User talk:The Blade of the Northern Lights

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome to RationalWiki, The Blade of the Northern Lights![edit]

Please see our guide for newcomers and our community standards.

If you are interested in contributing, please read what our articles are intended to be.

You can tell us how you found RationalWiki here.--ZooGuard (talk) 17:03, 3 April 2015 (UTC)


MRA[edit]

Hello, how are you! My name is Scott, and I'm an Egalitarian, meaning I believe in equality regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, ect. Some say this makes me a feminist. Some say this makes me an MRA. I prefer to avoid using said terms however, because neither term accurately describes the entirety of my beliefs. Anyways, introductions out of the way, I wished to talk to you about the MRA post you've made. I've noticed much of the post has both factual errors, many claims without sources, as well as many straw man arguments set up (with a healthy dose of sarcasm as a dismissive tactic). I've also noticed that you've lumped MRA, MGTOW, and PUA's into one group, when the differences between them are vast. Firstly, let me say both Feminism and Masculism have their toxic environments. While both groups must accept their fringe extremists (after all, we don't want to fall victim to using the "No true Scotsman" fallacy) We must also acknowledge in both groups that the exception doesn't disprove the rule, and that a vast majority of people within the movement are not represented by the fringe groups. It is therefore important to differentiate between the followers of a movement, the fringe extremists (those loud vocal minority, as you put it), and the successful operations -of- said movement. However, most of your article reads more like someone who's just read what opponents have said about the movement, instead of actually having spent much time within the movement. You also seem to be under the impression that MRA means "anti-feminist", which is not the case. While many MRA are opposed to the feminist lobbying which have passed un-egalitarian laws, as well as against the many death threats received just for attempting to gather to speak, that does not mean they're opposed to feminist ideals. In your addressing some of the grievances, you often make it out as if them having grievances, even the ones you claim are legitimate grievances, are somehow an attack on feminism. You also claim that feminists are the primary ones fighting for these grievances to be addressed, and if so, I'd love to see the links showing this. Also, in your history, you seem to leave out key details to give the whole picture of what's going on. I have since gone back and added some context to things (however, the revisions are being deleted) and rather than having a thing where we keep undoing each others revisions, I'd much rather us come together, have a rational discussion about some elements, and in the end, have a more accurate picture, reflecting both the good points of the movement, as well as pointing out the toxic areas it needs to change. --Kiorri (talk)

TL:DR, I'd love for us to be able to work together to inform the public with facts, and without bias :)

I sense a balance fallacy... just link the above figure (who has not left a signature) to We Hunted the Mammoth. Also may the figure above please leave a signature. --Aile Dhoo (talk) 10:15, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Absolutely, signnature now linked, my apologies. This doesn't actually constitute a balance fallacy, and in fact, merely ask the same criteria for critical judgement be applied to both sides, rather than claiming both sides have equal merit without cause. While the editor often points out in painstaking detail that it is wrong to paint with a broad brush when it comes to feminism, the editor fails to apply that same logic when working with the MRAs. I also fail to see why you posting the We Hunted the Mammoth has any sort of bearing on this issue. I'd already said there were toxic elements, but that doesn't mean those toxic elements are the primary or even a statistically significant number of MRAs. This would be the same as someone posting a compilation of quotes about how men are all scum, or a copy of the S.C.U.M manifesto, or any of the feminist who speak of eugenics or the kill all men hashtag, and say that means all feminists or even most feminists wish to mass murder half the population. Why don't we say this? Because we acknowledge that the toxic elements of feminism are not the majority of feminists (although at times they can be the loudest). So in short, asking for the same critical criteria to apply to all isn't a balance fallacy at all, but rather what we called structure and non-bias. A balance fallacy would be to say "Some say white people were slaves before the American Civil War, some say black people are slaves prior to the Civil War, therefore both arguments have merit. Instead, we'd say "lets apply the same logic and research requirements to both claims objectively, and see which statement is true, and which is false." That is all I'm asking for, is the same critical criteria to be applied across the board, for non biased research to be made, for claims to be backed up with evidence and citation, and for the arguments to be given non biased critical analysis. Because that's what the "Rational" in "RationalWiki" is supposed to be all about :) --Kiorri (talk)
I actually took the time to read all of this, and my response is only that you're conflating individual people with a broader philosophy as a whole. The gestalt of of feminism is to seek equality, and it's not really fair to highlight individual groups within the movement as representative of the entire school of thought. As someone who's reading Until Proven Innocent I'm aware that the feminist movement (to say nothing of the racial equality movement; the North Carolina chapter of the NAACP did things that were nothing short of sickening, and a few lunatics on the Durham city council decided that inviting the New Black Panthers to engage in voter intimidation was a completely legitimate thing to do) is a lot less ideal than this site would have one believe, and without any contradiction I can say it's also true that plenty of others within feminism who are actively trying to combat these elements; in that respect, I happen to be largely in agreement with people like Cathy Young. If you feel you can improve my edits, go right ahead; that's not intended as sarcasm, I just want to see what you have in mind. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
An even better article than spotlight fallacy for this behavior is nutpicking, which is to take someone associated with a movement, identify the worst thing they've said, and say "they're like that". ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:38, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Just wanted to thank you for going back and making so many revisions to the article to make it more accurate. The only thing I still see wrong with this is the fallacy of relative privation when speaking of male genital mutilations or circumcision. FGM being worse than has no bearing on if MGM is wrong. Both are wrong. Cheers :) --Kiorri (talk)

Yer a janitor, Harry[edit]

Use it wisely - David Gerard (talk) 09:36, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Wow, that was easy. Thanks, I haven't screwed anything up too badly on Wikipedia yet so I should be able to keep it together here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:17, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Cause for your recent activity[edit]

First FIRE, then CHS. Is someone complaining on Twitter again, or?--ZooGuard (talk) 15:21, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

No (the only Twitter I ever check is Charlie Rose's), I just happened across Sommers while reading a Cathy Young article (I generally agree with Young, but she's too sympathetic to Sommers for my taste). FIRE I came across because it's linked at Wikipedia to the niggardly controversies, and of late I've also been trying to keep a lid on some of the antics on Wikipedia's article about the Sulkowicz/Nungesser mess (which has meant shutting down ideologues on both sides). I don't particularly care for their point of view, but at the same time actively ignoring wha good they have done in an effort to demonize them makes us look a bit shrill and isn't going to convince as many people. You'll notice I didn't change the general thrust of the articles, and only did things on the fringe; that's all. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:32, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Boy Scouts of America & the "gay ban"[edit]

Hiya,

I've started a thread on the talk page of Boy Scouts of America, because I think that the claim about a sort of BSoA "don't ask don't"-policy misses the point, i.e. that it wasn't more tolerant, but actually less, because it prudishly insisted that all sex topics should be suppressed and that this was in no small matter at the behest at the same religiously conservative forces that pushed the later "gay ban". It's not an argument meant to defend the more recent overtly discriminatory policies, merely a counter to a sort of nostalgic "good old days"-argument that I think is unsustainable. Please pitch in. ScepticWombat (talk) 06:11, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Come to think of it, this change of BSoA policy from "a conspiracy of silence" to a (comparatively) narrow discriminatory ban might be indicative of the extent to which conservative sexual morals have lost ground in the public discourse. 50 or 60 years ago (hell, we don't even have to go that far back, depending on the locality), the religiously conservative could essentially keep any discussion of sex under wraps, because a general attitude towards sex as an "icky" or "rude" subject buttressed such a taboo.
Today, the religiously and sexually conservatives (pretty synonymous in this regard, I think) have completely lost the field of public discourse (and increasingly public opinion) and instead have to stage elaborate "anti-sex pageantry", such as the abstinence balls and the purity ring theatrics, as well as rehashing some of the old exorcism-shtick, along with 1970s' and 80s' style self-help bunk, in the guise of the religious versions of reparative therapy.
Yet for all this thunder and fury, incl. the various attempts to pre-emptively outlaw same-sex marriage, attitudes are turning "pinker" by the year. My guess, however, is that for at least some of those in the religiously and sexually conservative glass bubble, there might be a tendency to see a groundswell or a movement on the rise (rather than a withering segment of increasingly loud conservatism) based on the "All my friends think that..."-phenomenon. This is not to say that the greater tolerance towards and openness about sexual matters in general and homosexuality (and LGBT and so on) in particular can't go into reverse, but so far there's little to suggest it. ScepticWombat (talk) 06:49, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

thanks[edit]

for responding to my issues at Views on rape culture so quickly. Carptrash (talk) 15:31, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

No problem, and thanks for raising them so quickly; I didn't realize how ambiguous it was until you pointed it out, and now that section is better for it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Eh, just wondering[edit]

Why the particular interest in Genie? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 00:46, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm an autistic and normally have a hard time reading emotion or expression, seeing as normal signs of them don't register as such in my brain (I have to consciously think about them to make any sense of them), but in the video and pictures I've seen of Genie her expressions are completely clear to me. For me, that's an experience I haven't had with anyone else even in person; lest you think this is impossible, Genie was/is known for extremely powerful nonverbal expressiveness that none of the people who worked with her could ever pin down. Also, the story is an exceptionally gripping one due to it's (mercifully) unique circumstances. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:55, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Ah, interesting. Thanks for the honest reply. ;) 142․124․55․236 (talk) 18:19, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Ah, wait[edit]

So the mother was telling sob stories about how much she suffered raising the kid and out of pity, they gave the kid some awards? That's a pretty complicated tale to tell in a footnote. I can see how parents of, let's say, kids with special needs can exaggerate the ordeal of taking care of their kids and how that can go into professional victim territory, but if you want to make note of that, you should probably use a source that's actually about such behaviour, instead of something that was apparently an indirect consequence of it and with the source making no note of this. 142․124․55․236 (talk) 18:19, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'll do a little more digging; I'm personally familiar with said story, but I vaguely remember a later article basically saying the same. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:03, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

this[edit]

is the mod for you i think. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 16:18, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I've come to the conclusion that such things are a self-fulfilling prophecy; if you go around looking for things to be offended at, you'll find them somewhere. I suppose I can understand why some people have issues with perceptions of "ableism", but my outlook is that there are a ton of very good reasons most people don't have autistic brains (Exhibit A; I have no desire to marry or have kids, it's A Good Thing most people don't feel the same way). That's why I'll fight to my dying day against being referred to as anything other than "disabled", and in real life I go out of my way to encourage people to refer to me using the least sensitive terms possible. And if they ever find a cure for autism That won't affect my reading and memory skills I'll jump right in line. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:02, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Waiting until the bodies are cold to start a discussion on school shootings.[edit]

You asked us to wait until the bodies were cold to start a conversation about school shootings. Do we have to wait until the bodies are cold from the two school shootings today, or can we just go by the temperature of the bodies from last week's incident? Or do we have to wait until we go, say six months or so without a mass gun tragedy? If so, is such a thing possible? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 21:01, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Just my $0.02 is that it is a way avoid the subject since gun violence happens every day. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 22:02, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Rather think that's what AH was hinting at. Scream!! (talk) 22:05, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Agreed completely, but hearing this for 16 years makes it a bit harder for me to hint at it. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 23:30, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm probably just a little too close to the Newtown situation (being on the autism spectrum there was some additional nastiness unrelated to guns that came out of that situation which was hard to clean up after) so take that for what it's worth. Upon thinking about it some more I realize that the only places where emotions run too high for meaningful discussion are among the people who have some actual personal connection to the area, not the (great majority of) people for whom such places are Any Random Town, USA. The problem is that Newtown is still a poster child for it, so everyone expects those of us in this area to take up the cause on a personal level beyond what seemingly everyone else is supposed to do; wanting things to change and not wanting to be the face of it are entirely compatible, and that's the tension I personally feel. I'm actually pretty strongly in favor of gun control, lest you think I'm a deep cover gun nut, and want to discuss the issue, it's about keeping people who don't really want to be at the forefront of this fight out of it. Some people who feel the direct impact of these events do want to take up a leadership role, but plenty of others want no part of it and I don't want to be a part of forcing them into being the public face of what is a very contentious and toxic dispute. I don't know if this makes much sense, I'm having a very hard time finding the words for what I want to say (autism can be extremely frustrating), but I hope you can at least understand what I'm getting at. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:24, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
I think I get you. I don't think that you, as a denizen of Newtown, have any particular obligation to participate in a debate that you don't feel ready. I totally respect that. but while acknowledging that old line about how "the personal is political," personal feelings and political discussions happen on different planes, and I do think there is a way to have a policy debate about any event, even in its immediate aftermath, in a way that provides space for those of us with a commitment to a particular stance to make ourselves heard without stepping on the feelings of people who have a different sort of stake in the game. I can write a letter to the editor, or march on the Capitol, or pass around a petition before the bodies have cooled and not feel like I'm stepping on toes. I wouldn't, for example, protest at a funeral, or pass out a petition right where the mourners are gathering for a vigil the night after the shooting. There's room for mourning and for politics, as long as the latter respects the turf rights of the former. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 06:29, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree Hippie, as I don't think people as individuals have any requirement to comment on any particular tragedy...and to say that they don't wish to, or have anything that could be constructive, to say at this moment. I do think the calls to "wait till the bodies cool" has been well overused as a device to stop everyone talking about it. Which is what it felt like here.
Newtown did not get mentioned, if that is what you cannot cope with, until you did and you had the option not to be involved in the conversation at all. Yet you inserted yourself and Newtown into the conversation seemingly to say everyone shouldn't speak about shootings. That seems more like preventing the discussion. Which seems very disingenuous even if it wasn't really intended to be so. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 16:51, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
I can live with it just fine, let's not get carried away here (I didn't know anyone involved, before someone asks). I haven't had the experience of people trying to shut the discussion down using the methods you describe, as there's not much disagreement on the issue among the people I know, but now that you say it I completely get where you're coming from and I'll bear that in mind for future discussions. No stonewalling intended, as I said I completely support a drastic tightening of gun laws and I'm sure I could learn a few things from the discussions here. Now let's get back to conquering the world. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:34, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I wanted to get across what it seemed like since it's a pretty common shutdown technique. I know people affected by mass shootings, and my wife/I have nearly been in 3 mass casualty events, so it's personally important since you only get lucky so many times while the NRA and politicians fuck about. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 14:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
I think that's the big reason I haven't encountered the gun nuts much, CT's govenor (Dannel Malloy) is the arch enemy of the NRA and they don't have much presence here beyond some actually useful gun safety courses. I occasionally forget the rest of the country isn't so lucky. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:57, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Vitamin K and MAOIs[edit]

Are you sure you're not confusing Vitamin K with something else? Having depression, I've read a fair bit about antidepressants, and I've never heard anything about Vitamin K interacting with MAOIs. A little Internet searching didn't turn up anything. --Ymir (talk) 04:39, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I'm confusing it with tyramine; I think my issue is that a lot of foods with one also have the other. I'll fix it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:01, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Hate speech[edit]

I'm just too tired to do it right now -- my brain is pretty addled -- but I'd eventually like to do more with that article, in particular the difference between the U.S. and the Rest of the World. It's one of the few areas where I'm an American chauvinist. I've already done some fixing at the Freedom of speech and Constitution articles, but not as much as I'd like there either. ---Mona- (talk) 02:11, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I'll certainly help out, seems like a fun project. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:36, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Marcotte link[edit]

FYI, I just saw that Scott Aaronson thing at the Scott Alexander article and see you battled with Gerard over the Marcotte link. Others on the talk page also object to it, and I most certainly do -- there is also support for linking to the man's comment itself. So, I reworded that clause and linked both to the original comment and a more measured criticism by Laurie Penny. Gerard prolly isn't going to like it but I don't see a majority for: 1. Not linking to the comment itself, and 2 citing the Marcotte screed.---Mona- (talk) 05:22, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I'd forgotten about it, I'll comment if I absolutely must but I'd rather just leave it be. I'll look at the conversation, though. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:46, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Nobody's said anything, or reverted me. So maybe it's ok.---Mona- (talk) 05:55, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Seems all right, if it flares up I'll weigh in as needed. Thanks. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 07:58, 21 December 2015 (UTC)