We are 100% user-supported!
Without you, there is no RationalWiki!
| Goal: $5000 | Donations so far: $2030 | ||
| |||
Help and donate today!
RationalWiki:Saloon bar
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| RationalWiki:Forum | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| To do 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.
- Here - Converted From Conservatismdoesn't give a fuck, probably 02:57, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
- Here - (Ir)RationalWikian (talk) 03:57, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not here. I'm somewhere else. (((Zack Martin)))™ 07:11, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
- Here - Dustandshadow13 (talk) 11:09, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
- Hi! TeslaK20 (talk) 12:03, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
- buh David Gerard (talk) 13:55, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
- Yup –Cosmikdebris (talk) 14:07, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
- I like the taste of penis - Ghost (talk) 14:41, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
- I cannot think of a witty comment. - Bubba41102The place where you can scream at me 15:09, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
- Witty comment Pbfreespace2 (talk) 16:27, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
- (Manhattan Beach surfer voice) Yo, dude. Totally tubular. Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt Noooooooo! Look! Up there! 16:49, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
- I kind of always have sooooooo ye I hella wander yo'Legionwhat do you want from me 17:01, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
- Ditto: I always find new examples of possible suspects that may need investigating such as: Doug Casey, Sovereign Man and Nomad Capitalist. Some of such sites claim they have a solution before hitting you with a paywall. It seems conspiracy theories are having a field day recently. --User4501 (talk) 17:35, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
- (insert snark here) Arawn Emrys (talk) 18:28, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
- I doubt that anyone is surprised I'm here. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:45, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
- I'm here [citation needed]--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 20:41, 4 October 2016 (UTC) 20:41, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
- Adsum. Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 20:58, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
- Linoleum--Cms13ca 21:06, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
- Oh I'm here. I'm always here. I don't edit (who needs teh dramaz), but I lurk and watch..... MyHatIsBread (talk) 14:05, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- Bongolian was here. Bongolian (talk) 18:37, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- Some of us don't pay much attention to the Saloon Bar. Is this vote rigged? I love winning. I always win! NeverTrump! (talk) 22:29, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- I pop in most days, though I often avoid the bar. AyzmoCheers 12:38, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
- Here on the days I've nothing better to do. nobs 23:26, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- Still check in every few months in the hope that things have gotten better. Tab back out when I see the same stuff happening. - Kitsunelaine 「SJW Illuminati shill.」 02:19, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- I am here for now. I am not the Ombud's man 02:29, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- Othgard son of Sigurd carved these runes 81.145.153.190 (talk) 13:08, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Uh, check a couple of sections up. There are #Stats on wiki activity & active users. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď
Methinks 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] UK Tory Party Conference
Have any other Brits been following the horrifying new immigration policies outlined at the Tory Party Conference over the last few days? Decades of anti-discrimination law are to be unravelled or undermined in favour of an us-&-them culture where immigrants (many of whom have lived & worked here for most of their lives) will be treated as unwelcome interlopers, businesses who employ them will be shamed as national traitors, & racists will have all their prejudices vindicated by government policy. Щєазєюіδ
Methinks it is a Weasel 07:27, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- Good to know I'm not the only one worried about the state of Western politics! May, her cabinet and their advisers probably just think they are engaging in a bit of manipulative populism, but they are playing a very dangerous game. What they are doing is normalizing views that would have once been considered xenophobic or at the very least discriminatory. This is what happens when the political class and the media class let themselves be cowed by shouts of "it's political correctness!" and "we're not allowed to speak the truth anymore otherwise we're seen as racists!" Instead of continually challenging these views, pushing back against them, they have given up ground and now people who hold these views and worse will now believe not only that they are legitimate, but they are mainstream, especially in the aftermath of Brexit. In short, many xenophobes around the country now believe they make up 52% of the country, and May (who was for Remain by the way) and co, instead of challenging these views, will seek to profit politically from them by telling them it's okay to hold these views expressly (as she did in her speech) and via policy (many of which she probably won't go through with). --Levi Ackerman (talk) 13:23, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- Indeed. I'm genuinely shocked by what's coming out at this conference, although I guess I shouldn't be given May's terrible record on immigration policy as Home Secretary. I (naively) hoped that, since the Tory mainstream including May had backed Remain, the government would pursue a soft Brexit retaining freedom of movement. Instead the rights of EU nationals in the UK are literally going to be used as trade barter in exit talks, & even if they are allowed to stay it will be as the other in our midst. It's opening the door for all kinds of racism & xenophobia, which of course the Tories will denounce & shirk responsibility for.
- & How is this even going to work as an employment policy? Up to now the principle (both legally & ethically) has been for employers to give equal consideration to all prospective employees who are eligible for the job (through citizenship, residency status or a compatible visa scheme). If employers are now under pressure to prioritise British applicants over "foreigners", non-nationals simply won't get shortlisted, freezing the job prospects of any already in the UK as well as new immigrants (& all, according to party speeches, in the interests of "fairness"). Perhaps that's what the Tories want but it's a serious civil rights issue & should be resisted vehemently. We'll see how that goes but I haven't been impressed with opposition statements so far. It seems like the right wing has succeeded so completely in shifting the overton window on this issue that all parties feel they have to make a show of being tough on immigration. Wēāŝēīōīď
Methinks it is a Weasel 19:23, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- Even worse, May was one of the Tories who was bitching the loudest over the European Convention on Human Rights... You know, the little agreement that limits to how badly you can treat citizens and residents? Her reasons were as flimsy as they were tied to immigration bogeymen: That the ECHR might prevent the deportation of convicted criminals (apparently ignoring that this barrier is only in cases were such criminals risk serious persecution, such as torture or capital punishment, when deported, but hey, out of sight out of mind, right May?)
- What is interesting about May's current spiel is how much it resembles a rhetorical mashup of the early days "Just call me Dave's" "Big Tent" hot air and something that sounds suspiciously like Corbyn's criticism of the results of 35-year infatuation with neoliberal economics that has left such views as the baseline of (New) Labour as well as the Tories and LibDems. My hunch is that May's sudden concern with inequality in the UK will be as evanescent and devoid of concrete initiatives that will actually have an impact on these issues as Dave's Big Green Tent. ScepticWombat (talk) 07:28, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
- This is a perfect summation of the situation UK finds itself in. I'm going to borrow this for the article if nobody minds. Plutoniumboss (talk) 19:30, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- It begins: the government is now rejecting experts they previously worked with on Brexit practicalities where those experts are not UK nationals. This is some very dark fifth column thinking. Ŵêâŝêîôîď
Methinks it is a Weasel 23:03, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
The Tories are going down the path of maximising damage to the UK economy. To negotiate any remotely favourable deal they need to swallow their pride and agree to freedom of movement, etc. Instead they are asking to have their cake and eat it too but that won't happen. I reckon there won't be a deal at all, the UK economy will take a big hit by being cut off from the single market, and all those Leave voters who will lose their jobs which will be getting their just deserts (sadly, the innocent are punished along with the guilty, and Remain voters will suffer too – but at least they cannot be blamed for their own misfortune.) Five years from now, people will look back on what a mess it has become, and the Tories will be rightly blamed for it. (((Zack Martin)))™ 00:26, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- May, Johnson, et al. are stuck between a rock (their ideology) and a hard place (political adventurers like Nigel). How can Theresa talk about pay gap and giving people back "their" jobs while gutting worker's rights on the side? It's schizophrenic. But these are Thatcher's children: In their perfect world, citizens don't have a say in policy, only shareholders do. Tories don't want to pay taxes, ipso facto cutting tax rates and services will magically create growth. Meanwhile, in reality, the free market is eroding before their very eyes. (As a response, I suppose, to the economics realities of privatization). Plutoniumboss (talk) 15:38, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- It would be nice if we had a proper opposition. Ajkgordon (talk) 18:46, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- You do have one, it's called UKIP. Plutoniumboss (talk) 21:13, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- If by "proper opposition" you mean Labour, then forget about it until either Corbyn converts to some shade of New Labour, the huge NL faction of the PLP actually accepts that they can't unseat him, the NLPLP actually manages to unseat him through its war of attrition, or some of the traditional media get a sudden change of heart and decide that Corbyn isn't Mao's ghost and actually start reporting on his policies (instead of cut and paste stories where his political opponents tell how awful he is). ScepticWombat (talk) 08:30, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
- "Five years from now, people will look back on what a mess it has become, and the Tories will be rightly blamed for it." Oh, how I hope you're right, Zack. But since the most recent five years' mess hasn't led to a swing against the Tories, I sadly have my doubts. The UK has run one of the hardest austerity policies outside of Greece, its results have been pitiful and yet Just Call Me Dave won his reelection bit last year. ScepticWombat (talk) 08:36, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
- Fortunately there is cross-party opposition to hard Brexit & to some of these other policies. Wéáśéĺóíď
Methinks it is a Weasel 11:11, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
- I hope you're right Weaseloid and that the pro-EU Tories will actually come through, but I have my doubts — especially on areas other than free trade (free trade is supported by a huge swathe of Tories, including Brexiters, as long as it doesn't include people). My worry is that the hardest of the hardline Tories will use Brexit to gut as much as they can of the remainder of the UK welfare state along with human and workers' rights under the guise of more "austerity" and "control" needed to "restore confidence" in Britain on the financial markets (what Paul Krugman calls the "confidence fairy") and to demonstrate that they are "taking back sovereignty" (in the empty posturing rhetoric of UKIP). ScepticWombat (talk) 11:49, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
- Fortunately there is cross-party opposition to hard Brexit & to some of these other policies. Wéáśéĺóíď
- You do have one, it's called UKIP. Plutoniumboss (talk) 21:13, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- It would be nice if we had a proper opposition. Ajkgordon (talk) 18:46, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Corbyn is legit beginning to scare me. It's obvious his real mission is purging "Blairites" and not governing or winning elections. And letting 'the people' govern, which is why he raised no fuss when UKIP took over. They're on the same page. Plutoniumboss (talk) 05:09, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- Are you serious, PB? Considering that he has tried to cooperate with a PLP, a significant faction of which has done nothing but drip feed negative stories to the press, throwing everything but the kitchen sink at him in the hope something sticks (alleging everything from racism and anti-Semitism to physical intimidation, authoritarianism, and misogyny), and trying to topple him at every turn, incl. trying to stack the deck in their favour by manipulating the election process, I'd say Corbyn has been extremely patient and conciliatory (not to mention pragmatic and realistic in appeasing this wing of the party).
- It's pretty brazen for the MPs who have continuously tried to undercut Corbyn to cry about how terribly he is and extrapolating every simple restatement of the CLPs' authority under the party rules to (re)select candidates as threats going beyond the pale. Especially when it was these MPs who chose to play internal party politics at a time when the Tories were reeling after Cameron's failed Brexit gamble. Even worse, these Labour MPs not only allowed but actively assisted the Tories in offloading a large share of the blame for losing the referendum onto their own bloody Labour Party, and for what?
- For no loftier reason than to obtain a short term excuse in which they used the "Blame Corbyn for Brexit!" narrative to try to force their own party leader to resign without having to bother with such petty details as actually challenging him in an open leadership contest less than a year after he had decisively won it in the first place.
- Excuse me if my level of sympathy with such politicians is rather... manageable... Phrases such as cutting off your nose to spite your face or pissing your pants to keep warm springs to mind as the most apt description of their party political acumen.
- As for Corbyn being "on the same page" as UKIP, that's definitely Poe territory. ScepticWombat (talk) 16:13, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- Labour is coming to grips with what the Tories already know. Corbyn is going down hard in 2020. If they can distance themselves from him, Trump style, then maybe they can pick up the pieces. And this is not a self fulfilling prophecy. Everything that's come out about the guy paints the picture of a old pamphleteer who is, at best, out of his depth and at worst uninterested in leading. He played no small part in Leave's victory. Whenever the Tories overreach, he is nowhere to be found. He spends more time rallies than in meetings. He treats Britain (and indeed the west) vaguely as the enemy and the underdeveloped world as his true constituency.
- Eh, look. I've been following politics in the United States very closely, and I've seen this movie before. The U.K. isn't as savvy, because by and large, their candidates are up front about what they stand for and want to accomplish. There's a new breed of lefty out there, one who poses as the progressive left, but is actually a closet accelerationist. They aren't interested in playing the politics game. Opposition and coalitions are the furthest things from their minds. What they want is to see it crash; either by helping it along or by defanging the "centrist" parties. Plutoniumboss (talk) 07:00, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- Jesus, PB, are you also falling for the "blame Corbyn for Brexit"-nonsense? Look at the actual data, will you? Corbyn delivered practically the same proportion of Labour voters to Remain (63%) as the SNP (64%), beaten clearly only by the extremely Europhile LibDems (70%) and Greens (75%) and contrasting sharply with Cameron who managed to deliver 58% of his voters to Brexit. Also, it's pretty hard to see what Corbyn could and should have done differently during the campaign. He argued that yes, the EU isn't flawless, but all things considered, Remain is to be preferred. The claims that he wasn't "passionate" enough abound and are seldom explained, but they seem to amount to no more than the suggestion that Corbyn should have followed Cameron's Project Fear tactics - you know, the strategy which failed to convince even half Cameron's own voters... Are we seriously to believe that such a scare campaign would've tipped the balance? Or that an "All about the EU is sunshine and light" approach would've accomplished this feat?
- As for the claim that Corbyn "treats Britain (and indeed the west) vaguely as the enemy and the underdeveloped world as his true constituency." I have no idea where you get this idea from. Sure he sees the trend towards a neoliberal jungle capitalism as undesirable, but he has held these views for decades and it chimes with the increasing concerns about inequality. Indeed, Theresa May is borrowing heavily from the same rhetoric, though this, rhetoric (i.e. hot air), is probably all she'll borrow, making speeches about how terrible the increasing inequality is and how Britain must "work for everyone", but I'd be dumbfounded if she actually starts to address these problems with more than words.
- The reason Corbyn is so shocking is that he has reminded a lot of people that Labour was once a social democratic party, rather than a social (neo)liberal one. This is uncomfortable for those who are unable to grasp the concept of practical politics being more than a few millimetres to the left of Blair and they simply don't even want this to be an option. This is why the so-called leftist newspapers, The Independent and The Guardian, have essentially teamed up with the Tory press in trying to attach any unsavoury epithet to Corbyn they could think of. It reached such absurd proportions during this latest leadership contest, that the commentaries began to ridicule the papers' approach with such sarcastic remarks as "Corbyn ate my hamster!" and "If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, it's Corbyn's fault". I'm not optimistic about Corbyn's chances at a general election, but the alternatives are arguably even worse. ScepticWombat (talk) 18:33, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not optimistic about Corbyn's chances at a general election'.... Certainly not now, since he's let a once-in-a-generation chance slip through his fingers. His chances are now dependent on how hard the Tories squeeze the middle class, and they're not dumb enough to alienate voters to that degree.
- True, he's not squeaky clean spin machine. But he's an obstinate roadblock to everything that Labour needs to do. Why did he refuse to say whether he would help a NATO member in need? (He would think any aggression would be the West's fault anyway.) What's he doing at a May Day rally? Why is Trident still a thing? Who cares about trains? The man has no sense of perspective and gives every issue the same (undue) weight. Plutoniumboss (talk) 19:44, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
I feel like the UK is going somewhere with this. Jokes aside, with all of this Tory BS will Northern Ireland leave? I feel like this is a very hard right swing that many of them wouldn't like but I am probably wrong.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 18:59, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- Looks like talk of NI leaving was a bit premature. Depends on how much lunacy is coming out Westminster. May has been handed unprecedented power and there is a real temptation to fuck with voters for their naivete, but she's a cypher, so your guess is as good as anyone's.. Plutoniumboss (talk) 19:32, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
[edit] Fuck me
My mind is fucked at the moment. Everything's going fucking wrong for me, everyone's fucking leaving me, my first girlfriend broke up with me after a single fucking week, my psychological/former opiate addiction (it's hard to explain) sort of thing is taking over my mind and should I get a supply of that stuff, shit is gonna go bad. I fucking freak out and fucking dissociate or some shit, I can't fucking put up with all this fucking working and effort and schooling and shit like that, I just wanna fucking fall out of life and nobody in my life fucking gives a shit. I'm fucking unstable, I fucking freak out over the tiniest little shit, I'm ugly and my skin is fucking awful. I can see them all fucking bitching and laughing at Mr behind my back and what the fuck is going on? I am so fucking drunk and pissed off that I'm fucking ranting about this shit on some fucking shitto irrelevant website and I'm fucking mad. Meanwhile, you've got cunts carying on with this fucking "ban the Muslims" fucking bullshit??????? Why is that even a fucking debate? And another thing - fuck all this pro-death penalty fucking pro-fucking refugee death-camps and fucking "why do the moozles get a flag but not our troops SHARE IF YOU AGREE". Also, FUCK OFF A CURRENT AFFAIR! FUCK. MAD. — Unsigned, by: 49.180.139.183 / talk / contribs
- I'm sorry to hear that, man. I'll cut to the chase: telling people on the internet how you feel is the first step — which you have now completed. The second step has to be talking to people near you in real life; a step you should not delay in taking. The third step, I must suggest, is speaking to a professional. If things go bad fast, visit the psych ER before you do something you can't undo. Hang in there, buddy. And the best of luck to you! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:40, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- Re: racist/islamophobic shit going on everywhere. It sucks and I feel you, but it's one of those things you don't have control over. In the state you're in, dwelling on it will only hurt you. Take a break from following all of the bile circulating through national discourse right now. It'll be tough since - as I stated - it's everywhere. But you have to learn to let those things go for a time and focus on putting yourself back together. Rev's advice is an excellent place to start. 173.71.121.36 (talk) 13:11, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- Do as Reverend says. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 14:35, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- I'll pray for you. nobs 23:29, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- Do as Reverend says. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 14:35, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- Re: racist/islamophobic shit going on everywhere. It sucks and I feel you, but it's one of those things you don't have control over. In the state you're in, dwelling on it will only hurt you. Take a break from following all of the bile circulating through national discourse right now. It'll be tough since - as I stated - it's everywhere. But you have to learn to let those things go for a time and focus on putting yourself back together. Rev's advice is an excellent place to start. 173.71.121.36 (talk) 13:11, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Follow George Carlin's timeless advice: you've been given a front row trust to the freak show. Learn to point and laugh at all the freaks instead of caring too much. It's easier this way. PBfreespace3 (talk) 19:32, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- "some fucking shitto irrelevant website" Oh my god how could you say that? You'll be invading Poland next. 2.125.247.226 (talk) 21:23, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Weaseloid, why was my comment removed, despite the excessive profanity and whatnot in every comment on this thread?? Lord Aeonian (talk) 22:19, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- Maybe they took offense at the Saddam joke?--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 22:25, 6 October 2016 (UTC) 22:25, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- I take offense to a person getting so angry at straw-man forms of positions, and choose to make a joke in response. I suppose the correct course of action would be to just delete the offended content, in this case the whole thread. I'll remember to be like Saddam next time :) :D Lord Aeonian (talk) 22:33, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Oh dear, I just remembered I did this. Sorry for being a semi-incomprehensible idiot when I'm drunk and thanks for the concern and all that yeah — Unsigned, by: 49.197.35.235 / talk / contribs
- Friends don't let friends post drunk. Nowhere Man (talk) 15:57, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
[edit] After the anti-vaxxer faux pas
...Robert De Niro finally says something worth agreeing with. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:09, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
- And I already hoped he recanted his position... The question really is, who would win in an aged-man tussle between the two? Both of them have anti-Vax opinions and fake macho credentials, De Niro through his crime movies and Trump through his "locker room banter". ∈ NameThatNobodyTakes (✎) 12:03, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- "Donald used pussy grab on De Niro! It's not very effective!" Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:27, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- 😁. I totally forgot that both of them even have fake fighting experience. De Niro from Raging Bull and Trump from wrestling. ∈ NameThatNobodyTakes (✎) 19:44, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- De Niro's a communist whore. nobs 23:34, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- 😁. I totally forgot that both of them even have fake fighting experience. De Niro from Raging Bull and Trump from wrestling. ∈ NameThatNobodyTakes (✎) 19:44, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- "Donald used pussy grab on De Niro! It's not very effective!" Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:27, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
[edit] For those who missed it
Clinton supporters said she won the debate. MSNBC said Trump outperformed expectations. Berniebros said HRC missed her chance to bury the Republican Party forever, Bernie wold have crushed it. In other words absolutely nothing changed.
One interesting thing: Trump not only disagreed with his VP about Syria but admitted he had not even discussed it with him. Pence is widely presumed to be the real nominee for President, so a lot of hopes were dashed that Trump can be contained.. Plutoniumboss (talk) 05:17, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- The Republican vice president was the guy actually in control all along? I'm shocked, shocked I tell you. CorruptUser (talk) 05:25, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- Trump's proposal of getting all cogs moving to incarcerate Clinton if he became president was the highlight of the debate. It's like he didn't give a fuck in that moment if he came off as a dictator in the style of Putin and Erdoğan. ∈ NameThatNobodyTakes (✎) 12:10, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- I wouldn't be surprised if some bubba redneck "freedom fighter" tries to take Clinton out. If they truly believe that Hillary is a major criminal at large... Plutoniumboss (talk) 15:38, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- Saying he'll jail his opponent makes him look good to the base who hates Hillary, as well as Republican voters who aren't sure about him but sure hate Hillary. But everyone be honest here: if John Kerry said he would try to prosecute George W. Bush for deceit of the public and war crimes in Iraq, would any left-winger here be complaining like they are now? PBfreespace3 (talk) 15:50, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- You're unraveling, man. Plutoniumboss (talk) 16:15, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- I don't know about left-winger, but anyone who respects due process (like me) would advocate for Kerry to be shut the fuck down. --Castaigne2 (talk) 16:13, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- Jailing political opponents tends to be a bad thing to do, so any war crimes trial would have to be conducted by The Hague. I'm saying that if Kerry won and brought Bush to The Hague, I wouldn't demand Kerry resign or badmouth Kerry for it. Similarly, I'm not going to attack Trump for threatening to imprison Hillary, if for the only reason that it makes Trump look even worse. Let his words stand on their own merit: if the people are stupid and vote him in, they get what's coming to them. pbfreespace (talk) 17:29, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- The Hague has no political or judicial validity here, so unless the war crimes are charged in an American court, it's just a nonsense rally.
- And you're showing your ignorance of American jurisprudence, because Kerry cannot bring anyone to the Hague. Out of his jurisdiction. He would have to make recommendations of prosecution on war crimes to the DOJ, who would determine if American law on the subject was violated. (Or American interpretation of the Geneva Conventions.) --Castaigne2 (talk) 17:42, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- Jailing political opponents tends to be a bad thing to do, so any war crimes trial would have to be conducted by The Hague. I'm saying that if Kerry won and brought Bush to The Hague, I wouldn't demand Kerry resign or badmouth Kerry for it. Similarly, I'm not going to attack Trump for threatening to imprison Hillary, if for the only reason that it makes Trump look even worse. Let his words stand on their own merit: if the people are stupid and vote him in, they get what's coming to them. pbfreespace (talk) 17:29, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- The entire argument of Kerry bringing Bush to justice is moot anyway, as he has been a wishy-washy pro-war candidate. However if he would have said something like that, I guess he probably would have had a teeny bit more of a chance of winning that election back then. The Democrat Party would have a far easier time winning if it started being more populist which would ultimately energize the moonbat base. Obama was so successful back in 2008 because he successfully managed to straddle the corporatist and idealist wings of his constituency. ∈ NameThatNobodyTakes (✎) 19:40, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- Saying he'll jail his opponent makes him look good to the base who hates Hillary, as well as Republican voters who aren't sure about him but sure hate Hillary. But everyone be honest here: if John Kerry said he would try to prosecute George W. Bush for deceit of the public and war crimes in Iraq, would any left-winger here be complaining like they are now? PBfreespace3 (talk) 15:50, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- I wouldn't be surprised if some bubba redneck "freedom fighter" tries to take Clinton out. If they truly believe that Hillary is a major criminal at large... Plutoniumboss (talk) 15:38, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
[edit] How can someone who has an email scandal, has made policies that spread ISIS, and calling millions of Americans deplorables getting so many votes?
How can someone who has an email scandal, has made policies that spread ISIS, and calling millions of Americans deplorables getting so many votes?--124.193.87.98 (talk) 06:09, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- Because she's running against somebody a thousand times worse. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď
Methinks it is a Weasel 06:26, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- Because even her staunch opposition--the ones who have to actually play the other side of the game as her, who'd uncork champagne if they could get her but also happen to be accountable for their actions and have oaths of office and ethics to uphold--admit the e-mail thing isn't a super-huge deal. ISIS, or something like it, was going to happen one way or another, and millions of Americans -are- deplorable. They have deplorable beliefs and act in deplorable ways.
- Look at it another way. The man has been caught on tape and on radio bragging about making sexual advances on married women, but he criticizes the husband of his opponent. He's got the enthusiastic support of the Ku Klux Klan and the neo-Nazi movement. He thinks a 'million dollars' is a 'small loan'. How is he getting so many votes? --Maxus (talk) 06:52, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- Last I heard, 25% of Republicans want him to drop out. Plutoniumboss (talk) 08:35, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- Because nobody cares about emails and she apologized, because her plan to defeat ISIS exists, because she apologized for the insult, and because Trump has a list of scandals an order of magnitude higher? Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 12:15, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- I wouldn't say that nobody cares about e-mails. The millennials she is trying to win over get further away from her when Wikileaks recently released her e-mail transcripts (unfortunately at the same time as Trump's misogyny was on full display, so that story dominated). Who can blame them for not being able to trust a candidate who says in their e-mails that they have both a public position and a private position on things. Some of those millennials see Trump's full-on idiocy and Clinton's two-facedness and find themselves unable to vote for either of them, or they flock to third party candidates in hopes that a third party might get federal funding and more political power 4 years down the line and break up the 2 party system a bit (essentially saying "I will write off the next 4 years and try to affect something after that"). Then there is the struggling below-living-wage working class/disappearing middle class/union people supporting families with sick people while unable to afford care/health insurance on 250 dollars a week who read how out of touch she is with anything below her rich middle class background and see Trump for the untrustworthy promises he makes about jobs and therefore they aren't likely to vote for either candidate as well. When voter turnout in the USA decreases the whole country loses, democracy loses, the world loses. These e-mails only exacerbate that. 109.175.208.0 (talk) 04:08, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
- As a millennial with mostly millennial friends, I'd say what you're claiming is rare. I know about ten people who are having a hard time deciding and all, but one, is conservative. One was a hardcore Bernieorbust guy from the getgo and has fallen into believing many of the Clinton scandal lies (she has people killed regularly, etc.). The rest are all self-identified conservatives who hate Trump, but refuse to vote for Hillary on principle and are likely to vote for Johnson. As we know, most millennials are not conservative. Plus, most of us understand that having a private/public opinion on a matter is not an issue. I actually know far more boomers who are planning to sit this election out (every conservative woman I know above 40 actually). I know anecdotal evidence isn't data, but I don't think what you said was based on evidence anyway, so whatever. AyzmoCheers 12:38, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
- (Hi, same bunch of numbers here from a different PC) Ok, not to give any credit to the usefulness of anecdotal evidence here, but your anecdotal evidence is probably better than mine, since you probably have more millennial friends in the US than me. Most of my "evidence" comes from social media comments (which, you know, are really biased echo chamber sources where calm thought gives way to emotion and exaggeration).
- On a related note, we could discuss idealism vs cynicism in the younger generations. I've always assumed that they would lean towards the idealism spectrum of things, which means not taking the unreliable position trait too well and "voting your conscience" as a principle (in other words, only for candidates with integrity/trustworthiness, in other words, these people would be especially susceptible to things like Bernieorbust). 171.33.193.245 (talk) 17:12, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
- As an American millennial living in a red state, most of my millennial
friendsacquaintances are either libertarian Gary Johnson types (though without all the thought and principle) or flat-out Trump supporters who honestly believe Hillary had people killed. I met someone today who has an Infowars bumper sticker and honestly believes Hillary us just one of the worst people ever to live. The millennials I'm around tend to be quite pessimistic about politics and society in general. These are people whose parents saddled them with debt and ruined their futures (exaggeration, I know). The point is this is a simultaneously coddled and hardened generation, one that's conservative in spending and socially liberal. PBfreespace3 (talk) 19:07, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
- As an American millennial living in a red state, most of my millennial
- As a millennial with mostly millennial friends, I'd say what you're claiming is rare. I know about ten people who are having a hard time deciding and all, but one, is conservative. One was a hardcore Bernieorbust guy from the getgo and has fallen into believing many of the Clinton scandal lies (she has people killed regularly, etc.). The rest are all self-identified conservatives who hate Trump, but refuse to vote for Hillary on principle and are likely to vote for Johnson. As we know, most millennials are not conservative. Plus, most of us understand that having a private/public opinion on a matter is not an issue. I actually know far more boomers who are planning to sit this election out (every conservative woman I know above 40 actually). I know anecdotal evidence isn't data, but I don't think what you said was based on evidence anyway, so whatever. AyzmoCheers 12:38, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
- I wouldn't say that nobody cares about e-mails. The millennials she is trying to win over get further away from her when Wikileaks recently released her e-mail transcripts (unfortunately at the same time as Trump's misogyny was on full display, so that story dominated). Who can blame them for not being able to trust a candidate who says in their e-mails that they have both a public position and a private position on things. Some of those millennials see Trump's full-on idiocy and Clinton's two-facedness and find themselves unable to vote for either of them, or they flock to third party candidates in hopes that a third party might get federal funding and more political power 4 years down the line and break up the 2 party system a bit (essentially saying "I will write off the next 4 years and try to affect something after that"). Then there is the struggling below-living-wage working class/disappearing middle class/union people supporting families with sick people while unable to afford care/health insurance on 250 dollars a week who read how out of touch she is with anything below her rich middle class background and see Trump for the untrustworthy promises he makes about jobs and therefore they aren't likely to vote for either candidate as well. When voter turnout in the USA decreases the whole country loses, democracy loses, the world loses. These e-mails only exacerbate that. 109.175.208.0 (talk) 04:08, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
- What exactly is her plan to defeat ISIL since all I have seen is that she will bomb them... and Obama is already doing that.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 16:04, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- Hmm, look at the alternatives - yeah, nope. --Castaigne2 (talk) 14:49, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
We're at a terrible point in American politics where the reason one terrible candidate is doing well is "the other candidate is worse". Granted it's been that way for the past 17 years, but still. We need third parties that actually have a chance. PbFreespace (talk) 15:46, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- There's "worse", and then there's "wow, I'm not entirely sure Hitler comparisons are inapt" ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:49, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- 17 years? You mean since the 217 years, sonny jim. It's been the lesser of two evils starting in the election of 1800.
- You really need to bone up on your American political history, instead of that Marxist dialectic. --Castaigne2 (talk) 16:10, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- Because The Orange is worse.--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 16:36, 10 October 2016 (UTC) 16:36, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- ^This is the exact intellectual dishonesty that has pissed me off thourghout this election.
- We are assassinating people, most of them, being innocent, throughout the MENA Of the seven Muslim countries we are bombing, only one, Afghanistan, has an actual autorization of war from Congress
- Speaking of Afghanistan, when are we leaving? We have been there for over a decade making it our longest war and Obama will become the first president to have a war span their entire presidency
- We have deported a record-breaking 2 million people under a Democrat and many more immigrants who are being detained in detention centers, many of them being children
- The US has more prisoners than any other country and 1 million of them are Black. Most of our prisoners are held for victimless crimes, forced into slavery when they are held, and deprived of their liberties when they leave
- Almost everyday US police officers are stealing property, harassing people, or killing them w/o any accountability.
- Respected Democrat general Wesley Clark has called for internment camps for Muslims
- Democrats praised Bloomberg at their convention while his time as mayor saw Muslims being spied on and stop-and-Crown being instituted a log with other broken-window policies
- The US tortured POWs, who were kidnapped and indefinitely held w/o trial, and whose torturers weren't prosecuted
- We have a gulag which will never close and it's prisoners will be released throughout the world w/o a home to go back to
- Three government agencies use spy planes to collect info in bulk and mass surveillance has become even more "legal" despite 3 whistleblowers
- The FISA court is a secret court with secret evidence that never turns down a warrant to watch soeone and that individual will never know
- Muslim and leftists have been specifically targeted by of surveillance state. Muslims are already held to a different legal stamdard while protests are always meet with militarized police.
- Muslims already are on a registry that is both secret any that they can't get off not so they know how to. They are labeled terrorists and are restricted from traveling
- Oh and that precious wall Trump wants to build alreadt exists: built by Bubba, expanded by Dubya, and militarized by Obama
- So what exactly is Trump proposing that isn't already happening?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 16:52, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- I really dislike the people who pretend the US are the worst thing that ever happened. For starters the US is better in almost every respect than all but two or three dozen countries in the world. Even if you could live in your exact same absolute economic situation and job, would you really prefer to live in Sudan or Venezuela over the US? And those are not even the most egregious violators of human rights. Yes, the lofty ideals the US aspires to are hardly ever met. But aspiring to those ideals matters. Those ideals matter. If you think they don't then you probably also think 1776 was no big deal and the whole French Revolution was just one bunch of cynics murdering another bunch of cynics until Napoleon put them out of their misery. Rhetoric matters. Ideals matter. And the US is way better than its enemies make it out to be, even though it falls short of what it has promised itself to be. And people who gush over the US as if it could do no wrong are about as useful as those that bash it at every turn of their hat. I am not the Ombud's man 17:26, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- There's a ton of shit here that I would say you're exaggerating to the extreme, but I can't be bothered to argue it. Guys like you don't convince.
- I'll just keep it simple. You can have the status quo, or you can have the John Birchers and the alt-right in charge. If you really relish people like the Breitbart crew, Vox Day, Mike Cernovich, and so on being in charge and deliberately working to reduce racial demographics to pre-1965 levels or implementing the 16 points of the alt-right as law or packing SCOTUS, you go right ahead.
- Those are your choices. Status quo or alt-right. What YOU want isn't available. So you can choose one, the other, or abstain.
- But if you abstain, as far as I'm concerned you don't have a right to complaint. --Castaigne2 (talk) 17:39, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
I am not the Ombud's man 17:40, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Cast What is being "overexagerrated" and at no point did I say Trump was preferable but continue to misrepresent what I said. The while "if you abstain you lose the right to criticize", shove it up your ass. People are fucking dying now and will comtinue to doe after so sorry if people abstain from giving a shit about the most important election that will only uphold the status qou. So yeah if the alt-right wins then they will have so many "legal" tools to use thanks to the covert fascism of previous presidents.
- I said I wasn't going to go into what was over exaggerated with you. I have neither the time or patience right now.
- Nor did I say Trump was preferable. I said your choice is Clinton or Trump, period. Those are the only practical choices.
- As for people dying right now, dude, people die every day. The world is not just. The problem is, you want your idealism, when the only reality is cynicism. *shrugs* --Castaigne2 (talk) 21:28, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- @LH Same with you. At no point did i sat that the "US is the worse thing that happened to the world". Disregarding such a stupid straw man, the US has no ideals that are being upheld. Almost everything I mentioned was a domestic issue outside of drones and Afghanistan. The magical Constituion isn't saving anyone from being warrantless surveilled, tortured, or assassinated in oh so progressive 2016.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 18:10, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- To be perfectly honest, we need a new country at this point. It's hard to see how this system can be genuinely and effectively changed even as much as halfway towards where it needs to be. Simple presidential politics isn't going to cut it anymore. If we want money out of our political system and representatives that actually speak and make good policies for the majority of people, we need to have a revolution in Bernie Sanders' and Jill Stein's vein. The Democratic platform changes were alright, but we lost on so many important issues. We need to keep trying to get a progressive in the White House, but more importantly we need left-wing liberals in Congress. pbfreespace (talk) 19:11, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- Owlman, you are hilarious. Your Hillary hate-boner has warped into an actual mental illness, I believe - really, taking Wesley Clark's admittedly rather shady idea of home detainment (radicalized, funny that you don't mention that) Americans as proof that the Dems are no better than Trump? Get help. Also your WIGOE posts are intellectual cancer, so stop posting them for everyone's sakes. NewFrenchHotness (talk) 21:27, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- Our country reflects its citizenry. You want a different country? Change the citizenry first. --Castaigne2 (talk) 21:28, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- @NFH Haha, LOL you so #woke. I know that dehumanizing people by calling them "radicals" has always been in the best interest of the country. I mean such excuses weren't used to indefinitely detain the Japanese, exterminate the Native Americans, attack the Civil Rights protestors, deport radicals, or smear feminists. Where was Wesley Clark when anti-abortion terrorists were killing doctors, when far-right militias were shooting cops, or when Christian pastors were calling for the killing og LGBT people. At no point did I say that the "Dems were as bad as Trump" only that they have changed nothing but continue to purposely misinterpret my post, refuse to actually dispute my points, and bash mentally ill people like the human trash you are.
- @Cast Well besides Princeton finding that the citizenry has "no statistically significant effect" on federal legislation and gerrymandering has become extremely problematic, elites have a massive ability to influence the populace. Obama's choice not to try torturers has normalized it. He chose to continue to militarize the police and to further expand the surveillance state. Muslims are being watched because they are Muslim and they will continue to be watched under these programs.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 22:52, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- To be perfectly honest, we need a new country at this point. It's hard to see how this system can be genuinely and effectively changed even as much as halfway towards where it needs to be. Simple presidential politics isn't going to cut it anymore. If we want money out of our political system and representatives that actually speak and make good policies for the majority of people, we need to have a revolution in Bernie Sanders' and Jill Stein's vein. The Democratic platform changes were alright, but we lost on so many important issues. We need to keep trying to get a progressive in the White House, but more importantly we need left-wing liberals in Congress. pbfreespace (talk) 19:11, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Cast What is being "overexagerrated" and at no point did I say Trump was preferable but continue to misrepresent what I said. The while "if you abstain you lose the right to criticize", shove it up your ass. People are fucking dying now and will comtinue to doe after so sorry if people abstain from giving a shit about the most important election that will only uphold the status qou. So yeah if the alt-right wins then they will have so many "legal" tools to use thanks to the covert fascism of previous presidents.
- Good points Owlman. Though of course, Trump as president would bring the USA completely into the realm of satire. But how America could bring such two contender to the fore already beggars belief. Astonishing especially when you consider that someone like Bernie Sanders was available. ~ Aneris ✻ 01:04, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
- True. One talking point by Clinton supporters I can't fathom is that when they are faced with her more conservative record they say she can be moved but when they are faced by her acceptance of political bribes they say that it won't affect her because she has unwavering views. When it comes to Sanders, I doubt he would or could change a whole lot of those points on that list; he was still a hawk who supported drones and the MIC and he would still be close to Israel but I think he would've been someone who would have been more easily forced to be more progressive.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 02:07, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
- If serious third-party candidates were available, then Americans would consider them. As it stands, Bernie is a modern day Jennings Bryan: a populist candidate whose strength lay in repetition of key phrases, but whose ignorant self-esteem and uncompromising nature lent itself to cult-like behavior. Stein appears to be in some kind of competition with Johnson over who can embarrass themselves on TV the most. She's the political version of that reporter who kept following around Buzz Adrin and demanding to know if the moon landing was faked, or "sovereign citizens" who film themselves getting pulled over on the Jersey turnpike. She's done nothing much for the Green party other to remind them of what a gem Nader was. Plutoniumboss (talk) 02:35, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
- Sadly, due to the structure of the American political system, third parties have their work cut out for them when it comes to gaining any sort of real power. If a third party truly wanted to succeed in the United States, they should first focus on getting people in state legislatures and mayoral offices. Once they become better known at local levels, then they can start fighting for the House, Senate, and the President. Instead, the Libertarian and Green parties are too focused on getting a popular presidential candidate that somehow saves the day (à la Ross Perot, Ralph Nader), even in this strategy has been proven not to work many times before. Because of this misguided strategy, third parties have very little chance of doing anything significant in the long run (besides openly and purposefully tilting elections, which none of them have admitted to), as they have virtually no hope of winning without a strong base of support. As for me, I intend vote for Jill Stein anyway simply because my state is solid for Trump and I agree with Stein the most. PBfreespace3 (talk) 21:38, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
- If serious third-party candidates were available, then Americans would consider them. As it stands, Bernie is a modern day Jennings Bryan: a populist candidate whose strength lay in repetition of key phrases, but whose ignorant self-esteem and uncompromising nature lent itself to cult-like behavior. Stein appears to be in some kind of competition with Johnson over who can embarrass themselves on TV the most. She's the political version of that reporter who kept following around Buzz Adrin and demanding to know if the moon landing was faked, or "sovereign citizens" who film themselves getting pulled over on the Jersey turnpike. She's done nothing much for the Green party other to remind them of what a gem Nader was. Plutoniumboss (talk) 02:35, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
- True. One talking point by Clinton supporters I can't fathom is that when they are faced with her more conservative record they say she can be moved but when they are faced by her acceptance of political bribes they say that it won't affect her because she has unwavering views. When it comes to Sanders, I doubt he would or could change a whole lot of those points on that list; he was still a hawk who supported drones and the MIC and he would still be close to Israel but I think he would've been someone who would have been more easily forced to be more progressive.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 02:07, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
- ^This is the exact intellectual dishonesty that has pissed me off thourghout this election.
- Sorry man, but a vote for Stein or Johnson is a vote for Trump. I don't like Hillary either, but she's the only person who won't fuck up the country into even higher hell. If you agree the most with Stein, you are essentially supporting a candidate who is a known anti-vaxxer and wants to put a moratorium on goddamn GMOs. Unlike Hillary, Stein seriously has no comprehensive foreign policy or economic platforms. Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt Noooooooo! Look! Up there! 05:33, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- "vote for Stein or Johnson is a vote for Trump", that is dumb. A vote for Trump is a vote for Trump. If I vote for Clinton and she loses, does that mean I wasted my vote? There are plenty of Democrats voting for Trump, and is he wins, it is because Clinton did a poor job convincing voters to vote for her. The criticism of Stein's views would have more merit if Clinton would end the surveillance state, end the drone program, or wasn't promoting regime change.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 06:17, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, ending the drone strikes, the surveillance, and the advocating for regime change is super-important, but you're trading evil for ignorance with Stein/Johnson. The fundamental difference with voting for third-party candidates and Clinton is that the latter candidate has a much higher chance of becoming President than any other candidate, going by the current polls. Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt Noooooooo! Look! Up there! 06:45, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- I would rather slam my dick in a car door than see Stein elected President. Plutoniumboss (talk) 18:38, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Zexoiler Yeah I would rather have ignorance than evil. I understand that third parties aren't going to win but there is no reason to vote for someone you don't prefer. Also, I assume you mistyped but I was condemning regime change.
- @Pluto Not to kink-shame but that seems to be quite the overeaction. Stein is likely the only candidate who takes global warming seriously, though, she opposes nuclear energy which is fundamental to eliminating fossil fuels. Her GMO stance also hinders her plan to reduce pesticide use. My problem with her is that she has never wanted to be a politician so unless she plans to cipy Lessig's strategy of halting everything, she won't achieve a whole lot. Why do you dislike her?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 19:55, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- Nuclear energy still requires dirty mining (which wind and solar power do not or in much smaller amounts) and it clogs the electric grid with too much baseload thus it actually harms renewables rather than helping them. To say nothing of the very real nuclear proliferation concerns (remember North Korea? Yeah, they had a "peaceful" nuclear program as well) another +++Swedish+++ conspiracy by +++Laurogeita Hamabost+++ 20:10, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- DAE NORTH KOREA?? HuffPo has a lot to answer for. Plutoniumboss (talk) 20:59, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Owlman That's a fair question. I think there are underlying trust issues with Stein that cloud her proposals. When she entered the race, she was for a slow transitioning to renewables. Now she's gone back to the old "nuclear power = WMDs" rhetoric from the Bush years. She removed the anti-vaccination plank from her party manifesto. Flash forward to 2016: Look, it's back again. Jill Stein cares about policy, not personality. Oh look, she's shitposting on Twitter again.
- I find her superficiality and lack of consistency very troubling. Unlike Johnson and Nader, who were always fairly naked in their ambitions (replace the Democratic Party and acquire their matching funds), Dr. Stein is actually trying to deceive people, mainly young people. Plutoniumboss (talk) 21:12, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- Nuclear energy still requires dirty mining (which wind and solar power do not or in much smaller amounts) and it clogs the electric grid with too much baseload thus it actually harms renewables rather than helping them. To say nothing of the very real nuclear proliferation concerns (remember North Korea? Yeah, they had a "peaceful" nuclear program as well) another +++Swedish+++ conspiracy by +++Laurogeita Hamabost+++ 20:10, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- I would rather slam my dick in a car door than see Stein elected President. Plutoniumboss (talk) 18:38, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, ending the drone strikes, the surveillance, and the advocating for regime change is super-important, but you're trading evil for ignorance with Stein/Johnson. The fundamental difference with voting for third-party candidates and Clinton is that the latter candidate has a much higher chance of becoming President than any other candidate, going by the current polls. Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt Noooooooo! Look! Up there! 06:45, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- "vote for Stein or Johnson is a vote for Trump", that is dumb. A vote for Trump is a vote for Trump. If I vote for Clinton and she loses, does that mean I wasted my vote? There are plenty of Democrats voting for Trump, and is he wins, it is because Clinton did a poor job convincing voters to vote for her. The criticism of Stein's views would have more merit if Clinton would end the surveillance state, end the drone program, or wasn't promoting regime change.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 06:17, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
[edit] Clinton won the debate
Or so says 538. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 12:18, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- Unsurprising.
- There's very little mystery about what will happen next, barring "game-changing surprises" which in actuality rarely ever happen.
- The best that the GOP could hope for is that Trump dies and Pence becomes the forerunner. --Castaigne2 (talk) 14:51, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- They would just write Trump in. Qualifications are for "insiders"—and who is less-qualified than a corpse? Plutoniumboss (talk) 15:41, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Holy shit! 538 being pro-Hillary and saying Trump's opponent is doing better? Who would have thought? PbFreespace (talk) 15:44, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- What is wrong with you, PB? This is an analytical article presenting a data-driven case and your first thought is "BIAS!1" ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:56, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- Anything that disagrees with Bernie or busting is bias to him. --Castaigne2 (talk) 16:11, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- I don't doubt that Clinton is going to win the election, or that the data is sound. I'm simply pointing out that 538's team is in the tank for Hillary. PBfreespace3 (talk) 17:25, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- 538 is in the tank for WHATEVER THE DATA SAYS, you fucking dip. That's not the same as being in the tank for Hillary. If they were "in the tank for Hillary", they'd just falsify the fucking data to make her the winner. "Unskewing the polls" and shit. --Castaigne2 (talk) 17:30, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- Well you could argue that whatever the "plus" is in their "polls plus" forecasts (which they lay out in detail for those not too lazy to look it up) is what represents their "bias". However, in their editorials they do explain that they are not tinkering with the "plus" and they actually think that - given the atypical way this election seems to turn out - the "plus" (e.g. demographic and economic "fundamentals") is actually working in favor of Trump in the prognosis, not against him. Economics and demographics would - according to 538 - actually suggest a fairly close race. But of course 538 are now and have for a long time been in the bag of the Chicago Cubs, so whatcha gonna do? I am not the Ombud's man 17:37, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- 538 is in the tank for WHATEVER THE DATA SAYS, you fucking dip. That's not the same as being in the tank for Hillary. If they were "in the tank for Hillary", they'd just falsify the fucking data to make her the winner. "Unskewing the polls" and shit. --Castaigne2 (talk) 17:30, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- I don't doubt that Clinton is going to win the election, or that the data is sound. I'm simply pointing out that 538's team is in the tank for Hillary. PBfreespace3 (talk) 17:25, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- Anything that disagrees with Bernie or busting is bias to him. --Castaigne2 (talk) 16:11, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- If Trump's gay sex tape came out, his base would start talking about how this was completely normal and everyone had done it ... hmm, might be a win - David Gerard (talk) 16:54, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- It would be his Piggate. As long as Trump's not the bottom, it's all good. Plutoniumboss (talk) 19:00, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
I feel that the debates won't actually convince voters for either candidate to support the other or to a third party. I think that even if the general populace views Trump to be the loser in each debate, it will only loser his turnout; I doubt this will convince anyone to come out and vote.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 19:22, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- That seems a little arbitrary. Certainly Presidential debates have been known to influence the outcome. If these debates aren't making too much of an impact, that's because 1) they are two very inspiring/divisive candidates (depending on your PoV) & by this point a lot of people are very invested in who they're voting for or against with relatively few undecided voters, 2) the debates are being overshadowed by scandals, & 3) nothing very spectacular has come out of the debates themselves. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď
Methinks it is a Weasel 20:56, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- I would say that it would be a mix of the latter part of option 1 with option 3. I doubt the scandals are doing anything in particular since I only ever hear them mentioned by the other candidate's supporters. Take for example the most recent scandals on both sides, the Podesta emails are mostly being brought up by Trump supporters even though various outlets are covering it while the Trump tapes are being brought up by Clinton supporters. The only people whose voting choice seems to be affected by these scandals are the Religious Right and "Bernie or Bust" voters but neither of them particularly wanted to vote for the candidate they are supposed to get behind and they are a minority; it is possible that either faction could help sink the main candidate but they won't be the only reason for it.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 21:24, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- The real news is, America is likely to be at war before inauguration day. nobs 23:41, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- Significant numbers of Republican congress & governors are backing away from Trump & this is likely to be reflected by (or influence) Republican voters. I don't think anything very similar is happening with Clinton's Democrat base of support. ωεαşεζøίɗ
Methinks it is a Weasel 23:56, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- It ultimately comes down to change vs status quo, and how pissed off people are on election day. It is not unlike at all people who voted for Obama in 2008, an unqualified neophyte because they were so desperate for change.nobs 00:06, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
- I voted for Obama in '08 because John McCain was old and Palin was dumb, and being President is a stressful job where you don't often get a whole night's sleep. It was more a case of competent vs. incompetent. I'm amazed that a former POW who got tortured has made it another eight years, but I still recognize it as a legitimate decision based on information I had at the time. I'd probably still vote for Obama, twice, were I to relive that period again. --Maxus (talk) 00:35, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Weasel I understand that many Repub politicians are jumping ship but I would say that Trump was elected because he opposed those politicians so I think it doesn't hurt him the same way it would hurt Clinton. I will same, though, that Trump is becoming less and less competitive as time goes on.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 00:59, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
- Speaking of turnout, Reuters had an interesting article on how people may not turn out if they think Trump will lose anyways. Since many people who say they are voting for Clinton say they are only voting for her to stop Trump they may not turn out to vote for her if they think she will win in a landslide; even if she does win, she will likely lack many of the Senate and what few House seats she needs in order to do anything before 2018.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 03:12, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
- Paul Ryan's plan is masterful. He knows Donald Trump won't win this election, so instead he's focusing on maintaining his party's majority in the House and Senate in order to stop Hillary Clinton from being able to get any signature laws passed. Although the Democrats would likely retake the Senate in 2018, she won't be able to get very much done due to the Republican obstruction. This may result in the Republicans winning in 2020 with a better candidate, handing over complete control to the Republicans. Certainly a long-term strategy that beats the Democrats' short-sighted presidential and centrist thinking. PBfreespace3 (talk) 21:32, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
- You're so fucking edgy, PB. Not only have you been rooting for a Democratic defeat this whole election, but you're ignoring the possibility of a House Republican revolt against Ryan. Paul can't work out a deal with the Dems, either, he'll wind up like his predecessor. He's flying by the seat of his pants, and it's all highly dependent on how the public takes to a Clinton administration. He lacks the principled leadership you seem to want to attribute to him. Plutoniumboss (talk) 02:38, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- Can you show me an example from the past 3 decades where the house Republicans, while maintaining a majority, revolted against the leadership in order to work with a democratic president?
- I'm waiting.
- No, the only time they recruited was because they were more extreme than the leadership. That's not going to change because Hillary Clinton is president. Obama's been in there for 8 years and they've been trying to block anything here ever tried to get done.
- Also, I'm not rooting for Democratic defeat in this election. It looks like Hillary is going to win anyway, so it really doesn't matter who I'm 'rooting' for. pbfreespace (talk) 11:31, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- You talk a lot without managing to say anything insightful. Plutoniumboss (talk) 16:01, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- You didn't respond to any of my points, so I declare victory. Muahahahaha! PBfreespace (talk) 16:41, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- In fairness to him, at least he's a participating voter living in America. The number of Europeans complaining about/trying to influence the election is Too Damn High. Plutoniumboss (talk) 18:37, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- Well US elections actually matter to the rest of the world. Elections in most of the world don't matter much (unless you have friends or family there) but US elections have a very real potential to lead to nuclear war if they go wrong. another +++Swedish+++ conspiracy by +++Laurogeita Hamabost+++ 20:08, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- In fairness to him, at least he's a participating voter living in America. The number of Europeans complaining about/trying to influence the election is Too Damn High. Plutoniumboss (talk) 18:37, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- You didn't respond to any of my points, so I declare victory. Muahahahaha! PBfreespace (talk) 16:41, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- You talk a lot without managing to say anything insightful. Plutoniumboss (talk) 16:01, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- You're so fucking edgy, PB. Not only have you been rooting for a Democratic defeat this whole election, but you're ignoring the possibility of a House Republican revolt against Ryan. Paul can't work out a deal with the Dems, either, he'll wind up like his predecessor. He's flying by the seat of his pants, and it's all highly dependent on how the public takes to a Clinton administration. He lacks the principled leadership you seem to want to attribute to him. Plutoniumboss (talk) 02:38, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- Paul Ryan's plan is masterful. He knows Donald Trump won't win this election, so instead he's focusing on maintaining his party's majority in the House and Senate in order to stop Hillary Clinton from being able to get any signature laws passed. Although the Democrats would likely retake the Senate in 2018, she won't be able to get very much done due to the Republican obstruction. This may result in the Republicans winning in 2020 with a better candidate, handing over complete control to the Republicans. Certainly a long-term strategy that beats the Democrats' short-sighted presidential and centrist thinking. PBfreespace3 (talk) 21:32, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
- I voted for Obama in '08 because John McCain was old and Palin was dumb, and being President is a stressful job where you don't often get a whole night's sleep. It was more a case of competent vs. incompetent. I'm amazed that a former POW who got tortured has made it another eight years, but I still recognize it as a legitimate decision based on information I had at the time. I'd probably still vote for Obama, twice, were I to relive that period again. --Maxus (talk) 00:35, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
- It ultimately comes down to change vs status quo, and how pissed off people are on election day. It is not unlike at all people who voted for Obama in 2008, an unqualified neophyte because they were so desperate for change.nobs 00:06, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
- Significant numbers of Republican congress & governors are backing away from Trump & this is likely to be reflected by (or influence) Republican voters. I don't think anything very similar is happening with Clinton's Democrat base of support. ωεαşεζøίɗ
- The real news is, America is likely to be at war before inauguration day. nobs 23:41, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- I would say that it would be a mix of the latter part of option 1 with option 3. I doubt the scandals are doing anything in particular since I only ever hear them mentioned by the other candidate's supporters. Take for example the most recent scandals on both sides, the Podesta emails are mostly being brought up by Trump supporters even though various outlets are covering it while the Trump tapes are being brought up by Clinton supporters. The only people whose voting choice seems to be affected by these scandals are the Religious Right and "Bernie or Bust" voters but neither of them particularly wanted to vote for the candidate they are supposed to get behind and they are a minority; it is possible that either faction could help sink the main candidate but they won't be the only reason for it.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 21:24, 10 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)
- Donald Trump: Fixing Things: How Having The Smart People Will Get Government To Start Working Again Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:48, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
- Broccolini - how liberals force Americans to eat kale, broccoli and other fascist food I am not the Ombud's man 21:52, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
- David Icke The Zoo Keepers: Exposing The Satanic UN Link To Terrariums Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:01, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
- Murdering McKinley - hey you read "my" other two books about Presidential assassinations so suck it up by Billo the Clown I am not the Ombud's man 22:06, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
- Bananas and other evilutionist nightmares by Ray Comfort-(Ir)RationalWikian (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? 173.71.121.36 (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. 173.71.121.36 (talk) 07:53, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- Why? I am not the Ombud's man 01:45, 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)
- 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)
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] Kill the coop.
- This discussion was moved to RationalWiki:Chicken coop. Wëäŝëïöïď
Methinks it is a Weasel 08:13, 12 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. 82.44.143.26 (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. ωεαşεζøίɗ
Methinks it is a Weasel 21:12, 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. ωεαşεζøίɗ
[edit] So...
we all know that Mexico is undergoing a big, giant and amplified series of undending Headless Chicken Modes right now. How long has this been going on? Since Luis Donaldo Colosio[wp] got ganked? Since the beginning of Spanish conquest? The end of the Mexican Revolution? The frigging Drug War? Irredeemably stupid politicians? RatWiks, how do you think began, and what are your hypothetical solutions to the unending barrage of death and economic collapse? Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt Noooooooo! Look! Up there! 20:17, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- Well, the Spanish empire did no favors for law and order. Same in Greece and Italy. They're aren't criminal by nature, but there is a sneaking regard for the sort of person who defies the law. Plutoniumboss (talk) 20:56, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- PB that's kinda racist-y. IMO: The endless power struggles within Mexico are to blame. Mexico has barely been a democracy for two decades; it and Nigeria (another resource-rich emerging democracy with dictatorial past) share many problems. The culture of rule of law in the US, Britain, Europe is substantial. Hence why we have sovereign citizens -- law has, in its own way, become so powerful as to become magic. Mexico, Nigeria, many other developing nations have usually not had this luxury. </armchair sociopolitics> Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 04:34, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- I definitely agree that incidents like Waco (and to a greater extent prohibition) changed the way we looked at authority figures.
- Let me just add that Americans are head over heels in love with organized crime figures. In fact, I'll never forget one story. There was this famous sex symbol in the nineties, Linda Forgethername (she was in The Last Seduction). She was blacklisted because she and her G-man boyfriend (another Italian-American) bugged some private dick's phone so she could do research for a role. It's just silly stuff like that. I live in NYC and see it often with our city officials. They like to believe they're goombas even though they're small-time and always get caught very easily.
- This is anecdotal stuff which sprang to mind when Zex mentioned Spain. Not trying to offend anyone, hope I didn't. Plutoniumboss (talk) 16:43, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- One of the biggest problems in Mexico imho (besides its shitty politics) is the extreme inequality between the richest and the poorest. Now Mexico is by no means a "developing country"; it is on that weird step between "first world" (like its Northern neighbor) and "third world" (like Central America excluding Costa Rica and Panama). But in Mexico you will find wealthy oil CEOs that fly to meetings in their private helicopter to people who are working three jobs and are still hit incredibly hard when the metro-fare is raised from 3 Pesos to 5. Now the French revolution may have been caused by an inflexible regime and a largely dispossessed and put upon peasantry, but what was at the root of very close to every single radicalization of that revolution were the urban poor of Paris. Unlike most urban poor in history, those were well read and they cared a lot about who was in charge and what the constitution said and without them, the National Assembly would have likely produced a constitutional monarchy with guys like Lafayette in charge and that would have been it. But the Parisians would not let that happen. Now in Mexico there are several armed conflicts, some of them related to drugs and some related to poor peasants without much perspective, but the current PRI-led government will not fall because of one of those things. They might lose the next elections (if those are even half free and the opposition does not split the vote as they so often have), but the likeliest cause of a PRI downfall imho is a dissatisfied urban poor mob calling for bread and the likes storming the presidential palace. another +++Swedish+++ conspiracy by +++Laurogeita Hamabost+++ 18:28, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- PB that's kinda racist-y. IMO: The endless power struggles within Mexico are to blame. Mexico has barely been a democracy for two decades; it and Nigeria (another resource-rich emerging democracy with dictatorial past) share many problems. The culture of rule of law in the US, Britain, Europe is substantial. Hence why we have sovereign citizens -- law has, in its own way, become so powerful as to become magic. Mexico, Nigeria, many other developing nations have usually not had this luxury. </armchair sociopolitics> Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 04:34, 13 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. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (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!-(Ir)RationalWikian (talk) 23:38, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- Sounds like a good idea. another +++Swedish+++ conspiracy by +++Laurogeita Hamabost+++ 21:41, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
RationalWiki:Mission. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (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. ħuman
04:15, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- mangling
- 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. FU22YC47P07470 (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. ħuman
17:09, 17 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. ħuman
- Boys, boys! You're both right! Now kiss. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:36, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
[edit] Racialist BON: The irony
- This discussion was moved to Talk:Racialism.--JorisEnter (talk) 18:13, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
[edit] Weird spambot
Y'all need to look at this FB account https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100011317243864
It appears to be a spambot, whose sole purpose is to post RW tallkpages. 197.89.55.18 (talk) 04:09, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- She/it's using If This Then That (IFTTT). Maybe it's just a badly programmed script. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 15:30, 14 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. 166.216.165.55 (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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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. 166.216.165.55 (talk) 10:20, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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 Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (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?) FuzzyCatPotato of the Mediocre Lens caps (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. ħuman
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)
- 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. ħuman
- 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)
- 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?) FuzzyCatPotato of the Mediocre Lens caps (talk/stalk) 15:45, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Steven Novella's response. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (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)
- 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)
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. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (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? ħuman
18:29, 17 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)
- 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)
- See Hell House, my Swedish friend. Spud (talk) 09:24, 15 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)
- 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)
- 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)
[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
lovecringe? 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. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ
Methinks it is a Weasel 21:06, 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. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- And it's pro-Trump! What's not to
- 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)
[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? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:55, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
[edit] Maddox shits on "alternative news site[s]"
Would this be worth inclusion on an article? If so, which one? Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (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. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď
Methinks 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. 173.71.121.36 (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)
- 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. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď
[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. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (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)
- He also shat on Sargon. (Check the bottom of that article.) Good man. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 00:05, 17 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)
- 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. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, 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. 173.71.121.36 (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)
[edit] NatWest freezes RT(Russia Today)'s UK bank accounts.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37677020
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)
[edit] Good news everybody
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)
- Looking up the term on Wikipedia page there is mention of 'A Patchy Server' 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:06, 17 October 2016 (UTC)