RationalWiki's Q4 2016 Fundraiser
We are 100% user-supported!
Without you, there is no RationalWiki!
Goal: $5000 Donations so far: $2605

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
Help and donate today!

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. Icon beer yellow.gif

What is going on?

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

  1. Russian RationalWiki (08:24, 18 Oct 2016)
  2. I have no idea what i'm doing here and you guys scare me. (13:59, 17 Oct 2016)
  3. The problem of Biblical scholarship (01:17, 12 Oct 2016)
  4. Page listing top moronic quotes from the internet? (15:53, 11 Oct 2016)
  5. Am I a misogynist? (03:22, 6 Oct 2016)
  6. Thank you RationalWiki (03:06, 6 Oct 2016)
To do list


This page is automatically archived by Archivist
Archives for this talk page: Archive list

[edit] Wiki Activity

I sometimes wonder just how many registered, active users wander RationalWiki as of the day that is today. Say "here" in response to this if you're in fact "here" (and sign). Just like I'm about to do. If you feel like it, at least.

Uh, check a couple of sections up. There are #Stats on wiki activity & active users. ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 11:18, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

It would appear that this tally is on registered Saloon bar readers who bother to reply. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:51, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Somewhere in the multiverse. I'm a first time wikiist, be gentle with me. Obi-Jon (talk) 09:32, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

[edit] My plan for parody book covers

For fun, I've decided to make a series of parody book covers, about books which could have been written by fundamentalists, wingnuts, or extremists. Here's an early prototype of my first cover. It's still in a very primitive stage, plus it was made in GIMP (a software I am less skilled with) rather than Photoshop. Any suggestions for improvement are welcome. I need a better subtitle too. TeslaK20 (talk) 20:19, 11 October 2016 (UTC)


Looks pretty awesome. My suggestions:
  • Alex Jones: The Globalist NWO Plot to Take Over Our Lives and Make us Steeple
  • Glenn Beck: Holy Nation: Taking America Back for the Righteous
  • Rush Limbaugh: Barry's Bad Brain: Why Our President is so Dumb PBfreespace (talk) 21:26, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
  • "Grab 'em by the pussy" - a dating advice book by Donald J. Trump. I am not the Ombud's man 21:43, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Bananas and other evilutionist nightmares by Ray Comfort-DïämöńđDïsc1 (talk) 22:29, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
So I'm guessing the long game here is getting a wingnut media icon to sue you for intellectual property theft? (talk) 00:41, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Why? I am not the Ombud's man 01:45, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
I was joking that if you make up enough satirical wingnut book premises, eventually you'll come across something that a wingnut will try and make a legitimate claim to. (talk) 07:53, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

You can tell this is fake because she's not mentioning Mexicans, global warming, and Democrats in the same sentence. —Oh colors! (speak, speak) Look at what I've done 07:15, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

My next one may be "Unnatural: The Liberal Plot to Destroy the Family". I haven't decided on an author yet. Who should it be written by? I also want a book by Sir Doctor Professor Kent Hovind, PhD, MD, JD, DD. TeslaK20 (talk) 08:17, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Great book. I like that it takes their assertion and exaggerates them ever so slightly to become silly, yet plausible. I once also made a parody book, but of a different nature. Aron Ra's Manchurian Candidate. The context three years ago was that he unwittingly promoted some dictionary belief hardly anyone questions, while the actual dispute was about the ideological fine print. ~ Aneris 18:03, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Rapists: How the Mexican Aliens are Driving America Into a Third-World Welfare State Under Obama by Donald Trump and Pete Wilson, with a special introduction and foreword from David Duke, and Rush Limbaugh. Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt Noooooooo! Look! Up there! 20:21, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Abducted: Jehovah's Alien Descendants and Their Plot to Enslave Us, as shown by eyewitness evidence and ancient Turko-Sumerian texts, by Zecharia Sitchin.--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 10:41, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

My guilty secret : the more crazy she talks the more attractive I find Anne coulter. I find her both repelling and compelling, like having a Christopher Hitchens crush on nagged thatcher :) bat shit crazy right wing chicks are smoking hot. I am so conflicted right now in my sjw Magic undergarments. God bless amurruca and my personal kink. Now argue for ridiculous right wing positions, yes, yes, rub your vitriol all over err....um...oops Gadzooks (talk) 12:49, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Clowns

As there is an ongoing infestation of 'creepy clowns' and my goats are on holiday [1], can someone do a proper RW article on them. Anything which draws the ire of the Clowns Association [2] #and# Wikipedia [3] #deserves# a mention here. (talk) 15:50, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

It's certainly missional. If you wanna whip up a well-sourced, well-written non-stub article, please feel welcome to. Thank you. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:45, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't see it as especially missional. It doesn't appear to relate significantly to science, religion or politics, & most likely will be an odd fad largely forgotten in a few months time. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 21:12, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Give Template:RationalWiki MainPage/About its own page

IMO the mission deserves its own page and some accompanying discussion. It's easy enough to create a new template to transclude. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 04:38, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

OK, why not? Mission is certainly misssional. Bongolian (talk) 20:41, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea. another +++Swedish+++ conspiracy by +++Laurogeita Hamabost+++ 21:41, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Great!-DïämöńđDïsc1 (talk) 23:38, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

RationalWiki:Mission. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 00:26, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

That is an interesting idea. Not one to be undertaken just because you had it, though. Mangling the CS page and creating yet another template because you feel like it and three people say "cool" is not the best way to do things. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:15, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Right. Moving the fully 50 words of the RW:CS that refer to the mission onto a page about the mission = "mangling".
The RW:MISSION page is literally just a compilation of what RW already said about the mission, and the mission template is just a more precise way of transcluding the mission. Nothing substantial has changed -- hence why the support of four seemed fine. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 15:42, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Boys, boys! You're both right! Now kiss. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:36, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
If it's only 50 words, why even transclude it? It just makes the page harder to edit, chasing templates. But I'm glad you are personally capable of deciding how much support any given whim that occurs to you needs. ħumanUser talk:Human 17:09, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

[edit] What do you think of Styxhexenhammer666's analysis?

Trump Will Probably Win if the Clinton Leaks Continue (Not A Final Prediction)

Basically he's saying, Hillary probably not having a lot of major bombshells left to drop against Trump + WikiLeaks continuing a steady drip-drip-drip of increasingly damaging leaks that work against Hillary = 90% chance of Trump winning. L's Ideology (talk) 06:20, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Hillary's problem is, the emails are not really revelations, they only corroborate what everyone suspected and the naive have been in denial of. nobs 06:47, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, no. The sexual assault admission put Trump squarely in front of a bus with no need for someone to throw him under it. Clinton doesn't need more bombshells; that big one is still exploding around Trump. It's four weeks to voting election and every response and defense Trump has made to his current troubles is making it worse. He threatened to sue the New York Times for libel, and their response was "Bring it on, sunshine". And he's got another debate to go, and there's no reason to think he won't flounder along especially if it comes up that he may well have walked into the dressing rooms at beauty pageants and the like. His campaign hasn't opened any voter centers or made any particular effort to rally the voters, and the RNC isn't going to spend money on his behalf when they've got the House to look after. His news is dominating the airwaves, so any Wikileaks docs are getting second billing if that, and that's demoralizing to a conservative voter (on the upside, you could probably make a killing by scalping whisky. Buy now and then hang out around a liquor store on Election Night. No matter which side loses, there's going to be boozing happening to deaden the pain). On top of that, Wikileaks has some credibility issues to sort out, rightly or wrongly, so not too many people are believing them until they can show they're not being backed by Russia or something. --Maxus (talk) 07:05, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Even if WikiLeaks is being backed by Russia, Hillary isn't disputing that the leaked documents are authentic. I guess they could be holding back some documents, but Hillary is free to release whatever extra documents she wants in order to give a more balanced disclosure. L's Ideology (talk) 07:25, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Hillary actually knows how to do damage control, just look at her response to Cooper's inquiry into her speeches during the last debate. Meanwhile, Trump's first response in a crisis is to shoot himself in the foot in front of a national audience, then - with the smoking gun still in his (tiny) hand - try to blame Mexicans, Muslims, and women for it. (talk) 10:20, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
WikiLeaks is little more than a Russian propaganda outlet to help get Trump elected. And they don't even do that very well. Plutoniumboss (talk) 14:56, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Isn't it the same people who brought you Iraqi WMD now claim Russian hackers are responsible for the leaks and not DNC insiders like Seth Rich? nobs 15:52, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
I think a Hillary win will be a blessing in disguise for the anti Clinton folks. A gargantuan media industry will spring up to stoke anger against the POTUS, welcome the disenchanted, and feed the conspiracy narrative with a constant barrage of rumors and Wikileaks. And with Trump no longer running for anything and therefore criticism of him irrelevant (imagine the subject of Trump no longer dominating all news coverage), the mainstream media will turn to analysis and critique of HRC's administration in order to fill the news cycle. Leuders (talk) 16:57, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
We will not go quietly into the night. (But you're right, Democrats recognize this is only delaying the inevitable. The GOP has successfully co-opted their labor base.) Plutoniumboss (talk) 17:19, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
If Assange can't get back on line quickly with another big dump to hurt Hillary, and Wikileaks alleged Russian sponsors are incapable or unwilling to help, this would tend toward a conclusion that it was not Russian hackers in the DNC mess and Seth Rich was indeed the inside source. nobs 17:41, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Sounds like a whole lot of wishful thinking to me. If WikiLeaks is trying to get Trump elected, they're doing a remarkably shitty job at it, seeing how his numbers have been consistently going down ever since the first debate. If, on the other hand, they're trying to sell books to the far right, they could be doing worse. Vulpius (talk) 17:43, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
I fully expect more firebombings of RNC offices featuring amateurish notes attributing them to Hillary/Democrats to appear in swing states like NC, FL, and OH. Leuders (talk) 14:53, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Wow, is that ever a special snowflake edgelord username. Why trust evidence-based statistical analysis from 538, when the contrived narrative of someone who names themselves for apocryphal satanic elements of Christianity exists. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:57, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Science Must Fall

Social justice, erm, "activists" state that the whole science project must be "scratched off". One "activist" talks about some african conception of lightning strikes, and apparantly someone in the audience has the temerity to microagress by disagreement. The perpetrator is then asked to apologize and it is reminded that there are house rules: "this is not an antagonizing space [...] this is a progressive space", she explains (Safe Space). Another "activist" adds what's the problem with modernity. "Western knowledge is totalizing". This comes in quite handy, since war on science & antiscience are currently under scrutiny. Science Must Fall, Oct 13 ~ Aneris 14:56, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

append "some" to everything Aneris says FuzzyCatPotato of the Lavish Card games (talk/stalk) 15:25, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't think anyone asserts that there is no antiscience/war-on-science from the left. The problem, Aneris, is when you imply that this is more than an academic exercise. (How many people identify as postmodernist antiscientists on the daily?) Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 15:45, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
How many people, you ask, and seemingly presume to answer: "zero"? This sort of thinking is rife in the world outside academia, too, and this is where it starts. ħumanUser talk:Human 18:29, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
It is surely an important enough topic for us to cover. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:40, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for drawing attention to this nonsense; ivory tower academic as it may be (read: is). Regardless, useful to mention for some article, indeed. Textbook nuttery. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:33, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Steven Novella's response. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 16:38, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

You could have left it on the subject. Now I must conclude that you live in your own universe. Not only do you and others deny nearly everything I write about the subject, you then have the audacity to deny that you deny this. Let's leave out the older things. Just in this one case, all contemporary references were removed from the article, were they not? More was contested on its talk page, earmarked with typical personal insult, or isn't this the case in your version of reality? And don't you think that this situation is rather characteristic, even though we are now “down” to completely trivial common knowledge, so trite and common that I felt it would be acceptable to document? (and it was still heavily disputed!) ~ Aneris 18:55, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Let me get this straight — are you in actuality contending that the fact that this entire section, originally drafted by you has been left in the article is a sign of a conspiracy to keep you out? Also, Steven Novella's answer said about everything that needs to be said on in reply to the original nonsense. Notice how he doesn't have a super-sappy tone like you do, either. Much nicer. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:33, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Aneris, you fall into the typical pattern of associating all your enemies together. Must I answer for everyone you dislike's actions? No. So don't bitch at me about your damn edits being reverted.

Oh, and you claim that I asserted there is no war on science from the left? Doubtful. At its closest, I've asked you for one shred of statistical evidence to back up the scope of your "SJW" foe, and you failed oh so miserably. That's not the same thing as saying leftists can't be antiscience or that SJWs don't exist -- as your superior anti-postmodernist logic should surely tell you. FuzzyCatPotato of the Lavish Card games (talk/stalk) 20:23, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

The word you're looking for (or possibly this[wp]). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:33, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
  • The word you want is gaslighting. Astute readers can see also that you two have moved the goal posts. My assertions remain true. Links are above, and available in countless other fossil records, other articles, and externally on “Kiwifarms” and the reddit “Wiki in Action” (Fuzzy raised attention to external discussions; he participates there; he knows what is going on). In addition, editors who paid attention know of COOP cases, glitches and other kerfuffles that seem to never end.
  • There are also no enemies. The RationalWiki calls its system a “mobocracy”, which does not distinguish who exactly joins the mob at any one time or subject. In addition, I have stated my position numerous times. It doesn't help to misrepresent it over and over again (and then whine when I restate my view again). On the contrary, SJWs are famously jonanists who regard every opposition to their nonsense now as “Alt Right”. I however, reject the Culture War framing as simplistic and wrong (also an old hat, how often do I have to bring up Chomsky, Sokal or Levitt?)
  • The contemporary authoritarian movement around Safe Spaces, Trigger Warnings, Cultural Appropriations etc is becoming well known, despite your constant obscurantism and feet-dragging. The so-called “Social Justice Warrior” exist as much as the “Troll” exists, and despite possible misunderstadings what is meant by it. If one term is polluted by idiots and obscurantists alike, another term will take its place. “Regressive” is already the second term on the treadmill.
  • King Crocoduck now offers a new word: The New Lysenkoist, and his criticism is even more serious. It's directly on topic, but I want to also draw attention to the fact that he also mentions Critical Race Theory, as did I repeatedly. Another nice thing about it is that he makes use of Real Peer Review, too, the very source that got quickly axed from the article here (of course), together with the contemporary relevance, which Percy was denying through goal post shifting. But hey keep doing it. At some point you only have gaslighting left.
  • PS: thanks for the placard, have added it to my page. ~ Aneris 13:37, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Wait, just to get your claims straight — what was it exactly that I was tactically denying by the fallacy of moving the goalposts? Mind you, I've already given you the thumbs up to Real Peer Review on my talkpage, and above (in this very discussion), I wrote (to you, Aneris): "Thanks for drawing attention to this nonsense; ivory tower academic as it may be (read: is). Regardless, useful to mention for some article, indeed. Textbook nuttery." Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:40, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
What a pity. I watched the video, rapidly became disgusted with what passed for comments at youtube, and came back here hoping for an excellent discussion of the topic. All I see is infighting over what must surely be other battles won and lost elsewhere on the site. Has this place descended to the level where personalities/messengers are what information is judged by? ħumanUser talk:Human 18:29, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
The good news is that the problems around this subject are not ordinary. If they were, the rather unpleasant things would be commonplace, and luckily they aren't. But it is the case, at present, that the “mob” defends the intersectionality “social justice” movement, despite its often cited authoritarian nature and despite that the foundation of this movement should make people cautious: “critical race theory questions the very foundations of the liberal order, including equality theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism, and neutral principles of constitutional law” (Delgado & Stefancic, 2006). Of course, that sounds rather scary. I guess most people have never looked beyond the “trivially true” concepts offered to them. Other reasons are sociological rather than ideological. When you are presented with a manichean worldview of either with, say, nasty comments on YouTube or the Alt-Right, or against them, then every decent person would go against them, and be in favour of the good sounding idea of “intersectionality” of progressive values. SJWs themselves sell their idea as “generic left”, but arguments over “Regressives” show that others think “not so fast!”. There are countless more possible reasons why people join in, but none of them make the dubious (vulgar/Tumblr) postmodernist ideas true. Of course a decent literate alternative that is both left, and feminist is available. But you have to step away from the framing offered by the CTRL-Left and their newer Alt-Right opponents alike. I'm actually entirely fine when the RationalWiki wants to endorse this intersectionality movement, as it does now. I just want this to be transparent then. If there was Mission Point 5 “intersectionality social justice is our thing, leave it alone!”, I would heed the rule. But pretending to be against authoritarianism and anti-science, but then being blind on this subject is dubious, and does a disservice to actual good causes. ~ Aneris 22:11, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
But how are we "blind on this subject"? (Like "we" are any type of coherent group — but I digest). You seem to conflate Gerard reverting you with everyone on this site acting in ideological unison or something. Do I get any points from you for what I wrote just then, next to Human, in response to you? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:18, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Though he is fairly controversal, which is not exactly a secret, I don't actually have a problem with Gerard. I don't hold grudges anyway. He's probably an okay person and we probably agree on great many other things. I don't even know whether he is the AronRa/Moriarty type of blinkered follower; just a committed tribesman; or a true believer. I actually doubt that veteran skeptics are true believers, but who knows. Many of them are by happenstance and flamewar stuck in some tribe, and that then informs everything else (do you see harassment from anti SJWs, or from SJW, then the dynamics of confirmation and reporting bias can go on autopilot). By “you” I meant the mob, as per RationalWiki's explanation somewhere, as I wrote above. I also don't think, nor did I claim that anyone was acting in unison. I don't have an issue with you either. You are mostly nice and positive for the Wiki, though I feel you were unreasonable in this case. ~ Aneris 20:26, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind words. Though I will gently lampoon your pathos, occasionally — and no ill will in that (a developed sense of irony is indeed a treasure) — I try to make qualitative edits, and I upvoted the witch thing in RW:CLOGS (read: my understanding of up/downvoting RW news items is that you vote on the missionality of the post, right? So my upvote meant "Yes, this is nuts"). Just to name two recent things off the top of my head — for what it's worth. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:58, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm going to need to see more evidence than just some idiot kid in a university spouting a bunch of nonsense (like none of you had your heads up your ass when you were teens) before I believe this is actually a widespread thing. CorruptUser (talk) 00:46, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
That's the point - we fight to prevent it from becoming widespread. Lord Aeonian (talk) 00:35, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
And/or document its existence, at the very least (in an effort against denialism). Regardless of spread. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:42, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Slow-ish wiki today

Connectivity gotten me so upset. 404 made me lose my rest. And everybody knows about root GODDAMN Plutoniumboss (talk) 15:43, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I know of at least one fork that was justified in part with outdated software... another +++Swedish+++ conspiracy by +++Laurogeita Hamabost+++ 20:43, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Been acting up for me too, today. Never fear; the ravenous pandas of tech support are on the case. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:34, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Is anyone here going to an evangelical haunted house?

There's this Hell House where "Parishioners portray scenes depicting issues such as abortion, suicide, and school shootings." That would be so unintentionally comical. L's Ideology (talk) 17:02, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

What is this I don't even Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:39, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
See Hell House, my Swedish friend. Spud (talk) 09:24, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
I went to one of these yesterday. There was a room where there was a surgeon operating on a fake body, and saying, "I'm going to extract some brain juice..." Then as we were leaving, he said, "Thank you for supporting ObamaCare!" So it was actually more of a fundamentalist conservative haunted house. L's Ideology (talk) 14:04, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
So basically, it's the real-word equivalent of the Max Payne 2 "funhouse"? (Don't miss the surgery). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:37, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
That doesn't seem scary!-DïämöńđDïsc1 (talk) 22:25, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
I know of no man who doesn't fear the Pink Flamingo. (Ignore the gunfire in the beginning). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:55, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Hey, it might be hilariously bad.I would pay to get in for a good laugh.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 17:59, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Hillary was supposed to control her husband?

This article was saying that some of Hillary's critics believe she should've controlled her husband better. But if she tried to control him, wouldn't that make her a domineering wife, which would've gone against the traditional norm that the wife is supposed to be submissive? So she loses either way. L's Ideology (talk) 17:09, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

This old saw? Yes, I remember the Democats losing the women vote in 2000, because a lot of voters felt Gore "should have done something" e.g. physically restrained his boss' monster cock, losing an eye in the bargain. By all accounts Gore was in the dark about the Lewsinky affair, but it didn't absolve him come election time .Plutoniumboss (talk) 17:23, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
A lot of manosphere commentators say that a good wife should let her husband have affairs, especially once she's no longer in her 20s. According to that theory, it was her job to NOT try to control his sexuality. For example, Roosh says, "As long as I'm physically attracted to her, I don't see why I would go and stray actively, but I think it's also unreasonable to expect a 50-year-old or 60-year-old woman that you've had sex, that you've been having sex with for 20+ years, to remain physically attractive. I think that's an unreasonable demand to place on a girl. So if in that case a man decides to stray once in awhile, I don't think it's the end-all, be-all of the marriage. But I think the one thing, the man shouldn't do any actions in public or flaunt an affair that could later humiliate his wife. I think the wife shouldn't be harmed by what a man does on the side. But I'm not gonna say I'm gonna do it. I mean, there's no way to know, but I don't, I wouldn't go into a marriage with a plan that I'm gonna cheat on her soon." L's Ideology (talk) 17:45, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
I can't understand how that line of attack is working on Hillary. You would think that people would more sympathetic to women who are cheated on especially if they are conservative; usually this line of attack only works with guys as long as you don't bring up Hillary's statements about Lewinsky. I mean no one blamed Jackie Kennedy for JFK's adultery but, then again, no one seemed to really care about his affairs.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:42, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
There's two reasons for that. Hillary didn't seem particularly fazed by any of this; she had weathered Bill's adultery before. She called Monica a loon, Gennifer a failed cabaret singer or something like that, and probably helped with Bill's legal briefs. So she was not acting as his spouse, she was his attorney. And nobody likes those. This fed into reason #2. People are quick to assume the worst about powerful families. What began as a "marriage for the cameras" became a conspiracy casserole. Hillary is a dyke, the Clintons are swingers, Bill isn't Chelsea's dad. And as we know, repetition always wins out over truth, so a substantial number of people (including fans of a wildly-popular Netflix shows) believe that Hillary is using Bill as a launchpad to attain power, at any cost. Plutoniumboss (talk) 07:23, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Firstly, I think it was a poor decision to have mocked Monica so there is a good reason to criticize her there but I have some doubts that you can expect her to control her husband and still believe it was wrong for her to mock Monica. Secondly, I don't think there is anything wrong with assuming the worst of powerful families but I think that is why she has so many conspiracies theories against her, at least when it comes to sex. These conspiracies certainly feel like a modern version of the aristocrat's joke.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 18:11, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

[edit] RedPanels

Has anyone seen this reactionary shitty webcomic? Its name is derived from the redpill "philosophy" and has a ton of racist and sexist strips. (Look at the anti-Semitism.) I have never seen so many straw arguments in my life.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:10, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Try the Iron Pill sometime. It's hilariously bad. --Maxus (talk) 01:12, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Why does that even exist? It reminds of this alt-right video called, The Last Son of the West.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:17, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
And it's pro-Trump! What's not to love cringe? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:41, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Something worth mentioning in the article on Pepe the frog? The fact that this pro-Trump, Alt-right comic is very true to the program (as it consistently uses Pepe to bash Hillary)? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:44, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
I could be wrong, but I think he is using that meme because it is now associating with the alt-right.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 02:21, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
You are not wrong; this exact state of affairs is what I alluded to in the first place. Thus cometh the missionality of our article on Pepe, for the record. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:23, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Those Pepe cartoons you link to all postdate the mainstream discussion of Pepe prompted by the Clinton campaign's statement on the subject, i.e. probably jumping on the bandwagon. There are far more canonical examples of the Pepe meme's role within the alt-right. WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 21:06, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Creep Clown Origins Theory

I have been wondering if the original intent of the recent rash of creepy clown appearances is to show how society gets into a moral panic over perceived threats such as the Muslim women wearing Burqas. --Cms13ca 13:34, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Nothing so rational or well thought-out, I suspect. My opinion is that it's a combination of false reports, mass hysteria, and possibly-drunk high-school/college guys doing it as a prank, all pumped up by 24-hour-a-day news channels and people posting reports on the intertubes. Nowhere Man (talk) 19:33, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Oh, yeah: Cecil Adams weighs in. Nowhere Man (talk) 19:35, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I suspect it started as a viral marketing campaign for the upcoming movie reboot of Stephen King's IT, that then got seriously out of hand. Obi-Jon (talk) 20:37, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Anyone wish to create the article - and is there an overlap with the Slender Man meme? (talk) 16:55, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
To add to the Wikipedia page and the 'annoyed Clown Association' mentioned above can add the London Dungeon representative #and# Batman. Needs slightly more snark than I can presently devote to the topic. (talk) 16:10, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Maddox shits on "alternative news site[s]"

Would this be worth inclusion on an article? If so, which one? Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 21:16, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

The comments are a concentrated form of altie tears:
Madox [sic] doesn't like being called a Cuckold [sic] therfore [sic] he shills for the MSM.
Great video, Maddox. I'm sure your wife's son is very proud of you.
member [sic] when you weren't a shill ...ahh [sic] the good old days
Jeeze, this is just sad. Rachel Maddowx [sic] needs to take a few months off, maybe go camping, maybe go on a retreat and suck off a guy in blue linen pants. Just anything to clear his mind up. He can't deal with the stress of being flat out wrong and constantly fighting off logic. Take some time to heal, and come back when you are ready to apologize.
Shitbart tards on suicide watch
Ahh, so good. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 21:20, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
I have no idea what you're talking about, but if those are comments posted below a YouTube video, my suggestion is no let's not include them in a RW article. WéáśéĺóíďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:56, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
What in holy hell...? So now we can't cite any videos that upset Alt-righters!? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:18, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
@FCP Great video, I'll add it somewhere relevant. Maddox is becoming an SJW cuck as of late, and it's starting to upset the internet hate crowd who thought he was on their side. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:18, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Weaseloid, I'm pretty sure FCP only wants to link the video to an article, and the comments are schadenfreude fodder (schadenfodder?) for the saloon bar. (talk) 23:33, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
@RBP, Maddox? Hardly. He doesn't like the SJW's and Regressive Leftists, but the Alt-Right didn't seem to understand that those words weren't originally dogwhistles... CorruptUser (talk) 00:17, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Add it to Maddox' article (which needs a lot of work anyway) as a showcase that he can be pretty reasonable inbetween his day job of pretending to be an alpha male on the internet. NameThatNobodyTakes () 08:23, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Black Pigeon Speaks

This guy seems to deserve an article.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 05:35, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Should we have an article about every neckbeard with a shitty webcam?'Legionwhat do you want from me 08:29, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
goodpostemojii.gif Plutoniumboss (talk) 22:56, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Well, based on his recent videos he receives at least 30k views and he just about has 130k subscribers so I think that would should make an article based on his audience size.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 23:20, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
He also shat on Sargon. (Check the bottom of that article.) Good man. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 00:05, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
@Fuzzy I actually meant that we should have an article on BLS and not Shaun and Jen but I am aware of his Sargon video, that is how I found the channel. Shaun has also done videos on Thunderf00tas well as a breakdown of racial comparisons which are worth a watch.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 02:00, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Should have his article, not just because he's an infowars type of crank, but also because he has plenty of subscribers and documenting what's going on without strong notability is a strength of the RationalWiki. ~ Aneris 13:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Blogosphere

Are we allowed to post our own stuff there or does it have to be posted by someone else? TY,Threadnaught (talk) 22:54, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

You mean like a Tumblr post or Twitter thread or do you mean an actual article or blogpost you did?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 23:16, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Btw, I don't mean to belittle your post if it is a social media post. I, personally, don't see anything wrong with it.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 02:09, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Tag it with {{sp}} if you do - David Gerard (talk) 06:46, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Derek Black's journey from son of Stormfront founder to Clinton voter


A beautiful story, to my mind, of actually being able to think skeptically about one's beliefs. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 00:03, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

So the ultra-conservative ideological bubble formed through his insular, white supremacist upbringing rapidly began to erode he moment he set foot in the real world? It's almost like reality has some kind of... liberal bias. (talk) 03:39, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
If you haven't heard of Flora Jessop, you should look her up. Plutoniumboss (talk) 19:08, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
I just looked up Flora Jessop, and I can't really figure out how she is relevant to this particular topic. Perhaps you could connect the dots for me? --Levi Ackerman (talk) 15:40, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
You must not have looked very deeply, you smug shit. She was an escapee from the FLDS who ran her own underground railroad. Plutoniumboss (talk) 23:47, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
@Levi Much to our collective dismay, Plutoniumboss doesn't get along all that well with any of the other children. Please be generous in your interpretation of his/her choice of words. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:52, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Sure thing, sheepfucker . Plutoniumboss (talk) 23:59, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
"That's goatfucker to you, pleb!". Jokes aside — atleast you don't write about yourself in the third person. Like Arnold used to say... Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:02, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
It must be Bob Dole's sock account. Plutoniumboss (talk) 00:04, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Goodpost.gif (Reference game on point!) Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:40, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Goodpost.gif-DïämöńđDïsc1 (talk) 03:32, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Goodpost.gif Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt Noooooooo! Look! Up there! 04:33, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Whoa, PB! What's with the aggro? I wasn't being smug. I was being sincere. I really couldn't see the link between Flora Jessop's journey and Derek Black's. Derek Black's change was brought about by external influences (a life time of living in a echo chamber), whereas Jessop's was (arguably) motivated by internal struggles. What is it with the internet and people thinking everything someone says which can't be translated into "I agree with you" is an insult? Jeez, dude. --Levi Ackerman (talk) 09:36, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

"Don't try to reason with it! COVER YOUR HEART!!" Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:29, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

[edit] NatWest freezes RT(Russia Today)'s UK bank accounts.


I don't really know what i'm doing so maybe one of you lovely(but quite scary) people can do something with this and put it in an appropriate place. Obi-Jon (talk) 16:36, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Short answer: a bank has told one of their customers to take their money and get out. Arawn Emrys (talk) 15:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Now it looks like I was booing this answer. I was trying to scare Obi-Jon. And I got that wrong too by the look of it. Better get back to ghost school for some last minute revision before Halloween. (talk) 07:04, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
P.S. If we learn the lessons of history we're still doomed to repeat it anyway! Scared yet?
Boo! (talk) 20:27, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
...Putin?! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:02, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Well done, NatWest! --Levi Ackerman (talk) 14:16, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Good news, everyone!

Performance problems have been resolved for the time being. Please thank David Gerard and his fiddling with apache. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:03, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Neato! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 07:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Looking up the term on Wikipedia page there is mention of 'A Patchy Server' (talk) 17:06, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
I prefer Hank Marvin's guitaring on Apache. BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 20:41, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

[edit] quantum rubbish

You need to creat a place for QUANTUM RUBISH: i.e.quantum healing, quantum touch therapy, quantum mind.....etc — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

We already have. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:03, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Harrassment

For anyone interested, a now-blocked BoN posted a harassing message on my talk page very shortly after I added the latest sex crime allegation to the Julian Assange page. Bongolian (talk) 06:28, 18 October 2016 (UTC) The harassment itself was not specific to Assange. Bongolian (talk) 07:11, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, I'm interested in the sense that I care about the wellbeing of our editors (in this case, you). Can't say I'm the least bit interested in the specific ravings of any vandalous BoN, however. I revdeleted the rant; hope this helps! All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 07:47, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Percy! Bongolian (talk) 07:21, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
No problem, champ. Th hug.gif Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:38, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Password Cracker

Does anyone know of a reliable password cracker that can be downloaded on Windows 10? TheAmazingSkeptic (talk) 18:35, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

A vital question — among many, and this is without even touching questions regarding the legality of the issue — is what type of password you need cracked? An encrypted archive, a Windows login, a WiFi password...? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
John the ripper is generally the password cracker of choice for reversing just about any hashed password. Though if you want a windows password, just use the install media to bypass it... or if you're trying to crack some online service... er, don't? --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 19:17, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Alright, thanks for the help. I needed it to get my own password. Now I have it. TheAmazingSkeptic (talk) 20:00, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Der Führer Drümpf Ist Kaput: An Outsider's View

Before Trump gets his arse kicked (by a girl!) I'd like to thank him for a couple of things

1) For showing that the Klown Kar Kavalcade of self-described tough-talking, two-fisted, Nascar-loving Republican he-men were nothing but a bunch of limp-wristed pantywaists. As soon as Trump barked at them they showed all the toughness and resilience of a wet paper bag, even Tom Cruise's evil twin Ted ended up kissing Trump's arse after Trump insulted Ted's wife.
2) For showing that Right-Wing does not mean Conservative.
3) For showing that the 'Moral Majority' is neither moral nor a majority

Trump is a typical paranoid crank with delusions of grandeur, combined with the sense that all his opponents do not have a legitimate difference of opinion with him but are out to get him, because he is so right, and therefore all his opponents are evil:

It is easy to understand, however, that a strong sense of personal greatness must be involved whenever a crank stands in solitary, bitter opposition to every recognized authority in his field.
There are five ways in which the sincere pseudo-scientist's paranoid tendencies are likely to be exhibited.
(1) He considers himself a genius.
(2) He regards his colleagues, without exception, as ignorant blockheads. Everyone is out of step except himself. Frequently he insults his opponents by accusing them of stupidity, dishonesty, or other base motives. If they ignore him, he takes this to mean his arguments are unanswerable. If they retaliate in kind, this strengthens his delusion that he is battling scoundrels.
(3) He believes himself unjustly persecuted and discriminated against. The recognized societies refuse to let him lecture. The journals reject his papers and either ignore his books or assign them to "enemies" for review. It is all part of a dastardly plot. It never occurs to the crank that this opposition may be due to error in his work. It springs solely, he is convinced, from blind prejudice on the part of the established hierarchy— the high priests of science who fear to have their orthodoxy overthrown... etc. Martin Gardner - Fads And Fallacies In The Name Of Science
The rise of Trump is not without precedent in the US the supporters of George Wallace in 1972 have an uncanny similarity to Trump's, though of course this was long before the current 'reasons' for their anger: "Political Correctness", "Nafta", and "Globalisation" etc.
'The typical Wallace voter... was far less committed to Wallace himself than to his thundering general appeal to rise up and smash all the "pointy-headed bureaucrats in Washington" who'd been fucking them over for so long.'
'The root of the Wallace magic was a cynical, showbiz instinct for knowing exactly what issues would whip a hall full of beer-drinking factory workers into a frenzy - and then doing exactly that, by howling down from the podium that he had an instant, overnight cure for all their worst afflictions: Taxes? Nigras? Army worms killing the turnip crop? Whatever it was, Wallace assured his supporters that the solution was actually real simple...
The ugly truth is that Wallace had never even bothered to understand the problems - much less come up with any honest solutions, but the "fighting little judge" has never lost any sleep from guilt feelings over his personal credibility gap.' Dr. Hunter S Thompson: Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72 — Unsigned, by: Wodenoz / talk / contribs
There's a flaw in your argument: Trump's appeal is not, nor ever has been, limited to party label. In fact, the traditional party base and its establishment opposed Trump from the beginning. nobs 11:19, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
That explains all of those Democratic nominations he picked up. Give me a break. Plutoniumboss (talk) 17:39, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Nominations? I don't what you mean by that but if you mean endorsements, then yeah obviously the opposing party wouldn't endorsement him. Regardless, I think RobS is stating that Trump was considered an "outsider" and that he has cross-party appeal; my only disagreement with this is that Trump became established within the system he was supposedly railing against once he became the nominee.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 18:05, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Ah yes, Trump has so much cross-party appeal that the only demographics he's doing well with are the ones Republicans always win anyway. Vulpius (talk) 21:40, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
I have some doubts about your claim but he did have cross party appeal at one point.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 21:51, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

[edit] I'm honestly not quite sure what to say about this


There's something odd going on in Cape Town. --Lola Lazerface (talk) 10:24, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

They want to decolonize science from a Western perspective. What's so odd about that?nobs 11:06, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Already have that in WIGO. And in the Saloon bar above, in the section "science must fall".
Call me when it's more than just a handful of idiot teenagers. CorruptUser (talk) 18:42, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
As the one who added it to WIGO, just putting it out there that I was unaware of the discussion here. I just thought it was hilarious and nothing more. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:55, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

[edit] How does one become more rational?

I have always considered myself a fairly rational and logical individual, but ever since I discovered Rationalwiki, it has become clear to me that I overestimated my own ability to reason. The ability shown by some of you (I do not wish to name names) to construct and deconstruct arguments and topics is something I aspire towards. Having said that, how do I become more rational as a human being? What should I read (books, magazines, blogs, etc)? What should I watch (channels, programmes)? What media outlet should I follow? Whom should I trust/distrust? Advice is welcome. --Levi Ackerman (talk) 18:48, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

If RationalWiki talk pages are anything to go by, it involves a lot of drinking.--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 18:54, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Aw shucks! I'm a teetotal. --Levi Ackerman (talk) 19:01, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
A good place to start would be looking into the list of cognitive biases. Remember it is best to ask yourself: "Do I do this?" rather than to say "YES! Person X is really guilty of this!!"--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 19:08, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
I was going to say the same. Cognitive biases are, perhaps, the ultimate verdict on all human thought. Disregard them at your peril. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:42, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Good post Reverend - but I used less wordz.:-) --Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 13:53, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
To me, one of the most profound tricks to being rational is that you can't just "be rational". Humans are made of biases that helped our ancestors survive and reproduce. Useful, powerful, functional biases: confirmation bias is hella powerful for a hunter looking to find prey, bandwagon fallacy is powerful because being socially rejected got you killed in tribal cultures.
So to be rational is pretty damn difficult. But to recognize what defines a rational thought process, and apply critical thinking to ideas you want to be right about. One thing to try is to build a syllogism for the idea you want to examine. See what assumptions you feed into it. Ask yourself how valid the deduction is. It won't make you more rational, but it can help you sort out which beliefs you have that are more or less rational than others. (And don't worry, I don't drink either) ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:10, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Factcheck. Be glad to be proven wrong, because then you can correct and be better than you were five minutes ago. Put argument to critical analysis, find some way of informal science education. Develop your bullshit detector, learn who isn't trustworthy for information and then don't trust them. Look at content over form--plenty of my favorite science/rationalist YouTubers swear like sailors and throw around insults, but underneath that they're supported with facts and reasoning. --Maxus (talk) 19:30, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Study critical thinking, cognitive biases (+ psychology, generally) and logic (+ philosophy, generally). For starters. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:42, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Pretty good advice so far. Here's one I've found useful: Remember, there's always a possibility that you've gotten something wrong, either in terms of assumptions or your conclusions. After all, you're only human. (talk) 20:59, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Oh, and whatever you do — don't miss Hume on the downsides to reason alone. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:41, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
But by the same token, don't miss Descartes on the importance of deduction from first principles. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 14:35, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
I wouldn't dream of it. Th hug.gif Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:37, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Joey Salads is a fraud

So this guy Joey Salads who does racist "social experiments" about how aggressive Blacks are got caught staging one of his "experiments".--Owlman (talk) (mail) 23:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
And in other news, the sky is blue. 𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈 (talk) 23:59, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Well, I don't think anyone here would've believed him but that video of his All Lives Matter sign "social experiment" (briefly shown in the video above) has over 5m views on YouTupe right now; it appears he took down his Trump Car video so I don't ho wmany views he received. Arguably, this guy may be missional but even if he isn't, I am sure someone will find the above video useful since they are bound to encounter this guy's BS on social media.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 00:13, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Yea, he's been exposed as someone who uploads a lot of fake content for a long time now. Yet the YT community continues to view his race-baiting clickbait and sex-predator tutorials. 𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈 (talk) 00:29, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
I think it's great that Ethan takes the time to warn people about this bullshit, especially the race-baiting part. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:04, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I guess Joey Salads is like Trump; until you find an audio tape with him admitting that he is a sexual predator, people will continue to rally around him.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:07, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

God I love h3h3 (the guy debunking Joey Salads, in case you're wondering). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:50, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

You're just as bad as him. I literally can not tell the difference between yous. 𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈 (talk) 01:02, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
H3h3 stabilized.gif Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:04, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

H3h3 is probably one of the best people on YouTube, not even the people he makes fun of dislike him 'Legionwhat do you want from me 01:24, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

True that! Ethan and Hila are some socially responsible 'tubers, tbh. And I respect that. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:41, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Is there an article on Dave Rubin?

There are articles on TJ, Kyle Kulindki, TYT and other new media talk-show hosts. Is it worth creating one of Dave "Mr-I'm-a-classical-liberal" Rubin (even though Classical Liberalism and Libertarianism are one and the same. I doubt he knows that. He isn't quite as erudite as he would like to think he is)? Anyway, I think we should have a page on Dave. He is big among the brogressives. He and Milo are also best-buds. I think it's important Rationalwiki has a page on this guy, because so far no one is scrutinising him and his positions, even though some of them are complete bullshit, and he is rapidly gaining ground in terms of influence. People talk about him as if he's taken the red pill or something. The guy is a walking example of in-group bias. On one hand extols the virtues of libertarianism - lower taxes and legalisation of marijuana. What he fails to grasp is that in their ideal world, Libertarians would repeal every single anti-discrimination law, including ones the LGBT protection laws which Dave is so in support of. On a lighter note, take a look at Dave's most recent video, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxPNGNM3zEo. Every time he asked for donation for his "new home studio" which will have, inter alia, "awesome lighting" or something, he reminded me of this great South Park moment, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_K6FG703nk--Levi Ackerman (talk) 12:32, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

[edit] The Latest Installment in the Parody Book Cover Series

I put "Unbiblical" on hold and instead created this. Only my fellow Jews and/or Israelis will likely fully understand it, once they finishing translating it from German. (If you "get" my paraphrased quote at the top, the image takes on a much more sinister meaning) --TeslaK20 (talk) 15:15, 20 October 2016 (UTC) Magneto.png

The computer will protect you from commie mutant traitors. You can trust the computer. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:59, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

[edit] FDA warns against homeopathic teething gels


An alternative to homeopathic teething gels: place your child's mouth beneath the sink faucet, turn it on.

Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 15:18, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

How about homeopathic parenting for believers in homeopathic medicine? You just take the kids away and let the parents see them 5 seconds every few years. Since the human body is 80% water, the water memory of your children will retain the imprint of your parenting skills. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:43, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Goodpost.gif Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt Noooooooo! Look! Up there! 17:04, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Goodpost.gif I love you, Ikanreed. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:17, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

[edit] On Trump's refusal to accept results

Is it likely that, given that he waffled during the debate on whether he would accept the results of the election no matter what, is it possible that Trump is truly capable of advocating for insurrection against the Federal government simply because he might lose the election? Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt Noooooooo! Look! Up there! 16:54, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I suppose it's really a question of whether he's truly a narcissist with an extreme case of NPD or just plays one on TV. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:58, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
My concern with him not accepting the results is that he has proclaimed that the election is fixed and his followers probably believe him. He and other Repub politicians have already asked supporters to intimidate people at the polls and that Boston Globe article in WIGO:E shows them bringing guns; the article also covers that these people believe that their patriotic duty is to lead an insurrection against Hillary with assassination not entirely out of the question.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 17:26, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
It's so over for the Trumpster. Even Pbfreespace3 has taken the sign down. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:30, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Right, which is why I said that I am more concerned with his supporters than with him.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 18:56, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Trump is going to scream "RIGGGGGGED!" when he loses in a few weeks. Someone needs to change his diaper. CorruptUser (talk) 18:35, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Personal tools