| Revision as of 21:06, 29 January 2017 view sourceGerda Arendt (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers383,169 editsm →Happy Thanksgiving← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:43, 29 January 2017 view source GregJackP (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers24,868 edits →A Comment on Your Previous Racist StatementsNext edit → | ||
| Line 138: | Line 138: | ||
| == A Comment on Your Previous Racist Statements == | == A Comment on Your Previous Racist Statements == | ||
| {{reply to|JordanGero}} I'm retired, you moron. Go spread your revisionist history BS elsewhere. I'll also remind you that everyone in the conversation took the position I took, not yours, and will point out that I do not need your guidance. Come back when you've actually created content. <span style="border:1px solid #900;padding:2px;background:#fffff4">] ]</span> 21:43, 29 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| Hello- I've been meaning to speak with you about an altercation you and I had about a year ago here on Misplaced Pages, specifically on the ] article. It had to do with a discussion about whether it was more appropriate to use the word "seize" or the phrase "acquire control of" in describing the overall takeover of the New World by European colonists, relative to the decimation of the Native American population by virgin epidemics of smallpox, typhus, etc. (the phrase was in the section of the article describing how the weakening and lessening of Native American populations, due to those diseases, made it significantly easier for the European colonists to assert control). My argument, which is the generally accepted consensus, was that a good part of the lands in the Americas were not heavily, if at all, populated by Native Americans, therefore it was inaccurate to describe the colonization process as a whole through the loaded term "seize", although it is indisputable that much of the land was indeed taken by violent force from various Native American tribes. I trust you remember this conversation? is the link to the archived discussion in case you need a refresher (go to the section entitled "RfC: Should the word "seize" or "acquire" be used to describe the process through which colonists came to control the Americas?"). | |||
| My point in posting this comment is not to restart the substantive debate from afore, which was mostly settled anyways when you began responding with racist ad hominems against me. My point is to focus specifically on the racist ad hominem arguments you used against me in a rather repugnant attempt to both establish your moral superiority in the conversation and release your inveterate racial prejudices. Before I get into the specifics of what I am talking about, you might be wondering why am I bringing this up now, over a year after the event, and after your apparent "retirement" from Misplaced Pages. I'm bringing it up now because I am more educated about the particular brand of racism that you used against me in the original conversation, whereas at the time I failed to realize both the depth of the maliciousness with which you attacked me, and the depth of psychosis necessary for someone to seriously make such statements. My recent experiences with the alt-left during the 2016 United States Presidential Elections revealed some rather deranged mental trends in the logic of the alt-lefters (for the record, I am a diehard liberal, but certainly would never characterize myself as an alt-lefter). Given that I am now aware of these things, I thought it fitting to communicate to you just how disturbing, vile, and unjustifiable your statements in that conversation actually were (and still are), especially since it is unlikely that you have atoned or reformed for these transgressions (you were unapologetic at the close of our previous discussion). I would just hate to have you going around thinking your behavior in that context was, on any level, appropriate or justifiable. | |||
| What am I referring to specifically? Most centrally, you used the racist ad hominem "your people tried to exterminate my people" (paraphrasing- see the link to the RfC above for your exact verbiage). At its core, this statement is a beautiful example of racist psychopathy: it groups together all members of a particular race and ascribes to them certain events or qualities simply on account of their phenotypic characteristics. You had no idea what my racial pedigree was- you assumed I was white, and that therefore "white people" were "my people". Do you have any idea how insane this is? First off, simply because one is a member of an overarching racial group does not mean that every other member of that racial group is his or her "people"- there are hundreds of distinct ethnicities within overarching racial groups, and you have no right to bastardize those distinctions with ignorant generalizations. Would you call a Chinese person the "people" of a Japanese person? Would you call a Russian the "people" of a Swedish person? Would you call an Ethiopian the "people" of a person from Benin? | |||
| Secondly, even if we assume, for a moment, that I am of Western European descent and directly related to European colonists and settlers, your comment would still be pure racist lunacy because the term "my people" indicates cultural parity, not an incorporation of behavior or activity done by others who happen to look similarly to me or share a bloodline with me (e.g., a German today would, usually, carry a German cultural identity- they don't carry any Nazi identity unless they personally choose to subscribe to that ideology. Nazism is not part of German culture: it is part of German history. Understand the difference?). A person in the United States who is white does not necessarily share a close affinity with another white person simply on account of their racial parity. | |||
| Thirdly, you don't get to cherry-pick historical events, pervert those events to your liking, exclude all other events, anachronistically evaluate such events through the lens of modern-day history, and then stigmatize an entire racial group by pinning your prejudiced banner on them. By the same logic, I can lump you in with all other people of Native American descent and say "your people were savages who practiced human sacrifices, brutal tribalism, scalping, and primitive rituals, and it wasn't until the white man came around that you were finally civilized, abandoning your repugnant and inhumane behavior, and now get to enjoy the comforts of modern society, including practicing the noble profession of law that is based on principles of reason forged by white people." What if I just limited it to "your people practiced human sacrifices" simply to stigmatize you, as an individual of Native American ancestry, in the present? Would these be justifiable generalizations on my part, even though the generalizations contain elements of truth? | |||
| Of course not- they would be examples of unjustifiable racist grouping: you are a distinct individual whose identification with Native Americans as "your people" simply means that you carry a cultural affinity and closeness with others of similar lineage. It does not mean that you take credit, or bear guilt, for any specific behaviors from those in the past, whether positive or negative, simply because those acts (again, whether positive or negative) were done by people who you, by chance of birth, happen to share certain physical and cultural characteristics with. Do you understand the argument here? | |||
| In our original discussion, I was not practicing any kind of historical revisionism- I was citing information from reputable sources and making the reasonable argument that, although much of the land in the New World was taken by force (stolen, if you will) from the Native Americans, much of it was not heavily populated, if at all, when the Europeans began colonizing and settling. That was the point of including the logical jump between devastating epidemics and the weakening/lessening of Native American resistance. As far as genocide goes, you don't get to use the statements from General Amherst expressing his racist vehemence against Native Americans as evidence of a systematic plan of extermination. One group conquering and oppressing a weaker one is par for the course when it comes to human history, and partly because of those conquests and exploitation, people like you and me get to live in relative comfort today, where we don't have to spend our lives scrounging around for food and water and generally eking out a miserable existence (I'm not saying this to justify anything: I'm saying it to point out the massive skew in your perspective). Cherry-picking certain poignant historical events and evaluating them, in isolation, through the lens of modern-day ethics (which, of course, holds much of past practices in great repugnance), not to mention ascribing such events to all people within an over-arching racial group ("your people"), is nothing short of ignorant racial prejudice. Do you understand? | |||
| This comment is already getting a bit long, so I think I'll wrap it up here. I don't expect you to apologize to me for your statement from over a year ago, though I do hope that you realize why it was racist and why it is unacceptable in a forum that maintains a heightened level of decorum (this is not the comments section of a YouTube video, not to say that such statements would be acceptable there either). I do find it ironic and amusing that you cite people acting like "assholes" as one of the reasons for your retirement from editing Misplaced Pages- you responded to an RfC with vile racism, and you are complaining about "assholes" on Misplaced Pages? Ok then. Out of curiosity, you're not a PI attorney by any chance, are you? I'm just a bit astounded to see these kinds of arguments by someone who has been admitted to the Bar in one of the 50 states (I'm assuming you're in the US). | |||
| Lastly, I also want to comment on our shared legal profession a bit more specifically; in our original conversation from over a year ago (again, see the link above), you used the word "loser" as it is used in the legal community to refer to a losing argument. Setting aside the irony of that, the reason I objected to it was because we were neither discussing the topic in a legal capacity, nor were we discussing it on a legal forum. Your use of the term in that context, therefore, was inappropriate, because a third-party layperson easily could have interpreted that as a direct ad hominem against me. | |||
| Well, I could go on from here, but I think that presents the main issues I wanted to bring up. Hopefully, you understand your errors and take action to improve. I wish you the best in your legal career, counselor- perhaps we'll meet in the courtroom or some pretrial conference one day. If we do, I sincerely hope you do not subject me to any racist filth, despite what might remain at that point in your mind. I will surely extend you the exact same courtesy. ] (]) 20:57, 29 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 21:43, 29 January 2017
Retired This user is no longer active on Misplaced Pages.
You want to know why people leave Misplaced Pages?
It's because of assholes who harass people at will, and admins who are too lazy to take action on it, or who agree with the asshole's political views.
It's a culture where the social media aspect of Misplaced Pages is more important than creating content.
It's an institution that is slowly dying, from self-inflicted wounds, from allowing children to be admins to allowing mindless obedience to rules to be more important than content.
It is an organization where the janitor is more important and powerful than the writers. Where the copyeditors carry more weight than the people creating the content.
That's why Misplaced Pages is losing both editors and admins. It is why it is going to continue to do so.
I'm done.
thank you
...for coming out of hibernation, your edits on glyphosate and placing the final warning template on KOA talk today.--Wuerzele (talk) 07:50, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Season's Greetings
 |
Wishing you a Charlie Russell Christmas! 🎄 |
| Best wishes for your Christmas Is all you get from me 'Cause I ain't no Santa Claus Don't own no Christmas tree. But if wishes was health and money I'd fill your buck-skin poke Your doctor would go hungry An' you never would be broke." —C.M. Russell, Christmas greeting 1914. Montanabw |
Just to let you know
You have been mentioned at Misplaced Pages:Missing Wikipedians. Ottawahitech (talk) 01:24, 4 January 2016 (UTC)please ping me
2016 year of the reader and peace
 | |
| peace bell |
|---|
Thanks for supporting justice and fairness, - miss you! 2016 had a good start, with an opera reflecting that we should take nothing to seriuz, - Verdi's wisdom, shown on New Year's Day, also as a tribute to Viva-Verdi. (Click on "bell" for more.) Miss Yunshui (among others) and his harmonious editing. We can only try to follow the models of those who left. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:18, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Bowman v. Monsanto Co.
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Bowman v. Monsanto Co. you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. 
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Delldot -- Delldot (talk) 23:41, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Glik v. Cunniffe
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Glik v. Cunniffe you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Delldot -- Delldot (talk) 00:01, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Glik v. Cunniffe
The article Glik v. Cunniffe you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold 
. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Glik v. Cunniffe for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Delldot -- Delldot (talk) 08:01, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Bowman v. Monsanto Co.
The article Bowman v. Monsanto Co. you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Bowman v. Monsanto Co. for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Delldot -- Delldot (talk) 08:01, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Glik v. Cunniffe has been nominated for Did You Know
 | Hello, GregJackP. Glik v. Cunniffe, an article you either created or significantly contributed to, has been nominated to appear on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as part of Did you know . You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 01:44, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
|
I have just approved the above nomination, upon which you were a major editor. I personally wish to thank you for your diligence on this important civil rights issue.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:31, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Bowman v. Monsanto Co. has been nominated for Did You Know
| Hello, GregJackP. Bowman v. Monsanto Co., an article you either created or significantly contributed to, has been nominated to appear on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 03:19, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
|
DYK for Glik v. Cunniffe
 | On 12 February 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Glik v. Cunniffe, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in Glik v. Cunniffe, the court noted that "we have previously recognized that the videotaping of public officials is an exercise of First Amendment liberties"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Glik v. Cunniffe. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
DYK for Bowman v. Monsanto Co.
| On 1 March 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Bowman v. Monsanto Co., which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in the patent case Bowman v. Monsanto Co., Justice Elena Kagan (pictured) delivered the unanimous decision against Bowman's "blame-the-bean defense"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Bowman v. Monsanto Co.. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:01, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Precious anniversary
 | |
| justice for indigenous peoples | |
|---|---|
| ... you were recipient no. 420 of Precious, a prize of QAI! |
Miss you, also Bier und Bratwürste! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:15, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Jensen
You are needed for a discussion on Talk:Richard J. Jensen#Notability and bias!
TFAR
Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/requests/United States v. Kagama --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:28, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Precious again, your article "about the development of the Congressional plenary power doctrine over Indian tribes, and the constitutionality of the Major Crimes Act in the U.S."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:35, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
INYMI
I did rate your article at Washington_v._Confederated_Bands_and_Tribes_of_the_Yakima_Indian_Nation as being C-class, Mid-import. Bearian (talk) 21:52, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Hello, GregJackP. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Happy Thanksgiving
_Madrid_Botanico.jpg) | |
| Variedades de calabaza | |
|---|---|
|
Miss you, thanks for all you did, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:07, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
A Comment on Your Previous Racist Statements
@JordanGero: I'm retired, you moron. Go spread your revisionist history BS elsewhere. I'll also remind you that everyone in the conversation took the position I took, not yours, and will point out that I do not need your guidance. Come back when you've actually created content. GregJackP Boomer! 21:43, 29 January 2017 (UTC)