User talk:Pokeria1

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Useful links

Welcome!

Hello, Pokeria1, and welcome to Conservapedia!

We're glad you are here to edit. We ask that you read our Editor's Guide before you edit.

At the right are some useful links for you. You can include these links on your user page by putting "{{Useful links}}" on the page. Any questions--ask!

Thanks for reading, Pokeria1!


AnupamTalk 22:56, 31 May 2014 (EDT)

Two quick points

Thanks for your additions to the Atheist hypocrisy article.

Two quick points:

1. Voltaire was actually a deist.[1]

2. Could you please footnote your additions HERE. Conservative 11:23, 7 July 2014 (EDT)

You're welcome, and to respond to the two quick points:

1. No, Voltaire was an atheist, fully. Timothy Dwight made that very clear in his speech, or at the very least that he fully intended to implement irreligion and atheism in place of religion. Deists, being people who believe in God, would not care if people were Protestant, Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, or heck, even Jewish or Muslim so long as they believe in a god, while Voltaire wanted to make sure all religion was destroyed, hence he was an atheist, not a deist.

2. Just did, and while I mainly based it on WND's "Dan Brown and the Voltaire Code" article covering that aspect, the truth is you can find that speech anywhere on the web, though admittedly in fragments. Pokeria1 11:35, 7 July 2014 (EDT)

Two additional points: 1) Thank for adding the citation. 2) ""What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason." - Voltaire[2] Conservative 11:47, 7 July 2014 (EDT)
You're welcome regarding the first point. As far as the second, Darwin also mentioned a "creator" in some of his works, yet he was clearly lying. And besides, if he believed in a creator, why would he want to destroy all religious beliefs, especially Christianity in both Protestant and Catholic forms, as well as possibly Judaism and maybe even Islam? Those all involved a creator, yet as made clear in Timothy Dwight's statements and even Voltaire's "Crush Infamie" claim, he wanted all of them destroyed, which is not befitting of a deist (which, really, had I been a deist, why should I care if they exist since they believe in a god anyways? No harm to me since at least we all share the belief in at least one god). Dwight even speculated that this was one of the reasons for the French Revolution. Pokeria1 11:49, 7 July 2014 (EDT)

I added the atheistic Darwinism point to the article. And seeing that Voltaire was a deist, I removed the material about the six stage plan. Thanks for mentioning the additional point about free speech, namely, atheistic Darwinism. It improved the article. Conservative 12:05, 7 July 2014 (EDT)

Was it really necessary to remove the six stage plan? Diderot also had a huge role in that plan, so at least keep it in for him, and Diderot is unambiguously an atheist (Voltaire is in the gray area largely because of claims he was a deist while people like Timothy Dwight made very clear he was atheistic). But if it needs to be removed, I guess I can't do a thing to stop it. Pokeria1 12:28, 7 July 2014 (EDT)

No offense intended. I reverted the Atheist hypocrisy edit. Want to keep it all examples of atheists/New Atheists. You can incorporate the material in the Voltaire article or create an anti-Christian article that incorporates the information. Conservative 12:19, 12 November 2014 (EST)

Problem is that Timothy Dwight explicitly refers to Voltaire's views as being "irreligious and atheism", certainly he promoted the views. Not to mention there is at least one work that flat out spells it out. http://www.sullivan-county.com/z/voltaire.htm Pokeria1 12:28, 12 November 2014 (EST)
You could create an article called Anti-Christian deceptions and include this information in it along with other information. I can definitely see a need for such an article and it would be interesting too. Conservative 12:42, 12 November 2014 (EST)
Please read THIS. This is further evidence that Voltaire was not an atheist. Please do not add the Voltaire material into the article. Conservative 19:50, 13 November 2014 (EST)
I read it, and that doesn't make it any more correct.
And maybe I should remind YOU that I gave you plenty of sources for Voltaire actually BEING an atheist, like Sullivan County and a transcript of the Timothy Dwight sermon, made in July 4, 1799.
And BTW, Voltaire basically deeding a church doesn't mean he was any less of an atheist, just that he sees some use for it or more likely just wanted a show. Don't forget, during World War II, Stalin actually allowed the Russian Orthodox Church to actually be open in its religion, mostly as a morale booster than any actual personal belief in it, and used it as a sock puppet (this is what Moses the Raven represented, especially regarding Napoleon's influence, in George Orwell's Animal Farm), and he was a militant atheist. Heck, even China today has state-controlled churches rather than absolute obliterations of them outright, and that's despite China being as atheistic as the USSR (itself extremely atheistic). So no, we're keeping Voltaire in there. Besides, even his Conservapedia article notes that he died unsaved, and his own bedside nurse denies he actually converted at all, and she observed his final moments, so that's one error your link has. And need I really remind you that Darwin also expressed a belief in writing about a creator, something he made clear was a false belief specifically to con people into thinking he had any religious beliefs when he actually didn't? Pokeria1 20:05, 13 November 2014 (EST)
EDIT: Here's some sources just for you, and this time, actually try to read them: http://www.sullivan-county.com/z/voltaire.htm; http://www.wnd.com/2006/04/35810/#LFe1HvZ0eTHxBBmT.99;

I don't believe those two articles provide a sound historical argument that Voltaire was an atheist. Some principles I believe should be used to make historical claims/arguments are given at: Some keen insights from Pulitzer Prize–winner David Hackett Fischer and 7 habits of highly effective historians. Conservative 05:34, 14 November 2014 (EST)

thanks for catching the conflation

Thanks for catching the Sartre/Russell conflation.[3]. Conservative 21:50, 8 September 2014 (EDT)

References


is this guy right or wrong?

I don't follow anime/manga, but is this guy right about CNN doing sloppy reporting about this issue? I just decided to err on the side of caution if necessary and just pull CNN claim. Conservative 15:52, 3 March 2015 (EST)

Can't say anything about CNN, but I do know PJMedia had an article citing this sort of thing as one, actually, a third of the reasons people steer clear of anime (half if one counts fanservice), and the guy who did the article is a huge Anime fan: http://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2014/10/17/6-reasons-why-people-avoid-anime/?singlepage=true I also had some encounters on the web about how moe characters and loli characters are controversial due to the implications of child porn. Pokeria1 22:52, 3 March 2015 (EST)
In hindsight, I see that you did not cite the CNN report. My apologies. Conservative 00:19, 4 March 2015 (EST)

Marx and Mass Murdering

The reason I'm not sure that "Mass Murderer" is a good description of Marx is that he never actually murdered anybody. If you look at the people listed under the "Mass Murderer" category, they're either people, like James Holmes or Seng-Hui Cho, who actually killed a bunch of people themselves, or else they were leaders or top officials of murderous regimes, like Hitler, Stalin, Idi Amin, and Fidel Castro on the one hand, or Heinrich Himmler, Leon Trotsky, and Reinhard Heinrich, on the other. Marx doesn't fit into either of those categories. He certainly advocated violence, and had he been in charge of a government, probably would have had a bunch of people killed, but as things actually turned out, Marx, while he engaged in a lot of character assassination of his opponents, spent most of his time sitting in the library of the British Museum writing stuff and hitting up Engels for money. "Mass murderer" doesn't fit.--Whizkid (talk) 18:12, 31 July 2016 (EDT)

He was the founder of Communism, and not only was it his ideas that led to a LOT of the deaths in the 20th Century and maybe the 21st Century if we count Cuba, North Korea, and to some extent Southeast Asia, but he also specifically told the Communists to reenact the year 1793 (I'm not kidding, he actually said this. I quote: “There is only one way of shortening, simplifying, and concentrating the bloodthirsty death-throes of the old society and the bloody birth pangs of the new--revolutionary terror. . . . [...] Once we are at the helm, we shall be obliged to reenact the year 1793. [...] We are pitiless and we ask no pity from you. When our time comes, we shall not conceal terrorism with hypocritical phrases. . . The vengeance of the people will break forth with such ferocity that not even the year 1793 enables us to envisage it. . . .”). If that doesn't sound like an order to kill as many people as they want and thus qualify him as a mass murderer, I don't know what does. And bear in mind, I'm not even calling the Enlightenment people mass murderers, since while it IS obvious that they held enough anger regarding the Catholic Church to harbor genocidal beliefs towards it, they never to my knowledge explicitly told their readers to kill the church or anyone else, unlike Marx, who specifically made clear he wanted the Communists to reenact the year 1793, aka, Robespierre's Reign of Terror. Pokeria1 (talk) 18:44, 31 July 2016 (EDT)
I agree with you, Marx did call for violence, and he looked forward to a time when the working class would rise up and slaughter all their class enemies. (That quote comes from Marx's final editorial in his newspaper, when it was closed and he was forced to leave Cologne. But again, as violent as Marx was in his rhetoric, he didn't kill anybody, and he wasn't the leader of a state who did. States that adopted his ideas certainly did, and classing the leaders of those states as mass murderers are certainly appropriate. But it seems enough to condemn Marx for what he actually did do. In my mind, mass murderers murder people. But I guess it doesn't matter. I won't win this, and if I take it off again, you'll just put it back on.--Whizkid (talk) 21:26, 31 July 2016 (EDT)
Actually, I want to thank you for actually identifying where exactly it came from (I knew it came from correspondences between Marx and Engels because that's what Socialist Sucks! on Facebook stated and cited the Clairmont Institute for this finding, but I couldn't find it anywhere else), and also ask if there was a way to actually read that article, like an internet link or something? It may actually be necessary if I'm going to get the full picture and especially as a citation for the blog Marx and Friends (which is an anti-Marx blog) to give to them. Pokeria1 (talk) 21:42, 31 July 2016 (EDT)
It's actually a few quotes mashed together there. During the revolutions of 1848, Marx was the editor of a newspaper in Cologne called the "Neue Rheinische Zeitung" (New Rhenish Newspaper), published by the Communist League. The newspaper generally took an anti-Prussian (Prussia controlled Cologne), pro-republican stance and was a big supporter of 1848, and called for a unified Germany with a constitution and universal suffrage. In 1849, in the aftermath of the 1848 revolutions and the crackdown, the Prussian government shut down the newspaper and expelled Marx. so in the last edition, Marx published an open letter to the Prussian government, which can be found here:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1849/05/19c.htm
That's the origin for the "We will not make excuses for our terror" quote. The "vengeance of the people will break forth...." quote comes from Engels' "The Condition of the Working Class in England" He's talking about how industrialization and English trade policy is increasing the difference between rich and poor, and that the English government doesn't seem to care about the welfare of the working class and warns. "If, up to that time, the English bourgeoisie does not pause to reflect—and to all appearance it certainly will not do so—a revolution will follow with which none hitherto known can be compared. The proletarians, driven to despair, will seize the torch which Stephens has preached to them; the vengeance of the people will come down with a wrath of which the rage of 1793 gives no true idea. The war of the poor against the rich will be the bloodiest ever waged. " You can find that on Project Gutenburg here: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/17306/17306-h/17306-h.htm
The "There is only one way in which the murderous..." quote comes from an earlier edition of Neue Rhenische Zeitung, from the November 6, 1848 article "The Victory of the Counter Revolution in Vienna", about the retaking of Vienna, which had been in revolt, by the Austrian army. That quote is "The purposeless massacres perpetrated since the June and October events, the tedious offering of sacrifices since February and March, the very cannibalism of the counterrevolution will convince the nations that there is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terror.", and it can be found here https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/11/06.htm
As for the "Once we are at the helm, we shall be obliged to reenact the year 1793.", Solzhenitzn, in one of his books quotes Marx as saying "Once we are at the helm, we shall be obliged to reenact the year 1793. We'll be considered monsters, but we couldn't care less.", citing a Soviet collection of Marxist writings, but I can't find the actual quote by Marx, just Sonzhenitzn's quote. The closest I can find so far is from an interview Engels gave to a French newspaper in 1892, when, asked about the Alsace-Lorraine question, he responded
"I hope that the German socialist party will be in power in ten years or so. Its first concern will be to put the people of Alsace-Lorraine in a position to decide their own political future. Consequently the question will be settled without a single French soldier having to stir. On the contrary, a war between Germany and France would be the only means of preventing the socialists' coming to power. And if France and Russia in alliance attacked Germany, the latter would defend to the death its national existence, in which the German socialists have an even greater interest than the bourgeoisie. The socialists, then, would fight to the last man, and would not hesitate to resort to the revolutionary means employed by France in 1793."--Whizkid (talk) 01:18, 1 August 2016 (EDT)
Thanks. And hope that specific quote regarding the Reign of Terror and their not caring if they were considered monsters turns up in your search (since if he did cite a Soviet collection of Marx's writings, it should be in the place it was cited at). And anyways, this is where I found the excerpt: https://www.facebook.com/373757305985421/photos/a.373910375970114.102939.373757305985421/819295658098248/?type=1 And honestly, either way, it goes to show that whoever the guy who came up with the truism "whoever fails to learn their history will be doomed to repeat it" obviously hadn't conceived of someone like Marx, because he most certainly didn't fail to learn from history (he knew full well the French Revolution and especially the Reign of Terror was a major bloodbath), yet he STILL intended to repeat it anyways. Same deal with all those so-called intellectuals that came after him and even, in the case of the French Enlightenment philosophers, before him (though at least in the latter case, they COULD be argued to not know their history beyond thinking delusionally that pagan Rome was better than Christianity). Pokeria1 (talk) 09:09, 1 August 2016 (EDT)

Merry Christmas

cebter

Thank you for all your contributions to Conservaoedia as far your web article content.

Merry Christmas! And have a happy New Year's Day. Conservative (talk) 16:44, 24 December 2016 (EST)

Happy New Year

It's good to see you back. I had worried that my peremptory block would have chased you away forever.

I'm sorry I blocked you. Other, wiser heads prevailed and convinced me that I was wrong.

I look forward to seeing many more wonderful contributions from you. --Ed Poor Talk 12:17, 1 January 2017 (EST)

Thanks!

You helped make THIS happen.

I have never seen a non-profit website go from below 100,000 rank to nearly a 50,000 Alexa ranking in about a year. And Andy payed zero dollars for internet marketing services during this period.

And there is no sign of a nearing web traffic plateau. My guess is that Trump supporters/Trump era and the resulting political waves significantly explains the boost in traffic.

Trump supporters seem very loyal so the traffic boost could be long lasting. It also seems like there is a reawakening of right-wing politics/nationalism that will be long lasting. And right-wing populism and "best of the public" go together like peanut butter and jelly. :) Conservative (talk) 17:30, 13 February 2017 (EST)

Quick project

Dear Pokeria1: Our state articles list the members of Congress from each state, but they have not be updated for 2014 or 2016. If five editors could update 10 states each, we would be done quickly. Could you please take a look at Conservapedia:Community Portal#Political directory? Thanks in advance, JDano (talk) 09:52, 16 February 2017 (EST)

I'll see what I can do. I took care of my home state of Georgia (there wasn't much else to update there, just adding a vacancy note next to Tom Price's name and changing the link from Henry Johnson to Hank Johnson since I suspect those two are one and the same), but I'll see what I can do about the other states. Pokeria1 (talk) 10:25, 16 February 2017 (EST)
Okay, took care of all states from Arkansas up to Georgia, except for Connecticut, since that remained unchanged (though I did cross it out due to the fact that it didn't need any changes and thus was essentially done). Pokeria1 (talk) 11:14, 16 February 2017 (EST)

Could you please write this article?

Could you please write this important article: Atheism and ethics?

I may ask another writer or tow to contribute to it also. Conservative (talk) 08:04, 18 March 2017 (EDT)

I'll see what I can do, but I do need directions regarding sources before I do. Obviously, I don't want to come across as talking out of my butt without at least some sources to back this wiki up. Pokeria1 (talk) 08:21, 18 March 2017 (EDT)
Thanks, I put some sources below. Ideally, I would like it to be one of Conservapedia's flagship articles. So please try avoid making it a stub article. I have asked a few people to help. Conservative (talk) 08:40, 18 March 2017 (EDT)
I believe that User:1990'sguy will be helping you. Conservative (talk) 10:57, 18 March 2017 (EDT)

Sources

Secular sources:

Additional sources:

Thanks. Just about finished, though I fear that, even if not quite a stub, it may require significant work, since I'm not exactly that good in regards to giving multiple statements per source. Pokeria1 (talk) 09:26, 18 March 2017 (EDT)

IRC

Hello,
After some discussion (on my talk page and Andy's) it has been decided that I start an Internet Relay Chat channel for Conservapedia, since our old one has been dead since 2009. It is now registered and somewhat set up. I don't know if you use IRC or are interested in doing so, but anyone with block privileges on Conservapedia can also get block privileges on the new IRC channel. Unfortunately, IRC accounts are deleted after 30 days of being unused, so unless you plan on using the IRC at least once a month, there is probably not much point in registering. In any case, feel free to try it out--if you account gets deleted, we can always make another one later. If you are interested, please let me know!
The IRC channel is: #conservapedia @irc.accessIRC.net
Let me know if you have any questions or need anything else, also! --David B (TALK) 15:43, 11 April 2017 (EDT)

Bye!

JohnZ (talk) 18:18, 31 May 2017 (EDT)

Nice try, you're not a mod and thus don't have the authority to throw me under the bus. Besides, we also listed the whole bit about conservativism playing a role in the counterexamples anyways, so undoing that edit is pointless, especially we have to cite all evidence, whether confirmation or not, to any argument, that being the purpose of an encyclopedia. Pokeria1 (talk) 18:19, 31 May 2017 (EDT)
Of course I don't have the authority. There's plenty of people who do though. You've had a good run - never particularly funny, like, but you managed to slip in some silliness here and there. JohnZ (talk) 18:27, 31 May 2017 (EDT)
You know I just responded to your talk page, right? So it's pretty clear the mods think I can still be here (not to mention I just looked over your page, and Conservative and the other mods voiced no intentions of banning me or anyone who reverts the edits). Besides, I've made several contributions to actual articles, while you seem to stick with talk pages in a violation of the 90/10 rule, not to mention the few edits you have made to Conservapedia's articles have largely been lacking constructive effort. Pokeria1 (talk) 18:34, 31 May 2017 (EDT)

My apologies

Further research indicates you're likely for real. I was certain that Pokemon edit to Greatest Conservative Movies was parody. Appears you actually meant it.

Sorry again. JZ17 (talk) 18:47, 1 June 2017 (EDT)

  • Don't know why you are apologizing since you didn't seem to remove any of my edits, but apology accepted either way. And yeah, I do mean it. Wouldn't have added them in at all if there weren't some conservative messages in those films (that said, though, there may be some entries that need to be moved, but we'll get to that when that ship comes). One last thing, is there a reason why your comment for the edit included this link: https://server7.kproxy.com/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/sjsoqcokhvkgix/stuv/p1 Pokeria1 (talk) 19:52, 1 June 2017 (EDT)

BLOCK THIS GUY!!!!!!!!

BLOCK THIS GUY!!!!!!!! SamHB (talk) 16:18, 27 June 2017 (EDT)

I'm hesitant to do so, since I fear I'll become as bad as the mods on various other wikis or forums. I'll do it if I must, though. How long should the block last? Pokeria1 (talk) 16:24, 27 June 2017 (EDT)

Galactic Empire (Star Wars)

So if you're a supporter of the Star Wars Galactic Empire, what do you think of the breakaway warlord factions from the Imperial Civil War such as Zsinj's Empire, the Pentastar Alignment, the Empire of the Hand, Eriadu Authority, and Greater Maldrood? Not to mention the Imperial Remnant and Fel Empire that existed afterward. KommissarReb (talk) 09:48, 19 September 2017 (EDT)

Sorry for the late response, needed to mull it over. Anyways, regarding the Imperial factions, it's largely a dependent manner. Some are good, some aren't. I do know that the First Order definitely ranks the worst for me (plus, since they're actually based on Nazis, not on America, unlike the Empire, I won't have to worry about violating my rule against rooting for villains). Pokeria1 (talk) 15:22, 3 November 2017 (EDT)

BLOCK THIS GUY!!!!!!!!

You are aware that you have block powers, right? And that massive vandalism is considered a no-no, right?

I recommend a block duration of 13.7 billion years (the age of the universe), though 6000 years should be enough.

SamHB (talk) 14:30, 16 November 2017 (EST)

You do realize he can't block me right? Jim Morrison (talk) 14:32, 16 November 2017 (EST)
I actually can block people, but I'm very hesitant to use it because I'm actually afraid that once I start blocking someone for serious infractions, sooner or later, I'll start blocking people for very trivial reasons. Pokeria1 (talk) 14:39, 16 November 2017 (EST)
You need to work on developing your power of discerning clear-cut issues. This one is a no-brainer. Are you actually that reluctant to use your power? SamHB (talk) 14:43, 16 November 2017 (EST)
I need to make sure I'm not too severe, though. One screw up, and I'll have to live with it. I've already had to deal with mods who used their power and flaunted it many times, and I fear via slippery slope that I'll ultimately descend to their level. Pokeria1 (talk) 14:53, 16 November 2017 (EST)
Okay, I blocked him, with a timeframe of infinite. I hope I don't turn out like other mods on various wikis and various forums who have used their block powers for very trivial matters. Pokeria1 (talk) 14:57, 16 November 2017 (EST)

You should have more confidence in your God-given powers of intellect, wisdom, and judgment. You have free will. No one will turn you into a monster without your consent. (Well there are a few ways that that people can be turned toward evil without realizing it, but generally people's common sense prevails.)

Your block of infinity was the right length. Infinity to the infinitieth power would have been too severe.  :-)

Yes, there are nasty people who are given power, and abuse that power, in many situations, including internet forums and wikis, including this one.

You have the gratitude of Conservpedia.

SamHB (talk) 16:21, 16 November 2017 (EST)

I concur with SamHB. You should use your blocking authority more often. Now, because nobody blocked the vandal sooner, the first 200-or-so most recent edits are either vandalism or reverting vandalism. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:25, 16 November 2017 (EST)

False Marx Quote

"The classes and the races too weak to master the new conditions of life must give way…. They must perish in the “Revolutionary Holocaust"– Karl Marx ( Marx People’s Paper, April 16, 1856, Journal of the History of Idea, 1981"

is a bad quote. The first part..."The classes and the races too weak to master the new conditions of life must give way" comes from an 1853 article by Marx in the New York Tribune titled "Forced Emigration" about emigration from Ireland and Scotland that Marx is claiming is due to economic pressure by English landlords.

The second part "All the other large and small nationalities and peoples [of Austria] are destined to perish before long in the revolutionary world storm comes from an 1849 article by Engels in the Neue Rheinsiche Zeitung called "The Magyar Struggle" about the Hungarian Revolution of 1848. Engels is arguing in the essay that, of the nations of the Austrian Empire, only the Germans, the Hungarians, and the Poles have any sort of revolutionary spirit, and the other nations that make up the Empire reflexively support it, and therefore, will be swept away by the nationalist revolution, because they lack a national consciousness.--Whizkid (talk) 12:59, 26 December 2017 (EST)

I found it on a site commemorating Holodomor, a youtube video posted by them more specifically, and that was the citation they said it came from. Pokeria1 (talk) 13:18, 26 December 2017 (EST)

Louis Grignon

This might help you.

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Grignon_%28militaire%29 Progressingamerica (talk) 23:52, 10 March 2018 (EST)

The PG-13 rating

The PG-13 rating has existed since 1984. Red Dawn was the first PG-13 film. It was created in response to Gremlins, Poltergeist, and Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom being to dark and violent for the PG rating, but not high enough for the PG-13 rating. Unfortunately, most 80s films still got away with the PG rating for content that would get the PG-13 Rating today, including Roger Rabbit.

Yeah, learned that from Karajou undoing my edit on Jurassic Park and made sure to add the (should be PG-13) note back into Roger Rabbit's entry. Pokeria1 (talk) 12:44, 25 March 2019 (EDT)

thanks

Thank you Pokeria1

Metal Gear

I think you might like to know that Metal Gear Solid: Portable Ops was made without Kojima's involvement, hence why it doesn't push the same liberal nonsense. The anti-nuke sentiment can be easily blamed on simply being Japanese. Virtually no Japanese know the truth about why the US dropped the bombs nor do they acknowledge any of Japan's war crimes (in fact I challenge anyone to find even one single person in all of Japan who does). Shobson20 (talk) 00:07, 11 April 2020 (EDT)

Well, very little of Kojima's involvement, anyhow. Apparently, he did insist that Portable Ops's story be directly tied to MGS4's storyline.
And yeah, I definitely liked Portable Ops as a game and especially as a story (also helps that, the whole Null business aside, it was surprisingly faithful to the lore thus far, which is a breath of fresh air especially considering that Kojima seems to have an obsessive need to constantly retcon his storyline). Probably the only game actually MADE by Kojima beyond a producer role that I actually liked is Snake Eater, mostly because it's surprisingly conservative especially by the usual standards pushed with Hideo Kojima games. It certainly came the closest to actually promoting patriotism in a positive light (sure, it did come across as being a bit closer to Nazi/Soviet-style patriotism with The Boss's speech, but it still was better than other Kojima-made games where the main character was either forced to serve their country or otherwise being very anti-American in outlook, while the villains generally tended to be very patriotic to America [mostly the secret villains].). That, and it for once depicts the Communists as full-on villains, not either as the lesser of two evils at best or genuinely heroic at worst.
Other than that, Metal Gear Solid did have an arguable pro-life or at least anti-abortion statement, from Liquid, oddly enough, since he explicitly compared the abortions during the Super Baby Method to murder. Of course, that being said, Liquid at the same time seemed to attribute himself and his brothers as murderers, or at least accomplices to murder since before they were even born during that time, when in actuality, they were closer to outright victims. Pokeria1 (talk) 10:38, 11 April 2020 (EDT)

HAHAHA

As you said, "if I must be honest yet again"...no no no, please. Be yourself. Be dishonest. Don't let me inconvenience you. RobSFree Kyle! 07:24, 30 January 2021 (EST)

I actually try to be honest. Pokeria1 (talk) 07:44, 30 January 2021 (EST)
Well, maybe you don't try enough. RobSFree Kyle! 07:48, 30 January 2021 (EST)

Image for Netanyahu

Hi Pokeria. I think the image for Netanyahu needs to be changed to this [[4]].Bytemsbu (talk) 16:52, 17 May 2021 (EDT)
Hmm, what is this, a pro-Iranian anti-Likudnik conspiracy? RobSFree Kyle! 17:01, 17 May 2021 (EDT)

are you into video games?

I found this essay earlier: Essay:Greatest Conservative Video Games, and appears you wrote it. Apparently Aschlafly allows gaming coverage as long as it's family friendly, informative, and not gossipy ([https://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly#Rules_for_coverage.3F source). Just wondered if this sounds of interest to you. Perhaps there can be a wikiproject for video games. Patriotic Gamer (talk) 09:27, May 29, 2021 (EDT)

just came here to say thank you for helping on the gaming articles. i wanted to ask about getting the ball rolling on it as well because nowadays it appears that liberal bias is being inserted into even innocuous subjects, and it feels like a matter of time before they start subverting things like Mario, which is one of few things in entertainment industry that hasn't been corrupted by leftist virtue signaling yet (although Nintendo of America did do that one tweet). On Mario Kart DS article, I added a review from a Christian video game website rather than leftist journalists like IGN. Patriotic Gamer (talk) 15:47, May 30, 2021 (EDT)
Huh? If you think leftist corruption of children's minds in popular culture is something new, I got a couple of lots in the Florida Everglades for sale, cheap. RobSFree Kyle! 16:02, May 30, 2021 (EDT)

Special invite

Hi Pokeria1, if you happen to be interested in joining a Discord server for Conservapedia I started, here's the invite link. —LTMay D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well! Sunday, 21:08, July 10, 2021 (EDT)


Question

You seem very defensive of The Little Mermaid. Why is that so? Did you see the argument I sent? Admiral_Farmer (talk)

Sorry for not responding, I'm trying to distance myself from Conservapedia due to a certain sysop who if you ask me is ruining the site with his pro-Putin love, even when evidence is coming to light that he's absolutely NO different from the ChiComs ultimately. Like I said, you're pretty much the only reason I made any edits fairly recently. Pokeria1 (talk) 05:28, June 25, 2022 (EDT)
Pokey, sorry, we're not going to shoot all communists or hang them from lampposts as you suggest, nor add Putin to your kill list based on your flimsy evidence. RobSZ+ 11:13, June 25, 2022 (EDT)
^Case in point regarding why I'm not editing on here much. And if God damns you to hell for refusing to shoot all Communists or hang them from lampposts, or even adding Putin to the list of communist enemies, don't cry to me, I tried to warn you. God, after all, is totalitarian, won't tolerate the very existence of Communists since they disrupt his rule. Besides, those weren't flimsy evidence at all, not when they came from ACTUAL conservative sites and sources. Heck, Sebastian Gorka is one of those. And even Trump made it very clear early into his term that Putin is bad news, scolded Merkel for becoming his puppet as well. Pokeria1 (talk) 15:30, June 25, 2022 (EDT)
Anyways, if its that argument you sent that I replied to before RobS got all smart-alecky, yes, I saw it. And I still fail to see how The Little Mermaid was all THAT feministic anyways (maybe if you count American Suffragette [the group Susan B. Anthony, a well-known pro-lifer who was against abortion, belonged to] stuff as feminist, I MIGHT possibly see how it could be such, but beyond that, it really isn't feminist enough to qualify as even moderately liberal. Any more than Sleeping Beauty does, and that movie had three female fairies being the closest the film has to actual protagonists, being the ones who direct the plot, even saving the prince when Maleficent abducted him and aided him in defeating her.). Besides, apparently, the film we got, the changes to the story made in it, were actually proposed by Walt Disney himself in his planned take (I think the only significant difference might be the part where Eric rams Ursula with a derelect ship, since that was forced in last minute by Katzenberg to emulate Die Hard), and Walt was a huge conservative last I checked (conservative enough to willingly aid HUAC and fire a guy who tried to prey on a boy at the pool, was even known to be a Goldwater supporter.). At the very least, they were coincidental similarities based on what the Platinum and 2006 audio commentary and bonus featurettes, respectively, claimed. And I also explained a bit on why I'm defensive as well. It's largely because, Hunt for Red October aside, it's my first movie, and Ariel if anything helped out with my struggles with my autism, alongside my parents. And even IF I were to toy with the idea that they were pushing a liberal agenda, the problem is there was literally NOTHING from the developers of the film that even remotely indicated they were trying to push an agenda when making the film, much less a leftist one (unlike, say, Beauty and the Beast, where Linda Woolverton, Jeffrey Katzenberg, Paige O'Hara, and even Don Hahn to an extent made it repeatedly clear BATB was meant to push the radical feminist agenda, or even Star Wars, where George Lucas and close associates repeatedly made it clear that they were trying to push Vietcong propaganda when making the movie.), so there's literally nothing to suggest there was an ulterior motive behind its creation (and I highly doubt that Walt Disney would have made similar changes to his planned take to The Little Mermaid if it was indeed meant to be leftist in outlook). I've grown extremely sensitive towards any pushing of left-wing agendas, to the extent that all it takes is one development note making clear they were doing such to write it off as liberal, never mind whether it's overt in its intentions. That's even why I ended up disassociating myself from BATB and Star Wars, also Metal Gear to a lesser extent. Pokeria1 (talk) 16:23, June 25, 2022 (EDT)

I do see what you’re trying to say. I don’t hate The Little Mermaid, and I’ll admit it’s a guilty pleasure of mine, but I can’t find much information on what Walt Disney’s plans were. From what I managed to find, Disney and MGM were co-collaborating on a biopic on Hans Christian Andersen, with MGM doing the main stuff, with Disney doing animated shorts based on his stories, one of which was The Little Mermaid. Given that it’s in a biopic about the author, it would’ve ended the same way as the book, but I heard it was going to be darker with the mermaid dying, and NOT becoming a sister of the air. Also, maybe it’s different views, as you saw it as a child, and I avoided it until this year because I saw it as a girl movie, and something I would hate. Although I will say, it’s definitely less feminist than the likes of Beauty and the Beast, Pocahontas, Mulan, Brave, and Moana. Some liberals who defend it do say it was about her exploring the human world rather than Eric, but remember the look on her face when she heard Eric say that the right girl is out there somewhere, and he hasn’t found her yet? So think what you will, but those are my thoughts. Admiral_Farmer (talk) 12:46, June 28, 2022 (EDT)

I can tell you where I got that information on Walt's rendition having coincidental similarities to the one we DID get, at least: It was first stated in Treasures Untold: The Making of Disney's 'The Little Mermaid', a documentary featurette included in the 2006 DVD release as a bonus feature. It also was mentioned again by John Musker in the audio commentary for the Platinum Edition for the same movie. I guess that seems to imply that Disney wanted to do a full-length animated feature at some point for The Little Mermaid as well as planning to do an animated short for MGM. Wouldn't be the first time Disney would do something like that. Cinderella technically started off as an animated short by Disney, but then he made the full-length feature film we all know and love sometime later. And as far as the bit about what liberals say and the contrast of going solely for Eric, who says it can't be both? She clearly already dreamed about actually wanting to become human, at the very least experiencing the human world, so it's not like she only desired to become human because of Eric. But on the other hand, Eric WAS a major factor in her actually GAINING the determination to become human. Before then, she merely had an aspiration rather than an actual plan to get there or even an endpoint. Besides, I'm doubtful God necessarily forbade women from taking action if needs be. Heck, one of our saints, Joan of Arc, actually became that precisely because of that in the name of God himself (not to mention being burned at the stake by consequence). Also, it was only fairly recently that The Little Mermaid was actually marketed as a girl's film. Back in the early 1990s, it actually was geared to kids of all ages, implicitly saying both sexes could watch it. As for me, I actually liken it to an action film, to be honest. Almost like Dragon Ball Z, if you want a good comparison. So a straight guy like me actually COULD enjoy the film (if anything, I'm more irritated at their insistence at marketing it exclusively to girls. Same goes with Aladdin, and that movie actually WAS a guy's film.). And personally, I actually preferred the Disney version to Hans Christian Andersen's rendition, not caring if the latter's the original (to be honest, I honestly felt THAT book promoted selfish rebellion FAR more than the Disney version did, especially when the mermaid STILL got what she wanted in the end, DESPITE her sisters, her grandmother, and her father meeting misfortune as a direct result of HER actions and them NOT being alleviated of it, despite their doing absolutely NOTHING to deserve it outside of MAYBE the grandma admitting merpeople lacked souls (which if you ask me was an EXTREMELY stupid plot point. You expect me to believe that sapient lifeforms like mermaids, who resembled us humans, who were created to be God's ultimate creations, hence why we have souls, would LACK souls themselves. That would point to God screwing up, which is NOT something I want to see of God.). Actually, if you ask me, the ending SHOULD have been that the mermaid gets the soul for sparing the prince, but then is sent to Hell for the other selfish actions she did in the story, not have her become a daughter of the air. Seriously, at least Ariel cleaned up HER mess late in the film and ensured EVERYONE got a happy ending, not just her. So that was a definite improvement. And I really always found sad endings to be extremely overrated anyhow.). And I had a similar experience with Beauty and the Beast, albeit in reverse. Used to have fondness for Belle. But nearly being brainwashed in College by radical leftists as well as doing personal study of the causes of the French Revolution, plus Linda Woolverton's not only constantly propping Belle up by kicking down her predecessors, but actually having the gall to claim that her trashy Maleficent movie was derived from BATB pretty much wrecked that fondness for Belle (to be fair, I still have a small amount left, so she got off easy compared to the Rebel Alliance thanks to similar boasting from George Lucas, but still...). Pokeria1 (talk) 16:49, June 28, 2022 (EDT)

Ariel cleaning up her mess? Don’t get me wrong, she did try, as after Ursula apparently won in the end, she tries to avenge her father right away, and does save Eric from being blasted, which did lead to Eric killing Ursula, and saving her father and the merpeople that fell victim to Ursula’s deception, but a lot of that was on Eric wanting to save her rather than Ariel playing housewife. Although to her credit once again, she was ready to accept that her and Eric were not meant to be (Shout-out to Glen Keane for animating Ariel especially in this scene he did a great job). As for the “Girl film” comment, maybe you’re right when you said “marketed” but one of Jeffrey Katzenberg’s concerns was that The Little Mermaid wouldn’t do well as he thought it was a girl’s film. Although he backpedaled before the film came out. Admiral_Farmer (talk) 19:38, June 28, 2022 (EDT)

True, but then again, she DID save Eric from being blasted by Ursula (even disabled her means of long-reaching observance in the process, aka, her pet eels), thus ENSURING he could ram her with the derelict ship, and she DID attack Ursula with enough force to actually stun her temporarily shortly after Triton was cursed. Plus it allowed Eric to pay Ariel back twice for the two times she saved him, so not like I have any reason to complain about that bit. It's still a heck of a lot more of a clean-up than what the mermaid did in the original tale, where the only reason SHE ascended was due to literally not trying to stab the Prince and his bride in their sleep (and even THEN, just committing suicide by throwing herself into the waves, which in Catholic doctrines Suicide basically means you're going to Hell, meaning there was NO way she should have even gone to purgatory. Maybe if the storyline tried to justify that decision by revealing that the minute a mermaid dies outside of water, they release toxic particles as they dissolve that kill any land-dweller in the immediate area, it would have come across as an ACTUAL sacrifice showing she saved the Prince twice during that time and slightly redeems her [probably not enough to actually let her become a Daughter of the Air, though], rather than just flat out suicide especially when merely standing and letting herself be dissolved would have worked all the same.), and even when doing that, pretty much left her family and even the prince to some extent with misfortune and severe sadness anyways, heck, irreparable damage as well. And personally, when the beginning of the film has fighting off a shark or a huge-scale action-oriented final battle (not to mention the villains dying in a manner that's very reminiscent to the likes of Dragon Ball Z in fact), I would NOT call that a girl's movie, more like a guy's movie (the fact that Ariel, in mermaid form, anyways, was very scantily clad certainly helps as well). Besides, just because there's a female protagonist doesn't necessarily mean it's automatically a girl's movie or what have you, any more than a movie's automatically for guys just because a guy is the main protagonist. Just look at Metroid, for example, or Dead or Alive, or even Tomb Raider for that matter. Girls are the main protagonists in those entries, yet the actual intended audience is guys, even in the instances where it delves into romance. Same goes for Red Sonja or Lady Death, where they are the main protagonists of their stories, yet the actual works they star in are clearly intended for guys, not girls. In any case, Katzenberg's judgment isn't exactly the best when you get right down to it. He also predicted that The Lion King would be a huge bomb purely because, I kid you not, talking animals are in it. Clearly he forgot that The Little Mermaid had PLENTY of talking animals in there (pretty much all the underwater denizens who AREN'T merpeople/cecilians. In fact, I can literally count on my hand only a handful of undersea creatures that DON'T speak or even laugh at all), and even Aladdin had a talking animal that acted as one of the more popular characters in the movie, Iago. In fact, right now there's a growing consensus that Katzenberg's contribution to the Renaissance might have been overrated, and that if anything, it happened in SPITE of Katzenberg rather than because of it. Pokeria1 (talk) 20:11, June 28, 2022 (EDT)

The only thing I can recall that Katzenberg did that was a great move (or at least proved to be so) was when he hired Howard Ashman to be The Little Mermaid’s lyricist. Although speaking of that, he gave it the red light due to being similar to Splash, but when he did give it the green light, he wanted to cut Part of Your World, despite John Musker, Ron Clements, Alan Menken, and Howard Ashman all saying it’s a bad idea. Even with Ashman threatening to quit. Katzenberg didn’t listen to any of them, but Glen Keane convinced him to let him finish animating the sequence, and screen it to a more mature audience. Of course, Beauty and the Beast and Aladdin were big hits, but the road to that was very bumpy considering that he rejected two drafts for Beauty and the Beast, and forced the Aladdin team to write a completely new story in eight days. Everyone take about his work on the Renaissance, but fewer talk about his first impression with the animation department by cutting over 10 minutes of The Black Cauldron because it was too dark and scary, although he wanted Woody to be a psychopath in Toy Story. As for the female protagonist, you’re right in that regard. After all, I liked Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs when I was little, and I enjoyed Tangled when I saw it in theaters. Overall, you’re free to enjoy The Little Mermaid, and like I said, it’s a guilty pleasure of mine. I’m sure Disney will butcher it in the upcoming live-action remake. Everyone’s taking about black Ariel, but are the sea creatures going to be photorealistic like in The Lion King? If so, “Under the Sea” will be terrifying. I’m 65% sure “Kiss the Girl” will be cut. Admiral_Farmer (talk) 20:43, June 28, 2022 (EDT)

Personally, I never understood why they insisted on the "photorealistic" aspect for the TLK remake. Wouldn't it have made more sense to just use real animals and have people voice the animals in the background, sort of like the Homeward Bound movies? And quite frankly, if they do use photorealism for the fauna, they seem to be forgetting kids aren't exactly likely to be all that fond of it. Heck, Raiders of the Lost Ark outright SCARRED me regarding my views of God. Personally, I also think the Beauty and the Beast rendition he chose, while not dark per-se, was also downright cynical, possibly to the level of Toy Story's Black Friday reel, including having the village up and out cheer the villain openly boasting with his toady trying to blackmail a woman to force marriage. Heck, if anything, I'd argue Beauty and the Beast was arguably even MORE cynical in that sense than Black Friday. At least Black Friday had the toys be rightfully disgusted with Woody after he confirms their suspicions that he deliberately tossed Buzz out the window. And that's not even getting how the movie arguably wrecks Beast's development in the ending by having him let Gaston and the villagers try to at a bare minimum loot the castle, possibly KILL the inhabitants when they inevitably discover they are alive, not to mention was initially willing to just up and out let Gaston kill him without a fight. Such behavior was something not even pre-redemption Beast would have done (as much of a massive jerk he was in the beginning of the movie, you at least got the sense he was perfectly willing to protect his servants and that his motivation for breaking the spell was AS much for restoring his servants human form as it was for himself). I'm wondering why the heck Richard Purdum's rendition would have been considered "dark." It's as dark as Snow White to be honest (and that movie was surprisingly dark when you get right down to it, since attempted infanticide is a major part of the film. If kids could handle that film back then, most kids would handle Purdum's take). Though at least Purdum had that as an excuse for being cut. Cox had it even WORSE if you ask me, since he never even had a reason provided for why it was cut beyond "no one bats a thousand" (and considering Eisner, back when he actually DID attempt to respect Disney's legacy, was the one who personally requested for Cox to write a full story treatment before Katzenberg flat out rejected it, I wouldn't even be surprised if Katzenberg did that behind Eisner's back). Heck, I'd even go so far as to state that it was BECAUSE of Katzenberg ultimately that Disney became left-wing (he's probably the most political animal out there other than maybe Iger, one who willingly chooses political statements over ALL else). Come to think of it, looking at BATB's budget, it's probably better off being a DTV film. Pokeria1 (talk) 07:22, June 29, 2022 (EDT)

Eisner clearly changed once Frank Wells died. After that, he surrounded himself with yes-men. As for Disney’s left wing turn, Eisner has a good amount of fault, but he at the very least blasted the Weinstein brothers for releasing Micheal Moore’s “Fahrenheit 9/11” documentary before the 2004 election. As he viewed it as the company taking a public political stance. After Eisner left, things went haywire. The company hasn’t made enjoyable movies in years, and I don’t see any sign of it getting a revival anytime soon. I’ll be honest, I’ve never saw any live-action remake except 101 Dalmatians which I didn’t see in many years. They just make them worse, although some detail changes make sense. Such as clearly showing the Beast getting cursed as an adult rather than implying he was no older than 11. Although having Mulan be this unbeatable badass rather than having her use smarts to beat the Huns was a questionable at best change. I also wonder what Aladdin would have been like before Katzenberg got involved. The only real change I understand is having the Genie grant three wishes instead of as many as you want. Admiral_Farmer (talk) 10:46, June 29, 2022 (EDT)

I know Eisner definitely was to blame for Gay Days. Not sure what else, pre-Wells' demise, I mean, he was to blame for. Quite frankly, 101 Dalmations is the only live action remake I've actually WATCHED. I think the only other definite sensible change to the 2017 remake for Beauty and the Beast besides making clear Adam was an adult when he was cursed rather than a child [too bad Agathe still cursed Chip] was making SURE Belle had actual foils befitting the moral of the tale. Let's be honest, those blonde triplets made for terrible foils for Belle in the original movie, being way too nice with not even a HINT of anything that points to inner ugliness on their part (heck, they don't even participate in the Mob Song later in the original movie, and it's also left ambiguous as to whether they were even AWARE Gaston was trying to blackmail Belle by having Maurice arrested since a pan-away shot just before Maurice's arrival and getting kicked out implied the triplets were going to be in the back preparing orders at that time, unlike the other villagers that were in the tavern, who very obviously knew due to seeing the whole thing). Vanessa in The Little Mermaid, even with her limited screentime (not to mention technically not even being her own character), put her status as a foil towards the main protagonist to VERY good use by comparison where we actually DO see how she's ugly in overall character, even ignoring her role as Ursula's disguise, and that movie wasn't even specifically trying to promote the moral of true beauty coming from within. I'd actually argue that was probably the most damaging part of the movie, more than even the feminist stuff, especially when the triplets were the only ones shown to have any respect for traditional marriage (at least enough that they were implied to actually WANT to give Belle her blessing to marrying Gaston and if anything were shocked that she refused). Belle obviously didn't, and it's extremely unlikely that featherduster had any real respect for marriage given she's sexually loose alongside her boyfriend Lumiere. At least Aladdin didn't end up insulting any girls who DID want traditional marriage. The fact that the triplets are given the kinds of bodies that Barbie, Lara Croft, and the vast majority of Dead or Alive girls possess (heck, Jessica Rabbit as well) yet are implicitly considered uglier than Belle outer beauty wise at least also doesn't help matters either (and also came across as outright DEMONIZING outer beauty. That's another problem with the Disney rendition, one which Katzenberg amplified with Shrek, to be honest, where the film seemed to imply being physically uglier is preferable to being good-looking, and in fact, if you're good looking, you're automatically ugly on the inside.). I think Eisner also deserves chops for avoiding commenting one way or another on the near-attempt at undoing Roe v. Wade back in the 1990s as well (the one Kennedy blew the chance at ending it for the time being). I know if it were Katzenberg or Iger in his stead, they'd be all in on either decrying the Supreme Court for even CONSIDERING removing Roe v. Wade, or otherwise praising the heck out of them for keeping it in. I already have a good idea what a Katzenberg-run Disney would have been like based on Iger's performance (that guy clearly cares more about pushing a message over any profitability). We actually got a sense of that when Georgia tried to push the heartbeat bill TWICE with Disney trying to threaten boycotts both times. Pokeria1 (talk) 15:17, June 29, 2022 (EDT)


Very well. Thank you for this talk, and thank you for watching my video. Any other thoughts on it? Admiral_Farmer (talk) 20:08, June 29, 2022 (EDT)

Actually, I haven't even gotten a chance to watch the video yet (part of it involved work, part of it also entailed risking looking for it on the talk page, and I REALLY didn't want to end up replying to RobS). I'll see what I can do regarding watching it, though I can't say whether or not I'm going to agree entirely with it if they are going to claim it's Simone de Beauvoir-style feminism or even Margaret Sanger-style Feminism. Pokeria1 (talk) 20:56, June 29, 2022 (EDT)

Here it is:

BitChute: https://www.bitchute.com/video/EXfOh2xYPIez/

YouTube: https://youtu.be/leUjd_1s0Ss

Admiral_Farmer (talk) 20:08, June 29, 2022 (EDT)


Evidence

You may have doubted it when I told you, but we gotta learn the hard way. Here we have evidence that a childhood film of yours promoted an evil agenda. Prove me wrong. Here is how Howard Ashman put his life into The Little Mermaid’s songs. Ashman may have not said it publicly, but it was there. In defense of him, I couldn’t find anything that connects with it except “Part of Your World.” That being said, it was the most important song in the film’s story. In Ashman’s words, “The leading lady usually sits down on something, and sings about what she wants in life. And the audience falls in love with her, and then roots for her to get it for the rest of the night.” and it aligns with Ashman being an outcast for being a homosexual, much like Ariel who’s an outcast for wanting to be apart of the human world. Heck, in the Howard Ashman documentary, it ends with Ashman singing the song. Now of course, Ashman’s words I linked which were said before the film came out may contradict my claim, and you said that you use sources that were made around the time of the film such as feminist stuff in Beauty and the Beast and Vietcong propaganda in Star Wars. Speaking of Star Wars, you also said it can’t be from years later as George Lucas said he always intended the Special Edition changes such as Greedo shooting first. As for my claim, of course, I can’t find much information on what the crew was saying about it other than it pushed Glen Keane (A straight Christian) to animate not only animate Ariel, but him being the one that ultimately convinced Jeffrey Katzenberg to keep the song in the movie where John Musker, Ron Clements, Alan Menken, and Ashman (who threatened to quit) failed. Overall, I’ll admit, I kind of like it. I had to sit through it while making that analysis video I showed you, and it’s stuck in my head. And due to who wrote the song, and co-produced the film, I call it a guilty pleasure. Admiral_Farmer (talk) 16:48, July 3, 2022 (EDT)

Eh, I'm not entirely sure that's a promotion of the homosexual agenda, to be honest. All that indicates is that it was a way to have Ariel be sympathetic due to being an outcast (and besides, she still fell in love with Eric, who is a MAN, not a WOMAN, last I checked, so it simply CANNOT be considered a promotion of the homosexual agenda from that reason alone). Now, if he had specifically had Ariel sing in Part of Your World wanting to mate with a girl, THEN I can see where it would be going regarding a promotion of the homosexual agenda. But as it is? Let me put it this way, I related to Ariel's desire due to my being autistic and ALSO going through a really rough development growing up because of it, and I'm straight, and very much conservative and Christian (even if my own personal views of God are by my own admission downright warped thanks to Raiders of the Lost Ark, with stuff like Dragon Ball Z, the Matrix, Metal Gear Solid 2, and heck, even Jonathan Edwards' sermon not helping with my views of God at all.). Heck, put another way, since I constantly have to keep my conservative views silent while at college and nearly let my professors brainwash me even WITH my critical thinking that my parents instilled into me, and having to put up with my bosses openly talking about their leftist agendas at my old job at GoodWill within earshot while I myself can't even so much as mention my conservative views in front of them, that if anything makes Ariel even MORE relatable to me than before. There's a difference between merely relating to a character for being an outcast while using as an offhand example being homosexual for what qualifies as an outcast (which can be interchangeable for stuff like Autistic as well, or even Christian and Conservative), and using a very specific framework that literally cannot be viewed in any other way (the latter being the problem with The Mob Song in Beauty and the Beast due to Don Hahn stating that Howard Ashman SPECIFICALLY used the whole anti-AIDS thing as the basis behind the villager's fear). Besides, they modeled Ursula after Divine, a notorious drag queen, and made her the bad guy. I'm pretty sure if they wanted to promote such an evil agenda, they would NOT do it with the actual villain (aka, the kind of person you're specifically meant to root AGAINST).
As far as George Lucas, I never said it couldn't have been years later. I if anything said the exact opposite, that George Lucas lied about having always intended for it to be that (I even mentioned as a response to that bit that Lucas specifically wrote in the 1977 shooting script that Han Solo ultimately vaporized Greedo before he could fire). In fact, the writers' tendency to lie as a way of puffing themselves up is PRECISELY the reason why I intended to go to the SGA archives, specifically to make SURE they weren't puffing themselves up. The Vietcong bit is unfortunately actually always intended, since he made THAT clear in his 1973 first story draft, meaning unlike with Greedo shooting first, the Vietcong bit actually WAS backed up by development notes. Pokeria1 (talk) 22:02, July 11, 2022 (EDT)

Very well then. Since then, I’ve given The Little Mermaid a second watch, and I found myself enjoying it, and even sung along with Part of Your World. The song came up on the radio when I was driving, and the same happened. As like you, I’m also autistic, and spent many years introverted, and I finally want some change. Wether it be back to college to find people my age, or go on some adventure. After all of this, I support your decision to like it, even if John Musker said “I just think if it’s engaging, I would think it could transcend gender lines, and in fact it did.” which can be interpreted in different ways as that’s when he was talking about Katzenberg viewing it was a girl’s movie. I’m surprised you didn’t edit the articles of the other Disney movies I made yet. Anyway, how was the video I showed you? https://www.bitchute.com/video/EXfOh2xYPIez/ Admiral_Farmer (talk) 10:37, July 12, 2022 (EDT)

Good to hear. Haven't watched the bitchute video yet. And I may go back to college if it ensures I get a better degree, but if they start trying to brainwash me again, I'm out. That's also part of the reason I'm soured towards Beauty and the Beast now, nearly being brainwashed in college and realizing BATB tried to push the same crap college did onto me (well, that, and I fear Belle would essentially become a Jacobin after the film, go mad, backstab Beast again [deliberately this time], then torch the castle and the village in the name of Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite after reading Voltaire, Diderot, Rousseau, and Sade's works. You know, like Sephiroth after he read those research notes about him). I'm not going to be on here much, since I'm not liking the direction Conservapedia's going in by shilling for a communist like Putin, all while claiming to be pro-Trump (Despite Donald Trump denouncing Putin repeatedly and if anything condemning DAVOS a few years prior for capitulating oil to Putin). So if I'm not editing much articles, much less those made by you, that's why. And you have RobS to blame for that. Pokeria1 (talk) 09:37, July 27, 2022 (EDT)


I understand. If you wish to talk more, email me at jamesfarmer2003@gmail.com Admiral_Farmer (talk) 18:25, July 27, 2022 (EDT)

Retrieved from "https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Pokeria1&oldid=1876472"