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.
Invision-Board-France-355.gif For previous conversations see the automagic barchives. Friends.gif

What is going on?

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

  1. Has anyone heard of this - "Femitheism"? (18:56, 20 Aug 2014)
  2. Article on Searle's Chinese Room (20:53, 17 Aug 2014)
  3. Innocence of Muslims (14:33, 14 Aug 2014)
  4. What makes logic valid? (21:49, 13 Aug 2014)
  5. There seems to be a LOT of people who hate us. (21:36, 13 Aug 2014)
  6. Is it right to condemn ancient cultures for believing in religion even though they did not have the same scientific advances/advantages that we do now? (15:26, 9 Aug 2014)
To do list


[edit] ISIL update

A short while ago the ISIL militants seized the city of Qaraqosh, the largest Christian city in Iraq. Granted it was pretty much empty when they entered it so massacres will be minimal. The Peshmerga has retreated from several areas over the past couple of days. Several days ago ISIL captured the city of Sinjar sending hundreds of thousands of Yazidi Kurds fleeing for their lives. They are members of a small minority religion, the militants typically give the Assyrian Christians time to leave by giving them the option to pay Jizya (or convert, or die). The Yazidi typically aren't given the option to pay Jizya (almost everyone uses that option to "buy time" to escape). In any case anywhere between ten to forty thousand Yazidis weren't able to flee in time and are stuck on a barren mountaintop near Sinjar with very little if any supplies as the Iraqis scramble to airdrop supplies to them, and the Kurds scramble to open a humanitarian corridor. In the meantime most Christians on the Nineveh plain have fled to Erbil, some are still in Alqosh and the Mar Mattai Monastery (perched on mountaintop it is relatively well defended and would be difficult to capture). The Kurds have slowed the advance somewhat but the reputation of the Peshmerga is damaged and a humanitarian disaster is unfolding before our eyes. My thoughts: I am a liberal, I am not a neo-con, but this administration appears to be in denial about what the situation is in Iraq. A couple days ago the Kurds asked for arms from Washington but the response they got was that it would damage the attempt to create a more unified Iraqi government. What?! IRAQ IS KAPUT! There is no prospect for a "unitary government" the State Department and the Pentagon should get there heads out of their ***** and realize that!. Right now there is one option, arm anyone battling the militants or face a humanitarian catastrophe, and if Kurdistan declares independence than who cares!? Look on the bright side, in the event Kurdistan does declare its independence we will finally be rid of the Sykes-Picot agreement once and for all. I digress, obviously I feel very strongly about this issue, would anyone with a cooler temperament than I wish to offer his or her input? Alsto003 (talk) 15:47, 7 August 2014 (UTC) Alex

President Obama here proves himself the anti-Roosevelt; while President Roosevelt sought to overcome America's inert isolationism after Kristalnacht, the wp:Voyage of the Damned, the Rape of Nanking, aggression against Poland, etc etc, President Obama takes a conservative track of not giving a flying fuck about the oppression of minorities in Iraq or the kidnapping, enslavement and rape of 300 Christian girls in Nigeria. nobsOne who's been there. 20:15, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Seeing as the conservative track was to invade the country with no after-plan, I don't see what your reasoning is. Oh hang on, it's you, your reasoning is "Obama BAAAAAAAAAAD". Piss off back to Conservapedia you shithead. SophieWilderModerator 20:28, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Well that's just a steamy pile of shit you laid there: Dick Armey, founder of the Tea Party and form GOP House Leader opposed Iraq while Democrat frontrunner Hillary Clinton & the sitting Secretary of State (and former Demcorat presidential Nominee) John Kerry supported it. Any more crap you wanna sling? nobsOne who's been there. 05:06, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Whatever will we do when one conservative didn't support the invasion of iraq.--Miekal 05:13, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Armey voted against the Iraq resolution you say, Robby? Sorry, but he voted for it. You're either a liar or ignorant. I can't tell which, so I'm guessing both. DickTurpis (talk) 11:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say he voted against it, I said he opposed it (as Kerry said, he voted against it before he voted for it). But Armey has been uneequivical then and since, accusing Cheney of "bullshitting" him. Unlike Hillary, who boasted she had been studying Saddam's WMD for ten years and knew Saddam was in bed with al-Qaeda (beginning 10:02:46). nobsOne who's been there. 01:41, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
So he voted for a war he opposed? Fuck, that's even worse. DickTurpis (talk) 11:46, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Worse? that is the exact position of the sitting Secretary of State. nobsOne who's been there. 20:07, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/u-s-begins-sending-arms-kurdish-forces-iraq/ and last I heard before that they where going to arm the kurds they just wanted to do it through bagdad for legal reasons. Also you know they aren't calling themselves ISIL anymore right? They changed it from islamic state in iraq and the Levant to just Islamic state. This tends to bother commentators because it's even broder then the Levant, and the Levant is already really large. --NonPerson (talk) 23:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Inb4 "West Iraq" and "East Iraq," and possibly also "Kurdistan" (as a wholly independent state), and maybe even a new Christian Iraqi state thrown right in the middle of it all for good measure. It seems like the only way there will be peace there within the foreseeable future. ... Actually, wasn't there a US general who thought the same? Petraus, maybe? I can't remember. Regardless, though, it's not as if we can reasonably expect a rapid cultural turnaround to secular humanism to give the place a chance of holding together within such a short timeframe. Jodolf Stitler (talk) 15:55, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Not Petraus, Biden (and by extension, Harry Reid). Partitioning Iraq is Biden's plan, and Reid allowed a Senate Resolution on the matter in 2007 (how did Sen. Obama vote?). So now, President Obama, Vice President Biden, and the Democrats are in the embarassing position of opposing their own policy. Incidentally, Obama has placed the United States in violation of the 1988 Genocide Convention (the basis of Clinton's Kosovo intervention) in which the parties pledge to “undertake to prevent and to punish” the types of crimes ISIL is now committing. nobsOne who's been there. 20:07, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
An independent Kurdistan? forget it. Landlocked states are totally at the mercy of their neighbors who will tax them to death to export their oil and (what if a 200% customs duty were placed on a $100 barrel of oil to cross Iraqi, Iranian or Turkish territory?) import anything they need. Even the Kurds know and understand this. Only idiots like Biden and the Democrats are that naive. Kurds must function within a federated Iraq. nobsOne who's been there. 21:50, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
An independent Kurdistan? forget it. Landlocked states are totally at the mercy of their neighbors who will tax them to death to export their oil and (what if a 200% customs duty were placed on a $100 barrel of oil to cross Iraqi, Iranian or Turkish territory?) import anything they need. My thoughts exactly. A landlocked state is fine in Europe, or even Central Asia or Central Africa, but in the Middle East? That is crazy. I am of the opinion that the entire region has to be re-partitioned (which means Syria and probably Iran and Turkey too) but the chances of that happening are minuscule. The only way that would be possible is if this war keeps dragging on forcing the regional powers to accept changes to the borders they wouldn't ordinarily accept. This in my estimation seems to be the current Kurdish strategy; i.e. do nothing and let the disintegrate even further so that the borders will change. The current administration doesn't seem to have a strategy, though the reason why none of us liberals are worked up about it is because neocons such as yourself (and every single one of Obama's opponents (except for Ron Paul of course) in both of the last two presidential elections) would be perfectly content to keep the entire region under US military control indefinitely. Alsto003 (talk) 02:57, 18 August 2014 (UTC) Alex
Partitioning Iraq might well end up an economic failure of a strategy; but it seems that a "unified" (scare quotes because it's not particularly unified) Iraq of just a little under half of Sunnis that hate Shi'ites, just a little over half of Shi'ites that hate Sunnis, a small but significant minority of Kurds that just hate Iraqis, and another small Christian minority that, while not as politically significant, is unrelentingly oppressed and languishing, ... sure seems to be a cultural failure of a strategy. I'm sure no expert economist, and I'd not considered the troubles some parties of the partition might face; but, mind, it's not as if the USA has a supreme wealth of particularly competent, reality-versed politicians. When some political construct catastrophically fails -- as Iraq seems to be doing -- the tendency of the USA, of late, seems to be to shove some new stupid plan into the void just for want of a plan, disregarding whether the plan will work particularly well.
Also, "... the Democrats are in the embarrassing position of opposing their own policy." Lolno. The Democratic party as a whole can't oppose its own policy, by virtue of it not particularly having a policy, on this or anything. The Dems form a rather "take all comers" party, perhaps at least in part because the Reps do the opposite and there's much need for the Dems to pick up the slack. Jodolf Stitler (talk) 04:32, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Well the news today is the US destroyed Saddams WMD that was carried into Syria and Bashar al Assad handed over. The question remains how much WMD Saddam's Commanders in ISIS retain. And if ISIS becomes legitimate in a partitioned Iraq, should the WTO allow export of Islamic State oil, the revenues of which can be used to spread more murder and mayhem. These questions await the next Commander-in-Chief. The problem only grows more costly and difficult day by day over the next couple of years, but civilized humanity must deal with it sooner or later after we finally get some leadership. nobsOne who's been there. 04:34, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Robin Williams

I felt remarkably sad yesterday upon hearing this. I shall burn some oil from my lamp tonight for him. Zero (talk - contributions) 18:35, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

[edit] PZ

On the other hand, I cannot believe somebody wrote this. It just drips with disrespectfulness. You can care about both things at once. Why does this need to be an article that was written? Zero (talk - contributions) 18:35, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

You're acting like there's something mysterious about this. PZ Myers is a shrill prick who does a disservice to the skeptical movement. FFB and his comments sections are an echo chamber. Nutty Roux (talk) 18:46, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Hmmm, if I may ask, are you one of those "They are dividing the atheist movement with their radical feminism!!one!" people?Shadow Nirvana (talk) 07:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
While I disagree with Nutty's comments about the man and FTB in general due to my fondness for evidence and truth, this is a pretty crappy piece on PZ's part. I understand the idea, but at the very least he should give people twenty four hours before writing something like this. Mourning a beloved entertainer is not a journalistic conspiracy. User:PsychoGecko 18:58, 12 August 2014
I don't get it, after all one can just take it to the next level and argue that the shooting of Brown is media distraction from the even much larger political and humanitarian crisis caused by ISIS as ignore every rule of international law and human decency in their efforts to purge anyone who doesn't fit their pure ideology. As bad as things are in Ferguson, it isn't shit compared to northern Iraq.
But wait, can't the media and people discuss more than one topic? Well of course they can. Just because they talk about Robin Williams, doesn't mean suddenly no one is talking about the police killing in Ferguson, or the crisis in Iraq, or the outbreak of Ebola in West Africa, or the current Israeli-Hamas ceasefire, or Net Neutrality, and so forth. Every one of those subjects were covered in the hour of news radio I listened to on the way to work.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Things are being done about ISIS and there is a lot media coverage. What is being done about Ferguson, except sweeping motions that point to the underside of a rug?Shadow Nirvana (talk) 07:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
PZ didn't need to write it with such disrespect towards Robin Williams, I agree. This whole thing just makes me think that the news is a big waste of time, politics is always dishonest, celebrities shouldn't exist, cynicism deteriorates people and depressing things can hit the most cheerful-seeming of people. Nullahnung (talk) 19:20, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
PZ's criticism is that the media is saying, in effect, "Don't look over THERE, look over HERE!" Unfortunately, in my opinion PZ's post is guilty of exactly the same thing. Apokalyps2547 (talk) 19:35, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
"Don't 'forget' to look over here" would be a more accurate representation of his point, although he probably could have worded things better.Shadow Nirvana (talk) 07:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
In my opinion, I think PZ does share this sort of aspect with Dawkins from time to time. I can understand the message that he's trying to give -- unfortunately, it's the delivery that can be problematic. Noir LeSable (talk) 21:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, what everyone above said, especially the point about starting a ridiculous oneupmanship over the perceived gravity of news issues. PZ is also showing uncharacteristic parochialism here (from what little I know about the guy); as serious as the Ferguson shooting is, it's a national issue whereas Robin Williams has a global following, so there's probably something of a feedback loop between news agencies as more and more people go on the record to pay their respects. Grumblejaws (talk) 21:53, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
(EC)A famous person died -of course some people try to make it all about them --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock )Moderator 21:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Look and me! I'm so not racist and you're racist for remembering Robin Williams' death! The article in a nutshell. What the fuck. Some people seem to not abide by the whole "due to the dead".|₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg If you ceased to exist yesterday / I'll erase yesterday from existance 22:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Don't you think there's a difference between "remembering Robin Williams' death" and using it to eclipse other important issues?Shadow Nirvana (talk) 07:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
I quite enjoy FTB and many of its contributors (Ed Brayton in particular). PZ and the strange creatures that inhabit his comments section, however, is a blight on that fine site. PsyGremlinParla! 00:46, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Maybe I'm looking for too many connections but I see shades of Dawkins' 'Dear Muslima' and I think that both are aspects of the Not as bad as fallacy.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 10:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Here's an article that was in my Twitter feed. And speaking of Dawkins, he disagrees with Myers on this as well. Woodgod (talk) 18:39, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't like how that article started out with the message "Let's focus on joy, laughter and the hope of getting over depressions!" and then ended on a negative note and outrage, reflected in the comments section as well. HowDoIArticleStructure? Nullahnung (talk) 19:01, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
I also think it's a bit premature to assume that this is all about depression -- the Coyne piece notes he had no formal diagnosis that he ever went public with, and at this stage an accident can't be ruled out. - Smerdis of Tlön, for the defense. 19:25, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Accident can't be ruled out? Perhaps, but being found dead with a belt around his neck is not a likely position reachable by accident. But, yes, we are still in the stage where the reported facts and the underlying truth may not have adequately converged. MarmotHead (talk) 19:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Man, I've lost count of how many times I almost accidentally strangled myself with a belt. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg A single piece of bread is just an open-face universe sandwich 21:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Fair 'nuff. You'd probably never believe where I find my shoelaces sometimes. It's just not hygienic!!! MarmotHead (talk) 22:05, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I'd have much rather been spending all this time looking up the continuing evolution of the informal Robin Williams bench memorial than have to both condemn PZ's piece and sift through the rabid anti-PZ hivemind that hijacks almost anything at the mention of his name. As for the cause, it's pretty normal for funny people to suffer depression or other mental anxiety. I wouldn't rule out depression. I'd just rather be watching the man's work right now. User:PsychoGecko 20:17, 13 August, 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Anybody with legal knowledge/experience?

How legit does this sound? I mean, it makes sense to me, but a couple of my friends are saying that it's bullshit and/or just an excuse to be lazy. While I disagree with this sentiment, I do have some questions about the whole thing. Firstly- how likely is it that the insurance agency would sue these people and what kind of "details" would you expect them to be suing over? Additionally, how likely is it that a case would be repeatedly postponed for, like, seven years? How much time would the band likely have to spend going over documents, being in lawyers' offices, et cetera? Finally, from what you've heard, do you think it's more likely for the band, or the other guy/insurance thing to win? MESSIAH OF DOOM Adorn the new king…Dolan.png 21:55, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Anyone can sue anyone, for anything. With essentially only one caveat, if you annoy the court too much, the court will label you "vexatious" and force you to ask for permission from a judge for every future lawsuit. Now, of course most of the conceivable things you could sue about will get you nowhere, just because you can sue doesn't mean you will win, and in many cases a lawyer will advise you not to sue, but that's just advice, you can ignore it.
So, insurers can and do sue the insured, there can be perfectly obvious reasons to do that (e.g. it becomes apparent you lied to secure a payout) and there can be nasty tactical reasons (e.g. you are poor, the person causing a claim is rich, suing you is cheaper and more likely to work than fighting the person causing the claim and they both have the effect of protecting the insurance company's bottom line, so...).
The most likely cause the insurer would have is that Tool lied to them. Show business people often lie in insurance paperwork because their work is (perhaps rightly) perceived as high risk and so attracts a high premium if they're honest. Imagine if a guy who rides motorcycles over a high wire for a living wrote "motorcycle mechanic" as his profession in the motorcycle insurance paperwork. He falls from the wire and breaks his spine so he claims on the insurance. After a few months of paying his medical bills the insurance people read about his life story in the paper - of course they sue. They would never have agreed to insure a high wire act.
Tactically if both sides in a civil suit don't want a decision right away courts will generally let them drag it out for a long time. From the court's point of view a settlement that doesn't waste a judge's time is ideal, and time spent out of court stalling doesn't cost a judge any time. Seven years is a long time if Tool just wanted to get a decision and get it done, so I don't believe that's the situation here, but it can drag out a long time if neither side is sure it has a decisive advantage and neither side needs a quick resolution.
There is no way to know who will win, and there is also no reason to believe that a band who are voluntarily inactive (does the lawsuit forbid them from making music? Not that I can see from this story) will suddenly turn that around when their legal problems are over. It's hard to believe Ænima is almost twenty years old and Los Angeles still hasn't been swept into the ocean or burned to the ground. I'm thinking that might have more effect on Tool than winning some lawsuit. Tialaramex (talk) 23:14, 12 August 2014 (UTC). Edited to strike stuff that Nutty corrected below Tialaramex (talk) 07:00, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Uh oh. You've gotten this so wrong that I really regret feeling compelled to give the child the attention he wanted.
"The most likely cause the insurer would have is that Tool lied to them." The most likely cause, and the actual cause, is that the carriers filed declaratory judgment actions seeking rulings that they had no duties to defend the underlying copyright/defamation case. Carriers' have several duties to insureds. The first is the duty to defend, which means the carrier must provide or pay for legal representation to defend any lawsuit in which any "potentially covered" claim is raised. Tool and the carriers have been fighting over whether the claims raised by DeLeon are "potentially covered". Potential coverage is unrelated to actual coverage. Coverage lawsuits like this are as common as the day is long. Tool, in turn, sued the insurance companies for bad faith. Bad faith is a type of statutory extra-contractual remedy for breaches of insurance policies because bad faith breaches of insurance policies can have catastrophic effects on insureds and states think it looks good to at least say their public policy is against insurance companies leaving people in the lurch. Bad faith cases are also as common as the day is long.
"Tactically if both sides in a civil suit don't want a decision right away courts will generally. ..." No, they absolutely positively will not. Judges do not want cases hanging around on the docket, and they sure as shit don't want to hear the same lawyers fighting about the same thing for years. Judges get scrutinized on how long it takes them to dispose of cases. There's a Congressional committee dedicated to documenting how long it takes motions to get ruled on in federal court.
The case isn't being "postponed" for, like, seven years, and the length of time the case has taken to litigate this far has nothing to do with Tool looking at documents or sitting in lawyer' offices. The stakes are high enough that the carriers have made the financial decision that it is worth aggressively litigating the case for 7 years. It's as simple as that. The insurance litigation has been extremely contentious and has included multiple appeals, which can take years, and extended motion practice, which can also take years. Declaratory judgment actions are always complicated by counterclaims and crossclaims. I imagine the insurance companies crossclaimed against each other to determine which would have to pay first if it loses. I have no idea whether this is true for the underlying case in this instance, but it is very common in my experience that underlying cases are delayed to some degree by insurance litigation. Messiah of Doom's last question is ... There is no "other guy/insurance thing" to win. And it's silly to think that, after reading a Rolling Stone article, you could possibly know enough about a 7 year old lawsuit to tell which party is more likely to win. Nutty Roux (talk) 23:24, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Coolio. Thanks. THE GREAT RIGHTEØUS DESTRØYER The epitome of Gods and Men alike Dolan.png 00:11, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand how they could make such a big deal out of some artwork. How much could the guy have been owed? I'm surprised they couldn't reach a settlement. As far as a new Tool album, just play your Tool favorite album backwards. Bam. Brand new tool album. And it sounds just like all the others. Just like they all do. All the time. Occasionaluse (talk) 13:56, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Beats me how much they owed him. It's surprising considering their record covers all looked like something the parents of a kid who got Photoshop for Chanukah would encourage him to put up on Deviant Art. If you really want a new Tool record, you could also find a recording of someone masturbating and write "Tool's New Ræcord" on it in Sharpie. Just make sure it's over an hour long and no one will ever know the difference. Nutty Roux (talk) 14:55, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
You can both go fuck yourselves. GØØBY PLS Remembrance of the transcending moonDolan.png 07:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Not our fault you like terrible music or that you can't even make up friends that aren't cretins. Nutty Roux (talk) 20:10, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
I love the word "cretin." - Grant (talk) 20:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
I think Messiah may be infected because that's one sick burn. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg So you see, we have to kill animals, or else they'll die. 20:57, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
1v1 me IRL ill bash u m9. MESSIAH OF DOOM What is this that stands before me?Dolan.png 07:50, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Sure thing tough guy. WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 09:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
It amuses me when people non-ironically threaten other people over Facebook when they don't even live in the same country- particularly over shit like video games and operating systems. DØØM MĖSSIÅH I am completeDolan.png 12:00, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
1v1 me, no items, fox only, final destination, scrub! Nullahnung (talk) 13:03, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
No, I mean like "you like CoD better than Battlefield? thats fucking it. ur fucking dead you little shit. meet me @ chermside 5 pm, ill bash u up". MESSIAH OF DOOM Keeping myself alive, through your EMPATHY.Dolan.png 07:12, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

For review - [1]. Working on it. Hipocrite (talk) 21:14, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

[edit] François Hollande

Hey so can I restore the page I created for Hollande? I thought the main issue was with the way it was written before so I wrote this page as an alternative to the original because it's now more mission focused. Also unlike Wikipedia I talked about his position on Global Warming and immigration among other things, as well as more detail into his economic positions and poltical leanings. You're all (obviously) free to improve on it but I think it's worth having a page on the leader of one of the larger European Countries. ClothCoat (talk) 00:05, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Looks good so far, amplify the nuttery as needed to be missiony - David Gerard (talk) 09:31, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Resurrection of dead threads

A newly minted word (I think) offered for your consideration as a substitute for "thread necromancy" just because: "Necromilia", a compound of Ancient Greek νεκρός (nekrós), "dead body", and ομιλία (homilia) "discourse", the root of "homily" in English. To paraphrase the King, a little less divination, a little more conversation, please. Alec Sanderson (but I won't be bothered if it never catches on) 17:15, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I’ve never quite understood what was actually wrong with thread necromancy. Is there some explanation as to why continuing old conversations is so much worse than needlessly multiplying the number of threads by starting new ones? Or is it just some sort of Internet tradition? (talk) 21:26, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Main reason, probably, is that the previous contributors to the conversation are no longer "on the site". Scream!! (talk) 21:32, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
^This. I have seen threads (sort of) successfully revived when a new contributor adds something new to the discussion or takes it in a new direction. But in a lot of cases a new contributor just chimes in to respond to an old comment, which is a little aggravating. Oftentimes the OP is no longer at RW, and if they are they probably won't be much interested in getting into a dispute about something they said three or four years ago. ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 21:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
So what you're saying is, what we are writing now is meaningless crap that only an idiot would waste time to read three years hence? A "dead thread" would be one exhausted of all possibilities, whereas one brought back to life was incomplete then and shows interest and relevance now. nobsOne who's been there. 22:17, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I hesitate to feed the troll but: 'Yes, Rob, what YOU write now, or any time, "... is meaningless crap that only an idiot would waste time to read ..."' Scream!! (talk) 11:12, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for saying that, I suppose.
Some things have a longer shelf life than others. Since the time of Mark Twain and before, printers have been well aware of the difference between ephemera and more lasting work. For a run of serious books or maps, more care would be taken with things like alignment or registration than a run of dollar store circulars would warrant.
RW articles, being collaboratively written (and edited, and re-written) can be compared to those works intended to be kept around for a while, for reference or re-reading. Text on a forum or debate page is generally laid down in one go at a time, by a series of individuals, and seldom edited. This latter kind of content goes stale quicker than the stuff that the mob has worked out together. Alec Sanderson (talk) 13:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Could Metapedia actually be good for something?

Today I tried to research fringe political figures on the far right (Harry Romer if you're curious) and the only site that gave me much information was Metapedia (Romer was so fringe even Wikipedia doesn't have an article on him). They told me organizations he belonged to and so on, and it was actually a decent starting point for reading up on him. Could Metapedia be used as a decent source for researching (or at least starting research) figures on the far-right and, ironically, this information could be used to better track their activities? I'm reluctant to give credit to a bunch of Neo-Nazi whackjobs but they're one of the few internet sites where I can find these people. I'm not saying I don't take it all with a grain (or a pound) of salt but maybe we should mention on their page that they can actually be used for something useful, mainly gathering information that could ironically be used to track and oppose the same fringe groups they support. ClothCoat (talk) 23:09, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that this is something that we need to do. If you can use MP as a launch pad for something then fine, but keep it under your hat. Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. Moderator 07:34, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Treat them as you would any other wiki for research purposes - look at their source material and use that as the basis for your material, rather than MP itself. PsyGremlinParla! 07:50, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
That's my feeling about it. For obvious reasons they aren't trustworthy people, but for equally obvious reasons they are one of the few sites that actually have information on fringe right figures. ClothCoat (talk) 07:57, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I think it depends what your definition of "something" is. Not long ago, we had a kid here asking if it was OK to cite RationalWiki in a report for school. The kid was told the Golden Rule, "Don't cite the wiki. Cite what the wiki cites". I've just looked at Metapedia's itty-bitty stub article on Harry A. Romer, and it doesn't cite anything. Not much of a starting point if you ask me. So, if by "something" you mean academic research, I'd say, "no". If by "something" you mean looking up obscure racists merely for your own amusement, I'd say, "Why the bloody hell would you want to do that?" Spud (talk) 08:02, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Metapedia should never, ever be used as a source of anything but crankery. That they got it right this one, and probably only. time is an example of the Stopped clock fallacy, and nothing more. Having them as a source on RationalWiki doen nothing but discredit us. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 09:09, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
What chutzpah. (talk) 13:24, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I used it to find out more about RamzPaul last month after Paul Elam wrote in support of him. It should never, ever be referenced, but it's good to find other links when you know you are aligned at odds to the subject --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 14:12, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
If MP has something right, why not cite them? Sure, if there's more credible sources saying the same thing, use them. An actual stopped clock could be a source (not the only/best source) for time being cyclical. That said, I just can't read more than a few paragraphs of MP. MarmotHead (talk) 15:24, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Because it's an otherwise racist website. Who cares if they got one thing right? By citing them as a source, we do a disservice to our own credibility. It's in the same vein as Stormfront or CreationWiki getting something right. They are too ridiculous to trust, and even if they got one thing right, the fact that they are otherwise extremely wrong means that, somebody checking that source will see what else that source has to say, find that said source is a source of nuttery, and that our citing them as a source means we are thus believing cranks and racists. It has nothing at all to do with the stopped clock being right, and everything to do with it being wrong about everything else and how that reflects upon us. In short: using Metapedia-type websites as sources is inherently stupid. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 18:15, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, it's true, I'm arguing the land of theoretical truth not where credibility matters. Good point! MarmotHead (talk) 18:19, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Those are good points. I'm guessing that because they're such a small "community" they probably know alot about each other since they talk to each other about the same things, like how some Communist Party USA members probably know more about Gus Hall than you're average person or even some historians because they've talked to older members of their "group" who personally knew him so they have acess to information others don't. This is why MP might know alot about guys like Romer without a citation, because an older person in that group may have known him or heard more about him from other racists. But with even that being said most of the information they get from other members is hearsay from people with a very twisted worldview so that's not very reliable either. Anyway my argument wasn't that we should cite them, just that they can be used a starting point due to their obsession with tracking these people (even if it is for the opposite reasons we do).ClothCoat (talk) 20:55, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
"They can be used for information" is an argument can be applied to anything and really has nothing much to do with merit. There's nothing remarkable about the fact that white supremacists know more about white supremacist spokesmen & ideology than the average person. WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:52, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Go over to the racial realism talk page and you can find a mentally ill former Metapedia sysop "Mikmikev" there. He's trolled rationalwiki for years under thousands of socks calling other rationalwiki members "anti-white", 'jews' or 'marxists". he's even got an ED article that records his irrational behaviour:

This is the sort of people behind metapedia. of course it isn't to be taken serious. Windir (talk) 21:14, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I just want to make it clear that I'm not defending them or saying they're decent, intelligent people (they're not). I'm worried people are starting to think I'm giving a quasi-defense of them when I'm not I'm just speculating as to whether they are purely a waste of space on this planet (well, yes, they are that too) or whether they can be semi-useful for one very specic thing. ClothCoat (talk) 00:21, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Look at this heap of bullshit.

[edit] Engaging with "nuts"

I've been thinking that RW's default habits of engaging with outsiders (those who think quite differently than the local median) may be a bit flawed. I'm not sure the nuttier folks, themselves, deserve a platform since nutty behavior can be too disruptive. However, some of their ideas deserve some scrutiny. Our recent and intermittent pedo-invasion is an example. He (I presume) was quite disruptive in how he made his points, but his points had a little bit of merit. His evidence did not say all, or even nearly all of what he thought, but it did say something, specifically, that sometimes CSA is a little less damaging than we'd expect (note use of 'sometimes' and 'a little less'). So, yes, let's shoot down disruptive behavior, but let's examine the wreckage, too, just in case. Stepping down from the soapbox ... MarmotHead (talk) 16:44, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Many of us have limited patience for that kind of time-wasting. Triage[wp] started as a system of dividing patients into three groups:
  1. Those who will get better without intervention
  2. Those who will not benefit from intervention (dying even if treated)
  3. Those that can be helped with appropriate intervention
Note well, only one of those three categories calls for treatment. In a RW context, I don't hesitate to put the CSA troll in the second category, where engagement will benefit neither him nor the wiki. The only appropriate engagement I can see is to block, ignore, and burn the wreckage. He can go play his "poor misunderstood me" game somewhere else. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 17:07, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I see your point, but, as we escort him out, let's take the one microscopic bit of rationality he left behind. I don't think you, or anyone, should be forced to engage the person. I do think we should look at the ideas and, if the person isn't abhorrent, the person, too. In this case, the person was not quite as nuts as some have been, but easily in the range of intolerable. To be fair, I'm not the best judge of this as I will spend too much effort engaging a person. I made that mistake in this case, but I also see some gem of ideas amidst the insanity. MarmotHead (talk) 17:20, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
No, that pedophile's claims had zero (microscopic or otherwise) merit. Questioning the need for consent regarding sexual acts, not to mention framing anything in the context of, "watch child pornography like I do and you will see it's not so bad. The abuser is usually a pretty chill dude." This is so far from a useful starting point for a discussion that it's barely worth mentioning. Yes there's hysteria around pedophiles; teenagers being arrested for child pornography production for sending nude selfies to their teen friends, people becoming registered sex offenders for public urination and so forth, but that was not what this guy was talking about. He was literally arguing that molesting children was somehow not reprehensible. --Marlow (talk) 17:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
The stuff you refer to? Vile. Completely vile. Yes, you're right. He was arguing for that crazy stuff, but one little piece of his evidence (about harm of CSA) had some miscroscopic merit. The rest? Complete crap. Yep. We (you included) can see the crap, but, if we can stomach it, let's look for the useful bits, too. I think that a better presentation of the useful bits actually negates his main point. MarmotHead (talk) 17:33, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
To self-reply, the ONLY evidence he had that had ANY merit related just to research results on the self-reported harm of CSA and, even then, he didn't get it right. But that part is worth considering and, I argue, other nuts might have similar fragments. MarmotHead (talk) 17:36, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I had hoped that particular squall had passed. Tolerant as I like to think I am, I seldom welcome bullshit. The kind of bullshit in aid of justifying predatory sexual exploitation of minor children is particularly unwelcome, more so if it comes disguised as sweet reason. Notice how the sweetness dissipated when he was challenged, turning to accusations of bigotry.

I can think of a few cultures here and there, now and then, where that kind of "love" was more or less accepted in some circles. In the usual stereotype, that kind of voluptuousness goes along with decadence, the kind of society that holds some human lives cheaper than others. That's really all I feel like saying about it. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 17:49, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

So, how are we going to impose this? And, more importantly, where do we draw the line. CSA is an easy one but what about Jim Jast or that guy who thinks all psychiatry is evil or Earthland (who was mostly harmless but would insist on inflicting his hardline antiabortion stance everywhere) Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 17:51, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Actually, to give a better example, Mikemev or whatever he's called. I loath his views but, because of him, our race articles are more bullet proof. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 17:53, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
(ec)No need to rule by fiat. Just let editors exercise judgement. Also: the actual scientific evidence on our article was pretty damning. Also, the guy wasn't "being reasonable", he was just trying allege an absence of evidence and extrapolate that false premise into the evidence of absence. Ikanreed (talk) 17:55, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
(EC)That example of DMR? Excellent! I was too busy being repulsed by the Mikemev dude's trolling to see how it fueled the bulletproofing. MarmotHead (talk) 18:00, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
OK - Here's an example that was directly a result of Mikemev's trolling. He kept picking holes, we kept filling them until... it just got better. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 18:20, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Yup, I try to stay as far away from discussions that are not likely to at least produce useful material as a side effect (like whatever was talked about above), but engaging that race realist IP I think was pretty useful. Nullahnung (talk) 18:43, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I'd like to add to that that sometimes it seems like the discussion is going nowhere because your opposition is a stubborn fool, but keep in mind the wise words in our article on the backfire effect under the "How to fight it" section. Even if you don't manage to convince anyone immediately, seeds have been sown in your opposition and within the bystanders too. Nullahnung (talk) 18:46, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Um, no, most of what's in that diff is stuff I added specifically because I was pissed off at the scientific racists who are still tolerated at LessWrong - David Gerard (talk) 18:52, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I think DMR was referring to the parts of that diff that Placeholder and me added, which was due to engaging with the Mikemikev IP. Nullahnung (talk) 19:27, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Ah, fair enough :-) - David Gerard (talk) 20:59, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
If you want to see me trying to engage a "nut" you can check the clusterfuck that is the talk page of the Thomas Sowell article. There was a time I bothered but eventually you realize that you really can't say anything that'll make a difference, and any good points they make are buried under incoherent ramblings and gish gallops. ClothCoat (talk) 21:04, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Having been in support of engaging with trolls the current arse gravy that is accumulating on the Race Realism page is truly repulsive and of no good to man nor beast. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 13:11, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I was this close to collapsing that "discussion" a few dozen minutes ago. Train wreck, with much blowing off of steam, perhaps cathartic, and with homeopathic portions of value added to the wiki. Looks like pibot is set to archive that thread about a month after the dust has settled. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 13:27, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
This is as stupid as the Metapedia thread above. The pedophile troll was not a crank like we normally would engage. No, this person is a psychopath and a criminal, and the problem with letting that kind of nonsense be spread on our Wiki is that we do a disservice to the Wiki by making it look like we are OK with pedophiles. It would be similar to if we let some ISIS jihadist try to rationalize the murder of innocent civilians who refuse to convertto Islam. There is no possible justification that they can use that we could engage them on that wouldn't end up making us look bad for giving them the time of day and, moreover, said person will most probably not accept our logic under any circumstances anyways. It's a lose-lose situation for RationalWiki. Instead, I'd rather take a brow-beating from the sickos and psychopaths out there. There is nothing wrong with people Googling RationalWiki and seeing that we don't accept pedophiles in our community. There is something intrinsically wrong when a website that is user-funded becomes a haven for pedophiles (or jihadists, or white supremacists) to flock to so that they can make a show of our tolerance to spew their nonsense and, worse, make us look bad in the process. At least, with something like Tea Partiers, we can attempt logic and no seriously bad PR can come from it. But pedophiles, well, that's something that is so rejected in society that there is no way we could win that one, even if we logically debunked it. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 09:06, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Damn motherfucking straight. MESSIAH OF DOOM Be judged by your suicidal desire

Dolan.png 13:11, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Reckless, though I'd like to note that it was never my argument on the "MetaPedia thread" to allow white supremacists to run wild on Rationalwiki or to even trust MetaPedia. I was only speculating as to whether their obsession with far-right politics could be used as a springboard for information on obscure figures and everyone started acting as if I was fucking neo-nazi sympathizer. ClothCoat (talk) 21:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Fair point, both RNS and MoD. Your (RNS) justification on your talk page a little while back did state the point particularly well in a way that actually helped me (too sappy? deal with it.). This pedo example is just one example and you propose others where engaging is better and less futile. I wished I'd proposed a better example, but the pedo one is one that kicked me in the ass because, honestly, I thought logic would help. I'm naive that way. MarmotHead (talk) 15:41, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Maybe this is largely irrelevant appeal to authority that I am committing, but I still gotta point out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Child_protection
If Wikipedia doesn't let pedophiles say whatever the hell they want, and let's face it they are a lot smarter than RW at keeping a healthy, constructive and productive community, then we should probably do the same. Nullahnung (talk) 15:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
That wouldn't hurt my feelings. (sigh) Why'd I have to use a pedo example in the first place ... oh yeah, that's the first example that personally ran me over. Getting hit by a red herring sucks! MarmotHead (talk) 15:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC

[edit] I stole something else...

Pronunciation templates this time. I originally swiped them for the Anime article I'm working on, but I think they could be used for other things like YHWH or other uncomfortable to pronounce words. Cheers. Zero (talk - contributions) 17:08, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Why would we need it? The IPA isn't very self-explanatory for the layman, and in the case of Japanese (where the international transliteration was developed with English speakers' phonetic pronunciation in mind), it really doesn't seem very necessary. "Anime" and "manga" are much easier for the average reader than "ænɨmeɪ" and "mæŋ.ɡə". WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:15, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
A bit over the top for us. Scream!! (talk) 18:31, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't know where you're going to find an IPA pronunciation for YHWH, unless you've got an ancient Kabbalah master living in your basement. RachelW (talk) 19:44, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I've used IPA in a couple places; then again I do have an ancient Ka-Bala master living in my basement. - Smerdis of Tlön, for the defense. 20:19, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

[edit] RamZPaul

Have you guys heard of RamZPaul? He's a popular YouTube's with several good videos on politics and social issues. Perhaps you all should see his videos and maybe we should have an article on him? (talk) 21:51, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

No. KevinR1990 (talk) 22:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
SPLC is very unreliable. :) (talk) 23:33, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Actually we may create an article on him, but not with the same "inspiration" you have. ClothCoat (talk) 00:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
By all means, I do hope RW makes an article about this racist douchebag, especially exposing him for the bigot he is. And to our resident IP fanboy of said racist, you've come to the wrong place to argue bigotry and those who advocate it are a good thing. Arcane (talk) 02:17, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Unironic use of cultural Marxism. My bullshit detector is already going off. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Wonder who started this topic. Totally not someone related to Ramzpaul in any way. I'm not gonna say anything more, just wanted to get my two cents on this discussion. Also edit conflicts are ass. (talk) 02:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Paul Ramsey. Now go away. FrizzyCatPotato Say what? 05:13, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
We cover him a bit in the Spearhead section of Manosphere, his antifeminism is the only thing I really know him for. He's definitely a white nationalist though, [2], just one who doesn't make you cringe as much to look at. I doubt many people here would be willing to trawl through hundreds of videos by a moronic racist to expand this, we could maybe do with a section in Webshites explaining his ideology, he's apparently an "American nationalist", although by American he means white American --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 10:15, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Personal tools