User talk:Umaru16

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search


New logo large.png Welcome to RationalWiki, Umaru16!

Check out our guide for newcomers and our community standards!

Tell us how you found RationalWiki here!

If you are interested in contributing:

Welcome back, whoever you used to be (not sure why Kevlarstar pulled his welcome back, you don't seem to be undeserving of one). Knight CommanderIn ServiceTo HerGoatness 08:47, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

@Knight CommanderLook at his user page. Kevlarstar and his dog (Woof!) 08:58, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
I had looked at it, hence the "whoever you used to be". So? Knight CommanderIn ServiceTo HerGoatness 09:36, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Oh, I see, thought this account is no longer in use. I'm sorry, KC and Umaru. Kevlarstar and his dog (Woof!) 10:17, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Minor Edits[edit]

Please read the section about what a minor edit is on this page and tag your future edits appropriately. 'Cause I'm a stickler for technicalities. SolPyre (talk) 16:36, 16 January 2021 (UTC)


Because of your edits to and time on the wiki, Autopatrolled has been added to your user rights. This lets you bypass most of the abuse filters, bypass the CAPTCHA, and edit more frequently. If you have questions, bleat ask away.

We hope you enjoy your newfound POWER — and these external tools:

  • Google Scholar Button (Chrome, Firefox) searches your highlighted text in Google Scholar. Easily check academic citations!
  • and can save permanent copies of webpages. Never lose a crank website or racist Tweet ever again!

β€” π—¦π—Ύπ—Ώπ˜-𝟭 talk stalk 03:46, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

AOC claims[edit]

I'd still like citations for your claims that AOC called for "the dissolution of the police, the modern monetary theory, or the dissolution of the financial world". I'd like them in English so I can read them. Double checking my own sources has revealed that AOC called for defunding the police after the events of last year when they more or less acted like an invading army and had almost zero accountability, to the degree that an actual slap on their actual wrists would have been more substantial than what most of them received. And that's without getting into the problem of systemic corruption and racism here in the US, where I live by the way. As for the financial stuff, that really depends on what she's called for. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:36, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Could you remember er the mission?[edit]


When creating new articles it might be best if you bore in mind the RW mission:

  1. Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement;
  2. Documenting the full range of crank ideas;
  3. Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism;
  4. Analysis and criticism of how these subjects are handled in the media.

Thanks! Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 09:55, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Categories for liberalism[edit]

Hi. Would you be interested in creating the categories Classical liberelism and liberal conservativism? I think I'll create them on the next few days and I could use some help. GeeJayK (talk) 01:49, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

OK. First, make two categories yourself. I'll intervene after that.--Umaru16 (talk) 02:08, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Ok, just give me a few days, I'm extra busy right now. I'll tell you when it's done. GeeJayK (talk) 02:22, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Well, that was quick. I'll add a few other articles to the categories. In which one do you think we should put Eisenhower? GeeJayK (talk) 14:22, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Finish adding. You can check on my contributions, if you disagree with anything feel free to revert. GeeJayK (talk) 14:44, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Eisenhower is considered a centrist or a social liberal, so I think it's better not to include both categories.--Umaru16 (talk) 01:00, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Fine by me. I saw that you added again the category liberals to some of the articles. I believe that we shouldn't add both Liberals and classical liberals though. You can check Wikipedia:Categorization Β§ SubcategorizationWikipedia to see the reasons. GeeJayK (talk) 01:21, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Among the centrist of One-nation conservatives and German CDU, there are many cases of social liberal tendencies. # And John Stuart Mill is a radicals. Radicalism was the name for left-leaning liberals or 'historical' far-left before social liberalism emerged.--Umaru16 (talk) 01:29, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Oh, I'm not denying he was a radical. My point is the subcategorization, Wikis usually don't add the category when you have already added the subcategory. GeeJayK (talk) 01:33, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

β”Œβ”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”˜ Maybe it's the case for a new category for social liberalism. GeeJayK (talk) 01:33, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I think it's okay to use both categories because they have different purposes. This classification didn't matter on the wiki I use in South Korea. RationalWiki doesn't have to abide by Wikipedia rules. And I'm against creating a social liberal category. This is because social liberalism is often referred to as "liberalism" in the United States.--Umaru16 (talk) 01:37, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Of course I don't think characters like Milton Friedman should use the category Liberals.--Umaru16 (talk) 01:41, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Well, I've seen people doing this to subcategories, so don't get surprised if someone else remove these categories. Indeed, the word liberalism is (mis)used in US as a synonym of social liberalism, but again, citing Wikipedia, they do a good job in this regard. Milton Friedman himself has the liberalism template on his page if I remember correctly. GeeJayK (talk) 01:47, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Then wouldn't it be fair to revive the "Category:Liberal wingnuttery" document right away? RationalWiki is an American wiki.--Umaru16 (talk) 02:01, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Hum, I wouldn't call RW an American wiki, and I think most people don't see it as an American Wiki (although it's probably... too American, I think you can see the difference). Regarding the category, probably not as these categories keep causing bickering. Most of "liberal wingnuts" can be considered either centrist stupids, liberal moonbats or libertarian wingnuts. Categories for political insanity are probably going to be deleted soon if you want my honest opinion. In any case, that's just my opinion, we shouldn't treat liberalism as social liberalism just because Americans use these two terms as synonyms. I saw @GrammarCommie mentioning today that liberalism is centrism, so not every American. GeeJayK (talk) 02:09, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
@GeeJayK Overarching (most schools of Liberal thought, since it can go left or right depending on how one applies the core principles of Liberal thought) it is pretty centrist. It evens out, and isn't very radical in terms of socio-economic observations or policy prescriptions. It's still funny (in my opinion at least) when people act like Liberalism is radical, since it really isn't. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 02:32, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
@GeeJayK I think we should revive "Category: Liberal wingnuttery". There are many classical liberals who are close to center-right, not centrist, and many cases are hard to say that they are completely social liberal. In Europe, there is an awful lot of right-wing liberals. Not all classical liberals are libertarians.--Umaru16 (talk) 03:15, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
And, as you say, if you create a "Category:social liberalism" and apply it to most left-wing liberals, there is virtually no reason for "Category:Liberals" to exist.--Umaru16 (talk) 03:19, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
"RationalWiki is an American wiki" This is simply not true.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 07:43, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
That would be interesting, but I'll have to take a break for at least two weeks because of some private issues, so I won't be able to help a lot at least until the end of the month. GeeJayK (talk) 15:02, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
I changed my mind. RationalWiki is not unique to the United States, so we're creating a new Category:social liberalism to reflect your opinion.--Umaru16 (talk) 01:51, 22 May 2021 (UTC)


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 POWER course through your veins. Once the high wears off, see RationalWiki:Sysop guide for more information. If you have questions, bleat ask away. Christopher (talk) 18:10, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

The Republican Party[edit]

It's pretty extremely far to the right, with so called "far right" parties in Europe like the UKIP and National Rally being to the left of it. We can have a debate on how the Democrats stack up against international standards, but even if I grant you that the South Korean and Japanese parties are to the right of the Republicans, it still doesn't Mme them not far right by international standards. Plutocow (talk) 04:34, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Western Europe and Northern Europe are the world's most progressive regions. Don't you think we need to take this into account? Even right-wing populists in the UK and the US may be more liberal than South Korean left-of-center in some social issues such as LGBT.--Umaru16 (talk) 04:50, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
The U.S. Republican Party is far-right by European standards. However, it is difficult to agree that it is far-right in international standards.--Umaru16 (talk) 05:00, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Social issues are one thing, but economic issues are something you also have to take into consideration, and the U.S. is one of the most neoliberal countries in the developed world, with it not even having free healthcare (which Japan at least does have). And you have to understand that the Republican Party isn't really pro-LGBT either. Plutocow (talk) 05:09, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
South Korea's liberal president, Moon Jae In, opposes homosexuality and does not respect transgender people at all. As far as I know, Donald Trump has never made any remarks against homosexuality or denying the existence of transgender people. In South Korea, the LGBT debate is not a bathroom debate or a same-sex marriage debate. Their existence itself is denied.
And I don't think South Korean welfare is better than the United States. That's right. South Korea has better medical insurance than the United States. The problem is that most of the other welfare is inferior to that of the United States. Find out how miserable the poor in South Korea live. Bong Joon-ho's movie is the reality of South Korea itself.--Umaru16 (talk) 05:23, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
I think Japan is at least more progressive in terms of welfare than South Korea and the United States. However, the LDP is very Ultra-nationalistic. The majority of Japanese are much more socially conservative than Republicans.--Umaru16 (talk) 05:27, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
And we need to distinguish between economic and welfare policies. Neoliberalism is not popular in South Korea, but welfare is weaker than in the United States. This is because Korean vested interests are colluding with Chaebol. Also, look for data related to labor rights in South Korea.--Umaru16 (talk) 05:32, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
South Koreans and Japanese living in the United States often show liberal tendencies, but local South Koreans and local Japanese never do. As you will know when you travel to South Korea, there are few people with disabilities on the streets of South Korea. Do you know why? In addition, individual welfare for minority groups, not welfare for the whole nation, is much worse in Japan than in the United States.--Umaru16 (talk) 05:48, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
For this reason, the U.S. Republican Party is never recognized as the far right in South Korea and Japan. Many South Koreans and Japanese think the cultural position of the U.S. Democratic Party is very radical. There are so many ugly wingnut countries in the world.--Umaru16 (talk) 05:39, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
In conclusion, I think it is right to conclude in the article The Lincoln Project that GOP is far-right in European standards. It is very ambiguous and subjective that GOP is far-right in international standards.--Umaru16 (talk) 12:04, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Most people are going to assume that the political positions they hold are reasonable and logical - and the further other people are from their own "completely logical" position then the more extreme these other people are going to appear. So what any individual considers to be "far right" or "far left" is going to be in relation to their own position. Saying "in country X that wouldn't be an extreme position", while probably true, does nothing to change the perception of any particular individual about whether a particular opinion is objectively extreme or not.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 15:23, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
Well... First of all, I think all the parliamentary parties in South Korea are cultural far-right parties by U.S. standards. Also, I think GOP is never a far-right party. East Asia is more conservative than Americans imagine.--Umaru16 (talk) 00:40, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
That is my point. people consider things to be "far right" or "far left" based on some personal arbitrary cultural standard.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:43, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Banning IPs[edit]

It is standard procedure to not permaban them, and permabanning them won't work with our current spammer who is hopping between TOR IPs anyway. Plutocow (talk) 02:08, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

For banning Poczer[edit]

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

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

Please don't block people who insert content you disagree with. His edits were well sourced. -- Techpriest (talk) 16:45, 23 December 2021 (UTC)


Would you want to cooperate on an article regarding the Chaebols in South Korea? Adam Warlock (talk) 20:38, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Um...I don't have much knowledge in that field. It will be difficult to cooperate.--Umaru16 (talk) 15:09, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
All right then never mind.Adam Warlock (talk) 18:02, 3 January 2022 (UTC)


I've nominated you to serve on the rationalmedia foundation due to the quality and frequency of your mainspace contributions

More below You've been nominated to the RationalMedia Foundation election. Please accept or decline here; if you accept, you may wish to campaign. Neiltyson1fan (talk) 13:35, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

That template is a bit confusing, you can accept or decline here Neiltyson1fan (talk) 13:45, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I won't participate in the election.--Umaru16 (talk) 22:57, 11 July 2022 (UTC)