'twas I that removed you from the vandal bin (proof) and I'm certainly not a conservative. Christopher (talk) 14:15, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't believe you. Spread your two right wings and fly, Christopher!--Right-wing RationalWiki (talk) 15:11, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
There aren't many right wing supporters of Jeremy Corbyn, I'd wager. Christopher (talk) 15:18, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
A Jezza fan? Really? Don't you realise that the country needs strong and stable leadership in the national interest? --Right-wing RationalWiki (talk) 21:16, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I cry liberal tears for my failed attempt to censor. Forgive me. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 06:19, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I wonder how many liberal tears you cryed after Trunp's glorious election victory... --Right-wing RationalWiki (talk) 13:55, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
2.9 million -- one for each popular vote. FuzzyCatPotato of the Common Universitys (talk/stalk) 14:01, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I see Joris has censored you again with a 3.6 day ban for repeatedly removing loads of content from a page you pretended not to didn't like and justifying the removal with ad hominems the thoughtcrime of not being a CNN loving communist. Christopher (talk) 16:02, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring[edit]

Stop. Edit warring for the purpose of parodying wingnuts (it's fairly obvious that's what you're doing) is still edit warring. Christopher (talk) 20:45, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

That article looks like it has been written by the left wing, remoaning students that haunt Twitter (most of whom do nothing but complain about the result yet couldn't be bothered to vote!). I was just cleaning the article up. And I am not a parody, my Jezza lovin' friend. Read my user page to see what I'm all about. Make RationalWiki Great Again! --Right-wing RationalWiki (talk) 21:39, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
By your standards we've never been great, RW was always left leaning. Who are you a sock of? Christopher (talk) 09:20, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Me? A sock? What a preposterous allegation! --Right-wing RationalWiki (talk) 14:22, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

When I saw your account being created[edit]

I thought you were a communist coming to accuse us of right wing bias, maybe try that next time? Christopher (talk) 09:31, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Trump>Reagan?[edit]

I thought that was heresy in your circles. RoninMacbeth (talk) 00:27, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

RWRW here probably didn't know that, seeing as he isn't actually right wing. Christopher (talk) 07:31, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Good to see you back[edit]

We’ve had an unfortunate lack of transparent yet still mildly amusing parodists lately. Christopher (talk) 19:59, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Huh. You promised to run for mod, yet didn't. MC also did that. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 00:15, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, its good to be back.--Right-wing RationalWiki (talk) 11:57, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
That might have something to do with the promise to run coming after the moderator elections. Christopher (talk) 12:08, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Multipoll[edit]

If you’re going to add a new option to a multipoll, add it at the end, otherwise it messes up voting. Christopher (talk) 16:42, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

You're a deep cover liberal![edit]

Only a liberal would create such a dumb party! A real conservative would make a much better party!-💠💿☝️ (talk) 06:24, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

You’re mistaken, my party will stand the rest of time and become very successful.—Right-wing RationalWiki (talk) 13:35, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
With one member? Hahaha. The silent conservative majority can see through that.-💠💿☝️ (talk) 07:43, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Haven't you ever heard of the Shy Conservative factor? I have heaps of supporters out there, they're are just not willing to declare their support publicly because of the likely discrimination they would receive from raging lefties such as yourself. --Right-wing RationalWiki (talk) 00:20, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
You can't have the shadow people on your side, because we've confirmed through extensive audio monitoring that they all support The People's Democratic Republican Party of Freedom! Spriggina (xerrada) (contribucions) @ 00:48, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Support for this rival party will dwindle when people realise its full of hot air and no ideas. --Right-wing RationalWiki (talk) 15:44, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Ironically, the same applies to yours. Spriggina (xerrada) (contribucions) @ 16:43, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Stop reverting talk page comments[edit]

You shouldn't revert talk page comments unless there is a good reason, such as doxing, harassment or spam. Please stop reverting RoninMacbeth's comment. CowHouse (talk) 16:10, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I didn't particularly care that he reverted my changes. Might even have been for the best. RoninMacbeth (talk) 16:18, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
As you can see, user:CowHouse, I have left the silly comment on the talk page. --Right-wing RationalWiki (talk) 17:00, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Harassment[edit]

I think you're getting close to harassment with this posting.[1] My advice to you is cut it out and try and be civil even if you disagree with someone. I actually think you're correct about retaining the page the way that you edited it (despite my previous reversion), but your posting to @BabyLuigiOnFire was uncalled for. Bongolian (talk) 03:02, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Also, I don't really care if you're a parodist: edit warring is unacceptable in any shape or form. БaбyЛuigiOнФire(T|C) 03:23, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
You're right, I did go over the top. --Right-wing RationalWiki (talk) 12:36, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Recent troble[edit]

What were you referring to? I’m fine with not being a member of your party, just curious. Christopher (talk) 20:40, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I was referring to the edit disputes on the Party's talk page. Don't take it personally but I suspect there is a left-wing conspiracy to take control of the Party so I need to be extra careful with who's allowed to join. --Right-wing RationalWiki (talk) 22:21, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Psst, buddy, I'm actually a shy conservative. I'm a member of the People's Republican Democratic Party of Freedom, but I'm actually a double agent. I'll secretly join your party and use my sysop position to get it instituted and turn this wiki into a good, non-leftist cuck one! You in? Spriggina (xerrada) (contribucions) @ 22:27, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Wait...you're shy?Ariel31459 (talk) 22:33, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Go away, I'm having a private conversation! Spriggina (xerrada) (contribucions) @ 01:37, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Don't bother being careful: the deep-state liberal Rationalwikiwikiwiki cabal is already running things on Right-wing RationalWiki. Bongolian (talk) 05:31, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

You see, this is the suspicious and fishy activity that threatens my Party. And what is Rationalwikiwikiwiki?--Right-wing RationalWiki (talk) 11:11, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Apparently you are part of the cabal. It is time to call the secret police and have you arrested! Bongolian (talk) 18:09, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Left wing censorship!!!!!!!!!!!!--Right-wing RationalWiki (talk) 22:30, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Why haven't you responded to my secret message yet? I would be a very useful asset to your party! Spriggina (xerrada) (contribucions) @ 18:14, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
You would be a useful asset if you was genuine. I suspect you are involved in the plot to bring down my Party, most likely because this Wiki's left-wing leadership sees the movement I have started as a threat. --Right-wing RationalWiki (talk) 22:30, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Rival[edit]

You have a rival now. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 20:22, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Excellent, I look forward to facing you at the ballet ballot box. We'll have to have a candidates debate. --Right-wing RationalWiki (talk) 23:35, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Given the above statement, I think you should face off against Grammar Commie 😉.Bongolian (talk) 01:20, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
My little sister used to do ballet too. She could give you some pointers if you'd like! Spriggina (xerrada) (contribucions) @ 02:06, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Hilarious, but it shall be me and my supporters who get the last laugh once we've rid this wiki of your leftist ideology. --Right-wing RationalWiki (talk) 15:23, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
@Right-wing RationalWiki It's " candidates' " not "candidates". ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 15:39, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Atheistic British troll[edit]

I have suspicions that you are not a true conservative, and instead an atheistic British troll from the site that must not be named. This is based on your mispeling of "encyclopEdia" as "encyclopAEdia." Please adjust this or I will be forced to block you. Godspeed. --Aschlafly (talk) 23:27, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

You are right about me being British but I'm afraid I will have to disappoint you because I don't know anything about an atheistic troll from "the sight that must not be named" --Right-wing RationalWiki (talk) 23:52, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Liar, there are no Christian Conservative British people and I thought anoher sysop had banned the UK anyway. Godspeed, --Aschlafly (talk) 00:01, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Ha ha, there is in fact a thriving community of us --Right-wing RationalWiki (talk) 10:22, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Archive[edit]

I'm guessing it's because the page is a subpage of another. I didn't write talkpage though, and it's pretty long so I can't really be bothered right now. —Kazitor, pending 10:33, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah it was a nuisance trying to sort out so I'll probably just use manual archiving. --Right-wing RationalWiki (talk) 10:45, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Had a look, it's this: {{#vardefine:inArc|{{#ifeq:{{SUBPAGENAME}}|{{PAGENAME}}|0|1}}}}. I was right, subpagename becomes "Conservatives and Right-wingers alliance" but pagename is "Right-wing RationalWiki/Conservatives and Right-wingers alliance". I'm not entirely sure how to fix it, but if I do work it out I shall. In the mean time you get a search box. —Kazitor, pending 10:48, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Well, thank you very much for all this assistance :) --Right-wing RationalWiki (talk) 11:03, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

How do I join your party?[edit]

Hello, I am interested in joining the conservative alliance you have created. How can I get in? (By the way, ignore the liberal troll above pretending to be me) Godspeed, --Andrew L Schlafly.svg Andy Schlafly (talk) 03:07, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I mean you can just add your name to the membership list but I won't lie I am sceptical you are who you claim to be. --Right-wing RationalWiki (talk) 09:12, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
It's not Andy. —Kazitor, pending 09:14, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Really dude[edit]

What you're doing used to be funny but now it's just sad. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 03:31, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

What I'm doing was never intended to be funny, I'm here to save RationalWiki form itself. You can either be a part of this wave or you can get washed away.--Right-wing RationalWiki (talk) 11:44, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

You Know...[edit]

If you really want a good opinion measurement, you're probably going to have to make it a bit more complicated than a Saloon Bar poll, what with Voluntary Response Bias and Undercoverage and all that. My best bet would be to find a list of all eligible voters (assuming eligibility at this date), narrow it down to people who would plausibly be voting (i.e., people who have edited the wiki in the past few weeks or months, depending on how far back you want to go), numbering them from 1-N where "N" is the population of eligible likely voters, and then randomly selecting 30 or so of them, if possible, but while making sure that your sample size is no more than 10% of N. RoninMacbeth (talk) 16:55, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Haha, I'm not sure its worth putting that much effort in. Besides, some lefty took it upon themselves to remove my poll anyway. --Right-wing RationalWiki (talk) 18:13, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
What are you talking about? The poll is still there. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:17, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
It is collapsed with the caption DFTT. I rather like making polls so I'll probably display them on my userpage instead in the future. --Right-wing RationalWiki (talk) 18:26, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Folks who opposed my Sysop application... if you're reading this[edit]

[2] I ask that you all refrain from communicating with me in any way. By putting your own dislike for my above the interests of this Wiki you have shown your true colours. I wish to have no communication with any of you. --Right-wing RationalWiki (talk) 02:02, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Quit throwing a tantrum like a bratty child, it only reinforces the opinion that you should not be given further privileges, and is part of why you do not possess them to begin with. If you don't want to start over form square one, fine. But you should dump the baggage that's holding you back, Conservative opinions are fine, Libertarian opinions are fine. Stating that you wish to turn this site into a clone of one of the worst wikis on the internet, that many Conservative pundits and politicians expressed unease and distaste for, yeah, that isn't going to win you many friends. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 02:09, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree, personally I don't have a firm stance in politics, I disagree with both sides, but the way you are acting is going to make them not want to make you one any better. Matter of fact I felt like going from neutral to no just now. If you let something as small as this bug you that much then you are not fit to be a Sysop.King TempestRimuru Slime.png 02:16, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Will you at least unblock me?--Right-wing RationalWiki (talk) 02:20, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

So I want to withdraw my request yet you've blocked me and PEOPLE ARE STILL COMMENTING ON IT! Just let the humiliation STOP! --Right-wing RationalWiki (talk) 02:12, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Application[edit]

I withdrew it for you. RoninMacbeth (talk) 02:28, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks.--Right-wing RationalWiki (talk) 02:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Check the block log[edit]

If you would calm down for a bit you might noticed that you've been unblocked, and by a surprising (at least to you) source. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 02:28, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I did notice, was it your attempt to apologise for the public humiliation? --Right-wing RationalWiki (talk) 02:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
No, that was me removing an excessively long block for a relatively minor dispute. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 02:45, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Autopatrolled[edit]

You have been autopatrolled. This allows you to bypass CAPTCHA and means that your edits no longer show up on the RC feed with the red exclamation mark. Use it well. RoninMacbeth (talk) 02:51, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I guess there are some decent users in this place. Still are you sure? Have you checked with GrammarCommie, LeftyGreenMario, CheeseburgerFace and the other scumbags that I wont abuse this powerful new user right? --Right-wing RationalWiki (talk) 07:52, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Well, it's pretty difficult to "abuse," and people can still check your edits, but being autopatrolled is at least a sign of...legitimacy, I guess? Oh, and I did check with GrammarCommie, and he agrees with the reasoning. RoninMacbeth (talk) 13:02, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
I have no objection to this. Bongolian (talk) 16:57, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Message from the RationalWiki Ministry of Demotion and Personal Impediment[edit]

Dear RWRW,

We regret to inform you that you have been demoted to the rank of sysop. You have been granted a mop and bucket for the purposes of cleaning up the mess around here.

No questions are allowed. If you have any further questions, (further questions are permissible) please refer to the enclosed pamphlet So you are now a sysop.

At your leisure, please go to the dungeon Room 202 to see the reward mops and hammers you can work towards having!

Shhh! Don't tell anyone! —Kazitor, pending 10:18, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

@Kazitor: Seriously?????—(((CheeseburgerFace))) Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 11:38, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
But we've settled it in RationalWiki:Requests for user rights. WTF are you doing, Kazitor? --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 00:51, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
I've thought about it, but yeah, no. You're going into sysoprevoke until the mob agrees you get your sysop powers. Make good edits and I will reconsider. If you want it, you have got to earn it. Your recent edit history hasn't been that impressive. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 01:06, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
You got it back per community consensus. I may have been the minority opinion, but you can change my mind. Use it wisely. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 06:42, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

POWER --RWRW (talk) 12:38, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh no, I'm so scared. please don't block me! — Saj 00:43, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Coop[edit]

A case involving you has been raised at the Chicken Coop. Feel free to comment.— Unsigned, by: --san / talk / contribs

Recent saloon bar discussion[edit]

Rainbow trout transparent.png Whack!
You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Somebody just wants to let you know you did something silly.

--It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 18:56, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Awwww, did you really think what I said was that laughable? :( Like did I say anything to turn you to the 'right' way of looking at things? --RWRW (talk) 19:48, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

for deleting the spam and blocking the spammer. —ClickerClock💾 talk.txt 12:17, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

No problem :) --RWRW (talk) 13:11, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello[edit]

How much do you know about the House of Lords? Because the current article's a mess. RoninMacbeth (talk) 18:54, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Admittedly I don't know a great deal about the House of Lords (I've always been more interested in the HoC) but I'll try and take a look tomorrow. --RWRW (talk) 20:07, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Elections[edit]

You've been nominated to the RationalMedia Foundation election. Please accept or decline; if you accept, you may wish to campaign. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 19:10, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm very grateful for your nomination and, whilst I'm confident I could win, I am still undecided on whether to run. Like the others I will take some time to consider it. Thanks again though! --RWRW (talk) 21:09, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Remember it's just your name on an IRS form, writing some emails, and about 8 hours of internet conferencing spread out over two years. — Dysk (contribs) 23:58, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
That doesn't seem unreasonable. I'll give it some thought. --RWRW (talk) 10:08, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
With regret I have decided to decline my nomination, in favour of a couple of other candidates who I hope will win. That being said I can confirm that I will defiantly stand as a candidate in the 2018 moderator elections, and I will strongly consider standing as a candidate in next years trustee election. The battle to make RationalWiki Great Again continues! Regards, --RWRW (talk) 17:56, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

So wait...[edit]

The coop case concluded with no consensus for a ban, does that mean I can nominate User:Π‎ to the board? What a Wonderful World (talk) 18:04, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Peeking in here, but if you don't want to furthermore make Bongolian distrust you and prove his point, then you should be focused on staying out the elections. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 18:20, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
It isn't often LGM and I are on the same page, but here I think she is right. There isn't any formal restriction on you nominating anyone, but given the recent drama it is probably wise to stay away from the election. Anyway User:Π‎ can always do a self-nom if they like. --RWRW (talk) 18:32, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
You can try to suggest a self-nomination, that might raise less eyebrows. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 18:38, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
I was naughty, I voiced my opinion of David Gerard. But I dislike that guy so much from Wikipedia that I couldn't not say something. What a Wonderful World (talk) 22:10, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Probably not advisable but oh well. --RWRW (talk) 10:08, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Whats wrong with David Gerard? — Dysk (contribs) 20:06, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Well, some people think that he can be a bit brash, uncompromising, a bit arrogant sometimes. My sole problem with him is his general undiplomatic attitude towards editing disputes and internal conflicts, which is why I can kind of see WWW's point about him "being an ass," but most experiences I've had with him were at worst neutral. RoninMacbeth (talk) 23:07, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
For what its worth I don't t think I've ever had any interaction with David Gerard, so whatever WWW was against him has nothing to do with me. --RWRW (talk) 10:27, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Politics[edit]

I consider your political views quite curious, most Trump supporters I meet are either idiots or pricks, and the two aren't mutually exclusive, and yet you are quite civil, not at all brash or rude, and seem like someone I'd like to have a beer with if we ever met in person, and discuss our views on politics. Then again stereotypes are (mostly) false for a reason, because you can't generalize people. Why do you support Trump, specifically? Me, I can't stand him. I think he's ruining our country (well, you're British, I`m not, so maybe my country), he's ruined our international reputation, disregarded our allies, is tanking our economy and may have sealed civilization's fate with his ignoring of climate change. Not to mention his undermining of American democracy, sleazy personality, horrible business acumen etc etc etc. But what makes him appeal to you? I would be interested to find out. Respectfully, Palaeonictis.--Palaeonictis (talk) 14:10, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

That’s an interesting question, @Palaeonictis, and I’ll happily answer it. Firstly, I think it is important to note that I haven’t always been keen on Trump. Like most people I didn’t take his candidacy very seriously and thought of him as a bit of a joke candidate. Even after he won his Party’s nomination I was still sceptical and its possible that I would have voted for Gary Johnson if I was a US citizen. Despite this, I have come to like him and I hope he is re-elected in 2020. There are quite a few reasons for this. There are the obvious conservative reasons for supporting him (lowering taxes, less business regulations, strong boarders and so on). I would also disagree that he is ruining your countries international reputation. I thought it was pretty admirable the way he stood up to NATO members who weren’t paying their fair share. I also like how unorthodox and anti-establishment he is. Unlike most politicians he isn’t in the pockets of big businesses and donors.
I wrote an essay detailing some of my reasons for supporting him. It was poorly received by some of the other users here but I stand by what I wrote.
As I’ve said before I don’t worship him and I acknowledge he has his flaws. His use of Twitter to insult people is questionable and I don’t believe him when he says he’s a Christian. I also believe in climate change so I agree that his response to it is regrettable (but that isn’t really just a Trump problem, it’s a problem with conservatives in general).
As you said I do try to be civil. Most of my friends are either left-wingers or they don’t care about politics at all. One of my best friends is a Jeremy Corbyn loving, anti-monarchist, socialist – with a fondness for mocking Christianity. He stands for pretty much everything I oppose!
Sorry about the wall of text reply but I hope that answers your questions. --RWRW (talk) 15:38, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
They absolutely are an idiot, pretty consistently though. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:58, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Oh well. At least I'm consistent. --RWRW (talk) 23:36, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Consistently supporting fascistic tendencies is not a positive trait, RWRW. What you wrote in your essay is fallacious, and reminiscent of the fallacious argument that Mussolini made the trains run on time, one that I've heard from one of my in-laws no less. Arugmentum ad Mussolini, it goes like this: Mussolini convinced me (rightly or wrongly) that he saved me a buck or saved me 5 minutes, therefore every crime that Mussolini committed doesn't matter. Alternately, it is a form of privilege, privus lex, that rich or powerful people should not be punished for crimes unless it affects other rich or powerful people.
  • In the case of Mussolini, he did not make the trains run on time.[3] Sane people only remember him for his criminality: Libyan genocide, war of aggression against Ethiopia, enacting racial laws against Italy's Jewish population.
  • In the case of Trump, among his many other crimes, he ordered the commission of crimes against humanity.[4]. That is what sane people will remember him for,[5] not his false claims that he saved Joe Sixpack a buck (when he actually saved the members of the oligarchy a small fortune each).
Bongolian (talk) 02:39, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
I certainly haven't supported any fascistic tendencies. Like many people, members of my family joined the fight against Hitler and fascism. And like many, not all of them came home. I wouldn't dream of dishonouring my family and supporting the thing they fought against.
Now I am happy to admit Trump's handling of the family separations was sloppy. It should never have happened. I don't blindly follow everything Trump says, and I think Trump himself regrets what happened. Even still it wasn't a crime against humanity. --RWRW (talk) 10:05, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
1) You're being myopic with regard to Trump by ignoring his love of dictators and his own strong dictatorial tendencies. 2) At best, you would be nitpicking about whether Trump's child separation policy was a crime against humanity, at worst you're turning a blind eye to the immoral criminality of the Trump administration.[6][7] Fascism didn't end with WWII. Bongolian (talk) 20:02, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't think he loves dictators, he just recognises the world is safer if he maintains a working relationship with them. These dictators aren't going away any time soon so its better to have a working relationship with them rather than risk starting war. Obama and all other Western leaders recognise this. And just because the liberal New York Times called Trump a fascist, it doesn't mean he actually is one. --RWRW (talk) 17:24, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Does the word appeasement sound familiar to you? "To an ethically challenged businessman, that may be nothing but common sense. To a patriot, the argument is self-evidently misbegotten. If the United States is willing to sacrifice its moral standing for $110 billion (most of which will never materialize, but never mind that), why should any nation ever look to it for leadership?"[8][9] Bongolian (talk) 19:52, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't have any love for Saudi Arabia. They are the true perpetrators of crimes against humanity, not Trump. But the responses in the article (weirdly I could only open the first link, the second one wouldn't open) makes a valid point. If the US turns away from Saudi Arabia, it will simply turn to Russia. --RWRW (talk) 13:22, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
This link might work for the second one.[10] If not, you can try the Brookings Institution,[11] for a similar analysis. The Saudi arms sales are essentially fake, since there's been no arms agreement after many month. The "deals" were designed by the Saudis to deceive someone that they knew was an avid consumer of fake news. Thanks for confirming where your moral position is. Bongolian (talk) 15:40, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Deals with countries like Saudi Arabia are always going to be controversial and I have never been completely easy with it. For example I think Trump is completely wrong to try and distance them from Khashoggi's disappearance. In an ideal world, Saudi Arabia would be a flourishing democracy like my country and yours. But it isn't an ideal world. I think your being slightly melodramatic by saying that this confirms my moral position (which I assume you meant in a negative way). --RWRW (talk) 01:14, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

The European Union[edit]

As you say you will write an essay on the topic

It is 60+ years old, was created to suit 6 members (and possibly Andorra, Monaco and San Marino), in the post-WWII Cold War world where there were still colonial empires - exemplified by the Hungary Uprising and the Suez Crisis and with the possibility of food shortages etc. With a large increase in members and the end of both the Cold War and conventional Empires it needs to be taken apart, rearranged completely and put back together again, keeping the practical aspects (so eg pharmaceuticals are the same wherever you buy them).

Thoughts on this viewpoint? Anna Livia (talk) 16:10, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I think you're right about the formation on the EU. In many ways I think the European Community started out with great intentions and voting to join it in 1975 may have been the right thing to do at the time. The problem is what the EU has become. The original founders of the EU would probably be horrified if they could see it in its present state. But the thing is the viewpoint of completely rearranging the EU will never happen, the unelected bureaucrats love their power so much and would never allow things to change. --RWRW (talk) 19:40, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Civility[edit]

So, what are your thoughts on the whole "no personal attacks" / "civility rule" thing? RoninMacbeth (talk) 17:00, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of blocking people for being rude to other users. If somebody says something rude then its normally best to try and ignore it (the insults normally speak more about the person saying them rather than the person receiving them). However, if somebody created an account purely to insult and harass other users then I'd support blocking. --RWRW (talk) 17:10, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Your Old Party[edit]

I'm sorry about when I tried to overthrow your party a few months ago. Just thought you should know that. RoninMacbeth (talk) 05:54, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Your treachery hasn't been forgotten No matter, all's fair in love and politics. --RWRW (talk) 11:39, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
I recommend we send @RoninMacbeth to the gallows for treason, if the totally-not-plotting-to-stab-you-in-the-back advisor can be trusted.--Don Juan (talk) 13:57, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Appointed as moderator[edit]

Per RationalWiki:Moderator_elections/Results#Final_results, you have been appointed as moderator. I hope you do a good job. Obviously you will have everyone on the wiki cross-examining your every comment looking for flaws, but don't let this bring you down. Have fun! — Dysk (contribs) 13:09, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, and thanks to those who voted for me. I hope I'll do a good job too. That's ok, scrutiny of those in authority is important so I can live with that. You never know, I may even be able to win over some of my critics - stranger things have happened! --RWRW (talk) 15:02, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Congratulations on your win. RoninMacbeth (talk) 16:18, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. Congratulations on your win too! --RWRW (talk) 17:22, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
So what are you going to do? Help me slap up the two lovers Lankaster and James Earl Cash a bit? --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 17:01, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
I’m happy to try and help out there if I can, and in any other disputes that may emerge. --RWRW (talk) 17:22, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
So this is what happens when I don't go on RW for a week. (To be fair I wasn't eligible to vote...) Anyway, all I can say is: good luck. You’ll need it. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 03:30, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Aye, the next time you return from a hiatus I'll be the Wiki's Overlord :p Thanks though. I appreciate it. --RWRW (talk) 12:30, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
So should we all swear fealty to the Lords of RationalWiki, the Mods? Then again, I`m a Tech, so.... Maybe the Mods should be declaring us Techies Royalty, if they're the Lords. I`m glad we came up with a working arrangement, Techs are the Kings, and everyone else is a peasant.--Don Juan (talk) 13:54, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
I don't know, I think I like the idea of swearing fealty to Mods better.--RWRW (talk) 14:39, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
I thought everyone was supposed to swear fealty to the board? — Dysk (contribs) 14:41, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Techs are the ones who keep this site running smoothly, I vote for an oath of fealty to us almighty techs.--Don Juan (talk) 14:42, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Think you'll like this[edit]

Ɖøn Ĵuan (talk) 16:31, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Ha ha, I do like it. It depicts Hillary pretty accurately too. --RWRW (talk) 01:08, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Try not to be too obvious in your support.[edit]

It's a good idea to wait until you see someone's initial few edits before welcoming them. The new person could be a shitty editor even if you think you agree with them politically. Bongolian (talk) 01:14, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

The Libertarian Article[edit]

How do you feel about the article Rational Wiki has on Libertarians? Commie Lib (talk) 01:05, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Don't go stirring shit up now. The article we have is perfectly fine. Ɖøn Ĵuan Harass 01:20, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
It's unlikely that RWRW's going to do anything since he's loathe to edit mainspace articles at least for now when he knows he's in the minority. Bongolian (talk) 01:49, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
OK, I just wanted to know because they are a libertarian. Commie Lib (talk) 02:35, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
@Tabula Rasa and @Don Juan actually I don't mind the article. Its criticisms are fair, and it gives Libertarianism a fair hearing (perhaps more so than it does to Conservatism). I am unconvinced with the 'Left-libertarianism' section though. For me it seems contradictory for someone to be left-wing and libertarian and the term 'libertarian socialists' is an oxymoron.
@Bongolian will a day ever come when I'm not in the minority here? --RWRW (talk) 13:41, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
@RWRW That honestly surprises me. I guess the lesson here is "don't judge a book by its cover", eh? Ɖøn Ĵuan Harass 15:45, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
I didn't find it very bad ether I just wanted to know how a libertarian felt about it. Commie Lib (talk) 17:01, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────The day will come when my suspicions are confirmed. While we're at it, why don't you give a critique of the libertarian paradise page? Bongolian (talk) 18:37, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

May I ask what suspicions you have? Sure. It contains a list of clumsy implantations of certain libertarian ideals. Unlike communism, libertarianism has never been established large-scale. If more libertarian principles were implemented in the UK (especially after Brexit when we aren't being governed by unaccountable Eurocrats) I'm convinced it would be a success. --RWRW (talk) 23:47, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
My suspicions continue to be due to the January 2018 edit of your homepage, whose history continues to be hidden. You could of course do some substantive edits of mainspace pages, which might either confirm or refute my suspicions. Bongolian (talk) 00:30, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Believe it or not, I was actually thinking of dabbling in content creation at some point. Not long ago I watched a document on Vichy France and I got quite interested in the topic. I noticed that Philippe Pétain doesn't have a RW page whilst other notorious collaborators do. --RWRW (talk) 01:29, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
OK, that would be good to see. I recently saw Marcel Ophüls' The Sorrow and the Pity,Wikipedia's W.svg which was quite good. Bongolian (talk) 03:41, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Also, you didn't respond to my question regarding libertarian paradise. Do you even read RW mainspace pages? Since you generally don't edit them, I can't tell if you even read them. Did you read my page on the famous British MP? Bongolian (talk) 17:31, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
I did make a comment on it, but admittedly I only had time to skim read it. Yeah I read mainspace pages, mainly on stuff I have interest in (e.g political or historical stuff). I haven't read much on the scientific pages because I have little knowledge or interest in it. Which MP is it? --RWRW (talk) 21:05, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Ignaz Trebitsch Lincoln. Bongolian (talk) 23:42, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Huh. I have to say I had never heard of him, but he seems quite fascinating. I'm surprised I hadn't heard of him before. --RWRW (talk) 00:42, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Look in the mirror of Trebitsch and tell me who you see. If you see nothing, it's time to panic. Bongolian (talk) 00:58, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm sure I don't know what's being implied here... --RWRW (talk) 01:08, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm not trying to imply that you'll see yourself in Trebitsch, rather one can see aspects of his extreme behavior in other people. Bongolian (talk) 02:23, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
A liberal and a con artist. I can think of a couple of people. --RWRW (talk) 12:54, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Tony was a conniving sack of shit, but then again, if recent evidence is anything to indicate (*cough*the Mueller probe*cough*), so is Trump. Ɖøn Ĵuan Harass 12:57, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Blair was sleazy as hell, but he was damn persuasive when he needed to be. He's like that salesman on Family Guy who always convinced Peter to buy his broken/useless products. --RWRW (talk) 13:09, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Did I just catch you insulting the British public by comparing them to Peter Griffin? Nice. Ɖøn Ĵuan Harass 13:28, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
It was more of a complement to Blair's powers of persuasion and cunning. He was able to get re-elected after the Iraq War too, and the War was probably more unpopular in this country than it was in the US! --RWRW (talk) 13:46, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Holy shit, now that takes talent. Ɖøn Ĵuan Harass 13:47, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────If you view Trebitsch simply as a liberal because of his election as MP, you're lenses are broken. How do you explain his active participation in the Kapp Putsch and the White International? Do you think those were liberal plots? Bongolian (talk) 01:55, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Not really, it was more of a cheap dig at Blair and Clinton than something I actually believe. I view them as far-right plots like everyone else. --RWRW (talk) 02:26, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Commons Vote[edit]

So I'm thinking May is toast, yeah? Pizza SLICE.gifDuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 20:18, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Certainly seems to be. Even I was surprised by the scale of the defeat, I expected it to be by around 100 votes. --RWRW (talk) 20:26, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
She was already 'toast'. no one expected her to be there after next election, but there no guarantee she will lose a no confidence vote. how sure do think tories are of their seats, and many brexiters you think want to trust it to a labour government? AMassiveGay (talk) 21:12, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
and sure do you think unionists will be of a chance to influence government as they do now the current situation? AMassiveGay (talk) 21:13, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Worst defeat for 95 years! Toast!! Toast for sure! hashtag #NoConfidence. — Dysk (contribs) 21:40, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
The government will likely win the confidence vote (DUP/Conservative MPs voting for no confidence is like turkeys voting for Christmas). But May has utterly humiliated herself here, she’s lost any remaining authority she had. If she has dignity she’ll resign tomorrow. —RWRW (talk) 22:20, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
in the real world where your notion of dignity is meaningless piss, nothing would have changed except we move closer to a catastrophic brexit while the pricks responsible bicker over which windmill to tilt at next. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:05, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────So RWRW, do you think people have any inalienable rights at all, or that they only have the rights that they can afford to pay for? Bongolian (talk) 05:43, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Of course money isn't always needed for rights. For example in the UK everyone has the right to free health care, and despite the humongous cost to the Treasury, I think it is fantastic (its quite possibly the only 'socialist' thing I support). Obviously for things like the right to own private property, it is necessary for the individual to be able to pay for it. --RWRW (talk) 15:53, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
you are in the uk, yes? whats your libertarian view on the uk housing crisis, where it not abotaright to 'own' property itsa bout a right to be house at all.
and if you ar so keen on the nhs, as any right mined person should, are you not all worried that brexit is going kill it dead? it dependant on european staff, and is all ready in the midst of a staffing crisis and deliberately underfunded. do you think it any surprise that so many brexiters loathe it? AMassiveGay (talk) 01:22, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Yeah I'm I the UK. We have a massively growing population and our infrastructure cannot keep up. Cutting immigration after Brexit would help somewhat. I advocate construction on brownfield sites. Near where I live there are office buildings that haven't been used in years, perfect for apartments! Interestingly some people actually voted to leave specifically to see house prices fall.
No, and it would be political suicide for any government to let the NHS die. And we should still encourage Europeans to work for the NHS. Despite it being a Guardian piece, I think this article has several good points on easing the financial strain on the NHS(I especially agree with points 1,2,4 and 6) --RWRW (talk) 13:59, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
infrastructure cant keep up due government policy. housing is short because of the council housing sell off in the 80s and successive governments doing fuck all to replace them. every government talks about providing more houses but they all fail to meet targets. private investment have continually dodged commitments for affordable housing. austerity leaving all services chronically underfunded.
cameron et al also directly responsible - it made the remain argument so much weaker becasue of it.
as for the nhs, they have been letting it die for years. deliberate under funding by the very architects of brexit. look the people involved with brexit - dominic raab, michael gove, rhys-moog, too name but a few - look at their views on the nhs. they are vermin. a hard brexit makes their dreams come true. we cant encourage europeans to staff the nhs when we have pointedly told them all to fuck off - and guess what, they are too. hows that going to help an already existing staffing crisis.
the article you povided (fake news? fuck off you fucking gobshite) - sticking plasters, particularly the points you single out, while the notion of competition in the nhs has been a damaging farce everywhere its been tried. its detached from reality as is your belief that brexit will be anything other than an unmitigated disaster, only this time we wont be able pin it on immigrants quite so easily.
the nhs will struggle to survive post brexit. the economy wil take a hit. we gain nothing from brexit. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:32, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
It almost doesn't matter what Mogg or Gove thinks about the NHS, neither of them will become PM. A majority of Tory MPs and the overwhelming majority of the public know the NHS is great, hard Brexit or not it will survive. Sure, I suspect the economy will take a short-term hit. The markets are always unstable and the fear whipped up by the media will likely play into this, but in the long term we will be fine. --RWRW (talk) 14:52, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────OK, since you agree that people have fundamental non-fungible rights, do you think that it's reasonable to have a simple majority vote determine whether or not people should continue to have those rights? Bongolian (talk) 00:48, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

No, I don't think fundamental rights should be given or taken by majority votes. They should (and are) set in stone. --RWRW (talk) 14:52, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
That's great to hear, but you did vote to remove fundamental human rights from your fellow citizens when you voted for Brexit.[12][13] There is no guarantee that those rights will ever be restored if the UK does go through with Brexit. Bongolian (talk) 18:51, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm no legal expert, but the points in the EU Charter all already exist in UK law (and did so long before the Charter was signed). It makes perfect sense to sever ourselves from EU laws wherever possible and, as one of the oldest Parliamentary democracies, rely on our own sovereign laws. --RWRW (talk) 19:31, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm no expert on UK politics, but that doesn't seem to be the consensus view. You're actually the first person I've heard to express that view. I heard a BBC radio panel presentation on Brexit recently, and one of the members indicated that Brexit would eliminate human rights and no one disputed that. What do you think, @AMassiveGay? Bongolian (talk) 19:38, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
The people opposing it are mainly Labour or Lib Dem and they will try and to discredit Brexit in any way possible. The Charter was signed in 2000, its nonsense to believe we had no rights before this. --RWRW (talk) 19:52, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
my god you are just delusional. look again at the people pushing brexit - they make no secret of the utter contempt they have for british people, they make no secret of the wish to see all kinds of rights removed. does it not occur to you thats the end game for these fuckwits? a tanking economy will make it so much easier for them to fuck us, and they wont have to worry about pesky eu regulation. that ignores the fact that so many workers rights are a direct result of eu regulation - covering working hour limits, equal pay, maternity rights, parental leave, anti discrimination, protections for agency workers, a whole raft of health and safety directives. and then is the safeguarding of rights already in british law. we know many of these rights are unpopular with business - how long do you think many of these will last?
for human rights in general - in 1998 the human rights act came in to implement rights found in the european convention on human rights, and since it came in, conservatives have been continually trying whittle away said rights. the charter for fundamental human rights effectively safeguarded it, while providing rights that werent included such as rights pf a child and rights of non discrimination. say goodbye to that charter and say hello to further assualts on human rights.
you offer zero evidence of us not being fucked over by brexit and do no more than hand wave away criticism along party lines. its like you have no fucking clue as to what is actually happening. show me a bexit deal that is both possible and not fucking awful, show me trade agreements that will be made where we arent in a position of weakness and desperation. show me how the nhs won't die a death. show me a future where scotland doesnt leave or northern ireland doesnt turn to shit. i mean, are not at all concerned about the break up of our country?
until you can do any of that without vagaries and wishful thinking, you are nowt but a joke - an unfunny one considering the awful shit at stake AMassiveGay (talk) 22:22, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Of course only time will tell who is right, but I am convinced that Brexit will be a success. We are one of the richest and most powerful countries in the world so the idea that we need to be joined at the hip to the European continent to survive is ridicules. In the past I have spoken against a 'no-deal' Brexit, but given the mess that the squabbling children politicians have made I can't see any deal that honours the referendum being passed through Parliament. Now, if given the choice between 'no-deal Brexit' or 'no Brexit at all' I would 100% pick no deal.
Outside of the Single Market we would be able to massively expand our trading opportunities under the WTO. Plenty of countries have signalled they want to form new trade deals with the UK - USA, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, India, and Canada to name a few. Talks with USA, New Zealand and Australia began a year ago. Not to mention that trade will still continue with the EU. We are a massive consumer of their products and they export more to the UK than we export to them. The EU would be shooting themselves in the foot if they tried imposing heavy trade restrictions on the UK.
I'm no too concerned about Scotland at the moment. They had their referendum, and the separatists lost. A majority of Scots still support staying in the UK. Just like I oppose a second EU referendum, I oppose a second Scottish Independence referendum. The SNP should accept democracy and move on. Now, I am of course concerned about the situation in Northern Ireland. In my eyes the most important thing in regards to Ireland is to keep the border as open as possible. --RWRW (talk) 15:24, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Useful idiot, but for whom? British ruling class with Swiss bank accounts or Putin's mafia? Do you have a Swiss bank account, RWRW, or are you invested in cryptocurrencies? Bongolian (talk) 19:08, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Ha! I don’t, but think if taxes were lower we’d see a lot less people with Swiss accounts. To be honest I don’t know anything about cryptocurrencies. I’ve never used bitcoin before and I don’t really know how it works. —RWRW (talk) 19:40, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
its good to know you will be just as fuckeed as the rest of us.
have you asked yourself why prominent brexiters are all objectively and unashamedly utter cunts? it doesnt set off any warning signs in your head? they dont seem quite as convinced as you are with your unsubstantiated wishful thinking. you are a good dog, yes you are, good boy - keep up trotting out the party line AMassiveGay (talk) 19:09, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Fuck a duck. It sounds like Rees-Mogg is compromised or a Russian agent. Bongolian (talk) 21:16, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
its so fucking infuriating. not one person involved with brexit - on either side - is not an almighty gobshite. the tories on both sides were so heavily involved with austerity policies, a key factor on the leave campaign imho, that cameron couldnt argue thats the cause of folks discontent without implicating themselves, while brexiters happily used it to stoke anti-immigrant sentiment and with a good measure of empty promises (read: lies), the lib dems were in bed with the tories on austerity so could say fuck all, all the while the one person who could have swayed it, corbyn (those voting leave were often traditional labour supporters) was a picture of indifference and spinelessness in the name of party politics, all the while celebs lectured everyone from a position of being unaffected in any way whatsoever (effectively calling folk racist for being concerned about a lack of school places and housing, while never having to worry about such things themselves). brinksmanship and party politics got here and brinksmanship and party politics continues to make any chance of making a go of it a pipe dream. everyone involved has and still is behaved appallingly and continue to treat the british public - however they voted - with utter contempt. i have nothing but disgust for everyone involved, and that goes for anyone willingly stooging for this vermin. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:45, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Creating voter apathy is a strategy of the ruling class minority to stay in power.[14] Bongolian (talk) 02:13, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Harassment by random assholes[edit]

FYI, you shouldn't be restoring random asshole's harassment on people's talk pages.[15] Bongolian (talk) 23:55, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I just put the unsigned template next to it. The owner of the talk page decided to reply to it rather than delete it. --RWRW (talk) 00:05, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
OK, it should be just shitcanned in future. We don't need threats like this on talk pages. Bongolian (talk) 00:08, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Ok, noted for the future.--RWRW (talk) 00:18, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. Bongolian (talk) 00:32, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

"Aren't Mods infallible?"[edit]

No, we're not, and that's kind of the whole point. RoninMacbeth (talk) 14:46, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I said it more in jest tan sincerity. --RWRW (talk) 16:40, 28 February 2019 (UTC)