RationalWiki:Saloon bar

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Saloon bar
WIGO Bar colour.png

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

What is going on?

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

RationalWiki:Forum
  1. Crazy loud-mouthed biblical prophetic site (13:05, 8 Feb 2016)
  2. Why is the Men's Right's movement misogynist? (23:14, 7 Feb 2016)
  3. What would you say to God? (06:35, 5 Feb 2016)
  4. Exagerated Religion (00:06, 5 Feb 2016)
  5. Do you think God made everything happen on Earth? (21:24, 4 Feb 2016)
  6. Religion and Worldview (18:40, 4 Feb 2016)
To do list

Contents


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

[edit] Oregon

One dead, Bundy arrested. Pippa (talk) 03:16, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

And thus the tragic tale of Y'allQaeda comes to an end. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 03:19, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Dunno - could spark something - they've got a martyr now. Pippa (talk) 03:27, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
I wonder how much more it would take for them to be called terrorists by mass media. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 03:30, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
They would have to gun down federal agents without provocation. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 03:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Good riddance. --Castaigne2 (talk) 03:37, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm not happy someone had to die. I'm not convinced an armed takeover could necessarily be disarmed without it. But I'm still unhappy with it. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:16, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
To be fair, the guy that is believed to have died, LaVoy Finicum, said he'd rather die than go to jail. AyzmoCheers 15:54, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
One shuffling off this mortal coil, one being wounded, as well as the leader himself being arrested with several of his goons is the result of a small confrontation - but they're going to force the feds to relinquish territory? TheAmazingSkeptic (talk) 17:55, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Well I wouldn't have wanted anyone to die during this siege, but even during the 1977 Hanafi Siege[wp] within Washington DC, where we used diplomacy and religious leaders, someone ended up dying albeit in the hospital. I was surprised that the police were allowing them to receive donations of food though. Hopefully the survivors will be heavily charged unlike Cliven Bundy and his goons.--Owlman (talk) 21:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

And now the remaining terrorists at Malheur are asking for backup and to kill anyone who tries to stop them from getting there. Not that I expected anything else from this bunch. --Castaigne2 (talk) 04:28, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

What I can't believe is that new details shows that these guys were allowed to go into town and buy groceries and one of the brothers was captured in Arizona while recruiting people; these guys weren't even contained even after saying they would kill any cops who tried to take back the BLM building, a federal building, which is theft of federal property. They let that 18 year old and her family to just walk into that occupied building and join them and the militia members were able to talk to FBI agents face to face w/o being arrested. Some of the people who have been arrested have yet to be charged; they could be easily charged with insurrection, theft of federal property, resisting arrest, and felony murder. WTF is going on. We set up a parameter when AIM and WARN took over Wounded Knee in 1973 and we fucking bombed Philedelphia when MOVE took over some row houses. Hell, we actually besieged the Branch Davidians at Waco and the Weaver's at Ruby Ridge.--Owlman (talk) 04:06, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
To be fair, pretty much all of those heavy-response incidents were failures in terms of bringing about an acceptable end to the situation. As I understand it, 'softly, softly' is considered best practice these days. Think about the arrest in Arizona - by taking him in that far away, there's no chance of any of his buddies being able to interfere with the arrest. The main group only learning about it second-hand makes it less of a potential rallying point for further escalation. And lastly, being as far away as possible means that even if they do harbour dreams of springing him out of the hoosegow they'd have to give up their seized territory to attempt it. Arresting the perpetrators in small groups when they head out for supplies is much more effective than laying siege to them. Queexchthonic murmurings 10:35, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
I am not asking them to go in violently or to begin a siege (not that that is a bad idea), but one of the brothers was caught in Arkansas and they were still receiving food donations. These guys were also allowed to go into town repeatedly so I call BS that they had to wait three weeks before they could capture these guys.--Owlman (talk) 01:22, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Now that Mona is gone...

Can we PLEASE agree on whether Electronic Intifada and 972mag and reliable sources or not? CorruptUser (talk) 02:34, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't know either, but from the very name, I guess the former might be biased, especially when it comes to Israel and Judaism... Pizzameister (talk) 02:35, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
They may be pro-Palestinian websites, but that doesn't mean they are less reliable. The mainstream media is also biased. --Gh1900 (talk) 02:39, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
And having decided that they are reliable or unreliable what then? We assume that everything they say is true or false? What do you want to achieve CU? Tielec01 (talk) 03:07, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
I looked at what you removed CU, due to the references being +972 and/or EI, in this edit. It turns out the claim is true according to the BBC. Perhaps spend more time worrying about the truth of claims, and less on your opinion about the trustworthiness of its sources. Tielec01 (talk) 03:18, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Any claim about either Israelis or the Palestinians should NOT come from someone who wants either destroyed. We criticize countries to improve them, not dismantle them. There is a fuckton that Israel does wrong, but when you stare into the craziness, the craziness stares back. CorruptUser (talk) 03:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Maybe we should leave (some of) this to Wikipedia and only focus on the utter batshit insane people on either side? Like those who say Jews are apes and pigs and those that want to rebuild the temple. Pizzameister (talk) 03:27, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
@CU - Nonsense; we regularly cite Richard Dawkins on Theology, Ken Miller on creationism and Anita Sarkeesian on Gamergate.
@Pizza could not agree more, to channel LW, politics is the mind-killer.Tielec01 (talk) 03:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
So you think we should destroy the Israelis or the Palestinians? Because I'm quite sure that Dawkins doesn't want to kill all religious people.CorruptUser (talk) 03:44, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Well Dawkins does want to end theology and religion; regardless you should cite your claim about them wanting to end Israel.--Owlman (talk) 03:50, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Moldbuggian and LessWrong nonsense, Tielec. (I say that sentence purely in a mood of cheerful sporting.) Politics is the practice and study of influencing people. It isn't a mind-killer; it's how you get allies and implement policies. --Castaigne2 (talk) 04:02, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, Pizza, we should focus on cranks and loons. --Castaigne2 (talk) 04:02, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Doing a cursory run-through of the sites and examining their sources/goals from Wikipedia, I would have to say they are not terribly reliable. They're not WorldNutDaily or the Stormer, but they're close. I would cut +972 right out, myself, and use EI only if what they say is also corroborated by another source. That's just my personal opinion. --Castaigne2 (talk) 04:02, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
That's not a bad policy in general, especially when using blogs/alternative news sources. Tielec01 (talk) 04:06, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Israelis. And I go by the 3D definition of anti-semitism vs anti-zionism. 1) Is there demonization? Caricatures, exaggerations, etc, about Israel as being "evil". Well, remember that "Israel bans book" headline? It was a problem yes, but the headlines and newspapers in many places would have you believe that the book was banned from Israel, rather than disqualified from the curriculum. It's a problem, but exaggerated. 2) Is there delegitimization? Claims about the Khazars are an obvious one, but the whole denial about how nearly a million Sephardi/Mizrahi Jews had to flee for their lives from Islamic lands (lands that had once been non-Islamic prior to the conquests, of course), leaving behind property nearly FOUR times the size of Israel itself. The various muslim nations could have settled the Palestinian refugees on said property and still kept most for themselves, and the issue would've been solved with similar amounts of hostility much like post-Serbia and India-Pakistan; terrible situations to be sure, but far better than the I-P issue is now. Instead the Palestinians got screwed over by both the Israelis and the various Arab countries. 3) Is there a double standard? Focusing on Israel is not itself a double standard, but excusing the actions of the various Islamic countries with regards to their Jewish populations while not doing the same for Israel and the Palestinians is obviously a double standard. It's not "WHATABOUTERY!!!" when pointing the whole picture and why you have such hostilities on the Israeli side. Whataboutery is when you talk about unrelated issues, like we are talking about how to deal with, say, Guantanamo and someone pipes up about how we should be focusing on North Korea instead.
As for EI, you can read a few articles, and you'll see various amounts of all 3. CorruptUser (talk) 04:16, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Just corroborate what EI says from other sources if in doubt, and if you can't find any other sources, take it to the talk-page for discussion and removal if the consensus is that the claim is not true. Tielec01 (talk) 04:39, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
At that point, why not just use the other source? If a source requires frequent corroboration to be used safely, perhaps it isn't a very good source? ħumanUser talk:Human 02:18, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Being against Israel's existence is not antisemitic. It is not antisemitic to be against a state founded on invasion, colonialism and ethnic cleansing of indigenous people. --Gh1900 (talk) 15:13, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
No, not antisemitic. But if you're against a state founded on invasion, colonialism and ethnic cleansing of indigenous people, you're against pretty much every nation that exists since pre-history. Also, no, I do not agree that Israelis have committed "ethnic cleansing of indigenous people". --Castaigne2 (talk) 15:40, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Ethnic cleansing is a rather evocative term for the forced relocation of certain groups of people. Israel has pretty unarguably engaged in such, though I'd say it's one of the lesser offences compared to other stuff they've done (e.g. war crimes in Gaza). 141.134.75.236 (talk) 16:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
I actually came here to contest that, but you are correct, that does apparently fit the definition of ethnic cleansing. AyzmoCheers 16:16, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Tielec. --Castaigne2 (talk) 15:40, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
I think you should lookup what "colonialism" is. A colony implies a motherland of some sort. The WB settlements do kind of count as colonialism (hence I am against those in particular), but Israel was not founded on the WB settlements. CorruptUser (talk) 15:58, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Pedantic nitpickery much? There's plenty of instances where Western people went to colonize distant lands without intending to represent their nation of origin. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 16:24, 29 January 42016 AQD (UTC)
Israel is historically an extension of the British imperialism and today is an extension of the American imperialism. --Gh1900 (talk) 17:41, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
I fail to see that. Britain and France carved up the Mideast, yes, but Britain pretty much banned immigration to the region once they took over, and had been practically at war with the Jews there (as well as Muslims). Owning weapons was a Capitol offense, so you can imagine what the armed groups would do rather than be searched. Britain left and tried to wash its hands of the place, but in '56 they and France caused a war between Israel and Egypt, which is the most they've done in terms of using Israel as a pawn. Israel was close with France for a while; the nuclear program was most likely a French gift. Then Algeria happened, and France responded by trying to cozy up to the Arab world. Israel had some support from the US, but not much, until after '73. This is when Israel and Egypt both began receiving massive amounts of aid in exchange for an end to the suez disruptions. That's pretty much the extent of the imperialization; US convincing Egypt to keep the suez open. CorruptUser (talk) 18:36, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

[edit] In a similar vein

Is http://ukmediawatch.org/ an at-all reliable source? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 12:46, 29 January 42016 AQD (UTC)

Never heard of them before and a cursory look at the website seems a bit biased. *shrug* I'd have to do some fact-checking to tell for sure. --Castaigne2 (talk) 15:41, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Only found out about it a couple days ago. I'd say it's in the same vein as DrudgeReport; the site is very biased, but the links to real websites are reliable. Depending on link of course. CorruptUser (talk) 15:46, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
So it's full of bullshit except for the stuff that's not? Christ, that's next to useless. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 16:20, 29 January 42016 AQD (UTC)
What I've seen of it is pretty reactionary, sometimes outright hateful. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 16:40, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Could you please be a bit more specific? Pizzameister (talk) 17:42, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
that's why I wouldn't use it as a primary source. Anything that can be verified by checking back to a reputable source sure, but not the site itself. CorruptUser (talk) 18:18, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

[edit] On a related note

Maybe we should have an article on the three D's... It appears that not many people know about them and they seem to be quite helpful when debating the Stormfront crowd... Pizzameister (talk) 18:19, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Result?

So do we have some sort of agreement on EI and 972 or not? CorruptUser (talk) 02:12, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

How about a vote, it's a mobocracy after all?--Kugelschreiber (talk) 05:28, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
This is stupid. We are not Wikipedia. ŴêâŝêîôîďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:28, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

[edit] We regard EI and 972 as too biased to be sources

  • --Kugelschreiber (talk) 05:28, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Have not heard a defense of them that does not admit "yes they're biased" Pizzameister (talk) 17:25, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Not a matter of biased, just a matter of so much that is unverifiable, you need another source to determine if bullshit or not. CorruptUser (talk) 19:15, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

[edit] We do not regard EI and 972 as too biased to be used as sources

  • Activist journalism should not be dismissed. --Gh1900 (talk) 19:17, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Jael

I saw this on EI today and think it might be a good indicator of what their bias is... https://electronicintifada.net/content/muhannad-halabi-terrorist-israel-hero-his-family/15316 Teurastaja (talk) 22:49, 1 February 2016 (UTC)Teurastaja

Is now celebrating a some punk stabbing people now activist journalism? Nice going there, Gh, nice going.--Kugelschreiber (talk) 07:32, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
The site did not celebrate the stabbing, it just showed how there are 2 different visions of the conflict and how challenging is the exercise of alterity. Many Israeli soldiers who killed innocent Palestinians are considered heroes at their homes and their country, so it's natural to expect a similar reaction on the other side. As Zizek once wrote:
As for the ‘clash of civilizations’, let us recall the letter from the seven-year-old American girl whose father was a pilot fighting in Afghanistan: she wrote that — although she loved her father very much, she was ready to let him die, to sacrifice him for her country. When President Bush quoted these lines, they were perceived as a ‘normal’ outburst of American patriotism; let us conduct a simple mental experiment and imagine an Arab Muslim girl pathetically reciting into the camera the same words about her father fighting for the Taliban — we do not have to think for long about what our reaction would have been: morbid Muslim fundamentalism which does not stop even at the cruel manipulation and exploitation of children.

--Gh1900 (talk) 17:07, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I was not aware of Americans celebrating war crimes. Maybe celebrating soldiers that committed war crimes that we turn a blind eye to, but we turn a blind eye to it rather than celebrate it. You are assuming a moral equivalence that may not be there. StickySock (talk) 17:39, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
And it takes a special kind of retarded to equate the US Army and the Taliban.--Kugelschreiber (talk) 19:23, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
The founding of USA itself was based on persecution and extermination of indigenous people, and it's always celebrated. Taliban is considered terrorist for its attacks against civilians, but what about the American drone attacks in the Middle East that have already killed hundreds of innocent people? --Gh1900 (talk) 20:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Your narrative of the founding of the US is convenient but also simplifying. Many indigenous Americans died through disease which in most cases (though by no means all) was neither known nor intended on the part of white people. And 1776 involved fighting against the British. Yes both sides had Indian allies, but that is usually not the point. And especially on the left many Americans do regret what happened to the Plains Indians in the 19th century. The trail of tears is now universally regarded as an evil and the only defense I have heard is that somehow was a "necessary evil" (which I don't buy for a second). I have never heard anybody say that the trail of tears or Wounded Knee or any of those things should be celebrated. One of the best general the US ever head was named for a Native American leader who fought against the US. William Tecumseh Sherman. Pizzameister (talk) 20:22, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
You imply, that drones are an especially messy kind of weapon. Say, have drones or normal bombers, smart bombs and so on a better accuracy record?--Kugelschreiber (talk) 20:25, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
It isn't so much that air strikes in general can be messy, but that the Obama administration has created kill lists without any oversight and that the entire drone program has very little oversight; we have used the drone program to kill 3 Americans (maybe 4, but I haven't heard much about that one) and the DOJ has said this is an acceptable policy even though it involves assassinating people without any due process. We also have the second strike policy which involves hitting the same area twice in order to create more casualties. Americans have always celebrated this overt patriotism and every politician, from Robert La Follette to Barbara Lee, has been condemned for voting against war. The military always shows off at American sports games and will most likely do this during the Super Bowl this year and everyone there will stand and recite the pledge of allegiance and many will see it as unpatriotic to do so. I remember how many people unquestionably supported the Iraq war and believed the 'terrorists' deserved to be kidnapped and tortured. Also, Pizzameister, your assertion that disease was the main killer of the Natives is a non-sequentier to whether a genocide occurred against the Native Americans. These events were celebrated when they originally occurred and they are unusual not talk about much today.--Owlman (talk) 01:16, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
I remember having read a very angry letter to the President regarding the Indian Removal Act (doubtlessly an "act of genocide"; a death march). It was written at the time by a white person. Yes there were atrocities against Native Americans. But there was no "genocide master plan", the whole thing did not happen over months or mere years as any genocide in history has (be it the genocide of the Herero and Nama, the Armenian genocide, the alleged genocide of Charlemagne against the Saxons, the Rwandan genocide or the worst genocide of all, the Shoah against Jews, Soviet citizens and many others). As for your comments about patriotism. May I give the word to Keith Olbermann? He said something on the issue. Specifically about the NFL (about whose crimes an article might be on order). Pizzameister (talk) 18:49, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Though I am glad that the major participants on BOTH sides of the Israel-Palestine flame war are out.Teurastaja (talk) 23:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Totally. Now that the zealots are gone or where made to go, normal editing can resume.--Kugelschreiber (talk) 16:59, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

[edit] A question to ponder

When considering religion in terms of factual accuracy, it's rather apparent that pretty much all of it can be dismissed as blatant falsehoods and vague deepity of no practical relevance. But without an objective morality of the kind typically claimed to be dictated by a deity telling us that lying to others or ourselves is bad, why should whether something is truthful be of importance to us? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 17:06, 29 January 42016 AQD (UTC)

There are utilitarian reasons why lying is usually (not always) best avoided. The more people catch you lying, the less they'll trust you. & If everybody did it all the time, nobody would trust each other & society just wouldn't hold together very well. As for whether the things we believe about the universe are true, there are obvious practical benefits from adopting an empirical approach and believing things that have been proven or can reasonably be assumed to be true rather than merely things we've been told. If everyone believed every word of Bible to be literal truth without questioning it, we wouldn't have had most of the advances in science & technology + their effect on society we've seen in the last several hundred years. WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:20, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure why I would need some book to tell me what is good or bad. Murder is bad because I have no right to hurt another or take their life away. That is an infringement on their rights and their person. I don't need a book to tell me that. On the other hand, there are plenty of things that the Bible allows (slavery) which I believe are wrong based on my morality, and things which the Bible forbids (shrimp and equal marriage) which I believe are fine based on my morality. The problem for me is that many Christians do believe in the truthfulness/accuracy of much of the Bible. I have run into many who have a deep "knowing" that the Earth is ~6,000 years-old or that the flood is a fact. And because of this they hold viewpoints which are irreconcilable with reality (climate change can't be real because God controls the climate). This often carries over into politics. Showing the inaccuracies or falsehoods in the Bible can help to crack that worldview and allow some light in. It allows for a questioning of those tightly-held beliefs. AyzmoCheers 19:58, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
142, I believe that objective morality is important, but (even though I am a theist) I don't think a deity really helps us much there. In terms of objective morality, the main thing a deity gives us is divine command theory, which is unappealing even to many theists - "murder is wrong because God says so, and if he had said it was right it would have been right" - doesn't really sound much like objective morality. If "Murder is wrong only because I say so" is a case of subjective morality, then divine command theory is just replacing "I" with someone else (God), and so is just as subjective. On the contrary, I would say that objective morality is something which can be conceived of existing apart from God (even if I believe that it is ultimately part of the divine nature). I don't think the worldview of philosophical naturalism has room for objective morality in it. (People have tried to ground objective morality in a naturalist worldview, but I don't find any of their attempts convincing.) So I think, if you believe that objective morality is a must-have, that is a good reason to reject naturalism, but not necessarily a reason to accept theism, since there are non-theistic forms of non-naturalism (e.g. Buddhism). Zack Martin talk 22:09, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
@Weasel: But util is, too, a morality.
@142: I argue that, because there is a risk that some objective morality exists, it is worth it to seek the truth, on the off chance you stumble upon the true morality. (I think this is also the ultimate answer to Pascal's Wager.) FuzzyCatTomato Moderator (talk/stalk) 05:31, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't think there is any "risk" of an objective version of a subjective human construct existing. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Is the suggestion here that the bible can be considered a source of morality? Because that's a pretty weird idea.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 21:04, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
I think it is if you are ISIS. Of course, they use the Quran instead, but all the stuff in the Torah about stoning and burning people to death agrees very well with their ethical system. Zack Martin talk 22:43, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
All or most of the stoning and burning shit in the Torah was heavily moderated (and occasionally simply deactivated) by the later tradition (Mishna, Gemara and later literature). In case of Islam, AFAIK the Hadiths did the same. The DAESH just chuck the moderation into the garbage bin.--Kugelschreiber (talk) 18:30, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
But without a divine-originated absolute morality, there can be NO absolute morality. We can talk about actions which are 'clearly' wrong (infanticide, necrophilia, whatever) but there are some among the human population who DON'T accept these things as wrong. As long as one person disagrees, then all morality is subjective.
(Even with utilitarianism the greatest benefit to the greatest number of people is subjective based on people's preferences. Building a mosque would make a lot of people happy if they were muslims who had nowhere to worship, and building a women's refuge would make a smaller number of people happy, if it was a community without a remarkable incidence of domestic abuse, so which is the better use of land? Depends on demographics.) ~— Unsigned, by: 81.145.153.190 / talk / contribs

[edit] January 2016

Edits (20518) up 1.038% (from 19760 in December), though that's attributable to The Fuzz (1844). Without The Fuzz, edits down 5.496%. Editors (919) up 1.772% (from 903).

As meaningless as these numbers are:

  • Alexa has RW going from from 26,579th to 27,766th rank, down 4.275%.
  • Quantcast has RW going from 61.1K to 166.4K monthly visitors, up 63.3%.
  • Compete has RW going from from 468,340 to 370,363 monthly visitors, down 20.920%.

The FCP Foundation Moderator (talk/stalk) 03:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

The chart isn't showing up, FCP. I actually noticed the file didn't show up either when you uploaded it. Perhaps it's a temporary issue? Pbfreespace3 (talk) 03:37, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Blame RW's bad cache. (And then yell at DG to upgrade the fucking wiki.) I'll post a dbox link in a second. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ Moderator (talk/stalk) 03:43, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Isn't the Fuzz a bot? Bot's should be excluded from stats... Anyway, looking at the big picture, it looks like after several years in the doldrums, the site is picking up again. I wonder why? ħumanUser talk:Human 04:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
What else should be excluded from this: edits to the Coop, edits to Saloon bar threads that are about Drama and not content, edits to talk pages and user talk pages that are about inter-personal beefs and not content. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 06:42, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Re-running the numbers to exclude the Coop shouldn't be hard. But it is impossible to distinguish "drama" from "content" saloon bar threads without manually categorising each one, which would be a helluva lot of work (and in some cases would be rather subjective, especially when on controversial topics such as GG the content-vs-drama boundary gets blurred very fast). Likewise, while excluding User Talk altogether would be easy, distinguish "drama" from "non-drama" within it would be an arduous manual task. Zack Martin talk 06:47, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Is it worthwhile to break it down by sysop, auto confirmed, etc?StickySock (talk) 16:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Or just reduce it to mainspace, non-bot edits. Anonymous IP editors are our best resource! ħumanUser talk:Human 04:42, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Clinton vs Sanders

Who would be more likely to win in the general US election? Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato Moderator (talk/stalk) 00:32, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Honestly, at this point I don't think Trump or Cruz could beat either in a general election so it probably doesn't matter, but polls seem to show Sanders with a wider margin over all Republican candidates.--Owlman (talk) 00:40, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Sanders, due to the polls and the fact that he is genuine and authentic, and he represents a fresh new change from the status quo. Disillusioned Trump voters could join up. He would be endorsed by all Democrats. He just feels different. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:45, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
You hold a higher opinion of my countrymen than I do. Clinton has a better shot at winning, but if anyone other than Kasich or Christie gets the nomnom, it's Dems again. CorruptUser (talk) 02:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Clinton is more likely to win. Sanders is openly socialist (at least he has been in the past), and to very many Americans "socialist" is a dirty word. (Which is stupid, because while we can have legitimate arguments about which economic system is best, many Americans have this visceral hatred for socialism which is rooted in emotions rather than reason.) There are plenty of moderates who will vote for Clinton but who would never vote for Sanders. I think, Clinton vs. Trump/Cruz, Clinton wins; Clinton vs. Rubio, too close to call; Sanders vs. Rubio, Rubio wins; Sanders vs. Trump/Cruz, I think Trump/Cruz will probably win (but not as easily as Rubio would). Zack Martin talk 08:10, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Why do you think the GOP would suddenly stop hating Hillary Clinton with the heat of billion trillion suns? Bernie has crossover appeal, as evidenced by people saying "My first choice is Trump, my second choice is Sanders". Nobody has to like those Sanders supporters, but if they turn out in November and vote Sanders, that's fine with me. Pizzameister (talk) 18:52, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
I think the "Trump1,Sanders2" viewpoint is really the position of outsiders who feel on the edge of the political system, not of moderates who see themselves as being in the mainstream. I think the moderates outnumber the outsiders overall. Heck, the neo-Nazi Andrew Anglin (editor of Daily Stormer) basically endorsed the "Trump1,Sanders2" position a couple of days ago. (Of course I'm not saying that everyone who endorses that view is a neo-Nazi, but the fact that a neo-Nazi is attracted to it supports my position that its appeal is to the disaffected outsiders rather than those who identify as moderates.) Zack Martin talk 22:40, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────How high is turnout? How high do you think the amount of people who vote no matter what yet can be persuaded to vote for some candidate more towards their position really is? I think most of the potential votes are ignored by conventional wisdom because polls don't measure "unlikely voters". Look at Obama who changed all our assumptions on African American turnout... Pizzameister (talk) 22:50, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

[edit] A new article I started

I called it Naturopathic medicine laws by state and I could use a little help. I tried finding scope of practice by state and I am coming up dry. If anyone knows of any good links to get info from please reply. The article does not look very good right now.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 21:10, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Can you please finally learn how capitalization works in English, and how to properly format an article on a wiki you've been editing for years? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 21:29, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Is it honestly possible to complete something without making a general plea for others to do it after you just barely start it? You can't just do a few diddies and abandon things. Including being asked to stop posting these in the bar and do so in the article talk page itself. What exactly is the verbiage that should be used so this repetition stops? -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 21:45, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, let's all be superhostile over minor non-issues. Woohoo. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
It's like a random kid dumping a large Lego kit in the middle of a crowded store, doing the first few steps, and then demanding that someone does the rest (or clean it up). That's rude for a kid...it astonishingly baffling and openly hostile for an adult to do so dozens of times over the course of a year while being constantly asked to stop, saying they understand, and doing it again a week later. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 22:15, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Dude, I have invested literally hours cleaning up after the same sorts of mistakes from this user for years now. Eventually, there comes a point where that becomes a problem. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 21:51, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Going by the fossil records, apparently the last time anyone had to clean up any of Rationalzombie's doings was in October 2015. So yes, if something minorly disruptive happens once or twice in a span of several months, that's a non-issue. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 22:23, 3 February 42016 AQD (UTC)
Given that there are 50 states and you've only covered 3 of them, I've taken the liberty of moving it to your sandbox. Bring it to main space when it's closer to complete. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 21:56, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
It was immediately recreated by the BoN above (141.something) and Immediately vaporised by me.--JorisEnter (talk) 21:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Given that it's a missional article, there was nothing wrong with the content currently in it, and we have no policy for or against pages-in-construction in mainspace, I put it back where it was. Stop being hostile over someone daring to try to expand this wiki with missional content. Christ. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 22:01, 3 February 42016 AQD (UTC)
Such a small article really doesn't deserve to be in mainspace. Better have RZ (and others) work on it for a bit and then move it.--JorisEnter (talk) 22:03, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
This isn't Wikipedia, we have plenty of small articles here. Moreover, the page is being worked on and is likely to be expanded in the future. Moving it all over the place and implicitly limiting contribution to the page to just Rationalzombie (by moving it to his userspace) is not helpful at all. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 22:07, 3 February 42016 AQD (UTC)
At first glance, there appears to be no need for an article on this topic. See here, which I discovered doing a simple google search. If the source is trustworthy it tells us which states have licensing requirements and which do not. Perhaps the page can be used to document nefarious goings-on and abuse in the states where, as RZ said in the original draft, "anyone can call themselves a naturopath." --Cosmikdebris (talk) 22:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
"no need for an article on this topic" is blatantly contradicted by your linked source prominently featuring the slogan "Naturopathic Physicians: Natural Medicine. Real Solutions." 142.124.55.236 (talk) 23:04, 3 February 42016 AQD (UTC)

While I empathise with AH, I agree with 142. As long as RZ - or anyone - keeps chipping away at it, others will see it and pitch in. It's what is called a "stub". Tiny stubs grow into mighty articles! ħumanUser talk:Human 04:39, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Anyone want a good laugh?

Read this article- https://www.yahoo.com/politics/jeb-bush-please-clap-205248419.html --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 23:55, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

We have WIGO pages for posting news stories. You know that already. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 22:22, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
I was not aware of that--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 18:19, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

[edit] "Bernie-Bros"

Well look what I found on the Internet about them. What do you say with regards to that? Pizzameister (talk) 22:09, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Bernie himself appears to disagree: [1] Queexchthonic murmurings 11:32, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

[edit] WIGO: Science?

I just posted a story over in Clogs about a quack claiming that goat's milk cures HIV. Made me wonder why we don't have a centralized location for science news and critiques thereof. Pages titled something like WIGO: Science and WIGO: Bad Science might encourage readers/editors who are less interested in the social justice/politics dimensions of RW (yes, of course science is inherently political and has social justice dimensions, but let's leave that aside for now....)[EDIT: missed a few words here --- by giving them] a place to talk about the only-growing flow of science and pseudoscience news. Thoughts? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 22:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I like that idea. Pizzameister (talk) 22:44, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm currently doing some work on the WIGO extension, so I'll see what I can do with this. Hold on to your butt. Zero (talk - contributions) 22:48, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
It's interesting to see that WIGO "Bad Science" would be abbreviated to "WIGO:BS" or something along those lines.--JorisEnter (talk) 23:01, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
I would only oppose it because I'm not in favor of such tightly defined categories. But I would be in favor of it if all the WIGOs were concentrated on a single page, where one could flip down to what they want to read. --Castaigne2 (talk) 23:10, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
I agree, mostly. I like the variety appearing in the existing WIGOs and would hate to see it break down into WIGO:FurnitureDesign or, worse yet, WIGO:BadSlipperySlopeArguments. MarmotHead (talk) 23:27, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Thankfully the days in which WIGO:Israel/Palestine or WIGO:DebatesaboutIsrael/Palestine or WIGO:PeopleshoutingateachotherbecauseofdebatesaboutIsrael/Palestine would have had to be spun off are over... Pizzameister (talk) 23:33, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
I dunno. Those are fine for the existing categories: news reports about actual science, blog posts with opinions on science, clog posts of or about pseudoscience - David Gerard (talk) 23:37, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
I agree. This is going to create problems without resolving any. ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 07:30, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

[edit] If we're gonna remake WIGOW

We should redo the whole thing.

Current WIGOs:
  • Active:
  • WIGO World: big events, politics, science, religion, miscellaneous (good and bad)
  • WIGO Blogs: politics, religion (good)
  • WIGO Clogs: politics, religion (bad)
  • WIGO Elections: politics (good and bad)
  • Semi-active:
  • WIGO Conservapedia
  • WIGO Citizendium
FCP's WIGOs:
  • Active:
  • WIGO World: big events, miscellaneous (good and bad)
  • WIGO Politics: politics (good and bad)
  • WIGO Science: science (good and bad)
  • WIGO Religion: religion (good and bad)
  • Semi-active:
  • WIGO Conservapedia
  • WIGO Citizendium

This has the truly massive upside of getting rid of the confusion at WIGOClogs: am I upvoting because it's absolutely batshit, or downvoting because it's insane? Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato Moderator (talk/stalk) 03:28, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

This proposal makes a great deal of sense to me. And a WIGO for science stories would be enjoyable, I think. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 03:43, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
What would the new WIGO World be about?--Owlman (talk) 04:14, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
I mean would we start using it for pop culture then?--Owlman (talk) 04:21, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
I would not like to be the one sorting out all items in the wrong wigo. AMassiveGay (talk) 06:39, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
you are also going to get so much cross over between politics, religion and world events AMassiveGay (talk) 06:43, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
It would seem to me to just merge clogs/blogs and be done with it. AMassiveGay (talk) 06:45, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

This suggestion stinks. The point of WIGO:Clogosphere is that entries are supposed to be cranky. Once you put those alongside WIGO:Blogosphere entries in the same WIGO they'll just get voted down because people will think they've been put there sincerely, & sooner or later people will probably just stop posting Clogosphere type entries at all. Please stop trying to fix what ain't broke. There is nothing wrong with the current World/Blogosphere/Clogosphere split. The only bum note is WIGO:Elections which is an arbitrary subject area & gets only a fraction of the views & votes which the same items would get if posted at WIGO:World. We need less of that, not more. €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 07:50, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I'd say that if WIGO:Elections is going to be kept then it should be promoted alongside the other WIGOs, or maybe replace the bar link which isn't actually a WIGO page. 37.228.230.113 (talk) 14:27, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I think Clogs and Blogs should continue to be two separate things. But science (and possibly "bad science) should get "new" wigo places... Or a dedicated "please put this here" Pizzameister (talk) 18:54, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I never called for a whole-sale revamping of the WIGO system, just a dedicated place for science stuff -- along the lines of the dedicated elections WIGO that sprang up recently. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 19:44, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

[edit] So my idea is bad

But I wouldn't mind a WIGO:Science. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ Moderator (talk/stalk) 18:29, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Mediawiki upgrade?

Aren't we a bit overdue for one? MW now includes by default what we worked so hard to make, and then lost - the "edit section zero" button. And a few other tasty improovmints. Should I just send a note to David? ħumanUser talk:Human 16:22, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

See here (and earlier). Pippa (talk) 16:43, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, see RationalWiki:Technical_support#If_you_feel_like_playing_with_upgrades. I have been flat fucking out for ... months, and Trent apparently similarly ... - David Gerard (talk) 17:49, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Shouldn't someone who's willing to keep the site updated be given root access? It's been a while since I used MediaWiki, but my understanding is that you need to copy over the new version of MediaWiki and run the install script again, which should update everything.
Also, the PHP and MySQL versions are out of date also. Someone with root access will need to update them. And maybe even the OS. 37.228.230.113 (talk) 18:41, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your answers. ħumanUser talk:Human 18:37, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

[edit] How does someone with Asperger's get over depression?

So, this is related, if anyone here remembers (probably don't but that's ok it was quite a while ago) to me and my trouble getting over a girl. I really am getting pretty mad at myself that I still think about her sometimes, even after 3 years. :/ QuantumDudeI am beyond your understanding 19:05, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

What you need is a mental health professional, not the advice of a bunch of strangers on the internet. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 19:13, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
I did and it really didn't help. QuantumDudeI am beyond your understanding 19:24, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm the kind of person who is prone to infatuation. I've been through multiple periods of infatuation with various women who lacked the interest in reciprocation. But, I'm mostly over it. I mean, I still like some of these women (one of whom I remain friends with, the rest of whom I've lost contact with), and when I think of them I feel a warm tingly feeling mixed with a little bit of sadness, but I don't think of them much, other things preoccupy my mind. I'm still prone to depression, but I no longer get depressed about this topic, my depression has moved on to other things. What killed my infatuation tendency? Well, I found a partner who liked me back, ended up having a kid with her. Also, my religious views helped me get over it too, to "process" it (to use that awful psychobabble terminology). Zack Martin talk 21:13, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Why are you encouraging this? --Castaigne2 (talk) 21:49, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Castaigne, speaking from personal experience, I went to see a few psychologists/psychiatrists/counsellors/etc, and none of them were ever any great help to me. In the end, the only person who could help me, was not a professional, but myself. That's my experience. I think many other people have the same experience. I think, in at least some cases of severe mental illness, psychiatrists can really help; if you are hearing voices all day long, antipsychotics work pretty well at making the voices shut up; but I think in cases of mild to moderate mental illness, professionals have a very mixed track record. Zack Martin talk 22:34, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Your choices are therapy, psychopharmacology, living with it, or offing yourself. Choose one or several or all as you need. --Castaigne2 (talk) 23:03, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Sometimes health issues resolve themselves without further intervention, especially when one starts taking a multi-year perspective. Sometimes people basically act as "self-psychotherapists". Both these are facts (not entirely uncommon), and you omitted them as possible outcomes. Zack Martin talk 23:25, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
I file those under "live with it". --Castaigne2 (talk) 23:29, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
It's exactly that kind of attitude that keeps depressed people from seeking the help they need. Vulpius (talk) 22:46, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm not keeping anyone from doing anything. I'm just sharing the fact that in my opinion, "the help they need" doesn't always exist, or even when it does, it doesn't always take the form of a professional psychologist/psychotherapist/psychiatrist. Your experiences are different from mine, hence we draw different conclusions from our different experiences. QuantumDude will make up his mind for himself. Zack Martin talk 23:25, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Then find a different therapist/psychologist/psychiatrist/medication. I was diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder two years ago and suffering from depression for six; AgingHippie's advice is the best anyone can give you.173.72.6.153

I started playing Ingress. Admittedly it's led to all sorts of other stuff, but it gets me out of the house and keeps me active. YMMV. Just join the Resistance, please? rpeh •TCE 23:52, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

It's not like I have never tried a mental health professional, I have a psychiatrist and formerly a therapist, who I had for 2 of those 3 years. I made it to a point where I no longer need depression medication to function, but also wont improve any further. And it's not like I can just find someone who I like who likes me back, I honestly don't think I can, no one has ever liked me and I'm almost 21 years old. It's freaking frustrating, like supposedly "you have to like yourself before you like someone else", yet I CAN'T like myself when I know no one likes me that way, especially no one I also like. QuantumDudeI am beyond your understanding 01:20, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
What made this girl so special? Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 02:14, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Well, I'm not entirely sure. But She was cute, kind, smart, loved art, science, physics, we were in FIRST robotics together. :( QuantumDudeI am beyond your understanding 02:21, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
So what happened? Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 02:37, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
She was a friend I fell in love with, she didn't feel the same way, stopped speaking to me, blocked me on facebook, and accused me of being a stalker. — Unsigned, by: QuantumDude / talk / contribs

QuantumDude, you say you are almost 21 and no one has ever liked you. I was in the same situation at your age. My first relationship didn't happen until I was about 23 or so. I'm sure I'm not unique in that. If you take a longer term view - things probably won't get that much better next week (such good luck certainly could happen, but it's at the lower end of the probability scale) - but the odds are quite high that in 5 or 10 years from now you'll be in a much better place than you are right now. Certainly I'm in a much better place now than I was 10 years ago, and I'm sure I'm not the only person who can say that. Zack Martin talk 05:19, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

So basically, you either ARE a stalker, or she's a bitch who doesn't mind falsely accusing you or a crazy chick who can't tell the difference between stalking and what you were doing. And you're going to pine over her?

If you weren't in a romantic relationship with her, you may not even know what she would've been like in that capacity. You may have dodged a bullet, for all you know.

Anyway, if you have your shit together (steady job at someplace other than Burger King, etc.) and you have a decent personality, you can find a "cute, kind, smart" chick who will want you, and then you'll be able to more easily forget about the chick who got away. Maybe the new chick won't love art, science, physics, and robotics, but she'll be able to do stuff for you that'll make you forget about those deficiencies. Anyway, you can find people on the Internet to talk to about those interests. You don't need all those characteristics in one person; you can have a mix of bros AND hos who together fulfill your intellectual, emotional, and sexual needs. I'm trying to think if I know of any nerdy chicks who aren't too fucked up in the head to be able to sustain a healthy relationship, and I'm coming up empty.

My (unsolicited) advice? Go Asian, bro. You sound kinda nerdy, and Asian chicks are usually the best match for nerdy guys. Besides, they tend to age better than white chicks. Look at those girls on The Big Bang Theory; they're already not as hot as they were a few years ago. White chicks' shelf life is VERY short. Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 12:13, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

To QuantumDude: Dude, if she's called you a stalker that's about as concrete as it gets that you need to move on. Find something/someone else to preoccupy your mind with.
To everyone else: shrinks/therapists are no panacea.
I think that about covers everything. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 16:02, 7 February 42016 AQD (UTC)
He's he going to find someone else if he thinks that she was THE ONE? By definition, THE ONE is irreplaceable. Also, "something" else usually doesn't take the place of the one you loved. At best, you might think, "If I improve myself by getting into these other activities, maybe she'll fall in love with me." Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 01:55, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Contrary to popular superstition, there is no such thing as "THE ONE" and there are other things that can make life enjoyable/worthwhile besides long-term relationships. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 02:07, 10 February 42016 AQD (UTC)
Spoken like someone who has not yet loved and lost THE ONE and only man/woman in the universe for him/her. Don't worry, it's only a matter of time before serendipity brings you TWOGETHER at last — and when it does, don't let him/her slip away. Show them that your love is stronger than any restraining order. Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 02:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I was going to suggest pop music. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:08, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

[edit] In case anybody cares, I, Spud, survived the earthquake in Taiwan

So. you've probably heard about the earthquake in Taiwan in which seven people died. Well, I'm all right. I live in the north of Taiwan but I'm in the central part of the island at the moment for my Chinese New Year holiday. So I'm not very far away from the southern city of Tainan which was worst hit by the quake. I've lived in Taiwan for more than thirteen years and I also lived in Japan for two and a half years. I've lived through a lot of earthquakes. But the one that took place at four o'clock this morning was the longest and most frightening of my life. It felt like the ground had turned to water. Still, I suppose a lot of you live in parts of the world that are prone to quakes. And, anyway, like I said, I'm all right and I'm looking forward to celebrating the Chinese New year with my Taiwanese friends tomorrow. Spud (talk) 07:36, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Glad to hear you're okay. I've never experienced anything more than a strong-ish tremor -- I can't imagine what a serious quake feels like (though we're apparently well overdue for a "big one" 'round these parts.) Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 07:50, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Cool, congratulations! Make sure your Facebook friends are alerted to your survival as well. I definitely told all of my friends when I survived the Nepal earthquake (which wasn't too hard to do, from several continents away). Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 14:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi Spud. You've lived thorough a lot of earthquakes? Wow! How often do you feel them in that part of the world?--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:26, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Congratulations for remaining among the living despite the earthquake!--Kugelschreiber (talk) 18:33, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
I hope you have a nice New Year's celebration.173.72.6.153 (talk) 01:16, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Glad to hear you are ok, and I hope it did not cause too much damage or disruption. Family and I are preparing for seollal (Korean ver.) festivities as well. 新年快乐!ℕoir LeSable (talk) 03:10, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Don't worry, I posted a message on Facebook first, like I always do every time there's an earthquake or a typhoon in Taiwan. How often do we get earthquakes here? Well, there are about two or three small tremors a year. They usually happen when I'm in bed and they usually don't bother me. I know that the buildings here are supposed to be built to withstand them. Small tremors were even more frequent in Japan. I must have experienced about ten in the two and a half years I was there. They almost always happened when I was lying in my futon and I got to quite enjoy them. They were like very short rollercoaster rides. I hope that when I get home next weekend, I don't find any damage to my apartment. One surprising thing that the earthquake did was make my hotel room door come open. I hope the same thing didn't happen to my front door. Thanks for your messages of support and a happy Lunar New Year to everyone who's celebrating it. Spud (talk) 06:30, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Regular RW browsing came in handy today

My parents decided to pick up a bottle of Dr. Bronner's Soap a little while ago, to my great amusement. Apparently, they'd heard good things about the soap, but never learned about all the stuff on the label. I, on the other hand, could explain the soap's reputation to my dad when we got home, and we had some fun reading the religious ranting for a while. Thanks, RationalWiki! Tortoise (flip me) 04:55, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Keeping discourse squeaky clean. Or trying. FrothyCatPotato Moderator (talk/stalk) 06:00, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Do, or do not. There is no try.--JorisEnter (talk) 06:43, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Suppression on RationalWiki

It's ED, but it's also statistics (source, with analysis):

Thoughts? FuzzyCatTomato Moderator (talk/stalk) 18:37, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

To be clear, you're talking about suppressed revisions/logs, right? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 18:44, 7 February 42016 AQD (UTC)
Yep, it's all from the Suppression Log. IE, when a page or an edit is hidden from non-sysops or non-mods. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. Moderator (talk/stalk) 18:56, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
They do a lot of revision suppression on ED too. Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 19:24, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
That's not particularly relevant to anything. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:14, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
I only notice that it seems to jump up when Elevatorgate got traction, and another time around GamerGate. Pure coincidence? But I don't really know what suppression log means. ~ Aneris 19:47, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Absolute figures rather than ones relative to edits/users/whatever say a whole pile of fuck all. Besides, the embedded implication that suppression is always and everywhere a bad thing overlooks that any fluctuation could be driven by external factors (eg doxxing attempts) Queexchthonic murmurings 19:55, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Is that it? I'm genuinely surprised there hasn't been more stuff suppressed given the level of trolling to which this site has been subjected. To me, the graph says that RW doesn't suppress anything except when there's a trolling peak. And I don't see anything wrong with that. rpeh •TCE 23:42, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
There's a reason that statistics is a major mathematical field; teasing knowledge out of numbers in a reliable way is rarely simple. Even if we had some relative numbers to work with, all we could talk about without additional context was trend and step changes, which would say cack all about what caused any change. Queexchthonic murmurings 11:38, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Hm. There have been 3,185 days since RW 2.0 was set up and 322 total suppressions, which gives a rate of 0.101 suppressions per day. There have also been 1,643,011 edits since RW 2.0 was set up, which gives a rate of 0.000196 (0.0196%) suppressions per edit (or, there is 1 suppression per 5103 edits). Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ Moderator (talk/stalk) 00:36, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

It would be nice if the graph extended to back then. Can you replace it? It would be good to have 90-day rolling average rates included... ħumanUser talk:Human 01:14, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
's not my graph, I can ask the ED guy for the source. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ Moderator (talk/stalk) 01:31, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Revision suppression hasn't been available since the start of RW 2.0. I can't be arsed to find out when it was introduced to MW or when that version was introduced here, but from memory, that graph is probably about right. rpeh •TCE 22:02, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Autopatrolling and sysoping

Do we want to autopatrol and eventually sysop those who disagree with RW's views, so long as they fulfill the usual requirements (Autoconfirmed and Eligible user, respectively)? Asking b/c Men's Rights EXTREMIST qualifies for autopatrolled, but I removed his rights (on request from another user) and Weaseloid re-removed them, and CaptainCaptain qualifies for Sysop and Weaseloid removed them. Although Men's Rights EXTREMIST did make a sketchy edit, CaptainCaptain hasn't vandalized anything. If these were normal users, they would surely be autopatrolled and sysopped. Should they be, or not? αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο Moderator (talk/stalk) 01:55, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Firstly I removed those rights, not Weaseloid. Secondly I struggle to see how CaptainCaptain qualifies for sysop, he has no mainspace edits. Finally Men's Rights EXTREMIST mainspace edits are fairly sketchy in general with about half being reverted almost instantly. WatcherIntheDark (Codeword:Iconoclast) 02:08, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Adding that I also dispute that CaptainCaptain never vandalised anything, he once tried blanking the unwelcome template but that is largely irrelevant. WatcherIntheDark (Codeword:Iconoclast) 02:16, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Having main space edits is not a prerequisite for sysop, as far as I am aware. It seems that people who disagree with the RW consensus are in a hard spot; if they make main space edits they are rolled back and this is used as evidence they shouldn't be sysop, and if they don't make main-space edits, this is used as evidence that they shouldn't be a sysop. Sysop rights should only be removed or withheld from people who abuse them (eg. blocking people, removing user-rights for no reason etc...) as far as I'm concerned.
On the other hand, sometimes leaving people without autopatrolled can be useful for new editors who make alot of errors (whether in content or style) as it leaves those nice red exclamation marks everywhere. IMO Once we know that an editor has problems you tend to check out all their edits anyway, which means that they can be given autopatrolled but I can understand why some may disagree and wouldn't choose that hill to die on. Tielec01 (talk) 02:51, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Looked at that way, the red exclamation point could almost be considered a badge of honor for dissidents. It shows they're always trying to push the envelope to the limits of what the mainstream is comfortable with (or even beyond). Even if they get slapped down, it doesn't mean that they totally failed to influence; the radical ideas of today could be the mainstream ideas of tomorrow. Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 04:15, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Aim for the stars mate. Tielec01 (talk) 04:56, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
If you set a course for the moon and merely follow the stars, then you will miss that which you have set forth. Hm? Hm? Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 05:07, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
I support tielac01. брэндэн (talk) 07:54, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

"...so long as they fulfill the usual requirements (Autoconfirmed and Eligible user, respectively)". <-- You're making up rules here, Fuzzy. "Eligible user" means able to vote in RMF board elections & nothing more than that. I think this is the first time I've ever seen anyone link it to eligibility for sysophood. Most editors who stick around long enough end up as sysop sooner or later but there's nothing that automatically qualifies them for it or entitles them to it. & I think we can reasonably draw the line at users who promote rape & domestic violence the same as we would for somebody promoting race hate or anything similarly objectionable. WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 09:23, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

The whole patrolling mechanism exists to provide a way to scan down RecentChanges and sweep up any bad edits efficiently. If a significant proportion of a user's edits end up having to be reverted, it's silly to give them autopatrolled. Queexchthonic murmurings 15:18, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Plus, removal of the captcha for people that aren't excessively insane. StickySock (talk) 16:33, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
I thought autoconfirmed was a separate category, but apparently not. Queexchthonic murmurings 16:35, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
According to that page, it is.--Kugelschreiber (talk) 16:48, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Autoconfirmed is something that happens automatically after a few edits. Autopatrolled is something that happens manually if somebody bothers to do it. Personally I've never seen the point; it seems like a meaningless box-ticking exercise. WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Maybe there should be two different kinds of unpatrolled edits (designated by two different symbols): those that are likely to be vandalism, and those that likely to be dissident opinions. Either gets reverted, but dissident opinions can sometimes be more interesting than, say, putting the word "FUCK" 500 times in a row, so they might interest different sets of patrollers. I'm thinking the core would probably have to be hacked to implement this, though. Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 01:08, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

The only reason that seems to make sense for promotion is abuse of the mop and bucket. There is a reason that doesn't make sense, of course, and that is that "outside groups" seem to have no understanding at all of how little sysopship means on RW, and think anyone wearing the janitor's cap is some kind of uber-user who deeply represents the site's philosophy and goals. Hell, even Board members and Moderators don't have that standing. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:23, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Falling from a building

I was going to ask this at the WP refernce desk, but they have it locked... If someone fell from the fifth story of a building, would they die or just be badly hurt? 172.56.26.132 (talk) 03:44, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Probably dead. I've heard humans die at over 20ft falls, and 1 story is ca. 11 ft. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ Moderator (talk/stalk) 04:49, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
People die falling from ridiculously low heights, including less than a metre, although it is rare. The probability of surviving a five story fall onto flat, hard ground without a device to slow your descent would be very low. Tielec01 (talk) 04:54, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Why do you ask?173.72.6.153 (talk) 07:02, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
A 15m fall (based on 5 x 3m storeys counting from ground = 0) would take 1.8 seconds and an impact speed of 60kph. Almost certainly brown bread on concrete. More survivable from an American 5th 'story' at 40ft (ground = 1), 1.5 seconds and 34mph. Calculator. I read somewhere that the rule of thumb for an average weight adult (70kg?) is that you have a 50% chance of surviving a fall from three times your height on to a hard surface. Ajkgordon (talk) 09:28, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Don't do it 172. Other people made it through a divorce, too. Or lure her onto a higher building, if you want to be sure. ~ Aneris 12:25, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Would it be a quick death or long and agonizing? 172.56.27.25 (talk) 15:12, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
The possible outcomes are affected by too many variables to predict reliably. A person could emerge with a bad scrape; or break a limb, or limbs; or end up para- or quadriplegic; or suffer brain damage or coma. All of these are possibilities in addition to the risk of death. If this is mere morbid curiosity, have yourself a good week. If this is something you are personally considering, however, I would advise you to call 1 (800) 273-8255. Semipenultimate (talk) 15:49, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Depends on what and how you hit, but unless you are a trained acrobat you might tumble and hit something you didn't intend to. Hitting feet first on concrete probably won't be instant death, but will cause permanent damage if you survive or a slow agonizing death if you remain conscious. It's far easier just to call the suicide hotline.StickySock (talk) 17:28, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Since there are people who've survived impacting the ground at terminal velocity, you can basically drop from any height and live. It's just very very unlikely. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 18:23, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
But if it was terminal velocity it must have been fatal. Wait! You meant ...--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 20:45, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Friend of a friend fell or jumped from the roof of a building (three or four storeys; I can't remember the details) & landed on a parked car. Had to have both legs amputated. ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:00, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

[edit] The Right for Other People to Not be Offended

Everyone has heard people jokingly talk about the "right not to be offended" but lately I've been hearing this bizarre insinuation from people (usually reactionaries) that expressing disapproval is the same as censorship. For instance, I watched a Sargon of Akkad video wherein he basically says that being denied a platform in the private arena is having your freedom of speech violated. I'm forced to wonder when exactly these rough-and-tumble badasses who always speak their minds became such whiners. Sargon wasn't the only one. The entire cast of the "persecuted white guy" block of Youtube programming made videos decrying the whole Richard Dawkins debacle.
Worst of all was a video by TJ Kirk where he says a Twitter user (Atheism is Unstoppable) shouldn't have been banned for doxxing someone. He tried to frame it as a freedom of speech issue. It's funny, because these people who are supposedly farther right wing than us complain when a private business expects people to follow it's rules.
It's fascinating that they consider such things to be censorship but something like a death threat or getting doxxed is just something everyone should learn to live with.
So to recap: Talking publicly about the fact that you've been harassed = professional victim. Making a career out of pretending to be a persecuted white man =/= professional victim.
And full disclosure, I don't like it when progressives shut people down, either. But I'm not going to sit here and fucking act like I have a right for everyone to refrain from criticizing me. I thought people reacted badly to the NASA shirt guy but I'm not going to act like he should't have worn something else. Part of being an adult is understanding the social climate and not expecting the world to revolve around you. — Unsigned, by: 216.145.71.121 / talk

"Part of being an adult is understanding the social climate and not expecting the world to revolve around you." That, in a nutshell, describes what is wrong with reddit libertarians and their ilk. Every day in every way I'm astounded that so many people can be that self-absorbed and yet have no sense of introspection at all. Queexchthonic murmurings 16:27, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
^^This. --Castaigne2 (talk) 19:43, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Isn't that what bullies do though? They act tough happily being a jackass to others. Do it to them and suddenly they scream how it's so terrible. Like bigots who like to tout the "right to choose who to be around" until their friends decide to not be around them; or the right to be obnoxious and "be real" until that spotlight of nastiness gets pointed at them. They want the right to free speech, without the responsibility to accept the consequences of that speech. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 17:11, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Around Dawkins and other no-platforming incidents, the argument was made that first inviting someone and then disinviting them is a form of creating a chilling effect only authoritarians can love (and do love, in fact). This is often shortend to a free speech issue, which also is an umbrella term for a political climate, and not just a legal term. Once invited speakers meant to appear somewhere in months have to be careful what they do and avoid anything controversial. The social justice movement also wants to leverage employers as the parental control that will fire someone when say things in their own time, or perhaps show up with an outrageous sombrero costume, appropriating the mexican culture (what an outrage!) Of course the trouble continues at Campus, hence plenty of comedians have spoken out against the social justice movement, recently John Cleese. And of course, nobody argues that speech shall have no consequences, or that people must absolutely hear what some disagreeable person wants to say. It was never a demand that people were forced to hear Richard Dawkins. I attribute such corrupted understanding of fairly easy concept to Myers' Law, which holds that a "safe spacer" can never recieve or transmit information without corrupting that information. The argument goes the other way around: when people want to attend a talk by Richard Dawkins, they should be allowed to do so, for they have a right to hear, if they so choose. To sum up, everyone laughs at social justice authoritarians and their silly distortions. ~ Aneris 19:08, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Except it doesn't create a "chilling effect" at all. That's only determined by the court in free speech issues. Also, "free speech" is not an umbrella term in the USA. It's a legal issue only, determined by the Constitution, its Amendments, and relevant statutes and caselaw. There is no moral right to free speech. There is no "natural right" to free speech. There is only the law and its legalities. --Castaigne2 (talk) 19:43, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
That sounds rather like Argumentum ad dictionarium.--Kugelschreiber (talk) 20:13, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Indeed. Even though there are unreasonable ways how people bend words and concepts, this is not one of those case, since everyone knows very well that the NECSS is not the government and Dawkins is not facing prosecution for his retweet. Obviously, this is not what people argue about. It seems Castaigne2 is this simply unwilling or unable to understand where other people are coming from. ~ Aneris 20:18, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
No, not unwilling or unable. I understand exactly where they are coming from. It's just that such concerns are irrelevant. Is it legal to do this? Yes? Then it's all good. Don't want people to do it? Make it so they can't. I again repeat my mantra - if it's legal, it's legit. I didn't say ethical, moral, or any other type of subjective bullcrap. I'm just dealing with the objective reality here, as that's all I care about. --Castaigne2 (talk) 21:43, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
To help Castaigne2 better understand where Aneris is coming from, these two guys seem to share much of his perspective (aka, "those mean leftist control all the discourse. whose the real nazi here?!?!"): Ben Shapiro and L. Brent Bozell III Petey Plane (talk) 20:45, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
And that looks too much like straw manning (Aneris didn't claim any kind of leftist conspiracies).--Kugelschreiber (talk) 20:48, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
"Aneris didn't claim any kind of leftist conspiracies" The fact that he uses "SJW" in every other sentence could make one think that he does. Petey Plane (talk) 20:54, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
I mean obviously the postmodernist social justice movement, which is all over the (mainstream) news for a while now. I don't know what you understand under "SJW" otherwise, but it's entirely possible that some people refer to a conspiracy theory somehow. ~ Aneris 21:56, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
It's more an appeal to law (a variation of the appeal to tradition), except I avoid the fallacy by not claiming it's better/more moral/more ethical because it's the law. It's just the law - and good or bad, if it's legal, it's legit. If Aneris wants it different, he should have his views made into law. --Castaigne2 (talk) 21:39, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
And 'the law' is just a human societal construct. So why, exactly, should we consider something legit just because it's legal? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:45, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
If we're defining legitimate as "There is no obstacle to me performing this action/thing.", legality is a wonderful benchmark. And that's how I'm using it. Now, if you have another objective standard that can be used, please let me know. --Castaigne2 (talk) 21:56, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Honestly, 'the law' often does rather little to effectively obstruct people from committing crimes. The major thing limiting people's behaviour are social mores, and you don't need an officialized legality for that. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:30, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
I disagree. People give lip service to "social mores" (when they can even bother to define them or agree what they are), but what limits people's behavior is fear of punishment. Jail time, fines, death penalties, getting your ass beat, etc. Why do you not do the bad/illegal/wrong thing, even when it clearly benefits you? Because the punishment is worse than the benefit.
Or at least, that's my point of view. --Castaigne2 (talk) 23:06, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Because we share a common baseline of human well-being that helps define our moral sensibilities. And getting along with others benefits us all. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 23:13, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
I've seen people say similar for years. I have never seen any evidence of this "common baseline" in practice. I think it's a very nice belief, but not borne out by historical evidence. And yes, this even applies to supposedly taboo things like murder, cannibalism, etc. --Castaigne2 (talk) 23:23, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
I won't argue against there being some people who will be deterred by the threat of penal justice (though fear of being labeled a criminal and resultingly being shunned by your social circle can also play a significant part), but I wouldn't count myself among that group. The role of deterrence is also pretty negligible in cases of impulsive crimes. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 23:27, 8 February 42016 AQD (UTC)
Then let's go with the thought experiment. Since we know a) that morality/ethics is a purely subjective construct and thus not relevant to the objective world and b) we are surmising that fear of punishment is not a significant deterrent, then let's consider the following scenario. A person's objective is best logically achieved by murdering someone. Discarding all subjective issues and since fear of punishment is not a factor, why logically should the person not murder the victim to best achieve their goal? --Castaigne2 (talk) 23:31, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
a) Sure, morality/ethics is purely subjective, but all human experiences are subjective. Subjective doesn't mean people won't act according to it. Hell, without knowledge of differing perspectives we wouldn't even be able to tell subjective and objective apart.
b) But, assuming the person in question doesn't care about all that fancy morality stuff, killing another human being is still blatantly wasteful. With almost all objectives involving the cooperation of living human beings in some way and with the value of humans as a commodity in today's economy, I very much doubt summarily eliminating a human life would constitute the most efficient use of the latter. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 23:48, 8 February 42016 AQD (UTC)
Do you mean to say that you are a moral relativist? How do you derive the objective from subjectives? What do you consider objective? ~ Aneris 00:34, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
The same way everyone else does it; by arbitrarily deciding that my subjective is the correct, objective one and everyone else is wrong. ;) Honestly though, Aneris, surely as an atheist you must acknowledge that there is nothing inherent in the physical structure of the universe mandating one code of ethics over another to human beings. Morality is whatever we make of it. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 00:50, 9 February 42016 AQD (UTC)
Probably should know the definition of the term before really spouting off like that Legit - legal; conforming to the rules. Yay, learning! Also, having people decide whenever they feel like what laws they (and others) should conform to can get as bad as any unjust law. Maybe worse if everyone gets to decide legality, punishment and enforce those rules rather than a law enforcement system due to the size of each population. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 22:03, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, legit and legal are both adjectival forms originating from the same Latin word. But it would be odd if Castaigne's whole point revolved around a tautology, wouldn't it? Luckily, words can have multiple meanings. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:40, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest. WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:12, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
There's way more issues forcing an individual (person or business) to play host to a speaker at their own expense of resources over the objections of the individuals there without any choice. What are you going to do...take the money to fund the event, press people into forced labor, and take over the venue for the night? What's next, go out and get an audience at gunpoint? -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 20:04, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Aneris' argument essentially seems to be that sometimes private individuals and groups acquiesce to the demands of other private groups and individuals he does not agree with, and that is bad.Petey Plane (talk) 20:08, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Not at all. For example nobody has a problem when Richard Dawkins is not invited to the Sunday dinosaur breakfast at the Creationist museum. This isn't difficult at all. Your past actions decide whether you will be invited to fun activities in the future, based on whether people like what you do. The head of National Sozial Justiz Conferenz thought about inviting Dawkins, but then saw a tweet that offended his national-socialist-justice sensibilities and decided to invite Stephoknee Zwan and Marie Le Pen to speak about racial identities instead. Again, not difficult to grasp. People can change their mind, and as a consequence invite or avoid people. It doesn't strike me as a totally new and eccentric concept, either. Quite obviously, consequences in this sense is not the issue at all. ~ Aneris 20:49, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
And that is a case of godwinning.--Kugelschreiber (talk) 20:54, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Maybe, maybe not. :D ~ Aneris 22:05, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Just another case of reactionaries trying the same thing people use against them and hoping it'll have the same effect. Yawn. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 22:32, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
So are you willing to admit that social media harassment of people you deem "SJWs" might also create a chilling effect? I fail to see how any of this is a social justice issue in particular rather than hecklers simply being hecklers. One would think that you would be much more appalled by Gamergate sending a SWAT team to someone's house but this is seemingly not the case. — Unsigned, by: ‎151.141.68.130 / talk / contribs
You sure do have me pegged down, person who's never interacted with me before and has made no prior edits on RW, unless this was aimed at Aneris and not me. (Indentations are a powerful thing). In any case, the Venn Diagram of "just hecklers" and "reactionary anti-feminists" in this case is a single circle. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 23:47, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
What is it with this mammoth site all the time? I see this for the second time today, and realize now that dudebro Queex shoehorned a recent post from mammoth into an article. Gosh, I hate this gender warrior nonsense. It seems all like team douche vs team neckbeards with brony and cat piss men in the mix and everyone else has to endure this bullshit (because for gender identitarian zealots you can either be on their team or the other team. Then again, these people are evidently complete twits and massive berks, so what would anyone expect). ~ Aneris 00:26, 9 February 2016 (UTC)


Yeah, that's a bunch of bullcrap. There is absolutely no requirement for any private arena to provide someone with a platform for their speech. Private arenas can do whatever the hell they want, so long as it doesn't violate a law on free speech. So, fuck a bunch of that. --Castaigne2 (talk) 19:44, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Things like boycotting a product or pressuring someone to resign have always been around but can now be achieved much more easily & quickly thanks to social media, blogging, hashtag movements, etc. This happens across the political spectrum & how we feel about it tends to depend a lot on who's doing it & why. There is a (not unreasonable) argument that this kind of public pressure presents a threat to freedom of speech (as a form of soft censorship) but ultimately it originates from the increased access to free speech platforms available to all in the digital age, so it's a bit of a Catch 22. €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:45, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

OP here. As a follow up, I was more railing against the hypocrisy of anti-feminists rather than saying that I love shutting people down and creating a chilling effect. What I'm saying is that if you're going to act like a woman getting slandered and harassed for having an opinion about video games is no big deal, then I expect you won't turn around and cry about it when progressives do much less than that.

And if those kids really want to know what Richard Dawkins thinks, there are dozens of other outlets for them to hear his opinions. They don't have a right to see him live at their university.

As for comedy, the line of acceptability is always shifting. Minstrel shows used to be knee-slapping hilarious. Should Jerry Seinfeld be allowed to do that on a campus? I tell racist jokes to me friends all the time and we have a good laugh, but I don't expect society to accommodate me. — Unsigned, by: 216.145.71.121 / talk / contribs

The main problem with any sort of rules and mores is that people are morons and assholes. Every last one of us. Ever talk about something you aren't an expert in? You're a moron. Ever just keep walking when someone needs a dollar? Asshole. You could be the offspring of Richard Feynman and Ghandi but you would still be a moron at something and an asshole at times. So you are going to be on record at some point being an asshole or being an idiot, but because the world is also filled with morons they won't cut you any slack. The best example is the old guy who owns the LA clippers. He was recorded IN PRIVATE being an asshole and it "ruined" him (quotes because he's still friggen rich). That's not fair, we are all assholes behind closed doors. But that's the way of the world. StickySock (talk) 21:27, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
And that's something else - there hasn't been a "behind closed doors" since the late 1990s. Welcome to technology. There is no private anymore. --Castaigne2 (talk) 21:45, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
It seems that Spanish law doesn't have much of a sense of humor in respect of giant plastic vaginas Shame really.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 22:14, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
StickySock, please take this in a spirit of collaboration: it is "Gandhi" with a hard G and an aspirate D (which few non-Indian English speakers can even hear, so there is that.) Slurm und Drang (talk) 00:36, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Puppy Monkey Baby

Anyone else think this commercial was more than a little freaky? -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 16:24, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Good old-fashioned nightmare fuel. Semipenultimate (talk) 17:10, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, that's going to keep the tank topped off for a good while. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 17:41, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
It's pretty fucking weird. I could go along with the puppy/monkey combo in some other context, but not for a table dance/lap dance, especially with baby legs & a diaper. Gross. & Where's the connection to the product? Is one element of the puppymonkeybaby supposed to represent the juice & one the caffeine & one the "dew"? WėąṣėḷőįďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:13, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Lol, that was weird. &Weaseloid: I guess that was the idea behind it. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:26, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

[edit] So it's the best season of the year: Campaign season. Plus, useless poll

Well the best season of every once in four years anyway... To make this easier, I will focus on the Democratic race for now. Please give reasons for your votes. Unless someone tells me explicitly not to and has a policy to back this up, I will remove votes that don't provide any reason. Please be civil and Hillary supporters, please abstain from ageism.

So I will split the question in two. First the easy one:

[edit] Whom do you personally support and why?

[edit] Hillary Rodham Clinton

[edit] Bernie Sanders

  1. I'm not American, and "support" is a meaningless word (unless people really support, as in campaign help etc.), though I'd hope Bernie wins. He's a progressive candidate, a bit of an old leftist who still cares about poverty and class, and he's anti-establishment. He also tends to be anti-authoritarian. It would be best for most people and probably for the world, too, as someone who is not keen on invading other countries and who seems to follow scientific consensus (AFAIK). Hillary Clinton comes off as a Wall Street shill, a pretender and a has a bit of a neo-con air around her and thus represents what's ugly about the US. Her dirty campaign tactics also speak against her. ~ Aneris 01:59, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  2. I'm an American (who cannot vote) and I support him because he has a long history of being in elected office, and he supports policies closest to my views. He supported gay marriage when his opponent was against it, he was against both Iraq Wars while his opponent was for them, he supports government-run healthcare while his opponent opposes it, and his campaign is funded entirely by individuals and not corporations or Super PACs, meaning he is most likely not beholden to special interests. He has remained ideologically consistent over several decades, and has not changed his views based on political expediency. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:04, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  3. If I had to pick, but honestly, I could go either way. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 02:06, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
    I would like to have a discussion about this, Kitsunelaine. What is it that makes this a split choice for you? Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:09, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
    Well, firstly, it's mostly superfluous: It doesn't matter, as I live in New Zealand, and can't vote, though I do pay attention to the election. Honestly, I find both Sanders and Clinton pretty reasonable, and the sides against both parties haven't made any convincing arguments, not the least because Clinton has mostly been subject to BHENGAZI and EMAILS and YOU'RE ONLY POPULAR BECAUSE YOU'RE A WOMAN, and... Well. Yeah. Lots of bullshit, basically. I kind of err on either side, because they both seem like reasonable people. It's no surprise to me that they're in a dead tie. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 02:14, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  4. Good enough. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar?~) 03:26, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  5. Mostly because I remember the first Clinton presidency. Even then, it was generally understood that Hillary was the brains behind the outfit. She might even be the most attractive candidate in the race - if she were running as a Republican. Back when the Republican party was still plausible as a party in government, she would have made a good one. And if the Republicans somehow manage to form a government, she'd probably switch back in a heartbeat if that's where the power was. She was a Republican before. And when she was First Lady, the Democratic party embraced mass incarceration, anti-immigration xenophobia, copyright extension, financial deregulation, bankruptcy "reform", massive welfare cuts, "school choice", "don't ask, don't tell", the Defense of Marriage Act, and other right wing ideas that their focus groups approved of. She was handed a special portfolio to produce a health care reform plan; she failed where Obama sort of succeeded. And that's the problem. Sanders, for all his flaws, seems to have a working moral compass. And I get annoyed when I recall all this, and then get told that if you're against Hillary you're a sexist. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 04:59, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  6. Because of cleaner record, appears likelier to get over the massive "Hillary is a walking scandal" hump. Because of moderateness on guns and appeals to the impoverished, stands better chance at winning "Reagan" Republicans. Outstanding records on race and civil liberties, is thus more likely to appeal to minority voters who (if Rubio runs) could possibly switch than Clinton. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö Moderator (talk/stalk) 05:05, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  7. Smerdis pretty much took it all away for me, but I wouldn't ever vote from HRC because I will never vote for an Iraq war supporter. Sanders may not be a democratic socialist in policy and his foreign policy history has me raise my eyebrow, but only he is strong enough to defeat the Republicans.--Owlman (talk) 05:18, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  8. My support goes with Sanders because he has a great track record as a Senator, he's never really flopped on any issue for votes, and he is really big on free education and health-care. Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt Mierda, shit, mierda, shit, mierda, shit... Look! 07:43, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  9. Feel the Bern bitch'Legionwhat do you want from me 16:47, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Goat/undecided

  1. Neither. I truly do not care which of them wins the Democratic nomination. Or if anyone does.--Castaigne2 (talk) 04:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  2. Honestly, I'm not a big fan of either. I'm not a huge supporter of Hillary and feel that most are behind her because they believe her win is "inevitable," as do I. I have a really big problem with Bernie's age. I like a lot of his policies, but I can't get past his age. Maybe it is ageism, or maybe legit concerns, but I honestly believe in a maximum age for election to the presidency. He's only 4 years below the life expectancy and that scares me. Not only that, but there's too much risk for dementia. We don't need another president forgetting their cabinet members' names. I'll vote for the eventual nominee, but I'm not thrilled with either for those reasons. And I can't vote in my state's primary since they're closed and I'm an independent. AyzmoCheers 15:08, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
You can always change registration. And you seem to not know how live expectancy works. The number cited is life expectancy at birth. That includes all children who get shot by a cop for playing with a squirt gun at age eight. In this case the interesting figure is live expectancy at age 74, which is higher, naturally as people in that age are already past many early childhood health risks. You could also argue against voting for Obama as he is a smoker and male smokers have a rather elevated risk for lung cancer, which has a five year survival rate lower than 20% once symptoms are detectable. Furthermore the youngest President ever elected died in office. JFK (Teddy Roosevelt was younger, but he was not elected in his own right, instead he took over for William McKinley after he was shot). And HRC is not much younger than Bernie, so on the Dem side that argument really is a wash. Sure, she looks a lot younger than she is, but that does not mean she is at less risk of dying in the next four years. Often that means quite the opposite. Several places have had leaders way older than Sanders. None of them have lead to dinosaurs ridden by Nazi Zombies burning the President's mansion even if they died in office... Pizzameister (talk) 19:57, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
I have no intention of changing my registration. I'm a registered independent because that is how I feel. I'm one of those weird people who googles every person/measure on the ballot and votes on them individually, so I've never voted down party lines or even close to it. Yes, I know that, in theory, he has 11.5 years left to live, statistically. However, 6 years (HRC is 68 to his 74) does make a difference. I don't think we need a president elected in over 70. I know you can do math so I won't do it for you, but assuming he runs again (which generally is how it works), he'd be over 80 leaving office and that's not the age I want of someone making these decisions. Maybe that's ageist of me. If so, I'm totally ok with my biases. As for your assertion, we had one president elected at 69 and he spent the last several years of his presidency going through Alzheimer's. I'd say that's a pretty bad situation to be in. AyzmoCheers 21:13, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
And remember, what jokes Soviet citizens were making about Brezhnev's senility, when (they thought) the KGB wasn't listening.--Kugelschreiber (talk) 21:46, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Who will win the primary?

This is the harder question but also an interesting one

[edit] Bernie Sanders

  1. His message is clearer, more powerful, and resonates with a larger crowd. His ideas are more popular than Hillary's, he creates more of an ideological contrast with the Republicans, and he represents change rather than continuity; all things Democrats prefer. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:04, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Hillary Rodham Clinton

  1. Only one candidate in this race is capable of literally anything. And it isn't Donald Trump. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 05:05, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  2. I don't think Sanders has much chance attracting moderates. Hillary at least has some bipartisan appeal for the non #Benghazi! crowd. AyzmoCheers 15:10, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  3. Hillary will do much better with women, older demos, more moderate demos and non-white demos, who represent a much larger portion of the Democatric voting population than the die-hard, primarily young, white male bernie supporters. She'll lose New Hampshire, but will eventually amass more delegates and super delegates, and will win the primary. Petey Plane (talk) 15:45, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Bernie is already winning with millennial women. Remember Obama was down in many demos as well before Iowa and New Hampshire showed he's for real. But it could conceivably happen that Bernie wins the popular vote and Hillary does some weird tricks with Hyperdelegates to steal it... Pizzameister (talk) 20:01, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

[edit] It is too close to call / will go down to the wire / there will be a brokered convetion

[edit] GOAT

  1. Also do not care. My method of voting is perpetually the same. I don't participate in primaries. Once decisions have been made as to who gets the eventual nomination, I compare and contrast with the other candidates for office. I immediately discard as a possible vote any candidate who has suffered bankruptcy, is a YECer, or supports a major woo. With the remaining candidates, I then assign +1 for every part of their platform I like and -1 for when I don't. I then vote for the one with the most points. It's very apolitical. --Castaigne2 (talk) 04:52, 9 February 2016 (UTC)


Have fun voting! Pizzameister (talk) 23:40, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Why mention ageism? FuzzyDogPotato Moderator (talk/stalk) 01:40, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Because I guess he figures a big reason people support Hillary over Bernie is that Bernie's an old guy? Certainly an attitude I've never seen. What gets me is that he sees fit to mention ageism against Bernie, but doesn't make a note of the rampant sexist attacks directed at Clinton all the time. Bias showing, I guess? w/e. I don't really care either way. They both seem like viable options to me. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 01:43, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
It was a humorous dig at the "Bernie-Bro" accusations. And while I am more in favor of Bernie than of Hillary, I think both would be vastly preferable over any alternative and good candidates in their own rights. I just don't buy the "Hillary is attacked because she is a woman" narrative any more than I bought it in 2008... Pizzameister (talk) 02:18, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Bernie-Bros exist, and not in an insignificant ammount. And Hillary is most definitely attacked because she is a woman, but that is not the sole reason, and I don't think anyone's really implied that. But there are definitely those out there who attack because of prejudices. You might as well argue that sexism doesn't exist. It happens to any woman who's visible enough, and Clinton is perhaps the most visible woman in the US right now because she's running for president. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 02:21, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
The question is how significant they are. Sure there is sexism against Hillary due to her being a woman and on the stage, but don't you deny her or her team playing with dirty tricks like any other politician and the accusations of "Berniebros" is, to a significant amount, one of these dirty tricks (which is again no claim, that they do not exist. If a crowd is big enough, there'll be always wackos among this crowd and due to Sanders being trendy and anti-establishment, this crowd is bound to attract some wackos from the far reaches of the net).--Kugelschreiber (talk) 15:39, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Except it's not Hillary proponents who are singing the cries of "Berniebros". It's people who have experienced them when they've given Bernie even the mildest criticism. It's not a false flag. Shit, I've seen tonnes of Bernie supporters bemoan that part of his fanbase. That's some "If you're not 100% with us you're 100% against us" stuff right there. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 22:44, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Opinion of arxiv went down a notch

Gisin, Nicolas. "Time Really Passes, Science Can’t Deny That." Group of Applied Physics, University of Geneva. February 5, 2016:

Today’s science provides quite a lean picture of time as a mere geometric evolution parameter. I argue that time is much richer. In particular, I argue that besides the geometric time, there is creative time, when objective chance events happen. The existence of the latter follows straight from the existence of free-will. Following the french philosopher Lequyer, I argue that free-will is a prerequisite for the possibility to have rational argumentations, hence can’t be denied. Consequently, science can’t deny the existence of creative time and thus that time really passes.

<_< FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ Moderator (talk/stalk) 16:30, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Remember kids, just because someone says something you can't understand doesn't mean they are being profound. EG, Deep Pack Chupacabra.
The idiocy of that quote makes my brain hurt. Petey Plane (talk) 16:40, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
It's a preprint archive, not a peer-reviewed journal. From RW's own article: Anyone can upload a paper to arXiv, leading to the expected seas of green ink. Fortunately, papers for most topic categories require at least one other person to endorse them and the moderators are quite experienced in dealing with cranks. The unfiltered topic categories ("general physics", "general mathematics") are pretty much "abandon brain all ye who enter here."--ZooGuard (talk) 16:46, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
good point.Petey Plane (talk) 16:54, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
[EC] Ah, ye, forgot. Then my opinion of U of Geneva's applied physics has gone down a notch ;P FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ Moderator (talk/stalk) 16:55, 9 February 2016 (UTC
"Acknowledgment: This work profited from numerous discussions, mostly with myself over many decades during long and pleasant walks." Lol. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 17:04, 9 February 42016 AQD (UTC)

[edit] RationalMedia Foundation Board of Trustees election

See the main article on this topic: RationalWiki:2016_board_of_trustees_election

Elections proper (after finishing nominations) were apparently supposed to have started in February.

It's February.

Do we wanna do this? If so, what should the timeline be? Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato Moderator (talk/stalk) 19:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Do we really need to? I mean, Jesus, we should not be having an election every other fucking month. --Castaigne2 (talk) 19:32, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes. We do.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 19:41, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Why? What's wrong with the trustees currently present? Have they committed some sort of malfeasance that warrants their replacement? --Castaigne2 (talk) 19:44, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
@Castaigne: B/C yearly elections? FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ Moderator (talk/stalk) 19:47, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
For what purpose? I mean that in all seriousness. The RMF is not RW; is there something the RMF is supposed to do that requires yearly elections? As far as I have known, they exist merely to safeguard the brand. --Castaigne2 (talk) 22:16, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Where can we get some info about what the current board members have been up to since they were voted in in order to evaluate whether or not they are worth voting for again? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 20:09, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

No idea. Minutes and stuff don't appear published. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato Moderator (talk/stalk) 20:25, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't think they've done much. Current trustees and officers are listed on the RationalWiki:RationalMedia Foundation page. Many of them are only sporadically active on RW these days and three of them have been gone from the site since about a year ago (trustee ListenerX, chairperson Sterile and secretary Nutty Roux). WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:55, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps instead of talking about the editors of a wiki electing people to a board that seems to have no real working relationship with said wiki and its community, we should be re-evaluating the relationship between the editing community and the board. Let the board do their thing, whatever it may be without interference from a community that they don't really seem to have a working relationship with. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 21:03, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Hm. Any suggestions for change, AH? FuzzyCatPotato of the Unsophisticated Rucksacks Moderator (talk/stalk) 21:44, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
It is hard to make suggestions for change when the status quo is unclear. Gotta know where we're at before we know where we're going. Tell me what the board is up to, and I can think about it. Until then, I got nothing. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 21:47, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Gotta agree with the hippie. I assume they're doing a good job? But that's only because I know nothing of what they've been up to. Maybe they're shit stewards of this place and we don't know it. They could be spending all the donation money on hookers and blow (is that what people spend money on?) AyzmoCheers 21:59, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Well, that makes a good first plank in the platform for change: they should actually publish minutes (if any) and financial reports (if any). FuzzyCatTomato Moderator (talk/stalk) 22:12, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Now that we're talking about the subject; it's nice that The RationalMedia Foundation, Inc. is a 501(c)(3) public charity so donations are tax-deductible, but it'd be nice to know what that money is spent on and what the foundation is doing to earn its "public charity" title. If the answer to the latter is "Well, we have this one wiki set up and basically anyone is allowed to edit there and we let the community manage itself" I'd have to say that that sounds kind of like a scam. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 22:03, 9 February 42016 AQD (UTC)
You could read about their role. --Castaigne2 (talk) 22:21, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
I been here long enough to know what their role is. The question at hand seems to be more along the lines of "Are they fulfilling it? If so, how? If not, why not?" EDIT: "and if not, is there anything we can do to help them fulfill that role, beyond voting once a year for a members of a body we don't hear a lot from?" Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 22:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
No, I was referring to 142, since they seem not to know what the RMF role is. I know you know their role. --Castaigne2 (talk) 22:34, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
142 probably knows their role, too, but wants to know if they're truly fulfilling it (by knowing where the money goes). αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο Moderator (talk/stalk) 22:35, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
So, you assume corruption and/or malfeasance, I take it? --Castaigne2 (talk) 22:54, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
What I'm wondering is whether the foundation is fulfilling its stated role to any noteworthy extent, whether it truly fulfils the legal requirements for being labeled a public charity given its minimal engagement with its prime project and possible negligence in regards to fulfilling its stated role, whether its role shouldn't be revised or some parts of it more strongly stressed to reduce underachievery/neglect and, overall, whether we don't need to completely rethink and rehaul this thing. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 23:13, 9 February 42016 AQD (UTC)
OK. And what personal ambition drives this? And what do you want changed in the RMF to suit it? --Castaigne2 (talk) 23:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
My personal ambitions are focused rather exclusively on real-life achievements, actually. Speaking of which, that's kind of what I find lacking about the RMF. What real-life achievements does it have to show for itself? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 00:07, 10 February 42016 AQD (UTC)
An awesum wiki about science and politics with awesum outdated (almost two years) software?--Kugelschreiber (talk) 00:14, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Also gender, ponies and fallacies. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 00:19, 10 February 42016 AQD (UTC)
Oh yes, indeed. I lurked here for quite a time, but I didn't want to register an account before all these recent shitfests were not dealt with, lest I become involved in it and possible "collateral damage". Wonder, what the next one will be about.--Kugelschreiber (talk) 00:37, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
FFS, Just nominate the people you like. When it comes to the election, vote for them. Don't vote for the people you don't like. rpeh •TCE 22:38, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support