Campaign!

G'day, fellow RationalWikians! Don't forget to visit the Campaign page of the 2016 Board of trustees election in order to make your voice heard. Suggested activities include:

  • Endorsing select candidates (lending a hand to your loyal henchmen and/or glorious overlords!)
  • Anti-endorsing select candidates (character-assassinating your hated opponents!)
  • Providing moar goat (please wipe afterwards)
  • Just asking questions to the candidates

Your participation might help other users better direct their votes. More importantly, it'll show the world that we've yet to go full Citizendium in terms of election hype!

from FuzzyCatPotato (Talk), group Site wide (urgent) at 00:24, 25 July 2016

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

What is going on?

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

RationalWiki:Forum
  1. Somebody sent me this Gish Gallop. Can anyone help? (14:05, 24 Jul 2016)
  2. Let's play "Have you ever considered" (22:41, 21 Jul 2016)
  3. Philip Goddard's site on Self-Realization & Clear-Mindedness (13:56, 15 Jul 2016)
  4. Thanks to voting restrictions Trump may win (02:31, 9 Jul 2016)
  5. I just don't know (14:53, 8 Jul 2016)
  6. Something strange is happening to me... (17:54, 1 Jul 2016)
To do list

Contents


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

[edit] RationalMedia Board elections (Sticky)

Paravant started up the 2016 RationalMedia Board of Trustees election on started. By 10 February, it was forgotten. In March, Tielec01 wrote:

So no board of trustees this year? Or is it life terms for elections again? After all, it's not like we need more board members... half of them are still semi-active and we still have 1/3 of our elected positions filled!

Previous board election discussion at: RationalWiki:Saloon_bar/Archive253#RationalMedia_Foundation_Board_of_Trustees_election

Current boardmembers:

In the previous thread, several people said that (1) we might want to discuss the role of the Board (if any) before having a Board election, and (2) little information about the Board is available (see previous thread for Boardmember Human's summary of activities), so it's difficult to tell if they've done a good job or what their job is at all.

Since it's been about half a year since the mod elections -- and the Board elections are four months overdue -- now-ish seems like a good time to have Board elections, if we're gonna have them.

[edit] Useful links

[edit] Board purpose discussion

Thoughts? oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 23:17, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Does this still apply? If it does, then everyone who isn't familiar with its contents (me included) or just needs to freshen their memory probably ought to read it start to finish as a premise to the discussion on this... Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:21, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
And just as my initial reaction - on the one hand, this needs to be adressed (four months overdue no less). On the other hand, I work under the principle that it's important we not try to fix anything that isn't actually broken. Just my general hunch. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:22, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
I haven't been here long, but I definitely don't want board members that do not really edit here having a longer term than they should.-D1@m0ndD15c1 (talk) 05:17, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Bump. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 20:00, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Bump. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 16:14, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

This still needs to happen. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 17:36, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, but how to start it?-D1@m0ndD15c1 (talk) 06:24, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Well, I think people should probably discuss the role of the board a little bit, and people should probably actually be aware of the nominations page and whether they've been nominated.
If people here are fine with it, I'll put up an intercom message linking to this thread, the nominations page, and the guide page -- and notify all the nominees who've not yet declined. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 06:52, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Bump. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 02:53, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm totally fine with it.-D1@m0ndD15c1 (talk) 04:25, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Done. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 18:48, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Let the elections begin! Good luck to everyone.-D1@m0ndD15c1 (talk) 19:52, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Hear, hear! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:57, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
I'll have to sit out this one, I'm not eligible to vote. YET. -D1@m0ndD15c1 (talk) 20:01, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

[edit] RationalMedia.org

Btw, is this the same as the above? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 03:45, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Kind of? It's got some of the RW page, but not all of it.
As another issue, I've always felt that having the RMF stuff on another page was both redundant (it should also be on RW) and uninformative (people won't look at it). I move to merge rationalmedia.org and rationalwiki.org, eh? ;) FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 06:26, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Hmm..Idk...-D1@m0ndD15c1 (talk) 05:17, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Nomination deadline: today, 10 July 2016

The board of trustees nominations ends today. Yet we have just 6 candidates:

  1. Human
  2. David Gerard
  3. Reverend Black Percy
  4. FuzzyCatPotato
  5. Bongolian
  6. Owlman

As such, the election wouldn't be "which individuals should be on the board" but rather "which individual shouldn't".

Moreover, several mainstays of the community (Tmtoulouse, Weaseloid, Bicycle Wheel) and one active user (NarkySawtooth) haven't accepted or declined their nominations to the board. (Tmt doesn't really need to, as he'll probably get appointed operations manager.)

Should we extend the nomination period? αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 13:29, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Updated. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 13:33, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
I tried to nominate two people, but I was reverted :-(— Unsigned, by: 149.210.131.21 / talk / contribs
While I trust every editor among the currently nominated, I would certainly support an extension in time, if that was not in breach of any rule and was agreed upon by the mob. It's important that things are done for RW's best and so on. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:36, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
In fact, if we were to extend, I'd nominate a few good people that haven't been nominated yet. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:37, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

If nobody else (other than I and Percy) support an extension by the end of 12 July, I'll close it. (wow elections are fun) Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 00:24, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I'd support it. There's barely enough people to make a choice.-D1@m0ndD15c1 (talk) 05:37, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm spending my 25000th edit to say: based on 3 people for and 0 against, the nomination period is extend by one week, until 17 June -- or 4 more days. Nominate away! Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 20:21, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

17 July, you mean? *cough*--JorisEnter (talk) 20:30, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
25000 edits? Wow!-D1@m0ndD15c1 (talk) 23:12, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Guess it's over. Whoopie. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 00:42, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

It would be a good idea to close nominations now, there are enough people to make a good choice.-D1@m0ndD15c1 (talk) 03:02, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Yeah. Nobody else has been nommed, time to shift to campaigning I suppose. HairyFelineTuber (talk/stalk) 17:05, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Deride and salute!

G'day, fellow RationalWikians! Don't forget to visit the Campaign page of the 2016 Board of trustees election in order to make your voice heard. Suggested activities include:

  • Anti-endorsing select candidates (character assassinating your hated opponents!)
  • Endorsing select candidates (lending a handjob to your loyal henchmen!)
  • Providing moar Goat (just make sure you wipe it down afterwards!)
  • Just asking some questions to the candidates

Your participation will help other users better direct their votes, and also show the world that we've yet to go full Citizendium in terms of election hype! All the best, candidate Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:30, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Any chance the above post (minus my greeting and signature, aka the last sentence) could be made into something like a 24 hour sitewide intercom message? We don't elect for the board often, and it's an important event, and I think directing attention to it in the short term may be warranted. Participation is good, as is the ability for people to praise or malaise respective candidates. Thoughts? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:32, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
is good idea FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 01:50, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Neat. When you do lunch that intercom message, make sure it counts as a "new message" (so that nobody has it set to "read" by default and thus by accident). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:00, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
I've put it up for 1 week on Site wide urgent. Perhaps we can do voting afterwards? HairyFelineTuber (talk/stalk) 00:24, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Seems fine, old chap! 1 week also seems like a good idea. Let's hope people get a bit more engaged, generally. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 09:41, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Trump: Man of Wealth

So this comparison happened.

These folks are all pretty similar in their leadership style, methinks: "you do this, you do that, I am the best". Interestingly enough 2 of them were killed by the population they were ruling over. PB3 (talk) 00:11, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

With foreign intervention that is. Nerd (talk) 00:46, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
FOREIGN INTERVENTION BAD HISS HairyFelineTuber (talk/stalk) 01:48, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
What do you mean? Nerd (talk) 02:01, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
I can't tell if FCP is being sarcastic or not, seeing as how FCP supports the candidate that supported and actively campaigned for both interventions, and orchestrated one of them. FCP is so right-wing in general discussion that I wouldn't be surprised if FCP supported Libya. PB3 (talk) 02:58, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
For the record, I do not oppose foreign intervention in general; it depends on the case. I just wanted to point out a fact. Nerd (talk) 23:31, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
So that's what his small loan of a million dollars from his dad has become, a yuggge fortune. He is tremendous potential. He's great. He's won big. He's a winner. They say he has small hands and insinuate that his brain must be small. He can assure you there is no problem. Believe him! Nerd (talk) 02:54, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

so right-wing

That's rich. "Right-wing" has, for Sanders supporters, become "anything to the right of god-emperor Sanders". Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 01:55, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

And in some cases anything to the left from him as well. Vulpius (talk) 01:57, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Damn you. He was a really good candidate. I dont think other points of view are sacrilegious. Sanders isn't a god-emperor, especially seeing as he's going to die soon. Nor is Jill Stein. The left is what matters here. The left that Hillary abandoned. The left that is going to cost her the election. PBfreespace3 (talk) 02:06, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Jill Stein can go fuck herself. She's your classic rich, lily-white, suburbanite liberal, which means outside of a handful of headline issues like the Keystone Pipeline and maybe taxes, she's painfully incompetent at politics outside of her tiny, tiny wheelhouse and staggeringly ignorant of how things actually work. Just look at her waffling on vaccine safety and her party's explicit support of GMO labeling: these are issues that are of interest primarily to a particular subset of rich white liberals, and have zero importance—in the case of pandering to anti-vaxxers, actual negative utility—in the real world. Star of David.png Radioactive Misanthrope 05:43, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
A comment about Jill Stein and GPUSA's stance on GMOS: They want to "put a moratorium on GMOs and pesticides until they are proven safe".--Owlman (talk) (mail) 06:07, 24 July 2016 (UTC) 06:07, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Vandal bin

Our policy clearly states that one should not put IP addresses in the vandal bin, where they may remain indefinitely. Those vandals could be using a public computer or an otherwise borrowed device. I went there today and found out that so many have been banished to the depths of Tartarus and got them out. Many more remain, however. But I am busy at the moment and must go. Could another sysop please continue this at their leisure? Thanks. Nerd (talk) 02:28, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

This is a great scientific experiment I think. We should see if there is a marked and significant increase in vandalism over the next month, and if there is, that might tell us something. I'll wait and see. Oh, can you show me where said page is? I thought I saw it, but I couldn't filter by IPs, so I'm not sure. PB3 (talk) 02:47, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
I'll see what I can do.--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 06:51, 18 July 2016 (UTC) 06:51, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, guys! It is probably better to request statistics on vandalism from a technician, since different sysops and moderators will take actions against vandals. I'm not sure what you meant, PB. If you meant the page that lists IP addresses in the vandal bin, I did not know there was one. In fact, I doubt it even exists. I simply went down the list and parole them on new tabs to speed things up. Nerd (talk) 23:40, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Is there a mass-unbin function? It's a pain in the ass to do the same thing hunders of times over. If I'll make a primitive bash script to do it for me, will I trip some kinda safety guards against automated spam that exist[citation needed] here?--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 00:50, 19 July 2016 (UTC) 00:50, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
I really appreciate your effort, Kugelschreiber. I stopped only because my finger hurts. You should probably talk to a tech. Nerd (talk) 00:57, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
You can do it from the API with your script. There are no speed limits. Conscience (talk) 03:03, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Does vandal bin have an API? If so, lemme give you ninja so you don't clog RC. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 03:27, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
An API? Cool, do you have the documentation of the API? I hope it's simple, I can only write primitive BASH scripts.--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 12:20, 19 July 2016 (UTC) 12:20, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, guys! I think we got them all. Nerd (talk) 01:42, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Yahoo Answers: Is RationalWiki a bigoted ideological cesspool?

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20160716141158AAlaxs9

From "The Kingdom of God is Within You":

That's one of the most bigoted ideological cesspools of Antitheistic disinformation. Its proponents even pass it off as atheistic, and that's disinformation. Atheists don't have beliefs about God, the Bible, and Christians to evangelize.

I was being overly polite to call RationalWiki's doctrinal fallacies and derogatory falsehoods, "disinformation". I should have called them, "bigoted slurs".

From "Brad":

So you think the information contained within rationalwiki is all bad, and your evidence for this is one out of the hundreds of thousands of entries it contains that you happen to disagree with. Is that what you're saying?

Unrelatedly, is there any consensus on whether YouTube comments or Yahoo Answers are worse? Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 14:29, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Facebook comments under common news sources (MSNBC, New York Times, New Yorker) are worse. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 15:50, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Why do you even care, Fuzzy? Creating a siege mentality? Or the usual "we piss people off, we must do something right" self-congratulation? Or do you actually care? You already inoculated yourself against any criticism. That's the purpose of RW:PISSED and SPOV (aka "yes, it's biased, hence we can claim anything!" argument). You have the social justice crowd left only, and drop-in visitors from Google. Anti-creationists, atheist, skeptics, people who fucking love science, rationalists, the edutainment-loving crowd — a hugely popular and growing sector — should flock to the project, but they don't. Of course. You provide little benefit. Many articles are riddled with nonsense. You support the Blackmailer's view on Freedom of Speech. No intelligent discourse can be found. Articles on e.g. Free Will, a hot topic right now, add nothing to the discourse and aren't even entertaining to read. They are just a waste of time that could go into reading Wikipedia, or better specialized sources. You have incorporated blatant pseudo-science into many an article, e.g. "levels of analysis" on "oppression and privilege" in the Social Justice article that are nothing but cringe-worthy. Where original research would be great to have, e.g. anatomy of the flame wars/contro-manufactuversies in the a/s movement, you offer extreme one sided propaganda that makes no attempt of understanding anything. Like before, one is better off reading the views of the protagonists themselves instead of wasting time with your PR rehash of their words. And don't say one could make improvements. No employed, mentally sane person can keep up with the level of burning zeal coming from certain quarters. ~ Aneris 16:24, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Then why are you still hear posting walls of text no one will read? Petey Plane (talk) 16:35, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
1) I hope it will improve. 2) I want to speak up 3) I deem it useful to, occasionally, undermine the conformity. 4) It's easy, too. 5) If not useful to improve anything, it tends to make the other side even more zealous, and this helps to make the project more transparent. Ideally, the RW would be more transparent and ditch the mission statement and adjust to what it really is about now, i.e. intersectional critical race theory and legacy work on creationism and woo. I also have no problem with another site that peddles this ideology. But I dislike it, that the RW disguises itself as an "enlightenment-based" project (however you want to call this, reasonable, rational, critical-thinking, etc.) when it has evidently abandoned that long ago. ~ Aneris 16:54, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
The debunking of the religious worldview on this site remains excellent; your myopic focus on the SJW topics blinds you to the treasure of anti-ignorance material we have. Lord Aeonian (talk) 21:42, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Why in the name of fuck is free will a "hot topic"? And where? --Castaigne2 (talk) 21:49, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Why do I post criticisms of RW? First because they're usually insanely dumb and funny and second because there's a possibility it might help RW improve itself. Or, as you say, because I'm clearly trying to construct a siege narrative. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 21:27, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Inevitably, when you have a source that takes any kind of editorial position, no matter how justified, people will see that as biased against them. And then the bias fallacy fills in the rest: they're wrong because they're biased, and they're bad because they're wrong. Wikipedia proves that people will still say this all the time even if you bend over backwards to create the best sense of neutrality possible. We are ideological, especially on the religious subjects the poster in the yahoo answers page suggests. The rational counter-charge is "So what? Are we wrong? How so?" ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 21:59, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Indeed! The vast majority of internet criticism falls under that category -- the remainder might be useful, tho. FuzzyCatPotato of the Tescular Ferret fanciers (talk/stalk) 23:53, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Anonymous sysop here. I don't think RW is a 'bigoted cesspool', but I do think the stance we've taken on social justice and feminism (e.g. privilege, Anita, the like) is not good. I think we're too extreme when it comes to viewing issues about feminism, namely that we tend to oppose anyone who criticizes it. I think that's a little too clannish, and that we shouldn't be blindly loyal to the group perjoratively called the 'SJWs'. That's my main criticism of this site's actual content. Now the behind-the-scenes is another matter entirely... 173.88.182.123 (talk) 04:29, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

RW fell to the SJW menace in approximately ... 2008 - David Gerard (talk) 11:36, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Whose blog is that anyways? ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:54, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Stabby the Misanthrope, one of our old-timers - David Gerard (talk) 18:12, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Baton Rouge shooter linked to sovereign citizen movement

There's interesting news about how Gavin Long who shot 3 police officers in Baton Rouge had links to various sovereign citizen movements including the weird-sounding Washitaw Nation[wp].[1] Although for the mainstream media this is less interesting than blaming it on Black Lives Matter, it sounds like the sort of craziness RationalWiki should be covering. Does anybody know anything about these groups, have some good links, or maybe even fancy writing something? Annquin (talk) 20:00, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Definitely sounds worth covering. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 21:46, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
He apparently also considered himself a targeted individual as well. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 12:22, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
This is about as on-mission as it gets. Someone should right sections in these articles about this individual. PbFreespace (talk) 19:40, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
I think a page that more broadly covers black separatism and the black sovereign citizen movement, as distinct from black supremacy, with insight into foundational groups like the Moorish Science Temple[wp] which inspired groups like the Washitaw Nation and the Nuwaubian Nation[wp] (which also adds plenty of UFO insanity) would be very on mission, for sure. Petey Plane (talk) 19:54, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Yikes! The Nuwaubians believe in a whole bunch of crazy shit. Dwight York[wp], the founder of the Nuwaubians, is a scam artist, snake oil salesman, criminal, tax evader, paranoid schizophrenic, and convicted child molestor currently serving a 135 year prison sentence in federal prison after being convicted of various crimes in 2004. They are tangental to many topics on RW but I've never heard them referenced as "foundational" or "inspirational" for anything but a bunch of cultish criminals. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 00:37, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
I meant to say that The Moorish Science Temple was a precursor to groups like the Newaubians and the Washitaw. Petey Plane (talk) 02:40, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Heather Mac Donald

I am going to try and not rant her too much but I have never read anything so mind-numbingly stupid than Heather Mac Donald's posts about her stats on police crime. She was invited to write 3 columns for the libertarian law blog The Volokh Conspiracy. Her first post was about race and police shootings which brings up stats about how whites are killed more than blacks by police but she openly dismisses the effect that these killings have on these communities by saying that killings shouldn't be measured against a population. This seems reasonable (as long as you ignore the possibility that crimes whites commit are underreported because that aren't targeted) until she justifies unarmed killings by the police: she cites an example of a 50 yo white man using a spoon who was Tased prior to being shot, a 28 yo white man rushing officers after a high-speed chase and was shot, and a 21 yo white who was shot by police after he wouldn't remove his hands from his pockets. Of course, she doesn't consider that police in the US kill more people than police in other countries.

Her second post discusses stats that she uses to prove the contentious theory that there is a Ferguson effect. I have nothing on this atm but I don't feel that this is enough proof for me to prove that the effect is real.

Her last column discusses the race of officers who kill which tries to prove that BLM is built on a false narrative about white cops killing black teens. A commenter on the article had a great rebuttal to her three claims third article but I will summarize it here. First, the two studies she cites to prove that cops don't disproportionately target blacks: the first study took officers and put them in a computer simulation in order to see whether they had a racial bias towards unarmed and armed suspects but it doesn't take into account that the lab condition removed the officer bias since they weren't on duty; the second study involves those who have been stopped by cops and it shows that blacks are less likely to be killed during a stop but the paper itself details that this doesn't prove that there is a racial bias towards those who are stopped. Her second claim is that black officers use lethal force more than white officers which somehow proves that BLM's narrative that white cops kill black teens; besides that BLM believes that the abuse is systematic idk why black officers' willingness to use lethal force unless I assume, she is trying to say that black police officers are immune to racial prejudice. Her last point is that a higher amount of cops are killed by blacks than blacks that are killed by cops. This has to be the oddest claim since it would be strange for members of a random population to be killed by cops than cops killed by the population they police since they purposely put themselves in high risk situations. Regardless, this ignores the fact that police are less likely to be killed than they have ever been. Further info is in her book, The War on Cops, but I will save you the brain damage you may get by linking to a Reason article that debunks her claims.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 06:58, 21 July 2016 (UTC) 06:58, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Is it possible......

For a disease pathogen to influence the brain of an animal or human to spread the disease? Take Rabies, it alters animal behavior to where it could spread. No I am not trying to sound stupid here, just a thought.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 15:34, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it's possible. No, it's not trivial to evolve simple chemical pathways to ideally alter the behavior of a complex central nervous system. At the most evolved you get things like cordycepts, which can activate a specific response in a snail's brain that causes it to seek higher altitudes(so the parasite can be eaten by a bird). ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
You're basically right, but I think you're confusing species. Cordyceps[wp] is a fungus genus that primarily attacks insects and other arthropods, often causing the zombified host to climb up from the forest floor before latching onto vegetation and dying. The benefit for the parasite is improved spore dispersal from the height. The parasite of the snail is a flatworm of the genus Leucochloridium.[wp] Bongolian (talk) 19:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
It's not just possible, it's a proven occurance. Toxoplasmosis[wp] alters the behavior of tons of its many host animals, including of humans, as well as of mice (who become more risk-taking towards cats that may predate on them). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:43, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
i am aware of somethings affecting animal and human behaviour, but is there anything that alters human behaviour to actively propagate a virus or parasite? AMassiveGay (talk) 16:56, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, but in a roundabout way that isn't quite evolution. Debilitating diseases often contribute to poverty, which puts people in a position where transmission is much more likely. StickySock (talk) 17:36, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
It's theoretical possible for, say, an STD to cause its host to become more sexually active. And then there's the crab parasite WP:Sacculina. BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 08:39, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Another interesting "sort-of" case is guinea worm.[wp] The female burrows out through the skin, causing burning pain. Sufferers frequently immerse the affected body part in water, which is exactly what the parasite wants; it releases its larvae into the water to continue the life cycle. (Now would be a great time to donate to eradication efforts if possible. Guinea worm is on track to be the second human disease eradicated after smallpox.) --Ymir (talk) 09:36, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Disaster Films and the laws of physics

If you think the Day After Tomorrow violates the laws of physics try watching 2012:Supernova or 2012:Doomsday (Not the one with John Cusack) or even Category 7: The end of the world. Those movies have even less respect for the laws of physics.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 19:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Are they at least fun to watch?--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 20:10, 21 July 2016 (UTC) 20:10, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Well, Category 7 is fun to watch. The others, not so much--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 20:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
It's lame that the earth can only generate winds and earthquakes of a certain power. We need bigger bangs. I wholeheartedly endorse the efforts of special effects wizards. Annquin (talk) 14:26, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Relevant Chainsawsuit comics: http://chainsawsuit.com/comic/2009/02/16/strip-162/ 173.71.121.36 (talk) 03:56, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Cenk Uygur and Alex Jones (nearly) come to blows at the RNC.

This is funny. Ana Kasparian calls Jones a "fat fuck" and he calls her "Jihadi Jane".[2]--Mercian (talk) 01:51, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh boy. I saw this confrontation but I didn't see TYT's stream come back on.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 02:03, 22 July 2016 (UTC) 02:03, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Alex Jones storms into an already set up interview, won't stop yelling at people one feet away from him, won't leave, won't use inside voice (only use inside job), pandemonium erupts. Typical Alex! What can you do? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:21, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
...and Devon Tracey is praising Jones for standing up to the water buffalo. Sigh. PB3 (talk) 13:38, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Is Jordan the Palestinian state, a Palestinian state or neither?

So we all know that Jordan controlled Judea and Samaria between 1948 and 1967 and also denied Jews access to the Jewish holy sites in Jerusalem, Bethlehem, Hebron and other places. We further know that Jordan was part of the Mandate for Palestine as originally awarded by the League of Nations. And we also know that many people that would fall under most definitions of "Palestinian" are citizens or permanent residents of Jordan. So is Jordan "the" Palestinian state (as in the only state Palestinians have or need, just like Germany is "the" German state) or "a" Palestinian state (as in one or several states of and for Palestinians, just like the GDR was "a" German state)? Or is it for some reason neither? Please discuss, I am looking forward to what you have to say! 107.170.215.131 (talk) 00:03, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Neither. The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan is considered to be an Arab kingdom, not a Palestinian kingdom, due to heritage of the ruling family. --Castaigne2 (talk) 06:27, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
It should also be noted that Palestinians only make up 22% of the population, the majority of those having given up Palestinian citizenship altogether and become fully assimilated as Jordanians. --Castaigne2 (talk) 06:30, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
It makes more sense to call Israel the Palestinian state. Annquin (talk) 09:27, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
The truth is that Jordan is Palestine and Palestine is Jordan
—King Hussein of Jordan, 1981
Palestine is Jordan and Jordan is Palestine; there is only one land, with one history and one and the same fate

Palestinian are Arabs, did you forget it? --The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 20:49, 23 July 2016 (UTC) 20:49, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

And people can easily be divided by their creed. Just because the Jordanian king supports unify Jordan and Palestine doesn't mean the Palestinians want that. A good comparison to this would be how the people of the Northern Mariana Islands want to unify with Guam but the people of Guam don't want to unify with them.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 21:04, 23 July 2016 (UTC) 21:04, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Creed? Most of Palestinians and Jordanians are Sunni Arabs, about half of the population of Jordan has Palestinian ancestry and there are also about 2 million officially registered Palestinian refugees in Jordan. Jordan is also the only Arab country to fully naturalize their Palestinians instead of the discrimination they face in the rest of the Arab World.--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 16:48, 24 July 2016 (UTC) 16:48, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Right and emphasis on Jordan being the only country that naturalized the refugees. Just look at the Gulf states who haven't taken in any Syrian refugees even if they are Sunnis. Like I said before, though, the Palestinians don't consider themselves Jordanians.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 16:54, 24 July 2016 (UTC) 16:54, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
So should this be covered in a RW article and if so which one? another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 21:13, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Tim Kaine

So, now that Hillary has Virginia in the bag, I went to check what that means in the general election. NY Times has Upshot already on, which previously correctly predicted Romney being demolished by Obama. Scroll way down for the paths to victory graph. With Virginia Clinton will now have 494 ways to win, while Trump is left with only 16 ways. Who was it on this wiki that said that we'll all be crying when Trump wins in November? Typhoon (talk) 10:24, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Great news! By the way, the bottom of the link currently reads:
Clinton has 945 ways to win (92% of paths)
7 ties (0.68% of paths)
Trump has 72 ways to win (7.0% of paths)
Which are the newest numbers? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:42, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Right above the paths you have buttons for swing states. I checked Virginia as Dem, which gave me the numbers above. Typhoon (talk) 11:29, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Gotcha. Thanks! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:02, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Right now, according to the model, if Clinton wins Virginia, she will have 474 ways to win (93%) and Trump will have 34(6.6%) and there will be 4 ties(0.78%).-D1@m0ndD15c1 (talk) 04:13, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Typhoon -- a Trump victory is about as likely as a Clinton landslide (meaning Trump has low chances of winning the presidency). The only problem is that this is current polling, and it could change. (Currently the trend s towards a tighter race.) Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 11:19, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Polls are so far only reflecting Trump picking Pence and the RNC, which is actually bad for Trump since this would mean he has reached his ceiling. Polls will certainly move once the DNC ends Typhoon (talk) 11:31, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Just winning the states Democrats have won in every election since 1992 + New Mexico, Colorado and Virginia gets Clinton one electoral vote away from victory. Trump has a lot steeper hill to climb. Vulpius (talk) 13:47, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't think there will be much of a "convention bump" for Trump this year given the Cruz speech and the controversy around his wife. However, it may well be that the DNC doesn't deliver a "convention bump" either. If Sanders supporters start anything approaching a floor fight on platform issues the media will spin the 1968 narrative until even a turtle living under a rock knows it. And we don't know whether there might be a speech that could be construed as an attack on Clinton or even worse a speech by someone not Clinton or Kaine (btw what's his stance on the Brotherhood of NOD?) that makes people too enthusiastic. Nothing worse than an aging ticket with a young alternative just having risen to prominence. I actually think Obama's 2004 speech hurt Kerry if anything. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 15:24, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Considering the fact that the theme for the first night is "United Together" and Bernie Sanders is the speaker on that night, I think any angry Bernouts will be silenced. Typhoon (talk) 16:23, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I cant wait for Tim's RW article. "Harley Tim is Jokerrly's sidekick. I found some legislature he signed when he was 4 that says "gay ppl are caca" Anyone else who dissagrees with this edit is a ZEALOT and PRO ISREAL" Sandflapjack (talk) 15:46, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

What does Israel have to do with that? another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 16:01, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Fitting user signature. Typhoon (talk) 16:09, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm loving all of the Hillary supporters circlejerking each other in mew Saloon Bar threads. All the usual suspects come out. You guys are going to be so shocked on election night when Trump wins. It'll be a madhouse here the morning after. PB (talk) 21:01, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Look at the "same since 2000" map here. You know what it takes to make the Democrats get to 270? Virginia and Ohio. You don't even need Florida, Nevada or New Hampshire. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 21:05, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
And given that Kaine basically means "+2.2% in Virginia", if all is the same, the Dems only need to win Ohio or equivalent. Trump currently looks fucked. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 22:44, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

@PB: Actually, my "beloved polling group" agrees with the 2.2 statistic. If anything, it's a conservative number. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 23:08, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

And how much do you think she would've gained if she put Sanders or Warren on the ticket? How many more perdent would've voted for her? PЬFЯЗЭSPДCЗ (talk) 23:15, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Not sure. If she got 100% of the Green Party (which would be unlikely), that's about 3-5%. But she might lose 3-5% of "moderates" and Republicans-voting-Democratic. (Armchair statistics here). The major benefit of Kaine, as I see it, is that (1) he doesn't piss many people off, but basically hands her Virginia, without which it's much more difficult for Trump to win, and (2) he's a good talker, so the VP debate will be a Dem victory over Pence's lardmouth. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 23:20, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Maybe the last question: will you apologize to me when Trump wins and say my prediction was correct? pbfreespace (talk) 23:28, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
If, yes. If not, shall you? ;P I recommend a read of this article. FuzzyCatPotato of the Tescular Ferret fanciers (talk/stalk) 23:33, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Putting Warren on the ticket would've hurt the Dems so very badly. The Vice Presidency is a symbolic office with practically no official power (outside of tie-breaking Senate votes) and not much unofficial power. Warren has been making great strides advancing and protecting the regulatory state within the Senate, and that all stops as soon as she's no longer a voting member of Congress. Kaine is a generic left-of-center Democrat who's relatively replaceable, so his absence is no great harm to the Democrats. Though honestly, if I'd have made the pick, I'd have advocated going with Tom Perez, Obama's current Secretary of Labor and a man with an impeccable political record, who's the most pro-labor Labor Secretary we've had since Jimmy Carter was president. Also, he's Hispanic, which symbolically is a huge win for the fastest-growing demographic in America right now. Just as importantly, it sets him up as the natural successor to Clinton in 2024, and I would kill to have an unabashedly pro-union President. Star of David.png Radioactive Misanthrope 23:33, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Kaine is probably one of the lamest out of the bunch and I dislike his positions on deregulation and free trade; he is also rated as a centrist among the Dems. His successful governorship helps him against Pence's claim of "success". Kaine has been go::od on social politics as well but, like Pence, he isn't known outside his state. I wish he would've been more principled against the death penalty. The most interesting thing is his attempt to replace the War Powers Act; I am wary of it because he worked with McCain, who is a hawk, but it doesn't seem like it waterdowned any of its power.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 23:39, 23 July 2016 (UTC) 23:39, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Interesting. Of the four, Hillary, Trump, Pence, and Kaine, Kaine seems the least objectionable and maybe the least crazy to be president to some people. nobsBern baby bern 07:22, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

And supposedly Trump at the very least hurt his chances in Ohio by snubbing the governor like that. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 23:59, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Can one party hold onto the Presidency for decades or even generations?

There is a common belief that holding the Presidency in one party for more than three consecutive terms only ever happens in very rare circumstances. However, for most of the second half of the 19th century the Republican Party held the presidency and both FDR and his successor were in the same party for more than three consecutive terms. Given that this election is - if anything - the Democrats to lose, should we be worried about 2020? another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 15:28, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Ted Cruz will obviously run in 2020, and Donald will maybe go on another rampage too (though probably as independent after he blames the GOP for losing in 2016). The teabaggers will continue their silly search for "the most conservative candidate, ever". Typhoon (talk) 16:10, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
That's a sensible prediction. Nerd (talk) 16:13, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
So in other words the 2000s Democrats are poised to become the equivalent of the 1860s to 1910s Republicans? At least in terms of holding onto the Presidency? another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 16:17, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
It's not unusual in other countries for one party to rule for decades in the post-World War Two period: the Liberal Democrats in Japan, Congress in India, Mapai/Labor in Israel, the Mexican Institutional Revolutionary Party... If, as seems likely, the Republicans remain strong in Congress it's going to be far from a one-party state anyhow. Annquin (talk) 16:32, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Something like this? Also during the second half of the 19th century the Republicans did not control many states and were far from controlling Congress at many points in time. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 16:36, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Reminder: Dems won 5/6 of the last 6 popular elections (92,96,00,08,12). By all rights, this should have been a period of intense Republican introspection about their continued failures. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 21:52, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

How does the picture look like if you analyze the popular vote of House elections? They are a national election, too and analyzing them provides more data. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 21:55, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
The latest edition of the Economist had an article about how a big loser, like Goldwater and McGovern, impacted and shaped their respective party's ideology for decades to come. My prediction: after Trump is trounced, the GOP will become more like the Democratic party in organization (adding Superdelegates for instances) and outlook (less free market, more big govt social spending, crony capitalism, etc). nobsBern baby bern 22:26, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
So the primaries become a farce just like they are at the Democrats' side?--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 22:31, 23 July 2016 (UTC) 22:31, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
"Farce". Obama won. Clinton had the DNC's backing. Primaries matter, even currently. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 22:42, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
FCP, I don't think you understood what Arisboch was saying. He meant that the established Democrats have too much control over who wins. Do you agree with how the DNC works right now? pbfreespace3 (talk) 23:27, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
No, but the system has more flaws than just "superdelegates". I'd rather replace all caucuses than remove superdelegates, if forced to choose. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 23:36, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
@Rob I am slightly confused by your assertion that the GOP will be for more cronyism and less social spending as if they were ever entirely against those platforms. The Repubs haven't killed the Import-Export bank, ended energy or farm subsidies, and they haven't cut defense spending or foreign military aid.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 23:31, 23 July 2016 (UTC) 23:31, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
The conservative movement in America as we knew it is dead - half by attrition, half by suicide. What is left are malcontent defecters from the Dems and a few single issue religious right types who haven't got the big picture yet. The Dems themselves are increasingly taking over Jesus and church people. Wall Street and business types defected to the Democrats in the first Clinton administration. The GOP has no choice but to become more centrist and mainstream; it's two most prominent living conservative thinkers since the deaths of Goldwater, Reagan, and Bill Buckley, that would be Bill Kristol and George Will, have already departed. I don't see them returning after Trump gets beat because of the structural problems which allowed a liberal outsider & RINO like Trump to hijack the party. And adopting an ex officio bureaucratic Superdelegate system like the Democrats have will murderer any pretense to being democratic, and totally destroys the conservative principals the Party stood for for more than the last half century. Once again, the party will "reform itself" by copying the Democrats success. nobsBern baby bern 06:09, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
I am not trying to insult you but why don't you consider Obama to be a conservative?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 06:15, 24 July 2016 (UTC) 06:15, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
has the presidential election campaign started yet or you all still faffing with the endless primaries farce? AMassiveGay (talk) 06:23, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Uh, I wasn't talking about the primaries?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 06:26, 24 July 2016 (UTC) 06:26, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
(ec)Obama? He's not like the Clinton's, he doesn't pretend to be conservative nor even try to poach conservative voters. Obama pretends to be bipartisan and concilliatory, but has been at times extremely confrontational. nobsBern baby bern 06:29, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
How exactly has he been confrontational and on what issues has he been confrontational?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 06:37, 24 July 2016 (UTC) 06:37, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
You could begin with the passage of Obamacare, the way it was passed; they had to bend the House rules to do it (that criticism extends to Dem Congressional leadership, too); or keeping Susan Rice on in the White House after she was rejected with good reason as Hillary's sucessor at the State Department. Or his "punish our enemies" and "I won" comments that set the tone. Now the whole FBI whitewash of Hillary endangers his legacy, and that criticism won't come just from Republicans. nobsBern baby bern 07:10, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Alright. I only asked because Buckley's son endorsed Obama in '08.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 07:31, 24 July 2016 (UTC) 07:31, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@nobs: You consider Reagan a prominent conservative thinker? Sure, he was The Great CommunicatorTM, but I'd hardly consider him a great or original conservative thinker (actually, I don't consider him to be much of a thinker at all...). ScepticWombat (talk) 10:29, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Reagan was a classical liberal in the Hayek & Freidman tradition, which would make him a a late 20th century American conservative. The modern, now dead, American conservative movement dates its origins with Bill Buckley circa 1952 (and the publication of Whittaker Chambers book Witness) down to the betrsyal of conservativism by GW Bush and his big government prescription benefit plan. nobsBern baby bern 19:35, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
So what about Reagan's defense spending?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 19:37, 24 July 2016 (UTC) 19:37, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Reagan was a war criminal. His administration was one of the most corrupt in recorded US history and it left millions of Americans worse off. But he did bring a lot of change to the political landscape. Not positive change, but still change. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 21:12, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
You guys attribute too much to Reagan. Reagan faced a Democratic House throughout his term and a Democratic Senate the last two years. There was a national concensus to rebuild and modernize with or without Reagan. Even the level of spending remained in Congress's hands. The buildup began under Carter, the MX missile and stealth fighter, for example. It really wasn't 'Reagan's buildup'; most of the criticism was directed at Reagan's foreign policy, his refusal to negotiate with any Soviet leader before Gorbachev, and confronting Soviet foreign policy in Central America and Afghanistan. nobsBern baby bern 02:51, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Like Obama, Reagan is blamed for things that are beyond the president's control. The president is often little more than a national mascot.
Uncle Sam/Columbia 2016! CorruptUser (talk) 02:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Sure, sure. But it's not like Reagan complained about military spending. The president is certainly complicit by not using the bully pulpit or veto power.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:51, 26 July 2016 (UTC) 04:51, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Iran-Contra was done without any input from Congress. In fact Congress trying to keep him from doing it started the whole thing. Similar things can be said about the Lebanon disaster. And his requests for spending were actually higher than what Congress ultimately approved every single time. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 15:05, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
In the case of the "Reagan buildup", there was a bipartisan national concensus to modernize. Defense spending involved multi-year contracts, and Congress committed to increased spending in the later yesrs of the Carter administration. While level of spending is set by Congress, and final approval to go ahead with certain projects, it is the administration (of whichever president) that chooses which programs to move forward with. In this case, Reagan's Pentagon & National Security team chose 'Star Wars', or hi-tech modernization over conventional weapons.nobsBern baby bern 03:24, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Intentional removal of sourced info

Is this the new normal on Rationalwiki? I'm asking because of a recent debate on this talkpage, where I learned that, quote:"I do only want to mention negatives and not positives"; is a perfectly fine justification to remove half of text along with sources. Is lying by omission Rationalwiki's new modus operandi? Should I start to worry that more articles are being edited with this line of thinking? Typhoon (talk) 20:45, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Are you upset that someone else has adopted your well-tested "modus operandi?" Lord Aeonian (talk) 21:09, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Heh. Just one example of a super-sourced text I remember. There's a lot lying by omission. It's the default in some areas. Not even what kicked off Elevatorgate is properly documented, and that's arguably the biggest flame-war-manufactuversy of the atheist-skeptics-corner. ~ Aneris 21:21, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Typhoon needs to stop demanding that everything on the site is pro-Hillary or pro-Kaine in some way. PBfreespace (talk) 23:23, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
I have never demanded that thing should be only pro-Hillary or pro-Kaine, in fact I repeatedly stressed in the linked talkpage that all viewpoints should be represented. Pbfreespace3 has been the only one demanding things to be only anti-Hillary and anti-Kaine. Typhoon (talk) 07:42, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Quora: What do you think about Rationalwiki? And please use reason

Perhaps our Yahoo Answers fan was not happy with their responses.

Great site—not perfect, but pretty good. It’s not as “professional” as Wikipedia because they don’t adhere to a stance of neutrality—neutrality is neither necessary nor desirable when making an advocacy site—and some of their articles are a bit more antagonistic than strictly necessary, but it’s a good source for many of their articles.
Good sense of humor. Excellent critiques. Decent info. And honestly, it’s a better source for leads on conspiracy theories, urban legends, pseudoscience, alternative medicine, and the likes than most sites actually dedicated to supporting that sort of thing, so its an asset to fans of those topics such as myself.

And this has been your daily dose of random internet links. Join us tomorrow, as Internet Man again protests the removal of his free speech rights. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 21:44, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Wait, your free speech rights have been removed? Where do I sign the online petition? another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 21:50, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Atir-Rosenzweig-Dunning effect

The Atir-Rosenzweig-Dunning Effect: When Experts Claim to Know the Unknowable

I, for one, support an article. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 23:29, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Add a section to our article on the old Dunning-Kruger effect. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:50, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
I support it as a section under Dunning-Kruger.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 00:10, 24 July 2016 (UTC) 00:10, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
They're crazy. I'm totally familiar with biosexuality. Much better than the alternative. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 14:48, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Rare good article on the Milo thing

Check it out guys by Cathy Young this article about Milo banning. I'd like to hear different opinion on it. https://www.allthink.com/1488357 — Unsigned, by: 182.64.66.229 / talk / contribs

The article raises some good points. I believe that Milo didn't technically do anything to violate Twitter's ToS, thus the ban was unjustified in a certain sense. But at the same time, I feel that Milo not being on Twitter only makes it a better place. 173.71.121.36 (talk) 16:37, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Are hawkishness and dovishness innately characteristic of one side of the political spectrum?

Given the debates over at Talk:Hillary Clinton and other places that I half follow, there seems to be an assumption that every last right wing person has a hawkish stance on foreign policy and every last "true" leftist is a dove. Where exactly does this view come from? And aren't there legitimate reasons (to those holding such views at any rate) for a leftist to wish for military intervention (e.g. spreading socialism) and for a right wing person to abhor such things (e.g. isolationism; making "NATO pay for its protection")? another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 14:10, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I doubt that. It just shows one-dimensional thinking. Nerd (talk) 16:31, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
That's just how the political parties line up in the US: mainstream conservatism is hawkish, mainstream liberalism is dovish. Add to that the fact that people will extrapolate the nature of their immediate surroundings much farther than they should; and you get a lot of people claiming "conservative = hawkish, liberal = dovish" as some kind of incontrivertable fact. 173.71.121.36 (talk) 16:43, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Mainstream liberalism hasn't been dovish since Reagan. Abandoning anti-war as the default was part of the Democratic Party's rightward shift. Yes, the Iraq War inspired a lot of protests, some with tens or even hundreds of thousands of protestors. But the idea of a "just war" to bring freedom to other nations is still very much a part of the liberal consciousness now. That's changing—maybe—but right now the idea of bombing/invading other countries to "save" them is treated as an idea worth considering, rather than something to be rejected out of hand. Star of David.png Radioactive Misanthrope 17:33, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Meh. The mainstream Dems have proven themselves to be charlatans when it comes to the Bush years. Reagan has changed mainstream America and the Clintons changed the Dems. Most left-wing alternative media is anti-war or anti-militarist whereas The American Conservative is probably the last outlet of paleoconservatives. Libertarian outlets tend to go back and forth on interventionism with more mainstream outlets being clearly for or at least split depending on the conflict.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 18:07, 24 July 2016 (UTC) 18:07, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Years ago, I wrote an article about the other last outlet for paleocons. Now it sits, forgotten ;__; Star of David.png Radioactive Misanthrope 00:07, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Well, yes but AC avoids the pseudohistory that Chronicle has. Besides, I haven't seen Chronicle at stores around me while I have seen AC.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:37, 26 July 2016 (UTC) 04:37, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Historically, in the USA, the Republican old guard was fiercely opposed to getting involved in overseas wars. This is why we stayed out of WWI until 1917 and stayed out of WWII until we were attacked in 1941. Right wing hawkishness is generally a Cold War and after phenomenon. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 17:42, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

In short, it's not. The point is that, in America, we ought to have a choice between being hawkish and dovish, and right now neither of the 2 parties give us much of a choice. You pick Obama, you get a 500% increase in troops in Afghanistan, and more wars than when Bush was in office. The point is the Democrats are supposed to be non-interventionist in contrast to the Republicans, but the choices we've been given aren't following that paradigm. That's a problem that needs to be fixed with candidates like Bernie Sanders. PBfreespace3 (talk) 21:44, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Unless the DNC has a moment of exceptional clarity, Sanders will most likely not be the nominee. By the way, don't forget Jill Stein, who is similar to Sanders in so many ways, and Gary Johnson, who also opposes military interventions in general. Nerd (talk) 22:01, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

[edit] RobS wants to define "patriot" again

Hawk/dove is more a function of patriot vs anti-patriot, and the GOP, despite its nativist and isolationist bent, generally since the Civil War, supports the Union. Democrats are known for thier tolerance of people who hate the Union and want to see it destroyed. The GOP by contrast, tends to support thier country even when Democrats get it into wars, WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, etc. Democrats protest wars they start. But as a general rule, things may be changing now. nobsBern baby bern 03:03, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I think it's unpatriotic to send our kids to wars they don't need to fight for corporations who don't need the extra profit. It's more patriotic to take a non-interventionist stance on foreign policy. PB3 (talk) 03:07, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, that's why the Democratic Party is chock-full of neo-Confederates who hate the federal government. Oh wait, no, that's the Republicans. (I'll go ahead and await the Pavlovian "Robert Byrd was in the KKK!" response.) --Ymir (talk) 22:26, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Social media and freedom of speech

I'll just leave this here. Vulpius (talk) 16:56, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

These arguments are bad and they need to stop.
Here's the thing: there are no public spaces on the internet. Everything is private. And it's not "private" in a way that benefits the average person, either. Own your own website? You're still subject to the terms of service of the server hosting it. Even if you buy your own server and host your own website—and that is a steep fucking price to pay for guaranteed free speech—your ISP can still tap you on the shoulder at any time and say "We don't like what you're saying" and pull the plug. (It wouldn't violate internet neutrality. Your ISP wouldn't need to intercept and discriminate against particular data, just read your website, check that they're your ISP, see if you're violating their vague Terms of Service, then completely shut down your account with them. They are not, after all, legally required to accept your money.)
The internet tends towards oligopolies (Facebook/Twitter/Tumblr; Google Adwords/its competitors), often even monopolies (Google search; YouTube). True, freedom of speech doesn't mean you're entitled to millions of listeners. But in an environment where there are very, very few meaningful options, saying "it's a private platform" is like making an argument in favor of company towns—if all services and property are technically privately owned (by somebody who isn't you), you have no rights at all. When there are no public platforms worth a damn, then large private platforms are public spaces. Saying "private platforms can do what they want" becomes functionally an argument against freedom of speech. Star of David.png Radioactive Misanthrope 18:02, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, they whip out the "censorship can only be done by the gov't" spiel only, when they see their ideological opponents banned. If it's someone they agree with, it's corporate tyranny and whatnot.--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 18:08, 24 July 2016 (UTC) 18:08, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
I remember that there was an indie game that criticized Apple's use of slave labor but when they were noticed by some media outlets they got pulled from the store; at the time, Apple dominated the market and the devs wouldn't be able to make an impact anywhere else so they might as well have been censored in full. One of the most concerning things about the privatization of the web is corporate surveillance since any company can steal your info and sell it without your knowledge or consent yet I doubt anyone will say that they have a right to do this since you are on a private platform. The worst part about this permaban is that Twitter has had a shit record when it comes to harassment and it appears that they will only ban you if you go after more famous people.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 18:43, 24 July 2016 (UTC) 18:43, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
You are correct.
Unfortunately, the only way to correct the situation is to nationalize the monopolies/oligopolies and place then under government control.
Until then, as far as I'm concerned, the private platforms remain exactly that - and may be run as the private entities see fit. Their house, their rules. --Castaigne2 (talk) 22:56, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Regulation is also an option. The California government, for example, protects the right of free speech even on certain forms of private property. Property rights, like all rights, are an invention of human beings, and are largely academic without a government to enforce them. In practice, the government can place whatever restrictions on the use of property that it wants. Star of David.png Radioactive Misanthrope 15:28, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
As it were, the editorial view on the RationalWiki (as it emerges) is in line with the tweet/comic above, or Steve Shives' views and generally those of the "social justice" crowd. They want to have a nice chat exchanging the latest buzzwords in critical race theory and social justice, and then there are those hateful trolls that ruin everything, so of course can you can ban them, everywhere, because not subscribing to critical race theory is by definition hate speech. Or so goes the argument if it were spelled out. The latest schtick is to deny people their own YouTube channel with the rationale that critical videos would "incite" followers to "harassment" and because of that they need to be shut down. This is a known trend for a while. You can make 233524665 videos on Ray Comfort or episode 2509 on "why do people laugh at creationists", but don't even dare this with the Special Snowflakes of Social Justice. That's hatred! Harassment! Violence! When the people then complain about the obvious encroachment and creeping contempt of freedom of expression of others, the Social Justice crowd shouts "Ha! Freeze Peach!" thinking they are super clever, because every child knows that YouTube is private, and thus freedom of speech doesn't apply. Shives is basically RationalWiki incarnate, and Gary Edwards made an excellent video on all of this. So in my view, be consistent and add the comic in the tweet into an article. ~ Aneris 19:49, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

[edit] The Double Standards of Social Justice

First, let me say that I hate how fiery hatred over feminism, gamergate, and sexism have torn/are tearing this community apart, and debates on this topic almost always descend into tribal barbarism and savagery, which is why I, like Richard Dawkins on creationism, will refuse to get involved in such debates. This post is not meant to be taking sides. It is like communism vs capitalism. You don't need to be a maniacal fanatic like Stalin or McCarthy. One can critique both without being a "commie" or a "bourgeoisie".

Nevertheless, I believe certain people in the politically correct movement have significant double standards, as well as a lack of respect for source materials. In recent times. I have heard calls for a female Link in the Zelda games, or a "Jane Bond". But why don't we hear calls for a male Chell and GLADOS (in this case voiced by Allen McLain) in portal? Can you imagine GLADOS being male? Why don't we hear calls for Agent Dan Scully and Foxine Mulder? Where is Lawrence Croft, Tomb Raider? What about Jaden, King of Narnia, the White Wizard?

I understand that females are underrepresented in the world of fiction, however, rather than grotesquely changing cultural icons, we should build new characters. In fact, from a feminist perspective, why should a woman have to take on the identity of a man in order to be great? Why must she rely upon what he has built up for her? Can she not make a name for herself? This is also why I am against "gay retconning", that is, taking an established minor book character, mentioning his homosexuality in one sentence, and then making no further mention or use of this. It is unnecessary to the plot and serves only as a "Look guys, I'm politically correct!" on the part of the author.

The point is that gender is part of who we are (if there was no mental difference between men and women, transgenderism and homosexuality would be "choices"), and that we should have respect for our cultural, literary, and cinematic heritage without politicizing fiction and using these mediums as expressions of political correctness.

I am sorry if I offend anyone, but please, if you disagree, please tell me respectfully, and remember that just as we can constructively criticize economic systems peacefully and dignifiedly, without taking sides, we can do the same with this issue. --TeslaK20 (talk) 21:00, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

There's nothing above that I disagree with, but I think the tone could be perceived wrongly by some people. PBfreespace (talk) 21:18, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
The major problem with "new character creation" is that new characters don't sell as well as series do. Hence why FemGhostbusters sold very well, but "Ghost Suckers: Like Ghostbusters but with women" wouldn't have.
I think your larger point is valid, though -- many who push for more women in media don't ever do the opposite, unfortunately. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 21:31, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
You make good points. Ghostbusters is an interesting case since it has an ensemble cast. With an ensemble cast you can do anything, as proven by the recent remake of Star Wars. They switched around the character roles, genders, ethnicities, and attributes, and it worked. In series' based on one or two single recurring characters (I'm looking at you, Roberta Langdon) this would not work as well.
Moreover, things like "The Hunger Games" have proven that films or books with a female protagonist can succeed, and the fact that "Ghost Suckers: Like Ghostbusters but with women" would not have been successful may perhaps help foster more originality and cure the film industry's ailment of remaking movies endlessly. TeslaK20 (talk) 21:35, 24 July 2016 (UTC)


A short, pithy answer:
Much will be required from everyone to whom much has been given.
—Luke 12:48
A somewhat-longer answer that takes a completely different tack:
we should have respect for our cultural, literary, and cinematic heritage without politicizing fiction and using these mediums as expressions of political correctness.
All culture is political. All culture has been shaped by those who came before, who always had definite ideas about how society does or should work. More to the point, you fundamentally misunderstand the nature of culture, and in doing so profoundly disrespect it. No work of art or culture exists in isolation. It is inevitably and unavoidably shaped by what preceded it and what surrounds it. To say "let us make new works of art, and leave the old alone" is absolutely staggering in its ignorance, because so much of art is responding to and altering what already exists. What you're asking for is not an end to political correctness, but an end to art itself. To freeze culture in amber is to destroy it. Star of David.png Radioactive Misanthrope 22:01, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
As a film, Ghostbusters 2016 didn't do well, unlike what Fuzzy claims. It cost about $144 million plus $100 million marketing, and has grossed $122 million so far. However, the business model allows for companies to make a net loss with a film, and use it as an extended ad for their franchise and merchandise which tends to bring in most money. I otherwise agree with the OP, too. As we've seen with Star Wars (soon, twice) — there is no problem with female leads. And the buzz is pretty good for Wonder Woman, too. But fans are notoriously conservative regarding their fandom, and for understandable reasons. They're invested in characters and continuity and hate it when things are being switched around.
fnordA Jane Bond would perhaps work, because this franchise is known for replacing the lead every few years, but even this is tricky, because fans consider the character as somewhat consistent with one story. Sony has of course purposefully applied the SJW script that has worked tremdenously many times before. Overtly inject the gender-race-warrior politics into an otherwise unrelated area, insult the people who are invested in that area (2011 rape culture: atheists think they have a right sexually harass women, 2014 gamers are dead, 2015 ghostbusters fans are misogynists, ) then wait for the reaction and milk it. Ignore good criticism, and focus on the trolls and hatemail just as in round one, rinse and repeat. ~ Aneris 22:29, 24 July 2016 (UTC)


Your philosophical analysis of the nature of art is enlightening. I will agree with you that art is an adaptive form, but is drawing a mustache on the Mona Lisa's original canvas not desecration? Of course, our situation is different. We are speaking of creating new art based upon the old. If the variations stem from inspiration and creativity, I will gladly admire them. But while politics do influence many things, is it not sad that a variation which was made by greedy executives seeking to please a modern progressive audience shall have a claim to the fame of the original? I admit that such political struggles have greatly influenced the great artists of the past (including Leonardo), that does not mean that it should remain that way.
If this movement was about a modern interpretation of art by a new generation which values equality, I would support it. But to me at least it seems that it is being spearheaded by both greedy populists and by people who care less about the art and more about the political side. Is modifying a beloved work of fiction for the sole purpose of populistic, trendy liberal political correctness any different from the Conservative Bible Project? What Andy is doing is rewriting the Bible (a prominent and culturally significant work of fiction) in order to be conservatively politically correct, no? This particular argument is not about the end, but the intentions. I would love to see evidence that I am wrong about this.
TeslaK20 (talk) 22:32, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
I think your strategy to win this fight is to just make tl;dr posts that no one wants to respond to. It's working for me. Pbfreespace2 (talk) 23:37, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
If you have objections to greedy populism in art, then you effectively have objections to the vast bulk of art ever made. Art that is popular is art that is remembered, remade, reinterpreted, transformed, and therefore preserved, in a way. This is why Shakespeare, whose works feature dramatic fight scenes, puns, and raunchy humor, is still with us while you probably can't name any of his contemporaries. Star of David.png Radioactive Misanthrope 23:58, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
The Conservative Bible Project is no more transformative than the many, many guides written over the years for how you're "supposed" to read the bible. As a Jew, I suppose I'm a lot more comfortable with this than many Christians; there are dozens of complete rewrites of the Haggadah (the story of Jewish liberation from slavery in Egypt), and every one of them, from the ultra-conservative Orthodox versions which extend the story with fanfiction that celebrates the pointless suffering of Judaism's enemies, to the Reconstructionist versions that stretch the metaphor of "slavery" to absurd levels, to the BDSM-centric retelling (yes, that exists) is a political work. Much of the Midrash, another important Jewish religious text, is outright Bible fanfiction, and commentary on Bible fanfiction. Religion is a subset of culture, and is capable of wild transformations and additions the same as the rest of culture.
Andrew Schlafly's efforts were mocked for two reasons in particular:
(1) How blatant he was about its purpose. Radical, politically-motivated reinterpretation of religious texts is par for the course (see: the entire Protestant Reformation, and the abolitionist movement which rejected the biblical basis for slavery), but Schlafly made the mistake of being very open about it. Most transformative religious works, particularly today, try to maintain a cloak of theological respectability about it. Schlafly's inartfulness made obvious what many people try to deny about religion: that it's about politics, and always has been.
(2) The appalling morality he sought to inject. I'd like to circle around and point out that to dismiss all efforts at "politicizing" art out of hand, again, assumes the existing version is nonpolitical (the New and Old Testaments both clearly condone slavery—how is that not political?), but just as importantly, assumes that all politics is equivalent. It's the ultimate moral cop-out. The Conservative Bible Project is bad because, to most observers, Schlafly's morals are bad. Saying "it's bad because it's transformative" is an extremely poor way to engage with any work of art or culture. By this reasoning, ISIS' theology is bad because it's radical, not because it's horrifyingly immoral, and therefore any movement to transform Islam with a radically progressive theology in the opposite direction is just as bad. This is farcical. Star of David.png Radioactive Misanthrope 23:58, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
To you, Pbfreespace3, I have a thing with long posts. It isn't meant to discourage people from responding. And I am not trying to "win this fight". This isn't a battle. We aren't trying to destroy each other, but to convince.
To you, Stabby, you have convinced me that my argument against politicization is at least partially fallacious. Nevertheless, I still believe that this movement does not have pure intentions, as evidenced by the double standards I showed. Nobody would dream of doing the things I outlined. Also, I stand by my point that gender is part of our personality, since if gender identity and sexual orientation are not determined by genes, then they are determined by environmental factors and the fundamentalists are right. A change in gender is a change in character. Now, I am not against a change in character in most, but I will not tolerate a movement filled with double standards and hypocrisy. This shows that the political motive behind this is not pure liberalism.
If we shall do this, it should come from an artistic desire to experiment, fueled by liberalism. But nevertheless, we should still put artistic quality before political ideology, I think. The two come together, but we should still give creativity a higher priority. And we should have no double standards for our sacred cows.
TeslaK20 (talk) 08:37, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for reading my responses, Tesla. We still have different opinions, but I'm grateful you've been willing to hear me out so far. Star of David.png Radioactive Misanthrope 14:53, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Why is it a double standard or gross disrespect or blasphemy or something to call for a female James Bond, but not an Irish/Australian/Welsh James Bond or a black James Bond or a working class James Bond or a James Bond who isn't working in the 1960s? Pop culture has always mixed things up. Every Dracula or Frankenstein movie departs almost entirely from the book. Same with Tarzan and every other long-living fictional character. Indeed, same with Paradise Lost or Prometheus Unbound or whenever Shakespeare retold existing stories. But for some reason people get really really upset when someone suggests making a character female. That sort of extreme reaction requires some kind of explanation. Annquin (talk) 09:49, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
But is this even true? Confirmation bias can be a nasty. The reaction was (afaik) very good when Starbucks was gender-flipped. I think she even became a fan favourite. Also, don't confuse public domain characters with a franchise, because “lost opportunity” is another big factor. Fans can pretend the Star Wars prequels never happened, but they'll resent that films were made, and thus opportunities were used up. Ghostbusters fans wanted a continuiation of their familiar universe (i.e. what happened in the other films did happen, and new things have to work with that), and didn't want it rebooted into a postmodernist comedy flick with an overt meta-jokes and SJW politics. You can do a lot of things, even have Harry Potter sit in a pub reading chapters alternating Atlas Shrugged and the Vagina Monologue, but you're destroying an universe with it, and some people will hate you for it. I remain unconvinced it has anything to do with the “narrative” the SJWs are shoving down everyone's throat. ~ Aneris 10:33, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Female Leads=SJW Politics. Cool meme there bro. The so called "Ghostbusters fans [who] wanted a continuation of their familiar universe" were probably not actually fans to begin with, because they would have known that Ghostbusters 2 was terrible and destroyed much of the continuity of the first movie two decades before the new Ghostbusters was even conceived. These "fans" are likely nothing more than retrograde conservative idiots who needed a new thing to blame the erosion of their privileged place in society on. Also, one of the reasons the first Ghostbusters was successful was because it WAS a "postmodernist comedy flick with an overt meta-jokes". It was able to serve as a summer blockbuster and a comentary on summer blockbusters. The only narrative here appears to be the false one created by you in order to push a conservative agenda. Petey Plane (talk) 15:48, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm a Discordian and empirical leftist, whereas you're at best from the CTRL-Left, an authoritarian with no clue nor respect for art and artists, but who wants it under control of The Party. That's the difference here. ~ Aneris 20:23, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Oh dear. I did not expect the discussion to come to this, and I sense that we are nearing the inevitable fall into savagery which occurs when discussing feminism and SJWism. Therefore, I would like to steer the conversation away from this current path. In order to put us back on track, I will lay out so far what I think are the pros and cons of gender-swapping.
Pros:
  1. Allows more representation of women in media, and women are currently an underrepresented group.
  2. Can create positive change
  3. Allows for new creative opportunities
Cons:
  1. Can create negative change
  2. Breaks continuity, can alienate established fanbase, who are by definition conservatives when it comes to their beloved characters.
  3. Often originates from pure political correctness without any thought of how it would fit with the source material.
Goat:
  1. Many of the people behind this movement have double standards and would never allow their favorite female characters to become male, even if it would positively impact the franchise.
Conclusion: We should not be averse to modifying the gender of a character if we believe it fits and could positively impact the franchise or provide fun new opportunities. However we must avoid gender swapping if it would hurt the character or series. We must always put art first.

TeslaK20 (talk) 06:53, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

[edit] ikanreed is angry with your stupidity

I'm gonna split from the polite objections here and say go fuck your made up double standards. One of your central theses is just so incredibly context-unaware it makes me want to beat my head against my desk.
Specifically this part: "Why don't we hear calls for Agent Dan Scully and Foxine Mulder? Where is Lawrence Croft, Tomb Raider? What about Jaden, King of Narnia, the White Wizard?" two thirds of speaking roles in major Hollywood movies are male. Three quarters' of major protagonist roles are male.
In that context it's fucking insane to demand even more roles be converted to male positions. It's bafflingly loaded with bullshit. You take that we've reached an equilibrium and egalitarian treatment as a given then demand more to compensate for falsely perceived slights.
Take your bullshit, false fairness, and shove it. Ass. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:37, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
As I expected, despite all my attempts never to reach this point, I now see that it is impossible to hold a polite and reasonable discussion about certain issues here. While the majority are helpful and are doing their best, someone has to come along and ruin it. I was planning to vote for you, but that decision of mine has now been called into question.
As for your actual argument behind the hot-headed fury, I never called for more male characters in films, or for the conversion of female characters to male. On the contrary, if you had read my latest post, something which, despite your name, you might not be capable of doing, you would have seen that I mentioned that women are an underrepresented group and representing them more by gender-swapping would be a good thing. What I said is that from a creative perspective, the people behind this movement who are trying to show that gender is a simple unimportant attribute like hair color or eye color, would never agree to change female characters into male, in violation of their own arguments. If it is such an insignificant change, why object? Now, if you agree with me that gender is an important attribute which defines a character, then you will also agree with me that changing female characters into males is wrong, since it is a significant, and significantly negative (from a feminist perspective) change. The point I am trying to bring across is that the tactics people are using in order to convince people not to oppose gender swapping necessarily create double standards, and should not be used. Rather, we should accept the fact that gender is significant, and that females are an underrepresented demographic.
I suggest you read my latest post, in which my thoughts are summed up. I don't think we disagree, I just think that you are misunderstanding what I am saying. TeslaK20 (talk) 21:01, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
What you're saying is largely a strawman. Nobody believes that "gender is a simple unimportant attribute like hair color". The point of gender-swapping is surely, as you say yourself, that "we should accept the fact that gender is significant, and that females are an underrepresented demographic". Looking at your unsigned pros & cons list (I'm assuming it's yours based on your subsequent comments), I see "can create positive change" and "can create negative change" cancel each other out, and "often originates from pure political correctness without any thought of how it would fit with the source material" is baloney. Film studio & game studio executives don't make decisions out of "pure political correctness" or "without any thought" about continuity. The salient points are weighing "more representation of women in media" against "alienating established fanbase". WéáśéĺóíďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 07:59, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
"As expected my attempts to be dismissive of an entire movement while ignoring the most relevant facts of that drive that movement weren't treated with nothing but respect." I don't respectfully disagree with people whose "polite" arguments are actually built on top of contempt. I'm angry and unreasonable towards them and I don't give a fuck about your tone argument. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:36, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
No film studio would indeed make a decision based on pure political correctness, but some activist groups have asked them to do exactly that. Additionally, you may say that "gender is a simple unimportant attribute like hair color" is a strawman, but the website I linked gave me that impression, as they compared Link having pink hair to Link being female. In order for this discussion to be meaningful, I suggest changing direction. Please lay out what you believe to be the pros and cons of gender-swapping, and I will respectfully examine them, and see what I can learn from them. Thank you. TeslaK20 (talk) 19:06, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
You're taking two very different ideas and treating them as the same. They are saying that nintendo has no trouble changing physical attributes of link and has done so in the past, not that "gender doesn't matter". The people asking for change are saying gender matters for representation in a world where there aren't many female protagonists in games. These are not at all the same, and I can't sincerely believe you actually think they are. Please step up your intellectual honesty. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 21:15, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps the idea that gender is not a significant attribute is not conveyed by the post I linked to, but I have heard of some radical people who have held this view, though they may have been Poes, particularly the more funny ones. I would like you to examine this statement of mine: If it does not negatively impact the story or conflict with the core premise, there are few reasons to oppose a change in gender. Women are an underrepresented group in media, and we welcome new creative opportunities. Additionally, in time new original female characters will rise. However if a change in gender would negatively impact the story, it should not be done. TeslaK20 (talk) 18:22, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Have you got examples where a deliberate decision was made to "negatively impact the story"? WėąṣėḷőįďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:36, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Just as (most) bad movies are not deliberately bad, such will be the case here. Roland Emmerich doesn't set out to make films with 1-dimensional characters and no respect for the laws of physics. He believes in what he is doing. TeslaK20 (talk) 07:33, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Then when you say "if it would negatively impact the story, it should not be done", who or what are you arguing against? ωεαşεζόίďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 07:38, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
A hypothetical scenario, where a greedy executive who wishes to appeal to a politically correct audience compromises the story?
Also, as an example of more double standards, look at the case of Jane Bond. Imagine if the James Bond series was rebooted with a female lead. Assuming the character's base attributes would remain the same, this character would be a seductive "manizer" (whatever the female equivalent of womanizer is). But female characters who behave in this manner are called "sexualized" by the media, while nobody has ever called James Bond "sexualized". That's what they call the Bond Girls. So feminists would criticize Jane for being sexualized, while her behavior would be no different than that of James. This displays a sexist, anti-female double standard which prevails even within progressive communities. TeslaK20 (talk) 05:43, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Wiki moderation bot

Hello, I am a contributor on Conservapedia. I know there has been some tension between RationalWiki and Conservapedia, but I'm hoping that is not the opinion of everyone on either site, but only of some.
Due to the sometimes high volume of vandalism on Conservapedia (a problem you are probably familiar with as well) I have been attempting to set up a moderation bot, since our last one had a problem with an update a while back. While researching how to do this, another Conservapedia editor told me that someone here had offered some time ago to provide advice and/or assistance in setting one up, but had been turned down. I do not know if this is true, nor do I know who might have offered or if such an offer is still open, but I figured the one way to find out was to ask. If it was a genuine offer and is still by any chance open, I would greatly appreciate such assistance, if someone were willing. I know this wouldn't really benefit RationalWiki, though, so I understand if you do not wish to do so.
Thank you for your time! --Dave987 (talk) 12:44, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi! I'm surprised they allowed any mention of this website on Conservapedia. If they do make a bot for you, take a look at it first and make sure it isn't a script which permanently blocks Andrew Schlafly. I personally lack the skills to help you, but I hope someone else will, since we are decent individuals here and not an intolerant dictatorship, despite what Fox News may tell you. TeslaK20 (talk) 15:13, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Heh... There do seem to be some hard feelings towards Mr. Schlafly, don't there? RationalWiki is something rarely spoken of on CP, but a few "typos" cover a multitude of evils. Anyway, thanks for the response! We might not have a whole lot in common, but if it helps, Conservapedia doesn't like Fox News much more than you do, though our reasons differ significantly. --Dave987 (talk) 15:45, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
You seem a decent fellow... There are too few of you at the upper levels of CP. It crosses my mind that you might be a Poe, but I will presently assume you are not, since you appear serious and respectful. I must ask, do you really believe that there is a liberal conspiracy to fabricate the evidence that the Earth is not 6000 years old, or is that view only shared by the sysops and their like? I am really enjoying this conversation, since I am nostalgic for the days that CP was the focus of RW. TeslaK20 (talk) 18:40, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Re:ModBot: A moderator bot is difficult to set up and requires installation on the CP server (or on a dedicated server of its own) or else it wouldn't run 24/7 and would be useless. Instead, I'd recommend installing AbuseFilter (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_filter). While it can only get maybe 50-75% of vandalism (it's good for spam with distinct patterns like spam/page blanking but bad for trolling), it's a huge step up from vanilla. That said, if CP managed to purge all its trolls, it might look functionally unviewed and unedited. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 20:57, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

TeslaK20, I assure you, my intentions are genuine. The short answer is yes. The long answer is that I believe a lot of scientists honestly believe in what they are doing. Misguided enthusiasm and a blending of observational and assumptive science causes false results, but this is at least in part due to what they are taught. By the time they begin research, they have already been told how to look at everything, and cannot see what they should, since they view is already filtered. The simply ignore blazing problems with their theories like irreducible complexity (some things could not exist in simple form according to evolution), interdependence of species (some cannot exist without certain others), fossil record (so far, there has yet to be found an authentic "transitional" fossil, and that just one, not the trillions we should be seeing all around us), size of the solar system and the smooth obits of its planets (there simply is not enough room for a sun large enough to have lasted this long without disrupting the orbit paths, and also the earth's moon would have an elliptical orbit if it broke off the earth), etc., etc. However, I believe that there are some so desperate to prove that macroevolution is true, they stretch facts and yes, even invent them. This has been publicly proven on certain occasions. However, we could discuss points and counterpoints for decades. That's not really why I'm here. It's nice You can enjoy some nostalgia and my and CP's expense. ;)
FuzzyCatPotato, I do not have access to the wiki's host server, but I have a dedicated server I'd gladly use if I could set up the software. We don't have AbuseFilter, but we do have a couple other extensions with similar purposes. I can't remember all the names, but AntiSpoof is one of them. I'll probably suggest the addition of AbuseFilter, so thanks for mentioning it! Ultimately though, a bot really would be something I'd like to get working. It's harder, but they generally seem more effective (though nothing is perfect, of course).
We don't want to keep vandals around for statistics, nor do we need them. We get plenty of quality edits and truly interested visitors. It's true that vandals and trolls do effect the statistics slightly, but if anything, that's a disadvantage. We want an honest reading of genuine usage. Thanks for thanking the time to respond! --Dave987 (talk) 12:37, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello Dave, I'm refreshed by your apparently genuine disposition. Welcome to RationalWiki, even if for a specific purpose unrelated to anything outside the bot/edit filter topic. I hope you find what you're looking for here. However, since after all you did enter in here - into the proverbial lion's den - to ask for assistance, I'll participate in showing how we're not exceptionally bad people in any way, while also taking you up on some of the points you just gave, admittedly in passing.
1. First and foremost - the orbit of the moon is in fact clearly and overtly eliptical[wp]. This is probably the one entirely uncontroversial thing I'll hint you to, so with any luck - even if the entire rest of your points are kept - you may atleast shelve that point.
2. Regarding Irreducible complexity - if you had the time, I'd love to hear your thoughts on these two short videos on the topic? The second video highlights notable Creationist replies to the first video, so they're a worthwhile watch for all sides of the discussion if viewed back-to-back.
3. Regarding transitional fossils, please see TOW's List of transitional fossils[wp] (We have a shorter list too, albeit without the pretty pictures). It's also important that we don't fall into demanding one single proof.
4. Would you mind clarifying your comment on the "...size of the solar system and the smooth obits of its planets (there simply is not enough room for a sun large enough to have lasted this long without disrupting the orbit paths...")? I'm afraid I didn't understand that argument, though I'd like to.
Thank you in advance for your time. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:51, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
At this rate, we're going to need to break off this rabbit-trail into another section, lest this discussion get derailed completely...that's fine though, I'm willing to side-track.
  1. You're right about the moon's orbit. I was getting my points mixed up (debating while half asleep doesn't work well). The elliptical orbits was supposed to be in reference to the planetary orbits, due to the shrinkage of the sun. (meanwhile, the orbits continue to expand. Not that many million years ago, the earth would have been within the Sun's corona, yes?) I had intended not to mention that particular point. The point I should have made about the moon was it's expanding orbit. At an expansion rate of 1.5 inches per year, the moon would have been touching either 1.4 billion years ago, assuming universal uniformity (which I believe cannot be assumed). This means that the earth could not have existed in a life-supporting state for more than 1.4 billion years.
  2. An underling problem I saw here was the idea that although something is irreducibly complex, it could have morphed from something entirely different which used similar parts. The problem is just that--there are no similar parts. As with the example of bacterial flagellum, the selves, "motors," and tails are entirely unique to this bacteria. The video claims that these complex parts have common building blocks. This is deceitful, but not entirely untrue. Everything is made of atoms (and it seems, every atom of "quarks"), so yes, everything has similar ingredients. Further, amino acids are very common--they are formed into different proteins. So every protein is therefore basically the same? The list could go on and on but in short, the assemble of these building blocks is unique, and capable of only reasonable serving one function. Evolution is the process of one new addition at a time, which proves beneficial to the organism, or the removal of useless material, one piece at a time. Many generations live with each mutation before another takes place. This is not possible when all parts are required all at once to make something functional. I couldn't find a high-def version, so pardon the quality, but here is a better rebuttal on that point.
  3. On transitional fossils, I do not have enough knowledge on the topic (though I know it exists) to speak on most of them without further research. If I have the time, I'll try to do some research and get back to this. For now I will say that: a) 100, 1,000, or 100,000,000,000,000 extinct species do not a species change make. From the Cambrian explosion, there has been a steady decline of species and varieties in most areas. In some cases, breeding has produced more variety within species, but this is not the creation of new species. b) You'll notice that most of the images shown are drawings and computer generated depictions. I can't say for sure about these specifically, but in some cases, only one bone is found, which seems slightly different than what would be expected (for example, Neanderthal skulls--pronounced forehead and jaw, but these bones are found to continue growing all throughout life, so if you lived for 400 years, you would look this way too). This leads to the conclusion that it must be another species, or a transitional one. I think the main issue here is that WP is calling certain species "transitional" when they are just similar to one currently alive. However, similarity to one does not make it transitional.
  4. The sun is shrinking at a rate of about 0.1% per century. As the hydrogen (and other light elements) is fused, mass is both condensed into more dense materials (such as iron, the star-killer) and converted into energy. For the sun to have had enough fuel to have been "burning" for billions of years, it must have been an incredible size--large enough, in fact, that the earth would have been inside of it, as I mentioned before. If the sun was this large in the past and the planets actually had larger orbits around it, then if the orbits did shrink properly, they would end up elliptical and uneven. (Also, the sun would contain a lot of iron by now, which would tend to cause a much more red tint than it does. Of course, we cannot see inside the sun, though, so this is is not a certain proof, but does cause question.)


Back on the topic of a wiki bot, I also have web hosting. I don't really see how a script could run from here without it being accesses, but my understanding of web development is limited. I read somewhere that a script can be installed on a shared hosting server, and run as a wiki bot. I don't see how, but I have the resource available if it could be used. --Dave987 (talk) 16:24, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Misguided enthusiasm and a blending of observational and assumptive science causes false results, but this is at least in part due to what they are taught. Due to their religious convictions, by the time they begin research, they have already been told how to look at everything, and cannot see what they should, since they view is already filtered. The simply ignore blazing problems with their theories...However, I believe that there are some so desperate to prove that creationism is true, they stretch facts and yes, even invent them. This has been publicly proven on certain occasions.

Huh, look at that Lord Aeonian (talk) 19:09, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

The sun is shrinking at a rate of 0.1% per century? If that were true the sun would disappear in a hundred thousand years. I don't know where this data came from, but my guess is that it was invented randomly in order to explain some creationist contradiction. Science has never found any evidence that the sun is shrinking (the sun will expand into a red giant, and then contract into a white dwarf in several billion years), and the Bible doesn't say so either, so there is really no excuse for anyone to believe this. --TeslaK20 (talk) 20:48, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Hmm, it appears to come from an ICR paper, which claims as a source an actual scientific study. However, creationists like Answers in Genesis have stated that the sun is not shrinking. This paper (http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1986/PSCF9-86VanTill.html) rejects this ridicolous hypothesis, and it is written by a Christian organization. So it seems that apart from ICR, nobody accepts the ridiculous, outdated, and extremely incorrect theory that the sun is shrinking. Scientific studies clearly indicate that this is not the case, and the fact that Christian evolutionist groups as well as a large YEC organization have rejected these claims is telling as well. TeslaK20 (talk) 07:30, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
The Sun's core is shrinking, as it becomes denser due to conversion of hydrogen into helium. However this doesn't affect the whole star's volume (while it remains on the main sequence anyway) because a denser core fuses hydrogen more rapidly, producing more of the radiation pressure that supports the rest of the star. This is also making the Sun gradually brighter. Also, minor nitpick, but you meant white dwarf. A white hole[wp] is something completely different from theoretical astrophysics. --Ymir (talk) 23:45, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I meant white dwarf. While the sun's core is indeed shrinking, ICR's point is that at the current rate of shrinking the sun would have in the past engulfed the orbits of the planets. That is not true, though it will be true in a few billion years when the sun goes giant. ICR apparently have no problem that according to their "hypothesis" the sun will not exist in 100,000 years, since they believe they will raptured in their lifetime anyway. Of course, every generation since Jesus has believed this as well... TeslaK20 (talk) 07:29, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

[edit] What was your first thought when you saw or heard the name "Liberty University"

Honestly, I thought it was a research college--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 15:04, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

When I hear about any group with 'Liberty' or 'Freedom' or 'Patriot' in the name, I apply the standard analysis. First, how will they attempt to appear to be patriotically defending their freedom while simultaneously infringing on others' liberty? And second, whose pockets are filling up as a result? Semipenultimate (talk) 16:17, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
The name made me think of Liberty Science Center. It's all been downhill from there. 173.71.121.36 (talk) 16:27, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Harmless exceptions to thirdtolast's rule: statue of liberty, liberty bell. I think that's it. Seriously. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:58, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Super Bonus Fun: just Google various combinations of liberty, freedom, and patriot. 'liberty freedom patriot' returns a whole bunch of safes you can buy for when the apocalypse comes and the Agenda 21ers come to take yer guns and dried soup away. Semipenultimate (talk) 21:42, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

"Oh, seemingly respectable university like George Washington or something." Pbfreespace2 (talk) 22:55, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Interesting name. Let me look it up. Good heavens! Nerd (talk) 23:55, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

My first thought when I saw or heard the name "Liberty University"? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I live reasonably close to Liberty so I often saw advertisements, and even in those they paint themselves as a Christian university, so it didn't surprise me to find out exactly HOW fundamentalist it was. Hentropy (talk) 22:29, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I saw ads for Liberty U on TV last night. My opinion is that, if a college has to advertise on television to boost enrollment, it's not a place you should expect a quality education from. (See: the University of Phoenix, DeVry University, Keiser University, Lincoln Tech, and all the other for-profit schools that helped drive the student debt crisis.) The fact that they're now running TV ads speaks volumes IMO. KevinR1990 (talk) 18:08, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Clinton Cash

Should we create an article on this? There is a fact check list on the claims. Lawrence Lessig has praised the research while Chris Ruddy, CEO of Newsmax, has dismissed it. The book ranked as #2 on the NYT's bestseller documentary was released a day prior to the Dem Convention. The NYT and WaPo have used its research in their articles.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 05:13, 26 July 2016 (UTC) 05:13, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Why do you think it's missional?
I mean, I know that the whole "WE'RE GIVING ALL OUR URANIUMS TO THE RUSSIANS!!!" was one of the conspiracy nut reasons given for the Bundy/Malheur debacle, but otherwise, how does it fit in with the mission? --Castaigne2 (talk) 06:07, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Well that is the reason I am asking but I think it fits into our mission against conspiracy theories.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 06:21, 26 July 2016 (UTC) 06:21, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Seems fully missional to me! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:20, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Well, is it a conspiracy theory or an actual thing? --Castaigne2 (talk) 19:24, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
It is and isn't. It appears the foundation took in those donations and that would create a conflict of interest. Whether this led to a conspiracy whereby they sold their opinions while in power may be more flimsy.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 23:15, 26 July 2016 (UTC) 23:15, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Anyways, my only other issue is whether we should make a page on the book/movie or on the foundation itself.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 00:14, 27 July 2016 (UTC) 00:14, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
According to Roger Stone, Chris Ruddy has donated $1.5 million to the Clinton Foundation. Makes you wonder what kinda poop Larry Flynt dug up on him. nobsBern baby bern 20:55, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Well, Stone is a hack but Ruddy's page already acknowledges that he has donated to them; the op-ed he wrote explains that he never saw anything political at the foundation and that it was another potential witch hunt. At this point I think we should make an article on the foundation since I have read a lot of allegations of corruption from both the left and right.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 02:51, 28 July 2016 (UTC) 02:51, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
The Foundation is here to stay in perpetuity. Since the Clinton's have effectively retaken control of the Democratic party from the Obama/Progressive faction (remember, there was a big fight over that in 2008), Obama will not have the power and influence the Clinton's had after leaving office in 2001. It will be interesting to see if Obama can command the same or better speaking fee averages the Clinton's have in coming years. nobsBern baby bern 04:24, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Well, the Dems never opened themselves up to the influence that their grassroots would bring so it is unlikely that the Dems will change in the coming years. On the other hand, Priebus's failure to hand the nomination to someone the donor base approved of will likely change the Repubs for the coming future. I am curious on how the Libertarian party will turn out since it appears the Koch bros have abandoned ship and the Dems have rejected a coalition by choosing Clinton.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:53, 28 July 2016 (UTC) 04:53, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Koch brothers have given up on the White House, but that leaves more money to focus on state legislatures. They have nearly $1 Billion to spend. Last I heard Jeb Bush is contemplating voting for Gary Johnson and the drug legalization platform. Johnson is pulling 7-8% in some polls; he could pick up quite bit from Sanders people who are still really pissed off. nobsBern baby bern 08:51, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Well, Rob, if Trump does beat her that will end her and her family's political careers since no one will invest in a family that couldn't stump the Trump.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 02:04, 29 July 2016 (UTC) 02:04, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

[edit] "Jesus, Bro!" Movie

Brad Jones (The Cinema Snob) is creating a movie called "Jesus, Bro!", a spoof on Christian films. He has trying to raise funds for the film.--Cms13ca 21:10, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Personally I'm not sure if mockery is really the right way to deal with these kinds of things. Mockery and satire didn't stop that stupid Ark from being built and all the bullshit that came along with it. Hentropy (talk) 22:20, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Even if mockery did not help it would still be important to mock religion. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 22:35, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Looks terrible. WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:39, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
He should stick to reviewing Tyler Perry films. in my experience it rarely bodes well when a critic tries their hand at filmmaking. It takes a different skill set. Moreover, I have watched two of Brads previous films and they didn't exactly light anyone's fire. (Although he is a compelling actor.) Plutoniumboss (talk) 00:12, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
For a more historical example of "critic tries hand at moviemaking, fails", there's always Beyond the Valley of the Dolls, screenwritten by the esteemed critic Roger Ebert himself, and panned by himself in his own review of it. Star of David.png Radioactive Misanthrope 03:57, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Hillary has secured the nomination

Welp, that's all she wrote.
Now, we can get down to the debates. I look forward to Trumps mal-performance. --Castaigne2 (talk) 22:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Yup, officially made herstory. --Castaigne2 (talk) 23:02, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Okay. Who was she up against? Didn't Sanders already withdraw his candidacy a couple of weeks back, long after it was effectively null? WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:12, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Nah, he was still put up for nomination. --Castaigne2 (talk) 23:19, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I think Trump will own the town-hall format, because of his unique debating style. Hopefully I wonder if his body language won't blow it like Al Gore's did for him. Hillary will do better in the podium format. Debates tend to be better for the liberal if they're evenly matched in terms of age and experience; see Romney in 2012. It'll be an interesting debate. PB3 (talk) 02:22, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
I doubt Hillary really wants to debate him. We'll be lucky to see one or two if she can avoid it til October. She has nothing to gain and much loose by debating him as thing stand right now. nobsBern baby bern 03:29, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
I would have loved to see a Sanders-Trump debate. Well, not gonna happen, sadly. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 13:34, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
There are no teleprompters or written notes allowed to be brought into the debates. That's why you see the candidates writing furiously on their legal pads while the host makes announcements to the audience. They are writing down a list of memory aids for dozens of fairly complex policy positions and data to support them. During debate prep, they literally go to school. They study, train, and get drilled on this material. But Trump won't study. He won't even think about the issues in advance. (Why should he? He feels he is right about everything and has the best words) He'll just wing it, and bullshit his way out of stuff he's ignorant about (like the nuclear triad) or try to appear decisive on positions he's never given any thought to and blurt out gaffes (such as punishment for abortion). Leuders (talk) 15:06, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
And given that you're probably right, how much is it gonna hurt inside your brain when you find people the next day talking about how "awesome" he was at the debate? ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:52, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Yep, there are a shocking number of people who will support him no matter what kind of crazy shit he says. Leuders (talk) 16:48, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Trump is practically immune to 'gaffes'. When the clerisy rings the usual changes on 'how dare you say that' and 'that's a lie', Trump's fans will look on this as their hero's next triumph against the stifling consensus of political correctness. Running Hillary against that, she whose every utterance is subject to an eight second delay being parsed for potential damage, is a disaster waiting to happen. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 22:00, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
I remember the primary debates actually hurting Trump a bit. That's why he wanted to skip them. Vulpius (talk) 08:26, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Also, having fun drinking Mona's bitter, bitter Twitter tears. --Castaigne2 (talk) 14:57, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Castaigne, you're on watch. You're not doing much to improve your character. PB (talk) 04:03, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
To Leuders: Trump will do better in the debates precisely because he's unscripted. He's actually going to look human going up against robot Hillary who just spouts canned rhetoric and platitudes.
Before, you were supposed to have better positions on issues than the other candidate, but think back to all make debate moments. Kennedy won because he looked better than Nixon, who was sweating. Reagan's "youth and inexperience" comment propelled him to secure victory. Bush Sr. kept looking at his watch. Gore looked too aggressive when he confronted Bush on the stage. Mitt Romney seemed like a goddamn robot compared to Obama.
Now imagine Trump against Hillary in a debate. Every policy junkie will say Hillary won, but every American voter is going to think Trump did better. Why? Because American presidential debates aren't about substance, they're about perception and likeability. There's nothing Hillary can do to improve her likeability.
Take Rubio during the final days of his campaign. Do you know why nobody liked Rubio? Because he was a machine that kept spouting think-tank terms and focus-group phrases. When he actually started insulting Trump's penis size (of all things!), hand size, weird hair and orange face, he actually went up in the polls. Not enough to win Florida and save his campaign, but enough for me to tell you that voters want a damn human for president. Why do you think they picked Bill? Dubya? Obama? They all were likeable. People you'd want to have a beer with. I'd rather have a beer with Trump than Clinton, and I'm a damn commie who doesn't even like beer! PB3 (talk) 04:03, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Or, Trump will flip out and start yelling at the moderators, audience, etc., when they don't like his "brilliant" responses (cf. him yelling at a reporter to "Shut up!" at his last press conference). You're failing to take into account that Trump is a narcissistic sociopath. In Trump's mind, Trump is the greatest human being ever and cannot be wrong, so if anyone doesn't like him, it means something's wrong with them. Your cited examples involve people who weren't narcissists. They understood they needed to make people like them. Also there were other factors: Kennedy was young and "fresh"; Reagan was a popular incumbent credited with an economic recovery; Bush Sr. and Gore were both boring and uninspiring, and Bush Sr. was up against a popular young candidate. --Ymir (talk) 09:53, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
"You're on watch"?! Stop threatening people, ya ol' wanker!--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 14:47, 28 July 2016 (UTC) 14:47, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
How about a debate moderated by Jon Stewart, Rachel Maddow and Trevor Noah? That would cut right through the Bullshit and the empty talking points. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 17:35, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Trump's BeerBuddy-TeflonProtected-AntiRobotic advantage makes Hillary and the Dems an easy target, but only if they saddle themselves with the old traditional campaign approach. It's a mistake to think Trump is the world's only media genius. Or that he's totally invulnerable because no one else is capable of tapping into people's gut feelings. Or that adopting Trump's insulting style was the only available tactic. As evidenced by this week's convention, Hillary is not going to present Trump with a stationary target, and the amount of world class talent and innovative thinkers working behind the scenes to defeat Trump is pretty astonishing. It's like an old Godzilla movie: guns and tanks and even the atom bomb have no effect on the monster and the situation looks so hopeless, but then the world's best scientists discover something that makes the monster vulnerable. I'll add one more thing I noticed. Trump calling out the entire media as liars and terrible people is now a staple of his speeches and rallies. So his base is effectively a cult where members are cut off from all outside ideas (even Fox News) and the only information they can trust is gleaned from Trump's Twitter and his speeches and rallies. Leuders (talk) 18:31, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Accreditation Service for International Schools, Colleges and Universities

Is this a legit accreditation group?--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 17:18, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Is this a question which could easily be answered by using a search engine or referring to Wikipedia? See the Wikipedia article on Accreditation Service for International Colleges. ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:56, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

[edit] I want to support Hillary, and I'm pro immigration, but ...

The Democratic Party has dropped the ball on immigration, worker visas, and indirectly related to these topics minimum wage and benefits. One, worker visas are worse than either open immigration or no immigration. It sticks workers in a position where they can be exploited by employers at the expense of all workers, both foreign and domestic. With open immigration, at least the well qualified immigrants could become job creators, to steal a GOP word that is over simplified, and hire more domestic workers for higher wages.
Do away with the H1-B program. Do away with the hair brained idea of providing illegal immigrants guest visas. Do away with the country limits on Mexico, India, China, and the Phillipines.
This view is more aligned with the Democrats and I concede that,. However, Trump seems to be the only candidate that will shake the boat by going the other way, which is better than the status quo of a dual class labor system that hurts everybody. Trump embodies the frustration of a country and rightfully so. Obama has done a very poor job of addressing the underlying causes of income inequality, even though his motives are in the right place.
I'm frustrated about my election choice, but more broadly I'm frustrated about the state of our country. Unlike what Obama says, the country is not doing well. It is doing better than it was under Bush 2, but that is not saying much. Objective (talk) 01:59, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Then vote Trump if you don't like it.
I don't have any sympathy for people who complain about H1Bs. Most who do are the ones that swagger in saying "I am a Python programmer with 10 years experience. I expect to start at $200K/year." To which the correct response is to toss their resume into the shredder in front of them.
It's an employer's market. You don't want H1Bs? Underbid them. Work for what the market bears. Plenty of fish in that sea. --Castaigne2 (talk) 02:21, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
@Objective Please ignore Castaigne. He's a techno-libertarian so every one of his ideas and opinions are manifestly worthless. --Gnillort (talk) 02:59, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
TBH I think that he's just an edgelord.--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 14:53, 28 July 2016 (UTC) 14:53, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Libertarian what? No, I'm not libertarian at all. Libertarianism is the fucking stupidest ideology I know of; even hard greens are better than libertarians. You know jack shit, Gnillort. I've said it before and I'll say it again - I am an authoritarian. --Castaigne2 (talk) 18:48, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

How is no immigration better than bad immigration? Moreover, it's far more likely that the Dems will deliver a good immigration system than the Republicans -- who are unlikely to end the immigration system themselves. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 03:24, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Assuming Clinton doesn't continue the mass deportation and militarization of the border that her husband started.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 03:34, 28 July 2016 (UTC) 03:34, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Meh, I'm just of the type that believes we should have near-open immigration for the upper and upper-middle classes, some highly-skilled workers as needed (and near-open immigration for those with student visas that graduate here), but limited immigration for semi-skilled and unskilled labor until we don't have significant populations in these cohorts. Thing is, importing a taxi driver, no matter how skilled, squeezes out the lower classes in this country and overall reduces per-worker GDP even as total GDP rises. The upper classes, the business owners and scientists and engineers and artists, these people multiply the economy rather than merely add to it, so importing them helps everyone (mostly) and increases per-worker GDP. "Right" and "wrong" don't enter into it at all, only what's best for the people in the country.
I, umm, take a different solution to the Repugnant Conclusion[wp] ethical paradox. I measure a person's worth by the amount they raise everyone else's utility, not total utility. CorruptUser (talk) 04:30, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Problem with that plan is that you will cause a braindrain on poor countries who need high skilled professions. This will stunt their growth and cause more low skilled immigration.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:50, 28 July 2016 (UTC) 04:50, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
That's true for some professions, like medicine, with long training times and limited numbers, but less true for other professions like software engineer where many more are currently trained in places like India than are needed. On the other hand, if you import most/all of your high-end workers, it will degrade the domestic education system, reduce incentives for companies to train their workforces, impoverish the middle classes, and in the medium-long term result in massive outflow of skills, experience, and money. Annquin (talk) 16:11, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Forgive me if I can't muster up some shits to give to the countries that have made themselves so terrible that the best and brightest decided to flee en masse. As for "more low skilled immigration", not a problem if you don't accept them. CorruptUser (talk) 23:30, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Yeah they would be a bunch of fucking scabs anyways so let them starve!--Owlman (talk) (mail) 02:01, 29 July 2016 (UTC) 02:01, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
But seriously, no one in the US wants to clean cow shit so you are going to have to higher those low skilled workers. Without their labor we would have nothing. Also, it isn't the fault of the general populace that their country is exploited by oligarchs.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 02:07, 29 July 2016 (UTC) 02:07, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
And what better way to punish those oligarchs then by taking their best and brightest?
As for the cow shit cleaners, no one in the US wants to do it for minimum wage, but you'd find plenty of people willing to do it for $12.50/hr, the amount a typical garbageman makes. And cowboy is a sexier job than garbageman. CorruptUser (talk) 02:22, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
No offense, but I doubt that. There are jobs people just won't do. And taking the "best and brightest" from, say North Korea hasn't hurt the oligarchs; it is also classist to tell only accept people who had the privilege to go to university. It is better to take everyone we can in order to knock down an oligarchy since it delegitimizes their regime; I mean how could the Soviet Union be a utopia for workers when even the coal miner wants to leave?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 02:38, 29 July 2016 (UTC) 02:38, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
When it's YOU who pays for it, fine. But as long as I'm the one who suffers, no. CorruptUser (talk) 03:26, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't understand what you are talking or how this is a "YOU pay for it" issue. I find it odd that you would bar low-skilled immigrants who will do jobs Americans won't do while the high-skilled immigrant replaces a college-educated worker. Don't get me wrong, though, I am not saying there are no negatives associated with immigration but those negatives can be solved by improving policies not by banning immigrants. Immigrants contribute to Social Security and Medicare but they never get that money or a vote.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 19:43, 29 July 2016 (UTC) 19:43, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
CorruptUser: "Forgive me if I can't muster up some shits to give to the countries that have made themselves so terrible that the best and brightest decided to flee en masse." Are you serious? You think that all countries entered the modern world on equal footing & the ones that are terrible got that way all on their own & not because of massive colonial exploitation by developed nations?
Owlman: "Taking the 'best and brightest' from, say North Korea hasn't hurt the oligarchs." What are you even talking about here? As the world's most closed totalitarian state, emigration from North Korea is minimal. Some of the few who manage to find a way out of the country (officially or illegally) may fall into the "best and brightest" category but it's really not enough of a trend to comment on whether hurts the regime, whose interest is to keep emigration minimal at all levels. €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 21:57, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Yeah NK was probably a bad example, I couldn't think of one off the top of my head at that moment.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 22:09, 29 July 2016 (UTC) 22:09, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
EC when you have organisations like the nhs importing nurses from places like the Philippines, so there are not enough nurses locally, its not the oligarchs who suffer. Nor is the brain drain of a countrys brightest only affect oligarchs (if at all). They'll suffer significantly less than the general population when the economy tanks, and make it so much harder to recover. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:13, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Ok, sooo many things here.
1) Philippines intentionally trains more nurses than it needs with the intention of exporting them. As highly skilled and moderately intelligent workers, this is mostly a good thing for the West.
2) Whitey isn't so Mighty that He personally fucked up every single 3rd world country on Earth. Sure, Europe and the US fucked up a number of countries, but after a certain point, screaming "COLONIALISM!" just doesn't cut it any more. At some point, the countries themselves are responsible for their own mess.
3) Americans won't do certain jobs not because the job is beneath them, but the pay is beneath them. There is virtually no unskilled job in the US that you couldn't find some poor schmuck willing to do for even $15/hr, but shit jobs like farm work are paying below minimum wage because they can get away with it. Oh, and those pay below minimum legally; they include "free food" as part of the pay, but punish you for eating anything, then basically require you to live on site in a dirty shack with "rent" taken out of your pay. Oh, and they use child labor. It's not required that any kids you have with you work, but if they don't you won't be allowed back next year. So now, take a guess why farmers are so against abortion and sex ed? CorruptUser (talk) 18:05, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Forgive me for barging in but ...

... on FuzzyCat's advice I'll ask a question, which I haven't found an answer to. That's when and where is the vote for trustees going to be held? Cheers King Dan III (talk) 20:11, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

A valid question that merits a reply. I, for one, don't know. Sorry. Though based on this, it would appear that the voting may commence 7 days after July 25th. In other words, on August 1st. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:53, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Technological Unemployment

The World Economic Forum released a report earlier this year discussing the effects of what they call "The Fourth Industrial Revolution" up to 2020. I'd like to cite this passage specifically:

In absolute terms, men will face nearly 4 million job losses and 1.4 million gains, approximately one job gained for every three jobs lost, whereas women will face 3 million job losses and only 0.55 million gains, more than five jobs lost for every job gained.

Everyone can download the report in PDF form here, or read it on the WEF's website here. Lord Aeonian (talk) 20:52, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I, for one, support sending the US military around the world and raining condoms from above. Less people, more jobs per capita, see? Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 22:09, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
What about Bacon and Porn in addition to the condoms? another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 23:09, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Less people translates into less demand; you still have the problem in the same percentages but with the absolute numbers changed proportionally. Besides, encouraging progressive attitudes towards sex would probably be considered Islamophobic. Lord Aeonian (talk) 22:38, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Re:Demand: Unfortunately, no. Most population growth occurs in low-income LDCs; reducing LDC population would reduce the demand for products, but their incomes are sadly low enough that it wouldn't much dent the world economy. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 17:46, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
re:us military raining condoms from above. Sadly the us funded abstinence programs in africa did the opposite, reversing a dowmward trend in hiv infection in places like uganda. Probably help get the population down abit though if thats a price folk are prepared to pay. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:59, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Glenn Beck... voice of reason?!!

Glenjamin didn't think much of God's Not Dead and walked out of the screening.

"Beck said that he went to see the film with his daughter and neither could stand it because it was so poorly done and one-sided and that they walked out after 40 minutes."

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/glenn-beck-walked-out-gods-not-dead Petey Plane (talk) 00:51, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Wow. Stopped clock phenomenon I guess. TeslaK20 (talk) 07:54, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
I feel like now that he's out of cable news and has lost some prominence, the need to push grandiose conspiracies for eyeballs is radically decreased. Cable News delenda est. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 03:28, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

[edit] People who study at Patriot Bible University

Should realize that there are better options for Christian education. Plenty to choose from (Liberty University, The Master's College, Cedarville University, Regent University, Pensacola Christian College, Cornerstone University and many others). So really, be smart and choose wisely. If you don't then you are stupid.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 23:08, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

They're probably not reading this. Why not keep all your thoughts about Christian universities in one place rather than starting a thread every time you think of something? It's really not very entertaining for the rest of us. ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:21, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Now now Weasel, let's not be too harsh... I'd say some of the threads Rationalzombie tosses in here are unproblematic, even nice! That being said however... @RZ Weasel has a point in asking you not to start a new thread with every thought you get, RZ. I mean, there's three threads in the current Saloon Bar alone started by you which are minor-variance bible university discussions. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:32, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Education system + Tax reduction per child

This is a random idea that occurred to me one day. What if instead of the current system where you get credit to pay less taxes for every child you have why don't they make it so that the higher level of education the child is in, the more exemption you get. Example: pre k - 1%, k-6 2%, 7-9 3%, 10-12 4%, uni 5%. (I have no idea what the real numbers are so this is just for understanding). Wouldn't this plan make it so that people in poorer communities will be more motivated to go to a higher level of education rather than drop out to start working to help the family? Are there any large problems that could occur? I would like the opinion of someone that is more educated than me in the matter. Thanks.— Unsigned, by: Potpie / talk / contribs

It's common to provide benefits for older children conditional on them remaining in education. Child allowance in the UK works like this. The UK used to provide additional payments for low income kids to stay in school (I think this was cut back or removed). Tax allowances don't really help the poorest who don't pay tax. There's also a debate over whether money should go to the main wage earner, the main caregiver (traditionally mother) or the child. Annquin (talk) 08:08, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Cover nomination for Kent Hovind and Shakespeare authorship

The Kent Hovind article might be worthy of gold status - please leave comments on the talkpage.--JorisEnter (talk) 12:01, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Reverend Black Percy kindly asked me to include the page on Shakespeare for nomination too. So, here we go!--JorisEnter (talk) 12:23, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Erdoğan's imposing of an Islamist state on Turkey inevitable?

Now that the coup has made him more powerful than ever, is this inevitable? Is there any way to stop it? I'm not Turkish, but I am concerned for the fellow secularists in Turkey if this takes place. QuantumDudeI am beyond your understanding 16:36, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Ataturk is rolling in his grave. Hopefully the *actual* military will have the spine to do something if Erdogan exceeds his bounds. Lord Aeonian (talk) 18:21, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
I'll wait to see if they stop having elections and instituting an Iranian system before making conclusions. --Castaigne2 (talk) 18:52, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Iran never stopped having elections. They just chose who was allowed to run, and ignored results they didn't like. CorruptUser (talk) 19:08, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

It depends on what you mean by inevitable. If the US actually gave a shit about protecting democracy in the Middle-East (ha ha ha ha!) then it could invade Turkey and overthrow their government and put the secularists in power. But if course, the USA won't bother, as long as ErDOGan cooperates with us. pbfreespace3 (talk) 19:36, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

The West backed Erdogan in the 1990s and his Islamist party before that, West has no intention of promoting secular ideas; it's easier to extract surplus value from backwards religious failed states than successful, sane states. Lord Aeonian (talk) 20:12, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Not true. The US gets a fuckton of trade from Canada, and only part of it is backwards. CorruptUser (talk) 20:49, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Funny, but he means in the context of the Middle-East. And his point is valid. If the people of Saudi Arabia knew what their government was doing and how the US was letting the place be run, they'd break ties with America and try to cater to China and India instead. PBfreespace (talk) 21:01, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Depends. If they had the entire picture, and knew that the US more or less single handily saved Islam from the tides of secularism in the Arab world...I don't think they'd react so ungratefully to their masters. Lord Aeonian (talk) 21:12, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
As Patrick Blanchfield points out, the US has a weird way of engaging with the world, arbitrarily dividing it into "countries it will eagerly compare itself to" (Britain, Canada, Australia, Sweden, Germany, France, Japan, etc) and "countries it considers inferior and therefore potential client states" (any country we backed a dictator in, or seek to "modernize" by exporting sweatshops and weapons to). The former we treat as our natural peers and partners. The latter are seen as resources to be drained and pawns to be advanced and disposed of as necessary in a game of global politics. Star of David.png Radioactive Misanthrope 21:20, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Seems legit. Do you think this also applies to Israel? God, imagine if we treated Kurdistan like we treated Israel. PbFreespace (talk) 21:22, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Should the world powers join together and wage all out war against ISIS?

I think we should and show the world we will not bow to ISIS.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 21:50, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
support
Community
Tools