RationalWiki:Saloon bar

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Saloon bar
WIGO Bar colour.png

This is a place for general chit-chat about virtually anything that doesn't fit anywhere else.
Friends.gif For previous conversations see the automagic barchives. Beer.gif

What is going on?

The Bar
(talk) (talk) (talk) (talk) (hic)

  1. Climate news (22:02, 28 Mar 2017)
  2. Would human extinction be such a bad thing? (18:44, 27 Mar 2017)
  3. Argument for the existence of limited god (09:57, 26 Mar 2017)
  4. Is there any hope (00:48, 25 Mar 2017)
  5. A theocratic movement in the U.S. is gaining power (00:34, 23 Mar 2017)
  6. A couple of cute goat pictures (15:50, 20 Mar 2017)
To do list


Britt expression - knocked me for 6

So I was watching a review on youtube by some brit, and he said as a side note that the drugs (medicine, not illicit) he'd taken last week had knocked him for six. I googled, and found it other places, all meaning some sense of "wiped me out", "made me sick", "emptied my tank" etc. But i was more curious what the expression comes from/refers to. anyone? --Green mowse.pngGodot 17:21, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Cricket. A "six" is the number of runs (points) you score when you hit the ball over the boundary without it hitting the ground first. Ajkgordon (talk) 17:55, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Interestingly, although hitting a six is the "home run" of cricket in the expression "being hit for six" the speaker is the ball, not the batsman. therefore it is not a "good thing". Bad Faith (talk) 18:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
It could also be interpreted - perhaps more logically - as being from the point of view of the bowler. His ball was "hit for six".--Bob"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." 18:34, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Of course it's the bloody bowler! Balls are inanimate objects and cannot talk. Do get a grip!--Feline1 (talk) 12:58, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
(EC2) In the US it would be something like 'out of the park' meaning you'd been hit really hard. Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic?Moderator 18:59, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Interesting. When I first heard this expression I assumed it was related to "six feet under" (dead), i.e., something that hit you so hard it nearly killed you. Doctor Dark (talk) 19:05, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Sachin Tendulkar, the Indian cricket god knocking some one for six--Buscombe (talk) 19:16, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Well I'm showing my age but I remember watching this live on TV, back in 68. Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic?Moderator 22:12, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Genghis, I didn't click on the link due to download limits, but i'll bet my house that was the Gary Sobers over.--Brendiggg (talk) 08:15, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Can I come back?

I promise to be less awful.


Unimportant Tech Question

Why is it that after I log into my user account and then return to the Main page, the "featured article" has always changed?--WickerGuy (talk) 04:46, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

It's (supposed to be) randomly selected out of the 'cover stories'. The usual complaint is that it has not changed, btw. Peter is procrastinating. 04:53, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
And my complaint is that we haven't had many new ones in ages. Seme Blue 05:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
And that. Peter is procrastinating. 05:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
You can't please everyone. It wasn't that long ago that we had someone moaning that the featured article wasn't changing when they reloaded Main Page. Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic?Moderator 08:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
We're not like CP where the featured article is just Ken's latest turdpile. PongoOrangutans are sceptical 13:14, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
May I point out that "CP" stands for "cheeze pizza"(child pornography), although only /b/tards and deepwebz surfers use it much. Makes me snigger every time I see it here though.Z3100x (talk) 04:24, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


Finally acknowledged as important in our planet's history. El TajDon't make me do stuff 11:11, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, I hope that is a warning for you to cut back on your own contributions. PongoOrangutans are sceptical 13:16, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Well I'll be damned, Dana Rohrabacher was right! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 15:57, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
If anything, I'm more inclined than ever to break wind in epic proportions; I must not be beat by some long-dead lizards! Beans and cabbages everyday!Z3100x (talk) 04:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Most distasteful movie ever

Just out of curiosity, what would you consider the most distasteful propagandized movie you have ever seen? I think it is the patriot, and as I am watching it at school, I want to throw up. Your thoughts? — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, by far. Cow...Hammertime! 16:46, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Why are you watching The Patriot at school? Ajkgordon (talk) 16:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Triumph of the Will? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:49, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
180. -- Seth Peck (talk) 16:51, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Expelled or Passion of the Christ for me. The Spikey Punk I'm punking my punk! 17:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Well, we could always go for non-controversial examples promoting racism such like Leni Reifenstahl's Triumph of the Will and DW Griffith's Birth of a Nation. And if you're looking into Mel Gibson movies such as The Patriot, I haven't seen that one but was awfully thrown off by Passion of the Christ whose only virtue was to get period details more convincingly than earlier Hollywood Jesus pictures (but that's true of Scorsese's Last Temptation as well.)
Incidentally, I'm highly sympathetic to the politics overall of Michael Moore, but find his documentaries awfully heavy-handed even when I'm mostly in synch with their conclusions! A logical fallacy in one of his films is documented on this wiki, the article quote mining .
I would have skipped Expelled, fearing I would have to expel my dinner after seeing it. It wasn't playing anywhere remotely near my neighborhood.
BTW, I took the liberty of correcting a minor spelling error in the original post.--WickerGuy (talk) 16:57, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
American Revolution. Somehow, propaganda is educational. IN CANADA70.68.30.118 (talk) 18:16, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
OK, that's weird. Your teacher should be fired. Ajkgordon (talk) 09:09, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Silence of the Lambs for content, Ace Ventura 1 for effect, but I'm biased. Seme Blue 19:24, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
THose aren't really propagandistic movies and as such don't address the question.--WickerGuy (talk) 23:22, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
I take a liberally postmodernist view of propaganda. Seme Blue 23:30, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
The Robe was positively nauseating and full of glurge. ТyrannisAn iron, but caring, fist 19:29, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
What about An American Carol? Didn't see it, but the summary on The Other Wiki is bad enough. --Tweenk (talk) 22:49, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Not a movie, but 24 was hard on the border of Keither Sutherland having an erection while reading the Patriot Act out loud. -- (talk) 23:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Interesting to note that two major Jesus movies of the 50s and 60s had initial scripts so bad that a script doctor was called in to completely rewrite it from top to bottom. The script doctor on Ben-Hur was Gore Vidal who put in a gay sub-theme into one scene. It was directed by William Wyler. So it's a Jesus movie directed by a Jew and mostly written by a homosexual. Is that why it's actually a half-decent film? The script-doctor on King of Kings was science-fiction writer Ray Bradbury. Whatever limited literary value it may have is destroyed by Jeffrey Hunter's performance in the lead role.--WickerGuy (talk) 23:25, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The Bloodlust of the Jews has to be in the running. --MtDPrematurely Indeterminate 02:18, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Just about anything in here i'd sayil'Dictator Mikal 03:03, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
How about Ed Poor's category:movies with 12 year old girls and football coaches ? (talk) 16:45, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

The thing is most of the movies that have been named were always intended as propaganda pieces, whereas the original question was "shamelessly propagandized", which I took to mean being compromised from what it should have been to what it became. I think Blue's closer than most people because of this. I'd have to say Spider-Man 3 due to the unnecessary shot of him landing before a fucking huge colonial flag before going and fighting the bad guys, a guy with oily skin and someone made of sand... -- Iscariot Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012! 11:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I think you're reading a bit much into that. It's certainly gung-ho ra-ra America stuff, but I think it's a big stretch to say that the big blonde Caucasian Sandman and Topher-Grace-Venom represent other countries. That Spiderman franchise always leaned heavily on positive appeals to national/local spirit, as in the first movie when New Yorkers throw things at the Goblin and in the second movie when civilians stand in Dr. Octopus's way.
On the other hand, you chose as your moniker the name of an infamously venal traitor to the Jews, so perhaps you represent anti-semitism!--ADtalkModerator 12:15, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
I admit that in a vacuum it could be seen as equally a stretch as the validity of the time cube, but at the time with the war(s), it seemed more than the pro-post 9/11 sentiment that was expressed in the previous films. Instead of a New Yorker solidarity spirit that was expressed in the previous two film it seemed to me like a clumsy attempt to show "our hero" as the epitome of Americana going against people whose main weapons were sand and the power given by an oily looking substance. Maybe my cynicism...
As for my chosen handle, surely traitor should be looked at due the cost/benefit ratio of the overall population based on a possible Roman crackdown? Also the meaning changes somewhat if you consider the Gnostic paradigm? -- Iscariot Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012! 22:08, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Just installed Trillian 5.1...

It's. Fucking. Hideous.

Apparently they got rid of all the eyecandy in the free version, making it look only slightly more appealing than if it was running on command line. Why must everything nice be ruined? Vulpius (talk) 19:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Go whine somewhere else.--ZooGuard (talk) 19:41, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
No need to be rude. It's not like there are rules about what people should/shouldn't post here. Cow...Hammertime! 19:44, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
There is the 90/10 rule against memes, memes, memes, though it doesn't apply here. Seme Blue 20:26, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
is that what that block reason is for?--il'Dictator Mikal 20:32, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Dolan.png mkials pls Uke Blue 20:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
That's what you get for using closed source software. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:40, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Correction: that's what you get for using software. Star of David.png Radioactive Misanthrope 02:37, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, yeah. It was petty bitching, but when a program looks less appealing than Excel I just can't help myself. Anyway, I downgraded to an older version and will just ignore the update prompts from now on. Hooray. Vulpius (talk) 18:11, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Tyson smacks down a denialist

Say you're a climate denialist. Now say Neil DeGrasse Tyson is sitting across from you... Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I cannot believe the audacity of these people, standing there in front of someone who does "science" for a living, and telling him how "science is done". I would not stand next to an Imam and say "preaching is done this way". I would not stand next to a chef and tell her the theory behind being a "chef". --Green mowse.pngGodot 19:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
But Climategate! You lose, Mr. Scientist. Better luck next time. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

eating fetuses

I know many of us joke about tasty fetuses, and the importance of cooking them well, etc. But WTF. China is actually DOING it? I know i should be more culturally sensitive, and not belive it's every chinese person, but with this, and the rhino horns, and killing the rarest of turtles, monkeys, tigers, etc. it's really hard to care. here.— Unsigned, by: WaitingforGodot / talk / contribs

Color me very skeptical. Its not like SK enjoys slandering China or anything. --Revolverman (talk) 05:31, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Interesting, how culturally sensitive people are, right up until someone of another culture does something they disapprove of. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 05:38, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Er... cultural sensitivity isn't a binary state. It isn't a choice between "they can do anything, i have no right to be outraged" and "they should be exactly like me!". I think your observation would be better phrased as "it's interesting to what extent people are culturally sensitive, someone ought to do a study on that or something". ONE / TALK 11:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
By what standard would we condemn some of the objectionable activities of other peoples, while writing others off as "cultural differences"? Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 02:50, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
I must say that I do find this story slightly difficult to believe without other verification. The article itself also states that it's not official government policy to do this.
I mean other counties sometimes have modern-day grave robbers operating but that doesn't mean it's government policy.--Bob"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." 21:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
I heard it on BBC news, and they were interviewing someone from the US (who's name I've now forgotten) who was part of the lab studying the pills, trying to find out of they contained any extremely dangrous bacteria, given the conditions they were produced in. He was talking about types of bacterias found, and testable ages of the fetus depending on the type of differentiation in the cells (ie., precentage of stem cells vs., differentiated cells). So the pills are real. And he specifically talked that China is investigating the souce, so it's not like anyone is claiming China govt is involved. --Green mowse.pngGodot 21:09, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Here. Ajkgordon (talk) 07:48, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Gay rights at a state level

So, with the NC loss of freedom going on; a canadian friend asked how the "some states allow, dont care or disallow gay marriage/alternative name" works if you go to a different state with a different attitude, and i'm a bit rusty so could somebody give me a decent explanation?--il'Dictator Mikal 05:40, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Every U.S. state, according to the Full Faith and Credit Clause, is supposed to recognize the others' "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings." How this applies to marriage licenses is unclear, but in 1996, the Gingrich Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which explicitly says that no state can be forced to recognize another state's gay marriage. Many states, as we are seeing now, do not. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 05:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
How it works is you can marry same-sex in some states, but your marriage wouldn't be recognised at all in other states, so you wouldn't get next of kin privileges there, and couldn't divorce in those states either, since they wouldn't recognise that you were married in the first place. So there'd be nothing to stop you remarrying (to the opposite sex), but as soon as you crossed state lines to somewhere that recognised your first marriage, you would be a bigamist. Great system USA. €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 06:43, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
As opposed to the EU, which is currently in the middle of a financial crisis because there is no way to set any sort of common fiscal policy? Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 06:51, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
What's that got to do with the price of fish? WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 07:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
All right; let us back up. By "great system" I assume you mean the U.S.'s federal system, whereby the states retain a degree of internal legislative autonomy, thus allowing them to have different marriage laws? Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 07:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
I mean the USA's post-DOMA system in relation to same-sex marriage specifically (the subject of this thread), as illustrated in the hypothetical example I gave above. If you disagree with my criticism, why not tell me why you think I'm wrong. If instead you have to respond to any criticism of the US made by a foreigner with a completely unrelated criticism of Europe (which is what your comment looks like), then you're just a being small-minded jingoistic dick. WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 07:42, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
To what part of that "post-DOMA system" specifically do you object? Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 08:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
The part that allows some jurisdictions to disregard some marriages & civil unions made in some other jurisdictions. See my comments above. WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:33, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that would be the U.S.'s federal system that gives states a degree of legislative autonomy. Now can you see the parallel with the legislative autonomy of EU member states in the matter of fiscal policy (or marriage law, for that matter — Ireland and Malta, for example, not recognizing foreign divorces)? Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 02:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
No, I don't see a parallel, because the EU is not a nation. It does not & should not model itself on the USA. Back on topic, plenty of civil rights issues in the US have been settled at a federal level without states having the option to exempt themselves. A federal law recognising same-sex marriage could do the same; instead DOMA does the opposite & recognises only man-woman marriage at federal level, while some states may define it otherwise. WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 07:18, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
So allowing different laws in different jurisdictions is fine for the EU, not for the U.S. Right. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 04:37, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Well, if these comments are correct, then state's and Congress can make exceptions to the full faith and credit clause as a matter of public policy. I'll also add that states ignore contracts across state lines all the time; Oregon won't even recognize noncompete contracts from out-of-state unless they meet a set of strict standards. Star of David.png Radioactive Misanthrope 18:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to comment about your "post DOMA" world. That's a bit of a revisionist point of view. FF&C does not have the inherant power you seem to think it does. it SHOULD, perhaps, but it doesn't. Interracial marriages were not accept by FF&C until the USSC forced them to accept Full Faith. "children" of 14-18 cannot be taken across state lines to marry, if it is only a way to circumvent age requirements in their own state. the Home state has a right to deny the marriage happened. Adoptions that happen in other states can be ignored (though usually, for this very reason, states will 'set them aside') if other state's rights have been circumvented. A biggomus marriage, legal for a time in Utah, was not recognized in other states. So the piece mail view of gay marriage is very much a part of our american tradition. and the USSC, well, maybe not THIS Robert's controlled Court, but one soon, will say "too bad you biggots, deal with it". Green mowse.pngGodot 19:24, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
It was not Full Faith and Credit that was used to decide Loving v. Virginia, but the Fourteenth Amendment. Also, polygamy in Utah was ended by a federal legislative ban, the Edmunds Act. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 02:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
And either of those have what to do with the price of tea in China? The argument is about the power of FF&C. Green mowse.pngGodot 04:01, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
If you do not want a certain irrelevant point discussed in a conversation, refrain from bringing it up. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 04:20, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Like EU fiscal policy? WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 07:18, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
And exactly WHERE did I bring up loving? Or is that the only interracial marriage there ever was? I was talking interstate recognition of other states interracial marriages. Polygamous Utah marriages were questioned all the time here in Colorado, and if the original poster was right about FF&C , they would have had to be recognized, but Colorado did not recognize them. Thanks for playing, though. Green mowse.pngGodot 04:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
If not Loving v. Virginia, what were you talking about? If I recall correctly, that was the only time the "USSC" interfered with state anti-miscegenation laws, and the Full Faith and Credit Clause has never been employed for that purpose. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 04:44, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm hoping the New and Shiny Obama will push for a federal law that forces states to at least fully recognize marriages enacted in other states. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:37, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


How has it been since the captcha change? Tmtoulouse (talk) 06:27, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Lessened, but not entirely gone. Seems a successful experiment, at least if you've sorted out the side effects that were discovered by the BoN at RWW. Peter is procrastinating. 07:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

9/11: An occult attack on America's willy

It's a new one on me. Balaam (talk) 14:24, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

An occult Zionist attack on America's willy - David Gerard (talk) 16:11, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
I think there is a logical phallacy here (Sorry, couldn't resist.)--WickerGuy (talk) 15:59, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Uh oh, you're committing the catchy-phallacy fallacy! RachelW (talk) 19:19, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Am I not special?

Why don't I get a welcome? Even Nobs, Brx, and Newton got welcome templates?RandonGeneration (talk) 15:13, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

If those are your role models then you're better off without one. Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic?Moderator 16:44, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Atheism explained!

The evolutionary cognitive science of religion atheism. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Academic.edu isn't even giving an abstract or title name. care to help those of us logged in from places other than school?--Green mowse.pngGodot 19:30, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Try this. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:38, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm barely 'decently read' in this field, much less any kind of an expert, but I bristle at the idea that we can find athieism or religion in "the mind" in the way these articles seem to be doing. That our minds want to give cause to everything, is one thing - and i suspect a very real thing. But to say we can "find" atheism or thesim leave me cold. Of course it's cultural, it's how we are raised, adn what things we experience in life, and how those around us tell us to interpret what we experience. even so-called "rationality" is a creation in some sense; a perspective of how to interpret thigns, that is not as "rational" as we sell it. "Rationality", beyond such laws as 3*3=9, or 2+2=22 which can be proven, without doubt, by anyone trying, "Rational statements" are not proveable. Almost ever. But are still still based on the way we deal with input, which peices of information we select to inform us, and in some ways, how our day went. :-) Religion will be the same. you believe or do not believe far more by how others help you frame your world, than any inborn part of your brain, i suspect. it is of course, just suspicion.--Green mowse.pngGodot 19:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
It's not literally in the mind, it's the combination of certain cognitive mechanisms under specific circumstances that produces "religious" ideation. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:02, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

2*10+2=22. Have I missed something? Proxima Centauri (talk) 20:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

It can also equal 24 ir you ignore the rules of operation--il'Dictator Mikal 20:08, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Obama endorses same-sex marriage

Yup. Cow...Hammertime! 19:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Huzzah! now if only that meant something--il'Dictator Mikal 19:32, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
It actually does - cause once it's out in the open, the White house (and by extension the Party, the Legislature) will get down in teh dirt about what a marriage is, and why it matters. --Green mowse.pngGodot 19:46, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
and nothing will come, because the people opposing it will do all they can to stop it from happening. --il'Dictator Mikal 19:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
And they'll look like totally inconsiderate and heartless bastards for doing so. -- Seth Peck (talk) 20:06, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
And you need only take a look at demographics to know that in 10 years, this will all be a memory. Acceptance of gay people as just 'the neighbors with the great looking lawn" raises with each "generation". That is, if 80 % of people over 50 dislike gay marriage, it's 60% for over 40, and 40% for over 30, and 10% for over 20. This is one issue that kids just don't give a shit about, and they will start to vote. --Green mowse.pngGodot 20:15, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
And the dumbshits react. This has been edited, though, the original headline included "Declares war on marriage". -- Seth Peck (talk) 20:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
I, for one, am totally opposed to marriage, gay or otherwise. Unless it doesn't involve me, in which case I couldn't care less. I thought you'd be interested in hearing that. You're welcome. -- (talk) 20:34, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Reading the bottom half of the internet, and found a comment that said "I'm just waiting for Faux to come out and declair Michelle and the kids to be Obama's Beard". heh. Green mowse.pngGodot 21:05, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Here's the WAR ON MARRIAGE headline. The "rejected" ones are pretty funny, too. Occasionaluse (talk) 21:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
It's honestly not a huge deal. The Obama Administration already openly supports repeal of DOMA and refuses to defend it in court. And if I may, marriage equality is really not the most important federal LGBT civil rights agenda item. Important, yes, but not as important as, say, a non-discrimination act for employment, housing, etc. The hierarchy of needs and all that. Seme Blue 20:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm surprized you of all people, would say that. It's a HUGE deal. Civil Unions means 2nd class citizens. He's never admitted that, just held on dearly to that position. This finally opens the door to real discussions. When a President says somethign, especially knowing he risks votes from the black community that is larger than the gay community, it is something that shoves issues onto the front page. People are talking, not just those who are in this issue day to day, but our mom's and dads, and Uncle Joe about what it really means to be gay and unable to marry. What marriage means. what equality REALLY means. it's a huge deal.Green mowse.pngGodot 21:02, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Tell me, the last time you were denied a place to sleep or a job based on your sexual orientation/gender identity, was marriage the first thing that came to mind when you thought about what's most important for equality? The bourgeois gay establishment made marriage its #1 priority because they didn't have to worry about much else (besides being discharged from the armed forces I guess). Housing, employment, public accommodations, etc. are things the undesirables (the poor, the people of color, the transgender people, etc.) have to deal with, not rich white dudes a la Modern Family.
Obama's record on LGBT issues speaks for itself. His administration has been by far the most LGBT-allied in history. I'll take nondiscrimination ordinances from HUD, the SSA and the EEOC a thousand times over this really not unexpected clarification of his philosophy on marriage.
This isn't to say that marriage is completely unimportant, of course. In the U.S. there's a lot of social connotations around marriage. But more important are the benefits, like hospital visitation rights and property laws and such - not necessarily the name of the union. Seme Blue 22:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
(EC)It may not be important in and of itself, but I think marriage equality is a good indication of the direction LGBT rights is headed when it comes to public acceptance. It's a much "easier" issue than others to tackle because it's so simple to implement. Cow...Hammertime! 21:06, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Well, this is going to be at odds with all of you but I support civil unions over gay marriage. I certainly don't agree with Civil Unions means 2nd class citizens. What garbage. AceModerator 21:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Why shouldn't they be able to get "married"? I don't understand the objection. I know it's not quite as bad, but it has the ring of "separate but equal" thing to it. Cow...Hammertime! 21:12, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Soon we can focus on legalizing polygamy. Occasionaluse (talk) 21:15, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Even better, gay polygamy! PongoOrangutans are sceptical 22:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Now if the Supreme Court strikes down Prop 8 I'm going to high five some gay and lesbian Americans. --Raga Man (talk) 21:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
There is the argument that marriage is a religious concept; while a "civil union" is a secular version. the problem is they arent equal in status--il'Dictator Mikal 21:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
A civil union is marriage with a different name (at least in NZ it is). Civil Unions have all the same legal protections and rights. I am quite traditional in my views on marriage. AceModerator 21:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
In france, the govt recognizes CU only. religions have marriages. Taht's fine. but unfortunatly the US does not have CU as it's marriage union. it has marriages. giving one thing to one group, and something differnt to another is just discrimination.
It's hardly garbage, any more than saying "black kids get to go to community college, isn't that enough?" If you are told you CANNOT be married, it instantly means you are not good enough for marriage. It's not that CU are bad in and of themselves, but there can never be separate but equal institutions. If you say to someone "we are in a civil union" or "this is my partner" it has a host of associated assumptions with it. "It's not permanent", "it's not a real commitment", etc. Marriage is what it is. You say "this is my husband", people understand that means a supposed life time commitment. The issue is not that CU are bad. it's that denying someone one thing, but handing them something different and saying "it's the same" means they are not good enough to have the first. It means they are different. unworthy. "you cannot have MY ice-cream, cause only the right people can have it. but you can have 'frozen sweetened milk product" which is clearly the same thing. Green mowse.pngGodot 21:18, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
I think it's garbage because it is the exact same thing as marriage and if you are petty enough to complain and view yourself as a second class citizen because of it well bully for you - get the fuck over it, get a civil union because that is, for all intents and purposes, marriage. If you get stuck on it because it is a different word then there is something wrong with you AceModerator 21:23, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Again, why the hell should we make another thing that's exactly the same with a different name? It's not "traditional"? Cow...Hammertime! 21:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Ace, it IS NOT the same thing, not im america; it may be where you live but that isnt relevent for americans.--il'Dictator Mikal 21:27, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Well, I think herein lies the heart of our disagreement: in NZ it is the same thing. Gay's are happy, heterosexuals are happy and we just move on and get on with our lives. AceModerator 21:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Ace. It's exactly the same, so let's call it something different (because we're not petty like you). Occasionaluse (talk) 21:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
It is not "for all intents and purposes, marriage". It is something that you are given as a consolation prize. You are simply not good enough to have a marriage. that makes you second class. Period. Let's do it for black people. "you cannot marry your white wife, but you can have a civil union". you're ok with that? "you cannot marry if you are muslim, but you can have a civil union". We would be up in arms about discrimination. but it's ok to do the same with Civil Unions? that's BS, it's bigotry plan and simple. not "deal with it". why should we "deal with" bigotry when we can change it? at least state sanctioned bigotryGreen mowse.pngGodot 21:31, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
In the US, at least, the first amendment lets you call it whatever you want. If you have a civil union, you can have a wedding, call your partner "spouse", "husband", "wife", whatever, tell everyone you're married and guess who can stop you? No one. For that reason I think the semantic difference is not worth making a huge fuss over. The bigger issue with the North Carolina vote was that it struck down civil unions as well as marriage. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 21:33, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Dick but also need to reiterate that here in NZ there is no fuss about it. My friend had a civil union, is in a civil union partnership, adopted a child and she is over the moon and lives her life. Your whole bigotry argument isn't "factual" it's opinion and one which isn't uttered on this side of the planet. AceModerator 21:36, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
I think both sides give people too much credit. Occasionaluse (talk) 21:37, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
good for New Zealand; the problem? AMERICA is not new zealand, itrs a country trapped by the religious--il'Dictator Mikal 21:38, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, America is different, I already conceded that. But I am curious what WFG would think if she was here in NZ where there is no social conservatism impacting on the rights of homosexuality. Would she also kick up a fuss about terminology? AceModerator 21:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
I fail to see why it should matter. --il'Dictator Mikal 21:43, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
In typical fashion, Ace is being illogical. He says it's the exact same, that it doesn't matter...but protests anyway because he's actually a fucking dolt. Occasionaluse (talk) 21:44, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Idiots like Ace should come up with other euphemisms for other agreements/contracts entered into by gays. Occasionaluse (talk) 21:40, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
I believe that I might have come up with a compromise to this whole problem that will make everyone happy! People in the gay community want the same rights as married couples, but dissenters don't want the word "marriage" corrupted. So how about we let gay people get married, but call it something else?

You homosexuals will have all the exact same rights as married couples, but, instead of referring to you as "married", you can be... butt buddies. Instead of being "man and wife", you'll be... butt buddies. You won't be "betrothed", you'll be... ...butt buddies. Get it? Instead of a "bride and groom", you'd be... ...butt buddies. --Revolverman (talk) 21:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Personally I think the government shouldn't recognize marriage (a religious rite) at all; they can get married if they want, but it should be separate from government; and if they want the government benefits currently given to marriage they should get a (secular) union or whatever you wanna call it. --il'Dictator Mikal 21:42, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Question for Ace - can gays get MARRIED in NZ? if not, then no, it's not the same. If you say to anyone, "you cannot have the same toy as me" you are saying "cause you are not as good as me". if gays cannot get married, give me one reason they cannot. one simple reason. and that will answer your own question for you.Green mowse.pngGodot 21:49, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Civil Union's in New Zealand. AceModerator 21:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
So they can't get "married", because... wikipedia? Cow...Hammertime! 21:57, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
That was the background. The one simple reason is because there is no pressure on the government to change the law. The simple reason is that here, specifically in NZ, the law works, the populace is happy and there is no move to change. AceModerator 22:01, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
That's not a reason against gay "marriage". That's a reason for not changing the status quo in NZ. These are not the same thing. Cow...Hammertime! 22:06, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
I am not against gay marriage, in NZ there is gay marriage. It is called a civil union and has all the same rights that come with marriage. AceModerator 22:08, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
For a smart guy, you are relly missing this. if it's not called marriage, it's not marriage. it's something else. And on it's own, fine. I like CUs. but if a couple of gays want to marry, they cannot. cause they are not straight. they are not good enough. I'm sure gays right now are happy, cause it's better than nothing, but i assure you, in 10 years when other nations are having marriage, they will say "hey, why are we seperated". what is so wrong with gays that we cannot share what our moms and dads have? You think that's a petty thing, but how a society separates people matter. "this is the gay bus". is that next? And here we have "gay sallaries" and "gay stores", and "gay voter lines" and "gay pension". this really makes sense to you? separate gays from others but say "but it's still the same thing". If it is the same thing, why does it need it's own special name?Green mowse.pngGodot 22:12, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
You can always have a civil union, call it a marriage, and, presto! you're married. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 22:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Like Dick said..and I am not missing anything. I am traditional in my approach on this. I view it the same as a gentleman's club shouldn't suddenly be forced to have to accept woman. The doesn't make me bigoted, stupid or anything else. AceModerator 22:27, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Thing is marriage between a man and a woman and marriage between two men is not exactly the same thing purely and simply because many people, especially of a conservative bent, define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. It doesn't matter how often you shout at them that it's bigotry or whatever, that is what defines marriage for them. Gays, they will say, are not banned from marriage because they can still get married to someone of the opposite sex. It is not the same as a gay pension or a gay salary. While you may insist that this is semantics, they will say rightbackatcha - if it's only semantics, what's wrong with gays having a CU with the same legal status?
Personally I don't have much of a view one way or another. What I do notice is that ramming the idea down conservatives' throats that marriage between a man and woman is exactly the same as a marriage between two men (or women) when, by their definition of the word, they aren't, is counter-productive. As is calling them stupid or bigotted when there is a workable perhaps hopefully temporary compromise in CUs.
Just a thought. Ajkgordon (talk) 22:34, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
That's a quite depressing view. Also I don't see why somebody should accept that definition, especially if those that want marriage only to be between man and woman are legislating it. Why does your (general your, not you Ajkgordon) personal believe of what marriage should merit a law banning some from it, if allowing others to be married doesn't hurt you in the slightest. It's like saying streets are only for cars and sidewalk are only for people that walk. If nobody get's hurt (empty street) it just doesn't matter were you walk. --Raga Man (talk) 22:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
I'd buy that, except this isn't about "man woman = marriage" it's about bigotry, and "lifestyles" and "icky gays". why do i say that? cause of my post below. Colorado is presented with a chance to give gays CUs that like NZ would be equal in all but name. 10 republicans representing religious conservatives blocked it. if it really were a compromise, fine, but we heard how "all we want is to protect marriage", around the nation, but as soon as CU language was started, they said "no no no" and "that's a gateway drug status to marriage". when you are fighting bigotry, it doesn't matter what the name you use, they don't want you to exist. period.Green mowse.pngGodot 22:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
I would not call CUs a compromise, I would call them an interim step to Gay marriage. All the gay folk i know who entered into CUs/Civil partnerships or whatever it is in your parts of the world refer to them as marriage. not one got down on bended knee and asked their beloved to civil parner them, they asked for marriage. legally it may amount to the same thing. Socially it stil inferior. news of joining announced as your marriage will always be met with 'it's a civil partnership'. Psychologically, it will not be the same thing. It will always be in the back of your mind that your relationship is not quite as valid, not quite legit as a the hereros. I thing gay rights have come a long way, hard battles have fought and won, but even in today even in more liberal parts of the world, there is a still an undercurrant of low level homophobia - not out right abuse but in nuances of speech, image in media, the use of 'gay' as some bad, detached from what it means. I think the status of marriage in society represents the pinnacle of acceptance and legitamacy for any relationship, and I see no reason why gay folk should be deprived of this. It would be wrong to accuse all who are against gay marriage as homophobes or bigots or whathave you, but lets face it, the mose vocal are. i am sorry if demanding marriage when we have be thrown the bone of CU seems petty, but years of explicit and implicit condemnation and abuse tends to make one a sensitive. AMassiveGay (talk) 23:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Trouble is even if/when gay marriage becomes legally indistinguishable from hetero marriage, the anti-gay marriage people will still say, "They're not really married because they're gay." It takes time to change social mores. Ajkgordon (talk) 23:14, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes it does take time, and marriage will help move things along. But is not just about changing how society sees us, marriage will help change how we see ourselves AMassiveGay (talk) 23:23, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Amen. What I think could really help the religious conservatives in this is seeing that the real poison to traditional marriage is not the gays. They might just see committed gay couples and compare them to the celebrity five days marriages and recognise the latter as an infinitely worse abrasion of their beloved institution. Ajkgordon (talk) 23:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

edit break

Government should get the fuck out of marriage, and let churches do the marrying. There should only be civil unions.--ADtalkModerator 23:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Isn't that really the way it is? The government recognizes the legal elements of the union, which you can achieve via a religious or non-religious path. The government doesn't give a shit about the ceremony, it's the paperwork you file with the municipality that makes it legal in their eyes. Plenty of people are married without any religion in the ceremony and it's still a marriage. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 23:35, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely. I was married in France and we had two ceremonies. A church wedding has no legal status in France so we had to have a civil ceremony as well presided over by the mayor. Standard practice. Ajkgordon (talk) 23:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
That's why I'm for 100% Civil Unions only. let people decide their own labels. The govt does need some way to help people with things like immigration, child custody, distribution of property after a union disolves, etc. So something is needed. But CUs let two anyone who wants to make a legal commitment to each other for the time in which they have that commitment, and gives some rights and responsiblities to the union should be open to anyone. Two single moms living together, one the care giver in exchange for the other working and her insurance; two old men who are eachother's social support; a gay couple; a trans couple (might be nice not to have to shove them into 'gay or straight' which i suspect does not apply).... but the US will likely never go there. that's too much like Socialist Europe or something --Green mowse.pngGodot 23:18, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
I was married in what could be considered a civil union. There was not one mention of religion, there was no priest and no church. I call myself married but I could just as easily call it a union. The same as a homosexual. AceModerator 23:24, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
How often do you get told you are not really married when you say you are? My brother was recently married in a similar sounding situation to your own. I have never heard anyone refer to it as anything but married - they are married. everyone i know who has entered into a same sex has always had someone say 'you mean a civil partnership'. always. and even by people i wouldn't call bigots or even just mean spirited. I am far from the marrying kind, but that does something to your psyche. AMassiveGay (talk) 23:36, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
I promised i was going to drop this, but.... "same as a homosexual". fine, for the atheist homos. What about the homosexual who is married in his church, with all the "Praise God" and "amens" he can find. a real live methodist wedding. should he have a "marriage"? --Green mowse.pngGodot 23:38, 9 May 2012 (UTC) (PS, how do we put an edit point in? I've seen them, but never used them)

If I've observed the difference between US-crap and ROW-stuff, it's here. Paul McCartney got a "civil union" way back when. The Commonwealth is so far ahead of the US in regards to this and some other topics it's hopeless for their people to comment on US politics. In the US, each State in the Federal Union makes its own laws regarding "marriage". And they have been ugly. While USians can get "civil unions" (ie, "married" by a JOP), it's still called marriage. It's a mess, and I am so happy for this week's political news on the topic. In other news, my idiot relatives who moved to Dixie for the lack of winter are surprised that their Confederate neighbors are bigots. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:18, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand the "marriages are for religions" argument appearing further up in this thread. Weddings often take place in a religious setting & with religious language etc. but the function they serve is - and always has been - primarily a civil one. There's no reason why secular unions should have to retitled something else & can't be called marriage. €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 07:24, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree. It seems pretty clear to me that, historically, marriage and religion were separate in many societies. Especially so since we're usually talking about arranged marriage, which was economically driven before it was religiously driven. As far as Christianity goes, at some point church leaders got the idea of 'blessed' unions being preferable, and that caught on to the point we see today. Of course, if they want marriage to be recognized as a 'religious institution between a man and a woman', then modern supposedly-secular governments (like that of the US) have no business being involved in the first place.
Like Godot and others have mentioned, having two different types of marriage is just a way to say 'I'm better than you' - even when the benefits are equal. There's absolutely no reason to have separate entities for different types of couples otherwise, unless you're just kowtowing to religious sensibilities (which is just a 'religion deserves respect' cover for the fact they want to think of marriage as superior to civil unions as well). Q0 (talk) 08:50, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

In related news

Shep Smith once again shows he's working for the wrong network. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 21:44, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Political value of this move

Let me just say something beforehand. I am a strong advocate of marriage rights, and I personally think it's a great thing that Obama spoke out in favor of this, and will only increase my support of him.

However, was this politically the best thing to do? Previously, Obama was known for being ambiguous on this issue, but quietly making advancements in LGBT rights through things like ending the defense of DOMA and ending DADT (there's countless other examples). Now though, he will have problems with religious voters. This will primarily impact the hispanic voting bloc. With the hispanics on his side, Obama could actually win states like Texas and Arizona. But with his support of gay marriage, that might turn away hispanic voters. So from a political standpoint, this may not have been his best move. Mr. Anon (talk) 02:52, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

BoN signing in here, and probably breaking the page cos I know nothing about Wiki formatting, go me: it's possible, though, that this will revitalize his flagging youth vote and motivate people to get out there that were otherwise too disappointed to go cast a ballot this year. Just speculation.
There are certainly advantages that the President has by doing this, specifically in the gay and youth demographics. However, I think that the hispanic vote is possibly more valuable. Most gay people and youth voters support Obama already, but the hispanic vote only leans towards him. Winning the hispanics has the potential of getting him states like Texas and Arizona. Politically, it would have probably been better for Obama to have announced his support after the election. Mr. Anon (talk) 03:19, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Wait until next month. Obama could get way out in front of the Hispanic vote in so many ways... I think we are seeing a really good campaigner mounting the beginning of a really good campaign here. I hope. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:21, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
"Win him Texas". A Black democrat is not going to win texas, i can assure you of that. --il'Dictator Mikal 03:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
I've done the math. Texas has had an astonishing jump in hispanic population in recent years, so much that whites only make up 45% of the vote. If Obama wins 90% of the black/asian vote (which is some 15% of the population), 60% of the hispanic vote (which is some 35% of the population), and just one third of the white population, he wins 50% of the total vote. Of course, this is assuming roughly proportional turnout, but given Romney's weakness, I wouldn't be surprised if conservative turnout in that state goes down enough to tip it into Democratic favor. Mr. Anon (talk) 04:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Did he win it in 2008u? the numbers of voters havent changed much in 4 years i would assume-- (talk) 04:24, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
He is very likely to lose the black vote, with this move. Not because they will vote for the other guy, but because they simply won't go out to the polls. In a tight race, that would make a huge difference.Green mowse.pngGodot 04:26, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
If Obama even comes close to winning Arizona, it's over already. Look at 2008: he almost got AZ, but won the national vote by far.
I've already seen someone on facebook saying they've never voted but will now vote Obama, and I bet that's common. Cow...Hammertime! 15:18, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of Civil Unions

Colorado Republicans won't even give over that much. Knowing our state house and senate were ready to put CU into law this week, they fillibustered on another law to prevent this one from coming to a vote before the end of the session yesterday. oh. joy. 10 republicans ruined a vote on 30 different laws, to prevent one group of people from getting some access to legal recognition of their identity and their right to a "union". I hate that kind of tactic. Especially when they then turn around and say things like "respect the vote of the people. people want Prop 8".--Green mowse.pngGodot 22:35, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

we already lost the battle here in nebraska; 12 years ago; we dont even have CU's. --il'Dictator Mikal 22:40, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
We have an anti marriage law (might be constutional amendment, bad of me not to know), but it didn't specify that you could not have CUs. The majority of Colorado (which means, the urban centers - we are 'purple'. nice dem urban centers, and the rest of the state is good ol republican... sigh) is for some kind of protection for gay unions. but the minority knows how to work the system. Green mowse.pngGodot 22:48, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


Fuck you. If Obama loses like Gore did because of a spoiler effect, words cannot express how angry I will get. At least Nader was unarguably more progressive than Gore. Paul, however, is the most radical right winger in 75 years! It makes sense if you think about it. He's farther to the right on Romney on every issue; abortion, taxes, health care, you name it. What? Something about wars? Oh wait, he has the exact fucking same thing his fellow Republican Senators are saying.

If any of you supporters of Ron Paul are here, explain to me how Obama is anywhere near as bad as Romney when it comes to the presidency. And don't give me that crap about how "they're the same". They're not. You may not care about issues like universal health care or gay rights, but don't lie and claim that Romney and Obama are anywhere near the same there. Mr. Anon (talk) 01:45, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

um...--il'Dictator Mikal 01:48, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Deep Breaths man --Revolverman (talk) 01:57, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
As of now, it appears Paul has the youth vote (and enthusiasm) Obama had and Romney covets. But Paul will not make a third party bid. nobsCorporations are people, too. 01:56, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
(EC)His supporters will write him in on his ballot. But there are even worse consequences of Ron Paul's bid. His influence on the youth vote will have a horrible impact on future generations. Mr. Anon (talk) 01:59, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Paul's talking unequivocally two things they like: (1) jobs and (2) no foreign wars. Simplistic? Perhaps. Appealing? Undoubtedly to today's disillusioned youth. And both Obama & Romney can't really modify or adjust their stand. In the end however, the youth demographic has to either return to the fold with Obama or lodge a protest and take a gamble with Romney (status quo vs change). nobsCorporations are people, too. 02:05, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
That's why the 26th amendment should be repealed. Mr. Anon (talk) 02:08, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
And now i'm going to tell you to fuck right off. --il'Dictator Mikal 02:09, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
That's why it will never happen. Mr. Anon (talk) 02:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Excuse me if not everybody of my gneration is smart enough to vote; i sort of like the idea i get to fake decide things. --il'Dictator Mikal 02:11, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Interesting question; why is it in most states 18 yr olds cant be trusted to make decisions for themselves like purchasing liquor, but can be trusted to make decision that affect the rest of us like voting? nobsCorporations are people, too. 02:14, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
You do know why they wont let 18 year old buy liquor right robby? --il'Dictator Mikal 02:19, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm from a state where the brewery & Tavernkeepers lobby is strong and has allowed 18 yr olds to drink since the 26th Amendment was passed. The argument then was if you were old enough to get drafted and die for you country, you sure as fuck were old enough to buy a drink. Restrictions on that were always viewed sort of a Southern Baptist wp:WCTU thing. nobsCorporations are people, too. 02:26, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
I am gonna call bullshit on Mr Anon's repeal of the 26th amendment comment. Bethcha he was OK with it when the majority voted for Obama but when they want to switch up there voting bloc should be removed? AceModerator 02:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
So... how does your state do with that Federal act saying the national age is 21, any lower nets you a decrease in funding?--il'Dictator Mikal 02:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
@Mr.Anon I seem to recall you being a teenager. @Mickey In this state via the "private party" rule. ТyrannisAn iron, but caring, fist 02:32, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Mikalos, federal mandates and blackmail with the highway funds remains a big issue. Scroll down and see Wisconsin, the only state children of any age can drink in a bar with parents. nobsCorporations are people, too. 02:42, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
The reason the feds ran that fight to raise the drinking age was to keep booze out of high schools. Sad but true. PS, I never "turned the drinking age" anywhere, due to the weirdness of changing ages of opportunity. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:02, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
MADD had something to do with it, too. They forced lower blood alcohol levels for the highway money as well. nobsCorporations are people, too. 03:09, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm a teenager, yes. However, Mikalos (I presume) and I are part of an unfortunately small minority of our age group. In any case, I'm not that serious about my comment, and I acknowledge that it can never happen. But I will continue to oppose attempts by people like Dennis Kucinich to lower the voting age further to something like 16. I don't care whether the youth are simply misinformed; that will just balance out. I do care whether they are easily swayed by rhetoric by people like Ron Paul. I acknowledge the negative impact it will have on Democratic candidates, but (unfortunately) most people that young should not have the capabilities to shift an entire nation based on passions. Mr. Anon (talk) 02:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Fortunately, even under the best of circumstances, voter participation rates in the 18-24 yr old group never is above 25%. nobsCorporations are people, too. 02:42, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
most people that young should not have the capabilities to shift an entire nation based on passions. Then you might want to stop Christians voting too. Oh, and the elderly. In fact anyone that votes out of passion or is confused by the rhetoric. Also, you'll have to raise the age in which you can join the army because you can't, with a straight face, have people fighting a war they have no choice to vote on. AceModerator 02:44, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
No, I wasn't seriously proposing a repeal of the 26th amendment. However, I was saying that I opposed attempts to lower the voting age to something like 16. Mr. Anon (talk) 02:48, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
(ec) The youth vote is offset by the 68 million retiring wp:Baby boomers with a much higher voter participation rate that won't be affected by unemployment if the U.S borrows another $4 trillion from China to keep the Social Security checks flowing, and would stomp the 18-24 year old vote if they told their Congressional members to raise the payroll to tax to 15% when the U.S. suffers further credit downgrades, can't borrow anymore, and has to raise taxes to keep the checks flowing. nobsCorporations are people, too. 02:52, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Luckily for things like equal rights; the old folks dont live for to long after retirement. --il'Dictator Mikal 02:56, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
And thank God for death panels. nobsCorporations are people, too. 02:57, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
You mean insurance companies? ħumanUser talk:Human 03:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
When SS started, retirement age was 62. Life expectancy was 62. Today life expectancy is at least 10 years beyond full retirement benefit age, many living much longer. nobsCorporations are people, too. 03:09, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
should we get rid of it? werent you gloating you;d get to relax on our dime? --il'Dictator Mikal 03:14, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Just a note Rob, best not to use life expectancies for things like this. Life expectancy is always skewed by infant mortality rate. Generally even back then, if you lived to be 60, you would probably live to be at least 70 or 80 or older before pushing daisies. Mr. Anon (talk) 03:16, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
I have a chance of making it to the upper 80's or early 90's if my grandfather is any indication.--il'Dictator Mikal 03:18, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
I was referring to life in the 1930s. Now, with increases in medicine (hopefully) within the next 25 years, we will both live well into our 100s, if not beyond. Mr. Anon (talk) 03:22, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
(ec) Anon, true about the skew. WP says there's 76 million baby boomers. Let's do some quick calculations: if the adult workforce today is 134 million with a 63% participation rate, that means there's approximately 212 million adults, 35% between the ages of 67 and 48 years of age. Even if we average the 76 million retiring between 2007 and 2026, that's approximately 4 million per year, give or take (see chart). The population of the US grew 32 million over the past 13 years, or roughly only 2.5 million per year. That means for everyone 4 workers leaving the workforce and collecting social security, there's only 2.5 workers to support them. If the minimum benefit today is $600 per month, those four would draw combined $2400 monthly from 2.5 workers, each worker individually paying about $960 per month to support the old farts, about $50 a day.
Sure, there's other factors to consider, but we have a brief sketch of the magnitude of the problem. nobsCorporations are people, too. 03:42, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
But yeah I agree the retirement age could be boosted a bit. Also the payroll tax cap should be removed for people making over $250,000 (above that it should be a flat tax rather than a regressive tax). These two things are a balanced approach, cutting spending while raising revenue, while not significantly hurting benefits. Mr. Anon (talk) 03:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
There just are not the many paying above $200K (I saw the the figure recently in one of our discussions). And the AP reported last week the average SS retirement benefit is over $1000. SS Disability fund is to go broke in the next Presidential term (2016), whoever it is. Those benefits are over $1000 per month as well.
But the larger point I'm making is, it is young people who get fucked in lost jobs and job opportunities caused by big deficits, and the retiring baby boomers over the next twenty years, unaffected by unemployment, could give a shit about the problems of younger workers if their Social Security benefits are threatened to be cut off. These boomers are gonna become socialists in a massive way, and they will be able to stomp younger workers at the ballot box for whatever it takes to get full access to their paychecks for healthcare, retirement, foodstamps, housing, prescription drugs, whatever. 65 year old plus has always had the highest voter participation rate (80%, well over the national average) and they exist now in greater numbers as a percentage of the voting public bigger than ever before. nobsCorporations are people, too. 04:02, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Maybe I'm just reading this too early after waking up, but what on earth makes you think that the retirement age crowd ever votes anything resembling left, let alone "socialist"? Q0 (talk) 08:15, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

What Rob means by socialist is not what most of us would recognise as a correct use of the term. PongoOrangutans are sceptical 09:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
socialist = income transfer proponent in this context. nobsCorporations are people, too. 11:36, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
It's not about the word, but about applying it to the US elections as if somehow they're going to prop up some super left wing candidate. What are you suggesting is going to happen even if somehow we end up with retirees trending toward socialism? I can't see anything more than the AARP lobbying to keep/improve their benefits, which is what they already do. And of course, the Republican party is so far to the right that they even attack the AARP for that, despite the fact that most those members are the exact same social conservatives the party caters to in the first place. Q0 (talk) 13:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Incidentally, oh nobby one, you say horay for death panels. Well
  • Life expectancy France (socialised medicine and therefore death panels) - 81.1 years
  • Life expectancy UK (socialised medicine and therefore death panels) - 80.1 years
  • Life expectancy USA (privatised medicine and therefore no death panels) - 78.1 years
All figures from World Bank. Bloody death panels aren't working hard enough. Bad Faith (talk) 15:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I believe that Paul is the best candidate of the ones who have run. Obama and Romney share something: they both believe in big government. Romney just believes some different things economically. It's obvious both are proponents of socialized medicine of some form: look at ObamaCare and RomneyCare, with both giving more control to the governemnt regarding health care. And don't start on how Obama's against wars and torture: he kept American soldiers in Afghanistan and will do so. He passed the NDAA, which gives the President the right to brand any US citizen a terrorist. He reappointed a crazy Bush drug czar. Obama is pretty much the same as Romney or any other Republican candidate with some variation regarding things such as social issues and medicine. Ron Paul actually wants to see the federal government shrink, though I don't agree with his ideas regarding state government and abortion. --Colonel Sanders (talk) 15:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Haha good one. You did a spot-on impression of a 14-year-old Paulbot. Cow...Hammertime! 15:24, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Actually I was going for Andrew Napolitano, but meh. --Colonel Sanders (talk) 15:37, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
@Q0: This is a longterm demographic trend we're speaking of. The above WP subsection link about the 76 million bb'ers is worth reading. What many younger voters do not comprehend is, the Baby boom generation is a very peculiar anomaly to any society or culture -- having nearly 25% of an entire nation born within 10 years. As a kid I read in the wp:Weekly Reader, baby boomers will be like a boa constrictor swallowing a pig, a big bulge passing through its digestive system over our lifespan. Sure, as 4 million boomers retire each year, that reduces unemployment and creates job vacancies for the 2.5 million entering the workforce. But it is unlikely wages & living standards will rise in any proportion to make it easy for young workers to both enjoy comfortable living standards as in the past, and pay our promised retirement benefits. And unlike income transfers under Stalin, baby boomers got younger workers beat at the ballot box, hands down.
Now, there is another peculiar demographic among boomers, they are historically disunited politically, largely the legacy of the Vietnam war. A division between anti-war protestors and regular patriots. We saw this division still exists in the 2004 Presidential election, Kerry vs Bush. But by the time all 70 million no longer are employable, and still vote, I expect these divisions will once and for all finally vanish. nobsCorporations are people, too. 17:05, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
NOBODY MOVE! I shall take down the Paul supporter myself.
"It's obvious both are proponents of socialized medicine of some form: look at ObamaCare and RomneyCare, with both giving more control to the governemnt regarding health care. "
Unfortunately, neither is socialized medicine. All the bills do is provide oversight, not control, of private health insurance companies. This results in better quality of care for patients, while maximizing freedom of choice (in fact, Obamacare actually aims to increase competition in health insurance markets).
"And don't start on how Obama's against wars and torture: he kept American soldiers in Afghanistan and will do so."
Obama ended torture in US military prisons, including waterboarding (note: this happened to be something he and McCain agreed with, so let's not act as though Ron Paul has any unique point of view on this matter). US soldiers are withdrawing from Afghanistan as we speak.
"He passed the NDAA, which gives the President the right to brand any US citizen a terrorist."
The NDAA, contrary to popular belief, does not grant this power. After hearing concerns, Carl Levin (a very progressive Senator) added in specific language to not change any existing law on this matter. This was partially the result of Obama's veto threat. (Note: claims that Obama requested indefinite detention powers often rely on Levin being quoted out of context.)
"He reappointed a crazy Bush drug czar."
Meh. Drugs are hardly a major issue the federal government is facing.
"Obama is pretty much the same as Romney or any other Republican candidate with some variation regarding things such as social issues and medicine."
I find it troubling how you make a big deal out of the drug thing but downplay "things such as social issues and medicine". It is very important whether Medicare is privitized or not. It is very important that issues like Climate Change are addressed. Gay rights is the most important issue for millions of Americans. While state governments can make accomplishments, the only way to move to country as a whole forward is at a federal level (compare to Lincoln, who through the emancipation proclamation single-handidly turned the country from being extremely racist to having an anti-slavery vision).
"Ron Paul actually wants to see the federal government shrink, though I don't agree with his ideas regarding state government and abortion. "
You forget the fundamental problem with "wanting to see the federal government shrink". While seeing $1 trillion being cut from the budget in a single year might feel good, most economists agree that the effects would be disastrous on the economy. It makes sense that the government spends more in a recession: normally, a free market is fueled by consumer spending, so when consumers are forced to save their money, the government should pump money into the economy to make up. Mr. Anon (talk) 03:27, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Let's also make something clear: Ron Paul's only main distinguishing policy from the rest of the Republicans is being pro-drug legalization. A few months ago you might categorize him as being the only anti-war guy, but Gingrich and Santorum have conceded that issue as well, and Romney doesn't make any major speeches about keeping troops in Afghanistan longer. All he talks about now in foreign policy is whining about Bin Laden and other minor stuff. 6 months ago, I would have conceded that Ron Paul is good to have around as an alternative viewpoint, and would have favored him running as a third party. Now, his only saving grace (war issues) have lost meaning due to the Iraq War ending and Afghanistan War cooling down. 03:35, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Since I'm about as far left as he is far right, I wouldn't actually support Ron Paul. But there are some errors here that bug me either way.
Obama on torture and terrorism: Conceal Bush-era crimes using executive privilege; not close Guantanamo Bay; state so-called objection to torture, yet it continues as seen in the case of Bradley Manning, among others; executes not only anyone branded a terrorist, anywhere in the world, but also US citizens - without due process. --- I certainly don't see how Obama's claim of not indefinitely detaining US citizens means anything in the face of the above. The fact is, if the president believes you're supporting AQ, the Taliban, or 'related groups' you can expect to either be detained for years until the government decides to make a case against you, or to be flat out killed.
Obama on war: Even if you only restrict this to specific 'named' wars, you still have to deal with both Libya and the fact that there will be a significant, continued US presence in Iraq and Afghanistan for years to come. Realistically, though, Obama continues to wage 'war' with drone strikes in the areas he can't hit with the usual destructive tools of war. It's very important to note that he hasn't actually changed the US government stance on this at all, and things have proceeded as planned.
Of course, I'm a stupid American voter, so just as I voted for him in 2008, I'll do it again this year. Lesser of evils and all that nonsense. Q0 (talk) 12:17, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Where's all the water?

I wonder what creationists might make of this. PongoOrangutans are sceptical 07:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's a surprisingly small water globe. But I'm not sure that it would give creationists a problem. Once you accept "God did it" as an explanation then the extra water becomes a mere detail.--Bob"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." 14:02, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
The Lunar bukkake hypothesis explains the missing water. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:11, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
If you are in the UK, (or do nefarious and illegal things on the internet), there is a BBC show called "How to grow a planet", that is a geologist's look at the role of plants on sculpting the actual earth as we know it. I'm putting it here cause one thing the plants did (that i really didn't know about), was to virtually "create" what we would call the modern water cycle, since they were taking moisture from the ground and respiring it into the air, making clouds. Or, you knwo, God did it, the flood split open and water came from lava!--Green mowse.pngGodot 14:25, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
The water "Receded", thats where it went. --il'Dictator Mikal 15:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Side note
The lunar bukkake hypothesis ranks first place with the distant starlight problem as the most sure fire dead giveaway indicator that creationism is pseudo-science. I mean someone a bit scientifically naive could bet taken in by some of the other stuff, but I don't see how even a 5th-grader could be fooled by these arguments.--WickerGuy (talk) 16:04, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
As a former creationist, atleast amongst the people i kniow who are creationists; i only heard of that theory when i came here--il'Dictator Mikal 16:09, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
really? It's at AIG, and I hear it all the time. Under a different name, obviously.Green mowse.pngGodot 16:21, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
From what I gathered; those here who voiced anything say god just made the asteroids and comets too. no need for anything insane--il'Dictator Mikal 16:24, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
The lunar bukkake hypothesis has a proper name in "mainstream" creationist circles? I'd heard the wacky "waters above" explanation for the Kuiper Belt, but not something that would closely resemble the lunar bukkakehypothesis - what was it you saw that looked like it? - David Gerard (talk) 18:44, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
David, I think it is AiG solution to the distant starlight problem that circulates in mainstream creationism. As far as I can see, only one YouTube poster has proposed the lunaticar bukkake hypothesis.--WickerGuy (talk) 18:49, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
I thought the lunar B hypo was the idea that after the flood, the water shot from the earth to the moon, making all the craters. Green mowse.pngGodot 18:58, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Aig on Moon craters
Answers in Genesis addresse the issue of moon craters here [1]. It's based on meteors, and more subtle than the LBH, but just as bad. A scientific rebuttal (to not necessarily AiG's exact position) is at [2]--WickerGuy (talk) 19:05, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
why exactly are you making all your comments bolded?--il'Dictator Mikal 19:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm making the headers to my comments bolded, not the entire comment.--WickerGuy (talk) 20:08, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
but WHY, all it does is take up unneeded spaceil'Dictator Mikal 22:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Rationalwiki black-white-and-sky blue pink board

A suggestion - have 'a place' where passers-through can post comments and suggestions for inclusion on RW - which may already have articles or justify the creation of new articles etc: ie one step up from the sandbox). If the entry has not been developed within (a week/fortnight) it gets huffed. (talk) 15:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Something like this? Cow...Hammertime! 15:48, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
This is more for discussions - the intent is the equivalent of a sticky-notes board rather than 'a place to drink slivovitch and fall down.' (talk) 16:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
The word "this" above was a link to RationalWiki:To do list. Which is exactly what you describe, though most of the people who bother to use it keep adding things instead of writing new articles.--ZooGuard (talk) 16:44, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


Who actually likes Larping and Arging? From what I know, I find it odious, but that's my opinion. My friends are complete larpers and they are bugging me about "why do I hate gamers so much".RandonGeneration (talk) 16:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't trolling thoughRandonGeneration (talk) 17:12, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Jesus christ you just made me feel old. what the heck is a larp and an arg? other than sounds our ancient ancestors made?--Green mowse.pngGodot 17:57, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Live action role playing and alternate reality games. An aside, how do you get vandalbrake to work on my wiki?RandonGeneration (talk) 18:37, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
VandalBrake is an in-house extension written by Nx. I assume the source is around somewhere - David Gerard (talk) 18:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
User:Nx/Extensions Cow...Hammertime! 18:59, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
I used to LARP until I got tired of it. If you think people have no self control when it comes to NORMAL roleplaying characters, LARP characters can be even worse. There is nothing like standing around an empty field for an hour an a half while people keep faffing about because their backstory is obviously so important it should take up all of our time. Even worse when they claim to be 'stunningly handsome dashing rogue' when they happen to be a pimply, fat idiot with no sense of modesty. Basically, when it's fun, it's fun. But when it's tiresome, it's really, really tiresome. Especially in settings that use somewhat questionable combat rules. There's this guy I know that rolled a character that's a gnome, meaning his hitbox is his chest only, to simulate being small. But he's a 6 foot tall guy with enormous reach. His weapon is a special enchanted staff that deals the same damage as a blade with even a small tap, that he bought with in-game money and thus broke all combat encounters because he doesn't actually have to use any skill; a tiny tap from afar at the end of his three foot arms plus six foot staff reach, at any angle (even a non-fatal weak tap that wouldn't have so much as cut you even if it was a razorblade was suddenly the same as running you through. I was never a bad fighter, though I wasn't a savant... but it was impossible to practice because everything was so painfully broken all the time. ±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRfree guybrush threepwood! no new taxes! down with porcelain! 21:48, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Thank you! All my friends are up on my ass about it still thoughRandonGeneration (talk) 23:24, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Also, vandalbreak, what do I add to localsettings.php? Furthermore, if I try reqiure once blah, I get a database error saying that .vand table does not exist.RandonGeneration (talk) 23:31, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
It's really sad because I really liked it when it worked. I always made relatively 'normal' characters... mostly because when a character STARTS THEIR ADVENTURE they shouldn't have all of the bling and developments of characters that have finished an adventure; why bother with enormous enormous backstory when that means that you basically are saying that you already finished your adventure with nobody else around to play it with you? I RP through fantasy stories both tabletop and freeform, and it pains me to have such bad experiences like I had at LARP. I can do a one-on-one game that feels like the other person is playing a ye-olde text adventure with me on the other side rather than a program. But making those guys move was like herding cats, I swear...±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRmore at 11 00:04, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
I feel weird admitting this, but I would probably like LARPing if I could get over my insecurities. Senator Harrison (talk) 12:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
On the subject Summer Glau AND Tyrion star. How can you not watch? --PsyGremlin話しなさい 12:52, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

LessWrong still loves us

[3] Apparently we're a "heavily ideological site" because we adopt mainstream views. I've gently asked for more details - David Gerard (talk) 18:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

That's kinda like the way Bill O'Reilly calls a lot of mainstream stuff "far left".
More seriously, the poster seems to think we don't study things enough and fall back on mocking sarcasm at least outside of scientific subjects. Well, OK, but there are times when...--WickerGuy (talk) 18:45, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
I like your fluent use of their specialized jargon in that thread, Gerard. Are you omniwikipresent or something?
They certainly have a point in their criticism, but I think it's mostly just the fault of our small community and large goal. As we grow, we will have more debate and hashing-out of articles, rather than domination by one person or another.--ADtalkModerator 21:26, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Don't forget to use not just the jargon, but the internal links to old Sequence posts - David Gerard (talk) 21:56, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Mainstream views? A wiki project incorporates the voices of more than one subset of people. LessWrong has a community that is very' homogeneous in opinion, to the point where there's a pretty high learning curve to really mesh well with them. I wouldn't call RationalWiki 'mainstream,' as we still are (mostly) composed to rationalists, skeptics, freethinkers, etc. which is a very not-mainstream subset of people. If LessWrong is composed of mostly squares (maybe a few oddball rectangles too, but they may get laughed at for sometimes not knowing math), we're a community of trapezoids, encompassing not just squares but also rectangles, trapezoids, and general rhombuses. We all have four sides, but that's really it. And then there are the few triangles that wander in and out and rant and rave on talk pages about various goofy things that we also don't permaban.
I think it's wrong to call us somehow 'mainstream' as a pejorative when really it comes down to them being more specific and narrow in scope than us. By our nature as a wiki, we're going to be a somewhat varied population. If 'not being all the same' is mainstream, then I just don't know... ±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRsufficiently advanced argument still distinguishable from magic 22:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Every time I go on Less Wrong I remember why I don't go on Less Wrong. Apart from the pompous arrogance where so many like minds reinforce an incredibly narrow world view they lack joy, they lack fun (they probably lack seasons in the sun). They badly need an Ace. Bad Faith (talk) 08:33, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
RationalWiki: Mathematical! Rhombus! Q0 (talk) 10:49, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Search Defaults II

Apparently the search defaults have been changed, following this short discussion. Some annotations:

  • Whoever performed the job has botched it: current search defaults seem to be main, conservapedia talk and essay talk.
  • Could we please stop making decisions because some people have insights on how a wiki has to look like? Could we please introduce some facts? It should be possible to have a list of the most-searched subjects here at RationalWiki. This would show how many CP-related items get searched, and how convenient or inconvenient a change of the defaults is.

larronsicut fur in nocte 21:29, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Anybody who wanted to object to the deconservapedification should have done it back when the articles were being deleted. --il'Dictator Mikal 21:36, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
This is not about the deconservapedification, this is about search defaults. larronsicut fur in nocte 21:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
I consider anything that moves us from conservapedia to be "deconservapedification". --il'Dictator Mikal 21:49, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
That makes your advice Anybody who wanted to object to the deconservapedification should have done it back when the articles were being deleted a little bit hard to follow. larronsicut fur in nocte 21:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Not really; at this point the machines already in motion; having destroyed a lot of articles, we now hunt down the rest of the CP stuff, and it was decided search really didnt need CP in it by default. --il'Dictator Mikal 21:57, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
having destroyed, hunt down , where the hell do I read such phrases regularly... larronsicut fur in nocte 22:16, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
do not mock my word choice, wikipolitics is boring, it needs to sound like something actually happened that wasnt just 8 or so people voting--il'Dictator Mikal 22:21, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
You are here at RationalWiki and prefer not to be mocked for your word choice? O-kay...
As for it was decided: humbug! It was talked about a little bit, then it was done as sloppily as possible. And what about the intelligent comment: Include the RW space by default as that has the SB and the WIGOs. Sounds like a good idea to me. larronsicut fur in nocte 22:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
The searches do seem to default to main + talk:cp + talk:essay, when (based on the previous random bar chat) it should probably be main + talk:main. I also agree with the point that people might actually come here for CP material, and thus maybe possibly search for it. Science could be done, even. ~ Kupochama[1][2] 22:40, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Default should be Main only. Site visitors will most likely be looking for articles, + not everyone who reads wikis like WP is familiar with the talk page structure, so including talk pages in searches may just be confusing. WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 07:00, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, conservapedia talk and essay talk shouldn't be in there by default. But besides main we should include RationalWiki (because of the wigos at least) - and IMO Conservapedia. larronsicut fur in nocte 07:06, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I think it's fixed now—that is to say, only 'main' is selected by default. Though we may want to add 'Conservapedia' and maybe 'Essays' to the "Content pages | Multimedia | Help and Project pages | Discussions | Everything | Advanced" group/quick options already offered. It's a pity you can't select categories rather than just complete namespaces...or can you? Peter with added ‼Science‼ 07:43, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
I wasn't sure either, so I exercised my mighty IT skills to find this on Wikipedia. Put incategory:category_name_here after your search. A menu could probably be made, if anybody's inclined to do all that HTML/CSS/wikicode. ~ Kupochama[1][2] 09:18, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
So we do have the potential to make a WIGO search option—thanks for that. Peter with added ‼Science‼ 09:40, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

The Antikythera Mechanism

I missed this last night but have the repeat scheduled to record, did anyone else catch it? Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic?Moderator 09:18, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

No, but I will. It's on iPlayer. Ajkgordon (talk) 12:38, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Get the gloves and KY out…

It's probing time. IBEX is returning some interesting results from the heliosphere.--Stunteddwarf Spirit of the Cherry Blossom 13:13, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Personal tools