RationalWiki:Saloon bar

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

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

What is going on?

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

  1. This site is ridiculous. (04:55, 27 Nov 2015)
  2. The Insanity of Marxists? (14:44, 25 Nov 2015)
  3. Question: Is there anywhere where I can suggest an article be written? (23:12, 24 Nov 2015)
  4. Unpleasant experience of rational wiki (15:52, 24 Nov 2015)
  5. Okay, I do believe it's time for a frank discussion about college students. (21:39, 23 Nov 2015)
  6. Little help? (22:13, 20 Nov 2015)
To do list


[edit] Greatest hits of October 2015

So I got the page hit logs and ran them through a handy shell script Trent had there. Here are the greatest hits of October 2015, straight out of the page hits log!

243794 Main_Page
 90098 Project_Blue_Beam
 76713 List_of_scientists_who_became_creationists_after_studying_the_evidence
 55852 Roko's_basilisk
 26400 List_of_forms_of_government
 24493 FEMA_concentration_camps
 24393 undefined
 21288 Denver_Airport_conspiracy_theories
 18008 Undefined
 15532 Gamergate

Some of it I wonder at, e.g. I have no idea why Undefined has so many hits, but they're there in the raw logs.

I tried putting the whole list into RationalWiki:Pages by popularity 2015-10, then only the first 1000 lines, but MediaWiki and/or Apache choked on it. So now it's up as raw text at http://rwdocs.org/statistics/201510.popular and you can see if you can do something better with it.

The raw page hit logs are available to anyone who would like to do stuff with them. They just have a date stamp and a URL, so contain no private information at all. (If they weren't so big I'd just put them up. Yes, I meant to dump them on archive.org ages ago ...) - David Gerard (talk) 16:31, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Why is User:LMM getting so many views? In particular since that isn't even a created page? --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 16:55, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
That's the re-name of that Brazilian dude who went antisemitis on us, IIRC. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 18:42, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Thought that was LeandroTelesRocha or similar. WalkerWalkerWalker 20:02, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
You're right -- he WAS renamed into some sort of strain of initials, but this ain't the guy. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 01:07, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
There are a couple others that don't make much sense either... gonna see if I can Gegl a link: search on them. WalkerWalkerWalker 17:07, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Well that told me nothing. :? WalkerWalkerWalker 17:17, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
At least in terms of "undefined" I can see how that would make sense. Someone's code somewhere not putting anything in the page title portion of the URL could drop a bot onto that page, I imagine.ℕoir LeSable (talk) 17:10, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm still gobsmacked that a page I made as a joke way back when is so popular. BicyclewheelModerator 18:04, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Obviously I need to get busy and write an article about Undefined. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 18:25, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Raw pagehit data will shortly be at http://rwdocs.org/statistics/201510.pagehits.xz (hundreds of megabytes, expands to 7,235,593,627 bytes) if anyone is curious and wants to see if they can do better. Note that most entries are MediaWiki talking to itself, calling bits of its website page furniture, etc. I can't believe some of these numbers, but they seem to match the full Apache-NCSA-style logs (which are confidential because they contain IP numbers, but if anyone is particularly curious I'd be delighted to answer questions about anomalies) - David Gerard (talk) 00:50, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps also recording the user-agent and/or referer header might be useful? That's not too private, imho, and might still explain some of the anomalies... Carpetsmoker (talk) 08:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
User-agent should probably stay private (in checkusers on Wikipedia it's a really useful tell), but referer is probably releasable (though I'm reluctant to fiddle with it until I know what Trent had in mind) - David Gerard (talk) 09:20, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Okay. I took a look at the "undefined" thing, and I noticed that they seem to come in clusters. So on Oct 2 from 04:51 to 04:56 you have 780 hits, but no other hits on this day. The same for Oct 15 with 2444 hits from 15:14 to 15:35. Interestingly, later in the evening there are a few small clusters, 2 at 20:04, 6 at 20:08, 2 at 20:10, 4 at 20:12, and 2 at 20:14.
All of that sounds like some sort of bot to me... The evening activity on Oct 15 almost seems like someone doing some development on the bot and testing some stuff (which is why I mentioned the user-agent).
Oh, and /wiki/undefined is a 301 to /wiki/Undefined, and most hits go to /undefined; so the actual number is closer to 20k, and not 42k. Carpetsmoker (talk) 09:34, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
just had another thought, what if it's a user-script that does jQuery.ajax({url: 'http://rationalwiki/wiki/' + some_var}), where some_var is undefined due to a bug. Carpetsmoker (talk) 14:16, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm proud to say that the Didit generator that I created and brought to life with the help of FuzzyCatPotato is actually more popular than all the other "didits" (Goddidit, etc.)). Bongolian (talk) 07:38, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I can say that I accidentally launched a couple hits to Undefined or something like that the other day while testing some js, so the bot testing theory is plausible enough to me. WalkerWalkerWalker 20:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Yahoo answers

Why is the website RationalWiki so overtly liberal in its political articles?

As someone who is centrist and whose vote is very much up for grabs in 2016 (I'd never vote for Trump or Sanders, that's all that's for sure), I like to think of myself as pretty rational and level-headed in how I analyze things. Free markets are good, but some regulation is needed. Immigration makes America great, but our borders have to be protected; you can't deport 14 million folks, but they shouldn't get the right to vote either.

I see this website called "RationalWiki" and it just slams religious people and Republicans to an extreme extent, calling them lunatics, nuts, etc. Are they really as rational as they claim? Because those smarter-than-thou types on the left really piss me off, just as some of the wingnut stuff on the right does too.

FuzzyDogPotato (talk/stalk) 22:15, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Well... Dandtiks69♪♫ (talk) 00:30, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, he's not wrong on being overtly-left. But he isn't right on us being irrational. You mean to tell me the tamales were spiked?! Say hi! Look here! Amen! 00:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
If you have any serious question about the intention, note the answer chosen by the questioner. WalkerWalkerWalker 00:46, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
It's only "left" by American standards. The top answer mentions ties to Clinton as a joke. Clinton certainly isn't "left" by European standards. Carpetsmoker (talk) 08:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

[edit] I don't suppose anybody knows anything...

About a group of Alien sightings in the 1970s, one of which was in britain of a thing that was 2.5 meters tall, robot like with red eyes. I just read about it in a ufo book whose artwork i enjoyed as a kid and was wanting to look up the details of the case. I was hoping somebody here might have hear about it. DarkAngelCryo (talk) 03:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

The only UK sightings I know anything about - and I'm not saying they're real or not - were those around the Dyfed Peninsular in Wales in the 70s. Those also featured reports of giant figures. Not sure about online sources, but there is a book called The Dyfed Enigma that documents the sightings. PsyGremlinSiarad! 11:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
that may be it, although some of the details differ the creatures seem similar.DarkAngelCryo (talk) 03:30, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

[edit] NYT editors slam Hillary Clinton

And I'm as pleased as I am surprised. When asked during the last debate about her coziness with Wall St., banksters, and the huge corporate donations to her campaign, she claimed Big Money loves her simply because of how she responded to 9/11. The Editors weren't having it:

Twitter exploded with demands to know what campaign donations from big banks had to do with New York’s recovery from 9/11. Answer: little to nothing. Since 2001, she and Bill Clinton have earned more than $125 million for speeches, many of the most lucrative made before financial groups. That does not account for the millions given directly to her campaign, and to political action committees backing her. Nearly 15 years after the 2001 attacks, Mrs. Clinton was earning more than $200,000 for a 20-minute speech. Most of those took place behind guarded doors. But one can guess that she and the financial executives were not still talking about 9/11.

She also tossed in the non sequitur that 60% of her campaign donations are from woman, and about that I give not a shit. Hillary is owned by Wall St.---Mona- (talk) 03:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

"And about that, I give not a shit." That should be put as a quote above her article 'Legionwhat do you want from me 04:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Ha! I am humbled and flattered. AgingHippie grabbed my last two sentences and stuck them right where you said. Thanks guys! ---Mona- (talk) 04:55, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
But didn't the Jews that control Wall Street also carry out 9/11? Why would they like Hillary responding to it then? I'm so confused! (Warning: Poe's Law in action!) --Ymir (talk) 09:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Chief rabbi of Israeli settlement says Paris deserved it

From The Jerusalem Post:

A religious Zionist cleric from a Jewish settlement on the West Bank told mourners on Saturday... [at a funeral] the attacks in Paris were deserved..."The wicked ones in blood-soaked Europe deserve it for what they did to our people 70 years ago," [Dov] Lior said.

This same piece of scum feels Palestinians should be used for medical experiments and that bombing all the civilians in Gaza to death is justified. He has a significant following among settlers and other Israeli Jews.---Mona- (talk) 03:42, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

So I read the Haaretz piece and while I understand why they published it I don't understand why you seem believe every word of it. Fear-mongering is a very effective political strategy and contrary to popular belief its use is not confined to the right wing. The left in my own country (USA) used it against Dubya, the Indian left uses it against Narendra Modi and Haaretz is using it against Netanyahu. Now, being a leftist (well, at least in the US) I tend to believe that all of these politicians would love to go and establish fascist dictatorships in their respective countries if they could. But history has shown that in order for anyone to take power in that way they have to have overwhelming domestic and especially military backing plus at least some unequivocal international support. Netanyahu does not have any of those things, so implying that he will soon establish a fascist dictatorship and that the next election will be the last one is kind of irresponsible (though given the trajectory that Israeli society (in particular) is on I am not surprised that Haaretz published it, after all I certainly would have). In essence I believe that it is a mistake to take that article quite as literally as you seem to be. Alsto003 (talk) 13:40, 17 November 2015 (UTC) Alex
Alsto003: I have extensive experience of Haaretz and know it to have a reputation for reliability. I avoid sources who do not enjoy such a reputation, unless to use them as examples. Moreover, the Google results yield literally hundreds of articles. I don't know if this one is there, but you may wish to consult: How to Kill Goyim and Influence People: Israeli Rabbis Defend Book's Shocking Religious Defense of Killing Non-Jews (with Video) This article is reproduced (in sum and substance) in a book by the same author, a book which even its fiercest crtitics have had to conceed is "technically accurate." Do see the lovely material about Rabbi Lior.---Mona- (talk) 16:53, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
I have no doubt that it is accurate. Remember you're talking about Dov Lior, this was the same guy who said that Dr. Goldstein (I'm sure you know of him), was "Holier than all the martyrs of the Holocaust.". I was not surprised by his latest pronouncement about the attacks in Paris, how could anyone be surprised or disbelieve that quote when it comes from the same man who thinks who thinks that a hateful rampage killer is worthy of any exaltation at all (let alone more than the victims of a genocide)? He needs no introduction, he is a thoroughly despicable character and I could go on at length about that. Alsto003 (talk) 23:40, 18 November 2015 (UTC) Alex
"Netanyahu does not have any of those things, so implying that he will soon establish a fascist dictatorship and that the next election will be the last one is kind of irresponsible" Netanyahu, and others, have already taken the nation of Israel toward fascism. See this book. (Which its critics agree is accurate.) Then see this article by a recent director of Israel's Shin bet, it's FBI. I have more documentation of Israel's lurch toward evil and fascism if you are interested. <---Mona- (talk) 17:02, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
I know very well that Israel is marching towards authoritarianism and fascism. My disagreement with you here is rather minor and it is that I personally don't think that Israel has gotten there yet and I have trouble believing that it will happen as soon as the author of the Haaretz article seems to believe. In essence I do not believe that clock is running down as quickly as you think it is. Bibi may indeed be a fascist, but at the end of the day Bibi is also a career politician who knows very well that Israel has to at least maintain the facade of good faith in order to avoid being damned as a pariah by every country but the United States. While I can easily picture Israel going full fascist on the world I cannot picture them doing that with him in office, even if he is the one setting the stage for it to happen. Alsto003 (talk) 23:40, 18 November 2015 (UTC) Alex

[edit] RWDocs


Is this ever going to be a thing? If it is, how much shame should we feel?

FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 18:03, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I remember, a long long time ago, we had a discussion about rationalblogs and rationalvlogs and stuff and nothing came of that. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 18:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
This is so HTML-tutorial esque. Like the template used on Khan Academy, except as a full-on webpage. You mean to tell me the tamales were spiked?! Say hi! Look here! Amen! 00:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
It's actually refreshing to see a page of little but text and no layout elements. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 19:52, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Kind of bothers me how little there is. With no links; just the main RW Docs Home page and...nothing, really... You mean to tell me the tamales were spiked?! Say hi! Look here! Amen! 04:02, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
rwdocs was apparently a project of Trent's. I'm just using it as an address to dump fat downloads most people won't be interested in, but the interested people will be very interested - David Gerard (talk) 08:18, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Props on the Orff though. WalkerWalkerWalker 06:18, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I do have to admit, it was cool. And I loved that Illuminati George Bush pic that flashed by in the video. Gotta hand it to Trent, he did a cool job on that. You mean to tell me the tamales were spiked?! Say hi! Look here! Amen! 06:20, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

[edit] War on Christmas

http://images1.tickld.com/live/477423.jpg oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 03:40, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

The might of the Christian armies shall never stand up to my powerful magic spell. The demonic power contained within the phrase "Happy Holidays" can destroy their very souls. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:19, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Just wait till spring when my Muslim army celebrates their holidays; beware the Eids of March! CorruptUser (talk) 01:49, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Mod election wtfery

I have no frickin' clue how this is supposed to work, but I've got it to the stage where I can get a "Vote" button with no candidates. I have no idea where the votes end up either. Yay Nx-code! I'll poke it again shortly.

Also, we should probably have picked a returning officer as yet. I could count them, but given I'm a candidate that's unlikely to be the best idea - David Gerard (talk) 20:31, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm no longer a candidate and can volunteer as returning officer. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 20:57, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Yer on. I'll email you the list of votes from the server when it's all over (email me with your preferred address to send this to) - David Gerard (talk) 21:29, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
So is voting anonymous? Or how exactly does all of this work? Carpetsmoker (talk) 22:05, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
I ... think so? I think it has a DB table that notes if you have voted, and a text table it writes the votes themselves to, without a way to correlate them ... awaiting tech details from Trent - David Gerard (talk) 22:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
I think I have a handle on this ... see RationalWiki:Technical_support#Moderator_elections for the saga. Gah - David Gerard (talk) 21:46, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
It was always touted as being anonymous, at least to the extent of matching votes to editors, to the point where one user voted with multiple socks and we were unable to do anything about it as we weren't sure which votes belonged to who. I think it is a good idea to have a returning officer who is not running for election, but tradition has also dictated that the data is released for others to crunch too. Tielec01 (talk) 00:39, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

WE ARE OPEN, I think. Please try to vote and note if you have - David Gerard (talk) 22:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for sorting this out David!--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 01:04, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Can we please make a separate article on BioShock

Just food for thought.— Unsigned, by: jakester499 / talk / contribs

How does it relate to RW:MISSION ... ? Carpetsmoker (talk) 20:41, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
It's a parody of Objectivism and seasteading - David Gerard (talk) 21:33, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Not a parody as much as a direct critique of it. But I agree with Carpet, it's not really missional (unless anything even vaguely critiquing cranks is missional). |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Star of David.png I... I AM A MONSTER... COACH 02:41, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
I think we could make an article out of it, the question is how useful or long would that article be, and how much could we write without making the article something from the bioshock wiki?--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 02:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Useful? No. Long? Also no. Will probably create a shitstorm one way or the other? Very yes. I support the creation of this article. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Star of David.png Open your heart, it's gonna be alright 03:01, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
And the sequel touches upon dominionism and American exceptionalism. If MLP is missional... Vulpius (talk) 02:46, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
One character's name is intentionally almost an anagram of Ayn Rand.—Ryulong (talk) 05:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
After reading up on Ayn Rand's early life, I think Andrew Ryan was intended to be an alternative Ayn Rand--what if she was born male, that sort of thing. --Maxus (talk) 05:31, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm not opposed, but the mention here is good enough. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar?~) 05:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Would you kindly make a Bioshock article? --Ymir (talk) 10:40, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
I was going to make a redirect. Looks like we already got one! Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar?~) 21:21, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Restarting the Panther Parties?

I'll admit, I'm completely unknowledgable about these things, but would it be possible to reestablish the Black / White Panther Parties in Detroit, maybe Ann Arbor? Luckily I live near the birth-place of the White Panthers, and I was wondering if anyone would be interested in helping me reform the movements (preferably both the Black and White)? I'm only one man, and not very knowledgeable in these matters, so any help would be greatly appreciated. - Shouniaisha (talk) 10:17, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

lets not.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 11:41, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Why not? Any specific reasons? - Shouniaisha (talk)
Because they really didn't accomplish much except prove that being an extremist group (be it the KKK on the right or Weather Underground on the left) does nothing to further your cause and, in fact, is more of a burden to your cause by making people think "OMG, they are too extreme for me!" Gooniepunk (talk) 11:56, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
And that even if the group starts off with good intentions, given enough time an NGO Army will ALWAYS turns into something horrific. CorruptUser (talk) 12:28, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
I assume the sole reason for restarting a party with baggage is name recognition. You'll attract a bunch of malcontents who only remember the worst aspects of those parties - and like them. If that's not what you're after, then try starting a new party that's not based on the battles of forty years ago. If that is what you're after, then you're part of the problem. There's enough hatred, division and spite floating around already without someone stirring up more. BicyclewheelModerator 18:22, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
It's already been done and disowned by the old BBlack Panther party. Read the WP article. nobs
Well, last time we tried that it didn't go along exactly swimmingly. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Star of David.png Bird don't sing, the wind doesn't blow 00:38, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Alright The Panthers' have had their share of controversy to say the least. And, as I said I'm not a very knowledgeable with these things, so forgive me if this idea is just as stupid, but perhaps starting a new organization with similar tenets but less connection with batshit crazy people would work? I don't want to water down the policies too much. Also, how should I go about doing this? Should I talk with some friends, see if they'd be interested in starting something, maybe gauge the local college as well? - Shouniaisha (talk) 04:25, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Start by listening to the song "Bloody Revolutions" by the band Crass. Gooniepunk (talk) 04:28, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Ah Crass. Well, freedom has no value if violence is the price,Don't want your revolution, I want anarchy and peace. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 04:57, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
An absolutely brilliant song, and that's the kind of thinking that I want to promote with a new party building partially off of the Panthers. Less gun-toting and talk of violent revolution, more of a movement of anarchistic thinking and promoting community-mindedness. -

Shouniaisha (talk) 05:01, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Because anarchy and peace has such a fine track record. What could possibly go wrong?--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 05:06, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
No, just no. There is no need for paramilitary organizations as long as there's democracy. You want to know who joins non-government paramilitary organizations? George Zimmerman, that's fucking who. And he's the nicest example of such. Better off organizing voters, getting candidates that actually care about the community, etc, but no more militias. CorruptUser (talk) 04:47, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

The biggest unanswered question is "why?" (talk) 11:53, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, I want to get into political activism and stuff like that, and when I read over the White Panthers' tenets, they really jived with my beliefs. And this could just be my naivete talking (in fact, yeah that's probably it), but I want to bring a change to the corrupted landscape of politics in Detroit. Not to mention the economy. - Shouniaisha (talk) 19:28, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I've started with a rough outline of the group's principles and other political interests. I got the main tenets from RW's page on the White_Panther_Party Feel free to comment on any ideas or revisions. Obviously, still a WiP. - Shouniaisha (talk) 01:44, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Universal Life Church

Who ever came up with the ULC was a total genius; I bet the people who run it sleep on a pile of money (figure of speech, of course).--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 15:25, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, something's got to fill the hole in their soul from bilking people in dire situations. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 15:30, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
The free ordinations that ULC offer (I think they were always free) is no way to get rich. The soul hole they give to prosperity gospel ministers upon ordination is big enough for a bank. Bongolian (talk) 19:18, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, the ordination part is free but the certificate costs money as well as other ministry supplies.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 23:19, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
I've known at least two ULC ministers. One was in it just for the giggle of being introduced as Reverend Jim. I don't think he paid for a certificate. The other one was into alternative spirituality, and I believe she felt the credentials lent legal weight to some of the rites she performed. CamelCasePragmatist (talk) 00:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
As a ULC-ordained minister, I can say that I am not a ULC minister because of profit. Indeed, the reason I became an ordained ULC minister and registered with my county (after having learned bout it on RationalWiki nonetheless), is because I wanted to fill the gap for fellow members of the LGBTQ community whose respective churches refused to marry them (I perform ceremonies at cost of travel expenses only for them). That, and my being a legally-recognized minister really gets under the skin of my Catholic priest uncle, whom I despise. Gooniepunk (talk) 04:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Good for you, Goonie. ωεαşεζόίďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:12, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I got ordained yesterday and I think I will call myself Reverend from now on, why? Two reasons- for the fun of it and I have been interested in Pagan ministry.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 16:08, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
As a card carrying SubGenius, I became ordained by the ULC and thusly refer to myself as a Pope as need be. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 16:16, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
As a dudeist priest i just sort of you know, wander--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 16:29, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
For the hell of it, I may get the clergy shirt too.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 19:42, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

[edit] What article would this work for?

http://io9.com/what-if-natural-products-came-with-a-list-of-ingredient-1503320184 Cømrade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 00:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Chemophobia and/or Appeal to nature? Carpetsmoker (talk) 00:51, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Interesting, but they did a half-assed job I think. I used to read about this stuff, but no longer have access to the summaries. I think many of the volatile aromatics are missing from the foods that they detailed. As an example, coffee is an eye-opener in more ways than one: there are well-over 1000 different chemicals in it, mainly due to the roasting. It has turned out to be one of the most healthful foods that people consume, with moderate consumption having been documented to extend life expectancy in at least one high-quality epidemiology study. Bongolian (talk) 02:20, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
This is why I pity the starving Americans. They have no food; everything they eat is either medicine or poison, and the medicine all tastes bad while only the poison tastes good. This is an incredibly odd and unproductive way to approach cuisine. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 15:55, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
[citation needed] Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 04:14, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Moved cock pen

I have just moved the former chicken coop to a newer, more fitting location, at RationalWiki:Cock pen. I hope this is acceptable. SockTheory 09:51, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

No, it's not. Carpetsmoker (talk) 10:47, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Really, what were you thinking? You not only moved the page, but also all the archive pages and all mentions. You get a few points for being thorough, but minus a crapload of points for just moving these pages without any prior discussion with the community... I've undid most of your changes, except the moving of the archive pages ... You can redeem yourself by fixing the archives (make sure that RationalWiki:Chicken_coop/Archive_list works). Carpetsmoker (talk) 11:15, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
If they don't fix it, there should be a batch move tool. If not, I can try putting MiniNyar on my computer. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar?~) 12:43, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
It looks like the archive pages have all been moved back with a load of stupid redirects left from [RationalWiki:Cock pen/Archive_]. If a bot can easily clear them up, that would be useful. WėąṣėḷőįďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 21:13, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I'll go mop them up. WalkerWalkerWalker 21:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm no techie, but what was the harm in doing this? Everything seemed to function fine (again, not a techie). Tielec01 (talk) 02:05, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
It was dumb and not at all discussed until after the fact? --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 05:53, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Tielec. SockTheory 07:29, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I understand your question Tielec01? The harm in what? Having the Chicken Coop page moved? Having the archives at Cock pen/ArchiveN, or having redirects for the archives? Carpetsmoker (talk) 12:45, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Well my question was really your last two questions Carpetsmoker, but it seems a bit redundant now. Tielec01 (talk) 05:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
To the middle question: once Carpetsmoker had moved it from cock pen to chicken coop, the archive list was borked, I believe. Except for 9. SockTheory left Archive 9 by mistake/technical error. WalkerWalkerWalker 05:13, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Apostasy

This has always struck me as a totally victimless "crime" (note the quote marks). And yet it carries the death penalty as a sentence in at least 14 countries. Can anyone think of another example of a harmless (so-called) crime that can be punished so extremely?--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 05:40, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

smoking weed? --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 05:53, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
EC Trafficking in, using, or possessing many drugs. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 05:54, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
In many cases, drug trafficking is hardly victimless. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 06:25, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Most likely in those 14 countries, being gay warrants the death penalty as well. Also, granted, not as extreme as a death penalty, the jailing of dissidents is most still pretty extreme. And on the opposite extreme, white collar crime (which can have upwards of thousands of victims) doesn't get punished harshly enough. - Shouniaisha (talk) 06:06, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Extramarital sex does have consequences in an ancient society that has no access to medical care. What if the only blacksmith for miles around catches a fatal disease? The whole village suffers, so there are indeed victims of Heinrich Smith's infidelity. And if Heinrich is having sex with a man, it's even more likely he'll get sick. Drugs harm the person using them, and the whole village will suffer if the only miller snorts himself into a coma. For a crime to be truly victimless, it has to actually not do any harm to anyone, not just only harm the person engaging in it.
I don't care about extramarital/homosexual sex or drug use now, so long as only the person(s) doing it only harm each other, because people are easily replaceable. And besides, some of that is fun; we all have our vices. But if we are on a colony ship with only 50 humans and absolutely everyone needs to survive in order for anyone to survive, the rules will be different. For instance, assuming we screen out the diseases, homosexual sex may be mandated rather than forbidden, because rubber is in short supply and we don't have the ability to raise children just yet... CorruptUser (talk) 15:53, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Cool story. €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:25, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Apostasy is only "harmless" from the PoV of more or less secular or multicultural societies (i.e. our societies), not from the PoV of fundamentalist theocracies (i.e. the countries that have apostasy laws) where it's (1) turning your back on God & (2) undermining the values of society & the orthodoxy that upholds the establishment. WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:25, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

While I have no problem with religion, killing someone for switching religions is nuts.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 15:40, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

[edit] The New Deal and the Great Depression?

In response to Bernie Sanders' speech about his views of Democratic Socialism, I'm seeing a few different conservative outlets like Freedom Works claim that FDR's New Deal actually prolonged the Great Depression. Now on various social media, I'm seeing conservatives pull random citations to overly technical papers from low-key relatively unknown economists that also make that assertion, in order to deceptively avoid setting off other people's alarm bells for citations like Fox News, Freedom Works, Conservapedia and etc.

My question is this: how can I effectively fight that bullshit? I don't know enough about economics and that period of history to feel very confident in my ability to dispel what looks like obvious historical revisionism in a public "debate", and the article here on the New Deal doesn't really address that particular assertion.— Unsigned, by: Eoan / talk / contribs

Did the new deal prolong the depression? Only if you think intervention and any amount of regulation is what caused the depression in the first place.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 05:52, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
@RobSmith: Is the guy you wanna talk to about this. Really. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 05:57, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
I really can't imagine they'll actually get the answer on how to combat this from Rob. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 06:02, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Rob would totally set them straight. He's an expert on the New Ordeal. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 06:07, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Now now don't be that cruel to somebody AH. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 06:09, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Have you forgotten? I am Foster The Cruel. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 06:20, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't know about any of you guys but my grandparents and their parents would have laughed you out of the room if they heard something like that (the ones who are still living certainly would). These hacks are the same people you despite saying that the New Deal prolonged the Great Depression still acknowledge that WWII ended it. So massive spending on infrastructure apparently prolonged the Great Depression but massive military spending ended it? Sure... Next they're gonna start claiming that lower taxes leads to higher revenues— oh wait... Alsto003 (talk) 12:46, 21 November 2015 (UTC) Alex
The New Deal didn't prolong the Depression; the lack of money did. I don't mean "we were too poor", I mean the lack of "worthless fiat" floating around. The problem was the dollar was TOO VALUABLE and there was unexpected deflation. What does this mean if you are a farmer who just took out a $10,000 loan to buy new farm equipment? Well, if the dollar is twice as strong you now have the equivalent of $20,000 of debt without seeing the extra benefits of the debt. This is identical to the Asian Financial Crisis, when the Asian countries borrowed in dollars expecting the dollar to crash in value (and thus, the debts worth less) only for the dollar to grow in value. Oops! And so you had a whole lot of destructive things going on; farmers throwing away food simply because it wouldn't pay off their debts, homes being foreclosed, people thrown out into the street, etc, which just made things worse. WWII didn't solve the depression with massive industry but through government printing money and the money supply finally flowing. CorruptUser (talk) 16:04, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
You can refer to various economic indicators like GDP or unemployment from the twenties to the forties (there are plenty of graphs and tables on the Internet). The Depression bottomed in 1933, and sharply turned around with the implementation of the New Deal. Things steadily improved until 1937, where GDP and earnings were similar to the pre-Depression high (recovery in unemployment was not as dramatic, but it was improving). The reversal of policies from budget cuts (since things seemed to be going well, and opponents gonna oppose) led to promptly worsening conditions. Some New Deal-ish policies were instituted in response, and things started recovering again, but things only clearly got better than 1937 a few years later from the buildup and entry to WWII (the largest deficit spending, lowest unemployment, and fastest GDP growth in US history). The what is easily conveyed, and the why can be summed up rather simply. But some people think that ideology is preferable to research as a source of information on the past, so political opinions are notoriously difficult to sway. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 06:43, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

The theory behind Keynsianism pump priming and expanding the aggregate bases is sound. But the political realities when implemented tend toward corruption patronage and cronie capitalism. It was Milton Friedman who dared to utter the blasphemy that the New Deal prolonged the Depression. nobs

[edit] IS Bernie Sanders electable?

Well, is he?--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 06:32, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

No. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 06:45, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
100% not. Sadly. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 08:41, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Maybe stood a bit of a chance 4 years ago, when Occupy and the "99%" were still an active and vital part of youth discourse. Now, when it seems as though identity politics is enjoying a resurgence on campus -- not that that ever went away, but BLM, Trans issues and other such movements, are taking up a lot of the same youth-activist bandwidth formerly taken by OWS -- I can't see a white male septuagenarian really firing people up, especially not young non-whites, whom the Dems really need to motivate if they want to win. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 08:49, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm hoping that Bernie has a long-lasting influence on American politics by making "the moderate left" mainstream (like it's in Europe). Whether this will actually happen, I don't know, but here's to hoping... Carpetsmoker (talk) 12:37, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
(EC? with how long it was here without an edit? Okay.) I was going to make a comment here about Bernie Sanders at one point. I was going to say that his popularity is... Mostly from the non-voting internet types. But maybe they'll actually vote this time. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar?~) 12:39, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree with AgingHippie albeit for slightly different reasons. Several years ago he could have won when economics and inequality were on everyone's mind but now that popular discourse has shifted to social issues he will no longer stand a chance. To many of you, the protesters at places like Mizzou and other universities are justified in both their anger and their demands, but to most of the electorate in this country, they look like a nightmare strait out of the 1970s, except this time thankfully without the violence. It is foolish to believe that the majority of this country has moved on from those years of societal chaos. I was not alive during the seventies but almost every single person who I know well who was alive during that decade still votes with those years in the back of their mind. Or so I have deduced; after all I cannot imagine why my father and bunch of other people who I know who are center left, would have voted for Bush Sr. in 1988 if they didn't have those memories floating around in the back of their head. Mark my words if he goes up against anyone but Trump this election will end the same way as the Bush-Dukakis election. Alsto003 (talk) 13:29, 21 November 2015 (UTC) Alex
Depends on whom the Republicans nominate. If Trump, any Democrat will win. CorruptUser (talk) 16:06, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
I suspect he is. Voters here as elsewhere are looking for a candidate with a moral center. The other question ought to be 'is Hillary Clinton electable?' I find her appeal as a candidate simply incomprehensible. If she is the nominee she will generate no enthusiasm and many Democratic leaning voters will simply stay home. Hillary is exactly the opposite of what voters seem to be looking for now, a candidate who changes positions at will based on the results of the latest polls and focus groups. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 17:18, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Smerdis. With Hillary's recent Anti-ISIL strategy of more broad bombing and ground troops (which could mean the more rationale position of using special forces) I would probably not turn out in support, but in fear of anyone the Republicans choose. I definitely disagree that people aren't thinking about income inequality; it's more of the establishment Democrats don't care or even favor the status qou.--Owlman (talk) 17:31, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Smerdis and Owlman. If people did not care about income inequality and how the system seems rigged – not only against the poor but also against the other socioeconomically disadvantaged such as women and black people – Bernie Sanders would not now be polling at around 30% in the democratic primary. While it's true that he currently isn't polling as well among minority voters, I believe the reason is due to a lack of focus instead of a lack of ability. And as the state primaries draw nearer, he will improve that focus accordingly.
As far as the general election goes, I also agree with the sentiment that Hillary Clinton would possibly have a more difficult time than Bernie Sanders. No one actually seems that excited about her beyond “first female president”, whereas Bernie actually seems to be drawing the same kind of heart-felt enthusiasm that Barack Obama did in 2008. And whereas she has been mired in mostly manufactured controversies over the past 20 years, he's a bit fresher on the scene and has shown in his recent speech on democratic socialism that he can defend himself just as well as she can. Hell, he's linked his policies to FDR and the economic views espoused by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., which is more than she has done to justify and explain the context behind her positions.
People's feelings on either side of the primary seem to be that a vote for Hillary would mostly just be a shoe-in vote against the Republicans while a vote for Bernie is actually a vote for Bernie and the types of policies they would actually like to see implemented. And I think that that kind of enthusiasm could make all the difference in the general election. People who normally don't vote would engage in the process – some of them for the very first time after years or even a decade or more of inaction – and increase the voter turnout, leading to bigger gains for the Democrats in Congress than they would probably see otherwise. Eoan (talk) 06:22, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Oh I see how it is. Hillary is a woman so she must like shoes, huh?! (Psst, maybe you were looking for "shoo-in".) --Ymir (talk) 06:46, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I was. Thanks :P Eoan (talk) 07:45, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Something the Democrats should keep in mind

I was just looking at an old Obama campaign speech from 2008 where he attacked Bush's war in Iraq and his abuses of the Constitution. That was a huge part of why the Dems were so successful that year -- his rallying of the youth/activist/antiwar vote, the people who wanted to see a saner US foreign policy, an alternative to the Republican Party of War. While he has a handful of praiseworthy accomplishments -- ending legalised torture, the nukes treaty with Iraq, and Cuba come to mind -- Obama has largely done the opposite of what he said he would do. Instead, he has radically expanded drone warfare; has been unable to meaningfully end either war in Iraq or Afghanistan, expanded state surveillance of the citzenry, and has stuck his successor not only with ISIS and a shooting war in Syria, but also the clusterfuck that is Yemen, and the clusterfuck that is Libya. The Dems cannot run hard against Obama's record (especially so Clinton) and present the people who were a big part of his success with a viable alternative to a permanent war footing and continued erosion of domestic rights. Look for a lot of the college kids and other active types who rang doorbells and manned phone banks to stay home next year. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 07:09, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think they're going to stay home next year if the democratic candidate is the person who wants to fight for single-payer health care and tuition-free public higher education, and when they're the ones who say they stay home when politicians don't fight for their views.
Look, I harp on those people all the time too. I absolutely hate how they stayed home during the midterms last year. But this is a presidential election year, and for once they actually have a candidate who is actually representing the things that they've been complaining about all of this time. They seem to be just as fired up and ready to go now as they were for Obama in 2008, and their candidate is telling them at every chance he gets that he needs their help. And they repeat that fact to their critics and their allies alike non-stop.
You're going to need a lot more than just something that amounts to "lazy kids" if you want to convince people to disbelieve the signs that are out there. I hate their apathy too, but I can't deny the enthusiasm and self-critique that I've seen coming from them over the past few months, which has translated to Bernie Sanders thus far reaching 30% in the polls after all of the more cynical people like the two of us said that he probably wouldn't even make it that far. And yes, I was cynical about his chances too. But I've since changed my opinion in light of all of that. Eoan (talk) 07:43, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
And as far as the foreign policy goes, I think that Bernie Sanders has that base covered better than Hillary Clinton does as far as it applies to the youth vote without also pissing off the establishment. He has acknowledged that we probably won't be able to completely avoid getting involved in conflict, and his proposal to deal with that is to create an international organization like NATO with the sole purpose of fighting terrorism and addressing its root causes. He said that Russia and the Middle Eastern countries will be invited in, and that he will press for the later to lead the effort against ISIL with the western world providing support.
I honestly think it's a brilliant idea because it would allow countries like Sweden and Finland to join in the initiative without having to go through the difficult political discussions at home about the possibility of joining NATO, not to mention its potential to help diffuse the tension with Russia. And I think that younger voters would be willing to accept those positions because of how they perceive Hillary Clinton's proposals to be more "hawkish", as it were. Eoan (talk) 07:55, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Bernie Sanders strikes me as being the last angry man and not much else, while Hillary Clinton is a slimy snake who wouldn't know integrity if it slapped her in the face. Sanders hasn't really explained how an economic model in countries which have 21 million or fewer people is feasible in the U.S.; if it is, he'd do well to provide some detail. And while the VA has been in a state of total FUBAR for years, he also helped pass a bill that made it more difficult to fix. The Democrats would do well to find something besides them, but it doesn't seem likely. It's hard to believe I'm saying (and I know it'll be unpopular here, but someone has to break out of the groupthink) Marco Rubio is starting to look better, I've far from made up my mind but I'm definitely giving him more thought now that I've sat through Clinton and Sanders. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
I've heard before this idea that just because something works in a small country doesn't mean it'll work in a larger one, and I've never understood the thinking behind it. How do economic theories change in applicability based on population? If anything it seems to me that things like universal health care would work even better in the U.S., given its large economy and tax base. The rah-rah laissez-faire capitalism types never seem to think their favored economic system's effectiveness depends on population. And you really think Marco Rubio, who denies climate change, wants to ban all abortion, even in cases of rape, and thinks it's a good idea to try to start a war with Russia, sounds like a good choice? --Ymir (talk) 02:51, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
That an economy with more than 10 times as many people and which is far more diverse would have some differences isn't much of a stretch to think of. As for Rubio, I said I'd think more about him, not that I'm sold on him. If it's just those three, it's a toss-up between a crotchety old guy, an anti-science nut, and a professional sleazebag; sounds good, huh? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:39, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
And your evidence for why those differences would be as you claim (or indeed that they would be period)? WalkerWalkerWalker 17:47, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Read: where is this socialism-breaking nonlinearity against population that no one else can ever find? WalkerWalkerWalker 17:53, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Off the top of my head the logistics are vastly more complicated, as the physical distance between places is much larger than in any Scandinavian country. The medical industry learned this when Olympus (you most likely know them for cameras, but endoscopes are their cash cow), in its infinite wisdom, decided that the British could run the American part of the company; they quickly discovered that getting equipment where it needed to be was vastly different and more complicated than they realized, and decided that the Americans who had been running things knew what they were doing after all. And the idea that Sanders is going to force through a single payer healthcare system borders on laughable; Steven Brill, the person who knows as much about this as anyone, essentially said that it was so unrealistic as to be not worth the effort (link as needed, it's a fascinating article and Charlie Rose interview). There are plenty of things that can be done (like capping profits on prescription drugs, doing the same with medical equipment, and not actively preventing the completely FUBARred VA from becoming un-FUBARred), and however unfortunate it may be a single payer system isn't one of them. Being the last angry man doesn't mean you can bypass Congress, which in reality-land isn't going to pass this however good it may be (and I'm someone who'd greatly benefit from such a system, so it pains me to have to say this, but I have to be real about it). Besides, isn't in on the person who makes the assertion "It'll work here" to say something besides "Trust me, it does because it works there"? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:25, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Survivalists

Over half of the wacko doomsday scenarios they come up with, nobody would be able to survive those scenarios. There would be no point in prepping for them; take a nuclear war, mankind would be stuck underground and eventually run out of food before radiation levels went down to safe levels. Or take a zombie apocalypse some survivalists say would happen, most epidemiological models figured that mankind would perish. In the end nobody escapes death.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 13:04, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 15:11, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
@Paravant Wow, sourpuss much? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:34, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
@Rationalzombie94 Yep; and assuming a catastrophy is not total but "merely" incapacitates society, it's illegal in the US to horde emergency supplies. This point is actually often raised by the (likely majority of) preppers who are of the militia/libertarian/freemen persuation - they see it as an example of how hard-working John Galts like themselves are having their work stolen from them by the NWO. Meanwhile, emergency hoarding legislation exists equally - if not entirely - to prevent large freelance entities such as the armed forces, religious organisations (especially those that own compounds and guns), various corporations and even that same guv'mint from hoarding supplies. It's a legislation that aims to redistribute to individual families from whoever has it gathering dust, no matter how many guns they have to claim it's theirs. Though I put very, very little stock in any zombie apocalypse concept (to put it nicely), there is a general point to be made about numbers in any massive catastrophy event - as Penn & Teller put it (paraphrased); "In these catastrophy scenarios, people always claim that 90-95% of the population of the world is gonna die, yet they never figure that they are gonna end up among the bodies. Well, we always loved playing the odds, so - in the case of apocalypse, we're betting we're gonna die. You should see our credit card bills! They're higher than our cholesterol!" Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:34, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
I said "most", not all.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 18:11, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Sweet; not that it matters. It is the real scenario of a popular culture-style "zombie outbreak" I'm highly sceptical of, not epidemological modeling in any scientific meaning. So, I really held nothing against you in what I wrote. Thus, your minor change of emphasis changes nothing in relation to what I wrote. Oh well. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:46, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

[edit] What religions are the most ethic and/or rational?

𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈 (talk) 14:54, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Many congregations of Unitarian Universalists could be described as ethical, and at least as rational as the general run of the saner sort of humanity. The same could be said of many groups of Zen Buddhists, if one were to call that a religion. Alec Sanderson (talk) 15:06, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Excluding of course those Zen Buddhists[wp] who supported the militarization of Japan from the Meiji Restoration on past World War II. Bongolian (talk) 08:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
That's nice. You will notice I did not say squat about all Zen Buddhists, so no need to pull out that irrelevant Scotsman. If you look hard enough, we all have horse thieves among our forebears (metaphorically speaking, duh) but that does not mean we should all be hung. Alec Sanderson (talk) 12:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Deists are functional atheists who, to varying degrees, let natural science explain how the world is working except at some point in the chain "invisible watchmaker/science god is involved in some way". As for ethical, that depends on what you consider ethical, and what takes away ethical. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 15:10, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Not one of the three abrahamitic desert dogmas, that much is absolutely certain. I'd wager - on a limb - some specific variety of Buddhism (and not a generalist Buddhism) and/or Jainism (depending equally on a similar number of caveats)? Though, if the question is really meant to "rank ethics" rather than to "rank religions", no religion would come near the top of the ethics ladder in my view. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:08, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
"Desert dogmas" Never heard that one before. 𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈 (talk) 18:05, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

The more important question is which of the desert dogmas has the most desert dog mass? I would guess Islam followed by Christianity followed by Judaism. SolPyre (talk) 19:33, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Haha. Hi dad. While Islam does have rules against dogs, it's also true that if a dog gets dangerously out of control you have to muslim. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:38, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
I do not think it is the religion but the person, someone can be a certain religion but be rational/ethical while someone who is none religious can be highly unethical.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 22:25, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Obviously, but the question doesn't pertain to people but to the actual religions, i.e. I would imagine that rulings, scripture and top-level organisational moves (in the sense they exist) are the defining traits here. The one thing that is overt is that whatever scripture a religion contains in this context is to be given the utmost weight. Which makes the three death cults of the desert fall into the wastebasket all on their own. Also, didn't anyone get the dad joke I made in my reply to SolPyre? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:29, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Jainism and Bahai, followed by the version of Buddhism that gets peddled over in the West. The absolute most important thing for a religion to be moral is to not claim a monopoly on truth. That is, you can never say "Only my religion is correct". CorruptUser (talk) 23:04, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Or, indeed, to introctrinate children into them. Or to perpetuate them at all without proper reasons behind every bit of information that they entail. Or to, on principle, make oneself unconvinced by discussion or debate surrounding those ideas. These are all deeply immoral tactics to essentially masturbate to fruition an unwarranted sense of good or accomplishment through blantant intellectual dishonesty. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
You cannot meaningfully separate a religion from its adherents without bumping into a category error. I would go further, and say that religions do not exist in any detached ideal form. There are always unrecorded facets of ritual or other expectations of collective behavior, inaccessible to posterity or outsiders, which vary with time and across geography. My own experience of Unitarian congregations, for example, is that each group has its own character, only loosely formed by central dogma. Alec Sanderson (talk) 02:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
But atheists say only their religion is correct! Checkmate, atheists!!! --Ymir (talk) 02:55, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Donald Trump

No gaffe, no hateful statement directed at a national, ethnic or religious group, no physical assault on a protester is undoing hos poll numbers. Is anybody in US-America whose opinion is worth listening to getting nervous that he might actually win the primary? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 06:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm waiting on the rush of sketchy outside money to help put him out, but we'll see. SockTheory 06:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Trump is polling high because a lot of people have him as their 1st choice. But from what I've read, very few have him as their second favourite. It's all or nothing. As candidates start dropping out in the republican primaries (won't, like, half of them drop out after the first 3-4 primaries usually?), Trump will (probably) do worse and worse. He might be able to build enough momentum in the early primaries to sail through, but I doubt it. Dendlai (talk) 07:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
My opinion is not worth listening to, but I'm a bit nervous, not only that he might win the primary, but... <shudder> ... After all, the US did elect an avuncular cognitively impaired movie actor as CINC once upon a time.
Is it time to dust off Sinclair Lewis's It Can't Happen Here[wp] again? Alec Sanderson (talk) 12:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
I can't say I'm particularly worried. He attracts a fair number of crazies on the right, but the moderates are far too terrified of him. My mother has flat out refused to vote for him under any circumstances, even if it means Hillary gets the election (much to my dad's chagrin). AyzmoCheers 14:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, it's like the Liberals in British bi-elections. No one minds voting for them as long as they're not going to actually win anything. He's a 'I'm mad as hell and not going to take it any more' candidate but middle America will never elect him. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 14:25, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
And, surely, his Muslim database (with serial numbers tattooed onto the forearm ) is a step too far, even for him. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 14:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Frankly, given both his history, and the people he's running against, Trump may be the closest thing the Republicans have to a pragmatic centrist this cycle. He'll say whatever he thinks will win applause and get him attention. But he's been willing to trim his message based on the reactions he gets, which is something most of the other candidates have sworn they'll never do. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 16:14, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Nate Silver, possibly the only American worth listening to right now, isn't worried. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 17:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Obama got in because he was seen as an outsider who was new, and offered a fresh chance instead of business as usual, with yet another politician. He wins and it's business as usual. Trump comes along and acts exactly the opposite of how a politician should act, is a giant racist jackass but a few people are excited that this might mean finally we won't get just another politician. If he wins it'll be business as usual... (talk) 18:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

[edit] "just another inexplicable skirmish in America’s culture wars"

The Japan Times: Of kimono and cultural appropriation in which the Boston Museum of Fine Arts cancels Kimono Wednesdays after a flood of 'Jargonistic polemics against cultural appropriation and self-appointed experts on sartorial “cultural respect”' from SJW drama queens. Better here than WIGO World, I think. Alec Sanderson (talk) 15:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the 3-month-old breaking news on SJWS GONE WILD!!1! --Ymir (talk) 15:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
"You're on camera. Here's $50. Become an engineer!" Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar?~) 15:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Considerably more than 3 months old... The Japan Times article is fairly late. Though, I'd say, pretty decent overall. Doesn't go into enough depth about how asian or asian-american are terms that oftentimes just don't plain work. (Japanese is not Korean is not Chinese etc). Dendlai (talk) 15:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
While I agree with you for precisely that reason (2nd gen Korean-American here), I probably wouldn't say that deeper discussion of it would fit this particular artice, considering the primary issue at hand is a particular brand of cultural appropriation rather than the nebulousness of the adjective "Asian". ℕoir LeSable (talk) 18:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
I actually remember hearing about this back in July (for the most part from the (white and black) friends/acquaintences I had trying to get me to speak out against this), and controversies like this are one of the continuing reasons why I sharply disagree with a lot of the times "cultural appropriation" is argued. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 18:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Same here. I see in the news a yoga group in Canada just had to close. As far as I can see, cultural appropriation was meant to be against the use of other cultures' stuff in a disrespectful way - eg the Washington Redskins row. It's starting to descend into "our culture didn't create it so we can't use it." BicyclewheelModerator 20:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Locally there was a kerfluffle involving some college administrators who dressed up in mariachi costumes for Halloween. Now I kind of get the business about war bonnets being like military medals that must be earned. But what do you have to do to earn the right to wear a sombrero? - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 21:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Considering the pretty strong anti-Mexican sentiments in the US, I'd say it's a bit questionable to dress up as a Mexican stereotype, yeah. But I also agree that "cultural appropriation" isn't always exactly clear-cut. Dendlai (talk) 21:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
How?! Mariachi hats are sacred, but not that sacred that some people threw a hissy fit about musicians from Jalisco, dammit. Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt: hablale a este hijo de la verga! Look! 00:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
I am suddenly possessed of an urge to find a fez in my size. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 04:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
The wife of one of my friends is a white belly dancer. She's totally into it. They got freaked when a few months ago Salon published something about this constituting appropriation of Arab culture. My kitchen regularly appropriates Greek, Arab, Asian, Indian and French culture.---Mona- (talk) 05:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
There's a difference between cultural syncretism and cultural appropriation. Taco Tuesdays is syncretism. Concert goers wearing Plains Indian war bonnets is appropriation. If hipsters in Greenwich Village or Portland or San Francisco suddenly decided tefillin were the new fashion statement that'd be appropriation. Most people recognize the kimono and yoga issues as being extreme views that shouldn't be supported. Also it just so happens that the yoga thing is only being reported on by highly conservative/reactionary media in Canada; and these are from the yoga teacher's Facebook so it seems she's a reactionary asshole just like everyone reporting on that story presently. And finally, dressing up like a Mexican stereotype is just lazy racism.—Ryulong (talk) 05:14, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
The tefillin example is interesting (though I don't fully disagree), because calling it strictly cultural isn't quite it. WalkerWalkerWalker 05:18, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
(Ryulong) It was hilarious actually. Dressing up as the stereotypical version of my parents allowed me to make a political point about my views this year's All Hallows Eve. :] Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt: hablale a este hijo de la verga! Look! 05:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
The point of cultural appropriation is that the item is taken entirely out of its traditional cultural (TL note: religious) context and made meaningless or generally disrespected by the people involved. This is compounded when the original culture was originally mocked or discriminated against for adhering to the particular traditional use.—Ryulong (talk) 05:44, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Given that dressing up as a form of cultural appropriation covers pretty much everything from toga parties to manga cosplay, I'm inclined to see it as mostly not that big of a deal, with some grey areas. Wearing blackface or yellowface, for example, crosses a line into outright racism that wearing a kimono or a sombrero, in my opinion, doesn't. WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

A whiff of complete BS around the Toronto yoga story - David Gerard (talk) 14:36, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Can we expand our Scientology section(s)+Debunking religion in general

I want full documentation and criticism of Scientology doctrine. Stuff like the Marcabians, their view on evolution etc. Also I want to get into the physics of God and religion as well as neuroscience basically to debunk religion using physics, biology, neuroscience, etc. As much as we comment on religion, we never actually try to debunk it. Something like the parting the Parthenon/pantheon/however it's worded kind of debunked Greek mythology.--Jakester499 (talk) 19:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Parthenon, eh? Well you know what they say of the Acropolis where the Parthenon is. BicyclewheelModerator 19:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
If this was the mid 2000's i'd say yah, let's give it to Scientology more but in 2015? We don't need to go all out on a point by point on all of the nonsense. Debunking actual religions? sure, lets go after them full steam. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 19:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
I feel like the guy called back from retirement for one last assignment - David Gerard (talk) 20:12, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Just don't get killed on the beat on your last day before retirement. Also, mmm, that is some Web 1.0 goodness. A "seven-megabyte site" indeed! --Ymir (talk) 20:22, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
*riddled with bullets* "...Damn... Just three edits away... from retirement! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:27, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Query about permissions for reusing content

I'm not sure what the general procedure is for this, so see this question on my Talk page. The question is in regards to this. If we have some specific procedure it might be a good idea to write it down in RationalWiki:Copyrights or somewhere else. --Ymir (talk) 20:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Trump and Muslims dancing in the streets?

Now, I'm pretty sure Trumps' claim that there was "muslims dancing in the streets" during 9/11 is completely egregious and up there with the truther nonsense, but I'm not sure exactly how egregious. Can anyone fill in any pertinent info?

I don't have any further info on it (and I highly doubt that any further information exists that doesn't come directly out of Trump's ass), but it mirrors that neo-nazi conspiracy theory about the "dancing Jews". - Shouniaisha (talk) 05:42, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
According to WaPo. There never was any sort of dancing going on. Maybe it was just one person or a small group talking about it, but by no means was it some mass coordinated event. Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt: hablale a este hijo de la verga! Look! 05:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
He specifically named the Muslim community of Jersey City, New Jersey, so it's relatively easy to fact check via, say, local then-authorities, who have confirmed that no such event occurred. WalkerWalkerWalker 05:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Official Data

Zero counts. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar?~) 06:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

[edit] He was off by several 1000 km

But don't worry Trump fans, the Muslims in Gaza and Egypt have paid for it.Civic CatTalk to Civic Cat 20:59, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Donald Trump: Literally a Neo-Nazi

Yep, it happened. Stormfront infographic. I mean, the support of concentration camps should have been a dead giveaway. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar?~) 06:21, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I mean, technically, it's all a biiiig misunderstanding. But, hey, that's how neo-nazis get their start, anyways. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar?~) 06:26, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Almost the entire right wing is in line with stormfront's ideology. With the exception of generally favoring Israel because they seem whiter than the rest of the middle East. Stormfront, except in actually being honest about being neonazis, isn't that fringe anymore. Don't want to live on this planet anymore, etc. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:25, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure how you can call Trump a Neo-Nazi when he is gungho about Israel. "I'm a thousand percent behind Israel". Oh wait, that's right the Zionists had a pact with Hitler early on to help the Jews emigrate from Europe to Israel. Sorry, never mind. SissyMendelstein (talk) 04:26, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
If you don't want to vote for him (I'd personally be in favor of someone who gets realpolitik, not quite Kissinger (who'd be ineligible anyways and far too old even if he legally was), wish him well and vote for whoever. Calling him a neo-Nazi is only goingp to sound like shrill screaming, and it only bolsters the not entirely meritless idea that American Democrats are ridiculously hypersensitive. In the meantime, I'll sit back and laugh as both parties beat the shit out of their own. (When either party decides they care about Burma and the crazed junta running it I might support someone, but as long as Zoya Phan and her siblings are scattered around the world no one has me won over). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 09:33, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
So when a politician uses racist rhetoric, perpetuates racist canards & proposes racist policies, we shouldn't comment on it? Just shrug our shoulders & wish him well? WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 21:12, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

[edit] References that are not references

Would someone be willing steal this and this for me? If so, we could "borrow" w:Template:efn for use for notes which aren't citations, as was briefly discussed last time this was brought up, which would make creating distinct explanatory notes easier and prettier (i.e. [i] or [a] vs. [note 1]) WalkerWalkerWalker 06:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

We need w:MediaWiki:Cite link label group-upper-roman and w:MediaWiki:Cite link label group-upper-alpha too.—Ryulong (talk) 07:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Why can't you borrow it? Normally round here, if someone wants to copy a template to use, they just do it, and other people can use it or not as they please.
I can borrow the template itself, but the pages I asked for have to go in MW space to act as an input or whatever you care to call it for cite.php, so I can't do that, because I can't edit that namespace. WalkerWalkerWalker 14:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Very confused. This seems to suggest I should be good, but... I'm not.[lower-alpha 1]

  1. See?

And this:

function getLinkLabel( $offset, $group, $label ) {
   $message = "cite_link_label_group-$group";
   if ( !isset( $this->mLinkLabels[$group] ) ) {
     $this->genLinkLabels( $group, $message );
   if ( $this->mLinkLabels[$group] === false ) {
     // Use normal representation, ie. "$group 1", "$group 2"...
     return $label;
   if ( isset( $this->mLinkLabels[$group][$offset - 1] ) ) {
     return $this->mLinkLabels[$group][$offset - 1];
   } else {
     // Feed me!
     return $this->error( 'cite_error_no_link_label_group', array( $group, $message ), 'noparse' );

Would seem to point to the MW message name I was using... WalkerWalkerWalker 17:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

And that code dates to a 2010 version of the Cite extension, which I would hope our installed version is newer than... (?) WalkerWalkerWalker 17:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Although actually... I shouldn't bet on that, should I? WalkerWalkerWalker 17:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
I think ours is. See Special:Version. Also here's the Cite documentation in case you didn't know where it is. --Ymir (talk) 17:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Does Special:Version actually give a version number for the extension? Because clicking through that r##### link and then on the cite extension led to an extremely current version (read: last change yesterday), which I'm sure isn't ours. WalkerWalkerWalker 21:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
I guessed based on the revision number matching the 1.19 Mediawiki release. I could be wrong. You're right that the links are fucked up because Wikimedia changed from SVN to Git. Sure would be nice if we could get upgraded to a supported Mediawiki version... How much would it cost to hire a contractor to do the upgrade? --Ymir (talk) 00:45, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Don't ask questions you don't want answered. WalkerWalkerWalker 11:41, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm serious. If our tech staff don't have the time to maintain the servers, we really ought to consider a course of action before someone finds a security hole in old MW versions and we get pwned. Other possibilities might include moving to active hosting, where the server host manages the installed software. I'm a computer nerd (as you might have guessed), but I've got personal stuff going on so I'm not sure it'd be wise for me to volunteer for sysadmin. --Ymir (talk) 15:44, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
In my experience the upgrade to the current MediaWiki software is rather painless. If there weren't any customizations to consider, the upgraded site is usually up and running quickly. The problem comes with the modifications. I upgraded a MW site to the latest and greatest and found that Semantic MediaWiki on the site was completely borked. In RW's case there appears to be a lot of code that needs to be tested, and this will probably take quite a bit of work to get right. The only other thing I noticed about the newer MediaWiki builds is that the code is getting rather large and consumes somewhat more resources than the older builds. On some servers and/or hosting services this might also be an issue. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 16:52, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

[edit] 41st Anniversary of Lucy's Discovery

Saw the Google Doodle just now. Now I'm waiting to see every Fundie screaming and shrieking.

How goes today's historic...day? Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt: hablale a este hijo de la verga! Look! 17:21, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Seems like most of the backlash at the moment is on Twitter. There's a byline on Conservapedia calling it "indoctrination", but that's all I could really find on a cursory search. I suppose we'll probably see more as the day progresses. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 18:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
On a related note, Google the word Conservascreedia. Laugh. WalkerWalkerWalker 20:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Speak of the devil: Answers in Genesis just put up a piece talking about Lucy. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 20:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, all of those links are complete horseshit. Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt: hablale a este hijo de la verga! Look! 05:25, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
It's absolutely painful to read the comments on the stories of this. Like, If I continue reading comments of that magnitude of stupidity, I'm going to give myself an aneurysm. And possibly make it burst. QuantumDudeI am beyond your understanding 03:42, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Article on Artificial Life

Does anyone think it would be a good idea? Here are some links-

Seems like an interesting concept.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 20:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Now I want to reinstall Creatures. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar?~) 20:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Spergs

Mm, we're making all the right people butthurt. FrothyCatPotato (talk/stalk) 22:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

"Found it. It isnt hosted anywhere but you can still download a zip." erm... WalkerWalkerWalker 23:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
But wait... does this mean I can now call myself an aspie virgin authoritarian cunt? WalkerWalkerWalker 23:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Shoot, Madman posted and didn't even shit talk me. This is unacceptable. WalkerWalkerWalker 23:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
And they now know we're reading/laughing, so expect more and better to come. WalkerWalkerWalker 00:03, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
The fuck's a sperg? What the fuck's a kiwifarm? And more importantly, why should I give a rat's ass what people think about us? - Shouniaisha (talk) 03:45, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
I would guess it short for Aspurger's syndrome, I can't help you with kiwifarm. SolPyre (talk) 04:00, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I just realized it's a shitty abbreviation for Asperger's. But they do kinda have a point about it being a liberal hugbox. There is this sort of groupthink mentality going on. - Shouniaisha (talk) 04:02, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
RW has always had a problem with groupthink,as do most online communities, and it's something we should be very careful to push against. That's why we need to protect dissenting voices on here. Tielec01 (talk) 04:05, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Good luck with that. WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 13:56, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Amen to that! As the late great Abbie Hoffman once wrote, "You should measure democracy by the freedom it gives to its dissidents, not the the freedom it gives to its chickenshit conformists", or something to that effect. - Shouniaisha (talk) 04:11, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
It's not something we do very well at RW, and more worryingly it's something that I think we have become worse at over time. Tielec01 (talk) 04:19, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
[ec] A group of people who whines about SJW and feminism, and who seem to consider ED a good source. Yeah. But I'm impressed it took them a whole three pages before they went full-on GamerGators. It's all about the ethics in wiki editing. Dendlai (talk) 04:28, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Wait, who are we talking about here? RW or those kiwi guys? - Shouniaisha (talk) 04:35, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Either the kiwi guys or Aneris, pick one. Dendlai (talk) 04:37, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
From what I recall, Kiwifarms is a rebranding of the CWCki Forums, which surrounded the whole Chris-chan mess that happened a few years back, and now centers around other sources of online drama (Ahuviya Harel, et al.) now that Chris's situation has gotten depressing. Kiwifarms is... kinda cringey really. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 15:28, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
How many years did their R&D take to come up with these brilliant japes? "Call people autistic!" Ah, yes; I can hardly breathe! Maybe they'll honk their noses next. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar?~) 17:32, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
The answer to that question sounds suspiciously like the punchline to a "how many Bammers..." joke. WalkerWalkerWalker 17:48, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Well this is all going in a predictable direction for both sides. Knew nothing good would come when I saw that thread go up.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 17:51, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Nothing good? Whaaaat? Their adorable green-and-white striped pants are at least good to kill a few moments staring at. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar?~) 17:54, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
And yes, it is fun being obtuse like this. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar?~) 17:56, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't see groupthink at RW (I do see some unattractive, unfair and arbitrary application of not-rules-because-there-are-so-few.) Ideological views are pretty wide-ranging, except for essentially total consensus on core anti-woo. And that's fine, because we couldn't be what we are without protecting the core.---Mona- (talk) 18:26, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
RW's groupthink is more personal than ideological. If you don't fit in or the mob don't like you, you'll struggle to get your ideas to stick, even if you're right. BicyclewheelModerator 18:32, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Hm. It seems I can hold indirect conversation with them. (I think. Usually these types get fussy over invitations.)Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar?~) 20:46, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Oh good lord

Stop it already. We don't need to make this into a pointless pissing content between us and them. @Narky, stop needlessly antagonizing them. Plus, they do a good job on calling out the bullshit in the CA community, even if I don't always agree with their wording, so they cannot be 100% bad.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 21:49, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I had no plans to do anything else after the green background thingy. That's why it was green. And I wasn't trying to antagonize them. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar?~) 22:07, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
I need to make a comment about soup for some reason. Please let this be the last comment here, even though it looks like I'm mucking things up further. The soup king demands it, for his crackers grow stale. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar?~) 22:55, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

[edit] DFTT

They feed on our attention. Let's not give them what they want. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Star of David.png Yo, gatorade me bitch! 03:17, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

In which Raysenn is proven right WalkerWalkerWalker 09:47, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Idea- Make articles that make fun of low budget disaster films

I am aware there is an article that makes fun of the movie but there are plenty of low budget disaster films to make fun of (2012:Doomsday, 2012 Supernova, The Apocalypse, Meteor Apocalypse, Magma: Volcanic Disaster, Arctic Blast). Maybe would could make fun of those movies because they violate the laws of physics at every turn.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 15:16, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

an article doesn't sound like a good idea to me, but how about forumspace or even the dreaded Funspace? BicyclewheelModerator 18:03, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
I haven't had a good horselaugh at a movie as I got out of the Dwayne Johnson vehicle San Andreas. The premise is that Johnson is the world's greatest rescue chopper pilot. Horrific earthquakes destroy the Hoover Dam, Los Angeles, and San Francisco. After they strike, the world's greatest rescue pilot never gets a single call on his radio, not even while he's still tooling around in his rescue chopper. Instead, he's free to seek out his ex and his daughter while the catastrophes unfold. Maybe he had the good sense to turn the radio off. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 18:10, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
If you want hilariously bad then watch 2012:Doomsday, it is a religious disaster film with poor physics and pseudo-history.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 18:43, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Bicycle wheel makes a good point. Making fun of these "films" would be great for the forum space or funspace, but an article on the subject should present the issue in a more academic way. You'll find in most cases with creationists and fundies, their own words backed up with good references demonstrate their flawed arguments nicely, and in many cases are as priceless as the snark that goes with a good RW article. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 23:27, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
I get your point, I am fine with that but in my opinion 2012:Doomsday would make a great addition. Not only does it violate the laws of physics and it claims Mayans were Christians.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:43, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
So, here's a novel idea. You could add 2012:Doomsday to RationalWiki:To do list/Suggestions and see what the community thinks about it. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 02:03, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
As an example, I put COINTELPRO in the todo list a little while ago, and this article is percolating into a fine start evan as I write this. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 02:10, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Oh, boy!

Navigating RationalWiki with a Steam controller is an enjoyably pointless novelty! ...Now if only I could use Steam's keyboard without putting Firefox in my Steam library... Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar?~) 15:37, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I bet you can't wait for RW to implement Big Picture Mode! I want a VR David Icke squirming next to me as I peruse his article. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 04:20, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
But you are a VR David Icke! M Night Shyamalan (talk) 18:51, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Holy macaroni - that needs to go in my sandbox! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:58, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Election Results.

As Returning Officer, I hereby tentatively certify that Gerard, Fuzzy, Paravant and Goonie are our new mods. I have posted the numbers HERE and HERE. Note that I am calling it tentative, because I think the mob should see the data and ensure it passes the stink test. If nobody finds any hanging chads in the next 24 hrs, we can call it official, I think.

ALL thanks go to Tielec01 who did the grunt work when it became clear that my number-crunching skills were not up to the task. PacWalker also had smart things to say on my talk page. Thanks for caring. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 18:41, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm no longer a Mod! Free at last! (runs round RationalWiki naked) BicyclewheelModerator 18:55, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm glad someone made head or tail of it, and next time Tielec01 is returning officer :-) - David Gerard (talk) 20:33, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
I didn't want the job anyway. *eats tub of ice cream, sobs* -CU
I certainly hope that ice cream is GMO - David Gerard (talk) 22:24, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Cows genetically engineered to make tastier ice cream when
Come on science |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Star of David.png Everybody betray me! I fed up with this world! 00:44, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
59 members voted? More than I imagined!--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 03:14, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
...And I, for one, welcome our new RW overlords... Reverend Black Percy (talk) 04:22, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Indeed! Congrats everyone! Fortunately I am immune to their mod powers as I exist on the quantum level! QuantumDudeI am beyond your understanding 15:56, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Are you saying you're single? Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar?~) 19:52, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Not so fast! *throws a giant blanket over the "winners" and dons a sweet cardboard crown* I declare myself to hold all four moderator spots! Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar?~) 19:52, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

[edit] RationalWiki: the poem

Le Douche Liberalle:

My peers convinced me, that there was no middle ground in politics, that both sides were extreme, and that both had their plus sides; the answer was in between, then I found Rational Wiki.

I used to believe that 9/11 was an inside job, but then I found Rational Wiki.

I used to believe that vaccines caused autism and didn't work, but then I found Rational Wiki.

I used to believe in homeopathic medicine and buy herbal supplements, but then I found Rational Wiki.

I used to be treated by "energy healers" and chiropractors, but then I found Rational Wiki.

I used to be a creationist, but then I found Rational Wiki.

South Park told me that Global Warming was just a liberal hoax and scam, that any geologist could tell me so, and to shout MANBEARPIG at Al Gore for his Oscar winning Powerpoint Presentations. Then I found Rational Wiki.

Hollywood action stars told me that Gun Control was for "pussies", then I found Rational Wiki.

Penn & Teller would protect me against frauds and charlatans but also tell me that environmentalism and public safety laws were bad, then I found Rational Wiki.

I used to be a "libertarian" and vote Ron Paul, but then I found Rational Wiki.

Encyclopedia Dramatica told me that being an apathetic apolitical troll and stalking and harassing folks was cool, then I found RationalWiki.

Maddox and Dick Masterson taught me that chauvinism was funny, but then I found Rational Wiki.

GamerGate told me that feminism in games is bad and that it was all about "ethics", but then I found Rational Wiki.

I was a moron, but now I am not, thanks to Rational Wiki.

I was liberal once, and now I am liberal again, thanks to Rational Wiki.

I was right once, and now I am right again, thanks to Rational Wiki.

They tell me to "do my own research", and I do, from Rational Wiki.

I can't tell where it falls on the "sincere yet sadly sycophantic" to "Poe's Law example" scale. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 19:09, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

The worst part is that literally several (!) of those isolated statements kinda sorta describe the role RW has helped to play in my life, no doubt. I'm not even kidding, I'm sorry to say. So in my tiny ant life, RW has certainly mattered. But not in this buttery prose style, naturally - it does come across as kind of drearily sycophantic. And the "I am no longer an idiot" one can obviously not really be said in my case. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:53, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
I used to think Wanking was a city in China. Then I discovered Smirnoff. CamelCasePragmatist (talk) 02:00, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Presumably it's supposed to be sung to this tune. €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 08:43, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Help a beginner out?

Okay, so I'm pretty new to wikis, and I'm probably going to need some help along the way. Right now I'm trying my hand at writing an article, and I was wondering how to cite a specific page number (like for a pdf). Are pdfs even an acceptable resource? Thanks in advance. - Shouniaisha (talk) 01:09, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Depending on where they are from, PDF may be cited. The only thing that is looked down upon because of its format is youtube videos, as a lot of cranks roam those parts... As for which page... Just say which page page five of the pdf like this Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:13, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Of course we'll help when you ask so nicely! Welcome to RW. Feel free to drop me a line on my talk page if you have questions that don't fit in the Saloon Bar. Regarding .pdf's; as that is really just a file format there are no rules against those whatsoever. Just use good sources and give page number and additional info as you would a book. And Avenger is right on YouTube sources - unless you literally mean to source crank stuff, or quotes. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 04:14, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Alright, thank you both so very much for the info. I've only got one source so far, but I'll try and use mostly archival documents, and reviewed shit. - Shouniaisha (talk) 04:28, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
No problems. Don't forget to consult the help pages, also. And take care to use high quality sources whenever possible (no loon sources, e.g. the North American Marlon Brando Look Alikes). When in doubt, feel free to ask. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 04:35, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
PDFs (and indeed all other formats) are fine, but watch out for translation issues (see below). BicyclewheelModerator 09:00, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Citing sources in languages other than English

So is there any established precedent? Because sometimes a good source happens to be in some non-English language and not quoting it would imho do this site a disservice... But of course quoting it means some of our readers won't understand it... So...? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:10, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Sometime, it's rather unavoidable, if we have articles about people, groups and/or organizations not having made a splash in English-language media.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 01:17, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Google translate has a feature to translate entire pages. Obviously it's not 100% accurate, but maybe you could try using that? I don't know if that'd be acceptable though. - Shouniaisha (talk) 01:19, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
He could try Google translate. Altho, that's pretty dicey translation software. This pertains to whether or not the subject of an article is an antisemite, which the subject denies and has sued over the accusation in Germany, and apparently won. Avenger wishes to label the subject an antisemite but I can't check any of the references that are in German. This conversation is going on at the talk page for the article and I'm not certain why Avenger brought it here.---Mona- (talk) 01:25, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
My general impression is that we ought to use caution with non-english and especially machine translated sources. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 04:17, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
As a last resort I would say. I know I recently used a Spanish citation as there was no other apparent source - it was not an especially important point though. In controversial articles in particular, I think it is unwise to use citations in anything other than the English language.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 07:00, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
It's not ideal, but is more readily verifiable than offline sources. WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 08:25, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Not so sure about that. If you mean books, aside from there being a lot of them available -- or at least parts of them -- on Google books, one can always get a book from the library. But how can a non-German speaker/reader verify a majority of sources, especially about the most critical claims, that are all in German?---Mona- (talk) 18:39, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
If it's an online source in another language, readers can use an online translator. It won't be perfect but they can get the gist of it and it only takes a couple of clicks. On the other hand, going to the library & ordering an obscure book is a lot of legwork to check up on something you read online, & if it's a book in another language that you can't read it'll be no good to you anyway. Most of the time when somebody cites something in an article to an offline source the statement & citation sits there unchallenged, & I suspect usually unverified by other readers/editors. So my order of preference would be: online source in English, online source in another language, offline source in English, & (last resort) offline source in another language. ωεαşεζόίďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:52, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
To be clear, the words in question (the trial is about to go into its final round in front of the German "constitutional court" or "supreme court") were "glühender Antisemit" which you can ask you translation service of choice to translate for you but has been translated as "fiery Antisemite". The only English language sources that have covered the story at all are these two, which show that something about this whole thing is squarely on mission if Antisemitism and dog whistle terms are... And as for the general points regarding sources: Yeah, Books and other offline stuff is to be avoided if possible... Hard Paywalled (you gotta pay to read even one bit of it) stuff likewise Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:40, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
That last article would suggest that in Germany some want the law to deem as antisemitic what is not reasonably considered so. Jeremy Corbyn also attends Al Quds day rallies; a lot of pro-Palestinian people do. That cannot be the threshold for calling someone an antisemite any place reasonable, including at this wiki. @Weaseloid, I guess I agree with you. However, I'm quite reluctant to trust most translation software, especially when fine legal points are at issue.---Mona- (talk) 23:53, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Ken Jebsen (a political friend of Elsässer) has said (and been fired for those comments) "I know who invented the Holocaust as PR"... And Elsässer has said similar stuff, though he has been a bit more careful about the more direct stuff Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:37, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Racist or just plain stupid family members thread

First off, happy Thanksgiving everyone! Hope you all enjoy your evil GMO potatoes! Anyway, I thought I'd get this started off a wee bit early,. A nice thread to post the idiotic ramblings of your family members during this Thanksgiving (I know there's bound to be some). Whether racist, homophobic, islamophobic, batshit insane, any flavor of stupid will suffice. - Shouniaisha (talk) 18:26, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Uncle is ranting about how he shouldn't have to pay higher health insurance for being a smoking alcoholic, and blames Obama FrothyCatPotato (talk/stalk) 19:12, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Besides one other cousin i'm the only liberal person in my family, and she's still a christian liberal. This should tell you what it's like at the many, many family get togethers my family has. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 19:54, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Same's with me. My father and sister try to adhere to a rather orthodox strain of Judaism.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 22:07, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Most of my family is atheist. My significant other, however, is not. But my way of "celebrating" Thanksgiving is - you guessed it - Football ;-) Romo threw three picks as of now... It's been a good day in that at least ;-) Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:55, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
My dad and I somehow got on the topic of the "America is a Christian nation" subject after arguing whether south LA missile a few weeks ago was a missile or a UFO. Blegh. Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt: hablale a este hijo de la verga! Look! 00:19, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
I've had to insist that my mother and my aunt (her sister) not discuss either religion or politics with me. It drives me crazy and a few times I've sent angry email after stewing about it -- especially when the aunt sent me a bunch of VHS (!!) tapes with the Truth as communicated by Glenn Beck. She had also implored me, that if I loved my children, I would not vote for Obama in '08. (This aunt was a delegate for Rick Santorum.) I told her, not long ago, that Congress is run by millionaires, and she said there were hardly any! Fox is all they watch; they think CNN is "liberal," and they sometimes worry about Fox, too.---Mona- (talk) 02:15, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
*Reads through thread* Ok - holy hell I love my family. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:31, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Truly FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 18:49, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

My aunt went on about how glorious welfare is, and that it's mainly used by lazy people who've given up looking for a job. My mother (somebody who exhausted their unemployment, and spends the day sleeping and talking on the phone) was just as eager to place the blame on the nonexistent welfare queens. Also, they threw in some insults towards Arabs for not learning an entire different language in the six weeks that they've been here. Surprisingly, that's all they complained about. I'm honestly shocked they didn't mention the "Islamification of America" or how Trump's leading the crusade on big bad Cultural Marxist thinking. - Shouniaisha (talk) 21:52, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Time to repent

For some reason, the sources won't display properly in my latest two additions to the Ray Comfort article (Could use some help with that - the portrait text and the quote both incorrectly display ref #1, even when there's a separate ref plainly given for the portrait subtitle that should number as ref #2). And then it hit me.


Pictures sometimes won't display instantly after being uplodaded here, so I uploaded it here as well. That's it, I'm barring my door shut. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:08, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I see what's wrong. One moment. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar?~) 21:16, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Seems it didn't work. Moar spells and trickery, if you please, my dear Narky. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:17, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
That edit was from before I thought I had found the reason. Now I'm stumped, because it's not an issue caused by the template (which has happened before). Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar?~) 21:21, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Good, good... let the hate flow through you Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:22, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
In all seriousness though, did the code just break with my 666 symbol long edit? I can't wait for this entire conversation to be screncapped to the InfoWars forums as proof of... something. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:24, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, I've noticed that, if I change the order of things, I can get different errors or none at all. Which must mean... Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar?~) 21:27, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
I fixed it by putting the {{raycomfort}} template after the {{cquote}} template. Navboxes fuck up references sometime. No idea why, but I've ran into this problem a number of times. More such weirdness came up at Tech Support a while ago (where I did exactly the reverse to fix it). Gotta love MediaWiki. Perhaps an update to the software might help (DAVID!!) Carpetsmoker (talk) 21:31, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
That didn't work, it ate two more refs. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar?~) 21:36, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
But it fixed the first two refs! ;-) Carpetsmoker (talk) 21:38, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, no. It changed the order of the error, so it went 1213 instead of 1123. It can be fixed by putting the navbox where no ref comes before it, but... That does look ugly. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar?~) 21:41, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Alright, I've got a fix: Make a table in the opening section, have the text in the left side and the picture on the right side. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar?~) 21:53, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Sshhhh, you'll make the html5 "semantic web" evangelists cry. Carpetsmoker (talk) 21:56, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
(ec) Ah; I just clicked the first two and those seemed to work. Thanks. I did some more looking, and the source of the problem is at Template:Randomarticles, which uses dpl. It seems that all references prior to a dpl tag or template are "eaten". Note sure which flavour of DPL we use (there seem to be 3), but here's a discussion about it and here's a 2009 bugreport that's still open... Carpetsmoker (talk) 21:55, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
I hope you like centered images! =D Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar?~) 22:25, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Haha. Thanks old timer. Though, Gerard wasn't kidding when he said the MediaWiki software is made entirely of cocks, squared. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Old timer? D= Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar?~) 22:39, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm your Uncle Gerry; I do magic. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:03, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Meaning - I quote the brilliant Dr. Steve Brule whenever I can. Just CTRL+F my talk page for "old timer". This is how I say goodbye to people I just met for the first time. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:05, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

[edit] non-English RW articles

Taking this from the AFd discussion, do we want to keep them? Purge them? Keep some and purge others? Jumpstart the Rationalwiki project into all colors of the language rainbow?--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 00:32, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I vote to keep some and purge some, although this may be my bilingual bias speaking... Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt: hablale a este hijo de la verga! Look! 01:44, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Is the main concern moderation and legal issues? If so, I can see why deletion would be prudent. It would be crazy to have RMF exposed to a libel suit for example just because no moderator understood the language of the offending article.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 01:52, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
I think having RW in other languages would be great, but there is the issue of moderators and legal issues. Does the Board have a position on articles in other languages? If not, should it?---Mona- (talk) 02:06, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Some arguments in favour of keeping these pages:
  1. Some pages deal with topics that are of primary interest to some region, for example Juan Andrés Salfate (español) is primarily of Chilean interest, and not everyone reads English equally well. Similarly, something like Modern Science in the Bible is primarily of Dutch interest (almost all references are Dutch).
  2. Why not have these pages? Some pages like Ψευδοεπιστήμη or Nemmeno sbagliato (Italiano) seem to have been a rather large investment of time.
The only argument for removing these pages that I can think of is that RW is not a very large community, and it's difficult for the community to judge the quality, update, or otherwise improve these pages. Carpetsmoker (talk) 02:18, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Couldn't we be hosting utter tripe, even fascist crap, and not know it?---Mona- (talk) 02:30, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes. It's happened before. ArcticVixen (talk) 02:37, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Nja, den risken lär väl inte finnas - länder där man inte exklusivt talar engelska upplever ju som bekant ingen form av politik, agenda eller kontrovers överhuvudtaget. ...Eller vänta, hur var det nu med det där egentligen? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:41, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Which is to say, yes, this really is a huge potential problem. We need to codify english as the article language here, even if all sources were to rely on translation. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:43, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be more productive to maintain a list of users who can review pages. I have good reading knowledge of French and Latin, for instance. And I really need to translate more pages here into Latin. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 03:25, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Oh yes. There is a global shortage of snark in Latin.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 03:49, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
I can also pretty decently read French, but only have some Church Latin. I aspire, however, to read Esperanto. (No, really.)---Mona- (talk) 03:53, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Sign me up for translating Swedish, Norwegian (as this is simply drunk Swedish) and Feminist Interpretive Dance. Just not the language of subtle humor. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 04:46, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
I can read Esperanto (mi ne ŝercas), Catalan, Spanish and French. I can get the gist of texts written in most Romance languages without much difficulty. (I deleted on sight plenty of Portuguese articles that obviously had nothing to do with our mission.) The wisest heads at RW at the moment seem to have decided to neither discourage nor encourage more articles in languages other than English. I'm happy to go along with that for now. Spud (talk) 05:50, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
My largest concerns are legal.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 06:25, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
"I can read Esperanto (mi ne ŝercas)" That's so cool. If I recall correctly from looking into it some years ago, one can find instruction online. It's something I've always wanted to do, in part because as a kid the nuts at church were ranting Esperanto was a plot by the NWO, Communists, the Trilateral Commission and all that crap. But the very idea of it totally captivated me.---Mona- (talk) 06:37, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
I can do something cool! Ĉu vi scias ke mi estas juda? Spud (talk) 11:17, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm pretty much indifferent to whether we continue to invite new contributions in other languages, but in my view the paranoia about "hosting utter tripe, even fascist crap" is misplaced. The guy posting dubious stuff in Portuguese was noticed & brought to community attention pretty rapidly. Sure it's possible for a dubious article/edit to go unnoticed for a long time, but this can happen (& has happened) in English just as easily as in other languages. Re the existing articles I don't care if stubby useless ones are deleted, but clearly others have been a work of some effort and ones like Loi de Poe are filling a gap for terms internet users may search for (compare French Wikipedia's weedy Loi de Poe entry). €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 14:09, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

If we do end up keeping these pages, then I can offer to help patrol the Spanish language pages. Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt: hablale a este hijo de la verga! Look! 05:41, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
I think the way we do them right now is bad, as it does not help to attract monolingual speakers of languages other than English. There is no part of our mission statement that is not equally valid to other languages. And given the "recent" spread of evangelical insanity in addition to Catholic dogma in much of the places South of the Rio Grande having a "Spanish version" of RW catering to Latin@s may well be good idea indeed. And if there might arise some cultural differences, so be it. German WP does not even have fact tags, for instance. And they get by fine. I say let's start: Project Spanish RW (given that it is the language most likely to succeed) and make it so that it is not just sub-pages of English RW... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 13:03, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

[edit] As between "SJWs" and a serious left

While I have very little use for the epithet the "SJW" thing has become, I do find some of the cultural left utterly unserious and even infantile. Not all of this essay speaks for me. (Certainly in an American context I am far more left than right and do not remotely wish to see a "balance" between the two; the right in the U.S. is a freak show.) But this is true:

What I will call the New Leftism has recently fought tooth and nail for the noble cause of…gender free bathrooms. But it has been notably ineffective at mobilizing towards a single goal which truly matters in broad political or economic terms (yes: that means to the average household). The harsh truth is this. While you might win gender-free bathrooms, without a government to invest in the sets of rights and obligations that underpin them (for example, the actual bathrooms, the roads, the electricity, the taxes, the courts, etc), such a victory is merely an exercise in vanity.


What do religious fundamentalists, gated-community dwelling wannabe oligarchs, and New Leftists have in common? A lot more than you might think at first: all want to approve the books their neighbours read, the films they watch, the words they say, the signs in their backyards. All want safe spaces, where threats cannot intrude. All want control over culture as it is — not to reorder society with a new set of institutions entirely (i.e., basic income, debt-free education, open universities, whatever). Surveillance states want “protest free zones”, and Political Correctness wants “safe spaces”. Evangelicals want warning labels on everything, New Leftists want “trigger warnings”.


Why is it that college organizers can organize no-platforms (i.e., ban) speakers they find threatening…for crimes against the people like using the wrong language, terms, phrases…but not organize actual large-scale political demonstrations against serious issues that matter? Can you remember the last time there was a series of huge marches on Washington for a single issue solely concerning youngs…who are borked like no generation in modern history? I can’t.

Much of the Western left is focusing on the ultimate in First World Problems as the world burns. I'm only maginally less annoyed with them than I am with Gamergaters and others who would make them into some Huge Problem, for almost entirely wrong reasons.---Mona- (talk) 18:47, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

"Why is it that college organizers can organize no-platforms (i.e., ban) speakers they find threatening…for crimes against the people like using the wrong language, terms, phrases…but not organize actual large-scale political demonstrations against serious issues that matter? " I guess Mizzou and all of the other campus activism re: BLM never made it to the headlines where this writer lives. EDIT: Nor did the marked increase in activism re: rape on campus, I guess. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 18:51, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Those things happened, yes, but not so much in Europe. Moreover, there is a good deal of this bullshit popular on U.S. campuses. "Safe spaces" and "trigger warnings," as well as a lot of focus on the right names for various and every-diversifying sexual minorities and what is "proper" to be said to and about them. It's getting very First World narcissistic.---Mona- (talk) 19:33, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
This article is inane. And I say that as someone who reads Tumblr - David Gerard (talk) 19:18, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
David, assertion noted.---Mona- (talk) 19:34, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
This essay screams "quit caring about stuff that I don't care about!" I could totally see it saying "same-sex marriage doesn't mobilize toward a goal that truly matters" at some point. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar?~) 19:40, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Oh, and the rest of it is lazily-written self-serving garbage. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar?~) 19:44, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Same-sex marriage is important; that's not what the author is arguing about or against. (I was agitating for SSM when some here were still in Daddy's nutsac.)He's making the same sort of criticism academic Freddie deBoer does. There is a strain of cultural Stalinism on campus, and online as well. I've seen it on Twitter and a few have tried to subject me to it (being me, and not an intimidated college sophmore, I had no difficultly telling them to fuck themselves). That, and as I said, some of this is grossly self-indulgent, narcissistic bullshit.---Mona- (talk) 19:53, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
if you want them to care more about political causes not social causes, I can promise you that this is the wrong way to make it happen--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 20:02, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, "social causes" ARE political issues. In any event, the point is how they prioritize their politics and police people on the "right way" to speak. The left could, of course, leave all such criticism to the right. That would be a really good idea because they need stuff to demagogue more effectively with. The powers that be were intensely interested in destroying Occupy; they care far less about "safe spaces" and "trigger warnings" and all that shit. There's a reason for that.---Mona- (talk) 20:08, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
If you want then to care about what they carec about less, I can promise you this, everything you and all the new old left say about them, will not accomplish that. At best you will win some converts to "the right priorities", more then likely vyou'll just jade them into doing nothing--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 20:11, 27 November 2015 (UTC
Paravant, I am not trying to convince college kids and others to "care more" about this or that. No, I'm letting the adults and reasonable people know there is an issue, and bringing that issue to light. Do you think the Koch brothers give two tinker's damns if a lot of left-wing political energy and capital are spent on trigger warnings and safe spaces? The right answer is not: "Of course they don't give a tinker's damn." The correct answer is: "Yes, they are delighted."---Mona- (talk) 00:15, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
That's it exactly. If your politics is about representation, language, and imagery, your 'victories' will consist of nothing but tokenism and etiquette. These things may in fact be good things, but it's silly to imagine that they can change the way the world works. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 03:17, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
FWIW, gender-free bathrooms are at least a practical goal that can be achieved through political action. Universal respect and an environment in which all sorts of identities have equal social capital and representation is, I agree, a fool's errand. No conceivable government could achieve these goals, and politics that isn't about influencing what governments do is just annoying noise. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 21:52, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
There have been big changes over past century in how, for example, women, homosexuals & ethnic minorities, are viewed within society, & these aren't just because of changes in the law. In fact the changes in law were largely achieved because of shifting public attitudes towards these groups. So I can't agree that campaigning for respect is a fool's errand. WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 11:37, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
But what if it doesn't bring about change, and the world was made a better place for nothing? Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar?~) 18:05, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Just to be clear: Neither I nor the sites I linked and/or quoted are anything but supportive of social changes -- as well as legal -- for gays, women, minorities. Real people have to live their lives in the here and now. But that reality has nothing to do with the issues *I raised.---Mona- (talk) 18:59, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Can the Chicago police officer get a fair trial

With the release of dash-cam footage of the Chicago shooting in 2014, can Officer Jason Van Dyke get a fair trial? Compared to the current trial of Const. James Forcillo, who is charged in the death of 18-year-old Sammy Yatim in the Toronto streetcar shooting, details were kept away from the media and the public until the trial.--Cms13ca 00:14, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

That is a serious concern. A fair trial is a fundamental and important right. Officer Van Dyke, however, is paying the price for a police department that has been brutal, and which lies constantly. The community was not going to have it any longer, and see yet another officer get away literally with murder. The blame should be laid at the feet of CPD; for the prosecution would not be happening had that cam footage not been released.---Mona- (talk) 00:19, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

[edit] If anyone has time

A critical survey of vestigial structures in the postcranial skeletons of extant mammals Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 03:34, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

An interesting article. Any particular reason you posted it? Also, I have never heard of that site before. Seems to be some sort of wannabe arXiv. DarkAngelCryo (talk) 06:34, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Seemed like a useful article for evidence of evolution FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 11:55, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Vestigial structures are constantly brought up in arguments about evolution. BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 12:03, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
^ Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 12:08, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

[edit] How long does it take for poeople to notice and comment on new fun pages and essays?

Hi! ClickerClock (talk) 06:40, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, hi! And now I'm going to refer to top-tier satirists as "Poeople" now. You inadvertently gave me a new word. ArcticVixen (talk) 07:34, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
How do I pronounce it, Master? Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt: hablale a este hijo de la verga! Look! 19:26, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

[edit] ArbCom Elections on TOW

Any bad apples? FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 11:54, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Personal tools