User talk:TheLeftIsIrrational

Your welcome to RationalWiki is lukewarm at best, TheLeftIsIrrational. 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.

--Hastur! (talk) 04:42, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Hey, are you an admin? TheLeftIsIrrational (talk) 05:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I am a sysop, of which there are many on this site. Calling me an administrator is a bit generous--Hastur! (talk) 05:48, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Cool, cool. Just wondering how kindly I can phrase "I seriously do not give a crap about your warning". Maybe I should put up a sign about what my userpage is for, which is for anything but bad faith actors whining. TheLeftIsIrrational (talk) 05:52, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

You can put whatever you want on your user page. Obvious restrictions apply insofar as doxxing, child pornography, and whatever else is in our community standards or are considered gross violations of decency by the mob (the mob being a colloquialism for RationalWiki's community)--Hastur! (talk) 05:57, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

lmao cool, didn't ask. You can leave now. TheLeftIsIrrational (talk) 06:05, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Community guidelines and talkpages

Here is the relevent section. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 17:21, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Aw, it can't spell. :,) TheLeftIsIrrational (talk) 17:24, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

You better not dismiss them.--Delibirda (talk) 20:31, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Lmao you're literally 14, please fuck off. TheLeftIsIrrational (talk) 20:34, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Blocked for three days

First one was three hours, which isn't too bad but you should've waited out. And listen and respect a mod who asked only to stop with the language. You can still talk in your page for the time being and even say mean things about me. Don't mess up. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 00:06, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Literally no clue what I did or that I was originally banned? I did stop using the language, I actually have no clue what I got banned for, though I can't say I'm bothered. You certainly have the right to be upset and to be wrong. I can't say I tried continuing talk page discussions as "BoN" after being blocked? I did wake up this morning (if I was blocked it was overnight) signed out and continued the conversation that had started the night before, but I've never tried evading a block, and I didn't ignore anyone's warning not to say "retarded" (using it editorially here, it is the word you asked me not to use and that I haven't used since). I do wonder when I allegedly tried to continue talk page discussion as "BoN" after getting blocked, because that factually has never happened. Either way, no loss to this ban. TheLeftIsIrrational (talk) 03:35, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

So you're denying that this is you? Because it sure sounds like you. Several choices in wording are similar to your previous statements, including the one on this very talkpage. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 03:38, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

That is me, but I wasn't aware that I was banned. I thought I was still logged in. It's not like I have anything to reply to on that page at this point. It's just logical fallacy after logical fallacy after insecure projection on your part. I'm fine being banned, but there was no malicious intent in me contributing to that discussion. Plus, that still doesn't answer why I was banned in the first place, but really there's no loss there lol TheLeftIsIrrational (talk) 04:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Right in this discussion, I told you to not use "trigger" and perhaps you overlooked that part but you said "stay triggered xoxo" later which looked like you ignored the warning, hence the block for three hours. That there was an edit by an IP that continued the conversation and strongly indicated it was you. Anyhow the original block has expired at that point, so I'm removing the second longer block, taking your word for it. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 04:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Mind unblocking the IP too? TheLeftIsIrrational (talk) 05:20, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

It's been unblocked. Take care. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 05:48, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Don't make edits like that again

https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Antichrist&curid=5877&diff=2199807&oldid=2150764

Don't. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 23:24, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Please be specific. It is true that RationalWiki claims that Donald Trump is the antichrist. Do you not want me to make factual edits? @LeftyGreenMario

I repeat, @LeftyGreenMario, please be specific. I want to be allowed to edit knowing what is and isn't allowed on here. TheLeftIsIrrational (talk) 05:50, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

You've been advised about this multiple times already. Stop being an ass. Bongolian (talk) 05:58, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

@Bongolian I have not been advised on this, that is why I asked. Was I seriously just banned for interacting with my own talk page respectfully (without even losing the permission to edit on my talk page)? lol. TheLeftIsIrrational (talk) 06:02, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd highly advise you to avoid Sealioning... ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 12:54, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Cute, you (the left) came up with a name for something so you can gaslight people into thinking they're being manipulative douches for being reasonable. Anyways, it doesn't apply here. Clearly the implication is that if I make edits "like that" again, I'm going to face punishment. I've been banned by @LeftyGreenMario before without any formal warning. I would like to know what kind of edits I'm allowed to make so that I'm not banned. It's not an entry-level question, it is a very reasonable question of policy that I can't find an answer to in the Wiki's actually policies. That's not sealioning, you gaslighting fuck. TheLeftIsIrrational (talk) 19:05, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Why do you think that edit is in the right? Why would others revert it (assume good faith)? If you're the rational one, give me a compelling argument. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 19:09, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Because there is proof that RationalWiki refers to Donald Trump as the Antichrist. I put the screenshot upthread. Assuming good faith, maybe people just don't know that RW refers to Trump as the Antichrist? That's the only good faith answer there is. But instead of playing these mind games, why don't you give me a straight answer and tell me why you warned me about the edit? @LeftyGreenMario TheLeftIsIrrational (talk) 19:36, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

@TheLeftIsIrrational Just imagine that you made a wiki dedicated to Trump and the people he's against, then someone with the username "DrumpfIsBad" puts in "This wiki thinks that Bernie Sanders is a crazy son of a bitch that needs to be lynched, lol, look at those idiots". That's vandalism, and it is not welcome here. Maybe you should just go outside for once. RockfordRoe (talk) 19:47, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi, not a Trump supporter. I also never called anyone idiots on the page. If that's implied by the presence of the factual statement that the wiki considers Trump the Antichrist (again, screenshot above), in a section that mocks the idea of referring to an elected official as the Antichrist, that's a separate problem. If there were a Trump wiki I was for some reason a member of and Bernie Sanders' page said "Sanders is a crazy son of a bitch that needs to be lynched", then someone went on an article where, perhaps people are complaining about Kathy Griffin holding the disembodied Trump effigy because violence is wrong, and said "except Bernie, according to this Wiki" and sourced it, I don't see why it shouldn't stay. Clearly you projected a lot in your reasoning, and your concerns aren't based in reality, quite frankly. It's not vandalism to cover an elected official being called the Antichrist in a section of a page devoted to elected officials as the Antichrist. @RockfordRoe TheLeftIsIrrational (talk) 20:01, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

RationalWiki said Ted Haggard isn't gay so Ted Haggard isn't gay. Is that what you're saying? --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 19:51, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

False equivalency. My edit is on a section of a page about elected officials being referred to as the Antichrist. I'm not stating it is factual that Trump is the Antichrist, I'm saying that it is factual that the Wiki does state that he is the Antichrist. Which it is. @LeftyGreenMario TheLeftIsIrrational (talk) 20:03, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

It is also factual the wiki states that Richard Spencer is not a Nazi. So what's your point? --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 20:07, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Well if there were a wiki section devoted to people who say that neo-Nazis aren't Nazis, I'm sure it would be worth noting. Now stop deflecting, what was wrong with my edit? TheLeftIsIrrational (talk) 20:12, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

It's an entire article saying Richard Spencer is not a Nazi. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 20:13, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Your metaphor's gone off the rails, I'm afraid. Please describe it literally, so I can understand, in this context, what was wrong with it. TheLeftIsIrrational (talk) 20:19, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

It's not a metaphor. There's a literal entire RationalWiki article saying Richard Spencer is not a Nazi. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 20:21, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Okay, well that still doesn't answer the problem at hand: I don't understand what's wrong with stating that the Wiki factually states that Trump is the Antichrist in an article section where it lampoons people who call elected officials the Antichrist. TheLeftIsIrrational (talk) 20:23, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I will also make it clear that RationalWiki "factually" states that Richard Spencer is not a Nazi despite it also happening to make fun of people that say they are not a Nazi. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 20:33, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Do you not realize that would be totally relevant to add to a page making fun of Nazis denying that they're Nazis by saying something like "Neither is Richard Spencer" and cite the page. It would be a really succinct argument that would take the air out of neo-Nazis denying their status. That has nothing to do with my edit, and you're purposefully deflecting. If I go and edit the page again, what should I keep in mind? TheLeftIsIrrational (talk) 20:37, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

But if you say "neither is Richard Spencer" that would mean you're saying the wiki is saying Richard Spencer is not a Nazi and then the wiki is then being a hypocrite. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 20:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Or it's clearly satire. If it's not obvious from a consistent, satirical tone on both pages, you're not doing it right. Speaking of Wiki hypocrisy, you guys call Trump the Antichrist while making fun of people who call an elected official like Obama the Antichrist. If hypocrisy is a problem for the Wiki, as it sounds like you just conceded, then my edit should be restored. TheLeftIsIrrational (talk) 20:43, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Huh they also happened to call Donald Trump a urophilist so that means RationalWiki thinks he is one. That's an issue. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 20:49, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

If there's a section of a page that criticizes calling people urophilists, then yeah, that would be an issue. TheLeftIsIrrational (talk) 20:50, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

There is an entire article about the Pissgate affair and how it's unverified. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 20:52, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Then tend to the problem, because clearly you're telling me there is a problem. I'm dealing with this one. What's wrong, in the context of the Antichrist page, with pointing out that RW calls Trump an Antichrist? TheLeftIsIrrational (talk) 20:54, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh yeah can I say you're stupid. That must also be true because I said so. RationalWiki also said Trump shouldn't golf yet Obama golfs. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 20:57, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

That's a fallacy I've already addressed. The Wiki needs to be consistent in tone -- either it's all right to call elected officials the Antichrist, like the Wiki does on the Trump article, or it's stupid, like it says on the elected officials section of the Antichrist article. If there were a page calling me stupid on a Wiki and lists all the reasons why, then that same viewpoint should be maintained on other pages. Either way, and this is the entire point of this thread, what kind of edits should I not make again? You need to categorize what the edit is so I know what to avoid. TheLeftIsIrrational (talk) 21:01, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

So should we say for the sake of consistency that Lauren Southern should be called not a Nazi either? She even says she's not alt-right. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 21:07, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

What kind of edits should I not make again? TheLeftIsIrrational (talk) 21:09, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Dumb ones. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 21:12, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Why is the edit I made dumb? TheLeftIsIrrational (talk) 21:12, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

You tell me. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 21:13, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Because clearly I don't know. If a cop (or mod) says "hey, stop it!" to a random citizen on a street corner going about his day, and the citizen asks "what am I doing wrong?" out of fear of being arrested (here, banned), then it would be unethical of the cop not to tell the citizen and just arrest them next time he does anything. The burden of explanation is on you, not me. TheLeftIsIrrational (talk) 21:16, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Why would others revert your edit? --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 21:31, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Not sure. You're the person who reverted my edit, so why did you revert it? Your response here is equivalent to the officer at the street corner telling the civilian "why would another officer arrest you?" instead of giving an answer. You see the problem there, right? TheLeftIsIrrational (talk) 22:19, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ 🚔 You were acting threatening to me. Banned for one hour. 🚔 --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 22:38, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Shouldn’t have resisted... 😔 Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 22:45, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Sealioning has been coined before you registered.--Delibirda (talk) 19:23, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm aware. TheLeftIsIrrational (talk) 19:36, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I oppose Donald Trump as well, but this page looks like Donald Trump is the Antichrist. ^{— Unsigned, by: Iwillprobablygetbanned / talk / contribs}

Irrationality

Is copying the same phrase repeatedly on RW pages.

Take some dead dove, and have a nice day. Anna Livia (talk) 20:01, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I'm a bit confused which phrase you're referring to. @Anna Livia TheLeftIsIrrational (talk) 20:04, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Who wants to take bets on how long this idiot will last before being given the boot? — Oxyaena ^Harass 20:10, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Like this?

TheLeftIsIrrational (talk) 20:26, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

When she talked about being given the boot I think she meant being permabanned rather than temporarily blocked. I would have thought you could infer that based on context, but I suppose that would be uncharacteristically intelligent coming from you, hmhmhm...-Flandres (talk) 20:30, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Semantics. I knew that's what they meant, it's just funny that they think they have any moral high ground when their entire talkpage is people calling them out. TheLeftIsIrrational (talk) 20:32, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

You mean your entire talkpage? --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 20:35, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Nope, I mean this other person's. My page is full of people who are struggling to argue with me and people like you with clear ADD that can't keep on topic. Not the same thing. TheLeftIsIrrational (talk) 20:45, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I can keep on topic just fine. I talked a lot about Richard Spencer. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 20:51, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

And completely ignored what the actual topic was about, but thanks for conceding that you're on my page trolling in bad faith. You have no intention of explaining what's actually wrong with the edit I made and not paying attention to all the fallacies you're being called out on. TheLeftIsIrrational (talk) 20:53, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Do you know what "unwarranted self-aggrandizement" means? — Oxyaena ^Harass 20:51, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Do you know what "everybody hates you for your bullshit" means? Because you should. Lmao. TheLeftIsIrrational (talk) 20:53, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Also I don't have ADD. I might not be able to sustain attention for long and school was kinda hard but I didn't develop a drug addiction, didn't drop out of high school, or develop oppositional defiant disorder so I don't have ADD. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 20:54, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

If you're not in some sort of character right now, you just completely lack self awareness. TheLeftIsIrrational (talk) 20:56, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I talked about my personal history. How is that a lack of self-awareness? --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 20:58, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd try explaining to you but it would go over your head. TheLeftIsIrrational (talk) 21:02, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't know I don't have symptoms of ADD. I know myself a lot. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 21:08, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ As someone who was diagnosed with ADHD as a toddler, what's so bad about having it? Also, @LeftyGreenMario, those are some remarkably insensitive things to say. Not accusing you of ableism, unlike a certain someone here, but still. — Oxyaena ^Harass 21:47, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I'll explain in Discord dm. I have a reason of coming off that way. Apologies if I offended you, but please hear me out. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 22:21, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd twy expwaining tuwu uwu but iwt wouwd gow ovew youw head. theweftisiwwationaw (tawk) 21:02, 4 juwy 2020 (utc) (Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 22:31, 4 July 2020 (UTC))

Cute :,) TheLeftIsIrrational (talk) 22:33, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with having ADD btw. This guy doesn't know what ADD is. It's not the inability to have a productive conversation unlike what this angry self-described rational keyboard thinks. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 22:32, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I actually have never once described myself as rational on this site lmao. Nor have I described ADD as.... that. But ok lol TheLeftIsIrrational (talk) 22:33, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

:::i actuawwy have nevew once descwibed mysewf as wationaw own thiws site wmao. Now have i descwibed add as.... thawt. But ok wow theweftisiwwationaw (tawk) 22:33, 4 juwy 2020 (utc) Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 22:35, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

It is difficult to talk with soggy blancmange.

TLII - look up 'dead dove' yourself (and, in response to your next comments, I can outstare and out-comment you). Anna Livia (talk) 22:41, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

With the user name you have chosen, everyone is going to assume you are a troll. Some of us don't care, as long as you are not destructive and don't create unpleasantness in excess. I personally think everyone is irrational, at least sometimes. So why pick on the left? Why not a name like, theKKKisDisfluent or Stringtheory4kittens? Ariel31459 (talk) 22:50, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Ariel13429 - are you referring to [1] or [2]? Anna Livia (talk) 19:26, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Get your Whataboutism the fuck out of here lmao TheLeftIsIrrational (talk) 23:52, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Get youw whataboutism the fuck out of hewe wmao uwu TheWeftIsIwwationaw (tawk) 23:52, 4 Juwy 2020 (UTC) --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 0:01 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Giving examples of alternate possibilities is not whataboutism. Don't be a dipshit.Ariel31459 (talk) 00:28, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

What you did literally is whataboutism lmao TheLeftIsIrrational (talk) 04:13, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘That's blancmange 40, Podgonry 0. Bongolian (talk) 01:40, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

No. It is whynotism, which is quite distinct from whataboutism. You see, in whataboutism, in order to express doubt about the significance of Y, you might say, "but what about X?" Usually X and Y are related in some way, although X typically seems more serious than Y, thus belittling the importance of Y by way of comparison. In whynotism you are unsure what the fuck a speaker is getting at, and suggest alternate possibilities, typically satirical, with the polite request to explain why one was favored over the others. You also have a crappy sense of humor.Ariel31459 (talk) 01:53, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Considering that's not something that actually exists, if you have to create a fake term to explain your joke, you're terrible at making jokes lmao. It's whataboutism concern trolling. TheLeftIsIrrational (talk) 22:02, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Don't be an idiot. Whataboutism is not a form of satire.Ariel31459 (talk) 03:35, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

User page

Can you have a slightly better one - the most likely response being 'Why don't you yourself do so?'

Have a nice day. Anna Livia (talk) 19:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Sup

warri funi. Sqrt-1 (talk)

Question

Please define which variety of 'left' you consider irrational - this one? First to Fifth International? New Labour? Militant? Respect Party? Your sinister side? Things from here? Anna Livia (talk) 23:14, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Why are you here

And more importantly, why should we allow you to stay? Give me your best reasoning while waiting for the block to expire. — Z 21:14, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Lol didn't even respond. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 21:59, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

aw rip. — Z 12:55, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Based username tho. --RWRW (talk) 13:17, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Liz Warren (cont'd)

Moving this here @Coigreach. I'm not a Trump supporter. I realized I didn't merge the Pocahontas information because I mistakenly believed that sentence carried over as well, but that's an easy fix. Before I realized I was blocked for whatever reason this time, I had planned on editing it in at the end of my 30 minutes restriction, but unfortunately I was unable to. As you will note, I did take particular care to transfer the Clinton donor line from the previous version, so hopefully that serves as proof that I was trying to keep everything consistent from the last version. I removed the high cheekbones thing because it was already covered in this sentence from the previous paragraph: "This claim spilled over into her run for the United States Senate in 2012. Warren's high cheekbones, along with her grandfather's same feature, was proffered as supporting evidence by Warren herself." I don't recall changing any links, though. Like, I genuinely did not find any new links, and I can't see anything I took out, so I'm going to assume that you made a mistake there. The phrasings that I did remove were "this is particularly problematic because..." (I feel this could be a bit more direct -- problematic is vague, and I think the reasoning is flimsy. I don't believe that she's saying people without high cheekbones can't be indigenous, but I think it's more accurate to say that her reasoning is a fallacy based on an stereotypes, and I think it would be more apt to gut her on that note, for being ignorant and not for being "problematic". Do you see how that cuts deeper?) and the word "patronizing" in the sentence about Trump's intentions, because I think that the point is driven home without that particular word. The sentence still clearly shows that he intended to undermine her.

I'm unable to make edits to the page, because for some reason my previous edit to it has gotten me blocked. I want to assure you that the edit was in good faith, and hopefully you'll be willing to make the edits that I'm trying to make. TheLeftIsIrrational (talk) 21:43, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Okay, the "link changing" mistake was mine and came down to link order changing with your edit (as well ~having to look through the diffs from my phone and my own incompetence). Also your recent Blair White edit seemed fairly benign, so I'd be okay with giving you the benefit of the doubt and shortening the block. However, since it wasn't me but Suspected Feminazi who blocked you, and since she's much more experienced and useful sysop than me, I'm not going to challenge that block personally. Bring it up with her or one of the mods if you want to. Or bring it to Coop for all I care.

I'm also not going to restore your Warren edit just yet. Once your block gets lifted or expires, you can remake it with all the necessary information.Coigreach (talk) 23:03, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't care to challenge my block. I certainly broke no rules, but if that's not a problem for the people who blocked me then I can't do anything about that. When I am unblocked and restore the page, do you agree with my proposed changes? Do you have any objections? TheLeftIsIrrational (talk) 23:10, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

If you include everything in the first two sentences except for the repetitions (including by the way the links to Manufactroversy and Native American articles) as well as some reference to why Warrens "high cheekbones" line is problematic by itself, I might be let it stay. Also, please don't include the "Pocahontas" in the headline. The feud clearly predated Trumps Pocahontas attack, but the slur is what turned it from feud to controversy. The way you included it there is just a Dog Whistle.

That said, I can't promise someone else won't take issue and rollback it instead of me.Coigreach (talk) 23:39, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Okay, what do you believe it should be titled, @Coigreach? "False Native American heritage controversy"? I can agree to the rest of the terms, though first I do wonder why the manufactroversy link should be in there. Faking Native American heritage is problematic just as much on the Left as it is, in this case, on the Right, and that certainly was not manufactured. I may be ignorant toward another factor not covered in the article (or looking past something that is in the article), though I trust that you believe it should be there for a reason. Could you inform me? TheLeftIsIrrational (talk) 00:12, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Because no one cares. HairlessCat (talk) 00:36, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't care anymore either. And I have no more time for this. I'm tired of trying being reasonable with trolls who'll just continue to throw shit my way. Stay blocked for all I care. I'll continue to revert your unworthy edits until you coop me or go away.Coigreach (talk) 01:04, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

No, I'm promising to adhere to your terms, even the manufactroversy one. I'm just asking where it comes from. I'm also asking about what name I should use for the section because I hear your concerns and find them valid. I'm not asking out of a place of sarcasm or cynicism, @Coigreach. I've been told countless times to assume good faith for others, please, just this once do it for me. I'm only asking to understand, not to argue. TheLeftIsIrrational (talk) 01:26, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

🎻 --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 01:48, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

You made no effort to comment on the Warren talk-page explaining your edits. Try that when you are able. Ariel31459 (talk) 03:39, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I did not because I'm only able to make edits every 30 minutes. I tried to explain my edits the best I could in the edit summary, which is its primary focus. I did not realize that merging two closely-related sections would be controversial, or something I would need community consensus for. You can read my explanation in the summary or on here, in a direct conversation with the user who reverted my single edit to the page. If you have any opinions on the subject of the article's contents, I would like to hear them so I can keep them in mind when I make my edit on the page. TheLeftIsIrrational (talk) 07:35, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

The "Left"

Ignore them, I want to chat with you and only you on this. To pick your brain as it were. I want to understand your viewpoint. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 12:52, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

If you'd like a conversation with me, remove the vandal bin restriction. It was placed on me because I was talking with people on my own talk page. It was deliberately done to hinder my ability to have converation. TheLeftIsIrrational (talk) 18:54, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Firstly, no. I have no reason to play the quid pro quo game. You can switch to an Email exchange if you wish, or we can converse some other way. But I'm not just going to up and fight a moderator because you told me to. Secondly, you have failed to demonstrate intent, again. This is a recurring thing with you, and it seems to be one of the major factors in the disputes you keep getting into. Maybe don't accuse others of malice without evidence? Now, I want to pick your brain, and I'm patient enough to converse over the course of days if need be. Or we can switch to Email, or Discord, or something else. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 19:16, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

You richly deserve the vandal bin for being a discourteous jerk to everyone, okay? Stop complaining. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 20:04, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't need you to fight a moderator, but I hope you understand those are my terms for this kind of conversation. I don't need to describe my intent for being on this site. No answer of mine would please the inquiring minds, for they're not asking out of curiosity. It's clear everyone who comes to my talk page seeks to debate. I have lost all interest in doing that. I do trust that you are here in good faith and I may entertain this conversation later on, but as of right now the circumstances are not appropriate for us to have such a conversation. ^{— Unsigned, by: TheLeftIsIrrational / talk / contribs}

Very well then, though I seek an informal "debate". Also, please sign you posts, lest you accidentally put your words in the mouths of others. _{Though it would help if they didn't butt into a private conversation as well...} ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 18:34, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Yo

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

— Dysk (contribs) 21:53, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Incidentally, your block was lifted so you can defend yourself in the coop. Your still restricted to one edit per 30 minutes, so I recommend you make them count.Coigreach (talk) 22:04, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I was blocked again before I had the ability to defend myself, though I don't see the reason to. Everyone here is entitled their negative opinion of me, even if there is evidence to the contrary. I will state, however, that the edits that got me banned for alleged "insanity" (madly ableist accusation without any basis) were genuinely in good faith, and I was engaged in a conversation with the person who took issue with it seeking understanding for what they wanted. I can't understand this latest ban -- I was blocked for 3.6 days with my last ban. Re-upping it when I've done nothing since makes no sense to me. Also, weird how everyone's assuming I'm male. I'm not. TheLeftIsIrrational (talk) 05:56, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Promote the use of 'ze' for non-gender-specific RW usernames. Anna Livia (talk) 12:43, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Or just "they", and if someone wants to go by "ze", then let them correct you. They/them suffices perfectly. TheLeftIsIrrational (talk) 20:06, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I find it curious, how you simultaneously consider enbies to be valid, as you implied on the coop page, yet promote transmed and claim we ain't trans... — Dysk (contribs) 21:36, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't see this obsession with having to be considered trans to have your identity validated. Non-binaries aren't always transgender. There are some people who do transition, who do have dysphoria, who go with non-binary pronouns, but it's not like the non-binary part is what makes them trans. I don't personally like "ze/zim" but I'm not going to be an asshole to somebody who really likes it to their face. Really, I do think they/them should suffice. I consider non-binary a slightly evolved form of gender expression, like performative, rather than an actual gender. TheLeftIsIrrational (talk) 21:48, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

You are wrong. Gender is not black and white. I consider non-binary genders to be shades of "grey"(Correct me if I am wrong).--Delibirda (talk) 07:25, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

TheLeft - my comment was specifically about usernames (and IPs) not about gender issues per se: perhaps RW can devise 'a pronoun that makes no assumptions'. Anna Livia (talk) 18:42, 19 July 2020 (UTC)