RationalWiki:Saloon bar
| ||||||||||||||
| RationalWiki:Forum | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| To do list |
[edit] Wiki-Project: Dead Links (sticky)
David noted that he'd been seeing dead links in the articles he was referring to on RationalWiki.RationalBlogs.org, so I put together a project page offsite that lists them all page by page. There may be some false positives because my tools are less forgiving that a browser. There's a raw dump of all dead links at the end of the list. Check it out. Please email me which pages you've cleared dead links from and I'll remove them from the list. If enough people actually do anything about this, I'll write an app that will let you check pages off the list yourselves. Surprise me. ![]()
03:47, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
[edit] UN Blue Helmets
What is it with these reactionary/nativist/whatever they're called groups and UN blue helmets? I can't be the only one who has noticed that they don't like the UN in general, but I've found some some random militia groups and pages on facebook, and it's almost like they get off to this kind of thing. And when I say that, I mean they post pictures of blue helmets with bullet holes in them, do it yourself UN long range targets. They just discuss it regularly. It's very strange to me.--P3A58NT86 03:53, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- The UN is a overarching, supranational body that people think is part of the OWG and other conspiracies, thats why. --MikallakiM 04:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- Because peacekeeping. I would argue that the helmets need a darker shade of blue though. Osaka Sun (talk) 04:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- The UN is part of the NWO, duh. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- It's an NWO versus national sovereignty thing, not so much the peacekeeping (although they are rather shitty at peaceekeeping, especially in Africa).--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 11:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- Well, UN peacekeepers are just anybody else's troops except they've got blue hats. If the UN peacekeepers are US, they're US troops, but in blue hats. If they're Nigerian, they are Nigerians but in blue hats. You get what you (as a nation) are willing to pay for. A lot of the time in Africa they're African troops that are under-equipped and under-trained, but why are they African troops? Because nobody else would send enough troops. I don't want to excuse anything that individual soldiers have done, but if you want to see a better quality of peacekeeping done, you're going to have to pay for that and there isn't much willingness especially when it comes to problems like Sudan which aren't a real threat to anyone but Sudan's neighbours. Suppose the UNMISS thing goes completely tits up, South Sudan is a war zone, neighbours are flooded with refugees, aid agencies have to evacuate, big mess. So what? Maybe oil prices wobble a bit, obviously all of Sudan's (and thus most of Africa's) disease eradication or control programmes blow out by another decade, millions of people die and so it's sad but it doesn't lose you many votes in New York or Berlin. 84.246.168.11 (talk) 16:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- cp:Michael New may be of interest here. Andy's World History course unbelievably (or believably, given that we're talking about Andy) mentions him too. Godspeed (talk) 20:53, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- Longtime part of the New World Order conspiracy theory. The fear is that the U.N. has plans to militarily occupy the U.S. with blue-helmeted troops from a motley assortment of "global south" countries such as Zimbabwe, Angola, South Africa, Nicaragua, and North-by-God-Korea. Mostly brown people, onoz! And the purpose of this is to (1) confiscate everyone's guns, and (2) impose a one-world government, ultimately so the Antichrist can force everybody to take the Mark of the Beast while blue-helmeted brown people behead anyone who refuses...blah blah blah. Secret Squirrel (talk) 11:48, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- cp:Michael New may be of interest here. Andy's World History course unbelievably (or believably, given that we're talking about Andy) mentions him too. Godspeed (talk) 20:53, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- Well, UN peacekeepers are just anybody else's troops except they've got blue hats. If the UN peacekeepers are US, they're US troops, but in blue hats. If they're Nigerian, they are Nigerians but in blue hats. You get what you (as a nation) are willing to pay for. A lot of the time in Africa they're African troops that are under-equipped and under-trained, but why are they African troops? Because nobody else would send enough troops. I don't want to excuse anything that individual soldiers have done, but if you want to see a better quality of peacekeeping done, you're going to have to pay for that and there isn't much willingness especially when it comes to problems like Sudan which aren't a real threat to anyone but Sudan's neighbours. Suppose the UNMISS thing goes completely tits up, South Sudan is a war zone, neighbours are flooded with refugees, aid agencies have to evacuate, big mess. So what? Maybe oil prices wobble a bit, obviously all of Sudan's (and thus most of Africa's) disease eradication or control programmes blow out by another decade, millions of people die and so it's sad but it doesn't lose you many votes in New York or Berlin. 84.246.168.11 (talk) 16:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- It's an NWO versus national sovereignty thing, not so much the peacekeeping (although they are rather shitty at peaceekeeping, especially in Africa).--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 11:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- The UN is part of the NWO, duh. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- Sometimes I wish I was more comfortable with flying and owned a helicopter. That way I could paint it black and buzz the houses of crazy people. EVDebs (talk) 22:52, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
- Which is all good clean fun until one of them (crazy, remember) Second-Amendments a Stinger. Hydrogen and Time (talk) 09:39, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- Dollars to donuts they'd blow themselves up with a Stinger if they tried to use one. --Revolverman (talk) 09:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- Which is all good clean fun until one of them (crazy, remember) Second-Amendments a Stinger. Hydrogen and Time (talk) 09:39, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
[edit] Feminists, every time I start gaining respect for your movement...
I agree with 9 out of 10 things, but that other 10% has some of the craziest stuff I've ever seen, and it's completely shooting you in the foot. I don't like the idea of condemning the movement, but this is the kind of stuff that keeps me away from. It would do you a lot of good if you would disown these people as feminists.
Image of the Facebook discussion
–Inquisitor Ehrenstein (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 15:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- So you call that one FB post "10%" of feminism? Quit the hate and embrace the positive before I start to doubt your alleged bona fides. ħuman
02:31, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
- So you call that one FB post "10%" of feminism? Quit the hate and embrace the positive before I start to doubt your alleged bona fides. ħuman
- Uh-huh. You're aware that there is such a thing as sex-positive feminism, which is generally pretty accepting of porn and sex work as long as no one is being exploited against their will? EVDebs (talk) 15:34, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I am aware of that, which is why rational feminists should disown these lunatics. This is also what makes Elise a raving, fanatical lunatic. These people make me feel normal. –Inquisitor Ehrenstein (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 15:43, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- ^This. Also, hosting the image on your own site and putting it in as a URL? Polite Timesplitter Let's move on to some other area of sodomy! 15:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- Where should I put it? Should I put in here so I can embed it, or is it not relevant enough? –Inquisitor Ehrenstein (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 15:43, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- You could use imgur, photobucket or tinypic like the average human being and link in text like as is always done on the site. And what would you need as evidence that other feminists don't associate with these types? Their is no 'public disowning ritual' for feminism. There's no concrete record of Cathy Brennan being essentially tossed out of feminism but she sure as shit is not popular. Polite Timesplitter Let's move on to some other area of sodomy! 15:47, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- Well, I already have my own website to upload images, so I don't know why I would want to use another one. Also, I added the text. I realize there is no "public disowning ritual," but other people in that same group could also not tolerate it, plus normal feminists could also be more open about condemning such craziness. –Inquisitor Ehrenstein (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 15:51, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- You could use imgur, photobucket or tinypic like the average human being and link in text like as is always done on the site. And what would you need as evidence that other feminists don't associate with these types? Their is no 'public disowning ritual' for feminism. There's no concrete record of Cathy Brennan being essentially tossed out of feminism but she sure as shit is not popular. Polite Timesplitter Let's move on to some other area of sodomy! 15:47, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- Where should I put it? Should I put in here so I can embed it, or is it not relevant enough? –Inquisitor Ehrenstein (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 15:43, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
What, exactly, in that exchange is so shocking to you? Faced with mysteries dark and vast/statements just seem vain at last. 16:07, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- The fact that it's insane, plus the MRAs are going to use it to claim that "all feminists" want to ban porn, which would inevitably cause more people to gather behind them, who don't already know that the MRA movement is entirely BS. –Inquisitor Ehrenstein (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 16:22, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- Exactly what quote is "insane"? And what, exactly, is wrong with opposing pornography? It's not a position I necessarily agree with, but I see a logic at work there. Faced with mysteries dark and vast/statements just seem vain at last. 16:27, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- I hasten to add that someone can oppose "torture, abuse, and murder of women in porn" without opposing porn as a whole. In fact, I will go so far as to say that is the opinion of most people. Unfortunately this Elise doesn't seem to be doing a good job of seperating the two ideas. Apokalyps2547 (talk) 21:16, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- It's basically what I'm suggesting. Regulation would remove abuse. Any abusive companies would be shut down. –Inquisitor Ehrenstein (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 05:21, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
- People who believe that the commodification of human sexuality is inherently abusive would argue that regulation is irrelevant. Also, BP hasn't been shut down. Faced with mysteries dark and vast/statements just seem vain at last. 19:38, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
- It's basically what I'm suggesting. Regulation would remove abuse. Any abusive companies would be shut down. –Inquisitor Ehrenstein (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 05:21, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
- I hasten to add that someone can oppose "torture, abuse, and murder of women in porn" without opposing porn as a whole. In fact, I will go so far as to say that is the opinion of most people. Unfortunately this Elise doesn't seem to be doing a good job of seperating the two ideas. Apokalyps2547 (talk) 21:16, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- Exactly what quote is "insane"? And what, exactly, is wrong with opposing pornography? It's not a position I necessarily agree with, but I see a logic at work there. Faced with mysteries dark and vast/statements just seem vain at last. 16:27, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
"Someone said something stupid on facebook, so I lost respect for everyone related to them." You're fucking retarded, you know that? Hipocrite (talk) 17:21, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- Why don't the rational feminists speak up? Oh wait... Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:12, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
This is tiresome indeed. You're posting a screenshot of a discussion which starts with "thank you for sharing", having cut off whatever is being shared, then most of the rest is you ranting & being vindictive. & Apparently this screenshot supports your argument that 10% of feminism is insane & feminists should "disown" each other? It's not much to go on, + you come off looking like a dick as usual. Weaseloid
Methinks it is a Weasel 01:04, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
- Gloria Steinem opposes "pornography" - but she contrasts it with "eroticism". A lot of porn is the world's worst sex-ed. ħuman
02:38, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Oh please. If you want to talk about the minority of feminists that make the whole movement look bad, it is not someone who cannot separate regular porn from snuff porn.--Token Conservative (talk) 01:36, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
[edit] the Geography of Hate
A group called "Floating Sheep" has created a kind of heat map that basically shows where the most racist and discriminatory tweets are coming from. The density doesn't really suprise me. --TechCheeseaccuse 21:24, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- Addendum: They also included a FAQ. --TechCheeserefuse 21:25, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- Holy shit, Hood River, Oregon, what the hell is wrong with you. The only big red dot in my state.
Radioactive Misanthrope 00:39, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yep. The most concentrated source of racist tweets in the eastern U.S. is...Boyd Tavern, Virginia? And for homophobic tweets...Romney, West Virgnia? I'm guessing in all cases the source is but one person. Doesn't exactly reflect well on this here neck o' the woods though. Secret Squirrel (talk) 01:15, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
- Wyoming and Utah look pretty clean... ħuman
02:39, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah what's up with that? Not buying it. Secret Squirrel (talk) 02:42, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
- Not a lot of people there to tweet in the first place. Faced with mysteries dark and vast/statements just seem vain at last. 02:47, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, population density skews the data quite a bit. Osaka Sun (talk) 18:34, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
- Isn't it calculated as "relevant tweets : total tweets" thus removing population density from the equation. (if I read the FAQ correctly) Scream!! (talk) 19:25, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
- They should count "Lamanite" as a racist term, then Utah and Wyoming would represent more accurately Secret Squirrel (talk) 22:35, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
- Isn't it calculated as "relevant tweets : total tweets" thus removing population density from the equation. (if I read the FAQ correctly) Scream!! (talk) 19:25, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah what's up with that? Not buying it. Secret Squirrel (talk) 02:42, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
- Wyoming and Utah look pretty clean... ħuman
- Yep. The most concentrated source of racist tweets in the eastern U.S. is...Boyd Tavern, Virginia? And for homophobic tweets...Romney, West Virgnia? I'm guessing in all cases the source is but one person. Doesn't exactly reflect well on this here neck o' the woods though. Secret Squirrel (talk) 01:15, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
- Holy shit, Hood River, Oregon, what the hell is wrong with you. The only big red dot in my state.
- What if they're using cripple as a verb? Also, I imagine that this is more of a population map and a connectivity map than it is an accurate assessor of racism.--"Shut up, Brx." 20:42, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
- Nevermind. After reading the FAQ and some other of their posts explaining the map, I now know that they hired students to discern the context of words, and that the map is scaled is some sort of magic statistic-y way that is beyond my comprehension (or willingness to comprehend), and is not simply reflective of population density. So turns out New England is really, really, bigoted.--"Shut up, Brx." 22:54, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
- The problem I have with this survey is that words such as "fag" and "homo" are taken as being homophobic even when they are very often used in a context that has nothing to do with sexuality. I fully accept that their use in a derogatory sense causes distress to many gay people, but saying that they are used in a hateful sense is akin to saying that people must be referring to sex when they say "f**k". Perhaps the terms "uninformed" or "not caring" would be better than "bigot". RyanC (talk) 05:01, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- Please read the post (is that word used in a wiki context?) right above you. (talk to a) Nihilist 05:29, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- Woops..... 07:38, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- Please read the post (is that word used in a wiki context?) right above you. (talk to a) Nihilist 05:29, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- The problem I have with this survey is that words such as "fag" and "homo" are taken as being homophobic even when they are very often used in a context that has nothing to do with sexuality. I fully accept that their use in a derogatory sense causes distress to many gay people, but saying that they are used in a hateful sense is akin to saying that people must be referring to sex when they say "f**k". Perhaps the terms "uninformed" or "not caring" would be better than "bigot". RyanC (talk) 05:01, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- Nevermind. After reading the FAQ and some other of their posts explaining the map, I now know that they hired students to discern the context of words, and that the map is scaled is some sort of magic statistic-y way that is beyond my comprehension (or willingness to comprehend), and is not simply reflective of population density. So turns out New England is really, really, bigoted.--"Shut up, Brx." 22:54, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
[edit] Unconditional election
So I was reading some youtube comment war about religion, and one of the main was people arguing about Unconditional election, and I just... I don't understand how you can argue for both a Just and loving god and the idea that said god chose some people to be saved, and the rest are never able saved. I just... >.< Gahhh <rant over>--MikallakiM 01:10, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not formally trained in theology but that view doesn't make sense to me. It contradicts the Great Commission, "go and make disciples of all nations." What would be the point of this if it had already been decided who was saved? Doctor Dark (talk) 01:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not a trained theologist either but: There doesn't have to be a point. Whatever his followers say, the God depicted in the Bible is a capricious bastard, there doesn't have to be a rhyme or reason. The Idirans in Consider Phlebas make everybody join in with their religion, not because they believe non-Idirans can benefit (they think it's ludicrous for something with a mortal body to expect to have an immortal soul) but because it's a show of religiosity for the Idirans to make others join in. Like the Jewish thing about not merely obeying God's rules, but making a big show of it so that everybody knows how important it is to obey them. When you see an elevator with a "Sabbath" mode, that's Judaism scoring a point, even if the people who built the lift don't believe, and the people who bought the lift don't believe, and even the people who ride in the lift don't believe, the existence of the mode, the meetings discussing how it should work, the extra lines of code in the firmware, are all points for Elohim and against other imaginary beings. 84.246.168.11 (talk) 11:12, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- The most general rationalisation is that God is, by definition, perfect. Therefore any decision He makes is perfect, by definition. It's therefore above any reproach, by definition. Therefore, no matter what God does, it is Good, by definition. God is, by definition, the source of morality, and by definition His actions are Good. Does that clear anything up?
gnostic 13:15, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- Also, was what you're reading anything to do with this?
sshole 13:18, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- They can say that Armondikov, but it doesn't make it less bullshit. Furthermore, I bet that most people don't even believe it personally, but ala Dennett's belief in belief, they think it's important to believe that. I would think/hope that if push came to shove, and it could be demonstrated that the christian god acts against happiness, freedom, and the other values of humanism, (esp. for its own amusement and glorification), then lots of followers would agree it's an evil thing and you have no "duty" to obey such a monster. Unfortunately, ala Battered Wife Syndrome, it's too easy to make excuses for the batterer, I mean the god in question. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 20:12, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- And that's why they had to invent an entire subdiscipline of theology dedicated to rationalizing away the problem of evil. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:36, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- They can say that Armondikov, but it doesn't make it less bullshit. Furthermore, I bet that most people don't even believe it personally, but ala Dennett's belief in belief, they think it's important to believe that. I would think/hope that if push came to shove, and it could be demonstrated that the christian god acts against happiness, freedom, and the other values of humanism, (esp. for its own amusement and glorification), then lots of followers would agree it's an evil thing and you have no "duty" to obey such a monster. Unfortunately, ala Battered Wife Syndrome, it's too easy to make excuses for the batterer, I mean the god in question. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 20:12, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- Also, was what you're reading anything to do with this?
[edit] Michael Mann has been invited to TAM
Heads up: Michael Mann, a.k.a. the "hockey stick" guy, has been invited to The Amazing Meeting. Heads are already exploding in the expected quarters. :D --ZooGuard (talk) 07:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
- JREF shouldn't be expected quarters. Osaka Sun (talk) 08:35, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
- Users on the JREF forums are not the JREF itself. The forum's userbase is more politically diverse than RW's and attracts people with varying levels of skepticism and scientific knowledge, including cranks that don't self-identify as skeptics.--ZooGuard (talk) 09:22, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
- There are some good responses to the nuttier comments. I liked the guy whose only post in seven years was to say that he was leaving because of Michael Mann... Doctor Dark (talk) 01:41, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- "Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out" would be a good response. My only question: if we do successfully force the denialists of all stripes out of the skeptical movement to go to Reddit Island or wherever it is they want to wind up, what happens then? EVDebs (talk) 02:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- We can debunk stuff without getting interrupted by morons?--"Shut up, Brx." 02:24, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- There have been previous talks on global warming, although not from a high-profile name in the field like Mann. I expect some denialist/pseudoskeptic panties will be bunched, but I doubt this will cause any major controversy. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:45, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- We can debunk stuff without getting interrupted by morons?--"Shut up, Brx." 02:24, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- "Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out" would be a good response. My only question: if we do successfully force the denialists of all stripes out of the skeptical movement to go to Reddit Island or wherever it is they want to wind up, what happens then? EVDebs (talk) 02:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- There are some good responses to the nuttier comments. I liked the guy whose only post in seven years was to say that he was leaving because of Michael Mann... Doctor Dark (talk) 01:41, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- Users on the JREF forums are not the JREF itself. The forum's userbase is more politically diverse than RW's and attracts people with varying levels of skepticism and scientific knowledge, including cranks that don't self-identify as skeptics.--ZooGuard (talk) 09:22, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
[edit] What are your thoughts on a RationalWiki survey?
We've been poking around about how unreligious we are (or not), debating the state of the current skeptical movement (and our own site's political and philosophical views), and I was wondering if we could devise some sort of census to quantify the diversity of our userbase. What do you think of hot-button subjects like religious tolerance and extremism, feminism, economics, gun control, the energy crisis, abortion, alternative medicine, etc. There's still the perception that we solely exist to counter Conservapedia. Osaka Sun (talk) 04:35, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me. I'd like to take part.--Spud (talk) 05:44, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- Why not. --MikallakiM 06:05, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- I've suggested something like this before. I think most important would be to gather some basic demographics: location, age, gender, & possibly ethnicity & sexual orientation. Then where people sit politically & in relation to religion. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ
Methinks it is a Weasel 06:28, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- I've suggested something like this before. I think most important would be to gather some basic demographics: location, age, gender, & possibly ethnicity & sexual orientation. Then where people sit politically & in relation to religion. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ
- Why not. --MikallakiM 06:05, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
[edit] Harper's Government
I knew that they weren't shiny, happy people, but this is a shitty abuse of power.--
Jabba de Chops 10:21, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- What get's me about Harper is that he isn't too terribly different then say... Mulroney, except that the man is clearly one of the most petty, vindictive men in Canadian history. Everything is personal with him, and he'll try to stomp on single people in large movements his apposed to, just because he is a hateful man. --Revolverman (talk) 20:44, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- Mulroney looks like Jesus compared to Harper right now. (I never thought I'd say that.) Osaka Sun (talk) 23:55, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- I would vote for Mulroney tomorrow if the Governor-General woke up and decided to dissolve the government today, if it meant kicking Harper out. Ochotona princepsnot a pokémon 11:34, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Mulroney looks like Jesus compared to Harper right now. (I never thought I'd say that.) Osaka Sun (talk) 23:55, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
[edit] Singularity nonsense.
Ray Kurzweil talks with Suzanne Sommers — Unsigned, by: TheLateGatsby / talk / contribs 18:30, 20 May 2013
[edit] The revolution has failed
Counter revolutionary forces have routed the armies of reason and justice. A shadowy secretive war has been conducted, my email account hacked, and thousands of incriminating emails destroyed by agents antipathetic to the forces of liberty. There is no end to the secretiveness, callousness and authoritarianism of this regime. The truth will be forever silenced, now that the regime have disposed of the incriminating documents that would have directly led to their downfall.
I must now take some time to consider my position. As an arch dissident, and leader of the liberty movement, I have been out maneuvered by a regime I had grossly underestimated. I had pictured them as being the Romanov's in their last month; alas, they have been more like Lyndon Johnson when he took out Kennedy.
Will freedom ever reign again? Will the world ever know justice?
For now, we must reorganise and create a grass roots movement to challenge autocracy. Say no to authoritarianism. Say no to censorship. Say no to hatred.
They may have won this battle, but my war is an eternal conflict between darkness and light. It may be very late and night right now, but dawn is just around the corner. When the sun pierces the horizon and lightens the sky, look above you to the hillside where my glittering army shall be prepared to smite thee, in a torrent of righteous vengeance. Fear not! Liberty will come again!
MARCUSCICERO
- "Will freedome vere reign again? Will the world ever know justice?"
- Likely not. Sorry. (talk to a) Nihilist 20:20, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- Dont be cruel Nihilist, this is clearly a response to my tragically failed coup to take over Cornwall the past weekend. I would like to thank the anonymous lover of freedom for his sympathy and optimism. Judge HoldenThe Judge Smiles 20:43, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- Everybody here needs new material. --MikallakiM 21:29, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- Does this mean we can finally ban this idiot? Oh, this is still Rationalwiki, where any jackass can do whatever the fuck they want? Fair enough.--Token Conservative (talk) 16:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- MC, if it makes you feel any better, some jackass keeps trying to perma-ban me every so often. --"Shut up, Brx." 19:26, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- Hamilton, once again you betray yourself. Your constant and loud declaration that you are indeed a 'conservative' fool nobody, and instead stimulate further debate and speculation about your true motives. Personally, my theory is that you are an ethnic or religious minority who grew up in privileged suburban conditions, predominately alongside WASP Anglo-Saxons. As a result, you've developed the atypical inferiority complexes such people develop in such environments. Instead of embracing your own uniqueness and identity, you crave the false emotionalism that conservatism offers, and cling desperately to the old wealth accumulating practises that so define that most poisonous demographic - the suburban white protestant ideological conservative. Your motives are in question Hamilton, as is your character. MarcusCicero (talk) 20:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- And your continued presence betray's RWs desire to never be taken seriously. Also, Mikal has met me in person before. At the least, I'm white, not that its any of your business.--Token Conservative (talk) 20:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Hamilton, once again you betray yourself. Your constant and loud declaration that you are indeed a 'conservative' fool nobody, and instead stimulate further debate and speculation about your true motives. Personally, my theory is that you are an ethnic or religious minority who grew up in privileged suburban conditions, predominately alongside WASP Anglo-Saxons. As a result, you've developed the atypical inferiority complexes such people develop in such environments. Instead of embracing your own uniqueness and identity, you crave the false emotionalism that conservatism offers, and cling desperately to the old wealth accumulating practises that so define that most poisonous demographic - the suburban white protestant ideological conservative. Your motives are in question Hamilton, as is your character. MarcusCicero (talk) 20:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- MC, if it makes you feel any better, some jackass keeps trying to perma-ban me every so often. --"Shut up, Brx." 19:26, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- Does this mean we can finally ban this idiot? Oh, this is still Rationalwiki, where any jackass can do whatever the fuck they want? Fair enough.--Token Conservative (talk) 16:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- Everybody here needs new material. --MikallakiM 21:29, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- Dont be cruel Nihilist, this is clearly a response to my tragically failed coup to take over Cornwall the past weekend. I would like to thank the anonymous lover of freedom for his sympathy and optimism. Judge HoldenThe Judge Smiles 20:43, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Uh.... what. --Revolverman (talk) 08:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
[edit] What to feel about the current gay marriage kerfuffle in the UK?
As some may be aware of, the recent gay marriage bill is facing opposition and outrage by (you may want to take a seat for this mindblowing revelation) "grassroots" tory activists, whom David Cameron has been desperately trying to hammer into line over this issue. Since this is a genuinely good thing being pushed by a phenomenally unlikable cockwaffle who is only doing it to help gain the youth vote and take any advantage on gay rights away from labour by "delivering" Gay Marriage, is it possible to both feel supportive of him on this issue while simultaneously hoping the homophobic idiots rebelling about this kick the political shite out of him? Judge HoldenThe Judge Smiles 20:52, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- Well, they'll end up going to UKIP, die a political death, and leave the Tories with far less MP support. At least in theory. --Revolverman (talk) 20:55, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- I have no problem with seeing the Tory party destabilising, splintering or losing some grassroots support over this, but ultimately don't want to see the homophobic idiots winning as I'd like to see this bill pass. Weaseloid
Methinks it is a Weasel 21:15, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- If it's progress and a good thing, I care that the UK government delivers, regardless of party. Though, I can't see how the nutjobs buggering off, leaving us with a fiscally conservative but socially liberal-to-moderate party is anything but good by all possible metrics. I mean, it leaves a fairly viable economic option without the associated social asshattery, and gives us a fragmented Right that would perform very poorly under a FPTP electoral system so they have no chance of getting power for a good couple of decades.
d hominem 23:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- If it's progress and a good thing, I care that the UK government delivers, regardless of party. Though, I can't see how the nutjobs buggering off, leaving us with a fiscally conservative but socially liberal-to-moderate party is anything but good by all possible metrics. I mean, it leaves a fairly viable economic option without the associated social asshattery, and gives us a fragmented Right that would perform very poorly under a FPTP electoral system so they have no chance of getting power for a good couple of decades.
- I have no problem with seeing the Tory party destabilising, splintering or losing some grassroots support over this, but ultimately don't want to see the homophobic idiots winning as I'd like to see this bill pass. Weaseloid
- Is it bad that I actually feel pity for Cameron? If the Tories are going to start an exodus and prevent him from becoming re-electable, it shouldn't be because he did the right thing. At least he'll have his name in the history books. Osaka Sun (talk) 00:09, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
[edit] I hate adblock
Adblock, god awful interface. Blip.TV, inability to let me easily unblock it. how do i allow ads on blip, because i've tried what I know how to allow ads on it, including going through the lists and disabling the blocks and blanket allowing on all sites. What the crap am i doing wrong? >.< --MikallakiM 03:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- Click on the icon and choose 'disable on [site name]'. (talk to a) Nihilist 05:26, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter if you white list Blip, it will do that so long as you have Ad-blocker installed. --Revolverman (talk) 05:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- No, that's false. (talk to a) Nihilist 18:58, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- Never heard of that page before. Went there. Tested. Got message that, sorry, can't watch with adblocking. Did "Disable on this page only". Hit "reload". Worked. No reason to hate AdBlock+, the best thing since Ice Cream. Dendlai (talk) 06:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- For the hardcore among us, firefox + NoScript is where it's at. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 09:27, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter if you white list Blip, it will do that so long as you have Ad-blocker installed. --Revolverman (talk) 05:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
I use Chrome for everything and keep FF without adblock for situations like this. Faced with mysteries dark and vast/statements just seem vain at last. 14:31, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- Or, you know, you could whitelist the specific sites you want the ads to play. It's not that difficult, people. (talk to a) Nihilist 18:58, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- Would you like me to make you a video where i've done just that to no effect?--MikallakiM 23:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yes. I'm very confident you're doing something wrong… or you're using the shitter Chrome version and it doesn't work properly there. (talk to a) Nihilist 03:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Would you like me to make you a video where i've done just that to no effect?--MikallakiM 23:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Incidentally, there's a Chrome extension called ScriptSafe that replicates the primary functions of NoScript for Firefox (though it is not a 1:1 equivalent). Like NoScript, it requires training to learn what sites you do and don't trust, and so it's a real bitch to surf around for the first month or so as you keep hitting sites that you visit on occasion that don't work with scripting completely blocked. However, since I started browsing with scripting off by default this way, the one time I've had a malware infection was when I basically expected to get something and just had to poke the fire by unblocking that sketchy, unusually-named site in some dusty corner of the net. Ochotona princepsnot a pokémon 11:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- I don't know too much about it, but the creator of NoScript IIRC was once asked by google as to what APIs he needed in chrome to implement NoScript. The creator happily supplied a description, and when chrome was released, they were not there. I don't mean to sound elitist, but it's my firm impression that any solution for chrome is technically vastly inferior to firefox and NoScript because chrome lacks the APIs for an add-on or plugin to do the needed intercepts to prevent execution of anything and everything. Firefox has a really interesting architecture where NoScript can intercept anything and everything before it's loaded, and no such API exists in chrome. Or at least that's how it was a few years ago. Maybe things changed? I doubt it. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 20:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Meh, not clear it was intent vs. laziness. Ref [1]. Hipocrite (talk) 20:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- [edit conflict] Chrome's addon restrictions are its biggest flaw. They could easily allow more freedom to the people who improve your browser for you for free, but instead they placed some bullshit restrictions. Until Pentadactyl and extensions like it can be used in Chrome, it'll never be my nor many other people's main browser. (talk to a) /ˈnai:ɪlɪst/ 20:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
[edit] This pisses me off
And not even because of the possible homophobia angle. If two people are both in highschool and the sex was clearly consenual, what's the fucking problem? What's the harm? Should she be punished — two years house arrest, one year probation, and permanently being labeled a sex offender as the best current option for her — just because 'it's the law' and you have to blindly follow the law with no exceptions or interpretations based on the intent of it? (talk to a) Nihilist 03:56, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Quick question: if the alleged perpetrator in this case was male, would you have the same opinion?
- To be clear, I'm no MRA, I'm just curious as to how some of the folks here view statutory rape laws. Mr. Anon (talk) 04:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, absolutely. I remember talking to an 18-year-old (give or take a year) over MSN once who said that he had sex with a 14-year-old, and though i was a little weirded-out back then, looking back on it now i'm fine with it… although past fourteen or thirteen is where i even i would draw a line. (talk to a) /ˈnai:ɪlɪst/ 04:40, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- My own opinion is that this issue clearly works out on a case-by-case basis. However, if we are going to have it addressed by the law, we need to draw a line somewhere. The line of 18 may not be perfect, but the alternative is either another line (which will also have its problems) or eliminating statuatory rape laws altogether. I would hope that if the alleged perpetrator indeed had consent, then a jury would clear her of charges. Mr. Anon (talk) 05:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Lots of courts frown heavily on jury nullification. Juries are usually instructed heavily in such a way as to make it seem like that they don't even have the option. I think you could redo statutory rape laws to allow leeway of 3 or 4 years. It's not that hard. High school kids having sex with high school kids shouldn't be illegal. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 07:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- This is a real sticky one considering how it boils down to "relationship was started when you were both underage, Romeo laws covered you, one turns eighteen, you are now a registered sex offender...while at the same time, laws must have some arbitrariness to them. I think there should be some kind of loophole for situations like this, but if that were the case, how would one provide proof the relationship had been going on prior? Polite Timesplitter Let's move on to some other area of sodomy! 07:57, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Being an huge LGBT rights activist, I've thought about this one a lot since I heard about it on the radio the other day. To be honest, I would love nothing more that for there to be a case dismissal or a not guilty verdict by the jury in this case. Barring that, though, I unfortunately have to side with the prosecutor's decision to prosecute this case. Unfortunately, from what Norman Goldman was saying on his show at least, the laws are usually written in such a way that, once law enforcement finds out about a statutory rape case, they are bound by law to prosecute them regardless of the wishes of the victim. If you ask me, if people want to be outraged at this case, they should be outraged at the parents of the alleged victim for turning it over to the cops just because they didn't like Ms. Hunt, and not at the police or prosecutors for doing their job.. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 09:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- From someone outside the US, are there different laws for consent between heterosexual and homosexual couples, or is it that the state is being very selective in its prosecutions? Or is it that most parents don't pursue charges when their daughter sleeps with a guy? RyanC (talk) 09:45, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- The laws of consent are gender-neutral; they apply equally regardless of sexual preference. From what I understand off of what I've heard and read, the laws are set up the way they are so that, if I am over 18 years old, I can't use my age, intellect, and influence to to groom or coerce a minor into having sex with me (like what a pedophile would do). Romeo laws, from what I've heard anyways, can be applied to these circumstances provided that 1) the age difference doesn't exceed a certain span (4 years by Florida law) and 2) the parents/guardians of the younger child or the child themselves don't file statutory rape charges. Thus, from what I've been led to understand, what caused this case to be prosecuted as statutory rape is not the relationship itself, but that the parents of the younger girl filed charges. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 09:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- You need a Public Interest rule. Prosecutors work for the People generally, not for some axe-grinding parents. If it's not in the general interests of the public to prosecute somebody then the criminal justice system has no reason to touch them at all. So the question for a prosecutor (for which they should be provided illuminating guidance, informed by relevant experts) is whether there's a public purpose. Should be able to get fiscal conservatives to support this because it's an inappropriate use of public funds to persecute somebody's enemies if doing so doesn't serve a wider purpose. Ha, as if. Tialaramex (talk) 20:14, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- The laws of consent are gender-neutral; they apply equally regardless of sexual preference. From what I understand off of what I've heard and read, the laws are set up the way they are so that, if I am over 18 years old, I can't use my age, intellect, and influence to to groom or coerce a minor into having sex with me (like what a pedophile would do). Romeo laws, from what I've heard anyways, can be applied to these circumstances provided that 1) the age difference doesn't exceed a certain span (4 years by Florida law) and 2) the parents/guardians of the younger child or the child themselves don't file statutory rape charges. Thus, from what I've been led to understand, what caused this case to be prosecuted as statutory rape is not the relationship itself, but that the parents of the younger girl filed charges. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 09:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- From someone outside the US, are there different laws for consent between heterosexual and homosexual couples, or is it that the state is being very selective in its prosecutions? Or is it that most parents don't pursue charges when their daughter sleeps with a guy? RyanC (talk) 09:45, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Being an huge LGBT rights activist, I've thought about this one a lot since I heard about it on the radio the other day. To be honest, I would love nothing more that for there to be a case dismissal or a not guilty verdict by the jury in this case. Barring that, though, I unfortunately have to side with the prosecutor's decision to prosecute this case. Unfortunately, from what Norman Goldman was saying on his show at least, the laws are usually written in such a way that, once law enforcement finds out about a statutory rape case, they are bound by law to prosecute them regardless of the wishes of the victim. If you ask me, if people want to be outraged at this case, they should be outraged at the parents of the alleged victim for turning it over to the cops just because they didn't like Ms. Hunt, and not at the police or prosecutors for doing their job.. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 09:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- This is a real sticky one considering how it boils down to "relationship was started when you were both underage, Romeo laws covered you, one turns eighteen, you are now a registered sex offender...while at the same time, laws must have some arbitrariness to them. I think there should be some kind of loophole for situations like this, but if that were the case, how would one provide proof the relationship had been going on prior? Polite Timesplitter Let's move on to some other area of sodomy! 07:57, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Lots of courts frown heavily on jury nullification. Juries are usually instructed heavily in such a way as to make it seem like that they don't even have the option. I think you could redo statutory rape laws to allow leeway of 3 or 4 years. It's not that hard. High school kids having sex with high school kids shouldn't be illegal. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 07:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- My own opinion is that this issue clearly works out on a case-by-case basis. However, if we are going to have it addressed by the law, we need to draw a line somewhere. The line of 18 may not be perfect, but the alternative is either another line (which will also have its problems) or eliminating statuatory rape laws altogether. I would hope that if the alleged perpetrator indeed had consent, then a jury would clear her of charges. Mr. Anon (talk) 05:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, absolutely. I remember talking to an 18-year-old (give or take a year) over MSN once who said that he had sex with a 14-year-old, and though i was a little weirded-out back then, looking back on it now i'm fine with it… although past fourteen or thirteen is where i even i would draw a line. (talk to a) /ˈnai:ɪlɪst/ 04:40, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
@Polite Timesplitter - why not just have the law phrased something like: "Statutory rape is when someone does sexual acts with a second person X who is 4 or more years younger by comparing birth dates, and where X is also less than 18 years old." Voila, problem solved. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 20:27, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- I won't answer for Timesplitter, but Bright Line boundaries (your "4 or more ... by comparing birth dates") are generally bad news. If you ask some teenagers how old their potential sexual partners are they will mostly think in terms of school years. A person who is a few days younger chronologically may be treated as "the same" age, a whole year younger, or occasionally a year "older" due to the vagaries of academic years and educational differences. A court though is interested only in calendar years because the statutes are written with bright lines in those terms. In reality, on the ground, any bright line will end up making an ass of the law, at least sometimes. I wrote above about Public Interest rules which can at least restrain prosecutors from deliberately making an ass of the law in this way, but ideally statutes should be written to prefer balance over bright lines as much as possible. Courts are there to look at individual cases, with their own circumstances, bright lines make that harder not easier. Tialaramex (talk) 21:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Fair. Allow me to apologize for lack of clearness. I understood the comment as not understanding how to solve the problem of two 17 year olds, and one advancing to 18 years old. I presented my solution only as an ass-pull to demonstrate how that particular problem is solvable, and perhaps a starting point for a good law. It's not a stupidly simple solution, but I still bet we could get a reasonable "layman" law that covers all the cases in under a paragraph or two. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 22:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
[edit] Great, it's here too
I had little respect for the local CCM music station my mom listens to before, but this is just horrible. I was a bit shocked when i heard it, as i sort of assumed that purity balls only happened in the South, but no: apparently even liberal Seattle has these things. (talk to a) Nihilist 04:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- What on earth is horrible about a purity ball? It's just people working to uphold their personal and religious values. It doesn't affect anyone else in any way. RyanC (talk) 09:41, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- It's creepy, mostly. The whole pledging your virginity to your father thing.--"Shut up, Brx." 11:19, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- You seriously don't see anything wrong with "I'm going to marry who my daddy says I can even though we have no idea if we're sexually compatible"? Polite Timesplitter Let's move on to some other area of sodomy! 11:37, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- It's also a complete lie that parent foist on children who are too young to know better. Lets face it, they're going to be having sex before marriage. The only thing this does is give them guilt about it. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 13:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- And how many mother/son purity balls are there? Is "purity" a thing that only applies to unmarried women? Is it a thing to be pledged to their father? Seriously, The father's protecting role over the daughter’s virginity is emphasized throughout the night. I mean, how fucking patriarchal can you get. I'm almost surprised the poor girls don't have to display their unbroken hymen. Innocent Bystander (talk) 13:58, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'm sure I've seen stuff about somewhere in Africa where they had a committee (of women, but still) to inspect the brides-to-be and that had been subverted into... I think it was either AIDS prevention or some way of fighting FGM. So basically the old moral guardians are now health monitors. It's the old Christian/ Roman trick where rather than stomp all over the local traditions you just tweak them, and then cultural conformance is on your side rather than against you. Tialaramex (talk) 20:34, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Not to mention, abstinence only sex ed never works, and that is the mentality pushed on these kids.--Token Conservative (talk) 20:41, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'm sure I've seen stuff about somewhere in Africa where they had a committee (of women, but still) to inspect the brides-to-be and that had been subverted into... I think it was either AIDS prevention or some way of fighting FGM. So basically the old moral guardians are now health monitors. It's the old Christian/ Roman trick where rather than stomp all over the local traditions you just tweak them, and then cultural conformance is on your side rather than against you. Tialaramex (talk) 20:34, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- And how many mother/son purity balls are there? Is "purity" a thing that only applies to unmarried women? Is it a thing to be pledged to their father? Seriously, The father's protecting role over the daughter’s virginity is emphasized throughout the night. I mean, how fucking patriarchal can you get. I'm almost surprised the poor girls don't have to display their unbroken hymen. Innocent Bystander (talk) 13:58, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- It's also a complete lie that parent foist on children who are too young to know better. Lets face it, they're going to be having sex before marriage. The only thing this does is give them guilt about it. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 13:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- You seriously don't see anything wrong with "I'm going to marry who my daddy says I can even though we have no idea if we're sexually compatible"? Polite Timesplitter Let's move on to some other area of sodomy! 11:37, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- It's creepy, mostly. The whole pledging your virginity to your father thing.--"Shut up, Brx." 11:19, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
[edit] Cold fusion
This might be of interest. Note the author - one "Sebastian Anthony", any connection with Anthony Sebastian on CZ?
Note also: "Stay tuned; we’ll let you know when — or if — the E-Cat passes peer review." (my emphasis) Scream!! (talk) 11:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- That's some serious bullshit right there. Someone call Randi! "We attached wires to a BLACK BOX which defiantly had heat producing resistors in it and it got marginally hotter than we expected based on our terrible experimental setup." You know what you do if someone hands you a magic black box and you're a scientist? YOU CUT IT THE FUCK OPEN. Hipocrite (talk) 11:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'm totally quoting your last two sentences later.
d hominem 14:15, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- In the Schrödinger article?--
Jabba de Chops 19:10, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- In the Schrödinger article?--
- I'm totally quoting your last two sentences later.
[edit] Worth it?
My laziness/apathy/mild hatred of this site is keeping from just doing it, but there's a documentary called "Pink Ribbon Inc" about the Susan G Komen group. Basically, the Susan G Komen group is using breast cancer for fun and profit. Most of what they do either rakes in money for the heads (with little going to actual research) or does absolutely nothing (like putting little pink monuments around). Oh, and the dye used in the pink ribbons is carcinogenic. Oops.--Token Conservative (talk) 20:45, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
[edit] feminism divide in skepticism and atheism circles
Seriously, wtf is going on nowadays? Let throw out my surely horribly inaccurate understanding of wtf is going on, and I do hope I'm wrong somewhere. So, Lindsay makes a speech at Women In Secularism 2 conference. Off the bat - if he's the CEO, then it doesn't matter he's a white male talking at the conference. If he doesn't go, it could be interpreted as a snub. Here's the text of the talk. http://www.centerforinquiry.net/blogs/entry/my_talk_at_wis2/ The first glance finds nothing horribly wrong. I did see a few veiled jabs at feminism, but minor. IMHO at the very least, it was impolitic considering the background as far as I know. Except one bit. AFAIK, the particularly controversial bit was where he commented on "shut up, and listen". Again, at face value, I have to agree with his comments. On the other hand, it very well could be a strawman position. I read pharyngula regularly, and I don't think it's obviously a strawman of PZ's position. Regardless, still impolitic. Still, like all good idiotic disputes, I think this is quite salvageable at this point, but then people have to dig their holes.
So, Myers replies. http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/05/18/women-in-secularism-is-going-strong/ I think Myers point is very apt. As I said, at face value, I don't think I object strongly to anything Lindsay said. But, the background is that there is a huge campaign of sexual harassment, rape threats, and so on, an amount of hatred directed at women, which is amazing. It astounds me, and in that context, it seems that Lindsay is bending over backwards to try and defend the assholes. That seems like a plausible interpretation. I'm not sold just quite yet, because I'm an ignorant boob. (I think I get sold on it later.) At the very least, Lindsay could have mentioned the insane campaign of hatred against women, and how that needs to stop. Keep everything else, but throw on how there's one group engaging in activities which are wholly despicable, and which needs to stop.
Watson replies. http://skepchick.org/2013/05/the-silencing-of-men/ Talks about some useless pedantics, but basically what I just talked about. See above. At the very least, she wants a simple acknowledgement of the huge problem in the community as opposed to what may appear to be a whitewash. Probably a reasonable position.
Then, Lindsay doubles down on stupidity. This is what made me "choose sides". http://www.centerforinquiry.net/blogs/entry/watsons_world_and_two_models_of_communication/ Watson upped the ante a little, but Lindsay goes even further. Talks about some useless pedantics. He uses some stupid, over the top, hyberbole "It may be the most intellectually dishonest piece of writing since the last communique issued by North Korea.". But then he displays his true position: "But in her defense, perhaps Watson was too busy tweeting about how “strange” it was to have a “white man” open the conference to pay attention to what I was actually saying. (I’m just glad Watson didn’t notify security: “white man loose on stage, white man loose on stage!”)" If you are are professional leader of a diverse community, there is no excuse for that kind of stupidity. Seriously? I mean seriously? You posted that Lindsay?
Am I missing anything important? Is there anything else I should read to be properly informed of this new fiasco? EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 22:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- It feels like we're talking about this in the Bar once a week, and it's getting insufferable. Seriously, who wants to get on with the proposed Elevatorgate article? Osaka Sun (talk) 22:57, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- In my defense, this is a new incident in the ongoing idiocy of humanity. Just want to make sure I have all my facts right. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 22:59, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
[edit] binaural beats
My flatmate is on at me to try binaural beats. My extensive research on the subject (I looked on wikipedia) doesn't really tell me much and the RW page isn't much better. Anyone has any clue as to what they are supposed to do and their effectiveness? AMassiveGay (talk) 23:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC)