User talk:Withoutaname

Welcome to RationalWiki, Withoutaname! 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. Pull up a goat and have some fun! Any questions? Please see the help page or ask me on my talk page.

--MtD^{Pert yet flexible} 08:59, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

---

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

Please, to the talk page. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 02:57, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Let's not try to remove suggestions that aren't vandalism/trolling from your talk page, as this may result in problems. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (pretentious, unwarranted self importance) (talk) 03:03, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh I removed the extra welcome since I had one already. I just forgot to restore his Paravant's comment. Withoutaname (talk) 03:04, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Your old one was no longer accurate. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 03:09, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I still don't see what's wrong with my edit. No one who reverts me will tell me why. Withoutaname (talk) 03:19, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

New pages

I have moved the pages you recently created to your userspace. They were stubs of just a few lines' length, not something ready for mainspace yet.--JorisEnter (talk) 11:38, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Why? Articles that never get started never get written. It's the same here as it is on Wikipedia. If you expect people to write full blown essays on their first try, only the most dedicated and hardcore writers will ever manage to have the mental capacity and time to do it. You'll have one person writing the bulk of the article content and everyone else contributing superficially, rather than having each section of the article grow organically. And things in userspace tend to either rot or become a jumbled mess trying to compete between different user essays with different narratives on the same topic. Trust me, I've experienced this all firsthand on Wikipedia. Withoutaname (talk) 11:52, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

We've also experienced plenty of articles being written but never expanded over here. They (a) rot away without anyone ever noticing, or (b) get AfD'd after which they are either deleted or merged into something else. If you can't write an article with a length of more than a few lines about it, you might want to add id to some other page (the things about Chinese communism could go into either communism or Mao Zedong, for example).--JorisEnter (talk) 11:58, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Wanted to say the same thing. For example class collaboration could go into Fascism and Revolutionary Spontaneity could either go into Direct action, a mention at libertarian socialism, anarchism, etc.

That way you (and others noticing it) could work on the topic on an established article and when it gets big enough it could be spun off into its own article.∈ NameThatNobodyTakes (✎) 12:06, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Might surprise you

RationalWiki is a fringe opinion aggregation that prioritizes the views of socialists supporting state coercion and advocates huffpo-based solutions to all social needs. RationalWikiists believe that compulsory taxation is in balance to individual subsistence, and thus believe that law enforcement, courts, and all security services should be paid for by anyone who has a real job, such as truckers, construction workers, and other prisoners of society who do not make their living off of blogging. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 07:16, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

TIL all RationalWikians believe in taxation and taxation is socialist. They might have a point saying modern American leftism is now reduced to blogging about anticapitalism though. Withoutaname (talk) 08:00, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm honestly surprised that sub has ~10k more subscribers than r/Communism. I was expected like ~5k total subscribers max. Lord Aeonian (talk) 08:04, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Sysop

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. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 04:26, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Bot

I have given you bot status to avoid clogging up the Recent Changes. Leave a message on my talk page when you're done removing excess images.--JorisEnter (talk) 14:59, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Done.--JorisEnter (talk) 16:41, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Because I'm tired

And we already have articles on your very unique views if you aren't joking. ClothCoat (talk) 08:11, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I find those articles to be either eating from the trashcan of liberal ideology or quite lacking in analysis. It's usually "communism killed quadrillions of people" which is irrelevant to the validity of an ideology, which they never comment on.

And if you're going to trot out liberal platitudes of how socialism is "great in theory and terrible in practice" while simultaneously subscribing to the obsolete Hegelian notion that "free speech" allows the best ideas to rise to the top, you're going to have to reconcile why we don't have socialism yet. Withoutaname (talk) 08:26, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

You're just saying words now. ClothCoat (talk) 08:27, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Amadeo Bordiga is a redlink. Withoutaname (talk) 08:45, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

And? Look I get it you read a book or something but I'm losing the energy to care about this. ClothCoat (talk) 08:47, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

You don't have articles rebutting my "very unique views" and what scant articles you have with anything further left than liberalism lack substance. You also display an astounding lack of knowledge about both socialist and fascist political projects that I suggest you start picking up a few books on both before you come up with worn-out liberal arguments like "no true communist" or "muh human nature". Withoutaname (talk) 09:04, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I think it would do you some good to stop mindlessly parroting weird Communist memes and instead go outside and get some fresh air. Also I haven't even said anything related to most of the memes you've been rambling about. ClothCoat (talk) 09:37, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Communism&diff=next&oldid=1737296 Withoutaname (talk) 09:44, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Still not seeing the connection, except for the "no true communist" meme of course. Let's see here:

if you're going to trot out liberal platitudes of how socialism is "great in theory and terrible in practice" When did I say this?

subscribing to the obsolete Hegelian notion that "free speech" allows the best ideas to rise to the top When did I say this?

"muh human nature" When did I say this?

lack of knowledge about both socialist and fascist political projects Let me guess this means disagreeing with your unverifibable oddball political theories that only exist on the fringe of the fringe?

Would you feel better if I actually set you up to use the memes you're clearly dying to use? ClothCoat (talk) 09:51, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ No, I'm just pre-empting your arguments since that is the route most liberals I've encountered tend to bring up. WRT Fascism is mostly associated with Third Positionism and combines left-wing rhetoric on economic issues with right-wing rhetoric on social issues, and in particular the idealization of past empires as national projects. You would understand this if you even bothered to read the page on Fascism on this very website. Withoutaname (talk) 10:18, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Userpages

Wow I didn't realize userpages were such a big fucking deal. But I lost my temper there, mainly because RBP was egging me on and I fell for it. He frequently called me a "troll", despite me being completely sincere; he called me a "crank", despite never having seriously refuted a single argument; he called me a "fanatic", despite my intention to never preach socialism to anyone and only criticize RationalWiki's absurd bias against it. Even after all that, he continues to attack me and shows quite a sociopathic lack of concern for others. Withoutaname (talk) 18:19, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

And for the last fucking time, I'm not a concern troll. You can go ask FCP or David Gerard about my history. Withoutaname (talk) 18:28, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't normally comment on drama on RW but you said that Reverend Black Percy has "'sociopathic lack of concern for others" I'd beg to differ. RBP is a really nice and sincere person, whilst on this wiki he showed nothing but compassion and friendliness towards me (and many others). From what I've seen, he never attempts to maliciously wrong someone; if he's mad at you, you must have pissed him off quite a bit. Now, I don't know if you're a troll or not but you certainly have the incorrect impression of RVB.--WMS (talk) 22:05, 1 October 2016 (UTC)