RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive284

February short story competition
—ClickerClock (talk) 01:21, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I was thinking we should do a short story competition every month, so here goes. Before we can start, though, we need a topic. Vote in the poll below to decide which one we should write about. 15:00, 30 January 2018 (UTC) Polls are closed, vampires have won per CheeseburgerFace. . 03:35, 3 February 2018 (UTC)  Love Vampires Grawp Other (write your choice below) Tales from RW 1.0 Music Why Conservatism is better than Liberalism
 * Why Conservatism is better than Liberalism
 * Tales from RW 1.0. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 17:59, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I have some ideas. Pick vampires!!! —ClickerClock (talk) 21:31, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I would like to note that these are not super-rigid rules that you have to follow and you can use multiple subjects: you could write a story about how Grawp is in love with a vampire musician, which makes conservatives better than the werewolf-loving liberals at RW 1.0, and it would be fine no matter what topic is chosen. Also, I would love to see that story. Can we please make that happen? 22:07, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Music 'Legion what do you want from me  02:02, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Grawp the Harry potter character?Vorarchivist (talk) 04:49, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Grawp the wannabe troll/stalker. Comrade GC (talk) 04:56, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Stop bringing up Grawp and giving him attention. This is what he wants. 05:29, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Mod hat?
I see the topic "Grawp" has won. He's a troll who doesn't deserve any attention. Giving him the spotlight isn't going to help the community at all. I was thinking about tipping my mod hat to stop this, but I'm unsure if this is a mod's responsibilities. Thoughts? 00:21, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * We could always write parody about him, however if you think you should invalidate the votes for him and give them to the runner-up that would likely work as well. 01:33, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * They're tied, no? We could definitely choose vampires since you're a mod and it was a tie anyway. 03:29, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Grawp was winning when I last checked, but since it's tied now...
 * The votes for "Grawp" are invalidated. "Vampires" win. 03:31, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Once again, the elite see fit to override our democratic votes to suit their own purposes! It's okay, I didn't vote for that (I didn't vote for anything, actually) —Kazitor, pending 04:20, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * That's ok Comrade for it is all perfectly legal (the vote was tied at the end) and if you but accept this your fish rations shall be increased by one!! And your goat rations by two!!  04:25, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Odd, someone must've taken over my account. I would never speak out against our oppressive glorious moderators! I regret any trouble this incident might have caused and hope I can be forgiven. —Kazitor, pending 04:35, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no cabal. Cosmikdebris (talk) 04:54, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Make a story about a troll who sucks people's blood. Oolon Colluphid (talk) 00:23, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm glad I'm not the first who's thought that. It's a great idea. Cosmikdebris (talk) 00:39, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Mine's done.Antigem (talk) 10:53, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * My suggestion of Why Conservatism is better than Liberalism could be used instead folks... --Right-wing RationalWiki (talk) 10:57, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * My suggestion of Why Conservatism is better than Liberalism could be used instead folks... --Right-wing RationalWiki (talk) 10:57, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Short story rating
I would like to inquire as to exactly how adult our short stories can become. Any thoughts on the matter would be appreciated. 15:07, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I would personally prefer that we keep them PG-13. 16:44, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Submissions
Put your submissions below. Please sign them so we know whose they are. 16:45, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused. Do we post the story in it's entirety? Spectral Thief Marshadow (talk) 00:30, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Simply post your story in essayspace then add the link here. 01:25, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * What's Essayspace? Spectral Thief Marshadow (talk) 02:06, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Essayspace. 02:21, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Here's my story, assuming it goes here. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Essay:A_story_about_Vampires Spectral Thief Marshadow (talk) 01:41, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Essay:Vampire Animals - not a story, but I did see that there aren't really any rules.Antigem (talk) 11:47, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

What do you think is the likelihood of World War III?
Lately there's been a lot of tension, it seems, between countries and due to that there's been many articles about likelihood of world war 3. One article (well, not really article) was that of the economist, it was one of those snapchat discover things so unfortunately I cannot provide links so I'll try to summarise what was on it as best I can. The main factors that could spark world war 3 (according to the article) are: Russia's will to dominate central and Eastern Europe, China's will to dominate parts of Asia, North Korea attack and America's dysfunctional politics. From what I gathered, Russia and China want a "greater sphere of influence" without "Ameirca's interference"; there's a " Pressing danger of war on Korean Peninsula, perhaps this year" which could cause and all out war and the fact that American isn't doing anything about this could cumulate into a world war 3. The use of drones could also be devastating and Russia has more nuclear weapons than Ameirca. According to the economist, the best way to keep world peace going is for America to be a stronger power ("The best guarantor for world peace is a strong America") I assume this would be used to deter any conflict. The economist put that Russia and China won't "start a war they'd surely lose" so if America is strong it would seem that they wouldn't be able to win a war with it, I'm not really sure I understand it well enough so excuse the poor reasoning. The overall argument from the Economsit is that world war 3 (currently) is very plausible if America doesn't sort itself out and let's other powers do what they want to do (I think that's what they're aiming at). So what do you guys think, sorry if this summary is a bit wishy-washy but I'm not really that good at summaries it seems. Anyway, what do you guys reckon about this whole ordeal, do you think world war 3 is likely anytime soon and would the listed factors be detrimental to its initiation?--WMS (talk) 23:15, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm going to have to agree with that assessment, from my point of view the US has spent too much time playing policeman of the world and not enough time shoring up our economy and infrastructure. Although to be fair I do have a large anti-interventionist streak so I am biased somewhat. 05:06, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Nerd (talk) 22:22, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Look no further than the doomsday clock to see how close we are to nuclear war. It's fallacious to think that more nuclear weapons means more security.  Bongolian (talk) 05:44, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I spent the first 25 years of my life in a world in which the prospect of nuclear annihilation seemed all but certain. Then came another 20+ years in which it seemed a dim memory. Now, I am more sure of it than ever before. RagingHippie (talk) 05:50, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that's too simplistic. You need ample nuclear weapons of all kinds &mdash; strategic and tactical &mdash; for an effective deterrence policy. The question is whether or not you can afford it. Also, nuclear weapons may not be as destructive as you think. Bunkers and various hide-outs can be constructed. Modern battle tanks may have the ability to resist radiation damage up to a point. Nerd (talk) 22:26, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree,, I was being too simplistic. I had to shut down just as I finished the second sentence. The idea behind deterrence in the Cold War was basically between roughly co-equal nation states (US & USSR), there was no need to develop more nuclear weapons than were necessary to assure a devastating retaliation in the case of first strike. The retaliation was assured a fleet of near-impossible to prevent launches from nuclear weapon-equipped submarines. Both the US and USSR produced many more weapons than were necessary, which was more of an ideological (rabid anti-communism)/political (we must have more than the adversary) decision than a strategic decision. The US building 100 or 1000 or however many more nuclear weapons isn't going to add any additional deterrence to anyone, especially not North Korea. North Korea on the other hand probably does have something to gain strategically by continuing down the nuclear weapon building path since their long-range missile accuracy is unknown, and their submarine capacity is quite limited so far. Bongolian (talk) 01:25, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Redundancy is usually necessary, and it is in this case. I forgot to mention that your bombs, artillery shells, torpedoes and missiles may not find their targets. However, your comment comment about the U.S. vs. North Korea is spot on. Once again we see the law of diminishing marginal returns in action. It is probably better for the U.S. to work on quality rather than quantity at this point in time. Old toys may not work as intended. A modernization program is in order. From what I understand, it is already underway. Nerd (talk) 14:31, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Late last year I had a dream: I looked out my front door as a mushroom cloud bloomed in the distance near a major American city. That being said, I understood the dream as compensating for my disappointment at Trump's election and my own conscious certainty that no such thing would happen. Thus two certainties were conflated. My reasons: Now that Russia has gone over to gangster capitalism, there is no ideological reason for Russia to violently expand into Europe. Conventional war is too expensive. Nuclear war destroys the property the victors would be fighting for. Not many have noticed that going off the gold standard has made small-time war unaffordable. Also, Trump would rather make a deal with the Russians and Chinese to take what they want for a cash payment. You know he would do that too, that crook (sort of a good thing here). I don't imagine N. Korea has enough fissile material to destroy even itself. So, I guess it could happen. I doubt it.Ariel31459 (talk) 19:09, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * . "there is no ideological reason for Russia to violently expand into Europe." Ukraine. Crimea. They've already done it. Plus, the idea that NATO now encroaches on their borders gives them every reason to want a buffer zone between them and what they percieve as a hostile, expanding power. RagingHippie (talk) 01:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think we disagree on that. But the reasons are not really ideological with respect to Russia's invasions. Crimea was once part of Russia. Stalin ( an ethnic Georgian) gave it to Ukraine. The Russians wanted it back. Now the border incursions into the Ukraine could mean The Russians think they need the agricultural potential of Ukrainian farms. The west won't let them take it, I think. But that's not worth a nuclear war...I guess.Ariel31459 (talk) 15:09, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It depends on what you mean by a "Third World War". If you mean a war in which which many major powers and some minor ones are involved - well, that was (and is) in going on in Syria.   If you mean a war in which The US, Russia, China, Europe, India and the Middle East are all involved in some kind warlike activity which spans the globe and in which they are actually fighting each other then I think it's kind of unlikely as - the way the world is structured now - it would be in nobody's interest. (But, hey! Humans?)  If you mean an all-out nuclear war between all the nuclear powers (OK, between Russia and the US) then that seems even less likely.   (But on the other hand - Putin? Trump?) Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 22:08, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Noticable bias
Sup y'all. Having read through U.S politics related articles I couldn't help but notice some obvious biases. For example the Republican Party has categories such as Government Incompetence, Insufferable Asseholes,Smooth-talking bastards and Authoritarian wingnuttery. Democratic Party has none of these. I for one would sooner vote Republican than Democrat. --Princeps Civitatis (talk) 13:43, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * yeah this slander occurs on almost every article about conservatives/right-wing people or movements. It’s an epidemic. —Right-wing RationalWiki (talk) 14:22, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * First off, the Y at the beginning of your first sentence should be capitalized. Second off, slander is a rather strong term given most if not all of this site's content is protected under the first amendment (under U.S. law) or it's equivalent. 14:45, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Ha ha criticising my spelling and grammar...you’re username suits you. —Right-wing RationalWiki (talk) 14:49, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Really? You're only noticing that now? 14:53, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * ...—Right-wing RationalWiki (talk) 15:06, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah!! Such witticisms wound me sir! How doth your enemies stand against such cleverness? 15:12, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You should have used its, not it's. CowHouse (talk) 16:23, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Damn you Muphry's Law!! 17:50, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, reality has a well-known liberal bias, and we just happen to reflect that. 15:14, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Although the example you used isn’t the best (the Republican Party is clearly worse than the Democratic Party), we do suffer from left-wing bias and it often affects the accuracy of our articles. If you see any examples of factual inaccuracies, feel free to remove them or bring them up. Christopher (talk) 16:34, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you. That bias is real and not enough people point it out.  By merely describing them as incompetent and insufferable, we're really pasting a bias of decency and fairness over a reality of scum-sucking, vile worthless, often fascist trash.  We could do so much more to portray just the facts of reality, but unfortunately, we are often bound by social convention.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:03, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I still wonder if there is anything redeeming about today's conservatism in America. Social conservatives? They're always assholes who want to restrict rights of minorities and women in the name of "tradition". Fiscal conservatives? That doesn't exist when fiscal conservatives (aka the Republicans) want the ballooning the military budget and giving corporations tax cuts via "trickle-down" which is based on literal horseshit and is theoretically and really horseshit. Small government conservatism? Yeah, sure, subscribe to the complete and dicky myth of people living on food stamps. A lot of deregulation they support is usually allowing corporations the right to screw us over. De-tooth the EPA, FDA, the medical stuff (cancervatives lolol). How do people believe any of this works when time and time has shown again that they work as well as using a Spiny Shell when you're in first place? 03:36, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * part of me believes that they don't actually believe in any of this shit and have deeper, financially motivated reasons behind some of these. 03:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Of course, but people vote for these positions. Which means there are people out there who support them. 04:07, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

The categories are regularly vandalized after midnight by political chupacabra that has yet to be identified.Ariel31459 (talk) 20:01, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I actually don't like the categories "Insufferable assholes" and "Smooth-talking bastards": they're too subjective. Nonetheless, I did use the former on Roger Stone: how can the quintessntial ratfucker not be an insufferable asshole? We have both a Category:Authoritarian moonbattery and a Category:Authoritarian wingnuttery; these should be merged. This is a legitimate category because it is a demonstrable concept that supports our mission: dictators, near-dictators, and those who support them. The combined categories include members on both extremes of the political spectrum. Category:Government incompetence does include members on both sides as well, but it's not particularly missional. Bongolian (talk) 20:57, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I've always thought that the over-snarky, overly-subjective categories you mention above probably need to be removed. They add very little to the pages they're attached to. Government incompetence is kind of a misnomer; anyone can find an example of any government that has some something incompetent. Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 23:51, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * idk if it's just me but i've always found the insufferable assholes and smooth-talking bastards funny and never took it too seriously 03:20, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't like the subjective categories either. A category such as "insufferable assholes", since it is subjective, can cause unnecessary edit wars. CowHouse (talk) 07:06, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd be in favour of scrapping that cat completely. —Kazitor, pending 10:33, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * This cat asks 'after midnight' where? Anna Livia (talk) 18:39, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The categories aren't useful at all (after all, most people we document are batshit crazy and/or insufferable assholes, aren't they?). I'll still miss them, but the only reason they're there is just for snarkiness. I entertain the thought of some categories get renamed like "Anti-vaccination movement" to "Anti-vaccination paranoia", "Shysters" to "Shyster bastards", "Creationists" to "Creationist idiots" but I'm not begging for it; it's not a serious proposal. 20:01, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Vote
It looks like there are enough people with an opinion against those cats that we should have a vote on whether to keep them or not. 18:23, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear about what is being voted on. It is elimination of the two categories Government incompetence and insufferable assholes. Is that what you had in mind, ?&mdash; Unsigned, by: Bongolian / talk / contribs
 * Christopher (talk) 19:44, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, unless people would also like to add categories like "smooth-talking bastards" to the vote. 02:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I would be cool with getting rid of vague categories entirely. Keep definite stuff: Shoe Stores of the World, Eskimos with size 15 feet, women with big hands, etc.Ariel31459 (talk) 03:47, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Keep

 * 18:23, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * 20:01, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * 21:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Eliminating these categories is over kill. As for if they should apply to republicans and democrats...I would have to say...goat.  Shabi  DOO  21:54, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) The n00bs need to look up "snarky POV" and the right-wingers need to fuck off. LongLostLegend (talk) 12:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Keep. It's both amusing and therapeutic; as well as full deserved and apposite. If the issue is a perceived bias, then get nominating the fools on the left. There's enough of 'em. Nominate me. I'm sure I deserve it. Scherben (talk) 19:06, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) RW has always had a Snarky Point of View and it's always been part of the way it works that gratuitous insults against people we hate are as much aprt of our articles as factual material. Do we really want to excise the humeur and turn serious and dull? Wilder Bicycle 18:02, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * A small category at the bottom of a page isn't snark, it's just senseless name-calling. Apart from the fact that nobody looks at the categories anyway, I can't imagine why you would think calling someone an insufferable arsehole is "snark". —Kazitor, pending 04:34, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Nobody looks, so you won't mind it staying then? Also, what's wrong with senseless name calling against the rich, powerful and stupid? It's all some people have. Scherben (talk) 17:17, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * If that was an attempt at exposing inconsistency, it failed, because I don't really care that much. I would prefer to see it gone though. —Kazitor, pending 21:03, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) What Bicycle said. Christopher (talk) 18:22, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Keep it. I don't think I've ever seen a page where it was undeserved. James Earl Cash (talk) 22:09, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) I always treated the cat as a sign of something or someone batshit insane. Maybe we can make a proper criteria. Dogeatsdog (talk) 18:36, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The batshit crazy category already exists. CowHouse (talk) 08:56, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Quit trying to take all of the fun out. Cat Lover (talk) 01:50, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Eliminate

 * 1) Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 19:01, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Reading a vote-comment above I'm somewhat surprised to find that I seem to be either a "n00b" or a "right winger". I guess that you learn something new every day. :-)  Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 10:01, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Ariel31459The Hypocryphal
 * 2) "Insufferable assholes [sic]" doesn't tell you anything. I can't imagine someone thinking "man, I wish RW had a list of insufferable arseholes." —Kazitor, pending 04:08, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) I'm mainly against the "insufferable assholes" category. Whatever makes them an insufferable asshole should be covered by other categories. It's also uninformative and too subjective (what makes a person an insufferable asshole is subjective, as well as whether or not you find that particular person to be one). CowHouse (talk) 06:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * This is in response to the popular "keep" argument that RationalWiki has a snarky point of view. SPOV: "[s]nark can include sarcasm, irony, satire, absurdist commentary, subversive humour and witty asides." I don't see how the category "insufferable assholes" has anything to do with snark. I'd also like to point out that removing a childish category doesn't mean we will become serious and dull (See Slippery slope). CowHouse (talk) 04:58, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Cosmikdebris (talk) 13:47, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Mostly agree with Cowhouse, in that 'insufferable assholes' is a bit too subjective.  (If kept, there are many movements and people that meed to be added: veganism. Women's Christian Temperance Union, Christopher Hitchens, and probably many many more.) - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 18:07, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Why did you change your mind? CowHouse (talk) 04:28, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Mostly, consensus; also noted the inconsistency between wanting to delete the category, and wanting to see it more widely used. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 05:59, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Right-wing RationalWiki (talk) 22:39, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * 05:13, 22 February 2018 (UTC) —half unsigned, by CheeseburgerFace / talk
 * 1) "Government Incompetence" is a bit vague while "Insufferable _____" is just unhelpful name calling. Nerd (talk) 16:22, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Goat

 * 1) ive no problem with bias. if its obvious bias you take it into account, like when you read a newspaper. godawful snark posing as 'satire' or humour on the other hand can die in a fire. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:49, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) While I think some categorizes serve no purpose aside from snark, there is no set line of what is "subjective" and what is "not". We haven't factored other subjective categories including Category:Enablers, Category:Shysters (debatable), Category:Smooth-talking bastards, Category:Batshit crazy, Category:Bullshit, Category:Crimes against humanity, and a few others I've missed. 20:10, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) It has been suggested (and seconded) that there are "people we hate." Is there a list, or (my preference), can we just hate everyone?Ariel31459Περιμένετε! Είναι περισσότερο!

Yes, antidepressants work. What a shocker!
Don't tell me actually inhibiting serotonin reuptake may actually help with depression, an illness associated with low serotonin levels!

Yes, I'm a bit salty about this but as a psychiatry resident I get far too many accusations of just being a pill pusher or something (a doctor prescribes pills? What on Earth is next!?). Ibrahim Moizoos (talk) 19:46, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * We live in a science blind society. The majority of the world still believes in God, and fake news is a huge problem in this era. The fact that snopes and rationalwiki exists should be a good indication that the world is filled with woo. 19:04, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I was put on extra Bipolar and Schizophrenia medication recently. It is slightly working. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 23:47, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, bipolar. In the words of famed wordsmiths Run-DMC, it's not that easy. It's tricky. Lamotrigine is the med with the highest success rate in my experience but it's a pain in the start with its eight weeks until therapeutic dose business. Lithium is a close second. Abilify is third, in conjunction with lithium but Abilify has nasty side effects like akathisia. Ibrahim Moizoos (talk) 01:28, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Its not enough for believers in the Abrahamic god, that we all believe in him, they also want us to believe that whatever he does, he's still 100% good. If that's true, why Exodus 32:7-14, 30-35; 33:1-6, 12-17, among other verses. This belief is dangerous in my opinion, and implies that were Jehovah a baby-killer (oh wait...) or another type of monster, he'd still be the good guy. I await a world where this belief and that in magical woo are long dead. Darthmaul (talk) 02:54, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Ready for a laugh?
Note- slightly off subject

The other day, my mom was doing laundry and I went to the gym with my brothers. My oldest brother drove to pick my mom up from the laundry mat. On the way home, my mom told me and my brothers of a "weight loss" program at the Episcopalian church. This woman told my mom that it was a 12 step program. Basically, asking God to make them thin. I laughed. I see nothing wrong with a church having a weight loss program, as long as there was actual exercise. I see nothing wrong with having a prayer but working on emotional issues should be done with a therapist. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 19:34, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Toast Day.
I don't know how many of the Old Guard will see this, but please raise a glass in honour of one of the most phenomenal people this community has ever known. Ask or Goonie how much she did to make this place what it is. We loved you, Susan. And you loved us. And we were the richer for it. I miss you so damn much. RagingHippie (talk) 05:40, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Salud!!! Shabi  DOO  06:20, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't drink alcohol, so I guess a glass of milk will have to suffice. Sláinte! RoninMacbeth (talk) 07:56, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Drink done. :-) Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 09:54, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I've heard some stuff about her on RWW 3.0's archives. And I also don't drink, so I'll just have a 2-liter of soda. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 16:19, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * She did a lot of her contributing from a mobile phone, no easy feat. VALE Susan! Anonymous User (talk) 16:44, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll raise another mug of coffee to her. 18:12, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Guess this'll be an excuse to drink a cooler. Or hard root beer. Or even vodka. 19:20, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Whisky was her tipple. Wilder Bicycle 10:54, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Old Guard
I wonder how it is for them, with the wiki far bigger and the userbase virtually unrecognizable. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 16:35, 24 February 2018 (UTC)


 * You mean Wikipedia? Darthmaul (talk) 17:57, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I think he means "I wonder what the founders of this site think of how it has grown?" Cat Lover (talk) 21:56, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * They're pretty much all on Facebook instead of here. There are two RW groups on Facebook, full of former RW users. The groups function as a WIGO/Saloon Bar hangout place; the site itself rarely gets a mention. Also they don't talk to each other because of a nasty falling-out a while back. So the answer to "what do they think of RW these days" is: they don't. Wilder Bicycle 22:07, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Some of them are still here under different names too. Cat Lover (talk) 22:13, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm only here to bore people rigid about the old days. Wilder Bicycle 22:34, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * does anyone actually give a shit about this old guard/new guard nonsense? AMassiveGay (talk) 22:29, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't particularly care. —Kazitor, pending 22:32, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * no but you could be a lot less rude about it. 22:58, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I was kicked out of one of the FB groups, which probably works to my credit. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 02:03, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It all depends a lot per what you think left-wingism is. In Canada, most of Europe, Australia, Taiwan, Japan, Singapore and South Korea...ideas like putting the dignity and equality of the person first and ensuring disadvantaged and unlucky people are helped...is pretty much a no brainer for almost everyone wherever they are on the specturm. The difference between those on the spectrum is how far a country should go with redistribution of wealth, the promotion of equality/inclusivity and how generous the funding is of those programs. From continental Europe, in my opinion, this website seems slightly leaning towards the left but doesn't seem overly so. I can imagine how the narratives on this site seems notably left or even radically left...for some Americans and perhaps those from some other English speaking countries maybe. The current right wing governments of Norway, Spain and Belgium, for example, is considerably more left than the US Democrats on many issues. The reason criticism of neo-conservativism and men's rightists and gamergaters and evangelists is so common here...is because the narrative of a notable group of republicans and others is found everywhere all the time and it is so saturated with stupidity when it comes to religion and pseudoscience, willful ignorance of social problems, blatant lies and a shocking lack of sympathy for the disadvantaged and downtrodden you simply cannot avoid critiquing it. Also...a moronic hopeless president doesn't help. It all goes so far beyond anything left wing or right wing that it is simply utter lunacy and dehumanizing cruelty. There are some notable critique about problems from a feminist perspective or LGTB perspective but once again, I'm not sure how far you can call it a left-wing thing, but more of a "humanist" approach. After all, parts of the radical left are also critiqued here, extreme identity politics activists and the "regressive left critics" are criticized here as well as apologists of Venezuelan populism and of marxism. Browse through the newspapers of countries with left-wing governments and its not that easy to find narratives where they say stupid and clearly false things, propose outrageous solutions to problems, dehumanise people, promote pseudoscience or encourage fundamentalism. They may go to far per "thought policing" or "extremely generous funding" to social problems or leniency in prison sentences, but then you can find right wing governments doing the same thing in many countries.  This site is simply not as blatantly left as some people have claimed. 87.218.205.166 (talk) 23:55, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm about as old guard as it's possible to be. And with no name-change. I don't use facebook so I have no idea what may be going on there. But I'm going to give my personal opinion for what it is worth - and as it is my personal opinion I'm not trying to speak for anyone else.

I don't particularly like the current incarnation of the site as "left-wing". Though "left-wing" would certainly describe many of my social beliefs I don't believe that should be the focus of the site which - according to our mission statements - should be about combating pseudoscience.

At which point I'm sure somebody will come up with "reality has a left-wing bias". But, in reality, everyone thinks that science or reality is really on their side of the argument. How could it be otherwise?

People on both the left and the right have problems with science. Typically those who reject the idea of global warming are on the right. those who object to GMOs tend to be on the left. Those who object to vaccinations can come from either side of the political spectrum. I have no idea where flat earthers may stand (perhaps literally).

So being politically "left wing" is no guarantee of being able to think skeptically - which is, at last nominally, the aim of the site.

But I've been around for a long time and perhaps in a couple of years the site will have a different orientation. Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 14:29, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Left-wing does not take precedent over skepticism and refuting pseudoscience for us it just happens to be a side effect because scientists and skeptics are overwhelmingly left-wing. And as refuting authoritarianism, a big part of the US right wing today, is a mission statement, it follows that people opposed to the right wing are going to be our primary demographic. RW has really always been fairly left-leaning, so I doubt that will change anytime soon.  17:24, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * What you say may well be true. But the poster asked for the opinion of members of the "old Guard".  I've been around since  RW1 so I guess I count. I'm not looking for a debate - this is simply my opinion.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 18:00, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. Liberals and traditional conservatives are shaking in their boots right now, as the extremes represent so few of us.Ariel31459 (talk) 21:37, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Not if I have anything to say about it. --Right-wing RationalWiki (talk) 17:44, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Opposition to authoritarianism was one of RW's stated goals since 2007. You could ascribe RW's leftward tilt as a response to mainstream conservatives aligning with authoritarianism in multiple countries since then. As I've stated before, there are well-known conservatives who do not support authoritarianism (e.g. Jennifer Rubin, Richard Painter, Anna Navarro), and I support their views. Anyone supporting Trump at this point (or since early 2016) is pro-authoritarianism in my view. Bongolian (talk) 21:48, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I would like to call attention
I can't help with this, but maybe someone else can. Our articles on both the historically dominant political parties of the Fifth French Republic are absolute garbage. Should/can we improve them or should we just assassinate them? 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 06:46, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Parti Socialiste
 * Les Républicains
 * If you don't know anything about the Parti socialiste, why did you create a bloody page about it? Please, don't create any more pages on things you know sod all about. Spud (talk) 09:22, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yup. If you want to create a page and don't like the state of the page before it is created, sort it into your sandbox. And there you can work on it as you please and even invite contributors, and you have time to research. Once the page looks good and substantial, then create the article. That way, you won't be complaining about pages YOU made. 09:48, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Assassinate them, don't assassinate them, your call Joe. Time to make a big boy decision Bigs. Darthmaul (talk) 02:58, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Les Républicains aren't a historically dominant party, they're a bunch of people from different parties coralled together by Nicolas Sarkozy as his ad hoc fan club, in the same way as as Macron more recently created his equally stupidly named La République En Marche!. It can entirely come under the Sarkozy article. The Parti Socialiste do have a longer history (if not much of a future) but neither party is very missional. --Gospatric (talk) 09:43, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The only current French politics we bother with are presidents and the FN. Although Islam in France would probably make for a missional article. Wilder Bicycle 10:53, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Sounds better as a section on the France article. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 18:21, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Details on authoritarianism within Islam, authoritarianism about Islam, and French xenophobia as it pertains to Islam would take up enough space that they would probably need to be separated once complete anyway. 00:07, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

'Reverse engineering and books'
There should be an article on 'books which are persistently reinterpreted to fit the modern world of the writer.' Thus the quatrains of Nostradamus, the Book of Revelation(s), scientific foreknowledge in religious text of choice etc. Much is pareidolia, shoehorning, and other forms of creative interpretation and some will be using analogies and allegories, justifying a novel or particular position by saying 'it happened before', the apt phrase that changes perceptions, etc, taking an overview of the whole.

Anyone care to take it on? Anna Livia (talk) 12:01, 25 February 2018 (UTC)


 * There is a related article on "Bible Codes" in this wiki, which could also be expanded. Many religious groups make claims about religious texts from Islamists to Jehovah's Witnesses. It is the connection between current exegesis and rational science that needs exposure, as opposed to the culturally-inert, personal compensations of religion.Ariel31459 (talk) 15:53, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I think this would come under Biblical scientific foreknowledge and Qur'anic scientific foreknowledge.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 19:50, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * More of a generic hub type article - with links to 'BigReligiousBooks' of choice, Nostradamus, etc. Anna Livia (talk) 22:46, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Not much of substance to add (and I think such a hub article could have missional potential) but wouldn’t be more apt than “reverse engineering”? Anonymous User (talk) 17:08, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Do we have an article on eisegesis, which is the 8-cent Greek word for that sort of thing I learned. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 01:16, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Google filtering out RationalWiki
Is Google filtering out RationalWiki a new thing? I first noticed the Bold and Determined article no longer shows up (but the talk page does) and American Kabuki no longer shows up either. However, go on Yahoo, and RationalWiki is the second result. 22:54, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * no. no they are not. why would they? AMassiveGay (talk) 23:09, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * They're in the pocket of the deep state, and are obviously out to get us because of that. 00:29, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? Our Glorious Wiki denies the existence of the Deep State thus furthering the aims of our overlords. Why would Google, our ally turn on us? 00:32, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Google does business with the NRA, and can rot in some theoretical facsimile of hades.Ariel31459 (talk) 20:29, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * We come second on some searches for logical fallacies, I've noticed, so I'm not sure that the search engine beginning with G is censoring us. Wilder Bicycle 10:51, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * According to the Emil O. W. Kirkegaard article, Google filtered his article to not show up. Google isn't censoring the website as a whole but certain articles, if the article is correct. 19:59, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

It shows up just fine for me 19:57, 27 February 2018 (UTC)


 * The Emil Kirkegaard article isn't blocked on Google. What is blocked is a defamatory article Kirkegaard wrote about myself on his website as a revenge hit-piece for me editing his RationalWiki article. I will be looking to see what further legal action I can take against him, but Google de-indexed what I wanted when I contacted them.ODS (talk) 15:34, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That blog post is not "blocked on Google," except maybe locally, i.e. England, perhaps. To check this, search for the real name of ODS, found on the Kirkegaard article, in note 51. (See the ODS edit to that note, it shows the real name.) What the blog shows does not support the text allegedly supported. Kirkegaard does not claim that the article was "written entirely by a 'mentally ill stalker',", that would be silly, though it may be substantially true. However, ODS has publicly acknowledged creating it, and identified socks (identified not just by Kirkegaard) edited it extensively and recently. I just Googled the real name, it comes up as the fourth hit. That "defamatory article" was a defense against obvious defamation on RationalWiki. Emil Kirkegaard may be a racialist and his politics might or might not stink, but lies about him have been promoted by ODS, aided and abetted by others. --188.166.116.85 (talk) 02:35, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * As you can see, I am accessing the internet from Great Britain, and the result is indeed blocked, so the speculation above was correct. In fact, many are blocked, it looks like 18. Google looks at the IP of the requestor and follows law applicable there. --159.65.94.189 (talk) 02:50, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * There is a convenient list of blocked pages from which the name is redacted, Lomax will want to see that.... It shows 37 pages. There is also a complaint about the Lomax blog, in addition to that, and maybe more. Butthurt, anyone? Has ODS realized that anyone can bypass this by archiving a new page? Maybe even by archiving a previously-archived page, the access URL will change. --159.65.94.189 (talk) 03:05, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I rarely file block reports, why would I be "butthurt"? I'm not that bothered by lunatics like yourself writing lies and smears about me on your personal blogs. According to Kirkegaard's hit-piece on me, I'm schizophrenic, living on government benefits and am asexual. All three are false and the rest links to many accounts I don't own. Rather hilarious that you say I lied about Kirkegaard when that nutcase is running around the web making up all sorts of nonsense about me because he's the one truly butthurt over his RationalWiki article. And the difference is I actually write facts about people: Kirkegaard is a neo-Nazi/far-right and a child-rape apologist - he is described as these things in mainstream newspapers.ODS (talk) 04:40, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Lomax has 19 articles defaming me. I only blocked one, and have no interest in doing the others. Like I said, I rarely report. I took exception to Kirkegaard's written poison since he crosses into criminal libel - to falsely accuse someone of having a mental illness and living on government benefits is a malicious falsehood.ODS (talk) 04:56, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * "Has ODS realized that anyone can bypass this by archiving a new page?" Yes. It results in a quicker and easier block. If you alert Google that someone has changed a URL of de-indexed defamatory content- they block the new URL automatically. And if you repeat doing this abuse, Google can delist your entire blog/website from showing. Is that what Lomax wants?ODS (talk) 05:04, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

"Stalking"?
All evidence shows Emil Kirkegaard is digitally stalking me, not the other way around. Kirkegaard has mentioned my name now dozens of times on Twitter where he continues attacking me. Is mentioned now here, that Kirkegaard has narcissistic personality disorder which explains a lot of his internet antics:

So basically this guy is unhinged and interprets criticism as personal attack of his self-image, no wonder as a narcissist he goes ballistic in response to his rationalwiki article. I just am unfortunately the person who ended up being stalked by this loon.ODS (talk) 06:02, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Some other dude named Oliver - Kirkegaard has also been attacking. Oliver Keyes is a PhD student who wrote an article on his blog criticizing Kirkegaard for racism, lack of research ethics (since Kirkegaard irresponsibly published the personal data of 70,000 OKcupid users) and pseudo-intellectualism. Predictably, Kirkegaard retaliates by writing a hit-piece on Keyes on his blog (exact same thing he did to me). Notice also Kirkegaard, smears Oliver Keyes as a "stalker" with mental problems. Anyone who dares criticize Kirkegaard ends up defamed on his blog as a mentally ill stalker, despite the fact he is the one who stalks anyone who criticises him.ODS (talk) 06:30, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Abd ul-Rahman Lomax is doing block evasion on proxy IPs and you are feeding him with drama that is not related to this website. Please stop.

The "Real deal" was actually Lomax, while the "Lomax" vandals were ODS or his brother

ODS has appeared and outed himself. A few days ago, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax was impersonated by a number of accounts, and he responded on the Saloon bar, listing those accounts and verifying his identity with a link to his blog. All were blocked, the impersonation vandals and the real Lomax account, as if the same. That is what ODS or his brother do with impersonations, they confuse naive knee-jerk sysops.

The revelations from ODS show, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the "paranoid conspiracy theory," as it was misrepresented by ODS was at least mostly correct, maybe entirely. ODS has been lying to RationalWikians and the world for years, creating articles on enemies or other inviting targets, trolling, filing frivolous complaints until admins get sick of them and give in, and abusing RationalWiki for his own aggrandizement. In what he must imagine is defending himself, he's been blaming his brother for the massive socking, and then claiming credit for what he just blamed on his brother. If he's only attacking crazies, he's one to know one, for sure. How about unprotecting the article with is full name (as is easily found) and allowing users to create one? Why was he protected and not other crazies and loons, pseudoscientists, and cranks. Or does rational skepticism have a built-in bias to protect trolls, if they appear to be on the right side. Uh, left side? --109.201.137.39 (talk) 00:08, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Who is ODS? 109.150.47.1 (talk) 10:42, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

A Bad Omen?
The day that Trump was elected, I had a vivid nightmare, something that had not happened since 2012.

The setting was a barn at night. A farm boy was climbing a rope trying to reach the second floor of the barn. I think he was hanging up decorations and lights, a party was underway but as yet he was the only one present. He slipped and fell, and his little brother entered the barn then helped him get up. They proceeded to hang the decorations till the families arrived.

The party commenced, there was gossiping, drinking, and contests outside and inside the barn. A little girl with blond hair entered the barn uninvited and unexpected, nobody knew who she was. She so far was only noticed by the farm boy and his little brother. Some scoundrals ran past her, accidentally pushed her to the ground.

What happened next made me frozen stiff. She sprung up off the ground like a demon, her hair turned jet black. The people around her couldn’t even vocalise their terror. My vision focused closely on her arms with everything else being blurred. She was straining her arms tightly and wrung them in ways I can only describe as demonic, her knuckles near the breaking point. Everyone around her died. At one point she faced the boys who pushed her and twisted her arms again, then the bodies of the boys, who were ten feet away, snapped every bone in their body.

I don’t know how she did it, but every time she wrung her hands a spine broke twenty or even a hundred fet away. It was an orchestra of blood.

My vision then focused on the sadistically hateful expression on her face, she had lines on her forehead like an aged person and numbers written under her eyes, chanting in a guttural language. Every syllable was either shrieked or hissed. After killing everyone save the farm boy and his brother, her hair was again blond, and she just walked off.

Is it a coencidence that I had this dream the day Trump was elected? Does it mean anything, or is it just my sub conscience, irrational fears? Darthmaul (talk) 20:29, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Sounds like Trump to me. Your subconscious probably knew he'd be elected and started playing out the results of the election personified. 00:02, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Just so you know, I seriously dreamed this, no joke. The hand wringing, shrieking, and blond to black hair change were the main things that caught my attention. Everything else was like looking through a mirror covered in oil. Darthmaul (talk) 00:23, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, I remember that election. I missed school the next day because I went fucking insane. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 01:36, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I still wake up some mornings going "Donald Trump is president! AAAAAAGGGHHH!" Wilder Bicycle 08:08, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Is it bad of me to hope that things in the USA keep getting worse so that I can feel smug they will finally wake up to themselves? —Kazitor, pending 08:23, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes it is. It shows a lot about your character that you’d rather see Trump fail than America succeed.—Right-wing RationalWiki (talk) 09:21, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It says something about you that you assume I refer specifically to Trump. —Kazitor, pending 09:50, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't laugh! It could happen to your country, too. Indeed, if you read the news, you will find that Americans are waking up. To cite a couple of examples, more and more are in favor of universal healthcare and pressure continues to mount on lawmakers to introduce some gun-control legislation. Nerd (talk) 14:16, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Omens aren't real, the Trump presidency being a never-ending shitshow is. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:07, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Meanwhile, in 2007
Not too many hours ago I had myself a little fun on Conservapedia. Darthmaul (talk) 17:31, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * That's nice dear. Wilder Bicycle 19:16, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * That shite is dead. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 19:46, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Went to the therapist today
Recently, I have had psychiatric delusions of KKK members killing me. It causes bad stress and makes make nervous. I know my skin is white but those KKK bastards thought nothing of killing my Irish and Spanish ancestors. I brought it up to my therapist and she told me it is part of low self esteem. Plus you hear about it on the news all the time. I am a Paranoid Schizophrenic and I was told it influenced my delusions. Your thoughts? --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 19:23, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Here is a list of the leading cuases of death in the US. The KKK does not make the list. (The list might give you other things to worry about however.)Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 19:56, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you bob, I'm sure high functioning psychosis-induced paranoid delusions are easily alleviated by statistics.
 * At any rate, there's really no easy solution to the synthetic narratives that you'll accidentally expose yourself to, and all I can really recommend is CBT-esque explicit answering to your intrusive thoughts. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:40, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * "Thank you bob, I'm sure high functioning psychosis-induced paranoid delusions are easily alleviated by statistics." Thank you ikanreed. That would never have occured to me. Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 17:09, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I think one of the reasons is that there are Klan meetings in the county I live in. Hell, my old neighbor was a KKK member. When I was in Michigan history class (in high school), we were shown a picture of a KKK rally in town during the 1920's. Makes me sick knowing that. That link was helpful though. On a side note- how are other groups of people a threat to the white race? I am trying to wrap my mind around that one. Those death camps the Nazis had was filled with slave labor, beatings, killings, starvation and inhumane medical experiments yet whites are in danger? --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 20:56, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * We have piles of articles documenting the conspiracy theories that nazis use to assert that somehow they're under threat. White genocide, International Jewish conspiracy, and cultural marxism*are the most common ones.  It's kinda relieving to know that it takes absolute batshit insanity vis-a-vis reality to buy into nazi ideology.  It's also kinda terrifying given how permeable the bullshit/brain barrier is.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:05, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * *this is the conspiracy that "sensible" nazi adjacent types like jordan peterson and "no totally they're just trying to have an honest dialog here" ratwiki users I'm not allowed to call complete fucking morons cite(it's just as batshit) ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:09, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * you dont even need a conspiracy theory. one too many people with dark skin on your high street, and suddenly its 'like africa round here' AMassiveGay (talk) 21:43, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * That's basically the "white genocide" conspiracy theory described more flippantly. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:16, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * i am sure it is but no over arching conspiracy is required for the sentiment take root and grow. AMassiveGay (talk) 04:33, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

New RW political party
Hehe, and the neo-Brits thought they could stay in power forever? Long live the Goatistan People's Party! 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 20:31, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * speaking as a brit, who the fuck are neo brits? AMassiveGay (talk) 21:07, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * These? Wilder Bicycle 21:09, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It's a joke about Lyndon LaRouche. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 21:22, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * so neo brits...? AMassiveGay (talk) 21:38, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm still voting for the Royal Islamic Libertarian Communist Party for White Christian Anarchy, myself. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 01:14, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

NEW WIKI ALURT
I created a new wiki on wikia as a sort of "branch" off of Crappy Games Wikia, due to Crappy Games wiki having misogynist articles. --UglyRat (talk) 22:46, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * So, you linked to the cesspool wikia and forgot to spam your fork? Cosmikdebris (talk) 01:14, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * HERE IS THE FORK --UglyRat (talk) 07:47, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * WHY ARE YOU USING CAPSLOCK!?!!?? 17:16, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Dude, c'mon. Even I did a better job promoting my wiki. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 19:25, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

A hypothetical scenario
If the US were to remove itself from the geopolitical stage, what would happen to Europe? How fragile would peace and freedom in Europe become once America's army no longer acts as a deterrent for other global powers? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 23:47, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Europe would likely be able to get along just fine without the U.S. holding its hand. 23:49, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you think the Baltic states would be more vulnerable to Russia?
 * Also: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/usage/its-or-it-s CowHouse (talk) 03:49, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I fixed the typo, and are you sure the EU and NATO can't handle Russia's imperialism? 03:53, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I assumed the U.S. would not be a NATO member in this scenario. It depends on what you mean by "handle". Do you mean they'd defeat Russia or prevent conflict? I assume you'd prefer to prevent conflict entirely. CowHouse (talk) 04:13, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Britain and France have substantial nuclear weapons, so they could deter actual attacks on themselves or their close allies. But Russia would probably feel even more free to pick around the edges of its former empire. Germany would doubtless expand militarily, as would other European nations. On the other hand, there's a value to a country, particularly a (near-)dictatorship, of having an obvious enemy, so maybe without America to blame for bad things, Putin would be less secure, or have to blame the Jews or gays for everything. --Gospatric (talk) 10:02, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Russia would probably try outright expansionism into Eastern Europe, while Germany and the UK would both try to fill the power vacuum. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 16:14, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Putin would try to grab even more, Germany and pretty much everyone else in the EU would modernize and expand their military, some countries with break-out capabilities would even think about getting nukes, Japan would do away with Article 9, there'd be some unrest at Israel's borders and maybe a 2nd Korean War with China using the situation to get what they couldn't the first time (or wash their hands from North Korea without the US being there). Taiwan would be probably fucked.--95.208.248.45 (talk) 23:01, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Best electoral system
I've seen a lot of arguments for and against all of them, and all I know is that first past the post is garbage. Which is best? Instant runoff voting, two-round voting, mixed member proportional voting, or single transferable vote? 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 19:20, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Proportional voting for the legislative branch with only parties on the balot (preferably with identifiable, consistent policy positions), two-round voting on individuals for executive positions, with an option to vote bad people out after a certain period. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:24, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Concordet methods! —Kazitor, pending 20:34, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with Kazitor and Bigs about Condorcet methods and first-past-the-post respectively. CowHouse (talk) 19:12, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * guess why I know about them? :P —Kazitor, pending 04:14, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * To quote Bernard Tomic, "full credit to myself". CowHouse (talk) 14:58, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is a best system, there are some that are better and others that are worse, but ultimately it depends on what one's goals are. There's a comparison here: Bongolian (talk) 01:36, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Throw all the candidates into a shark tank and whoever survives is elected. Wilder Bicycle 14:36, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Assuming you're talking about electing political representatives in a representative democracy: The great attraction of FPTP is that it's very simple and so an ordinary electorate understand it. Remember the purpose of this system is NOT good government, we have no idea whatsoever how to achieve good government. The thing we figured out how to do is prevent transitions of power from involving widespread bloodshed. You can change the bloke in charge without needing to hang all the current guy's supporters from lamp posts. But, to achieve this goal it is essential that everybody is clear on who won the election. The more complicated your system (e.g. a Condorcet method is complicated enough that you will never explain it to most people in an ordinary electorate) the more likely they are to accept the alternative explanation that their candidate didn't lose legitimately, the election was stolen and they should rise up, at which point the only benefit (bloodless transitions of power) is gone and this was all futile. Tialaramex (talk) 21:37, 1 March 2018 (UTC)


 * From a US perspective, a move to a parliamentary system where the leader emerges from the legislature, is vulnerable to loss of legislative support, and the President is much less powerful would do more good than getting rid of FPTP. FPTP makes two parties all but inevitable, but the two parties may vary from one region to another.   Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 02:18, 2 March 2018 (UTC)


 * The notion expressed by Tialaramex, that FPTP is inherently simpler and/or easier to understand is no more than habit. Living in a country with proportional voting using a combination of the and the  and with the head of government being the Prime Minister who can govern as long as (s)he is not outvoted in a vote of no confidence in the parliament, there is no particular confusion about who won an election or not. By contrast, the inhabitants find the notion that it is taken for granted that large sections of the electorate in FPTP-governed countries go unrepresented in their parliaments due to the electoral system to be baffling.
 * In general, views on electoral systems have a very clear national bias, taking the quirks and traditions one is used to as the normal and to judge the characteristics of other systems based on these expectations. This tendency is especially clear in the (almost cliche) criticism of the EU in general and the European Parliament in particular for its supposed “democratic deficit”. Hence, British criticism tends to highlight the lack of British (and US...) style adversarial politics, whereas the German Federal Court’s removal of the high threshold used in national elections and by citing the different conditions of EP politics, was immediately spun in some German media as a ruling that the EP was not a “real” parliament. Another case is the bemusement of continental Europeans when confronted by Brits fretting over a hung Parliament, since coalition cabinet is the norm, rather than the exception in their countries. ScepticWombat (talk) 11:48, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It is also worth noting that FPTP generally promotes a stronger geographical anchorage of politics (“write to your Member of Congress/Parliament” etc.), whereas proportional voting seems to privilege political parties as the salient identifier. ScepticWombat (talk) 11:52, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I will admit that there are situations where it would be difficult to explain and justify a Condorcet winner, such as a scenario where there are three candidates and the winning candidate has the fewest first-preference votes. CowHouse (talk) 14:58, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I kinda like the BoN's plan best. Two-round for executive and proportional for legislative. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 19:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

In general I think proportional systems (usually STV) are bad electoral sytems yet far superior to any other system. However, the vote should be done by treating the country as one constituancy. 10% of the national vote means 10% of the seats more or less. In Spain we have an extremely flawed version of proportional representation known as the Regional DHont. DHont is just a simple way of determining who gets which seats based on percentages of votes. A reasonable system. However Spain divides the seats up by region/province. Meaning each province is its own electoral district and the "proportional" aspect of the vote is dividing seats by provinces/regions. This is similar to first past the post in some ways. A province/region with three seats can award seats with skewed percentages: Right-Party 60%, Left 31%, Centre 25%, Minor-Parties 4%. Two seats for the Right and one for the left. However the 25% of centrist votes, is thrown in the paper basket. They have no impact outside of the province, no voting aggregate happens at a national level. It means a party with only 40% of the national vote can get an absolute majority due to carving up the constituencies (regular stuff in the UK and Canada). It also means a party can get 10% of the vote nationally but get only one seat as they never got enough votes in any province/region to claim one (similar to Canada where the greens once had 10% vote and no seats). Worse, the amount of seats per province are disproportional to population and give a clear advantage to rural areas (which consistently vote for the right party) which is similar to the American electoral college and the American senate. Leave it to Mediterranean countries to adopt a fair and rational electoral system and utterly fail at executing it. Shabi DOO  22:23, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

The world is going to end (again)!!!!
Yup! A Christian numerologist says so. Planet X is coming! Though it is the same guy who predicted it for the past several years. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 22:57, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Drums up his southern drawl* REPENT!!!! FOR THE HOUR OF JUDGEMENT IS NIGH!! THE LORD LOOKS UPON YOU, HIS FLOCK AND HE IS SADDENED AND DISPLEASED... FOR YE HAVE CLUNG TO MORTAL WEALTH AND REJECTED HIS GLORY, BENEATH WHICH ALL MORTAL WEALTH IS BUT SAND UPON THE SHORE!!! REPENT!!! FOR THE HOUR IS AT HAND!!! DELIVER YOUR MORTAL BURDENS UNTO I, YOUR SHEPHERD AND BE DELIVERED FROM EVIL!!! REPENT!!! In Jesus' name amen... *worshipers echo the last part*. 23:06, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Why these predictions alone don't spike atheism rates, I stay puzzled. 23:17, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Check out one of the most recent messages on my talk page if you want an answer to that question. You can't miss the one I'm referring to, it's the only fundy one there. 23:21, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Planet X is such a stupid name for a planet. 23:31, 28 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I have religious beliefs but I don't ignore science. There are those who have religion but do not ignore science. On a side note, the fictional Planet X would have been spotted long before now. In the same prediction before the impact, North Korea will be a political superpower. I don't see the point if all life on Earth would be exterminated. There is the excuse that it is being covered up by them evil atheist liberal pagan satanist environmentalist unitarian gay transgender alien communists. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:03, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * ain't no planet X comin' cuz ain't no space cuz ain't not globe earth 02:07, 1 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Exactly when it will come?. It's quite amazing how Fundies keep using that report of a quite bad trip/high fever that ends the Bible (I caught recently a preacher with the Rapture/Great Tribulation thing (first time I listen that here) and is amazing how just two verses can produce so much BS) and how Planet X/whatever bullshitters ignore the too-many-to-count amateur astronomers who know far better the night sky than them. Panzerfaust (talk) 23:51, 1 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Planet X is said to be 4000 miles in diameter, so it would have been seen years before now. There is infrared telescopes and optical telescopes. Distortions in gravity from the object would be detected. I am still waiting for the previous Planet X predictions to come true as well as 2012 and 2000. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 03:48, 2 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Check the Nibiru article to show . I added most of the stuff there after the failed last prediction. Panzerfaust (talk) 08:19, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Edit filter
Could somebody add "franchising" and "franchise" to the edit filter? We're getting spammed about it. Thanks. Wilder Bicycle 14:33, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Second. 22:08, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * CBA to figure out who’s a tech any more, but this looks like an easy thing to to code. CamelCasePragmatist (talk) 03:19, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Special:ListUsers/tech oh dear I'm there —Kazitor, pending 11:56, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Pity the persons creating such pages cannot be asked 'You want a RW franchise - that will cost $/£' - and get the spammers to fund RW :) Anna Livia (talk) 13:05, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * bots. Christopher (talk) 13:59, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Username template
Uhhhh... Do we have a 'username' template here? Oolon Colluphid (talk) 22:41, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes we do . 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 02:42, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * USERNAME —Kazitor, pending 04:14, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, yo Oolon Colluphid (talk) 12:33, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Something I find odd of this site
While probably this happens under the radar and I've not noticed it as is immediately reverted, I was expecting to see here (at the very least at the Saloon bar) more Fundies and similar people leaving here comments threatening us with punishments and/or that we'll have to face the truth after we die, etc. and ending telling they'll pray for us. I'm quite used to see that stuff on skeptic blogs, of course accompanied with a LANCB, as they more than often never return to see the replies. Panzerfaust (talk) 15:01, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I think they gave up on this site ages ago, though they do still show up from time to time. 15:17, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I see. Given the snarky and often blasphemous nature of RW, I was expecting more of that kind of stuff -you know, those with faulty grammar, etc. even if the commenter is using his/her native language and the same arguments again and again. Panzerfaust (talk) 23:06, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * We did at first (mainly people from CP) but it tailed off eventually. It's a pity because I love arguing with them. We get the occasional obsessed Libertarian, too. Wilder Bicycle 08:58, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Hell is Real Scenario
Mainstream Christians have to admit that they've used the thou shalt burn in hell scare tactic a lot throughout the ages. But I've created an interesting scenario in mind that is meant to explore the possibility of Hell, and what it means for us. Now to do this we have to ignore the fact that Sheol means grave, that Hades is its equivalent, and that Gehinnom is of obscure meaning. Lets say that Hell is a real place where all atheists are gonna burn forever, or simply be annihilated. If the latter is true, I don't care. If the former is true, I have to wonder how bad is it?

The bible seems to say that Hell's not too bad. After all, in Luke 16:24, the rich man was still able to call out to Abraham even though he's in Hell. If the agony was so bad, he wouldn't be able to scream, much less than ask Abraham for a drop of water. The greek word οδύνη means sorrow, grief, anguish, and unhappiness, not torture or agony. So he was really just unhappy and sad. How bad can the flame, φλογὶ, actually be if Lazarus was able to make a request without screeching it, then tell Abraham why he was making the request. Was he in the flame, at the lame, or on the flame? Is the flame in every nick and corner in Hell, or is their clear areas?

Burning is not the worst thing you can suffer. The Judas Cradle, Chair of Torture, Pear of Anguish, Saw, Virgin of Nuremberg The Maiden, and Knee Splitter are all medieval torture devices that hurt far worse, than having to walk around in a scorching waste land. This scare tactic no longer seems scary, if anything Heaven is more frightening, since marriage and parent-child relationships aren't allowed, something that some Christians are afraid the New World Order will eradicate.

Also, my body wouldn't be present right, just my soul. No nervous system to feel the ouchies. Darthmaul (talk) 17:53, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Remember, God turns heaven into a personality cult after the apocalypse. Meanwhile, the way you describe hell makes it sound way more like a somewhat worse purgatory. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 18:03, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I thought I described it as a place with some fire in it. Darthmaul (talk) 18:51, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I mean it's basically purgatory but with fire that can't hurt you. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 18:56, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * And why are 'those in heaven' supposed to enjoy watching the suffering of those in hell?
 * Don't forget God cannot enjoy his personality cult - he has to spend all his time watching us people to see if we commit enough sins to go to hell - the Devil has the better job of enticing people. (And it is illogical that 'one mere little slip' leads to an eternity in hell, unless you pay somebody on their hind legs yacking about Jesus loadsofmoney). Anna Livia (talk) 23:11, 2 March 2018 (UTC)


 * As for the body thing, souls is stuff taken from Platonism not present in the Bible (see above). You'll get your body again and will physically be tormented.
 * Leaving aside the issues brought about why an omnibenevolent entity would allow that for an eternity (which despite the BS spewed by someone telling that God does not feel it as He's always on a present or something alike is something beyond our understanding) and maybe things changing in the future, I guess it will be something on the line of the Salvation War series with Ellison's I Have No Mouth And I Must Scream -your body will soon heal the damages caused by torments, and you'll forget that you were tortured (no insanity, etc) and/or your perception of time will be altered-.
 * As for Heaven I very much suspect something similar if we play by the Bible, even if it will replace torment with bliss. And given how is YHWH in the Bible, I guess it will be very easy to fall into Hell. At last, fading out is not so bad -nonexistence cannot be feel by definition-.
 * My takes on both would be something more on the line of Zoroastrianism; you're tortured until you expunge your faults. And said torture is to experiment the suffering you caused from the POV of each one of your victims with you being unable to act and being prevented of going nuts, even if you know what was happening. Heaven would be a place where you could experiment any experience you wanted, and if you was bored you could leave, sort of being reincarnated, and starting again. This, of course, ignoring there're other religions. Panzerfaust (talk) 23:34, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Objectively some equivalent of Purgatory/doing remission for your naughtinesses would be suitable for most people :)
 * And what happens when Roko's Basilisk attempts to 'persuade' sin-seeking God to define 'not aiding the future-Basilisk into existence' as a sin? Anna Livia (talk) 12:22, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, what about diminishing marginal utility? Wouldn’t an eternity of torture become less and less painful as time went on?  Oolon Colluphid (talk) 21:39, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Im aware that the platonist soul concept was not originally in the Bible, however the scenario presumes that fundies, who believe in the platonistic soul, are right. Besides that, no torture is mentioned in the New Testament in reference to Hell, other than fire. The Old Testament doesnt even have a concept of Hell, just a silent, dark sleep with the possibility of ressurection. Presumably the wicked wouldnt be resurrected at all. Darthmaul (talk) 04:16, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Then again, there's always Robot Hell.Ariel31459 (talk) 14:28, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, yeah. We've all seen Futurama. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 19:07, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

at one point in hell, purgatory, or heaven and what have you, do say to yourself 'holy shit all stuff that is real?' AMassiveGay (talk) 04:59, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Isn't the Roman Catholic church's current take on hell that it involves not physical torture but consciousness of one's distance from God, which is allegedly far worse pain? (Although not if you consider it better to rule in hell than serve in heaven.) Wikipedia suggests they're a bit vague but that's certainly one interpretation. --Gospatric (talk) 10:00, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * But - for the atheists being conscious of their closeness to God would be their equivalent of hell?
 * Most of us would fall into the 'occasionally naughty'/equivalent of school report 'Could do better' category and if there was an afterlife where one could 'do recompense' would do so - and we wish to be separated from 'those who have done much that is bad/destructive/evil/other negative terms' (round up the usual suspects relevant so not the first derivative of Godwin's Law). Anna Livia (talk) 13:07, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

You need to accept a disturbing list of pretty doubtful hypotheticals to even start to engage with this question. If God exists, if the Christian version of god is the right one, if the random/arbitrary selection of books which eventually became the bible were the right random selection of divinely inspired books, if this random/arbitrary selected group of books really talks about a literal hell - what would that Hell be like?

It's like: If aliens exist, if aliens had a special objective, if this objective were only achievable through anal probing - what are they trying to find out through anal probing?

You simply need to accept far too much for the sake of argument to even engage with the question. Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 13:40, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * And one question in response to the original posting - why do atheists have to go to hell and suffer - rather than disappear into the nothingness they expect (or be banished to a bus station with all buses going to places they are uninterested in)? Why not send just the 'actually bad people' there instead? Anna Livia (talk) 15:22, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Considering 'minds' are information patterns exhibited by a neural structure and assuming souls aren't a thing, there's no obvious reason to assume your consciousness can't pop up somewhere else in spacetime again after your death. Nothing magical or religious is required for it. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 10:04, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Extremism apologies
An argument I've heard recently basically says that relgious extremists are ready to kill people anyway and so therefore religion plays no part in it. Obvious I think that this is BS but I would like to hear you guys opinion. Also wether or not it would be worth creating an article on it Comradegreen (talk) 21:33, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Religion can organize and unite people and also help motivate people on a certain cause, all while finally scape-goating and dehumanizing its enemies. Religion radicalized these people. You don't see the pursuit of science, sociology and the scientific method radicalize people to that point, right? 01:05, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * you do see science, sociology and such being co-opted to scapegoat and dehumanise the enemies of various folk, and pretty horrific stuff has been in the name of science, while religions of various stripes can and do organise and unite people for the good of all. its simply not enough, and just lazy, to suggest 'science good, religion bad' without looking at the environments in which some folk are susceptible to radicalisation AMassiveGay (talk) 04:50, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You're right. I was thinking about how people abused Darwin / Herbert Spencer's ideas when it comes to misusing science, but I was thinking along the lines of "they're still misusing those ideas, so it doesn't count". Nevertheless, that misunderstanding has still motivated people to do terrible things to each other. I don't even want to know about a politician or a game industry CEO who has a good psychology book and totally can manipulate people like that. But I do know some unethical stuff done in science, like experiments on animals (including people) and the traumatizing children (Little Albert?) and I know there are such good people in religion, church who puts up a banner saying simply "You are loved" and counseling heavily distressed people. On the other hand, I don't know any extremism that specializes in hardcore science, but if someone can point me to one, would be nice to know. Guess science isn't good, it's a process that can result in generally good or bad, though I can't say I can put it in the same footing as religion. 05:48, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Read Weapons of the Weak by James C. Scott. It's a very academic book about the relations between rich and poor in a Malaysian hamlet.  Islam is one of the tools wielded by the poorer inhabitants of this village in their attempts to curb the drive towards profit and productivity wielded by the richer farmers and government officials over there.  It can be effective there because everyone over there is expected to pay at least lip service to Islamic values. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 14:59, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that religion is the best tool to manipulate people. This is because it is much easier to get someone to ,say blow themselves up if there is a promise of an afterlife or some text somewhere in a holy book permits/commands it. It does have some benefits but also quite a few down sides Comradegreen (talk) 09:28, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Very much so. Call me a cynic if you want but If something as serious as an eternity was a stake, I'd prefer the rules were directly given to me by the arbiter himself, not written in books as faulty as we know they're, nor by people who claim to be his middlemen and are even as trusworthy (pun intentional) or even less than said books. Panzerfaust (talk) 11:38, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

insomnia
it is now 4.30 in the morning and i have just finished the guardian prize crossword. yay me AMassiveGay (talk) 04:34, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * *slow clap* - 06:31, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * ...But when did you start it? :) Wilder Bicycle 08:07, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * AMassiveGay how about you get insomnia so you can experience self induced hallucinations, like on the Machinist. Darthmaul (talk) 18:33, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * i am none too keen on hallucinations thanksAMassiveGay (talk) 18:52, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Isn't there a joke - I finished this jigsaw in 2 hours and on the box it said 4-6 years? Anna Livia (talk) 22:40, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No,there is no such joke, but there should be. --159.65.86.218 (talk) 01:55, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I was told the joke by someone who had come across it. Anna Livia (talk) 13:19, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Monosyllabic roots
Wikipedia pretty much says that root words, in Indo European, were all monosyllabic. We have roots like *deh₃- 'to give', *bʰer- 'to bear', *dʰeh₁- 'to put', *dʰew- 'to run', *h₁ed- 'to eat', *h₂eḱ- 'sharp', *ped- 'to tread', *sed- 'to sit', and *wes- 'to clothe'. What is evidence for some of these roots as having really been disyllabic.

I think *dʰew- was originally *dʰu-, but later vowel breaking happened as in Old English. But is there any good evidence for a *kelHe instead of *kelH. Darthmaul (talk) 00:29, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you mean proto-Indo-European. Bongolian (talk) 03:49, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, but I think what you are trying to say...is...Meh₂ter h₂er-dn̥ǵʰuh₂és. Darthmaul (talk) 03:59, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * H₃yébʰeso! - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 20:14, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * kʷe Smerdis of Tlön h₃yebʰ wekʷ, kʷód to h₁er de kob? Darthmaul (talk) 22:56, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

How many of you (Americans at least) remember "Escape School"?
That stupid abduction prevention program featured in elementary schools that teach defense moves that would get you killed? I am not sure if it still exists, no website and articles mentioning it only go up to 2004. That guy who escaped from the secret labs under Bob Jones University

Dumb-dumb left
Is anyone familiar with this term. It refers to the likes of Tim Black, Jimmy Dore and to a lesser extent, Kyle Kulinski. It was coined by Michael Brooks of the Majority Report and The Michael Brooks Show. I ask because I am working on an article on these people, but I figure there is no point if no one is familiar with it. Levi Ackerman (talk) 12:35, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It's fairly typical right-wing discourse? "[bad-thing] left" has about 6 trillion permutations, none of which have any serious reasoning to them.  It would be like documenting all the vaguely racist permutations of the name "obama".  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:24, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Logic tests/intelligence and personality tests during the hiring process? Is there any support for their validity?
Hello!

DISCLAIMER: The following rant might seem like something befitting a r/iamverysmart post. But i just wanted to state that under no circumstances do I consider my self to be either a better person than average, more intelligent than average, a better employee in general than average or a exceptionally skilled programmer (I know how to program and have a relevant education but it is not like Donald Knuth would be moved to tears by the shear beauty and awesomeness of my code). I am not great in any way but I don't consider myself to be (completely) useless, I consider myself to be okay(ish).

I'm currently looking for a job as a software developer and I have spent almost all of today doing psychometric tests for a company where I have been on several interviews.

I have absolutely no problems with tests that test your actual competence such as simple whiteboard tests and and home exercises they can even be quite fun, provided that these tests are not misused/plain silly.

Anyway. I have done these kinds of tests before and both times I felt them to be somehow deeply degrading. I have no problems doing screening tests that are relevant (like coding exercises or English tests) even though one can question how they are being used in some cases. But these other general tests really annoy the crap out of me. The personality evaluations feel so incredibly forced, and arbitrary, and if to be taken seriously, must only be treated so subjectively that their usefulness compared to what they cost and what can be gauged in an interview. And they feel kinda pointless when it comes to finding the actually "bad people" since no person who frequently lies would answer yes to the question "Do you frequently lie?".

But anyway the things that annoy me the most are the tests that literally have this introduction:

Which roughly translates to:

And you are then presented with these standard what symbol comes next tests.:

Another section was this severely annoying numerical section. Where the questions where of the form that you were given a, say buss time table and had to answer questions like "If you miss the buss from a to b at 8:30 time, when is the earliest you can arrive at place b". Which where supposed to evaluate how well you understood statistics. Fun fact, all answers to these questions, which often were fairly arbitrary numbers, had to be entered trough a f***** drop down menu containing, seriously, often 50+ elements. And the questions had a time limit.

Is there ANY kind of evidence supporting these kinds of claims that general logic/intelligence tests can be used to draw any specific conclusions about general workplace performance?

Also a brief side note, I don't really oppose to having smaller logic/intelligence tests just to establish that one has more intellectual capital than a dead fish. But this crap goes on for hours.

And I can't clarify enough how I am not trying to say "Buu huu I'm really smart but these test are stupid, I am Gods gift to humanity", even though it might come of like that.

I'm sorry for the rant. It just annoys me to no extent and these kinds of tests just make me feel fucking worthless for some reason even though I severely doubt their accuracy.

TheGrandmother (talk) 16:34, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I found this https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4557354/ haven’t read it yet so don’t know what it concludes or if the methodology is any good. Christopher (talk) 21:53, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Best predictor of job success; this is one of the most robust and replicated findings in Psychology. The uncomfortably deterministic nature of this fact leads to many on the left to reject cognitive ability testing / IQ / g, as is evidenced quite regularly on this site... (lest we think science denial is entirely limited to the right). The tests make everyone feel a bit uncomfortable and useless, but if it makes you feel any better the correlation rarely exceeds .6, which means there's plenty of unaccounted variance. Also, most scores that are touted by people are straight up lies and fabrication; with real IQ tests you typically don't get your standardised score. Finally, even if you do score low on IQ tests, that doesn't mean you are worth less as a person, or are doomed to be less successful etc. etc. which seems to be an implicit assumption in all these conversations.
 * PS. That's not to say there isn't abuse of these kinds of tests in the commercial sphere; there definitely is.139.130.16.222 (talk) 06:31, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Try reading about it. 31.205.66.133 (talk) 07:29, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Your source is Arthur Jensen, a pseudoscientific racist and the website is a neo-Nazi child-rape apologist: Emil Kirkegaard. Clearly not worth reading about.Debunking spiritualism (talk) 08:43, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * See case in point above. A person that thinks with 5 seconds of internet research they can debunk an esteemed modern psychologists; as pseudo scientific and a racist no less. I don't think even Gould would go that far, but god knows neither of them had the years of research that you have devoted to the topic.
 * No idea who Emil Kirkegaard is. 202.89.161.226 (talk) 14:24, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Translations
Hi there, is it possible to translate the pages? I don't see any links or options relevant, but I think I read a Russian article last week, so I guess it's possible. Do I need special permissions?

Cheers.

rodri 19:15, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * , We have a number of articles in other languages on the predominantly English site, as well as a whole separate website in Russian and always welcome new translations as long as they’re good. What language(s) were you planning on translating to? Christopher (talk) 19:53, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * If you just want to read a page in another language, you can use Google translate. Just copy the entire URL into the input box, select the language you want and click on the "Translate" button. Don't use this to make new pages because 1) copyright and 2) translations are not always so good. Bongolian (talk) 21:53, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, what we want is start to translate the articles to Spanish, creating the pertinent page on the wiki. I translated one already, we won't use Google Translate ;). Cheers. Magneto (talk) 22:31, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Google translate is liable to make hilarious errors, we'll be the laughingstock of the internet if it is used. Darthmaul (talk) 22:59, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You wouldn't want to be the laughing stock of the internet. 31.205.66.133 (talk) 07:41, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Because that's likely to happen. "Hey, you hear about that sceptical wiki that used machine translations?" "Oh yeah, what a bunch of idiots!" —Kazitor, pending 08:07, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * We really need to get on the stick if we are going to translate this Wiki into Proto-Indo-European. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 17:50, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't worry guys, we're not using Google Translate. We're probably going to  before performing the translations though. Rodri (talk) 18:58, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Why would you use Google Translate, when this is available? Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 20:42, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I've read RussianalWiki with Google Translate. It was so overly formal and strange that it was hilarious. 22:05, 7 March 2018 (UTC)


 * A Proto Indo European Rational Wiki? That would be difficult don't you think. How would we translate words like computer, vaccine, creationism, or conspiracy? Plus there are no speakers of this dialect continuum. Darthmaul (talk) 01:57, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Probably easier to use Etruscan. There's enough untranslated that you can write whatever you want. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 04:08, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You might have a case saying that the Proto-Euphratean language, which certain cuneiform texts were written in, was indeed Proto-Indo-European (or a dialect of it). The texts are from the Late Uruk period (c. 3350–3100 BC), which is about the time PIE was suppose to have been spoken. If there were a database of Eurphratean texts, a project like that would have an actual basis in reality. For more information, [1 ]. Given the almost complete lack of any other sources for this theory, I'm tempted to label it as fringe. Darthmaul (talk) 04:24, 8 March 2018 (UTC)