RationalWiki:Saloon bar
(→Term for this?) |
David Gerard (Talk | contribs) (→The Hoff) |
||
| Line 372: | Line 372: | ||
==The Hoff== | ==The Hoff== | ||
He's back, and it is beautiful. [http://www.mirror.co.uk/usvsth3m/david-hasselhoffs-1980s-inspired-true-5541001] [[User:Samstr|Samstr]] ([[User talk:Samstr|talk]]) 16:28, 25 April 2015 (UTC) | He's back, and it is beautiful. [http://www.mirror.co.uk/usvsth3m/david-hasselhoffs-1980s-inspired-true-5541001] [[User:Samstr|Samstr]] ([[User talk:Samstr|talk]]) 16:28, 25 April 2015 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :The movie it's from, [[wp:Kung Fury]] - it is a ''moral imperative'' to '''WATCH THE SHIT''' out of this when it's released next month. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=72RqpItxd8M Here's the trailer] - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 19:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 19:25, 25 April 2015
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
| RationalWiki:Forum | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
| To do list |
Why Mars colonization is racist and sexist
Check out this bad article, how can anyone agree with this crap? Why is SA publishing this crank?
Thank goodness the people in the comments set things right, though.Deofex (talk) 16:09, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- The linked article is taking its time to download.
Talk to Civic Cat 17:44, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- I'll spoil it for you: rich people are likely going to have a head-start on mars, and that's not a great thing. New user deofex finds this opinion objectionable, thus concludes it's crankery. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- Rich people can't frikin' get 1000 km from Earth. No one has since the early 1970s.
Talk to Civic Cat 18:16, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- I think it isn't unreasonable to assume that if we ever do set up a colony on Mars it will largely be government funded and therefore won't require one to be insanely wealthy in order to go. The other part that was a bit obnoxious was the fact that the author seemed to take offense at the fact that they didn't talk about social justice in their discussion of science. TBH we libs can be quite obnoxious when it comes to being PC. Samstr (talk) 20:09, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- Rich people can't frikin' get 1000 km from Earth. No one has since the early 1970s.
Talk to Civic Cat 18:31, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- Well, in that case, rich folks have an head-start in world of techno-fetishistic fantasy. Sure, it's not much of an article, and the twitter tirade is particularly lame, but it does bring up an interesting point - the language emanating from the entrepreneurial Silicon Valley space exploration scene is the same kind of manifest destiny malarky that has been spewing out of rich anglo dudes for the past three hundred years and these guys don't seem to be paying attention to this history as they are assured of their own infallibility. Marlow (talk) 18:40, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- At least there isn't a native sentient population of mars for this generation to murder/enslave/relocate. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:46, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- Well, in that case, rich folks have an head-start in world of techno-fetishistic fantasy. Sure, it's not much of an article, and the twitter tirade is particularly lame, but it does bring up an interesting point - the language emanating from the entrepreneurial Silicon Valley space exploration scene is the same kind of manifest destiny malarky that has been spewing out of rich anglo dudes for the past three hundred years and these guys don't seem to be paying attention to this history as they are assured of their own infallibility. Marlow (talk) 18:40, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- I'll spoil it for you: rich people are likely going to have a head-start on mars, and that's not a great thing. New user deofex finds this opinion objectionable, thus concludes it's crankery. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- The linked article is taking its time to download.
Yeah, it seems the richies gonna have to do it all by themselves, and they can't. Maybe if the US (and my Canada to an extent) stop wasting money on stupid wars in the Middle East and Central Asia. If I understand correctly, Napoleon sold frikin' Louisiana—what was that, 1/4th of the 48 states?—to raise money to fight some stupid war in Europe: and is France any bigger? America's selling the future. People get annoyed at Miley Cyrus? The fuck I care! What annoys me are these stupid dumbass "plans" for private exploration of space. They've been talking about it for decades, and they've gotten fuck all. If anything, it's gotten worse. 15 years ago, one could fly from NY to London on an SST. Now we got, what? The new frikin' normal. America has the NSA Utah data center, meanwhile some jihadi punks—the result of Bush & Co. misadventures—and they don't seem to give a flying fuck about the results—behead people and smash relics. Then the lamestream media—thanks Sarah for the neologism—swallows this crap presumably to boost ratings. Frikin' pisses me off! If Elon Musk isn't careful, he's going to die of cancer in 30 years and there's fuck all his billions are going to do—assuming that's all real wealth in the first place. Why don't these bullshitting Silicon Valley blowhards liquidate a few of their let's-pretend-it's-wealth wealth—a few bil—and build an infrastructure? But they either won't, because they're stingy-little small-minded misers or they can't, they frickin' can't. Now we have Scientific American—a magazine I used to buy years ago—with this crap about colonization of Mars, and the page still hasn't fucking downloaded on my computer—whatsamatter SA? Don't know how to design websites—it's been fucking 20 years since the WWW!
Sorry folks. I need to chill.Talk to Civic Cat 19:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- Stay angry buddy. I like it. BTW Elon Musk is working on infrastructure; his hyperloop fantasy. We live in a nation of crumbling bridges and roads, but Musk is coming to the rescue with a super expensive way for a handful of hyper rich to zip between enclaves without even having to look at the slums that shake at their passing. Marlow (talk) 19:34, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- Really rich people fly in private jets. The tubes idea is about the speed of a private jet, but can only go to preset destinations and worst of all you have to use a tube other people use. So really, it's for the mid-range of middle class to the low range of upper class. Nothing new when it comes to tech. Just remember, Henry Ford and Henry Royce both made cars, but the Henry that made cheap cars was wealthier than the Henry that made luxury cars. CorruptUser (talk) 20:16, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- If anyone should get worked up over anything it's that. That and the fact that our government is doing approximately nothing to try to fight climate change. Samstr (talk) 03:54, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Newer "whole-Earth" picture
Posting from a mobile device, so formatting is painful: http://www.redorbit.com/news/space/1112534522/russian-satellite-takes-121-megapixel-image-and-video-of-earth/ --ZooGuard (talk) 10:31, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- Dish Network used to have a channel that broadcast a live feed of the whole Earth from the view of their television satellite. They stopped it when the camera broke, but it was nice while it lasted. Frederick♠♣♥♦ 04:11, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Cricket question
I have progressed from watching T20 to 50-over ODI and have been watching my first Test this week (England-West Indies). One thing I don't get -- they say the WI have 20 overs left. Why the limit on the number of overs? I thought they played until they got the entire side out. Thanks. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 19:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- in One Day games there are a limited number of overs, otherwise the game wouldn't fit into one day. In proper cricket the play as many as it takes, and that's the one you were thinking of. Bicyclewheel
20:23, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- No, no. I'm watching Day 5 of the WI-England Test, and they definitely flashed a "West Indies have 20 overs left" message on screen. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 20:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- Never mind -- it's the "minimum overs." As in they need to play at least 90/day, right? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 20:32, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- Yup, the basic limit is 90 overs/day. It gets a bit more complicated based on scheduled times, wickets taken and various other factors, but naturally, this being cricket, the rules are incredibly detailed and complex. Worm (talk) 08:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- "Incredibly complicated" is a bit of an overstatement :) Usually 90 overs have to be bowled in a day's play in test cricket - however each wicket taken takes time, the end of an innings, interruptions for rain, injury, etc. all take up time that cannot be used to bowl - all these have a standard allowance of time - eg 10 or 15 minutes to change sides at the end of an innings, 2 minutes perwicket, rain and injury as the actual time, etc. IIRC games will have a 30 minute period they can be extended to try to get the 90 overs. And each over is taken as (IIRC) 2 or 3 minutes. So at any point you can calculate how much time is left available for play, and how many overs SHOULD be left to be played. So to answer your question, they had 20 overs left because the number of overs they HAD bowled plus the number of overs lost to interruptions added up to 70 - leaving 20 required for that day's play. Teams that bowl slowly and fail to achieve the required over rate can face fines in the thousands of $$ of UKL. It's a bit long winded sorry - but it's not particularly complicated as a concept or mathematically. Unlike Duckworth-Lewis!! :)--Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 22:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- Laws 16.6 and 16.7 are the relevant ones here:
- "Incredibly complicated" is a bit of an overstatement :) Usually 90 overs have to be bowled in a day's play in test cricket - however each wicket taken takes time, the end of an innings, interruptions for rain, injury, etc. all take up time that cannot be used to bowl - all these have a standard allowance of time - eg 10 or 15 minutes to change sides at the end of an innings, 2 minutes perwicket, rain and injury as the actual time, etc. IIRC games will have a 30 minute period they can be extended to try to get the 90 overs. And each over is taken as (IIRC) 2 or 3 minutes. So at any point you can calculate how much time is left available for play, and how many overs SHOULD be left to be played. So to answer your question, they had 20 overs left because the number of overs they HAD bowled plus the number of overs lost to interruptions added up to 70 - leaving 20 required for that day's play. Teams that bowl slowly and fail to achieve the required over rate can face fines in the thousands of $$ of UKL. It's a bit long winded sorry - but it's not particularly complicated as a concept or mathematically. Unlike Duckworth-Lewis!! :)--Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 22:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- Yup, the basic limit is 90 overs/day. It gets a bit more complicated based on scheduled times, wickets taken and various other factors, but naturally, this being cricket, the rules are incredibly detailed and complex. Worm (talk) 08:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- Never mind -- it's the "minimum overs." As in they need to play at least 90/day, right? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 20:32, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- No, no. I'm watching Day 5 of the WI-England Test, and they definitely flashed a "West Indies have 20 overs left" message on screen. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 20:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- 6. Last hour of match - number of overs
- When one hour of playing time of the match remains, according to the agreed hours of play, the over in progress shall be completed. The next over shall be the first of a minimum of 20 overs which must be bowled, provided that a result is not reached earlier and provided that there is no interval or interruption in play.
- The bowler’s end umpire shall indicate the commencement of this 20 overs to the players and to the scorers. The period of play thereafter shall be referred to as the last hour, whatever its actual duration.
Language policy
LTR has written maybe 25 articles in a language nobody else here often reads. Is this OK? FuzzyCatPotato™ (talk/stalk) 22:06, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- I am in favor of expanding RW to make it accessible to people who do not read English. I do not think having a one-person operation nested within the project with collaboration rendered virtually impossible is the way to do it. Yes, we can plug stuff into a Google bot and get a good sense if the guy is writing outrageous or libellous material, but that does not count as either decent quality control or meaningful collaboration. I would rather see people interested in producing a project in a different language develop a community of interested parties to create their own websites that have zero connection to the RMF. They can use our stuff as a launching-pad and do what they want with it in a genuinely collaborative manner. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 22:17, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- This is 'murca, we dont need no other stinkin' languages I barely speak englich, and tha'ts good enuf fer me. Samstr (talk) 23:38, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- We've already asked if other users speak Portuguese. One person said yes.
- Well here's my proposal for a change to our language policy. Articles in other languages can only be created if they are translations of articles that already exist in English. They cannot just be about the same subject as articles that already exist in English, they must be primarily translations of the English text. They must include a template which links back to the original English version. Obviously, after their creation, those articles could then start to differ a bit from the English originals due to editing (although there probably wouldn't be much of that) and a bit of localization would be expected. All articles in other languages which aren't based on translations of English ones are to be deleted. (That includes everything that LTR has created, some of his articles are on the same subjects as English ones but none of them are translations). I think that's a way we can try to regain a degree of quality control. Spud (talk) 04:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
- What about РациоВики? Wěǎšěǐǒǐď
Methinks it is a Weasel 08:35, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
- Russianal-Wiki has a degree of separation from the main body of RW that the Portuguese articles don't. I don't know if that guy has put together a community of contributors or anything, but hey, we're CC, so he can take our content and hive it off and do as he will with it. It's its own website, with its own url and own front page. I'd really rather see that as a model. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 12:48, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
- There are also at least a couple of articles in French; Pensée magique, possibly more. It would appear that we used to invite the creation of articles in other languages. Now that someone is busy doing that, it apparently becomes a problem. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 18:23, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
- I think we should have thought that idea through a little better. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 18:31, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
- It became a problem because we have one person who can actually read anything LTR says, and LTR is questionable on quality. As well, LTr apparently can't speak any english enough for a colab between us (As evidenced by his defense being entirely in a different language). Having other languages is nice, but not if there is only one person and nobody can understand that person. --Miekal 18:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
- As the one other person here who speaks Portuguese, I too conclude that LTR's quality is questionable. The reasons why are really boring but if you guys want, I can give a detailed explanation. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦
It took him 0.2 seconds to lock the door. 23:51, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
- Regardless of any problems with the quality of the writing, it's pretty obvious that an article can't be much good if it's just made up of a couple of lines of text, a YouTube video and some links to other wikis (which may include Conservapedia, Uncyclopedia and Metapedia). Spud (talk) 12:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- Should we vote on what to do about LTR? FuzzyDogPotato (talk/stalk) 17:02, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- I think reasons, however boring, would be a good thing to have in case there is need to take action. Explanation, then? --Castaigne (talk) 18:57, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- ? FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 19:49, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Raysenn, yes, please, go into the boring details. Google translate can't tell us much about style or how a piece fits within cultural context. Alec Sanderson (talk) 02:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
- Regardless of any problems with the quality of the writing, it's pretty obvious that an article can't be much good if it's just made up of a couple of lines of text, a YouTube video and some links to other wikis (which may include Conservapedia, Uncyclopedia and Metapedia). Spud (talk) 12:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- As the one other person here who speaks Portuguese, I too conclude that LTR's quality is questionable. The reasons why are really boring but if you guys want, I can give a detailed explanation. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦
- There are also at least a couple of articles in French; Pensée magique, possibly more. It would appear that we used to invite the creation of articles in other languages. Now that someone is busy doing that, it apparently becomes a problem. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 18:23, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
- Russianal-Wiki has a degree of separation from the main body of RW that the Portuguese articles don't. I don't know if that guy has put together a community of contributors or anything, but hey, we're CC, so he can take our content and hive it off and do as he will with it. It's its own website, with its own url and own front page. I'd really rather see that as a model. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 12:48, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
- What about РациоВики? Wěǎšěǐǒǐď
Well, here's a rundown on LTR's work:
- First, he's not doing any direct translation of English RW. This would normally not be a bad thing, but see the reasons below.
- His writing tone is really, really abrasive. Like, not SPOV like a regular RW article, but ranting, angry stuff.
- Related to the above, instead of debunking the article's subject, he instead has some ax to grind about Brazilian politics (and against Olavo de Carvalho in particular). And it's bizarrely and randomly shoehorned in articles.
- Related to the above, multiple irrelevant articles about Brazilian politicians.
- He seems hellbent on promoting some Brazilian YouTube science shows (and their Patreons). I don't know if the guy is LTR himself, and I'll say he isn't because I can't prove it's him. I also can't judge the quality of the videos, since I still have one hell of a time understanding spoken Portuguese (much like I knew how to read and write English before I got around to actually understand spoken English).
- Generally thin on article substance.
- Miscellanous grammatical errors.
Feel free to ask more details. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦
This taste... it's of a liar! 03:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
- Right, so regardless of how we feel about one-person operations being part of the RW brand, it's pretty clear this isn't a person we'd want to entrust such a one-person operation to. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 03:31, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
- Appears so, unfortunately.
- I'm wondering if we can just "freeze" the Portuguese articles. Prohibit LTR from creating new articles in this vein and prohibit major changes; ask him to work exclusively on the English side until/if a Portuguese community on RW develops. ʇυzzγɔɒтqoтɒтo (talk/stalk) 03:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
- I doubt LTR's ability to work on the wiki in english, if only because the nature of their edits in Portuguese strikes me as carrying over to english, and because he seems to only want to use Portuguese to talk. --Miekal 04:12, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think prohibiting major changes to the Portuguese articles we;ve already got would be a good idea. It seems they need to be extensively rewritten. Or nuked.
- How about a vote on a change language to our policy? I see three possibilities
- No change.
- Like I said before, articles in other languages must be based on translations of articles in English. They shouldn't just be on the same subject as articles in English. Any articles that don't have an English equivalent or aren't based on translations of an English equivalent will be deleted.
- Make this an English only wiki. All articles in other languages will be deleted. Anybody who creates an article in another language in the future and everybody who's created articles in other languages in the past will be sent a message saying that they might like to start a new wiki in that language instead.
- It's also starting to look to me like LTR could be a case for the coop. Which would be interesting. Spud (talk) 11:33, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
- Coop plus bot translation... dear lord. PacWalker 11:36, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
- I doubt LTR's ability to work on the wiki in english, if only because the nature of their edits in Portuguese strikes me as carrying over to english, and because he seems to only want to use Portuguese to talk. --Miekal 04:12, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
- I think making sweeping rules like these based on a single problem user is a terrible idea. We do have other languages camping out on this wiki and doing just fine (and Loi de Poe gets linked around, e.g. in the Francophone Twittersphere) - David Gerard (talk) 11:39, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
- If Raysenn's readings are correct, that is one problem that needs to be dealt with, and hopefully before the poor sod writing all that stuff wastes more of his time working on articles that I'll bet are gonna get nuked. I don't think that means we should automatically delete all non-English articles. I do think our failure to make sure this guy was doing decent work does reveal that we need better quality-control practices for non-English content. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 12:38, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
- The proble mseems to be that the Portuguese articles aren't direct translations of English ones, like Loi de Poe. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 14:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
- Perhaps I should say that I don't like the third option I suggested either. But we certainly do need to learn from this experience. As I said before, the next time someone comes along and creates loads of articles in another language, don't just assume that user is translating articles out of English and tell him or her to keep up the good work. Take a look at what's being created. Spud (talk) 15:11, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
- As I understand it, the point of the article about Portuguese Wikipedia is that this version of the site has (or is perceived to have) problems with quality control & administration which are different from or worse than those on English Wikipedia. This seems to me like a legitimate reason for a new article rather than a direct translation of our existing Wikipedia article (much of which relates specifically to the English version). ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ
Methinks it is a Weasel 18:34, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
- As I understand it, the point of the article about Portuguese Wikipedia is that this version of the site has (or is perceived to have) problems with quality control & administration which are different from or worse than those on English Wikipedia. This seems to me like a legitimate reason for a new article rather than a direct translation of our existing Wikipedia article (much of which relates specifically to the English version). ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ
- Perhaps I should say that I don't like the third option I suggested either. But we certainly do need to learn from this experience. As I said before, the next time someone comes along and creates loads of articles in another language, don't just assume that user is translating articles out of English and tell him or her to keep up the good work. Take a look at what's being created. Spud (talk) 15:11, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
- The proble mseems to be that the Portuguese articles aren't direct translations of English ones, like Loi de Poe. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 14:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
- If Raysenn's readings are correct, that is one problem that needs to be dealt with, and hopefully before the poor sod writing all that stuff wastes more of his time working on articles that I'll bet are gonna get nuked. I don't think that means we should automatically delete all non-English articles. I do think our failure to make sure this guy was doing decent work does reveal that we need better quality-control practices for non-English content. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 12:38, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
- I think making sweeping rules like these based on a single problem user is a terrible idea. We do have other languages camping out on this wiki and doing just fine (and Loi de Poe gets linked around, e.g. in the Francophone Twittersphere) - David Gerard (talk) 11:39, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
I gather that he's an axe-grinder. So are several other editors. He's apparently come here as a refugee from the Portuguese Wikipedia, and sees Rationalwiki as a place to continue his crusade. This too doesn't strike me as altogether rare. Abrasiveness, humorlessness, and poor quality are ... how should I put this? ... not confined to the Portuguese articles. All of the material he's written seems obviously topical if not top drawer. I'm still not averse to working with him, even if we have to use the unreliable medium of Google Translate to do so. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 04:40, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- If by "topical" you mean "on-mission", that's not the case. I've deleted plenty of "off-mission" Portuguese articles. Otherwise, you're absolutely right, Smerdis. On that related note, to save us further tears from more "exiled encyclopedists" in the future, I think our guide to newcomers should include a word of warning to people who've been banned from Wikipedia and other wikis. Spud (talk) 14:02, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that's how we should deal with it but I agree with the idea that we should do something about the bitter Wikipedia bannees. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦
Burning this game would be an insult to fire. 03:49, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- I meant adding something to explain that stuff which you added to Wikipedia which got removed or deleted might not necessarily be welcome here either (if it's "off-mission", unsourced. potentially libelous or just plain crap). And a polite warning that if you got banned for rubbing other users up the wrong way on another wiki to please try not to do the same thing here. Spud (talk) 04:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- Did somebody say bitter Wikipedia bannees?? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 13:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- Wot 'e sed. Scream!! (talk) 15:07, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- I was thinking of a certain exiled encyclopedist who claims to be a censored scribe, but works too. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦
Advocate for the liberation of Willzyx 16:43, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- Also: For some reason the "Peace" in AH's sig just ties that whole post together. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦
It's like human misery in video game form 16:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- Did somebody say bitter Wikipedia bannees?? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 13:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- I meant adding something to explain that stuff which you added to Wikipedia which got removed or deleted might not necessarily be welcome here either (if it's "off-mission", unsourced. potentially libelous or just plain crap). And a polite warning that if you got banned for rubbing other users up the wrong way on another wiki to please try not to do the same thing here. Spud (talk) 04:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that's how we should deal with it but I agree with the idea that we should do something about the bitter Wikipedia bannees. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦
Vote
We've got a lot of different policy ideas. Put it to a vote? αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 22:48, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- Please don't. ωεαşεζόίď
Methinks it is a Weasel 22:56, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- Guess we just let the subject die and do nothing then. *shrugs* 141.134.75.236 (talk) 23:15, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- Give an alternative, Weaseloid. FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 02:55, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- Guess we just let the subject die and do nothing then. *shrugs* 141.134.75.236 (talk) 23:15, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Annoying republicans keep trying to sell me bush socks
I keep getting emails from the GOP attempting to get me to join the Tea Party, as well as buy George H.W. Bush socks, mugs and other assortments. Anyone know how to get them to stop selling me their bullshit'Legionwhat do you want from me 08:24, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
- Isn't there an 'unsubscribe' link or similar? Ŵêâŝêîôîď
Methinks it is a Weasel 08:27, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
- This reminds me of the time we put dozens of Obama signs on my (very conservative) former science teacher's lawn. I think someone has signed you up as a prank. PacWalker 08:29, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
- Of all the presidents to merchandise... --Miekal 18:40, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
- Not to mention the (probably unintentional) homophonic[wp] hilarity of Bush socks/sucks. I wonder if this has been thought through. ScepticWombat (talk) 08:38, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- He socks and he mugs! Narky Sawtooth
(Floof!~) 23:54, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- Note that socks and sucks may not be homophones to the target consumer demographic. PacWalker 03:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
- Socks and sucks homophones? So you pronounce cocks as 'kucks' then? o_O 141.134.75.236 (talk) 15:10, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
- Note that socks and sucks may not be homophones to the target consumer demographic. PacWalker 03:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
- He socks and he mugs! Narky Sawtooth
- In response to what weasaloid said, no it does not appear that there is.'Legionwhat do you want from me 20:15, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- That's strange because laws on email marketing usually mandate some sort of consumer opt-out. You could look into reporting it if it does violate anti-spam laws, but it would probably be better to just write to the Republicans asking to be removed from their mailing list. Щєазєюіδ
Methinks it is a Weasel 14:07, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
- That's strange because laws on email marketing usually mandate some sort of consumer opt-out. You could look into reporting it if it does violate anti-spam laws, but it would probably be better to just write to the Republicans asking to be removed from their mailing list. Щєазєюіδ
- Not to mention the (probably unintentional) homophonic[wp] hilarity of Bush socks/sucks. I wonder if this has been thought through. ScepticWombat (talk) 08:38, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- Of all the presidents to merchandise... --Miekal 18:40, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
- This reminds me of the time we put dozens of Obama signs on my (very conservative) former science teacher's lawn. I think someone has signed you up as a prank. PacWalker 08:29, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
- Oh, at least that's the official GOP mailinglist. If you got on the list that's passed between unofficial right-leaning sites, you'd be faced with more scams than you could possibly bear. Regardless, no. You can't get unsubscribed: political emails are exempt from CAN-SPAM. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Do comedic parodies like the Onion reinforce rape culture?
I'm reading the Onion and one of their satire pieces was "little pussy takes call in other room." Seriously? ConservapediaEditor (talk) 18:45, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
- It's easier to answer that if i can actually read the article you mention--Miekal 18:46, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry. [1] ConservapediaEditor (talk) 18:47, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
- If I were the editor, that piece wouldn't have run. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 19:00, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
- What in the devil has that to do with rape culture?!--Arisboch (talk) 19:20, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
- What does it have to do with -anything-. It looks like something i'd see on 4chan. --Miekal 20:09, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
- Huh, wut? That stuff wasn't funny at all, but reinforcing rape culture? How was that supposed to work? ScepticWombat (talk) 20:36, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
- Given that pussies can take a rough beating for far longer than penes can give it, plus the whole "childbirth" thing, you'd think that "pussy" would mean "tough".CorruptUser (talk) 21:11, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
- I've heard, but do not believe, that it's derived from pusillanimous. This sounds like a "nuh uh, I'm not misogynist" excuse more than a real derivation. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:42, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- Given that pussies can take a rough beating for far longer than penes can give it, plus the whole "childbirth" thing, you'd think that "pussy" would mean "tough".CorruptUser (talk) 21:11, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
- Insulting articles seemingly written by awful people is a classic Onion joke. For example: Spoiled, Doughy Brat Makes Local Parent Feel Spiritually Whole. Frederick♠♣♥♦ 05:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- Huh, wut? That stuff wasn't funny at all, but reinforcing rape culture? How was that supposed to work? ScepticWombat (talk) 20:36, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
- What does it have to do with -anything-. It looks like something i'd see on 4chan. --Miekal 20:09, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
- What in the devil has that to do with rape culture?!--Arisboch (talk) 19:20, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
- If I were the editor, that piece wouldn't have run. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 19:00, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry. [1] ConservapediaEditor (talk) 18:47, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
- The answer is... Well, how close is the header to a headline? I'm not making accusations of intent like the law implies, though. Narky Sawtooth
(Floof!~) 02:50, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- Of course they can and do sometimes. One of those misconceptions people have about the concept of rape culture is that it should have some zero tolerance threshold for exacerbating. Instead, it should be understood as a cultural mistake that requires gradual reform. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 13:59, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
While there are many different profiles of rapists, one common thread is rape is about power, not love and sex. When men are ridiculed for showing compassionate qualities, that's how more men get pushed into proving their masculinity through misogyny and rape culture. ConservapediaEditor (talk) 01:14, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
- But in this case, the insults were supposed to be viewed as extreme and unreasonable. The humor is in the absurdity of viciously belittling someone for doing mundane things, such as excusing themselves from a meeting to take a call. The person being made fun of is the narrator, not the main character. Frederick♠♣♥♦ 05:22, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Link your favorite heading for a Daily Mail article.
Devout Christian mother-of-three, 31, becomes first woman in Britain to DIE from cannabis poisoning after smoking a joint in bed to help her sleep Master Necromancer(fear me!) 02:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- I think it would have more impact if it was done with the headline as a link instead of the URL. Narky Sawtooth
(Floof!~) 03:04, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- I think it would be better if the Daily Mail was never linked to - horrible rag that it is. Scream!! (talk) 10:26, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- Fixed headline thing, and the content is of course absolutely uncorroborated speculation by a Daily Heil numpty (essentially: She smoked cannabis and got a heart attack, OMG the weed killed her!!!1!). ScepticWombat (talk) 10:30, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- I think it would be better if the Daily Mail was never linked to - horrible rag that it is. Scream!! (talk) 10:26, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- Eggselent Samstr. Scream!! (talk) 23:48, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think cannabis is all too toxic, and the kidneys/liver should have filtered out the cannabis poisoning over a 24 hour period, especially at half a joint a night, if she did die of cannabis poisoning she would have to smoke a lot more as it says here http://drsircus.com/medicine/marijuana-toxicity “Marijuana has remarkably low toxicity and lethal doses in humans have not been described." therefore it is unlikely she actually died from the cannabis itself, and is most likely unrelated, also "high" is a relative term as the normal amount of cannabis is 0 so any amount of cannabis can be considered "high" Bubba41102 (talk) 02:11, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- Eggselent Samstr. Scream!! (talk) 23:48, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
The list of evolutionary holdovers/errors posted to the RW twitter some time ago
Some time ago, there was a list of 100 or so evolutionary oddities (possibly as a "if creationism is true, god is a lousy designer" thing) that was posted to (or retweeted by) the RW twitter. I believe one of the thing was about how poorly adapted the human spine is for standing erect (and the resultant issues with back pain everyone has). I ran back through the account's history, but I can't seem to find it. Anyone know the thing I'm talking about? Compro01 (talk) 07:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- We have a list of mistakes made by God. ωεαşεζόίď
Methinks it is a Weasel 08:05, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- Who is this God person, anyway? 86.184.43.115 (talk) 14:17, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Sites to find Pseudoscience and alternative medicine bullshit
Can anyone give me links to sites that will give me lots of pseudoscience to write about, im interested in writing about isome of this pseudoscience Preemptive thanks for your help Bubba41102 (talk) 12:50, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
- Look at the foot of the Clogs page, there's a list there. Dunno how up-to-date it is or if it's even been maintained at all. Scream!! (talk) 17:06, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Reading Thomas Wolfe?
| "more like a realist" |
|---|
|
Does anyone here like Tom Wolfe? I find him pretty interesting because SJWs hate him and call him racist, even though he was more of a realist in his writings. What are some of his books you like?Deofex (talk) 22:11, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
|
cs source jailbreak
any of you guys ever played jailbreak on the old cs source, taht game was the bomb, i recently picked it back up, anyone else still playing? Bubba41102 (talk) 12:49, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- I don't know about CS:S, but there's a Garry's Mod version that's pretty active. Frederick♠♣♥♦ 17:31, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- CS:Source? wowowow, best counterstrike evar! Although who am I to talk, I mostly play tf2, though I have heard of a jailbreak mod for that. My favorite tf2 mod is probably the equalized randomizer (it's basically arena where everyone starts out with the same random loadout and a random effect such as permanent jarate). You've also gotta love x10 servers where for some reason the grenade launcher lets you launch about a million pills at a time.Samstr (talk) 03:10, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Site notices
Nice to honour the famous Turk St. George and all, but it's a day early. Have the site notices suffered some sort of drift? — Unsigned, by: Queex / talk / contribs
- No, it isn't too early. The holydaze notices are intended to cover all timezones. They appear twelve hours before the start of the holiday according to UTC and stay there until twelve hours after it's ended according to UTC. As I'm writing this, it's already April 23 in some parts of the world but still April 22 in others. That's why we're currently displaying messages for Earth Day (April 22) and St. George's Day (April 23). Spud (talk) 13:53, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- Wasn't he Greek or something?--Arisboch (talk) 13:55, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- According to the Other Wiki, Saint George was born in what is now the city of Lod in Israel (then part of the Roman province of Syria Palestina). His mother was a local and his father was a Greek from Cappadoccia (which is now in Turkey). I suppose his first language was Greek. Spud (talk) 14:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- Would it be possible to have such national holidays only pop up when it's that day in that country? Or would that break the wiki? Bicyclewheel
18:02, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- But then we'll be discriminating against expats and travelers celebrating that holiday while not in said country! (Also, it would seem like a whole lot of effort for something very un-worthwhile.) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:08, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- It's hardly top priority, but making the holydaze thing timezone sensitive, so as to avoid questions like the one that started off this discussion in the first place, would be nice. That and something needs to be added to the Eastern Orthodox Christmas one. Every year on January 7, somebody comes along and says, "Twelfth Night is over. Why does it still say Merry Christmas?" I think something like "Is it Christmas again already?" and a link to our Eastern Orthodox page needs to be added. Spud (talk) 03:51, 23 April 2015 (UTC).
- But then we'll be discriminating against expats and travelers celebrating that holiday while not in said country! (Also, it would seem like a whole lot of effort for something very un-worthwhile.) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:08, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- Would it be possible to have such national holidays only pop up when it's that day in that country? Or would that break the wiki? Bicyclewheel
- According to the Other Wiki, Saint George was born in what is now the city of Lod in Israel (then part of the Roman province of Syria Palestina). His mother was a local and his father was a Greek from Cappadoccia (which is now in Turkey). I suppose his first language was Greek. Spud (talk) 14:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- Wasn't he Greek or something?--Arisboch (talk) 13:55, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
"Females"
A question: I understand that "female" as a noun has ugly MRA connotations ("I was talking to this female..."). Does it have the same problems when used as an adjective ("Female guitar students sometimes struggle with larger instruments like Jumbos and Dreadnoughts and might consider looking at smaller guitars like the popular Martin OM size...") Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 16:04, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- I assume it would depend on the context of what you are saying. --Miekal 16:27, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- That "female" is somewhat pejorative when used as a synonym for "woman" probably well precedes MRAs. I don't think it's ever been trouble as an adjective, though. Perfectly fine in your example, because some female guitar students may not qualify as "women" yet. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 16:54, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, the thing about "female" as a dismissive term for woman, is that it takes a person, and deprives them of personhood and agency(instead reducing them to a biological construct) in a manner that can only be called intentional. If it's not got that intent of reduction it's not the same problem. Female, as an adjective, describes biology. As a noun, it reduces to biology(which is okay for non-sentient animals). It could even be an occasional cute flippant use of language if its abuse weren't so widespread. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:11, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- Agreeing that it strongly depends on context and speaker. That's language for you. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 19:12, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- That "female" is somewhat pejorative when used as a synonym for "woman" probably well precedes MRAs. I don't think it's ever been trouble as an adjective, though. Perfectly fine in your example, because some female guitar students may not qualify as "women" yet. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 16:54, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- I don't see any problem with 'female' as an adjective, but the latter example does sound kinda innuendo-ish. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 18:41, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- I agree the connotation isnt there wen used as an adjective, bu in the first one i dont think it is proper grammar, well at lest it doesn't sound right. Bubba41102 (talk) 18:58, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- As far as I'm aware, it's not used like that often (probably because, as you say, it doesn't sound right), but it is used like that from time to time nonetheless. A quick Google search reveals the exact phrase that AgingHippie posted, for example, in the "relationship" book, The Re-Education of the Female by Dante Moore ("I was talking to this female I'd met at the gym."). ℕoir LeSable (talk) 19:27, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- (EC) There's nothing grammatically wrong with it. Nominalization[wp]/substantivization of adjectives is common and accepted in many languages. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:31, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- I agree the connotation isnt there wen used as an adjective, bu in the first one i dont think it is proper grammar, well at lest it doesn't sound right. Bubba41102 (talk) 18:58, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- I'm going to second the "context" thing. Anything can be wrong in the wrong context.CorruptUser (talk) 20:15, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, this. If, for example, you say about somebody "she's a female guitarist" (or "female lawyer", "female firefighter" etc.) that's generally going to be redundant (since female is implied by "she"), patronising and reinforce gender expectations: that these things are male roles by default & there's something notable about women doing them. Same goes for "male nurse", "male model", etc. and for using unnecessary gender specific adjectives. Thankfully, pointless variants like "manageress" and "poetess" are falling out of use, but others like "actress", "waitress", "hostess" and "stewardess" are too ingrained to disappear in a hurry. Wéáśéĺóíď
Methinks it is a Weasel 20:48, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- Wait... does this mean we need to alter gender based aristocratic titles like "princess" too? Going to make the "Disney Prince" criticism a bit confusing.CorruptUser (talk) 20:53, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- "Poetess" is too damn useful to drop. Adrienne Rich is a poetess. Emily Dickinson is a poet. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 22:30, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- What's the difference? Wěǎšěǐǒǐď
Methinks it is a Weasel 22:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- One part of the difference is discussed here: Unfortunately, during the currency of "poetess," femaleness was equated with various diminutive perceptions of femininity: domesticity, emotionalism, weakness, virginal purity, and so on, and these qualities were transferred onto, or demanded in the "poetess'" work. More here, Also Stevie Smith's Miss Snooks, Poetess. In these more liberated times, a "poetess" is just as likely to be inditing odes to intersectional sisterhood or conveying TMI about her minstrel cycles. But there is a difference that's still occasionally useful. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 02:42, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- What's the difference? Wěǎšěǐǒǐď
- "Poetess" is too damn useful to drop. Adrienne Rich is a poetess. Emily Dickinson is a poet. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 22:30, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- Wait... does this mean we need to alter gender based aristocratic titles like "princess" too? Going to make the "Disney Prince" criticism a bit confusing.CorruptUser (talk) 20:53, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, this. If, for example, you say about somebody "she's a female guitarist" (or "female lawyer", "female firefighter" etc.) that's generally going to be redundant (since female is implied by "she"), patronising and reinforce gender expectations: that these things are male roles by default & there's something notable about women doing them. Same goes for "male nurse", "male model", etc. and for using unnecessary gender specific adjectives. Thankfully, pointless variants like "manageress" and "poetess" are falling out of use, but others like "actress", "waitress", "hostess" and "stewardess" are too ingrained to disappear in a hurry. Wéáśéĺóíď
Does the right "punch up?"
So a person I follow on twitter, macroeconomist Noah Smith, started a long twitter argument about internet "sadism" and which group truly has the power in society.
Other thoughtful people chimed in about how the so-called alt-right "sadists" like Vox Day, were mostly low-status bottom-rung type people fighting against what can be only described as the SJW ruling class, who can do things like destroy people's lives over false rape accusations, accusations of bigotry, and so on. So who really is the one in power here, SJWs claim it to be the other way around, but based on all this, wouldn't that not be the case? Compare guys like Vox Day, weev, etc. to people like Zoe Quinn, Sam Biddle, Anil Dash (ruined Pax Dickinson's life), and basically all major internet media organs.
What are your thoughts, guys? And I'm not doing this to troll, for goodness sakes. Deofex (talk) 02:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- I think there are pineapples in the Caribbean. I think I am going to eat them all.
- ...Oh, wait, I have a pineapple allergy. Narky Sawtooth
(Floof!~) 03:27, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- First of all can I just say, a whole bunch of tweets is the most annoying way to read an argument that I can possibly imagine, but onto the meat of the issue. Attention on the internet =/= power, sure on twitter you might find more support for liberal ideas, but that doesn't mean that our politics has changed much in response to a changing culture. Just look at how hard it is to end the war on women in the political arena. Ultimately I think that the problem is people who oppose these equal rights movements tend not to be the brightest. Few people can offer any rational reasons for why a particular group should be oppressed beyond, "we've always oppressed them before." No offense to you, but if you have a bigoted movement you shouldn't be surprised when you find bigots coming out and supporting it. Samstr (talk) 03:31, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- What's that you say? Vox Day, a horrible fascist dick bag with basically no reasonable stated beliefs or public behaviors is verbally abused for said shitbaggienss? Must be punching down. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 03:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- About Vox Day, and frankly the whole sad puppies thing, I disagree. A person I follow on tumblr recently made this pretty clear to me why the situation is much different than most take it to be. I quote her:
"In another universe, you live in the Confederate States of America. The technological changes familiar to you in this universe still happened, so the 2015 CSA is economically like the 2015 USA. There is no slavery, for example: capitalism was found to be less expensive, and it spawned the same methods of exploiting laborers that it did in our timeline. There is more tobacco and less soy, but that is the only noticeable economic difference. Your ancestors fought for the Union, and passed down their beliefs to their children, who left the Southern Baptist Church and became agnostics.* Belief in God and Baptist doctrine is not legally necessary, of course – the CSA formally maintains separation of church and state – but you find yourself suffering socially for your failure to attend church. You make the mistake of getting into a religious argument, and find yourself stuck with the reputation that you are a Satanist. A revival movement sweeps the country, aiming to purify it of the theological and political baggage of the Union and the ideas of the devil-worshipping Europeans. Its preachers say that marriage is a covenant with God, and therefore that only religious marriages between members of the same Abrahamic sect should be recognized by the state – a fringe position only ten years before. Ballot initiatives start springing up. A few businessmen donate in opposition to them and draw the ire of the journalists; their companies are pressured into firing them. A few ordinary employees express their opposition and lose their jobs as a result. A suspected atheist is called out by a popular magazine and blacklisted from his entire industry. You see on Facebook that your college friends are starting to support these purges. People begin to speak of non-Christians as a disease, a cancer, a gross unthinking blob of evil that must be destroyed. Politicians start meeting with fire-and-brimstone preachers. A man who spent his time in college arguing in favor of violently abolishing the Confederate Constitution and instituting a theocracy is the president; he was campaigning when you were in high school, taking a class on the government of the United States that required its students to give a presentation on a topic of their choice at the end of the year. You are one of the four people in the class – a class of about 35 students – who do not choose the topic of how great this man is. You have a friend, an author – not even an atheist, but someone who is not in the habit of attending church – who tells you about how the sausage is made. If you want to get somewhere, you have to hang out at the church groups, you have to know your Bible, and all that. The game is rigged. You see this elsewhere: colleges bring in mandatory Bible study, and every sufficiently large institution you can see is scrambling to hire preachers and theologically-informed bureaucrats and pay them six-figure salaries. There are movements within each form of art to use them as tools to edify, to instruct, to bring the consumers closer to God. They win. Their stories, their games, their paintings start winning awards. Their statues and murals are set up in every city. You once had Christian friends. Most of them will no longer speak to you. Some still will – but what’s the point? You know which side they’ll be on when the shit hits the fan, and you know it won’t be yours." I think that sums it up for me. Deofex (talk) 05:52, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- Sounds interesting, you got a link? I'd like to read more from her.--Arisboch (talk) 12:31, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- Well, it's a good thing there's nothing going on now that's comparable to that, then. Narky Sawtooth
(Floof!~) 07:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- Also: Pax Dickinson 'ruined' Pax Dickinson's life, no-one else. He was found out, not victimised. His more recent blather merely confirms how much of a fuckwit he is. Vox Day thinks it's okay to throw acid in women's faces if that would help restore marriage to what he believes it once was and should be again. Cut this 'both sides' drivel, it makes you look simple. Queexchthonic murmurings 10:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- It's so hard to live life as a public Christian in America these days. I mean, you can only point to every single president, 84%+ of congress, 90%+ of the governors. Any day now, us non-Christians are going to have to do something about that, seeing that we obviously have control over all aspects of life. Hipocrite (talk) 12:31, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah These rampant SJWs get everywhere. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 13:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- I really cannot give a shit about fictional hypotheticals that will never come to pass. If you have to resort to an alternate universe to make the analogy, you've already lost the argument. --Castaigne (talk) 17:18, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- A big part of the Seasteading is about the Mass Effect, so that's occasionally par of the course here.--Arisboch (talk) 17:30, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- Could someone break down that "analogy" for me? Because like Narky, I'm not seeing the applicability. The marriage thing in particular; is trying to make it so some couples can't marry supposed to reflect trying to make it so more couples can marry?Calieber (talk) 01:13, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- It's not a "fictional hypothetical" it's what's really happening. It's happening in Sweden. It's happening in United Kingdom. And by goodness is it happening in America and on the internet. The elites aren't what you guys think them to be.Deofex (talk) 09:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- Oh, I didn't even mention Rotherham. There's a reason that was ignored.Deofex (talk) 09:09, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- Speaking as a life-long UK resident, you are full of shit. Your 'UK' link there doesn't even contain the word marriage, and I'm not prepared to read a loser-length xenophobic blog post to see how it might possibly be relevant to the point you're trying and failing to make. Queexchthonic murmurings 10:30, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- ^Second this. "There's a reason [Rotherham] was ignored" - actually there were several, anxiety about political correctness being, according to Prof Jay's inquiry report, only a small dimension. Taken along with the findings of Operation Yewtree, what we can conclude for certain from the Rotherham scandal is that authorities repeatedly fail to take the claims of young women, especially lower class ones, seriously, but I don't hear you SJW-bashers crowing about that. Grumblejaws (talk) 19:03, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- No, how was it that these Pakistani rapist gangs were able to rove around with impunity? How did they get there in the first place?Deofex (talk) 02:52, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- "No" what? Go read the report I alluded to yourself if you're so underwhelmed by what I've already said and still hungry for answers to loaded questions. Grumblejaws (talk) 08:43, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- No, how was it that these Pakistani rapist gangs were able to rove around with impunity? How did they get there in the first place?Deofex (talk) 02:52, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- ^Second this. "There's a reason [Rotherham] was ignored" - actually there were several, anxiety about political correctness being, according to Prof Jay's inquiry report, only a small dimension. Taken along with the findings of Operation Yewtree, what we can conclude for certain from the Rotherham scandal is that authorities repeatedly fail to take the claims of young women, especially lower class ones, seriously, but I don't hear you SJW-bashers crowing about that. Grumblejaws (talk) 19:03, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- Speaking as a life-long UK resident, you are full of shit. Your 'UK' link there doesn't even contain the word marriage, and I'm not prepared to read a loser-length xenophobic blog post to see how it might possibly be relevant to the point you're trying and failing to make. Queexchthonic murmurings 10:30, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- Oh, I didn't even mention Rotherham. There's a reason that was ignored.Deofex (talk) 09:09, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- It's not a "fictional hypothetical" it's what's really happening. It's happening in Sweden. It's happening in United Kingdom. And by goodness is it happening in America and on the internet. The elites aren't what you guys think them to be.Deofex (talk) 09:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
I still have no idea what is going on in this thread. I think "It's punching up, so it's OK" as a justification for vitriol and "sadism", Internet or otherwise, is an extremely poor one as just about anyone can frame themselves as the person punching up. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 19:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- Well, one of the things you have to remember is that punching up is generally better, seeing as punching down is usually just bullying. After all, it usually targets minorities and the disadvantaged. Then again, we make fun of birthers and truthers too, for pretty good reason. As for me, I see the accusation of punching down to be dumb in this instance. Reminds me of this one Cracked article examining the ways men and women both have more power than the other where its examples included pretty women sometimes getting free drinks at a bar, and men controlling the vast majorities of governments, courts, militaries, and corporations on earth. Punching down, huh? It's kinda like the idea that atheists are punching down when we make jokes about Christianity in the U.S. If the MRAs want a nice, welcoming atmosphere for their ideas about how women definitely shouldn't have equal rights, they could always get a booth at CPAC or some other Republican convention. Also you'll want to be careful claiming that slavery would have died out on its own, seeing as economic historians say otherwise. I'm betting that myth is another aspect of the Lost Cause narrative. When most people talk about that stuff nowadays, they have to admit that slaves had an amazing return on investment.(http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2013/09/economic-history-2). Their problem with slaves is more along the lines of recognizing that the economy there was ruined once the slaves were taken out of it. Which is like saying that the U.S. Midwest's economy would be ruined if people stopped needing corn, or if all their equipment was taken away from them. If I had the time or the giveadamn to find it, I remember where economic historians found that slavery, as profitable as it always was, likely would have continued unabated in agricultural areas. Plus, ya know, if slavery was so unprofitable, it seems strange that sex slavery still goes on so much. Those people certainly aren't stopping. - User:PsychoGecko, 00:22, 25 April, 2015 (UTC)
- "Also you'll want to be careful claiming that slavery would have died out on its own, seeing as economic historians say otherwise." Wha? Where did I claim this? ℕoir LeSable (talk) 01:50, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- It's something mentioned in the hypothetical Deofex brought up. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 02:05, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- "Also you'll want to be careful claiming that slavery would have died out on its own, seeing as economic historians say otherwise." Wha? Where did I claim this? ℕoir LeSable (talk) 01:50, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
There's one not-hypothetical that might be relevant: how the Southern planter class was completely wrecked after the war and lost all it's privilege, property, and led the South into complete ruin. In fact, the friend who wrote about that is the same person on who's blog I found the above hypothetical. She's an academic historian.Deofex (talk) 02:52, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- You probably didn't mean to, but you phrased that exactly right. The Southern plantation class led the South to ruin in a wholly avoidable war they started themselves. They did so because they conflated self-interest with Truth and Honor, as weak and fallible humans are wont to do. It never was about anything other than slavery, as the several secession declarations make plain. "States' rights" was never about anything other than slavery. Even the argument about tariffs was about slavery. They saw, moreover, that the nation would be expanding into large sparsely populated territories full of hostile Natives, and that plantation slavery would never work on the open prairie. The political dominance the slave powers had while the populated areas were confined to the eastern seaboard was certain to wither. Had they recognized that the rest of the nation would sooner or later grow impatient with slavery, they could have made themselves a better deal than what they got. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 03:44, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
I Made Myself Giggle
I thought this was cluttering up the page a bit, so...
I previewed this section as it would look like this.
And then I checked how it would look like this.
Now, I should go make a template for a button labelled "make fun." Narky Sawtooth
(Floof!~) 14:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Get your popcorn ready, folks.
|ISIS declares jihad against Taliban This is about to have more explosions than a Michael Bay film. Master Necromancer(fear me!) 12:19, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- We should watch people killing while munching popcorn? Grow up. Scream!! (talk) 12:36, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- (EC) Except that reality isn't a movie, and those explosions will be killing real people. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 12:37, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- i thought it would be the opposite, really isis is declaring jihad against extremists with somewhat similar views, well atleast this will make the U.S's (and the other countries i haven't really been keeping up on this mess) job easier Bubba41102 (talk) 12:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- Debatable; it doesn't stand necessarily to worsen their diplomatic situation much more, and sitzkrieg might be the result on the ground. I say wait and see. PacWalker 13:39, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not happy that people are dying but I'm happy that the ones dying will be the ones causing the death in the first place. Really, Daesh's greatest achievement for humanity is giving everyone a wakeup call for what Offensive-Jihad really is; a Crusade of the worst kind. Now the societies of the world just need to hammer that point in to their people.CorruptUser (talk) 13:55, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- One thing you can guarantee is that, among the one's dying, will be innocent bystanders. This "Oh, goody, the ragheads are killing each other so we won't have to" is not a completely noble sentiment. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 14:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- It is something of a hopeful sign that they're starting to turn on each other, though. It does suggest that the general Muslim world is starting to get burnt out on their act, and no longer finds the message compelling. When that happens, you double down. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 15:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- Innocent bystanders are already dying. What the Islamic world needs is a Reformation, and the one in Europe didn't come about through people sitting at campfires singing kumbaya. It was done through horrific wars that hadn't been seen in Europe since, well, ever. It took centuries for Europeans to finally understand the concept of freedom of religion. The very idea that a TRUE CHRISTIAN could suffer a heretic to live was an alien concept, let alone having equal rights. The Islamic world was ahead of Europe at this time; they were fine with other religions so long as they were second class citizens, but the very idea that a Shia could be Shia in a Sunni society without any penalties is still an alien concept in the Mid-East. But ask yourself this; if you had a machine that with the press of a button would undo the reformation and all the deaths it caused (ignoring the grandfather paradox; you still get born), would you press it? Yes, I'd like Salafi-crusader crap to end with nothing but a sit in or the women having a sex strike, but that's not happening. CorruptUser (talk) 15:31, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- And you think really this is the start of the Islamic Reformation? Or even, Smerdis, that this is the start of them turning on each other. It's just another twist in the tail and cheering from the sidelines diminishes you. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 15:50, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- CorruptUser's comment struck a nerve with this history geek on a point which might seem trivial: The idea of "second class citizens" is a completely anachronism prior to (early) modern ideas of equality before the law, universal rights and citizenship. When discussing pre-modern societies these concepts are simply nonsensical. Practically no one before early modern European thinkers would view these ideas as either valid or desirable. The idea that every citizen is, in principle, equal is the defining characteristic of Enlightenment thinking (and then it was still circumscribed by most thinkers with regards to women and "barbarians"). ScepticWombat (talk) 15:59, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- I never said this was a good thing, i know innocents will die, innocents will continue to die in every war past present and future, what i did say was that because the Taliban and ISIS are fighting both of them wont have as many resources to fight the rest of the world.Bubba41102 (talk) 19:12, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- "Start of them turning on each other"? Muslims have been at war with Muslims ever since Mo's uncle and his brother-in-law both declared themselves King of all Muslims. I'm just hoping it's the start of the end of this shit. Only time will tell, just the way no one "knew" the Reformation would happen until after it happened. But I just don't see the Islamic Reformation happening peacefully; I don't know if such things CAN happen peacefully.CorruptUser (talk) 19:32, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- The Christian Reformation didn't go over peacefully, either. Just look at the Holy Roman Empire. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 22:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- By "them" I didn't mean "all Muslims", but rather "militant groups like ISIS, Al Qaeda, and the Taliban." It always seems to work out that ideological differences between very similar militant groups are more keenly felt and salient than the differences with their proclaimed shared enemies. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 01:03, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- Splitters! Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 11:55, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- By "them" I didn't mean "all Muslims", but rather "militant groups like ISIS, Al Qaeda, and the Taliban." It always seems to work out that ideological differences between very similar militant groups are more keenly felt and salient than the differences with their proclaimed shared enemies. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 01:03, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- The Christian Reformation didn't go over peacefully, either. Just look at the Holy Roman Empire. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 22:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- CorruptUser's comment struck a nerve with this history geek on a point which might seem trivial: The idea of "second class citizens" is a completely anachronism prior to (early) modern ideas of equality before the law, universal rights and citizenship. When discussing pre-modern societies these concepts are simply nonsensical. Practically no one before early modern European thinkers would view these ideas as either valid or desirable. The idea that every citizen is, in principle, equal is the defining characteristic of Enlightenment thinking (and then it was still circumscribed by most thinkers with regards to women and "barbarians"). ScepticWombat (talk) 15:59, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- And you think really this is the start of the Islamic Reformation? Or even, Smerdis, that this is the start of them turning on each other. It's just another twist in the tail and cheering from the sidelines diminishes you. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 15:50, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- One thing you can guarantee is that, among the one's dying, will be innocent bystanders. This "Oh, goody, the ragheads are killing each other so we won't have to" is not a completely noble sentiment. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 14:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not happy that people are dying but I'm happy that the ones dying will be the ones causing the death in the first place. Really, Daesh's greatest achievement for humanity is giving everyone a wakeup call for what Offensive-Jihad really is; a Crusade of the worst kind. Now the societies of the world just need to hammer that point in to their people.CorruptUser (talk) 13:55, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- Debatable; it doesn't stand necessarily to worsen their diplomatic situation much more, and sitzkrieg might be the result on the ground. I say wait and see. PacWalker 13:39, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- Hello, kettle? This is pot. I just wanted to tell you're black. Peace. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦
THAT IS STILL LEGAL TENDER. I AM SANDWICH LAWYER. 16:47, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Faux refuting its own arguments
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoBnrLGMFL8&feature=youtu.be&t=28s Did I accidentally fall into a parallel universe, or did Fox just support legalization? Holy lack of self-awareness, batman! Master Necromancer(fear me!) 15:12, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- I have a feeling there's more to the context, but this is so surreal to me. Master Necromancer(fear me!) 15:19, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- Stopped clock. It happens. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:43, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- Look at how many people work there. Surely, some drift in their opinions will occur. In fact, it occurs regularly. Narky Sawtooth
(Floof!~) 13:54, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
BBC Coalition Builder
This thing is so fun to play with and I'm not even British. What do you guys I think? Do any of you find it interesting or I am just easily entertained (or both)? Alsto003 (talk) 00:45, 24 April 2015 (UTC) Alex
- With the result I got, Labour would have to form a coalition with the Lib Dems and SNP to get a majority. >.> 141.134.75.236 (talk) 01:10, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- I am having some trouble trying to follow Mr. Miliband's instructions regarding coalition building without SNP. However in a couple of instances I was able to build a Labour Coalition without SNP, by allying them with the Lib Dems, Plaid Cymru, Alliance, and the Democratic Unionist Party (which I am told, is willing to partner with Labour despite being very Conservative), the result in all of those instance was only a very narrow lead. In one instance it all added up to exactly 326 votes. Alsto003 (talk) 01:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC) Alex
- Phew, that's a lot of parties. I think they'd more likely go for a minority cabinet in such a case. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 01:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- You know, I think the pundits have this one wrong. Take what is the likely outcome, neither Tory or Labour have enough seats to form a majority, and then assume that the Tories + DUP or Lib Dems don't have the seats to form a coalition, (there is no chance of Tory + Lib Dem + DUP coalition, the DUP and Lib Dems are too ideologically opposed for that to happen), I think the smartest play is for Labour to say that they do not believe they have the confidence of the house to form a majority. UK constitution requires the currently serving government to remain in power until a new government can be formed (no resignation as party allowed), and with the new fixed terms legislation, a 2/3 majority vote needs to pass to dissolve Parliament and trigger another election. Labour could just sit there in opposition and, in informal coalition with the Lib Dems and SNP, not let anything proposed by the Government pass and, at the same time, propose amendments that ideologically speaking, the Lib Dems and SNP together would have to support, or the Tories themselves would have to support. And all the while the Tories would be stuck in power, flailing around and unable to get anything done without the support of Labour.--
Jabba de Chops 02:17, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- LibDem MPs after this election? Don't be daft. Sphincter (talk) 12:26, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- Yay British politics, something i know literally nothing about, at least there is more diversity in U.K parliament than in U.S congress/senate. I tried it and i had literally no idea what i was doing Bubba41102 (talk) 12:53, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- Well, current predictions put the LDs losing just over half their seats, which would still leave them with 26. Assume a change of power as the orangebookers are kicked out of the leadership positions and add in the projected SNP wins (55) that gives a total of 81 seats that could be used by somebody with the nous to use it.--
Jabba de Chops 11:16, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- I'd be very inpressed if the SNP won 55 seats, what with there only being 52 seats contested. Edit: talking rubbish, sorry Grumblejaws (talk) 13:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- Well, current predictions put the LDs losing just over half their seats, which would still leave them with 26. Assume a change of power as the orangebookers are kicked out of the leadership positions and add in the projected SNP wins (55) that gives a total of 81 seats that could be used by somebody with the nous to use it.--
- Yay British politics, something i know literally nothing about, at least there is more diversity in U.K parliament than in U.S congress/senate. I tried it and i had literally no idea what i was doing Bubba41102 (talk) 12:53, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- LibDem MPs after this election? Don't be daft. Sphincter (talk) 12:26, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- You know, I think the pundits have this one wrong. Take what is the likely outcome, neither Tory or Labour have enough seats to form a majority, and then assume that the Tories + DUP or Lib Dems don't have the seats to form a coalition, (there is no chance of Tory + Lib Dem + DUP coalition, the DUP and Lib Dems are too ideologically opposed for that to happen), I think the smartest play is for Labour to say that they do not believe they have the confidence of the house to form a majority. UK constitution requires the currently serving government to remain in power until a new government can be formed (no resignation as party allowed), and with the new fixed terms legislation, a 2/3 majority vote needs to pass to dissolve Parliament and trigger another election. Labour could just sit there in opposition and, in informal coalition with the Lib Dems and SNP, not let anything proposed by the Government pass and, at the same time, propose amendments that ideologically speaking, the Lib Dems and SNP together would have to support, or the Tories themselves would have to support. And all the while the Tories would be stuck in power, flailing around and unable to get anything done without the support of Labour.--
- Phew, that's a lot of parties. I think they'd more likely go for a minority cabinet in such a case. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 01:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Term for this?
My userpage says that I am in atheist. However its slightly more complicated than that. I am an atheist in a sense of Yaweh. Allah, or Zeus. However I am unsure of the existence of a deist, or pantheistic god. Any one word term for this? Because i am sick of having to say this people everytime they ask my religious beliefs 'Legionwhat do you want from me 11:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- Agnostic-pantheist maybe (the belief that it impossible to know if there are higher forces, but if there are then they are pantheistic). Or Pantheistic-agnostic (the belief that there are higher forces in nature that are pantheistic in nature, but it is impossible to prove their existence). Those two seem to be closest I can find.--
Jabba de Chops 11:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- Agnostic covers it. Wëäŝëïöïď
Methinks it is a Weasel 11:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, it's agnosticism. Be warned, though: It has a (sometimes truthful) reputation for being used by atheists that just want to avoid the word "atheist." Narky Sawtooth
(Floof!~) 13:45, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, it's agnosticism. Be warned, though: It has a (sometimes truthful) reputation for being used by atheists that just want to avoid the word "atheist." Narky Sawtooth
- Agnostic covers it. Wëäŝëïöïď
- You don't have to identify as anything, you know. If your stance is "I think pretty much all the gods from human religions/mythologies are bullshit, but I dunno if there might be any deities somewhere out there in the vastness of the universe" then you can just say that. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 15:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- That's not much different from what the OP said, which he/she said he's sick of having to explain. If s/he's looking for a concise answer, agnostic would cover it. ωεαşεζόίď
Methinks it is a Weasel 16:23, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- Sure, but agnostic also covers a whole lot of other positions too. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 16:31, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- So does any single-word summary. Щєазєюіδ
Methinks it is a Weasel 17:04, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- So does any single-word summary. Щєазєюіδ
- Sure, but agnostic also covers a whole lot of other positions too. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 16:31, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- That's not much different from what the OP said, which he/she said he's sick of having to explain. If s/he's looking for a concise answer, agnostic would cover it. ωεαşεζόίď
- I call myself both atheist and agnostic. By that I just mean I don't know whether or not a god(s) exists but I don't believe in one either. After all it seems silly to say you firmly believe something unless you have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt for it's existence. All that being said, even if you could conclusively prove to me that a god exists does that in and of itself imply we should worship them? If god were evil why should we respect him? Wouldn't it be better then to rot in hell knowing you have done the right thing than it is to live beside god knowing you are an accomplice to their crimes?
Guess what, everybody?
| Now 50% less ugly than before! ...but... | ||
|---|---|---|
|
Alright, I'm now seeing the massive mistake I made. Narky Sawtooth
|
So close. Narky Sawtooth
(Floof!~) 15:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
ABSOLUTE VICTORY
| Smart collapse! |
|---|
|
Hopefully it is hours - or maybe days - before bugs are found for this one! Hoorah, hoorah! Narky Sawtooth |
| Let's test! | ||
|---|---|---|
|
Small text. Narky Sawtooth
|
It has the potential to make things a little bit less ugly. Feel free to use this from now on, y'all. Narky Sawtooth
(Floof!~) 15:22, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
| Now in troll green! |
|---|
|
And putrid yellow! Narky Sawtooth |
...I'm probably having too much fun. Must be all that soda just a while ago. Narky Sawtooth
(Floof!~) 15:33, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- Looks nice. ;) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 15:35, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- What all this tells me is that... the image in your sig has a white background, not a transparent one. ;P PacWalker 15:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- It's not white. It's the same image as the one on my page. Narky Sawtooth
(Floof!~) 15:47, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- It's not white. It's the same image as the one on my page. Narky Sawtooth
|
Minimalism! 141.134.75.236 (talk) 15:56, 25 April 2015 (UTC) |
| Oh, wait. |
|---|
|
Here's the functionality I was originally trying for. Minimal width! Narky Sawtooth |
| How about Cyan? |
|---|
|
Or just Fuschia CorruptUser (talk) 16:22, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
|
The Hoff
He's back, and it is beautiful. [2] Samstr (talk) 16:28, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- The movie it's from, wp:Kung Fury - it is a moral imperative to WATCH THE SHIT out of this when it's released next month. Here's the trailer - David Gerard (talk) 19:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC)