# User talk:Eira

Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>, (new)

##  The email from Puellanivis (me)

This email exchange has been moved to User talk:Eira/The Letter.

##  Capitalization

Wait, we have a template for Bad Religion??? Man, I love this place!!! The Spikey Punk I'm punking my punk! 23:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

##  Creationism as a valid hypothesis

Creationism is not a valid scientific hypothesis, since it violates methodological naturalism by positing the necessity of God's involvement. ListenerXTalkerX 19:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

She's been involved in this discussion on a Whorehouse of Shit. I don't wish to speak for her, but my impression is that, while you're correct that the existence or non-existence of a deity is not a testable scientific hypothesis, Eira would accept that some of the hypotheses creationists assert as downstream corollaries to their belief in a god (and all the contingencies they place on the belief) are indeed testable. Nobody seems to bother, but that's another matter. Some specific creationist hypotheses are falsifiable and have been falsified. That's enough to make the general claim that creationism is at least theoretically within the realm of science. Most of it's rubbish hand-waving and post-hoc story-telling using a synthetic language calculated solely to support a single viewpoint. I don't think any creationist hypothesis is a "valid scientific hypothesis," but I'm steeped in "anticreationist" bias. 19:42, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
My view, as I expounded here, is that if the creationists did not make God's involvement a necessity in their hypotheses, they would be valid even though they were falsified; this is what separates the old flood-geologists like Niels Stensen from the new ones. ListenerXTalkerX 19:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
The statement isn't that it isn't a "valid SCIENTIFIC hypothesis", but the statement was that it isn't a "valid HYPOTHESIS". It is clearly, plainly, and patently a hypothesis.
Now, to assault your premise that "methodological naturalism" is a prerequisite for a valid scientific hypothesis. If a god actually existed, then such a restriction to scientific hypotheses would be wrong. Thus, the hypothesis that a god exists and may have done something is nonetheless a valid hypothesis. Just because it isn't a naturalistic hypothesis does not make it by nature or definition invalid. The assertion: "God created the Universe" is a valid hypothesis, whether you wish to admit it or not due your desired exclusion of the preternatural, and supernatural. After all, the positing the existence of an aether as the medium through which the waves of light propagate is and was accepted as a valid scientific hypothesis for a long time. It's wrong, but nonetheless a valid hypothesis. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 21:28, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
If a god actually existed, then such a restriction to scientific hypotheses would be wrong. Uh, right; surely all the theistic scientists of the past (who called it natural philosophy) held that view. The distinction is between what happened in the natural sphere (science), and what, if anything, caused it in the supernatural sphere (religion). By these tokens our modern science is silent on the dispute between theistic and atheistic evolution.
After all, the positing the existence of an aether... The luminiferous æther was an altogether natural concept. ListenerXTalkerX 00:00, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
My point is "goddidit" is a possible explanation, thus it is a valid hypothesis. That modern science limits itself to only naturalistic explanations, due to a presumption that that is all that there is, is true. However, the actual presumption that nature is the only thing that exists is not known to be true. (I certainly believe that holding that presumption is the best choice to make, and that positing the existence of the supernatural and preternatural is unwarranted. That does not however make my assertion "The Truth".)
It is however a valid philosophical statement that if a god were to exist, then such a restriction applied to scientific hypotheses would be wrong. As an example, let's take the fictional world of the RPG World of Warcraft. Positing in that world that the only valid scientific studies were naturalistic explanations, you would fail to account for the very real and evidenced existence of magic in that world. And as such, this is my point: "valid" does not say anything about right or wrong, correct or incorrect, true or false, it says if the statement, hypothesis, or proposition is "well-formed" (the conclusion follows from the premises). Please review the term "Validity".
We rightfully reject Creationism in science not because the argument isn't valid, but because it is not sound. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 16:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
I think you are confusing methodological with philosophical naturalism. No matter how much creationists want to pretend otherwise, the uniform laws of physics are conclusions drawn using the scientific method, rather than presuppositions thereof; theoretically speaking, science would have no problem positing modified laws to incorporate World of Warcraft magic.
On the other hand, if YHVH were to start picking up boulders, breaking them with rods of iron and dashing them in pieces like a potter's vessel, science could only go so far as to say that boulders were rising into the air and falling back down. The supernatural part would have to be left to the theologians. Creationists, on the other hand, would insist that the boulders could only be exhibiting that behavior due to supernatural agency, categorically ruling out any natural explanation. That is not science.
Please review the term "Validity"... Using the term "valid" in its formal sense does not apply there, since an hypothesis is a proposition or sentence rather than an argument. In the informal sense, you are right to say that such an hypothesis is "valid" in that it is well-formed and consistent, but it is not a "valid" scientific hypothesis under any circumstances. ListenerXTalkerX 04:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
You have made a contradictory argument in that science could work within modified laws to incorporate World of Warcraft magic, but you fail to acknowledge that science could work within modified laws to incorporation purposed Real World magic. Please explain why one magic is ok, and the other is not acceptable. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 19:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
I do not know much about World of Warcraft, but am I correct in surmising that this is "mechanical magic" that does not involve any supernatural elements, such as calling on a demon? ListenerXTalkerX 04:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Dude, there is a whole class that is devoted to calling up a demon as a servant. My point is that in a universe where the supernatural exists, that any scientific philosophy that rejects the supernatural would be false, or at least insufficient. I am making a valid argument here, my conclusion follows from the premises... However, in this world we have no reason to suspect that the supernatural actually exists, so the argument is most likely unsound... but its only unsound in a universe where the supernatural doesn't exist. So again, creationism is still VALID, but there is no reason to believe it is SOUND in this universe. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 08:03, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
My lady, I prefer to study the material that the game-writers rather clumsily rip off. Please restrict the scope of my previous statement to the mechanical spells, which breach the uniformitarian conclusions but can be examined in full without violating the naturalistic premise.
You are still confusing methodological with philosophical naturalism. Science, in itself, must be completely silent on the question of the supernatural; that is what "methodological naturalism" means. This makes the question of its efficacy entirely independent of the question of whether the supernatural exists. Science does not pretend to be anything but "insufficient" with regard to supernatural questions. ListenerXTalkerX 05:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
If I am confusing methodological with philosophical naturalism, then actually phrase the sentence in a way where such an equivocation is not possible: "Creationism is a methodologically invalid hypothesis in science." --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 21:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

##  Spacing

HTML ignores all but the first space unless you use "     " (look at the code to see it) Him (talk) 01:42, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

HOLY SHIT! Somehow I managed to get all the way through a Bachelor's in Computer Science, and never learned this key bit of insight! Also, like, how IE will elide all whitespace between two XML tags. This fact, however, does not change the fact that proper English punctuation and writing some random sources and common convention dictate that two spaces should follow all periods and the following word. After all, HTML is not the only way that an article can be rendered... only the most common. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 05:36, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Just happened on this: Why you should never, ever use two spaces after a period. ... Every modern typographer agrees on the one-space rule Him (talk) 19:09, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
I've never heard of any "two space" rule (indeed, I don't think I've ever read a document that was done like that) except on one instance where I read a Wikipedia MoS thingthat said to use two spaces in wiki code. This fits in with the above article's point about non-proportional fonts. narchist 21:25, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
From your article Him, "We would never accept teachers pushing other outmoded ideas on kids because that's what was popular back when they were in school." Then we should spell "later" "l8er" now? At some point, teachers must teach to a consensus that everyone uses. If the majority of the English speaking world uses double spaces, then naturally it is what people should strive to get their students to use. As for the author of that article, he removes spaces from his column, but fails to realize that HTML renders it as a single space. Computers have long since picked up the ability to correct text from a raw text input into a glowing representation of typological purity. The multiple spaces that anyone inserts automagically becomes only a single proportional space, thus eliminating the "ugly" that he claims exists when using double spaces after periods. Now, however, he points out that double spaces are desirable for monospaced fonts, which in fact are not as rare as he makes them out to be. In fact, every webbrowser has a font default for monospaced text, and I believe the <mono> tag does this. <mono>Am I right?</mono> So, in actuality, the double space rule should be followed, and any rendering text should represent it into only a single space for a proportional font. This is absolutely trivial in fact for kerning, because you can set the kerning of a space character following a space to be negative-the-width-of-a-space. Viola, now your program doesn't even need to be special to draw it properly, it just needs to draw text.
Computers actually take Arabic text in a single form each. That is, each letter is written plainly in order. The font drawing is what takes care of picking the proper form (initial, medial, final, isolated) of the letter and drawing it where appropriate. The same with ligatures. There is no reason why your font doesn't turn the "st" characters into the "ﬆ" ligature beyond simply not supporting it, or the ligature feature is turned off. So, again, the complaint of "zomg, they use double spaces, and that makes the text look ugly" is trivially wrong, as modern computers already do a lot of stuff to fix our text to be typographically beautiful. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 21:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Eira, I'm afraid you're out of date. Two spaces after punctuation dates back to mechanical typewriters and was usually part of the manuals of style during that era. In the electronic age, it's no longer necessary. Saying it's a rule of "proper English punctuation and writing" is just wrong. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 22:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
There's a good WP article on this very topic. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 22:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Fixed the section. Honestly, I'll point out again why I think it's stupid that the Slate.com person is complaining about the double spaces in the text that he will eventually put into his article, that will be rendered as single spaces: due to the way HTML works, no one will know if you're using double spaces or single spaces (which is the way computers should handle this matter.) However, a large number of people still use monospaced fonts for various purposes on computers, and using double spaces and having proportional fonts automatically account for this and rendering the regex /[.]\s+/ as ". " is what should be done. I think it would be cool if the wiki automatically converted /--/ to render as "—" (an em-dash). The Esperanto Wikipedia already auto-converts the various "cx", "gx", "hx", "jx", "sx", and "ux" to "ĉ", "ĝ", "ĥ", "ĵ", "ŝ", and "ŭ", respectively. Basically, computers are super crazy smart anymore, and arguing about what logically consistent input should be given that will all programmatically be reduced to the same visual result is pointless. (However, the change I made replaced an entirely absent space after a period with two spaces.) --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 23:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

##  Jack London about bigotry

"She would never have guessed that this man who had come from beyond her horizon, was, in such moments, flashing on beyond her horizon with wider and deeper concepts. Her own limits were the limits of her horizon; but limited minds can recognize limitations only in others. And so she felt that her outlook was very wide indeed, and that where his conflicted with hers marked his limitations; and she dreamed of helping him to see as she saw, of widening his horizon until it was identified with hers."

(Martin Eden)

--Idiot number 59 (talk) 12:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Such a quote is a dual-edge knife... because his perspective is no more special than hers. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 04:03, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

##  Fishing Expedition

Yes, you are absolutely correct. RagTopGone sailing 06:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

##  Questions regarding your run for board member of the RationalWiki Foundation

Congratulations on your nomination to appear on the ballot for board member. I've created a section with questions for you. RationalWiki_talk:2010_board_of_trustees_election/Election_booth#Questions_for_the_candidates ~ Lumenos (talk) 02:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

##  Thanks

Good catch. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 18:28, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

##  E-mail

Could you please e-mail foundation@rationalwiki.org with the e-mail address you would like to use for communicating on RWF issues? Tmtoulouse (talk) 16:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

##  Vanessa Carlton

Click for flash concert. What's your favorite song? ~ Lumenos (talk) 00:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

##  Jimmies iz Brown

And of course,

well... if the "cool kids" are doing it...

I was gonna jump off a bridge with them, but it wasn't high enough
I was gonna drive in a car with them, but it wasn't fast enough
I was gonna fly to the moon with them, but it wasn't high enough
I was gonna sit down and talk with them, but they weren't interesting enough
there, I wrote a pottery for you ħuman 07:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

EWwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww he's hitting on me... >_< lol *jk* --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 10:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

##  RWF

As a fellow member of the RationalWiki Foundation, you may want to chime in here. Thanks. AnarchoGoon Swatting Assflys is how I earn my living 23:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

##  Street harassment

Considering discussions on talk:Sexism I thought you might be interested in this article. narchist 13:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

It's a frustrating situation, because there is little that can really be done about it. As long as women are undeniably biologically weaker than men, it is the case that if men want to assault/harass women in public, then what are we going to do? We can't really stop them. I applaud their efforts, but one need think about how reasonable a solution would be... really, the only solution is to effect a change upon culture that makes men not want to do it in the first place. (I personally vote for being accepting about guys reading pornographic material, and non-accepting about them approaching women that they don't know. I call it the "distract the dog with a pork chop plan"...) As well, the article notes that 95% of the respondents to an online poll at stopstreetharassment.com say they have been the victim of street harassment. While I think nearly every woman (and most transvestites) have been victims of street harassment their poll doesn't say anything, because of selection bias. It's like taking a poll of people who visit lupussupportgroup.com and finding that 95% of them have lupus... Anyways, yeah, it sucks getting harassed on the street, but I would settle for just "safe" all alone. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 10:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
The "distract the dog with the pork chop" plan sounds very Sex Positive, actually. It's all about expanding people's opinions so that they don't just walk down the street and spot a bit of skirt and start drooling like a moron.
I agree about the selection bias, as that popped up on my bullshit detector pretty quick. This is a shame, because I don't think the situation can be solved by just assuming that 95% of all women have received equal degrees of harassment. You need information and proper data to assess it. Who does it? Who receives it? And so on. Is it really just builders and football hooligans or are you more likely to get harassed by some rich git City Boy who thinks his money and expensive suit entitles him to whatever woman he points at? With that sort of thing I think we could then figure what the underlying problem is. Whether it's something like a feeling of entitlement and possessiveness that causes it, for example, which would warrant a different solution than "these lower class yobs need to be put in cages". narchist 13:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
You get harassed on the streets? Are you that hot or are things different where you're from? Occasionaluse (talk) 13:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
They have very low standards around here. narchist 13:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Is it not a compliment type of thing either? Or is it just too crude? Occasionaluse (talk) 21:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
I think it's a question of style. Coming to a woman and saying "Hello, you are a very beautiful woman, would you like to go out some time?" isn't on the same level as "Hey baby, your ass is so sweet I need to eat a salat after I eat it!". The second reduces the woman to an object - of course there's a compliment in it too, but a flower in a pile is poop isn't beautifull either. Also, I second Occasionaluse's question (basically because I really wanna know). --UHMharassme 21:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I haven't been violently harassed at all on the street. I've had uncomfortable people compliment me uncomfortably, and I've had people compliment me comfortably. Ullhateme is pretty much on the nose, in that it depends upon style. If you're creepy, and say something creepy, then it's offensive. However, I've had older men (like 70's 80's even that I don't find attractive) that have complimented me and I've blushed, and appreciated it. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 05:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The "compliment" thing always bugs me because it seems too much like an apology for unacceptable behaviour. We wouldn't say "Hey, you should be glad you've been raped because you should be flattered that someone wanted you that much!!" - okay, so that's the fallacious end of the reductio ad absurdum trick. Still, if it's harassment it's harassment and if it's a compliment it's a compliment. I don't think there's much of an overlap to generate a place where "it's harassment but it's okay because it's complimentary", it's really one or the other, although the boundary between the is very Your Mileage May Vary and one person's creepy git might be another's dashing hero. narchist 08:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

##  Are You Kiddimg

Nothing funny about Glenn Beck? That fake news rodeo clown is hilarious! Soros, blackboards, abstinence balls, Mormonism! I was just linking to his fun namespace article to the main.--Mr. Bojangles (talk) 22:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm waiting for a turf war between Beck and Alex Jones to break out. Jones has already been talking about Beck being a NWO operative for some time (but who isn't in Jones-world?). Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Well they are both renowned for conspiracies, but I think Beck's Obama Soros union commie world domination secular progressive ones are teh funniest.--Mr. Bojangles (talk) 22:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Bull. Jones has the market cornered on the Grand Unified Conspiracy Theory. He's far closer to sprinkler lady territory. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Yeah. They're all so amusing to watch. Maybe Jones would beat Beck in the conspiracy realm, and Beck will lose much fodder in 2012 or 2016 when Oba.a is replaced (if Faux doesn't get enough sense to cancel him) and Beck would never criticize a Republican President. So Jones just might have this one.--Mr. Bojangles (talk) 22:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Hint: The excessive number of periods was supposed to make it clear that it was a joke... --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 00:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Uh huh. I see. Don't trick new peoplez, mkay?--Mr. Bojangles (talk) 00:43, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I tend to avoid that by assuming everything I disagree with is actually sarcasm. Works about 95% of the time. narchist 00:44, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Sounds good.--Mr. Bojangles (talk) 00:45, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
But is the "95%" thing sarcasm?? Or just Schlafly Statistics... Pegasus (talk) 00:53, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Plainly Schlafly statistics. Did you know that RationalWiki editors are 87 times more liberal than the general public of America at large, compared to Wikipedia's 6 times?--Mr. Bojangles (talk) 01:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Why no!! Are they also overweight?? Pegasus (talk) 01:04, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
We do _NOT_ censor people here! --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 01:10, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
lol Pegasus (talk) 01:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
You did. Just like the liberal you are. You are 87% more likely than a conservative to be obese now, 45% more likely to die young, and now can be equated with Adolf Hitler. Did you attend public school? I can tell with 95% accuracy if people did and am sure you did.--Mr. Bojangles (talk) 01:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

...confuses me. Where are all these libertarians you speak of? And why don't you want to turn over the means of production to the workers (capitalist pig)? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I need more context here to answer, because I believe that all corporations should either be co-ops run by worker's unions, or non-profits, so... what exactly are you talking about? --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 18:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, that clears up one part, but..."Instead of being a libertarian like most people seem to be, I am actually a socialist." How are most people libertarian? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:22, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I believe the operative part of that sentence is "seem to be"... I don't need to provide evidence to support said assertion, because it's an opinion of my perception. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 18:25, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Just seems strange to put most people under that heading...Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry that you find my perception of reality "strange"... but then that's never stopped me from holding opinions... --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 18:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

##  Arizona Tax Break

Re this, the linked article says "the US Supreme Court effectively declared Arizona’s subsidy of religious schools via a tax credit". Elena Kagan's dissent read (in part) "subsidize through the tax system", then there's "...slammed the courthouse door in the face of Americans who don’t want their tax dollars to subsidize religion". It seems at least three parties disagree with your edit! –SuspectedReplicant retire me 18:08, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh? So, if I donate money to a church, I don't get a tax discount? Isn't that indirectly subsidizing religion? The language used in a dissent doesn't mean much of anything, there have been dissenting opinions that have lambasted what is now well-established pieces of law, and everything else. It doesn't matter what the dissenting opinion about the majority opinion is... the majority opinion itself holds that governments can give tax credits to individuals who donate to organization that donate to religious schools... if that' "subsidizing religion" then I would really like to know how getting a tax credit for donating to a church is ok... or donating to any non-profit is ok... --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 18:13, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Sorry... can you rephrase? I don't understand what you posted. It's a subsidy and you deleted that it's a subsidy. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 18:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
SCOTUS ruled that the state can give a tax credit to people who donate to an organization that funds religious schools. It's the actual text of the article posted. If you want to call "donations" a "subsidy" then you're fine to use that language, but the government isn't subsidizing religious schools directly, they're subsidizing donations which are made towards religious schools. The government subsidizes all sorts of donations, why should this one be treated differently? Because it's to an organization that promotes religion? Why do we offer tax deductions for donations directly to churches then? --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 18:20, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
The taxpayer pays the same, the government receives less tax, the church gains money. Net flow of money is from government to church. It's a subsidy! –SuspectedReplicant retire me 18:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Again, no one is going to argue that the government shouldn't give a tax deduction or credit to church donations... so why is this one being blown out of proportion for what it is? The government isn't making the "subsidy" themselves, it's entirely driven by individuals and their interests. Thus it is not the government's discretion that is spending this money. Plus, this money could end up going to atheist schools, or Muslim schools, or even private secular schools. The government is endorsing a BEHAVIOR, not a religious sentiment. (I don't think the government should give any tax breaks to anyone donating to a religious organization in any way... but then that's my opinion and not the law of the land. This ruling does square up with the current laws of our land.) --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 18:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
That's exactly what I'm arguing. The government should NOT be deducting tax for religious donations. It's a subsidy to a religious organisation, which is against the law. At least four justices have their heads screwed on. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 18:45, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, you're free to hold that opinion, but it's still arguing against the entire history of law in the United States... donations to churches have always been tax deductible, precisely because religious organizations are tax exempt. You can't argue that four justices "have their heads screwed on", but their job is not to make policy, it's to enforce the laws... and the laws hold that making all religious donations tax deductible (or tax credits) is not promoting a religion and therefore ok, because that the government is free to promote religiousness, just not a particular religion.
So, again, the original description of the SCOTUS ruling makes it sound like this is some wild new interpretation of law, when this is not true. And in fact, I'm not even in Arizona, but if I donate money to a non-profit private school, then I get a federal tax deduction... even if that school is run by a religious organization. The government arguing that it has an interest in promoting charity. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 19:13, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Look, I don't have time to argue properly about this right now. The fact is that nobody (except you) is denying this is a subsidy. The court denied cert on the basis that taxpayers don't have a right to challenge tax deductions, only spending. This opens a huge hole for other subsidies. I suggest you read the linked item in more detail then head to SCOTUSblog for more info. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 21:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm not arguing that it isn't a "subsidy"... one can use a lot of technical semantics to define any transfer of money from the state to anyone else as a "subsidy". But just because it is a subsidy doesn't make it wrong or illegal. Again, to churches are tax-deductible (no matter what your deleted prior assertion may be). It's not a one-for-one "tax credit" but simply a decrease of your tax liability. However, it is not impossible that the government might choose to decrease your tax liability enough from charitable donations so as to make it a one-for-one tax credit. Again, people not the government are making the donations to pay for the tuitions of students, and the government is merely reimbursing those people for their charitable contributions. To point, the government is already "losing taxes" due to people donating to churches directly, so what the fuck is wrong with them "losing taxes" due to an even less direct donation rate. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 06:19, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
It's wrong because the Establishment clause says so. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 14:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
You're entitled to your opinions... this is however not the interpretation or opinion of the US government, and they have bigger guns. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 02:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

You seem reasonable enough, please indulge me:

• Do racists tend to use psuedoscience in proffering their claims?
• Is racism a crank idea?
• Does racism employ authoritarianism and/or fundamentalism?

Thanks! Occasionaluse (talk) 20:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

First question: Most certainly they have. yes.
Second question: I would say yes.
Racism absolutely employs fundamentalism, and often authoritarianism.
I honestly don't see how one could debate otherwise... --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 21:01, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks again. Considering your answers and our mission, do you think RationalWiki should analyze, refute, document and explore racism? Occasionaluse (talk) 21:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Well put Occasionaluse! It goes without saying that racist ideas should be rejected, but I find it a little disconcerting that so many of my contemporaries are willing to turn a blind eye and ignore the rise of populist far right parties in Europe, because they are 'offended'. Racist ideas spread like a bacterium, the gullible classes (ie, the majority of people) can be susceptible to foul ideas, all they require is a convinced demagogue and unemployment. What really gets my goat are groups like 'unite against fascism' which are basically fascist in their modus operandi and their perception, if they have any, of free speech and the free exchange of ideas. MarcusCicero (talk) 21:32, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
RW already does analyze, refute, etc. racism. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
I won't dispute that now, but do you agree that debate is part and parcel to analyzation, refutation, documentation and exploration? Occasionaluse (talk) 21:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Excuse my interruption. I would say we should allow racially themed debate. I'd have no issue with "Debate:Do white people have material and intellectual superiority?" It is merely the language that can pose a problem, as ListenerX points out at RW:CS; if a debate is phrased as an epithet, and could easily be rephrased as a proper question, than it should be rephrased. 22:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
That was basically my take on it. It's like making a debate question: "Debate:Why do evilutionists deny that Piltdown Man demonstrated that evilution is a fraud?" Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The point is, RW stands against irrational ideas like racism. Yes, racism is offensive prima facie, but we have deeper reasons to reject it than just "it's not PC!" I think phrasing the debate as "Do white people have material and intellectual superiority?" is not actually fixing the "problem". As an example, I point to a Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal comic... If a question is so blatantly counterfactual that the best possible rationalist answer is "no", then the debate is being phrased wrong. Rather, a "proper" debate title would be: "Why do racists think that whites automatically have a material and intellectual advantage?"

In my sociology class in college, (oh god, how many arguments end up valid when someone starts with this, amirite?) our instructor told us about a survey which has been conducted for a long period of time, and started off asking "why do blacks statistically make less money than whites?" (As a statistical fact, asking this question itself is not racist.) Some of the answers were: "They're stupider", "They're lazier", and "They do not have the same opportunities available." What was interesting is that there has been little change in response counts if you count the obviously racist answer (They're stupider) along with the less apparently racist answer (They're lazier). It's been called a form of "neo-racism"... an insidious racism that hides behind couched terms, not calling the people physically or mentally incapable, but simply unwilling to put in enough effort to accomplish goals.

Debate about racism is central and core to the RW mission, this is totally apparent. But if we treat racists any better than we treat Ramanand Jhingade then we're totally violating our own mission. Racism deserves to be broken down, denigrated and dismissed... giving voice to racists on our platform undermines ourselves. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 00:04, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Blue, Neb, Eira, I'm glad we all agree that racism is mission. However, I object to labeling such claims (e.g. whites are intellectually superior, have more money, etc) as false without them being debated - either way. If a racist comes and claims such a proposition, you don't freak out and delete it, you do what you'd do in any other situation: ask to see evidence. And if you want make the counter-claim that it's false, by all means, trot out the evidence.
I'm not comfortable in having rules for debate titles because it's like having rules for the debate itself. Saying you can't use a loaded question in the title (and that it must be deleted/changed) is like saying you can't use a loaded question in the argument (and that it would have to be changed/deleted). Either way, as an opponent, you're going to gain ground (and hopefully help out the other person out) by identifying the problem with the argument. If you don't accept the premise in a debate, say so. If you really are interested, tell the creator you'd first like to see the evidence for the underlying premise with which you do not agree. To me, that seems like the most rational thing to do, and (quite obviously, at this point) would have been the most constructive option. No bitching, no moaning, no deleting or blocking...just getting to the bottom of it and asking for the facts. What's wrong with that? Occasionaluse (talk) 01:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I object to labeling such claims (e.g. whites are intellectually superior, have more money, etc) as false without them being debated Should this argument be used against homeopathy? Should we refuse to label homeopathy as false without them being debated? You know, neglect that there is no mechanism of action possible in either homeopathy or "whites are intellectually superior" and require debate about the issue? We're not the source or origin of homeopathy debate, science has thoroughly trounced that idea. In the same way, science has trounced the idea that whites are intellectually superior. So, why rehash shit (and I use that word specifically by choice) that is already invalidated? Should we refuse to label "the world is flat" as false without debate? What in your mind is the threshold to throw arguments out because they're absurdly, and well accepted as wrong? --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 01:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
"Should this argument be used against homeopathy? Should we refuse to label homeopathy as false without them being debated?"
Absolutely, and I can't believe you don't agree. It's the most rational approach. If you say "Homeopathy is real", I'm going to ask you to prove it. If you don't prove it, and go on to say I haven't disproven it, it's a meaningless claim. I'm just going to say "you have no evidence". If you want to go on saying "but you haven't proven me wrong!", you're going to look like a jackass and everyone is going to see. But we don't just declare that homeopathy is false because we haven't proven it so. Or are you saying Russel's teapot doesn't exist? Because I'd love to see proof.
"Should we refuse to label "the world is flat" as false without debate?"
Uh...yeah. Don't you think you could manage such a debate? ;) It's a lot like how TOW wouldn't say the earth was round without a citation. A constant stream of bullshit to refute shouldn't be a problem for a wiki created to refute bullshit. [User:Occasionaluse|Occasionaluse]] (talk) 01:47, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
But it's all PRATT... I'm not saying that we can't refute them or debate them... but they've already been refuted a thousand times before, so why give a platform for shit that has already been argued to the ground? We're NOT going to add anything to the debate really. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 02:00, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
That's one of my biggest disagreements. If it's a PRATT, not only would it be trivial to refute, but of all places, it should be refuted here: the home of refuting bullshit. PRATT means that we don't refute it again, not that we don't refute it. Occasionaluse (talk) 02:03, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Shall we open the flood gates and wait for a thousand people to flood the site with the exact same argument that homeopathy works? And we can't close down the 999 copies of the same argument because "we can't dismiss it without debate". RationalWiki should not be a platform for PRATT, the arguments have already been debated and dismissed, we thusly dismiss copies of that argument without debate, because they have already been debated. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 02:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that sounds like a great plan for RationalWiki, but I don't think you're going to get the flood you expect. You can close down 9 copies of the argument once you've redirected (perhaps literally, in wiki terms) the 9 lunatics to the refutation. Would that be a bad thing, directing 9 lunatics to refutations of their claims? You can't dismiss a copy until you show what it's a copy of. Occasionaluse (talk) 02:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
So, we should just redirect "Debate:Why do whites ignore their obvious superiority?" to "Mainspace:Racism" then? Honestly, RationalWiki shouldn't be the platform to refute every idiot who has mastered CTRL-C & CTRL-V... whether the argument comes from some dick here on our site, or from Ray Comfort doesn't change the argument. So refuting or permitting idiots to start up debates declaring PRATT is pointless... if the debate wouldn't stand up as a Mainspace article, why should we allow the loophole for us to host their PRATT by debate? --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 02:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
It sounds like you're not saying I'm wrong, just that what I'm proposing is infeasible. If so, I'll make you a bet:
• We "open the floodgates" (what exactly does that entail, btw??? I propose a banner on main saying "RATIONALWIKI: NOW REFUTING ALL BULLSHIT")
• If we become so overwhelmed with bullshit that we can't deal with it, not only will we go back to the old ways, but I will donate \$500 to the RationalWiki foundation
Occasionaluse (talk) 02:45, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Such wp:A Modest Proposal... of course, you gain the benefit that RW isn't super popular, and thus it's possible that the situation might be tractable. The point however, is not that we can't handle the flow, but how we should handle the flow. We should not allow PRATT to build a sedimentary layer on RW by exploiting the Debate and Essay namespaces when the content would be blasted off of Mainspace in a heartbeat. Why give a platform to authoritarian, crank ideas, and pseudoscience? That is not our job, or purpose, in fact, it's the exact opposite of our mission. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 02:58, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Do you know how bug tracking works? Trust me, it does, but I can provide references. It'd be like:
• User proposes debate.
• Another user identifies debate as a copy of debate'. Merge/Redirect.
It's so much better for refuting/correcting bullshit and being a better resource than "NO, GTFO".
We obviously have fundamentally different concepts of what RW should be. I think we should give a platform to these people, because it's the only place we can be guaranteed to share the platform in refuting their bullshit.
Seriously, are you just going tirelessly to trawl the internet? "Aha! I found some bullshit! To RationalWiki!" Never you mind that whatever bullshit du jour you feel like harping on has already BRATT and that pretty much everything we ever do has been done more times than I have socks. Why not let them come to you? Because of the inundation? I'm not fucking around, I'll put my money where my mouth is. Occasionaluse (talk) 03:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I worked at Microsoft, trust me, I know how Bug tracking works. Your analogy fails though. Let me show you the better analogy:
• User proposes a bug.
• Another user identifies the bug as a copy of a different closed bug. New bug is closed as duplicate.
Or, Another user immediately identifies it as something that will not be addressed or resolved at all, then the bug is closed as "Will not fix".
I don't care that you're ready to "refute all comers", filling up RW with bullshit destroys our signal to noise ratio, and makes us as worthless as Citizendum... --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 03:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I still think you're living in fantasy land about people coming out of the woodwork, grinding us to a halt bringing up the exact same point 999 times a day. I'm still not convinced you really think I'm wrong, you just want a lazier solution. I also think it's bullshit that RW is somehow going to "fill up" with this shit and no one is ever going to be able to find anything. Whatever. Can't blame me for wanting to make this a better place that reaches a larger audience. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Honestly, I would rather not have cranks and quacks using our webpage to promote their woo... I don't care how small the pile of dogshit is, I don't want it in our house. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 18:24, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

##  Isn't that called emancipation?

(Block log); 00:28 . . Eira (Talk | contribs) changed block settings for Vagina (Talk | contribs)
Yea it's puberty humor, but I couldn't resist. --UHM, Your favorite pain in the ass! 00:34, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I have a boyfriend now, and I thought I would change the block settings so that he could get to it... >_< ---Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 01:47, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
03:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Just as an aside for anyone who cares, this was of course a joke... I am unfortunately not currently seeing anyone. *sob* --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 10:07, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Eira, you should try my dating service. If you think I am odd, well I can set you up with some people even odder than me! --Zack Martin  10:12, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
I think I would rather have every tooth in my mouth pulled out without any anesthesia than follow any recommendation you can give me for dating... --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 10:16, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Oh Eira, it was just an attempt at a bit of self-deprecating humour... --Zack Martin  10:37, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

##  Spaces around em dashes...

...should be used to facilitate more even line-wrapping; see the New York Times Manual of Style, page 96. ListenerXTalkerX 05:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Trouble with that is that line wrapping changes from user to user. Also, UK typesetting often uses the en dash with spacing rather than the em dash without. ADK...I'll agree your bevel! 13:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

##  Thanks

Thanks! I was always confused about that. I was taught Brutus but thanks for clarifying. +Wikipedia has Brute so it must be brute. Rationalize (talk) 00:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Project Gutenburg: William Shakespear's Julius Caesar has the line as: "CAESAR. Et tu, Brute?- Then fall, Caesar! Dies." And then there is the whole Wikipedia article on the matter. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 00:59, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

##  Jesus pl. Jesi

I'd spare you the Latin pedantry, but I see you recently inflicted the same on someone else, so maybe you're interested. Jesus is actually fourth declension, but quite irregular even there. I don't think the plural form ever appears, but supposing it followed the usual pattern, it'd have to be Jesus with a long "u". Beats me what the right English is, though. --Benod (talk) 01:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I was being a dork. ;) And in English it would be "Jesuses", as per the regular pluralization rules in English. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 01:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
I got a lot of practice blaspheming in high school Latin -- declining Jesus and his buds was an important skill. --Benod (talk) 02:02, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Trent has the address or alternately you can briefly enable wiki email. Nutty Roux (talk) 15:35, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Email has been enabled. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 15:51, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

##  Yeah, I'm done now...

I'm done with the Homeopathy joke, before anyone asks... --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 13:52, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Backing down now that Pi's the new sheriff in town, eh? EddyP Great King! Disaster! 13:53, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Not backing down from anything else... I'm talking about the reverting the Homeopathy article back to a blank version... no one else is carrying the joke with me, so I'm bored now... --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 13:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
I was joking about backing down due to Pi. Never mind, let's pretend this never happened. EddyP Great King! Disaster! 13:59, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
I would block you and me, and oversight the whole conversation, but no one has any rights anymore... --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 14:01, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Are you going to around much longer? - π 14:12, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
You mean, am I going to go to sleep soon? Hell, things just got interesting... I couldn't sleep now... --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 14:15, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Well I need sysops an the USians are not about. - π 14:22, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
I am a USian, but yeah, they're probably just waking up now (10:23 Eastern Standard Time right now) to a sight of pure devastation... and who's going to make sysops? --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 14:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

##  Some people hate Human

If that's about me, I don't. he's one of my fb mates. I just don't like the way he gets drunk and barges round the wiki like a bull in a china shop. I've tried not to use cratship to suit my favourites, as you can tell from my Superjosh comment. Totnesmartin (talk) 19:13, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Your very comment shows a direct contradiction. You're not giving human a sysop, because you don't like his behavior on the wiki, and yet you're not using the cratship to suit your favorites? And what of Nutty Roux? What has he done to deserve oversight? --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 19:15, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
And no the comment "some people hate human" is not directed specifically at you. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 19:16, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
thanks for that last bit. re Nutty, I skipped him and SR. The recent silly fight they had was also part of this whole stupid mess, so overlooking them both was for that. I may or may not have got things right today and it's good you're questioning me about aspects of it. TBH I've had enough of userrights being a popularity dickwave, it's time that part of the wiki was taken seriously. Totnesmartin (talk) 19:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
That's kind of the point... excluding people just because you don't like what they do to the wiki is or "they were part of this whole stupid mess" is taking their position ("our way is the way things are going to stay") and asserting that now the new way is the way things are going to stay, and you're going to lock people out of rights and management so that you can maintain this New Wiki Order. You don't have a mandate from the mob to give sysop rights to only the people you agree with... --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 19:32, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
I didn't invite SR to my user talk page to attack me and stir shit. I actually asked him to stop posting there but I think he told me to fuck off or something similar. The greatest extent of our scuffle was on RWW and was occassioned by him and some others running back there to WIGO and report on themselves in the shitstorm as it developed. I pretty much lost that fight when SR removed my rights and blocked me something like 3 times. I've written else where about me being in any way responsible for the Human/Blue bout that led to all this. But anyway, I can imagine Martin's response will be that either I'm wrong or SR's wrong or we're both wrong and that in any event Martin's only the temporary bureaucrat and all this will change ad hoc and ad nauseum until the revolution is over. Nutty Roux (talk) 19:40, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
(EC)It's not whether I agree with them, it's what they do on the wiki. as i said before, I have not picked my favourites. I hardly agree with ListenerX about anything, I even called him a Nazi once, but he hasn't been a drama queen in the last few days and has tried to help. I chose "active and useful" as the reason for sysopping people, and he's been both. Totnesmartin (talk) 19:49, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
@nutty - I am about to hand on this cratship, no doubt when I come back in the morning he landscape will have changed completely again. if i got you wrong, i'm sorry. the whole drama was too TLDR for me and at some point I decided to not care whose fault it all was, but just thought "a pox on the lot." perhaps the next crat will think differently. I haven't tried to be personal. Totnesmartin (talk) 19:49, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Here you argue that a particular action will cause HCM, and is therefore undesirable. But here you question my dislike for HCM. What gives? 20:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I argue that a parciular action won't stop HCMs. So, if someone's attempting to do this stuff to avoid HCMs, then they're not going to avoid HCMs. In fact, there will always be dispute resolution going on, because someone somewhere will always get upset and demand their grievances redressed. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 20:50, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Ah, so your position is that HCM is unavoidable (same here), but it is best to let it play out? I think our differences are centered on mobocracy - you firmly believe in it, while I believe it isn't the best way of running the wiki. On that I think we'll have to agree to disagree. 20:56, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't think it's the best way of running the wiki either, but I don't think it's the worst way, either, and since it was inevitable, I wonder what good reason is there to choose a different method? Is it demonstrably better? --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 20:58, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Question: When a system, let's call it mobocracy, allows it's own end, is said ending then fair and ok or unjust(ified)? --ǓḤṂ³ 21:02, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
It depends on if it succeeds at killing itself. If it does kill itself then it was fair, ok and justified. If it doesn't kill itself, then that also is fair, ok and justified. The fucked up thing about a mobocracy is that everything is legitimate. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 21:05, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Then … stop bitching about it? I really don't know what to say anymore. --ǓḤṂ³ 21:10, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
BECAUSE THE MOBOCRACY ISN'T DEAD YET. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 21:12, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Ah I get it now. I disagree, but I get it. --ǓḤṂ³ 21:13, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
And that is the glory of the mobocracy... --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 21:16, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
(ECx2)Well, nothing's going to be "demonstrably" better, because mobocracy has been the order of the day since the beginning. My position amounts to this: we should try to fix the problems of the mobocracy by establishing some non-mobocratic policies. Whether or not you think our problems need fixing (or are even extant) is where we'd differ. 21:05, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

##  Colloidal silver

Vote for Ron Paul, you know you want it! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:16, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

##  Take a look at......

Terrible to see a bunch of people calling themselves "Christians" sending profanity-riddled mail to a prominent atheist thinker. What happened to constructive, civil debate? (Warning: This video cannot be played in most schools, libraries, and workplaces due to extreme, uncensored profanity, and I am not responsible for anyone who gets in trouble............)--Lefty (talk) 23:29, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

##  Squabbles

Whatever your feelings about the current situation and your feelings towards other editors here, main space articles are not the place for your petulant rants. --PsyGremlinSiarad! 23:56, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

So, now we can't even do wandalism? WTF is wrong with this site anymore? --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 02:25, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
That wasn't about vandalism and you know it. Now either grow up or fuck off. --PsyGremlin말하십시오 07:10, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
What would you call it? δij$^{i.broke.it.}$ 07:12, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

##  Strange new feeling

I usually come here to argue with people-especially those that agree with me but in reading what you've done and said I actually like you. Human has his moments but you're really sticking it up their asses. People like you make this site worth it. Thank you. δij$^{i.broke.it.}$ 07:11, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Now kindly fuck off. :) δij$^{i.broke.it.}$ 07:12, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

##  http://images.starcraftmazter.net/4chan/for_forums/trolling.png

I believe it now. Well played. --62.142.167.134 (talk) 07:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

##  "pedantic" does not mean trolling.

No, but taking your pathetic hissy fit to main space articles does. Your lack of respect for the wiki is sickening. --41.133.33.197 (talk) 10:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Articles? (No assertion or argument is made about my revert war being trolling, as it was.) --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 10:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Trust you to focus on the important things. Article then, pedantic one. Still makes you a troll. --41.133.33.197 (talk) 10:51, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
And there exists no one on this wiki who is themselves clean to cast the first stone. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 10:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I will answer specific comments, and address actual arguments. However when a post doesn't actually contain any content beyond an attack, then there's nothing to respond to. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 11:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

##  You are unbelievable

Is there anywhere you aren't prepared to abuse your powers? PsyGremlin話しなさい 11:52, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I thought you Left and were Never Coming Back. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 11:56, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

You've been here almost as long as I, but we don't really talk alot. I always thought you were okay. I always thought Kels and Psy were okay. Don't let the bastards bring you down. P-Foster (talk) 13:54, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I've been watching all the shit that Human has gotten just for being popular. (As in well-known, not as in well-liked.) And this doesn't particularly strike me as all that bad. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 13:59, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
OBTW thanks for cratting me like two or there days before everyone was decratted anyways. It still meant a lot to me that you cared. :) --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 13:59, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

##  Clear

Thank you!!!! ħuman 06:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

whatever, fuck off ;P --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 06:22, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

##  Question?

Out of curiosity, where in Europe are you from? Spain? Rationalize (talk) 21:11, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry about how wrong you are with this question... it happened to me all the time at work. People would be all "I thought you were from Germany!" and I'm like "No, I most definitely am from Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA". I just have absorbed so much German culture that I am basically as pseudo-German as one can get living their entire life but one month inside the US. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 00:00, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm that way with Spain :). I understand, I was just curious because if you were from another terrority other than the UK in Europe I was going to say wow, you speak English way too well. Rationalize (talk) 00:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, like I said, it's a common assumption that people seem to make about me. I really don't fit the American stereotypes very well at all. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 00:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't really think there is an American stereotype- we're an extremely diverse country, probably the most in the world. But that's another discussion. cheerz king of the rats do you wanna kick it in the backseat? 00:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
There is always a stereotype of any type of people. True, you and I live in this world where we're not constantly exposed to stereotypes, but foreigners really are. For instance, I saw a study where subjects were told that they didn't really look American, and they found that natural born Americans didn't respond by ordering more stereotypical American food (hamburgers, fries, fast food etc) while foreigners in a fit of self-consciousness over compensated. Even though we may be diverse, there really are a lot of behaviors that are typical to Americans. (Have you had an opportunity to spend like a month or more abroad with actual natives? Interacting with Americans after that becomes a practice in holding back from shouting "Dear GoatThe Goat be Praised., you are one of the most arrogant and annoying people I've ever met" directly into their ear. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 01:05, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
You got a point. And yeah, I've lived in Spain for a month, different culture for sure. Diverse? Meh, not so much, although I didn't spend much time in Madrid. Barcelona, yeah, all kinds of Europeans there. king of the rats do you wanna kick it in the backseat? 19:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

##  The Horrors (mini-debate)

So say it's not like that and you won't continue to fuel such childish acts. --ǓḤṂ³ 23:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
But my entire sense of humor revolves around immature and childish acts... it's why I love Family Guy so much. And it's not like anything I can do can stop the attacks, admitting to what I did doesn't help, because they just turn that back against me... (and only leads to calls to act against my nature.) Really, the only solution acceptable to some people would be for me to disappear and walk into the sunset, but then that's just going to piss off my friends here. Frankly, confirmation bias fuels emotional rage so much so that nothing Adam does could ever get Bob to stop hating him. Sure, Bob will eventually wear himself out and stop wailing away on Adam, but it doesn't mean that Bob is any less sore about things, and any less hateful of Adam... it just means that Bob is too worn out to continue. And everything Adam does will end up just rubbing Bob the wrong way, and he'll just be sitting there waiting for Adam to slip up and do anything, anything and he'll lay in anew. I know the behavior, I've experienced more than my fair share of abuse in life already... --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 23:53, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
• If I walk the land a thousand years, I think I shall never see a greater monument to passive-aggressive butthurt.
 “”I met a traveller from an antique land Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone Stand in the desert. Near them, on the sand, Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command Tell that its sculptor well those passions read Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things, The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed. And on the pedestal these words appear: "My name is Ozymandias, king of kings: Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!" Nothing beside remains. Round the decay Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare The lone and level sands stretch far away.
Completely ignoring the BoN's overusage of the word butthurt, as it is so traditional to RW, and the lack of sourcing for that quote (I'm complaining out of interrest), I return to a conversation I completely forgot for a few days:
I have a mixture of "I don't give a fuck about your opinion unless you're trying to make a point" and "I don't care how you see me" feeling that I've picked up over beeing bullied in the ol' school days. (It is amazing how fast people stop being a pain in the ass if one simply asks "Do you feel better now?" after being insulted or simply behaving friendly as fuck even another person gives you shit all the time) But you're not the only person that ever told me that they simply can't "not care about it", so yeah, fight the fight if you find the need to do so. But doing it is my eyes a giant waste of time as in the end you gain nothing of importancs if not nothing at all from fighting people that either don't want to see your point, or are out to get you or are just bored with their lives. --ǓḤṂ³ 22:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Even saying "Feel better now?" can just make a person more upset sometimes. If they've made up their mind to hate you/do anything they can to tear you down, there really isn't much that can be accomplished at all. Granted on the school's playground people are usually so very poorly invested in anything that they'll typically back down once they've had their rant, but there are some people who are so "butt hurt" (yeah, so typical RW) that they make a life mission out of attacking someone/something... especially, when they find out that they can get a lot of attention for doing so. It becomes a horrible situation of "I can't defend myself, or I lend them credibility, but if I don't defend myself, some people might actually believe them." A good example is "American President", the incumbent President is being attacked by his political opponent, and saying some down right hurtful and tactless things, yet the President in the movie sees it as a no-win scenario if he tries to defend himself. It's like the Obama Birth Certificate crap as well... Obama released the birth certificate, but it doesn't matter how authentic it is, because every document has minor inconsistencies in them, there is always enough room to squeeze a conspiracy theory through. Basically, some people get so locked into their beliefs that it gets silly. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 22:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
You could try destroying all who oppose. --62.142.167.134 (talk) 22:52, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Last time I tried nerve stapling, all the other nations got pissed at me for "War Crimes" or some crap, and exterminated my nation. :( --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 22:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Yeah destroying all who oppose is more of "my" nations style...
Well, off course, if you deal with crazy people, trolls or people that need to prove that there penis length is enormous you're pretty lost. You could still pull a RationalWiki and make fun of them. --ǓḤṂ³ 16:19, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

##  abusing block powers to try and instigate continuation of HCM,

WTF, Eira? When!?!!? P-Foster (talk) 03:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

here's the logs and the relevant entry is: "(show/hide) 20:04, 23 May 2011 P-Foster (Talk | contribs | block) blocked Human (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 31 seconds (account creation disabled) ‎ (making constructive mainspace edits instead of contributing to HCM) (unblock | change block)"

... yeah, I know the joke is late. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 04:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, I for one, lolled. ħuman 04:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

##  Question

Is blocking people to send messages appropriate? The unbusinesslikeman of business 03:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

You're trying too hard to not appear like a sock. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 04:03, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Pa. The. Tic. *yawn* Nutty Roux (talk) 04:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Or maybe the sysop guide has an enormous "In Flux" at the top. The unbusinesslikeman of business 16:34, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
You forget, John - it's Eira. The rules don't apply to her. 41.132.103.55 (talk) 08:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Fuck off, bitch. To John, it can be fun but it is also silly. Use their talk page, it's easier. ħuman 08:49, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Alright then, thank you for clarifying. The unbusinesslikeman of business 12:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

##  Philosophy of language

What is the relationship of linguistic philosophy to philosophy of language again? Like that of cats to catfish? Zack Martin  08:24, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't start. Aboriginal Noise Theist, barely hanging by a nail 10:47, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I knew the analogy was weak when I made it. It was exaggerated as a hyperbole. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 22:42, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
So, what then is your current position on their relationship? The same as it was at the beginning? Or changed? Do the citations I presented change your view at all? Zack Martin  22:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm not getting into this mess again. TallMan has already criticized your citations better than I could: they're from non-notable people. I could come up with criticism from a Ph.D. candidate for why the Big Bang is a bunch of melarchy without even leaving this wiki, that doesn't make the citation a good one or a compelling one. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 22:56, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
You just went and created your own little mess on my talk page instead, about a different topic. Rather than arguing about whether an author is notable, how about arguing about whether their ideas are correct or not. I haven't seen any attempt by yourself or TallMan to engage what Das has to say, rather than just dismiss him as non-notable. And, if his ideas are wrong, surely you can find a cite (hey, even by a more notable author) that says the opposite? Zack Martin  23:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Unrelated topic was unrelated.
I did provide a cite to support my position... it was posted quite early on the talk page. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 23:32, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
You mean this? Even less notable than the sources I gave. Isn't even attributed to anyone. Zack Martin  23:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
It is attributed: "Source: J L Austin, Collected Papers (1961)" and J. L. Austin is notable enough to have wikipedia pages in a great many languages. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 23:42, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
It's obviously not a quote from J L Austin's collected papers in 1961. It says "lasting until the early 1960s"... how could something published in 1961 know that the 1960s would be the end of its heyday? And the "Source" doesn't even give a page number. Austin died in 1960 - how could he have said that it lasted "until the early 1960s"? Zack Martin  23:48, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Right, because quotes are the only acceptable sources in the world. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 00:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
No, because you are complaining my sources (in published books) are worthless because their authors aren't notable, yet your source is an anonymous webpage. Undoubtedly Austin is notable, but just because some random person on the Internet claims Austin as the source for their info (without any quotes, without even a page number), doesn't somehow make Austin's notability rub off on them. Zack Martin  05:24, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Let me explain the thought process that happened behind my objection. "Oh cool, Philosophy of Language... *reads* huh, yep." Later: "Oh, huh, 'linguistic philosophy'... interesting. I'll go check it out elsewhere... huh. That doesn't match up. Huh, that doesn't match up either. Huh, I can't find any immediate sources backing up that argument." I'm frankly done with the argument. The only sources you can come up with are of the form: "I can't be bothered to be rigorous in terminology", which I guess fully suits you from my experiences arguing with you.
I've already talked to a few people about how I'm sick of us letting cranks shit all over the walls here, and frankly, if this is how we're going to let RW be, then it's going to die a slow death caused only by itself. And if you're going to argue about "I'm not a crank", let me just remind you: if we had a Mainspace article on Maratreanism, you would be lambasted and edit warred off every single edit, and it would look just like our page on scientology or mormonism. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 23:31, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Madam Eira, Maratrean was just asking questions, I assume, like another crank we know. I agree you with the edit war thing on Maratreanism; wouldn't it get the treatment all other religions on RW do if it were there? --Colonel Sanders (talk) 23:38, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Exactly... so why would/should I (and/or RW as a whole) suffer a crank? It seems fundamentally antithetical to our mission. I would of course start a Maratreanism article, but then I would just look like a spiteful bitch. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 23:51, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Eira, you make the mistake of assuming that all my editing must have something to do with my religious beliefs. The "philosophy of language" has nothing to do with my religious beliefs. It's an unconnected topic. I am just trying to improve the article. Zack Martin  00:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

##  What about the creation of universe?

Hi Puellanivis. The above section title doesn't mean that I want to create a universe but just that I'd like to describe with your help as a pedantic, bitchy, native English speaker, how it came to existence. Or rather how it is possible that it existed always, as Carl Sagan suggeted in one of his TV interviews that I've seen.

The purpose of the enterprise would be tripplefold: (i) shut mute the creationists and crypto-creationists (like yourself) who still believe that the "big bang" ever happened, (ii) to provide a text book on gravitation for high school kids and astronomers, and (iii) to create a world level bestseller selling better than "Harry Potter" but based on truth discovered by Einsteins or at least Mileva Marić by which we are also going to "prove" a distastfully sexist proposition that in exact sciences women are way better than guys.

We can do it since now we have a scientific theory that may neatly support Carl Sagan's idea. I just wanted your opinion on my latest book propositions, one on my page and another on page refered to from some of your page, about debating something thousand times, and you ignored both. Not being a native speaker I didn't understand the hint and that's why I take your space to ask you directly. What would be you answer? I supect, "JJ fuck off", but I still want it rather from you not to leave it to a possible misunderstanding. JimJast (talk) 19:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

First, I'm not going to link to your crank shit on my talk page. Second, we have no idea how the "creation of the universe" happened, because we don't know anything about $t_0$ of the Big Bang. All we know is that all the evidence points towards an expanding universe (not just in stuff flying apart, but in the very expansion of space itself). You can't seem to understand any of this basic cosmology, which I as not even a physicist or cosmologist understand, so your attempts to attack the Big Bang fall upon deaf ears, because you don't have any clue of what you are talking about. You're attacking a straw man. (Posing believers in an expanding universe as "crypto-creationists" is ready example of this fact.) This is why I was trying to get you to say when your "crypto-creationists" believe that energy was created, because if the answer is anything after $t_0$, it's wrong because they don't assert any such creation of energy, and if it's anything at or before $t_0$ we don't know anything about it at all. Unicorns and gods and gremlins all could have existed at or before $t_0$ just like they could exist within blackholes, because we are completely unable to make any observations about them.
So stop labeling people "crypto-creationists" because you don't understand basic fucking infinite series, and divergent vs. convergent sums. You're an idiot, and your articles should have been taken down a long time ago for being nonsensical dribble. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 23:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with JimJast. I myself think many of his views are wrong. But there is something wrong with saying to him "You're an idiot" — that is a personal attack. Attack the ideas, attack the arguments, but not the person making them. Since you are standing for election as a moderator, I would have thought you would have understood this distinction, but sadly it seems you don't. Likewise, there is no need for swearing and calling his ideas "crank shit". There are plenty of constructive, polite, criticisms of his views which can be made (e.g., I myself think he has failed to really understand the theory of relativity, and has some very idiosyncratic interpretations of Einstein's work) — but there is no need to swear at him. Zack Martin  06:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Zack Martin , we just had an edit conflict and now I have to add two more colons to each paragrapf of my response to Eira :) who is basically a good and bright girl (sorry for patronizing) just a little bit quick in judgments unlike like we, the old timers. JimJast (talk) 09:03, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised.. Simple "no" would siffice. I just thought that you may realize that old JJ, repeating only what Feynman said, and thinking abut it for a couple of decades, living also in a socialist country for several decades, being interested not only in art, physics, and math in which while only 18 he won both national olympics (so girl, I could run loops around you if I wanted) but I'd rather saved your feelings, but also in social sciences, might know a few things that you don't.
BTW, did you check Rose Luxemburg and Leon Trotsky's works by now (as being a bright female of socialist persuasion you should). It might sraighten also your other misconceptions and to let you realize how bright even also some males may be, like eg. another Carl (or rather Karl). Then you might understand Ms Rand (the objectivist) better.
You have a lot to learn, girl, but since you don't want any help I'm not going to interfere. I just want to keep your spirit up by telling you that the greatest Polish writer of 19th century said: "who wasn't a socialist when young, becoms a pig when old", so I hope that at least you won't become one dispite your predispositions.
Thanks for responding so quickly. It saves me time, which I don't have that much. Now I need to look for another bright female, native English speaker, to write this book. Do you think that Blue is a right choice (if she agree)? We might fit better than we did with you and human :) JimJast (talk) 09:03, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
I presume that would be Rosa (or Rosalia) Luxemburg you are referring to?
Of course, who else? My mom pronounced it "Rose" in Polish ("Róża") so I assumed it was her most known name among her friends. A great lady, wasn't she. Too bad she was murdered by the likes of our mutual friend, "socialists" too.
Also, posting people's sigs by way of addressing them is poor form.
Sorry. I just copy them with their names togethers since I don't know (or rather don't bother to find out how to separate them while keeping the colors). I thought they prefer them this way, and it is also easier to find then on printouts, otherwise why would they sign their messages this way. JimJast (talk) 11:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Lily Inspirate me. 09:28, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Eira, I changed the beginning of my Essay "Gravitation demystified" just for you so you might understand it better. If you do, I'm happy, if you don't, too bad, I don't bother you anymore with "this shit" since as improbable as it may sound I like you for some strange reason. Just be carefull with your socialist friends since there is a very thin line (if any) between contemporary socialism and fascism Eg. NSDAP (the Nazi party) allowed no members of other parties except communists since they felt communists are their natural "Kom'raden"). So when you hear your socialist friend start singing "Kom'raden, die Rotfront und Reaktion erschossen, Marschier'n im Geist in unser'n Reihen mit", you are already in the wrong side of that line. Just a reminder from an old guy who saw many things in his life and remembers even the whole WWII which seen from Poland didn't look as pretty as from New Mexico. JimJast (talk) 21:33, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
You're equivocating. "Socialism" as I'm using it doesn't mean the repressive government-owns-everything that you are using. I could very well say that you pressing for Democracy makes you a part of the Stazi from the German Democratic Republic. Look at what a mess democracy made of that country, amirite? --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 23:08, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Wait wait wait... did you just say that the Nazis allowed Communists in their own borders? Did you even look at what people were killed in the concentration camps? Jews, Mentally disabilited, gays, and fucking communists. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 23:09, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Maratrean, I will respond as I so chose, and if you don't like it, then you don't have to vote for me in the moderator elections. I won't shut up or tone down my rhetoric just because you don't like it. As well, when someone tells me sexist bullshit like "Eira, stop being a litlle girl (possibly just playing with your pussy, though it might be nicer activity than straining you brain over science)" I don't feel any requirement to refrain from obscenities. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 23:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree that Jim should not be saying such things — I have brought that to his attention. But one does not need to swear at him to do so, just state the situation clearly and calmly.
In terms of my objection to your personal attacks, this isn't just my personal dislike, it is actually the community standards of this site which you are violating in doing so, Discussions here sometimes get heated, but resorting to personal attacks is strongly frowned upon, however justified they may seem.. Zack Martin  23:32, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Calling somebody an idiot isn't really frowned upon at RationalWiki, except apparently by you. Aren't you a little young here to be dictating to Eira what this community likes & dislikes? WēāŝēīōīďMethinks it is a Weasel 23:55, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Or is the problem that the "community standards" aren't worth the (electronic) paper they are printed on? That insider editors can do what they like, rules be damned? It says no personal attacks, and calling someone an idiot is a personal attack — maybe the standards should be changed to say some personal attacks are OK? If so, when are they OK and when are they not? Zack Martin  00:05, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Community standards are not rules; they're guidelines based on what the community does, not vice versa. & They don't say "no personal attacks"; they say "personal attacks are frowned upon" which ain't the same. My observation at RW is that the kinds of personal attacks which are really unacceptable to the community are ones which contain hate speech, threats, slander, etc. But calling somebody (new or old editor) a dick or an idiot is par for the course. If you disapprove of Eira calling JJ an idiot, you are entitled to do say so, but please don't claim to be disapproving on behalf of the community. WẽãšẽĩõĩďMethinks it is a Weasel 00:22, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
If you think those forms of personal attacks are OK, why don't you propose to edit the Community Standards to state that it is fine to call people a dick or an idiot. Maybe you could draw up a comparison of acceptable v.s. unacceptable personal attacks? Zack Martin  00:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
As Weaseloid pointed out, the guidelines are not rules, thus we don't need explicit exceptions about when violating them is ok. It's left that we can use our own goatThe Goat be Praised. damn judgement about when it is appropriate or not. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 05:03, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Furthermore, I'd say that from JJ's writings, he's empirically shown himself to be an idiot. ThunderkatzHo! 05:48, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
In other words, the guidelines might as well not exist, since anyone can substitute their own judgement whenever they feel like. Why not just delete them? Zack Martin  06:14, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
So what your saying is guidelines are meaningless unless they're mandatory? I'm not sure you understand what a guideline is. WèàšèìòìďMethinks it is a Weasel 07:44, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
No, I'm saying, guidelines are meaningless because they aren't mandatory. What's the point of having guidelines, rather than rules, since the idea of rules is that you apply them fairly and consistently, the idea with guidelines is you follow them when you feel like it and ignore them when you feel like it. What's the point of bothering with guidelines then, you'd better just dispense with guidelines and do what you want all the time. Same ultimate outcome, but more honesty. Zack Martin  08:36, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Lots of shared concepts are "not mandatory" but are not "meaningless". Why should something have to be enforced to be meaningful? "you'd better just dispense with guidelines and do what you want all the time". RW is a site where people basically do as they like most of the time, but guidelines are there as a frame of reference, so that new users have some ideas about what is & isn't found to be acceptable by the community. "Maybe you could draw up a comparison of acceptable v.s. unacceptable personal attacks". Maybe not, since such a list would be unlimited, pointlessly arbitrary, and create more problems than it would solve. This just illustrates why a rigid set of enforced rules would not be practical or desirable at RW. There's no set definition of what is or isn't a personal attack; it's a judgement call. You see Eira calling JJ an "idiot" as a personal attack, but don't seem to see JJ calling her a "crypto-creationist" as one. How is your view on this any less arbitrary than mine or anyone else's? Do you object to it because you think "you're an idiot" has caused JJ any genuine emotional damage or just because you've seen a page at RW saying personal attacks are discouraged? The real test of whether the community supports something is, well, whether the community supports something. & I do not think you will find widespread condemnation for calling somebody an idiot based on the idiotic ideas they express, but you are welcome to prove me wrong. I think that you will find most regular users would prefer a site where people are free to express their opinions about each other than one where people are afraid to do so for fear of offending or breaking the rules. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐMethinks it is a Weasel 09:14, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Reason is about setting up non-arbitrary rules and trying to follow them consistently. Of course, there will always be exceptional or unforeseen circumstances, but those cases need to be justified as exceptional/unforeseen, and the rules should then be adjusted to deal with those circumstances in the future. RationalWiki doesn't like rules because despite its claims to think highly of reason, it doesn't actually want to be a community govered by reason, just a community governed by mob whim. RationalWiki talks the talk, but it isn't willing to walk the walk. Wikipedia is much more rational than RationalWiki, because Wikipedia is unafraid to have rules, and to try to follow them (as imperfectly as it does sometimes).
I think the basic idea of a personal attack is quite clear. It is an ad hominem. It is when you attack your opponent's person rather than their ideas or arguments. I can't see why it's so hard for some people to grasp that concept. Ad hominems are generally considered, for good reason, to be a kind of logical fallacy. Yet why is a community which supposedly has a high regard for reason so tolerant of them? Its supposed regard for reason is a smokescreen for its fundamental disregard for reason.
The difference between crypto-creationist and idiot is simple — "idiot" is describing someone's person, it is stating that they have low intelligence; "crypto-creationist" is describing their beliefs. Idiot is a personal attack, crypto-creationist isn't. Zack Martin  09:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
"Crypto-creationists" is a personal attack, especially in the way it's used by Jastrebski. At the very least, it implies that a person is being deceptive about their beliefs, either towards themselves or the others - that they are either too dumb to realize what their beliefs are, or that they are liars. In addition to that, on Rational Wiki "creationist" has a lot of negative connotations and yes, it can be read as synonymous to "idiot".--ZooGuard (talk) 09:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
"RationalWiki doesn't like rules because despite its claims to think highly of reason, it doesn't actually want to be a community govered by reason, just a community governed by mob whim." The second part of this is basically correct, but you have a strange understanding of what "reason" is ("Reason is about setting up non-arbitrary rules") which makes most of the rest of what you say unintelligible. Wikipedia is a very different & much larger community than RW; what works on one, isn't necessary a good idea the other.
"'idiot' is describing someone's person . . . 'crypto-creationist' is describing their beliefs." Do you really think Eira wasn't referring to JJ's beliefs when she called him an idiot? JJ called Eira a crypto-creationist based on her ideas or beliefs, which he thinks are crypto-creationist beliefs; Eira called JJ an idiot based on his ideas or beliefs, which she thinks are idiotic. It's really not as much of a distinction as you think it is, and it's not an ad hominem fallacy to call somebody an idiot in the context of disagreeing with their opinions. If Eira had disregarded JJ's opinions based on something irrelevant, like him being a sculptor, this would be an ad hominem argument; calling him an idiot due to his opinions which she finds idiotic is not. ŴêâŝêîôîďMethinks it is a Weasel 10:25, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
The term idiot, by most dictionary definitions, applies to a person, not a belief. Wiktionary: "(pejorative) A common term for a person of low general intelligence."; Merriam-Webster, "a foolish or stupid person". So idiot is a personal attack. As to "crypto-creationist", it isn't commonly recognized as a personal attack. (Ask the average person on the street, "Is calling someone an idiot an insult?" "Yes". "Is calling someone a crypto-creationist an insult?" "Huh?"). Contra ZooGuard, I don't believe calling someone a crypto-X necessarily implies "being deceptive about their beliefs, either towards themselves or the others - that they are either too dumb to realize what their beliefs are, or that they are liars". Maybe they simply fail to see the true nature or consequences of their own position? (Not necessarily because they are "deceptive" or "too dumb" either.) And as to creationist being a synonym of "idiot", I am a creationist, but I am not a person of "low general intelligence". And Weaseloid, the essence of ad hominem is address the person rather than the argument. Even if you take "you are an idiot" to mean "your belief is idiotic" (why should we take A to mean B, when they are clearly saying different things?), calling people's beliefs idiotic is just a non-constructive content-free contribution. Insults are cheap; you are better off just sticking to the much more polite wrong. Zack Martin  10:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I thik Weaseloid is right while ZooGuard egzagerates (except dropping "z" from my name, which is not necessarily necessary but should be there to keep record straight). The problems with "idiots" ar obvious but problems with "ctypto creationists" are more interesting. They (CC's) are not volunarily such but only because of high complexity of the science that has to be comprehended to understand the issue. To simplify the issue one may say that creation of "something" from "nothing" is forbiden in physics, particularly creation of energy since there is strict "law of conservation of energy" that explicitly forbids such extravagance. The Big Bang hypothesie (that some call illegaly a theory) contains in it creation of enegy from nothing which showed up there out of desperation because some physicists couldn't imagine many things that today are easile explanable through the universe that exsisted always. Not by conservative scientists though who reject parts of Einsteins' theory as the relativity of time. For them time is absolute (though "scalable") while in reality it is not only "scalable" but really relative. That's the whole stupid issue. To explain it better I'd need an opportunity to discuss it with someone who understands at least enough physics to ask intelligent questions that I could answer. But it might be a long process despite I know most of the answers to most of the possible questions. But is around here anybody who is ready to discuss the cosmology? (Just asking). I know that there are many who think that the Big Bang is science. Mostly since they don't know the situation in science and in cosmology in particular and don't believe Richard Feynman when I quote his opinion about those matters even if I could give a word of honor that Feynman was not joking. JimJast (talk) 18:00, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

So, you understand convergent infinite series, but can't seem to grasp why gravity is a convergent sum? --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 07:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Step 1, dismiss an argument. Step 2, do it for a reason related to an irrelevant condition of the person making that argument.

Note that insults are not necessarily ad hominems... if the insult is used to dismiss an argument, then it is an ad hominem, however if they are not used to dismiss an argument, then it is not an ad hominem. Ad hominems can also be entirely civil. For instance:

Alice: "The sky is blue." Bob: "You have brown hair, so you're obviously wrong about the sky being blue."

An attack upon the person making the argument is not necessarily an ad hominem. For instance:

Alice: "Your appendix is infected, and you need immediate surgery." Bob: "You are not a doctor, and thus, do not have the training necessary to make such a determination. Therefore I am justified in being skeptical of your diagnosis."

And again, sometimes insults are peppered in and entirely unrelated to the argument, and are just fluff.

Alice: "The earth is flat." Bob: "Your assertion is false, and has been shown to be false based on lots of evidence. You are an idiot."

Note how the argument is just as effective without the insult. The the insult is rhetorical sugar rather than actual argument.

Some people argue that an assertion or argument make in an uncivil manner is wrong. Asserting that the statement is false because it is insulting or uncivil, is a fallacy of attack the style of the argument. As can be noted by the example: "2 plus fucking 2 is fucking 4 you shithead". It is apparent that the argument is still true despite being offensive/uncivil. Thus, any arguments about civility are about style and form, not about the arguments themselves. As RW has oft taken the position that uncivil and offensive arguments are acceptable as long as they're satirical or funny, thus the position that such an argument is out of style or format of the community is in fact false. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 07:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Civility in argument and debate is an important social value. RW is bad for society through its wilful and repeated disregard of this important social norm. RW is part of a general decline in civilized discourse (much broader than RW), and that isn't doing the world any good. In fact, RW claims to serve rationality or rationalism, but a decline in civilized norms of polite discussion is not good for trying to make society more rational or rationalist. So RW actually undermines itself; it commits a pragmatic (but not formal) self-contradiction. Zack Martin  10:16, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

##  Mobocracy against Total Noise

How we solve this problem? If we don't keep certain standards we are due to sink ourselves in total noise of every idiot (like eg. JJ) trying to impose his opinions on others. But is it a fact or just a cultural prejudice? (BTW are we allowed to discuss cultural prejudicies? It was not allowed in WP as supposedly there are no such things in the universe) JimJast (talk) 08:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

BTW, response to Eira about Nazis acepting "fucking communists" to their party (NSDAP). It was a fact I've seen in my own family. A guy, despite being a workers organizer in his youth, and being publicly known, uder his own German family name, was checked by Gestapo and forgiven his "youthful errors" and acted through the whole WWII period, against Nazis, as cypto Nazi and Russian spy delivering info about movements of Nazi's army through his network of other crypto Nazis despite each of them obviously risked life for what he or she was doing. Most survived the WWII and that's how I know about them. Also Goebels wrote once an article titled "To the comrade on the left". The Nazis considered themselves "rightists" but working for progress of the society as did the "fucking communists" as "leftists". That's why they "understood" the "fucking communists". And Eira might not that's why I'd like to pass it to her that often unexpected things happen as eg. now with the Big Bang and "crypto creationists" who simply don't understand physics so well as "JJ, the idiot" does. So it might be worth to find out what he is talking about from his own paper rather than some cultural stereotype. JimJast (talk) 10:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Your argument here is that Nazis had Communist spies and thus were friends with Communists? WTF? --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 07:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
And besides Eira, I'm admiring your courage when you are shooting from the hip, not knowing a thing about physics, counting on luck. And as they keep saying the luck likes brave people so why shouldn't I? If you knew more about physics you would know that infinite series are done in the first half of the first year but then you couldn't demonstrate your courage and then I wouldn't know less about your character so all well that ends well :) Now you have to decide whether you want to help "Jimmy the Crank" with his book which sould be rather written without Polish accent while even Texan accent is OK. So what about it pardner? JimJast (talk) 16:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
I couldn't possibly care less about you being Polish, as that has nothing to do with me disagreeing with you. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 07:12, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I know. But about those communists: Nazis were friends with them since obviously they didn't know that they were spies, but knew that they were former communists and hoped that they became good National Socialists (most of them were of German background). Out of those former communists one guy worked even in Gestapo and saved the first guy I was talking about, from certain firing squad, or worse, when a woman who was communicating with Russians on the radio got caught redhanded by the Wehrmacht and revieled that she works for the first guy. His story for the Wehrmacht officer who arrested her, was that they work for the Gestapo who is going to leave them behind the Russian lines to spy on the movements of Red Army and he (the Wehrmacht officer) may call the Gestapo for confirmation of the story, asking for such and such, which the officer did, and luckily, the guy who worked at the Gestapo, was there and this way he found out that the cover were blown and acted accordingly. He ordered the Wehrmacht officer out from the appartment a.s.a.p. and pray that the Getapo action is not blown yet by him showing in this appartment without an autorisation from the Gestapo, or they take care of him for interering with their operations without checking with them first. The officer got scared since in these times everyone was scared of Gestapo, and left without checking any further. The war in Poland was half over and the Red Army was already almost on the right side of the river, that splits Warsaw in halves. After the communist spy cell got dissolved and all those communists went over the river to wait for the Red Army and after the Red Army came, those communists got promptly arrested by the Russians which I've seen too. It turned up that the Russians couldn't believe that it was only luck that they didn't get caught by Germans for such long time (about 5 years). They were worked on by the Russians who tried to establish the truth, at Lubianka prison in Moscow. They returned to Poland after only one year investigation, after being well fed not to show their fate to unsuspecting observes for whom Red Army were heroes, still as communists. Russians needed the Polish communists then to hold power in Poland. Only the one who worked at Gestapo was send back to Poland with an order to put him into jail for further explanation of his story. He spend there 15 years. The Russians were not able to prove his working as a double agent, during the war. He got a bit sour though, but who wouldn't in his situation. I knew personally all those people since I was always there as some of them were my family. That's how I know (and also from the Goebel's article) that Nazis were not too vindictive towards communists and considered them the most readily convertible to National Socialists from all the "leftists". Don't you? :) JimJast (talk) 09:35, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
The point is that the Nazis would have killed them if they knew they were still communists. Saying that "XY was friends with Z" when XY would have killed Z if they knew that they were Z, but XY didn't because they were lied to or otherwise deceived doesn't mean that XY was friends with Z.
There's a film here of a black woman who has light enough skin that she was able to pass for being white. This was an enormous advantage in the racist country she was living in. Her deeply black mother kept "embarrassing" her by outing her as having a black heritage, and ruining her life. The end of it showed her mother showing up, but recognizing that her daughter had the chance to totally avoid racism by hiding her history, and introduced herself as her daughter's nanny. Now, the fact that the woman was accepted by society doesn't mean that the society was accepting of black people, it just means that she was deceptive enough to pass as an acceptable member of the society.
So, again. Arguing that the Nazis and Communists were best pals is a total misrepresentation of history bordering on "lie". --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 02:38, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
I think JimJast is trying to say that the Nazis and the Reds had a common enemy in the "Reaktion," the so-called "bourgeois" political movements, which they both considered to be ossified and outdated. The Nazis had been somewhat infected by Marxist thinking and believed that the "working class" were a better base of support than any other, and did make some efforts to recruit rank-and-file German communists, whom they considered to be suckers duped by the Big Nasty Jewish Conspiracy. ListenerXTalkerX 03:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
ListenerX is right, remember the song I sent you: "Kom'raden, die Rotfront und Reaktion ershossen..."? Stalin helped Hitler ("the best friend of workers" as he called him before WWII) at the beginning of the WWII not only with entering Poland from the East while Hittler attacked it in 1939 from the West but also with helping him with France, delivering fuel to Nazis tanks, until the idiot Hitler atacked Russia since he thought that those delieveries are to slow and need German efficiency. Stalin couldn't believe what was happening and ordered Red Army not to respond to Nazis attacking them. That's why there was such a quick Nazis progrss on Russian front. French communists can't forgive Russian communists till now. Niether themselves for helping Nazis with registering Jews for Nazis transports to concentration camps. Being a socialist you should look deeper into the problems that might show up when things go from bad to worse. The history likes to repeat itself that's why it's beter to know how it happened the first time around. That's why I give such a long introduction, starting from 1543, to the history of Big Bang in my essay. Did you read it? If not, how do you know that it's me who is an idiot? JimJast (talk) 14:25, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
First of all, I'm not a fucking communist. Second of all, just because the Nazis used the word "socialist" doesn't mean they were the same socialist that I am. Again, it was East Germany that was the German DEMOCRATIC Republic, not the west. Does that mean that because you, and I support democracy that we think that a secret Stazi police force abducting people without notice or warrant is a good idea? No. It does not.
You have an odd view of history... do you really think that Germany was cozy buddies and friends with Russia before WWII? They were yes, bedfellows, and had a treaty, but that does not mean that they supported each other. Nazi Germany was using Russian (do you understand this term of art? It means that they were telling Russia one thing in order to gain benefits from Russia that they had no intention of returning.) The same that the "ex-"Communist spies in the Germany government, etc were simply feigning loyalty and fealty to the Nazis, so the same Nazi Germany was stringing Russia along with the intent the entire time to betray them.
You appear to have a poor grasp of Russian military tactics as well... Russia fought much the same against the Nazis as they did against Napoleon. First, the Germans made fast progress because they made fast and unexpected assaults, it's not called Blitzkrieg because it was slow. Next, Russia is used to fighting invaders. With so much land, they withdrawn and burn the fields. The invaders have no ability to sustain themselves off the conquered lands, and thus have to continue to spread supply lines thinner and thinner, and Russia doesn't particularly care, because they have so much land that they could still produce sufficient food (by their own measures) for themselves, and they were going to lose the land anyways, so who cares if it is burned to the ground or not... It's called "Scorched Earth" tactics... it worked on Napoleon, and it really ate into the Nazis as well, especially when winter arrived.
Frankly, it seems like you have a preconceived bias and narrative that you're going to push despite any and all evidence or reasoned logic. And ListenerX, if having a common enemy was alone sufficient to create a strong bond between two parties, then we could match any and all Native American tribes against the Europeans, even if they were in open war against each other.
Oh, and as a final humor: "Kam'raden, die Rotfront und Reaktion erschossen", links die Rotfrontkämpferbund (the militant arm of the at-the-time Communist Party of Germany) alongside the Reaktion, not alongside the Germans. Specifically, "The Nazi Sturmabteilung and the Communist Red Front fought each other in violent street confrontations, which grew into almost open warfare after 1930." Wow... what a wonderful pairing there was between Communist and Nazis... they kept open arms out to each other! (Get it? A pun!) --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 05:11, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
P.S. oh yeah, and Stalin calling Hitler "the best friend of workers", guess where the Sovreign of the UK got the title of "Defender of the Faith"? Hint: it was from the Pope awarding it to King Henry VIII, for defending Catholicism against the Protestants... of course, King Henry VIII almost immediately departed his entire country (England) from Catholicism not much later. Of course, he liked the title, "Defender of the Faith" and thus kept that title, despite objections by the Pope. Why? Because now the Pope didn't mean anything. So, quite literally, the title "Defender of the Faith" was awarded to someone who would shortly commit such heresy as to install himself as the supreme head of his own Christian church. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 05:17, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
I, for one, am not against Turtle Noise. ŴêâŝêîôîďMethinks it is a Weasel 17:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
This reminds me that there was a lot of turtles in Warsaw during the WWII since Poles were staeling them from transports sent to German Army for turtle soup (that didn't need refrigeration and were not too quick to ecape). I myself had one for a while but it manged to escape. Wich may tell somehing about speed of JJ at his joung years. JimJast (talk) 13:55, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

##  What is a personal attack?

So, you call JimJast an idiot, and that isn't a personal attack, or that's an OK personal attack. And then JimJast makes the (admittedly quite laughable) accusation that you don't accept his theories because you have been brainwashed by Opus Dei. Or is it the bit where he suggests your rejection of his theories might be due to dislike Jews or Poles (again, quite laughable suggestsions.) And that is a not OK personal attack, and you delete the whole section. Still looking for a standard of what constitutes a personal attack beyond your private whims. Zack Martin  07:44, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Please read the entire edit summary: "This entire section is full of nothing but personal attacks. Accusing me of being a cultural bigot is especially outrageous." (emphasis added to note keywords.) As before with Psygremlin, if a post has some actual content rather than just making personal attacks, then I will address that content or criticism. But if someone is going to post something that just rails on someone without any further meaningful content then the content is vacuous and contains no purpose except to attack someone. As a note: "you're an idiot" is a personal attack, and if I ever post that and that alone on another person's wall, then they're well within their rights to remove it. However, if I say "everything you post here lacks evidence, and defies logic. As well, your post uses as a counter-example for our current models of the world something that completely violates all of math, and known physics. You're an idiot." Then the comment has something meaningful beyond just being a raging personal attack. Note: I have not deleted all of what JimJast has ever posted to my talk page. So, obviously, I'm not deleting content because it contains personal attacks... perhaps if you rubbed two of your brain cells together, you might be able to recognize a different criteria for me removing content beyond simply "there exists a personal attack here"... you know, like "for all statements in this post, there is a personal attack without any further comment". --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 22:14, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
So you are saying that personal attacks are OK, so long as one has a substantive point to go with them? Actually, I think there was more to what JimJast was saying than personal attacks. He was recounting his own experiences, "oh here is this site RationalWiki, where people will be rational"... "oh, maybe they aren't so rational after all". Well, I can relate to JJ's experience, although his explanations of why is excessively conspiratorial (you as an Opus Dei agent, etc.). And, as Armondikov likes to point out, many people confuse others disagree with them with irrationality, and that may well be what JJ is doing here. But, just because his reasons are bad, doesn't mean his conclusion is necessarily entirely wrong - to say otherwise is the fallacy fallacy (X is a bad argument for Y, therefore Y is false). He may well believe the right thing for the wrong reasons. Zack Martin  00:32, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
For me? Yes, insults don't matter if there is substantial argument to go along with it. To me, insults are fluff or rhetoric. If there is nothing to their post other than fluff, why should I leave such attacks on my page? The Loya Jirga in their single ruling held that removing blatantly offensive content from one's Talk page is ok. If—as your own analysis shows—there exists nothing to a post other than statements designed to inflame offense, then it is blatantly and patently offensive content with no other purpose.
The claims of "zOMG, why is this rationalwiki?" Is identical to the comments accusing me of cultural bias, or being a Nazi... vacuous comments except to inflame and offend. Although, I'm fairly used to it, but is again, vacuous criticism. Who gives a shit if someone attacks the credibility of RationalWiki? I'm the person who has been arguing that RationalWiki's mission is to be offensive... if not simply by stating fact, then by being snarky and satirical.
I am not committing the fallacy fallacy, as I am not rejecting his conclusions, I am rejecting his arguments themeselves. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 02:42, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
How is disputing whether RW is really as rational as it likes to think it as being is vacuous comments except to inflame and offend? I think it is a genuine criticism that can be made of this site, that it is far less rational than it claims to be. JJ's formulation of the criticism has its limitations, but that doesn't mean that better versions of the criticism don't exist.
And thanks for contributing that gem "RationalWiki's mission is to be offensive", I will have to add that to quote that. I wonder, to what extent do other editors share that conception of RW's mission? Zack Martin  05:33, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Disputing whether RW is really as rational as person XY thinks it ought be is not in and of itself a vacuous comment. But when the statement is "Rationalwiki? More like IRRATIONALwiki!!!" The statement is devoid of any meaningful criticism. It's like saying, "Oh yeah? Well, you're a poopyhead!" ... it's vacuous criticism. There is no points or direct evidence to point to, no syllogism making an argument, it's just baseless insult.
You yourself seem to acknowledge the failure of JJ's post when you say "JJ's formulation of the criticism has its limitations"... definitely true, as in: it contains absolutely no meaningful argument that can be addressed. As for "that doesn't mean that better versions of the criticism don't exist" is entirely accurate, and I wouldn't delete such content, if it made a real honest and valid argument. But arguing "When I saw this place was RATIONALwiki, I thought I would find people who disagree with me, but when I posted my bullshit, it was immediately attacked by skeptics and demands for evidence or reasoned logic, so you guys totally fail a rationalism!" I mean... that doesn't even make sense. Should RationalWiki support the argument that the earth is only 6,000 years old, even though no physical evidence, or reasoned logic can be presented to defend such a notion? No. The defense of that very style of argument would make us Irrationalwiki, not the fact that we rejection creationism out of hand.
I noted else where that prior to physical evidence, belief in the Gorilla was unjustified, and thus irrational. Despite the fact that it turns out that the Gorilla actually exists (and existed at the time) there was no evidence to support such a claim. The rationalist POV requires skepticism, and demands for evidence, and those claims that cannot meet those requirements don't get a free pass to belief by claiming that we are the ones being irrational.
Finally, your comment about RW is offensive. The truth is offensive for those who reject it. People who invent religions don't want to hear that they're total fucking idiots making up bullshit, but yet that is precisely what the Rationalist position demands. Creationists complain how we call them ignorant, but they are. Arguing against "chemical evolution" and other various bullshit that we have actual first-hand proof of. Dynamaclear is deeply offended by the content in their page, and have waged serious campaigns to get the text to read favorably towards their product, but again: that is not what Rationalism demands. RW is offensive, because the TRUTH is offensive, and because SCIENCE is offensive. If not simply to people, but also to the common sense. About 99% of Quantum Mechanics alone offends common sense. It offends common sense to think that holding a bowling ball on a pendulum to your chin and then letting go will be entirely safe. It's so offensive to common sense in fact that I have no doubt that every physics professor performing the demo before his class has to psych himself up with a mantra of "science works, science works, science works, science works, science works, science works..."
If you wish to put a poll to the editors of RW, about "should RW be a fluffy happy place for people to post crank ideas, and we support them, and don't say anything offensive about them"... then I think your answer is going to be a hefty, "Fuck off asshole." --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 23:33, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Most people — maybe not most RW people, but most people in society in general — would I think agree there is value in politeness. Basically, it's not about what you say, it's about how you say it — that is a bit of common sense. And, that common sense is not a "style over substance" fallacy. Style counts. Saying things nicely is better than saying them offensively. It has real social benefits. It makes society a better place. You might not agree with it, but I think the average person would. Zack Martin  09:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Actually, part of the charm of RW is that we can call a moronic nutjob a moronic nutjob, a crank a crank, a liar a liar, and we don't have to be nice about it. We might be witty, or satiric, or utilize litotes, but we don't have to be nice to idiots and their kin. ħuman 04:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Human, do you think the world would be a better place, or a worst place, if it was more like RW in terms of politeness? If politeness is a good thing, then RW's deficiency in that area is a bad thing. If politeness is a bad thing, then we should encourage everyone to be as insulting and rude and offensive as possible, at work, at school, in the home, in public places, in the media, in politics, etc. I wonder what the result would be... Personally, I doubt it would be a good one. Zack Martin  07:18, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Sorry to add to the annoyance on your talk page Eira, but I just had to answer Maratrean above. That argument rests on a particular moral framework and your premises are the principle of universality and the deontological view that acts are good in themselves. Suppose I apply a utilitarian framework. I judge being polite and being impolite by its utility. You see, I enjoy having sites where I can go where I'm not required to follow any protocol of civility. Sometimes it's just more fun. Why do you think 4chan is so successful? I have a choice to visit those sites or not. If I want civil discourse, there are plenty of other sites designed for the purpose. I want those sites to be available and I also want sites of the other type to be available. I say it is good to have both, as that maximizes utility, and that it would be bad to be restricted to only one option. So, in my view, that is a false dilemma. --Danfly (talk) 13:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Danfly is right here. There is no universality to the idea of "be rude, and be offensive" here on RW. Most of the time, I'm not dealing with idiots spouting bullshit. But if you were to look, I bet that you would find that when people feel another person is being wrong, like really batshit wrong, they typically face that person with offensive, or at the very least "hostile" words. ("You're going to hell" is perhaps the most common Christian version.) The world isn't happy place where everyone is nice to everyone else. I generally accept that... but I just want hateful words to be backed up by honest and rational arguments. As for "This sort of offensiveness would never be supported by the general public" danfly brings up 4chan, but as well, Penn & Teller's Bullshit. The purpose of this offensive speech is not to change the mind of the purveyors of bullshit, but rather to show the disdain that such bullshit deserves, and get people who are not purveying the bullshit to stop accepting or buying the bullshit. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 04:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

@Danfly, you misrepresent my argument, I do not assume deontology or universalizability (or Kant's categorical imperative or anything similar.) The same argument can be made in a utilitarian fashion. Your utilitarian argument is mistaken, because you seem to be judging politeness just by your own personal utility, whereas utilitarianism has always been defined in terms of maximizing the overall utility for everyone. That it makes you and some other people happy is a positive; but you have to consider if there are any negatives, for people other than you, (or even negatives for you beyond your immediate happiness), which I think there are, but you show no evidence of having considered that. Also, it would be wise to consider the distinction between act and rule utilitarianism — your argument makes you sound like an adherent of act utilitarianism, I think rule utilitarianism is a better approach. Rule utilitarians observe that adopting rules of general applicability often works out better in practice than deciding everything on a case-by-case basis, given that we are not perfect reasoning agents. Also remember J.S Mill's dictum — better to be Socrates unsatisfied, than a fool satisfied. Even with just reference to ourselves, we should not define our utility functions purely in terms of what makes us happy, but also consider other factors (e.g. what makes us more wise, or more rational).
By naming itself "RationalWiki", this site has identified rationality as its central value, so it seems fair to judge it using a utility function which values rationality over other things. I have argued that politeness tends to produce rationality. (Politeness is not the same thing as rationality; one can be polite but irrational and impolite but rational. Still, I argue that on average, politeness leads to more rationality, and impoliteness to more irrationality.) Saying that impoliteness is fun — well, it can be fun, among likeminded individuals; but what is best for fun is not necessarily the best for rationality. As to 4chan, it may well be very fun (depending on your idea of fun), but it isn't very rational — but that is fine in a way, because it makes no claim to be rational. But RationalWiki claims rationality as its central value, so rationality rather fun should be the primary component of our utility function for RationalWiki.
@Eira, the problem with "disdaining bullshit", is that what you think is bullshit and what is actually bullshit are not always the same. If you get in the habit of disdaining bullshit, then you can end up disdaining, and hence rejecting for no good reason, something that isn't bullshit after all. Whereas, if you take every idea seriously, no matter how stupid it appears at first — well, you will reject it all the same most of the time, but on that rare occassion when something comes along where your prima facie impression of it is incorrect, by taking it seriously you may actually discover a truth you otherwise would not have. That is why "disdaining bullshit" is bad for the pursuit of knowledge, and bad for rationality. Zack Martin  09:16, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
RationalWiki isn't technically defined by "rationality" but "Rationalism".
I don't declare bullshit as bullshit without investigation and evaluation. Homeopathy is bullshit, this is clear by all physical evidence and proper scientific evaluation. Does Homeopathy now deserve some grant of renewed non-bullshit by purposing a different more unscientific mode of action? If someone tells me that he dropped an apple and it fell into the sky, I don't have to investigate the event scientifically, and exhaustively to conclude that the most likely answer is: "he's lying". Because he's stating something that specifically violates known physical law, and without convincing, and overwhelming evidence, his statement amounts to nothing better than a statistical blip that is either: fully explainable by a misinterpretation of evidence, or he's committing fraud.
Of course, I wouldn't expect that a purveyor of bullshit yourself would want to hear any of that. Because to apply the principles of methodological naturalism (commonly regarded here as "Rationalism") to your own beliefs and demanding physical evidence and reasoned logic from your own religious babbles, would necessarily force you into the position that your talking shit, and should stop spouting bullshit... but that doesn't sit well with you. So, instead, you concoct a different scheme, you attempt to shift the burden of proof, away from your own claims, and place an impossible negative burden of proof upon us. You wish to tie our hands so that we can't call anything bullshit until it has been definitively proven false... thus, your own personal bullshit gets to squeak in under the door. I'm sorry, but that's not how Rationalism works. Rationalism requires the burden of proof on you. You need to provide convincing physical evidence that your "Maratrea" exists, and that belief in her is justified. But since that requires violating Ockham's Razor, again as noted before: you play "shift the burden" just like all the other bullshitters out there in the world. You would honestly fit in nicely with Kent Hovind, and William Lane Craig, and all the other apologists out there in the world.
To put words in your mouth: "If I can just hand wave away any disputes to my beliefs, then I win!" Sorry... this site works on logical positivism. Put up or GTFO. Your Maratrean bullshit is meaningless and unworthy of critical analysis. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 09:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
You bring up the tired old rationality vs. rationalism distinction. Please tell me, what is the actual difference? I said, by calling itself "RationalWiki", this site claims rationality as its central value. Is rationality not the central value to rationalism? If not rationality, what then?
Whether homoepathy is bullshit or not isn't relevant. The point is, your bullshit meter can't be perfect. One of these days, something will come along, which you will just dismiss as bullshit without investigation, but which actually isn't. It probably won't be some new form of homeopathy. It will probably be something completely unexpected. If you give every idea a fair hearing, even if you suspect it is bullshit, you might study it for long enough to realise it is not.
My own religion isn't relevant - if you think it is bullshit, no problem. I only ask that you give it some at least cursory examination first before declaring it to be so. If you do some, and then conclude it's all nonsense, that's fine with me. But actually, your real issue is not with my religion at all, it is with religious thought in general. So, someone like you, who is opposed to religion in general, I wouldn't even bother to try to convince you of my unique religious doctrines. I'd just stick to arguing some basics, like the existence of God or an immortal soul.
I find it fascinating how you identify "methodological naturalism" with "rationalism". That is quite an equation. Descartes, Leibniz, Spinoza would not agree with you. Methodological naturalism and rationalism are not the same thing.
"Rationalism requires the burden of proof on you." What about your burden to prove your burden of proof is the correct one? I make some quite extensive arguments (Russell's Teapot and the Burden of Proof) as to why I think your allocation of the burden of proof is incorrect. You just think your dogma on the matter is beyond question.
"If I can just hand wave away any disputes to my beliefs, then I win!". Um, no, I don't think that at all. You have no evidence for that claim beyond your assertion.
"Sorry... this site works on logical positivism". Does it now? Why cling to a philosophical school which almost all serious philosophers agree is as dead as a doornail? To quote RW's own article on the topic: Most philosophers consider logical positivism to be, as John Passmore expressed it, "dead, or as dead as a philosophical movement ever becomes." By the late 1970s, its ideas were so generally recognized to be so seriously defective that one of its own chief proponents, A. J. Ayer, said in a interview: "I suppose the most important defect...was that nearly all of it was false.". Zack Martin  10:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 “”do you think the world would be a better place, or a worst place, if it was more like RW in terms of politeness? If politeness is a good thing, then RW's deficiency in that area is a bad thing. If politeness is a bad thing, then we should encourage everyone to be as insulting and rude and offensive as possible, at work, at school, in the home, in public places, in the media, in politics
Just a short aside - we've had misunderstandings about the distinction between the philosophical tradition of rationalism and what I'd call "modern rationalism" before. The latter is what I'd describe as a synthesis of rationalism and empiricism, and the name simply reflects its emphasis on reason in arriving at a position, in contrast to irrational or magical thinking. Looking at it now, I'll admit that our own article on the topic is not very informative and in serious need of work (it even features a lengthy postmodernist section, for Maratrea's sake...). Röstigraben (talk) 11:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
@Röstigraben: I suspect the term "rationalism" (in the modern sense) was devised by people ignorant of the history of philosophy, who had no idea that it was already taken by a movement which pre-existed them by centuries. I think the other difference is that classical rationalism was a movement lead by thinkers of unquestionable intellectual seriousness, while modern "rationalism" lacks the same intellectual depth.
@Danfly: I don't see myself as depending on a particular theory of normative ethics - deontological, utilitarian/consequentialist, or virtue ethics. Personally, I think they all contain some truth - the nature-in-itself of an act or state of affairs is morally relevant (deontology); the consequences of an act are morally relevant (utilitarianism/consequentialism); the character which tends to produce such acts is morally relevant (virtue ethics). I don't see why we need to identify one of these three and say that is foundational to ethics to the exclusion of the other two. In any case, when I try to argue ethically, I try to avoid too much reliance on a particular ethical theory - I think this is in fact what most people try to do when they make ethical arguments in the real world. Real world ethical reasoning is not constrained by theoretical purism. In any event, my argument isn't necessarily an ethical one - it could be purely a pragmatic one. When I argue "politeness makes society better", do I mean "better" in an ethical sense, or just better in the sense of "makes it better for me" (and who knows what ethics is, or if there is any such thing)? Both or either. The listener can put on it whichever interpretation makes sense to them.
I think we can construct a kind of "virtue ethics" argument, but one which makes equal sense from a utilitarian perspective - when people are by habit polite, that has positive consequences for society (increased peace and good-neighbourliness, decrease in intersocietal conflict, etc., etc.) If a site has a culture of impoliteness, you respond "don't visit it if you don't like it". But, a site having such a culture will encourage habits of impoliteness in its members, which are unlikely to be limited just to that site, but bleed out into other areas of life. Thus, the site's culture can damage society. Obviously, RW is a very minor player here, so individually it makes little impact. But, it is part of a broader problem of Internet culture, where traditional norms of civil discourse are being eroded, and that erosion is not going to be limited to just those communities on the Internet that most encourage it. Zack Martin  09:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to throw a spanner into the works here. What makes something polite? Turns out, "politeness" is just a subsection of "ethical", or as nearly analogous to as to make all the same arguments about "what is ethical?" apply to "what is polite?"
You know, there are more things that are "good" simply "people getting along". If we just wanted people to get along, then Galileo, Copernicus, and Martin Luther (the first guy, the monk) never should have brought forth their complaints. Martin Luther destabilized Catholic temporal power, and constructed a whole new system wherein people were accountable to themselves. Was this a "good"? Regardless of our interpretation of the ethical quality of the action, it certainly wasn't regarded as polite.
And in a wonderful display of your willful sophistry, you complain about equivocation and people naming themselves something that was already named (you know, like feminism, libertarianism, conservativism, Republican, Democrat... the list of examples of people "co-opting" terms abounds.) and a spectacular display of goalpost shifting! "In any event, my argument isn't necessarily an ethical one - it could be purely a pragmatic one." Congratulations, on shifting the goalpost, in fact so superbly, that it now sits in a limbo, of never being established anywhere. So, I ask the question, did I really just mean what I said, or did I make a satirical parody, or perhaps I'm lying. Any and all of these interpretations are valid, hurrah! --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 21:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Is politeness a subset of ethical? That's an open question. Politeness may well be ethically required some or all of the time; but, there may well be occassions when politeness is not ethically required, or is even ethically prohibited. On such occassions, if there are any, politeness ceases to be ethical, but does not cease to be polite. So, arguably, politeness is not a subset of the ethical.
Suppose there is a person who completely rejects the concept of ethics as useful or valid - an amoralist. Yet that person may nonetheless see politeness as, at least some of the time, useful in achieving their own personal goals. So, such a person might be convinced to value politeness, even though their valuing it is not in any way ethical; another person, who does believe in ethics, might furthermore value politeness as an explicitly ethical thing. This is my point, that arguing for politeness can be, but doesn't necessarily have to be, an ethical argument.
There are indeed more things that are good than "simply getting along". But politeness does not mean that everyone has to agree with everyone else. People are still free to disagree strongly with the views of others; just politely. One can strongly put a view and still be polite about it; there is a difference between assertiveness and abusiveness. So, there is no reason Galileo, Copernicus, Luther, could not have got their views across politely. Were they in fact polite? I don't now enough about Galileo or Copernicus to say; Luther does not strike me as polite at all, intemperate invective would be a better description of him. Could Luther have expressed his ideas politely? Some of them he could have; I'm not so sure about some other of his contributions, such as On the Jews and Their Lies, could ever be expressed in a polite manner. Actually, I wonder if there is any connection between his intemperate personality and his rabid antisemitism? I think there may well have been.
As to people co-opting the term rationalism, yes it happens all the time. It doesn't change the fact that the people who did it were likely ignorant of the history of the term's previous use. It also doesn't help, that while the original meaning was reasonably clear, the replacement meaning is so vaguely defined as to be incoherent in practice. Zack Martin  00:28, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Have you reviewed the philosophy behind aesthetics? Politeness is analogously the exact same thing... define what is and is not "polite". --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 06:34, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
I have studied aesthetics somewhat, but am not as familiar with it as I would like. Which particular theory of aesthetics are you referring to? How is politeness like beauty? I don't think they have much in common. I can't give you a succinct definition of politeness, but that doesn't mean there is no such thing. Justice Potter Stewart defined pornography as "I know it when I see it"; not the most useful definition, but the point is the difficulty in defining something does not mean that it does not exist or is somehow an invalid concept. Although I struggle to define pornography, I am certain such a thing exists, and there are things that definitely fall under that heading and things that definitely do not (even though there may well be grey areas in-between). Same applies to politeness. Zack Martin  09:13, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
So, go study it. If you don't understand how being direct and honest could be interpreted as "polite" to some people, then you are clearly ignorant. There are things that are clearly unethical (murder) and things that are not (saving a person's life) but that doesn't mean that ethics doesn't have 8 hojillion different models and explanations. "Politeness" is really just following the social norms established by a community so that you don't fit in. Like on RW, it's considered polite to not engage in sophistry. Yet, you're being impolite and doing so... --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 10:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
You know, if you are going to try to support your position with an argument from aesthetics, you'd better identify a particular position within aesthetics as support, rather than just vaguely pointing to the discipline as a whole. Further study on my part will do nothing to cure your vagueness. There is nothing impolite about directness and honesty; but, as I said, there is a difference between assertiveness and abusiveness, which you do not seem to acknowledge. Yes, standards of politeness are culturally-relative, but that does not mean there is not a transcultural core. And your accusations of sophistry are baseless. Zack Martin  10:52, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
"Yes, standards of politeness are culturally-relative, but that does not mean there is not a transcultural core." EXACTLY!!! This is the same thing that is true about aesthetics. What makes something beautiful? What makes something polite? They're analogous questions!
"And your accusations of sophistry are baseless." Proof by vigorous hand-waving? --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 11:52, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Some elements of politeness are culturally-relative, but there is a transcultural core. And much of the impoliteness of RW violates that transcultural core. And, RW is not really a culture to itself, but part of a larger culture (I'd say global English-speaking culture). And, much of the impoliteness of RW violates the broader culture in which RW is situated.
If you are going to accuse me of sophistry, you need to prove the claim, not me. Your proof by vigorous hand-waving is not proof at all. Zack Martin  19:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
What things does it violate that are part of this "transcultural core"? How do we define this transcultural core anyways? I mean, if one culture/subculture thinks that something is polite while all the others believe it is impolite, does that mean that that something is "transculturally impolite"? Do we need unanimous assent for something to be termed transculturally impolite? See, this is why I'm talking about how you're a sophist. You're arguing that RW is being rude to some transcultural core, but no identification of that transcutural core. In fact, actually, many cultures hold that specific subsets of people are worthy of disdain and that not being impolite to them is actually impolite itself. ... AND THIS IS THE WHOLE POINT I WAS MAKING. "Politeness" is subject to the exact same philosophical arguments as aesthetics and ethics. There is no universal "polite" that we can point to and say, "this is polite, and this is not polite." So, in the full standard (and thus polite) netiquette of the anonymous internet flamewars: FUCK OFF! --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 23:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Really Eira, if that is your argument, why not be explicit from that start, rather than leaving me to guess what your argument actually is? As to a transcultural core, I think one exists for ethics, and one exists for politeness too. An example of the transcultural core of ethics is the prohibition of murder. Every culture agrees that, in general, killing other people is wrong, although there are exceptional cases. Some of those exceptional cases (e.g. capital punishment) are very disputed. But let us not let the differences blind us to the similarities. Fred kills random people because he thinks human flesh is the most succulent of meats. So Fred kills Tom and eats him. Fred tries to eat Sally too, but Sally fights back and kills Fred in self-defence. Now, in our culture, we say, Fred's killing Tom was immoral, but Sally killing Fred was not immoral. But, just about every other culture says that. So, here we have something, which is either an absolute universal, or if not an absolute universal, very near to being one. So, contrary to what you suggest, there really is a transcultural core to ethics.
Same for politeness - detailed rules of politeness vary from culture to culture, but there are elements common to most if not all cultures. For example, try to attack the idea rather than the person, avoid negative hyperbole about those you are talking to, if you make allegations be willing to provide evidence, give others a fair opportunity to respond, try to be conscious of the preferences or culture and others and try to make allowances for them where possible (but, not when doing so would be an excessive imposition), etc. As to saying "FUCK OFF", the offensiveness of the expression itself is specific to our language/culture, but the general rule of avoiding expressions which are offensively dismissive (in some particular culture) is itself transcultural. Zack Martin  09:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

##  Trying to put pieces together after edit conflict

Hi Eira, I'm guessing it was you with whom I had this edit confflict. And of course I apreciate your knowledge of history and similarities with Napoileonian wars tactics, but fact is that Stalin was surprised by Hitler's attack and another fact that Russian communists helped Hittler to solve "Jewish question" in France not to mention fuel deliveries from Baku for Geraman tanks during first year of Hitler's war with France. I had relatives there too who saw it.

Of course I know that you are no creationist just trust scientists the same way Russian communists trusted Nazis until it became impossible. Yet before Nazis fought in Spain and Russian communists helped them too ("Homage to Catalonia" by Orwell is the book to read; did you read it? And all the big librery by Leon Trotsky, killed by Stalin's order for it) I hope for further discussion when you read my story that collided with your assumed attempt to answer me. JimJast (talk) 07:51, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

JJ - sources? Cause that's really not anything I learned living in France. But we probably don't know our own history.En attendant Godot 13:51, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
OMG! The Russians helped the Germans while they had a treaty together? SHOCK! SURPRISE! Oh, and Stalin was surprised by the attack? Again, SHOCK! SURPRISE! It's like Stalin was a naive fool, and believed the Nazis... of course, had he actually known and understood the Nazis he never would have trusted them, and never would have been surprised by their attacks. I mean, the Nazis were involved in open war on their own streets with Communists, why would Stalin ever think that the Germans were going to respect a treaty with them? Ah... self-dilution, ignorance, and naivity...
You still don't seem to get the idea that the Nazis fucked the Russians over, and had planned to do so from the start. You seem ignorant to the idea that people can be duplicitous and deceptive. It shows extreme naivity on your own part. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 22:43, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh and

##  The BigBang explains the origin ot the universe?

Eira, just curious: if you believe the above, despite that it contradicts the law of conservation of energy that necessarily suddenly shows up from nowhere (violating something sacro sanct for any physicist), how would you react to the fact that it can be proven with simple Newtonian math, that the Big Bang didn't need to happen, since all astronomical observations have simple explanations including quasars and the alleged accelerating expansion of space predicted by Mileva Marić Einstein's general relativity with accuracy to one standard deviation (accuracy that can't be any greater)? JimJast (talk) 18:06, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

this term. the "law" of conservation of energy applies only and very specifically in cases of known and finite systems. we do not know that it is always true. No one in phsyics would ever argue it is true. this is what we call a strawman

+ -

2) Generally, understanding that Conservation of energy as a theory, still would make sense in the form of our current understanding of the Big Bang. no one in the major physics thinks "nothing comes from something". they think that either everything has always been here (one therory is it is a giant cycle) or that there is something beyond (like brames), or that it is a collapsing of everything.

+ -

3) generally, it's important to present actual arguments as argued in science, before attempting to "discredit" things.--En attendant Godot 18:14, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
The question was hypotetical, since we don't have yet all the required coditions. Just Einstein's general relativity. Besides we may substitute here the tensoral description of the univese and the conservation of 4-vectors which are mathematically and theoretically exact, though math is not a science as good as physics. And I wonder how a tensoral strawman would look like. JimJast (talk) 18:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
So you state you are wrong and Einstein's relativity is wrong, so people should defer to your model instead? Then state the argument that math doesn't model the theory you have very well, so it is not as good as physics? That's not really an argument, that's an excuse. ~ Subsound ~ 19:13, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
"Math is not a science as good as physics"... which is entirely humorous, because without math there is no physics. Math is in fact the pure expression of science so much so, that Math describes worlds which cannot in any way be consistent with our universe. No, Math is not a science... it is however a tool that is absolutely necessary for all of science, and without which, no science would be possible beyond dialectic babblings of how many angels can dance upon the head of a needle. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 22:22, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
The Big Bang does not explain the origin of the Universe. It explains the development of the Universe. Much like evolution doesn't explain how lfe began, it explains how life develops. I would openly be willing to watch you attempt to explain with simple Newtonian physics why the Universe is not expanding in accordance with the Big Bang, and rather the warps of spacetime account for the apparent Doppler shift in viewing distant objects. Hint: Newtonian physics lacks warped spacetime, so good luck... --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 22:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
He has actually done it (or tried to). See this thread. The posts on the last page are especially relevant to the discussion about conservation of energy.--ZooGuard (talk) 07:46, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

"...with accuracy to one standard deviation (accuracy that can't be any greater)" that's one of the dumbest things I've ever read on RW. ħuman 04:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

You know, you become so desensitized to idiocy that sometimes you miss the super retarded shit that some people post. The entire sentence from which you quoted continues to demonstrate that JJ appears to lack any proper understanding of mathematics. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 04:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Hu, nice meeting you again. Can you explain the folks around here how the accuracy of astronomical measurements may be grater than one standard deviation? Or maybe you Eira? I'm all ears. JimJast (talk) 18:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
It can be accurate to within less than one standard deviation (assuming the standard deviation is not zero). It could be accurate to within (σ-x) from the mean, where x is some extremely small constant with a value greater than zero. Since speed, distance and acceleration are all continuous variables, that number can be as small as you like, as long as it remains positive. You realise you have measurements in your own essay that you describe as having 'accuracy greater than one standard deviation', right? If you have measured something to within one standard deviation, all you need to do is eliminate the two values at exactly (μ+σ )and (μ-σ), then your accuracy is within less than one standard deviation. It might be hard to do, but astronomers have clearly done it before --Danfly (talk) 20:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Danfly, thanks for your knightly gesture saving damsel in distress but the joke has been explained by slow JJ and luckily for us you were quicker and we avoided another edit conflict. JimJast (talk) 21:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

##  What about writing a book about the universe that was never created

Since these ancient times when I was banned for life from each science forum I wanted to pick up some knowledge about the universe from, and subsequent years of studying astronmy and physics, I gained enough knowledge that we may convince any reader that Einsteins and Carl Sagan were right when Carl said on TV that he believes that the universe was never created and so it must have existed always. Contrary to popular opinion. But we can't do it with my literaly skills (as you, Eira and Human might have noticed). We need yours, combined skills even if Eira hates my guts and Human just valids her time more than 1/3 of possible profits from the book that is bound to be a bestseller at least in the astronomer and creationist communities (even if for different reasons). And Eira, you are bound to stop haiting my guts once you find yourself that Feynman was right maintaining that cosmologists are bunch of dopes since it is an eternal truth (like the "Archmedes law", true forever) that energy can't be created.

And BTW, sorry for being ironic asking you the question about one standard deviation. I understand that you just don't know what any physicist knows, that it is another "law of nature" that any measurment can't be more accurate than one standard deviation, or not even that, and 6 standard deviations away from predictions of a theory is considered the maximum of reasonable limit of trust in a theory. About what the Big Bang hypothesis suffered in 1998, before being patched with "dark energy" (a.k.a. "repulsive gravitation"). I hope you both forgive me the joke, since I know that it is not nice to joke about someone's ignorance (especially if it applies to women who are by nature gifted with grater skills. So I just hope my sin will be forgiven. JimJast (talk) 20:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Books on creationism, and fairies are often best sellers. The quickest route to demonstrating crankery is to publish a book rather than a peer-reviewed article. Personally, despite the fact that I am aware that I could make tons of money (or at least reasonable sums of money) for playing up crankery and bullshit, I'm unwilling to impinge my morals and lie, cheat, and steal money from people, which is exactly what you're asking me to do.
Why do you hold to the false dichotomy that the Big Bang it true, or the Universe wasn't created and eternal? Do you seem to lack the imagination to imagine that the Big Bang was not in fact the start of the Universe, but merely a single defining moment in the Universe's existence? We don't know what happened at t_0 relative to the Big Bang. It could have been anything, and anything could have happened before the Big Bang. The Universe could have been existing for decillions of years prior to the Big Bang, it could have exists unbounded in time prior to the Big Bang. We simply are incapable of measuring any of that, just like we cannot look into a black hole. Experimental blindness keeps us from knowing what was prior to the Big Bang. But perhaps the Universe existed eternally prior to the Big Bang... but then, you can't handle such an idea... amirite? Because you've already conflated "Big Bang" with "moment of creation". Rather than, "event caused by physical and natural law in a pre-existing Universe". --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 21:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
When making a point, jj, it is somewhat useful if you do not simply lie and make things up. Sagan fully believes the universe was "created" in the sense that it did not always exist. sagan on big bang--En attendant Godot 22:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Dear "Esperanto", I've seen Carl Sagan only once on TV and it was when he most certainly said that he believes that the universe is eternal (as was the opinion of Einstein while he described his 1917 model with "cosmological constant" "the biggest blunder of my life"). People change theirs opinions you know, and just yesterday I changed my opinion about you, thinking that the book should be written in Esperanto, and you are the only native speaker of this langusge I know so I should rather, than argue with you, should try to talk you into cooperation on this book.
I've learned a little esperanto myself when I was young (so at least I should still know the grammar, which frankly, I've forgotten by now, having to learn English one as more needed at the time) but by the end of writing this book I might know it well enough to complain about you jumping to conclusions in Esperanto (which I'm not able to do yet). So tell me (it could be in Esperanto) are you going to join the project? Esperos(?) JimJast (talk) 08:42, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Eira, you said "Do you seem to lack the imagination to imagine that the Big Bang was not in fact the start of the Universe, but merely a single defining moment in the Universe's existence?"
Apparently I don't have that kind of imagination. I don't even understand what is this "single defining moment in the Universe's existence". Does it mean that on Wednesday evening there was nothing happening except the regular flying galaxies to and fro and by the Thursday morning we were already after this "definig moment" with no one noticing anything particular? No "start of the Universe"?
I calculated how much of redshift there was in the universe before the expansion was noticed by astronomers. I did it to subtract it from the apparent total redshift to have the objective picture of the redshift. What part is due to expansion and what to dynamical friction of photons (I had then the regular Newtonian picture of universe as all astronomers had). It turned out that the redshift was the same as after the assumed expansion was noticed. If you can think the alleged expansion is exactly zero: no expansion at all, everything is due to dynamical friction of photons, which means the alleged expansion of universe is due to lack of proper math done to check what was before and after redshift were noticed by Edwin Hubble (or more clearly) the amount of redshift didn't change before and after it was noticed just astronomers don't know how to do the math right. The calculations are evailable for checking them for over 25 years and no one ever bothered to read them except one referee who said "they look OK to me but they say that it is expanding so I have to recommend rejection of your paper", which he/she did. Nobody bothered to read any of the next papers in which proposed the Einsteinian explanation of the same thing. Ever after. Than I learned from Feynman that cosmologists, including his professor are bunch of dopes, mostly idiots. So where is the beef (the alleged expansion)? What I found was just Einsteins' theory working perfectly well predicting things for many years after the deaths of its creators. Even the quasars, that Carl Sagan said in this movie recommended by Wating, are not yet understood. That why I would like to write this book since they need Einstiens theory to be understood and the theory is already almost forgotten due to it contradicing creationism. JimJast (talk) 14:15, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

This may help you, alternatively the Multiverse may have existed since eternity while our subsection of the Multiverse that we call the Universe exists since the Big Bang. It's possible but unlikely that the consensus of serious scientists is wrong and some other explanations exist for all the many different pieces of evidence for the big bang but I and most serious scientists think that's unlikely. Proxima Centauri (talk) 16:47, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Proxima, How you explain Feynman's opinion on consensus of serious scientists and a very simple calculation saying that the universe is not expanding and never was and that the Big Bang happens to be due to illusion of expansion resulting from lack of math skills of astronomers and credulty of those talked already about by Feynman? JimJast (talk) 19:50, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
JJ, I am not sure if your interpretation of Feynman's quote there is correct. Are you trying to suggest Feynman rejected Big Bang theory? Your quote doesn't show that at all. Your quote shows that he was disappointed with the rate of progress in the physics of gravitation. Don't know what year he wrote that in, it may well have been justified. The physics of gravitation tends to be reliant on expensive telescopes, spacecraft, experiments, etc., both to confirm its current predictions, and to collect new observations requiring explanations. The large scale of gravitation makes it the most difficult of the four fundamental forces to study experimentally/observationally. I can easily imagine, at certain points in its history, there was a lot of theoretical work going on, but that work was getting more and more divorced from experiment/observation, and that may well have been what Feynman was complaining about. But, just because that was true at the time Feynman wrote it, doesn't necessarily mean it is true today; and even if it was still true today, I don't see what implications you can draw from it to help your anti-Big Bang case. (Personally, I don't believe in the Big Bang, but I don't endorse your approach in arguing against it either.) Zack Martin  23:22, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Maratrean. It seems that you are the only user of this wiki who pays atention to anything. You are right that if reading Feynman's letter (which BTW was written in July 1962, at the time of Warsaw-Jablonna Conference on Asronomy, Astrophysics, Cosmology, and Relativistic Theories of Gravitation) one may have various opinions about this what Feynman meant. Though calling 126 serious scientists "dopes" and "a lot of worms trying to get out of a bottle by crawling all over each other" should, IMHO, be a signal to stop and think. Even if "consensus of serious scientists" in words of Proxima thinks they all are right and "the obscure scientists that JimJast cites" is wrong.
It is a fact that ("Obscure scientist") Feynman neither had no idea how gravitation works, since being an experimentalist, he didn't analize Einsteins' general realativity that deeply, nor he was sure about the Big Bang, since it was before 1985 when I got the result that the universe is not expanding. So Feynman was without data on which he could base his general accusation that his friends are bunch of idiots jumping to conclusions without any proof of anything. Which even I don't do, since I have a proof in form of one page paper, marked "file 162", that should be easy to understand by an intelligent high school student. Which unfortunately are in short supply in our times. I might safly bet any amount of money that no reader in this wiki knows why things fall. Despite that it is described in detail in my description of Einsteins theory. We just live in sad times when humans stopped thinking (maybe except sculptors, who have only one source on which they may rely and it is just an "Obscure scientist" Feynman). That's why I use this "Obscure scientist" from deep past, since apparently there is no one else left who understands the common calculus, which makes the expansion uf universe impossible and with it the Big Bang as well.
And BTW, would you like to write this book with me. I thought it should be written in Esperanto so even Chinese would understand it (which BTW they should adopt as their common language, so it would be soon adopted by the whole world) but English is fine too. Whats is important is to let people to know why things fall down. It is a shame that so many years of science they (even some scientists) still thik that it is because the Earth attracts them (with 4th fundamental force :) which is also an anti scientific illusion though propagated by creationists. JimJast (talk) 08:21, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Warning! This page is troll infested, please don't feed it! I'm not Jesus (talk) 11:15, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer, but I'm really not the best person to be writing that book with you. We have completely opposite views on the issues. If I understand you correctly, you believe in an infinitely old universe; I by contrast believe in a finitely old universe. I don't believe in the Big Bang, but I am one of those dreaded creationists of which you speak. So not sure how well us writing a book together will go, when we have completely opposite views on the topic at hand. Also, our approaches to the issues are very different - I prefer an approach focused on philosophy, you prefer an approach focused on physics. Finally, if I was to spend the time to write a book, I'd really want to spend it writing a book on my own views rather than on yours. Zack Martin  10:06, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
There has been a lot of off-topic babbling here in this section... let me clarify here: JimJast, I think you're an idiot, and a crank. Go away, I don't want to fuck around with you anymore. It's getting tiresome. I won't write a book with you, and I won't help you formulate your ideas any further. You have plenty of people at your University who are significantly better equipped to debate you. All I know is that you're retarded enough to gloss over any shit that disagrees with you, which is like one of the biggest defining features of a crank.
Again, the TL;DR: go away. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 10:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
OK, Eira, I just wanted to tell Mar that we shoudn't try your patience any furhter so I'm taking my rags to my "Essay tak page" where I invite anybody interested in the question "why things fall". JimJast (talk) 11:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

##  ASL

I'm curious where/how you learned ASL. (I read that you know a bit of it on someone elses talk page -- i hope that was you) As a linguist, i'm fascinated by the idea of physically mapping a conversation, instead of using word order or grammar markers. But I've really no one to learn from (other than the signs themselves... but to actually study the grammar, the colloquialisms, short hand, etc. I think too little study on ASL, LSF, BSL has been done -- or rather, few main stream specialists on human language evolution, and language development with the mind have noticed the input native ASL people could offer. so, anyhow, just curious. oops, forgot to sign.--En attendant Godot 20:42, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I do indeed know ASL. I learned it by having the opportunity to spend every lunch for like 3 months or so with a Deaf person. It was really fun sitting down and chatting away in sign language, while at the same time eating. I once had some other friends attend the lunch, and it was frustrating, because they wanted to be part of the conversation, but I could no longer eat and talk at the same time, because I had to voice what I was signing, and translate for our friend. Bleh!
I think you'll find there's some disappointment to "physically mapping a conversation, instead of using word order or grammar markers". ASL uses word order just as heavily as any vocal language, and has grammatical markers all the same as well. There's some positionality used to derive grammatical markers, and such, and temporal aspect is much more easily represented in sign, but they're all actually quite similar compared to vocal languages. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 16:24, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Don't know how I missed your reply. anyhow... It's intersting you say that, cause everything I've read - and as I've said, i've never talked with a deaf person for more than 5 mintues, in a "where is the bathroom", "do you know where this address is" type way -- but the books suggest that subject is mapped generally spacially, and topics are established in space so that I create on the right of me the "space" for one person, and on the left, the "space" for the second, so if i want to say the first person wore a blue dress and was a great dancer, I'll sign that, in her "space". also, if i want to say "she gave it to him" I can use those predefined areas to define the verb "to give". I will be disappointed if that is not the case. :-) Sadly, i'm basically "signing english", cause I do not know any of the facial markers, any of the word order unique to ASL, etc. I need, like you had, a lunch buddy. Enjoy your day (if that's possible within the context of local politcis. but i suspect your life is more than this place...).En attendant Godot 16:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, yes, the spacial references are used like you describe, but they still have word order just as much as any vocal language, and grammatical structures as well. The spacial references are really just pronominal elements rather than much of anything else. I suppose what I like most about ASL is that due to the existence of classifiers (there is a handshape that means "car", one for "airplane", one for "person", etc) it allows for significantly more expressive "non-verbal" information to be expressed. As in, rather than using "words" and semantic elements to describe how a car hit another car, you just throw up two handshapes for "car", and demonstrate how they collided. Head-on, side-swipe, rear-ending that caused the first car to go spinning, while the second car went off into a ditch? It's all best expressed with classifiers and non-verbal expressive demonstration. (The last example was a bit silly and over-the-top...) --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 00:28, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, i'm a trained linguist, so i do know it has gramatical rules, though they are far more flexible than a highly coded language like English, but it's the kinds of things you describe that you have to be a fluent speaker to really study. I could only imagine the pun and word play you can make. I was doing a research paper on puns in French, and was comparing to some other word play - and wanted to include an ASL or LSF punning, but didn't know anyone to say "ok, what's a great pun?" Since then I've learned one or two, including a local denver name for WalMart that plays off the sign for "cheep".  ;-)En attendant Godot 01:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Am I the only sad git who still thinks "ASL" stands for "Age, Sex, Location"? ADK...I'll meditate your hub cap!
The longest ASL pun I know is a story, "I met my friend in paris, and we went out for lunch, where we ate pizza." It's commonly taught to new students of ASL apparently, with a few wrong signs thrown in, but the signs are just subtly wrong, or easily mistakable. The phrase taught to the new student actually has them talking about having sex with lesbians. Another easy screw up is "bitch" vs. "say" (both signed identically except for handshape, B for the first G for the second).
I don't know if I would call the grammatical rules in ASL any less flexible than English though... as a trained linguist, I'm sure you understand that German rules aren't any more flexible than English, or Latin, or any other language. I mean, unless you want to say that ASL speakers accept more "broken" ASL than English speakers accept broken English... Actually, having learned ASL from a native ASL speaker from birth, I picked up some older lexicon, and odd phrasings, or an odd ideolect, that was more towards the idea of eschewing "English" words. As in, the sign for "group", and "class" were the same. Many people learning sign language are however taught that they are signed with different handshapes ("g" for "group" and "c" for "class") and the handshape is typically based off the first letter in English, or an "initialism"... the guy I learned from basically rejected such words as "English" rather than ASL, and so he actively rejected using such words. The movement indicates the notion of a group, and the handshape is restricted to classifiers (car, person, etc) rather than based on the English word you're attempting to express. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 16:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with broken or not broken language. One thing linguists look at is how coded the language is. how strict are rules, and how much comes from situation or context (Japanese, russian, and to some extent, latin if you look at word order alone), inference (lakota - lakota has no stated pronouns after the first mention - it's very hard for non speakers to follow stories). So the languages develop over time to be high or low coding, high or low context. ALS, (at least from what i've read) is very high context, low coding. This does not mean it's more or less precise - it means it makes precision in different ways. In english, you cannot say "the boy blue" it must be "the blue boy", but in russian and lakota, you can say "the blue boy" "the boy blue" "the boy who went to teh store blue" and still know that the blue relates to the boy, not the store. I think a lot of people assume that when we talk about flexibility of language, we are some how putting down signed languages or saying they are not as rich (though a language only 200 years old, is granted, not yet as rich as most spoken languages, and it uses tons of indexed words and spelled words still... but give it time, it's a baby!) or as developed as a "real" language in some way. In fact, again from reading, not practice, I would say ASL and LSF (not really BSL) has the potential when used by fluent poets and singers, to be far more compelling than english.
Anyhow - loved the pun. I think i'm confused about why a "g" and "b" hand shape sign would be confused, though. they are quite different hand shapes.
I'm also curious how real every day moms and car-driving neighborhood cheffeurs, and whatever other situations that demand at least one of our hands be full, maintain enough vocab "one handed". I have wondered if a lot of one-handed slang comes up when you are trying to manage your real life -cooking, towing a grabby 3 year old, and holding the stack of crap your boss handed you. anyhow, don't mean to hog your wall.  :-) nor turn you into my "asl goto gal". i just meet very few people who actually speak it, not just do a signed english/contact asl type conversation (like me).En attendant Godot 16:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
I understand high-context, vs low-context (I speak Japanese after all). So, I think I just misunderstood your meaning behind "highly coded". Yes, sign language is pretty context sensitive, but I would say actually less so than Japanese. But then, Japanese has extensive social-order coding that ASL does not have. I suppose the point I try to raise is, that every language has a pretty equal amount of coding, it's just distributed across different areas of coding. (English word-order is so strict, because we don't have much coding elsewhere. German has more noun coding, and thus freer word order, but still a very strict word order, especially for verbs. While Latin has incredibly free word order, but even more extensive coding for nouns and verbs.)
I was apparently confused. It's the word "speak" and "bitch", the first using the 4 handshape, and the later the B handshape.
Most of ASL does not depend heavily on the other hand. Most of the time the hand is either a B shape, or some other non-semantic handshape, or it is identical to the main hand and either moves synchronously or asynchronously therewith. So, it's kind of rare that the off-hand is actually used to distinguish a minimal pair. Since the off-hand rarely is significant, while it takes some getting used to to read signs made with only one hand as opposed to two, thankfully humans are really good at completion, and so it's not just possible, it becomes relatively easy. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 21:46, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

##  So I'm wondering....

....if you have a problem with this user's name, an d if you think this sort of expression is something that should just be ignored as opposed to actively discouraged. If you're okay with it, well, there's not much to say. If you're not, then what's the difference between that bit of expression and MC accusing Psy of raping black women in order to maintain white privilege? (Which counts as a "false defamatory statement" in my books, and, as per your own definition, is not protected free speech anyways.) --P-FosterThe Holy Roman Empire was neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire. Discuss. 23:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

See, there's this funny thing. I've never run cross-swords with MC, but I've had Psygremlin throw a shitfest over a minor and trivial slight that I made against him. And what was his response? "Kick her off the board! SHE'S AN EVIL HARPY!!!" The idea that Psygremlin didn't participate in any escalation is a little difficult for me to swallow. He often runs off crying "zOMG, someone offended me, let's ban them!" every time someone makes even the slightest remark against him.
The name you linked to isn't appropriate, and I imagine it was dealt with appropriately... block the username only (no IP blocks) with a note: "make a non-defamatory username". We wouldn't, and shouldn't tell the person to go away and never come back, and block his IP forever... --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 05:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

##  I want an appeal

I am not a board of trustees member anymore. I resigned because the drama and shitstorm I was taking was interfering with my mental health. Even if I were still a board of trustees member, the board takes an official stance of non-interference with web page politics. Lastly, god damn it fuckers, he's not trolling in this comment at all, and being civil and reasonable. Do you have to be THAT huge of dicks? --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 15:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
There was a community decision that his posts not be allowed to remain. If you disagree with that decision, fine, but that doesn't give you the right to ignore it. Please don't insult people who are only trying to uphold the will of the majority of editors. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 15:39, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
I know about the community decision. I voted against it. Mobocracy means we do whatever we want, not that "majority" rules. I'm not insulting anyone by calling them dicks, because when they're deleting content that IS NOT MC'S (like, say, it's a comment of my own) just because they want to censor MC (which won't actually accomplish anything, because it's FUCKING BAN EVADING ANYWAYS). But here come MC, is nice, respectful, civil, reasonable and rational, and what's the response? "FUCK YOU! GO AWAY!" ... nice job, who's the troll now assholes? --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 16:13, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
You're right that no one should be deleting your comments. But I am honestly baffled at this general attitude. I mean, I am - in real life - sighing.
What do you want to be done? I mean, honestly - what rule should be followed? Should we hold votes on stuff like this, and then if people want to ignore it because they voted against it, we let them? Why vote on it at all, then?
I'm not trying to attack you. I honestly want your input. Do you not want any moderators, but instead the more anarchic system previously? Or do you not want votes and rules, but do want moderators or some other authority (and in which case, what should they be doing)? Or do you not want either?
I don't understand what you want. Please tell me.--talk 16:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Have you not noticed the endless cycle of being a dick to some people then cuddling up all nice to others so they'll feel protective and go on the defensive about "free speech" and that? "Civil, reasonable and rational" is just a cover to get under your skin. Don't fall for it. ADK...I'll liberate your engraving! 16:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Fuck you, I know exactly what MC is doing here, I'm not a fucking idiot. But how we treat MC speaks to our morality not his. He was railroaded and given a 2 year block for ban evading a 2 month block, and he's SHOCK! Ban evading again! I FUCKING TOLD EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOU THAT THIS WAS GOING TO HAPPEN, AND THAT YOUR 2 YEAR BLOCK WASN'T GOING TO SOLVE ANYTHING. And then you tell me that I'M the idiot for falling for MC's purported bullshit? --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 16:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
So what would you have us do? Nothing? That's worked pretty well the last few years hasn't it? Like it or not, letting MC do as he likes over the past few years is what has led us to this point - and you would have us press the restart button, only to end up here again two years down the line. EddyP Great King! Disaster! 17:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
There was nothing that required fixing, and that's the whole point. You just don't like MC, and can't suffer a troll to post, so we had to blow a whole bunch of drama up and work it up until we got justification from people to ban him. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 18:04, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Nothing that required fixing? The community as an organism felt differently. It wasn't one or two users scheming that brought us here - it was the gradual development of the community as a whole in response to MC's persistent trolling and a failure to deal with it. Your userpage says you believe in evolution; now consider the evolution of RW and what MC is in relation to it. EddyP Great King! Disaster! 18:10, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
So, your argument is that MC has made the community stronger, and better? So, he's not a troll out to destroy us... of course, the autoimmune response to dealing with MC could very well kill us, because ALL YOU FUCKERS ARE OVERREACTING TO HIM. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 18:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
My argument is that the RW community evolved naturally to get rid of a troll, yet you deny that and insist that it's the evil machinations of a few authoritarian users. EddyP Great King! Disaster! 21:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
The question is: why did we have to get rid of the troll? It's because people didn't like him, and for no other better reason. This is the thing, people are acting like this is a no brainer, because "who wouldn't want to get rid of a troll?" Well, all the people who think this website shouldn't have any trace of "permanent" level ban hammers. Honestly, we've banhammered MC just because he's a troll, and no one likes him, so when do we have the vote to banhammer JimJast and Maratrean for being cranks and no one likes them? --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 09:28, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Ok, two points: point the first: I'm part of the anarchist party here. If you're asking me "what rule do you want followed" then you're asking the wrong question. It's like asking an atheist which god they want to follow. It's nonsense.
Second of all, there was no due process in the whole MC thing. The response to "he's evading our banhammer" was "let's use a BIGGER banhammer, that will work!" No, it won't because he was already ban evading, and he was... and IS (just like I fucking said he would) still ban evading. Laying down a punishment upon someone for no other purpose than "we want to PUNISH you!" is never going to be met with compliance with the punished party. The punished party has to agree' to your punishment in order for rehabilitation to occur. No one tried to do any of that. It was just "he keeps calling Psygremlin a racist raping self-african, so we should ban him, and get rid of him."
This wiki used to ... it used to be a place where people came together and worked things out and you had do deal with the bullshit people forced on you, because you couldn't just CP banhammer them away. The whole fucking wiki was built on the idea of opposing authoritarianism and thus picked up anarchy as an idea to see if people who were actually fucking rational human beings could deal with it. Guess what? New people started coming in and going "hey, other wikis have rules, we should have rules!" And then got other people to sacrifice the core essence and concept of this wiki for the sake of having rules.
This wiki is turning into a shitty place, because for all the talk of anti-authoritarianism, and the castigation of CP for banhammering the undesirables, it has now come out that we have become the beast that we complained about in CP... I haven't seen a real good reason for banning MC other than "we don't like him!" If psygremlin really thinks that MC's comments amount to defamation, he can take it to a fucking real court and get it settled with fucking DUE PROCESS rather than railroading MC out of town just because no one likes him... --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 16:34, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Who are these 'new' users? Me? ADK? AD? Psy? Or is Brx pulling all the strings from behind the scenes? EddyP Great King! Disaster! 18:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
"And then got other people to sacrifice the core essence and concept of this wiki for the sake of having rules." for those people who can't seem to read. No, the new users aren't pulling your strings from behind the scenes, but they are convincing you that there is a problem here, when there actually isn't one. By manufacturing problems, they convince you we need real rules, with real leadership, and real authority on this webpage. And now that our site has authorities, it is becoming authoritarian... it's a simple tautology... --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 18:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Your userpage says you're a socialist. Socialism requires authorities. You say that authorities equals authoritarianism. Therefore socialism equals authoritarianism equals fascism. Are you a fascist Eira? Fascist. And I find it interesting that you claim that it's not the troll who is the problem, but those who want to get rid of him. Again I ask you: who are these new users who are 'manufacturing problems'? EddyP Great King! Disaster! 18:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Socialism is a real world governance system. This wiki is not the real world. This is not SRS BZNS... Individuals need protection against corporations, and need to be provided with fundamental necessities for life. The government however should not be restricting any person's social liberties. It shouldn't tell you what religion to believe, it shouldn't tell you what you can say, and what you cannot say. This board has no economic system. It is all about speech. If you want to call me a fascist because I think corporations shouldn't be treated the same as natural persons, then meh, yeah, legal persons don't deserve the same rights as natural persons. They don't need food, shelter, and healthcare. They don't have a corporeal body. Protecting natural persons from legal persons is not fascism to me. Restricting thought and communication though is fascism to me. I acknowledge though that by being socialist I believe in some authoritarianism. The government cannot protect natural persons from legal persons without having an authoritarian system in place to regulate legal persons. That doesn't mean that I think that the government should have any place to stifle the rights of natural persons... only legal persons, who only have personification because of statutory law in the first place. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 18:21, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
See Neb below. EddyP Great King! Disaster! 21:03, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Let's see, this site has banned one user for two years, after a vote, and after several years of obvious trolling. Yes, we're exactly like CP. DickTurpis (talk) 16:41, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
A person who has had even just one abortion cannot tell a person who has had 100 that that other person is wrong for having had an abortion... our moral high ground was that we wouldn't invoke "I hate you" bans. Now we have, so congratulations our moral high ground is gone. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 16:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
It's not an 'I hate you' ban. It's a 'you're a troll ban'. EddyP Great King! Disaster! 17:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Or, perhaps, an "I hate you because you're a troll" ban. DickTurpis (talk) 17:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
And what is wrong with trolls other than "I hate you". We codified and formalized treason in the US making it nigh impossible to accomplish, because the monarch of England was using it as an "I hate you" execution/imprisonment method. So really, this "you're a troll" ban, is really just "we don't like you". You can "justify" it with all the post-hoc apologetics you want, but that's what it fundamentally breaks down to. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 18:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
What's wrong with trolls? See TK. Their whole point is to disrupt and destroy a community, because they've always failed at being part of one. EddyP Great King! Disaster! 18:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
(EC)I guess you put me in my place. Thank you for letting me know where you stand.--talk 16:44, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
This wiki was founding on a principle of anarchy. And now everyone shits a brick when human and I disagree with a ruling and so we do our own shit on our own "turf". This place really is turning into Fascipedia... you don't want to be called a fascist? Then stop trying to enforce a rule of law, fucking ANARCHY rules here, bitch. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 16:40, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Obviously touched a nerve there. ADK...I'll pass your automobile! 16:44, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Internet is serious business. --188.238.88.195 (talk) 17:21, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Dammit MC... it's making it really hard to get them to not be cocks when you keep butting your head in. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 17:33, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Eira, that was not me. I employ the 86.45.... range. There are imposters who regularly sprout up, but you can always tell them for their lack of sophistication. I admire what you're doing here, but I would counsel you to be prudent. I'm playing a long game here. All know that the trial was a sham, I lacked a defence, I faced a predetermined jury, and the result was far too close for anywhere near as binding a decision. Until I get a retrial I will remain a lightening rod for dissent and free speech. Those in authority will use their jackboots and try to repress me, (And you, and others who hate what they've done to this place) but in the long run, liberty always prevails over tyranny. 86.45.235.173 (talk) 17:53, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
I knew it wasn't you. I'm muddying the waters. Stop clearing them up. After all, you could be using proxies... --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 17:55, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I dislike this 'troll' word getting bandied about. Judging by EddyP's definition of troll, 'someone who disrupts communities', it seems to me that a troll is someone with an independent spirit of mind and intellect who doesn't naturally fit into the prevailing social and political consensus of the times. It seems to me that Nazi Germany could have done with a few more trolls and few less 'members of the community'. 86.40.88.149 (talk) 18:10, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, trolls are only reviled when they're in disagreement with you. In fact, it seems to be the going definition. Not "out to destroy the community" but rather, "disagrees with me." --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 18:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
The community made a decision, and a pretty overwhelming one at that. You are at liberty to not like it and to continue to contribute. You are at liberty to argue against it if you think you can overturn that consensus. You are not at liberty to unilaterally ignore it. Life is like that.--BobSpring is sprung! 18:50, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
51 to 49 is "overwhelming"? WTF dictionary are you using? And actually, because we're a mobocracy we have been able to unilaterally ignore it before. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 18:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Well I was thinking about this vote for instance, which seems pretty overwhelming to me.--BobSpring is sprung! 19:19, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Notice how there are plenty of long-standing members who haven't voted? In fact, only 3 of 7 moberators, from what I see... of course the vote on MC was only 51-49 in the first place, so the ban itself wasn't particularly overwhelming in the first place. Of course, the issue was originally human saying, "we had a vote, and MC was banned, but I disagree with it, so I'm going to make a troll sanctuary." --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 09:28, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
What 51-49 vote? Do you mean the Human coop vote? EddyP Great King! Disaster! 15:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Correction, the vote I was referring to was 20-14. Still, that doesn't make the ban overwhelming. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 16:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
The projection on the part of the MC defenders continues to be amusing -- "You guys are just overreacting to MC...STOP OVERREACTING, THIS IS THE INTERNET, NOT SRS BSNS!! THIS IS A TROLLOCAUST BY NAZI FASCIST AUTHORITARIANS (likely of the aspie variety)!!! FASCIPEDIA!!" Not srs bsns is srs bsns. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:50, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Mobocracy means whatever Eira wants, everybody wants --24.246.11.252 (talk) 20:03, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
I explained mobocracy on RWW, but perhaps not everyone was there. Mobocracy is two people revert warring forever until one of them finally gives up, and we have a stable version. Mobocracy means literally rule by the mob, it is not "democracy" (let's vote on everything, and some level majority declares a winner), mobocracy is everyone does what they fucking want to, and you can't tell them otherwise, because they have just as much authority as you do. And you can't collect your friends together and outvote them, because the votes are non-binding. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 09:28, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
That's stupid. --193.65.150.15 (talk) 11:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

##  YOUR 2 YEAR BLOCK WASN'T GOING TO SOLVE ANYTHING

No, it won't solve anything if you let the troll continue his trolling on your talk page. -- Nx / talk 19:53, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

"trolling" on a talk page isn't the or even "a" problem. He's a troll. there is little if anything you can do, frankly. He will sock up, and keep trolling. you block an IP, he'll hop IPs. it's what trolls do. --En attendant Godot 20:39, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
He'll stop trolling when he gets bored because all his edits are deleted and no-one pays attention to him. But as long as he gets attention like in the above section, he won't be going anywhere. -- Nx / talk 20:42, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

##  Voting proposal

Hello Eira. I was hoping you might consider my proposal for two-thirds voting. I understand (correct me if I am wrong) that your position is more one that no vote should be considered binding. But I am thinking, that a binding supermajority vote, might be a good compromise between those who favour binding majority votes and those who oppose them. It keeps the binding nature, but makes passage of the vote harder, which makes it less likely (albeit still not impossible) for an irrational/unjustified vote to pass. I suppose the downside, from the opposition to binding votes viewpoint, is that if a vote does pass, the greater majority must inevitably increase the moral force behind it, and hence make it of more binding force than current votes are. Anyway, I am hopeful you will give this idea your consideration. Zack Martin  12:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Fuck off Mara... you're a fucking religion-pushing concern troll. Your religion is not based in any form of reality, and so you're fucking delusional. Don't like hearing these words? Too fucking bad, I'm right, and your own words have confirmed this. Go off enjoy your lala land that you've imagined. Actually, do us all a favor and go attempt to prove your religion is true to yourself... go rejoin Maratrean. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 15:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Ahaha damn right!--talk 01:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

##  Nom

Just letting you know that you've been nominated for moderator. Go here to accept or decline. Cheers. 03:49, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

##  Subversive Speech

I hereby note, that in the actions taken by a "majority" of this wiki, the community has apparently decided it fair to declare certain forms of speech so subversive, that they should be deleted on sight, with no further explanation, simply because they appear to be from a certain individual. Human having taken a moment to repeat these words has apparently come under attack just for repeating that which he earnestly believes, under suspicion that this is providing sanctuary to a blocked person. How horrible indeed, imagine such a world where speech that it believed to originate from a subversive individuals, cannot be uttered, even in proxy through another person. What a horrible day. Shall we ban next Karl Marx? St. Thomas Aquinas? Charles Darwin? Julius Caesar? Bill O'Reilly? Sir Isaac Newton? Marcus Cicero? Who next shall we decided that any speech coming from them, no matter its source shall be removed from this wiki? Who next?

If free men fear that their words might be redacted, repressed, or censored by mere matter of the origin of the words themselves, then how can we call ourselves free? How can we call ourselves as being against authoritarian, and totalitarian ideologies, when we ourselves refuse to permit unblocked individuals to repeat words that resonate within them merely, because those words are believed, believed no less for no truth or proof can be offered that the words truly are from this person of which none shall speak, lest they invite the wrath of ban, to be from an individual the community has named subversive...

I suppose the most hilarious aspect of all of this, is that those who seek to kill the troll, themselves kill instead the wiki itself. For in tempting to stab out the cancer they perceive to be infecting this wiki, they would carve out our very hearts and present it high, as it is beating... slowly... laboringly... and they should stand proudly proclaiming that the cancer has been excised, and the wiki shall now be able to rest in peaceful slumber, no longer to be vexed by this contemptible life which has infected every soul of our community. Then they shall lie down, and sleep, comfortably in the eternal rest, never again to stir with fire and passion.

(The above was written by an unnamed author, with their permission, because revealing the author, would result in its immediate removal, and repercussions upon the poster herself.) --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 16:18, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

For a long time on RW, "who said it" has been more important than "what was said". Just because it's in the name doesn't mean this is a rational place. Occasionaluse (talk) 16:28, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Agree with you both. I think, when a certain editor posts direct personal attacks against other editors, it is one thing to revert them (although still inconsistent, when other editors do the same and don't get reverted), it is entirely another thing when that editor posts something that isn't a personal attack, just an opinion people don't want to hear. Zack Martin  19:16, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Women are better at communication because of biology, but are inferior at math because of patriarchy. That makes sense. --24.62.109.225 (talk) 20:36, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I can't quite figure out if you're being sarcastic here, or if you think it really does make sense. However, women are worse at clicking buttons fast because of biology. I don't disregard that biology can have an effect upon people, but one has to be realistic about what is actually caused by biology, and what is not. Every study that has been done to locate the reason why women perform worse at math than men find that it is because of stereotype threat, and stereotype confirmation/internalization. (Naturalized US citizens are more likely to pick fast food choices for food, if it is suggested to them that they are not 'really' Americans. They don't plan on this, or are even aware of it. It's just an unconscious desire to conform to a stereotype in order to 'better fit in' with a group that they want to be identified as.) Meanwhile, women are significantly less likely to be autistic, and have been shown in research to have an increased response when witnessing others experiencing strong emotions, and female-to-male transsexuals have noted regularly that they are incapable of crying like they used to once they start hormone therapy. Hormones cause very distinct and sometimes crazy emotional changes in individuals, and it's entirely clear that women have more estrogen than men, and men have more androgens than women. If testosterone has been shown to reduce the empathetic character of a person, and raise "click button speed", then clearly testosterone will do this.
Here, a better example, testosterone is a natural steroid, and increases the ability to grow muscle tissue. As a result men on average are way more capable at sports than women. As a result, women compete in a different class. This is not sexism, it is biology. Women don't run slower than men because of patriarchy, but they certainly do perform worse on tests because of expectations that they will perform worse. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 14:36, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Nice stuff. Neb and I talk a lot about this. I've decided to "learn" (as it were), cognitive linguistics, which always draws me into brain "stuff". do you have any names of authors you'd recommend who have written about the comments above. Neb has suggested Lisa Elliot and Cordelia Fine but if you had any other suggestions about "brain and gender", i'd love them. Neb's cites have crushed my "crush" on S. Pinker, damnit. heh. GodotSome would use a tautology to describe it ("The way things are done around here is the wa 18:08, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
The totality of the differences are ascribed to a number of factors including, but not limited to stereotype threat. In any case, the gap is virtually non-existent in some places. (I think this is the most recent meta-analysis.) Stereotype threat affects the studies of women's ability to detect emotion as well (that's covered in Fine, as WfG mentioned). Also, claims about hormones have been misinterpreted and exaggerated in many cases (see Anne Fausto Sterling's Myths of Gender on that). Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm confused as to how you are "correcting" anything I wrote. Are you arguing that hormone changes have no effect on bodies and minds? Because I was arguing that they have a complex relationship with, but do cause changes in bodies and minds. (Bodies is clearly easily enough to prove: puberty.) Are you arguing that testosterone is not a steroid and thus aids men in the development of muscle tissue? Are you arguing that hormones don't effect emotional profiles? So, the whole aggression due to androgen floods is a myth, and doesn't actually exist? (Because, you know, it's scientifically validated.) So, I guess what I'm saying is, don't just point me at an essay that pretty much covers all of the topics that I already understand, and pretty much said myself. Also, don't tell me that hormones don't have any impact upon behavior at all, because such a statement is clearly false. (It's not uncommon for someone experiencing a hormonal tumor to experience a pretty drastic personality change.) Does this mean that every single emotional change/trait that we culturally attribute to hormones is actually caused by the hormones? No, I already said it was a complex relationship, and there is not a clear cause-effect relationship. However, if women experience increases in pimples, water-weight gain, and severe cramping that is readily resolved with hormone therapies (a.k.a. birth control pills) then obviously it can cause behavioral changes as well. (And if we throw out physical issues linked to menstruation as being "unrelated", or merely correlated, or figments of imagination/cultural indoctrination, then we may as well throw out "runny nose" and "fever" from symptoms produced by a cold. I can hear the argument "but colds don't cause behavioral changes, how can you argue that hormonal changes do!" Um... because colds don't pass through the blood-brain barrier, while hormones do.) --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 01:42, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
"...exaggerated or misinterpreted in many cases" apparently equals denial. You made a number of demonstrably wrong statements: 1. Every study finds that females are worse at math due to stereotype threat. Wrong, as per the above meta-analysis. 2. Stereotype threat affects the results of emotional reaction studies as well, as per Fine. 3. If button-clicking refers to reaction time, then men are faster, but this gap has also been shrinking over time. 4. The testosterone-aggression link is not "scientifically validated" in humans -- it's mostly in rats and other animals. The connection is much less clear in humans. [1] [2] [3] Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:42, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
"Much less clear in humans", but still there. I never claimed that "every study finds that females are worse at math due to stereotype threat", that would be a retarded notion to take. After all, there are studies that find that black people are inferior to white people, and that validate creationism, and AGW denialism, and homeopathy, and all sorts of bullshit. Also, there is more to women performing poorly on math tests than just stereotype threat anyways. Active discouragement to do well in math results in women concentrating on math in the first place is just one further part of the systemic bias against women doing well in math. Women who are well studied in math are just as capable as performing well as men. Wait, stereotype threat results in unconscious manipulation of unconscious factors of emotional reactions? It's like some Inception shit going on in here. "Subconsciously, I know I'm a good liar, so I'm going to subconsciously not produce deception-covering micro-expressions!" WTF? "Button-clicking" does not refer to reaction time, it refer to how quickly one can press a button. It is a known and documented feature of female-to-male transsexuals that once they begin taking testosterone their button clicks per minute go up. (I saw a program on TV where they were measuring an FTM's button click rate in order to collect scientific evidence, and they mentioned how button-click rate was cause-effect correlated with testosterone levels.) --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 04:52, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
"...but still there." Possibly not. There are pro-social effects as well. You might want to try actually reading the sources I've provided. "I never claimed that "every study finds...that would be a retarded position to take." "Every study that has been done..." Well, I'm glad you think so highly of yourself. "It is a known and documented feature of female-to-male transsexuals..." I didn't know that -- source besides "I saw it on the teevee once"? I'm not really inclined to believe "well-documented" after your "scientifically validated" fact wasn't really a fact. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 07:41, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Possibly, we're all brains in a jar, or a raw computer simulation without any real physical presence. Hormones cause bodily changes, why the fuck would they not also cause behavioral changes? People are so weird about this notion that animals are affected by deterministic factors, yet suggest that humans are subject to the same things, and WOAH NELLY! We gotta back off from this, because the Lord made us different from animals!!!one!
"Every study..." bleh, it's a stupid phrase that is indoctrinated. I still "OH MY GOD!!" but I don't believe in any gods. So, are you going to use that quote mine against me?
No, I don't have a better source than "saw it on the teevee", but tell you what, since I'm would just google it anyways, why don't you go do the work yourself? AND YOUR OWN GOD DAMN SOURCE SAYS AGGRESSION DUE TO TESTOSTERONE HAPPENS. But no, you have your retarded "we ain't like animals" blinders on, so what the fuck... why should I care? Just be another god damn denialist. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 21:05, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
On the contrary, the Nature report notes that it can affect behavior, but also behavior that's pro-social. The problem with testosterone studies is that they require a lumbar puncture for the most accurate reading of levels within the brain, which can't be done in regular experiments, leading to the spurious correlations as the articles note. Because something occurs in animals doesn't mean we can necessarily extrapolate that to humans -- otherwise we could just do animal testing and then unleash every single new drug to market immediately! (Big Pharma's wet dream, no doubt.) But I guess I'm just a "denialist" who believes in mind-body dualism for some reason -- clearly I have no idea how the brain works. Guess I better send that degree back to the alma mater. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:54, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it is extremely difficult to find the truth in these matters, because it is very difficult to design experiments to successfully disentangle the biological from the social. On the biological side, one can certainly find people who with all sorts of different genes and hormones, including less common combinations of those. But, culture is a given which you can't remove the subjects from. Cross-cultural studies can help, but even if you find an apparent cultural universal, you have not proven a role for biology, since you can't assume that the set of existent cultures represents the set of all possible cultures which could exist, and apparent universals may have explanations in commonalities not strictly biological (e.g. shared level of economic or technological development, or a shared history.) Even if you look at people who are transitioning, no doubt hormonal changes have a major impact, but I think the social and cultural construction of what it means to be female and male and transsexual also plays a major role, and it is hard to say where biology ends and where the social/cultural begin. Zack Martin  19:09, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, female to male transsexuals knowing that men tap buttons faster than women subconsciously started tapping buttons faster when they started taking testosterone. See, there are ways to test if biology is a factor in something, because if it is true that biology is a factor, then we should witness people for whom biology has diverged in such a way that there would be variation from the "universal normal". For instance, we know that having two arms is biology and not cultural, even though it is a nearly universal trait of all people. Acting like we can't extricate the entanglement between culture and biology at all is the same fucking stupid bullshit that I've come to expect from you. (Note: there are some cases where culture and biology are deeply entwined, but the notion that we can't ever disentangle any culture-vs-biology argument because some of them are difficult to do is wrong.) --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 01:22, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Um, I don't for a minute deny that hormones have some influence on the brain, and that when transsexuals start taking hormones, and notice some cognitive differences, that at least some of those are due to hormones. But at the same time, I think we tend to underestimate the extent to which even matters such as transsexualism are constructed by society and culture — transsexuals are acting, to some extent, within particular cultural understandings of what it means to be one gender or the other, and what it means to transition between them. One thing I notice, is that — this is certainly not universally true, but it is a definite tendency — transgender people when transitioning often feel a greater compulsion to behave in a gender normative way with respect to the gender to which they are transitioning than cisgender people of the same gender do. How many web pages by M2Fs have I seen covered with pink and butterflies! I completely understand the situation they face - when there is such a pressure to pass, to prove one really is the gender one feels one is, one tends to adopt the most conservative, or even exaggerated, approach to doing so. By contrast, those who natally posses that gender, are under no such pressures, and hence are much more free (in a way) to act in ways which question the prevalent conceptions of what it means to be that gender. I do think though, that as society with time becomes less transphobic, these pressures upon transgender people will reduce, and they may become closer to cisgender people in their behaviour in this regard. Zack Martin  08:12, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Quoting my parenthetical above: "Naturalized US citizens are more likely to pick fast food choices for food, if it is suggested to them that they are not 'really' Americans. They don't plan on this, or are even aware of it. It's just an unconscious desire to conform to a stereotype in order to 'better fit in' with a group that they want to be identified as." This stereotype conformation in order to deflect the appearance of not being part of an identified group is nothing that is constrained only to transsexuals. It is difficult to argue that "wearing makeup" is in any way a form of natural consequence of estrogen, and not totally social/cultural indoctrination. The idea that all behavior changes of transsexuals is automatically because of hormone changes is a strawman that you appear to be hoisting up in my stead, so that you can beat on that rather than deal with my real argument: there are some behaviors that are a result of complex interactions of hormones. Which is exactly what your first sentence stated, which means that your entire diatribe on my talk page is entirely worthless because you're arguing the same god damn point that I am. So, unless you're arguing that hormones have no effect, or hormones have all effects, then shut up and get the fuck off my page. You already know that I hate you, so don't be surprised when you drop a steaming heap of antagonistic shit on my talk page, and I respond negatively. You're a fucking idiot moron, and none of your ideas deserve consideration. (I mean, fuck, you don't even believe that hormones really exist, they're just part of the pattern of consciousness, so hormonal changes are all in our head according to you.) --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 20:23, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
What made you think what I said was disagreeing with you somehow? I was responding to the discussion above generally, not your own views specifically, so why should you assume what I said had to be necessarily disagreeing or agreeing with you? I also don't understand why you hate me, I don't hate you. I don't see the value in going through life hating people, especially people on the Internet who you barely know, and have never done anything beyond expressing some opinions contrary to yours. Zack Martin  07:07, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

All this just for an old essay I wrote. It kind of makes me want to update it. Radioactive Misanthrope 19:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't read it. I just came in to correct Eira and the troll BON's facts. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:26, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Exactly. I was actually replying below about an article i'm fucking up and noticed the BON comments and Eira's reply.GodotSome would use a tautology to describe it ("The way things are done around here is the wa 19:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Harrumph. Radioactive Misanthrope 19:44, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

##  bible translation

For what it's worth, I'm totally revamping that page, since it was by and large, a rehash of "translations of the bible" - but also had lots of stuff not included in the other page. But I can only edit in blocks of 15-20 minutes. So i write a bit, go work, come back. It will have lots of unexplained things if you catch it at the wrong time. But I'll get it done, and let you all know that "ok, i think this is readable, please destroy it for me" when it's time. :-) The two pages are Bible translation and Bible Translations if you are curious to see why I thought they needed to be reworked, or better parsed or something.GodotSome would use a tautology to describe it ("The way things are done around here is the wa 18:03, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

##  MCWiki

Is this you, or an impostor? -- Nx / talk 10:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

"I like people to decide for themselves; it is more fun that way." –the creator of Leeroy Jenkins
And besides, who fucking cares about me? I'm no longer in any position of trust at this wiki. I've already been driven off of the Board by slanderous accusations. At least me leaving allowed someone to get in, who has some actual fucking business sense and the Board is getting steered in the right direction for once. (Massively behind on paperwork? Good job Board of Directors!) --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 10:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Ok. I'll assume it is you then. -- Nx / talk 10:24, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
If it is you, it is deeply disturbing that those who call themselved the champions of liberty would engage in even more outrageously heavy-handed forms of the very authoritarian practices that they profess to oppose. Apparently, they will not even stop at wrongfully accusing upstanding citizens of crimes they did not commit. Have you no shame? Röstigraben (talk) 10:26, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, was MCWiki established under the same ruleset as RationalWiki, or did I miss something? It's kind of funny that people cannot understand that people can hold two varying positions for two varying concepts. I certainly am not for mobocratic rule of the United States, or my state, or even my city. I am however for mobocratic rule of RW, because that's the tradition. MCWiki was founded on completely different rules, and I have no problem working within two different rulesets for two different "jurisdictions". Frankly, that you people are freaking out about this so much, is honestly hilarious.
Also, accusing upstanding citizens of crimes they did not commit? Like Psygremlin accusing Human of breach of fiduciary duty? Ok, maybe not "upstanding citizen", but at least innocent of the charge levied. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 10:30, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Ah, now I see what's going on here. I just found out that I'd been offered a leadership position in the revolutionary movement, shortly before you blocked me. It's obvious that you're jealous that our dear leader was beginning to see the wisdom of my ways, and planned to make me his right-hand man. So you eliminated me before I could threaten your position in the organization. That was well played from a purely Machiavellian point of view, but mark my words - such devious scheming and infighting will only cause you to become the very monster that you seek to destroy. Beware! Röstigraben (talk) 10:36, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
I blocked Andrew Schlafly because the user was masquerading as someone else. A public figure no less in our group. One may as well have created a user account "Adolf Hitler" on Wikipedia. It's obviously not the real person, and obviously someone just masquerading as that person. I blocked "Robert Stadler" because it was reasonably apparent that he was a sock of Ty, who has been trolling the board since the start. If "Robert Stadler" was actually you, then oops... don't make yourself look like an obvious sock of an obvious troll. Anyone making an account here that appeared to be obviously Marcus Cicero would get banned and reverted immediately, so don't act like it is some draconian measure that wouldn't happen here. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 10:42, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
This is outrageous. I cannot even edit my talk page over there, so I have no other choice than to appeal here. I demand that you immediately unblock me and my good friend Andrew, so that we may take up our positions on the revolutionary tribunal. Regarding the case of "Marcus Cicero", I assure you that I will look favorably on your statement on behalf of the prosecution when we review the block. This is indeed an act of treacherous identity theft that was undoubtedly committed to divide our budding movement. Do not fall into their trap, Eira. Röstigraben (talk) 10:55, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
You're fucking retarded. You would look favorably on "Marcus Cicero"'s case, but DEAR LORD!!! NO, we need to unblock "Andrew Schlafly". --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 11:20, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
I would look favorably on your statement on behalf of the prosecution of "Marcus". Whatever, at least unblock me. Andrew can come back with his real first name and last initial. Röstigraben (talk) 11:30, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

What is really sad, is that you all steamrolled MC out of this wiki without following your own due process that you expected. MCwiki was established and he was outright and forthcoming: "I will block people for XY", and equated it with "summary execution". At least MC is working within his own rules on his own wiki... here? Pff... we just make shit up and railroad people. It's honestly to the point where people are not allowed to talk shit anymore... It's sad. Whatever happened to the edgy RW that was all in-your-face? I want that RW back, and that's where the alignment of my agreement with MC lies. We had a garden of eden here, and some people just ran in, upset that things weren't being directed, and "civilized"... and just like the Europeans raping American cultures that were getting along reasonably fine before them, they ran roughshod over the existing culture, supplanting their own "civilization". --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 10:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Getting serious for a second, what's really sad is that you and Human allow yourself to be used as a tool for trolling. Sorry that there's no kinder way to put it. You swallowed Marcus' story about impeding fascism on RW hook, line and sinker, and you totally isolated yourself from the rest of the community as a result. Do you really think that all these people with whom you've interacted and mostly gotten along well over the years have suddenly turned into authoritarians who are determined to crush every last glimmer of fun and individualism here?
I admit that I'm also less than happy with what RW has become recently, but I don't think that has anything to do with authoritarian structures (whatever new structures have been instituted, like moderators, are already pretty much defunct anyway). It's just that there's a group of new editors, namely Maratrean, Brxbrx and UHM, who are either determined to do their utmost to turn this place into shit or are too stupid to see what effect they're having on it. Shunning them hasn't made them go away, and they're apparently happy with spending their time here by picking fights left and right. Still, the fact that none of them has suffered more "draconian" measures than a temporary revoke of sysop rights should show you that MC was an absolutely solitary case. So yeah, I really don't see why you waste your time and abilities on trolling this place via MCW. You used to be a top notch contributor here, like several others who have recently left in disgust or quietly disappeared. Maybe the general change in RW's atmoshere over the last year is just bringing out the worst in people, but casting your lot with MC is seriously not the right way to turn the ship around again. Röstigraben (talk) 11:30, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
So, your solution is to troll the troll on his own wiki? That's honestly fucking lame. Also, the notion that I've swallowed MC's diatribe hook line and sinker is pretty fucking offensive that you think that I'm that stupid. Perhaps I have my own opinions about what's going on here, and I was upset before MC uttered a word about it. Of course, this wikis solution is to just ban him foreverz and then revert and ban any edit that looks like it comes from MC... I mean, seriously, WHO FUCKING THINKS ANY OF THAT IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO?

If you have complaints about MCWiki, email the admins on that site, stop trolling up RW with your shit. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 11:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm trolling RW? Sure, whatever. I tried talking to you. If you really want to carry on with this unhinged BS, go ahead. Röstigraben (talk) 12:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC)