User talk:Shabidoo

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

Please see our guide for newcomers and our community standards.

Tell us how you found RationalWiki here!

If you are interested in contributing:

Proxima Centauri (talk) 09:58, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Joey Joe Joe?[edit]

Is that you? TeenageWasteland (talk) 19:27, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I think I'm me, I'm pretty sure I'm me though I might be someone other than me in which case I really don't know who I am...which would be both funny and very inconvenient. Do we know each other on some other wiki? --Shabidoo (talk) 19:51, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
TeenageWasteland (talk) 19:53, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Oh I see. No...sorry my shabidoo is with an I and not an A which is a common mistake. I always forgive people the first time they confuse me with shabadoo. I am very understanding and tolerant once. :) --Shabidoo (talk) 20:01, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Oblivion[edit]

Shabidoo! I have moved the page you created from the mainspace to your userspace. You can find it here: User:Shabidoo/Oblivion. Whilst I still don't think it can stand on its own in its current form, we shouldn't have been so quick to shit all over you like we did.

Sorry. :(

You were right when you said you deserve a chance to work on it. This, I think, will be easier in userspace than out in the badlands of the mainspace. People can't fuck with your stuff in your userspace. Cheers, --MtDNotorious Sodomite 02:45, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Kopi luwak missionality[edit]

You might be interested that the mission worthiness of Kopi luwak is being discussed. There is a lot of poo-woo floating around, but the article needs to reflect that I think. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 04:33, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh thanks for the heads up. LOL. What a waste of people's time. ShabiDOO 13:23, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Good work. I will try to add a bit more on the woo-meisters at some stage. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 13:38, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Sysop[edit]

Because of your edits to and time on the wiki, wizard Sysop has been added to your user rights. Feel free to let your newfound ᴘᴏᴡᴇʀ course through your veins. Once the high wears off, see RationalWiki:Sysop guide for more information. If you have questions, bleat ask away. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 18:20, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Grammar[edit]

Thanks for all of your help on the RAQ! If I could make but one request: read over your sentences for grammatical errors before submitting them. Again, tremendous work! FuzzyCatPotato of the Mirthful Fibs (talk/stalk) 18:21, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks duder. Yes...I'm used to editing on a couple wiki sites where there are grammar crusaders who clean up the text. I'll keep it in mind! ShabiDOO 16:04, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Not to worry! My concern is that annotation is supposed to feel authoritative & misspellings like "tyrrant" leech credibility. :) Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 17:11, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

You are greatly delusional and brainwashed.[edit]

Hello,

I am sorry to say this but you are greatly delusional and brainwashed when it comes to Men's problems in today's world. You say, "yes, but very very very few men" have these problems.

Firstly, NO. That's not true.

Secondly, "only very very very few" humans have the problems that comes with not identifying with the gender they are born with. Does that means transgender people problems can be ignored? Are not important? Laws shouldn't be made to protect them? etc....? Rukmaniahuja (talk) 17:22, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Nothing ever quite tells me that someone is actively disregarding counter-argumentation like the phrase "you're brainwashed". Except maybe "you're sheep". ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:24, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
I am not actively disregarding counter-argumentation. I have replied to each and every argument ever raised by ShabiDOO. This is just a comment on the kind of points she has always raised against my points.
PS: I can show you many many articles on Rationalwiki in which you guys have basically "actively disregarding counter-argumentation" by phrases similar to "you're brainwashed". Examples? MRM, MGTOW, all youtubers who have ever said anything against Anita Sarkeesian. Rukmaniahuja (talk) 11:13, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
But then why stop there? Rukmaniahuja...might you give me some more free online psychoanalysis. I'm not that rich you see and I've love to know more about my faults and problems and shortcoming as well as an explanation of how common those are in society and what you think I can do to become the best alpha player I can be. ShabiDOO 19:39, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Okay, I am extremely sorry. I shouldn't have used the words: "Delusional" and "brainwashed". I accept my mistake. You are not delusional, you are not brainwashed. Now, is there one single word left in my previous message which you can rationally counter? Rukmaniahuja (talk) 10:48, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
I'd counter what you are saying if I had the slightest clue what post of mine you are referencing...but I never said "very very few men" anywhere. So do please cite the entire quote and tell me where it is. If you are talking about men who are forced to pay child care for children that aren't even their own (other than those who were primary caretaker for at least 5 years there by being the surrogate father which is no different than paying childcare for who has your step-child if you lived with them for at least 5 years and which both women and men have to pay regardless of who gets custody of the child) then we can count them on a few hands. That is not the case with transgendered people who count in the millions on Earth spanning every country and who actively face systemic and daily abuse both in laws that prohibit them from being who they are to harassment and barriers to getting work, having relationships and going about their day without grief. You cannot in any universe you can compare the universal (if not deadly) treatment of transgendered people around the world...with a handful of men (a rarity) who are stuck in a shitty situation because of a bizare law which a few judges took seriously in a few states in only one country on Earth (the USA). That's silly. But maybe you were misquoting me somewhere else? ShabiDOO 15:00, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
A woman cheats on her husband and gets pregnant with his child. The guy doesn't knows and writes his name and signs as the baby's father in hospital documents. Few days later, he comes to know about it and wants a divorce. The guy is forced to pay child support. Does that sounds fair to you?
Why are you considering the entire world's homosexual population. When a law maker is America is making any law, he is thinking solely of American people. Suppose, there are only a few handfuls of homosexual in an "area" - is it okay for lawmakers in "this area" to completely utterly discard them in every aspect? Rukmaniahuja (talk) 17:14, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
What you are talking about is extremely rare amongst men in the world...and even in America...its even rare in the few states that have this law. There is a lot more to planet Earth than a few states in the United States of America, including the fact that there are readers from all over the world for this wiki including other English speaking countries like Canada, Australia, Ireland, the UK, NZ, SA, Carribean Islands etc who have never ever heard of this strange law. TThere are also readers from European countries with English as a second language who will have never heard of this law. And even within America there are few states that enact this law and judges may use their discretion. So in terms of the kinds of grievences that men think they have problems with...this one should not just be at the bottom of the list but the bottom of the waiting list as well...cause it will never apply to them and will affect a handful of others in a few isolated places.
As for your rediculous assumption that there are only a handful of homosexuals in any one area (and only one area) you cannot possibly be that ignorant. The running percentage of estimated homosexuals in ANY part of the world is between 2-5% meaning for a state of 1,000,000 people you have, let's say, 20,000 gay men. And say in a country like Gemerany you have over one million gay men, and in the world it reaches hundreds of millions. Of whom the far far majority live in countries where they will be murdered if they get caught. So contrast millions and millions of men living in fatal terror of being found out and abused and tortured and executed...with a handful of men who live in a couple states of the United States in the only backwards areas of one country where they have this stupid law that people everywhere else in the world has never heard of...and I think you are comparing a house fire with a ray of light. Not only that...but when going over a short list of reasons men might feel about going over their way...adding a problem that most of these men have never heard of, will never face (cause they don't live in these states, and even if they do they don't have children who aren't their own, and even if they do they won't have to pay unless the mothers requests it, and even then they only have to pay if the judge uses his discretion on it, and even if they did that it doesn't pass an appeal) it seems like you are just reaching out for any excuse you can find to justify it. Imagine a gay person in New York City (where there is much less discrimination against homosexuality) reads about a strange law in South Africa where gay men caught are forced to mary one of three women the court selects...I would say no...that's not a relevant reason for that gay man in New York (or gay men anywhere else) should go "that does it...I'm going to move to Mikonos Greece where theres few women around and I'll never be maried off to a woman by court order if I get caught. It doesn't apply to him at all (it only applies to a handful of men in one country), reflects nothing about his daily life, effects very few people in a remote part of the world and is, in fact, very infrequently enforced. It's absurd to inflate a small grievance to relevant grievances for everyone in a country or the world. Got it? ShabiDOO 17:34, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Goodpost.gif αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 20:21, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
You are impossible. That's a though experiment and not an "assumption". Also, few years back Indian government criminalized homosexuality saying that the number of homosexuals in the country is not high enough. So, when I say that your argument of "very very very few" is not a good argument against men and it would similarly not be a good argument against homosexuals - this is what I meant. And mind you, there are many many many many more homosexuals in India in comparison to USA.
It doesn't matters how many men have actually been affected. It's wrong. Even if only 1 man has been affected, it's wrong. It's injustice. You shouldn't talk as if it's okay.
Answer "Yes" or "No". Is it wrong? Is it unfair? Rukmaniahuja (talk) 07:53, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
"Let's wait before it becomes a massive problem and only then people will even be allowed to talk about it online. Only then people will be allowed to even write it down on online wikis". That's what you guys mean? Rukmaniahuja (talk) 07:57, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Unfortunately, that's how a lot of people think about minorities.—チーズバーガー • めん Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 08:14, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
You're driving me f**king crazy Rukmaniahunja. This is the last thing I will say on the subject and no...under no circumstances is this issue going into the article so give it up.
1. Yes it is unfair. No one said it wasn't.
2. Significant? No...this isn't a significant enough issue because yes it is bizare and unfair in many circumstances...yet highly limited by sheer tiny numbers and by and extremely remote and arbitrary application. This is not a significant a reason for men as a whole to retreat into man caves. Stop being so rediculous.
3. Go find something more constructive to do.
ShabiDOO 13:42, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
1. Yes, it is unfair. And yes, MRMs and MGTOWs talk about it in their forums, and so its wrong to delete it when someone mentions it on their page on Rational wiki.
2. THOUGHT EXPERIMENT: Suppose the tables are turned. Suppose there is a law that's sexist against women but has only affected 40-50 women in the whole of USA. Will it be okay for Men to say that it's insignificant and feminist are crazy to even talk about it. Will it be okay for men to say that the law shouldn't be changed? Just imagine what will happen in USA if something like this ever happen? Will Rationalwiki pages be edited to remove statements saying that the law is bad and unfair to women?
3. Don't be a hypocrite.
Shall I edit the "Feminism" page to add a section which says that if there's ever a law that has affected only 40-50 women, feminist will be crazy to fight against such a insignificant thing? Rukmaniahuja (talk) 15:29, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
I just did that. See: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Feminism#cite_note-2 Rukmaniahuja (talk) 18:13, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
I was waiting for you to do that. So predictable. You've basically confirmed what everyone here knew all along. I'm done with you. Go away. Don't write on my talk page anymore please. ShabiDOO 20:36, 18 December 2016 (UTC)


Here is what's wrong with your thinking: True statements are always to be mentioned in articles. It doesn't matters if it's insignificant. If the community here REALLY THINKS that it's insignificant, then you can mention: "It has affected only few men in few states of USA. It's insignificant" on the page, immediately below my statement. Rukmaniahuja (talk) 14:31, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Shoo. Skedadle. Take off. Clear out. Make yourself scarse. Go away. Beat it. Hit the road! ShabiDOO 23:27, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
You and everyone here has absolutely failed to prove me wrong. And this is all you can do. You can abuse me. That's it. Rukmaniahuja (talk) 15:24, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Please stop posting on my talkpage or I'll consider it vandalism and block you. ShabiDOO 16:08, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
And the trend continues.... Rukmaniahuja (talk) 14:24, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
I can't really block you despite how annoying and useless you've been but I did hope that after reading it you would have f*cked off, but its just a matter of time until someone else does. Direct these disagreements to the article pages, not all over various talk pages and definitely not mine. It's disruptive and borderline harassment. For the third time: Please stay off my talk page. ShabiDOO 18:00, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Changing the Qur'an translation[edit]

Please don't do that without consensus and on only some pages. Christopher (talk) 08:43, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I had discussed it with Cat some time ago (the only other user who is active on this project and the guy who created most of these Surrahs putting the current King James language style translation). Its actually difficult to comment on these Surahs as I cannot understand the meaning of some phrases and I have to consult a modern translation before adding commentary. Cat agreed with me updating it with a new modern version. I've spend the last few months trying to find a way to post a new translation in a non-tedious way. I'm honestly surprised anyone else even noticed. Are you opposed to a clear modern translation? ShabiDOO 11:04, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
I'd prefer a clear modern translation but we should do it all at once with a bot after getting consensus. Christopher (talk) 09:26, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
I have most of the surrahs ready (it can only be partly automated). Those three edits were test cases to see if they worked. Converting the text on pages with actual annotation cannot be done by a bot either. As for consensus, I have no idea how to go about it. I've discussed this with the other active user in the project and I don't know what page to talk about this on and which users to contact. What should we do? ShabiDOO 10:42, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

The main page and its talkpage seem like the best place to get consensus. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 15:37, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Pinging Users[edit]

Hey @Shabidoo, I only learned this, myself, a couple weeks ago. The syntax for pinging somebody is not the "@" sign. It is {{ping|their account name}}. --Bertrc (talk) 00:34, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

@Shabidoo, when editing a talk page, if you want to direct a post to me, rather than just typing "@Bertrc" (or "@<any user id you want to alert>", you should use "{{ping|Bertrc}}" (or "{{ping|''<any user id you want to alert>''}}") When wiki displays "{{ping|Bertrc}}", it will look like "@Bertrc" but "{{ping|Bertrc}}" has the benefit of pinging me that you mentioned me in a post --Bertrc (talk) 21:29, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

"Any way to get rid of the subst in my signature"?[edit]

It's a bug, substituted templates within a template don't substitute and any template that's in a signature acts as if it's nowikied. My advice would be to have "[[User:Shabidoo|<span style="color:#0070FF">'''Shabi'''</span>]][[User talk:Shabidoo|<span style="color:#FF007F">'''DOO'''</span>]]" set as your signature in preferences instead of "{{SUBST:User:Shabidoo/sig}}". Christopher (talk) 20:59, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Chistopher!!!!! I have no idea how the SUBST template ended up as my sig. Your template works perfect. ShabiDOO 19:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Always happy to help! Christopher (talk) 19:10, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Um...[edit]

Was this intentional? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 00:07, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Same. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 03:13, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Definitely not. Pops. I might have edited an earlier version? ShabiDOO 06:40, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Raar[edit]

You've been nominated in the upcoming moderator elections. See the nomination at RationalWiki:Moderator elections/Nominations. ^_^ This message is approved by Dysklyver Gears.png Ensign of the Duke of Cornwall.svg (brebmyn) 03:29, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Awesome! You will need to get openstv but it's really not half bad to use it. :) ^_^ This message is approved by Dysklyver Gears.png Ensign of the Duke of Cornwall.svg (brebmyn) 13:48, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

EU discussion reply made Oct. 30[edit]

   Much as it may surprise you, I'm just another dude with ups and downs and cumbersome personal issues. Like you, like all of us, I can't be expected to be always able or willing to devote hours to debating stuff online. After all, I write much less than you do here. If it makes you feel better to claim I'm unable to give a reply, then I fear you're giving the matter a tad more seriousness than is due. This is just an exchange between two people who feel differently and who will continue to feel differently. It isn't a sort of ego contest where one's feelings have to be traumatized by being utterly defeated and another's feelings have to be boosted by decisive victory. At least I believe civilized fora shouldn't be modeled on that.
   The janitor comment was a reference to the fact of life that people who do the most marginal and insignificant work for an organization or entity can nevertheless be very fanatic supporters of that organization or entity. In your case, one can observe a fanatic supporter of the EU and fanaticism is always followed by convenient illusions. Hate, or better yet, a very cold shoulder, bestows on the other hand greater insight.
   I don't believe that if the EU was dissolved we'd end up with something better but I very much fear that the EU is heading in that direction because of its policies. That being said, I don't welcome your insinuations that I side, represent or aid the nationalist backlash to it. You must realize that many people, lots of people, in Europe and the EU don't want it to be around anymore and where they do want it, they are less enthusiastic about it than you are. Also, besides the nationalists, there are many leftist forces which equally mistrust it. Euroscepticism is not a marginal sentiment in Europe so you can't really expect me to give you polls to prove you that. Didn't you see what happened in Italy? Didn't you see who Macron was fighting against? Haven't you noticed what happened to Merkel's popularity, how the SPD has been whittled down and how a party full of crypto-Nazis is rising in Germany?
   The EU was not founded nor was meant to be democracy. It was founded as a central-European industrial cartel. It was meant to be more like OPEC, not an experiment in democracy. Its intellectual forefathers, men like Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi, had a platonic contempt for democracy and favored an "aristocracy of the spirit" i.e. a technocracy. Europe may be dominated by two countries with robust rechtstaat institutions but a confederation can never be institutionally democratic. A federation however can be democratic by virtue of having developed institutions that confederations have not. The problem is that when you cede your monetary sovereignty to foreign states or opaque, unaccountable institutions you can't uphold democracy because you no longer hold the tools necessary to govern. How can you be accountable to your people if you aren't sovereign?
   You want specific examples of undemocratic conduct in the EU? That deserves a whole book but here's a few. During the crisis, elected leaders in Italy and Greece were replaced by unelected people when the powerful in Brussels saw fit. In 2011 Berlusconi was ousted by a parliamentary maneuver and replaced by Mario Monti. In Greece George Papandreou was replaced by Lucas Papademos. In 2015 the left-wing government of Greece reneged on the outcome of a popular referendum (which at that point was staged by an intimidated government in the expectation of a yes as an excuse to capitulate) due to threats from the EU, including an illegal closure of its banks. Mario Draghi is a major player in the corridors of power and makes decisions that influence the lives of millions but nobody has voted for him. The German chancellor, finance ministry and central bank have people making decisions that directly affect millions in other countries without the citizens of those countries having chosen for that or even knowing it's happening. All you have to say to that is: "rules"? Fine, then Europe should abolish elections and simply replace them with a few good people who enforce "rules", no matter the human costs of incompetent policy making. 
   The nationalist surge is nothing more than a symptom of democratic institutions weak and eroding, not sturdy and evergreen. Yet according to you the EU is as strong a democracy as humanly possible. If that were true, the only appeal in democracy would simply be the wealth of people that champion it in name. But as Tocqueville said, those who love freedom only for its material benefits will not be free for very long. Post-war Europe has been a place that lives for nothing beyond money. Behind this gigantic economic powerhouse lies in fact nothing but a political clown which is why its collapse won't take too long. Gewgtweg (talk) 01:55, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Gewgtweg (talk) 16:09, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Im shocked you followed through. Too bad your answer was a bigger let down than I expected. One...your claims about the PIGS political replacement is a conspiracy Dermot up by Nigel Farage which has been well debunked multiple times. Follow through your sources...don't just blindly follow YouTube speeches Farage blabs in about or those who quote him. But your last claim was the worst. Those who make banking decisions are directly appointed by governments who are directly elected. Its no different to the President picking ambassadors, ministers and judges. They answer to each countries government and they make decisions unanimously or by vote if they previously unanimously agreed to a decision making mechanism. All done by party members appointed by national governments all democratically elected. Your argument boils down to...these functionaries don't consult the ordinary people from the 27 member countries...about 500 million people. What government on earth does that other than sort of in Switzerland? Shall there be a referendum by 200 million voters within each country every tine a policy is made by 27 leaders of economies each with their own interests? No. That's ridiculous bullshit. If the representative of a government does something that sufficiently makes life more difficult...then that country will vote out that government at the next election. Theyball answer to theirngovernmebts who all answer to the people when democratically elected or reelected or not reelected. I don't know what version of democracy you are using nor any government on earth that holds uptight your vague standards of what that means I'm sorry...one conspiracy and one difficult to work out example...even if they were true (which they aren't) hardly labels the EU an undemocratic institution...any less so than any other on Earth. The UK or the USA or Canada's government would be equally non-democratic by those standards and yet I never hear anti-EU people call the UK non-denocratic. In fact by the same standards the UK is ranpantly undemocratic compared to the EU. I'm dissapointed. Was hoping you'd bring up something that I'd have to investigate and maybe even admit it was dodgy. ShabiDOO 03:16, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Post-Colonialism[edit]

Hi Shabi, I appreciate you replying to my saloon bar post, but as those tend to be drowned quickly I thought it'd be better if I talked to you here.

My main issue with it is how...unacademic it is. I liked post-colonialism. It seemed to make sense. It was certainly based on true facts - how colonization works, at least in the modern period; how different societies view each other in such a relationship. It seemed like it could have been a whole new paradigm in historical analysis. But that never materialized.

I wanted to see the same analysis applied to my particular interests. I wanted to read a post-colonial analysis of the Ottoman millet's combination of Islamic and pragmatic laws in Christian dominions. I wanted to see how a post-colonial leftist would analyze the presence of Islam in southwest Asia as a product of Mughal invasion. Or what about the Coptic Christians and Irani Zoroastrians - two groups which, after millennia of state marginalization, still exist in the same minority status. Surely any post-colonial sociologist would love this perfectly preserved case study!

But it never happened. You can, if you look, find Copts referenced among the progressives and post-colonialists - we are assured that some nefarious Christian group in America is wrongly bringing them up to justify George Bush.

And then I noticed you won't find any analysis on anything else, either. You will not find the post-colonial book analyzing how modern Chinese opinion of Japan is influenced, if at all, by the exact ways the Japanese occupation in the 30s presented itself culturally. You will, of course, certainly never find the post-colonial studies book on how the U.S.S.R. tried to influence and bend cultures in its satellite states. You won't even find one about modern China's differing treatment of the ethnically Han Hui Muslims and their Uyghur counterparts.

I think the problem is that they remain true to their progenitor - Edward Said was an Arab who only went to Western, English speaking schools in Egypt, and then British universities. His famed work Orientalism claims that nearly all of Western depictions of the "East" (here meaning MENA and Central Asia) were made to dehumanize them and justify colonization, not from 1850 or so, no but for the past 2000 years. Said saw the West as an unstoppable hegemon, held back only by technological limitations and finally unleashed upon her long desired prey. The subaltern peoples, as the post-colonialists call them, have no reference outside the West. There were doing nothing, at least nothing of note, presumably living in some locked idyllic world until the West came to give them definition (and moral high ground) as victims. They exist to be colonized, they are subjects at rest until acted upon. There was no Ottoman Porte at the gates of Vienna, there were no Moors in Spain, and Islam must have simply sprung into existence on the Indian sub-continent - after all, we are assured, Muslims and Hindus never had any problems with one another until the British played them against each other during the Raj.

And so, as obvious as post-colonialism seemed, how could I accept the analysis of people's whose worldview is so, to be generous, myopic, if not bluntly Euro-centric and "Orientalist" itself? Does it help that these people, without fail, use their ideas to push some contemplary political view, rather than focusing on academic scholarship?.

And so I'm lost. I want to say you're right, and most post-colonial societies still struggle with colonization, and we can see Orientalism in how Western politics continues to deal with the non-Western world. But I really don't, because the people who say that stuff are dumb. These are people who say that romanticist era European paintings of Ottoman harems, which incorrectly depicted the women as lounging unclothed, are of greater historical insight than the harems themselves, and the slave trade that existed for them - I have even seen young people on the internet who now claim this is a Western fiction entirely!

I suppose my issue is that post-colonialists are not only painfully Euro-centric and have no desire to explore other spheres of history, but that it seems to be not purposeful - sometimes I feel they are actually ignorant of all of history besides that engineered by the modern West. This kind of deep, holistic structural analysis, reliant as it is on a mastery of history to have any hope of accuracy, demands an academic of similar caliber, and the post-colonialists and anti-Orientalists seem to function as political demagogues rather than historians. So even if their basic premises seem intuitive, I can't bring myself to take anything they present seriously. I can't believe these kind of people could ever be right, except by dumb luck. Lord Aeonian (talk) 22:10, 3 December 2018 (UTC)