RationalWiki:Saloon bar

From RationalWiki
Revision as of 02:02, 21 March 2017 by Archivist (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.
Invision-Board-France-355.gif For previous conversations see the automagic barchives. Friends.gif

What is going on?

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

  1. No Stephen Lendmen? (11:23, 27 May 2017)
  2. Should public libraries contain anti-scientific books? (23:00, 26 May 2017)
  3. Long term goals (15:30, 26 May 2017)
  4. Geocentrism (16:43, 25 May 2017)
  5. Can we get improved link previews, like wikipedia? (21:36, 24 May 2017)
  6. If I CALL my OPPONENTS smug I'm automatically RIGHT!!!!!!!!!!! (15:49, 18 May 2017)
To do list


Bike helmet laws

Bike helmet's are only mandatory in a few jurisdictions

So in some countries there are laws that force people to wear bike helmets. There is however no study showing they are effective and many hints that they instead decrease the number of cyclists and make motorists behave more reckless towards cyclists. The science seems to point towards an overall increase in premature deaths when less people ride bikes. Here is a TedX talk on the topic. What do you think? Zionist Goy (talk) 18:57, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I looked it up on Google scholar and a number of studies show they're effective. There is the issue of religious freedom though. Sikhs who don't cut their hair would be hard pressed to get a helmet on. Allthough as far as I know they're exempt. Christopher (talk) 19:33, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Oh oh. This issue caused the rise of the largest 3rd party in the United States. nobs 00:11, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
I think seat belt laws make sense, but bicycle helmet laws make no sense. Cyclists have no higher risk of head injuries than pedestrians or people in cars. Where are the car helmet laws? And bike helmet laws are known to decrease the number of cyclists, which decreases the safety of the individual cyclist due to various reasons. In short, bike helmet laws help only the manufacturers of bike helmets and hurt people on bikes. Zionist Goy (talk) 01:48, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm opposed to mandatory helmet laws, only because we need more organs </snark>. CorruptUser (talk) 02:19, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
You should read Peter Myers, Bicycle-Riding - an Act of Defiance against arbitrary authority?: He was victimized by the one-world globalist conspiracy, ticketed for riding with an unapproved helmet, and forced to pay a $45(AUS) fine. What's next? Will bicyclists be forced to carry identity papers, subject to backstreet blitzes and arbitrary check points? nobs 02:26, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
So you think telling people "cycling is dangerous" and making a law that will be enforced mostly against poor people (a great idea as we've seen in Ferguson) is a good idea? Or am I misunderstanding you? Zionist Goy (talk) 02:31, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
I think scateboarders are tbe most dangerous and reckless on the road. First off, they have no breaks, especially downhill. Secondly, they hit a pothole or crack in the sidewalk, they have no steering mechanism to avoid. And these kids are about 9 years old. Its not uncommon to see them operating in the street where I live.
In a few years when the children of immigrants start carrying RPGs on scateboards will it get attention. Frankly, I don't know what to do. nobs 02:39, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
I've always found motorcycle helmet laws make an interesting comparison to allowing amateur pilots. The argument usually is that helmetless bikers suck up precious tax dollars when they get disabled in accidents that the helmets might have prevented. OTOH, when pro golfers, Silicon Valley billionaires, and young Kennedies go missing in their amateur aviation, this literally calls up the Air Force and the Coast Guard. But nobody claims that amateur pilots are doing something dangerous that drains the public purse. On a mere bicycle, a helmet usually means a rider to get past and steer away from to the extent possible. Lots of people ride bicycles for many reasons, and most of them observe the unwritten social compact in which bicyclists are not vehicles but pedestrians on a contraption. It's the speedo and helmet set that thinks they're cars and that they're entitled to mix it up in traffic. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 23:26, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
maybe make pilots wear bike helmets? And i disagree with the 'pedestrians on a contration' its the cyclists refusal to act like they are driving a vehicle that leads them to be universally reviled by pedestrians and motorists alike. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:57, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
I largely agree. Cyclists tend to be disliked for being a "middle ground", we are often too fast for pedestrian traffic and too slow for road traffic. I am certain that bike helmets help in the event of an actual crash; the main concern seems to be whether this is countered by the fact that bike helmets reduce cycling to an extent that makes crashes more likely and thus puts cyclists who do wear helmets at greater undue risk. I haven't read the studies to make a proper evaluation, but I'm skeptical that bike helmet laws discourage enough potential riders to counteract the safety benefit they provide. The most convincing argument against such laws seems to be the one in favor of personal liberty, but I still think I lean in favor of requiring helmets. --Samstr (talk) 16:48, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
There is "safety in numbers" which has been borne out by several studies - the more bikes there are, the safer the individual cyclist becomes. There are several reasons for this, from the trivial (if two bikes ride side by side, a car can only hit one at a time) to the less direct (more cyclists means stronger lobby, means better legal and infrastructure protection). Bike helmet laws meanwhile have the proven impact of reducing the number of cyclists on the streets all other things being equal. So if the stated goal is to reduce the negative consequences of bike accidents, it is very doubtful helmet laws do that. Oh and as an aside, I keep getting error messages saying something about a "vandal bin" Zionist Goy (talk) 18:15, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
a quick google search tells that bike helmets do prevent head injuries. Id link to them, but condidering how few places actually have any laws at all concerning them, and fewer still (one) places that fine you for not having a helmet, i just cant be arsed to spend any effort on this greatest debate of our times. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:45, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Of course bike helmet laws prevent head injuries and generally improve safety outcomes for cyclists. However, countries with a stronger cycling culture -- the Netherlands being a prime example -- often do not require cyclists to wear helmets and indeed most cyclists there do not wear helmets, not because helmets are ineffective, but because they feel safe cycling without a helmet since bikes make up a much more significant mode share than, say, here in the States. There have also been studies performed that say drivers are less careful around cyclists who wear helmets and, combined with observations that mandatory helmet laws discourage cycling, in the long run it's worth letting people choose their own adventure when it comes to bicycle safety apparel rather than unintentionally suppressing cycling through helmet laws.   ¬   The Mayor vote early vote often 23:34, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
the netherlands have more in the way of cycle paths, so it safer all round. still seems like a moot point though as the vast majority of the world do let you choose. AMassiveGay (talk) 01:08, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Indeed, it does seem that developing more cycling paths across the country would be a better way to encourage cycling, and something that I would very strongly argue for as an avid cyclist myself. I love road biking, but even in rural areas, it can still be a dangerous hobby. Well maintained paths dedicated to cyclists would make it a much safer sport and make the question about helmets more or less irrelevant (at least when it comes to bike paths). Personally, when biking on large roads I almost always wear a helmet (save for the fact that I forgot it at home this semester, oops) it makes me feel much more comfortable. --Samstr (talk) 16:56, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
The number of people killed by skateboards is a rounding error. The number of people killed by cars is higher than that killed by handguns even in the US. Zionist Goy (talk) 19:56, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

While I support the freedom to get smeared, I am having a hard time telling if this is Poe. Bike at 5mph fine. Cruise a street, where is your helmet!?!Gaul Dernitt (talk) 06:32, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

indeed. if I were to share London streets with metal beasts weighing over a tonne on a bicycle, id want a little more protection than hair gel and the good will of motorists AMassiveGay (talk) 14:19, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
We have a "Bicycle Boulevard" alternative route in my town to keep bicyles from getting squashed on Main Street AmericaWikipedia's W.svg. The speed limit is 17 mph, which has two benefits: any cycle-car collision almost automatically will find the car at fault for recklessness, negligence, exceeding the limit, etc, secondly a good revenue source cause most drivers are unaware of the odd speed limit. nobs 23:48, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Fair and good. My town has a terrible mayor, bike lanes were introduced only into serious traffic concerns but nobody bikes past interstate turnoffs anyway. Never did, never will. Make great turn lanes, though. Gaul Dernitt (talk) 09:05, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Voting tests in government

Here's an interesting idea I came up with today: Instead of traditional votes for governments, I think it would be better to have a test for voters to fill out. It can be one of the following:

  1. Voter select a candidate / choice and take a test on how well they know about their candidate / choice. If the fail, they cannot vote. If they pass, their vote is registered.
  2. Voters must take a test on issues / candidates to confirm they know about it. If they pass, they can vote.
  3. Voters fill out a test with a series of questions that are relevant to the choices. Questions about foreign policy preferences and whatnot are asked. At the end, a suitable candidate is chosen from the voter's answers.

The tests scenarios are designed in a way to prevent a situation like the Brexit elections where most of the voters had no idea what they voted for and wanted to change their votes when it was too late. Specifically the first one forces the the voter to know about their candidate.— (talk) 21:23, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

There's the problem of who'd write the questions. It would be impossible to be unbiased about it. You could make sure multiple people check it but people in that sort of job would be biased towards certain views. Good idea in theory, would never work in practice. Christopher (talk) 21:44, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Seems very easy to corrupt. First, I don't think that brexit was necessarly a bad thing (while it's true that voters had no idea what they were really voting on), and secondly, the people who'll make the tests may make harder for some choices/candidates to maintain the ruling ideology, and it could even be biased unintentionally. Corruption exists and a system like this would be dangerous. Diacelium (talk) 21:49, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Indeed, the proposal sounds nice on paper, but it can easily be abused in practice. But it comes down to this: how does one deal with misinformed voters? Is it just an evil that we have to tolerate or does it have to take a Trump for people to realize that they should take voting more seriously (and then forget the learned lesson 50 years later)?— (talk) 22:37, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
you could just do away with the tests and just go with the end result - stop poor people voting. I guess thats a whole lot easier than candidates having to put out a clear and coherent message or having to rely on media muddying the waters with a torrent of contradictory messages. I guess its also a whole lot easier than actually trying understand why people vote the 'wrong' way when you could just write of whole sections of society as idiots for not having the same priorties as you and not voting the way youd like. Such tests to be eligible to vote are contemptuous. The thinking behind them fuels the idea of out of touch elites that the brexits and trumps of ths world feed on. AMassiveGay (talk) 02:55, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
It's similiar to old fashion Literacy testWikipedia's W.svgs (if you use esssy questions). In 2012, the Saloon bar had a link to a multiple choice poll which supposedly told you how well your views align with candidates. I agreed 67% w/Obama & 82% w/Romney, which is bullshit, cause maybe I agreed 40% w/Romney & 20% w/Obama. The candidates can skirt issues by taking multiple positions which can't be reflected in multiple choice (for example, Obama held the contradictory views of being for a balanced budget & fiscal sanity while also supporting massive stimulus and healthcare reform). And an esssy exam would be purely subjective to the interpretor. nobs 17:16, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
I distinctly remember from my history class that the literacy tests in the Jim Crow era were often brazenly biased. Black people were frequently given much harder tests filled with word puzzles and mind benders where just figuring out what they were asking for was half the challenge (even I got tripped up on some of those questions), while white people simply had to sign their name, if that (they were often let through on the grandfather clause or demonstrating "good moral character"). Requiring a test to see whether you know what the candidates stand for is a lot like a literacy test, in that it's one of those ideas that sounds great in theory, but in practice would be remarkably easy to rig in favor of the incumbent party and candidates, to the point where it's effectively turned into a test of one's ideology. ("True or false: Candidate X is a traitor who wants to sell this country out to China/Russia/Goldman Sachs/the commies. I'm sorry, you answered 'false' and the correct answer is 'true'.") KevinR1990 (talk) 19:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Some countries have had university constituencies, which is where university graduates get to vote twice, once for where they live and once for their university. (Or if you had degrees from multiple universities, in some cases you could vote more than twice, once for each university you graduated from.) You'd expect, on average, university graduates to be more informed than the average voter, so by giving them more votes you are weighting the average vote in favour of informedness. Personally, I think this is a good idea and it is a pity that most places that did this abolished it. (Ireland still has this for elections to the Seanad Éireann, where certain seats are reserved to be elected by graduates of Irish universities – but the Seanad is a pretty toothless body, it is a lot weaker than comparable institutions such as House of Lords or the Senate of Canada.) (((Zack Martin))) 20:42, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

i dont see how some people get to have two votes is a good idea. Particularly on the idea that folk in university are going to better informed. On matters pertaining to their subject, perhaps. On matters that concern someone on minimum wage trying earn enough to pay rent, and still have enough cash to feed their kids? Not so much. You are in effect stating that a sizable section of society are second class citizens not worthy of paying attention to. It should be noted that in the uk, university constituencies usually returned conservatives, so no surprises who tbe second class citizens are there. And thats without the arrogance of implicitly suggesting that if only people werent so stupid they'd vote the way that i, in my infinite wisdom, have decided they should vote. I am surprised that folk are so keen on democracy when its only their own votes that seem to count. Someone above wondered the effect on democracy from unimformed voters, perhaps you should consider the effect if they cannot vote. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:21, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
I know that historically the university constituencies in the UK mainly (but not exclusively) returned Conservatives, but I am unsure if they still would do that today if they still existed. Clement Attlee's government abolished them from the 1950 general election onwards. Contemporary universities are significantly more left-of-centre than they were in 1950 and earlier, so I don't think the Tories would have the same lock on their graduates if they still existed, if anything Labour might win a substantial proportion of them today. (Also, given university students certainly tend to be left-of-centre, if it is still true that graduates lean right, a way to maintain the left-right balance could be to give the universities two sets of parliamentary seats, one for graduates and the other for currently enrolled students – the student seats would be very likely to lean substantially left even if the graduate seats lean right – and the average university student is likely to be more informed than the average of the population as a whole since the uninformed are overrepresented among those who will never attend university.) I don't see why "one person one vote" needs to be held to strictly; I think it depends on why you defend democracy–as something inherently good in itself, or just as the most practical means to achieving other goods. If the later, then we can justify deviating from "one person one vote" if we think that deviation might have some benefits (e.g. an improvement in political culture.) In terms of "matters that concern someone on minimum wage trying earn enough to pay rent, and still have enough cash to feed their kids", such persons often have a very poor understanding of the broader social and economic causes of their condition–in many cases that lack of understanding of the causes of their own condition is a major contributor to their continuing in it. (((Zack Martin))) 04:30, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
they understand perfectly well cuts to services they depend on. They understand perfectly well tax raises and cuts. They understand perfectly well how fucked they are by austerity. And i vehemently disagree university educated folk are any more likely to understand. How can they when they they have a level of financial security that is impossible for minimum wagers?. You have an impossible task at the lower rungs of society. Policy that is best in the long term hurts them in the short term. Policy that works in the short term hurts them long term. All their problems are acutely short term. They dont have the luxury of taking a hit now for maybe better services and protections later. They cant tighten their belts any futher without constricting the life out them. They get the stark choice, what services can they live without? And you know, that choice is lierally all they have. The only agency they have. Having no money limits your choices, you have so little agency and you are proposing to remove that on the fantasy that betters will not only know best for them (the arrogance of which i find comtemptuous) and the fantasy that their betters wont fuck them over, especially when times are tough all round. Its the one small chance to make themselves heard. They might make a mistake but its theirs to make. The tories 'we're all in this together' was a barefaced lie if ever there was one. Considering how politicians have usually gone to all tbe best schools with all, all the best universities, cant agree what is best for us, it is no defence to being misinformed, no defence to naked self interest, no defence to being blinded by ideaology.
The running theme in this thread Is that voters are unimformed. That may be true. If your side loses out because of it, whos fault is that? its your sids for not doing enough to inform them. Not being clear enough. for failing to make yourself heard. By not exposing the lies and misinformation rampant in media. This is what i have observed since trump, and since brexit - so much condemnation of the people who voted for these things, their stupidity, their racism, their age? And its so little self reflection. so convinced are we of our causes that our failures must be someone elses fault. We learn nothing, while everyone else pays the price. You ask if i defend democracy as something inherently good in itself? I will answer with a quote from churchill 'it has been said that democracy is the worse form of government, except for all others that have been tried' and history tells us the others are horrific. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:54, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Look at the recent US election. A lot of people in the higher socioeconomic brackets voted for Clinton; for, among other reasons, they saw "Obamacare" as something good that should be maintained. Conversely, a lot of lower income/wealth/education white folks voted for Trump, who promised to dismantle Obamacare and Medicaid expansion. Now, a dismantling of Obamacare and Medicaid expansion will hurt poorer folks much worse than the wealthier/better educated. So here we have a classic example of much of the working class voting for austerity while much of the middle class votes against it even though the working class stand to lose from it much more than the middle class do. This is the thing – a lot of poorer GOP voters (and poorer voters for Tories or UKIP in the UK, Liberals/Nationals/One Nation in Australia, etc.) are voting for the austerity which will harm them the most–in the short-term and the long-term too. Why do they do this? Because they are poorly informed about their own situation. They listen to Trump telling them that Obamacare is terrible – even if while imperfect it is actually benefiting them – and they believe his claims that the manufacturing jobs are all going to come back because they lack the sophistication to realise he is bullshitting them. (A big cause of manufacturing jobs disappearing is more automation, so even if factories come back they will employ less people and they will require much higher skills levels of those people, so many blue collar factory workers will be lacking in the necessary education level to actually take those new jobs–and these folks demand manufacturing jobs yet simultaneously expect the cheap consumer goods which are only possible by offshoring their manufacturing to poorer countries.) A poor person can't afford good healthcare, so they lack access to it, and their health suffers as a result–then they go and vote for a candidate who promises to make it even more unaffordable for them. Or similarly, in the UK, they believe some Brexiter lies that the reason they are struggling is because of the EU or the fault of Polish immigrants stealing their jobs even though Brexit is likely to lead to more austerity, more cuts to public services and less jobs than staying in the EU would – poor people voting to worsen their own poverty. Middle and upper class folks often have a much more sophisticated understanding of the EU and how it works because many of them read serious commentary on EU affairs (such as is found in serious journalism), quite a few of them have university education in aspects of the EU (anyone who studies fields like law, accounting, finance, business, politics at university in the UK is going to learn actual real hard facts about various aspects of the EU in the process), quite a few of them work in professional fields in which they can see first hand the harm that leaving the single market is going to do (e.g. most people who work in finance in the UK would understand the importance of passporting to maintaining jobs in the UK finance industry and how leaving the single market threatens those jobs as a result) – whereas most of the working class all they "know" about the EU is the crazy crap printed in the British tabloids. And, how is that the fault of pro-EU people that the tabloids print such utter tripe and the uneducated masses are stupid enough to believe them? It's not our fault. (The real fault lies with David Cameron for being dumb enough to ask them for their opinion.) (((Zack Martin))) 21:21, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
that's ultimately what it comes down to doesn't? your side loses and your answer is to stop the other side from voting. its the same mentality as literacy tests in the us,but with less racism and more classism. the same arrogant superiority that holds people you regard as inferior in contempt. that is contemptable. yes folk were lied to over brebit. yes I think they made a mistake there. but guess what its their mistake to make. and guess who it was who lied to them? a group of middle and upper class sophisticates. who did they vote against? another group of middle and upper class sophisticates, only this group have been actively fucking them years. do you know why polls before brexit showed the remain camp winning? because they didn't even bother asking them. its no surprise the remain campaign was a shambles from start to finish. mighty difficult to inform the proles if you don't speak to them. and they are still voting for Tory and ukip. you know why? labour are a fucking mess. they were officially remain and there saintly leader was missing in action throughout the campaign. the best he could manage was some lukewarm praise for the EU before fucking off. the party for the working class of UK couldn't even be bothered to talk to them. at the stoke by election, they just scraped in on what used to be a safe seat. the stupid unimformed proles, traditional labour voters, were despondent. many were saying they only voted labour because they couldn't bring themselves to vote for another party, but were still informed enough to know that labour hasn't been labour for years. as for trump, he lost the popular vote, despite the bonus of running against Hilary, who its hard to find any one who likes her. he won because of the way elections are handled over there. maybe deal with that before disenfranchising people. maybe deal with why people are so disillusioned that they are susceptible to the lies and promises of chancers and charlatans. maybe provide a real alternative. maybe try that instead of treating them with contempt. but no, that requires effort to change the systemic problems of the electoral process and government. that requires dealing with a media that actively misinforms. that requires empathy to actually understand to concerns of your 'inferiors'. that requires reaching to them, talking to them, understanding them, actually informing them. much better to shut them out of the conversation entirely, after all, grown ups are speaking and you know whats good for them. but you know what? if the UK voted to remain or trump lost, we wouldn't be having this conversation. we didn't have this conversation when Obama won. everyone was fine letting the proles loose when they voted the way you wanted. they were smart then. saw through the lies, were informed. now your side loses and they are stupid. they don't know whats good for em. they are uniformed. contemptuous. they work, they pay taxes but that's not good enough, they don't deserve to have say of how the countries they help maintain unless they can prove to you they'll vote the way you want? what was the slogan? 'no taxation without representation?' I believe wars start that way. AMassiveGay (talk) 01:44, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
You try to draw a connection between "racism" and "classism" but I don't think they are really comparable concepts. Your choices have no impact on your race. You are born the race you are now and you will die the same race you were when you were born. Your choices in very many cases do impact your social class, because class mobility is a real thing – some people born in wealth die in poverty and some people born in poverty die in wealth. Now, of course, elements of your background outside of your control are an influencing factor (it is far easier to die rich if you were born rich to begin with than if you were born poor), and just plain luck is an influencing factor too – but good or bad choices play a substantial role in class but no role at all in race. Let me tell you a story about a relative of mine. He's a really smart guy, and he has a masters degree, yet he's quite poor. Why is he so poor? Well, with his masters degree he could have got some sort of professional job and while he might not be rich he'd definitely be comfortably middle class. Instead, he decided he wanted to make his fortune selling weed. Well, he sold a lot of weed, he smoked a lot of weed, he had a few near misses with the law and almost got sent away for a long time (at one point he spent six months in prison awaiting trial, but then the case against him collapsed – he was as guilty as hell but the police had screwed up the case so they had to dismiss it). Anyway, now he lives off a mixture of social security and shitty underpaid blue collar jobs – he stopped dealing because he got too scared of going away (and his dealing never made him much money anyway–in the drug dealing pyramid, most of the money goes to the people at the top, and he never made it to that level). He struggles to get real work because prospective employers ask him "what have you been doing for the last 30 years" and he can't tell them the truth. Another relative took pity on him and hired him in a family business – his boss told me he's a good worker when he bothers to turn up and when he doesn't turn up stoned–he's lucky he works for family because if he wasn't family he'd have been let go long ago. (Oh, and I'm sure he has a drug addiction, but nobody forced him to take up smoking weed (or selling it) – he even told me his dad warned him it would fuck up his life yet he ignored his old man's advice and did it anyway – plus there are lots of services to help people overcome their drug problems but he's never shown any interest in getting help.) He is a great example of how, not all, but very many, poor people are poor because of their own poor decisions. And, I've got nothing against people who are poor but are trying hard to lift themselves out of poverty – but there are heaps of poor people who make no serious efforts to lift themselves out of their own poverty. All the poor people I know (both in my own extended family and in my wife's) are poor because of their own dumb decisions, general laziness, drug and alcohol abuse, the idea that you get places in life through selling drugs and cheating government benefits and windfalls like winning the lottery and compensation lawsuits and dodgy insurance claims rather than through education and hard work. (((Zack Martin))) 05:19, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
no racism and classism are different, but they both regarding whole groups as inferior, as unable to help themselves, as stupid, lazy, degenerate, as you clearly view the poor. prejudice is the same where ever it is found. its the old adage of the deserving poor vs the undeserving poor, only you don't seem to believe there is a deserving poor. you come out with the same tired canards as the right, the same tired cannards as the trumps and the Tories of world, the same lies sprouted as universal truths and you know a couple wastrels (some of best friends are...) so they must all be alike. I know poor people too. they are my neighbours. work mates. friends and families. most work every hour of the day. struggle to get by on not nearly enough. the poorest have health problems. mental issues. I know very few drug dealers and believe me, they are harder to find than you know know. I know even less not in employment or actively seeking it. I know a grand total of 0 people scamming the government or making dodgy insurance claims. maybe its just your friends and relatives? I know plenty who play the lottery, of course. its got nothing to do with laziness or a poor grasp of statistics - you don't need a degree in mathematics to know the odds are astronomical, they know they cant win. but it is a pipe dream brought on by desperation, seeing no way out of the pit they are in, and you begrudge them even that. my dad worked all his life making fibre glass lorry roofs. minimum wage now, but a bit less before. he never stole, never beat us, encouraged us to get an education, never did drugs, we never went hungry. an astonishing achievement considering his own father was a violent alcoholic and his growth was slightly stunted by malnutrition. I know a 60 year old women. lives with her retired blind brother, nursing her dying mother who has dementia, and her adult autistic daughter. she sleeps on the sofa as there is no where else to. oh and she she herself has been diagnosed with cancer. I believe she needs part of her bowel removed. if only she'd pull herself up by her boot straps. but all that's beside the point. she's still entitled to vote, and you nor anyone else has the right to take that away. which is a good thing considering you seem to lack the compassion and the empathy to ever 'know whats best for them' and all too much contempt for them. I really am astonished that you not keen on trump or Tories or even brexit, because everything you have said makes them a good fit for you. maybe if you can attach yourself to enough 'worthy' causes you can pretend your own ugly views are different to the ugly views of those claim to be against. you wont have to worry about me though. even though my own feckless behaviour led me to where I am, I claim no benefits and my homelessness has already disenfranchised me. I am done with you. I'll leave you to your superior intellect and contemptuous world view and I will go buy some lottery tickets.AMassiveGay (talk) 12:38, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
I never said your father, or your 60 year old female friend, were poor due to their own choices. I don't know them, I don't know what opportunities they had available in their life. I never said "all poor", I said "very many poor", but "very many" could just be a large minority. (Also, I come from multiple generations of middle class, and all of the poor folks I know well are members of my extended family–and coming from a background of large Catholic families I have lots of uncles/aunts/cousins/etc–a minority of whom are poor due to downward social mobility–maybe the situations of people who have always been poor, as opposed to people who have fallen out of the middle class, are somewhat different?) As far as cheating government benefits goes – I know a family (relatives of my wife) who do it. They rent subsidised housing from the government, then illegally relet it out to strangers at closer to market rates, pocketing the difference. (Mother and daughter both get approved to rent a house from the government separately, daughter moves in with mother, now daughter's house is freed up for illegal subletting; also, mother got custody of one of the daughter's children so she could claim a single parent pension even though the daughter is claiming one too for the other kids, and the kids have no idea they have different legal custody because they all live with their mother and grandmother anyway.) I think it is only a minority of people receiving subsidised housing do this, but I believe these in-laws are far from the only people doing it. I should also point out that there was a period in my life when I was really poor, although poverty in university students tends to be a temporary phenomenon since hopefully you graduate and then starting earning decent money. But even that episode of my own poverty was at least in part due to my own suboptimal decisions. (((Zack Martin))) 00:38, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
@Zach: They listen to Trump telling them that Obamacare is terrible – even if while imperfect it is actually benefiting them. I think you got it the other way around. Trump is reflecting the popular mood. If people liked it and wanted to fix it, he'd say and do that. Which is exactly what will happen anyway. We'll end up with Trumpcare, and people can blame him for it. But he's probably smart enuff to protect his trade name and keep his distance from it, unlike Obama the egoist and savior of mankind.
As to taxes, if you look at US govt revenues, its the payroll (social security) tax that hits lower income workers harder. It's capped at something like $80,000 (cause the govt doesn't want to payback big monthly payments). So any benefit lower income workers can screw out of higher earners basically gets taken away in the payroll tax. And this unfairness is the governments own fault for becoming so heavily dependent on the payroll tax. nobs 03:49, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
A lot of poorer folks who are most likely to benefit from Medicaid expansion – or who even if they don't need it right now are at the greatest risk of falling economically to the point that they do – go ahead and vote for GOP which has blocked Medicaid expansion in several states and might well undo it nationally. I don't get how that can be anything other than voting against one's own interests.
I support the ideal of progressive taxation. And I agree a lot of tax systems that claim to be progressive on closer inspection turn out to have lots of regressive elements, like the US payroll tax you mention. But, is Trump going to make any of this better? From what I've heard, he is exploring the idea of replacing corporation tax with a "border adjustment tax", which is a variation on a VAT/GST (like those found in the EU, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Japan, etc.) Now, VATs/GSTs are really regressive taxes, because they are taxes on consumption, and the poor spend a much higher percentage of their income on consumption than the rich do (who consume more in absolute terms, but a smaller proporition of their income, with a lot more of their income going to savings and investment which are VAT/GST exempt.) So, I think if Trump replaces corporation tax with border adjustment tax he'll actually be making the US tax system more regressive. (((Zack Martin))) 05:37, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Trump realy has a big hands-off approach to Obamacare repeal/reform. His pledge is to sign whatever the Congress sends to his desk. Here's what's gone: the coercive fines, IOW a person can opt out. I don't know about the employer mandate yet, but it too, as a job killer, will go. Medicaid is a state program, so ultimately it is a 10th Amendment states rights issue. If a state chooses to expand Medicaid, good. If not, good as well. Dictates from DC will not come down. The no denial of preexisting conditions likely will remain; most of them are smokers anyway, not terminal cancer patients. And their not buying life insurance. One thing that's discussed is deregulation of heath insurance sellers. Right now, there is virtually no federal regulation of health insurers, this being entirely a state function. Health insurers are not allowed to sell across state lines. Now, (follow me here closely), deregulation of insurance companies will lead to expanded federal power and bureaucracy to regulate across stateline sales. All that's gone for sure is the name, 'Obamacare', and individual mandate (i.e. penalty). Oh yah, and the tax credit, which is an income transfer payment from rich to poor and penalty payers to poor, also will go. But 'poor' here, as defined by Democrats, is voters with income under $60,000. Lastly, unlike Obamacare, the final reform bill will garner Democrat votes, a bipartisan effort. nobs 00:26, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
A note on the payroll tax which is revealing: as noted, it's capped for upper income earners. Some think this is unfair. Some think a self-employed earner who grosses $1,000,000 a year should be forced to $153,000 a year in payroll tax under the current formula (more than $10,000 a month). When you look and see the average payout is under $2000, and the average payout for rich people with their contributions capped is under $3000, that, coupled with the fact the average beneficiary receives 3-4 times more in benefits over a lifetime than what he/she ever contributed, most rich people say please please please lift the cap. They'd get $30,000-$40,000 a month under the Progressive's idea of 'fairness'. nobs 01:07, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Changing the direction - should prospective candidates be required to take (and pass) the 'immigrant becoming citizen' tests (using a generic catch all description)? They wish to have some say in ruling the country after all. (talk) 22:42, 12 March 2017 (UTC) Put these rules on the electoral college and I'll shake on it. Gaul Dernitt (talk) 09:10, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

RationalWiki Doomsday Bunker

Suppose, for an instant, that the nuclear apocalypse is upon us. We (as in, all RationalWikians,) are transported to a bunker in the Rocky Mountains with enough food, water, medical/scientific facilities, power sources, and construction equipment to last us and our descendants indefinitely. After the apocalypse happens and the bunker seals:

  • A)What should our governmental structure be like, if any?
  • B)What should our main goal post-doomsday be?
  • C)How long would we last?
  • This has been your routine random question. Cheers, RoninMacbeth (talk) 00:36, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Pretty much all of these questions seem dependent on exactly how many of "us" there are... Hentropy (talk) 05:55, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Every registered user with contributions (excluding vandals) since 2007, stuffed into a bunker. That is what I mean. RoninMacbeth (talk) 16:06, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Major Issues

For government, I think there should be a balance of strong government to maintain order and Democracy to keep freedom in tact. Post-Doomsday plan- Using scientific resources to engineer machines to lower radiation levels. As for how long we would last, I cannot really say. There is risk of infection knowing people would be jammed in one place, there would have to be some sort of cooperation to keep day-to-day operations going (Food production, Supply management, engineering, government, medical care, scientific research and everything else), enough resources for medical care (including medical professionals and supplies) and scientific research, having entertainment to keep people sane, have schools for children of RW users. I may be missing things but those are things to consider.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:35, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

The form of government would center around the bias aplha males would dictate, with women's rights relegated to the back burner by consensus. Whether to relocate to greener pastures (the Rocky's have cold long winters) would be the first issue to be decided. Once a settlement is agreed upon, the party would hunker down to longterm agricultural work and alcohol production in their spare time. nobs 17:30, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

An answer to every question

Given a certain definition of "indefinitely" -- ie, infinite supplies -- we could let literally everyone run around doing whatever they want, independently. I see no flaws in this plan. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 06:16, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Goodpost.gif127.0.0.1 (talk) 06:21, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
No you don't my good Sr. Have you seem /b/ 4/8chan? You do not want everyone run around doing whatever they want. I have seen the dark thoughts of man for too long to let that happen. --2d4chanfag (talk) 11:34, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Compensation methods for a collective effort would have to ironed out. Obviously job skills vary, and some technical skills from the pre-apocalyptical era would be obsolete. Organizational, leadership, and a sense of fairness skills would dominate. Everyone would have to learn basic skills with a shovel and hoe, and by consensus a person would advance to more trusted communal positions from there. Some sort of account reconning and currency would come into existence, but also a form of legal guardianship bordering on slavery would also evolve. nobs`

The correct government is tyranny of the most loquacious

Absolute authority to those who talk for the longest on the least meaningful subjects. This will guarantee that every single problem will be resolved with excessive legalism ignoring the reality of the situation. I think we can all agree this is the best possible system and what happens anyways. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:07, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

So, if I talk for 12 hours on how women should be slaves to man, that makes it a good opinion ? Diacelium (talk) 21:16, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
You have correctly identified the joke. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 21:35, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Oh. Sorry then. Diacelium (talk) 21:43, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
@ikanreed, is it alright with you if I use "The correct government is tyranny of the most locquacious" as my senior quote? RoninMacbeth (talk) 23:35, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Sure? I feel like you could do better than that, though. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:46, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Top priorities

Priority number one should be the procurement of a steady flow of water and food to survive.

Priority number two should be the conservation of existing knowledge for future use. A wiki is a good idea if enough IT hardware has survived, otherwise pen and paper will have to suffice.

Only if those top two priorities are halfway taken care of should consideration be given to the exact details of the political and economic structure. Zionist Goy (talk) 18:34, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Contamination of soil and drinking water would force everyone to relocate. There probably would be disagreement which direction to set off initially, with the loss of some personal from the main group. Anywho, of several fractured groups, there'd still be at best about a 50% chance of longterm survival. Whoever convinced the most where to move to (based on a knowledge of geography and climate conditions) would probably emerge as a nstural leader.

— Unsigned, by: RobSmith / talk / contribs

To quote Krusty the Clown

"I think, the living would envy the dead!" Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:43, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

thats not something you would need to worry about. Pretty sure i would eat you first. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:08, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Aren't you massive enough already!? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:03, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
its comments like that that ensure your spot on the barbeque. Im not even going to wait till th e food runs out. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:58, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh wow... Yeah... I like you guys, but...

I'm gonna take my chances outside. On my own. Keep the indefinite resources, those are yours.

If I don't make it, at least I never wasted post apocalypse breath arguing about ideal government structures. Woof, sounds harsh. No offense.Gaul Dernitt (talk) 09:04, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

this is how it all went wrong for Vault 42. S**t just like this, know what I'm sayin'? You gotta have yourself an Exit Strategy. MUTATE NOW!! Gadzooks (talk) 05:30, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Factors to be considered

  • What would the local environment be like - how much work is required to make it habitable - and is the population sustainable.
  • Where are 'the nuclear no-go areas.'
  • Are there equivalent bunkers and populations elsewhere (and can communications be maintained).
  • How many survivalists, Mad Maxes and others are skulking around.

Will suggest consideration of the 1983 Doomsday sequence on Althistory Wiki [1] as a partial analogy. (talk) 17:23, 14 March 2017 (UTC)


you all just one step away AMassiveGay (talk) 23:04, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I just like to talk about the end of the world (I am a fan of apocalyptic fiction) not actually prep for it. Most doomsday scenarios that are thought of would be extreme enough to where nobody would survive (such as a Gamma Ray Burst).--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 19:13, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Kent Hovind's Creation Series is now on a religious Satellite channel

I was surfing through the TV channels via Dish Network and his Creation Series is on a TV channel as well as another "Science" TV show that he hosts. I will ask.......WHY IN THE FUCK DOES HE GET ON NATIONAL TV TEACHING SCIENCE? Even Ken Ham would be better (not much better though).--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 23:09, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

This is one of the drawbacks of having 500 channels - they need something to fill up dead airtime with (and the cost comparatively can be pretty low). It's probably rerun 6 times daily, too. nobs 23:58, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
That is true, bet the next show will be, "Quack Preacher says Spanking it is wrong"--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 05:57, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
still better than HollyoaksAMassiveGay (talk) 12:34, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Bet it is still better than Honey Boo Boo. I might have to watch his, religious indoctrination bullshit comedy hour science education show for a good laugh.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 02:46, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Why do liberals hate Putin and Gaddafi and conservatives love them?

Let's start with Gaddafi. He overthrew a reactionary, pro-Western monarchy, proclaimed his country a Socialist state based on left-libertarian/anarcho-syndicalist ideas of direct democracy and worker self-management, was a fanatical enemy of Israel and supporter of Third World anti-imperialism, supported every radical leftist terror group on the planet and tried to assassinate Saint Ronnie to boot (and Ronnie tried to assassinate him). He was basically an Arab version of Castro or Chavez but perhaps even more radically on the Left. To be fair he did try to make nice with the Empire in later years but so did Castro, and while he participated in CIA torture programs Castro actually let Gitmo exist on his "socialist paradise" island. But when the rebellion against Gaddafi, which used the flag of the monarchy overthrown in 1969 as its symbol, broke out in 2011 virtually all liberals and most communists (except the despised tankies) in the developed world cheered the "people's uprising against the brutal right-wing authoritarian dictator puppet of the west and the zionists" and backed the NATO bombing of Libya (the radical leftists said "refused to oppose") and cheered the murder of Gaddafi by rebels. Keep in mind that these are mostly the same people who praised Castro as "life-long champion of anti colonial liberation who stood up to the yankee oppressors", but when Gaddafi was in a direct violent conflict with the USA (which Castro never was) they cheered the Usa. Conservatives, on the other hand, showed staunch support for Gaddafi as an "ally of America and Israel who is helping us torture alQaeda terrorists" (nevermind that his reasons for opposing Islamic fundamentalism had nothing to do with the reasons America does) and denouncing the rebels as part of a "Barack Obama/George Soros Muslim Brotherhood conspiracy to promote gay marriage and Sharia law and help Iran destroy Israel and kill Christians with marijuana abortions". When nato began bombing Libya conservatives who cheered the Iraq war suddenly became pacifists, and condemned the killing of Gaddafi as proof of Obama's Marxist Muslim barbarism despite having applauded the execution of Sadam by Bush. These same people celebrated the death of Castro as a "Marxist anti-American commie dictator who supported terrorists"

Another example of this bizarre reversal of cold war positions is the progressive's pathological hatred of Russia and the Putin worship on the right. It seems like the right completely ignores Putin's support of Latin American socialists and the fact that he is a former KGB agent who says Stalin wasn't so bad, and instead believe he is a macho defender of Christian values who kicks Muslim ass and hacks Democrat e-mails, therefore Russia is the second greatest country in the world (America is third.) Meanwhile liberals hate Putin so much they support openly neo-Nazis groups in both Ukraine and Russia as part of a "democratic resistance" against Putin, because Putin is homophobic and Christian and fascist and helped install the Donald in an electoral coup. (I'm sure Svoboda and Right Sector would love to know that LGBT activists support them...try telling them that to their faces.) The only thing that remains consistent from the cold war is that the right recoil in utter terror at the very thought of Marxists in Latin America, whereas liberals see Latin American Marxists as Democratic revolutionaries who just want to be free from the Empire and, unlike Marxist regimes elsewhere, you don't have to be a Tankie to romanticized them. (talk) 02:22, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Quiiite sure you have it backwards on Kaddhafi (may his spellings be many), in that the far left is quick to overlook his general awfulness and the right despises him. CorruptUser (talk) 04:27, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

OK. In both these cases, sentiments are not universal among conservatives and liberals, but generally follow the party line dictated by the party leadership in whatever era. For example, most people of my generation likely still view Nikita Khruschev as another Hitler, as our leaders told us c.1962. Few, if any, realize his reputation has been rehabilitated as the original proponent of Glasnost, which is why the Politburo shitcanned him. Ghaddafi is a good parallel to Khruschev - a heartless killer in his early life, only to realize he didn't want to die like Ceaușescu, he wasn't like Stalin, and he really did have the best interests of his people at heart. A 'benevolent dictatorWikipedia's W.svg', like Castro or Frederick the Great. Gaddafi became the model we would have liked to see Kim jong-un or Saddam follow, rather than disrupt 10 of millions of peoples lives to send a million man army after him to kill him (like Hitler). Once Ghaddafi made peace with the outside world, his focus was on internal enemies - the jihadis.
As to Putin, he represents two fundamental reforms we fought the Cold War over, (1) an internal reform of orderly succession, or a term-limited head of state. The Soviets continued the tradition of the Czars of having a ruler for life, who only accummuluted more power and only chance for change or reform was murder or natural death. (2) And externally, an opening of trade with the world. Rather than a ceaseless arms race, both countries are supposed to be focused on reduced defense spending, and economic development for the consumer market.
Needless to say, Hillary and Obama fucked this all up. So good luck to the next generation. Mine fought a mindless Cold War for half a century. Now it's your turn. At least until a visionary figure like Nixon comes along, and forges agreements and alliances that keep the peace between the US, Russia, and China for another 45 years. nobs 05:31, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
That's a good joke, nobs, "visionary figure like Nixon"! Perhaps you're referring to his extreme paranoid visions?! Nixon was a mere 6 or 7 on a scale of 10 for autocratic yearnings according to his reformed henchman, John Dean. Bongolian (talk) 06:10, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Counting the Napoleanic Wars, there have been four major wars that have wracked Europe. Since 1871, each became larger and larger, engulfing more of the world. Following each of these wars, statesmen arose, with varying degrees of success, to forge alliance systems intended to last decades beyond their lifetimes. As I write this, the alliance system forged by Nixon - one of the longest running and most successful since the Congress of Vienna in 1815 after the Napoleanic wars, is fraying. Frankly, as I listen to you, I take it as further evidence that system is breaking down, and another worldwide conflagration is inevitable. nobs 06:29, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
These are the five interludes between the four wars of the major hegemons, or 'Superpowers':
  • The Age of Metternich, 1815-48 (33 years)
  • The Age of Bismarck 1862-1914 (52 years)
  • The Age of Wilson 1919-39 (20 years)
  • The Age of Churchill 1945-1972 (27 years)
  • The Age of Nixon 1972-? (45 years)
Two observations are necessary: peace is not permanent and should never be taken for granted; (2) the current era is very likely coming to a close. — Unsigned, by: RobSmith / talk / contribs
Looking at any of this ideologically is naive, but something tells me you already know that. It's all about political convenience. Republicans loved the Libyan conflict and hated Gaddafi until it became an excuse to attack Obama/Clinton. Republicans accused Obama of being way too soft on Russia and being harder on Putin, until one of their own started to cozy up to them. You could see it happen in real time, between 2014 and December 2016, approval rating of Putin went up by 56 points. This had nothing to do with ideology, or because anything significant changed in relations between 2014 and 2016. People just flipped criticizing/drawing attention to Russia became a "Democrat thing to do." Nor does this ultimately have anything to do with internal right/left ideology, American voters don't know anything about internal Libyan or Russian politics so their representatives don't have to care either. It's almost like partisans can be led... a bit like some kind of amalgamation of a sheep and people... Hentropy (talk) 22:39, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
I'd agree 99%+ with that. And it is undeniable the #Resistance movement has used, and continues to use, Russophobic xenophobia since before the election to attack Trump. In fact, not only have they used it, that is only substance to any of their allegations. nobs 00:46, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Other than the first one of your "Ages" (The Age of Metternich), nobs, none of these have seem to have any recognition whatsoever among historians. "The Age of Churchill" doesn't make much sense because the British Empire began falling apart immediate after the war and was nearly complete by about 1960. So was Churchill the great decolonizer? I think not. It was Roosevelt's idea, and Churchill apparently agreed but never sent it ("The Atlantic Charter") to Parliament. The "Age of Nixon" is just a joke, right? By the way, do you have a tattoo of Nixon on your back too?[2] Bongolian (talk) 02:35, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Churchill was the original founder of the alliance to defeat Hitler. All others, Chamberlain. Daladier, and Stalin himself, were all too willing to compromise with Hitler. FDR was isolated in isolationist America. If not for Churchill's stubbornness to resist, to aid Stalin and De Gaulle, and recruit FDR into the fight, Hitler would have been successful, or at least more successful for a longer period of time than the 6 years to defeat him.
If not for Churchill, post-1945 the Nazi regime would have more likely perished from its own internal corruption than any external enemy willing to challenge it, and God knows how long that may have taken. It was Churchill approach to Stalin in June 1941 that earns him the title as the founder of a new global alliance. FDR, the UN, and the Cold War are just the following chapters in Churchill's vision of a new alliance system to maintain world peace.
As to the tat, no. But when saw this picture I got teary-eyed, and still do. nobs 06:45, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
that's arse. Churchill was voted outed out of office in 1945 and was largely irrelevent post war as he would have been had the war not happened as he was pre war. by 1943 he was already sidelined by the us. he played little part the wave of decolonisation nor the cold war squabbles and interference in these countries that provided the battle ground for the cold war. Churchill was most prominent at the tale end end of empire which was dead by the end of the war. saying the post war period was his 'age' makes as much sense as saying it was the age of Hitler, but at least he was the cause of the war that shaped the world we live in today. if we are going to say its was the age of anyone, it was Stalin. after all, he was in charge when the soviets dominated eastern Europe and central asia and the cold war began, and was the cause of everything the US did back then AMassiveGay (talk) 13:12, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
I wouldn't be averse to that categorization. That's why most history texts call the era immediately after 1945 the Cold War. But a period of peace without confrontation between major world powers didn't occur on its own. It took a man (or person) to forge agreements between major powers with serious differences. 20 years before this photo was taken, Russia was a third world power that lost a war with Poland. Before the end of the decade, it was a nuclear superpower. And Churchill, looking at Stalin & Hitler, did not toss a coin who to back. Knowing full well Stalin was a monster, Churchill nonetheless realized the Russian Empire & USSR simply had more experience governing wide swaths of the planet and foreign peoples than the Nazi did, so he backed Stalin, which influenced the outcome.
Churchill's domestic policies or popularity, as Nixon, Metternich, or Bismarck, have no relevance to their role in forging understandings between powerful nations and as a world peacemaker. nobs 20:45, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
nobs PIDOOMAs it again, ignoring the fact that Hitler functionally declared war on the British Empire by overrunning France where British troops were stationed.Wikipedia's W.svg USSR did not declare war on Britain. After Hitler attacked the USSR, the enemy of Churchill's enemy became his friend. Bongolian (talk) 06:48, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Well duh, it was a big step - and a shock for the world - when Churchill reached out to Stalin. But you're missing the point. It was one man, one man only, who had the will to resist and the vision how the world should be ordered to maintain peace. Voters had no say in Churchill's Premiership. The guys the voters elected were chickenshits. Look what Wikipedia says one month into Churchill's term,
"An element of British public and political sentiment favoured a negotiated peace with Germany, among them Halifax as Foreign Secretary. Over three days in May (26-28 May 1940), there were repeated discussions within the War Cabinet of whether the UK should associate itself with French approaches to Mussolini to use his good offices with Hitler to seek a negotiated peace..."
Unquestionably, it was Churchill that made the difference, cause the whole fucking country and cabinet wanted to throw in the towel. Here's a fact of history: Hitler until the day he blew his brains out never could understand why Britain was fighting against him. Hitler thought Imperialist Britain and Germany - racial cousins - were natural allies against the Soviet Union and communism. That's one reason he didn't slaughter the Brits on the beaches of Dunkirk, against the advice of his generals (this author cites moments before the surrender of Paris, Churchill proposed a European Union of France & UK). It was one man who kept Britain in the fight.
This is how peace, and alliances are forged. It is as if all the competing interests of the world are fused into the body of one man. Look at Franz Josef I of Austria, for example. Here's his title:
His Imperial and Apostolic Majesty, Franz Joseph I, By the Grace of God, Emperor of Austria, King of Hungary and Bohemia, King of Lombardy and Venice, of Dalmatia, Croatia, Slavonia, Lodomeria and Illyria; King of Jerusalem etc., Archduke of Austria; Grand Duke of Tuscany and Cracow, Duke of Lorraine, of Salzburg, Styria, Carinthia, Carniola and of the Bukovina; Grand Prince of Transylvania; Margrave of Moravia; Duke of Upper and Lower Silesia, of Modena, Parma, Piacenza and Guastalla, of Auschwitz [Oświęcim] and Zator, of Teschen [Cieszyn/Těšín], Friuli, Ragusa [Dubrovnik] and Zara [Zadar]; Princely Count of Habsburg and Tyrol, of Kyburg, Gorizia and Gradisca; Prince of Trent [Trento] and Brixen [Bressanone]; Margrave of Upper and Lower Lusatia and in Istria; Count of Hohenems, Feldkirch, Bregenz, Sonnenberg, etc.; Lord of Trieste, of Cattaro [Kotor], and in the Wendish Mark; Grand Voivode of the Voivodina of Serbia etc. etc.
Franz Josef held all this shit together in one empire for 67 years, and when he died, it died. It is not bureacrats and technocrats, or a vanguard class, that have secured peace for decades between competing interests and world Powers, it is visionaries who can explain their vision to their fellow citizens and convince them to come along. nobs 08:05, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Nobs, where do you come up with this nonsense? I almost hesitate to ask. Churchill was Prime Minister from 1940-1945 and 1951-1955. "He held all this shit together in one empire for 67 years…" is bollocks. And yet you claim "and when he died, it died" while still claiming that the "Age of Churchill" was "1945-1972". More bollocks. Bongolian (talk) 03:28, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Merkel understands, as "the last defender of the liberal world order" and "the most important leader the world has right now", these things don't happen on their own, otherwise you wouldn't need politicians. nobs 21:45, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── You want to know why the post-World War II and post-Cold War peace structure is breaking down now? Global peace and stability was built on consumerismWikipedia's W.svg. From Hitler's death to Yeltsin, a global consensus emerged that world peace could best be maintained by open trade and developing domestic consumer markets, rather than heavy taxes to maintain both the capitalist and communist's military industrial complexes. The de-growth, anti-consumer, Earth First movements are daggers aimed at the heart of the established international order and world peace. nobs 22:16, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

While I take issue with the modern environmentalist movement for tolerating horribly anti-scientific views (anti-GMO, anti-nuclear, etc) and am convinced that a large amount of the funding comes from groups with ulterior motives, including some who are trying to sabotage the US, the current breakdown in world peace has little to do with that. It's because financial mismanagement of the US is causing the balance of power to shift away from it, while Russia collapsed but is doing what it can to gain it back even if it means destablizing everything else in the process, China is mostly keeping to their own region but rapid industrialization has given them a lot of power in that region, and the Islamic world has massive population growth which means that even fringe groups are not so tiny anymore. CorruptUser (talk) 03:12, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Without passing any judgement on "who's right who"s wrong", let me lay out some observation's in the post- World War II era (which we can also call, "The Nuclear Age"). From 1945 to DetenteWikipedia's W.svg, the United States fought two 'hot wars' against the communist bloc, basically Russia and China, unwinnable in the Nuclear Age. Intense ideological competition fueled the military industrial policy on all sides. High defense spending retards domestic economic growth. But under the US capitalist model, first with Marshall Plan, and in the 60s with the Space Race, War on Poverty, and Vietnam War simultaneously, the US was able to prove to the communistic bloc the superiority of capitalism. Russia and China, and their populations, wanted in on the consumer society.
This meant for them defense conversion, switching over a basically WWII perpetual wartime industrial model to producing domestic consumer goods. China was the first to embrace it, although it took Russia another decade. Consumption was king, and the solution to world peace and the threat of nuclear Armageddon.
Based on this theory, institutions were created to foster it, the IMF, the EU, NAFTA, and plans to recruit the "developing world" to the gospel of world peace and consumerism.
But there has always been an environmental movement, out of which has grown the climate change debate. And in Islam, the call to the final jihad, cites "Western secular materialism" as the biggest threat to Islam. This video which is very informative, says radical Islam is a youth movement, ages 15-25, that rejects Western values.
Again, without passing judgement on what's right or wrong, what is good or bad, these observations point to Salafism and the global warming movement travelling along parallel tracks that are critical of the foundational agreements which have avoided a direct, open, hot war between the world's three Superpowers. Unravelling these agreements, at a minimum, means a world of instability. nobs 04:38, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm actually in favor of some form of containment with regards to Salafism, and don't think we should let Salafis into the West, refugee or not, while I do support letting more refugees in... so long as it's not vastly more men than women the way it is now. I just don't know how to do so without also violating the whole "freedom of religion" thing that's generally agreed to be a good idea. CorruptUser (talk) 05:23, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Here's the dilemma: the old-school Cold warriors on all sides of the tri-polar debate say peace and trade go hand-in-hand. 'Trade' being a codeword for 'consumerism'. Through this formula we've avoided nuclear war for 70 years, although we've failed at curtailing proliferation. The people of India, China, Brazil, Indonesia, Russia, the EU and elsewhere all are living the Amrerican dream, success and freedom defined as driving a gas polluting vehicle. The climate change movement says consumption threatens tbe planet. The Salafis say Western consumerism threatens Islam's survival. Are the people of all tbe aforementioned countries willing to bow to these political forces, whose policy objectives are the same? This is only one problem in sorting how to find a path of continued existence on the planet, cause neither the climate change advocates, the Salafis, or Westernized mass consumers have a monopoly on the solution.
Remember George Bush's immediate advice to citizens how to respond to the 9/11 attack? "Go shopping." In theory, he was right. And that thinking sustained us another 16 years. But I see whole system breaking down fairly rapidly. nobs 05:49, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Holy crap, Jontron's gone off the deep end.

This discussion was moved to Talk:JonTron#Holy crap, Jontron's gone off the deep end..

Cycles in history

The topic has come up in recent discussions, and I thought it would be interesting to say something about it. I don't really have a specific question or even a point, so maybe this is just me rambling.

I did a search on RW for the word cycle. There were too many results, but I saw a few that seemed relevant. This essay about the "skeptical life cycle" made me chuckle: I partially recognize my own experience in the first stages, although for me it is a process that has taken decades, and I am unlikely to reach the later stages (then again, I expect that few people will). I don't know if "cycle" is always appropriate: a life cycle is more like a sequence of stages because the subject has a beginning and an end, and doesn't actually come back or restart. On the other hand, history is continuous with alternating periods of war and peace. But this is a bit of an oversimplification because each country has its own history, and synchronization is not (yet?) global.

Nobody is denying business cycles, but RW users sometimes seem to adhere to ideas that are described in cyclical theory as pseudosciences (for example, references to K-waves and Elliot waves here). In addition to the explanations given in the RW article ("it is possible to construct just about any cyclical theory one wants" from observations rooted in opinion), I guess there is also a bit of superstition going on by trying to counter-jinx things by making predictions/prophecies while actually hoping to be wrong (WWIII is right around the corner).

Regarding terminology, according to Wikipedia cyclical theoryWikipedia's W.svg is actually an example of social cycle theoryWikipedia's W.svg, and was developed by historian Arthur SchlesingerWikipedia's W.svg focusing on American history, with concepts such as public purpose and private interest. Schlesinger's model is more of a spiral than a cycle, but the conclusion on WP seems to be sensible in general: "the cycle is not accurate in predicting the events of the future, because historians in the present do not have the benefit of hindsight and may lack crucial knowledge and understanding of certain trends" (sourceWikipedia's W.svg). However, it seems that contemporary mathematical models are built on the discovery that "political-demographic cycles" are "a basic feature of the dynamics of complex agrarian systems" (sourceWikipedia's W.svg).

I don't know how reliable or useful these models actually are, but I am pretty sure that this website is full of snot: they attempt to match astronomical cycles with historical events using "strict Synchronicity & Sequentiality tests", and yet "Nothing on this site is meant to suggest that planets influence us in any way" (apparently the goal is only to find mysterious correlations Eyebrow.gif). I don't know if there is a category for that, it looks like the astrological equivalent of biorhythms, so maybe astrorhythms?

Finally, in this customer review of Strauss and Howe's book Generations (which I haven't read), I find the conclusion intriguing: "Where most futurists go wrong is to assume that today's dreams (or nightmares) will inevitably become tomorrow's reality. What they fail to realize is that each generation has a different set of dreams and nightmares. Your children and grandchildren won't pursue your dreams; they'll pursue their own." --Cmonk (talk) 16:53, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I found that Amazon review more insightful than the book it was supposedly reviewing, e.g. why attempts to find a cyclical predictor algorithm failed: "[We mistakenly tried to] model the flow of history as a simple, linear process in which the future can be extrapolated from past and present trends, rather than acknowledging that progress is often complex and non-linear. But our main failing was to give too much weight to the scientific and technological drivers of progress, and not enough to the social, political, and economic factors that shape the course of history." Leuders (talk) 19:37, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Historians generally answer this question by saying there are no cycles, human nature is unchanging. There is a minority school called, The Progressive view of history; this view holds that as time goes by, human beings get better. This view believes from the time human beings lived in caves, to the invention of the wheel, discovery of fire, invention of the printing press, microchip, and space shuttle, human beings are better and smarter than their ancestors who rubbed two sticks together to make fire. Consequently, we are also morally and spiritually superior to our ape-ancestors who dragged their nuckles. The evidence of this intellectual and moral superiority to our ignorant ancestors is things like the social contract, single-payer healthcare, etc. But the Progressive view can't explain the holocaust. nobs 19:56, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
To be fair, intellectual prowess isn't necessarily associated with moral greatness: bad people can be smart too. Quantifying intelligence is notoriously difficult, but there is actually a measured increase in population IQ over time called the Flynn effectWikipedia's W.svg. Sadly, the holocaust was possible because of scientific, technological and administrative advances allowing better logistical efficiencyWikipedia's W.svg. Related to that is the idea of logical insanity: using science and technology to maximize the number of short-term enemy civilian casualties in the hope of limiting long-term losses by shortening the war. There are actually plenty of criteria we can use to conclude that we are constantly getting "better", but ethics and morality are hard to put on the list.
Individuals obviously have their differences, and even if human nature is unchanging, it doesn't necessarily preclude cycles. For example, cycles can result from constant parameters in simple ecological models ("When seemingly competitive interactions are carefully examined, they are often in fact some forms of predator-prey interaction in disguise").
Concerning the issue of inevitability raised in your link, well, debatable is the best I can come up with. Murders could be avoided if only the murderers would choose not to kill. Do they have to pull the trigger/swing the knife? This quickly devolves into discussions about determinism, free will, quantum uncertainty and chaos theory. There is no answer there, not today at least. --Cmonk (talk) 23:02, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Humans only get better insofar as humans develop technology that allows for humans to be better. It's easy to criticize our ancestors for all the constant fighting when we live in a world where we grow enough food that we don't have to murder our neighbors just to avoid starving. It's easy to mock puritanical attitudes to sex and virginity when we live in a world where we can diagnose STD's, use DNA testing to determine paternity, have access to condoms, and have abortions. It's easy to abhor racism when we live in a world with cellphones and other forms of communication, and a military that actually ensures that the funny looking people the next hill over aren't actually going to kidnap and rape our wives and daughters (an actual threat throughout the vast, vast majority of human history).
Today, most of us eat meat from animals. But if we invent lab-grown meat that's cheaper than the traditional methods, we'd be monsters for continuing to slaughter animals for food. Trans issues are weird right now, but would those issues even be a thing in a world with pseudo-magical nanotech that makes choosing your gender each morning as difficult as choosing which socks to wear? CorruptUser (talk) 05:24, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
This debate soon gets parsed between Are human beings culturally and morally superior over time and Is life and living standards easier.
Let me refocus the question on cycles to, How do we distinguish one era from another? I always thought this is a fascinating question, and there are countless methods and controvercies connected with it. But many years ago I read a piece I found very convincing. Different eras are defined by women's dress. And today, with the wearing of the hijab in Europe or Far Eastern girls dressing like SS, has only rekindled this question in me to want to further investigate. I suspect I'll be spending some time on it. nobs 11:20, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Do people start dressing differently after a war? Or is it more of a continuous process? This is a bit like the speciation question: we are the same species as our parents, who are the same species as their parents, and so on; but go back far enough and we are confronted with "entities" genetically incompatible with us. Does clothing "evolve" in a similar manner? After a quick search, it turns out the struggle between status quo and change is more pervasive than I thought: "time is expressed in terms of continuity in anti-fashion and as change in fashion" (sourceWikipedia's W.svg).
From a purely visual perspective, the hijabWikipedia's W.svg is not all that different from some European medieval garments (plates 3, 5, 7), Catholic nun outfitWikipedia's W.svg or Indian traditional clothingWikipedia's W.svg. From a functional point of view, full-body clothing, for women and men, is probably necessary to live in countries where dehydration and sunburn are real dangers (but thisWikipedia's W.svg is overkill). Some Muslim-majority countries can either legally imposeWikipedia's W.svg or banWikipedia's W.svg the veil, so the issue is more with the law than the clothing. And some other practices are/were potentially dangerous or demeaning/objectifying like "elongating" neck ringsWikipedia's W.svg, tightlacingWikipedia's W.svg and foot bindingWikipedia's W.svg (requiring special "lotus" shoes). And lest modern Westerners feel smug about all this, expecting women to wear "makeup, heels and a skirt" is a form of discrimination.
Regarding Nazi chic in AsiaWikipedia's W.svg, it seems related to cultural relativismWikipedia's W.svg: "For East Asian countries, World War II was not about the Nazis or Hitler but rather the Imperial Japanese forces. Comparatively little time is spent in Asian countries studying World War II Germany than in Europe or North America." (source with plenty of "culturally relative" pictures). Just a guess, but an unaware Asian designer could have been responsible for the recent Forever 21 Nazi shirt.
Fashion is ordinarily assumed to be repeating because of a few forced examples (Bell-bottomsWikipedia's W.svg), but is Rococo going to make a comeback? And if it does, will it correlate with a new historical era? In my opinion, in today's connected world, clothing has more to do with slow functional and aesthetic drift, cultures influencing one another, and occasional "viral" phenomena. --Cmonk (talk) 21:18, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
if you are basing things on changing fashion, you are going to get new era on a weekly basis. AMassiveGay (talk) 00:46, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Women traditionally are more atuned to dress. I guess this is cause they were relegated to more menial positions in society and it was the one thing they could control, find self expression, and even compete with one another. And women dictate men's sytle of dress - I believe this tho some may argue otherwise. The Asian girls dressing as nazis, for example. It is an immense time of social change in the Far East, they are becoming increasingly 'Westernized'. Self expression and rebellion against women's traditional roles is a novelty. I'm not pretending I understand women at all, but in a certain logical or historical sense I can see how adolescent girls and young women today in that culture want to break out, attract attention, at low risk cause nazi regalia isn't as offense there, but still attracts controvercy. Women are good at stirring up shit, and going against convention for convention's sake, I think. nobs 08:47, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Historically, the penny farthing was one of the first cycles.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 07:09, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

US/Canadian Border

Just found out we take fingerprints at the Canadian border. We meaning the US.

Took 3 metric hours to get through border patrol, AND THEY GOT THROUGH NO PROBLEM BECAUSE THEY WERE HERE TO PLAY SOME TUNES...(hiccup) ok. Politics

It's insane, this is jail booking hassle.

Don't think I've ever heard Canada is dangerous, thoughts?

Doesn't the US own canada? 2d4chanfag (talk) 10:57, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Canada's too liberal. Let's in too many undesirables. Can't take any chances. Besides, you think your white privilege grants you easy access from Canada? nobs 11:47, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Kinda is considering the fact that the Canadian-US border is marked by a big giant slash that cuts through the forest. There's no wall, nothing. Just take a goddamn look at this. Ɀexcoiler Kingbolt Noooooooo! There's a roach on my Wall! 17:54, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Wow, cool. I don't even know if I'm saying cool ironically or not, I'm that baffled at the effort. I mean I hate everything it stands for but somebody is out there icing baby trees on a crazy windy 20ft wide deforestation mission? That's like the closest we can get to a real life the Joker scheme. Clue: it ain't measured in metric.Gaul Dernitt (tlk) 06:48, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
The Boundary WatersWikipedia's W.svg is just a big swamp. You get out their in a canoe harvesting wild rice, and you can't tell which side of the border you're on cause nobody knows where the border is. It was ideal for smuggling Canadian whiskey during prohibition, albeit in small quantities. nobs 09:00, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I was in Barnes and Noble yesterday and I came across a strange book

I saw a book called, "How to be Psychic". I didn't catch the name of the author but I saw the same book on a South Park episode, I didn't think it was real till yesterday. Though I saw some other strange books also (I was looking in the spirituality section for books on Wicca).--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 17:03, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I once found a book at a used book sale called "Teen Witch". I actually bought it because it was so bizarre. I remember it had instructions for casting a "don't bother me on the internet" spell or something along those lines. I found it somewhat amusing, but I didn't actually see any point in reading too much of it. --Samstr (talk) 17:41, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Nearly 30 years ago, I bought a book for 99 pence called The Book of Spells. Most of the book is about how to sell your soul to the Devil and how to deal with Lucifuge RofocaleWikipedia's W.svg (the demon in charge of wealth). It also tells you how to repent after the end of your 20 years of money and sex and avoid going to Hell. Spud (talk) 17:26, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Drink like an Irishman Day

Why does RW persist in this ridiculous - and insulting - stereotype. For the record Irish consumption is less than their British neighbours and a lot less than those Frenchies. They're 21st in the world rankings according to Wikipedia. I'd edit the template myself but I haven't the wikifoo - and I'm such a stranger here nowadays I'm not sure I have the right. Love and kisses. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 18:22, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree that it should be changed, I don't know what to though. If you can think of something: edit it here. Christopher (talk) 18:44, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Drink like an alcoholic day? Drink like a person who drinks a lot day? --Samstr (talk) 19:19, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
It's for St Patrick's dayWikipedia's W.svg. (The Patron Saint of Ireland) so we obviously can't remove references to Ireland Facepalm.png. Christopher (talk) 20:34, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
I think it's a harmless stereotype and made in a tongue-in-cheek way. Also, "Drink like a Belarusian Day" doesn't have the same ring or context. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 21:20, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
It's a harmless joke, it's funny. Stereotypes are always funny. Diacelium (talk) 21:24, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Playing devil's advocate to some degree here but it's very funny if you're not on the receiving end. Christopher (talk) 21:32, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
so is a kick in the balls AMassiveGay (talk) 22:19, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
It is well known that all Irishmen are very moderate drinkers so I am not sure why any offense would be taken. --Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 22:12, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
AFAIK St Patrick's Day is a drinking day pretty much everywhere it's celebrated, Ireland included. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 01:31, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
It's certainly celebrated in pretty much every pub in Sweden, if that helps! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:38, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
@Percy: And in every bar in America, apparently.RoninMacbeth (talk) 13:57, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
I changed it to "It's Drink Like A Stereotypical Irishman Day!"— (talk) 01:16, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Can I change the link to alcohol and the title to "Irish Cultural Heritage Chuggathon"? CorruptUser (talk) 01:52, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Usually I don't white knight but I saw a facepalm and I have to make a reference to this [3]. The odds that Skorea is taking notes based on this site are low. But this is one situation where I say teach the controversy. I could outdrink the entire Emerald Isle. Just, uhh, buy me the alcohol to prove the... controversy. Gaul Dernitt (talk) 07:09, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

How about "drink like a leprechaun day" instead? Bongolian (talk) 07:55, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Given that modern depictions of leprechauns are based off derogatory caricatures of the Irish, I'm not sure that is a better idea. Maybe just "Happy Saint Patrick's Day" instead? RoninMacbeth (talk) 14:05, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Hmmm "Drink like a Fake Irishman™ Day" .... --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 23:42, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
We like our Irish in the US. Doesn't hurt that 1/4 of the US is part Irish. Our Irish love to make fun of themselves so much it's basically ingrained in American culture (Family Guy and The Simpsons, anyone?). So don't be offended on behalf of Irish Americans. CorruptUser (talk) 00:59, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Thoughts from an Irishman

I'm Irish 🍀, and I can tell you that I don't find the stereotype to be insulting at all. When I saw "Drink like an Irishman Day" I LOL'ed. Even Irish TV in Ireland uses this stereotype: Republic Of Telly - You Know You're Irish When... or even some sketches in Every Irish Pub Ever | Republic of Telly

Or here's Family Guy visiting Ireland (sorry about the poor quality). The part I found offensive was not the plane landing in a sea of empty beer bottles, it was seeing a London Hackney carriage in the middle of Ireland.

On the January 27, 2017 episode of Real Time Bill Maher said "Liberals do this all the time, they get offended for people who themselves would not be offended". [4] I think that's what's happening here. Irish people don't get offended by this joke. We're used to it. But you seem to be getting offended for us.

"Drink Like an Irishman Day!" is funny (and I think sets the tone for the site), "It's Drink Like A Stereotypical Irishman Day!" or "Drink like a Fake Irishman Day" is unfunny PC bullshite. If you are going to go that route, then forget the joke and just say "Happy St. Patrick's day".

Now if you will excuse me I have to run out to get more Dutch Gold, I mean groceries. (talk) 11:35, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree, especially about "drink like a stereotypical Irishman. That just sounds ridiculous. Christopher (talk) 11:46, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

of fake data and google

https://u.nya.is/qcvnez.png — Unsigned, by: FAMAS / talk / contribs 17:46, 17 March 2017

I'm actually more concerned that you haven't updated your Chrome browser. Keep in mind that Chrome is mostly open source so any fixed exploitable bugs are public knowledge. — (talk) 13:11, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
in reply to User:CheeseburgerFace, this user asserts the fact that this user never utilized the chrome browser and this user utilized firefox to discover comodo dragon and icedragon browsers and uses them from then and onwards which are regularly updated.FAMAS (Talk) (Contribs) [[5]] 13:37, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Could you STOP with the "this user asserts" stuff please. Christopher (talk) 13:46, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
@FAMAS: consider checking out the Wikipedia article on Comodo Dragon.Wikipedia's W.svg
@Christopher: I had to reformat your post.— (talk) 15:01, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Maybe that many <big></big> tags was a bit excessive. Christopher (talk) 15:16, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it's stupid politics stuff

The Donald Trump limerick generator. It takes real sentences from Trumptweets and at random fits their rhyming and rhythm scheme into a limerick. Sometimes quite profound.

The Wilson family should thank me.

Ask yourself.What am I pretending not to see?

An overrated clown!

Everyone else way down!

@Phil_Grech Your not free, you'll never be free.

Amusing, if occasionally depressing. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:46, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Holy crap, this is the best thing since the Deepak Chopra deepity generator (Link).
Here's what I got on my first try:

Be sure to tune in tonight at 9PM ET @NBC.

Dopey, nobody is laughing at me!

Bret is a winner!

Bartley Gala dinner.

Then ask. What am I pretending not to see?

Like the Deepak one, it's astounding how non-random random gibberish seems to us humans. We sure have the capacity to invest crazy amounts of meaning, even into noise. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:54, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
(Thank you for always knowing what type of quote template to use) ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:58, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
No problem. 50% of my job description is being anal retentive. You're welcome! Th hug.gif Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

She won’t be so lucky when it comes to me!

Ask yourself.What am I pretending not to see?

Have a nice day.

What is the delay?

This is truly a guy who shouldn't be on tv.

ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:25, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
I can't remember the whole limerick but I came across this tweet the man's an idiot. Christopher (talk) 12:23, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
"What am I pretending not to see?" seems to be a favorite. megalodon (talk) 15:20, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Rational Limerick Contest

Hey good work, Rationalwikians! Why not collect these into a limerick generator for funspace? Bongolian (talk) 05:29, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I take that back; is my poetic meter busted or are some of you guys not following the limerick meter? Ronin looks good, but Rev??? Bongolian (talk) 05:35, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Actually, I'm the one following the Limerick meter... The sentences of a limerick are supposed to be read out at different speeds, in a non-melodic but strictly paced way, and that means you can only have a certain number of syllables in the different sections of the limerick. All my submissions nail the optimal syllable count (I've balanced them for that) and can be read out loud with a consistent tempo. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:12, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
For an example of the optimal limerick pacing (and it's also an excellent limerick), see here . Translation available here. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:55, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Good one! Bongolian (talk) 20:16, 18 March 2017 (UTC)


Kind of self-explanatory. I'll start. Ahem:

There once was a man named Trump,

Who really was kind of a grump.

So he ran for the White House

And the Nazis he did rouse

So now we're all down in the dumps.

Anyone else? RoninMacbeth (talk) 20:32, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

There once was a man named Andy,

Who gave CP bans out like candy.

“The speed of light has decayed

For Earth was made in but days!”

Such statements this man thought were dandy.

I came up with this one walking home from swim practice. RoninMacbeth (talk) 00:31, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

There once was a man named Roko.

Whose theory was thought to be loco.

So LessWrong went in flames,

And Eliezer was shamed

Now nobody mentions poor Roko.

I'm less proud of this one. RoninMacbeth (talk) 00:44, 18 March 2017 (UTC)


A man was a highly skilled homeopath

He would mix and dilute in his bath

Only one small problem this lent

There was not one molecule of ingredient

Because this man sucked at basic math

ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:41, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I had an infection that turned my skin bright red

I took my chiro's advice and went with alt med

Don't trust Big Pharm

Because what's the harm

And now I'm lying on my death bed

ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:52, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

There was this certain theory

About how everything was a conspiracy

And don't trust the news

Because it's run by the Jews

And all these coincidences are eerie

(Sorry for the slant rhyme) ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 21:00, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

schools will never teach intelligent design

because there's no evidence coming down the line

and complexity irreducible

can't survive the scientific crucible

No matter how much Darwin you quote mine

ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 21:15, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Reverend Black Percy

Dopey FAKE NEWS? Very sad!

I'm the best prez that we ever had!

InfoWars dares to say,

Now the frogs have turned gay,

That Pepe wants to be called Chad!

(My first attempt, I hope the references aren't too obscure) Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:17, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

The moon is a spaceship IT'S TRUE!!

How could I be misleading you?!

As I fell out of bed,

Landed right on my head,

The truth of the Matrix broke through!!

(Guess who) Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:27, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Courageous Freeman-on-the-land,

The judge forced him to take the stand!

Though they had his passport,

He remarked with a snort,

"the REAL me's in Gondwanaland!"

Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:08, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Tankies will call you "Comrade!"

Say "Stalinism wasn't that bad!"

Just don't point out

That Hegel was a kraut

Or you'll turn them stark raving mad!

Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:50, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

A long-debunked communist plot,

"The tap water is your garrotte!"

But since things are fine,

Lest you WAKE UP online,

Mike Adams will have written for naught!

Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:17, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

The denier knows his alphabet,

"AGW" means "A lie from Soviet!"

For each science report,

saves his brilliant retort,

"But I'm not even breaking a sweat!"

Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:34, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Chemtrails must turn people gay,

It's all in that deviant spray!

Some damn plane in the sky,

Must've hit a bullseye,

Cause I can't stop watching men's ballet!

I'm actually a bit proud of this one. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:45, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Things hadn't turned out as planned,

When Moses got lost in the sand!

Wandering the desert,

Not so much as a skirt,

But atleast he got quite nicely tanned!

Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:57, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Darwin claims "Man is an ape",

But there's one question he can't escape!

It's "Oh, were you there?"

Since his proof is threadbare,

We'll need monkeys transforming ON TAPE!

#ReasonableCreationistDemands Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:21, 18 March 2017 (UTC)'ll


Do you know the Banana Man

Who tried to find out how life began?

He literally took a slapstick fruit

And proven that scientists don't give a hoot

Aside from laughing as hard as they can!

Mom told her little Deneb

Trust no strangers on the web

But Mom embraced a random meme

That promised could fulfil her autism-free dream

Her kid is now caught in a sick web.

David Gerard

Rational rational rational

Rational rational rational

Rational rational

Rational rational

Rational rational rational

"But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:57, 19 March 2017 (UTC)


There once was a creationist

There once was a creationist, he thought his mind was spacious

He preached and preached religion

But nobody listened to the dick

He preached and preached then got an education

He learned and learned to find his God didn't exist

He cried and cried till his spirit died and ended up in Tartarus

The creationist cried and cried when he saw the smirk in Hades's eyes

Hades preached and preached Jesus was only imagination.

The creationist screamed and scream as he was tortured

The creationist was a dick, a dick, a dick he learned

But the pain would never end for the asshole creationist creationist

Okay I am not good with limericks --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 21:37, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Goodpost.gif Know thyself. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:58, 19 March 2017 (UTC)


There once was a man named Barack

Who had a wife that looked like a jock

One night while they're sleepin'

Under the covers he's peekin'

And said, "My God, I thought it was a sock!"

nobs 03:40, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay, that was funny. You get brownie points for that!--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 03:45, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
There once was guy named Trump

Who could rile people on the stump

To Washington he came

And left it the same

When he ended by drowning in the swamp

nobs 06:17, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

There once was a boy named Ryan

With big ideas a-flyin'

When they told him to fix-it

He said he would nix-it

Now the poor people are cryin'

nobs 06:30, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

There once was a hag named Pelosi

Whose leadership style was lousy

When they tried to replace her

No one would face her

Cause she looked like Bela Lugosi!

nobs 10:09, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

There was an ol' putz named Schumer

Who couldm't shake off the rumor

No matter how hard tried

Or how loud he cried

He likes to lick the shit off his bloomers

Disclaimer: for NPOV purposes, I struggled hard to come up with a McConnell one. Anybody any ideas to get started? nobs 10:09, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

There was a young man named Bruno

Who said there is one thing I do know

A woman is fine

And a sheep is devine

But a llama is numero uno

Smerdis of Tlön

Rising to the challenge

There is a Senator McConnell

A foe to things floral and faunal.

Global warning he spurned

So as the world burned

The climate turned more and more saunal.

- Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 17:37, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Toward a quantum theory of humor

To be funny and not to be, that is the quantum theory. --Cmonk (talk) 15:52, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

EiK is a true "principled coservative" [sic]

So I decided to take a stroll through James Wilson's (aka Elvis is King) conservative family friendly wiki, and this is what I found for a logo. Of course, it was replaced by a picture of Ronald Reagan, but this seriously was the logo of RealWiki 3.0 for a few minutes. --Taylor Swift lover (talk) 17:49, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

yawn The whole "elvis is king and friends" trolling got old a while ago. Lord Aeonian (talk) 20:26, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Just to let you know, the picture has your IP in it. Christopher (talk) 20:28, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I don't get this, could someone explain it to me? I was an Ameriwiki editor many moons ago, and I remember you two guys going on about stuff like this, but I just don't get it. Is this some kind of inside joke? (((Zack Martin))) 00:25, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Not sure why someone would want to make their signature look like mine (It is funny)? As for "Elvis is King" being a troll, that is so old that it could be found at an archeological dig.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:18, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

The deep state strikes again!

Ex-GOP rep blames arrest [for attempting to embezzle hundreds of thousands of dollars] on 'deep state' conspiracy. This needs a page. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 23:49, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Added to the backlog. Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 15:49, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

AIDS denialism help needed

Attention anyone who is familiar with HIV/AIDS denialism (especially Peter Duesberg), your help is needed on the 'talk page regarding some detailed issues that a BoN has raised. Bongolian (talk) 02:07, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

this user asserts the fact that the issue has been resolvedFAMAS (Talk) (Contribs) [[6]] 11:22, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Is the climate change movement saying consumption threatens the planet?

Here's the dilemma: the old-school Cold warriors on all sides of the tri-polar debate say peace and trade go hand-in-hand. 'Trade' being a codeword for 'consumerism'. Through this formula we've avoided nuclear war for 70 years, although we've failed at curtailing proliferation. The people of India, China, Brazil, Indonesia, Russia, the EU and elsewhere all are living the Amrerican dream, success and freedom defined as driving a gas polluting vehicle. The climate change movement says consumption threatens tbe planet. The Salafis say Western consumerism threatens Islam's survival. Are the people of all tbe aforementioned countries willing to bow to these political forces, whose policy objectives are the same? This is only one problem in sorting how to find a path of continued existence on the planet, cause neither the climate change advocates, the Salafis, or Westernized mass consumers have a monopoly on the solution.

Remember George Bush's immediate advice to citizens how to respond to the 9/11 attack? "Go shopping." In theory, he was right. And that thinking sustained us another 16 years. But I see whole system breaking down fairly rapidly. nobs 05:49, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Not sure what that conversation was about anymore, so I made a new section.

An arbitrary definition of success and freedom is such an easy way to "prove" than Indians are living the American dream. And yet, in this listWikipedia's W.svg, the US is number 3 with 797 road motor vehicles (excluding two-wheelers) per 1000 people, India is number 160 with 18... If we want to cherry pick criteria to fit our narratives, at least let's try to get some numbers.

AGW is a measurable physical phenomenon, it means that we (humans everywhere, not targeting anyone) are putting so much CO2 into the atmosphere that the planet's temperature is increasing more than it would have naturally. Magically shifting energy sources would stop our CO2 output without requiring any reduction in production or consumption. But this is a huge technological challenge, transportation is only a part of it (15% according to this, "the largest net contributor to climate change pollution" according to this), and before we get there, reducing waste overall would help (it would also u with many other things).

I don't have any two-word solution that will make the world a better place. Things are constantly changing, and ignoring the changes is the first step away from a solution. --Cmonk (talk) 12:59, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

"Climate Change Movement" there's no such thing. Only people who know what they're talking about. Christopher (talk) 13:03, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
So what is the opposite of 'global warming denier', a global warming proponent? nobs 17:10, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
The same as the opposite of 'holocaust denier' or any other kind of 'reality denier': a realist. --Cmonk (talk) 19:23, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
@Cmonk: Here's a short excerpt from a World Wildlife Fund report pg 8:
The main driver of our increased demands on the planet over the last decades is an explosion in global consumption driven by seemingly insatiable consumer wants.

However, countries have not equally benefited from this consumption growth. While there is a global consumer class – mainly based in industrialised countries – growing in extent and affluence, more and more are slipping deeper and deeper into poverty and are not able to meet their basic needs for food, water and shelter. Today the overall consumption of the richest fifth of the world’s population is nine times that of the poorest fifth (UNEP, 2002).

In line with these disparities in the global geography of consumption, the lifestyle of people in different countries poses very different demands on the planet and countries have contributed very differently to global environmental problems. While the Ecological Footprint of the average American, for example, is 9.4 gha/cap, a person in India only has a footprint of 0.9 gha/cap. The Ecological Footprint of Sweden is 5.1 gha/cap. In comparison to the recommended 2,1 gha/cap that the planet is able to cope with (WWF, 2008), we would need another 2 planets to sustain our lifestyle if everyone in the world would live like we do in Sweden.

Therefore, the world is faced with a twofold challenge. We need to reduce the overall demands on the planet while meeting our present needs more widely and to allow future generations to meet their needs. This is the idea behind the concept of sustainable development, which we hope will lead to “the fulfilment of basic needs, improved living standards for all, better protected and managed ecosystems and a safer more prosperous future” (UN, 1992).

(Note many of these hypotheses and projected statistical conclusions take no consideration of future gains in energy efficiency, an unknown variable). nobs 17:39, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
It's the Capitalist Peace Theory that basically says that trade and capitalism cause peace because in an interdependent world economy war is too distruptive. CorruptUser (talk) 18:06, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Hence my conclusion, that breakdown of that paradigm, which is occurring now fairly rapidly, is leading to a world of political instability. In the period of 1945-72, the only nuclear powers were the five permanent members of the UN Security Council. Today they can be defied, and we're not even talking about non-state actors. There are other competing interests now. And another point still still stands: proponents of global warming theory are following a political agenda and twin track that parallels Salafism - anti-Western materialism and consumerism, without passing judgement on the merits of either. nobs 18:24, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
In my opinion, it should be expected that any entity with the will and resources could develop arbitrary levels of science and technology, simply because the laws of physics are the same for everyone; so it is almost unavoidable that nuclear proliferation would become a global issue. Back on topic, the section in the report that you link (section 1.1 "Living beyond limits") contains 2 parts, a first one about the ecological footprintWikipedia's W.svg which you cited, and a second one about global warming. The idea of ecological footprint includes concepts such as "Carbon, Food, Housing, and Goods and Services", so there is some level of guesswork involved, and it is not without its critiquesWikipedia's W.svg. But global warming is a different thing, with its own measurements and models. It would help if you could specify what you call "global warming theory", because I can't tell whether we are talking about the same thing. --Cmonk (talk) 19:19, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
That's what I'm saying. The movement is elusive. It lingers in the shadows, has a political agenda, attacks its opponents, and denies it exists (see above). Its rhetoric is vague but inspired. I have as much superficial knowledge of global warming as I do the Koran after all these many years, but I'd say it too, is a youth movement that targets the young, with a few grand imams and scholars to inspire its followers that Western values, traditions, and society are a threat to survival. These things aren't to be taken lightly, people 15-25 lack the experience and perspective to govern the planet, but they are the one's who will be called upon to kill each other in a battle of the planet's entrenched, competing interests. None of the old rules we lived by now apply. nobs`
The biggest difference being that global warming has scientific evidence behind it, whereas the Koran is a collection of the speeches of a warlord whose proof of divine inspiration was "I have an army". CorruptUser (talk) 01:27, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
I have no knowledge of such shadow movement. I trust the scientists because I can't check everything myself (no one can). If climate scientists say "AGW is a fact and here is the evidence", then that's my opinion (I do my best to check, but there is only so much I can do). If tomorrow they come out saying "we messed up because of this and that", then I will go with that too, although my trust will have been eroded. If it turns out that it was all a sick joke, then I will probably just give up. I see no rhetoric in a graph that shows temperature increasing over time; the only way to doubt it would be to argue that the individual data points are incorrect, and that is beyond my abilities. I don't have a complete understanding of all the details, but so far everything that I think I know is consistent, and the claims from scientists about the impacts of CO2 date back to the 19th centuryWikipedia's W.svg, so it's not just a new fad. In addition to instabilities caused by ideological conflicts, a changing climate would introduce an additional level of instability by affecting basic housing and food security. Models predict that business as usual should have such negative consequences. And instead of being far away in the future, they have already started: coral bleaching, ice caps melting, floods, islands disappearinglink=wp:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiribati#Environmental_issues. Is this all just scaremongering? Are these events fake news or merely coincidental? I doubt it, but if the people who dedicate their lives to the question say we should do something about it, then we probably should. --Cmonk (talk) 02:09, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

There appears to be 'at least some connection' between human activity and 'what happens to the world as a whole' - and if you use fewer resources (or use your resources more effectively) you spend less money (which you can use in other, more enjoyable areas).

Can someone come up with a succinct 'Morton's Fork style version of this? (talk) 17:14, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

School Of Life on the cosmopolitan mindset

A worthwhile video! Ripe for critically contrasting against a vast range of topics (beside shyness) — ranging from identity politics to othering to xenophobia and racism... Food for thought. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:12, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Personal tools