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. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (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! FU22YC47P07470 (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. :) Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (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 Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (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. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (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. — Dysk (contribs) 03:29, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Awesome! You will need to get openstv but it's really not half bad to use it. :) — Dysk (contribs) 13:48, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
    • I like that "raar" business. Reminds me of my lady friend's school mascot (and I'm not talking about Bruins). BJ Punk (talk) 03:15, 24 January 2019 (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)

NASA photos[edit]

Are you planning on editing NASA? That page could use some help. Nerd (talk) 19:41, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, i'd be happy to contribute in the coming days! ShabiDOO 19:43, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Glad to hear it! My long-term vision is to update that page with some of NASA's recent projects/accomplishments such as the Great Observatories Program, the James Webb Space Telescope, the InSight Mars probe, the Orion multi-purpose crew vehicle, the mapping of the Earth's surface via lasers, among other fun things. It's long-term because I have my hands full at the moment with high-speed rail and universal healthcare. :-) Nerd (talk) 19:51, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Hey FYI[edit]

Some peeps at Uncyc [1] were wondering if you still exist. — Dysk (contribs) 22:52, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Shabidoo. Wow I used to spend hours here when I was an angsty teen. Roza (talk) 22:53, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Shabi!! Please join the discord! -HGA DR (talk) 22:56, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Hey that's awesome. Boy do I miss the pre-fork days sometimes. Such a helarious community and I improved my writing so much through everyone. Who are you guys on uncyclopedia? You'd never ever guess what username mine is!!!! ShabiDOO 00:16, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Shabi, this is Aim, or HGA, from way back when I got permabanned. Join our discord, we have been looking for you. DR (talk) 02:28, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Board[edit]

You've been nominated to the RationalMedia Foundation election. Please accept or decline; if you accept, you may wish to campaign. 71.3.195.138 (talk) 02:52, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Post in saloon bar[edit]

Hey dude, I think you may have misinterpreted my post or I may have articulated my post not as I intended. I just wish that people didn’t jump to conclusions straight away (regarding accusations whatever they are) and I really really wish people didn’t harass people like they do on twitter. I don’t have any biases or exaggerations or extreme fears regarding it, and I didn’t want it to come across like that so I apologise if it did. Like I said, I believe any accusations should be taken seriously but shouldn’t be assumed as false or truth based on purely whim. I hope you didn’t get the wrong impression of me and if you did I sincerely apologise. Hope you don’t hate me due to a misinterpretation mate, I just got really worried that you may think I’m some raging MRA “men are oprezzed!!!” sexist, I’m very, very much far from that. I’m really worried you got that impression, to the point where I genuinely felt sick haha (I’m a bit of a mess of a person). Anyway mate, hope everything’s alright between us :).—WMS (talk) 08:23, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the cannabis question[edit]

Hey man, I was just wondering what you meant by this “ You show actual concern which makes it very unlikely you've smoked your brains into a stupor making it difficult to recognize how lost you are.” It’s most likely anxiety but the way I’ve interpreted was “yup you’ve got brain damage, it’s difficult to just tell how much” which, not gonna lie, freaks the hell out of me. I just don’t know how else to interpret the highlighted bit. I apologise for being an anxious mess like this haha but I just sometimes can’t control how anxious I get. I guess the only way is through being blunt (no pun intended), so: do you think due to the 7-8 instances I smoked cannabis through the course of three years between 15 years old and 18 years old, I have damaged my brain, my intelligence or my IQ? I’m really frightened about it as my intelligence is something I hold in a high esteem. I’m not saying I’m super smart, I just don’t want to become docile, unable to learn and decrease my problem solving skills (which is something I really enjoy doing). Thanks mate and sorry :P—WMS (talk) 17:57, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

just gonna jump in here, but you going to have to smoke a hell of a lot of weed over a very long time to have any issues that wont disappear after you sober up. 7-8 instances over 3 years is literally nothing. I cant stress that enough. if there where any indication that such a tiny amount of usage, so infrequently over such a relatively short time frame, was damaging in any way we would be hearing about it - loudly, incessantly, and from everywhere. we are not. relax. probably best to avoid it in future, if it causes you such anxiety. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:42, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Yeah. What AMassiveGay said. You'd need an enormous dose of bad luck to have seen serious brain damage from a few smokes. Unless you have specific health problems or are disposed to certain medical conditions, occasional smokes is utterly no different than occasionally getting wasted on alcohol which is no different to having a minor tumble while playing sports or suffering moments of extreme stress. If you have any special reason to worry, go to the doctor. If you face similar anxieties over other "unlikely but potential" problems in your life...might be a good idea to book a session with a CBT. We could all use regular sessions. ShabiDOO 04:55, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks guys, thanks for showing how baseless my anxiety is. I don’t have any actual reason for concern, I’m the same as I always have been, it’s just anxiety and you put if perfectly how I face similar anxieties over other “unlikely but potential” problems. I was thinking of going back to therapy as my anxiety has resurfaced lately (most likely due to stress) but this essentially confirmed that I need to get CBT sessions. Thanks for calming me down and making me realise how dumb I was to overthink such a menial thing and making me realise that such infrequent and rare smokes I’ve had won’t have a dire effect on my brain. I’m really sorry for getting all paranoid and stuff, but thank you guys a lot for helping out. It means a lot. If you don’t mind though, could you please let me know what you meant “making it difficult to recognise how lost you are”? For some reason that’s bothering me not knowing what you meant by that and as much as I tried to reason with my self that I’m stupid for getting hung up on that one sentence, I just can’t let it go for some reason.—WMS (talk) 15:38, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
I've seen CBT completely, if not radically transform people. I have a few bad habits (minor ones compared with others but still something I'd like to work on) and if I could afford CBT I'd go and I will once I can. Unfortunately it's not covered by the Spanish health system yet (you have to be quite lucky to get a therapist who happens to specialize in CBT and the waiting list is forever and you get just a few sessions) and a lot of people need it a LOT more than me. Ayy how I miss Northern Europe some times! Good luck duderino!!! ShabiDOO 22:52, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
So when you said “making it difficult to recognise how lost you are” you meant it’s difficult for me to actually realise how lost in anxiety I am?—WMS (talk) 06:45, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Noooooooooooooooo. You haven't remotely smoked enough pot to be lost and I have no idea if you are predisposed to psychological problems accelerated by massive drug use. My brother is so lost he doesn't even realize he has serious problems. The fact that you are concerned about possible problems tells me the opposite, which means there is at least one sign of drug related problems that DOESN'T affect you. So relaaaaaaaaaaaaax. It's just a very infrequent smoke of pot. It's virtually nothing. A very healthy approach to soft recreational drugs (which definitely includes alcohol). I'd wager that the odds of it being a serious problem are far less than the odds of being hit by a car when you carefully cross the street or developing a serious lung condition from breathing city air. ShabiDOO 07:50, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Thabk you very much mate for that, I really really appreciate. That has managed now to eliminate that voice of anxiety and I cannot thank you (and the other guys) enough for helping with it. I’m also really sorry for being so difficult to deal with and I hope you can forgive me for that guys. But, I did speak with the nurse at college about my obsessive anxiety and some things are being put into place to hopefully calm it down, so hopefully I’ll learn to manage it better. Again guys, thanks a lot for the help, it truly means a lot, and sorry for everything :). I love this site and the people on it. Thank you :).—WMS (talk) 16:21, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
LOL stop appologizing for sharing your concerns and asking follow up questions. If there is a forum to do it (without going completely over the top) the forum is the place to do it. You can say thank you by dealing with your anxiety however possible: breathing exercies for example or a visit to your CBT. I'm jealous that you can. It'll be a year or two before I can budget for it. ShabiDOO 16:41, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I’ll try my best to control the anxiety, it’s just that lately I’ve been quite stressed out and I put my mental well being quite the way down in my priority list (bad idea). Hope you’ll be able to to save up for CBT soon enough man, mental health is really important as you know. It sucks that you have to pay for it yourself and I really do hope you’ll find the budget for it and I really hope that it improves your well being mate :). Wish you all the best man. Thanks again for all the help.—WMS (talk) 16:08, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Where[edit]

did I say that we should scrub RW of all Dawkins related content? Try practicing what you preach for once and not react in such a kneejerk manner. Oxyaena Harass 16:03, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Hey Oxyaena. Nice to see you too! I'll take your knee-jerk advice not to be so knee-jerky to heart. I really will! But by the way. Who were you on uncyclopedia? I'm really curious. ShabiDOO 16:13, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
I was never on Uncyclopedia, and also tell me how you inserting words into my mouth and panicking over a suggestion to be more critical of Dawkins isn't "knee-jerk" in any way, shape, or form. Oxyaena Harass 16:22, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
That's strange because some people were telling me that you were banned from uncyclopedia. Or maybe I'm mixing you up with someone else. ShabiDOO 16:31, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry[edit]

for snapping at you the other day. Oxyaena Harass 16:26, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry for being so snarky :)
Friends? ShabiDOO 16:44, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Friends, until I find it politically expedient to betray you and execute you as an enemy of the people. Oxyaena Harass 14:17, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
That's all I ever wanted ShabiDOO 16:18, 10 October 2019 (UTC)