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.
Icon beer yellow.gif For previous conversations see the automagic barchives. Drinks drunk.gif

What is going on?

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

RationalWiki:Forum
  1. Liberty University (00:27, 5 May 2015)
  2. A Rationalist Homeland? (22:54, 4 May 2015)
  3. Is everyone on RationalWiki an atheist? (18:04, 3 May 2015)
  4. The 'WeRe bank': A perfect storm of stupid (10:46, 3 May 2015)
  5. Zombie Apocalypse (20:33, 2 May 2015)
  6. The current state of RW's community (18:04, 2 May 2015)
To do list

Contents


[edit] Site notices

Nice to honour the famous Turk St. George and all, but it's a day early. Have the site notices suffered some sort of drift? — Unsigned, by: Queex / talk / contribs

No, it isn't too early. The holydaze notices are intended to cover all timezones. They appear twelve hours before the start of the holiday according to UTC and stay there until twelve hours after it's ended according to UTC. As I'm writing this, it's already April 23 in some parts of the world but still April 22 in others. That's why we're currently displaying messages for Earth Day (April 22) and St. George's Day (April 23). Spud (talk) 13:53, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Wasn't he Greek or something?--Arisboch (talk) 13:55, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
According to the Other Wiki, Saint George was born in what is now the city of Lod in Israel (then part of the Roman province of Syria Palestina). His mother was a local and his father was a Greek from Cappadoccia (which is now in Turkey). I suppose his first language was Greek. Spud (talk) 14:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Would it be possible to have such national holidays only pop up when it's that day in that country? Or would that break the wiki? BicyclewheelModerator 18:02, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
But then we'll be discriminating against expats and travelers celebrating that holiday while not in said country! (Also, it would seem like a whole lot of effort for something very un-worthwhile.) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:08, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
It's hardly top priority, but making the holydaze thing timezone sensitive, so as to avoid questions like the one that started off this discussion in the first place, would be nice. That and something needs to be added to the Eastern Orthodox Christmas one. Every year on January 7, somebody comes along and says, "Twelfth Night is over. Why does it still say Merry Christmas?" I think something like "Is it Christmas again already?" and a link to our Eastern Orthodox page needs to be added. Spud (talk) 03:51, 23 April 2015 (UTC).
IIRC this was something that I discussed many years back. As each login-in user can specific their own time zone then theoretically it should be possible to tailor the messages to the user. Similarly there are language settings and it would be nice to make certain words language specific to avoid people Americanising (or otherwise) spellings. Unfortunately, I am unaware if MediaWiki markup has enabled this since I last investigated. I am inclined to think not. Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. Moderator 20:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Does the right "punch up?"

So a person I follow on twitter, macroeconomist Noah Smith, started a long twitter argument about internet "sadism" and which group truly has the power in society.

Other thoughtful people chimed in about how the so-called alt-right "sadists" like Vox Day, were mostly low-status bottom-rung type people fighting against what can be only described as the SJW ruling class, who can do things like destroy people's lives over false rape accusations, accusations of bigotry, and so on. So who really is the one in power here, SJWs claim it to be the other way around, but based on all this, wouldn't that not be the case? Compare guys like Vox Day, weev, etc. to people like Zoe Quinn, Sam Biddle, Anil Dash (ruined Pax Dickinson's life), and basically all major internet media organs.

What are your thoughts, guys? And I'm not doing this to troll, for goodness sakes. Deofex (talk) 02:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I think there are pineapples in the Caribbean. I think I am going to eat them all.
...Oh, wait, I have a pineapple allergy. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar~) 03:27, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
First of all can I just say, a whole bunch of tweets is the most annoying way to read an argument that I can possibly imagine, but onto the meat of the issue. Attention on the internet =/= power, sure on twitter you might find more support for liberal ideas, but that doesn't mean that our politics has changed much in response to a changing culture. Just look at how hard it is to end the war on women in the political arena. Ultimately I think that the problem is people who oppose these equal rights movements tend not to be the brightest. Few people can offer any rational reasons for why a particular group should be oppressed beyond, "we've always oppressed them before." No offense to you, but if you have a bigoted movement you shouldn't be surprised when you find bigots coming out and supporting it. Samstr (talk) 03:31, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
What's that you say? Vox Day, a horrible fascist dick bag with basically no reasonable stated beliefs or public behaviors is verbally abused for said shitbaggienss? Must be punching down. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 03:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
About Vox Day, and frankly the whole sad puppies thing, I disagree. A person I follow on tumblr recently made this pretty clear to me why the situation is much different than most take it to be. I quote her:

"In another universe, you live in the Confederate States of America. The technological changes familiar to you in this universe still happened, so the 2015 CSA is economically like the 2015 USA. There is no slavery, for example: capitalism was found to be less expensive, and it spawned the same methods of exploiting laborers that it did in our timeline. There is more tobacco and less soy, but that is the only noticeable economic difference. Your ancestors fought for the Union, and passed down their beliefs to their children, who left the Southern Baptist Church and became agnostics.* Belief in God and Baptist doctrine is not legally necessary, of course – the CSA formally maintains separation of church and state – but you find yourself suffering socially for your failure to attend church. You make the mistake of getting into a religious argument, and find yourself stuck with the reputation that you are a Satanist. A revival movement sweeps the country, aiming to purify it of the theological and political baggage of the Union and the ideas of the devil-worshipping Europeans. Its preachers say that marriage is a covenant with God, and therefore that only religious marriages between members of the same Abrahamic sect should be recognized by the state – a fringe position only ten years before. Ballot initiatives start springing up. A few businessmen donate in opposition to them and draw the ire of the journalists; their companies are pressured into firing them. A few ordinary employees express their opposition and lose their jobs as a result. A suspected atheist is called out by a popular magazine and blacklisted from his entire industry. You see on Facebook that your college friends are starting to support these purges. People begin to speak of non-Christians as a disease, a cancer, a gross unthinking blob of evil that must be destroyed. Politicians start meeting with fire-and-brimstone preachers. A man who spent his time in college arguing in favor of violently abolishing the Confederate Constitution and instituting a theocracy is the president; he was campaigning when you were in high school, taking a class on the government of the United States that required its students to give a presentation on a topic of their choice at the end of the year. You are one of the four people in the class – a class of about 35 students – who do not choose the topic of how great this man is. You have a friend, an author – not even an atheist, but someone who is not in the habit of attending church – who tells you about how the sausage is made. If you want to get somewhere, you have to hang out at the church groups, you have to know your Bible, and all that. The game is rigged. You see this elsewhere: colleges bring in mandatory Bible study, and every sufficiently large institution you can see is scrambling to hire preachers and theologically-informed bureaucrats and pay them six-figure salaries. There are movements within each form of art to use them as tools to edify, to instruct, to bring the consumers closer to God. They win. Their stories, their games, their paintings start winning awards. Their statues and murals are set up in every city. You once had Christian friends. Most of them will no longer speak to you. Some still will – but what’s the point? You know which side they’ll be on when the shit hits the fan, and you know it won’t be yours." I think that sums it up for me. Deofex (talk) 05:52, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Sounds interesting, you got a link? I'd like to read more from her.--Arisboch (talk) 12:31, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, it's a good thing there's nothing going on now that's comparable to that, then. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar~) 07:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Also: Pax Dickinson 'ruined' Pax Dickinson's life, no-one else. He was found out, not victimised. His more recent blather merely confirms how much of a fuckwit he is. Vox Day thinks it's okay to throw acid in women's faces if that would help restore marriage to what he believes it once was and should be again. Cut this 'both sides' drivel, it makes you look simple. Queexchthonic murmurings 10:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
It's so hard to live life as a public Christian in America these days. I mean, you can only point to every single president, 84%+ of congress, 90%+ of the governors. Any day now, us non-Christians are going to have to do something about that, seeing that we obviously have control over all aspects of life. Hipocrite (talk) 12:31, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Yeah These rampant SJWs get everywhere. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 13:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I really cannot give a shit about fictional hypotheticals that will never come to pass. If you have to resort to an alternate universe to make the analogy, you've already lost the argument. --Castaigne (talk) 17:18, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
A big part of the Seasteading is about the Mass Effect, so that's occasionally par of the course here.--Arisboch (talk) 17:30, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
That's not the same thing, dude. An example of seasteading in popular culture does not a hypothetical argument make. --Castaigne (talk) 17:31, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Could someone break down that "analogy" for me? Because like Narky, I'm not seeing the applicability. The marriage thing in particular; is trying to make it so some couples can't marry supposed to reflect trying to make it so more couples can marry?Calieber (talk) 01:13, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
It's not a "fictional hypothetical" it's what's really happening. It's happening in Sweden. It's happening in United Kingdom. And by goodness is it happening in America and on the internet. The elites aren't what you guys think them to be.Deofex (talk) 09:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't even mention Rotherham. There's a reason that was ignored.Deofex (talk) 09:09, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Speaking as a life-long UK resident, you are full of shit. Your 'UK' link there doesn't even contain the word marriage, and I'm not prepared to read a loser-length xenophobic blog post to see how it might possibly be relevant to the point you're trying and failing to make. Queexchthonic murmurings 10:30, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
^Second this. "There's a reason [Rotherham] was ignored" - actually there were several, anxiety about political correctness being, according to Prof Jay's inquiry report, only a small dimension. Taken along with the findings of Operation Yewtree, what we can conclude for certain from the Rotherham scandal is that authorities repeatedly fail to take the claims of young women, especially lower class ones, seriously, but I don't hear you SJW-bashers crowing about that. Grumblejaws (talk) 19:03, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
No, how was it that these Pakistani rapist gangs were able to rove around with impunity? How did they get there in the first place?Deofex (talk) 02:52, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
"No" what? Go read the report I alluded to yourself if you're so underwhelmed by what I've already said and still hungry for answers to loaded questions. Grumblejaws (talk) 08:43, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I still have no idea what is going on in this thread. I think "It's punching up, so it's OK" as a justification for vitriol and "sadism", Internet or otherwise, is an extremely poor one as just about anyone can frame themselves as the person punching up. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 19:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, one of the things you have to remember is that punching up is generally better, seeing as punching down is usually just bullying. After all, it usually targets minorities and the disadvantaged. Then again, we make fun of birthers and truthers too, for pretty good reason. As for me, I see the accusation of punching down to be dumb in this instance. Reminds me of this one Cracked article examining the ways men and women both have more power than the other where its examples included pretty women sometimes getting free drinks at a bar, and men controlling the vast majorities of governments, courts, militaries, and corporations on earth. Punching down, huh? It's kinda like the idea that atheists are punching down when we make jokes about Christianity in the U.S. If the MRAs want a nice, welcoming atmosphere for their ideas about how women definitely shouldn't have equal rights, they could always get a booth at CPAC or some other Republican convention. Also you'll want to be careful claiming that slavery would have died out on its own, seeing as economic historians say otherwise. I'm betting that myth is another aspect of the Lost Cause narrative. When most people talk about that stuff nowadays, they have to admit that slaves had an amazing return on investment.(http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2013/09/economic-history-2). Their problem with slaves is more along the lines of recognizing that the economy there was ruined once the slaves were taken out of it. Which is like saying that the U.S. Midwest's economy would be ruined if people stopped needing corn, or if all their equipment was taken away from them. If I had the time or the giveadamn to find it, I remember where economic historians found that slavery, as profitable as it always was, likely would have continued unabated in agricultural areas. Plus, ya know, if slavery was so unprofitable, it seems strange that sex slavery still goes on so much. Those people certainly aren't stopping. - User:PsychoGecko, 00:22, 25 April, 2015 (UTC)
"Also you'll want to be careful claiming that slavery would have died out on its own, seeing as economic historians say otherwise." Wha? Where did I claim this? ℕoir LeSable (talk) 01:50, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
It's something mentioned in the hypothetical Deofex brought up. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 02:05, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I just didn't want to insert stuff all over the place, so not accusing you of saying that. People screwing with history is one of my pet peeves, so I just didn't want to let that go when there's every indication that slavery would have continued on if it hadn't been made illegal in the States. It has all the markers to me of more Lost Cause apologetics, which is incredibly popular in most popular views of the Civil War that I've ever encountered, but runs counter to what actually happened as far as professionals can tell. I've even argued with non-Americans before who thought the South didn't secede over slavery, and that Lincoln started the war when the rebellion could have been ended peacefully. User:PsychoGecko, 21:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, the article you linked argues in most of it's text otherwise. Once automation technology grew developed enough, it was simply cheaper to pay workers than to feed, shelter and guard them.--Arisboch (talk) 21:50, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

There's one not-hypothetical that might be relevant: how the Southern planter class was completely wrecked after the war and lost all it's privilege, property, and led the South into complete ruin. In fact, the friend who wrote about that is the same person on who's blog I found the above hypothetical. She's an academic historian.Deofex (talk) 02:52, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

You probably didn't mean to, but you phrased that exactly right. The Southern plantation class led the South to ruin in a wholly avoidable war they started themselves. They did so because they conflated self-interest with Truth and Honor, as weak and fallible humans are wont to do. It never was about anything other than slavery, as the several secession declarations make plain. "States' rights" was never about anything other than slavery. Even the argument about tariffs was about slavery. They saw, moreover, that the nation would be expanding into large sparsely populated territories full of hostile Natives, and that plantation slavery would never work on the open prairie. The political dominance the slave powers had while the populated areas were confined to the eastern seaboard was certain to wither. Had they recognized that the rest of the nation would sooner or later grow impatient with slavery, they could have made themselves a better deal than what they got. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 03:44, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
The fall of the planters is what led the South to ruin, but that's just what the yanks wanted.Deofex (talk) 12:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
And please explain if the Right is in power, how come Sweden is soon turning into a second Africa?Deofex (talk) 05:39, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
[citation needed] Samstr (talk) 19:39, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Also I have to take issue with your comparing Sweden (a nation) to Africa (a continent). There are a lot of countries in Africa, perhaps you could be a bit more specific. Samstr (talk) 21:25, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
A rather huge continent at that. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:27, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
The fall of the planters didn't lead the South to ruin. Crippling overspecialization did that. The South was an agricultural power but focused solely on cotton, since it gave them the best price. That's why, even though the South had much more farmland, they grew less food than the North. They had much less in the way of railroads and factories, too, because the economy focused so much on growing cotton. It also caused problems as they weren't exactly rotating crops. Because of that and the vast amounts of land required to maintain a such an agricultural effort, the South wanted to keep expanding and desperately didn't want to be limited, a futile effort since they were hoping to go west through New Mexico, Nevada, and Arizona. Their paranoia about their slaves was like modern paranoia about taking guns, but actually worse. It was outright stated by various states' declarations and later by the Vice President of the Confederacy that they seceded due to slavery. The South chose to secede after the election of Abraham Lincoln. They didn't make peace at a peace conference held before Lincoln's inauguration and instead began seizing federal property and calling up militias. They even besieged Fort Sumter and Fort Pickens before Lincoln was inaugurated. I honestly don't see how anyone thinks this situation was caused because planters somehow lost influence, especially when you take into account that most slaves were owned by relatively few rich planters. The common man supported them for two reasons, too. 1. Slavery meant that no matter how low down a white guy was, there was always someone he was socially "better" than. 2. Just like with modern income inequality, even poor whites thought someday that could be them living in the big house owning lots of black people. This literally could not have happened if Southern planters weren't the richest and most powerful people in the South. Maybe if Southern planters hadn't been the cause and leaders of the South, they wouldn't have lost so much when they started the war. User:PsychoGecko, 22:12, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Relevant clip, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyHgGWFwDbg. Samstr (talk) 17:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

[edit] I Made Myself Giggle

I thought this was cluttering up the page a bit, so...
I previewed this section as it would look like this.
And then I checked how it would look like this.

Now, I should go make a template for a button labelled "make fun." Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar~) 14:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm starting to think you're going a bit overboard with all of this... Samstr (talk) 19:36, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Overboard with what? My caffeine rush from the time I posted that? Templates? Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar~) 01:59, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Probably the template rush. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 02:16, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I hope I'm not being problematic. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar~) 04:05, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Nah. ;) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 04:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Get your popcorn ready, folks.

|ISIS declares jihad against Taliban This is about to have more explosions than a Michael Bay film. Master Necromancer(fear me!) 12:19, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

We should watch people killing while munching popcorn? Grow up. Scream!! (talk) 12:36, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
(EC) Except that reality isn't a movie, and those explosions will be killing real people. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 12:37, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
If reality was a movie, someone would've fired or shot the director already.--Arisboch (talk) 12:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
i thought it would be the opposite, really isis is declaring jihad against extremists with somewhat similar views, well atleast this will make the U.S's (and the other countries i haven't really been keeping up on this mess) job easier Bubba41102 (talk) 12:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Debatable; it doesn't stand necessarily to worsen their diplomatic situation much more, and sitzkrieg might be the result on the ground. I say wait and see. PacWalker 13:39, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm not happy that people are dying but I'm happy that the ones dying will be the ones causing the death in the first place. Really, Daesh's greatest achievement for humanity is giving everyone a wakeup call for what Offensive-Jihad really is; a Crusade of the worst kind. Now the societies of the world just need to hammer that point in to their people.CorruptUser (talk) 13:55, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
One thing you can guarantee is that, among the one's dying, will be innocent bystanders. This "Oh, goody, the ragheads are killing each other so we won't have to" is not a completely noble sentiment. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 14:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
It is something of a hopeful sign that they're starting to turn on each other, though. It does suggest that the general Muslim world is starting to get burnt out on their act, and no longer finds the message compelling. When that happens, you double down. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 15:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Innocent bystanders are already dying. What the Islamic world needs is a Reformation, and the one in Europe didn't come about through people sitting at campfires singing kumbaya. It was done through horrific wars that hadn't been seen in Europe since, well, ever. It took centuries for Europeans to finally understand the concept of freedom of religion. The very idea that a TRUE CHRISTIAN could suffer a heretic to live was an alien concept, let alone having equal rights. The Islamic world was ahead of Europe at this time; they were fine with other religions so long as they were second class citizens, but the very idea that a Shia could be Shia in a Sunni society without any penalties is still an alien concept in the Mid-East. But ask yourself this; if you had a machine that with the press of a button would undo the reformation and all the deaths it caused (ignoring the grandfather paradox; you still get born), would you press it? Yes, I'd like Salafi-crusader crap to end with nothing but a sit in or the women having a sex strike, but that's not happening. CorruptUser (talk) 15:31, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
And you think really this is the start of the Islamic Reformation? Or even, Smerdis, that this is the start of them turning on each other. It's just another twist in the tail and cheering from the sidelines diminishes you. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 15:50, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
CorruptUser's comment struck a nerve with this history geek on a point which might seem trivial: The idea of "second class citizens" is a completely anachronism prior to (early) modern ideas of equality before the law, universal rights and citizenship. When discussing pre-modern societies these concepts are simply nonsensical. Practically no one before early modern European thinkers would view these ideas as either valid or desirable. The idea that every citizen is, in principle, equal is the defining characteristic of Enlightenment thinking (and then it was still circumscribed by most thinkers with regards to women and "barbarians"). ScepticWombat (talk) 15:59, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I never said this was a good thing, i know innocents will die, innocents will continue to die in every war past present and future, what i did say was that because the Taliban and ISIS are fighting both of them wont have as many resources to fight the rest of the world.Bubba41102 (talk) 19:12, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
"Start of them turning on each other"? Muslims have been at war with Muslims ever since Mo's uncle and his brother-in-law both declared themselves King of all Muslims. I'm just hoping it's the start of the end of this shit. Only time will tell, just the way no one "knew" the Reformation would happen until after it happened. But I just don't see the Islamic Reformation happening peacefully; I don't know if such things CAN happen peacefully.CorruptUser (talk) 19:32, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
The Christian Reformation didn't go over peacefully, either. Just look at the Holy Roman Empire. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 22:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
By "them" I didn't mean "all Muslims", but rather "militant groups like ISIS, Al Qaeda, and the Taliban." It always seems to work out that ideological differences between very similar militant groups are more keenly felt and salient than the differences with their proclaimed shared enemies. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 01:03, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Splitters! Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 11:55, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
ISIS vs the Taliban: it's a move against Iran on their eastern border and an attempt at a hostile takeover of an al Qaeda franchise. Islamic Reformation: back in the day the clerics had a monopoly on interpreting what God (or Allah) meant to say in the text; Luther and bin Laden posed challenges to the existing religious regime and made it possible for a lay person with a modicum of reading skills to extract their own meaning from the text, and ignore the authority and teaching of a professional clergy class. nobsI was in Bagdad when u wer swirling in yur Dads' bag. 00:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello, kettle? This is pot. I just wanted to tell you're black. Peace. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg THAT IS STILL LEGAL TENDER. I AM SANDWICH LAWYER. 16:47, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Nobs, so what you are saying is that when the Salafis turned on the Saudis because no way could Allah have meant for Christians (the US) to kill Muslims (Iraq, 1990) even when the Christians were killing the Muslims who were killing even more Muslims (Kuwait, Kurds, Iran), and Christians were dying in place of the Muslims who should've fought and died (Saudi Arabia), the people of Al Qaeda opened up their Qurans and said "this book says to kill everyone that isn't a either True Muslim or subservient to True Islam"? Is that really the most basic interpretation, or just the result of quote-mining by people who already want to do that anyway? CorruptUser (talk) 00:16, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

The Saudi Grand Mufti, Bin Baz, said the book said its OK for Christians, Jews, and women in the US Army to kill Muslims. Bin Laden, like Luther, challenged the infallibility of the established ruling order and issued his own interpretation of scripture. Up to then, the religious clerics everywhere always supported the regime, and the people followed suit. Bin Laden questioned the authority of the religious leaders, as Luther did, and the foundation of the secular leaders grew unstable. This was revolutionary - the people always blindly followed the advice of clerics, now they view them with suspicion, and go to scriptures for their own interpretation and understanding. 00:38, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
So then I guess my question then becomes, assuming that Islam does has its Reformation and people interpret the Quran in their own words, is their interpretation going to be one that allows for peaceful coexistance? Maybe I'm just being a bigot here, but when I look at the three main characters of the Abrahamic religions boiled down to their core stories, I see Moses the liberator, Jesus the self sacrifice, and Mohammed the conquerer. CorruptUser (talk) 00:56, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Gee, your view of Moshe is interesting. PacWalker 01:03, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
You're aware that all Mohammed conquered was the city of Mecca, right? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 01:10, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
His followers conquered almost all of Arabia before he died, though he himself never left the area of Mecca and Medina, AFAIK CorruptUser (talk) 01:16, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, there were a couple battles and a lot of people pledged their allegiance to him. Dunno if I'd really call it a conquest though. By comparison, there's a lot more war and killings going on in the Old Testament and it's a lot more bloody. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 01:29, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Machiavelli discusses Moses' leadership abilities here.
The Saudi Wahhabi religious establishment are kinda like Jesuits, trying to hold things together, and (IMHO) have shown themselves practical in the cultural mileau they're in. The Salafis are an odd collection of cultists like the Branch Davidians and David Koresh with his own interpretation of scripture. Moses the liberator, Jesus who said, "render unto Caesar...", and Mohammad who became Caesar. nobsI was in Bagdad when u wer swirling in yur Dads' bag. 01:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I should make clear that I don't see the "conquerer" in itself as being good or bad; the world was a much different world back then, brutal measures for brutal times. I live in a world where I don't have to wonder whether or not I'm going to eat next week, a world where I have to decide which of my children have to die so the others won't starve (the history books leave THAT out), I don't get to judge. But that goes both ways. The morals of a thousand years ago may have been what was best for the people living in the world that existed a thousand years ago, but that world is not the same one today. What may have been necessary for survival then may not be ideal now. I think that criticism applies to all static religions, in that they can't update with the times. CorruptUser (talk) 01:58, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Toynbee says,
[Jesus'] mortal offence in Roman eyes was that ‘he taught...as one having authority’ —an attitude which no Sovereign power is willing, in the last resort, to tolerate in any of its subjects...Muhammad’s attitude, in proclaiming his prophetic message, was the same; and assuredly he would have met the same fate at the same early stage if he had been conducting his prophetic mission inside, instead of outside, the Roman frontiers... and we can only conjecture, on the historic analogy of Jesus and the Christian Church, that if Muhammad had lived in these circumstances and had died, as Jesus had died, without offering resistance, then Islam might have become something different from, and spiritually higher than, what it has become in fact... The truth, then, seems to be that, in the invitation to Medina, Muhammad was confronted with a challenge to which his spirit failed to rise. In accepting the invitation, he was renouncing the sublime role of the nobly un-honoured prophet and contenting himself with the commonplace role of the magnificently successful statesman. The prospect of effective practical action which the call to Medina opened up for the Prophet’s long repressed and thwarted practical genius blinded the Prophet’s vision and warped his judgment. For even on the eve of the worldly call, in the second phase of his thirteen-years-long worldly failure in Mecca, Muhammad had been content with the faithful performance of a prophet’s duty, as is shown by his apostrophe to the idolators: ‘Is aught else laid upon God’s messengers but a plain delivery of the message?’ This simple understanding and acceptance of his prophetic mission were thrown to the winds by the Prophet when a new career was offered him in the alien political sphere...
This still doesn't answer my main question. Assuming the Reformation happens, will the end result of the Reformation be one in which Islam will coexist peacefully with near-everyone else? CorruptUser (talk) 13:37, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
In our lifetimes? With us surviving? That's be too nice to be true!!--Arisboch (talk) 13:47, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Given the propensity toward violence coupled with divine justification emanating from the underlying scriptures, I'd say clerics on both sides of the divide need to watch their backs for a long time to come. Eventually some sort of peaceful coexistence within Islam - the divisions among Salafis and the Sunni/Shia split - might emerge, but we're a long way off from any ecumenicalism. They're a big threat to each other it seems, so living peacefully with non-Muslims is a secondary issue.
Wikipedia says, "The constitution of Tunisia (passed after the Tunisian Revolution of 2011), has criminalized takfir by placing a ban on fatwas that promote takfir," which is a step in the right direction. That government has to survive much longer than three years to see if reform can take root. nobsI was in Bagdad when u wer swirling in yur Dads' bag. 20:55, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
So then, the question of what is a greater threat. The crime against humanity that is the thought police, or people thinking and advocating for crimes against humanity... CorruptUser (talk) 21:59, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
The clerics, or interpreters of the law, have always ruled the roost (as they do in Iran) in Islam. And they still do command much respect. In colonial times, Western powers promoted secular strongmen (monarchs or the Ba'ath Party, for example) to neutralize advocates of Sharia rule, but the secular rulers still had to court the clerics to gain legitimacy and popular support. Salafism basically is a challenge against clerics who have supported regimes in bed with Western powers (i.e., Muslim nation states that are UN members). The ummah, or the people, are not blindly following clerics who encourage submission to "the powers that be" (to use a New Testament Christian idiom). Individuals seek guidance from non-traditional, non-scholarly sources and are beginning to rely on their own understanding of the Muslim scriptures. 01:42, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
So then the REAL battlefield is in the rhetoric, in which Al Qaeda is trying to convince the general public that "real" Islam is all about crusading. And the US can't directly fight this war without shooting itself in the foot, being the enemy. Nor can the US openly fund anyone who would be willing to fight this war without being accused of being a US puppet. So Iran is free to spread their propaganda without the US being able to offer any retort. So how do you fight that war? I still say we need to change the language and use the term "crusader" instead of "jihadist"/"terrorist". CorruptUser (talk) 01:58, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
The course the US is on now (wisely or unwisely) is to promote, or rather acquiesce to Iran's foreign policy ambitions in this post-colonial era. Unlike US policy toward the USSR, China, and even Iraq 10 years ago, the notion peace and trade will promote democracy is out the window. An Ayatollah with his finger on a nuke guarantees no regime change in Iran for the next hundred years (if he doesn't nuke Tel Aviv and Paris in the interim). The flip side is, either the Sunnis acquiesce to minority Shia domination from Iran as the hegemonic peacekeeper in the region, or Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey team up or each pursue separately nuclear power status to resist Iranian dominance. nobsI was in Bagdad when u wer swirling in yur Dads' bag. 03:16, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Faux refuting its own arguments

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoBnrLGMFL8&feature=youtu.be&t=28s Did I accidentally fall into a parallel universe, or did Fox just support legalization? Holy lack of self-awareness, batman! Master Necromancer(fear me!) 15:12, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I have a feeling there's more to the context, but this is so surreal to me. Master Necromancer(fear me!) 15:19, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Stopped clock. It happens. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:43, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Look at how many people work there. Surely, some drift in their opinions will occur. In fact, it occurs regularly. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar~) 13:54, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

[edit] BBC Coalition Builder

This thing is so fun to play with and I'm not even British. What do you guys I think? Do any of you find it interesting or I am just easily entertained (or both)? Alsto003 (talk) 00:45, 24 April 2015 (UTC) Alex

With the result I got, Labour would have to form a coalition with the Lib Dems and SNP to get a majority. >.> 141.134.75.236 (talk) 01:10, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
I am having some trouble trying to follow Mr. Miliband's instructions regarding coalition building without SNP. However in a couple of instances I was able to build a Labour Coalition without SNP, by allying them with the Lib Dems, Plaid Cymru, Alliance, and the Democratic Unionist Party (which I am told, is willing to partner with Labour despite being very Conservative), the result in all of those instance was only a very narrow lead. In one instance it all added up to exactly 326 votes. Alsto003 (talk) 01:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC) Alex
Phew, that's a lot of parties. I think they'd more likely go for a minority cabinet in such a case. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 01:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
You know, I think the pundits have this one wrong. Take what is the likely outcome, neither Tory or Labour have enough seats to form a majority, and then assume that the Tories + DUP or Lib Dems don't have the seats to form a coalition, (there is no chance of Tory + Lib Dem + DUP coalition, the DUP and Lib Dems are too ideologically opposed for that to happen), I think the smartest play is for Labour to say that they do not believe they have the confidence of the house to form a majority. UK constitution requires the currently serving government to remain in power until a new government can be formed (no resignation as party allowed), and with the new fixed terms legislation, a 2/3 majority vote needs to pass to dissolve Parliament and trigger another election. Labour could just sit there in opposition and, in informal coalition with the Lib Dems and SNP, not let anything proposed by the Government pass and, at the same time, propose amendments that ideologically speaking, the Lib Dems and SNP together would have to support, or the Tories themselves would have to support. And all the while the Tories would be stuck in power, flailing around and unable to get anything done without the support of Labour.--Stunteddwarf Jabba de Chops 02:17, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
LibDem MPs after this election? Don't be daft. Sphincter (talk) 12:26, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Yay British politics, something i know literally nothing about, at least there is more diversity in U.K parliament than in U.S congress/senate. I tried it and i had literally no idea what i was doing Bubba41102 (talk) 12:53, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, current predictions put the LDs losing just over half their seats, which would still leave them with 26. Assume a change of power as the orangebookers are kicked out of the leadership positions and add in the projected SNP wins (55) that gives a total of 81 seats that could be used by somebody with the nous to use it.--Stunteddwarf Jabba de Chops 11:16, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
I'd be very inpressed if the SNP won 55 seats, what with there only being 52 seats contested. Edit: talking rubbish, sorry Grumblejaws (talk) 13:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Term for this?

My userpage says that I am in atheist. However its slightly more complicated than that. I am an atheist in a sense of Yaweh. Allah, or Zeus. However I am unsure of the existence of a deist, or pantheistic god. Any one word term for this? Because i am sick of having to say this people everytime they ask my religious beliefs 'Legionwhat do you want from me 11:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Agnostic-pantheist maybe (the belief that it impossible to know if there are higher forces, but if there are then they are pantheistic). Or Pantheistic-agnostic (the belief that there are higher forces in nature that are pantheistic in nature, but it is impossible to prove their existence). Those two seem to be closest I can find.--Stunteddwarf Jabba de Chops 11:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Agnostic covers it. ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 11:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, it's agnosticism. Be warned, though: It has a (sometimes truthful) reputation for being used by atheists that just want to avoid the word "atheist." Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar~) 13:45, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
You don't have to identify as anything, you know. If your stance is "I think pretty much all the gods from human religions/mythologies are bullshit, but I dunno if there might be any deities somewhere out there in the vastness of the universe" then you can just say that. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 15:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
That's not much different from what the OP said, which he/she said he's sick of having to explain. If s/he's looking for a concise answer, agnostic would cover it. WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 16:23, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Sure, but agnostic also covers a whole lot of other positions too. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 16:31, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
So does any single-word summary. WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:04, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
I call myself both atheist and agnostic. By that I just mean I don't know whether or not a god(s) exists but I don't believe in one either. After all it seems silly to say you firmly believe something unless you have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt for it's existence. All that being said, even if you could conclusively prove to me that a god exists does that in and of itself imply we should worship them? If god were evil why should we respect him? Wouldn't it be better then to rot in hell knowing you have done the right thing than it is to live beside god knowing you are an accomplice to their crimes?
Im a he, by the way 'Legionwhat do you want from me 19:36, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Anybody asks about my religious leanings, I tell em I'm a Nunya. 75.133.2.98 (talk) 12:42, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Guess what, everybody?

So close. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar~) 15:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

[edit] ABSOLUTE VICTORY

It has the potential to make things a little bit less ugly. Feel free to use this from now on, y'all. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar~) 15:22, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

...I'm probably having too much fun. Must be all that soda just a while ago. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar~) 15:33, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Looks nice. ;) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 15:35, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
What all this tells me is that... the image in your sig has a white background, not a transparent one. ;P PacWalker 15:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
It's not white. It's the same image as the one on my page. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar~) 15:47, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Oops. It being against the green tricked me. PacWalker 15:55, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
However I like the color thing, because the pink/puke was no. PacWalker 16:08, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
wut? Samstr (talk) 15:58, 25 April 2015 (UTC)




This may be getting too cluttered, now. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar~) 07:35, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

[edit] The Hoff

He's back, and it is beautiful. [1] Samstr (talk) 16:28, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

The movie it's from, wp:Kung Fury - it is a moral imperative to WATCH THE SHIT out of this when it's released next month. Here's the trailer - David Gerard (talk) 19:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Morally imperative ritual observances? But I thought this was RATIONALWiki... PacWalker 19:38, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Drink! 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
I might well watch it. :P Also have you seen this one? [2] Samstr (talk) 02:37, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
This trailer is on the world-wide spider-web so that the Hoff can GUI our IPs and log on to us! Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar~) 00:31, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I think hoffs greates appearance ever, is in the SpongeBob Movie (og) dat chest cannon do.

[edit] CAPTCHA ads

Does RW get money from them? Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 19:35, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Not as far as I know - David Gerard (talk) 15:57, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

The contributions of the editors of RW have made me a better human being, and specifically helped overcome many personal resentments and character defects. So Thank you ConservapediaEditor (talk) 02:20, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, that's nice. Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. Moderator 15:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Who is Katie Hopkins?

I heard in the news that she's another right-wing demagogue, but... What makes her especially bad? Who is she? I feel like I took my finger off the pulse of British politics for a few days and now everything's gone weird. Fill me in please! DarkFire (talk) 11:25, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Never heard of her before, but then I don't follow UK politics closely. After a rather cursory online search she seems to be your garden variety The Scum demagogue with that demographic's usual views on anything less[wp] than blue-blooded Englishness, incl. other inhabitants of the British Isles. ScepticWombat (talk) 12:15, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
She's said a lot of stupid & offensive things, but the current furore is mostly about this piece. WėąṣėḷőįďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 12:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm Jack's complete lack of surprise... ScepticWombat (talk) 12:40, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
She came to public attention as an especially brusque contestant on the British version of The Apprentice a few years back and has been coasting along on the reality tv/big-mouth-for-hire circuit since then. For the most part her statements have been considered too stupid and try-hard to take seriously but in the past few months she's been doubling down on the nastiness (e.g. calling Palestinians "rodents", describing a Scottish ebola infectee transferred to a specialist London hospital as an "ebola bomb in the form of [a] sweaty Glaswegian") and the article Weaseloid referenced has led to a meta-discussion on whether or not there's now an incentive to rebut the things she says at the cost of giving her the attention she so badly wants. Grumblejaws (talk) 18:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Katie Hopkins says she will leave the country if Ed Miliband becomes PM. Has been called the best reason to support Miliband (Labour) to date. Scream!! (talk) 19:53, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
She almost sounds more racist than the shitbags we have stateside. I can't actually recall anyone in the states calling anyone "cockroaches".Samstr (talk) 21:22, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Maybe our shitbags are smart enough not to use "cockroaches" in front of a reporter's microphone. I heard it in the US in the middle nineties, in a workplace context of cheap labor from South and Central America. In print or other mainstream media, not so much. Alec Sanderson (talk) 21:39, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
"Maybe our shitbags are smart enough not to use "cockroaches" in front of a reporter's microphone" - just to be clear, this was something she said quite openly in her column in The Sun, not some off-the-record indiscretion. Grumblejaws (talk) 09:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
That might qualify as indictable hate speech in some countries. I know of a Danish case from 1980 in which an MP from the populist and increasingly racist Progress Party (the forerunner of the Danish People's Party) was first sentenced to pay a fine and then to 14 days in the slammer (but was pardoned) under a law prohibiting hate speech towards religious, ethnic, sexual, or national groups for his assertion that immigrants "breed like rats". ScepticWombat (talk) 10:01, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
A lot of people would like to see her prosecuted under the UK's native hate speech laws. I'm somewhat split over the issue; I think the rule of law requires that if people if the likes of Harry Hammond can be indicted for their activities, Hopkins and her publishers should at least be officially cautioned. On the other hand, my own personal reservations about the efficacy of and thus justification for hate speech laws leads me to a place where I'd rather see the law intervening in none of these cases. Grumblejaws (talk) 11:01, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree that hate speech laws are somewhat iffy, but I think the 1980 Danish case may also have been influenced by the fact that the rat imagery was used by the Nazis in The Eternal Jew[wp] and that in 1980 there were still a lot of Danes who had personally experienced WWII and the occupation, making the use of such imagery even more beyond the pale. The record since then has been relatively patchy (few have been prosecuted and very few convicted and most of them were only fined less than $1000), so the screaming persecution complex among Danish wingnuts over what they claim is a chilling effect (BS, considering the stridency of (some) Danish anti-immigration debates) is really a manufactroversy. ScepticWombat (talk) 12:09, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
By that logic there are probably a fair number of Rwandan refugees in the UK that remember being referred to as cockroaches, and that's far more recent. I'm rather against hate speech laws for the most part as I think they tend to stifle discourse. AyzmoCheers 13:17, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
A) Wingnut Katie didn't mouth off in Rwanda, B) the point of hate speech laws is to "stifle discourse", based on the experience of the kinds of discourse produced by guys like this (yes, yes, I know this is turning into a total Godwin fest, but what the hell). ScepticWombat (talk) 14:03, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
A lot of people have rightly been making comparisons to Goebbels/Steicher. Less people have been pointing out that those were prosecuted during the Weimar Republic rule under what today we would call hate speech laws, to no effect on the rise of the Nazis. Grumblejaws (talk) 14:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── First of all, Weimar Germany was a shaky state, and an inability to effectively prosecute Goebbels in that climate is hardly a good argument against hate speech laws.
Secondly, Goebbels' parliamentary immunity after 1928 protected him from such prosecution.
Thirdly, Goebbels and Streicher were not prosecuted for hate speech (because no such clauses existed), but for slander and libel which don't offer much, if any, protection when the target is a wide group (e.g. Jews) rather than individuals.
Fourthly, though I know that such self-proclaimed freedom of speech advocates as Danish editor Flemming Rose (of Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoon fame) claims that Nazi precedents show that hate speech laws are ineffective, this not only ignores that we (fortunately) don't live in Weimar Germany, but also that exactly because of the connection between these laws and the likes of Goebbels, being convicted of hate speech is far more likely to carry the kind of stigma that would have been unimaginable in Weimar Germany.
[Cutting rant about Rose - we can take that later] ;-) ScepticWombat (talk) 18:20, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
An additional fifth point turns Rose's argument on its head: There appears to be two main groups lobbying against hate speech laws. One is the "civil libertarians" who simply oppose such limitations on civil liberties in general. The other is composed of xenophobes and racists who don't like to be prosecuted. Now if Rose's claims about hate speech laws being wholly ineffectual are correct, why does the latter group oppose them? Also, Goebbels liked his parliamentary immunity because it protected him from libel and slander suits (again, suggesting that they were at least of concern to him).
Rose sets up a false dilemma/straw man in which supporters of hate speech laws are made out as believing that such legislation by itself can prevent a Nazi-like takeover (something I doubt even the most enthusiastic supporter of such laws would be naive enough to think), and that the only alternative is no hate speech legislation at all. This is both a tendentious framing of the argument and an equally dubious use of historical analogy. ScepticWombat (talk) 10:37, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

First of all, Weimar Germany was a shaky state, and an inability to effectively prosecute Goebbels in that climate is hardly a good argument against hate speech laws” – this is true, but then the same “different climate” reasoning can be used to detract from any intended cautionary note in comparing Steicher’s “cockroaches” statement to Hopkins’s article, the latter being published to great media scrutiny in modern Britain.
Goebbels and Streicher were not prosecuted for hate speech (because no such clauses existed), but for slander and libel which don't offer much, if any, protection when the target is a wide group (e.g. Jews) rather than individuals” – this is an equivocation; they were nominally prosecuted for libel, but this was ipso facto done as a function of the then penal code, with punitive fines and prison sentences attached (and I don’t think it’s so easy to handwave the fact that Streicher was eventually jailed for two months) rather than treated as a civil tort, which AFAIA is how most jurisdictions would treat a libel action today. The relevant portions of the code were drafted so as to give protection to religiously-defined groups. This is why I very deliberately used the above phrase “what today would called hate speech laws”.
The other is composed of xenophobes and racists who don't like to be prosecuted. Now if Rose's claims about hate speech laws being wholly ineffectual are correct, why does the latter group oppose them” – from what I have read of him (namely the extract from his book where he discusses Streicher and where, as I suspect you have clocked, the issue was brought to my attention via Index on Censorship) that isn’t what he claims. His position is that hate speech laws haven’t been shown to strike a balance between lessening the plight of oppressed minorities and the encroachment of free expression they impose. Indeed, if hate speech laws were toothless instruments, he wouldn’t have half the impetus for taking the stance he does.
Rose sets up a false dilemma/straw man in which supporters of hate speech laws are made out as believing that such legislation by itself can prevent a Nazi-like takeover (something I doubt even the most enthusiastic supporter of such laws would be naive enough to think), and that the only alternative is no hate speech legislation at all.” Again, I don’t think this is accurate. He has said that “to claim that the Holocaust could have been prevented if only anti-Semitic speech and Nazi propaganda had been banned was to stretch a point” but this was in response to Per Stig Møller’s statement warning about the downsides of free speech that “anti-semitic rhetoric eventually led to...the Final Solution”. I interpreted his overall point as being that Western democracies have tended to esteem hate speech laws on the basis of their spirit and intent rather than appraise them on their downsides and overall efficacy .Grumblejaws (talk) 17:16, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Glaswegian

just curious but how do you get Glaswegian from a resident of Glasgow ? Glasgowian I could understand. Hamster (talk) 13:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

It's because the local accent sounds more like Norwegian than English. BicyclewheelModerator 14:10, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Who cares what it is called, it sounds like beautiful music anyway.... 194.246.46.15 (talk) 14:41, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
It was an aesthetic mistake when James VI and I decided to move his capitol to London rather than staying in Edinburgh, even though then as now the English were apparently more politically tractable than the Scots. The Brits would have been spared the obloquy of having a slovenly non-rhotic dialect as their prestige variant. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 17:22, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Wow, you were part of the reason he moved his capitol? Pun disclaimer: Yes, I know he is both James VI and James I, and I know why it's in that order Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar~) 04:21, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
The same way you get Cantabrigian out of Cambridge, I presume. 18.189.113.126 (talk) 18:58, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
See also: Liverpudlian; Mancunian; Novocastrian; etc. Scream!! (talk) 11:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
People from Halifax, Nova Scotia are Haligonians. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 17:28, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

[edit] What sort of candidate would give the Republicans the best odds against Hillary Rodham Clinton?

If they had any black women as candidates it could divide the voters that want to elect a first-X-in-the-White-House-type candidate. Or maybe a Native American woman? Though for some mysterious reason the indigenous population of the Americas don't get much publicity in American politics. I'm sure they'll just go with an old white guy like Jeb Bush, though. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:48, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm probably an awful person for saying this, but my impression is that many public-figure Black Republicans are narcissists and publicity hounds; like Clarence Thomas, the ultimate affirmative action baby, or Alan Keyes. On the other hand, Condoleeza Rice might be a viable candidate, if she could make it through the primaries. And I'd vote for Colin Powell over Hillary Clinton in a heartbeat. I suspect neither of those two are willing to make the right noises to be nominated by the Republican base; there is so little debate on big issues in the Republican Party that it's rather creepy; they seem to have been entirely captured by the white trash. A relatively sane Native Republican might be easier to find, given that most Natives live in heavily Republican Western states and at least some of the tribes have significant ties to the oil and gambling businesses. I just don't know of any that are public figures; then again I live in the wrong part of the country to have opportunities to have heard of such. Nobody talks much about Elizabeth Warren's status as a fake Native. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 22:22, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Condoleeza has too much baggage at this point. Her association with Dubya is damaging for many, she's far too centrist for the far right, and the rumors (almost wrote "tumors") of her lesbianism alienate the Conservative base. I can't think of any Native American politicians on a national level. Wikipedia lists two active Congressmen: Tom Cole and Markwayne Mullin, both GOP. Tom Cole seems to have some of the credentials, but none of the name recognition. I'm still expecting Jindal to run. He's got the name recognition, but most people don't know about the bad shit. Scott Walker has too much baggage, as does Christie. I honestly think most people are legitimately fed up with the Bush family, so I don't see Jeb as a viable option, even for the GOP. The only one I can see as someone who could confidently go against Hillary would be Jindal. AyzmoCheers 23:01, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I believe both Rice and Powell have made it pretty clear that they're not interested in the presidency anyway. I used to think that Jeb might be GOP's best shot, but then I saw his poll numbers. I fully expect them to nominate Santorum because that's how they roll. Vulpius (talk) 23:03, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Why would they nominate the frothy residue from anal sex? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 23:59, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I hope not just so we don't hear that any more. --Miekal 00:24, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
It's not usually my style of humour,Please, no pun but if he were somehow able to get elected... I would probably end up calling him "President Lubeshit." Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar~) 04:43, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Bobby "Evil Gaze" Jindal? I doubt it. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 23:58, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
If the hardcore-single issue feminist vote, who would vote for a woman because she's a woman constitute 6% in a general election, I'd be amazed. It's probably 3-4% at most, which still could be wishful thinking. Even that number would have to be offset by conservative feminists, who in all likelihood are undercounted, and wouldn't vote for Hillary Clinton under any circumstances. nobsI was in Bagdad when u wer swirling in yur Dads' bag. 02:29, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Hillary Clinton's biggest advantage and problem is being Hillary Clinton: She does have huge pull, but she also has a big "dislike factor" (people who won't vote for her no matter what). While definitely not a shoe in for POTUS, her chances look pretty decent. The GOP problem seems to be finding someone who can actually do something beyond preaching to the Republican choir on election day. Jeb Bush with his possibility (far from certain) of pulling in more of the Latino vote is probably the best bet after Chris Christie blew up his avuncular boisterous bruiser image with Bridgegate and other assorted sleasery.
I wouldn't be too fixated on poll numbers for anyone but Hillary Clinton because she's not only such a fixture of U.S. politics that most voters probably have an opinion on her, but she's also effectively the only candidate that they are likely to have actually pictured in the White House beyond a hazy "What if?"-scenario. Jeb Bush has hardly revved up the heavy artillery, nor have the Very Serious People-brigade begun to chip in (and I'm pretty sure they won't be cheering on "President Lubeshit"). Sure, Jeb Bush has a harder time facing the populists and religious wingnut segments, but I still very much doubt that the Lubeshitter will be the last man standing. He may simply be the guy who has his "flavour of the week"-moment first (I direct your attention to that phenomenon during the 2012 Republican Party presidential nomination).
Probably the best anti-Hillary campaign option(already vigorously pursued) of the GOP is to run with the "Washington apparat-chick" story (as if their own bunch were any more of a breath of fresh air) which is why Hillary is already doing her "connecting with the common people"-shtick. In the end, bar Jeb Bush managing to convince hosts of Latino voters or another candidate similarly breaking out of the base demographics, the GOP's best bet seems to be to hope for a combination of apathy (a low turnout) and that their base's well-known Clintonophobia mobilise more of them on election day than the Clinton machine can convince to even go to vote.
An alternative would be to run with Rand Paul. The guy is a wacko, but he has perfected the "plucky populist standing up the Washington establishment"-routine. This would likely be very effective because it again plays to the weakness (but also strength) of Hillary: Her experience and insider status. Never mind that Paul Jr. has inherited his spiel from his daddy and that he's hardly an Andrew Jackson brought to Washington on a tide of backwoodsmen, but pretty much every bit the Washingtonian Hillary is taking flak for being. He can play the role convincingly enough to stand a long odds chance of maybe riding his pseudo-populism all the way (back) to Washington. ScepticWombat (talk) 06:33, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Aww, I liked Chris Christie. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg Get the paddles, he's having a cancer! 12:09, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
I think the Republicans' best chance is if another Democrat comes forth who actually has some heat and enthusiasm behind them. Hillary is just kind of "inevitable" at this point, so someone with real enthusiasm could potentially split the vote. Jeb Bush's family connections work against him this time, Romney is old news, the state of Jindal's state would kill him with anyone too smart to live there (says a guy living in Florida...), Christie's too corrupt and he buddied up to Dems for awhile there, Rand Paul's going to drop out when he's tricked people out of enough fundraising money, and Ted Cruz is Canadian. Maybe Rubio is their best shot right now but Republicans have a deep bench full of very shallow people. User:PsychoGecko 18:04, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Here's another scenario: Hillary, the inevitable, gets womped by a dark horse, let's call em Candidate X, in the primaries. The Democrats are thrown into a tailspin. After the Convention, the public finally gets to know Candidate X and what he/she stands for, but there is little time to debate and discuss anything beyond the likeability factor (isn't this the way American elections generally have proceeded anyway, with few exceptions, since at least Carter?, with the old-time household names like Ford, Mondale, Papa Bush, Dole, Gore, Kerry, and McCain getting their ass handed to them, often by a new up comer? nobsI was in Bagdad when u wer swirling in yur Dads' bag. 03:33, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

[edit] 270

Barring some epic unforeseeable disaster (..." gettin' caught with a live boy or a dead girl," as one wag put it) on the part of the Democratic candidate, is there any combination of winnable states that gets the GOP to the magic number, regardless of who they run? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 03:04, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Florida (29), North Carolina (15), Ohio (18), Pennsylvania (20), Michigan (16), and Wisconsin (10) are all in play (added to the 206 base in the 2012 election). Colorado (9) and a few others, too. nobsI was in Bagdad when u wer swirling in yur Dads' bag. 04:00, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
And bear in mind that "hypothetical republican candidate" doesn't tend to poll as well among the base as whomever actually wins their primary. Traditionally speaking republicans "fall in line" as the election approaches. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 13:17, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
It's always possible for any candidate to win. However, in the last 2 the GOP basically shot themselves in the foot and didn't realize things like recording devices exist. Seeing Romney vs. Romney was pretty Epic though on all his flip flops. It might be nice to have someone help run a professional campaign. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 14:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Look, 2012, every single republican candidate made at least one terrible mistake that completely sank their chances. Every single one. That's not a guarantee that it will happen again. To be honest, there's no reason to believe it will happen again at all. Rand Paul and Ted Cruz are both excellent bullshitters who are unlikely to "forget the third one" or accidentally state their opinion on half of Americans in public. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 14:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Dunno about Cruz, but at least our article on Paul doesn't make the possibility of a campaign-halting gaffe sound unlikely. Vulpius (talk) 15:30, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
(EC) I'm not sure if we watch the same things, but both Rand and Ted have already made some pretty delusional statements. Ted made enough even Fox is calling him an idiot for some of them. It looks like it will be a 2012 all over again, with the parade of idiots, so far. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 15:47, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
All the crazy things he says are one thing, along with the fact that even Republicans consider him an idiotic attention whore. But I think one of the things that will ultimately have to be addressed is the fact that he was born in Canada. All rationalizing from people who didn't bother to speak up any time before this aside, not being born on U.S. soil is likely to hurt him with a lot of regular folks. They've spent years making a "born in Kenya, can't be president" bed. Time to lie in it. User:PsychoGecko 17:53, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Cruz' skin is not dark enough to warrant Birtherism. You don't really think, that this whole Birtherism was really about Obama's birth certificate now, do you?--Arisboch (talk) 18:04, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
The thing about having an ignorant base is that it can work against them, too. The Southern Strategy was about fighting civil rights and integration with talk of government not telling businesses what to do and staying out of people's lives. You may recognize this as the modern Republican platform even for the ones who don't know it was all about racism. It won't stop all of them. Heck, I know a black woman in her twenties who is a birther and a Cruz supporter. But I think it'll work against more of their own base than they realize.User:PsychoGecko 18:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
It didn't really seem to hurt the popularity with the base to have Palin proclaiming Obama not experienced enough to be president...why would stupid hypocrisy affect birthers? I can't wait for the new quotes that will be generated by the GOP picks. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 18:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Yah but the question above is about what combination of states total 270. I listed off at least 108 in play to add to 206. I'd like to add Virginia (13), Iowa (6), and Nevada (6). That's about 142 in play. Ohio, again as usual, is key. So is PA, MI, and WI, which means labor, jobs, and the Democrats handling of the economy is the issue. WI, MI, and OH all currently have Republican governors. So do the supposed Blue states of Illinois (20 electors), Iowa, Nevada, and a few others. It is appealing to what matters to the voters in these states that elected a GOP majority US Senate, Republican Governors and State Chambers that matters, not generic national issues (like identity politics, for example). And one big issue is a desire for more local control, less one-size-fits-all Washington intrusion. nobsI was in Bagdad when u wer swirling in yur Dads' bag. 02:42, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


[edit] Salvageable stuff in Portuguese

  • Geocentrismo: Ranting axe grinding stuff against Olavo de Carvalho. Not salvageable.
  • Criacionismo: Ranting axe grinding stuff against Olavo de Carvalho. Not salvageable.
  • Ensino doméstico: Largely a boring outline of Brazilian laws without digging deep into the subject. Not salvageable.
  • Homeopatia: Has some serious axe-grinding about Brazilian politics, but it's otherwise somewhat decent. Salvageable.
  • Associação Racionalista de Céticos e Ateus (português): A stub about an EDIT:irrelevant atheist group. Salvageable if atheist groups are on-mission. Not salvageable.
  • Parapsicologia: Useless stub without any actual substance. Not salvageable.

Others I didn't mention where absolutely worthless and some did have Jew-baiting. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg Get the paddles, he's having a cancer! 18:35, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Atheist groups are on mission to a degree, but how relevant of a group are they that they should have their own article?--Miekal 19:42, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Seems pretty small and irrelevant. I've nuked it. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg That rug really tied the room together. 20:21, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Eram mais de 35 verbetes em português! Eu era Sysop do RationalWiki. Por favor, analisem os cinco exemplos citados. LeandroTelesRocha (talk) 03:46, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Everyone is a sysop on Rationalwiki. Even some Jews. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 03:51, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Eu fui Sysop. Não sou mais. LeandroTelesRocha (talk) 04:13, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Brilliant observation. I guess the Mossad happened. PacWalker 04:15, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Perguntem para a ADL (http://www.adl.org) o que aconteceu. LeandroTelesRocha (talk) 17:31, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
You're not a sysop anymore because 1. your articles were problematic for a number of reasons (notably: Jew-baiting and axe-grinding) 2. You launched an anti-semitic attack on one of our editors. You're done here. goodbye. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 04:24, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
1) A sede do RationalWiki é nos Estados Unidos. Existem duas versões, uma em inglês e outra em russo. E o terceiro idioma mais usado no RationalWiki é o francês. É natural o RationalWiki apresentar um ponto de vista (um viés ideológico) estadunidense e Israel é aliado dos Estados Unidos, assim como a Grã-Bretanha, a Arábia Saudita e outros países, inclusive o Brasil. 2) Eu não ofendi nenhum usuário do RationalWiki com termos antissemitas. O usuário supostamente ofendido é identificado na página de usuário como judeu, bissexual e portador de transtorno bipolar. E existe uma bandeira de Israel na página. Se eu tivesse a intenção de ofender eu poderia ter usado termos discriminatórios contra homossexuais e portadores de doenças psiquiátricas. Eu não fiz isso porque não foi intencional. 3) Se o usuário é judeu e sionista, isso é um fato e não uma ofensa. 4) Eu disse que os verbetes foram apagados por motivos políticos. Acusar injustamente um usuário brasileiro do RationalWiki de antissemitismo é persecutório, mas penso que os leitores do debate entenderão o que realmente aconteceu. LeandroTelesRocha (talk) 17:28, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
"but I think readers understand the debate what really happened" That I have to get a broken translation from Google to understand a word you said really makes me doubt they'll ever see this in your favor. You accused a jewish user of being a zionist and deleting articles for political reasons - Why would we trust the word of you over an established user? --Miekal 17:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
O.K. Não sou antissemita. Eu vou fundar meu próprio Wiki. LeandroTelesRocha (talk) 17:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
You go do that. Make sure to rant about how we're zionist anarchist dictatorship supporters or whatever it is you accused us of. --Miekal 17:44, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Didn't you understand? He didn't use homophobic terms, therefore he's not an antisemite!!1 |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Star of David.png Never got enough hugs as a kid 17:48, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Meu verbete sobre Ahmed Rami (português) não é antissemita. Eu contei a história do refugiado político na Suécia com imparcialidade e sem calúnias. LeandroTelesRocha (talk) 17:39, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Translation:
1. RationalWiki's HQ is in the USA. There are two versions, one in English and one in Russian. The third most used in RW language is French. It's natural of RW to present an American point of view, and Israel is an ally of the USA, as well as the UK, Saudi Arabia and other countries, even Brazil. 2. I did not offend any user of RW with antisemitic terms. The supposedly offended user identifies himself in his userpage as a Jew, a bisexual and a Zionist, as well as having bipolar disorder. (TL Note: wut) And there is a flag of Israel in the page. If I had the intention to offend I could've used discriminatory terms against homosexuals and mental illness patients. I can't see how I could've intentionally done it. 3. That user is a Jew and a Zionist, (TL note: WUT) that's a fact and not an offense. 4. He says the entries were shut down for political reasons. Injustly accusing a Brazilian user of RW of antisemitism is persecution, and I think that readers of this debate will understand what really happened.
Stay classy, LTR. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Star of David.png But if I don't use the mayonnaise then how will her legs grow back? 17:45, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
What really happened< LTR, was all your articles were crap. They were nominated for deletion because they were all crap. You started talking like an anti-semite. You invited others to heap abuse on you by doing that. Now sod off! Spud (talk) 17:50, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
And now he topped himself by implicitly accusing us of being shills for the Israeli government and implicitly saying that he's an even bigger piece of shit beyond his antisemitism. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Star of David.png H҉̴̶͘͝a̛͜͠͏͏t̷̛͢e̷̴͘҉.͟͠ ̶͜L̨͢͝ę͘͢t͘҉̢ ̵҉͢͝͝m̵̧̛͜é̢̛͝ ͏͝͏̢͟t͏̕͞e̶̛͘͘͞l̶̛͜͠͝l̵̕͠͞͝ ͏͏y̕ǫ̸̶́͠u͜͞҉́ ̴h̴̀̕͠͠o͠҉́ẃ̶̶͘͢ ̨̢m̴̢͢u̷͠ć̕͏h̵̶̴̕͘ ҉͘I̴̢̧'̶̴v̨́͏e̶̸͟ ́͟͏̧c̵̸̨͘o̸̕m̴͜͡e̢̧̡͟ ̵̧́t̢͟ò̷ ͜h͏̷á̵͘͏͝t̷͢e̢̛̕ ̸̢̛ý̢̧͜͝ó̢́̕u̵̸͞ ̡̨͜͜͝ş̶́͝͡i̵̡n̴̵̛̛͠c̴̸͘é҉̸̛͡ ̴̀I̸҉̢̢͠ ͏͞b̵̶̧̀͠e̸̢͟͠g̢̧̀á̸͞n̴̵̡͟͏ ͘͏̕͝t҉̡̛͞ò̴ ̵̀ĺ́̕į̸̕̕v̸̨̨ȩ́͢҉̶.̛͢͝ ̵̧̢ 17:54, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
O Sionismo é um movimento político (partidário) de extrema-direita e de ocupação israelense. Um fato pouco divulgado na mídia. A Palestina é muito mais antiga que Israel. Existem muitos sionistas nos Estados Unidos, em Israel, brasileiros (Adolpho Bloch, dono da TV Manchete, por exemplo, um imigrante judeu e sionista). Foi isso que eu quis dizer. Quanto aos banqueiros, outro fato público e notório, facilmente constatável. O Banco Safra é o melhor exemplo, de uma rica família de judeus que imigraram da Síria para o Brasil. LeandroTelesRocha (talk) 17:58, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Dude, stop doubling down on Zionism crap. Nobody here is going to take that bullshit seriously. You're just digging yourself even deeper in the eyes of RW users and ultimately just exposing yourself as a piece of crap. Your rant there did not help at all. Dude, just... stop. DO. YOU. UNDERSTAND? |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Star of David.png THAT IS STILL LEGAL TENDER. I AM SANDWICH LAWYER. 18:02, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Meu verbete sobre Judith Reisman (português) não é antissemita. Ela é uma caluniadora que faz acusações sem provas contra Alfred Kinsey (português) por puro macartismo (perseguição contra homossexuais). LeandroTelesRocha (talk) 17:39, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Translation: Zionism is a far-right political movement of the Israeli occupation. It's a fact not widely reported on media. Palestine is much older than Israel. There are a lot of Zionists in the United States, in Israel, Brazilians (Adolpho Bloch, the owner of TV Manchete, for instance, is a Jewish and Zionist immigrant). That's all I wanted to say. About bankers, another notorious fact, easily observable. The Safra Bank (Brazilian bank) is the best example, owned by a wealthy family of Jews who immigrated from Syria to Brazil. --179.208.208.165 (talk) 22:05, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
"Far-right?" Complete horseshit! There are Zionists on the left fringe all the way to the right one. Zionism is a rather diverse political movement.--Arisboch (talk) 22:44, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Eh, "far-right" is often used as a label for supremacist or prominently nationalistic movements/parties. It doesn't necessarily mean they can't also have left leanings. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:51, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm Brazilian, so I can understand why he said it's far-right. Some Brazilian left-wingers and left-wing parties (like PC do B) often say that Zionism is far-right. Obviously it's nonsense, but they think that the end of Zionism would bring peace and that every Zionist supports the occupation of Palestinian territories. --179.208.208.165 (talk) 23:07, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

[edit] So, this brings up an interesting and missional question

Exactly how common is this hyperbolic anti-Zionism thing in Brazil? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 23:37, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Brazil is not generally an anti-Semitic or anti-Zionist country. We have a big Jewish community and also a big Arab community. As I said before, there's a misconception that relates Israeli-Palestinian conflict to the political spectrum. Usually, if you say you are a supporter of the Palestinians you are associated to left-wing, and if you say you support Israel, you are associated to the right-wing. Although Israel was governed by the left-wing for almost 30 years, the Kibbutz, etc, that's how many people think. I also notice a polarization: people think they have to pick a side on the conflict. They think that if you support Palestinian independence you have to be against Israel and Zionism and if you support Israel you have to be against Palestinians, while a real solution to the conflict would only be possible with two states. As I also said, I think left-wing parties in Brazil, like the Communist Party of Brazil (PC do B) and "Socialism and Freedom Party" (PSOL) oppose Zionism so much because Israel is an ally of the USA. There's a kind of "anti-imperialist" rhetoric in their ideologies, much similar to Hugo Chávez. For instance, PSOL burned a flag of Israel before the elections for the municipal assembly of Rio de Janeiro. --179.208.208.165 (talk) 00:19, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, it has area arcosh(x), I believe... PacWalker 00:21, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
*a sector with area arcosh(x)... whatever. I can see what I mean; that's what counts, right? PacWalker 00:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
A Brazilian who speaks good English and appears to have a mayure and reasonable understanding of politics. Would you like to create an account and translate some articles into Portuguese? Spud (talk) 03:53, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

[edit] The solution to racial strife

It's this simple.

Wouldn't it be much better for the black looters and criminals in Baltimore right now to just leave for Africa if they think Americans are soooo racist? Or immigrants to Europe?Deofex (talk) 17:53, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

The "black looters" ARE American, you dumbass.--Arisboch (talk) 18:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be much better for the Native American population and other racial minorities that somehow ended up in America if all those white people of European descent just went back where they came from and stopped oppressing all these poor people? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 18:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Don't reply to Deofex. They're allowed to post dumb shit on community talk pages(rules) but don't encourage them. They're not here to contribute interesting discussions. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
"They're" Is the Deofex account used my multiple peole?--Arisboch (talk) 18:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
They can also be singular[wp], or of indeterminate plurality. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 18:16, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
I haddaway to address this, but I think I'll stick to the sort of reasoned discourse Deofex deserves. I think the more important question to ask here, Deofex, is what is love? Baby don't hurt me. Don't hurt me, no more. I don't know why you're not there, I give you my love but you don't care. So what is right and what is wrong? Gimme a sign. What is love? User:PsychoGecko 18:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
I just thought I'd point out that if they really believe in this "ethnic groups have a geographical location they inherently belong to and they should stay there or be returned to that location" BS, they're totally rooting for the wrong guys here. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 18:22, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
I actually came across a relevant video to recent events the other day when I found out actor Robert Z'Dar died at the end of March. The scariest part of this horror movie...is how relevant it is. The trailer for a horror movie called Maniac Cop, starring Bruce Campbell and Robert Z'Dar. User:PsychoGecko 18:24, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
And they're don't sincerely believe it. They're a troll, an idea characterized by a will to aggravate others for their own amusement. It's a shallow and sad thing to do, and it correlates with personality traits that basically ensure life-long failure. Let them fail here too. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:29, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
I can't access Tumblr at the moment. What is the link to? Something about "What is love (baby don't hurt me don't hurt me no more)"?CorruptUser (talk) 18:32, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
It's a tumblr post that says "If you hate a nation that is not even your own, yet you continue to live within its borders and take advantage of its culture, then I don’t even know how to help you. You deserve to be thrown out." It's about Europeans getting all worked up about Muslims immigrating to their countries and not completely assimilating into their culture and Deofex quoting this to justify throwing black Americans out of the country illustrates just how bullshitty that sentiment is. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 18:40, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
They are trying so hard, and failing so badly, it's a bigoted little mentally disabled bunny trying to start a fight. No matter what it does you cannot look at it as threatening. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 18:35, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm sick of all the humans here. If they don't like the ecosystem the way they found it why don't they fuck off back to Africa? Fonzie (talk) 21:22, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

You're totally right! Bow down to your Martian overlords, puny Earthlings!!!--Arisboch (talk) 21:38, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
The situation is so bad in Baltimore that blacks ignore black on black killings and go after one alleged police murder.Deofex (talk) 04:32, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
the perpetrors of black on black killings are likely to face significant jail time if caught. Everyone realises a crime has been comitted, and people are actually trying to do something about. Police killings, by people meant to protect us, even if caught on camera, only to seem to warrant a slap on the wrist, if that. Do you see the difference? AMassiveGay (talk) 19:17, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
(yes, yes he does) PacWalker 01:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

[edit] A person i saw awhile ago

Basically awhile ago i saw a news report on a teenager who didn't want treatment for her easily treatable lymphoma, which she could easily survive from if she got treatment, would rather die than get chemo therapy because of the "toxins", so she would rather DIE than ave a few weeks of chemo therapy for her easily treatable cancer. The state said she wasn't old enough to make that decision (she was 17) so she sued the state and i believe the court agreed with the state. the weirdest thing though is the girl's MOM agreed with the girl, apparently parents like to let their kids die nowadays. Now i do respect the kids rights here, but i think her reasons are bullshit and she should get treatment unless it would threaten her life and the parents should be pushing her to get chemo, but even then it is lymphoma, you can easily remove one lymph node i believe (please correct me here). Bubba41102 (talk) 18:57, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Pseudoscience kills.--Arisboch (talk) 19:00, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Pick your battles. If there's informed consent and the person is still a fool, why waste your time? CorruptUser (talk) 19:01, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Because human life has value, and educating to save a life is one of the cheapest ways to do it. i.e. practically the whole motivation for the mission of rationalwiki. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:26, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Informed consent implies you did offer them education. If you brought the horse to water and it's still dying of thirst, let it die. CorruptUser (talk) 19:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Also because, sometimes, they go back to modern medicine. Remember the First Nations girls who hit the press in Canada because she wanted to take traditional Six Nations/Iroquois medicine rather than chemotherapy, and won? Although one of them had passed away due to the cancer, the other decided to return to chemo when her leukemia returned. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 19:43, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Source?Super Dude,What does mine say? Sweet! 19:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Source included here. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 19:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Ok, that raises a more interesting question. Imagine if your taxes went up because this person refused relatively cheap treatment but then a year later when the situation got worse ended up in far more expensive care on public funds. At what point is the public right to simply turn their backs and let the person die? CorruptUser (talk) 19:24, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
If they knew about it as an adult, and did nothing, my personal ideal would be to hit them with a shovel a few times so I'd at least get my moneys worth. Otherwise I would bill the parents the difference in cost of the treatments and court time. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 19:32, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
(ec) My perennial problem is that "your taxes went up" is inconsistent with "nobody's business but your own", and from where I stand the latter pretty much always trumps the former. There's an element of class always involved too. Nobody seems to resent the large public expenditures we make for young Kennedies and pro golfers who can't fly their private planes, get lost on their yachts, or get stuck in avalanches climbing Mt. Everest. What we get instead are motorcycle helmet laws. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 19:38, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Source? -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 19:43, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
It IS my damn business if I have to pay more in taxes. As for rich idiots getting lost on yachts and crashing planes, honestly, I would support some sort of tax levied on all private planes to fund S&R. To paraphrase Terry Pratchett, if you decide to go mountain climbing in nothing but your slippers and bathrobe, no one will complain if the rescue team leads you further up the mountain. CorruptUser (talk) 19:46, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Thinking about your question, CU, made me realise that you are asking if it's okay to sentence someone to death(or suffering), for being ignorant/stupid in a way that hurts nobody but themselves, just for wasting state money. So my answer is definitely no. Also, I think that practically, reaching the decision via the legal system will cost much more than it's worth. Super Dude,What does mine say? Sweet! 19:50, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Money that could be spent on people who want the treatment, will be compliant in their care, and are waiting to enroll or have their procedure funded. The money and time spent fighting non-compliant people to do what they need to do anyways does cause others suffering, pain, and sometimes death. It doesn't just hurt them when they waste time and money pissing about. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 20:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
The "not with my taxes" argument can be levelled at medical costs for people with obesity or substance addictions or disabilities resulting from accidents that may have been their fault or any number of other things. Or, if you really want to go there, the elderly. Think about it: can you really say that treating a child with her whole life ahead of her for a curable condition (even if her family previously refused treatment & then changed their mind) is less of a priority than treating a senior in a deteriorating condition who's probably only got a year or two left in them anyway? But no, the point of public healthcare is that you don't turn patients away for all these petty judgemental reasons. If a person needs treatment, they're entitled to it. WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:20, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
I ain't "going there" for the elderly, because old age is "self inflicted" only if you are taking care of yourself. Obesity is, well, it's self inflicted in most cases but it's not for a suprisingly large number of them, such as people on psychiatric medication or recovering from certain surgeries. The thing about addictions and so forth? Treating addicts is cheaper than NOT treating addicts, so even though I suffer for their foolishness, I'd be an even bigger fool to refuse treatment. But when a person refuses cancer an easy treatment for cancer then turns around a year later and needs a more expensive one instead? That I have a problem with. CorruptUser (talk) 21:04, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
So your position is basically "If you screw up your first chance at choosing the right treatment, sorry pal, you brought this upon yourself"? When costly cancer treatments are involved, at least. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Almost. It's more like "any extra costs incurred as a result of non-compliance with doctor's orders should be paid for out of your own pocket". If we had a money tree where we could just grow infinite money, yeah go ahead and pay for it. But this is not the land of sunshine and blowjobs. The money we do have would be better spent on welfare and education. CorruptUser (talk) 21:28, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, technically you can have as much money as you like, though that has the unfortunate side effect of making that money worthless. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:33, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
All of which is kind of why it's a speculative opinion of what some people would like to do and not a platform to champion. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 22:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, just pointing out that producing unlimited amounts of extra money (be it through magical trees or other means) wouldn't actually solve anything. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 23:29, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, no, I was thinking of the desire to slap the crap out of those who fuss, scream, and spit in the face of people for medical care that would be the envy of most of the rest of the world...provided for free at a cost to taxpayers that could provide medical care for entire towns in poor areas. It's not like it's going to be law. Going off about unlimited money trees is a silly argument from absurdity. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 14:29, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

A public health system that offers treatment based on what patients "deserve" rather than than what they need is pretty awful idea. WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 14:24, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Of the several misfeatures of living in the contemporary USA, few are more tiresome than the idea that people who suffer from the degenerative diseases of old age brought it on their own heads because they failed to live right or follow some sort of regimen. And most "heart disease", "cancer", "kidney failure", "diabetes", and so forth are just different ways to say "old age". - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 14:57, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
You do realize that every person over 65 is already covered for healthcare in the US, right? The problem I have is with the people like this particular case; they have cancer, we have an affordable treatment available for them, but they turn around and go try "natural" medicines instead, the cancer progresses, and THEN they come back for real medicine but the treatment now is much more expensive. Please don't strawman and claim I'm advocating for everyone to be denied care. CorruptUser (talk) 16:03, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
But you are advocating for somebody to be denied treatment that they need for a potentially lethal condition. WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, any intermingling of a healthcare system and a penal system sounds like a horrible idea, even if it's just limited to one particular kind of situation. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 17:29, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Not denying, just not paying. E.g., cheap treament costs $2000, they don't comply with doctor's orders, as result 6 months later they need treatment for $5000; send them bill for $3000. CorruptUser (talk) 17:40, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
So a fine for making a bad medical decision and if they can't pay up, tough luck? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 17:42, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
When talking about treatments covered by public funds, which was your original question CorruptUser, the difference between "denying" and "not paying" is semantic. You're still advocating turning someone away from something they should be entitled to based on an assessment of their behaviour rather than an assessment of their medical needs. That's a shitty way to run public healthcare and really not in the spirit of offering public healthcare at all. WéáśéĺóíďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:53, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── So how do you propose we deal with people that refuse to vaccinate or refuse cheap treatment? I'd be happy with forcing them to pay an "opt out fee", e.g., to refuse vaccinations for non-medical reasons you have to pay up front, but we still treat for measles. Just that you seem to be under the impression that the rest of us just need to suck it up because of others' idiocy. CorruptUser (talk) 18:10, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

If the idea of paying up regardless of people's idiocy is so problematic to you, perhaps you should consider no longer paying any taxes. Trying to save the lives of people who've made bad medical decisions is hardly the most wastful use of government money out there. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 18:21, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
I can see that desire...at least for an adult that pulls this crap. I have a relative that got a hip replacement and refused to do anything. Sat in the chair in PT refusing to move, didn't take care of it, and refused to do anything till it's now infected and rotten. He now needs another $30,000 surgery to clean it out and already stated he might not do PT again even if they need to go through this again.
I don't see what's wrong in thinking that he should pay for the second himself because he did his best to screw up the opportunity given to him that could have paid for a life altering treatment for others. If that's shitty, so be it. I have been witness to patients waiting for surgery to be approved/funded die as he pisses away what's handed to him on a gilded platter. Something he quite literally ate himself into...which was horrifying to see.
Holy crapsticks are you guys drama llamas. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 18:36, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
We already DO deny medical care based on poor decisions; you get kicked off the transplant list if you don't become teetotal. I don't think we should deny emergency care to drunk drivers or set up some government agency to go through every single case, just something like I said for vaccines; get the vaccine or pay a fine up front. I don't know how to do it for idiots that try "alternatives" to Chemo first. CorruptUser (talk) 18:47, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Oh noes, he's not paying respect to the hand that feeds him. Let's throw him in the gutter 'cause that's where all the lazy moochers belong. Who's being a drama llama here?
Are there people more deserving of treatment out there? Yes, inevitably. Is it sad when people die because they have to wait for/can't get treatment? Yes, obviously. Does that have any baring on whether we should deny treatment to people for exhibiting behavioral flaws? Nope. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:24, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
O...kay. Where did I ever say lazy moocher being thrown in the gutter? If you are putting words in people's mouths to make it more dramatic I think the evidence is well provided. Very cute attempt though :-) -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 20:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, throwing people in the gutter is a popular metaphor for society turning its back on people, which denying medical treatment would be a form of. I didn't mean it as a literal quote, obviously. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:13, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
I didn't advocate denying care completely either. That's still putting words in someone else's mouth, but less dramatic ;-) -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 20:18, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, you were merely dismissing people objecting to eliminating state funding for a subcategory of people suffering from a potentially fatal illness as drama llamas. Not sure if that's a considerably superior approach to me slightly strawmanning your sentiment though. >.> 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:52, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
No, I am dismissing people who like to strawman and hyperbole that even thinking people who make their condition worse against all, repeated, medical advice should bear some (maybe all depending) of the additional costs *actually means* thinking they are moochers that deserve to be denied medical care and thrown in the gutter to die based on your clearly overly dramatic imagination. I think dismissing people who make things up is entirely appropriate as I don't think they have a lot of value to add because they are perfectly fine presenting fiction as evidence.
If you make things up, and people aren't willing to trust your word anymore, you have no one to blame but yourself. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 22:02, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

While its easy for intelligent educated people to say 'well you didn't follow the drs orders so fuck you', but guess what, not all of us are educated enough to cut through all the conflicting information particularly when people you know and trust are often pedalling the bullshit. Couple that with people not always trusting their drs, particularly if you are somewhere where every costs and drs push unnecessary treatments on you purely for profit. There's also the fact that if have a terrible disease where the fear of its treatment, chemo or invasive surgery, and the well publicised horror stories of said treatments, people can desperate for a safer easier alternative no matter how unproven (this where things likes rational wiki are truely useful). If, like the hip replacement, treatment has been given but the aftercare regime just not followed, well, these often require major life style changes that cannot just be made over night if they are able to make them at all. I am remember George best: his alcoholism led to him having a liver transplant. He was still an alcoholic, still drank himself to death. People are irrational, flawed and stupid and i fear the day that needed healthcare is only available to the rich and the 'deserving sick'. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:05, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I simply reject the healthist idea that if you fall ill with one of the degenerative diseases of old age, it's all your fault for not living right. Especially when we live with a barrage of unsolicited medical advice and "body shaming" in the media. The poor Americans have no food any more. Everything they eat is either medicine or poison, and which foods go on which list change from week to week. It may be different elsewhere, but I can't fault anyone for failing to follow a health regimen when there are so many of them, of varying plausibility. Advertising presents jogging and working out at gyms as things that normal people do, and they still aren't. This also is one reason why I hate vegans, organic foods, anti-GMO, and alternative medicine; all of them simply add to the level of noise. And the uncharity that lurks behind all of these belief systems, the one that tells you that if you get cancer or heart disease it must have been because you ate the wrong thing or failed to follow some regimen or another, is the last straw. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 19:44, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Did I ever ONCE blame people for getting cancer? I blamed people for refusing proven treatment for cancer in order to try bullshit, and coming back after the disease progresses to where more expensive treatment will be necessary. CorruptUser (talk) 20:10, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
I can certainly see that. I agree that people are flawed, and irrational, but if people actively fight care to the point of making themselves worse I don't see why everyone else should spend the resources for correcting it without any criticism. Especially when people who would are suffering, or dying, because resources to help them is used to take care of this. Even thinking if they did it to themselves, fully informed, they should bear more costs in fixing it.
If people wish to scream and fight to do things they have been warned about, not fatal and to no one else, while being mentally intact I'll walk away and let them. If that's a character flaw I am fully aware and fine with that. I am sorry that people have personal responsibility for parts of their lives. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 20:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
sure people have been warned to not do some things. But they have also been warned to do the very same things, and not just by the usual suspects. Case in point: vaccinate your kids vs vaccines cause autism. You and I might agree one of those options is bullshit, but the bullshit option has been aggressively promoted and not everyone is equipped or educated enough to cut through the bullshit. That is just one example, but as smerdis points out there is a ton of conflicting information on what is healthy or unhealthy. People desperate to do the right thing are overwhelmed and invariably going to make the wrong decisions. You are essentially denyin the stupid (read: poor and uneducated), healthcare because it is so hard to know just what the right thing to do is and cannot afford to put right their mistakes. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:55, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
thank fuck for the NHS, I say. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:56, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Pause: How am I denying people health care for just thinking that? Is this a thought crime? -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 01:36, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
You're being a little too literal. Obtuse even. If your 'thought' were put in practice as you suggest, it would amount to denying people health care. ωεαşεζόίďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 12:47, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
I am being literal because I keep getting accused of things I never said. I don't even think people are arguing against me for the most part. Just an imaginary strawman that holds the same opinion on a single issue, and most certainly not on many other issues I've spent way too much time pointing out I don't hold. It seems to be much more dramatic and easy for people to make accusations of "he's not paying respect to the hand that feeds him. Let's throw him in the gutter 'cause that's where all the lazy moochers belong" (emphasis mine).
The sad part is quite literally I don't think my thought could even be put into practice in the real world. Which is why for the 6th time I need to repeat that I never did suggest of putting it into practice. I've spent way too much time on other people's strawmen that I am sickened and saddened. It's my fault for expecting more I guess. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 14:55, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
You jump into an ongoing discussion where CorruptUser is proposing eliminating state funding for a subcategory of people suffering from a potentially fatal illness and make a post (seemingly?) supportive of CorruptUser's sentiment and call an unspecified subset of the people having this debate "drama llamas". Should you really be surprised that some of the people who you were antagonizing by calling them "drama llamas" made certain assumptions about you? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:22, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
How terrible it is of me for daring to have an different opinion. It must be very antagonizing for you when others express their opinions in exasperation (after repeated misrepresentations/corrections on the same thing) that you must entirely make up shit I said to be angry about. I can see how it could seem I was "jumping in" when I actually have things to do outside of RW, even though I was the first to express their opinion on the question, but if you want to continue to dream up my crimes against the world feel free. I can't see this going anywhere productive. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 21:13, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
141, Strawman much? The original topic was about an idiot that refused Chemo because "nature". My response to that was "can't save everyone, don't lose sleep over it". Then the article itself was posted, and I started wondering about what happens if the girl goes back for treatment after delaying and getting sicker; how does society deal with that, at what point should society just give up on someone, etc. Apparently you think that means I'm of the belief that society should just let EVERYONE die. No. CorruptUser (talk) 21:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
It seems like everybody's strawmanning, missing the point and pulling things out of their context lately. Whatever, what happened happened. Let's just move on from all the drama. Enough pointless back-and-forth shouting. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:49, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't think there has been any shouting, certainly mischaractorizations, but you were the worst offender by far. A rough eyeball that maybe half of this is you accusing corrupt and myself of things we never said in the first place while we try to point out how wrong it is...over the same shit repeatedly. Then pretending like it never happened, that everyone is equally to blame, with not a shit given (or responsibility taken) about the stuff you just made up. I agree this drama is stupid but hopefully it helps that translation between what you read, and what was actually written, be closer to true. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 00:35, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Sigh. I guess we can't let the drama rest until everything's cleared up. Okay, here's what happened:[wp] Bubba made a post, several people, including EmeraldCityWanderer, commented and discussed things. Yadda yadda. Eventually, the discussion went on a tangent where CorruptUser made a few proposals regarding people that previously refused treatment back when it would've been significantly cheaper: "It's more like "any extra costs incurred as a result of non-compliance with doctor's orders should be paid for out of your own pocket"." "Not denying, just not paying. E.g., cheap treament costs $2000, they don't comply with doctor's orders, as result 6 months later they need treatment for $5000; send them bill for $3000." "So how do you propose we deal with people that refuse to vaccinate or refuse cheap treatment? I'd be happy with forcing them to pay an "opt out fee"" (literal quotes) Several people make comments saying that it's a bad idea. EmeralCityWanderer makes a comment seemingly supportive of CorruptUser's proposal(s), though in retrospect apparently only supportive of CorruptUser's right to express frustration with people that waste taxpayer money by making bad medical decisions and think about hypothetical proposals to do something to punish them. In my response I then confuse/conflate ECW's opinion with CU's. ECW then blows that up into something about thought crimes and different opinions not being allowed or something. And now CU is seemingly back-pedaling and saying I'm saying that he's saying that "society should just let EVERYONE die". What? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 01:32, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Backpedalling? CorruptUser (talk) 01:48, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

You said that I was strawmanning you and then you described the start of the discussion. Your comment seemed to be denying that you made any actual proposals or was at least drawing attention away from that fact. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 02:12, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Umm, what? I never denied making proposals. I think my first proposal was a private plane/yacht tax to fund search and rescue for them, rather than everyone else subsidizing rich fools. My second proposal was sending people the bill for additional costs incurred from non compliance with doctor's orders. Once again, strawman. CorruptUser (talk) 02:17, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Okay, could you pinpoint where I was strawmanning you then? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 02:19, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
"Your comment seemed to be denying that you made any actual proposals". This is getting both meta and boring. CorruptUser (talk) 02:21, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
"or was at least drawing attention away from that fact" Which was kind of annoying in that that fact was a thing ECW seemed to be consistently denying or avoiding, suggesting all that ever happened were thoughts being expressed and that all the complaints/criticisms amounted to thought-policing. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 02:27, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
All things considered, I'll admit that "eliminating state funding for a subcategory of people suffering from a potentially fatal illness" wasn't an accurate description of your proposal. I was trying to communicate the gist of your proposal and what made it so controversial with a relatively short phrase. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 02:55, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Unless I missed something....when did chemo become the panacea? Hasn't it always been one among many options? Should people be penalized if they opt out going under the knife? nobsI was in Bagdad when u wer swirling in yur Dads' bag. 12:29, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't think it matters what it is, whether it's chemo or surgery or radiotherapy, only that the person refused actual medicine in favor of bullshit, then I brought up the hypothetical of the person coming back after exhausting the bullshit, but the treatment is now more expensive. The question that hasn't really been answered is "at what point is society no longer responsible for your idiocy". CorruptUser (talk) 18:27, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
When such idiocy is rampant in the society in question and said society isn't taking sufficient action to inform people and discourage and discredit the perpetrators/perpetuators of idiotic practices? You'd first have to establish a society that isn't rampant with this sort of thing before there could even be such a point. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:01, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── So can we at least agree that educating people against all sorts of bullshit is a good thing all around? Maybe agree that non-medicine shouldn't be allowed to advertise, at least not without a very strong disclosure along the lines of "there is no scientific evidence this works"? CorruptUser (talk) 19:42, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I can certainly agree with that (see the section below). I might even go beyond that and propose making woo-peddlers liable for the deaths they're obviously responsible for. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:11, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Considering that's pretty much what RationalWiki is here for as an educational charity, hell yeah! - David Gerard (talk) 21:57, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Here's an idea

Instead of further punishing the victims of bullshit faux-medicine, who bought into it and are already facing the punishment of their ailment enduring and possibly worsening, how about we single out the people perpetrating and advertising these practices, eh? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:21, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

indeed. Considering many folk on this site are us based, they live in a country where many face bankruptcy for even trivial conditions, is it any wonder they get suckered when they are at their most vulnerable? AMassiveGay (talk) 21:31, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
If it were up to me they wouldn't be in business in the first place. People do have brains of their own though. If someone has the capacity to know what they are pushing is total fraudulent BS that is not beneficial...then people who choose these quack treatments can have the capacity to determine certain treatments are not beneficial. It certainly can be overridden by stress, grief, or other medical conditions which is why they shouldn't be pushing this shit on people in these situations. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 22:09, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Anybody feel like paroling this guy?

ZombieCheney seems to be asking to be let out of the bin. I've got no patience for that kind of bumf. Anybody want to release this kraken? Alec Sanderson (talk) 20:56, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Since you binned him in the first place, it would be useful if you explained why rather than expecting anyone to do the legwork/guesswork. WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 21:00, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Okay. They say they're not a vandal. Good enough for me for a first parole. And... they made a few weird external links to/text dumps from wikipedia. Pretty harmless, though not helpful. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 21:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
"Not a Vandal, just a very powerful rational thinker..." um ok. I expect him to be back in in under a day though - David Gerard (talk) 21:03, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
That or supplying material for the pseudomaths page within the day. PacWalker 21:08, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
I binned him for inserting incense/gibbering into pages, just as printed on tin. See his contributions for 24 April, including half a dozen inane edits averaging about ten minutes apart. I was disinclined to parole him because his user page screed was initially titled to resemble my user name. Hanlon's razor may apply, but I don't consider myself obliged to indulge either tine of that fork. Alec Sanderson (talk) 21:20, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm not really sure they deserved a binning, the edits about the Mandelbrot Set were of questionable necessity, but I would have mentioned it on their talk page instead of binning them. From a brief overview of his edits his statements about the Mandelbrot Set were mostly accurate. As for his user page I think it might mostly be a joke, I'm not sure how they intended to format it, (the latex was slightly off), but with some slight restructuring it could be used to produce an equation that is true but somewhat pointless. i.e. e^{(i\pi)+\phi}=-\phi => \phi e^{i\pi}=-\phi => e^{i\pi}=-1.Samstr (talk) 21:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
The binning may have been over-hasty, even in a context of rapidly appearing low-value edits. That is why I brought eyes in the Saloon to bear. Alec Sanderson (talk) 00:06, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
BTW, on the occasion of his binning, I did mention it on his talk page, and was met with a fluffy bunny of further inanity. It's moot now anyway, but this guy wants watching. Anybody who wants to engage him in thoughtful conversation, feel free. Alec Sanderson (talk) 22:16, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

[edit] RW anthem?

The proposed anthem

Yes? Sound good? LTR? PacWalker 03:52, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Oy vey, schmuck. The Hatikvah is ®, © and ™ the International Council of Zion. We ain't a bunch of menschen, ya better fork over the shekels for the rights to use it or else I'm calling y'all be facin' the suits at Sadelstein, Schwartz & Goodman, Inc. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg Burning this game would be an insult to fire. 04:47, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
[Edit Conflict] Isn't our anthem You Gotta Belieeeeve? Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar~) 04:49, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
I thought it was Land of Make Believe? PacWalker 05:01, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Wait, it isn't Send In the Clowns?--Madman (talk) 19:35, 29 April 2015 (UTC)Madman
I see what you did there. PacWalker 22:19, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
I nominate Not Now John by Pink Floyd as our rightful anthem'Legionwhat do you want from me 03:06, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Something that slipped my mind

Back years and years ago, back to the point where I was in high-school, someone plagiarized Metapedia for a presentation. The teacher had to stop their presentation and point out the racial slurs and bias. It didn't stop them from making stupid, slur-filled presentations in the future. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar~) 04:52, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

These things always seem to unslip your mind with perfect timing... which is good. PacWalker 04:54, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Perfect timing? Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar~) 05:14, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Presume PW means the Portuguese kerfuffle above (?). Scream!! (talk) 12:05, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
So, it was Tuesday. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar~) 12:13, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Metapedia is hte worst wki you could plagiarise from, that kid must have gotten in massive trouble. MEtapedia, who thought plagiarising that was a good idea. Bubba41102 (talk) 13:24, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Naw, in the American South, there's plenty of teachers who just shrug at hella racist stuff. Doing shit to intimidate students of color unthinkingly goes unspoken on more often than not. (Source: going to public school in the US South) ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 14:32, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
^ sad but true. PacWalker 22:36, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
I lived in maryland, which is more of a north state nowadays than a southern state, so that jsut shows how different different parts of one country can be. SOCIETY YAY!!!!! Bubba41102 42 is love 42 is life 12:51, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
MORE of a northern state? Where I live, NC is considered northern (but not Tennessee). PacWalker 13:59, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Speaking of intimidation, I actually had a college professor threaten me with a clenched fist after I pointed out the issues with a chain letter he was vaguely recalling yet still trying to shoehorn into a lecture. Some of my classmates were insanely hostile and scream-tacular ("THAT'S JUST YOUR OPINION!!!") toward me during that bit. It was a mathematics class. He couldn't even do third-grade level math right. The Secular Student Alliance gave me support and I reported the teacher, but I don't know what happened after that. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar~) 15:24, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Infodump?

I was just wondering if there is some place to put basic info about pseudoscience sites for the other users to look at, and see if it was worth making an article about. Thanks in advance, http://imgur.com/9tEaW12 (talk) 06:32, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Userspace--Miekal 06:37, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
What do you mean by "basic info"? Links? RationalWiki:Webshites is a link list, though by now it seems to have outgrown its usefulness.--ZooGuard (talk) 06:45, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Calling it a "link list" confused the hell out of my programmer brain. I spent several seconds wondering how exactly you'd make a linked list on a wiki. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:02, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
its a list of links. Dont overthink things, you just get a headache. Hamster (talk) 22:18, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Nope, it's a data structure. Samstr (talk) 04:39, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Should i be worried

At my work, there is a thing going around where you look at something and find illuminati symbolism as a joke. I ahve gotten so good at it i am finding illuminati "related" (used very lightly) symbols everywhere, should i be worried about my mental health, i dont belive in the stuff, but i have gotten really good at finding it. Bubba41102 42 is love 42 is life 17:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

When "illuminati symbols" include such things as triangles and circles, they might not be hard to find. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 17:14, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Silly games like that can strengthen the divide between reality and fiction. I think. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar~) 17:33, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Nobody's mentioned it yet? There's a name for this. It's called the Frequency illusion (better known as the Baader-Meinhof Phenomenon), and like a lot of other cognitive biases, it's largely due to our brains' prejudice towards recognizing patterns. Nothing to worry about at all. There is no Illuminati. You aren't being watched by a grand conspiracy that expands past the Earth far into the cosmos. (P.S. You'll ruin your back sitting like that) ℕoir LeSable (talk) 18:45, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
what if that is just what the ILLUMINATI WANTS US TO THINK, everyone put on your tinfoil hats!!!!!! ;) Bubba41102 42 is love 42 is life 19:10, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Aren't we Illuminati shills, though? Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar~) 21:31, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Speaking in my official capacity as High Prothonotary and Bagman for the Illuminati, let me assure you that the hidden symbols we use to manipulate you are not that easy to find or identify. Give us some credit for professionalism, at least. If you do correctly identify one of our symbols, please bury $10,000 in unmarked bills under a bench in your nearest public park and await our response by courier ocelot. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 22:01, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
the grand wizards of the Illuminati will chant in front of your home and wipe your memories of them. fear not, the Great Fairy Belinda is watching over you. Hamster (talk) 22:17, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Ooh i like ocelots, they are cool, the illuminati is cooler than i (scarcastic) thought. bubba41102 is not responsible for anyone thinking he belives in the illuminati, or anyone beliving in the illuminati because of this discussion, please direct any legal action to Andy Schafley of conservapedia. Bubba41102 42 is love 42 is life 12:45, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Last month I read the book The King in Yellow, a Cthulhu-ish series of tales from the late 19th century about the eponymous play that drives people mad who see it or perform in it. There's ubiquitous mentions of strange pale yellow things being seen with increasing frequency, as well as a trefoil type symbol called the 'Yellow Sign'. Afterwards I read a collection of stories by assorted horror authors with the same concept but different angles i.e. one of them features an MMO which gradually takes over users' minds until madness ensues. What happens next is I start to notice pale yellow everywhere, and all of a sudden I'm spending a week being deeply creeped out and wondering if this is how madness begins (Is Sinestro behind this? HOW DEEP DOES THIS THING GO? etc.). It clearly wasn't, however, as I managed to shake myself into acknowledging that I wasn't seeing yellow more, but just noticing it and creating patterns in my own imagination. Five minutes later yellow has no power over me, like my whole flop-sweat week never happened. You're finding patterns you want to find, but that doesn't actually mean anything. Semipenultimate (talk) 23:44, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

For an example you can work through at home, for the next week or so you will encounter references to KANGAROOS at far greater frequency that you would consider normal. Queexchthonic murmurings 17:48, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Anyone seen Thug Notes?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xh8akuq-MDI I'm not sure how to feel about this. On one level, I'm happy about spreading academic understanding in a form that most people can understand (and doing away with the stereotype of the uneducated black), but on another the depiction of the narrator is a tad racist. Master Necromancer(fear me!) 18:24, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I watch it regularly. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar~) 18:37, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

[edit] sysop

apparently everyone is supposed to become a sysop within a few days of acocunt creation, i have been on here for almost a week, i have not been sysoped, im just wondering if i am not supposed to be sysopped or if nobody bothered to. Bubba41102 42 is love 42 is life 19:07, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

It'll happen sooner or later if you stick around, but almost a week isn't really long enough. €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:10, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
just making sure because the Rationalwiki:Sysops syas it sohuld happen within a few days, was just making sure Bubba41102 42 is love 42 is life 19:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
From what I can tell, we no longer live in the times when everyone gets sysop super quick. I did auto-patrol you a while back, though, which I think is the new way of handling it. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar~) 19:19, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Well then somone needs to update that page Bubba41102 42 is love 42 is life 19:21, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
I think the answer is that someone sees you do something particularly non-stupid, hits contributions and goes "ah, yeah, that'll do". The larger this community gets, the less well that will function. "A few" is purposefully vague. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:22, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
That RationalWiki:Sysops page isn't very well maintained and should probably be redirected to RationalWiki:Sysop guide. I see that currently contains the same statement about being made a sysop within days or hours. Probably a good idea to amend that. It's creating too much of an expectation (as in this thread) and there is also scope for attracting troublemakers if we're too open about how easy it is to get sysop rights. €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
I amended the phrasing by removing the "-or even hours-" bit. I hope that's okay. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:48, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Twas all for naught; copied over my changes from the Sysop page. SorryCorruptUser (talk) 19:50, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

It used to be that complaining about not being a sysop pushed you back a few months. But yeah, it's been awhile since it only took a few hours to be demoted. Tielec01 (talk) 02:16, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Are you a non-twit and would like ops?

Sign below:

[edit] The userpage-wiping BON vandal

Since this concerns general policy/community standards, this section has been moved to the CS talk page. The ideas sound pretty good to me, though. ScepticWombat (talk) 08:04, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Nooooes, now it will inevitably be ignored by everyone. :( 141.134.75.236 (talk) 10:14, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
ONOZ!!! Please, please, pretty please with a cherry on the top don't ignore this. Click on the link above and help keep the CS-talk alive! ScepticWombat (talk) 10:52, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
At this point I would like to thank ScepticWombat for proving to me that I'm an idiot. Fonzie (talk) 16:07, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Clickbait

Who else thinks that we need a fun version of Clickbait to bait people with in wiki?Bubba41102 42 is love 42 is life 14:50, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

That'd be fun!--Arisboch (talk) 15:01, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Not sure if my recent edits to Clickbait are funny or just wandalism... CorruptUser (talk) 15:09, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
I found them funny.--SpecialFFrog (talk) 15:11, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Im not saying it isnt funny, but i mean one dedicated ot funny, just to clickbait people with, there is an article on it then there is the actaul one we click bait with in wiki Bubba41102 42 is love 42 is life 15:16, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Created. Don't know what to do with it. For now I'm just clickbaiting people to Ben Stein, because I believe he's the most boring person we have an article on. CorruptUser (talk) 15:36, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
It needs to select a random headline when transcluded/substituted. Maybe a few randomizations of the links, and even a waaaay random link. Also, needs more jerboa. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar~) 16:37, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Needs more goat too Bubba41102 42 is love 42 is life 17:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

You can easily randomise this stuff:

  • 19 rinsing railings you won't believe really exist
  • -1 sexy minges who turned out to be scanty
  • 9 child stars who offensively scratched airplanes
  • 19 reasons to suck a glugging neurotoxin with a abstract exhaust pipe

Etcetera. ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:32, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Adding that in. Thanks! CorruptUser (talk) 18:35, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Some of that stuff was so horrible I won't even mention it here. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar~) 23:58, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Laird, Rome Viharo, etc.

Users are making legal threats/accusing RW and the RMF of "libel", or at least coming right up to the line. I've blocked one, and suggest that further similar activity should have the same result. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 18:24, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I smacked the other (and his apparently static bunchesanumbers) with 3.6 days for doing the same in other venues. PacWalker 18:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Need help finding an Aronra video.

I remember Aron making a video demonstrating how the definition of "kinds", as used by creationists, changes radically depending on what manner of life form your talking about. I can't find it. Can anyone help me find it again? Master Necromancer(fear me!) 01:23, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like a Foundation Falsehood video to me. I'll see what I can turn up. --Maxus (talk) 23:08, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Think I found something like it. Try 11th FF video. --Maxus (talk) 23:12, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

[edit] SO MANY VANDALS

There are so many vandals right now its not even funny Bubba41102 CUMON STEP IT UP 02:31, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Nah, it's the same guy doing all that BoN stuff. PacWalker 02:32, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Hes using alot of proxies. Bubba41102 CUMON STEP IT UP 02:33, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

The proxy blocker is on ... Suggest checking the IPs against Wikipedia: if they're vandalising through an IP already blocked there, we know where they're finding their proxies and you should feel free to block the sewer in question for a while - David Gerard (talk) 15:55, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm torn on the proxy blocker. I get that it keeps the wiki an easier place to manage and gets rid of a lot of stuff that is annoying nonsense at best and possibly painfully abusive at worst. I also like to think that in the interest of the freest exchange of ideas and the subversion of undemocratic attempts to limit people's access to the web, we should freely allow the use of TOR and other proxy services, if only as a sign of solidarity with the cause of internet freedom--or just to piss off school librarians who don't want their computers to come here. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 17:39, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Principle versus all empirical evidence, you mean. We actually have people coming to this wiki for the purpose of targeted harassment of our editors; I think not going out of our way to enable that is a rather more important and verifiably useful principle than opening the wiki up for a flood from a firehose of sewage for the sake of a principle that really obviously won't work out the way one might dream it will - David Gerard (talk) 20:17, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
I wouldn't say targeted, nor would I call it concerningly effective. PacWalker 23:03, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
You sure it's on? 109.228.22.219 (talk) 00:55, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
I am indeed blocked globally at TOW as an open proxy. 109.228.22.219 (talk) 01:03, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
What exactly is getting vandalized? 97.94.71.74 (talk) 22:58, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Primarily user and user talk pages. PacWalker 23:03, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Have to agree with PacWalker that the latest spate of wandalism is far more of a spray 'n pray drive by than a clean headshot assassination. There seems to be little or no pattern to which talk or user pages are targeted and one of the wandal edits even targeted LogicMaster. It seems that we have one or more extremely bored (and boring) troll wandals on our hands. Well, at least the actual damage is minimal (practically non-existent) and very easily and quickly fixed (just keep hitting them rollback buttons y'all). ScepticWombat (talk) 01:06, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Scientology question

So i'm about a third of the way into Going Clear and I got a question: Have the aesthetics of Scientology/Dianetics technologies evolved to keep up with what cutting-edge technology, or do they still look like Kennedy-era tube-powered gadgets? There is a great dissertation project for a grad student doing STS stuff. You could also do something like that about James Bond movies. I would totally write that dissertation. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 03:23, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay, a few minutes later and we see the newer-looking machines... Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 03:46, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Looking being the key word there. PacWalker 03:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm just talking about technological aeethetics here. Not technology. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 04:04, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
What do you have against Tube era technology looks?--Miekal 04:10, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Nothing. Just can't see knobs and dials selling a cult to anyone once they had seen mice and colour monitors and windows and multitasking, never mind hat we got now.--Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 05:07, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Another Scientology Question

I've always wondered: Why? How? How is it so... popular?--Miekal 04:09, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Many suckers.--Arisboch (talk) 04:51, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
They have a well developed and effective sales strategy that works really well at convincing young and impressionable people that they have the all the answers. When you combine this with love bombing, some hypnotic suggestion and subtle poisoning of anyone who suggests that there might be something wrong with the Church, it is a winning recipe. In the past it was helped by past members being too afraid to speak out, and the media being too afraid to report on it but these days people aren't as scared of the Scientologists as they used to be. A movie like Going Clear would have been unthinkable 10 years ago. --DamoHi 05:55, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
It's really not very popular and never was since the Dianetics craze of the fifties. It's just good at publicity, and explicitly targeted celebrities and Hollywood - David Gerard (talk) 08:26, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Appeal in that last circle being enough to maintain some appeal in that last circle. PacWalker 08:30, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
But really, beyond the well-known cases of TOM CRUISE!!! and John Travolta (not pushed to the fore so much these days it seems) and some lesser known/b-list cases (Beck and Isaac Hayes), there doesn't really seem to be a huge following among prominent Hollywood-following either (though WP also lists the Ribisis and Juliette Lewis, Scientology seems to need to beef up its tinseltown recruitment efforts if it's not to end up with an embarrassing list of greying has-beens and b-listers). ScepticWombat (talk) 08:47, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
The uniforms~ Leuders (talk) 19:48, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
It's the internet's fault. Before, they could use their money and power to bully any corporation or news organization into submission/silence, even the friggen IRS. The IRS! But legal intimidation doesn't work if you can't find the person. So, their secrets get exposed online. And when South Park does an episode specifically calling them out, their legal threats become worthless when anyone can turn around and say, no, that's EXACTLY what they are. Worse actually; if anything South Park was too lenient on them. CorruptUser (talk) 20:09, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Going Clear

Not a bad documentary, though I'd like to read the book and scope out the references and methodology. Would have maybe tightened up the editing to free up a few minutes to talk about resistance to Scientology, especially Anonymous. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 17:07, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Still trying to wrap my head around the idea

That judicial review is a type of legislation or how the Fourteenth doesn't apply the BoR to the states. Conservatism is confusing. — Melab (Talk) 05:15, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Now, there is a slightly more plausible argument for not incorporating those parts which aren't grants of individual rights. PacWalker 06:00, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
BoR? Book of Revelation? (me Brit) Scream!! (talk) 14:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments to the US Constitution. Compro01 (talk) 17:10, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia and a variety of things I've read before, the idea that the bill of rights actually apply to the states and below is relatively new thinking. The Constitution is the defining body of the -Federal- government, and deals almost solely with things involving said government ,so they aren't technically wrong, just ignoring the development of law over the intervening centuries. --Miekal 23:36, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Governor of Texas bullshit

Apparently the governer of Texas has sent the national guard to watch over an navy seal and green beret training operation because of people bugging him about the FEMA concentration camps conspiracy theory, no I'm not kidding actually did, how did this ever happen? Bubba41102 Taste the shortness` 17:47, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

"The Paranoid Style in American Politics" is where I'd start... Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 17:55, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Is The Onion writing the screenplay for real life? |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Star of David.png Flipping out the buttered fuck crumpets 18:32, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
I dont even understand the stupidity right now, i expect him getting kicked ouut of office, or getting heavily attacked, by anyone who isnt a conspiracy nut. Bubba41102 Taste the shortness` 18:38, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't get Abbott's logic. If the Federal military is infested with secret Obama-takeover operatives, why wouldn't the Texas State Guard also be? FrizzyCatPotato (talk/stalk) 18:40, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Because it has the word "Texas" in it, of course. You can trust Texans to sell out to various major corporations, but never to the federal government. ;) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:04, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
But everything's bigger in Texas. Doesn't that mean that the federal intrusion is bigger, too? Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar~) 19:20, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
You'd think so, but it turns out that's compensated by the resistance to federal intrusion being bigger too. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:21, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
The reason they aren't afraid is because it's -state- All things states is always 100% good and never evil. Ever. Only those shiftless swine loyal to the evil socialist OWO government are evil.--Miekal 03:20, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
AFAIK it is the State Guard, not the National Guard. Apparently Texans are a bunch of Scardy Pants - there are a lot of Federal Military bases in Texas, with 100,000 or more troops that they never seem to worry much about......but they're "afraid" the 1200 in this exercise will take over the state?? It's even more stupid bullshit than the usual stupid bullshit!--Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 21:48, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Specific fallacy used by Answers in Genesis

I'm planning on beginning a YouTube channel focused on various controversial topics not the least of which deals with religion. One of the first I'm going to go for is probably an easy target but one I'd like to be thorough with. It revolves around the their assertion that the population would be a googol in total found on this page (https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-against-evolution/billions-of-people-in-thousands-of-years/).

The specific fallacy I'm trying to identify is their idea that they can use the 150 year population doubling within the real world context (excerpt-"If we did assume that humans have been around for 50,000 years and if we were to use the calculations above, there would have been 332 doublings..."). There is no reasoning given as to why they think they can use the calculations in both cases and I'm trying to figure out how to identify this specific issue.

I've narrowed it down to a couple of possibilities from the 'Logical Fallacies' page as to what it could be. One would be simply another bout of circular reasoning or related fallacy (presupposition, begging the question). Another possibility would be the Association Fallacy (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Association_fallacy#Galileo_gambit) in that they assume that because the two relate to population totals that the same calculations would be used in both cases without reason.

Any ideas?

SIGN YO POSTS User:MyNameIsMike seriously do it Bubba41102 Taste the shortness` 12:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure it is a logical fallacy so much as a poor model of real world population growth. Populations -- including human populations -- are subject to environmental constraints. Besides, if you apply the same naive growth formula to rats starting at the alleged time of the Biblical flood we'd be drowning in rats.--SpecialFFrog (talk) 13:57, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
they ignore infant mortality rates, mortality rates in general, food supply , water supply etc for a population. AS entertaining is their populating egypt, china etc from 8 people in the biblical timeline of flood to Babel. Hamster (talk) 18:54, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
They also ignore the bible. It says that 600k men left from Egypt with Moses but nothing about women, children or the populations of other tribes or nations. Just the 600k described though shouldn't be seen until just under 100 years before the birth of Jesus. Including all of the other people with extremely simple estimates, Moses and the Israelites would have had to fight the Mongols along with the other tribes of the desert. --MyNameIsMike (talk) 02:21, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
There's also the fact that right off of the bat they assumed 2 people while completely ignoring the fact that a population must be MUCH larger if you want to avoid genetic birth defects within a few generations. — Unsigned, by: Samstr / talk / contribs
RationalWiki has a Population bottleneck article. CamelCasePragmatist (talk) 00:32, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Right, I understand pretty much everything wrong with their reasoning, I just wanted to know if this specific part was a form of logical fallacy or if it was just plain wrong. --MyNameIsMike (talk) 02:21, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Maybe related to mistaking the map for the territory? That's another instance of drawing faulty conclusions from simplified, generalized[wp] schematics. Consider the "map" to be the simplified growth curve implied by doubling every 150 years, and the "territory" to be what really happens, given environmental constraints and the effects of population density as it shifts from sparse to overcrowded. Also, don't neglect the Dunning-Kruger effect. CamelCasePragmatist (talk) 03:27, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Some blogger on RationalWiki

Didn't know where to post this, so put it here. "What happened to rationalwiki?", from "I am an Atheist and this is why". — Unsigned, by: FuzzyCatPotato / talk / contribs 21:51, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Unless you've got anything particular to say about it, put it in RationalWiki:Monthly RW/Mentions. WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
I think they guy's got a point -- a lot of our articles are way too much into ad-hom and not into debunking. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 22:29, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
FCP, do not start up the bullshit as to how we need to eliminate SPOV again. SPOV exists; I'm sorry if you don't like it. --Castaigne (talk) 22:35, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
That wasn't me before and that isn't me now. Snark is fine. My problem is ad hominem. We can be snarky -- about ideas. We don't need to snark about people, when their ideas are so shit it just makes you pity their mind. FrizzyCatPotato (talk/stalk) 23:21, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Rails

I'm not sure where you got that 'point' from. All he was complaining about was a humorous use of the tumbleweeds, our article on Thunderf00t being too harsh on the guy and the reverse for our article on Rebecca Watson (all 3 of which are non-issues). 141.134.75.236 (talk) 02:04, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Most of the post was pretty dumb. But this quote:
"However, recently when reading an article there I was amused but also wondering why RationalWiki needed to go and make some snarky comments about people. I mean criticism of a persons ideas is okay, but attacking them personally is different."
Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 02:15, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
That's reasonable enough, though linguistically the difference between calling an act racist and calling the perpetrator of that act a racist is just one small nominalization.[wp] 141.134.75.236 (talk) 02:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
The poster looked at the Ken Ham article. I agree that it's a bit overboard. Quote: "He is a brainwashed, Bible-humping Christian" FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 02:34, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Changed the phrasing a bit (didn't even remove any jokes). Does it look less personal-attack-ish now? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 02:42, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Not really. We spend so much of the article talking shit about him, and very little about his ideas. FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 02:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
I read that and I see go talk more about his ideas, so I guess I might go see what can be done. PacWalker 02:54, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
I mean, we do have in-depth articles about many of his arguments and beliefs, and it's pretty much sufficient to link to them. But the parts where we just call him words are kind of meaningless. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 03:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Better question: how the hell would an article on someone not call them words? PacWalker 03:04, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
"Well, you see, this... um, well, anyway..." 141.134.75.236 (talk) 03:12, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Stop saying words about my words. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 03:29, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Off the rails

The tumbleweeds though. I mean seriously, a list of reasons to use those:
Tumbleweed.gif
 ;) PacWalker 02:07, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Pfft. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 02:14, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the link. I felt obliged to comment. --Castaigne (talk) 22:35, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
I honestly like the stupid snark. I like the idea of an encyclopedia dramatica that actually has an agenda and isn't afraid to be completely biased. Samstr (talk) 00:30, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
When you put it like that... it still sounds bad FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 01:51, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
When you put it like that, it sounds worse. PacWalker 01:52, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
When you put it like that, it sounds great! --Madman (talk) 02:06, 5 May 2015 (UTC)The Madman
Yay! Stupid for the win. Samstr (talk) 02:07, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
ED is much, much worse than just "stupid snark". And it also has an agenda; one that's anti-authority, pro-bullying, pro-offending-people and pro-pointless-vitriol. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 02:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Correct, although I will now butt in to say that pointing out that a person/group/organization has some agenda is like a real non-statement when you get down to it. PacWalker 02:44, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, but I didn't just say they had an agenda; I also specified that the one they had was particularly unfavorable. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 02:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
And you were correct, of course, save in your lack of account. PacWalker 02:50, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Maybe 141 is hiding behind their IP address facade because they work for their own malevolent agenda... o-O FuzzyCatPotato™ (talk/stalk) 02:52, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
"Maybe?" Let me assure you that there is no doubt about it. ;) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 02:54, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
ED is affiliated only with hate and edge. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Star of David.png Judges not by color but by dankness of memes 03:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support