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.
Invision-Board-France-355.gif For previous conversations see the automagic barchives. Beer.gif

What is going on?

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

  1. Rationalist Party (17:51, 7 Oct 2015)
  2. Why is the Men's Right's movement misogynist? (04:39, 7 Oct 2015)
  3. Most loony doomsday predictions (01:22, 7 Oct 2015)
  4. The siding scale of fallacies? (00:34, 7 Oct 2015)
  5. HOW does this happen?- Atheist becoming religious? (20:01, 6 Oct 2015)
  6. Bird Flu (17:21, 6 Oct 2015)
To do list


[edit] Appeal to the minority

Relatedly, I remember hearing something about how cranks tend to prefer non-mainstream sources over mainstream ones. Something like "second source bias". Anyone have any idea what it's called? FuzzyDogPotato (talk/stalk) 23:27, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I umm, prefer quasi-mainstream sources. I use the BBC for any information about the US, because I was convinced back in 2008 that the US news media had all decided in a back room somewhere that Obama would be the next president (over Hills that is). Except for Fox, which was basically the opposite. Today, it's still that way; if none of the news companies had given Trump the time of day the way they all ignored Huntsman over Romney, he would not be nearly as popular as he is. But the more he stays in the limelight the worse the Republicans look, so of course they will promote him up and down every channel. CorruptUser (talk) 23:42, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm in something of the same boat. I tend to rely on The Guardian and The Economist websites even for US news, mostly because most American news sites are full of monetization crap that conflicts with my browser defenses and tends to make them load unreliably and badly if at all. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 03:39, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
What do you guys think of Al Jazeera and CNN?I know CNN is an American new channel mostly, but, hey. Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 03:49, 18 September 2015 (UTC)Zexcoiler Kingbolt
There are a few US-American news sites I rely on, mostly e-versions of print outlets: NYT, WAPO, also NPR. Other than that, CBC. BBC, Radio-Canada, Le Monde, the Economist, Guardian and then sources specific to the Caribbean, West/East/Southern Africa and Quebec. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 05:45, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
I trust the 11 o'clock Telemundo news. It's like they're trying to make gore websites a legitimate topic on TV. Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 05:59, 18 September 2015 (UTC)Zexcoiler Kingbolt
I watch the Spanish channels for the weather. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 13:45, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
I used to quite enjoy Telesur and its Venezuelan National Anthem blasting all over the screen.... In seriousness, though MSNBC is one of the more watchable networks. Other thaen that of course HBO (Maher, John Oliver) and Comedy Central (daily show). For serious political news the German ARD (always to be taken cum grano salis but that is true for all TV) and of course ARTE... Unfortunately the good political programs are mostly relegated to the late night Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 14:41, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
I find Al Jazeera tends to be pretty decent for news, especially their in-depth/investigation programmes. They are not as good as they were ~10 yes ago (their cover of Libya was more "cheerleader-ey" than Iraq) but they are still decent. ABC (Australia) tends to be pretty good too. I find the BBC on non-British affairs has had its teeth progressively pulled and is now more likely to mirror the govt foreign policy line than pre-Iraq. TheEgyptian¿Dígame? 07:25, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Found it. FrothyCatPotato (talk/stalk) 14:43, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Ah. I've been calling that the Contrarian Fallacy: "I hold a view at odds with the mainstream one, therefore I am an independent thinker." It's a special case of affirming the consequent, I think. <3 CSapphire bullets of pure love 16:38, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Reminds me of a crank I was talking to a couple weeks ago. He rejected the validity of the sources I brought to the table (universities, the US State Department). What he DID trust was some Swedish Wordpress blog. Apokalyps2547 (talk) 17:41, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Trouble

In the house I live in in Brooklyn, another resident was recently starting problems with some people from blasting music in a bar next door. They left, threatening to burn the house down and came back later to take pictures of the house. The cops were called twice, once for the threat and the other time to file a report when they started taking pictures (as if to know what house or to send someone else). I'm a little tipsy as I write this. I don't exactly live in the best of neighborhoods either (to get an idea people have tried to break into the house twice last year), so.... it's not like it's positively some bs threat. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 23:27, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Translation to Portuguese

I´m a Brazilian English Teaching student. I wish to create a Portuguese version of this wiki. How I could do that?

I´m on the regular wikipedia as Kemal Oliver, already doing some translation there.

11:59, 20 September 2015 (UTC)nicoliver

Welcome & thanks for your enthusiasm. I suggest starting by creating Brazilian versions of some of our existing articles. See RationalWiki:Languages for further guidance. There are a couple of Portuguese articles already here. A whole Portuguese version of the wiki is only feasible if it really takes off with other contributors. We did have another Brazilian editor a few months ago but it didn't really work out well as he was writing some quite opinionated stuff which didn't reflect the views of the RW community. WėąṣėḷőįďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 12:13, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

09:27(BR-time), 20 September 2015 (UTC)Weaseloid

Oh, nice. I'll look for that, so!

User:Nicoliver/sig 09:27, 20 September 2015

If there is not a few regular and trusted editors who are sufficiently fluent in Portuguese (or whatever language....) to actually verify what a noob writes in that language, we should not be letting said noob leave stuff lying around for others to clean up later when it turns out that the wiki has been littered with libel or anti-semitic barbs. This is exactly what happened less than a year ago. Let's try not to make the same mistake again. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 16:22, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Wasn't there recently an issue with someone writing up Portuguese pages and they ended up being full of spam or something?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:19, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
This user so far isn't being much better it seems. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 12:35, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
To be clear. yes, the previous Brazilian editor, LTR, was a bit of a spammer because most of his articles had links to a Patreons page on them. But that was the least of the problems that the anti-Semitic shit brought here. And now we've got another Brazilian who recreated the page about Olavo de Carvalho, the obscure Brazilian academic that LTR blamed for most of the world's problems. And then he goes and creates a page that says Jesus was white and people who think he had dark skin are dupes of Afro-centrism. Sadly, I can't see this ending well. I just hope he doesn't say Jesus wasn't Jewish. Spud (talk) 12:45, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Olavo's WP page[wp] indicates he's probably missional though. (talk) 19:18, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:47, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
The WP article also has a template at the top of the page which reads, "Some or all of this article's listed sources may not be reliable." So until The New York Times or The Guardian runs a story about what a nutjob Olavo de Carvalho is, I don't think we should touch him with a ten foot bargepole. Spud (talk) 05:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

[edit] AfD

How do I mark an article for deletion? Kyrgyzstan was basically created by some new guy as a nearly blank page, expecting the rest of us to put in the work to actually make an article. Either someone fleshes it out or it should go. CorruptUser (talk) 13:11, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

That's very easy.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 13:16, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
I've deleted it. We don't need a consultation on deleting a nine-word entry. ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 14:02, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Kind of surprised it survived this long to begin with. (talk) 14:10, 20 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

[edit] "Snarky Point of View"?

Hi, I'm a Wikipedia editor with a different user name here. From what I've read I've noticed that this wiki has a bias in favor of the left, thereby disbalancing some information here (this was done as a response to Conservapedia). So this raises the question: what does it mean by "snarky point of view"? Metamorphosis (talk) 18:19, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Eat Read that.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 18:21, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Basically, as well as deconstructing bad logic and authoritarianism with reason and facts, we also use mockery. This also makes articles rather less dry and boring. BicyclewheelModerator 18:23, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Essentially RationalWiki is satire? Metamorphosis (talk) 18:26, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
No. It incorporates satire as part of a broader view that most subjects we cover deserve a moderate amount of contempt. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:28, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Our goal is a "better world", which often conflicts with the Conservatives' goal of "stable world". Whether that's through more or less government intervention is irrelevant, but we tend to go with what the evidence points to rather than gathering evidence to support our own biases. CorruptUser (talk) 18:34, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
I think "bias in favour of reality" rather than "bias in favour of the left". It is possible that the bias in favour of reality was indeed a reaction to CP.--Weirdstuff (talk) 18:47, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Everyone claims, that reality is biased towards their political and so on point of view.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 18:58, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, but see, I'm right. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:01, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Looks like Stephen Colbert's quote applies in this wiki. I'm myself a leftist with an hate for Conservapedia; it all makes sense now. Metamorphosis (talk) 19:03, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
"Everyone claims, that reality is biased towards their political and so on point of view." And sometimes it's true. The rules of evidence used in American courts are a roughly good guide for how to think about controverted issues: consider relevant facts and -- where experts disagree about facts beyond your competence to assess -- evaluate the credibility of the competing experts. Go where reasoning in this way takes you, but not necessarily to the moral conclusions others draw from the same moral conclusions facts. This devotion to logic, empiricism and reason (for matters amenable to that epistemology, which includes the natural world) leads to fact bases disruptive of many status quos, and so is inherently non-conservative.---Mona- (talk) 19:09, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── So basically the "ideology" here is logic, empiricism, and reason are non-conservative methods of thinking, or am I simplifying things here too much? Metamorphosis (talk) 19:19, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Well for some reason some issues are highly controversial even here. And if you are familiar with the biggest flamewars on the web, it won't take much guessing as to which ones. Also Mona claims to have worked in lawyerism, so that might explain some of the metaphors she uses. Whether other users would see it the same way or use the same metaphor is an open question, though. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:23, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
It's impossible not to simplify things too much. But those are stated favored ideologies. You're pretty on the mark. On the whole it's pretty left leaning, but that doesn't tell the whole story. We have and have had numerous editors who lean right or libertarian or authoritarian communist. You've highlighted the biggest commonalities that we try to share. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:50, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Meh, we value empiricism a tad more than logic. Logic is only useful when it's not blatantly contradicting the evidence. CorruptUser (talk) 21:05, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Oh let's not start an epistemology debate and discuss the relative value of a priori and a postiori knowledge, and instead calm down and just agree that you're wrong. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 21:26, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
What, be reasonable on the internet? Never! CorruptUser (talk) 21:27, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Mona raises some lofty goals - "consider relevant facts and -- where experts disagree about facts beyond your competence to assess -- evaluate the credibility of the competing experts. Go where reasoning in this way takes you... devotion to logic, empiricism and reason...". However, I don't think this site has ever taken those goals particularly seriously, because whenever someone asks whether this site actually is taking those goals seriously, they get the mocking response of "Drink!". Blacke (talk) 23:20, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

"But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink! Quod erat demonstrandum Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
cry moar, gator - David Gerard (talk) 00:02, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
This has no necessary connection to "GamerGate". I would have said the exact same thing back in 2013, when few had heard of "gamergate", and those few who had thought it was a type of ant. Blacke (talk) 06:58, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
You keep confusing this place with Wikipedia. Bad move. --Castaigne (talk) 03:34, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
SPOV - stupid point of view. Yeah, the wiki started off as a bit of a reactionary joke, but for awhile there it threatened to be something more. There was a period where we had a fair few doctoral candidates and PhDs. I wonder now if we have any editors with scientific qualifications beyond a bachelors degree? Given that we claim to represent the scientific point of view the question is somewhat relevant (not to imply that you need a science degree to understand science, but it helps). Tielec01 (talk) 04:16, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Do people planning to go further than a BA/BS count?--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 04:23, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Admirable, but all the good intentions in the world won't help you make sense of a structural equation model, or a difficult factor analysis. Or whatever statistical methods "hard scientists" use (of which I am not one). Tielec01 (talk) 05:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
I have a MS, but it's not in anything scientific. My BS is in mathematics (sort of), which is kind of scientific, and I'm in a field where your credentials are comparable to a PhD. But in math. CorruptUser (talk) 05:38, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
What kind of math? Tielec01 (talk) 05:41, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Presumably applied mathematics. Metamorphosis (talk) 07:40, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
What did this have to do with Gamergate again? Metamorphosis (talk) 07:40, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Complaining about the rationality of RationalWiki is an old and boring argument. People need to discuss actual issues and not dismiss their opponents as irrational. If they stick to the topic at hand, they're not going to fall victim to the drinking game joke. Frederick♠♣♥♦ 05:31, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Well there is one "expert" on the very important field of Glenn Greenwaldology and "civil libetarianism" (which is a word my Spellcheck does not know). Apparently she also holds some sort of law degree. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 12:05, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

People who complain about RationalWiki's point of view or style general fall into two groups. The first are people who don't get it, and think this is supposed to be a knowledge collection project like Wikipedia rather than information on various cranks written to expose their bullshit. It's not an academic resource, in that I'd never cite it in a formal publication if possible, but it's not trying to be. People sometimes don't understand that, just because it has wiki in the name it isn't trying to be like Wikipedia. The other group are the cranks themselves trying to hide their defense of their own crankery under bluster about the rules. Gamergators are a fine example, as with everywhere else they try to game the rules here to get places to push their bullshit narratives, and either through ignorance or willful ignorance try to appeal to a Wikipedia-like neutral point of view thing. It's easier to shield their bullshit when criticism can be called non-neutral PoV, after all. --Mr. Democritus (talk) 00:26, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

you forget the third group, those who believe that snark is the lowest, laziest, most disingenuous form of humour perpetrated by folks in the mistaken belief they are funny. AMassiveGay (talk) 08:36, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

[edit] BoyWiki: Paedos ahoy

...please do excuse me if this isn't the right place for bringing this to you lovely folks' attention.

BoyWiki is a rather proudly paedo wiki not covered here on RW -- they do have a page on RationalWiki, however.

What happens next? --Lola Lazerface (talk) 22:02, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Wow, great find. Poe's law alert the moment I read their own page description. We need a snarky page on them, stat! And for the opening quote... "Get sexy, kids!" - Pierre. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:43, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm not even gonna look at it, cuz if there is illegal content I don't want a man in black showing up at my door tomorrow. Highly recommend following suit.---Mona- (talk) 22:45, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
With -Mona- 100% Scream!! (talk) 22:47, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
(EC) Ditto. Nothing good can come of this. ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:51, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

In fact, I'm not comfortable with that link sitting there on our site.---Mona- (talk) 22:48, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Links redacted. WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:51, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Good catch. I got the link to their main page but forgot to unembed the one to the RW entry there. Duh.---Mona- (talk) 22:53, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Since this could be a link to illegal content, should we delete the revisions containing the link, just to be on the safe side (actually, if the others OK this, you could do it, Mona)?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 22:55, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Unnecessary. ωεαşεζόίďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:10, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
The site's contents doesn't APPEAR "worse" than NAMBLAs (which is pretty damn bad). Still, we need a page on these appalling muppets. I'm getting serious Louis Theroux vibes.
AFAIK we don't link to Nambla's website or to other pedophile advocacy sites. If there are any such links on RW they should be removed. We have an article on NAMBLA as they're a fairly high profile organisation which gets a lot of media coverage. We've got nothing to gain by writing articles on specific obscure pedophile websites, & a lot to lose. Leave it the fuck alone. ŴêâŝêîôîďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:10, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
I may be competent to determine whether there is anything legally risky at that site, but I'm not going to visit it to find out. Frankly, I don't see any compelling reason to have an article on that site. Arisboch, as fr as I'm concerned go ahead and delete revision links.---Mona- (talk) 23:12, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
@Weaseloid I'm not calling for us to link to any such disgusting drivel. But I'm going to push the point that as rational sceptics documenting the full range of crank ideas etc, we can't skip the predatory evil of paedophilia. That's like skipping the holocaust on a history wiki because it's "just too dark" or some such nonsense (the legal points aside, which are valid, and which I do not contest). That's some old bullshit. We need people to be able to Google that whackjob page and reach RW with a refutation of flying colors, instead of reaching that soon-to-be-vanned site. Let there be rational light! I'm not going to take any wild steps here, nor have I. I haven't linked to anything but Pierre, nor will I. But I'd most certainly like to argue that we can't do enough to call out paedophiliac apologism. I'm adamant on that point, my dear Weasel, though I do prioritize any and all legal points we collectively make to safeguard RW. Let's just say I'm morally outraged as fuck over that site. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:21, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
An exxample of a topic being missional doesn't mean we have to cover it though. We may lack of a actual notability guideline, but at the same time we willingly don't cover every single instance of crazy woomeisters on the internet because they aren't worth the time of covering.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:24, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Sure we do. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:27, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
An essay by you and other other user is hardly grounds for deciding we need to cover every random website that pertains to the mission regardless of notability. Time for me to find some 0 subscriber one video 1 view youtube channels. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:29, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Though me and FCP don't argue for that in the essay at all, if you'd actually read it, the work in progress that it is no less. Anyways, I can fully sympathize with all legal points here, but - maybe I was dropped in the sink as a baby, but I fail to understand why the community doesn't rally to quadruple the size of the paedophilia article or something in response to this. Y'all covering your asses as far as I can tell right now - and I'm not saying I'm in the right, for the record. Now, certainly, no links and all that - we do have a legal reality. But I'm just saying. You people need to get pissed at that site, and channel some creativity. Though I don't mean to place any malice in anyone's mouth (nor will I stand by having any deviously placed in mine by anyone else) I do stand by that sentiment. If nothing else, I'm just pissed at that site, and I wish we could find a way to stop shivering over here and just punch that site in the nads, the snarky way. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:38, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Why that site specifically, which none of us had heard of an hour ago? It's certainly not the only example of pedophile advocacy on the internet & you haven't explained why you think it's such a significant one. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:46, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Well, it was brought up. I did read around on it a little - there were no pictures, nor did I even mouse over any of the more suspicious outlinks on that site *shudder*. My point regarding the site is that it certainly appears to be an actual, serious attempt to "build a case" for paedophilia. It's the attempted paedophile version of metapedia, afaik. You're reversing the logic here, Weasel. It's not that I'm rushing in here making a big deal of this site - this site was brought up by another user. Why not start here? That site should be reported to law enforcement (though I can't imagine they've missed it) and we need to start shredding it as the little part of what we can do towards the common goal of moral humanity - to rationally slaughter that site and its contents. I don't think I've been hard on any other point than that I'm pissed at a pedo site; I can't believe I'm not being given even the sligthest nod of agreement here - truly odd. I implore you to take the opportunity to just clench your fist at this crap with me. Rally for fuck's sake, buddy. What's the world come to when a damn reverend is the least impotent voice against actual paedophiliac nonsense? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:58, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
This isn't the first or only example of a pro-pedophile website, and it's ridiculous to act like it is. We can do without promoting it, drawing attention to it or attracting attention from it. This issue has been a problem at RationalWiki before & involved a lot of unpleasantness which we don't want to revisit. WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 00:09, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough. Though I'm still reeling from your decision to not show more passion on this topic. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:24, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I came across this wiki (BW, not RW) by reading a Salon.com article and subsequently Googling "Wikisposure", which is how I ended up on the fuckawful BW site. It seems that it was intended to be a completely serious paedo shitwiki as evidenced by the page on RW. It very much looks like the (EVEN MORE, fuck) outrageous, crazy shit was put there by ED trolls. Never mind, read poorly. --Lola Lazerface (talk) 23:44, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

As I said initially, it went full Poe's law pretty fast. Though, Lola, for what it's worth - your intentions were very good by bringing this topic up here alltogether. The links were also cleaned up by sysops for good reason, but again, this is certainly something missional in my view. Harsh criticism (to say the least) of paedophilia belongs on a site like RW; dedicated to tearing evil bullshit a new a-hole. That's my two cents. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:58, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
I'll try to do better next time. Thank you so much. --Lola Lazerface (talk) 00:06, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
You didn't do bad. The community reacted quickly and undid your mistakes, and you've been nothing but sympathetic to that. For what it's worth, I'd like to personally welcome you to RW. Whatever people whine on you for; just don't stand idly by as moral atrocities take place. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:26, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

How about we do a more general article on pedophilia apologetics, much like we have for rape apologetics? That sounds like a better idea than giving publicity to this one site (which, as someone mentioned, is likely to be paid a visit by the feds sooner or later). KevinR1990 (talk) 04:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

KevinR1990 has a point. We can cover the topic a little more broadly. It also makes it clear what our mission statement is. Sorry to pop in like that. Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 04:05, 22 September 2015 (UTC)Zexcoiler Kingbolt
Start by adding to our pedophilia article. If there's enough to write about, it can split into a separate article later. Avoid naming or linking to specific sites. ωεαşεζόίďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 05:52, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
As I advocated all along! Glad to see you come around on that position, Weasel. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:35, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
The fuck are you talking about? You said six times we should write a page about that specific site. And I said no & I still say no. WéáśéĺóíďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:29, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Whoa, down boy! Before I'm now forced to take your hand and walk you through why you're misguided to the point of parody, I'm going to atleast say that I'm elated that your choice of avenue for lying about me, to me, is in the public eye of everyone present at this forum. Good job! Now; In the very beginning of this ongoing and quickly developing discussion, before several good points made by members of this very community grew forth (e.g. regarding the legal implications and so forth; a point I hadn't initially considered closer and am glad was raised quickly) which I did not contest but adhered to instantly, - before any of that was established - I certainly suggested the importance of covering the nasty business of paedophilliac apologism by stating that I figured we'd need a page on them. I very clearly meant that what they are doing is missional in the general sense that other outrageous nonsense is (and is covered on RW), and I weighted my every word on an ethical standpoint and not on any coercive specifics. Mine was, and is, a point of moral character, a hope and a wish that we could nail these guys somehow, and of submission regarding the specific path the RW community will decide upon regarding this. I even specifically say above;
"Though I don't mean to place any malice in anyone's mouth (nor will I stand by having any deviously placed in mine by anyone else) I do stand by that sentiment. If nothing else, I'm just pissed at that site, and I wish we could find a way to stop shivering over here and just punch that site in the nads, the snarky way.".
I even, in anticipation of your unfair and predictable antics, specifically stated that I'm not going to stand having a troublemaker like yourself try and make this into something it's not. I suppose I will have to put that note in bold text for you next time. Further; my most recent words, and the ones that represent my position thus far (to anyone but an angsty quote miner like yourself) were;
"I can fully sympathize with all legal points here, but - maybe I was dropped in the sink as a baby, but I fail to understand why the community doesn't rally to quadruple the size of the paedophilia article or something in response to this. Y'all covering your asses as far as I can tell right now - and I'm not saying I'm in the right, for the record. Now, certainly, no links and all that - we do have a legal reality. But I'm just saying. You people need to get pissed at that site, and channel some creativity."
I mean, juxtapose my words;
"...I fail to understand why the community doesn't rally to quadruple the size of the paedophilia article or something in response to this"
with your own words;
"Start by adding to our pedophilia article.".
How are we not in agreement? Oh, right - because you're a bully. An incoherent one at that; I certainly did not say we "should write a page about that specific site six times", and I honestly wonder why anyone who wants to maintain even the pretention of being able to produce lucid thought would invent nonsense like you just did. A point I'm sure you won't revisit, as per your M.O. I mean, the first rule of fraud is making sure it's not obvious to everyone that you're doing it, right? I was adamant about not linking out to that site numerous times. I've grabbed some snippets from the above for you (but not anyone else, as naturally nothing could substitute actually reading the conversation from start to finish) since you're clearly both unwilling and unable to not stray from anything I've ever actually said. For starters;
"I'm not calling for us to link to any such disgusting drivel."
"I'm not going to take any wild steps here, nor have I. I haven't linked to anything but Pierre, nor will I. But I'd most certainly like to argue that we can't do enough to call out paedophiliac apologism. I'm adamant on that point, my dear Weasel, though I do prioritize any and all legal points we collectively make to safeguard RW. Let's just say I'm morally outraged as fuck over that site."
"You're reversing the logic here, Weasel. It's not that I'm rushing in here making a big deal of this site - this site was brought up by another user." and "I don't think I've been hard on any other point than that I'm pissed at a pedo site; I can't believe I'm not being given even the sligthest nod of agreement here - truly odd.".
You've clearly fallen off your rocking chair if you're going to seriously attempt to misconstrue the above into anything you've alluded to so far. You're a disgrace to discuss with, so blatantly uninterested in taking any kind of moral stand, so actively resistant towards joining your brothers and sisters on this forum in - if nothing else - a moral outrage, and still so deviously fervent in attempting to paint me out as something I'm not. On top of that, your biggest crime is that you can't even present a plausible case. You just weave lies as you go, resort to rude personal attacks and - with the inflated self-esteem of a rebellious preteen - think you can just sit there and lie unreprimanded, when everyone has the answer key sitting but a turn of their scroll wheel above your construction, irrepairably conflicting your tall tales. Whatever colors you showed here, they certainly were yours. Well done. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:11, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
I have no horse in the race, but I would like to put in a word in favour of paragraphs which are wonderful things.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 18:23, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Don't worry. When Reverend goes into block-of-text mode, that usually means he'll be spouting a lot of defensive/vindictive BS, so you're probably not missing much. (talk) 18:40, 22 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
@142․124․55․236 You (of all people) randomly siding with a bully against me - and obviously for that reason alone - is in itself hilarious (like getting hate mail from Hitler!), considering your past history of being caught red-handed, making yourself look like a totally decent person to the point that regular, non-autistic members of this community literally wash their hands even of your compliments in fear of association with you. And to those who read in the links I just gave: The simple fact that you would jump in here randomly and equally randomly call bullshit on me only serves to remind us all that you must still be applying soothing ointment regularly to your battered rear end from the last time you decided to ignore human decency and act out (to your disgrace). So, thanks for adding nothing but an indictment against yourself and a reminder of past wrongs done against me. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:51, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
@Bob I fully agree that that section of text could use some formatting help. You mention paragraphs; any clue on how I could insert those? Thanks for the suggestion, anyways. My blocks of text can be kind of a headache, especially to bullies and trolls, the heads of which they land on like a ten ton hammer of justice. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:51, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
See? And Reverend, creating paragraphs is rather simple, actually. You just inadvertently did it by making two posts at the same level of indentation. (talk) 20:25, 22 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
@142․124․55․236 I saw! And thank you for helping me with the paragraphs. Your previous accusation of my vindictiveness doesn't hold much water, either. Thanks again, anyways. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:52, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Your previous post directed at me says otherwise. But anyway, you're welcome. ;) (talk) 21:00, 22 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
Reverend, I see you're accusing me of lying, bullying(?!) & personal attacks in a thread where I haven't done any of those things & where you've been singularly patronising to me in every comment. Eh bien. Since you challenge me to me "revisit" my comment, very well. You did say, in a series of comments, "We need a snarky page on them . . . we need a page on these appalling muppets . . . We need people to be able to Google that whackjob page and reach RW . . . I'm just pissed at that site, and I wish we could find a way to stop shivering over here and just punch that site in the nads . . . It's the attempted paedophile version of metapedia, afaik . . . That site should be reported to law enforcement (though I can't imagine they've missed it) and we need to start shredding it". How is any of that to be interpreted if not as a proposal to write about the website BoyWiki? & If you really "advocated all along" not writing about specific pedophile advocacy sites, why argue against Paravant when he queried the notability of this site? WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:58, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Their understanding of ancient civilization is like if someone said "Jesus's hands bleed, and hands punch, therefore Jesus is a symbol for punching. Jesus symbols are given to kids, therefore, the societies that worship Jesus advocate kids being punched. Therefore, kids being punched is good." Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Floof!~) 05:29, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

And then there's a section that basically says "not molesting your kids is immoral." Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Floof!~) 05:44, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Still nothing rational going on, I see. As is expected. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 20:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Another one of your great "jokes"? Grow up. TheAmazingSkeptic (talk) 20:20, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
You know, I don't quite like you. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 20:31, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
I love you. TheAmazingSkeptic (talk) 20:34, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
I love me too. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 20:37, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
What a lovely exchange of ideas we have here. Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 21:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC)Zexcoiler Kingbolt

Not sure entirely how the conversation's going on here, but I've added some info onto the main Pedophilia article (although I believe this should probably be made into a bigger article regarding pedophile activism on the internet). I haven't linked directly to the site (using archive.is instead).

Not sure entirely why we should avoid mentioning certain sites – egomoral was mentioned on the Pedophilia article previously. – AOAPJM (talk) 21:08, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

[edit] The Bulgarian Orthodox's Church statement on the refugee crisis

https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=bg&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bg-patriarshia.bg%2Fnews.php%3Fid%3D184530 --ZooGuard (talk) 17:07, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Nuclear Truthers

Yes, there are actually nuclear truthers. I am so terribly amused. Wish I had the time to write up an entry. --Castaigne (talk) 19:51, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I've seen that sorta fuckers on politikforen.net.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 20:21, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
You mean like this? Okay, it's not very long. --Ymir (talk) 03:46, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Something about CERN, the LHC, and a red moon

More of that doomsday prophecy nonsense. I expect a bunch of people not realizing it's the "goddamned pos particle," not the "God particle." I have no idea if my family members are really this gullible or just pretending to be. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Floof!~) 21:40, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Search 'september 23' on Youtube and get a load of what people were claiming was going to happen. I wish I had time to do a proper, thorough writeup of the whole phenomenon. :( Memesis (talk) 02:03, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
When the red moon/lunar eclipse occurred, I made a crack and said, "It is a fine night for an apocalypse". Now the sad part was my neighbor was claiming the red moon and the Pope coming to America was foretold in the bible; now my neighbor is not a bad guy but he is not very bright. Though I really enjoyed the moronic conspiracy theories tossed around during the red moon/lunar eclipse.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 13:12, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
I find Hagee's version to be particularly amusing. Jediapostle87 (talk) 22:16, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

[edit] So, for the upcoming mod election

Are we doing any alternatives as well, or just 4 with no alternatives? --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 22:35, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

IMO there should be 3, an odd number incase of disagreements but it's not that big of a deal to me. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (pretentious, unwarranted self importance) (talk) 22:37, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
3 vs 4 is insignificant, 3 now sounds good cuz odd. I don't think alternatives are needed, they haven't come into play. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 23:58, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
We already voted on this. And actually they have more than once, including the current batch, which is composed of the 6 elected and 1 alternate, though said alternate hasn't edited for a while. Having a fall back plan of atleast a single spare is atleast future proofing ourselves--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 00:02, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
IK the vote took place, I actually specified that it was my opinion (instead of a request or something). <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (pretentious, unwarranted self importance) (talk) 00:10, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
I was more talking to fuzzy in an attempt to keep this from turning into a renewed discussion on numbers --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 00:13, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Paravant is right, the vote took place, 4 won. I didn't know alternates came into play; we should def elect 1 alternate then. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 00:16, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Alternates weren't mentioned at the time. BicyclewheelModerator 12:37, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

[edit] The Dark Side

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20150924130225AAMgS10 FuzzyCatPotato™ (talk/stalk) 23:58, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

What's it say? This link's filtered/blocked on the computer I'm using. Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 00:09, 27 September 2015 (UTC)Zexcoiler Kingbolt
Question: Does anyone know that "dark" version of wikipedia ? Its something like, rationalwiki.com ratiwiki.com... something like that?
Answer 1: I'm a sysop there, it's a pretty good site. Would be best if Paravant wasn't a mod, though.
Answer 2: LOL. I would feel deeply sorry for anyone who considered rationality to be "dark".
Answer 3: This? http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Main_Page Also, how did you not google "rational wiki" before asking here...? holy f*ck
FuzzyDogPotato (talk/stalk) 00:30, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Esta gente pendeja. I really hope he just misunderstood and meant to say Conservapedia or some thing or other. Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 00:33, 27 September 2015 (UTC)Zexcoiler Kingbolt
He's not wrong. We're all Gothic over here. (talk) 02:53, 27 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
I find the comment on Paravant entertaining. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (pretentious, unwarranted self importance) (talk) 02:54, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Sorry guys, I'm single handily ruining the website, somehow.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 00:11, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
I thought that was going to go in a more... layered direction. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Floof!~) 12:26, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Is it bad that I saw "dark version of wikipedia" and immediately thought "Hidden Wiki?" PsyGremlinRunāt! 12:31, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
No. Unlike us, that genuinely is a "dark side" wiki. And just knowing that something bad exists doesn't make you bad. Spud (talk) 13:32, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
That's what I was alluding to, so no. Well, it doesn't speak ill of you, at least... Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Floof!~) 00:04, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Just in time for Halloween to... we needed a theme TheEgyptian¿Dígame? 15:35, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Yeah. For the whole month of October (or at least on Halloween) we should put up a banner proclaiming us the Darkest Corner of the Internet or something like that. :/ Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 21:38, 27 September 2015 (UTC)Zexcoiler Kingbolt
But... but... we're already a "wretched hive of scum and villainy." PsyGremlinRunāt! 12:03, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm so so sorry. I just meant like a banner on Satan's birthday to commemorate RW... Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 15:49, 28 September 2015 (UTC)Zexcoiler Kingbolt

[edit] This

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/09/24/south-park-portrays-shocking-rape-and-murder-of-donald-trump/?utm_source=ET&utm_medium=ETFB&utm_campaign=portal&utm_content=inf_11_60_2 Master NecromancerWhat is dead may never die 00:16, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Not even remotely surprised. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (pretentious, unwarranted self importance) (talk) 00:56, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Everyone in my family cheered when that South Park scene made it into the late night news. Lel. Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 20:43, 27 September 2015 (UTC)Zexcoiler Kingbolt

[edit] Dirk Willems

Anyone every heard of him? He was persecuted and killed by the Catholics, his story is amazing. He has my absolute respect. He arrived from the Netherlands and held Anabaptist (Protestant) beliefs, resulting his persecution and arrest. His pursuer fell into icy water calling for help after chasing him from the prison he had escaped from, Willems stopped to pull them up (where he was of course arrested and eventually burnt at the stake)<-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (pretentious, unwarranted self importance) (talk) 02:07, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Not until you mentioned him - and I'd call that dedication well beyond the point of, well, stupidity... ScepticWombat (talk) 08:38, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Yo

What up?--ADtalkModerator 02:42, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

 :O (talk) 02:45, 27 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
Holy shit it's AD! Quick, fix up the place! --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 02:50, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
My God. Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 03:04, 27 September 2015 (UTC)Zexcoiler Kingbolt
What brings you back, AD. Miss that RW crazy? --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 03:07, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Old times, and curiosity. I got started here right after the switch to this site, lurking as I edited CP. Rode the roller coaster through the mobocracy, sysop wars, MarcusCicero nonsense, RWW, and so on. Mod and board member and whatnot, although no longer the latter. Still somehow a mod. Weird.
RW came to mind because I remembered Gerald Celente, suddenly, and went to check my article on him.--ADtalkModerator 03:17, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
We've been not electing mods for about 2 some years, though that is changing in a month or two. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 03:19, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Hm... recognize Weasaloid, Sophie, and Bob, but no one else, I think. Probably some name changes, though.--ADtalkModerator 03:17, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Indeed to the latter.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 03:19, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Who are you?--ADtalkModerator 03:25, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Mikal/Miekal. I forget which I used when you last edited. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 03:27, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Mikal. Huh. Howdy.--ADtalkModerator 03:33, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Who? ĵ₳¥ášÇ♠ʘ Over 2700 edits! Thats over 245! 03:46, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
I will never leave!--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 04:06, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
I see Goonie, too!--ADtalkModerator 19:48, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Not for long. (Though it won't be the first time he's 'retired' by a long chalk). WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:30, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

If this section of the saloon mysteriously burnt down, would it be the end of the RationalWiki Old Guard? FuzzyDogPotato (talk/stalk) 03:54, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

It would be the beginning of the old guards new rule, for we would be terrified and give them powers beyond that of Trent, even. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 04:06, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Man, its all GamerGate and Zionism here now. This place is no fun anymore. Also, Hello. --Revolverman (talk) 06:46, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
The hazards of user-driven/-generated content, I guess. ScepticWombat (talk) 08:59, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
SSDD.--ADtalkModerator 12:35, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
By all means, feel free to stir up a shitstorm about any other topic. It'd be a welcome change. ;) (talk) 15:38, 27 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
Wow, all the old names! I've not been on the main site in ages (been on FB a bit - maybe should use same name here?)... Nice to see it again but yeah - WTF is with the zionism flamefest? TheEgyptian¿Dígame? 15:40, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Eh, they seem to be arguing over two different terribly-written versions of a controversial article.--ADtalkModerator 18:27, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Haha Larron is still crushing it with the data! Some things don't change.--ADtalkModerator 18:28, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Fuuuuuck... userpage in the top most edited pages? Must be bad. TheEgyptian¿Dígame? 19:13, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
There was a time when arguing over whether or not MC should be banned was not just a major item, but the major item of discussion for weeks.--ADtalkModerator 19:37, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Yeah... but we were rational about it :P TheEgyptian¿Dígame? 21:37, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi AD. Good to see you. I don't do much here these days though. If you want to get reinvolved in RW drama make an edit to Gamergate. :-)--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 20:01, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't... sound like something I want to do. Wait yes it does.--ADtalkModerator 01:28, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Checking in just in time to nominate for moderatorship is serendipitous. You were one of the few decent ones. Tielec01 (talk) 02:33, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
It was kind of a crazy coincidence. Oddly, it also happened at a time that was just begging for moderation with the Zionism thing. I think that's turned out great.--ADtalkModerator 19:57, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Is Zionism missional? If so, which part of our mission statement covers it?

I know this question might sound stupid, but... What If Zionism as such is not exactly part of our mission? Sure some Zionists (and especially most anti-Zionists) may be on mission. But the topic as such? It's not exactly any type of (pseudo)science or creationism, is it? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:42, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Historical woo has always been a part of the RW mission. The trip to the Moon happened, the government didn't cover up an Area 51 alien incursion, etc.--ADtalkModerator 20:48, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
I dunno. Zionism is frequently misused and misapplied by conspiracy nuts to blame their shiit on some International Jewish Conspiracy™ out to take our guns. But that's about as far as it goes. (・_・ヾ Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 20:52, 27 September 2015 (UTC)Zexcoiler Kingbolt
You'd never know it to read the current remedial English version of the article, but Zionism has played a key role in a variety of historical woos. For one thing, it's tied up with the serious problem of identifying a people with a land with a religion with a nationality: the mapping isn't neat, and so those who insist on complete equivalence between them all are forced to elide the rough edges. It also tangles up different motivations -- a great deal of the modern support of Christians in America for the Zionism movement comes from the pre-millenial dispensationalist version of apocalyptic events. A coherent discussion of these issues and exposure of the various historical falsehoods used to justify some insanity would be welcome and on-mission, and wouldn't be an attempt to replicate Wikipedia.--ADtalkModerator 20:56, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Which is not, in short, what the article currently does to any significant degree, correct? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:04, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it is missional. --Castaigne (talk) 03:34, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Well, the others here have covered good reasons it's missional, I'd like to charge that there is a hefty pseudoscientific element we don't even cover, as a direct response to your assertion that it's not pseudoscience. A lot non-materialist justifications, like biblical prophecy bullshit goes into it. There's some racist pseudoscience involved in both sides of the debate, like implicit essentialist assertions about Palestinians that tends not to be focused on. Israel having a eugenics program for non-white Jews being another. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 14:36, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
[citation needed] Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 14:41, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Oh shut up. There's no goddamn citation needed for there being pseudoscience elements present. They pop up all over the place and it's not particular unreasonable to say that the American Zionist crowd is very into the biblical prophecy flavor, e.g.. As to the "less believable" eugenics claim, Forbes is a suitably reliable source. So, really, stop being a baby. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:06, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing up the topic in the bar, Avenger. Apparently there's still so much more to cover on this issue. A eugenics program even. My my. (talk) 16:29, 28 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
I'd say it's completley on mission since Zionism is absolutely central to the state ideology of Israel, which is a pretty good case study for religion, militarism, and racism being used as a systematic means of legitimising authority and control over a dehumanised other. it's about as on-mission as it gets TheEgyptian¿Dígame? 23:19, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Zionism is largely secular, the IDF receives it's orders from a civilian government, no Zionist of note did define the Jews as a race and Arabs in Israel have more rights in Israel than anywhere else in the Middle East. TheEgyptian, you're full of shit.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 05:40, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Well, there's creationism and homeopathy. They're more on mission. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 03:54, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
It's certainly missional. Please note that the Zionism article has been significantly supplemented, streamlined and a bit copy- and line-edited in the last 24 hours (but with a good deal of content and editing work yet to do). The section on the lunatic and antisemitic Xtian Zionists has been filled out quite nicely.
ADDING: Yes, there are eugenics impulses in Israel. I had read the Forbes piece and some of that topic can be included if the mob wants to.---Mona- (talk) 04:05, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Zionism is as relevant to the mission as the one-half to two-thirds of the wiki that is dedicated to electoral politics, history and several other areas that are missional ony if one takes a really broad interpretation of "crank ideas" or some other term of art from the original mission statement. If it goes, in the interest of consistence, hundreds of other articles should go too. Not gonna happen. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 06:08, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah it's marginal, and a good demonstration of why RW fails when it strays too far outside of areas related to science or outrageous authoritarianism. Still it would be more difficult to purge the wiki of this content than just let it be. Tielec01 (talk) 06:51, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Looks like someone didn't read the rest of this section... And I'd say outrageous authoritarianism certainly applies. That it mostly only happens to certain groups of non-citizens shouldn't make it non-authoritarian or non-outrageous. (talk) 08:25, 29 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
YMMV regarding authoritarianism, I wouldn't consider Zionism much more authoritarian than other political ideologies. In terms of pseudo science, we should have an article on eugenics, common canards in racism etc... What does Zionism add to these articles? That's why I think it's marginal - yes there are elements of woo, but almost any belief system will have them, that doesn't mean we need an article on it. Tielec01 (talk) 08:58, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

What is the goal of this wiki? The goal is to debunk or refute pseudoscience, conspiracies, crank ideas, and logical fallacies. We here also cover other things that come close to that category and are related sometime (politics, philosophy, etc.) So whether or not we devote time to analyzing and debunking Zionism depends on whether it is religious or fallacious in some way. A group of humans thinking they have a divine right to own a parcel of land and 'remove' anyone else who happens to be 'occupying' it at the moment sounds like a crank idea and religious bunk to me. I think Zionism is part of our mission. RationalWiki needs to look at the philosophy and deliver on-point, logical criticisms of Zionism, because it could use it. There is plenty of material to cover, spanning religion to politics to ethnic and social division. That's exactly the sort of stuff we like to discuss here, lay out, and refute. I myself was surprised at the lack of material here on the Palestine/Israel conflict, and I think there should be more. Absolutely analyzing Zionism is part of our mission. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:05, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Not all Zionists believe they have a divine right to the land so much as a historical connection, and believing that you are somehow 'connected' to the land that you or your ancestors occupy is a widely held belief among many cultures. How do we convince, for example, the Australian Aboriginie that their feelings of custodianship of land are wrong? A belief very similar to a Zionist who claims a religious connection to land belonging to Palestine. RW's remit is to occasionally stray into arguments based in morality, or political beliefs, but these are not factual arguments like, say, that the earth revolves around the sun or whether AGW is occurring.
When we do stray into political or moral areas it should only be to point out the logical inconsistency of certain stances within the structures of that belief system. For example, the absurdity of pro-lifers supporting war or Libertarians suing people in court. As well as any factually incorrect claims that they make, eg. more guns equals less murder or it's OK to kill animals because they don't feel pain.
If you think there is an article to be made on Zionism within this remit, then go ahead and create it. Tielec01 (talk) 04:15, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

"Not all Zionists believe they have a divine right to the land so much as a historical connection," In practice, the two are inseparable. The "connection to the land" is laid out in their sacred text which tells their history. They are a people made distinct by their religion and its history in that particular land a very, very long time ago. This is the national anthem of Israel:

As long as the Jewish spirit is yearning deep in the heart, With eyes turned toward the East, looking toward Zion, Then our hope - the two-thousand-year-old hope - will not be lost: To be a free people in our land, The land of Zion and Jerusalem.

That's all mystical stuff about the land of their religion's origins and places. A notion of their hearts belonging in that sacred space and on that soil.---Mona- (talk) 05:01, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Not everything has to be taken at face value. I am more in line with Tieleco1's line of thought. It's not like, say, a native of Nevada would say that in such a literal way. It's more of a metaphor that their memories, their history, their heritage, all belong there.Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 15:25, 1 October 2015 (UTC)Zexcoiler Kingbolt
The people of Nevada, as far as I know, don't believe they are exclusively called to the land of Nevada because of their status as God's Chosen people and the religious significance of the land in their tribal history. They don't invoke imagery from the sacred text of Nevadans.---Mona- (talk) 15:32, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, Mona. I didn't say at any point in that comment that Nevadans or other residents of the 50 states ever felt that way. I merely meant to include an example; an analogy if you will. I think I should put up disclaimers on my comments from now on... Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 15:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC)Zexcoiler Kingbolt

O ye of lowest wattage! Of course it's on mission. With the banner & all I thought this was a serious discussion. If you want to proscribe certain topics within the article, make your case (such as it is) in the article's talk section. MatsFan (talk) 22:19, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I think that any religious movement with a specific goal, like Zionism (which is obviously a religious movement) should be covered here, as we have generally agreed that fundamentalism\t religion is baloney. Therefore, Zionism should be covered by us and treated as a fundamentalist religious movement which can be dangerous, as it is (thousands of intentional civilian deaths by Zionists). We should also recognize that although 'Zionist' can be used as an insult, that in our case, the use of the word is permitted and should not be viewed as insulting, similar to the term Jew. If used in the proper context, that is. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 22:53, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
You say Herzl started a religious movement? What the fuck did you smoke???--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 22:54, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, a movement with a religious component, in that it has mistaken the book of Genesis for a title deed. SmartFeller (talk) 23:02, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Herzl did not base Zionism on religion. He didn't give much of a shit about religion and was non-observant himself. Some Zionists have a religious motivation (e.g. daati leumi, chardal and other similar), but to call Zionism a religious movement is completely retarded.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 23:07, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
As a matter of fact, in the early years of Zionism, religiosity correlated negatively with Zionism. And some Jews still oppose Zionism on religious grounds... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 13:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Arisboch to say Religious Zionism doesn't exist is retarded, you have Zionism, Labor Zionism, Religious Zionism, Revisionist Zionism, Neo-Zionism, and Christian Zionism to give examples, Christianity being a Jewish religion, Jesus was King of the Jews, King of Israel according to the Bible Matthew 2, Matthew 27, Mark 15, Luke 23, John 18, John 19. In my opinion, Zionism is a form of Jewish Fascism, it has a similar ideology and methodology as Nazism. 155,000 Jews worked for Hitlers army, at least 3 million of Hitlers army were registered as either Roman Catholic or Evangelical Protestant Christian. Judaism came first, then Christianity offshoot from Judaism, then Catholicism offshoot from Christianity. Adolf Hitler was a Roman Catholic, according to his sister he never left the Catholic Church although it is theorised though not confirmed, he used the church for social engineering purposes. Hitlers father Alois was possibly born from a Jewish relationship according to Nazi official Hans Frank, Alois mother, Hitlers grandmother allegedly had a sexual relationship with 19 year old Jewish male Leopold Frankenberger while she worked as a housekeeper for a Jewish family. This would explain why when a DNA study was done on 39 of Hitlers relatives, it found a chromosome found in Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews. “Reverting to the case of Dr Kissinger, the traditional, long-term penetration of the Soviet intelligence sector by German Nazi ‘Black’ operatives provides the known context for this operative’s use of his suspected Soviet connections as cover for his real affiliation – service to the Nazi International. At this point, we can hear some argue that any such allegiance would be surreal, since, as a Jew, Dr Kissinger would be ‘sure’ to be antagonistic towards Nazism. However, that would be a shallow, knee-jerk reaction. For the reality is that Zionism is a form of Nazism” (Christopher Story). “As for why Jews collaborate de facto with Nazis, this mystery is resolved when one understands that Zionism is Jewish Fascism” (Christopher Story). The Zionist state of Israel forced Palestinians off their land and have murdered countless men, women and children to achieve their objective, a homeland for the Jews apart from everyone else's country. The Zionist state of Israel are guilty of war crimes. Now do I agree that the Jews deserve a country of their own, yes I do, but do I agree with their methodology to get that state, no I do not. To infiltrate other countries governments in order to sway opinion of the public mind is a crime in itself. To then silence debate of said issue is another crime. According to Zionist Jew Anton LaVey “Some people that come from Jewish backgrounds, where Judaic traditions were really emphasized in the home, are the most rabid anti-Semitic people I know” (Barton, 1992). “I felt a culmination of that whole episode in my life many years later, shortly after The Satanic Bible came out. I met with Assaf Dayan, actor son of Israel’s legendary Defense Minister Moshe Dayan, and he was glowing about the book, agreed with every in it. He said it was exactly the philosophy they practiced, were forced to practice, in modern Israel” (Barton, 1992). “Those Zionist gunrunners could best be called ideological mercenaries. They had a sense of, ‘Well, what I’m doing may not make a hell of a lot of difference, but at least I’m doing what I know best.’ Many seemed more concerned about refining and perfecting innovative weapons technology they were experimenting with than who their new relay or explosive was blowing up, though. I met Zionists that were right out of European prisons–not Nazi concentration camps, other prisons–that had lines of bullet scars up the backs of their legs from machine gun fire. By that time they were sort of ambivalent about the Nazis. Many of them had been decorated in World War I on the side of Germany, then fought in Spain against Germany, only to form dubious alliances with Nazis against the British in Palestine, then were fighting to affirm the new state of Israel. There was always a lot of that–more than people have, until recently, even wanted to hear. There’s a book called Zionism in the Age of the Dictators that confirms many of my suspicions about exactly what was going on between Zionism and Nazi Germany” (Barton, 1992). “Augusta LaVey and her husband Joe, a liquor distributor, raised Tony as they would any other bright, even-tempered boy, attempting to instill useful middle-class values without pressing any particular religious dictates on him. By the time he was seven, he grew absorbed with tales of the supernatural and occult which would obsess him for the rest of his life. Unable to fully understand what he read because of his younger age, he consulted his maternal grandmother, Luba Kolton (born Lupescu – Primakov, from a Gypsy father and a Jewish mother), who regaled Tony with the mysteries of her Transylvanian homeland — superstitions passed from generation to generation and incorporated in the greatest vampire legend of all, Dracula” (Barton, 1992). --XOxJonDoexOx 14:54, 4 October 2015 (GMT)
I didn't deny the existence of Religious Zionism and please shove your Nazi comparisons where the sun doesn't shine.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 14:25, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Why do Antisemites always feel the need to quote obscure pieces of text and obscure people who no-one in the mainstream has ever heard? I mean... Baron Rothschild, some words allegedly said at the Zionist conference of 1753, an adviser to the prince of some place in the 13th century... Why does it always have to be so obscure? Can't you for once make up stuff about people that matter? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 14:35, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
The same reason, why photos of UFOs, the Yeti or alien from the 27th moon or Uranus are soooo unsharp.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 14:41, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Christopher Story was Margaret Thatchers former economics advisor and the author of multiple intelligence journals, as for Barton, she was Anton LaVeys wife and it was taken directly from his official biography. As for the antisemite junk, that old chestnut is worn out, nobody with any education takes that line serious anymore. Got no argument bring out the antisemite line pffft. As for the UFO alien line, the Defence Intelligence, the NSA, CIA and other intelligence agencies around the world have already admitted that the existence of UFOs is indisputable, and fatalities have occurred. "That UAP exist is indisputable. Credited with the ability to hover, land, take-off, accelerate to exceptional velocities and vanish, they can reportedly alter their direction of flight suddenly and clearly can exhibit aerodynamic characteristics well beyond those of any known aircraft or missile - either manned or unmanned" (UK Defence Intelligence). "Attempts by other nations to intercept the unexplained objects, which can clearly change position faster than an aircraft, have reportedly already caused fatalities. However, there is no indication that deliberate 'UAP chasing' has caused this in the UKADR" (UK Defence Intelligence). "The very fact that UFO phenomena have been witnessed all over the world from ancient times, and by considerable numbers of reputable scientists in recent times, now indicates rather strongly that UFOs are not all hoaxes" (NSA, 1968). "Unidentified Flying Objects do exist, and that some of them are unconventional craft that (1) pose a threat to national security and (2) perform beyond the 'range of present-day technological development. Furthermore, there is evidence that out government has continually misinformed the public concerning the true significance of the 'UFO problem'" (Multiple Intelligence Agencies, 1981). As for the existence of Extraterrestrials, you would have to be extremely small minded to not believe in the existence because of the size of the universe. Lets not forget that water has been found on Mars recently and tests done on Mars by NASA scientists found microbial life. “the number of communicating civilizations in our galaxy likely depends on a number of factors which must combine to yield a habitable planet where life has the chance develop to a certain level of technological know-how. These factors include the rate of formation of stars like the Sun, the fraction of those with planets, the fraction of Earth-like planets, the fraction of such planets where life develops, the fraction of those where the life becomes intelligent, the fraction of intelligent species who can communicate in a way we would detect, and the lifetime of the communicating civilizations. As you may imagine, there is a lot of debate about reasonable values for most of these factors. As we learn more about the likelihood of planets around other stars, we are able to better estimate one of these parameters. For the other parameters, the estimates vary widely. Frank Drake’s own current estimate puts the number of communicating civilizations in the galaxy at 10,000“ (NASA Astrophysicist Padi Boyd). “mutations are an inevitable part of living on a planet like Earth. They’re the first hint at how DNA and the genes that code for every living thing change from generation to generation. Mutations are the spring from which innovation in the living world flows. But cosmic rays are not the only way in which DNA can be altered. There’s natural background radiation from the rocks, there’s the action of chemicals and free radicals. There can be errors when the code is copied“. “And then all those changes can be shuffled by sex, and indeed whole pieces of the code can be transferred from species to species. So, bit by bit, in tiny steps from generation to generation, the code is constantly randomly changing. Now, whilst there’s no doubt that random mutation does alter DNA, evolution is anything but random. It can’t be, because the chances of something with DNA as complex as this appearing by luck alone are vanishingly small“. “Imagine you just changed one position in the code at random, a random mutation. There are four letters, A, T, C and G, so there are four possible combinations. If there are two places in the code, there are four combinations for each one. So that makes 16. If there are three, then there are 64 possibilities. By the time you get to a code with 150 letters in it, then there are more possible combinations in the code than there are atoms in the observable universe“. “Now, a hippo has a code with around three billion different letters. So the number of combinations of those letters, the chances of producing that code at random, are absolutely, infinitesimally small. It’s impossible. So there must be a non-random element to evolution… ..a natural process, which greatly restricts this universe of possibilities, and shapes the outcome. We call it Natural Selection“ (Professor Brian Cox). So what people with any ability to critically analyse will see is the old methodology of, if you can't defeat the data, attack the person. This post confirms by point below. --XOxJonDoexOx 15:50, 4 October 2015 (GMT)
And pro-Hamas activist, peddler of the old Neo-Nazi canard of the Jews being responsible for the Nazis and/or antisemitism and also a UFOlogy kook? crank magnetism at full throttle!--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 14:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Arisboch your actions and words clearly fall under the following category from a religious perspective "Extremism means, literally: driving (something) to the limit, to the extreme. Nowadays, the term is mostly being used in a political or religious sense, for an ideology that is considered (by the speaker) to be far outside the (acceptable) mainstream attitudes of society.[citation needed] But extremism can, for example, also be meant in an economic sense. The term "extremism" is usually meant pejorative: to express (strong) disapproval, but it may also be meant in a more academic, purely descriptive, non-condemning sense. Extremists are usually contrasted with centrists or moderates. For example, in contemporary discussions in Western countries of Islam or of Islamic political movements, the distinction between extremist (= 'bad') and moderate (= 'good') Muslims is typically stressed. Political agendas perceived as extremist often include those from the far left or far right, as well as radicalism, reactionism, fundamentalism, and fanaticism". Your actions and words also clearly fall under the following category "Bullying is the use of force, threat, or coercion to abuse, intimidate, or aggressively dominate others. The behavior is often repeated and habitual. One essential prerequisite is the perception, by the bully or by others, of an imbalance of social or physical power, which distinguishes bullying from conflict.[1] Behaviors used to assert such domination can include verbal harassment or threat, physical assault or coercion, and such acts may be directed repeatedly towards particular targets. Rationalizations for such behavior sometimes include differences of social class, race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, appearance, behavior, body language, personality, reputation, lineage, strength, size or ability.[2][3] If bullying is done by a group, it is called mobbing.[4] Bullying can be defined in many different ways. The UK has no legal definition of bullying,[5] while some U.S. states have laws against it.[6] Bullying is divided into four basic types of abuse – emotional (sometimes called relational), verbal, physical, and cyber.[7] It typically involves subtle methods of coercion, such as intimidation. Bullying ranges from simple one-on-one bullying to more complex bullying in which the bully may have one or more "lieutenants" who may seem to be willing to assist the primary bully in his or her bullying activities. Bullying in school and the workplace is also referred to as peer abuse.[8] Robert W. Fuller has analyzed bullying in the context of rankism. A bullying culture can develop in any context in which humans interact with each other. This includes school, family, the workplace, home, and neighborhoods. In a 2012 study of male adolescent American football players, "the strongest predictor [of bullying] was the perception of whether the most influential male in a player's life would approve of the bullying behavior".[9]". It will be clear to any free thinker that you personally have issues with difference of opinion, anyone who doesn't fit in with your view of the world is bullied, which is extremism. --XOxJonDoexOx 16:27, 4 October 2015 (GMT)
TL;DR.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 15:29, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Arisboch you said that 'to say Religious Zionism exists is retarded', but you have cowardly edited your comment to make it appear like you didn't say that in order to fit in with your argument. As for being a pro-Hamas activist, German Abwehr (the German Intelligence, who were the father of the DVD, who created the OSS, who created the CIA) started to create the Muslim Brotherhood which was taken over by the Waffen SS. It was the Muslim Brotherhood who created Hamas, just like they created Hezbollah and Al Qaeda which is where ISIS came from. What we are actually witnessing with groups like you mentioned is a Nazi & Zionist collaborative proxy war against everyone else. We need to go back to Project Paperclip to see how the Nazis continued on once they were rescued by American and British Intelligence as well as the Catholic Church through the Rat Lines. As for being antisemitic, no Im just an Atheist. --XOxJonDoexOx 21:06, 5 October 2015 (GMT)

Personally as an Atheist Realist I believe your argument is flawed from the outset, you're all giving your opinion on a subject without giving your religious and spiritual beliefs. Because nobody knows the actual religion of the peoples in the conversation the authors could be anyone. The conversation can be swayed in favour of one belief over another if there is more of one belief system than another, it's called religious bias. Because readers of the conversation know not the religious beliefs of authors and authors true motivation, one can not make a true informed decision on the conversation in hand. It is a point that should be made and reinforced so people who may come in on the conversation understand this point and are not swayed by group psychology and herd mentality. --XOxJonDoexOx 12:19, 4 October 2015 (GMT)

I disrespectfully disagree. Arguments are best judged by whether their premises are true and their reasoning valid. I don't care if you're in a Pentecostal ska band or you live on an ashram of like-minded Lutherans. Religious bias (or fear thereof) has more to do with rhetoric than logic. If you are swayed by it, that's your problem to overcome. Asking everyone to give their tribal affiliation will encourage not weaken the bias you describe. But this is the Bar, so I suspect less rigor. That's why a) this silly-ass question was asked in the first place and b) why it wasn't immediately laughed into oblivion. It's a crock, but an entertaining crock that keeps me checking back in to see what silliness has dared show its face in public. And isn't that the greater truth? No. No it is not.MatsFan (talk) 12:51, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Dear MatsFan you are entitled to disagree, it's called freedom of choice, you said "Arguments are best judged by whether their premises are true and their reasoning valid", you forgot to say in your personal opinion, it is not the opinion of everyone and with respect you do not speak for anyone else but for yourself as do I. You went on "I don't care if you're in a Pentecostal ska band or you live on an ashram of like-minded Lutherans", dear sir, the world doesn't revolve around you, I do care about a persons religious beliefs, we have religious extremism which exists and will continue to exist. "Asking everyone to give their tribal affiliation will encourage not weaken the bias you describe", you said, again dear fellow, in your personal opinion. I happen to disagree that asking people to give their religious belief will encourage not weaken the bias, it will give people a clear understanding from which perspective an author is speaking from and allow contributors to the conversation to make a more informed decision on a comment. If you have lots of Christian Zionists and Jewish authors, while no or little Palestinian authors, then you are getting a warped perspective of the reality and not input from all sides. It makes sense given the subject that people can see just how biased this conversation really is. --XOxJonDoexOx 14:23, 4 October 2015 (GMT)
Oh pip pip old bean, I didn't realize I was in corresponding with such an accomplished tauro-scatalogician.
Exampli gratia: were I to propound the following argument:

All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore, all men are Socrates. ...that would be what is called in the vulgate a "crock of shit". Its conclusion does not follow from its premises. This does not depend on one's over-arching philosophical world view. It is not an opinion. There is an objective reality, my boon companion, which is not best understood by asking everyone's opinion and taking a suitably weighted average. Certainly, the present author would not dispute that there are questions of taste and differences in received sets of axioms which result in diametrically opposed opinions being equally valid. That is not, however, the case in the question at hand. If not for religion, "Jews" and "Palestinians" would be indistinguishable groups of Semitic people. (If, that is, one insists on dividing people into "races" - itself a dubious undertaking, but that's easy for a white boy to say and outside the current scope of discourse.) It is then trivial to conclude that Zionism is missional. Similarly, old cock, objective facts can be phrased in divers ways for so much as to place one party or another in a favorable light. This sort of obfuscation is best eschewed by right-thinking people and those who undertake it should be prepared to have their motives scrupulously examined. But that's just my opinion; I may be wrong. K byeMatsFan (talk) 00:59, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

You don't need to be of a particular ethnicity or religion to have any given stance on the state of Israel. I for one am an atheist leftist who - as far as I know - has not an ounce of Jewish blood. Yet still I support Israel. And I support Israel's right to self defense. And I think most of the enemies of Israel (Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, the Saudis, ISIS...) are among the worst human being that ever walked this fine earth. But according to Mona (who is not - as far I know - Palestinian) that makes me a "hyper-nationalist" Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 13:57, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
This is a nitpick, but I don't know if you can specifically categorize ISIS as an "enemy of Israel" like these others you mention, considering they have actively declared themselves enemies of every single one of these other organizations and nations you list as enemies of Israel as well, and plan the same fate for anyone of those groups or nations who do not submit to their authority.
Also, I think Mona's consideration of you as a hyper-nationalist has more to do with how specifically devoted you are to Zionism-it has little to do with your opposition to the killing of Jewish people, which I would think Mona shares, but more to do with a somewhat callous disregard for Palestinian lives that were lost in the advancement of Zionist causes against other forces, such as Hamas, in a way that starts to resemble special pleading on Israel's behalf.
But anyway, I'll go back to lurking for now. I'm not too fond of the idea of getting into a wiki-war, let alone on a wiki I've not yet edited on. Quirk (talk) 03:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrary division of is Zionism missional?

Zionism is missional, since it's an expression of a far-right, religious fundamentalist movement that steals land from indigenous population. --Gh1900 (talk) 23:05, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

You are assuming that the other side isn't also indigenous. The whole thing would be like if the Cherokee returned to Georgia but ended up in a never-ending war with the local Rednecks. CorruptUser (talk) 23:08, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
The other side (excluding Jews who lived in Palestine before Zionism) isn't indigenous, they are European or from other countries of the Middle East. --Gh1900 (talk) 23:15, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
They are probably not even descendants of the Jews who left the region thousands of years ago, at least according to Shlomo Sand's The Invention of the Jewish People. --Gh1900 (talk) 23:19, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Then how do you explain the genetic studies showing that Jews have a mid-eastern origin and the Cohen y-haplogroup studies? CorruptUser (talk) 23:23, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
[1] --Gh1900 (talk) 23:27, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
As Shlomo Sand said:
"This attempt to justify Zionism through genetics is reminiscent of the procedures of late nineteenth-century anthropologists who very scientifically set out to discover the specific characteristics of Europeans. As of today, no study based on anonymous DNA samples has succeeded in identifying a genetic marker specific to Jews, and it is not likely that any study ever will. It is a bitter irony to see the descendants of Holocaust survivors set out to find a biological Jewish identity: Hitler would certainly have been very pleased! And it is all the more repulsive that this kind of research should be conducted in a state that has waged for years a declared policy of "Judaization of the country" in which even today a Jew is not allowed to marry a non-Jew"
In his book, Shlomo Sand shows that the idea of a "Jewish nation" is nothing but a myth created by Zionists to justify taking Palestinians' land. There is a Jewish religion, just like there's a Christian religion, an Islamic religion, a Hindu religion, etc. Imagine if the Christians wanted to reclaim Jerusalem and territories conquered during the Crusades? --Gh1900 (talk) 23:52, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
You haven't contradicted the Y-haplogroup studies; most show that the Palestians and Jews, including Ashkenazi Jews, are patrilinearly VERY closely related, to the point that BOTH are indigenous. Your only claim is that most of the women were converts, which also disputes all the other studies. Do you want to claim that African Americans aren't the descendants of slaves because of all the rapes? CorruptUser (talk) 00:11, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
The Zionist colonists were not indigenous to Palestine. Jews made up less than 5% of the population of Palestine when Zionism was founded. The indigenous Arabs, who had been there for many generations, were displaced by European settlers. Their land stolen by people from, e.g., Poland.---Mona- (talk) 00:20, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

This may be a first. I agree with Arisboch that Zionism per se is not a religion, and certainly not a "fundamentalist" one. With the caveat that I mean not a religion in the sense of being about worshiping -- or even believing in -- a deity. Of course, good arguments are made supporting that civil religions exist (including, maybe especially) in the U.S. Only in that sense would Zionism be a religion. (In my undergrad Intro to Religion course we did watch Triumph of the Will and consider Nazism as a type of civil religion.)---Mona- (talk) 00:15, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

There may even be some genetic links to Middle East, but most Jews had mainly European DNA. Trying to create a Jewish state in a land populated by Arabs was the same as trying to create a Christian state in Palestine because they once owned it. Jews were inhabiting Europe for centuries, the Zionists had no legitimate connection to Palestine. --Gh1900 (talk) 00:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
So how long do the Palestinians have to be kicked out of the area before they lose their claim to the land too? CorruptUser (talk) 00:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Palestinians still inhabit the land in areas such as Gaza and West Bank. 20% of Israel's population is Palestinian. They have been living in Palestine for generations, which is not true for the Jews (excluding a very small minority). --Gh1900 (talk) 00:33, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
The ones in Israel are still in Israel. The ones who are not in Israel are not. You haven't answered my question. You claimed that the Jews hadn't lived in Israel for generations, therefore they have no claim to the land. So my question is, how long do the Palestinians outside of Israel have to be forced to stay out of Israel before they lose their claim to the land? Remember, one of the 7 tenets of nationalism is "these rules apply to me but not to you". As I've told most people here, I'm not exactly a Zionist, but I'm not against Israel's right to exist; the WB settlements need to go, the Palestinians need to agree to a peace deal, the Israelis need to allow Palestinians access to some of the water, the surrounding countries (and Iran) need to stop funding proxy wars, the US needs to stop giving Israel Carte Blanche as part of its own proxy wars, everyone needs to be spanked and sent to bed without dinner. But one can only dream... CorruptUser (talk) 00:38, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Israel has no right to exist, it's an illegal state. It's not just the West Bank settlements, the entire country is land theft the Palestinians' land. --Gh1900 (talk) 20:00, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
It's no more and no less "illegal" than any other country, it just came a little late, that's all.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 20:01, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Whether this happened in other countries or not is irrelevant, it doesn't justify the creation of a state by Europeans to exterminate the indigenous population. --Gh1900 (talk) 20:05, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
"exterminate the indigenous population" - Gh1900 What drugs are you on??--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 20:07, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Israel has been deliberately killing Palestinians since the last century. One example is the Gaza conflict last year, when Israel killed thousands of Palestinians targeting civilians. --Gh1900 (talk) 20:11, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Civilians? Well, a Hamas combatant has to just drop his AK or mortar to become a totally and absolutely innocent civilian.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 20:14, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Are Palestinian children Hamas combatants? --Gh1900 (talk) 20:17, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Nobody is perfect and the IDF has still not developed a magic bullet, that avoids civilians.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 20:20, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
IDF is targeting civillians. 70% of deaths were from Palestinian civillians. --Gh1900 (talk) 20:23, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
[citation needed] for both sentences.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 20:26, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
[2] --Gh1900 (talk) 20:30, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
If I'd be even a lil paranoid than I am in fact, I'd say, you're Mona's sock.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 20:36, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm not a sockpuppet, you are the one making accusations without proof. --Gh1900 (talk) 20:38, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
That was somewhat of an insiderjoke.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 20:41, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
The Palstinains in the occupied territories are refugees or their descendants and are in limbo. As for periods of time, the U.S. made reparations to Indian tribes right after WWII, and still respects Indians as semi-sovereign nations on their reservations.---Mona- (talk) 00:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── "Israel's right to exist" Where does the "right" of countries to exist come from? Did the USSR lose it's rights?---Mona- (talk) 00:51, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Zionism had a good intention of restoring the injustices inflicted on Jews historically. The problem was it set out to create a Jewish majority in an area that was overwhelmingly non-Jewish and had not been inhabited by a Jewish majority for some 2000 years (going back to the temple cleansing). Though the ethnic cleansing of 1948 was a major crime and atrocity, as is the cleansings in the 50's and 60's and settlement building, that injustice cannot be remedied unfortunately. It's been 67 years, and in all likelihood, not all Palestinians are going to return to their former place of residence without creating problems for the Jewish population living there. It would be wrong to displace the Jews inside Israel, so the right of return should be provided for a limited set of refugees that wouldn't create a civil war instantaneously. Remember, the reason the Arabs rioted against the Balfour declaration and the partition plan was because they were a majority and their political independence was denied by giving a land to a minority. We cannot do the same by having all 5 million refugees return to Israel proper; it would be deja vu. ChrisAmiss (talk) 00:56, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
First, I note you didn't reply to the question of where the right for states to exist comes from. Or whether the USSR has a claim that its rights were violated. For the very good reason that you are Chris and not CorruptUser. But to move on to what you did say, I don't endorse displacing all kinds of Israeli Jews as a remedy for Palestinian refugees. The 2-state solution is dead -- Israel has killed it with settlements such that there is nearly no land left for a Palestinian state that would not require evicting tens of thousands of Jews. No, what Israel has created is a de facto 1-state, an apartheid state in which Arabs in Gaza and the West bank are not enfranchised; they are unrepresented in the government that occupies and controls them. That must end: these Arabs must be enfranchised and the State of Israel will have to have a constitution that precludes Jewish ethno-religious supremacy. There is no other way to end the apartheid. ---Mona- (talk) 01:27, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, the USSR didn't lose its right to exist, so much as it imploded on itself. You are also conveniently leaving out the republics that would have 'earned' their so-called right to exist. Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 01:28, 3 October 2015 (UTC)Zexcoiler Kingbolt
How does a nation-state, including a republic, earn a "rgiht to exist?" What can it even mean to say a state has a "right" to exist?---Mona- (talk) 01:31, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
I meant for that post to be independent and my opinion rather than a response to you Mona, sorry. ChrisAmiss (talk) 01:37, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

One of my points on my user page is roughly "even bogus rights have to apply to everybody". So if we agree that a state's "right to exist" is bogus, why do we only ever argue whether it applies to Israel? Nobody is questioning the right of Gabon to in fact exist, or is there? And as to the water point: Israeli per capita water consumption has been shrinking for a couple of decades now, whereas Palestinian per capita water consumption has increased rapidly. Nowadays a Palestinian on average uses as much water as the average German. And no German in their right mind would decry their access to water being hampered by the "occupiers" (which actually is an accurate term, at least until the 4+2 treaty of 1990) in the British or American barracks... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 14:06, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

"why do we only ever argue whether it applies to Israel?" Because Zionists insist that various parties admit it has a "right to exist." As you now seem to understand, that's a bullshit demand. Aint no such thing as a country's "right" to exist.---Mona- (talk) 17:57, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
The "right" to exist of no other country is ever questioned. If the American Congress were to pass a resolution affirming the right of Mexico to in fact exist, this would cause major diplomatic incident or confusion at the very least. Why is Israel - a country that is surrounded by people that wish it nothing but death and destruction - treated so differently? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:24, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
FYI Israel's "right to exist" comes from UN Resolution 181(II). Just saying......--Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 01:20, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
No, it does not. Aside from the fact that the UN cannot decree a nation's "right to exist," that Resolution is a mere pre-state proposal and doesn't recite the word "Israel" except to identify a neighborhood that has the word in its name. This mere proposal was rejected by the Palestinians. So the Zionists took a bunch of land by force (and executed a UN representative while they were at at it). Not only does Israel vastly exceed the area for a Jewish State nominated in the proposal, settlements have left almost none for a Palestinian state. ---Mona- (talk) 02:01, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I wouldn't cite that resolution in Israel's favor because in accordance with the principle of it being inadmissible to acquire territory by war, that would entail Israel withdrawing to the borders of the 1947 partition plan, which is totally unrealistic now. ChrisAmiss (talk) 04:01, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
"the principle of it being inadmissible to acquire territory by war" - ChrisAmiss All borders are drawn by war, (almost) no exceptions. This "rule" is enforced highly selectively.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 14:16, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Tangent about African Americans

Say CorruptUser, earlier you brought up African Americans. Whether or not they should still be considered indigenous to Africa isn't my question, but would you say their historical connection with Africa would justify them carving out a nation and suppressing whoever happened to be inhabiting the land before they took control of it by political or military force (except when they assimilate into their culture)? (talk) 00:40, 3 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

Also, according to most mainstream theories, Europeans came out of Africa[wp]. If European colonizers had considered Africa as an ancient homeland, would that have justified European colonialism? (talk) 00:45, 3 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

You mean Liberia?
Anyway, it depends. Were they attempting to immigrate and live alongside the remaining inhabitants? Were they escaping ethnic cleansing in America and didn't really have a choice as where to go? Were the locals constantly calling for genocide against the African Americans?
Also, the history itself is interesting; most of the slaves were people captured in war and ethnically cleansed from Africa, so a lot of the African countries do owe them something, citizenship at the very least.CorruptUser (talk) 00:52, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
You could certainly argue that the pre-colonial African regimes that collaborated with European colonial powers (and would eventually all be taken over by the latter) and sent them off to be American slaves would owe them something. Any of the modern African nations, though? I dunno. (talk) 01:09, 3 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
The African nations sued the US for reparations, so they do believe that not enough time has passed to make it "too late". Well, alright then, I agree with them. For the crime of selling their brethren, the African countries should pay reparations to African Americans. And since 3% of the slaves ended up in what is now the US but 30% ended up in Brazil, whatever is decided, Brazil gets 10 times as much. CorruptUser (talk) 13:49, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Come now, don't be obtuse. The amount of years that's passed and which amount of slaves ended up in which country certainly aren't the only and also not the most important factors here. (talk) 20:09, 3 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
Thaen which are the most important factors? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 14:07, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Oliver Canby

I've started a new article in my user space, and I felt that I needed to pop in here for a bit of a hand. It's obviously not main space ready - I've put a background from memory and managed to grab some direct links. The main reason for the decision to have a crack at this is because of the latest entry on his blog "Autism is Bad" calling for a 28th Amendment that has to be seen to be believed! I'll be addressing that but the whole thing needs filling out. I'm pretty sure there's plenty of material on his blog, and there are some alternative blogs criticising him here and here, as well as a couple of inactive blogs here and here. I'm not sure if this one could help as well as I'm not expert. I do have a court decision against him similar to that of John Best here and paragraph 36 is of particular interest. BankBox (talk) 09:23, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

[edit] I NEED TO KNOW!

I have been hearing things about Conservative (from CP) and some "red telephone messages". I can't find any information on it anywhere, so can someone please tell me? KOMF 10:42, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

See deleted article Conservapedia:Red Telephone. €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 12:09, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

[edit] I NEED TO KNOW! 2

I would have started a whole new section entirely, but this title cannot be more perfect. Anyways, what was NASA's big announcement? I desperately wanted to watch NASA TV at 11:30 today, but I didn't have access to a TV at the time. All I'm hearing are vague "stuff" about Mars. SO WHAT IS IT?!?!?!?! 107Ag47 20:01, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Really? The only thing I heard about was the Supermoon Eclipse yesterday. What is it? Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 20:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC)Zexcoiler Kingbolt
See the Wikipedia article on Seasonal flows on warm Martian slopes. The Grauniad has a more current piece. (talk) 20:19, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
there was a SMBC cartoon that is relevant to how NASA handles announcements.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 21:52, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
I can't wait for some wing-nut at CNAV to work this into lunar bukkake theory. TheEgyptian¿Dígame? 23:25, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Mmm, bukkake...

But in all seriousness, I never heard anything coming from NASA about Mars, so this surprised me a ton. Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 02:04, 29 September 2015 (UTC)Zexcoiler Kingbolt

I know there was a Facebook trend about it a few days ago. Water on Mars IS cool, but I was hoping it might be a bit more fun than that. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 03:06, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
It's a leftist conspiracy. Scream!! (talk) 00:36, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

[edit] I NEED TO KNOW! 3: The Revenge

What typefaces do we have available here, besides Arial and Times New Roman? More specifically, I need something Script-y and something Blackletter-y. (talk) 19:31, 29 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

Will Papyrus work?--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:56, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Hmm... Not really what I was going for, but it looks nice enough. Any other fonts you know of? (talk) 00:05, 30 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
You can use <tt> to specify a monospaced font, and the <font> tag works well for other fonts, if they happen to be installed - David Gerard (talk) 09:20, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
So is there anywhere I can check to see what's installed? (talk) 09:43, 30 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
My understanding is that it depends on what readers have installed on their computer. So if you use a fancy font that you have installed, it'll look fine to you but most readers (who don't have that font on their computer) will just see the text in a default font like Times NR. (This was once the case with my RW signature for a long time before I realised). Hence why it's best to use one of the WP:core fonts for the Web (boring as they are) if you want your text to look the same to everyone as it does to you. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 12:40, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

[edit] I NEED TO KNOW! 4: The Space One

Wait, the first few were about space. Ffff... Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Floof!~) 23:52, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

"I NEED TO KNOW!: The TV Series: The Video Game: The Movie: The Album: The Toy" 107Ag47 01:29, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
The Android App! (talk)
iKnow - The Apple Product Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 03:06, 30 September 2015 (UTC)Zexcoiler Kingbolt

[edit] FAQ on GMOs

So I think I'm going to start this page over the weekend.

So... I have ideas for three sections.

1) What is a GMO?

  • Farming
  • Selective Breeding
  • Mutation Breeding
  • Horizontal Gene Transfer

2) Dangerous to eat!

  • Background on biology
  • Safety testing
  • Really, more on biology
  • No, GMO food won't alter YOUR genes (seriously, how the fuck did this canard get started? What the fuck did these people did in Middle School bio class?)
  • GMO varieties not less healthy than regular crops
  • Added nutrition

3) Corporate greed!

  • No shit, but exists in regular farming
  • And have you seen the markups on organic foods?!
  • Anti-GMO movement causes half the problem by making it harder for newcomers to get in on the GMO market

What else needs to be added? CorruptUser (talk) 05:01, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

A section on why labelling is unjustified because of the unjustified fear it creates. FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 13:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Don't forget to cover Yields yields yields! Stop people from starving! ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 14:40, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm all for doing things more efficiently, but there isn't really a lack of food in the world; it's just distributed very unevenly. (talk) 18:23, 30 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
Good point. Though, regardless, reverting the global food production methods to all-organic would only be able to literally yield enough to feed about 4 billion people tops, and that'd be with even more overkill land use than today. Whatever today's starvation problem is best defined as, a theoretical global shift to all-organic would quite simply kill off billions. That's billions with a "b". And yes - this shift (with denial of the consequences) is actively being advocated by a number of pro-organic (and thus anti-gmo) propaganda groups. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 03:21, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
OMG thanks! I would add the parts about modifying existing food, like adding vitamin A to rice, that have improved population health in staving locations. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 15:06, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
And don't forget pesticides. As anyone growing outdoors food crops - or, for you young hip people with your skateboards and your hats on backwards, - anyone who grows their own weed knows, there is no such thing as pesticide free farming (on any serious scale whatsoever - molds and bugs gotta eat, too!). There's only "organic" and synthetic pesticide options - where the organic options are often pretty toxic, used in larger doses and applied less effectively. Besides, a single regular sized cup of coffee exposes you to one thousand times higher cancer risk than a year's worth of pesticide residue does in non-organic food. The GMO woo people are basically making the exact same argument that vaccine denialists make against mercury, by completely disregarding that eating a single can of tuna has 200 times the mercury content even of the discontinued thiomersal-containing vaccines. The American Cancer Society put out a major paper in 2006 openly underscoring that there is no scientific proof that pesticide or herbicide residue is a cause of cancer in the United States. And the idea of added hormones in milk is retarded - when a cow is pregnant its natural estrogen levels in the milk are raised atleast 33-fold. And before you ask - no, there are no dangerous side-effects from this. Furthermore, the reason that young girls go into puberty earlier in some cases is because they're getting fatter, earlier. The female body won't go into serious puberty until it is nutritionally capable of carrying a child. This is, for the record, a reason why many female top-tier olymptic gymnasts and acrobats in low-weight sports don't go into puberty proper until after they stop competing professionally. And best of all, anyone who is worried about bacteria and infections in their food might want to know that surprising amounts of third world organic farming is done with night soil - yes, that's human feces. Which also means that third world farmers who live on alprazolam metabolites and gasoline fumes since they need to sell the organic food they are growing, its the fecal matter of these people that end up feeding the soil to produce these allegedly "purer" organic food products. How is this better than synthetic fertilizer, again? And best of all, atleast 30% of the organic food in the US is imported from China! And unlabeled as such! I mean really, would you trust that coal polluted, river dumping, utterly corrupt, communist-industrial hellhole to produce your himalayan greens veggies that restore your chakra and provide extra quantum life energy? I think not! And so on. Short story - if the list article gets started, I'll add to it - with good sources. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:10, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
IDK how relevant it is, but if you want non-food examples of genetic fuddling we readily accept, Fluffy and Fido are a long ways from their "natural" forms… if not -- corn, bananas, oranges too I think, certainly all flour products (in the US), are either highly selectively bred, or added to. And frankly, I'd rather eat my bread with some folic acid than have kids being born with preventable neural tube defects. Point here is that when we're used to it, we don't question it, and I wonder how many of the anti-GMO crowd would eat a proper wild banana! Argenti Aertheri (talk) 03:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
It's very relevant, and is something I plan to include. Everything domesticated is technically, genetically modified. Anything that exists only because of human interference is technically GMO. Chickens, dogs, goats. Cats are... different, since the bastards aren't quite domesticated. CorruptUser (talk) 14:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Don't forget bananas. Scream!! (talk) 16:17, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Don't forget the fact that you don't need transgenic modification to accidentally make plants poisonous or give them pesticide resistance, you can do that with selective breeding and hybridization as well (see Lenape potatoes, celery high in psoralens, and pesticide-resistant sunflowers), which are both "natural" forms of genetic modification. Frederick♠♣♥♦ 05:57, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Sooo... my sandbox so far. Will add a lot to it in the near future, but feel free to contribute some things you feel are important; when it goes live as an article you'll be able to contribute anyway :P. CorruptUser (talk) 20:08, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Heads up

Just saw a bunch of suspicious looking new users being created. Possible wandalism spree on it's way. TheEgyptian¿Dígame? 16:15, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Or more likely spam accounts not getting through our various anti-spam features. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 16:35, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Do the spambots in these parts use fundie usernames? I smell a troll. Blitz (Complaints Box) 06:33, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
I hear the sound of someone socking... Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 16:36, 30 September 2015 (UTC)Zexcoiler Kingbolt
No, just spambots. Some of them can hack the captcha to create an account but then don't post anything as our edit filter stops them posting links straightaway. €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:12, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Ah, spambots! On a roleplay forum, I made a sockpuppet pretending to be a spambot, and posted semi-personalised ads. All of this was in-character, of course. Watching everybody else's characters respond to its flood of inane and random ads was the most fun I'd had in months. Of course, my other other sockpuppets for other characters played along. Playing both sides is even better! *evil laugh* 107Ag47 23:27, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Y-you damned monster! Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 03:24, 1 October 2015 (UTC)Zexcoiler Kingbolt
What's better, I even named it "Trusworthy Advice". *evil grin* 107Ag47 03:34, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

lolwtf Withoutaname (talk) 05:08, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Looks like dozens of Christianists---Mona- (talk) 05:11, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
It caught me in the right mood and I binned the majority of them just in case they CAN make it through the filters. My first-ever vandal binning, and I'm sure it shows. --Maxus (talk) 07:02, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Amused. --Castaigne (talk) 14:06, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Chiropractors

I myself have noticed this but I am not sure if anyone else has; I have noticed that any time I go past a Chiropractor office their sign mentions the prefix Dr. then it will mention the name then the prefix D.C (example- Dr. Joe Smith DC) but when I see the sign for a medical doctor it will just mention the name of the physician then M.D or D.O. Does anyone think it is an example of the Dunning-Kruger effect?--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 17:54, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Now that you mention it, it seems plausible. Maybe it's some special cases. I've seen it around these parts, too, but they mostly just announce "Chiropractic" or "Firstname Lastname, LA" or "Dr. Firstname/Lastname/both." Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 18:55, 1 October 2015 (UTC)Zexcoiler Kingbolt

I only know of two that do not use the prefix "Dr." and mention Chiropractic. On a related note- near where I live there are I kid you not five Chiropractors within a quarter mile radius--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 20:59, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Leaving the website

Hope my page creations on race (Ancient Egyptian race controversy, Mongoloid, Racial polyphyletism) and edits to racialism, as well as page creations on palaeo-anthropology (Multiregional hypothesis, Recent African Origin hypothesis, Assimilation model), were/are of use. I am perm-leaving now though, and my account will not longer be active.

I don't really fit in here or agree with RW's left-wing political stance on most issues, and was only really using RW as a data-dump.Krom (talk) 19:57, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Ah, pity that you're leaving. Would've loved to convince you of the merits of leftism. ;) (talk) 20:40, 1 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
Don't leave Cry.gifCry2.gif--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 22:24, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Your additions will be sorely missed. And for the record, there's no requirement to even touch left-right politics with a ten foot pole here. I don't think you were that different here. But I respect your choice, and regardless of your political positions - thank you for your additions. Welcome back at any time. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:11, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Biola University

I think I will get a start on that article as I am not using a tablet computer. It might make a good addition to the Fundie school category. Another idea for that category would be Great Lakes Christian College as it is the only school I know of that forces its students to double major in theology.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 20:02, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I can't see any evidence where they are forcing students to do anything. They are an accredited institution. People pay to go the school there. If someone doesn't understand the curriculum before they pay the admission fee, then they probably aren't qualified to attend anyway. Just because the college specializes in Christian theology, there's no evidence that anyone is forcing anyone else to do anything. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 00:43, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Yah no. I also don't see us needing an article on every christian university unless they are really engaged in openly bad practices or are solely diploma mills. Lest we get bloated with small articles on a bunch of universities solely because they are not secular.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 00:54, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
True that. If a school is doing something notably egregious, then it may warrant mention in the Fundie school article. The diploma mills and those with questionable accreditation and/or heavily promote creationism, for example, are usually on-mission. The run-of-the-mill theology college probably doesn't warrant its own article here. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 01:16, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, it just seemed that way to me. I probably misread it.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:38, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

S'okay. You have an interest in this topic. That's good. I would ask only a couple of things. Add the facts first and include references -- if the subject matter is appropriate the snark will be self-evident. Second, indent your responses in talk pages!. Cheers, --Cosmikdebris (talk) 02:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Well I have a better idea than than Great Lakes Christian College. How about an article on the accreditation mill "American Accrediting Association of Theological Institutions". They have "accredited" many Christian diploma mills including Patriot Bible University (formerly).--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 17:46, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Instead of creating a new article, why not add to Accreditation mills? --Cosmikdebris (talk) 21:07, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, good point--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:34, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Who runs or ran Capturebot2?

It doesn't seem to have run in ages, certainly not since July.

(no, it doesn't run on the main server. I have no idea who does run it.) - David Gerard (talk) 20:48, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

That reminds me, do we know who runs/ran Pibot yet? (talk) 21:03, 1 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
I think we need to actively recruit or witch hunt an existing user who can replace our older scripts with ones people actually here can run. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 21:04, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Uh, Pi did Pibot. Thus the name. He gone? :( --ADtalkModerator 01:28, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Sort of. I should dust the old bots off again. It is Labour Day weekend here so I might accidentally get a chance. - π 07:34, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Heeeeey everyone coming out of the woodwork again!--ADtalkModerator 19:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

[edit] If anyone feels sad or depressed


You're welcome. Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 00:52, 2 October 2015 (UTC)Zexcoiler Kingbolt

Why did she spray that friendly bear and direct it to her kayak? >.> At least the bear found a nice kayak buddy, though. (talk) 01:31, 2 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
Her voice is unbearable. Haha, get it? Unbearable, people, unbearable. I'll let myself out... Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 03:19, 2 October 2015 (UTC)Zexcoiler Kingbolt

I don't know if she knows this or not, but bears don't speak English. And even if they did, the bear probably wouldn't care about her constant please of mercy.'Legionwhat do you want from me 15:50, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Bears speak fluent Russian. They are secretly KGB agents looking to take over teh world with kayaks... Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 15:55, 2 October 2015 (UTC)Zexcoiler Kingbolt
And they're in constant battle with Ukrainian mammoths!!--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 15:58, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Fun:Precautionary Principle

So, I added obvious asinine examples of using abusing the Precautionary principle, but perhaps it would be better in funspace. Things like "you can't prove your fetus isn't the antichrist, therefore you should play it safe and get an abortion". If I create a fun page, would anyone else like to add to it? CorruptUser (talk) 21:12, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I lol'd at that second to last one. Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 21:47, 2 October 2015 (UTC)Zexcoiler Kingbolt
Quite possibly! (talk) 22:24, 2 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
So that explains my constant diahrrea and the occasional visit from Cthullu with those weird messages... Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 22:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)Zexcoiler Kingbolt
Alright, Created CorruptUser (talk) 23:01, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Jakester499's many threads

[edit] Mobile Version

Even Conservapedia has a mobile version. Why don't we?— Unsigned, by: Jakester499 / talk / contribs

Cause the technical staff of the RW is too goddamn lazy to implement it.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 19:26, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Expanding our Mission to include Consumer Rights issues

Wouldn't that be a good idea?— Unsigned, by: Jakester499 / talk / contribs

Consumer rights are a very good idea. It's not a good idea for that topic to become part of the RW mission. For one thing, we have problem article all over the site -- poorly written and/or poorly sourced. Expanding the remit would not be helpful.---Mona- (talk) 03:36, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
We could have an article about Consumer rights in relation to woo-peddlers without modifying our mission, and I think it could be a good idea.--TiaC (talk) 07:49, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

So how about we improve our article sourcing and writing and then do consumer rights. I think there could be a lot that we can provide on the subject.-Jakester499 (talk)

[edit] Halloween decorations

Like the Santa hat we did last year how about a jack-o-lantern or a ghost like on our ghost page. it is the season and my favorite holiday.— Unsigned, by: Jakester499 / talk / contribs

Halloween is the most wonderful time of the year.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 12:47, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Me too Jakester499 (talk)

What I found annoying was when I was a child and I would got trick or treating, me and my siblings would get Chick Tracts from several houses. I do not see why people would want to give hate promoting material. I know fundies think it is good but I guess they forgot the bible quote "Judge not less he be judged Matthew 7:1". Now I am no bible scholar and I do not intend to be but if you give anything out at Halloween it better be candy and not hate speech.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 16:31, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Halloween is a symbol of American commercialism - crap! Unfortunately it's spreading - no need for RW to aid it. Scream!! (talk) 16:37, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Even anticapitalism was commercialized, just look at the Che Guevara t-shirts.-- (talk) 16:45, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
What is wrong with talking about a holiday. Everything is commercial in one way or another.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 22:54, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
For some ideas, I recommend looking at an earlier post by someone else on the Bar. Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 06:05, 5 October 2015 (UTC)Zexcoiler Kingbolt
Here is a link- http://easyday.snydle.com/halloween-decorations.html--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 23:22, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Mole People

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mole_people We need an article debunking/confirming the mole people of the NYC Subway system?— Unsigned, by: Jakester499 / talk / contribs

Wait, do you mean "homeless people that live underground" or "humanoid monsters"? Because I don't think a significant number of people actually believe in the latter. CorruptUser (talk) 04:13, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I mean homeless people that live underground. I want to know more about the alleged literal "cities" that existed in the NYC subways during the early 1990s and in that book described on the Wikipedia page. Apparently the Straight Dope talked about it. Allegedly the were evicted in the mid 90s by the NYPD. They released several documentaries on it. However a reporter said their were actual cities with doctors, schoolteachers and mayors made of homeless people. Some say it was faked and even the straight dope admits it was exaggerated.— Unsigned, by: Jakester499 / talk / contribs

You mean like tent cities. No, they do not have actual doctors, but they do have volunteers. "Schoolteachers" amounted to either people volunteering with the homeless or other homeless people. They tended to have their own 'security' made up of volunteer homeless people. Generally speaking, the people you see sleeping on the street? Those are the people that even the tent cities won't let in. They aren't terrible for the city to have, but it's a lot of NIMBY; the city doesn't provide dumpsters or sewers, so the trash and shit builds up, causing a public menace. At the same time, no one wants them as neighbors because nobody likes being hassled by an army of homeless people for change, no one wants people banging on the windows at night to see which homes are empty and thus easy targets to burgle, and shops don't want them scaring away customers. CorruptUser (talk) 04:59, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
It's funny; in Europe many countries are frantic about finding everyone a proper roof to stay under, notably including asylum seekers etc. Any less would be considered an outrage and a potential human rights violation. In the US, you don't even care about your own citizens being homeless. >.< (talk) 13:11, 3 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
The homeless are the people that even their own families refuse to have anything to do with anymore. It sucks for those that are thrown out for not being... traditional enough for their families, but most of it is from drug addictions and such that the families refuse to deal with it anymore. Remember the golden voiced homeless guy? He had 9 children, all grown, and NONE of them would take him in. Of course, a lot of it is chicken and egg; homelessness also leads to drug addictions and crime, and yeah, it's better to get them into some form of shelter, whether asylums or slums, than on the streets. CorruptUser (talk) 15:07, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
its not entirely true about addicts. Many homeless drug addicts only became addicts after becoming homeless. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:09, 3 October 2015 (UTC) maybe I should your post more thoroughly AMassiveGay (talk) 21:30, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

So how about we do an article on the homeless-Jakester (Does anyone else think Chris Christie is the lawyer from Stephen King's Thinner Jakester499 (talk) 18:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC))

It's simple, just sign your name with four tildes, these guys: "~". It's easy and creates the links to your talk page. CorruptUser (talk) 17:39, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for responding :-) Jakester499 (talk) (Does anyone else think Chris Christie is the lawyer from Stephen King's Thinner 19:13, 3 October 2015 (UTC))

Without having read the above too closely; we lack an article on mole people. One that we must have. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:34, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

It's not just New York City, either. I remember there was something similar in Las Vegas, too. Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 06:00, 5 October 2015 (UTC)Zexcoiler Kingbolt

[edit] Chris Christie looks like the lawyer from Stephen King's thinner

Stephen King's Thinner was a movie about a fat corrupt lawyer who gets thinner and thinner every day. Now right before he gets thinner he looks just like Chris Christie. https://ilovesplatter.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/thinner-fat-suit.jpg http://www.nj.gov/governor/library/photos/gov_christie_press_lrg.jpg (Does anyone else think Chris Christie is the lawyer from Stephen King's Thinner Jakester499 (talk) 18:07, 3 October 2015 (UTC))

[edit] Troll Club

[edit] Goals

These are the goals I want:

Major Goals: -Do a major check of our current and existing articles -Do improve our writing/cite sources -To update all of our articles with current information To add our articles to as many categories as possible as long as they qualify for them -To categorize everything as much as we can -Model our portals after Wikipedia's portals but just with Rationalwiki and include WIGO for each of portals -After accomplishing the previous expanding our mission to include consumer rights issues -To create a mobile version of our website -To do everything on our to-do list -To translate our wiki into as many languages as possible

Minor Goals -To go more in depth on the on the 4chan Article -To improve and add to our Annotated Qur'an -To cite sources on our Lyndon LaRouche article --Does anyone else think Chris Christie is the lawyer from Stephen King's Thinner 20:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)— Unsigned, by: Jakester499 / talk / contribs

this might be better placed on your user pageAMassiveGay (talk) 20:37, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
I think you should start out by reading a good number of our guides, first. They are linked on the side and in the welcome template on your talk page. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 21:46, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

[edit] We need to separate UFOlogy from general Alien Aficionados and make any one who believes in alien contact with earth a separate category

We need a category referring to the general belief that aliens have come to earth and/or have made contact with humans. It needs to be separate from the UFOlogy category and ancient aliens category. Jakester499 (talk)

Is there a real difference between UFology and Alien contact when both are equally fake?--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 22:40, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't see why. And besides, please don't start too many freaking fires at once. This is getting ridiculous. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:45, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Or maybe we can combine the categories into one giant super category --Jakester499 (talk) 23:01, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

That is what we already have - the ufology portal. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:05, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Then why isn't Mike Bara or Richard Hoagland in it?--Jakester499 (talk) 23:06, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

We already have a ufology portal. Mike and Richard already have articles and they happen to be sorted as conspiracy theorists and not ufologists. If this is optimal for them or not is a side question - the point remains that the ufology portal stands on its own legs comfortably. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:15, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

In response to the original header and statement - - why do we need to do this?--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 17:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

We don't. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:43, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Is their an easier way of signing your username on a post other then typing the double bracket thing.

It makes my fingers tired. Jakester499 (talk)

The singing button on your toolbar, its a pencil? --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 22:40, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Test --Does anyone else think Chris Christie is the lawyer from Stephen King's Thinner 22:43, 4 October 2015 (UTC) Test 2--Jakester499 (talk) 23:01, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

"Double bracket thing"? The standard way in MediaWiki to add a signature is with four tildes: ~~~~ which MediaWiki magically turns into a signature when the edit is saved. You can also put dashes or whatever in front, but this is just a social convention and means nothing to the software. As Paravant noted, you should also see a button in the toolbar above the edit window which inserts the tildes for you. For more info see our very own help page and the MediaWiki help. --Ymir (talk) 23:08, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Considering your multiple "test" posts both here and elsewhere (in rapid succession) - please test this further on your userpage, on a template or using the preview? I think that might be better. Just a suggestion. Thank you. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:10, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Ahh, frick. I used to sign with ~~~~Zexcoiler Kingbolt. I just figured out that it's just ~~~~. Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 22:41, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Is Wandalizing Other Wikis Illegal?

If someone on this site blanked a ton of pages on Conservapedia or aSK, would they be banned from RW? KOMF 10:30, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

We generally don't care all that much about what you do on other wikis. Though I wouldn't recommend going on vandalism sprees on other wikis either. There's bound to be more meaningful/gratifying things you could be doing instead. >.> (talk) 12:54, 3 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
You wouldn't get banned but you certainly wouldn't get any praise for it either. Being told to fuck off and stop being a wanker is all you'll get if you come here boasting about your vandal spree on Conservapedia or aSK. Spud (talk) 13:12, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
If it makes you feel like a big man go mental. Tielec01 (talk) 14:15, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

It may be illegal, but mostly unenforceable, meaning "who gives a fuck". RW started as a troll-plattform against Conservapedia, anyways.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 19:33, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't CONservapedia threaten to report trolls to the CIA FBI ATF NSA and EPA? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 13:44, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Andy's all talk and no action.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 14:26, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
I know. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 14:38, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Petition to Remove John Hanlin from the UCC Shooting Case

Hello everyone,

A friend of mine started this petition to remove John Hanlin from the Umpqua investigation. Shortly before the shooting, he made it known via social media that he believed the Sandy Hook shooting to be a possible government hoax. We feel that someone like this should not be in charge of such an important matter. I will also share this on the facebook page. Thank you all. A mere peasant 05:00, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Of course, I should probably also share the link. https://www.change.org/p/oregon-state-senate-oregon-state-house-the-douglas-county-police-remove-john-hanlin-from-the-ucc-shooting-case?recruiter=396813892&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=share_for_starters_page&utm_term=des-lg-no_src-no_msgA mere peasant 05:03, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Signed. Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 06:04, 5 October 2015 (UTC)Zexcoiler Kingbolt
Signed. Thinking like that is bad for investigation--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 23:28, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Pensacola Christian College looks like a mall

Seriously, PCC looks more like a mall than a college. Just look up PCC on the TRACS website and it will show a picture.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 11:45, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

... and? --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 12:02, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I am just stating my opinion.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 12:34, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

So? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 14:38, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
that's nice, but why are you doing it in the bar? --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 15:34, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
I realize there was not point for it being here so I actually deleted it earlier but this part showed up again.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 16:09, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Point of the term "BoN"

I'm just curious. What separates the term Bunch of Numbers (BoN) from the well established IP or IP address, that everyone else uses? --Slimy goop (talk) 12:42, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Nothing. But its use is very well established here and is a tradition I wouldn't like to see die out. Spud (talk) 13:04, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Just local usage, probably nothing to do with how it rhymes with "anon." Also probably has nothing to do with the Tibetan shamanic tradition.[wp] SmartFeller (talk) 13:15, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Just one of the quirks or memes from the early days of RW that has stayed popular & will stay popular as long as it stays popular. You might just as well ask what the whole goat thing is about. I doubt anyone can really explain it. It's just a thing. WėąṣėḷőįďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 13:27, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Well I for once wish it to never die out, lest my user-name turn into an obscure reference to the past of this here site... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 13:36, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
BoN isn't IPv6 compatible though! "Bunch of hexadecimals" doesn't quite have the same ring to it ... Carpetsmoker (talk) 17:42, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Hexadecimal numbers are still numbers. There's nothing magical about base 10. --Ymir (talk) 23:09, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Our special vocabulary can be found here and "BON" in particular here. I guess that it's only the real old-timers who remember. :-) --Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 17:51, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd just like to say that it's not a great look when new, unregistered users are addressed in obscure in-house jargon. Flannan Isle (talk) 18:00, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Then I guess that's why the terms are explained in the DysLexicon. Perhaps it should be in the welcome template?--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 18:15, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
So new users have to find their way to the jargon dictionary. Perhaps it shouldn't be used to address newcomers so much? Flannan Isle (talk) 18:22, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps. But all societies (whether on the internet or not) tend to generate their own vocabulary. This is especially so in a rather rule-resistant group such as this. Personally it's an abbreviation I tend not to use - but good luck with getting it banned! :-)--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 18:34, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
You're the first complainant in over 7 years, AFAIK sorry, I meant as far as I know, If a 'newcomer' is so befuddled by the appellation then they should either sign up or push off IMHO ( sorry again: in my humble opinion). Scream!! (talk) 16:01, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Possible material for future fundie school articles

Here is a link of schools that teach creationism- [3]--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 23:31, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Page 404s 'Legionwhat do you want from me 19:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Server Error 503's. Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 19:49, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Huh, I just checked the link and it worked. Well I use windows 8 on an HP laptop but I do not know if that is the reason.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 20:03, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

No trouble for me either. Copied to here. Thanks RZ. Scream!! (talk) 20:36, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Assuming that list is nationally comprehensive in any sense of the word, maybe those should all be redirects? Or maybe not. A question, really. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:26, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Sexbot Panic!

How do you all feel about sexbots? Personally, I don't particularly care. I think the manosphere is blowing them out of proportion, dudes ain't going to drop women over a sexbot. I also feel that claims they don't do anything to solve issues like sex slavery are true but because these are systematic issues that sexbots aren't built to solve. Those are issues that require international government attention. BlackProg 01:38, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

This is the only required response.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 01:43, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
I envision a brave, new world where people only have sex with their own personal sexbot (harem (if you're rich)) and romantic relationships have become so much more profound and stable because people's 'love life' is no longer relevant to it. (Now try to guess if I'm being serious or not. ;) ) (talk) 02:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
If someone wants to have sex with a robot, who am I to say no? Frederick♠♣♥♦ 07:19, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Sexbots? FUCK them :D--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 14:18, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Did vibrators and fleshlights lead to the downfall of civilization? --Revolverman (talk) 16:24, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
You talking about developments much too new. Ask about dildos or Mrs./Mr. Rosa Palms and her/his 5 daughters/sons a.k.a. hands.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 17:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Considering that nearly everyone has vision problems these days... CorruptUser (talk) 17:09, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Norway's largest newspaper on RW: "The moral police of the web"


RW was mentioned alongside a Norwegian Facebook group in an editorial in VG yesterday. The editorial is very harsh, and maybe rightfully so.

Just as anonymous are the people on RationalWiki, who have created registries of dissenters in the debate on immigration and religion.

The editorial is referring particularly to Norwegian topics on the wiki. The article on Nina Hjerpset-Østlie is mentioned in particular as "pure mudslinging". It also criticizes the name of the categories used in the article, like "batshit crazy" and "racists". Though I think lists (or "registries") are good, I agree that many of the articles on Norwegian islamophobes and their organizations are overly harsh, or at least very unnuanced. Though I don't personally have enough knowledge or interest in the topic to improve them myself. Maybe I'll do something eventually. --Slimy goop (talk) 17:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I have removed categories that I think were a far stretch from her article. It's not much but it's a start I guess. --Slimy goop (talk) 17:54, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Personal tools