User talk:SomethingAboutSomething

Meh. You signing up for a RationalWiki account doesn't really move us one way or the other, SomethingAboutSomething. This is probably because of your poor, obvious attempts at trolling or displays of unwelcome behavior. Maybe you should try to examine our articles and mission statement first, or take a walk outside. We realize that it's possible that you may be here in good faith, so we'll do our best to tolerate it. But don't expect us to get too excited. Our Newcomers' Guide may help clarify things for you.

Use the talk pages before blanking content. Though you'll probably have a hard time changing our opinion about TERFs here. GeeJayK (talk) 16:18, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I edited part of the article because the article wasn't, A, presenting any arguments against what Sheila Jeffreys said, and, B, falling into the stereotype, and testified to reality, that RationalWiki is a far-right misogynist website. The article literally glosses over all of Jeffrey's criticism of femininity, and how it impacts women negatively. It literally calls all her criticism of female bisexuality 'biphobic.' It never engages anything.

As for the vandal bin the website has placed me into, go ahead, you right-wing dips. I didn't bore you. I literally changed things. That's it. You literally take every good feminist academic and writer and say bad things about them for literally no reason. You are literally right-wingers, anti-feminists. Gross. You ignore everything they've done, all the points they've made, because you're irrationalist, right-wing hacks. ^{— Unsigned, by: SomethingAboutSomething / talk / contribs}

(ec) Your mistake was not discussing a major, controversial change on the talk page first. If you agree to do this, I think @GrammarCommie, the sysop that binned you, might remove you from the vandal bin. GeeJayK (talk) 17:03, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Really? You call edit warring with sysops and blanking portions of pages a page changing things and not mindless generic vandalism? At least try and be funny please. That said I am happy to parole you from the bin if you promise to knock it off, avoid blanking pages, stop edit warring with anyone unless they are clearly an obvious vandal (especially with sysops), and read and obey our community standards. Is that a deal? Harry Potter (talk) 17:07, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

That moment when someone calls you, a left-wing anti-capitalist, a right-winger... ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 17:18, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Also, let's debunk these claims. "I edited part of the article because the article wasn't, A, presenting any arguments against what Sheila Jeffreys said, and, B, falling into the stereotype, and testified to reality, that RationalWiki is a far-right misogynist website." The political alignment of RW is unproven by anything asserted here. At most, you could make the case that the section in question isn't well written. This is something I'd agree on to some extent.

"The article literally glosses over all of Jeffrey's criticism of femininity, and how it impacts women negatively." See the above rebuttal on section qality. However I'd like to add that Jefferys fails to recognize that these acts are in and of themselves neutral in value, as it is their use and context by a society historically dominated primarily by men and their worldviews that defines them as misogynistic. The actions have no inherent essence. (This is going to be a recurring thing, so be prepared for some repetition.)

"It literally calls all her criticism of female bisexuality 'biphobic.' It never engages anything. That's because her "criticism" is biphobia. The article engages with what's presented, which is someone saying that Bisexual people can't "settle down" or form lasting relationships. I don't know what else to say here, the spade is a spade.

"As for the vandal bin the website has placed me into, go ahead, you right-wing dips. I didn't bore you. I literally changed things. That's it." The majority of the users you are refering to as "right-wing dips" (Why did you self censor the word dipshit? It undermines the impact of your insult.) are center-right to center-left, with a few like myself who are left-wing proper. As for the edits, you removed sourced content that you disagreed with without any attempt at discussion or mutual understand, which happens quite often here from across the political spectrum. If you wish, I can link to racialists and white supremists trying to whitewash articles on figures they like. No one here has claimed you bore them. Again, unfounded assertions on the userbase's political alignment.

"You literally take every good feminist academic and writer and say bad things about them for literally no reason." Bullshit. Straight up bullshit. You can disagree with our reasoning, but you cannot honestly deny that we have it. Further, we have multiple articles on acclaimed feminists that are quite positive. Whether they're "good feminist academic[s]" by your definition is ultimately subjective. I personally wouldn't say that Jefferies is very good, given her reductionist and enssentialist attitudes towards sexuality and gender identity.

"You are literally right-wingers, anti-feminists. Gross. You ignore everything they've done, all the points they've made, because you're irrationalist, right-wing hacks." More unfounded assertions, inflammatory and without substance.

In conclusion, you've made quite a few assertions, with almost nothing in the way of evidence or logical formulation, most of which could be omitted with no change in substance. What little you had to say that contained actual substance hardly needed such inflammatory rhetoric, nor what appears to an unhealthy parasocial commitment to a public figure. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 18:14, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Will add 'But I thought this was RationalWiki' - so you have to buy us a round of drinks. Anna Livia (talk) 18:46, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

'Jefferys fails to recognize that these acts are in and of themselves neutral in value.' Firstly, value and quality are two different things, they are separate. Value refers to what one values, what they hold on to, what care they pay toward something. In this case, 'feminine' products. Quality, however, refers not to subjective pleased states, but to absolute, objective truth. Sheila Jeffreys, in that entire book she's wrote, literally points out that these femininity-orientated practises are harmful, and explains why. She is literally criticising conformity, while you bow to it. She literally went out of her way to explain that something is, indeed, harmful to women, of an absolutely, objectively negative quality, of pain and suffering to such women. You haven't refuted any of what she's said, and of course you haven't. No one has. That's because she's correct. Hence, why you have no arguments, why no arguments on that page were presented. Hence, why I edited it.

No, her criticism is not 'biphobia.' She doesn't have a 'phobia' of bisexual women, let alone bisexual people in general. In fact, she would probably recognise that both female and male bisexuality are more beneficial to both sexes than that of heterosexuality, since all are political ideologies. You've just added 'phobic' on the end of a term to attempt to discredit what she was saying. She literally made arguments. You didn't, nor did anyone else who isn't Jeffreys.

Yes, you did put out negative articles on literally every single feminist writer there is. And I mean actual feminist writers (Germaine Greer (who's not perfect, mind you), Sheila Jeffreys, Janice G. Raymond, Andrea Dworking, etc.). You are literally just opposed to feminism, this entire sub. Thus, that's why I called it 'right-wing' and 'misogynist.' It's not as though you're just criticising a few poor beliefs here and there. You excuse rape. You literally attempt to justify rape. This whole website disregards the immense amount of careful criticisms radical feminists have made of sex, which is always, one hundred percent of the time, a social act. Again, it's an anti-feminist site.

'What appears to an unhealthy parasocial commitment to a public figure.' Wouldn't that literally describe this site's relationship with Sheila Jeffreys, where it just makes snarky, incorrect, sexist remarks about her, and adds nothing whatsoever in terms of substance, argumentation? Yeah, it would, unfortunately.

Additionally, I was referring to someone who was pro-capitalism as right-wing and misogynistic. ^{— Unsigned, by: SomethingAboutSomething / talk / contribs}

Essays are usually personal contributions to the wiki. If you disagree with them, please, use the talk page or just write your own essay. Also what do you mean when you say that sexuality is a political instance? Because, well, it does look like some things I've seen people on the right saying. GeeJayK (talk) 14:01, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

"Sheila Jeffreys, in that entire book she's wrote, literally points out that these femininity-orientated practises are harmful, and explains why. She is literally criticising conformity, while you bow to it. She literally went out of her way to explain that something is, indeed, harmful to women, of an absolutely, objectively negative quality, of pain and suffering to such women." Don't be absurd. It is not the acts themselves which are oppressive towards women, but their enforcement is a large scale power dynamic dominated by men. Further, would not a prohibition on these practices, if they were done of one's own volition and without coercion, in fact be oppressive? After all, feminism is about freeing women from the inability to choose, not about slipping them into another pair of shackles. As for the accusation that I support conformity, well... I laugh at such an accusation. I support free thought and criticism of all public figures, provided such things are based on evidence. You're literally pulling that accusation out of your ass here.

"No, her criticism is not 'biphobia.' She doesn't have a 'phobia' of bisexual women, let alone bisexual people in general. In fact, she would probably recognise that both female and male bisexuality are more beneficial to both sexes than that of heterosexuality, since all are political ideologies." I'm sorry what?!?!? I apologize for laughing but what?!?!? Sexualities are not political ideologies. That's just not how psychology works.

"You've just added 'phobic' on the end of a term to attempt to discredit what she was saying. She literally made arguments. You didn't, nor did anyone else who isn't Jeffreys." We used the term applicable to her views. Again, the spade is in fact, a spade. I really don't care if you don't like it. As for feminists... Aside from the TERFs and Radical Feminists you listed we have an entire category full of feminists.

"You are literally just opposed to feminism, this entire sub." This website is rationalwiki.org, not Reddit. And we are not in fact opposed to feminism. We're opposed to pseudoscience. TERFs promote pseudoscience. Ergo, we're opposed to TERFs.

"You excuse rape. You literally attempt to justify rape." Where? Link it. "This whole website disregards the immense amount of careful criticisms radical feminists have made of sex, which is always, one hundred percent of the time, a social act. Again, it's an anti-feminist site." Sexual characteristics? Those aren't purely social. Gender is largely a social construct yes, but not sexual characteristics. If you mean the act of sexual intercourse, that too isn't purely a social construct, as it involves biological elements.

"Additionally, I was referring to someone who was pro-capitalism as right-wing and misogynistic." Given capitalism is the current dominant socio-economic system, one who supports it would be largely a centrist, not a right winger. Now, if one wished to reinforce the hierarchical elements within capitalism, that would place them further right, though of course we must acknowledge that political economy alone does not a classification make. We must take into account social views, how the political system itself ought to be organized, views on the role of the state or lack thereof, etc etc etc. Reducing this down to a simple binary is rather reductionist in terms of accurate classification. Further, one can support capitalism and be a supporter of feminism. You could argue that these positions are hostile to each other, but that really doesn't change the fact that people have them. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 14:13, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

On another note SomethingAboutSomething, would you like to stay in the bin or be paroled? Harry Potter (talk) 14:19, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I see no reason to parole them at this time, as they'll likely just continue edit warring due to their ideological views. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 14:22, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Man, it sure is refreshing to get someone calling us far-right misogynists instead of the usual far-left SJWs. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 16:18, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I literally pointed out that Sheila Jeffreys explained, in the very book in question, that these practises and acts were inherently, in themselves, harmful. I'm literally forced to repeat this point here, because you've added absolutely nothing to the discussion. These acts are oppressive to women, because they don't naturally adopt such fabrics. The reason men don't use these beauty products is because such products are bad, and men aren't socially conditioned to want to lessen the level of happiness in their lives. Jeffreys has literally explained why such acts are harmful, you soggy dip.

'Would not a prohibition on these practices, if they were done of one's own volition and without coercion, in fact be oppressive?' Yes, that would be oppression! But no feminist is arguing this. No one. Not even Sheila Jeffreys.

'I really don't care if you don't like it.' So, you've admitted you have no arguments here? I've just explained that she's not biphobic, with an actual explanation, unlike you. You've made no rebuttal of her criticism. Yes, she's explained that women, due to cultural circumstances, are better equipped to being with other women on a romantic and sexual basis.

'Aside from the TERFs and Radical Feminists you listed.' So, yeah, zero articles praising actual feminists. Someone who believes in the equality of the sexes (or, as misogynists put it, 'genders') is not a feminist. You don't have to believe in the equality of the sexes whatsoever. Feminism is about freeing women from patriarchy. That's it. Some of the 'feminists' you've praised are literally anti-feminists, and have done an immense amount of harm toward feminism.

'TERFs promote pseudoscience.' No, feminism is against gender ideology. 'Gender,' as some innate 'feeling,' is a social construct. To claim otherwise, that would be to promote pseudo-science. Men cannot become women, nor can women become men. Being female or male is a biological thing, based upon sex. Trans-identified people are not the sex they say they are. Trans-identified men aren't women. Trans-identified women aren't men. You even admit that gender is a social construct yourself, so you're literally, in your own mind, defending politics which reject science in favour of... well, unintelligence and, of course, misogyny.

'Where? Link it.' Your article on Andrea Dworkin, and the one titled 'feminism,' where you dismiss her arguments that martial sex is often rape, alongside looking at comments from feminists as absurd, when they dare to speak out against the rape culture which you endorse.

'Sexual intercourse, that too isn't purely a social construct, as it involves biological elements.' Promoting pseudo-science again, huh? Anyway, no. The human body cannot genetically recognise the process of sex, prior, during, or after it has occurred. A vagina cannot tell the difference between a finger and a penis, when an object is inserted into it.

'Given capitalism is the current dominant socio-economic system, one who supports it would be largely a centrist.' You're even incorrect about non-feminism related stuff. No, the status quo is right-wing. If someone supports what subsists currently, the dominant, hierarchical system, they are a right-winger. And you supporter, in part, right-wing sexual liberalism, and, in part, full blown reactionary sexual traditionalism. You cannot be pro-feminism without being anti-capitalism. Criticism of capitalism is so essential to feminism, you can't have one without an opposition to the other. Socialist, anarchist, and Marxist feminism are historical currents which exist for a reason. Women would be immensely oppressed under capitalism if it were to exist alongside them. And capitalism profits off of the selling of terrible products and practises to women, including, but not limited to, makeup, high heels, dresses, etc. Capitalism and femininity are partners, side by side in misogynistic crime.

Sexuality is political. To 'have sexuality' is to have a certain set of political beliefs. Sexual expression cannot be divorced from ideology. 'It does look like some things I've seen people on the right saying.' You mean the stuff about sexuality obviously being a choice? Most gay-identified people didn't believe sexuality was biological a few decades ago. To claim someone has to be heterosexual is a conservative view on sexuality. Sexuality is a choice, and the choice best made is not to be straight. Hence, why political lesbianism exists.

In short, you're an idiot and a misogynist. No arguments on the Sheila Jeffreys page exist, can be located. It is just sexist remark after sexist remark, and is condescending as well. That's ironic, considering just how incorrect the whole thing is. You're smugly unintelligent. You literally even excuse what's done to gay-identified people in Iran. If individuals have sex with others of the same sex, as punishment by the state, they're forced to sexually transition. Again, you're part sexual traditionalist. Arguably, a lot worse than a lot of actual self-identified conservatives and neo-reactionaries.^{— Unsigned, by: SomethingAboutSomething / talk / contribs}

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. Christopher (talk) 20:45, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

You're unironically using the term "gender ideology" and we're the ones siding with the far-right? GeeJayK (talk) 20:58, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Umm... yes? Gender is a right-wing construct. Gender ideology is promoted by the far-right, who believe that women are naturally a certain way, outside of their sex, and men are too. They want women to be divorced from any degree of individualism. Congregations, you're literally just a sexual conservative who thinks they're a liberal. The main focus of feminism, in fact, is literally the opposition to gender (i.e., femininity). ^{— Unsigned, by: SomethingAboutSomething / talk / contribs}

Oh look, it's the National Review complaining about "gender ideology" Here's Brietbart saying the same stuff... Oh look, here's literal fucking Neo-Nazi rag The Daily Stormer agreeing with your views. Three. I was able to pull up three far right outlets with ease just by searching for their name and "gender ideology". ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 13:00, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Here's the Federalist. Here's noted antifeminist site Return of Kings... Should I keep going or have you decided to rethink your position? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 14:39, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Bruh... You responded to a single statement I made, and conveniently refused to engage any other things I've said. Anyway, again, since you're forcing me to repeat this, these right-wingers, and right-wingers in general, aren't against gender ideology. They're in favour of gender ideology. They want women to be a certain way, and men to continue enforcing that harmful image of ladyhood. Seriously, citing a few publications doesn't do anything in this case, since no such citations involve a writer/writers denouncing the ideology that is gender, stating that, indeed, femininity is toxic and anti-female.^{— Unsigned, by: SomethingAboutSomething}

The crap you follow isn't intellectual, it's reactionary drivel from political cesspools with ulterior agendas. Most of which are "roll back all social reforms and rebuild an idealized version of 1950s white America". The fact that your too stupid or dishonest to fucking acknowledge that when I bring out fucking Neo-nazis agreeing with you says a lot about you. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 19:11, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

No neo-Nazis agree with me. Last I checked, the far-right want to uphold the tyrannical rule of gender, and to punish women who dare to go against the waves cast upon them (femininity). You're clearly too immature to understand this. Seeing you're not even making any arguments anymore, it makes sense that the article in question would be edited to remove the misogynistic nonsense inherent to it. Such a gross misuse and abuse of this platform, to spread anti-feminism and lies. (UTC) ^{— Unsigned, by: SomethingAboutSomething / talk / contribs}

For fuck's sake, please, this is not difficult! Sign your posts with (~~~~) or (if that's too fucking hard) by clicking on the fucking sign BUTTON: on the toolbar above the edit panel. (You can indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line.) This keeps the place tidy and stops you looking like a complete arsing tool so please, just fucking do it already. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 02:58, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Use talk pages

Don’t justify removal of content in an edit summary, you’ll be reverted. Christopher (talk) 15:13, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Sign your comments

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you.

It’s not hard. Christopher (talk) 21:27, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

A reminder. Christopher (talk) 18:24, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Stop whitewashing articles

You have been removing content from pages that can be seen as whitewashing without explained removal. Please stop. Magic Master (talk)

On talk pages (again)

Use them to explain your point. Just removing stuff won't convince us and you'll be reverted. GeeJayK (talk) 04:06, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Your whitewashing

It stops. Period. This isn't a discussion. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 04:07, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Wanting trans women to be classified as women is "right winged"? LMAO

Also, it's very amusing how TERFs like you keep going on about gender liberation, but AMABs can't do anything remotely feminine because it supposedly "invades women's spaces". We literally had this same exact debate here in America with transgender people using the correct bathrooms and it proved to be a huge nothingburger. How about you, (Assuming that you're British), come over to the states and hear the "there are only 2 genders", "you will never be a woman", "did you just assume my gender" spam trans people have to go thru, because you are no different or more progressive than our bigots. Rockford the Roe ^{boop my snoot}_{praise Oscar Wilde} 07:23, 31 July 2021 (UTC)