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.
Spit.gif For previous conversations see the automagic barchives. Beer.gif

What is going on?

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

RationalWiki:Forum
  1. Let's play "Have you ever considered" (17:55, 5 Sep 2016)
  2. Gulf War Syndrome (21:54, 31 Aug 2016)
  3. RationalWiki in portuguese and other languages. (01:13, 29 Aug 2016)
  4. Yahoo Answers guy (12:40, 25 Aug 2016)
  5. Roger Ailes is assisting Trump with the debates. What I think we should do. (08:33, 23 Aug 2016)
  6. Dr William Whitby - "Smoking is good for you" (00:19, 17 Aug 2016)
To do list

Contents


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

[edit] Axe to grind

Here's a quote that's sure to appall anyone with a basic knowledge of physics:

While in its natural state, bentonite clay has negatively charged electrons intact, most toxins and heavy metals have positively charged electrons. This allows the two to bind together easily and stay united while the toxin removal process happens.

Axe is a doctor of chiropractor/doctor of naturopathy (not an MD) who's following in Dr. Oz's footsteps. Axe is well worth an article for anyone willing to wade into his cesspool of coffee enemas. His vanity article seems to have been deleted from WP, but a ghost of it can be found here.[1] Bongolian (talk) 08:06, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

That quantum woo word salad just gave me a migraine. In the order of his claims:
  • Define "natural state".
  • You mean, positrons[wp]? Also, "bentonite clay" does not "have" positrons.
  • "Intact" electrons?
  • "Toxins" is classic pseudoscience terminology.
  • "Most heavy metals" do not have positrons, no.
  • The presence of positrons "allow the two to bind together easily"? Dude, positrons are antimatter. Just to name one simple interaction; in an electron–positron annihilation[wp], gamma rays are created. "For your health!"
  • Is the suggestion literally that you can consume heavy metals in order to remove toxins? What is this, Ayurveda?

What a grade A ass clown. Great find, Bongolian. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:23, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Um, heavy metals occur in nature so they can't be toxins. Big pharma apologists are so dumb. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:17, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Wait... Positively charged electrons? Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyarnyar~) 15:34, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
That's why RBP said "You mean positions?" Which are, for most intents and purposes, positively charged electrons. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:01, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
But positrons do not bind with electrons... they annihilate them. Any material with intact positively charged electrons is antimatter, and you do not want antimatter anywhere near you, unless you want to find out first-hand that E=MC^2 is definitely not "liberal claptrap". --TeslaK20 (talk) 16:25, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Actually, positron/electron bound states do occur, but they are short lived. Furthermore, positron annihilation created gamma rays are how PET scans work. DarkAngelCryo (talk) 00:12, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, positrons are useful for a wide range of "scans"... For example, in positron annihilation spectroscopy[wp]. Though, in such cases, the question is always what the positron source will be[wp]; generally a radioactive isotope of some kind. Positrons don't exactly "hang around" (anymore[wp]). And since bentonite[wp] (suggested by the above crank) isn't radioactive... Yeah. Regarding positronium — interesting! Though, "short lived" is no exaggeration. Even in an excited state (which slows down annihilation) the lifetime is measured to around a single microsecond in a vacuum. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:29, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
@Narky @Ikanreed Clarified my phrasing above. And the guy is indeed talking about positrons, without even understanding that he is. Positrons have the same mass and charge as electrons do, but the charge is of the opposite polarity (positive instead of negative).
@TeslaK20 Indeed; as I already point out in bullet point number six. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:40, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Excellent suggestion; I added this to the big list. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 16:38, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
It seemed to me that he doesn't know the difference between electron/positron and anion/cation, and believes that because heavy metals are adsorbed by clays at lower PH levels, that his clay is therefore an effective chelation agent in the human body.
The FDA doesn't approve any over-the-counter chelation agents, nor are any of the 11 by-prescription compounds which were approved (in 2013) clays.
If I'm reading the FDA GRAS Opinions correctly, Bentonite/Kaolinite is Generally Regarded As Safe only as an ingredient of paper and paperboard products used in food packaging; causing possibly growth retardation, possibly fatal bowel obstructions, etc in very high doses. The opinion also points out that Food Grade Standards for Bentonite should be established, as heavy metal cations may be present in commercial bentonite.
Remediation of Metals-Contaminated Soils and Groundwater
Review on Remediation Technologies of Soil Contaminated by Heavy Metal; Section 2.2
Questions and Answers on Unapproved Chelation Products
Unapproved Chelation Products
see Table 1:FDA-approved Chelators)
Daev (talk) 12:28, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
re-edited 'cause I did the signature wrong.

[edit] WIGO non-English

Sometimes something is going on, but there is no good English language source for it. Should we a) create WIGOs for a handful of important languages? or b) allow WIGO entries in non-English? or c) simply accept that some stuff will not be shared here? What do you mean arguing for the sake of argument? 23:42, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Even fandom wikis have made versions in other languages. Wikipedia have articles in other languages. I may only speak a few words in other languages, mainly some German, but I say we should follow Wikipedia's example. --Nord Ronnoc (talk) 05:30, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
C), essentially. English is the language that unites us. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:49, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
But there should be more debate beyond the Anglosphere. Plus, we have some non-English articles already. What do you mean arguing for the sake of argument? 00:17, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm not a huge fan of those articles, to be honest. And I'd rather say, we need to introduce more debate into the Anglosphere. Translating interesting stuff to English is worthwhile, for example. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:31, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, but there are non-English skeptics out there holding out for the dim light in the darkness that is our page. Or so I hope. What do you mean arguing for the sake of argument? 01:17, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
I would like to eventually expand a great deal of RW content into Arabic and Urdu, I take offense to the fact that some editors think knowledge should be 'English-only.' Lord Aeonian (talk) 01:22, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
I would love to see that. Though unfortunately, I am rather limited in those languages. What do you mean arguing for the sake of argument? 01:43, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't think anyone is arguing that knowledge should be English-only. Most of the users here can't use any other language than English.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:39, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
@Aeonian Speaking of taking offense — I hope that's not you providing us with an anal bleached parody of my views on the topic. Because I certainly never said "knowledge should be 'English-only'", whatever that even means. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:41, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
RW is an excellent site for the numerous counter-apologetics it has, I would find it deplorable if I was barred from translating content because some people are "not a huge fan of [non-English] articles, to be honest." This site has the very large advantage of being hosted in a free speech area, as opposed to the average Arabic site which tries to host anti-religious content and it is taken down by government order. Lord Aeonian (talk) 06:43, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
As i understand it, the main problem with languages other than english is that there is not enough users of a particular non english language for effective quality control. I believe that was the issue with that brazilian chap. No one knew what it was he was posting and it turned out to be questionable. You could guarantee anything lauro posts without oversigbt is going to be all kinds of bullshit. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:23, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
The only way to solve a community being too small is by growing it. If reports of edit wars and the like come in there is still google translate to get a rough overview of where the problem seems to lie and we can always shut the whole thing down and nuke the ashes. As Aeonian said some languages - Arab among them - desperately need a good skeptic source. Not least of all because of government crackdowns. And it might be wise to give them a different URL or at least some way to jump between different foreign language links without having to jump back to English. I am not the Ombud's man 13:40, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
I've got a pretty good grasp on latin too, if we want a different, older trade language. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 14:35, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Erare humanum est. I am not the Ombud's man 15:24, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Imagine this: You go to a non English page and see at the top a highly visible box containing the warning "this page was created by Translate Bot by feeding text from the English article here into Google Translate. If you are a human who would like to write the article, leave a message on the talk page."
The message would have some other stuff in it about how messed up the following content probably is, and the article would be protected until a critical mass of suitably lingual editors show up.
Obviously some of the paragraphs would be gibberish and some of the bot's attempts to put the lines and formatting from the original article onto the correct words in the new article would be wrong. 94.7.162.215 (talk) 10:11, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
And I realise now this section was about sources, not articles.94.7.162.215 (talk) 10:13, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Well I am with you on the article front. I am not the Ombud's man 18:26, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
I really don't thank that, as a bunch of 99% English speakers, there's much point in us posting non-English links, and the idea that "there are non-English skeptics out there holding out for the dim light in the darkness that is our page" is ridiculous. It might be better to find rationalist websites in other languages and set up some sort of mutual translation arrangement. BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 18:39, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Things happen that fly under the radar of English language media. Especially when they concern e.g. the latest insanity of a crank. And there are not exactly many Chinese or Arab skeptic sources, so we could very well be the shining light or the city upon a hill or the metaphor I am too lazy to make up. I am not the Ombud's man 18:48, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Attention all who speak Mexican!

Hi! Since you’re all talking about pages in other languages, I’d like to propose translating a particular article into Spanish, since it’d be a very nice contribution to this language that has a few articles on RationalWiki. I’m willing to begin the translation, but first, I'd like to know if there’re other Spanish-speaking RationalWiki editors who want to participate. --Ander Garin (talk) 11:07, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

That article? ¡Ay, Dios! Demasiado dificil para mí. Spud (talk) 15:19, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Wait, Mexican? Do you mean Nahuatl? I am not the Ombud's man 17:40, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
No, I think he means Zapoteco. On the other hand, it'd be amazing to translate to Spanish. I have a question though: Do we find Spanish-language sources for the translation or straight up keep the solely English translations? Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt Noooooooo! Look! Up there! 18:31, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
No entiendo. No hablo "Mexican". Hablo español y inglés.-DïämöńđDïsc1 (talk) 02:07, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
I have created a draft here-DïämöńđDïsc1 (talk) 02:12, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Deport them!-Donald J. TrumpClick here to go to Mexico 03:38, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Stop donald trump

I was taking a stroll today along the embankment, when i passed an open top bus adorned with banners and full of people chanting 'stop donald trump'. Am i missing something? Do i as a britisher get a vote in the us election? Im no history buff but i am sure there was a war or some sort to stop us having a say in that circus AMassiveGay (talk) 22:00, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I think the only people in England legally allowed to "stop Donald Trump" as it were are double oh agents. I am not the Ombud's man 22:09, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
(EC) I hadn't heard of this but a few seconds Googling confirms the point of the campaign is get Americans living in the UK to vote (against Trump) in the Presidential election, as ex-pat voting rates are usually very low but they could make a difference if motivated to. ŴêâŝêîôîďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:13, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
i discovered this literally the second i posted - my friend googled. I just assumed it being a group of students high fiving as they stuck it to the man AMassiveGay (talk) 23:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Off topic, but I always did find it weird that there are second and even third generation Americans who have never set foot in the US, due to being the descendants of soldiers deployed overseas. CorruptUser (talk) 22:24, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
It's not that weird. A lot of Americans are probably fourth or fifth or tenth or twentieth generation Europeans who have never set foot in Europe. WėąṣėḷőįďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:33, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
I am a European trapped in an American's body, so I can confirm this. Also, stop Donald Trump. PB3 (talk) 23:08, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
@PB Goddammit, another one got trapped. Listen, you might be tempted to squeeze through the intestines and out the other end, but don't do it; it's a trap! Keep punching towards where the liver would be, and eventually you'll be vomited out! CorruptUser (talk) 23:17, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
@Weaseloid Except those Americans aren't citizens of European countries. We have voters over in Germany who have never been to the US. CorruptUser (talk) 23:19, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Wanna stop Trump?

Trump put up a survey on his website. Now I am not asking you to fill it out with your opinion (there is "other, please specify" quite often), but I am also not saying you shouldn't... Just don't give him your real E-Mail address. Apparently the survey does not filter by IP. I am not the Ombud's man 23:10, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I just answered the survey exactly how Trump should behave if he wants to win, that is, from a liberal perspective. Let's see how long it takes me to be put on the GOP email list. PBfreespace3 (talk) 23:30, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Is it possible to put in troll-ish questions? --Nord Ronnoc (talk) 05:31, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Is it me, or is every question in that survey numbered 1. ? Worm (talk) 08:36, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
If half of Trump's enemies fill it out idealistically with liberal positions and the other half fill it out sarcastically with stupidly right-wing ideas, then Trump will effortlessly triangulate through the middle to victory. Annquin (talk) 09:58, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
I doubt he will triangulate: TLDR is his M.O. Faux opinion polls are a common tactic for fundraising on all sides of politics. Bongolian (talk) 17:29, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
I think whoever created that survey missed a few obvious questions:
"Should Trump criticize Hillary for her tendency to eat children?", "Should Trump criticize Hillary for her proven responsibility for the outbreak of WW2" and "Should Trump criticize Hillary for personally creating the AIDS virus?"
I can't understand how they missed these.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 20:12, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the point of this survey is. Everybody knows that Trump only listens to himself and the little imp that tells him to burn things. Vulpius (talk) 20:58, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
She's never released them. Refuses to release them. Can you believe that? Refuses to release her emails from when she was prefect of Judea. Now I'm not saying she personally ordered Our Lord and Saviour to be nailed to that cross, but a lot of people are talking about it. A lot of people. They're very worried about it. Robledo (talk) 23:30, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Question three was interesting. He's asking voters if he should be polite, respectful, and deferrntial to Hillary, unlike he did to Lyin Ted. I voted to not use it. (But if that bitch uses the term 'racism', flatten her with a crowbar, rhetorically speaking),nobsGary Johnson for Rehab! 02:20, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Since he hears "string her up" at his rallies he'll probably just go with that. Leuders (talk) 15:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
This'll be a good test, to see if he listen's to the voters.nobsGary Johnson for Rehab! 21:10, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

It asks for donations afterward. Typical Trump.-DïämöńđDïsc1 (talk) 02:02, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm poor...I only have a small loan of a million dollars.-Donald J. TrumpClick here to go to Mexico 03:39, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
I hear Mark Cuban would be glad to help you out in that department.--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 04:01, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Let's talk about Pepe

So there's kind of a controversy over whether Pepe the Frog[wp] is (nowadays) an explicitly racist meme or just a meme which some racists & trumpies have appropriated. I haven't been following it very closely, so can anyone shed any light on this issue? I have to say I don't find the alt-right associations at all surprising & am most baffled at the write-ups claiming that the Pepe meme was "once so universal" or "universally loved". Hasn't it always been primarily a chan-meme? Based on a comic that was mostly just crude toilet humour? WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 01:21, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

AFAIK it has always been a chan meme. The only non-racist memes I have seen have been its use to make fun of ancaps but it is usually used to make suicide or mass murder jokes.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:32, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
I've usually seen it as a representation of Trump himself. L's Ideology (talk) 01:39, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
You guys are way off. Sure, Pepe's always been chan meme, but the meme was "feels good man" (and later "feels bad man"). That was the whole joke; that something felt good (ironically or not). Sure it was sometimes NSFW, like with most btard nonsense, but keep in mind that the original comic — dating back from 2005 — is relatively graphic. Pepe was also made a meme in 2008, yet any Alt-Right association is only revealed in association with the Trump campaign of 2015/2016. Now Pepe has become an Alt-Right symbol, but his origins had no specific connection to that at all. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:58, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
(EC) But that narrative suggests that it's some sort of accident when chan culture ends up associated with the alt-right, whereas I would suggest that the former has been an precursor, or even an incubator, for the latter. ŴêâŝêîôîďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 02:21, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong, I liked some of the Pepe memes. I think Weaseloid is right, a lot of Pepe was used to make NSFW jokes.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 03:35, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
And also because Clinton's team picked it up that way, like they picked up Brianna Wu, much to the delight of the other side. People tend to forget that while there are genuine controversies, or even “wars” (if you insist) — the SJW side is also a massive laughing stock, trolled hard by 4chan and others, because their histrionics, bizarre views, and “feed the trolls” attitude is downright inviting. ~ Aneris 02:18, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Clinton turned Pepe into an alt-right totem. Just like how she launched Birtherism, bombed Iraq, caused 9/11, and signed the 1994 crime bill into law as First Lady. Plutoniumboss (talk) 03:04, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
(Mandatory Godwin post) ...and the swastica was originally a symbol of prosperity and luck. Leuders (talk) 14:27, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Don't forget Glass-Steagall and the global financial meltdown.nobsGary Johnson for Rehab! 05:32, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Glass-Steagall is overrated. I am not the Ombud's man 16:32, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm so glad Aneris has an asterisk in his sig, so I can quickly look for it first and then skip that crap when I get there. BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 12:09, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Goodpost.gif--JorisEnter (talk) 12:31, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Goodpost.gif Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:19, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I thought Pepe was used to represent a wide range of things. Just look up Pepe Magic The Gathering.Teurastaja (talk) 18:18, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Although I don't think the Pepe meme started with any political affiliation whatsoever, what is clear today is that Pepe has irrevocably become an Alt-Right symbol. TIL Donald Trump himself actually tweeted Pepe. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:17, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Richard Carrier

Dr. Richard Carrier Has Sued Several Atheists and Their Blogging Networks on Charges of Defamation. Proxima Centauri (talk) 07:16, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I added this to the Richard Carrier page. Bongolian (talk) 04:10, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Heh. This has got all the free speech advocate attorneys salivating over the ass-kicking Carrier will get when it reaches the court. --Castaigne2 (talk) 15:14, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Any idea how the salivating free speech advocate attorneys feel about wild slander accusations like these? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:11, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
In my experience, they typically laugh. I mean, shit, their entire amusement comes from people who threaten you with LIBELSLANDER in violation of the Logan Act resulting in RICO CHARGES!
Why do you ask? Do we care about rando's threats? Who is this guy anyway and why's he angry? --Castaigne2 (talk) 19:10, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Trent informs about the lawsuit here. To get a clue about who this guy is, read the talkpage linked prior and this admittedly short essay draft for starters (note the quotes). All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:55, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Mass shooting analysis

It's happened again, people! An American decided to shoot a bunch of people in a public place. Why did he do this? Well, let's take a look at the available evidence right after the shooting.

  • He appears to be a Muslim

This is rather broad, and there are quite a few problems with this identification right off the bat. If you take a look at his public postings online, he makes one post praising the Sunni leader of ISIS, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, and right in the next post praises that Shia leader of Iran. What the fuck? This would lead me to believe that he knows next to nothing about Islam, as he would not be praising the leaders of both the Shia and Sunni sects if he did. It is most likely some forgotten part of his Turkish heritage.

  • He has some kind of problem/obsession with some women

This is probably the trait that's going to get him the most heat from the feminist crowd. In a lot of his online postings, he'll either praise some women, or the opposite. When he was doing the shooting, there was one eyewitness claim that he was shouting the name of some woman. Also, 4 out of the 5 people he killed were women, and this was in a Macy's makeup section. This leads me to believe part of the shootings motivation was, if not a hatred of all women, a serious hatred towards at least one woman in particular.

  • He was in ROTC and had a fair deal of experience with firearms

The online postings in particular mentioned rifles, but there's a good chance that if he was good on the rifle team that he could handle pistols quite well too. Maybe I'm going a little too far into armchair psychoanalysis here, but many young people join ROTC because they are confused and lost in life, and feel like they need a sense of purpose to get moving.

  • Whatever politics he has is lost and confused

He's made some posts which appeared to praise Hillary Clinton, but other posts which decry Obama as a communist. Whether or not he actually believes these things is up for grabs, and it's still possible that he's a generic conservative, but with all of the available evidence it seems like he's just a really confused guy who doesn't have one political viewpoint. As such, it is unfair to blame a particular political viewpoint for the shooting, which is sadly something that many people online have done.

All of the previous evidence is shamelessly derived from what I must say is a brilliant Heavy article. If encourage you to read it. Please discuss below what you think of my summary. pbfreespace (talk) 13:53, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

What do you want us to comment on? Do you think the shooter is a sock of Avenger? Jagulard (talk) 21:51, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
I want you to talk about the shooting, not bring up personal disputes because you are a disgruntled editor with an axe to grind. PЬFЯЗЭSPДCЗ (talk) 23:19, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
My irony meter just overloaded.--JorisEnter (talk) 23:32, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
See the main article on this topic: The pot calling the kettle black. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:33, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Goodpost.gif--JorisEnter (talk) 23:39, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
By the way, it is unfair of you to focus on my disgrunteldness. I was born without a gruntle; it's not my fault. Jagulard (talk) 23:47, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I'd just like to say that praising al-Baghdadi and praising (I assume you refer to) Sayyed Ali Khamenei are not mutually exclusive, not all Muslims are sectarians. I can easily see a Western Muslim who agrees with conservative, religious social positions - such as banning gay marriage - applauding Muslim leaders in the Middle East who enact religious social laws. Lord Aeonian (talk) 01:49, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

[edit] I found a picture of the exact gun Keith Scott Lamont was pointing at the police officer that shot him.

Here's a super-rare exclusive pic from yours truly, TheMyon! TheMyon (talk) 03:03, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Whiny comment

This discussion was moved to Talk:Racialism.

[edit] This website is a disgrace

You people manage to grasp the high-school tier refutation of creationism and you think that you are scientists. You are publishing lies. Your articles are full of Frankfurt School/Colombia University anti-White hatred and slander. You should absolutely be prosecuted. 193.61.21.186 (talk) 16:12, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Sadly publishing a disgraceful website is not yet a criminal offence, but as soon as it is, we'll pass our names on to the appropriate authorities. Annquin (talk) 16:16, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Inciting hatred against a racial group is a criminal offence. It shouldn't be, but it is.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Racism#Major_historical_examples
Your website is transparently anti-White. Why do you only list White racism? Where is the Arab slave trade? Jewish genocides? You people are disgusting. Are you Jews or traitors? 193.61.21.186 (talk) 16:23, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm actually not sure why the slavery article lacks mention of the current practice in Arab countries. Feel free to add it as long as you cite your sources. I'll see if I can't find time to hunt down some myself, as that is an on mission issue and a flaw in the article. As for the other one, can you clarify what you mean by Jewish Genocides? If you mean the ones in the old testament, that is covered. As for racism, our article on it contains numerous example, in their own sections on racism in Hinduism, Judaism, Japan, etc... Arawn Emrys (talk) 16:44, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
[2][3] 193.61.21.186 (talk) 16:58, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Troll--JorisEnter (talk) 16:24, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Troll--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 16:27, 26 September 2016 (UTC) 16:27, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Troll Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:23, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Liars. I am not trolling I am absolutely serious. What a childish way to avoid addressing your bad behavior. 193.61.21.186 (talk) 16:32, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Serious.gif Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:23, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
I am very interested to know what crimes we should be prosecuted for. Care to elaborate? --Castaigne2 (talk) 16:37, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Our crimes are being too damn cool! OBVIOUSLY! Bubba41102The place where you can scream at me 16:41, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
If the FBI won't prosecute Hillary, I doubt they'll prosecute RW.nobsGary Johnson for Rehab! 16:45, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
I wouldn't be so sure. RW is only ideologically connected to the totalitarian globalist NWO single world government push she's currently spearheading. She's got the prosecutors in her pant suit pockets, but we're defenseless if something serious comes along. B) talk 22:24, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Jeez, it's not like it's our fault that white people are so inherently terrible in a way that can only be fixed with the careful oversight of our lord and master Karl Marx. It's definetly not the case that this website skews heavily white male well beyond what a random sample of internet users would imply. There just aren't enough white men looking out for white men's interests here. Oh well. Try not to come from a terrible race of people that deserves genocide (other people having babies counts as genocide, FYI). ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:52, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Cheers, m80s! TheMyon (talk) 18:10, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
HAH. Well, also, Bonnie needs to realize that this website is old and most of the people here weren't here when it was founded and many things were written, and combing through to look over every page would be prohibitively time-consuming. Now Bonnie makes his biases fairly clear with his word choice, particularly 'anti-white', so I feel comfortable suggesting that he could go do something productive and useful with his time, like go drop off robes and slippers and several decks of cards at a nursing home. If he sticks around and and plays a few hands of poker, he might pick up a skill or two beyond 'whining on the Internet'. Once the local card shark takes his money a few times.
I happily call myself anti-racist. Racism and 'racialism' (which is 'racism with an L in there'), is sloppy thinking: in this case, it's believing correlation equals causation. I gotta head to work, but I'll be back later. --75.44.82.99 (talk) 18:23, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Have you actually read the Zionism article and still think this page has a pro Jewish bias? Also, how can Jews be both white (when Arabs complain that the not-white Arabs are oppressed by the white Jews) and not white (when racists complain about Jews). That's a logic bomb right there. I am not the Ombud's man 19:36, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Uh, thinking that a well-documented historical event actually happened is more than enough evidence of bias. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:50, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Conflating Zionism and Judaism attacking someone for Anti-Semitism, smh.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 19:57, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

This website has a (racial slur) bias because they hate White people. They always bring up White crimes and never mention (racial slur)/Arab crimes. What the fuck is this? Ditches for Bitches. 193.61.21.186 (talk) 20:03, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Why do you think Jews and Arabs are not white? I am not the Ombud's man 20:12, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Which white nationa...er, which website do you suggest RW should be more like? Leuders (talk) 20:13, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Oh yeah, just look at the way our genocide article only lists white perpetrators and non-white victims. No wait... Maybe how our racism page only... uh... No you're fucking delusional. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:30, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't think we should censor racial slurs on talk pages. I am not the Ombud's man 20:38, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Hm, I guess I was projecting a personal preference by doing that. I'll refrain from doing so in the future, I guess. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:52, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm a half-breed, half Teuton and half Sclav. The biggest race war on the planet, World War II, was between Teutons and Sclavs. But in America I'm full blooded White. Isn't there somebody I can go bitch to about something or other I don't know what?nobsGary Johnson for Rehab! 03:08, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight! -DïämöńđDïsc1 (talk) 22:40, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not inclined towards Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight!

I am much more inclined towards Th hug.gif. By the way, can we be sure "fight" is not a +++Nordic+++ template? I am not the Ombud's man 23:11, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Stop giving IPs a bad name - or create your own wiki/website. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:30, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Post-Debate Reactions

Overall, I think it's a *mostly* clear Hillary win. At the very least, I am of the opinion that this will boost her in the polls.--A mere peasant 02:57, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I spent the first five minutes thinking "At least the tone of Trump's voice is presidential for once." Then the shouting began... Vulpius (talk) 03:03, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Yeah I got my hopes up a bit too much for that. There's an infographic on FiveThirtyEight detailing the number of interjections/interruptions for each candidate as well.A mere peasant 03:08, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
I could feel the moment Trump dropped the decorum his campaign manag- let's face it, they're his handlers - put so much effort into saddling him with before they went on air. 173.71.121.36 (talk) 05:08, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
The best Twitter description I saw was someone who said it was like watching an argument between a schoolteacher and the class bully. Also I felt bad for Trump fans who were forced to look at a woman who is not hot and does not try to be hot for a full 90 minutes. Leuders (talk) 13:23, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Best tweet I saw. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:27, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
This is the best I've seen. WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 07:14, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Trump won. He was very energetic, fiery, and alive, as opposed to calm and boring Hillary talking points. He seemed far more human, making Hillary seem like the Romney in this debate. He also had a ton of valid criticism of her. PBfreespace3 (talk) 03:20, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Goodpost.gif Finally a voice of reason! TRUMP 2016!!!!-Donald J. TrumpClick here to go to Mexico 03:35, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
"Sean Hannity! Nobody wants to call him!" I couldn't stop laughing after that. Plutoniumboss (talk) 03:51, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
You do know that not even the Freepers are saying things like that this morning? I mean, you can kid yourself all you like, but not even Trump's blood-and-soil white warriors are in agreement with you.
(Although I admit to admiration for your commitment to sour grapes.) --Castaigne2 (talk) 14:35, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
My vaguely liberal coworkers seem to think Hillary was way too slack on Trump. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 14:54, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
I didn't bother watching, but I heard she could have zinged him more. *shrug*
Not that it matters. The percentage drops have already begun. No one really understands the implacable, inevitable victory of level grinders. --Castaigne2 (talk) 15:01, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Never have I seen such a simple, straightforward idea restructured so badly to pander to a specific audience. "Getting elected requires goal-oriented steady effort" is something that could be wrapped in 100,000 different metaphors, but that particular one makes me cringe. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:16, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Modern gaming idioms make you cringe? --Castaigne2 (talk) 19:34, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
The notion of trying to package something so basic and gaming-unrelated in a "hardcore" gaming wrapper makes me cringe. It'd be like discussing the idea of wearing a seatbelt through the lens of using cover in a cover-based shooter. There's something about being that far out of touch that really puts me off. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:52, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
I think the author tried to connect to the hip youth of today. With their Bernie votin' their hip-hop listenin' their pants droppin' and of course their gamin'. Yo. I am not the Ombud's man 21:12, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Trump looked like an ass. Attacking Rosie ODonnell & Miss Universe. Like Theresa Heinz Kerry in 2004, you never shoot down, you shoot up. It's a fundamental rule of politics.nobsGary Johnson for Rehab! 01:23, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
thats never been a rule. Politicians are constantly complaining about dole scroungers and immigrants. You cant shoot much lower than that AMassiveGay (talk) 10:28, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
and deplorables. I mean when attacking individuals by name. Trump has only proven that in America, any idiot who inherits a million dollars can turn it into a billion dollars.nobsGary Johnson for Rehab! 11:05, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Did he pandered as hard as Clinton did ("Pokemon Go to the polls")?--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 16:54, 28 September 2016 (UTC) 16:54, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm from Mexico, so can you guys please explain why is this even a choice?

  • On the one side, you have a former secretary of state, former senator, former first-lady, commencement speaker at college, somewhat ruthless clearly capable of making difficult decisions that I don't have the guts to make, respected world-wide, the chosen succesor of one of the best presidents in your history... but whose apparent biggest flaw, according to the american public, is having used a personal server to send and receive email, and a manufactured controversy about Bengazi in which not even 8 republican investigations could find anything wrong. And this 2 wildly insignificant (in the grand scheme of things) issues somehow are enough to completely disqualify her. I mean, really?
  • On the other side, you have a businessman whose primary means of making money is to bankrupt companies. He has had over 200 lawsuits filed against him. He was widely considered a joke as far back as 2008, and a reality tv entertainer since The Apprentice. He is a birther. He has outright lied so egregiously that networks now fact-check him live. While no Sarah Palin, he has shown dangerous ignorance of world affairs. He is easily angered by comments about him, leading him to throw childish insults and nicknames over twitter. He routinely insults whole groups of people. The parliament of England briefly considered making him Persona Non Grata. He acted so vile during the primaries, that he even made people feel sorry for Ted Cruz (Ted Cruz!). He routinely insinuates violence against people he doesn't like. World leaders consider him a joke. He made his penis a subject during the primaries. He is so toxic, he somehow managed to sink even lower the already abysmal approval ratings of our current president, and the politician responsible for inviting him to Mexico was forced to resign. He is a clear narcissist.

It is known across the world that a significant portion of republican voters live in a somewhat alternate reality, but it can't be this bad, right? While far from perfect, I would say that any country would be lucky to have a candidate as qualified as Hillary Clinton. So yes, the rest of the world is thinking "WTF is wrong with you people".Danoso (talk) 19:18, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

1)The hagiography of Bernie Sanders. We've collectively declared him to be the Second Coming of Jesus and Hillary Clinton to be Pontius Pilate. People saw Bernie as a blank canvas on which to project their own opinions, regardless of whether he shared them. Of course this idea of Bernie as the "best" candidate was helped by the fact that he is a nobody, whose stock speech was big on promises and light on research (he doesn't know the difference between social democracy and *democratic socialism*) and policy. It was the political equivalent of ink blot tests. When he (finally) made his stances known it pissed a lot of people off that the real Bernie Sanders disagreed with the imaginary Bernie Sanders. That's why the so-called "Bernie or Busters" have disavowed him and are working hard to elect Donald Trump.
2) The 'dey derk er jerbs' contingent is growing, and will continue to grow as the global economy contracts and wages in the unskilled and semi-skilled trades decline. That makes them a valuable voting bloc, and counter-weight to the growing Hispanic voting bloc. That "angry white male" bloc is overwhelmingly socially conservative and even reactionary. I also believe this is why Clinton supporters are few-and-far-between in places like England and Australia. Those places were hit hardest by the recession and the War on Terror, destroying their once-mighty Labour parties. Bill Clinton is blamed for the first. Hillary is shouldering some blame for the second. Plutoniumboss (talk) 03:41, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
I can't speak for Australia but your suggestions about England are way off. Trump supporters are few-and-far-between here, not Clinton supporters. People of all political stripes see him as a laughing stock. Opinions on the Clintons mostly vary from positive to lukewarm, but people don't blame them for the recession or war on terror, nor either of those things for the slow decline of our Labour Party. €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 07:14, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
In this election, the most qualified person has the worse views and opinions, and has done a lot more bad things. That's how bad it is. The person who has the most experience has wrecked many nations, hurt our economy, and even more. Even though the other candidate is really bad and has lots of bad ideas, I still can't make this election it to be as clear as you do. PB (talk) 20:12, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
...has the worse views and opinions...' What kind of refried bullshit is that? Are you trying to make Rob sound sensible? Plutoniumboss (talk) 03:27, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Go ahead, I say; just as the Obama presidency set back race relations about 40 years, before Hillary's term is over there will be a national consensus that a woman's place is in the kitchen (I'd add bedroom but everybody knows Hillary is sexless).nobsGary Johnson for Rehab! 13:44, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
nm, Rob, your throne is secured. Plutoniumboss (talk) 16:38, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Gadolinium Gallium Garnet

Can someone with a better knowledge of minerals clarify new page on Gadolinium Gallium Garnet? The current author of the page seems to think that Gadolinium Gallium Garnet does not exist. The WP page seems to imply that it does exist (Gadolinium gallium garnet[wp]), but describes it as Gd3Ga5O12, which according to WP is not a garnet[wp] because it is not a silicate of the form X3Y2(SiO4)3. Bongolian (talk) 04:45, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

There's no shortage of scientific papers about GGG. I wouldn't take Wikipedia as the scientific authority on the naming of minerals especially as the page seems to have about 3 different definitions of garnet. Annquin (talk) 08:42, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
GGG is a form of synthetic garnet (see that section of the WP article) like YAG and YIG, where some other atom takes the place of the silicon. If you rewrite the formula Gd3Ga2(GaO4)3, this becomes more visible. At any rate, I think the RW page on GGG is going on about the mythical data-storage possibilities of GGG, rather than the mineral's existence. What it has to do with RW's mission, I don't know. I can tidy it up a bit more (the names and formulae of GGG and GGO are swapped, I think). Nowhere Man (talk) 16:03, 28 September 2016 (UTC).

[edit] Don't ask me how I found this crank youtube video

Simpsons are Illuminati. I knew it! The only thing that amazes me about that video is its number of views and its upvote/downvote ratio... I am not the Ombud's man 21:17, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I love how the cranks literally cite material from the Stonecutter episode[wp] as part of the "illuminati symbolism" — hello? That whole episode is a gag on masonic conspiracy theories (among others)! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:31, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Ikanread took away my mop

Can I have it back? I am not the Ombud's man 21:50, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

"May I have it back?" ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 21:53, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
May, June... Thanks. This can be archived. I am not the Ombud's man 21:53, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Never! ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 21:57, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
As you like it[wp] I am not the Ombud's man 22:14, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

[edit] The moral of the story

Blocks longer than 0xn seconds are to be considered acts of war. Block nicely. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:21, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

There is no 0xn block. Don't you mean 0xπ?-DïämöńđDïsc1 (talk) 21:32, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Mentioning the source in WIGO

Vote on the issue here.

With regards to this edit war Owlman is engaging in, can we please get the following compromise formula going:

"You may add the source to any WIGO entry (including your own) and correct them if they are wrong. Please do not remove correct source attributions". Any serious objections? I am not the Ombud's man 22:31, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm partly to blame for this. I tried to add some consistency to the entries, and challenged Owlman's reversions on the grounds that the reader should be able to judge for him/herself. Unfortunately, Owlman disagreed on the grounds that he knew which sources were objective. As other editors challenged his reversions, Owlman once again refused, claiming that labeling each entry somehow makes labels useless, which begs the question: what does he the labels do? When I asked him to state his criterion, he hid behind an unstated set of rules.
Tl;DR: The edit war is partly my fault, but I still want to know why he rejects everyone's attempts to clarify the entries. What's wrong with letting the reader decide which links to click? Jagulard (talk) 23:06, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Your points fit perfectly with the GMO arguments that "Consumers can decide" and "Why would they oppose "transparency"; the WIGOs are community owned and consensus has to be reached in order to change community standards. I have asked for objections to sources linked by myself and other users; since we have only labeled sources that aren't generally objective so it would be problematic to label every single one since it would appear that all the sources are unobjective.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 23:17, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
There's no such thing as objective sources. Just saying. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:23, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Not true. Owlman knows which sources are objective. He just refuses to tell us. Jagulard (talk) 23:30, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
I'll say this much — either we name the source for all, or for none. And in my humble opinion, it might as well be all. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:41, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
For what reason besides Jagulard's concern trolling? Of course, there are no perfectly objective sources but it is ridiculous to assume that all sources are equally unobjective.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 00:59, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Let me say that I'm not convinced we should type out the name of the source at all. I'm just saying; we shouldn't type out the name for some but not others. Either we do it for all of them, of for none. I phrased myself a little clumsily above. Also, naturally there are sources, the individual subjectivities of which are qualitatively different from that of other sources (in ways we can identify — e.g. almost anything compared to InfoWars). That being said however — as a student of formal logic — it's likely not incorrect to still argue that they are all equally far from objectivity, despite being qualitatively different in their subjectivity. But that's a very academic angle, naturally. I hope you don't misunderstand me here. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:24, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

For fuck's sake no. WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:51, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

[edit] And so, we enter... Endgame

The vote is on! Play nice now. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:17, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Facepalm.png You're being trolled. Please stop being trolled. WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 00:20, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Oh, come now, friend. Don't hate — participate! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:26, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Who is trolling whom? I am not the Ombud's man 18:03, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise proposal

This dicussion was moved here.

[edit] Voice actors lampooning Trump

Two pieces of comic genius y'all should check out if you're not already aware of them: Billy West's Make America Brannigan series, with Zapp Brannigan doing Trump quotes, and Peter Serafinowicz's Sassy Trump series (also including Cockney Trump), again all Trump's own words. ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 10:08, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much for these links, my friend! Just yesterday I actually thought to myself that Trump is essentially Zapp Brannigan. Also, when Kif started to sigh in the background, I lol'd out loud. And Zoidberg reading the doctor's note was pure gold. ...You know, it's actually beginning to dawn on me that there's even a shot in hell that a guy like this could be ELECTED POTUS by the American voters. That is... Wow. I mean, I- It's... Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:09, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Goodpost.gif--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 17:02, 28 September 2016 (UTC) 17:02, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome. Yep, it's alarming that a Trump presidency is even a viable option, let alone a likelihood as some are now predicting. WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 07:16, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Okay thinky time

I have a friend online who was recenty diagnosed with ALS. (He never went to doctors ever, so he found out alot later than he should have) He has become a bit more of a jerk than when i met him, he lacks restraint and basic social skills. There are many problems i have with this, including the fact that i did not expect this level of trust or social responsibility. Not to mention he is being increasingly toxic. Is it my responsibility to deal with him, especially if i am uncomfortable with where this friendship is going? Bubba41102The place where you can scream at me 15:59, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

No. You ought to be supportive of him as you would any stranger suffering a terrible disease: not needlessly cruel or make light of his condition, but you're under no obligation to pretend they're the kind of person you like. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
An ALS sufferer will need FAR more care than a person could every provide over the internet. What is your role here? Are you two dating or something? Or are you literally internet aquaintances and he's become a douche? Because if your role is as a friend in a friendship, that means that the other person is changing the nature of the relationship by not being a friend. And if he does that, or has already done that, then he's solved the issue for you. He's not being friendly, so you're not friends. You walk away scot free from this thing that is no longer a friendship, due to his actions. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:31, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
It looks to me (with my all-seeing internet-o-vision) that your friend's bad news has sent him off the rails. You need to let him know, and at least try to bring him back. Do you know anyone else that he knows? A joint effort would probably work better. BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 19:52, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
The simple answer is NOPE. If he gets annoying enough, time to do the cut direct. --Castaigne2 (talk) 20:42, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Is you friend an atheist? perhaps if you could offer him some hope about what lies ahead could help out with his present disposition.nobsGary Johnson for Rehab! 13:27, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Punch Martin Shkreli in the Face

Ever wish you could punch that bastard in his smug mug? Well, he's willing to sell you the opportunity!. CorruptUser (talk) 21:02, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

It's a brilliant PR move. It reminds me of when Shia went off the deep end. Rather than disappearing as so many ex-child stars do, he decided to own it and released a goofy Youtube motivational video. By literally lining up his victims to punch him in the face for charity, Martin is framing himself as the undeserving victim of a braying mob.
I have feeling we will be hearing a lot from Shkreli in the decades to come. He loves the limelight. Plutoniumboss (talk) 03:34, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Could we please crowdfund recruiting the closest real-world equivalent to Ivan Drago's punching power and have that guy do it for all of us? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:29, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Or just give it to Mike Tyson. CorruptUser (talk) 02:32, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Can you add VisualEditor to the site?

https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/VisualEditor/Portal

(or whichever other extensions Wikipedia has that allow you to just paste a link into the box and it automatically generates a reference for you.) Hmmph (talk) 03:35, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

They can't even update the site software, remove bugs or add features even Andy's fucking Conservapedia has, what makes you think David will add this?!--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 05:07, 29 September 2016 (UTC) 05:07, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Why can't they? Take a look at this. It's the upcoming design for a new video game wiki. RW looks downright ugly compared to it. Maybe the time has come for RationalWiki 3.0? --TeslaK20 (talk) 05:12, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
And you think that wiki looks good? Beauty must be in the eye of the beholder. Spud (talk) 13:58, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
I like the way it takes about a minute to load on my PC. Is there a MediaWiki plugin for that? Annquin (talk) 14:16, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────In all seriousness, we've updated Mediawiki in a sandbox and got the site basically working. The only thing that doesn't work is the voting systems. So your WIGO and Suggestion boxes all are inoperable. When I've got that fixed, expect an update to this site. Cheers. Zero (talk - contributions) 15:38, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Update for Mediawiki? (starts salivating) Can you give an indication as to new features? I am not the Ombud's man 16:35, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Some guys on Youtube with relatively high production value say Democrats are screwed

are they right? I am not the Ombud's man 23:30, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Why didn't you label that link?! Jokes aside, I don't see how they would be wrong. The Dems can't win the House and will likely lose the Senate in 2 years on top of gaining nothing in hte states so all power is lost.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 00:15, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
The headline kinda took care of that, didn't it? But if you wanna label it, be my guest. I am not the Ombud's man 01:13, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
That was a joke but no, the headline did not tell that that was a link to a Vox video.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:16, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Who or what is Vox? I am not the Ombud's man 01:23, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Why are you playing so stupid?
I am not playing. I really am so stupid. I only know that Vox is the name of the channel that published the video. I don't know anything else about them. That's why I asked. I am not the Ombud's man 01:32, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
To give my thoughts on the video, I think most of the analysis here is good, but the point about going back to the left hurting the Democrats is totally wrong: going away from the left in the first place demotivated many voters and hurt Democrats in elections. Pbfreespace (talk) 01:27, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
But we've had progressively-liberal presidents since Carter. Unless you're one of those dudes who thinks picking Humphrey over McCarthy was the original sin. (Funny: Chomsky did not like McCarthy, because he was too far to the right. You can't please Americans.) Plutoniumboss (talk) 04:27, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
This has been in the making for decades, snd is an outgrowth of the Reagan & Gingrich small government revolutions. Since Reagan (a) the Republicans have had a string of weak presidential candidates because of their focus on state and local government, whereas (b) Democrats have had a near obsession with presidential politics. Another factor has been the Democrats relying on the courts to win issues, abortion and gay marriage for example, rather than state houses wh–ere the real power lies. The Koch bogeymen have been big in pursuing state control rather than federal.
At the grassroots, the union labor hall used to be the center of Democratic party activity in neighborhoods, but they don't exist anymore. Whereas churches have performed that function in the GOP. So the godless commies swearing off God only fucked themselves, it seems.nobs 10:57, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Someone adjust Robs antennae, he's started making sense again.
I would add that the Democrats were banking on two things. A safe voting block, in the form of immigrants (as I mentioned), and the decline of organized religion. Unfortunately, the "New" Atheist movement turned out to be far more regressive then some expected... plus, religion has a habit of regrowing like a weed. It's baked right into theJudeo-Christian philosophy, it offers a good product to people who are down on their luck. Plutoniumboss (talk) 13:28, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

[edit] I have a problem

One session I'm on RW, I'll enable a gadget or two. The next, the gadget disappears!-DïämöńđDïsc1 (talk) 23:37, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

There are gadgets on this wiki? I am not the Ombud's man 23:55, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
This is a wiki? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:55, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
It says wiki right in the URL. I am not the Ombud's man 01:13, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Ahem! Where did my gadgets go!??!!-DïämöńđDïsc1 (talk) 02:03, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Our gadgets have been on-and-off for a very long time now, sadly. I share your frustration. BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 09:45, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
support
Community
Tools