User talk:YellowJelly

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
New logo large.png Welcome to RationalWiki, YellowJelly!

Please see our guide for newcomers and our community standards.

Tell us how you found RationalWiki here!

If you are interested in contributing:

-💎📀1️⃣ (talk) 04:25, 31 July 2016 (UTC)


Based on your edits and time on the wiki, you've been given Autopatrolled status. This makes it easier for you to edit and lets you bypass the CAPTCHA. If you have questions, feel free to ask me or another editor.-💎📀1️⃣ (talk) 23:03, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Pinochet apologism[edit]

Really? You do know Pinochet literally made his opponents "disappear". another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 18:39, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, about 3'000. That comment on my user page is not to be taken seriously. Now, if you want to get into an argument, it could be considered that most of the "disappeared" persons were meant to be former left-wing terrorist members who had already killed a lot of people before Pinochet took power during Allende's regime. Those organization were the VOP and MIR, then later came the FPMR. To keep them alive was a threat to the public security and was a problem that needed to be dealt with as the previous government didn't (and almost embraced their actions). Do I like people being killed? Absolutely not. Do I think it's correct to kill a future murder in self-defense? Sadly, yes. I hope you can understand my point of view. YellowJelly (talk) 17:22, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Please sign your posts on talk pages, like this ~~~~. On your point. Do you think of due process and the other things most modern democratic constitutions have as bad things? If yes, you are to me indistinguishable from a fascist. And Pinochet was also the closest thing to a fascist that existed after 1945 in Latin America. The best way to fight political violence is to treat it like normal crime. Once you start setting up special tribunals and paranoid security theater the terrorists start to win and can use your hysterical response for propaganda purposes. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 16:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't think of those as bad things, quite the contrary, they are the most useful towards achieving a better society. However, you have to understand the historical context of the killings, where doing such thing wasn't really a possibility. Like I told you before, the intended victims were those far-left terrorist groups who had already engaged in killings despite being under a socialist government. Now that government was overthrown, and those killers were still alive. Do you think it would have been possible to give them a fair judgement or that they wouldn't try further more killings under this new government? In short: do you think it's fair to kill a future killer as a means of self-defense? Keep in mind the historical context were political violence couldn't be treated like a normal crime as it could today, the country was even on the verge of a civil war and there were already two coup d'etat attempts before Pinochet's and at least another one was planned (by the Frente Nacionalista Patria y Libertad).
Now, about Pinochet being a fascist, that's just meaningless ad-hitlerum loaded language. He was a dictator, true, but being a fascist is more than just being a dictator. You might as well call Stalin a fascist if you consider Pinochet to be one. Besides, there were closer things to him than a fascist state not only in latinamerica, but Chile as well, and democratically elected at that (TWICE)! His name was Carlos Ibañez del Campo who was even a supporter of the Agrarian Labor Party (a party way more fascist than anything Pinochet).
I'm not trying to convince you that he was good with any of this, just that you can understand that it's reasonable to think of him as the lesser evil considering the historical context. I hope you see me as someone with good intentions when I tell you this. YellowJelly (talk) 17:22, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
So what do you think about Chile's Children of Silence? Good? Bad? Lesser evil considering historical context? I'm not here to troll, just interested what your honest opinion is on that topic. NameThatNobodyTakes () 19:06, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
I remain skeptical towards that, since it's not a story that seems to get a lot of coverage here in the country (only CNN seems to knowledge it), but might very well be true. If this is indeed true, then it's definitely bad. I do wonder what the reasons behind this event are, but I have to admit I don't know much about it. Thank you for your comprehension btw. — Unsigned, by: YellowJelly / talk / contribs
On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: SigButt.png on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:28, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
If you type "Chile stolen babies/children" in your search engine of choice, you find some other articles about it, stories how families were reunited again, even an unsuccessful GoFundMe campaign which tries to raise money for a lawsuit. When the story broke years ago I remember reading that the reason of the government could have been essentially taking children from (incarcerated and/or later executed) left-wingers or people who were considered likely to support left-wing politics and giving them to parents supportive of Pinochet as a way to expunge the seeds of any new generation which could be against him or his followers. NameThatNobodyTakes () 20:38, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I'm aware of that GoFundMe campaign, but I'm skeptical towards it as it might even be a lie. I'm mostly skeptical towards it because it got no coverage from Chilean media, so I don't think it's too far away to assume that that campaign is a fraud. I could be wrong though, but like I said before, it sounds very fishy to me. That explanation there seems waaay to tin-foil for me as well. YellowJelly (talk) 20:48, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Well the same fundraiser guy, Travis Tolliver, was reported on by many news outlets like CNN (like you already mentioned) and avowedly pro-free Market news outlets like Daily Mail and Fox News, the latter even uses a screen grab from the CNN video where the son and mother hug each other and further cites the CNN article — when Fox feels comfortable doing that, it should imply that this story is most likely true, and Travis Tolliver hasn't been outed as a fraud since then. The only way to deny the truthfulness of this event is to claim that this is a false flag and you don't need to go there, you seem smarter than that.
Also I do not think Chilean media not talking about the stolen babies story (which the international media says was a "scandal", correct me if this is utterly wrong) is proof that it never happened — Here in Germany schools don't teach that the German Reich had colonies or is that fact ever mentioned on television here, it still doesn't make it less true though. NameThatNobodyTakes () 21:18, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Of course, it just strikes me as very weird. Why wouldn't it be shown here in Chile where it matters the most? Especially considering the head of the government right now is from the Socialist Party? It can be true, but I highly doubt it. I wouldn't have a problem if it were true, I'm not a Pinochet fanatic, I'm just very skeptical towards it (even if Fox News reported the event). My guess is that the campaign is a fraud that only got coverage in foreign countries but for some reason nobody cared where the issue actually matters (Chile). There was no scandal as far as I'm aware of, so this should be another reason to distrust the campaign once more.— Unsigned, by: YellowJelly / talk / contribs
If you look at the Chile edition of Google News, the Travis Tolliver story was reported in Chile. So basically you're pretty close to admitting that it could be a false flag, so if that is the case what do you believe what foreign countries would gain by creating this event? NameThatNobodyTakes () 22:12, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Seems fair enough for me then, the story is real. There doesn't seem to be any other cases about it, nor does it seem to be related to Pinochet. There was never a scandal on the country about it as well. I'm glad to know it wasn't a fraud at the end though. --YellowJelly (talk) 22:56, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

When Pinochet claims people are murderous terrorists, they should be killed without due process. If Pinochet's opponents say things about Pinochet's crimes, you distrust them. Are you sure this is the right website for you? another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 21:11, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not saying they should be killed without due process, but considering the historical context, did you have any choice? What would you have done on the first place? The thing about them being murderous terrorists is a fact, there is a list of people the MIR killed, together with the VOP and FPMR. Those were legit murders/terrorists. Regarding Pinochet's crimes, I'm not denying them. He did kill around 3'000 people and tortured around 30'000 political prisoners. I'm distrusting the specific campaign because it does seems very fishy. It talks about a "national scandal", but no national media covered the issue? Seems like fraud to me. If it happens to be true, I don't have a problem with accepting it.
Why wouldn't this site be for me? I think I fit pretty nicely here, but I do have a knowledge of my own countries' history, so when I got to read the pages on Allende/Pinochet/etc I saw a lot of outright lies (poverty being at 15% under Allende) and some heavy left-wing bias (the 1982 crisis was because of the Neoliberal policies, non causa pro causa). YellowJelly (talk) 21:31, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Chicago school[edit]

Please cease edit warring and instead critically present your views, with sources cited, on the relevant talk page. Thank you. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:07, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Sources added. Thank you. YellowJelly (talk) 17:29, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Best we discuss on the talkpage before doing anything more with the article, methinks. Let's assess your claims there, please. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:48, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
I already sourced all the claims from the article as request and despite this the page got protected, so I fail to see why it's necessary to address it on the talk page. If you could request to remove the page protection that would be greatly appreciated. YellowJelly (talk) 18:48, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
No, no — see, I asked you to present your views critically, with sources cited, on the relevant talk page. There's no hindrance to that; the main article is protected so that we may all be forced onto the talk page for the time being. So please, go ahead to said talk page, that we may discuss your findings there. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:51, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
I protected the page specifically for you to use the talk page. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 18:51, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
I thought I did? (For the same reason given) Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:56, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Great minds do think alike. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 19:02, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough. Thank you! YellowJelly (talk) 19:51, 28 August 2016 (UTC)