RationalWiki:Saloon bar

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

This is a place for general chit-chat about virtually anything that doesn't fit anywhere else.
Drinks drunk.gif For previous conversations see the automagic barchives. Invision-Board-France-355.gif

What is going on?

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

To do list

User rights change: let everyone look at deleted pages[edit]

Community input wanted! Please add your thoughts! Sometimes a BON makes a little stub with good citations or good quotes, but it's still stubby and gets vaporized. Sometimes we had a half-good page on a subject, but it was cringey and got vaporized, but a BON wants to create a new article (and could use the old one as a base). Sometimes we want to cite a revision on a deleted page, and non-sysops can't view it. These are all rare, but they are annoying and they probably happen more often to more-motivated potential-contributor BONs. Right now, non-sysops can't restore vaporized pages (eg, Fecris) or even look at their revisions (eg, [1]). In particular, these rights are currently granted only to sysops:

  • deletedhistory - View deleted history entries, without their associated text
  • deletedtext - View deleted text and changes between deleted revisions
  • undelete - Undelete a page
  • browsearchive - Search deleted pages through Special:Undelete

To change this, four lines would be added to RWSettings.php:

$wgGroupPermissions['*']['deletedhistory'] = true;
$wgGroupPermissions['*']['deletedtext'] = true;
$wgGroupPermissions['*']['undelete'] = true;
$wgGroupPermissions['*']['browsearchive'] = true;

And that's about it. I could've sworn we had a discussion before, but I could only find /Archive72#Another_way_to_make_RW_more_open. TLDR: I want to let everybody look at deleted pages, which IMO fits the RationalWiki ethos. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 18:45, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

What about individual revisions that were only sysop revdelled on a page that was later completely deleted? Would non-sysops be able to see/restore them? Christopher (talk) 18:47, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Nope -- deleted revisions are governed by deleterevision and suppressrevision and wouldn't be affected. (Read: Deleted revisions would still be sysop-only.) In contrast, revisions of a deleted page are governed by deletedhistory and deletedtext. See Manual:User rights for more. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 18:56, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. The only reason I'd still be wary about doing this is pages that are created full of doxxing/libel and then deleted by a sysop, anyone would be able to see them. Christopher (talk) 19:03, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
That's possible -- and that's why revdel exists in the first place. (Anyone can get sysop around here, anyway, if they're really determined to get dox from some old page.) Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 00:52, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I've created a pull request. Does anybody have any objections to merging it in? FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 18:55, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I thinks it's probably a bad idea to do something like that without consensus. Letting literally anyone see deleted libel/doxxing (while some of it would be revdelled pages created to dox/libel someone can't be revdelled), even if they don't care enough to get a sysop account, will lead to all sorts of problems ("you haven't actually removed libellous stuff about me, anyone can see it" etc). Christopher (talk) 19:00, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Yep. It's just a pull request -- I'm waiting for consensus here. If only other people would venture into this section... The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 19:50, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, not too familiar with GitHub. Christopher (talk) 20:26, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

If we let everyone see deleted pages, why bother deleting them? BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 22:33, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

It removes it from special:random, dpl and other similar stuff, the redlink means people realise there isn't a decent article on the subject meaning they're more likely to write one than if there's a shitty stub, spam would still be less visible. I still think it's a bad idea due to pages created for doxxing that can't be revdelled. Christopher (talk) 14:52, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
@Christopher: Revisions of a deleted page can still be revdelled, fwiw The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 22:08, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Moved this up top. I think it's a good idea and fits the ethos of RationalWiki. The downsides are virtually nonexistent -- we revdel dox & spam anyway -- and it would substantially increase the openness of RationalWiki to non-sysops. FuzzyCatPotato of the Inept Bassoons (talk/stalk) 22:54, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

so all those shitty stubs, attack pages, embarrassments and other crap that got deleted can come back? Openness is a fine thing, but not at the price of filling the website with unwanted rubbish for openness's sake. BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 18:25, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
If a non-sysop wants to see a page, perhaps there could be a "requests for undeletion" page for that?— Unsigned, by: Bicycle Wheel / talk / contribs
You can't revdel pages where the only revision is dox and even if you could no one does. Christopher (talk) 18:30, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
It's possible to suppress deleted pages; see this page if you have mod/tech and you should see "Suppress data from sysops as well as others" -- however, this is only a mod-level power. (Why there isn't a sysop-level version of this I'm unsure -- I'll check Wikimedia if an extension exists). Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 01:10, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Could we just require a captcha for non-sysops viewing deleted pages? I don't think deleted pages show up in search engine caches as it is, so it's really only for fringe cases. I think that, considering how frivolously pages (and even harmless little redirects) are deleted, giving the ability to view deleted pages to BoNBoNs is not a matter of "if" but a matter of "when" ...that is, when the infrastructure exists for sysops to revision-delete without calling the attention of other sysops to it (only moderators/etc who can further restrict the revision or undelete it depending), and when someone who already happens to know what all the doxxes this site has received look like is yanked into making a filter by which an admin can automagically revision-delete (for deleted pages the filter hits) and if applicable set higher revision-viewing requirements (for revisions already deleted that match the filter). (We still probably want someone to go over the stuff deleted by the filter to make sure nothing legit was lost.) So yeah, it's a "when" even if that "when" is probably "a long lazy time from now." ~ ❤️ 09:59, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

The problem with the "undelete" right is that it allows history merges. A vandal could find a deleted page, and move some popular article to that title, and then do an undelete, which will cause the history of the deleted page to be merged with the page that was moved in. As far as I know, this is irreversible without shell access to the server. Special:MergeHistory was introduced to allow sysops to merge histories without having to temporarily delete the page, but it has some safeguards which are absent in Special:Undelete. -- Tim Starling (talk) 22:35, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Hm, that's a problem. Just deletedhistory, deletedtext, and browsearchive would let users see the text, though, which would be plenty for article recreation. @Tim Starling:, do you have any thoughts on @Christopher:'s concerns about BONs viewing deleted pages with dox? FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 00:52, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

This sounds like an idea you want because it sounds good to you, and not because it's (a) a good idea or (b) has community support - David Gerard (talk) 08:52, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

@FuzzyCatPotato: Ping seems to be broken. Christopher (talk) 09:08, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Meh, seems like the idea is unwanted.
@Christopher: I got notified? Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 17:04, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
I didn't, I have all of the notification options turned on in my preferences. Christopher (talk) 17:13, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I feel like an articles needs to be rewritten[edit]

The article on Honor killings needs to be rewritten a lot has changed in the last 8 years. Knightofjustice123 (talk) 03:56, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Why has Calais France had a problem with Refugee Camps since 1999?[edit]

Better why did/does France continue to try Contain instead of actually trying to resolve this issue? The Camp/Camps from what I can gather were overcrowded, unsanitary,and in poor condition. Knightofjustice123 (talk) 21:49, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Short version: it's where all the refugees trying to get into the UK wind up, because Calais is the continental terminus of the Channel Tunnel. The reason why they prefer the UK over France and other European countries is because the UK doesn't have a national ID card system (it did during and after World War II, but it was abolished in 1952), and attempts to institute one have long been met with fierce opposition from across the political spectrum. That generally makes life easier for people who, due to their non-citizen status, can't get IDs. KevinR1990 (talk) 21:31, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Ok,what is your opinion on a national ID card system? What I personally don't understand is why France didn't just send some of them around the country to other refugee camps in France instead of trying to contain them from what I can gather is the camp was overcrowded,and in no way permanent. Knightofjustice123 (talk) 18:05, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

You can't make people stay in a refugee camp without turning it into a prison (one for people who have committed no crime in France, and likely elsewhere). In addition, France doesn't necessarily want them - a lot of them were sent on to France from Italy, thus saving themselves the admin headache. Neither do the refugees, as KevinR1990 said, want to be in France. BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 09:57, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

The Could certainly find a way to to lessen the admin headache,and speed up the process a bit (Not too much as to make it overly easy ),Give some of the Refugeesd to the Uk,and Stop processing if any at Calais,as well spread out the people so not to have them return to Calais.The question Lies in what is France doing wrong bother countries have handled it better? Knightofjustice123 (talk) 23:30, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Britain (or at least the government) won't take them (and insisted on processing at Calais) because they were scared of what the tabloids would say. BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 18:11, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

So Lauren Southerns done something real dumb[edit]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1Js8wntdk4&t=145s Knightofjustice123 (talk) 16:09, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Archiving timestamp, no idea who made this section. Christopher (talk) 15:01, 19 July 2017 (UTC)


Is there any way to deal with this? I know the remark is that it can't be refuted so then what do you do about it?Machina (talk) 21:59, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Not directly. The problem with solipsism is very similar to the problem with Humean skepticismWikipedia's W.svg, which holds that we cannot know for sure anything outside our own minds. IMO the solution to this puzzle starts with Immanuel Kant, who noticed that our minds are not blank; they are pre-equipped with mental modules, which he called 'categories', like 'weight' and 'distance'. These are unlearned, and without them we could not make our sense perceptions meaningful. Building on that, Arthur SchopenhauerWikipedia's W.svg observed that we have bodies, which in many ways act as ordinary physical objects, but which our consciousness somehow inhabits. We have the same direct and immediate knowledge of our body's condition that we have of anything else in the mind. Worse, our bodies have agendas that the conscious mind has very limited powers to countermand. We can know the outside world is real to the extent that we occupy a physical object in space/time. And one of the inborn mental modules is human language, which exists first and foremost for the purpose of networking with similar minds in human societies. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 03:17, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
But isn't it possible that one can create one's own language? Also how can we be sure that the other people are real and that it isn't a dream?Machina (talk) 01:02, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
We deal with it by saying that we both observe the same reality and until such time as we have positive proof that this isn't the "ultimate" reality, we deal with it as we see it, and appeals to outside of our reality must be dismissed until there is sufficient proof. - Kitsunelaine 「SJW Illuminati shill.」 05:14, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
God loves us too much to permit solipsism to be true. In less theistic terms, some propositions are too evil to be true. Goodness and truth (and beauty too) are interconnected, as the Scholastics taught in the doctrine of the "convertibility of the transcendentals" (see [2] and [3] (in particular section 1.2.2) and [4].) Plato declared the Form of the Good to be supreme. (And as to Beauty and Truth, you may remember the closing lines of Keats' Ode on a Grecian Urn.) (((Zack Martin))) 09:26, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

I think I have a unique criticism of solipsism... (See what I did there?)

Personally, I just don't think I'm {intelligent, inventive, creative, highly mentally functional} enough to be {imagining, hallucinating, remembering in amazing, excruciating detail} the entire {town, county, state, nation, cyber-world, physical world, Earth, galaxy, universe}, and all of its billions of people and their {forms, personalities, behavior, histories, desires, characteristics both bizarre and mundane}, plus all of geology, geometry, mathematics, chemistry, physics {classic, quantum, astrophysical and applied} and every other pastime, undertaking, science and field of study etcetera and so on and so on plus all of the vast number of true and fictional stories I've experienced from thousands of authors, ranging from moral parables dating from Ancient Greece all the way up to modern Science Fiction action adventures of genetically xenomorphing aliens journeying billions of miles thru outer space...

Do you think that maybe you alone are the source of even just a thousandth of all of the great, complicated, self-consistent, multiple-themed, brilliant novel- or movie-sized stories you've experienced? If so, how about you write down a few bright, original ones in the next week, and give them to me (with all their legal rights) and let me publish them as books and also sell them to Hollywood? I could use the multiple millions of dollars I'd make from being a non-existent seller of a few best-selling books (in this world which exists only in your mind) which get made into block-buster movies (again, only in your mind)... — Moray (talk) 21:36, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Maybe your unconscious mind is immensely smarter than your conscious mind? Maybe you are a superintelligent being who has decided to delude itself into thinking that it is far less intelligent than it actually is? Why would you do that to yourself? Maybe for the experience? An omniscient being, who knows everything–can they know what it is like to be ignorant? Maybe, in a quest to know the one thing they actually can't know, they want to make themselves as ignorant as possible? Maybe, to become as ignorant as possible, you must become as self-deluded as possible? Maybe the delusion that you, a superintelligent being, are too stupid to have actually thought up all of reality, is the maximal possible self-delusion, and hence the very self-delusion you need? Good sir/madam, you have sent me to inform you that you are God, and that I do not exist. (((Zack Martin))) 10:31, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
I'd rather not have jokes since I am really struggling with this. My grip on reality hasn't been the same since I was exposed to this.Machina (talk) 21:38, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
I think if exposure to an idea is causing you mental anguish, the real problem isn't the idea, the idea is just a trigger. When I was at university, I remember going to this philosophy lecture where the lecturer was asking how can we know that life isn't a dream, and I came out of that lecturer very depressed and feeling kind of quasi-psychotic. But, the reality is, I was struggling with a depressive mental illness at the time, and the lecture wasn't the cause of my depression, it was just a trigger. The actual causes of my depression were issues related to family (divorce of my parents), high school, the transition from high school to university, lack of success (at the time) with the opposite sex, etc. Philosophy lectures about life being a dream were just a surface cause, and focusing on them wasn't really dealing with the underlying causes. (BTW, I'm only half-joking... there is I think a serious point hidden behind the joke... but if you are struggling emotionally, don't bother looking for it, you've got more important things to do...) (((Zack Martin))) 23:27, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Except none of that is the result for me. My perception has been changed since being exposed to this and now it's hard to think of anything else. When you take for granted that life is real only to find out you can't be sure of it, then it makes everything else seem trivial in response. It means that nothing matters and that I am alone in the world since everything else is essentially a phantom. It doesn't make sense anymore. I know there is no proof of solipsism being true but the isn't any for realism either. It all comes down to belief since there is no way to know for sure and that's what kills me. That I'll never know the answer to the question and I have no way of proving it. Machina (talk) 00:20, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
I want to zoom in on one particular thing you said–"there is no proof of solipsism being true but the isn't any for realism either... I'll never know the answer to the question and I have no way of proving it..."–how do you know there is no proof or disproof of solipsism or realism? How do you know that you can't know? In order to really answer that question, you need to decide what constitutes proof (or valid proof), what constitutes good evidence, by what criteria are we to distinguish genuine knowledge from the false belief that knowledge exists even when it doesn't. Which means you need to adopt some sort of basic principles of epistemology and rationality. And there are lots of different proposals as to what those basic principles are, and different proposals result in different conclusions with respect to philosophical questions including that of solipsism. In ancient and mediaeval philosophy, the idea that truth and goodness and beauty and rationlity were intimately interconnected was widely accepted, which makes the sort of argument against solipsism I made–that it is too evil to be true–rationally tenable. In modern philosophy, the idea of such a linkage has largely been abandoned, which I think is part of why solipsism is far more thinkable for moderns than it was for ancients and medievals–and without that linkage, the kind of argument I make against solipsism is untenable. So maybe the solution to your crisis is a change in philosophical principles? (((Zack Martin))) 11:20, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Your replies seem to show that you don't know enough to help me. There is no proof for either one because you would have to use the in the current reality you inhabit to prove the existence or none existence of said reality. That is how we know there is no proof of either one being true, we simply have no evidence. But the claims of solipsism have been shown to be incoherent and untenable in modern times. Language, for one, is a huge blow against it since it can't explain that. But from what I hear around the internet, the consensus seems to be that it's a bunk idea, with negative explanatory power, and that it doesn't matter whether is true or not. They say the best thing to do is assume it's all real because you have nothing to lose by doing so. Dreams don't prove solipsism, only the possibility of solipsism (not the same thing). But other than that everyone seems to suggest it's a waste of time that doesn't yield anything.Machina (talk) 19:31, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Yup off the fucking deep end[edit]

https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/6obcdu/turkeys_new_school_curriculum_drops_evolution_and/ Knightofjustice123 (talk) 03:58, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Recently I started watching a contemporary Turkish-made historical soap opera titled RESURRECTION: Ertuğrul. Available on Netflix. There are well over 200 episodes, and I have watched most of them, despite the really bad English subtitles. Really interesting. I like it (seriously). But the heroes beg to die for their religion, never do, and they kill Crusaders and Mongols every chance they get. But, of course, those pesky Crusaders and Mongols were asking for it.Ariel31459 (talk) 04:15, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Do you agree with me?[edit]

Do you believe, as I do, that white women who are racist, xenophobic, display the rebel flag or support The Donald should be gang raped by big Black cock? I think we should start with the ones who are most overtly racist and support Aryan Supremacy, than work our way up to the less obviously racist ones. There should be no sparing of those below the age of consent. Hopefully, they will be drenched with liters of cum and thrown into a dumpster to starve afterwards. FIGHT FASCISM NOW!!!! Karlahoni (talk) 21:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Go back to /pol/ ya fuckin' moron.'Legionwhat do you want from me 21:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Also at least now we know what /pol/ thinks about when they lie in bed alone at night.'Legionwhat do you want from me 21:53, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Pardon my ignorance, but to what exactly does "/pol/" refer? I'm guessing it's a subreddit, so what sort of things happen on /pol/? —Kazitor, pending 00:29, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
@User:Kazitor/pol/ is a 4chan board, it means "politically incorrect" and is full of far-right idiots. Diacelium (talk) 15:08, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Right, that makes sense. Thanks. —Kazitor, pending 23:09, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Man, you guys are shit at trolling. Your greatest achievement was getting this past the spam filter. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 22:22, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Even @Elvis is King: is a less obvious troll than this dickhead. RoninMacbeth (talk) 22:37, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
It's obvious that when liberals can't come up with a coherent rebuttal, they resort to calling their opponents "trolls." It's quite sad, really, because it represents the dumbing down of culture that is manifested by the fact that we are using scantily clad women to sell the double bacon cheeseburgers that are causing our people to be unhealthy and obese. The Episcopal Church keeps on declining, yet clergy won't rethink their approval of homosexuality. Insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results, and liberalism is a mental disorder.--Elvis is King (talk) 21:35, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
@Elvis:You call us "autistic" at the slightest provocation. And you think you get to call us close-minded? Dear sir, you can go fuck yourself. RoninMacbeth (talk) 00:10, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Eldridge Cleaver is that you? Lord Aeonian (talk) 00:57, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Who? RoninMacbeth (talk) 01:07, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Troll Not so Silent Knight (talk) 21:42, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

On the current poll[edit]

I'm not surprised to see the current rankings. However, I think we should get something clear if we don't wanna take a hit on our xp.

Evil means you disagree with the laws. Neutral means you don't care. Good means you agree with the laws.o

Fantasy world rules, mind.

Lawful means rules and only rules advance your agenda. Neutral/True means anything can advance your agenda as long as it fits, and chaotic means you're only for what actively promotes your agenda.

I am surprised to only see one other vote for a lawful evil alignment. Gaul Dernitt (talk) 05:54, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm surprised there are so few votes for chaotic goat, we don't need no stinking laws! Christopher (talk) 16:28, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
we'd be chaotic goat if we didn't have citation needed tagsVorarchivist (talk) 19:20, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
How can you see "lawful-chaotic" as an axis and decide that "good-evil" is the one related to laws. The mind boggles. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:23, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Good-evil I'm gonna assume contains the current laws. I think good/evil requires that if you have to put it on paper. Lawful to chaotic is in respect to said laws, which are different in every little fantasy. Gaul Dernitt (talk) 07:01, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Given that alignment is not supposed to be a straitjacket and, as such, there are many different interpretations of each alignment, I really regret putting that poll up. RoninMacbeth (talk) 05:25, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

regret little, especially if I'm DM Gaul Dernitt (talk) 06:47, 19 July 201m7 (UTC)

All fallacies are non sequiturs?[edit]

(Note: I was going to put this on the non sequitur talk page, but suspected this was the correct place. FYI.) I just realised: all logical fallacies are fallacies because the conclusion doesn't follow logically. Does that make them all, technically, non sequiturs? Maybe only formal fallacies count because they have correct premises. Obviously I don't recommend rewording/restructuring the non sequitur to mention this. It does mention formal fallacies at the top, but that doesn't really change my point. —Kazitor, pending 09:26, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I have alledged the same thing in the past. I think this is the most appropriate way to think of fallacies: deductions that djon't actually deduce. Ad hominem is probably the most misapplied fallacy in this particular way. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:51, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Just FYI: you guys seemingly fail to differentiate between formal and informal fallacies here — a distinction of some consequence. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 03:06, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
I guess you could think of it as a non sequitur being completely unrelated to the premises, but that's not how it always is. —Kazitor, pending 10:20, 18 July 2017 (UTC)


Is there any remedy for an editor who consistently fails to indent properly? Exhibit A. I'm really not trying to win an argument by complaining about style or tone, I genuinely find the mess this guy is creating to be hard to follow, and I'm sure others will. I've asked him to indent properly and do not understand why he cannot do so. Dave MacIntosh (talk) 05:38, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

If it bothers you, feel free to add a reasonable number of colons to his statements. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 16:09, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
I shouldn't really be expected to do that. Is it not sanctioned? Why can't he do it himself? Does he have mental problems? Dave MacIntosh (talk) 16:17, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
It is indented. When you though post a blockquote after a paragraph (that is indented) it doesn't indent. Also note "Dave MacIntosh" is a sockpuppet of this guy, a Rightpedia admin. He's been banned here on hundreds of accounts. He started up a debate on the racialism talk page, after losing he starts going off topic with a complaint about intentation and then posting ad hominem. (talk) 18:13, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
It's really not ad hominem, [name redacted]. I just find your deranged mess hard to follow, Are you really incapable of putting colons before a paragraph? Dave MacIntosh (talk) 13:18, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
An irregular verb applies here: 'I didn't hold down the colon key long enough/want to restart the discussion thread/don't know how to insert the 'return to left hand margin line; you are lazy and can't be bothered to indent; they are annoying fools and incipient trolls.' (talk) 09:34, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Rapture site[edit]

I don't like at all to link to pages as this, but for those who want to have some fun (there's one that puts together a paint of the Tower of Babel by Brueghel (?) and the EP (?) building as one of their proofs): https://raptureandendtimes.com/
The sad part is that after finding that page by accident yesterday and looking for it, found a few others similar. I had enough with one site of that kind, but I suspect it will happen something similar to competing conspiracies, whose promoters accuse the ones of others of being disinformation of TPTB Panzerfaust (talk) 22:26, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Watching conspiracy mongers accusing each other of being part of the conspiracy (or one of them) can be fun. (talk) 13:50, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes. The funny part of sites as that is to see Biblical literalists ignoring that saying of Jesus about God only knowing when things will end, as well as the punishments deserved for false prophets. Oh, well... Panzerfaust (talk) 13:31, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

That my friends, is a classic example of Cherry picking. Nothing like reading parts of their Bible to claim the end is near. Ironically, these are the same who accuse metaphysical churches of distorting the bible. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:57, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Long name trolls[edit]

Would it be practical to have a program that has an automatic message 'Welcome; your user name is (over 20 characters long) and (consists of x words). You are now banned from editing RW including your talk page for (total of two numbers) minutes (or other formula to suit) and 'this IP has been used to generate (number) of user names (which have been sent down the plughole) - you are blocked for (total number of letters) minutes.'? (talk) 18:41, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

it would be more practical to have the people who can change usernames do their job and change any offensive ones. BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 19:32, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Why not partially automate the process and get the 'stupid-name trolls' to devise their own punishments (though some allowance should be made for 'creative-long-nameism' - crypto-pseudo-anarcho-monarcho-papalo-imperio-communo-anarcho-caesaro-dextro-levo-centro-diabolo (add prefixes to taste)-anti-disestablishmentarianism and its relatives)? (talk) 17:38, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

The Trump Mob edits Wikipedia [Or: My Latest Wikipedia (Mis)Adventures][edit]

In case you were wondering why I was incredibly inactive recently, I found the pastime of trying to search the Wikipedia Recent Changes section for wandalism. And if you were wondering which user I am in the wiki, click this.

So on Saturday I was going through Recent Changes (with a filter) when I got to this revision to the Collusion page. Even if you didn't click the link, you probably can tell what happened because of the media circus surrounding Donald Trump Jr. After all, like father, like son.

It was really obvious why they did it. So I reverted it, and posted a warning on the user's talk page, and attaching a personal note about how there was an actual citation, and that it wasn't really partisan.

The next day, I checked on it, and, I was really angry (but not to surprised) that the user had, in total disregard to my warning, reverted my revision. Thankfully another user reverted that revision. So, unaware that there was a bit of an edit war over the part over Trump Jr. because Trump fans were allowed to edit.

So I went and requested the page to be semiprotected so that non-autocomfirmed users (basically all the wandals who were actual users instead of IPs) and IPs, where all the wandalism came from did not have permission to edit the page. So, while I was waiting for a response to thr request, I went browsing through the page history, and it turned out that an IP at one point edited the section so it said something that only Fox News would be stupid enough to say. Thankfully, a while afterwards, my request for the page to be semiprotected was accepted, and the page hasn't been wandalized since.

The Moral of the Story? Don't let the Trump mob edit Wikipedia. They would be better suited in Conservapedia. --Rlin (talk) 19:25, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Now that wikipedia's membership is dying off, everything people portended about its inevitable doom at the hands of bias will now come true. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:49, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

To what extent is the actual or apparent decline in WP use temporary/reflecting a situation where 'much of the basic work has been done'/the initial enthusiasm has transformed into occasional activity (simplifying)/people moving into the wider wikiverse (there are probably enough Dr Who wikis and fandom sites to encompass most people's interest)? (talk) 09:58, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Or simply that time is finite. Back in the day I spent a lot of time at Wikipedia, but then there's Wikipedia, there's TVTropes, there's this one, there's Deviantart, there're forums about your hobbies... Plus a good Wiki article is quite an effort in terms of time searching for references, formatting it... you get the idea.
EDIT. The truth is also that I got sick of their stance on copyright, with stuff as having your edits removed just because they sounded "very similar" to a book I did not even know to exist, even if it was just a direct translation from an article in other language, threats to delete pictures just 'cause they either lack metadata or are different (having used several different cameras has that) Panzerfaust (talk) 13:27, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
@ikanreed Wikipedia's pool of editors is dying off due to stupid maroons passing RfA and proceeding to go running around like TK blocking IPs and IP ranges at the drop of a hat. Their mentality is like macho-man police officers tackling a group of college girls at the mall who are spending their money and minding their own business, because all girls that look like them are malicious Organized Retail Criminals. The schoolblockers have the same mentality dealing with IP ranges largely used by schools as TK had with overseas "Liberal Land" IP ranges. Interestingly, even this wiki is getting more and more block happy. Anti-Science Wikipedian (talk) 21:58, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

New expose of Rationalwiki coming soon[edit]

I will be running a new article exposing the bullying and hand-waving tactics of David Gerard and Rationalwiki on my website Wikipedia We have a Problem soon. Please look out for it. 23canaries (talk) 06:01, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I look forward to ignoring your shitty opinion. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:45, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Seeing as this is Rome Viharo, who's been blocked from the site, shouldn't this have been removed? Christopher (talk) 15:02, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Meh? ikanreed also engaged in handwaving tactics 15:09, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
A TV deal is virtually guaranteed after an exposé like this. Maybe a film, too. David Gerard Sucks Dog Dicks: The Rome Viharo Story (talk) 16:34, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Have fun--Spoony (talk) 17:42, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, right. Why don't you (RV) get away from everything with Internet access for some days and go elsewhere to enjoy Nature?. The Milky Way is very beautiful this epoch of the year. Panzerfaust (talk) 22:51, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
This should be interesting. Bet that article will be full of pure Trump Shit. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:00, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Unlock request[edit]

If you unlock the Rome Viharo article, I can add some stuff. (talk) 19:45, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

If youpropose the stuff you'd like to add on the talk page, perhaps a sysop could add it for you. Or you could get an account, behave for a few days with good edits, get made a sysop and add it yourself. BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 19:52, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Talk page is also locked. Both the main page an talk got locked for about 6 months since Viharo kept appearing on sockpuppets, either whining or spamming his article talk page, or trying to remove content. However, tere's lots of information that can be now put on his article. (talk) 22:13, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
I havent been on this site too consistently, why is this Rome Viharo so obsessed with this site?--Spoony (talk) 23:04, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
I think you'd have to ask him that. He just can't stand it that someone said something about him that he didn't like. BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 04:17, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
I dunno why he complains. Searching for someone's publicly available tracks elsewhere and posting them on a web page is not illegal, if he/she's so dumb not to cover them (ie: uploading a picture of him/her, using the same nick... when you piss off people, that will happen sooner or later) (Conservapedia sysops anyone?). Panzerfaust (talk) 22:09, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Bonafide Wikipedian's opinion of Gerard[edit]

He is a piece of slime who brought same to the project by abusing his checkuser rights. Remember that next time someone suggests bringing checkuser to Rational-Wiki. Anti-Science Wikipedian (talk) 22:04, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Right...So, what's your Wikipedia name? Just so we can check if you are really "bonafide." For instance, both your user pages are redlinks, and I'm not sure that a "bonafide Wikipedian" comes onto RW without linking to their account. RoninMacbeth (talk) 03:46, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Bonafide Wikipedia's opinion of Gerard (2)[edit]

You should totally buy his great book on Bitcoin and blockchains!! because he can't reasonably shill it on the RW Twitter or FB cos it's a massive COI. So tell all your friends about it!!

(yeah this is what i've been doing since late 2016. Blame Phil Sandifer.) - David Gerard (talk) 00:24, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

More reasons the Daily Mail is a horrible source of information[edit]

https://www.reddit.com/r/rationalwiki/comments/6o1lri/i_love_how_the_dailymail_deliberately_misleads/ Knightofjustice123 (talk) 16:03, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Did you mean a source of horrible information?Ariel31459 (talk) 17:48, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
It says 'there doesn't appear to be anything here.' (talk) 18:21, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
That is Strange it works for me,but here are the links: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4703386/Riots-German-festival-Iraqi-sexually-harassing-women.html

http://m.dw.com/en/rioting-breaks-out-at-festival-in-southern-german-town/a-39720315 Knightofjustice123 (talk) 16:12, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

What do you guys think about honey to help heal wounds?[edit]

Specifically, Manuka honey to help heal wounds? It's supposed to help but sounds like nature woo to me. I fell longboarding so I just wanna heal up and get back it it lol. Fareeha A (talk) 18:19, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Much Manuka honey is supposedly fake.
The vicinity of 'dangerous honey loving animals' (midges, wasps, bears...) is contra-indicated to using honey as a would-dressing. (talk) 18:28, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Never heard of it before but (based on a google search) it appears to be total bollocksWikipedia's W.svg, even the Daily Mail says it's bullshit. Christopher (talk) 18:39, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Feel free to read about various trails that are available on PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Manuka+honey One such trials shows that special honey #1 is better than special honey #2 (link), though the effect was small, the sample-size was tiny (and horses), and the P-value wasn't as low as it could be for that sample-size. Another study (link) shows that honey can be used to kill some pathogens on the wound-dressings themselves. Bigger sample-sizes too, though no published p-values or even a paper, so take it with a big grain of salt.
One thing to keep in mind (this coming from a non-medical-professional computer programmer) is that honey, while anoxic, is also very sugar-rich. When stored properly, it won't go bad, because microbes can't live on it, but I personally wouldn't go slathering it on a wound in the hopes that it'll decontaminate it. I'd use Neosporin or other anti-infection cream.
EDIT: Yeah, what Christopher said. -- Onychoprion (talk) 18:42, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
I've not heard of it for treating wounds, but it was taught as a decent improvised burn dressing when I was in Scouts (a few decades ago now). That was any honey, not a specific type. Of the links Christopher posted, theAustralian was paywalled, and the DailyMail one was on "how well they felt" not on its use as a dressing. A quick google on the burn front threw up an article on the NY Times and one on the NHS website. Daev (talk) 19:03, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
I've already cleaned it peroxide and then neosporin, and then put this manuka honey bandage thing on it. So I'm not using it solely in hopes that the woo will heal me faster haha. Koidevelopment (talk) 20:00, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
I work in a hospital where we frequently use "TheraHoney" as part of wound dressing in complex cases, but cannot speak directly to efficacy. There are a number of recent studies regarding the relative efficacy of Manuka honey (link and link), but I haven't really had the chance to sit down and read through them yet. It's definitely something that's being taught in nursing and medical schools as efficacious, though. Bearnurse (talk) 03:22, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Streisand effect in action[edit]

It looks like we're in full Streisand mode with the Eugene M. McCarthy. User:TudorGothicSerpent created a stubby article on McCarthy; it was expanded a bit by myself and others. It somehow has landed as the top result from Googling his name. This might have provoked him into rightly-or-wrongly challenging the contents. It's worth expanding further since there seems to be fertile — ahem — ground. E.g., for the humanzee, he states on one of his pages, "there is at least one fairly well documented case of a human-chimpanzee hybrid is on record" (except for genetics — oops!),[5] but on another gives it a low reliability rating.[6] Bongolian (talk) 20:28, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

But think of the geep.Ariel31459 (talk) 22:27, 18 July 2017 (UTC)


As 'excess and insufficiency of colons' appears to be a frequent topic of discussion on talk pages could something be developed on the subject - or as a section on a longer page (including 'arguing with the Captcha programs). (talk) 22:01, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

i9 Water Bottle[edit]

So, I ran across this gem, complete with a "why i9?" section that says stuff like:

it is possible to record information and transfer it to another object. The technology enabling this is not new; it was developed in the previous century. It uses a device called a chembuster, which can transfer information without limitations. It can be used for transferring thoughts, wishes and even the efficacy of medicine.

In layman’s terms – an informed product is a product with added information that has a positive impact on living organisms.

At the heart of the i9 bottle is a unique TP tag enriched with carefully selected numerical codes. The codes are transferred to the information tag via chembusters or emitters. The i9 informed water bottle influence on water and reinstate its natural properties. It does so by adding energy potential (producing structured water) and cleansing information retained by contaminants.

The i9 Bottle positively affects our general wellbeing by helping increase vitality and balance personal energy levels by way of chromotherapy and TP technology. Based on numerous tests, drinking water from i9 informed bottle shows a substantial increase in human bio-field, decrease in stress factor and considerably reduced water genotoxicity. Informed water also positively affects on animals and plants.

It's not new to find woo...but not woo this well funded. The i9 bottle appears to be a very legit product, with a professional and well designed website and apparently the products is in retail stores. It's quite a find, and deserves a page. Lord Aeonian (talk) 08:02, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

It does seem to be gaining Google traction with tons of Google results, despite virtually unvisited websites ([7][8][9][10][11]) and social media ([12][13][14][15]). Their Twitter is a goldmine of New Age nonsense ("Way to raise your vibration through diet is to prepare your meal slowly, lovingly and peacefully"; "I can leave the sea, but the sea never leaves me. 🦀"). The product as a whole seems to be tied to "Alternative & Holistic Health Service in Maribor, Slovenia" at address Limbuška cesta 78B 2000 Maribor, Slovenija. IMHO, the website and Twitter quotes deserve an article by themselves. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 10:10, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Sidenote: They're "certified by the "Institute of Electrophotonics in Berlin", might deserve an article all its own. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 10:11, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
@Lord Aeonian: Where'd you find it perchance? Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 10:13, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
I ran across the name on a facebook page making fun of woo and looked it up. Lord Aeonian (talk) 23:12, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
You accidentally put a pipe in the link, which leads to an insightful 404 page: "There was no 404 CMS page configured or found." Also, the page has a warning about disabled javascript, but you can't see when javascript is disabled. —Kazitor, pending 10:19, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't know how to fix that "7C" addition, but the 404 page it links to still gives you the site's navigation buttons to get where you want. Lord Aeonian (talk) 23:12, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Just remove the pipe, like so: a load of crapKazitor, pending 06:20, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Ohh, I see. I had always believed that "pipe" was needed to format the link. What is the point of it then? Lord Aeonian (talk) 07:32, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
You need a pipe for pages on the wiki (in double brackets), but single-pair-of-brackets external links don't, presumably because URLs can't have spaces but page titles can. —Kazitor, pending 08:22, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Check out the list of Australian retailers. I didn't know all those stereotypes about Queensland were justified! —Kazitor, pending 10:36, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
They mention a "chembuster" as being the technology involved,[16] which is a cloudbuster variant.[17] Bongolian (talk) 06:37, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Organic food article[edit]

I started a fun page on organic food. Additions would be great. I haven't linked to it from the un-fun page because there's not that much there at the moment. —Kazitor, pending 10:15, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

New Template/Category/Thing: Apologetics Debunking[edit]

So, we have a few articles like 101 evidences for a young age of the Earth and the universe and 12 Arguments Evolutionists Should Avoid and rebuttals to essays, or debates, or various other arguments and whatnot. I'm thinking there should be a category to put them in. Like "Apologetics Literature" or "Argument Rebuttals" or something to that effect. We have the giant block about "Creationism" at the bottom of most, but the pages I mention aren't included in them. -- Onychoprion (talk) 17:24, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I think that would be cool but I think we should make a general category for rebuttals instead since we have conspiracy and woo debunking in some parts too (or at least we should!)Vorarchivist (talk) 23:07, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Nova Esperanto Artikolo[edit]

Samlingvano! Bonvolu helpi min kun la verkado de mia nova EO artikolo ĉi tie.'Legionwhat do you want from me 19:13, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

9/11's plane phases through building[edit]

Absolutely _no one_ was ever able to explain why that is. It doesnt crash into the building at all. It phases through, as if it isnt even there, but edited in. The "plane" is on the layer behind the tower. Only when you see the nose of the plane do you ACTUALLY SEE THE EXPLOSION. Honestly, this cognitive dissonance is rediculous. No one can even explain this, just brand me off as a nut. Explain it for once.— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Didn't you forget something?Ariel31459 (talk) 22:14, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
His marbles from the looks of it. BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 10:29, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm sure next after we explain why (Even if I dont know why right off the bat) you're gonna ask why most non-news footage has the camera panning of losing focus when the planes actually to hit, despite the fact that people pointed out the plane? Not a lot of people are in the mood for your holier-than-thou attitude because you believe in this drivel, so any discussion you want to have, watch your temper--Spoony (talk) 22:18, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
you come in here with a ridiculous claim that the plane was edited in without even a video or an explanation about the thousands of people who saw it happen, you're just asserting and before anyone would even try to debate you you have to give at least some sort of evidence to back yourself upVorarchivist (talk) 23:09, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Oh, yes. Care to explain what does happen with the too-many-to-count witnesses plus their recordings (and that in 2001, when smartphones were still nearly Sci-Fi tech and digital cameras were still both expensive and not very good) of the two planes crashing against the WTC towers?. Now do TPTB have highly advanced holographic technology, that however fails just during impact as you say or what? Panzerfaust (talk) 14:01, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
I especially like the serendipitous misspelling of "passes" for "phases". Phasing could be a cool new scifi-ish conspiracy theory, i.e. the plane phased through the building using a highly secret quantum technology. Leuders (talk) 15:10, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Magic: the GatheringTM cards with the phasing ability were all published in either 1996 or 1997, and were basically out of circulation by September 2001. For this reason, your theory sounds implausible. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:22, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
And there's more. What about the remains of the two planes that were found among the debris of the WTC, as well as Flight 11 and Flight 175 themselves after take-off and before crashing?. More ruses from TPTB? Panzerfaust (talk) 21:44, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Troll So the planes have Kitty Pryde's powers?-⇂ɔsᴉᗡpuoɯɐᴉᗡ (talk) 02:28, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Water Pollution[edit]

No comment. Nerd271 (talk) 15:32, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

But wait, there's more!Ariel31459 (talk) 16:11, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

It looked to me as if some kind of varmint was living inside one of those bottles. The diver passed that one by. Once again, evolution finds a way. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 16:26, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
The problem is evolution usually isn't fast enough. Christopher (talk) 16:49, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Many species do adapt and survive. others just go extinct. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:15, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
The problem is that the species that do adapt to degraded ecosystems become "garbage" species, and overall biodiversity collapses. How does all this crap land in the ocean? Many years ago, in remote & rural Indonesia, I saw it in action. People regularly through their trash straight into the ocean when they were on boats. The crew of a small commercial plane threw the plane's trash right at the end of the runway. There are probably other routes that it gets there, but some of it is definitely deliberate. Bongolian (talk) 03:07, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
How soon [18]? (talk) 21:46, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

When right wing nuts who say, "Support our vets" yet want to cut healthcare[edit]

How can you support the troops when you want to cut their healthcare? It is not like insurance is cheap and military benefits only go so far. Kind of a douche move. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 17:14, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

They support vets using their RUGGED INDIVIDUALISM to overcome the harrowing physical and psychological wounds of combat. That comprehensive healthcare stuff is dirty Commie talk. (talk) 18:56, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Since It would be good to learn to counter Statistics[edit]

How could this be countered:https://www.wzb.eu/sites/default/files/u6/koopmans_englisch_ed.pdf Knightofjustice123 (talk) 19:29, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

returning to the roots is ambiguous (as Christians who consider the most important commandment to be "Love thy neighbor" could want others to return to the roots despite that being one of the least fundamentalist ways to think), they actually give very little information (usually they give the raw data or at least describe it but they didn't), it's curious that they decided on specifically Turkish and Moroccan immigrants rather than general Muslim immigrants. I tried to find the source data but couldn't find the results so I couldn't talk about the statistics of it which would answer some questions I had like the percentage of Muslims they interviewed, how much from each city etc.. Also the data is nearly a decade old and doesn't concern the ethnic groups are the current migration issue which if I remember correctly are mostly Syrian. I should warn you though I am a University student not a statistician so I might be wrong about some stuff. Vorarchivist (talk) 19:53, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I find it strange they don't account for age groups. Why publish this in 2013 if these questions (Which could very well have it's own Bias) were asked in 2008 among 9000 participants? Now I do know that Germany does have an older Generation of Turks that formed their own communities,and only speak Turkish,but It might not be so much of a problem as time goes on don't quote me on that though. Knightofjustice123 (talk) 20:32, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

First: Right Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) is a proxy for [1] submission to legitimate authorities, [2] aggression in the name of their authorities, and [3] strong conventionalism. The American Christian Right has high RWA scores -- think about what values they hold dear. It might be easier to think of "RWA" as a proxy for "social conservatism".

Second: It's absurd to pretend that the average Muslim is less conservative than the average Christian. (Pinging @Aeonian:.) You're setting yourself up for an impossible "debunk". If anything, it is pseudoscience to claim the inverse: that the average Muslim is more liberal than the average Christian. Consider where blasphemy is still banned. (Hint: Muslim countries, right-wing Christian countries.) Consider where LGBT folk are still executed. (Hint: Muslim countries, right-wing Christian countries.) Consider where religious police still exist. (Hint: Muslim countries, right-wing Christian countries.) Pew polls

Third: The real flaw here is not the data, but the application. When nationalists cite studies like these, they are making one of the three following arguments (simplified).

First, the "regressive" argument:
  1. Muslims want more conservative policies.
  2. People who want more conservative policies are bad.
  3. Conclusion: Muslims are bad.
  4. We should prevent bad people from immigrating.
  5. Conclusion: We should prevent Muslims from immigrating.
Obviously premise 1 is a problem for right-wing nationalists -- they, too, would like more conservative policies! By this simplistic logic, right-wing nationalists should also be considered "threats" to liberal values! (Funny, that.)

Second, the "creeping Sharia" argument:
  1. If Muslims gain power, they will enact Sharia.
  2. If Muslims immigrate, they will gain power.
  3. Conclusion: If Muslims immigrate, they will enact Sharia.
  4. Sharia is a society-destroying thing.
  5. Conclusion: If Muslims immigrate, they will enact a society-destroying thing.
  6. People who will enact a society-destroying thing are bad.
  7. Conclusions: If Muslims immigrate, they are bad.
  8. We should prevent bad people from immigrating.
  9. Conclusion: We should prevent Muslims from immigrating.
This is already a more nuanced argument. It avoids the trap of the first argument -- now the focus is on Sharia instead of conservatism. This time, the problem is with the second premise.
Pew predicts that, in 2050, only 1/10th of Europe's population will be Muslim. It's absurd to think a 10.2% minority would gain power in a democratic country. (Note that unaffiliated folk are projected to make up 23.3% of the population.) Unless
Perhaps more interestingly, the majority of Muslims (and immigrants in general) vote for liberal parties. Liberal parties tend to enact policies directly opposed to the enactment of Sharia law. Liberal parties tend to push for secular government. Liberals also tend to push for liberalizing government rules and against social norms against drug use, LGBT acts/identity, gender equality, etc.
Unless Muslims are collectively playing a multi-hundred-year-long game, and their fertility rates remain higher than non-Muslims, then this is bullshit.

Third, the "terrorism" argument:
  1. If Muslims on average, have more conservative religions, then they will commit greater rates of violent actions.
  2. Muslims, on average, have more conservative religions.
  3. Conclusion: Muslims will commit greater rates of violent actions.
  4. People who commit greater rates of violent actions.
  5. Conclusion: Muslims are bad.
  6. We should prevent bad people from immigrating.
  7. Conclusion: We should prevent Muslims from immigrating.
The problem with this argument is one of "relative rates". Consider the possibility that atheists are 10x less likely to commit a crime than the average American citizen. Therefore, if we set our bar for violence at "American atheists", and we say that any group with higher violence per capita should be banned from immigration, then literally every religious group (except Pentecostals) would be banned from entering the country. (The same logic can be applied to terrorism.) IMHO, that's absurd.

TLDR: The stats are right. The interpretation is wrong. As Koopmans concludes: "let those who are without sin, cast the first stone".
Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 21:39, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
As you seem more knowledgeable about statistics do you know why they specified muslims from two specific countries?Vorarchivist (talk) 22:01, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
That's not a statistics thing, that's a demographics thing. Germany has had a substantial Turkish population for a few decades now. (See eg KanakeWikipedia's W.svg.)
More broadly: See Pew Polls for a comprehensive look at the Muslim world. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 01:00, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

@FuzzyCatPotato: I was never not implying one was not more conservative than the other. You see I don't want to be argued against with these statistics,and By countering Statiscis I mean using other statiscis (Non Right Wing Think Tanks(MacDonald Laurier Institute),Pro Israel(Washington Institute for Near East policy),and Not a Saudi owned News Site(al-Arabiya). to argue against.Knightofjustice123 (talk) 22:48, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

But that's the whole point. To debunk the claim "Muslims are more conservative than Christians", you'd need to prove that "Muslims are not more conservative than Christians". And you straight up can't on the vast majority of social issues. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 01:02, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes but a lot of these Statics say a wide array of things they're was a PRII study that says this: https://www.prri.org/spotlight/religious-americans-same-sex-marriage-service-refusals/ which different from only 20% 40% support. No I'm not discrediting either. Knightofjustice123 (talk) 01:57, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

American Muslims are one of the most liberal groups of Muslims worldwide. Check that Pew poll linked above. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 02:57, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

RationalWiki Facebook page needs maintainers[edit]

I have largely left the FB page as I have other shit to do (book out on Monday!) - but it turns out to be a contact point, e.g. for people worried about the data breach.

So! CALL FOR VOLUNTEERS. If you are willing to post on-topic stuff to the FB and deal with our lovely readers and stuff, PLEASE join in on the FB. I'm /davidgerard on Facebook, message me or whatever with your FB name. If you're a regular enough regular that you think you could reasonably represent RW to the world, we need you - David Gerard (talk) 00:21, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

(and yes Fuzzy I will look at the SSL tomorrow) - David Gerard (talk) 00:22, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Goodpost.gif Goodpost.gif Goodpost.gif
Love the book cover, title. But why pay $5 to read what I can get on Wikipedia for free... ;)
@David Gerard: Why does the page need admins? (Or: what's broken?) Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 00:56, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Just someone hanging out and being useful there would be good - David Gerard (talk) 08:50, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
It probably doesn't need the cock who answers people "Somebody put me on the admin list, as they're wont to do, and I get notifications about messages. I don't care. Make a new account with your username backwards and wave down a janitor. B. Its standard English, you should oughta learn it. A. I'm only an editor, I cannot take myself off of the admin list and no one will help. I think the owner died or some shot." The FB interface is made of shit and won't show me who's sending that, but I'm an admin on it now, I should be able to remove you and will do happily - David Gerard (talk) 11:53, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

This dumb article calling Us Far left[edit]

https://www.google.com/url?q=https://encyclopediadramatica.rs/RationalWiki&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwif2veYh5zVAhVHFT4KHWKZChEQFggaMAI&usg=AFQjCNG8Jz42hEMP3c4r5IPl1gy7ygHG1w Note: Use An Adblocker their site probably gives you aids. Knightofjustice123 (talk) 04:42, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

It's ED, who cares? Daev (talk) 05:55, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
I highly doubt ED cares about ED. And it is true that we are "far-left" if the center is defined as "Mussolini." RoninMacbeth (talk) 14:24, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Nobody has cared what ED says since... oh hang on, actually nobody cared then either. BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 16:41, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

We've known about Encyclopædia Dramatica's page on us for a while. Our page on them even begins with a direct quote from it. They've always prided themselves on being dumb trolls who hate everyone and everything, especially "normies", which makes them the internet-culture version of hipsters if you will, though Gamergate caused a whole bunch of alt-right channers to flood the site. Their page on the alt-right makes fun of it like everything else, showing that they haven't completely taken over ED, but it also opens with a note describing it as the single most controversial political topic on the entire site, and a read through its talk page shows that there are a lot of butthurt users (as they'd put it) who think it ought to be more laudatory and complain that it reads like... well, like our own page on the alt-right. KevinR1990 (talk) 16:54, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
ED is a valuable educational resources if your subject is the truth about human nature. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 17:51, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Goodpost.gifRoninMacbeth (talk) 21:18, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

SSL, probably![edit]

Discuss at RationalWiki:Technical_support#First_attempt_at_SSL.21_STILL_TEST_ONLY - David Gerard (talk) 16:11, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Prisoner Sterilizations[edit]

So, Tennessee now offers a month off of sentences for prisoners that voluntarily get birth control. Vasectomies for men, hormonal implants for women. The hormonal implants last for about 5 years, and vasectomies are often reversible.

Necessary evil? Horrific crime against humanity? Both? I'm honestly not sure. Thoughts? CorruptUser (talk) 17:21, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

horrific crime against humanity. It's firstly against the whole cruel and unusual punishment part of the eight amendment, secondly there is no evidence that this would reduce crime and thirdly the only other reason why someone would do this would be if crime had a heavy genetic component (which it doesn't) and it was a way to get "inferior genes" out of the gene pool which means this plan is basically either just neo-eugenics or an attempt to be cruel just to entertain non criminals which is sick. I expect the only people who would do this are those who want those types of birth control to begin with.Vorarchivist (talk) 17:42, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
It's apparently not 'Tennessee', but 'one local judge in Tennessee'. I don't have an issue with it. Whether criminality is a result of bad blood, bad parenting, or bad local culture, sterilizing convicts is reasonably targeted at any of these sources. Then again, I've never bred myself, too cautious for it, too strongly value solitude; so other perspectives may differ. Also, nothing has brought down crime rates as powerfully as abortion on demand did. If abortion stops being covered by the right to privacy, I don't want to outlaw it to save pwecious widdle fetuses, but I would happily consider making it compulsory for certain demographics. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 17:47, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
so you would consider forced sterilization & abortion against demographics that cause disproportionate crime? I assume that you don't believe yourself to fall under any of those demographicsVorarchivist (talk) 18:29, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
As I said, breeding is not for me, so I wouldn't mind. If I did beget children, I would try to turn them into enemies of society. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 19:53, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't like it, but it's voluntary. So long as prisoners aren't forced to go through sterilization, I'm...well, not really OK with it, but still. RoninMacbeth (talk) 21:22, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't think it's strictly voluntary because the promise of reduced incarceration could be considered coercive. Bongolian (talk) 21:48, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Could it? I would understand if they threatened to increase sentences, but not what they do here. RoninMacbeth (talk) 22:07, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
What kind of person would consent to sterilization to evade a single month in jail? My guess: a mentally challanged person or someone with a serious impulse control problem. With regard to traditional Census Bureau identity groups, demographics do count with regard to violent crime. Poor Hispanics are 40%-50% less likely to commit a violent crime than either poor whites or poor Blacks.Ariel31459 (talk) 23:45, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
For most people, being in jail is not like having an unexpected vacation. There can be some serious consequences including loss of employment, loss of home, and other economic problems. Not everyone in jail is guilty, either. Some people take a plea bargain to get a shorter sentence because they can't afford a good lawyer to adequately plead their case. Bongolian (talk) 02:08, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
And I wouldn't be surprised if someone takes the bargain in order to keep their house or prevent a personal economic disaster
Well, who knows what prison is like in Tennessee? My Uncle Stanley was arrested for DWI in Maine. The Judge said "9 months or $1,500 fine." Stanley was already on his pension and after some quick mental arithmetic answered " I'll take the 9 months!" The judge conferred with the clerk for a few seconds, and then said, "alright then, six months or $900."
And naturally, Stanley said "I'll take the 6 months!" This went on like that for a while until it was clear to the judge that Stanley was more interested in free room and board than saving a few bucks. I think they settled on 10 days in county and no fine.Ariel31459 (talk) 02:49, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
I think that story is highly apocryphal. If a judge makes an offer of punishment, the judge can't really rescind that offer. Can they? I don't know Maine rules.
Back to topic at hand. Actually, criminality is very much "bad blood", as well as environmental/cultural/lead-in-the-water/you-name-it, in the sense that many psychological disorders such as O.D.D. have a genetic component. There is no "burglary gene" or "walk backwards with an ice-cream cone in pocket gene", but there are likely genes that result in increased risk of anti-social tendencies and so forth.
This isn't quite Eugenics, more like "Eumemics", as this is offered to drug addicts rather than being based on genes (or race/demographics). The idea being that a drug addict is proooobably not going to be parent of the year, and any children they have would either have a horrible upbringing and/or be a huge burden on the state. CorruptUser (talk) 07:23, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
As to whether or not it's coercive, I see no real difference between "We will give you 4 months but reduce to 3 if you get sterilized" and "We give you 3 months and additional month if you don't get sterilized". CorruptUser (talk) 19:16, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

The wisdom of predictive text[edit]

I put a 'd' in the search box. The first four suggestions, in order: Didit fallacy, Don't Feed the Troll, Donald Trump, Deceit.

Are the algorithms able to comment? (talk) 10:24, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I always assumed it was alphabetical, I think it used to be. Christopher (talk) 10:29, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
@BON, that's lovely. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 16:04, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

bold and determined to create epilepsy[edit]

this user took notice to the fact that the page Bold and determined possesses writing of color and size ranges that would trigger epilepsy in some and thus this user advises creating a hub page that will provide a warning before proceeding to said page and provide a colorless non-epileptic version of said page in the hub page.FAMAS (Talk) (Contribs) [[19]] [[20]] 19:34, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Epilepsy does not work that way. Nog Bogmire (talk) 19:41, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
in reply to user @Nog Bogmire:, this user asserts the fact that as epileptics slowly look downwards into the page, the varied sized and colored texts come up in almost the similar pattern as bright changing lights and trigger the disorder, thus this user presents the opinion by this user that an epileptic-friendly version of said page be made.FAMAS (Talk) (Contribs) [[21]] [[22]] 19:43, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
And you base this on...what, exactly? Should we also be careful of the wiki emitting poison gas or causing earthquakes? Nog Bogmire (talk) 19:47, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Fun space article for anyone can edit[edit]


It is an alternate reality if creationism was fact. I got it started and anyone can edit. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 20:41, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Why is the NHS setup poorly?[edit]

Today I saw an article about that Baby, :http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/21/health/charlie-gard-brain-scan-court-bn/index.html and it made me think about why is the NHS so shitty compared to other parts of the world? Knightofjustice123