RationalWiki:Saloon bar

From RationalWiki
Revision as of 02:19, 31 October 2016 by Apso2 (Talk | contribs)

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.
Beer.gif For previous conversations see the automagic barchives. Guinnesssmiley.gif

What is going on?

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

  1. What about interviews? (11:44, 24 Apr 2017)
  2. Climate news (16:11, 18 Apr 2017)
  3. GMO foods (04:28, 14 Apr 2017)
  4. Would human extinction be such a bad thing? (18:44, 27 Mar 2017)
  5. Argument for the existence of limited god (09:57, 26 Mar 2017)
  6. Is there any hope (00:48, 25 Mar 2017)
To do list


This page is automatically archived by Archivist
Archives for this talk page: Archive list

Derek Black's journey from son of Stormfront founder to Clinton voter


A beautiful story, to my mind, of actually being able to think skeptically about one's beliefs. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 00:03, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

So the ultra-conservative ideological bubble formed through his insular, white supremacist upbringing rapidly began to erode he moment he set foot in the real world? It's almost like reality has some kind of... liberal bias. (talk) 03:39, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
If you haven't heard of Flora Jessop, you should look her up. Plutoniumboss (talk) 19:08, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
I just looked up Flora Jessop, and I can't really figure out how she is relevant to this particular topic. Perhaps you could connect the dots for me? --Levi Ackerman (talk) 15:40, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
You must not have looked very deeply, you smug shit. She was an escapee from the FLDS who ran her own underground railroad. Plutoniumboss (talk) 23:47, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
@Levi Much to our collective dismay, Plutoniumboss doesn't get along all that well with any of the other children. Please be generous in your interpretation of his/her choice of words. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:52, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Sure thing, sheepfucker . Plutoniumboss (talk) 23:59, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
"That's goatfucker to you, pleb!". Jokes aside — atleast you don't write about yourself in the third person. Like Arnold used to say... Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:02, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
It must be Bob Dole's sock account. Plutoniumboss (talk) 00:04, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Goodpost.gif (Reference game on point!) Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:40, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Goodpost.gif-DiamondDisc1(talk) 03:32, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Goodpost.gif Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt Noooooooo! Look! Up there! 04:33, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Whoa, PB! What's with the aggro? I wasn't being smug. I was being sincere. I really couldn't see the link between Flora Jessop's journey and Derek Black's. Derek Black's change was brought about by external influences (a life time of living in a echo chamber), whereas Jessop's was (arguably) motivated by internal struggles. What is it with the internet and people thinking everything someone says which can't be translated into "I agree with you" is an insult? Jeez, dude. --Levi Ackerman (talk) 09:36, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I was being sincere. I highly doubt that. I checked your talk page. You are a pedantic dickhead. Plutoniumboss (talk) 01:32, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Well, you're a thin-skinned, arrogant arsehole, and I didn't even need to check your page to discover that. It's an objectively, observable fact at this point. Also, seeing as the adjective "pedantic" means "excessively concerned with minor details or rules; overscrupulous", I fail to see how anything on my talk page proves that I am pedantic. But, hey, that's just me being pedantic again, right? --Levi Ackerman (talk) 03:35, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
"Don't try to reason with it! COVER YOUR HEART!!" Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:29, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

The Latest Installment in the Parody Book Cover Series

I put "Unbiblical" on hold and instead created this. Only my fellow Jews and/or Israelis will likely fully understand it, once they finishing translating it from German. (If you "get" my paraphrased quote at the top, the image takes on a much more sinister meaning) --TeslaK20 (talk) 15:15, 20 October 2016 (UTC) Magneto.png

The computer will protect you from commie mutant traitors. You can trust the computer. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:59, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm neither Jewish nor Israeli, and I got it within seconds. Just saying ... -- (talk) 19:15, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
"Moderne Lösung der Mutantenfrage". You had one N too much there.
Yes, but few people will get the significance of the quote I included at the top. Allow me to explain. Every baby in Israel knows about Herzl's famous quote: "If you wish it to be so, it will not be just a fairy tale", referring to the existence of a Jewish state. However, my paraphrased quote says "With telekinetic powers, it will not be just a fairy tale", giving the image a more menacing undertone. TeslaK20 (talk) 14:32, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

On Trump's refusal to accept results

Is it likely that, given that he waffled during the debate on whether he would accept the results of the election no matter what, is it possible that Trump is truly capable of advocating for insurrection against the Federal government simply because he might lose the election? Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt Noooooooo! Look! Up there! 16:54, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I suppose it's really a question of whether he's truly a narcissist with an extreme case of NPD or just plays one on TV. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:58, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
My concern with him not accepting the results is that he has proclaimed that the election is fixed and his followers probably believe him. He and other Repub politicians have already asked supporters to intimidate people at the polls and that Boston Globe article in WIGO:E shows them bringing guns; the article also covers that these people believe that their patriotic duty is to lead an insurrection against Hillary with assassination not entirely out of the question.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 17:26, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
It's so over for the Trumpster. Even Pbfreespace3 has taken the sign down. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:30, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Right, which is why I said that I am more concerned with his supporters than with him.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 18:56, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Trump is going to scream "RIGGGGGGED!" when he loses in a few weeks. Someone needs to change his diaper. CorruptUser (talk) 18:35, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
I feel like it depends on how badly Trump loses on the 8th. If it's by a very large margin, his more "ardent" supporters may be discouraged from violence as it will appear as though they don't have numbers on their side. If it's very, very close then they may feel emboldened and more likely to break out into open violence. (talk) 20:37, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Trump has been dog-whistling about violence for a long time, as well as feeding the bigotry, hatred & paranoia of his supporters. When there is violence (which there will be) he will of course wash his hands of it & deny all culpability. I doubt there will be anything amounting to an organised insurrection: more likely isolated incidents of Trump supporters assaulting Democrat voters & suchlike. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 21:28, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Hillary's victory was rigged, there's no denying. Wasserman- Schulz was fired because she rigged Hillary's nomination. The FBI whitewashed the emails and destroyed the American people's confidence in government. Hillary's not even sworn in yet and their trying to hang the damage caused by these two historical facts on Trump. This is Clintonism.nobs 14:52, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Oh, then Hillary and Goldman-Sachs leaned on or bribed Ecuador to shut off Assange's internet service, threatening to throw him out in the street so they can drone him if any more emails get leaked. There won't be any more October Surprises.nobs 15:12, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
I... think you have the wrong wiki. This is the one where we debunk unhinged loonies. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:21, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Then you need to start a page on ClintonismWikipedia's W.svg, which WP's stub describes as "a lack of commitment to a set ideology."nobs 15:32, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Hey nobs, you say Clinton destroyed our confidence in the American government? Because we lost it the minute those conservatives bombed and rigged elections in Guatemala. Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt Noooooooo! Look! Up there! 15:50, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't think most Americans lost faith in their government after the Guatemala "intervention", but I don't think the Clinton's are the sole source either. There i s a great Cracked article on this that I will post shortly.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 00:12, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
9/11 Truthers already have their alternate reality. Why can't 2016 Election Truthers? I predict reams of "scientific evidence" being passed around the kookosphere showing how Trump really won by a landslide but vote tabulation was altered by microwaves beamed from satellites. Leuders (talk) 18:18, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Goodpost.gif Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:25, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
You already see a great deal of that about the democratic primary. These people who can't grasp that in spite of the fact that every middle class white they know voted for Bernie, Hillary still won, and they started seeking "objective" "evidence" that the election was rigged, and what do you know, they found it on the Internet. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:21, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
With Michael Cheroff backing her, I don 't see how anybody can say it's rigged.nobs 19:22, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Nobs, buddy, you get that making tenuous connections through relationships to arrive at predecided conclusions is exactly how the conspiracy theorist mentality works, right? You don't want to think this way. It's not healthy. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:37, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Look, the idea disillusion voters may engage in armed insurrection is a Trumpism put out by Clintonites, appealing to fear and scapegoating a minority.nobs 19:43, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Appealing to fear in voters and scapegoating minorities? Kinda rings a bell, methinks. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:53, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
1. The word you're looking for is "delusion." "Disillusion" describes anyone who looks at this election for more than 5 seconds at a time.
2. No, no it's not. It's pretty directly attributed to the things Donald Trump has said, in public, on record.
3. Even if that part were delusional, it does little good to bring it up as if it's been a point of contention for me. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:57, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Let me say what convinced me of Trump's total ineptitude. In the first debate when he defended "Stop and frisk". Stop and frisk is an anti-gun measure that basically says, 'people don't kill people, guns do'. And his fellow RINO, Rudy Guilliani, also living in the New York media bubble and corrupt political milleu, defended it. Neither have a clue about federalism or what the rest of the country thinks. I'd like to write a small section on that for Trump article.nobs 23:22, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Rob, Hillary did not invent Trumpism. You claim to be a classical liberal, a neutral observer of this election, and yet you spend hours upon hours denying that the Republican Party has shifted to the right. Not an inch! It's the Democratic Party which has shifted to the right! And Trump is a Clinton plant! Plutoniumboss (talk) 01:42, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
There's plenty of time for post mortem later. My only issue now is, 'Should th GOP adopt some form of Superdelegates to insure this doesn't happen again?'. After election day, its all down hill for Hillary. You won't have Trump to kick around anymore, and she lacks the charisma of Bill & Obama. Nobody can think one good thing to say about her. She's another Bush Jr., and will be as popular as him leaving office - barring another war to help get her re-elected.nobs 02:29, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @nobs: Yeah, the fact that Hillary has run a successful campaign and has always been in office for 100% of the past 16 years suggests that she's at least as competent as our other politicians. For the record, all of your charismatic Republicans failed to stop Trump in the primaries. Perhaps "charisma" isn't a defining characteristic of a successful politician? Hmmm? Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 11:15, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

No one loves Hillary, not even Bill.nobs 21:12, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
"Scapegoating a minority." Right. Because it wasn't the KKK racists threatening to murder us Mexicans, but those pesky, liberal Clintonites. How did I never see this?!?! Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt Noooooooo! Look! Up there! 21:58, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Hillary's a POS, even the Democrats know it. They are ones who will be saying it was rigged after the election. SNL is already on this with Hillary in last night's debate asking "Who do you trust to be your president, the Republican or Donald Trump?" (@ 8:18 on video) nobs 16:57, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Oh, the stupid. It burns. Jeez, at least provide some more substantial evidence than an SNL sketch about the debate. Your claims about Clinton being corrupt rings extremely hollow considering the fact that Donald Trump hasn't even paid any taxes whatsoever in 18 years or used peoples' money to buy a portrait of himself. Either we get the District 13 leader or the President Snow, and I'm betting on the smarter and saner leader. Take your conspiracy-theories and gibbering blathering to Infowars. I'm sure they'll appreciate your creative mind. Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt Noooooooo! Look! Up there! 04:53, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Score for libertarianism/classical liberalism!

No one wants to buy Twitter! Why? Because of all the trolls. "There is a sharp difference too between the type of content pushed out by Facebook, Instagram and Snapchat users, and that on Twitter, which can be encapsulated in one word: positivity." (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2016/10/19/twitter-has-a-negative-vibe-and-a-nebulous-purpose---no-wonder-n/)

Remember when campaigners against racism, bullying, sexism petitioned Twitter to review and reform their free speech policies and they pretty much responded, "fuck you!"? Well, here comes the market to fix them and their problems.--Levi Ackerman (talk) 08:42, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Goodpost.gif 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 06:22, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Tory MP filibusters 'Turing Bill' in UK parliament.

I thought my contempt for the Tory party couldn't get any higher, then this happened. "A private members bill aiming to erase the criminal records of gay men convicted of now-defunct sexual offences was talked out by Tories in the House of Commons this afternoon. MPs shouted at Conservative minister Sam Gyimah to sit down as the cut-off time for SNP MP David Nicolson’s bill approached. However, the justice minister continued to speak, a vote was not called and the bill fell. If passed, it would have cleared the way for a pardon of nearly 50,000 men living with convictions for consensual homosexual activity. " https://leftfootforward.org/2016/10/tories-filibuster-turing-bill-denying-pardons-to-50000-living-gay-men/ Obi-Jon (talk) 17:15, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

"They broke the law" --every social conservative from every nation trying to support convictions under unjust laws since forever. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:23, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
"YOU BETRAYED THE LAW!!" Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:24, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
It's pretty crap that this would even still be an issue 50 years after homosexuality was legalised. Old convictions should have been nullified at that time or soon after. WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:57, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
As I understand it, a slim majority of Conservatives were against gays marrying? It got pushed through thanks to the efforts of the Lib-Tory coalition.Plutoniumboss (talk) 01:35, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
This filibuster doesn't even seem to be about principles (as you could argue that some coherent ideological homophobia might be), but rather that the Tories want the bill that addresses this issue to be their bill. So, they quickly type up a quite similar bill, claim that the SNP bill being currently debated might exonerate sexual abusers, molesters and paedophiles (spoiler: it doesn't, it quite explicitly and deliberately excludes such cases). Then an effin' cabinet minister filibusters the original SNP bill, using these false claims about the possibility that actual sexual offenders might be pardoned as well (kudos for the brass balls of claiming you're fighting for gay rights while not so subtly parallelling one particularly odious homophobic talking point). And finally, the Tories will launch their own bill and try to take the credit for addressing this historical problem (well, look at how much mileage Just Call Me Dave got out of his gay marriage legalisation). That's almost worse than out and out bigotry. ScepticWombat (talk) 06:58, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
They don't miss a trick, do they? Nicola should take it as a good sign, I suppose. Plutoniumboss (talk) 14:43, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
I salute the good intention behind this bill, but I thought its premise was flawed. A pardon suggests forgiveness - as in the state is forgiving this people for being gay. What they deserve is an apology. Much like Germany apologised for the Holocaust, and London, for its part in the slave trade, the thing - if anything - to do would be to apologise. Although, I must say, at this juncture, I'm not so keen on these apologies for historical "crimes" - including the one for slavery, holocaust etc. I would much rather see actual, tangible forms of restitution and reparations. Also, I don't think this was thrown out because of homophobia on the Tories part. I think there is more to it than that. The government is committed to this (the Gay pardon (you hear how silly that sounds?)), and the MP who talked it out, Sam Gyimah, is part of the government. I think this was a political decision (political maneuvering), as opposed to an ideological one. I suspect the Tories did not want a Bill introduced by the Opposition to pass through, so that they can claim credit for it themselves.--Levi Ackerman (talk) 12:59, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Ladies and Gentlemen- The Irony Meter has just exploded.

Just read Donald Trump's statement on the government- http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trump-calls-washington-leadership-losers-babies/story?id=42969787&cid=gma_fb --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 04:41, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I'd assumed that, at this point, they'd been upgraded to Atomic Quality Irony measurement levels. Assumption wrong, I suppose. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 06:21, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
"Michelle Obama says Trump rigged election talk threatens the 'Idea of America.'" Which America? The America she never was proud of until Obama was elected? or the America of Hillary Clinton that Michelle Obama now calls 'boss'? nobs 21:23, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Fuzzycatpatato, how did you get your username to be upside down? I am not being stupid here but I have not figured out how some things on the wiki work--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 17:44, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

A pre-stats post

22 days into the month, we have just 7056 edits. Assuming linearity, we're in line to get 9943 edits. Last month we had 12839 edits -- and it was catastrophic. The month before, we had 17143 edits (a good month).

I still hope that this is just election fervor pulling people from RW. If not, we're in serious trouble. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 06:18, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Or it's just a lull. It's not like this is our living, we can have quiet patches and busy patches. Hopefully things will pick up now we've put a stop to the constant edit warring and griefing and sealioning. BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 06:58, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
That's fair. Fewer edits, in my mind (as in I don't have stats on this), has always seemed to correlate negatively with article creation and RW's coverage of emerging pseudoscience. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 11:03, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
What exactly was catastrophic about last month? WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 12:47, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Trouble so serious, we're likely to go... bankrupt! (Dun dun dunnnnnn.)--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 12:49, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Actually, the fundraiser is going pretty great. The worry about edit counts has more to do with the fact that content is king. And I, for one, am betting that the election is pulling everyone away right now. I think most people tire of politics around this time, and those who don't likely seek bigger outlets than RW for the time being. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:09, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
What I meant to say was that it seems strange to say RationalWiki is in "serious trouble" just because there are fewer edits.--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 21:30, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Have you considered that constantly going on about how RationalWiki is dying may not be the best way to encourage new contributions? Annquin (talk) 13:59, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
I suppose that the idea is to nip it in the bud, while we've got considerable steam. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:04, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Well, I bring this up so that people know it's happening, and we can try to coalesce around solutions if necessary. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 14:27, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
The good news are, we've still got a lot of trial-worthy cards up our sleeve when it comes to recruiting people and advertising the site. Never mind the user-friendly mediawiki upgrades we've got in store for the future. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:32, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
We might have to be proactive in getting new people in. There are certainly people who have left because of the recent shit. BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 15:12, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
We will need to, yes. Especially us at the RMF; it's even part of our job description. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:47, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm busy actually writing a short book on Bitcoin. It's fun! and a hell of a lot of work. 500 good words a day, after a day at work, is amazing. At 10k, looks like it'll be 20-30k - David Gerard (talk) 11:48, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Oh, you are divabot. Wasn't sure until now. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:26, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
David Gerard and myself are the only RWians also on SomethingAwful, Tumblr, and Twitter. You already got two out of four, ikanreed. Join us now in the quadfecta! (Especially Tumblr. Ignore the shit interface and bad reputation, it's great.) Star of David.png Radioactive Misanthrope 04:25, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Does gay marriage undermine the institution of marriage as a whole?

After the Supreme Court forced states to treat gay and straight couples equally, some states (e.g. Alabama) considered legislation to abolish all marriage licenses, for both gays and straights. Does this prove that gay marriage undermines marriage (since if these proposals pass, no one will be getting the state's blessing to marry)? My logic is as follows:

  1. SCOTUS-mandated equal treatment of gay and straight couples leads to states abolishing marriage licenses.
  2. Abolishing marriage licenses undermines the institution of marriage, unless an alternative way of recognizing the validity of privatized marriages is developed.
  3. Therefore, SCOTUS-mandated equal treatment of gay and straight couples undermined the institution of marriage as a whole.

L's Ideology (talk) 17:00, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Sure — in the same way that a crazy stalker ex might say "if I can't have you, no one can", proceeding to murder you. In that sense, it's certainly true that your unwillingness to just stick with your crazy stalker ex was the ultimate cause of everything going to hell in a handbasket. It clearly had nothing to do with your crazy stalker ex' apparent willingness to hurt even those he loved just because it couldn't be his way or the highway. So it's all your fault, see? (See what I'm getting at here?)
Here's another syllogism;
  1. Democratic rule led the people to the courts to seek equal rights for gays.
  2. Religious officials were threatening to throw a tantrum and spoil the fun for everyone if equality justly prevailed.
  3. Equality justly prevailed.
  4. Religious officials throw said tantrum, spoiling the fun for everyone.

Whose fault was this? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:10, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Alabama has a lot of marriage hangups. Interracial marriage was fully & officially legalised there as recently as 2000, 33 years after laws against it were ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Prior to that, much the same stuff happened in relation to interracial marriage as has happened more recently with same-sex marriage: courts refusing to issue marriage licenses to interracial couples or ceasing to issue them altogether if they couldn't get away with that. By L's Ideology logic, all this would be the fault of the Civil Rights Movement rather than the bigots who opposed it. WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:47, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
"If they'd only rolled with it, there'd be no problem. But oof coourse, they haad to seek equal rights..." Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:03, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

My question would be, what does “undermine” mean and what does it mean in practice? Also keep in mind that marriages exist that are not what traditionalists would consider ideal. In other words, such comparisons of heterosexual couple and homosexual couple seem to include romanticized or idealist assumptions, which however are not true in all marriages: partners who don't love each other or cheat all the time; where partners married only for tax and other reasons (e.g. greencard) but are only planotic friends; marriages with frequent domestic violence; marriages between two elderly who are way beyond founding a family etc — why aren't they also “undermining” marriages, or if they do, why is nothing done about it? Is this kind of “undermining” worse than the “undermining” done by gays? Couldn't it be that marriages are an entirely symbolic battleground, a contested flagpole that stands for culture wars type of ideologies that clash, i.e. it is not really about marriage at all, but about defending that hill just because losing that ideological battle signifies a major defeat in the culture war? I don't know, and cannot understand the reasons why anyone would be against it at all. ~ Aneris 19:31, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Originally, marriage was a covenantWikipedia's W.svg which a male entered into to take care of a female beyond her child baring years (see NT Matt. 22:30 for example; only males married, females were given in marriage). A civil government has little, if anything, or nothing at all to do with the "institution of marriage". The "institution of marriage" was designed for one purpose: to protect women's rights from a POS husband who would dump her.nobs 04:29, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Wow. So marriage is a Christian thing? It's from the bible and all? Other cultures don't get married then? What a surprise!--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:23, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
A "covenant" is a contract, i.e. something civil authorities would have quite a lot to do with upholding. & It had several historical purposes, creating obligations between husband & wife, parents & children, creating family alliances, & providing clear kinship structures for inheritance of property & rights. Marriages in the modern world don't have to involve all of these things. If religions want to adhere to a traditional understanding of marriage & the family rather than a practical one, that's up to them, but civil authorities shouldn't, especially in a country whose laws & authorities are explicitly secular. WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 10:56, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
The "institution of marriage" was around long before there was the State of Alabama, and the institution of marriage will be around long after the State of Alabama is on the dust heap of history.nobs 15:37, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
No shit but what point are you trying to make with this comment? WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:08, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
The original question was, Does gay marriage undermine the institution of marriage, predicated on an action a state legislature is considering. My point is (a) marriage is a covenant relationship (see above link to WP for good explanation of this), (b) state actions do not define marriage (geeez... I'm starting to sound like a Salafist now, denying the validity of man-made law...);. and peripherally (c): There are many marriages today, including common law marriage, intergender and same sex, with or without state issued licenses, that are nothing more than contract lawWikipedia's W.svg. These in themselves are not 'marriages', in the traditional sense of the word.nobs 00:56, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

In short: No. Also, this is mid quality bait 4/10. Worzelpete (talk) 17:51, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Note to nobs: The first marriage in the bible was a man (Adam) marrying a trans-gender clone of himself (Eve). This looks like a gay marriage (or masturbation) and is Jehovah's template for the "institution of marriage".— Unsigned, by: Wodenoz / talk / contribs
And multiple subsequent biblical marriages were one man to several women.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 07:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Yah, but the whole point is to understand the difference between contract vs covenant. Any shmuck with legal capacity can enter into a contract. Always has, always will. Look at point 5 in the above link; because God regulates the covenant, and with the separation of church and state doctrine, no US state has ever been able to issue a legal marriage covenant licence. But if they could create a loophole to make issuance of a marriage covenant licence a revenue source, I'm sure they would. nobs 04:16, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

The Crystal Grid

Here's a product that's just jam-packed with woo for "protection" against cell phone radiation: orgone, zombies (well, the image only), quantum woo, gold, aether, vibrations, and common sense. Joseph Mercola recommends The "Gold Orgone Cell Phone Radiation Shield" by The Crystal Grid. Bongolian (talk) 00:48, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Woo alert!-DiamondDisc1(talk) 02:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Forgot the link: [1] Bongolian (talk) 21:37, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Favorite Nut Job Conspiracy "Theories"

My all time favorite is the FEMA camps. I would like to hear from other users about their favorite conspiracy "theories". Post your thoughts! :) --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 15:06, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I like the phantom time hypothesisWikipedia's W.svg — the idea that we're actually living in the 1700s. Skeptoid did a great episode on it. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:11, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
I like Papa Bush flying to Madrid on an SR-71 to meet with Iranians so Reagan could steel the election.nobs 15:26, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Not sure if it counts as a "conspiracy theory" exactly but I love Sovereign Citizens just because their beliefs are so regularly and blatantly disproved. X Stickman (talk) 15:34, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Never heard of the Phantom Time Hypothesis before to be honest.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 17:18, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
We do cover Herbert Illig's ideas about phantom time in our article on alternate historical chronology. ScepticWombat (talk) 17:30, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't know if I have a favourite nutjob conspiracy theory, but I've always found David Icke's shape shifting lizard men to be something of a gold standard on the topic due to it bizarre basic premise and vast scope. ScepticWombat (talk) 17:33, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
The Earth is a cube with four corners, expanding rapidly at an accelerating rate. This expansion creates the illusion of gravity. Meanwhile, the Sun, Moon, and Stars are holograms projected by the Illuminati. Any objects seen through a telescope are fakes, since reflecting telescopes were invented by Isaac Newton, a known Freemason and the inventor of the hoax of gravity. --TeslaK20 (talk) 20:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Cool crankery, Tesla. Where did you dig that one up? Or is it a Poe? ScepticWombat (talk) 21:38, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
My favorite conspiracy theory is that democracy, the French Revolution, the American Revolution and all those things that happened since are one long con orchestrated by - take your pick. Because we all know complex systems can just be taken over by small groups of individuals and nobody will ever spill the beans, not even at the end of their life or under torture. Worzelpete (talk) 21:41, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────My favorite conspiracy theory is that scientists are planting fossils to prove evolution..or something.-DiamondDisc1(talk) 02:02, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Has to be Obama teleporting to Mars as a teenager. (talk) 10:19, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Ok, the Obama one was pretty great as far as nutty goes. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:46, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Anyone got a conspiracy theory about why there haven't been any major mass shootings in the US lately? (By "major" I mean 30+ victims. Kinda sad we accept 10 or 20 people slaughtered as somehow normal). Leuders (talk) 14:32, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

It's the economy, stupid. Bullets are costly and it requires the expenditure of calories and energy people just don't have anymore.nobs 04:22, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Is waiting for the Trump-calypse. (talk) 21:32, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Probably that Bush and/or Cheney were behind 9/11. A couple people in my family believe it, so...yeah. But another good one is that Osama bin Laden isn't dead, and that he's being held and interrogated by the government.RoninMacbeth (talk) 16:16, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Muslim kid cuts off his own hand

A Pakistani teen presented his hand on a plate to a local cleric after being accused of blasphemy (mistankely). He is being hailed as a hero.TheAmazingSkeptic (talk) 18:51, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Wasn't the saying about cutting off the nose to spite the face? Worzelpete (talk) 21:43, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
God bless him. But in the US, unless I'm wrong, not sure that woukd qualify him for Social Security Disability Benefits.nobs 21:50, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
What's that got to do with the price of fish??? WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:12, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

The next big anti-SJW thing:

Ugh. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 00:21, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

What's ugh about it besides the person recording the video? Forgive me for not immediately understanding what you're saying. By the way, it would be nice if I could edit more than once every 30 minutes. PBfreespace3 (talk) 00:28, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Videos like these are always the same. Lots of yelling, lots misunderstanding, and always a free-market "libertarian" loudly proclaiming "just as bad" narratives and how discrimination must be protected. No offense, Fuzzy, but I don't know where you find these videos or why you watch them.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:04, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm tending to side with the psychologist here, despite the fact that this is supposed to be a competition of arguments and ideas rather than camps. It makes me sad to feel this is something that's happening in Western culture these days. That's not to say it wasn't predictable. I wonder if we can predict which of these camps is going to triumph over the other, or if either one will at all. PB (talk) 01:09, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
I am not exactly sure what you mean, Pb. I am going to assume you mean this social divide that appears to have been created when it comes to hate speech (as well as due process among other rights) and discrimination against minorities. Like I said before, this video appears to be more of a misunderstanding between these "camps" when it comes to this specific legislation.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:23, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Sure I'm angry at the social divide, but I'm also angry at the self-described social justice warrior camp you see in the video. I disagree with their general support of certain portions of the proposed Canadian law in question. pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:22, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

The West deserves whatever it gets. Lord Aeonian (talk) 04:53, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

What are you trying to say Fuzzy? My interpretation, which might be wrong, is that we you have found this weeks' “SJW being SJW” episode, and that anti-SJWs will make hay out of which you dislike because they might have a point? There are btw whole compilations with original footage of SJW behaviour. Just search for “SJW compilation” on the Tubes and stuff should present itself. Can we haz a better SJW article at some point? ~ Aneris 04:57, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
You really don't think that "just search[ing] for "SJW compilation"" would almost certainly flood the results page with a bunch of Alt-right/manosphere/anti-feminist/internet troll bullshit? I'd be more careful with giving out specific search recommendations, personally. But that's none of my business. *sips tea* Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:37, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Original footage is the exact opposite, as it shows the subjects themselves making their case. Nice smear job, though. Here you go. ~ Aneris 10:48, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
"Smear job"? Oy vey... People always seem have some ulterior motive to you, don't they? See, I'm an old memester. When you said "the Tubes", I thought you meant the tubesWikipedia's W.svg. Not YouTube, specifically. And just putting that in Google obviously differs from putting it in the YouTube search bar. You really have to add hanlon's razor to your checklist prior to replying; it's why pencils have erasers. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:41, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Saw this video earlier. Surprised that we barely have anything on him. At the moment, he's in a total of 2 of our articles, as a guy to quote.
Also, I kind of stopped listening to leather jacket dude as soon as he said he was an anarchist. Sorry, come back when your worldview has developed beyond the "why can't we all be equal in everything" naive manchild stage. CorruptUser (talk) 23:27, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Wait, you mean the professor ought to have an article as a crank? I haven't seen the vid so I don't know. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:31, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Edit: one article mention, the quote at the beginning of Emotional intelligence. As for having as a crank or not, no, I honestly don't know enough about the guy to say what kind of article we'd have on him. We have plenty of articles on people that are mostly sane. But we barely have anything involving him, if he's a major player in protests or something. CorruptUser (talk) 23:39, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
The above.-DiamondDisc1(talk) 23:45, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
@CU Really, that is what got you to stop listening to the video? That seems quite petulant to disregard that guy's opinion because he is an anarchist; I may hate when people say that they are "the most X you will ever meet" but I wouldn't just dismiss their opinion entirely. Also, that seems like quite the strawman to reduce anarchism to "why can't we all be equal in everything" and then bash it as a "naive manchild stage".--Owlman (talk) (mail) 05:40, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
No, I watched the whole video; I just couldn't take leather jacket dude seriously after that. As for Anarchism in general, oh please, there is a reason you don't see it much after academia. CorruptUser (talk) 16:32, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
I won't get into a debate but I wouldn't fall into the idea that because an idea is not accepted in academia then it must be bunk; that logic reeks of argument from authority.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 17:53, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
...except it is accepted in Academia. And I didn't say that he was wrong because he's an Anarchist, only that I stopped listening. CorruptUser (talk) 18:21, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
I used to be an anarchist, but that's when I was still young. There is a reason humans tend toward self-organizing groups. Humanity just hasn't advanced far far enough for anarchism to work yet. Right now, people are too stupid to rule themselves, they need powerful, enlightened rulers to guide them. That's why social democracy is a much better, practical system that we should adopt. PB3 (talk) 19:26, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
The society that's "advanced" enough for anarchism to "work" is one that terrifies me. Go ahead, just imagine what it'd actually take for everyone to agree on where to build a single bridge, let alone decide what the school curriculum should be. CorruptUser (talk) 20:37, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
@CU I apologize for misinterpreting your statement since you meant that there was a reason that anarchism is widely accepted, not that it wasn't accepted. I wouldn't say that a school of thought is accepted, though, if that school of thought is chastised and sneered at. I don't think that there is a difference between not listening to someone because of their political beliefs and believing that their beliefs cause them to be automatically wrong; even if there is, it is quite petulant. Imagine that someone stated that they were a feminist or an evangelical Christian and a speaker immediately dismissed their statement(s) because they stated their beliefs; would the speaker not be acting in bad faith towards them based on their ideology?
@PB I want to avoid getting into a debate about anarchism but I think most anarchist, if not all, aren't against self-organization; most of them are against coercion and hierarchies which tend to include the state and capitalism.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:42, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Umm... I meant that there's a reason that anarchism is not accepted outside of academia, but you do see it in academia.
As for good faith vs bad faith, no, just no. The proper response to someone spouting bullshit isn't to eloquently respond to each nonsense response, but to simply ignore them and not waste your goddamn time. When someone started on about anarchism, every single time, it was an endless torrent of bullshit rhetoric. Call me biased, but my first response to that is to assume the person is a bunch of nasty epithets, and do something more productive. It's up to the person with the belief mostly held by crazy people to prove they are not crazy, not for me to prove they are not sane.
If you want to get into why I believe anarchism is yet another 19th century pipe dream crafted by people with no understanding of reality, but somehow still supported by academics who should know better, I'd be willing to discuss it. Though if we do so, we should probably move to the proper talk page. CorruptUser (talk) 05:54, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Well my confusion stems from your use of after when you wrote, "As for Anarchism in general, oh please, there is a reason you don't see it much after academia". ::::::::::Regardless, I am not saying that you, as an average person, have to take someone who spouts bullshit seriously but I wouldn't call anarchism bullshit just like I wouldn't call evangelical Christianity bullshit. "When someone started on about anarchism, every single time, it was an endless torrent of bullshit rhetoric", by this I assume you mean the protestors in the video but I would argue that you should dismiss not because of their political ideology but, rather, their bad faith and general assholish behavior.
I will take you up on that offer to discuss on anarchism but sometime later.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:44, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Next Parody Book Cover...oh wait

So, here's the next conservative Christian book:


But on closer inspection of a review...

Nathan Lean, author of The Islamophobia Industry: How the Right Manufactures Fear of Muslims

Could it be??? It's come full circle! Lord Aeonian (talk) 06:54, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

"Lol. Well, New Atheists are as deranged as any religious extremist, ever." (Can you say "splittinglink=wp:Splitting_%28psychology%29"? Facepalm.png) Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Also, I love the immediate crank declaration made right on the back of the book. Notably, "Werleman demonstrates how, instead of championing empirical evidence and reason, today's New Atheists promote white supremacy, anti-Muslim bigotry, secular fundamentalism, and thus have become the unwitting pawns of the military-industrial-complex, the homeland-security-industrial complex, Zionism, and U.S. imperialism."
Remind me when Daniel Dennett last supported white supremacism? Also, accusations of not championing "empirical evidence and reason" (or of promoting bigotry and hate) won't be directed towards the religious people, I'm sure. A regressive leftist if I ever saw one. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:28, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Has anyone actually read the book? Or are you all simply judging it by its cover? I thought people - rational people - weren't supposed to do that. By the way, I'm no fan of Werleman, but let's not act as if New Atheists aren't guilty of some of what he has, in the past, accused them of. Most notably, peddling anti-Muslim bigotry, promoting interventionism and torture in some cases, and supporting Israel, not because they believe in that absurd concept of home of the Jews, but because they don't like Islam. --Levi Ackerman (talk) 12:50, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Of course there is, in fact, tons of nuance to all of these issues. The point is, Werleman doesn't agree. He just equated Daniel Dennett with Osama bin Laden. Let's dignify that statement by not ignoring it. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:58, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Hold on a sec. First you say imply that he called Daniel Dennett a white supremacist. Now, you say he equated him to Osama Bin Laden? If this is true, then Werleman is all over the place in his criticism of Dennett. If it isn't then you are in your criticism of Werleman. And let's be fair to Werleman, he isn't accusing the Four Horsemen of being White supremacists. He is merely saying their "obsession" with Islam has provided tools with which white supremacists and other "deplorables" can sound more intellectual whilst basically spewing the same hateful and xenophobic crap. Notice I didn't say "racist" - because Islam isn't a race. But I do consider what is referred to as "Islamophobia" - i.e. the fear of the Islam (yes, it is a thing!) xenophobic.--Levi Ackerman (talk) 13:13, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
The New Atheist movement is defined by the four horsemen — Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris and Dennett. Werleman decides to rally against the entire banner of "New Atheism", which is already an irresponsibly simplified take. Werleman is about a three letter word away from being against the entire modern project of organized unapologetic Atheism, it would seem. Just like when people who claim to argue against ISIS still insist on using the word "Islam" as the focal point of their criticisms, as if those two were interchangeable terms (they're not). And notice how he uses the qualifier "any" in the Twitter quote. He literally says that any person who identifies as a New Atheist is exactly as deranged as any religious extremist, ever (throughout all of history). That statement is simply stupidly false, and incredibly hateful at that. Any — including the least problematic — New Atheist is as bad as any — including the worst — religious extremist in all of history, with no degrees of separation. Let the duplicity of that statement sink in. What, is he fucking wasted while Tweeting or something? Furthermore, he is literally accusing the New Atheists of promoting (his chosen word) white supremacy. Notice that I'm not defending the New Atheist movement (I would probably be counted among the Atheist+ movement, though I don't subscribe to any movement, personally). I don't need to. It's enough to just examine Werleman's outlook and realise that he is being impossibly black-and-white in his approach to this subject. And citing examples of individual New Atheists doing the same doesn't change a thing. Also, just out of curiosity, why on Earth would you assume that I don't think islamophobia is a thing?! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:30, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
I wasn't making any assumptions as to whether you think Islamophobia is a thing? I promise. I apologise if it came across that way.--Levi Ackerman (talk) 14:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Since you said "Yes, it is a thing!", I thought you were pre-supposing that I didn't think this was the case. No harm done, anyway. Th hug.gif Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:13, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Here are a few quotations: "Some critics argue Harris's writings are profoundly bigoted against Muslims and extremist vis-a-vis torture and civil liberties. [...] Harris' stance on Islam is often indistinguishable from Michelle Malkin, a batshit ideologue. ["a particularly vile far-right US political pundit."] [...] Ali is a rabid critic of Islam and multiculturalism [...] Ali is unlike classic wingnuts in that she splits her time fairly evenly between offering genuine, important critiques of Islam and being a raving Islamophobe, although unfortunately it appears that lately she's been slowly moving from the 'legitimate criticism' camp to the 'jihadis are everywhere' group that the AEI attracts. Whether her beliefs are moving further into outright bigotry, or if she's playing to the crowd, is anyone's guess. [...] Like many rabid Islam-critics, she's a fanatical supporter of Israel. [...] Legitimate criticisms of Dawkins [...] Theoretical physicist Peter Higgs (that Higgs) criticized him in December 2012 for his anti-religious "fundamentalism" [...] Dawkins' Islamophobia finally reached comical levels And so on and so on. Oh wait, they are taken from the RationalWiki. Also, Werleman's views are pretty mainstream in US "third wave" social justice atheism and are similar to what the crowds at Freethought Blogs etc believe. The faction for example insinuated Richard Dawkins was a white supremacist because he is fond of white blokes like Shakespeare, Schubert, Einstein or Darwin (that episode was surrounding #CosmicTombstone). RationalWiki is not in the position to be critical of CJ Werleman and it looks dishonest to me, in particular when this has been pointed out many times before and was dismissed. ~ Aneris 15:02, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Clouseau.png Never fear — Aneris ✻ is on the case!
He will not rest until the guilty parties have been
assumed and melodramatically whined about
identified and brought to social justice.

Scheming Weasel, slower version (Kevin MacLeodrod).ogg
As is so often the case with you, Aneris, you treat "RationalWiki" as a singular entity (and one that has a voice of its own), not as the medium for tons of various, differing voices over time that it actually is. Has it ever occured to you that quite a few editors aside from yourself have a list, sometimes a long list, of articles they'd wish to rewrite (slightly or greatly)? If you suppose that the reason they don't just spring into action is what you refer to as "dragging of the feet", you ought to factor in that most of us don't have infinite amounts of time and energy avaliable. A part of collegiality is also the practice of simply picking one's battles, instead of feeling entitled to forcing one's view on everyone in every context, all the time. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:13, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
But the RationalWiki is a singular entity, and each one article per subject exist. I once suggested to have multiple viewpoints, which was rejected. The RationalWiki establishes that it is run by one mobocracy (even when it is always composed of different editors). Further, several clearly react with mockery when such views as Werleman's are presented as external, but you get defensive when the criticism is internal. I see no way to argue about these things. Aside, you are then moving then goal post around. ~ Aneris 17:02, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Hey Levi, I wanted to ask some things of you from your Western perspective:

He is merely saying their "obsession" with Islam has provided tools with which white supremacists and other "deplorables" can sound more intellectual whilst basically spewing the same hateful and xenophobic crap.

What does this mean? Why use this particular appeal to consequences, out of all of them? By this logic we could easily say that criticism of Christianity would fuel anti-Christian mobs in the 3rab world. An even better question to ask is why arguments against Islam and their results are never mentioned in the context of the Desi world, where Hinduvta mobs can and do use them as a pretext for very real and large scale violence against Muslim minorities in some parts of India. Violence on the scale that I've never seen in the West against them, to be honest. I just haven't. Why isn't that mentioned?

And another issue, what is an "obsession with Islam?" If they only attacked Christianity, no matter how questionably, I'm sure the SJWs and regressive left would line up behind up. Why? In Europe and North America the most the Christ-worshipers can do is protest and complain over laws, wheras in my country and many others the religious fanatics actively kill without government assistance - though they have the government's support in most cases! So wouldn't it seem reasonable for the non-religious of the world to focus their efforts on Islam?

See, from my perspective, you're all so myopic and Euro-centric you really think that what some elderly white guys in the UK think is the most important factor in how to gauge the effects of these things. There is an entire world outside of the West - and one not nearly as spoiled. Lord Aeonian (talk) 22:12, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Well clearly atheist extremists are the problem. Just yesterday I had to witness another stoning of an apostate who had left atheism and was thus put to death. And today I was awakened by an agnostical choir singing loud praises of no god in equally dissonant and enthusiastic fashion. If only we could eliminate atheism and keep it separate from the state, there'd be peace on earth. But the radical secular fundamentalists won't let us. Worzelpete (talk) 23:10, 24 October 2016 (UTC
Militant atheist.jpg
This is what Werleman actually believes. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
It's almost funny to joke about in the West, but since the regressives are so emotionally concerned about the well being of their declared minority groups (except Ahmadis, Hindus, Sikhs, etc ofc), why don't we put a face on it? Lord Aeonian (talk) 23:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Erm... who are the Ahmadis? Do we have an article on them? CorruptUser (talk) 23:48, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Ahmadis are a community within the wider muslim community. Which is why the term "muslim community" - often bandied about, is so problematic.--Levi Ackerman (talk) 08:21, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

@Lord Aeonian. First of all, I'll ignore your use of those stupid buzzwords, "SJWs" and "regressive left" (you seem to have leapt on the bandwagon of calling anyone who isn't as vocifoerous in their criticism of Islam as you are that. As if only SJWs and the regressive left take issue with the over-focus New Atheist place on Islam), but I will address your larger point. You accuse us of being myopic and Eurocentric. Well, we are talking about Western commentators - Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, Werle et al. Indeed, the book we are speaking about is Western literature. So, I think a little tunnel vision is warranted in this regard. As for your other point -

"what is an "obsession with Islam?" If they only attacked Christianity, no matter how questionably, I'm sure the SJWs and regressive left would line up behind up. Why? In Europe and North America the most the Christ-worshipers can do is protest and complain over laws, wheras in my country and many others the religious fanatics actively kill without government assistance - though they have the government's support in most cases! So wouldn't it seem reasonable for the non-religious of the world to focus their efforts on Islam?"

"The most Christ-worshipers can do is protest and complain over laws"? Really? Enlighten yourself will you: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/02/us/robert-dear-planned-parenthood-shooting.html?google_editors_picks=true&_r=2. Protest and complain over laws is evidently NOT the most Christ-worshipers do! It's one thing to say Christians resorting to violence in the name of Christianity is fewer and far between especially when compared to Islamic fanatics in your country, it's another to deny its complete existence - which is what you have just done. A disingenuous assertion on your part.

As for my "appeal to consequences", if you had read my entire exchange with Black Reverend Percy and contextualised, instead of quote-mining, you would realise that I was explaining that Werle's link between the Four Horsemen and white supremacy is not entirely far-fetched. When Sam Harris comes out in his Islam-obsessed zeal to proclaim, "The people who speak most sensibly about the threat that Islam poses to Europe are actually fascists", who do you think that empowers? Who do you think that emboldens and helps? The Nation of Islam? As for why Hindutva mobs don't use these arguments as pretexts for very real and large scale violence against Muslim minorities, the answer is simple, these arguments haven't reached them yet - not that they even need them (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-34421417). --Levi Ackerman (talk) 09:08, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I would just like to point out that while there are many really stupid Sam Harris quotes to chose from, that particular quote right there is clearly a warning against conceding valid points to the forces of fascism. The New Atheists don't call ISIS "islamofascists" because they're such fans of fascism, don't you know. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:56, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
The New Atheists emerged about ten years ago, and for most of the time they debated and argued with Christian believers. Another good decade before that was a heated conflict between proto-new-atheists and creationists (including the ID movement). In my view, New Atheism is a reaction to the growing religiousity in the Western world, which is itself a response to 9/11 and War on Terror. New Atheism was a reaction to all (monotheistic) religion, but in particular dealt with Chritianity. Its influence could be felt more directly in politics, science and education (e.g. Wedge Strategy) and most New Atheists were more familiar with its theological traditions. But that was “done” at some point as far as internet activism goes.
      There is little to add when some famous person already made the point nine times eloquently, and it can be linked to at any time. Several authors go through “seasons” of what topics are currently on their plate. Sam Harris did Christianity. He was then taking on various other subjects, from spirituality to lying. Free Will was a major discussion a few years ago, and Harris chimed in with his own book. After that was through, and coinciding with growing terrorism from Muslims in Europe, he penned his first book on Islam with Maajid Nawaz. Now the conflict between so-called Regressive Left and New Atheist is also not entirely new. There was one episode before sometimes dubbed the “Accommodationist Wars” where believers-in-belief took issue with the “stridency” of New Atheists. They didn't have arguments before and preferred smearing and ad hominems in general. With the focus moving to Islam, they just got additional smear terms to disguise the fact that they have nothing to add.
      Of course the struggle about priorities is also a classic in all “movements”. North and Western Europe (excluding Ireland) have tamed religions that are near deistic. The emergence of strongly pious Muslims is a new situation, which Americans simply don't get. European countries are super small and not every freak group can have their own cult in Backwater, Michgazona. Add other problems, and then consider that you cannnot ignore this even if you want to ignore the stove-fire. While we are at it with the Godwinning: The curtain on the far right also caught fire, even if you think the little stove fire is not an issue. One main difference is that people like Werleman are like Nazi Mitläufer. They pose as the well-adjusted “middle” and dislike disharmony and dispute, and smear everyone that steps out of line. When the problem grows, they are the first to support the Far Right's “solving the problem”, as long as they do it somewhere else and they aren't annoyed with wiping their windows of human ashes every other day. Yes, this is precisely how I see many of my esteemed opponents, as little more than Mitläufers. Don't rock the boat, they say. And when everything is done, they claim to have not noticed anything. ~ Aneris 11:48, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm also under the impression that if the likes of Werleman wrote in the southern US during the first half of the 1800's, they'd worry about the "radical abolitionists" stirring the pot, or indeed if writing in India during British colonial rule in the first half of the 1900's, they'd lament the worrysome friction generated by Ghandi's protests with "calls for sanity". It's worrying to see them prefer non-abrasiveness over taking the fight, and it comes off as quite regressive indeed. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:01, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Why is it worrying to see them prefer non-abrasiveness over taking the fight? What has abrasiveness, the kind you see from Dawkins, Nawaz, Harris, Hirsi Ali etc, achieved thus far? Has it led to some sort of Islamic reformation? In my view, their abrasiveness has only served to further push away those they ought to be converting, while recruiting those they really shouldn't be affiliated with. I'll give you an example, Quilliam. Quilliam hosts a lot of events. Do you know who mainly attends these? White non-muslims. Yet Quilliam claims to be trying to start a reformation within Islam. There's something to be said there about preaching to the choir, but I digress. My point is, the approach of the New Atheist leaves a lot to be desired. For one thing, they place far too big a burden on the role of religion and not enough on the role of politics. There seems to be an underlying thread that if religion were removed from the equation, all of the problems in the middle east, with terrorism etc, would go away--Levi Ackerman (talk) 14:57, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
The fact of the matter is alot of the problems will. "Reforming" Islam may very well succeed in the short run, but religious conservatism is cyclical and affected by social and economic factors, i.e. the Golden Age of Arabia features a religious discourse most ulama decry as kufr today. "Reforming" Islam while keeping the beliefs will just cause another Salafi revival the next time anything goes wrong and people without critical thinking skills look towards the sunnah for answers once more. The only decent long term solution is thorough education, but in order to embrace this we must be first acknowledge the eradication of superstition and ignorance as a worthy goal - and the selfish, "got mine, fuck you" attitude of the western regressives is often in the way. Lord Aeonian (talk) 20:52, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
"An audience on the Left now frightens me nearly as much as an audience of Islamists does." Islamists! Those Huffington Post style "leftists" are fake, but through their excessive posturing have convinced themselves and others that this is actually a left wing position. No wonder that the left is now in a crisis thanks to such imbeciles, who applaud for the "bravery" of a Muslim fencer to wear hijab, but are silent or apologetic against a chess player who refuses to pander to Islamic dress code. ~ Aneris 22:24, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Western liberals seem to want to be both libertarian hyper-tolerant relativists and progressives fighting for a cause at the same time. Of course, the average SJW doesn't have an ideology as much as they have a "western imperialism is bad non-western stuff is good" mindset...which in itself wouldn't be too bad because it would recognize the very neo-colonial origins of the Salafi revival and the SJW's patronizing attitude towards the non-white religious, as if only Westerners have the intelligence to see through fairy tales and everyone else is regulated to ignorance which in turn can only be "respected" as part of their racial heritage. Of course even this they don't think through, as the majority of the world's Christians reside in Africa and Latin America and probably don't appreciate the attacks on conservative Christianity that the SJWs back, Lord Aeonian (talk) 23:22, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
It gets entirely comical because the same people also view themselves as being into "intersectionality", which in their corrupted version just means "diversity" or is proxy for a "axis of oppression" ideology that has actually nothing to do with the concept as proposed by Crenshaw. Her idea is the exact opposite: she argued that black women are overlooked because they are often victim of black-on-black crimes, but the so-called antiracists turn a blind eye on it, because this might make them seem bigoted, or calling it out, might give ammunution to racists. And feminists also overlook them, because feminism is mostly shaped by educated women who attend women or gender studies and are likewise not interested to "go there". In other words, the same dynamics Crenshaw criticized now drive the so-called "Regressive Left" or so-called SJWs, yet they are the people who claim to be intersectional. It's really bizarre and just goes to show that maybe these people don't think at all. They are purely and selfishly driven by a primordial drive to look good to their flock (which incidentially is the original definition of SJW). ~ Aneris 23:45, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
It's one of the reasons I really should stop dissecting their ideology to expose the numerous angles of contradictions; there really are no contradictions because there is no ideology. They don't go around debating on whether intersectionality (by definition a popular front of sorts) is capable with cultural relativism, they don't go around arguing over whether or not progressives should incorporate Enlightenment rationality as opposed to "lived experience" narratives, and they certainly don't discuss any of this from a sociological or historical standpoint. All they do is go with whatever cultural attitudes are considered "liberal" at the moment and repeat them on social media for endless likes and applause. Lord Aeonian (talk) 00:12, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Here's an actual CJ Werlman quote: "I often err on the side of extreme rhetoric to make a point." TeslaK20 (talk) 17:30, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

That's pretty much Sam Harris' entire shtick. He will say something extreme and when he gets picked up on it, he'll send you an email telling you you've smeared him. The poor misunderstood Sam Harris is what I like to call him. --Levi Ackerman (talk) 20:34, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
I'll gladly accept that nuancing statement from Werleman. Assuming, of course, that that same right is extended to everyone else — including to Sam Harris. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:34, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Funny how everyone ignores that the reason that Salafism is now the dominant thread of Islam is that all successful progressive movements in Islam-dominated countries were uncomfortably leftist and Soviet-backed for US tastes and consequently eradicated ... so it's actually the US anti-commie paranoia that's to blame for the rise of Islamism, not anything inherent in Islam that somehow makes it magically incapable of a progressive interpretation (or magically prevents Islam-dominated countries from secularizing).
Islamic socialism used to be a thing, folks. Now all that's left are right-wing and theocratic regimes in the Middle East that are being propped up by the US, Germany and the UK among others. Great job, West. Islamic fundamentalism is a completely homegrown problem, and so is the Israel-Palestine conflict. That's hardly news, but still everyone goes on and on about how Islam is an inherently violent barbaric stone-age religion yadda yadda.
It's getting incredibly tedious and accomplishes nothing except alienating potential allies further, but if you try to be less antagonizing and even reach out to Muslims who you think could be converted to the side of social justice (if they aren't already on board, basically), without them necessarily having to give up religion altogether (which is quite a demand especially for Muslims living in certain countries, y'know), you're being labeled "regressive left". Yawn. Because saying anything about Islam but "KILL IT WITH FIRE!" – let alone distinguishing between Islam and jihadism – is apologetics. History? Nah, irrelevant, that's humanities fluff. Nuance is seriously going out the window these days. -- (talk) 21:29, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
As a Latino, let me just point to Latin America, where the US has squashed everything even somewhat leftist for the better part of a century yet there are still leftists (some of them even in power) and religion has actually lost much of its role in politics in recent decades. Worzelpete (talk) 21:57, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

What you missed regarding the Salafi revival's Western origins is that 'progressive' Islam was not really coming up as much as outright secular forces. If anything, today we're seeing the largest amount of progressive reform movements since the Ottoman Empire decriminalized homosexuality in the mid 1800s. Lord Aeonian (talk) 00:47, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

My two cents

Allow me to quote from QualiaSoup's excellent video Lack of belief in gods:

Some theists (who are determined for atheism to mean more than "a lack of belief") note how fervent some atheists are in discussion, and point out that "fervency doesn't just come from a lack of belief". No, it doesn't. A great deal of fervency is a response to the hostility directed at us [Atheists] simply for not believing in Gods. To being condemned, criticised, marginalized and dehumanized by people who are unwilling to allow us to live our lives; who impugn our morality, who tell us we don't belong in the country in which we were born, who distort our education, attempt to monopolize government, and ostracize us for not participating in their rituals. Treat any group of people with such profound disrespect, and it would be surprising not to see fervency from some of them. Fervency is not a result of simply being an atheist. But nor is it solely a response to the disgusting manner in which atheists are treated. It also comes from a wider sense of injustice at the way human beings are being treated around the world. How church leaders are invoking baseless religious priviligies to keep the details of child sexual abuse cases secret. How children are dying from torture and neglect after being branded as "witches" and "demon-possessed". How adulterers are being stoned to death, gay people are being hanged, and other barbaric acts are being commited — all in the name of an entity whose basic existence can't be demonstrated.

Considering the above, I don't trust appeals to "militant atheism" or "atheist fundamentalism" in the sense that Werleman makes them. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:56, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

curcumin Tumeric woo

As a newb I'm not rushing to add a page but wondered if anyone was up for a woo page on the woo-nders of curcumin. I read the superfoods entry and it gets a small mention but they are advertising the shit out of it atm near me and I'd feel better if a Senior Snarker added something that I could point to for my gullible friends, unless of course it's omg a cure for warts/microcephaly/bad hair. I'd be happy to edit or seeks citations but y'know. Shy ( awwww). Gadzooks (talk) 09:23, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Actually, Curcumin enjoys a wide variety of proven medicinal properties (based on Examine's meta-review of 259 unique scientific papers on Curcumin). Curcumin also enjoys multiple human studies — double-blind and placebo controlled, no less — for a variety of claims, and some studies show quite remarkable positive effect. That being said, Curcumin isn't a panacea. Nothing is. But the starting point of any debunking attempts has to be integrating and understanding the science I just linked before going after any specifics. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:18, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
It wouldn't hurt to incorporate modest amounts turmeric — the source of curcumin — into one's diet (e.g. curries which use tumeric). Both turmeric and curcumin are known to have anti-inflammatory and antioxidant properties. Like Percy, said, it's not a panacea; nor is it a miracle cure. — Unsigned, by: Bongolian / talk / contribs
Also worthy of note is the fact that you need piperine for curcumin to have an effect orally. Almost all cases of conflicting results due to some studies lacking effect have been due to those studies not using piperine for enhanced bioavailability. These absorption issues have proven solved when the curcumin is co-ingested with piperine. See the link to Examine for sources. See here for more info. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:28, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
So ... Oral cumin is best?--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 20:56, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Oral curcumin, yes. With piperine. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:05, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
What about chili, though? Is chili good for you or is it a dangerous addiction? Worzelpete (talk) 23:12, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Capsaicin, the active ingredient in chili, seems to have rather lacklustre effects. Still tasty though. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:17, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Chili can be dangerous in high amounts, [2] and is not advisable for those susceptible to IBS. And, just to clarify: cumin does not contain curcumin. Turmeric is the main dietary source of curcumin, and black pepper is the main source of dietary piperine. Bongolian (talk) 04:03, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Woot, it's a wonder food! Bugger. Lost that bet. Shoulda googled more googleyness. So. Sounds like instead I should now go find a delicious recipe for (no autotext this time, btw up yours rev, with love) 'curcumin'. MMM! Gadzooks (talk) 04:35, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Check Examine.com before betting next time Th hug.gif Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:06, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Google quotes Conservapedia as authority

Google's "featured snippet" for Poe's law is currently from Conservapedia's article. Irony much? -- (talk) 18:45, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps it's intentional. Liberal bias in Google much???? nobs, where you at? Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 20:56, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Fuck Google. After I added the James O'Keefe stuff to my Hillary Clinton article two days ago, they dropped it from #22 to #33 and today #67. Fuck those assholes.nobs 02:39, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Because it is horribly dishonest? Acei9 02:56, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
I could get it back up to #15 if I wanted to, but it's an extremely competitive environment right now. Already working on Phases 2 and 3. Got the instruction booklet for Phase 2 today.nobs 05:59, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Alt-right radio host Matt Forney predicts ‘white baby boom’ because ‘women are having sex dreams about Trump’

Best headline. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 20:03, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I pity those poor hypothetical women. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:20, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
I wish these alt-righters would stop projecting for even just a minute. Vulpius (talk) 21:00, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Well they can have sex dreams all they want as long as they come home to José el plomero isntead of Joe the plumber. Worzelpete (talk) 21:54, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Related. Omfg, it's hilarious. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 00:23, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't think I would call someone's fantasy of right-wing insurrection "funny" especially with the amount of racial hatred in the atmosphere.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 02:44, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Some serious William Luther Pierce vibes coming off of Mr. Forney. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:01, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm always surprised that we don't get a screed from Aneris supporting this guy whenever he pops up. --Castaigne2 (talk) 15:19, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Aneris doesn't like religious people, though. He's crafted this world-view centered around blaming the post-modernism boogeyman for all but most benign of tolerance and egalitarianism. Forney is a fundie, even if all the rest of his views are utterly indistinguishable from alt-right cruft; that means that he's diametrically opposed to Aneris-style "modernism".
(And I suspect if it wasn't me posting this, and it wasn't for the emphasis, word choice, and scare quotes, Aneris would probably agree with all that) ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:34, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Is treating combatants of either side in a hospital an act of war against either side?

This discussion was moved to Talk:Israel.

Okay, I just got called liberal trash on Facebook. Who else on this wiki was called liberal trash or something similar?

I commented on one of my Facebook friends posts and I was called liberal trash because I said I was voting for Hillary Clinton. So lets see who else was called liberal trash or a similar insult.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 13:54, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Uh... what you're called by actual fucking fascists shouldn't have much impact on you. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 13:57, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
This just in: the Alt-right doesn't really like everyone else. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:30, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
I could give a shit about being called liberal trash, I was just asking who else was called liberal trash?--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 14:45, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't know about "trash" specifically. But general insults from people whose political thought is not what I'd call reality-based are pretty common. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:02, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Well unless your Facebook friends are commies, I wouldn't worry about it.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 14:38, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Just gonna link this: Fun:Cuck-o-tron 3000 FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 15:32, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Goodpost.gif Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:59, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Atheists now tied for most distrusted group in US

We're losing our lead to Muslims, guys. (yarr, sci-hub link to full study). The interesting thing here is that for this follow-up, they asked why people distrusted atheists. Interestingly, thinking that we're elitist had a -0.30 correlation with hating us, whereas thinking we're immoral had a 0.68 correlation with distrusting us.

That suggests to me, that whatever negative image the Dawkinses and Harrises might give us are only negative to the kinds of people who are tolerant and respectful of our right to exist. Dunno if I have a point, just thought it was interesting. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:54, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

It actually really sucks that anti-atheist screeds like these (and others) are being put forward by alleged concerned progressives at a time when people's minds are already poisoned with fearful bias and bigotry against atheists. And that's just in the western world; in other parts of the world, atheists risk getting brutalized or even murdered for their non-beliefs. And to suggest that the rallying cry against (New) Atheism is "really" a response to how contemporary atheism (allegedly; often falsely so) "aligns itself with the far right" is a highly peculiar proposition, in and of itself. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:57, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Goodpost.gifDustandshadow13 (talk) 17:03, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
You're missing something. The notion that religious people can and frequently are really shitty does not grant special any immunity to atheists as a group against the same. That there are outspoken atheists strenuously arguing against the ideals of the enlightenment out of an authoritarian, bigoted mindset is kinda beyond question now. Anyone that sees a user named "The amazing atheist" with hundreds of thousands of followers, presenting overtly racist screeds will get a moment of pause from it. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:15, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
I certainly am missing something, in the sense that I'm not presenting a complete view by making a small comment on trends which I find to be divisory. Now; as you no doubt know, I will agree whole-hearteadly with you about people like TAA and Thunderfart. However, I certainly don't think that they represent atheism. Likewise, I'm sure you're not questioning the fact that European fascism translates historically to "the activist arm of the Catholic church". It just bugs me enormously when people who themselves are not to the political right brandish their philosophical illiteracy by trying to carry off Hitchens or Dennett and appropriating them as having been some kind of deplorable salesmen of modern islamophobic hate movements, like the (afaik, largely Christian) Alt-right. These accusers are people who end up utterly misguided by an unexamined belief in belief. To the Christian right, atheists come off as cultural marxist communist feminists. To the regressive left, atheists come off as islamophobic antifeminist paleoconservatives. And — on the topic of studies showing universal distrust in the US against the atheist minority — my point is precisely that two wrongs don't make a right. I mean, we can all agree that just because someone identifies as a muslim and has read the Qur'an, it's asinine and hateful to assume they're now the worst ilk of ISIS. That they now have to agree with every single word in it. I mean, that's just dumb — it's a hate-filled prejudice against their beliefs that is required for the process of othering these people. Conversely, just because someone identifies as an atheist and has read The End Of Faith, let's please not commit the same fallacy of kneejerk-accusing them of secretly being in love with Sam Harris, Pat Condell and The Amazing Atheist. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:40, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
I love how people here just knee-jerk dismiss Sam Harris, TJ Kirk and Phil Mason. I feel much of it is because they're part of the wrong tribe. I often enjoy listening to these people, as they have much stuff of relevance to say. I think it's unfair to dismiss them and call them names like I've seen here. They're no more or less legitimate. PBfreespace2 (talk) 20:40, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
There's no knee-jerk to rejecting a bigotted fuck who mocks rape victims and hates black people(let's not forget celebrating a young teen's suicide). That's not tribalism. That's TAA being a giant piece of shit as a person. I know, I know I'm "just rationalizing away someone who disagrees with me" by pointing out some o their intolerant, shitty behaviors, and views. He's a piece of shit, and I hate to tu quoque, but the only reason I could possibly imagine going to bat for someone that awful is because you think he's on your side. And it's not incidental stuff. He did a whole video spewing pseudoscientific racialist garbage. Re-evaulate your life, PB. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:57, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Goodpost.gif Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:19, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
"Re-evaluate your life"? Jesus Christ you're touchy. I can tell you really can't stand people who disagree with you. At all. I don't go around talking to people who watch FOX News and say "they're a shitty channel that spews garbage, you shouldn't support those fucks, re-evaluate your life". That's just not how I react to other people. I don't think someone should reconsider their entire life just because they like one person. It's a crazy way to react, and that kind of hatred of one person that's so strong as to prompt a comment like that is cultish behavior. PB3 (talk) 22:54, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
You really don't get it. It has nothing to do with disagreeing with them. Let's put it bluntly: people who listen and follow shitty people - and Harris, TAA, and Thunderf00t ARE shitty, with some shitty fucking opinions - have shitty opinions themselves. --Castaigne2 (talk) 21:22, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Well, it's not necessarily the case. I can accept that a user can go "What? That makes no sense, and is pretty damn shitty" about the worse things TJ or TF or whoever has said. But they're pretty pathetic excuses for public figures for any sort of movement that wants to claim they're decent people. That's kinda where we are, though, as a culture. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 21:37, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
*normal user hat*
Hey can you guys try to be nice to each other? Topic: Sam Harris, TJ Kirk, and Phil Mason (and possibly TAA and others) should not be rejected as bad elements of the atheist movement. Discuss. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 23:33, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
The problem with individuals like Ikanreed is that truth doesn't matter, only "sides". The technique is always the same with this flock. The world is divided into Team Good and Team Evil. It's allowed to say anything about Team Evil, and reality is untethered from the subject matter. If anyone disagrees or just appears to be not totally on Team Good (through "virtue signalling"), they're Team Evil, too. This is how nothing can be discussed on a subject-matter level, but as you'll surely have noticed, it's all “meta” – all the time. Correcting falsehoods of the wrong people is a signifier of Team Evil membership, and that's the chief reason why falsehoods accummulate over time in their spaces (sometimes leading to a completely bizarre alternate reality version). The effect is that I cannot even write this, without ALSO spending some time explaining that I'm not a fan of TJ Kirk and that I'm ALSO not too fond of his loudmouth and insensitive attitude. But this is what it does. Also note Ikanreed's dehumanizing language. The sad part is that Ikanreed has apparently no problem with people like Sarah Nyberg (officially retweeted from the RW account), an actual paedophile. This is where the "sides" mentally really kicks in. ~ Aneris 23:38, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
I apparently have no problem with (person I've not referenced once in my life). Go. fuck. yourself. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 23:45, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Aneris, what you've just done is textbook Bulverism. Stop. Try to discuss what's presently occurring without also discussing the state of the world. FuzzyCatPotato of the Belittling Vector fields (talk/stalk) 23:57, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I also dispute the claims Ikanreed made. I know of two situations.

  1. was a spat with Greta Christina who spread the misdeeds of TJ Kirk far and wide (they were almost a decade old at the time). He then made a video, apologized for his old views and clarified more. I know this, because this gave me a particular sour taste, since Greta Christina's flock made similar extreme remarks for years, and even had sexually brutalizing memes ("go fuck yourself with a rusty knife" type etc). That's when I thought that she's a hypocrite extraordinaire.
  2. Very similar is the alleged “celebrating a young teen's suicide” case, which simply didn't happen. The RW page actually explains what this was really about “I am the other hundreds of thousands of people who died today other than Amanda fucking Todd” (and who are supposedly forgotten). This also shows the kind of double-standards I often mention. Because when PZ Myers makes a similar case, but instead of Amdanda Todd it's Robin Williams, who's white male suicide distracts from more important manners, the RationalWiki is (of course!) completely cool with it. I find both of these comments in bad taste and insensitive, because they raise an issue at the wrong time. Otherwise, see Paul Bloom's case Against Empathy (video) or here. ~ Aneris 00:51, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
My question is this: why on earth are TJ(TAA) and Thunderf00t being mentioned in the same sentence as Sam Harris? These two are nothing more than YouTube personalities! They are not intellectual. Frankly, it's an insult to Harris (and I don't even like Harris) to just casually drop their names alongside his as if they were equals. Why are you elevating them to such undeserved status - pedestals? Furthermore, this entire discussion encapsulates my problem with NA. This is where it has gotten atheism. As Michael Ruse predicted, the constant antagonism and evangelism of these atheist "prophets" (among whom I include Harris) and their disciples and followers has put atheists and atheism in the spotlight it really shouldn't be in. Where people should be indifferent to us (at worst!) they now actively despise us. They treat us like a movement. Atheism shouldn't be a movement, but NA turned it into a movement. At most, atheism should be a philosophy, not the political ideology it has now become. It's almost difficult to distinguish it from political movements. Moreover, one of my major "beefs" against religion - Islam and Christianity especially - is their proselytizing nature, which NA seems to have adopted, in addition to the factionalism/tribalism and a sort of (intellectual?) supremacy. (talk) 12:36, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Oh good, an objection that actually lets me get back to the original context. So why they're in the same sentence is because they relate through the attribute of people who view atheists as elitist or condescending, as described in the linked article. It doesn't matter how well structured, intellectual, or scientific ones views are as far as perceiving people to be condescending or elitist. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:20, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
But it's not purely perception. Some of the most prominent atheists - regarded as the face of modern atheism - are indeed elitist and condescending. Prime example, Richard Dawkins and Hitchens, who go around deriding every theist as, basically, "stupid". It's hard to get people to like you when you have contempt for them and don't even attempt to hide it. --Levi Ackerman (talk) 16:03, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, true, but contextually, appearances are particularly relevant to a survey of who people dislike and why. It's unfair to categorize Muslims as violent and dangerous on the basis of a few media personalities, but people do anyways. It's unfair to categorize atheists because of a couple of condescending jerks like me or Dawkins, but people do anyways. And again, viewing atheists as elitists is correlated with positive views of atheists compared to the general population. That sure as hell says something about the status quo. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:10, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm personally surprised that Trump supporters aren't the most distrusted group.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 17:01, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh, no, you could find more distrusted groups, but this survey only examined things people classically discriminate on. I doubt trump supporters would be less trusted because white people gonna white, but certainly murderers, congress, and the KKK would beat us out. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:08, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Sidebar: although not its aim, this study shows how much darker America has become, how less tolerant it is becoming as a society. Which is ironic, given that folks on the Right (and Centre Right) love to whine about political correctness. In the study, in 2003, only 4.6% of those surveyed thought African Americans as a group do not agree with their vision of American society. In 2014,that percentage rose to 16.9%. It's the same pattern for every minority group: Jews, Asian Americans, Conservative Christians, Muslims. It's actually not bad for homosexuals and atheists - all things considered. Their percentages rose from 22.6% and 39.6% to 29.4% and 41.9% respectively. --Levi Ackerman (talk) 18:51, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

My theory: the right wing finally hit the new media. Please like and share this racist meme disguised as uplifting comparisons about cops. It's going to take for-fucking-ever to detoxify our culture. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:05, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
As an atheist feminist cultural marxist communist leftist sexual bolshevist, I find this to be triggering. TheAmazingSkeptic (talk) 09:31, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Have you heard of Nylon eating bacteria?

Have you? Worzelpete (talk) 21:58, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes; have you heard of the Lenski experiment? Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 23:28, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
I think the hyphen in the title of the WP article makes the story more believable. Because if nylon actually ate bacteria I would indeed be surprised.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:59, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Potato, patata. We should have an article on them. And yes, I have heard of the Lenski experiment. Very fascinating. Worzelpete (talk) 20:44, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
RationalWiki:To do list has included nylonase (the active ingredient of nylon-eating bacteria) for quite a while. But nobody's yet got around to it. Annquin (talk) 09:37, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Fox News admits Benghazi hearings were a hoax to smear Hillary?

Is this for real? The site looks like the left wing of the horseshoe... I don't come around much any more, but thought some RWians could use a giggle. Alec Sanderson (talk) 22:16, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Several FOX News anchors appear to have been disgusted by Trump's conspiracist rhetoric and now turn explicitly against its modern strains in the Republican Party. This has made them very unpopular. I absolutely buy it -- Megyn Kelly just slaughtered Newt Gingrich today/yesterday. FOX News, for all the crap we give them, isn't a monolithic hivemind. Some influential folks within it are not blinded to Trump's failings. Whether they will survive as a modern conservative media group may hang in this balance. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 23:51, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
In what way exactly has Fox admitted that the Benghazi hearings were a hoax? The various segments/clips embedded into the article do not remotely suggests that. The writer has merely inferred this conclusion from them. All those segments really says is that an investigation was carried out and nothing was found. Usually when that happens, people ask why the investigation was necessary in the first place, as these things cost the tax payer a lot of money. I don't doubt that political point-scoring was a motivating factor in the calling of the investigation, however, HH was secretary of state at the time, therefore she was accountable. Mistakes were made, some of which were unavoidable, but in the name of accountability, surely an investigation had to be carried out, if for no other reason to exonerate Clinton. My point is this, Fox News did not admit that Benghazi hearings were a hoax; they merely allude to what we already knew: a large part of it was political maneuvering and point-scoring. Also, the website, "Occupydemocrats", judging by its name, is not exactly what one would call fair and balanced journalism, and therefore, reliable. --Levi Ackerman (talk) 08:27, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Goodpost.gif Reverend Black Percy (talk) 08:40, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
I really don't know what it means to say: "The Benghazi hearings were a hoax". Is the suggestion that they never took place? I mean, people who believe the moon landings were a "hoax" believe the moon landings never happened.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:37, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Bob. The hoax is the tale that the hearings were simply in aid of "finding the facts" about the vulnerability of US diplomatic and CIA presence in Libya. In case anyone missed the memo, the hearings were a blatant exercise in PR, pushing a narrative into the public awareness over and over. Alec Sanderson (talk) 16:34, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Then they were "biased", "politically motivated" even "based on false premises" or whatever. Calling the hearings themselves a "hoax" is distorting the common meaning of the word. If they were completely useless and based on false premises then "farce" would work.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 18:26, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Sounds like that particular (and not the least bit clickbaity) headline wasn't an accident, considering the source is a site called "OccupyDemocrats". Just saying. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 08:44, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
In this day and age, knowing the source is often knowing the news. Worzelpete (talk) 20:48, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Southern Poverty Law Center: Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Maajid Nawaz Are “Anti-Muslim Extremists”


If you know anything about Ayaan Hirsi Ali, maybe it’s that the Somali-born activist was the victim of faith-based genital mutilation. Maybe it’s that her friend, director Theo van Gogh, was murdered by a Muslim extremist who then stuck a knife in his body with a note that said Hirsi Ali was next. Maybe it’s that she’s been on a mission to reform the religion.

She understands that there’s a direct connection between a literal interpretation of the Qur’an and the terror we’re seeing in parts of the world. She knows that a non-trivial percentage of believers feel that violence in the name of Islam is sometimes justified.

Maajid Nawaz is another activist working to reform the faith, most recently with his book Islam and the Future of Tolerance (co-authored with Sam Harris).

Both of them believe that Islam is uniquely problematic compared to other religions and moderate Muslims have a role to play in helping steer the ship in the right direction.

And both of them were just named to the Southern Poverty Law Center’s list of “Anti-Muslim Extremists” alongside actual hate-mongers like Walid Shoebat (who once said “All Islamic organizations in America should be the No. 1 enemy”).

Read the article. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 14:49, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a problem here. It's well known that both Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Maajid Nawaz are in the Harris/Hitchens "Islam is the ultimate threat and we need to nuke all the Musloids." camp of atheism. --Castaigne2 (talk) 15:14, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Oh, Mehta. No surprise at the article at all then; he's well embedded in the Harris/Hitchens camp. --Castaigne2 (talk) 15:17, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
When have Nawaz or Ali uttered anything close to that statement? (And arguing "Islam is worse than any other religion" != "nuke all the Musloids".) αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 15:33, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Let's then go straight to the horse's mouth and see what SPLC considers concerning
In her 2007 interview with The London Evening Standard, Hirsi Ali “advo­cated the closing of Islamic schools in the West and said that ‘violence is inherent in Islam,’” according to a later account in The New York Times.

In her 2007 Reason interview, she said, “There comes a moment when you crush your enemy” militarily, and added, “There is no moderate Islam. … [T]here’s really only one Islam, defined as submission to the will of God. There’s nothing moderate about it.” She also told the journal that she had sought to “get rid of” all Islamic schools in the Netherlands while living there.

In a July 11, 2009, essay for the online World Post, Hirsi Ali criticized President Obama for denouncing “Islamic extremism without once asso­ciating Islam with extremism.” She threw cold water on the idea of the U.S cooperating with Muslims in order to battle jihadist extremism.

In an Aug. 18, 2010, Wall Street Journal op-ed, “How to Win the Clash of Civilizations,” Hirsi Ali said that Islam “is at war with America” and wrote that Western civilization “needs to be actively defended” against Islam.

Appearing on the March 23, 2015, edition of “The Daily Show,” she said, “If you look at 70% of the violence in the world today, Muslims are responsible.” Experts said the claim appeared to be bogus, and she later amended it to say 70% of fatalities “were in wars involving Muslims,” including civil wars.

--Ayaan Hirsi Ali
I'll be honest... that all sounds pretty bad, not like... "kill all muslims" bad but pretty damned unreasonable and tarring 1.5 billion people with the same brush uncritically bad. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:47, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
We might get rid of such stereotyping tricks altogether and announce there are no “Muslims”, just individuals who have nothing in common at all. That would stop this tarring everyone with the broad brush. When will fucking white males (and those married to one) understand? ~ Aneris 18:26, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
"Oh woe is me" sighed the bigot, "It's just so unfair that you ask people to treat billions of people as something other than a monolith." Tears welled up in his eyes. "But those cruel post-modernists want me to accept that people are human beings defined by more than one superficial aspect of themselves".
The tears were beginning to flood the room. "I am doomed if this continues, for my tears will not abate as long as people ask basic human decency of me, and others, as a condition of taking my thoughts seriously in a public venue." But of course, nothing could be done. The "post-modernists" were just too evil, too unconcerned with the feelings of Aneris, who, even when the person being criticized was or Arab descent, could not pretend for a moment that it was anyone but white males who were oppressed.
So ends the sad tale of Aneris, The Oppressed, the saddest not-racist-butt to ever roam the internet. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:42, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

For a more serious reply to our favorite concern troll: notice how I used the word "uncritically"? That's an important word. Tarring all murderers as people with a disdain for human life is probably pretty fair, because it's definitional to the act they take, though even then, there are probably murderers who didn't take their crime lightly when doing it. Doing that for people who all happen to share a holy book, prophet, and deity lacks what might be called "critical analysis" wherein the idea ("There is only one Islam") isn't subjected to any scrutiny for validity(spoiler, it's full of shit). ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:48, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

EDIT NOTE This is what Ikanreed want's to make disappear (against the rules). To be fair to Ikanreed, they want you to knnow that “And... fuck you. You can't stop stuffing words in my mouth, and i see no reason anyone else needs to see your drivel.” /EDIT END: ORIGINAL COMMENT: Do you really regard Nawaz and Hirsi Ali as racists (and those who appear to doubt your assessment)? But if you think you can gain "Good People" points by throwing around such terms like confetti, go ahead. Have you considered that Muslims indeed have shared properties by virtue of identifying themselves as Muslims, and by virtue of sharing a set of beliefs? It goes without saying that they are not all the same, and it is obvious to everyone here that there are obviously different denominations, and obviously not all Muslims are all like the IS or Boko Haram (or like your frienly neighbour, for that matter). I mean, I can't think of anyone here who doesn't know this. Nobody. I even include you among the people who I assume know some basic facts of the world, and you made clear that you are an illiterate imbecile. ~ Aneris 20:25, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
1) Islamophobia is [...] fuelled by racism. 2) "sighed the bigot" 3) "the saddest not-racist-butt". The reader should decide if I misrepresented Ikanreed, and whether another round of histrionics are justified (removal of comment, change of user rights). Also, what's worse, my misrepresentation (if it was), or Ikanreed's serious accusations. Again, the reader can decide. If you want to see more impotent rage-tears of a bully, see here. ~ Aneris 22:28, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
You know, if Hirsi Ali really wants war with Islam, I'm tempted to oblige her. To give her exactly what she asks for. I mean, I was raised Catholic and the Catholic Church knows how to do "war with Islam".
Of course, she'll probably object to all the menfolk and in her family being put to the sword, her women made my rapeslaves, and the remaining children becoming my serfs on my new Crusader-given feudal territory, but eh, it's what she asked for. Oh, and she'll need to be imprisoned and given enhanced interrogation techniques until we've been assured that she has lost all Muslamic sympathies. I'm sure she won't object.
Sometimes, to teach people, you need to give them exactly what they ask for. --Castaigne2 (talk) 19:08, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I think the SPLC is doing nobody any good in this. Those people that think Ayaan Hirsi Ali is dangerous know her already. Those that think she is not dangerous will not be swayed by the SPLC and instead they will be inclined to not take the SPLC seriously when it warns of actual serious threats like white supremacists or Trump. The SPLC should stick to designating hate groups, not splitting hairs what you can and cannot say about Islam. For example I think all religious schools should be closed and homeschooling outlawed. This is not what Hirsi Ali said, but it is ultimately what "closing Muslim schools" would mean in a liberal secular democracy. Worzelpete (talk) 20:53, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

A shame the Soviets didn't win the cold war, their methods were brutal and unnecessary by anyone's standards by at least they acknowledged the problem! Lord Aeonian (talk) 00:38, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I would agree that Ayaan Hirsi Ali is an extremist. That's just objectively clear. The officious bystander (who didn't have a hang-up about Islam) would say she is. Nawaz, on the other, notwithstanding his constant need to be in the spotlight (the man is a narcissist, with delusions of grandeur. Seriously, he thinks he is more important than he is. He is also a sanctimonious twat), is not an extremist. He is just your run-of-the-mill liberal. He is also not anti-Islam. He is anti-Islamism. I don't know why the Patheos article is so outraged about the inclusion of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, though. It's just unwarranted outrage. I mean this is a woman who said "we are at war with Islam. And there's no middle ground in wars." If that's not extremism, I don't know what it is. --Levi Ackerman (talk) 12:41, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
One of my biggest beefs with Nawaz is, he plays to a crowd: White, often college/university educated, types with Neoliberal leanings, who are, and this is crucial, NOT MUSLIMS! Go to his Twitter feed or his Facebook or Goodreads, most of his fans are of the class I just described. He talks about trying to reform Islam, without proposing any method of doing so. Worse still, he just points out the current problems within Islam, which most people already know. The only difference is, most people have never heard or seen a mainstream "Muslim" (I doubt he really is a Muslim) saying these things, re-tweeting cartoons of Muhammed, ratting out other Muslims to the government in the name of "anti-terrorism". He is sort of a Magical Negro. And if there's something post-modern, liberal, white folks love, it's Magical Negroes.--Levi Ackerman (talk) 12:55, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
If that was the case you wouldn't have people who left Islam being referred to as "race traitors," "native informants," etc. by "liberal" whites. Lord Aeonian (talk) 22:27, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
If what was the case? --Levi Ackerman (talk) 08:26, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Please stop removing Aneris' comments

Annoyingness != justification for *actually literal* censorship. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 23:07, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Also, Aneris: Please stop being annoying. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 23:08, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
He will never stop concern trolling and you know this. Stop pretending otherwise. --Castaigne2 (talk) 15:14, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Ahem!--Levi Ackerman (talk) 16:08, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
It's safe to say that the difference between being a troll and a sincere obnoxious twat are not always obvious, but either way, that Aneris adds nothing meaningful to these discussions is pretty obvious. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:23, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
The particular nature of the annoyingness was to attribute false claims to me and ask me to defend them. I specifically asked him to say it again without doing that one thing. I wasn't removing every Aneris post for being annoying, though, oh god, it's tempting, just that one particular brand of dishonesty that actually adds negative value to a discussion. But as I said on my talk page, "ugh fine". I will not do it again. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:26, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 15:28, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
@ikanreed:attribute false claims to me and ask me to defend them
Now you must know how Donald Trump feels.nobs 02:46, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Give me an example of a statement Trump did not make but was asked to defend. All I know of are statements he made but denied - despite them being on tape Worzelpete (talk) 22:58, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Anyone want a good laugh?

http://www.signs-of-end-times.com/the-last-days-end-of-world-signs.html. I came across this and I just had to share for those who are rational who want a good laugh.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 18:02, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh, those poor people. Yesterday was the end times. Now we're in the start times again. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:10, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
End times propaganda and no mention of drug legalization in South America or peace (well almost) in Colombia? And no reference to the Cubs or the Second Avenue Subway? They're not even trying. Worzelpete (talk) 20:55, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

The Bundys walked

I have no words .DarkAngelCryo (talk) 02:53, 28 October 2016 (UTC)


I love this logic. To the Bundys, "peaceful protest" involves takeover of federal buildings for over 1 month -- but god help the people who don't stand during the national anthem. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 12:38, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Especially, if they're a minority.--Levi Ackerman (talk) 13:00, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Honestly, other than the presence of guns in this case, I'd rather not see any protest result in people getting convicted on federal conspiracy charges. Ever. Even if it's by entitled dicks. And other protestors are being punished(they shouldn't be). The one person who gave indication that he was going to attack with his gun was killed. Cliven Bundy still has charges to face in Nevada, which... I don't think he's getting out of, since they involve more specific violation of federal ordinances. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:45, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't know enough about the details but their armed takeover of a federal building is different from Native Americans seizing their town to evict a corrupt tribal leaderWikipedia's W.svg or African Americans legally, openly carrying rifles into a state legislature. There does appear to be a double standard when it comes to the DAPL protests, but I'll just leave this here.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 23:05, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Found not guilty in federal court by a jury of their peers. Not surprising. What is surprising is the same US Justice Department not allowing Hillary Clinton the same opportunity.nobs 02:54, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Good news everyone!--Owlman (talk) (mail) 03:10, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
God answers prayer.nobs 05:12, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

How did you guys become atheists? (If you are)

I was born into an atheist family, if you must know. -DiamondDisc1(talk) 04:23, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I was born into a Roman Catholic family, but the atheism came from the whole problem of evil and a few personal things going on in my childhood. Also, I wasn't as indoctrinated into the faith as the rest of my family were. Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt Noooooooo! Look! Up there! 05:07, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Grew up in the deep south, but ADHD meant my folks didn't really take me to church. I was vaguely religious until late high school/early college when I began to pay attention to more stuff. Then I started reading around and thinking a bit and, along the way, found the videos of Aron Ra and some of the other atheist youtubers who did rebuttals to creationism. It was around this time, too, that the 2008 elections were incoming so it was giving me a lot to look at the effects of the religious right. So what with one thing and another, I just basically don't even think about religion except when religious people are doing hinky shit or sometimes when I'm mopping floors for a couple of hours and want to give my brain something to chew on. --Maxus (talk) 05:19, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
I was on the road to Damascus to kill atheists when a sudden light appeared before me and I heard a voice saying, "why do you persecute me?", to which I replied, "who are you?". This voice, emanating from the light, answered, "I am Christopher Hitchens, whom you are persecuting? Now get up and do into the city. You will be told what to do." Did I forget to mention that I was in ward 5 in Broadmoor at the time this took place?--Levi Ackerman (talk) 10:41, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
I became an atheist when I became an Anti-American anti-jingoist anti-Traditional Values ultra-communist . Religion is the opium of the masses. TheAmazingSkeptic (talk) 09:54, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
I was born in Sweden in a non religious family. So I was theist by default and I have never found a reason to reject it.--TheGrandmother (talk) 12:31, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
I am a fan of Sweden, quite a few fellow ultra-communist anti-Traditional Values anti-jingoist atheist comrades. ☭ TheAmazingSkeptic (talk) 14:37, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Unfortunatley that is being slowly erroded away. More and more parties are starting to drift closer to the Sweden Democrats.--TheGrandmother (talk) 15:03, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
In Berlin too, reactionary white people will push but my comrades will push back. TheAmazingSkeptic (talk) 15:47, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
It's sad, I was planning on making my emergency escape if Trump won to Sweden. This no longer looks as viable. I guess I'm still working on my svenska for a visit to that former utopia. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:53, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
The Western far right has been emboldened this year. TheAmazingSkeptic (talk) 16:02, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
@ikanreed: You can join me in my escape to Chile in case the nothern heimsphere decides to actually jump the shark. Chile seems to be a fairly nice place (social democrats) with a high standrd of living. Chile is also of low strategic importance so it might be a nice place to hangout if the bear and the eagel decides to throw down. --TheGrandmother (talk) 16:36, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
I regularly went to Catholic Mass as a child, and it never really occurred to me that it was true stuff. They read stories from a book to us, and I kinda treated it the same way I treated stories read to me by elementary school teachers. Even so, I recall when I went in for the rite of first confession, got a piece of paper listing common sins to confess, the highest of which was "Doubting God" and the priest was utterly aghast when I asked if not believing in god at all was a sin too. It didn't even occur to me that others wouldn't have the same thought.
Later he tried to build my enthusiasm for church with singing "He's got the whole world in his hand" and my mind literally interpreting that made me realize just how silly the whole concept of religion was. Obviously it wasn't intended as literal, but I could see everyone around me taking it seriously. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:33, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Off-key overenthusiastic singing in the local evangelical church in addition with convulsions and "speaking in tongues" killed any remnant of faith I might have had. But I do have some remnant fondness for some buildings or imagery. After all, making a sheep badass is impressive. Worzelpete (talk) 18:21, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Raised in the United Methodist Church doing bible camp, Sunday school, youth group retreats, all of it. The UMC tends to be moderate and tolerant, so I had "Jesus loves everyone", platinum rule values drilled into me. In my mid teens sermons started sounding the same, I got into sci-fi literature (had a huge effect on me), I got tired of self-shaming, and being a decent person for fear of hell and because God wanted me to seemed a lot shallower than doing it on intrinsic motivation. I started to think my church was encouraging learned helplessness ("put it in God's hands and pray about it"), and I hated that. By senior year of high school I was an atheist, but I hid it from my parents for several more years because my mother was quite devout. B) talk 19:16, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
I grew up in a religious household and was actually quite religious throughout my youth and early adulthood. I regularly attended church and youth group, I read the bible (more on that later), did bible study at least once a week, etc. When I went to college, I became a small group leader, and I took New Testament Greek so that I could read the bible in its original language. At the same time, I have always been passionate about science. For some reason the two never seemed to be at odds (I suspect a good bit of confirmation bias was going on there). However, as I read more of the bible and thought more critically about it, issues started to arise that no one had good answers to, not even my theology professors, who were very intelligent people with PhDs. To my surprise, there seemed to not be any good answers to my questions, and all of the arguments coming from the atheist side were way more reasonable and evidence based. Eventually I realized that I couldn't honestly say I believed in a god anymore and was then an atheist. (please fix any formatting I messed up, I'm new to this whole wiki thing) — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs 20:46, 28 October 2016

I was an atheist from about age 12 to 24, but when I realized it was just commie propaganda, I ditched it. nobs 03:01, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks guys, this was informative for me!-DiamondDisc1(talk) 04:58, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

So to the others raised as religious(especially christian)

Did you get any weird sex guilt? I never did, which is particularly odd for a Catholic, but maybe it's because I lived in a college town. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:27, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Weird sex guilt isn't necessarily religious. WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:41, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
True. I suffered from an absolutely crippling pornography addiction when I was a teenager. The majority of the guilt was religious, but some was other people's expectations, social reasons, etc. The shame never pushed me to kick it, only did that after a sober evaluation of the effect it was having on my life. I never had a chance for any religious guilt about sex with partners, that didn't come until after I left the faith B) talk 20:17, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

One of my students is a very active Efukt member....FML

When this semester started i saw that one of the new students had a Efukt sticker on his laptop, I later saw him with an Efukt t-shirt as well, and then i saw that he had written "Efukt API is now public beta. Try it out!" on one of the whiteboards in our cafe.

For those of you who don't know (article forthcoming) efukt (Seriously NSFW bordering on NSFL) is a website dedicated to "adult humor" by which they mean: porn bloopers, shock porn and extremely offensive things in general.

So as you can imagine this made me less than super happy about his existence. I then went to the forums (login required and seriously NSFW) to see what the general opinions of the more active users are. This was not a good idea. Apart from just next level shocking stuff (I can not stress the NSFW enough.) and some political posts that may not exactly be inline with my -and the sane portion of the population- political views. Some of the threads on the forum are:

  • Sticky: How to Block Faggots You Hate
  • Trump: A Frightening or Exciting Opportunity?
  • Why Are Democratic Women Such Clams? (Arguing why Conservative women are sexier than liberal women)
  • Serious question about Black Lives Matter (General hate on black lives matter)
  • Shot that gay motherfuker!!!!
  • Reddit is absolute shill leftist garbage.
  • The Racial Stereotype Picture Thread
  • Weird things the the Vag/Butt

So i think i found this guys account and it looks like he has over 600 forum posts! And as such he has made it onto my list of nemesises(Or what ever the plural of nemesis is). To make matters worse, he will be my student in several classes in which I am a TA and thus I will be grading his labs and assignments :/ And I am a firm believer in academic honest and objectivity... So I can't just fail him on the grounds of him being a horrible person.

Sorry for the OT rant but life is hard some times. --TheGrandmother (talk) 13:23, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Nemeses. The plural is nemeses. TheAmazingSkeptic (talk) 14:30, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
@Grandmother: Does your class touch on any social issues? (Race, sex, income?) αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 15:29, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Nope. It's computer related all of it. His opinions does not affect his ability to write decent code.... unfortunately --TheGrandmother (talk) 15:32, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
I was going to say that that's probably a violating of school dress codes to wear anything advertising an adult site, then I saw the word "TA" and realized this is university-level. Sorry buddy, you just gotta treat him the same way you treat the dumb kid excitedly reading Ayn Rand in the back corner: denial. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:37, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. I make no effort to interact with him and he will not get any pedagogical bonus questions or fun-facts from me! --TheGrandmother (talk) 15:41, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
The plural of nemesis is nemessiah. But if you have more than one nemesis, you have a problem. Worzelpete (talk) 18:23, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Do you create/assign projects? Make him make a page for something feminist, antiracist, etc. Maybe an "atheist ex-Muslim" page, to triple-trigger him? Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 19:50, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Nope. And they are all programming rellated. So even if I did it would be kinda hard to work social issues in to it :p --TheGrandmother (talk) 20:01, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

It's probably best not to track your students' online activities, especially if the outcome is that you can't grade their work impartially. Such are the perils of life in the digital age. ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:52, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

You are very right about that. And I can still grade him objectively, non of the courses even remotely touch upon social issues. But he has an efukt t-shirt and an efukt sticker on his laptop so that was a bit of a factor. --TheGrandmother (talk) 20:01, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Real talk: Does he think that wearing a shirt reading "efukt" will gain him social status? αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 20:04, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't think he does it to gain social status. I think it's more of a very misguided "fuck the establishment" thing. --TheGrandmother (talk) 20:43, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Try asking anyone if they think their T-shirt slogan will gain them social status. Very few people will say "yes that's what I'm wearing it for". ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 01:45, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

There will always be scum in the world. Don't be so concerned about it. They would exist whether you met them or not. Lord Aeonian (talk) 21:36, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunatley that is very true :/ --TheGrandmother (talk) 13:35, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Idea for a project (It would be a pretty big project)

Have an general article like the Fundie schools article but have it talk about alternative medical schools (i.e Naturopathic, Homeopathic, ayurveda, Chiropractic and so on). Before I actually start something like that I would like input from the other users and or suggestions on how we could make an article like that.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 13:46, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I think that it sounds like a great idea. --TheGrandmother (talk) 14:15, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Sounds great! May I suggest creation a draft at User:Rationalzombie94/Altie_schools before putting it in mainspace? oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 16:14, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
I have a small draft but I think it looks like shit. I am not sure how to improve it but I did give a general background of alternative medical education and I did list two schools. Here is the link to the draft (keep in mind that I already know it looks like shit, I cannot edit worth a damn)- http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/User:Rationalzombie94/Altie_schools


What are your opinions on accommodationist atheists? TheAmazingSkeptic (talk) 14:35, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I believe that religious views must be accepted even in a secularized society. I fundamentally disagree with people who are anti-religion and believe that religion should in some form or another be banned. IMO this does not differ from any other form of religious persecution. I believe there to be nothing wrong with having religious beliefs, science and reason are not sufficient to answer all of the problems regarding the human condition and some philosophical "leaps of faith" are always required. Morality and ethics for example lye far beyond the scope of science and any form of logical reasoning.
I believe that people should be free to choose whatever philosophical framework the so choose but that no one should be allowed to force their philosophical believes onto anyone else. I believe in a secular society where people are allowed to believe what the fuck they want. But I do also believe that the state should try to act in a pragmatic and utilitarian (to a sane extent) when it comes to certain issues, like medical care. I find it preposterous that the government should sponsor alternative medicine for example. People who believe that putting rocks on their chest heals them should be allowed to do that. But they should not be allowed to deny anyone real medical care based on their belief. --TheGrandmother (talk) 15:24, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
I pretty much am one, except inasmuch as I think that nonsense beliefs shouldn't really inform public policy in any way, and beliefs that hurt others should be countered specifically for the ways they hurt others. Human beings get things wrong. Human beings stick to ideas that are wrong. I am a human being. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:40, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
I agree that beliefs that hurt others should be actively counteracted but I am hesitant to say that it is the governments job (Oh shit... i almost sound like a libertarian which I am not). But in direct cases such as active discrimination and parents denying their children the correct medical care that the government should be able to intervene with a great deal of authority.
And i also believe that the best way to counter the harmful fringe opinions is to counteract social inequality. There will always be idiots, but these idiots get a large following when there is little to no faith in the government, and large groups that gets (or perceive to get) no support from the government. --TheGrandmother (talk) 15:55, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Harmful beliefs should be countered, yes, but let us take a moment to consider the other side of that coin. By the same token, do helpful beliefs deserve support? To give an example, many modern-day Christians believe that their gospel preaches the moral values of being humane, of keeping respect and dignity intact for other humans, that there is a basic equality of all people, etc.. Basically in line with modern-day Western "good person" values that I personally would support. (talk) 06:15, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
The fuck is an "accomodationist atheist"? --Castaigne2 (talk) 17:44, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
this very wiki is the top search result for that term ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:58, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
A silly idea. Either you tolerate others with religious beliefs or you exterminate them. It's really that simple. --Castaigne2 (talk) 18:06, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
That's silly. There are things I affirmatively oppose(and therefor don't truly tolerate) as being distinctly inferior to an alternative without necessarily viewing as requiring eradication, e.g. "Broken Windows" policing. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:09, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
I still prefer simplifying as much as possible and treating humans just as I treat possessions. If something breaks, doesn't work, is useless, I discard it. If I don't need a program, I delete it. If people with religious beliefs are obsolete, well... --Castaigne2 (talk) 18:12, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes, but you gotta live in the same universe as other people, and they, you know, can get together and "delete" you too. Maybe I'm just an unfolding deontologist and falling into a Kantian trap, but a world where no one does that is better than a world where everyone does that. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:14, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Quick google fueled followup. "Kantian Trap" is a term I thought I made up, but apparently means something related to the transcendental and supernatural elements of his philosophy. I was only referring to his views on morality being a tad simplistic. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:17, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Which is why it's my personal opinion and I'm not trying to impose it on others. I keep waiting for my deletion; I assume it will happen after I hit 40 and am considered disposable by the corporations. --Castaigne2 (talk) 19:36, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
@Castaigne2: I find such a view of other humans despicable. Old people and sick people are completely useless, keeping them alive costs money and resources. Should we therefore dispose of them as one would throw away a cheesedoodle that has been on the floor for a week? Who defines what constitutes a useful human? My existence has been of limited benefit to society should I jump of a bridge? --TheGrandmother (talk) 19:04, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Since there's no universal criteria to govern it, that's up to the individual at this time.
You're free to find my view abhorrent, of course. --Castaigne2 (talk) 19:36, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Religion, just like racism or homophobia should not be more space than absolutely unavoidable. We can't kill them and we sure as hell should not censor them, but we should not encourage them or fund them either. Worzelpete (talk) 18:25, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

NOMA is balderdash, religious truth claims are demonstrably wrong, theistic evolution is rubbish, ergo accommodationism is complete unmitigated bollocks. I'm a Discordian anti-theist, which means that everybody can have their little crazy ideas, and there are many, religious, non-religuous, quasi-religious, and somewhat religious – you get my point – as long as they don't interfer with other people's own ideas. And this includes especially those of children. It also means that while everyone can have their crazy beliefs, everyone else should be able to mock, laugh at, and criticize those ideas, and do that often and plentiful. This also includes that people with crazy beliefs can have their own Safe Spaces, to use a modern fancy term, as long as they voluntarily and willingly want to hang out and go along with those crazy beliefs. I make no distinction between a Roleplay Gaming Store, or a Mosque or a Church (which is anyway mostly the same: people immersing themselves in fantasy stories and occasionally dress up funny, and take this very seriously, indeed). TL;DR: Accommodationism is bollocks. ~ Aneris 18:44, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
How dare you insult fifty million role playing gamers? You have offended me and my faith. Take that back or I shall riot in the streets! Worzelpete (talk) 18:51, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
It's great that you tore that strawman of a concept to shreds. Accommodationalism includes none of the following: NOMA, theistic evolution, or accepting religion as a valid source of truth. It's quite simply living in the same world as people who believe in something radically different than you do, without necessarily viewing them as dangerous or villainous as a result. Have you ever, even once, argued against something you actually bothered to understand? Also, you don't need tl;dr's. You need to actually read things yourself occasionally. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:54, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
+1 on ikanreeds rebuttal.--TheGrandmother (talk) 19:07, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Reading things himself would interfere with his screeds against social justice. --Castaigne2 (talk) 19:36, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm interested in how you reconcile your support for social justice (reading a bit into your statement here) with the "people as disposable objects" view you mentioned above. Or was that not serious? I can't tell. B) talk 20:25, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
'* I'm in favour of social justice, but I'm against the current wave of postmodern so-called "social justice" of cultural racialist identitarians. I'm also against Pro-Life, which doesn't mean that I favour murder. Just because some group gives itself some good sounding name, doesn't mean they actually do something good. ~ Aneris 20:51, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
They were referring to Castaigne2 and his usual tough guy BS, not to you. Lord Aeonian (talk) 22:33, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
I know :) I wanted to clarify my view. I removed one indent, which makes it clearer, perhaps. ~ Aneris 22:43, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
I still haven't figured out how having a functionalist view of humanity is "tough guy BS". Would you like to have a go at explaining? Or are cosmicist viewpoints just naturally "tough guy BS". --Castaigne2 (talk) 22:41, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
@Bshaw: I support social justice insofar as it supports my goal of the furtherance of law/order and technological/industrialized civilization. And no, I do not consider a human or humanity as having inherent "worth" or "virtue". We're just replaceable and disposable biological computers. --Castaigne2 (talk) 22:41, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Religion, like racism, is inevitable given the way human psyches are hardwired. People need an 'other', someone who by definition is 'not us' and not a part of our society. There have been societies like the Soviet Union founded on official atheism. They still ended up with apocalyptic beliefs, and also with ritual: mass parades and venerated cult images, inquisitions, and even incorrupt bodies of Lenin to visit on pilgrimages. If you're stuck with that mummery what's the point of getting rid of God? Tell people there is no god, and No God will become the object of official veneration and the mainspring of persecution of dissenters. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 01:34, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

If accomodationism means "not being a total dickbag that attacks other people for their religion", it's cool. If accomodationism means "letting people harm themselves with their religious beliefs", it's not cool. I actually like Aneris' video games analogy for a different reason. If someone plays video games in their free time and live a normal life, that's probably fine. If someone plays video games at the expense of their real life, that's probably not fine. Same goes for religion. Notably, the "total dickbag" line is what differentiates Hemant Mehta from The Amazing Atheist: neither is very accepting of religion, one of them manages to communicate that without pissing sane people off. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 19:59, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Jerry Coyne is associated with the accommodationist wars. Russel Blackford reviewed his recent book Faith vs Fact, and wrote:
The most famous, or notorious, rationale for accommodationism was provided by the celebrity palaeontologist Stephen Jay Gould in his 1999 book Rocks of Ages. Gould argues that religion and science possess separate and non-overlapping “magisteria”, or domains of teaching authority, and so they can never come into conflict unless one or the other oversteps its domain’s boundaries.
Emphasis mine, and non-overlapping “magisteria” in short is NOMA. ~ Aneris 20:05, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Pfft! "Accommodationists"! Is there some committee somewhere that decides, "ooh, you know what word we haven't made into a catch-all term? "Accommodation!"." Why don't we just call "accommodationism" what it is, "tolerance". And let's stop adopting new terms to simplify rather complex themes, especially when words that can describe these themes already exist! --Levi Ackerman (talk) 20:16, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Ikanreed claimed in response to me: “Accommodationalism includes none of the following: NOMA, theistic evolution […] Have you ever, even once, argued against something you actually bothered to understand?”, followed by “+1 on ikanreed rebuttal”, followed by “Reading things himself would interfere with his screeds against social justice”. I then explained that these Dunning Kruger subjects are obviously mistaken, again. You can of course argue why we need a term at all, but that's yet another question. Also Hemant Mehta is probably not an accommodationist. ~ Aneris 20:26, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Here is a take from the other camp, from Massimo Pigluicci: In Defense of Accommodationism: On the Proper Relationship Between Science and Religion. Pigluicci and Coyne have some sort of friendly spat over this and other issues. ~ Aneris 20:37, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Claps hands a little bit

This discussion is mostly free of ad hom. Yaaay. How rational we're getting. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 20:22, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Good point raised

Why don't we just call "accommodationism" what it is, "tolerance". And let's stop adopting new terms to simplify rather complex themes, especially when words that can describe these themes already exist!
—Levi Ackerman

It's true, why don't we? Why don't we drop the buzzwords and euphemisms and just ask "should we tolerate superstition and ignorance?" What I see above is hypocritical, people saying we should "accommodate" them but then saying the government should have a strong hand when they give their children alternative medicine or try to legislate things. What are you saying? We should tolerate their views...but deny them power over their families and the political process as well? "Tolerate" them by making them second class citizens? Someone who accepts scientific medicine has the right to decide their child's treatment, but not one who doesn't, etc? Pray tell, instead of dividing people into classes of rights behind an assumption that they're wrong - albeit an assumption that is never explicitly stated - why not just state it and work to educate people and eradicate ignorance instead of, literally, shoving it aside and leaving it to fester? Lord Aeonian (talk) 22:51, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, this term has context, and I provided links above. For one, there is the assumptions that New Atheists were intolerant in a way that they want to forbid religious practice, ban religion or any such things. That is a strawman too. It comes down to "respect", not tolerance of religion. Pigluicci and others (e.g. Karen Armstrong) downplay the issue. By saying that religions aren't in the business of truth claims, they hope to draw the carpet away underneath Coyne et al. The argument provided by them are often exercises in obscurantism or playing obtuse. Yes, yes, Creationists, they say. But what's the harm done aside of that. Most people don't really believe in truth claims of religion. Pigluicci mother didn't and she was a Catholic. Checkmate, New Atheist! I know it's often difficult to name some position (SJW *cough*) but when you find it often enough in the wilderness, you can as well name it. ~ Aneris 23:57, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
The only people I've seen advocating for outright bans on religion - how one would enforce such an absurd thing is another story - are Marxist-Leninists and other tankies, and even then many of them now seem to make an exception for Islam, at least until it's time to justify the People's Republic of China's actions again. Lord Aeonian (talk) 00:04, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Important question asked

"should we tolerate superstition and ignorance?"
—Lord Aeonian

Well, if they (these superstitions and ignorance) do not harm anybody - publicly or privately, undermine the values of the chosen society (I'm thinking face veils in Western societies now), the public good, the greater good, national security, the rule of law, etc, why not? It's NOT called tolerance because you agree with it! --Levi Ackerman (talk) 07:36, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I have no problems in giving religion as much respect as I give homeopathy.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:40, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
You're assuming tolerance equals or even necessitates respect. It does not. Surely, I don't need to tell you that "tolerance" ≠ "respect". It's not "tolerance" if you respect it. --Levi Ackerman (talk) 19:00, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Why do you think I am making that assumption?--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 19:44, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Because the only alternative is your comment just being a non sequitur jab at religion? *shrugs* (talk) 20:04, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Goodpost.gif--Levi Ackerman (talk) 03:39, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Whatever. (Shrugs)--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:35, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
"It's not "tolerance" if you respect it." That's a great point. In this discussion one should keep in mind where this kerfuffle comes from. Richard Dawkins and others were perceived as too strident and militant. Other people, including some atheists, didn't like this and that's where the accommodationist wars began. It is also a dispute about tactics. In other words, it's not a dispute about tolerance. Accommodationists for example dislike God Delusion, and generally dislike mockery of religious ideas, characterizing believers as mentally not right (e.g. delusional), and as you see above maintain there is not really a conflict anyway (cf. NOMA) since religions and science don't overlap in their view. The New Atheist position however maintains religion put forth a “God hypothesis” and New Atheism is generally quite natural science oriented (some might say scientistic).
      The newer dispute between “social justice” atheism vs New Atheism has similar subcurrents, but this time it's not around Christianity, but with Islam. The stridency charge of old is now known as Islamophobia. The inherent philosophical dispute also shines through, where New Atheists are accused as reductionists and scientistic (or polemical as “STEM Lords”), or perhaps labelled as positivists (I've seen Thunderf00t's PEARL idea criticized as positivistic). The traditional other camp is idealistic or relativistic (postmodern), even when of course most people are not necessarily aware of the names of their positions. Some of these disputes are an old hat, really. ~ Aneris 04:19, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Fucking Dutere

Looks like Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte wants to join the No Cussing Club.[3] Bongolian (talk) 20:10, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

In hopes that Duterte is one of the handful of Filipinos who speak Spanish: "¡Chinga tu madre, cabrón!" Worzelpete (talk) 22:04, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
He's swearing off his sole positive distinguishing feature? Dang. (talk) 19:25, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Alt-right cringe, again


Richard Spencer uses chopsticks to deftly pluck slivers of togarashi-crusted ahi from a rectangular plate. He is sitting in the Continental-style lounge of the Firebrand Hotel, near his home in the upscale resort town of Whitefish, Montana, discussing a subject not typically broached in polite company. "Race is something between a breed and an actual species," he says, likening the differences between whites and people of color to those between golden retrievers and basset hounds. "It's that powerful."

We are well into our third round of Arrogant Frog, a merlot that Spencer chose because its name reminds him of Pepe, the cartoon frog commandeered as a mascot by the "alt-right" movement that has been thrust from the shadows by Donald Trump's presidential campaign. Spencer says Pepe could also be seen as the reincarnation of an ancient Egyptian frog deity, Kek: "He is basically using the alt-right to unleash chaos and change the world," he says, looking slightly annoyed when I crack a smile. "You might say, 'Wow,' but this is literally how religions arise."

Reminder: this man literally founded the alt-right. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 20:57, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

That Trump's rise is a win for neonazis is beyond question for me. The overton window shifted all the way to where they're hanging out on one side of it. I'm still kinda struggling with the question of "At what point does it become moral to kill Nazis?" It's not an easy question to answer. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 21:01, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Why do you hate such a small group so much, a group with no real political power, while you describe yourself as an "accommodationist" above regarding the Abrahamics (a majority in very many parts of the world) who continue to wreck things left and right with their regressive ideologies? No doubt you will say "not all Abrahamics" and I could respond by saying "some racists only want peaceful segregation between continents, with no violence if possible." Your priorities are, in a word, misplaced. Lord Aeonian (talk) 22:39, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
I question your characterization of the alt-right as being "small" and having "no real political power". Taken over the Republican Party in the USA, using Trump as their figurehead? Check. Responsible for Brexit? (Yes, UKIP was the alt-right.) Check. Responsible for the majority of the anti-EU political movements in Europe? Check. A significant control of the more populist sections of the internet? Check.
And surprise, they're mostly Abrahamics! After all, one of the premier goals of the alt-right is the primacy and re-establishment of "Christian Western Culture". Check the 16 points. The Alt Right believes Western civilization is the pinnacle of human achievement and supports its three foundational pillars: Christianity, the European nations, and the Graeco-Roman legacy. --Castaigne2 (talk) 22:47, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, the alt-right and similar reactionary movements - even if composed of atheists - are using moral systems derived from the Abrahamic religions. If you wanted, you could probably put the majority of regressive movements in the Western hemisphere under the archtype of "Abrahamic"...which just proves my point further, why not focus on the root of the problem? Lord Aeonian (talk) 22:55, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
No, it doesn't prove your point. Your "point" was that the alt-right is small. You got rekt and changed the subject. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 03:00, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
It annoys me that Pepe is self-evidently a quasi-religious totem, yet whenever someone mentions it on RW, it gets deleted by some channer. Plutoniumboss (talk) 15:56, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

We need an article on this website

Folks, I finally found it - an alternative to Wikipedia for conspiracy theorists. Amusingly, it calls conspiracy theories "deep politics" and its logo looks like it's trying so hard not to be an Illuminati eye. It's called WikiSpooks, and its URL is http://wikispooks.com. RWNoob (talk) 13:59, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

From the article on "Deep politics":
To say that there is no official narrative about deep politics would be incorrect since Wikipedia has a page about it[1], although that page is by no means clear. The phrase 'deep politics' occasionally has been used for over a century to indicate levels of intrigue beneath the immediately apparent facade of party politics, but were ad hoc isolated references until Peter Dale Scott took a more systematic approach. Professor Scott used the phrase to describe goings on that are so at odds with the public stories about what is happening that they are collectively repressed. If what is generally referred to as 'politics' is the 10% of an iceberg that is visible above the water, Deep Politics is the 90% which underlies it.
Ahahaha. Unfortunately, the wiki appears to be really small -- only one dude is churning out all of these articles. If it gathers steam, might be worth writing on. Thanks for the find! :) 16:38, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Huh. I remember coming across this a while ago. Was looking up the term "deep state" (In a nutshell, from an outside of WikiSpooks perspective, it refers to a coalition of various groups - typically government officials, the mob, and the rich - that are secretly pulling the strings behind a country. Usually, deep states are not democratic.) after hearing about the Susurluk scandal. Interesting read, but I don't know if it's on-mission. TheMyon (talk) 18:06, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Apparently, Wikipedia gives too much time to the official narrative and thus suffers from bias. (Gee, I wonder where we've heard that before...) Read the impressive evidence here! RWNoob (talk) 19:25, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Their article on Inslaw has more cites than sentences. Their Nixon article is one of the least slanted you'll find anywhere.nobs 21:31, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. The model tends to work best when there's actually some shady stuff going on, rather than the wiki resorting to drivel such as simply going off on how the Jews did 9/11, as they do here (they literally say "Israeldidit"). RWNoob (talk) 00:46, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
That is some sick shit. nobs 05:12, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
If you want to know how insane someone is politically, ask them about Israel. Worzelpete (talk) 16:09, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Turns out, they have more people than we thought. There's Peter and Patrick Haseldine, who was banned from Wikipedia for sockpuppetry. And a new user registered today named Billstew. *puts on tinfoil hat* Coincidence? I think not! (Oh, and Urban pops in from time to time.) RWNoob (talk) 18:58, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Hate rising: What we're up against

αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 22:41, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

WIGO blogosphere is that way. ŴêâŝêîôîďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:57, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Discussion of current threads of racialist nationalist rhetoric is this way. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 23:35, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Embedding a 50-minute video without comment isn't discussion. WéáśéĺóíďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 00:22, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
But a 50-minute video might spark a discussion! --TheGrandmother (talk) 12:23, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
So might anything posted in the WIGO pages. WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 12:33, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Is hate on the rise, or are all the nice-goody people finally looking inwards at their society (cuz'v Trump) and discovering all the nastiness lingering/festering inside it? (talk) 22:57, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

A project I mentioned above

I came up with the idea of starting a page that lists alternative medical colleges and I posted a link to a draft I made in my earlier post (Yes I know the draft looks like shit, so go ahead and point everything wrong with it) and because no one replied to the link I thought I would make an update. Here is the link- http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/User:Rationalzombie94/Altie_schools. Go ahead and critique it because it looks awful (At least I think it does). I won't make the actual page until I get opinions and keep in mind I only listed two schools so far. I want to add Naturopathic, Chiropractic, Ayurveda, Homeopathic, Acupuncture, and Oriental/Traditional Chinese Medicine (I might be missing some subjects). Also I planned on having a description of each school and wither or not it is accredited plus I want to list international schools also so the project will be massive. I will thank those who offer constructive criticism but there is no reason to be rude if you disagree with the draft, all I want is constructive criticism. Thank you --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:23, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Please try to include sources for all your assertions in the article. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 00:44, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
I know how to make external links but not foot notes. I was given the instructions to do so but I ended up screwing up. So I will need help with footnotes.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 04:08, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
How to do references:

Text that needs a reference.<ref>Reference content.</ref>


FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 04:18, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I was wondering too, thanks.-DiamondDisc1(talk) 04:55, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Np. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 18:40, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

A slice of Naturopathic propaganda

I know I said a few months ago that I was in favor of naturopathic medicine but my views have changed. Anyways here is a slice of naturopathic propaganda- http://www.naturopathydigest.com/archives/2006/aug/editor.php. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 04:01, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Irradiated scrofulous children.jpg
Uh, which of the many naturopathic treatments were you in favor of? Was it imprecise doses of radiation by any chance? Bongolian (talk) 07:31, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
I was mostly in favor of someone's right to choose but like I said, my views have changed I now I am against Naturopathic medicine.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 13:16, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm bummed Dilberts creator has clay feet

Oh bummer. I just bought the dudes book after seeing some seemingly logical media stuff, Then read the rw clogo sphere link, spent some time reading his blog and now I'm super bummed. The draining the swamp dog whistle and the link to his super hot neighbour/ girlfriend/model/ oy vey. (Sigh) are you only crazy when you don't know you're crazy? I mean I know I should be made of sufficient snark to not be bummed but oh fart he's as nuts as Michele Bachmann. So ironicGadzooks (talk) 12:05, 30 October 2016 (UTC).

If opening the Pandora's box of his alt-right leanings sours your view of the Dilbert comics too much, there's always this: http://mradilbert.tumblr.com And for the record, being aware of your own craziness doesn't make you not crazy. It just helps you deal with it and not come across as a delusional asshole; two things Adams has a lot of trouble with. (talk) 19:48, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Stop The Dakota Pipeline

A few more signatures are needed (from you Americans). Also see Mark Ruffalo's Timeline for more information. And alas, Arctic Oil is also still an issue. ~ Aneris 13:47, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I dunno; it looks like a Putin/Saudi plot to make oil dependent on goddam ferners again.nobs 15:43, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
If you want to stop the Dakota pipeline, drive less or not at all. Worzelpete (talk) 16:07, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Valid sentiment, though IMO most applicable to those in better socioeconomic conditions. A huge fraction of the people driving cars probably shouldn't be blamed for doing so, unless you expect global-purview utilitarianism from someone struggling to feed and house a family. A little financial stability helps before you begin molding yourself a life sans automobile. B) talk 19:50, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Not that I am trying to discourage anyone from signing but I don't think a petition is going to stop this.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 19:55, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I see it more as an attempt to get noticed by the general public. Somebody ring up Elon and tell him he needs to stop making fucking sports cars and start pushing out eco-clunkers, pretty please B) talk 20:04, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

More (fake) legal threats from troll Rome Viharo


"If I don’t go after RationalWiki, I’m sure someone else will and I look forward to that organization facing retribution for their abuses however it happens. RationalWiki is low hanging fruit, the real issue is Wikipedia, and I see no foreseeable solution to that problem." Apso2 (talk) 22:25, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Full section:
In a few online forums, you mentioned exploring legal remedies, are you going to pursue any legal activity?

I’m not sure which approach I am going to take, as all of them are very expensive and very very time consuming. I have a number of options. In the case of Oliver Smith, he does live in the UK, so as a US citizen it is challenging for me, but I am aware of a few opportunities in the UK to notify the police of what he is doing. However, the threshold for holding online publishers responsible has shifted greatly since the Gawker case with Hulk Hogan. If I don’t go after RationalWiki, I’m sure someone else will and I look forward to that organization facing retribution for their abuses however it happens. RationalWiki is low hanging fruit, the real issue is Wikipedia, and I see no foreseeable solution to that problem.

Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 00:19, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
He's presumably upset about this blog quoting his obscene sexual posts. I noticed he didn't try to deny or refute the claim he's sex crazed and a pervert. Viharo brags about having sex for 8 hours on websites and there are other quotes on the blog where he posts his sick fantasies of having orgies.
hmmm, interesting. I'm not making this comment to brag, but I am literally off this chart. Ever since I first started having real sex with a partner, I have always been able to extend the period of time. Now in my adult years, I have gone hours and hours, sometimes up to 8 hours with a willing partner and of course a few breaks. I assumed that was extreme, but I also assumed the average was at least 20 or 30 minutes.
Rome Viharo
After four hours you're supposed to see a doctor or something. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 02:00, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Viharo is obsessed with his online reputation for example writing "If RationalWiki’s article did not show up as number #1 in search for my name, I wouldn’t care so much." What he means by this is if his work colleagues or clients type his name into a search engine (e.g. google) he doesn't want them to find anything bad. Yet he's on multiple websites posting dirty sex talk - these obscene comments link back to his real name. If you want a clean & professional internet reputation the last thing you would do is talk about having orgies and how long you last in bed on public forums. So his claim he about cares about his online reputation is nonsense, its just a cover so he can troll Rationalwiki more. Apso2 (talk) 02:19, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Personal tools