RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive267

I found the best wiki of all
http://rationalwikiwikiwikiswiki.referata.com/wiki/Main_Page This thing really got out of hand, didn't it ? Diacelium (talk) 14:38, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Have you looked at and the rest of the pages? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:01, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I saw the weird pages, so it's time to make a RationalWikiWikiWikisWikiWiki. Who's with me ? Diacelium (talk) 16:51, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I hate to break it to you but you are a few years too late on this meme. RationalWikiWiki was a real thing for a while but unfortunately it died the death. The others were pale imitations.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 18:50, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * And we even have an article on our own more meta activity. Ah! So many names from the past! Where are they now I wonder?Fun:RationalWikiWikiWiki. --Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 18:59, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was when I was looking on the pages of RationalWikiWiki and RationalWikiWikiWiki that I found RationalWikiWikiWikisWiki. It seemed so fun at the time. Diacelium (talk) 23:25, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

How do I change names on articles?
A couple of our articles need a name edit or full on name change and I have no clue how to do it.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 22:48, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * There is a button next to the star button, click that and pick "Relocate" then it will take you to a screen where you can change it.- 23:24, 16 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 23:52, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

RationalWiki Twitter account
Look, the rationalwiki twitter account is just David Gerard. He tries to promote the site on social media when he's not writing books about blockchains being silly. This association fallacy you're trying to draw is site-twitterfeed-Meyers-child rape apollogia(How exactly do your links show that?). It's really tenuous. I never even read PZ Meyers until you started ranting about he was the worst thing ever, and now I think he's just a skeptical biology professor. As far as I can tell, Aneris, in context, you're just crazy. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:41, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Barring his interpretations, I think Aneris raises a decent point. Does social media promotion actually do anything positive? Are there any pretty graphs we can look at? Data? Nothing against Gerard, but he's basically speaking on behalf of the entire wiki. I can maybe see Twitter promo raising awareness among people who already need no convincing, but I have a harder time seeing it improving general public sentiment. Polarization seems more likely. Obviously I have nothing to back that up, though, hence asking for graphz. B) talk 17:09, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure harnessing every single action to the yoke of metrics would create an excessive burden. As long as the twitter generally serves the site's mission I'm disinclined to care.  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:21, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I guess so. My concern is that it may be counterproductive, though well-intended. Twitter can be an echo chamber for those who agree with you and a reinforcer for those who don't. But until I have an actual case I'll leave it be. B) talk 17:31, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Twitter is garbage! If it were to suddenly go offline, the world would be a much better place! I'm not a member, but I often open it up to read tweets on an issue, and my God....it's far worse than an echo chamber. It's a cesspool. You might occasionally find a nugget of gold in it, but most of the time, you'll just find shit. Rant over. As you were. --Levi Ackerman (talk) 18:29, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * A most blatant misunderstanding about RationalWiki is the suggestion that the actions of any one editor somehow "represents" more than that same editor — never mind the site itself (?). Not even (very rare) official actions of elected board members represent the site, just the foundation (as clearly stipulated). We're an internet hangout for cats — and, to boot, nobody is even attempting to herd us. There's literally nothing monolithic to be found in this place. We're all volunteers, and there's no set anything anyone has to do about anything. At the end of the day, it's just multiplayer notepad. Nothing to be upset about, in other words. Unless your starting position is being upset already, and then going from there retrofitting various concoced reasons that promote said annoyance as being reasonable, of course. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:48, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, I'm not at all upset that DG is "speaking for me", or upset at all. I raised this because I'm concerned it may not be effective in promoting the site's mission. I would argue, though, that in Twitter's case, you're technically correct but functionally incorrect regarding the actions of any one editor representing the site/foundation. The site itself is a wiki and is only so monolithic as any groupthink/hivemind that goes on here, but the Twitter account, which may be the only exposure some people have to RW, is monolithic by nature, made even more so by the fact that it's managed by one person. And it claims to represent the site (account name is RationalWiki, not RationalMediaFoundation). You have a nuanced grasp of this, but your average Twitter user may not. As you said, it's a common misunderstanding. B) talk 19:19, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * @B) Yeah, I see what you mean (though, Gerard isn't "speaking for you"). My only point is that, as the editors that make up the entire site and thus in unison decide on its direction, we're not obligated to give a rat's ass about the Twitter account. We're happy Gerard is even bothering to run it, afaik. And my point is, by extension, that there's nothing about our Twitter account in the community standards. Nothing as pertaining to the foundation. It's just an account that DG happens to have the keys to, and we're glad it's not taken by someone unrelated to the site and used to only tweet fugly drawings of Sonic or something. But one cannot cite the Twitter and pretend to be discussing anything but the actions of David Gerard. (And I'm saying this, not to you, but to the ethereal forces that would conspire to whine at RW). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:39, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * "One cannot cite the Twitter and pretend to be discussing anything but the actions of David Gerard" is true for editors here. It is almost certainly not true for anyone else. The account even links straight here. It only has some 4000 followers, and I'm obviously happy it's not taken by someone else. But as an editor with a vested interest in the site's mission, I do give a rat's ass about a social media platform that claims to work in the site's interests. Your argument appears to be "You don't have to care, there's nothing in the rule book that says it's not allowed, and you should be happy it's not worse", which is disappointing. But I'll drop this here. B) talk 20:14, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not debating that. It's not that I don't care. I'm just trying to deflate the Aneris-driven concept that if DG tweets something bad on the RW Twitter, that's proof we all endorse it and he speaks for us, and if we don't concede to that then "everyone here will [be held accountable]" (by some unnamed entity), including you and me and the kid who just signed up for an account. And that's truly disappointing to read. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:20, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand that, then, and yes, it's BS to assume everyone here shares any opinion that gets tweeted. I don't really care what Aneris or "unnamed entities" may or may not think editors here believe, though. My concern is what the public at large thinks editors here believe, and it's not a stretch to say the Twitter account may be taken at its word, regardless of that being BS reasoning. I'm not sure what Aneris means by "held accountable", but if he means there are consequences to the detriment of the wiki's stated goals when DG tweets something bad, then I've got to say I agree with him. A rogue Twitter account causing harm to what we're trying to do here would be truly disappointing, especially if it's preventable. B) talk 20:51, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying bad tweets aren't bad. Bad tweets are per definition bad. I'm saying; don't accuse me of being a literal cultist over Gerard's tweets, like me and him are joined at the hip or something. That's just ????-type reasoning. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:05, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think I accused you of anything, but I apologize if I did inadvertently; I don't doubt you, your honesty, or your intentions in defending Gerard or the Twitter account. I only intended to voice a concern. B) talk 22:24, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * No, no, dude... Again; I'm trying to say I'm not talking directly to you. You have to read my replies in the context of whether or not Aneris has been reasoning in terms of cults and cultists. CTRL+F the word "cult". All will be revealed, my son. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:38, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

FCP weighs in
Legit question: I think the RW Twitter account would be better suited if it just posted "article of the day" or "article proposed for gold: help us out" every day, rather than being a "real" Twitter user. Currently, DG runs the account as (essentially) a real Twitter user, who re-tweets things, argues in the comments, and really hates Bitcoin. (Also, FWIW: it's not very hard to set up Twitter bots. I have a handy list of vapid responses for automatic response, should we need them.) Is Twitter important enough to try and do something like this? 22:16, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I like that idea. I've never written a bot before but I know how to code and can look into it, if a board member doesn't beat me to it and others are on board. B) talk 22:30, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree. The official Twitter account should promote random articles (among our fun and worthwhile articles, that is), etc. It's best if it wasn't operated by any one user who "is a human" on it. Just my two cents. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:40, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * For those who care about the code side, here's a useful compilation of tutorials: https://botwiki.org/tutorials/twitterbots/
 * To put in perspective how easy it is to make a Twitter bot in Python, check this: http://blog.mollywhite.net/twitter-bots-pt2/ 03:58, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Fuzzy. If I can find some time in the next few weeks I'll spin one up. B) talk 18:22, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * For all intents and purposes the RW twitter account has always been the mouthpiece of DG, and this isn't a good thing. It's a much better idea to have it drive people to the actual RW.
 * Aneris, look through the PZ MYers talk-page archive and you will see there is plenty of evidence that PZ is not well loved here. The article is a bit shit (noted on the talk-page) but I guess no-one has gotten around to fixing it. Since he has faded into obscurity now, I doubt it will ever capture anyone's interest long enough to get fixed. 139.130.16.222 (talk) 08:05, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The fact is that the PZ Myers page is in dire need of help. It's not a great article, and it's rather one-sided on some issues. It could use a rewrite for several reasons. The problem is, who is going to bother? As much as a mess the PZ page is when I open it, I open it once every 6 months. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:08, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

In my professional opinion as a trained naturopathic social media and left boot manufacturer I posit that Twitter is crappy marketing for most folks/products that don't already have a profile via other legacy mainstream media. Methinks ignore Twitter and it will slowly dissapear. Maybe not so slowly. If the discussion is about what things would be good for rw to increase interaction awareness I'd say just keep on keeping on Gadzooks (talk) 16:59, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

DG weighs in
Fuzzy's ideas are bad and will result in a bad Twitter; bots are how to have a boring Twitter without followers. (I note also I said to Fuzzy "hey we need help on the official FB page" and he demurred for lack of time.) There's a Board discussion on at present involving Aneris' continued attempts to use the wiki as platform for defamation, and if indeed he shouldn't be hellbanned like Brxbrx was for doing the exact same thing and several days of the Bar oversighted. If Aneris is complaining about the Twitter that means it's probably good. Board members, do come to the email discussion - David Gerard (talk) 12:50, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Our Twitter only has 4,233 followers. I think I agree with Gadzooks in that it wouldn't be the worst thing if Twitter died, but in the meantime a Twitterbot posting articles of the day better serves the mission than running it as if it were a personal account. "It's fine cause Aneris thinks it's bad" is opposition fallacy and a non-sequitur, and what the board decides to do about Aneris is an entirely separate issue. B) talk 21:37, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Our Twitter has 1000 or so more followers than it did when I started running it. The official Facebook's gone from 3000 to 5955 as of today. Since you're raising that metric.
 * Pray tell, what is the actual problem? You're repeatedly stating general concerns but none specific - David Gerard (talk) 23:13, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * My point was that, in terms of followers, there is a lot of room for improvement and not a lot of room for harm. 4000-odd isn't a huge number. For reference, CP has ~9000, ED has ~10000, WP has 300k+. I have no problems with the majority of what you post. It's that it doesn't make sense for you to run an entire wiki's Twitter account as an outlet for your own point of view, no matter how much your own views overlap with those of other editors here. The account should be a promotional tool for the wiki itself, mainly posting links to articles. Fuzzy's objections below just about cover it. B) talk 01:15, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

@DG: I, for one, am not unhappy with how you've run the Twitter (pls don't get overdefensive). My sole objections are that (1) you sometimes insert your personal views into our Twitter, which makes it seem as if RW as a whole supports those views [which, given you, is often true] and (2) it doesn't do enough to promote RationalWiki articles, as opposed to RationalWiki viewpoints. That's why I suggested the automated article-list. 23:18, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You'll excuse me if I have short patience with repeated and yet vague objections - David Gerard (talk) 23:34, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Np. Do you feel (1) and (2) are too vague? 23:46, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * There's a generalised assumption riding along in there - David Gerard (talk) 01:17, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Which assumption is that? B) talk 01:33, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Btw total respect DG for taking on a task. I'm not sure that there 'is' an answer on how to do social media in an empirical way that's not slightly delusional/participating in flawed logic promoted by unicorn riding cyber shmucks...oops rant. I wonder if we can only see the right way in hindsight, so go forth brave DG and win/fail to victory because you might be right :) we salute the juggers, and them what tries to roll that rock up that hill Gadzooks (talk) 02:58, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Like I said above, DG, I'm glad you have the account keys, and you've run the account consistently well. My qualms aren't with you. They only address the fact that a single person runs the Twitter as if it were a personal account; I think there are better options, and a couple other editors/board members agree. What are your thoughts? All the best. B) talk 20:23, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

From what I've seen of the RW Twitter account I think it's pretty good. My only suggestion is more of a two-way relationship between the Twitter account & WIGO pages: i.e. if you pick up a good article/blog via Twitter & it's not already a WIGO entry, add it to the relevant WIGO page, & vice-versa if anything particularly good/popular is shared on WIGO, share it on Twitter too. If there's a need for more people to be involved, I'd be happy to help out when I can & I have professional experience of managing an organisation's social media accounts. 19:43, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I do skim WIGO for good/popular suggestions I think will play well on Twitter. One thing that does need help (and as I note, I asked Fuzzy directly "help out here" and he doesn't have time for that, just time to get very upset about nonspecific claims about problems with the Twitter that he still can't actually formulate into words) is the official Facebook page. So ping me your Facebook name and I'll add you as someone who can post to that - David Gerard (talk) 23:04, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I'm keeping RW stuff at arm's length from my real life identity, so I will create a Weaseloid FB account shortly & let you know.  08:56, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If you post it shows as "from RationalWiki" - only other page editors or admins can see who posted it - David Gerard (talk) 09:07, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless I would prefer not to associate my regular Facebook account with it at all. I've created a new one here & liked the RW page so you should be able to make me an admin.  08:12, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you need to like the page, it's not letting me add you - David Gerard (talk) 09:17, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I already did. I've now unliked & reliked it so please try again.  09:38, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Added! I suggest keeping posting to no more often than every six hours ... seems to please The Algorithm&trade; - David Gerard (talk) 10:12, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Passive aggression
"We" appears to be you and Aneris cheerleader attack socks. You're proxying for Aneris at this stage. If you have a specific objection, make it. If you don't, cut this bullshit - David Gerard (talk) 15:35, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * David, step back, breathe. That thread is about RW's Twitter, no more. As a site-centric discussion, it merits more attention than currently given (not least because you have yet to respond substantively to the concerns noted). Aneris is hardly a part of it -- his posts have been removed, and his concerns are dissimilar to my concerns (and the concerns of others in the thread). Your concerns about quote "Aneris cheerleader attack socks" unquote are frankly conspiratorial. 16:09, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If you want an answer, you have to ask a question. State your claim - David Gerard (talk) 17:07, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Good to know RBP and I come across as Aneris cheerleader attack socks, whatever that means. What is unclear about the points above? They've been stated repeatedly, and you've not responded to them, at all, beyond asking for "specific objections" and saying there's a "generalised assumption" somewhere. I even asked what that assumption was in the hope that we could, I don't know, discuss it, but you still haven't responded. Again, this is not an attack on you or the way you have been running the Twitter. It's a conversation about how to run the Twitter going forward. B) talk 14:23, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You claim there's a problem. Detail the problem, with examples. I've only asked repeatedly. - David Gerard (talk) 22:44, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

David, you have not asked for examples. You have asked for specific claims. We have provided them. We don't understand your hostility. Now you ask for examples. Let me provide just one: Does this make it clear why I think that @RationalWiki is not, in fact, about boosting RationalWiki.org? 01:53, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Here's @RationalWiki from 25 November to 06 December -- 11 days. In that time, @RationalWiki shared 5 RationalWiki articles, highlighted in red. (If you're having trouble finding them, think about what that means about the proportion of RW links to other links.) In that time, RationalWiki created Enlightenment fundamentalism and Satoshi Nakamoto and Polybius and Cancer Tutor and Sleep-learning and Biodiversity and Olivier Bernard and DARVO and Blaire White and Kacper Postawski and Policies of Donald Trump (11 articles). All semi-coherent articles, all worthy of boosting in hopes of additional editors. This makes a boost rate of 0.5454 articles/day.
 * If I extend that time (too large to upload to RW) to 01 November to 06 December, 36 days, @RationalWiki shared 5 (!) RationalWiki articles, and retweeted the sharing of 1 RationalWiki article. In that time, RationalWiki created 30-40 solid articles. This makes a boost rate of 0.16667-0.125 articles/day. In that time, RationalWiki retweeted other users 197 times. This makes a retweet rate of 6.567-4.925 retweets/day.
 * Indeed, well done, you've stated a claim. I'll add more article links. Were there any other specific claims?
 * My point remains: your ideas are mostly terrible, and you combine boundless energy with bad ideas. "Let's just have a bot posting RW links!" In my practiced opinion this is how to lose all the followers, and achieve the opposite of what it's achieved so far. I'm frankly baffled that you think this would work in any manner and constitute engaging with humans, a thing notoriously not susceptible to automation.
 * If you want me to think I should take your ideas on social media seriously in any manner, you need to provide any fucking evidence they are any good. So, I suggest you "like" the official FB page so I can add you as an editor, then you can show that your posts get the views. You know, the actual "so get up off your arse" bit I keep telling you to do. It's as if you literally don't want to risk testing your ability to interact with the public. You're a board member, please show you can do fine on the official channel - David Gerard (talk) 09:16, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Just deleted my post here hoping for collegiate behaviour. Oops. My bad.Gadzooks (talk) 23:36, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

FYI
I'm done with this bs. I won't keep rephrasing the same two sentences until some power-tripping mod decides he's ready to stop being obtuse. If we go forward with a bot, I'm still willing to write it. Let me know. B) talk 00:10, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I think he's still raw from the Aneris thing. Give it a week. (Hence why the sticky.) 00:56, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you serious? Like David said, Twitterbots make for terrible Twitter accounts.  01:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * David is being a problem right now. Whether bots are good or bad is irrelevant. Stop. 01:07, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, no, it's entirely relevant. You have come up with (a) literally the stupidest serious idea I've heard yet for something to do with an RW social media account (b) boundless enthusiasm and advocacy for it (c) a personal attack. The politician's syllogism does not apply here: just because you've come up with something to do does not mean it should be done. You and Bshaw have yet to show anything is actually broken - David Gerard (talk) 09:19, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You've claimed I'm running @rationalwiki as a personal Twitter. That's a hell of an accusation, and I've lost count of how many times I've asked you to back it in any manner. Cite your evidence or fuck off - David Gerard (talk) 22:43, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * For the last time, I've not accused you of anything. I've stated the neutral observation that you run @rationalwiki much like a personal Twitter account; retweeting other personal Twitter accounts, offering opinionated commentary on news articles, etc. I stated my concerns about this with civility, said I thought you'd done quite well running the account up to this point, and asked for your feedback. Regardless of whether you think a bot is a stupid idea, this could have been a quick and easy conversation. "The moderators' job is... to keep the vitriol in our discourse to appropriate levels." Bravo. B) talk 23:12, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Update
I'm happy that @RationalWiki has tweeted about the Pizzagate article. Unfortunately, it hasn't tweeted about any other articles. 18:32, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

So... Brietbart published a headline that's literally a paraphrase of a 1930s German Nazi
When You Hear a Scientist Talk About 'Peer Review' Reach For Your Browning. That's pretty egregious, even by alt-right standards. It's got me on edge. Why are Nazis suddenly so empowered? What broke? How do we stop them? ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:44, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Look up what happened in Weimar Germany after the Nazis rose to power following a successful election. It's too late. You're doomed. --134.76.88.83 (talk) 15:51, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hitler seized power via emergency powers. The only way that happens here is if Trump (or Pence, presumably) is smart enough to consolidate power after manufacturing a crisis. One could argue that there's precedent in post-9/11 changes, but the war on terror was hardly a Republican-only issue -- Congress itself gave up its powers.
 * @Ikanreed: Wait for the old folk to die? 16:29, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Argh. Neo Nazis and global warming deniers are now sympatico. Some pushback from I Fucking Love Science, hope to see more. Leuders (talk) 19:43, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * After the nazis invaded, RationalWiki became the last place in the world where intelligence could still be seen. A bunker for rationals. Diacelium (talk) 19:52, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * (EC)Anti-intellectualism has always and forever been close companion of fascism. You can see it in the way anti-feminists talk.  You can see it in the way climate deniers talk.  You can definitely see it in the way race realists talk.  Even before the KKK and national socialist endorsements of Trump, I had him pegged as exactly the 1930s sort of ethno-nationalist.  And it was always apparent to me that the republican party would fall in line, after claiming staunch opposition.  What's not obvious is what happens next.  The parallels run dry here, because it took 1.5 years for Hitler to ban the democratic socialists, and without a extra-judicial brownshirt-like force, I don't know how Trump would achieve that.  Maybe you'll see exactly that kind of force rise up to deal with "haven cities" or something.  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:01, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Anti-intellectualism has always and forever been a close companion of Communism as well. Even the works of Karl friggen Marx were in part censored under the Soviets.  It's not a right or left thing, but an authoritarian thing; can't let it be acceptable to criticize the government. CorruptUser (talk) 20:07, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd say it goes beyond authoritarian governments and is an ideology issue. Holistic ideologies like Marxism or religion, which provide a self-contained explanation for every issue, always have a problem with criticism because if any part of a holistic belief is challenged, the entire thing is. Lord Aeonian (talk) 23:57, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It's a Reverse-Godwin: someone dangles bait with an obvious Nazi parallel. When Godwin is invoked by critics or opponents, it legitimizes the original argument. You have to find new ways to present arguments now that the race card has been overplayed. Mark Levin just pointed out how the California seccesionist movement and the refusal of sanctuary cities to abide by federal law shows the Confederacy is alive and well in the Democraric party. nobs 05:01, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * oh, nobs. Did you just claim that the Race card is overplayed? If anything i got turned into the visa black card, limitless, now that we have Video proof of unarmed black man used as target practice. Also my Favorite: "THE DEM'S ARE THE TRUE NAZIS!" Sometimes i suspect you play an elaborate prank on us.--Benaresh (talk) 08:15, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I concur with Benaresh re nobs playing an elaborate prank on us, because no truly rational person could come out with half the shit you do, nobs. I mean truly. Unless of course, I am being irrational in my understanding of rational. After all, most irrational people don't think they are irrational, but rather rational - the most rational, in some cases. --Levi Ackerman (talk) 10:45, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Conservapedia:RobSmith - ex-Conservapedia cultist who hangs around RW because we are literally the last people on the Internet who will talk to him at all any more - David Gerard (talk) 11:57, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

"Why are Nazis suddenly so empowered?"

Perhaps everyone's sick of annoying SJWs publishing their pseudoscientific garbage everywhere. Maybe it's the brazen anti-White crap they mindlessly parrot at the behest of moneyed Semites while under some delusion they're "intellectual" or "speaking truth to power". 195.191.67.226 (talk) 12:17, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * --JorisEnter (talk) 13:59, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm really not trolling. You can pretend that if it makes you feel better, or if you have no cogent response. I'm dead serious, believe me. 195.191.67.226 (talk) 14:07, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * For the love of all that is good, . Levi Ackerman (talk) 14:58, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I wonder what your conception of "good" is? It can be quite subjective. 195.191.67.226 (talk) 13:46, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * IP here says that it's all "anti-White crap" when he just mentioned SJWs and Jewish people into one marvelous sentence full of shit. Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt  Noooooooo!  Look! Up there! 20:36, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Fun:Any ideas for a TV show that makes just as much sense as "Hunting Hitler"?
My idea- "Coming up next- UFO's: Reversed Engineered Pyramids Built at Santa's Weapons Factory on Mars with the help of Hitler within the Mayan Pyramids!" Post your ideas! Have a little fun!--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 23:17, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * A show about extraterrestrial's contribution to economics. Diacelium (talk) 23:19, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

"Hunting A Fluent Lojban Speaker" 'Legion what do you want from me  05:31, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Why not go full batshit? "Racewar: America Edition" or "Die Glocke- Nazi Colony on Mars" or "the HoloHoax - the truth about Concentration Camps" i think with the current administration those would get greenlit. Maybe they start showing "loose Change" and "Hellfire" regulary?--Benaresh (talk) 08:23, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 *  "Natural Lies: The Hoax of Evolution in Libtard Academia"  or some other thing like that. Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt Noooooooo!  Look! Up there! 20:39, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Just came up with a new one- "Year 1492: Why Cyborg George W. Bush discovered the secret Native American Taco Bell on the Planet Venus which the entire staff was angels sent by God who was created by aliens which originated from the basement under Frank Sinatra Junior's house that was built by the Illuminati that were created by secret genetic experiments conducted by the Soviet Russians who were influenced by drunken soldiers from the Army of Satan while driving a bus through the secret underground tunnels under the White House that was built by the Magic Underpants Gnomes who were created by Monsanto during an illegal Biochemical experiment ran by illegal aliens from Mexico under the direction of Sonic the Hedgehog during a poker game with Barack Obama who smoked too much pot grown by the Nazis to fund reanimating Hitler on the day Adam and Eve were kicked out of the Garden of Eden that was built by the protesters at Standing Rock which was funded by the French to help invade America during the great depression while creating the Sega Genesis video game system to turn our children into Evil Homosexual Liberal Atheist Communists bent on the destruction of Wal-Mart". That batshit crazy enough? Still the same logic the (pseudo)History Channel uses.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 23:26, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * [[File:Goodpost.gif]] We should stop now, before the Ideas get too good for the "History Channel" to pass up. --Benaresh (talk) 23:33, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Stupidest criminal ever?
Here is the article- https://www.yahoo.com/news/man-robs-bank-note-written-rehab-discharge-papers-123145978.html --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 22:40, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * To quote the late Hitch: "Rightly are the simple so called." Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:47, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I wrote a blog post about the potential influence of neoreaction in politics in the wake of Trump's election
I thought you might want to check it out: http://therealsocraticgamer.tumblr.com/post/154566975557/why-we-should-be-afraid-of-the-growing-influence Gutza1 (talk) 01:24, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Here's something to ponder: is the problem the rise of Trumpism, or the fact the Progressive/Liberal/Democratic party coalition fell apart? Before you begin developing strategies to defeat Trumpism, how are you going to win back Democrat voters who abandoned the Democratic party because they felt identity politics suck? nobs 02:32, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The problem isn't identity politics, it's the fact that Clinton was a horrible and arrogant candidate that thought she had it in the bag because everyone's favorite rotten yam with a hairpiece was worse. While it's true that there's a hardcore base of actual "deplorables" that went Trump, most of the folks that did were angry, scared, desperate, and sick and tired of the rotting edifice of DC that neglects them. Trump actually promised them something, even if all of those promises were lies, while Clinton didn't even deign to speak to them. You can read campaign documents from places like Michigan where their ground game was so crappy it'll make your stomach churn. Point is, if Dems can stop playing footsie with their corporate masters, stop acting centrist and rally the base we can make some important grabs in 2018 and 2020. Let's hope that's what happens. 173.175.43.44 (talk) 06:20, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it's both the neoliberalism of the Democratic establishment and the frustration of the working class in the battleground states. Honestly the Democratic Party needs to understand and embrace intersectionality instead of acting like racial and class issues are mutually exclusive, a false dichotomy they embraced in the fight against Bernie Sanders in the 2016 primaries. Gutza1 (talk) 12:47, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, my thoughts exactly. Sanders got keelhauled by the DNC because he meant just about every word he said about bringing radical change to the White House and that didn't sit well with the pretenders to liberalism that have unfortunately defined the Dems for a while now. Our only hope now is for folks to get organized at the grassroots, cut all of the neoliberal deadwood out of the party, battle President Pumpkin to the bitter end and make a comeback in 2018. 173.175.43.44 (talk) 13:02, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I can agree with all of that. But here's the bigger problem: Democratic donors feel they got ripped off, bigly, and they want answers. So far, all they got is blame game pointing fingers at Putin and Comey. Now, if Trump and the GOP actually cut corporate taxes to 15% (which seems very likely), and job creation comes roaring back, do you think the big money donors who made Hillary's election look innevitable will stick with the Dems? Will the Dems active!y trash talk recovery and job crestion? Seems to me Dems haven't done the soul searching necessary to come up with new talking points and a playbook. Thus far they are the party of "no", blaming others for their own short sightedness. nobs 18:03, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That's absolute nonsense, cutting taxes on corps and the uber rich isn't going to magically make jobs be created. And as for blaming other parties? What about the petty, juvenile kneejerk obstructionism that made it next to impossible for Obama to get anything done just because he's on the other end of the red-blue divide? Something is deeply, deeply wrong with this country and it's only going to get worse unless we can rise up from the grassroots and halt its slide to the right. 173.175.43.44 (talk) 18:18, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't understand how cutting taxes for corporations help anyone but corporations. Here's a question: Who suffers more when you take a hundred dollars, lower class citizens or upper class citizens and business owners? The answer is obvious. Business owners make enough money and aren't going to get damaged by taxes. As much as Americans hate taxes, it's a necessity. Heck, Cuba recently allowed private businesses to be owned citizens just so Cuba could collect taxes; a move to prevent the government from imploding on itself. 18:36, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * We'll know in two years if economic growth exceeds 2% for the first time in a decade, and how the voters react. Meantime, all the corporate donations that made Obama, Hillary, Pelosi, and Wasserman-Schultz possible appear to be drying up. nobs 19:21, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Honestly, screw the corporate donations. They can take their money and shove it. Martin Luther King Jr. didn't have corporate donors, the women's suffrage protestors didn't have corporate donors, the LGBT community doesn't have corporate donors. Change comes from people willing to fight for their freedoms. 173.175.43.44 (talk) 19:35, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If jobs come back (which seems likely with taxcuts and trade restrictions), you'll be jousting at windmills. nobs 19:39, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Nope, not gonna happen. I give it a year at most before the wheels come off Rump's contradictory, self destructive economic policies and we all suffer for it. You strike me as the kind of person that puts ruthless, endless economic growth over people being able to vote and live without fear of violence or discrimination, and if they dare organize and stand up to injustice they're on a Quixotic quest going nowhere. That condescending defeatism is a very poor attitude to have. 173.175.43.44 (talk) 19:49, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The People have spoken. Anytime you want all the racist, deplorable Democrats from Wisconsin, Iowa, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida back, you are welcome to have them. nobs 20:01, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * For the record, no, the people have not spoken since Clinton got almost three million more votes than President-Elect Pussy Grabber. The Electoral College needs to be abolished, it gives land more saying power than people. Being disgusted with a corporate Dem that shrieked "establishment" to the high heavens doesn't make someone racist or deplorable either. It was the wrong candidate, the wrong talking points, everything just wrong wrong wrong. Democrats really couldn't have run a worse candidate or a more wrongheaded campaign and now we all have to deal with the consequences. 173.175.43.44 (talk) 20:07, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok. Why then of the 65.7 million people who voted Democrat, why was there not one, not one, who stood up to challenge her for the nomination? They had to recruit a non-Democratic, registered Independent to produce a sparring partner for the debate schedule. nobs 21:58, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Sadly I don't have an answer for you there. But if Sanders can go from "Bernie who?" to the most popular politician in the country almost overnight I'm sure other people will come forward too. MyNameIsMudd (talk) 22:04, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * As to Hillary winning the popular vote, I think I can say I speak for the rest of the country; of her 2.77 million victory margin, 4.27 million came from California. Who cares what a bunch of California crazies think? They don't even want to be part of the United States anymore. nobs 22:16, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes nobs, who cares what a huge portion of the constituency of the United States thinks? We should write all of those Volt driving, Starbucks loving, book learnin' folks off. This is the exact same thing Democrats did in the election cycle but in reverse. Just as Democrats shouldn't have assumed they had Rust Belt folks in the bag and shouldn't write off rural people as toothless meth addicted hicks, you shouldn't right off a whole state because you don't like the culture. The point of winning the game of politics is to appeal to as broad a cross section of America as possible, you need voters to win, and writing off any one of these groups (outside of deranged extremists) is begging for trouble. MyNameIsMudd (talk) 22:30, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hillary won CA, 61-39%. Neither candidate didn't spend a dime in the most expensive state to campaign in. Now if Trump spent money in CA to get a more respectable loss, say 55-45, just to not hear people bitch he didn't win the overall popular vote, do you think that is money well spent? And when was the last time the guy who spent !ess money won the presidency? And do you think pissing away money on a cause you know is pointless is the hallmark of a leader we need in a president? nobs 22:54, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not just about the Benjamins. Consider that Sanders went from zero to hero with hardly any coverage, the media constantly writing him off as a distraction, and money from crowdfunding intiatives instead of corporate donations. Democracy should not be pay to play, if you have a message people are going to listen to you. Democrats themselves proved that money doesn't mean a thing when your candidate is a vacuous, condescending hack and your vote canvasing game is made terrible through arrogance and incompetence. The system would be better if nobody got left behind. There doesn't need to be a red America, or a blue America, or anything like that. All Americans should look out for each other and our politicians should reflect that. MyNameIsMudd (talk) 23:08, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Russian language RW
I was just poking around on the Russian language side of RW. It seems that there are no cross-links between Russian language articles and English-language equivalents (RT and scientific creationism are two examples that have equivalents but no cross-links). Furthermore, there was once a template that linked to the Russian side, but this seems to have been deleted. Someone with some Russian language knowledge might want to take this on a small project to make the templates and put them on pages where appropriate. Bongolian (talk) 01:14, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Fundie schools that would make good additions

 * Cornerstone University (Young Earth Creationist and very homophobic)
 * Andrews University (A weird mix of Young Earth Creationism and quality degree programs)
 * Spring Vale Academy (A Young Earth Creationist secondary school which is homophobic)

Thoughts? I am not going to add anything till I get thoughts on these--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:29, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The first two are definitely worth adding. The third is a dinky high school basically. Bongolian (talk) 02:05, 18 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I will start with Cornerstone University then though a few years ago I made an article but someone deleted it--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 02:52, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The record of the deleted page shows that it was deleted because it had "too much copy-pasted content, too little commentary". If you make the article mostly original content and make it missional, there shouldn't be a problem. The deleted page could be restored if you think it would be easier to fix the old page rather than start anew. Bongolian (talk) 03:45, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * By the way, being a "dinky high school" is not in an of itself a reason against making a page. Notability is not a criterion for RW pages, missionality is. It's just that it might be harder to come up with things to say about that school: they've got what a half-dozen teachers or something. Bongolian (talk) 03:48, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Attacking the course work and the strange rules might be a good road to take--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 15:14, 18 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I got the article started and there is some snark, I will edit some more tomorrow. Here is a link- []--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 04:33, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I need somebody, help !
I started this page : 2017_France_presidential_elections Very few helped edit it. It's hard to find things to add, and it was mostly to add links and correct grammar mistakes. Also, I have some questions : When can it stop being considered a stub ? So, would anyone help me expand it ? Also, I'd like to make pages on french politicians and french political parties, do you think it'd be a good idea ? Diacelium (talk) 02:49, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Fuck France. We're tired of fighting their goddamn wars for them and being treated like shit for it. nobs 03:03, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Once again you chime in with a charming opinion that has no relevance to what this person was originally asking for. At least be more honest and say something more like "I don't give one tenth of a fuck about helping you expand the article because of my bias towards a whole country based on something that happened over eighty years ago." MyNameIsMudd (talk) 03:15, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * What war did you ever fight for us ? Diacelium (talk) 03:54, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Two world wars and Vietnam, which fucked my generation and country up bigtime. Add the Libyan intervention of 2012 to that, too. What the hell dif we get out of that, other than more hate directed at us?nobs 04:03, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you stupid? South Vietnam was an independent country. It wasn't a protectorate of France when the war started. After Diem was out the French didn't want anything to do with Vietnam.
 * How were any of the world wars related to France in any way? We intervened in WW1 because Germany sank a ship with a ton of American civilians on it, and it would help Britain who we were close trading partners with. And in WWII we entered the European theatre to stop Britain from falling, and because Germany declared war on us after Pearl Harbor! How could you possibly not know these basic historical facts?!?! And nobs is regarded as a resident historian. Idiot. 04:05, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * How were two world wars related to France in any way? Both ended with the US liberating French territory from German occupation. Vietnam? Hmmm, which historical narrative do you want to use? The Pentagon Papers should be as good as any.


 * blah blah blah fucking commie backstabbing sonsabitches.... nobs 04:48, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 1: What does this have to do with anything I said? It actually proves my point if anything, that France was not interested in Vietnam.
 * 2: How does declaring neutrality in a conflict you couldn't realistically be neutral in qualify as "backstabbing"? It's not like France elected to become part of the Soviet Union and placed Russian nukes at Normandy out something. There was a free and fair election in France that elected a government that chose a de jure policy of neutrality and peaceful coexistence. Are you saying you dislike neutrality and peaceful coexistence? Besides, France couldn't possibly be neutral in the Cold War effect if it wanted to, because of its economic dependence on America as a result of the Marshall Plan.  04:58, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The second someone in this day and age starts unironically using the word commie to describe people they dislike they've outed themselves as a sad parody of conservative values that went the way of the dodo when the Cold War ended. MyNameIsMudd (talk) 05:03, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * France prematurely pulled out and violated an agreement painstakingly negotiated at Geneva for elections to be held in South Vietnam. "Coexistence" was parroting the Soviet foreign policy line. "Aggression" likewise, was the French Socialist/communist coalition accusing the previous French government and their fellow citizens of international war crimes. Alleging no agreenent between the UK & France was bullshit, cause at that very moment the UK & France were colluding in the Suez Crisis. And while the new Socialist regime was parroting the Moscow line, it was also a member of NATO which was created to counter Soviet foreign policy. nobs 05:25, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Setting all of that aside, I don't see how "damn commie French, they betrayed us, WAAAHH!!!!" is going to accomplish anything. Instead try something else. 05:29, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no clear standard for what is a stub, but this article is clearly not one. It is now de-stubbed. I don't have sufficient knowledge of French politics to contribute much to this article. Bongolian (talk) 03:40, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it still is a stub, there are parts that still need expanding, like the issues. Diacelium (talk) 03:54, 18 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I took a look and I can assure you it is not a stub. As for expansion, I would help but I don't know shit about French politics other than there is a democratically elected President and that France is part of the European Union--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 04:37, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * So Le Pen is the most likely winner. What a year 2016..oh wait 2017 too?! --Dogeatsdog (talk) 06:47, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Fun:The creation "science" method

 * Step 1- Find a predetermined conclusion
 * Step 2- Come up with an idea to prove it
 * Step 3- Create fixed experiments to fit your theological views
 * Step 4- Quote the bible
 * Step 5- You predetermined conclusion is "confirmed"
 * Step 6- Go around and saying your theory is correct while ignoring contradicting evidence from actual Biologist who are in the field of Evolutionary Biology
 * Step 7- Flaunt your Ph.D even if it is not in a biology related field (Example- Computer Science) to impress others (i.e Argument from Authority)

What is your example of the creation "science" method?--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 15:23, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the creationist scientific method has been mocked enough, we can't make up jokes about them anymore, as they've all been done.Diacelium (talk) 17:20, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I think Occum's Duct Tape is enough. Start with conclusion, find evidence, keep adding asinine explanations as to why the evidence "proves" or at the very least doesn't disprove your conclusion, outright deny any evidence that outright disproves your conclusion as some sort of conspiracy. CorruptUser (talk) 23:45, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Identitarianism
So apparently Identitarianism is on the rise in Europe. Identitarianism is basically Euro-Alt-Right, the idea that everyone in Europe should be European in culture. It's pan-nationalist, in that French and Belgians are all European enough to be acceptable anywhere in the EU. No word on what they think of those lazy Mexicans Poles doing all the work. Supposedly they are fine with Jews living in Europe, but words are cheap. Their beef with Muslims is ostensibly not that they are a scary brownish color, but that they don't "share our values", aka, the tiny minority of assholes that get on TV making everyone else look bad. Unlike the non-Islamic people who are also assholes.

Currently, on Ratwik we just redirect to White Nationalism. Should we have a separate article for Identitarians now? CorruptUser (talk) 21:24, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Why do white Europeans dislike Poles? They all look the same to me. No offense. Lord Aeonian (talk) 22:40, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Same reasons Americans hate Mexicans, they think they're coming into richer European countries (like Germany and Britain) stealing their jobs, living off the welfare nanny state, and selling drugs/stealing cars/raping women. 'Legion what do you want from me  23:19, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * As part of the infinitely long traditions of racism, the answer is that racists look for excuses to hate people who are different. It's not that the difference between a Polish person and an Austrian in pronounced and meaningful, it's just that Poles are marginally more "foreign" and thus an acceptable target.  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 23:35, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Also because when Poland joined the EU, it was all the smart and ambitious ones who came to the UK, and got a reputation for being brilliant workers. Thus, they offended the local stupid people who felt outclassed - David Gerard (talk) 23:52, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If a man comes to your country and doesn't work as hard as you, he's here to sponge off the system. If he works harder than you, he's here to put you out of a job.  If he does a working class job or less, he's squeezing out the poorest.  If he's university educated, he's subverting the gains of the middle class.  If he's highly educated and in an elite role, your country is being taken over by foreigners.  Whatever the case, he's also here to steal your women.  Unless he's gay, in which case he's here to pervert your kids' morals.
 * If he's actually a she, no matter what she's just trying to use you for citizenship. CorruptUser (talk) 00:57, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The Poles are indeed like Mexicans, they're 97% Catholic and actually believe Catholic teaching, as well. nobs 07:36, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Wait, what? I'm not Catholic nor do I believe Catholic teachings. Eugh. Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt Noooooooo!  Look! Up there! 04:09, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

On nuance between East and West
This is a bit off-topic, but considering the ways that the Polish "culture", "mindset", "heritage", "whatever" diverges from that in "the West", there's many minor — though relevant — factors to ponder.

For example, I'm struck by the complex legacies of Polish nationalism resulting perhaps from them having first been overrun at the outset of World War 2, followed by being trapped behind the iron curtain for half a century longer.le

Some Polish youth (I have no numbers on this, just numerous anecdotes), notably sporting shaven heads and bomber jackets, seem to have developed a rather inflated sense of national spirit — sometimes expressed to the level of direct abrasion with tourists (as with the British Defense League, et. al., in England) — perhaps a result of their strong impression that if you're Poland, and you snooze, you lose.

Now, to get a bit esoteric about European history — long before the "east and west Europe" divide of the 20th century, there was in Europe the so-called "Elbe division" during the middle ages onwards; a line drawn retrospectively (though, to great accuracy) by historians to express the otherwise muted fact that even feudal society could differ in how "liberal" It was.

To the west of the Elbe — including Sweden, Denmark, Iceland and I believe the British isles — a more "liberal" farming system developed, using smaller individual farms, more freedom for the peasants, and overall more bottom-up decentralized rule.

To the East, notably in Poland and further East, the opposite occured — a more draconian system of local governance developed, with much bigger (anachronistically proto-"Kulak") farms, less freedom for the peasants (who were more like outright serfs) and far more top-down centralization.

This split, and its power of tradition on what local populaces saw as the proper balance between rights and obligations, was to last many centuries (!). Note also that the western system produced better, aside from — in hindsight — providing much more fertile ground for the eventual development of democracy than did its counterpart.

There's also the legacy of the Protestant-Catholic split between European states, essentially going back to the reformation. Poles are indeed majority Catholic. On the other shore of the small Baltic sea, several nations sit that are not just Protestant in heritage, but which are indeed highly secular and majority Atheist.

Add to that, the fact that in these progressive Nordic nations, most find any type of chest-thumping national spirit to be a bit unsettling (perhaps momentarily forgetting that its motivation is — in the case of the Poles — partially redeemable, stemming from fairly recent history of atrocious occupation).

Now, I'm a strong supporter of the EU, I have nothing to say about an entire people (especially nothing "bad"), and I agree fully with the views expressed above (especially David's view).

But — and this is off-topic to the original question — the fact remains that Catholic, nationalist youth assuming the trappings of skinhead culture are sadly prevalent in Poland.

Not to be confused with metropolitan Poles who migrate and work! I'm referring to the stay-at-home skinheads; the BDF equivalent in Poland. Even if not numerous (though I suspect they are), I've heard they are quite visible regardless.

And this is just me thinking aloud — and please challenge any part of this — but the combination of inheriting the short straw from the Elbe divide, Catholicism from the reformation wars, being defeated as a young democracy, experiencing massive trauma, and being crushed under essentially Stalinist rule for nearly 50 years seems to have fertilized the soil which sustains anti-Enlightenment ideals in the minds of some in the local populace. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:56, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Poland at one time stretched all the way to the Euxine. It was at that time Poland's national identity developed as Europe's frontline of defense against Islam, hence the commitment to Catholicism.
 * In both cultures, Spanish and Polish, the popularity of Catholic religious icons (silk screen Jesus' or dashboard icons, for example) stem from a time portions of Europe were invaded by Islam. The icons represent defiance and resisitance against Sharia, something our Protestant brethern never experienced and overlook before they mock Cathohics as idol worshippers. nobs 13:33, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, nobs, 'cause it's not like Russian Orthodoxy and Prussian Protestancy/Calvinism were ever important factors in tightly linking Catholicism with Polish national identity, no, it's all down to Islam... ScepticWombat (talk) 08:49, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * See Wikipedia, :

nobs 03:52, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say that this was because of "defiance against Sharia", that concept simply made Polish nobility feel that their country is important. In the end this and other themes (like nobility descending from a mythical Sarmat tribe) only led to delusion and megalomania, which contributed to Poland's downfall. And that had a stronger effect on Polish identity (e.g. the concept of Poland as Christ of Europe). La peipreda (talk) 23:24, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Criticism of Eastern European nations from left field
A part of me, the crueller part of me, is unsympathetic to the "woe-is-us", "why-do-you hate-us?", "why-do-you-persecute-us?" complex of some Eastern European migrants in response to the rising xenophobia in the UK. It's no secret that these countries (Poland, Bulgaria, Hungary, etc) aren't exactly bastions of inclusivity and diversity. Just look at how many of them, Hungary, for example, have reacted to the migrant crisis; throwing up borders in contravention of the Schengen Agreement just so they can keep all these "dark skinned muslims" out. In fact, many white Eastern Europeans cannot understand the animus against them in public discourse, as they feel the fact that their skin is white should exclude them from xenophobia of any sort. Xenophobia, some of them believe, should be reserved for the "darkies". Levi Ackerman (talk) 18:50, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * By that logic, we should also shun the refugees because their original societies are even worse than Eastern Europe. Really want to go down that road?  Because virtually everyone that emigrates emigrates because they don't like their originating country for whatever reason.  And then it's turtles all the way down as you blame France for blaming Libya for blaming France... CorruptUser (talk) 21:15, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I was just about to say this. What's the difference between dismissing issues that affect Muslims just because Muslim countries don't exactly love their minority communities and this stuff about "it's no secret that these countries (Poland, Bulgaria, Hungary, etc) aren't exactly bastions of inclusivity and diversity?" Lord Aeonian (talk) 21:22, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * @ Lord Aeonian, there isn't one (a difference). I admit to that, which is why I prefaced my opener by saying it is the crueller part of me that feels like that. But, you're right; there is no difference, at least none that I can think of. And @CorruptUser, you too are right. It's a dangerous path to go down towards.Levi Ackerman (talk) 21:37, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Though if you must know, there are crueler parts of me that have some... well, let's just leave it at that. CorruptUser (talk) 21:45, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

The central role of "the glorious defeat" in certain national narratives?
For years I've wondered whether a national mythos in which a "glorious defeat" is placed at centre stage tends to create a more vicious "baseline" for the populace's outlook on the wider world, especially if combined with a notion of having been unfairly treated in the aftermath. If you then add a strong religious component (which is likely to be spun in a both apocalyptic and millenarian direction when coupled with the two prior factors). European countries that I can think of which arguably fit this pattern would include By contrast, Germany only partly fitted the pattern during the Interwar Era (apart from a clear religious narrative), but not post-WWII (a decidedly inglorious defeat in the national consciousness) and to an even lesser extent France during 1870-1914 (a more ambiguous defeat in the national narrative) or post-WWII (again, not a clear cut glorious defeat narrative) with neither epochs evincing a clear religious take on the events. Mind you, this is just a loose set of ideas of mine, not a clear well-analysed historical argument. ScepticWombat (talk) 19:15, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Poland (the partitions and WWII),
 * Hungary (WWI and especially its aftermath),
 * Serbia (Battle of Kosovo and WWI and WWII),
 * Ireland (the various failed rebellions, culminating in the Easter Rising), and
 * Denmark (1864 though not WWII and less obvious religious connotations).
 * Well... the US did kick some British Arse back in the day, and by "kick" I mean "let the French do a large portion of the work and then wait for Britain to get too frustrated to bother". CorruptUser (talk) 21:18, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That was only one time! And the other time 40 years later!  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 21:44, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

On the topic of Bipolar Disorder
Slowly I am crawling out of a depressive state after the psychiatrist raised my dose of Limictal from 50 mg to 100 mg, how do any of you deal with being in the depressed state of Bipolar Disorder?--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 16:56, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I am on Seroquel XR at 600mg for my Schizophrenia, I am on Effexor XR at 150 mg and Limictal at 100 mg (raised from 50 mg). It has been working but before my limictal was raised I was in a bad depressive state.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 17:48, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand and it's okay. What's important is to tell yourself is that you're not actually worthless, doomed to misery or whatever else your depression makes you feel. Your brain is trying to trick you and make you feel those things, but it's not true. With your medicine the neurons blunted by your depression will start growing again and you'll have a much more balanced mood. Just keep going okay? 173.175.43.44 (talk) 17:59, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Medicating correctly (and staying medicated) is a much much better way of treating depression. There's no "brain tricking you" and telling a depressed person to be positive is not very good advice, though I know your heart is in the right place. In this case, person has a chemical imbalance in their brain that requires medication to be helped (at least with current medical knowledge). 00:21, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Which is why I said both medicine and therapeutic techniques are good. Medicine is one hundred percent an appropriate and necessary response, but I'm also talking about times when depressive episodes still happen and you, say, forgot to have your meds refilled. Knowing thought processes and techniques to break out of a destructive mental cycle is very important then. MyNameIsMudd (talk) 01:04, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I generally remember to have my meds refilled but sometimes it slips my mind.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:16, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If you ever want to talk about it one on one you can use my talkpage. I'll be around. MyNameIsMudd (talk) 01:36, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello! Fellow bipolar person here! I pop 400mg of Lamictal (Which is what I assume you mean by Limictal) and it has been working great for me. Have you discussed this with your doctor? And how long was it between you upping your Lamictal dose and the depression kicking in?


 * I would say Tuesday of last week, I do not feel as depressed now--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 14:51, 19 December 2016 (UTC)


 * But I have some tips regarding what to do when ones brain declares war against its own existence. Remember that these are just stuff that works for me and any explanation I give is just based on personal anecdotes.
 * First of I would urge you to wath Wim Wenders movie Der Himmel über Berlin. This movie has helped me a lot when things have been really dark, it simply just shows that there is an intrinsic beauty to all of human exsistence, regardless of how pointless, mundane, boring or hard our life may be.
 * I also recomend finding some good foorm of escapism to avoid just sitting around and letting your mind spiral downwards. Although here one must be carefull and find something that has the following properties: It is non destructive (so no drugs, gambling or alcohol), It is also Important that it has an end so that it does not consume unlimited amounts of time (so no MMORPG, KSP is a corner case. It never ends but it is just to awesome not to recommend) and secondly and almost mot importantly: It should not carry any prestige, not being good at it should not really matter.
 * I hope that helps! And if you want too talk about anything just ask! TheGrandmother (talk) 12:51, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I hope that helps! And if you want too talk about anything just ask! TheGrandmother (talk) 12:51, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I hope that helps! And if you want too talk about anything just ask! TheGrandmother (talk) 12:51, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Nobs conspiracy corner

 * Depression is caused by repressed anger. Learn to watch for the triggers that make you angry, and don't react with anger. See the irony in things, and laugh. nobs 17:12, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Completely untrue. Depression isn't caused by any passing mood or situation, but because of a literal chemical imbalance in one's brain. Coping techniques do exist that can help with a depressive episode but the key is antidepressants from a doctor. These work to correct the imbalances and give you a normal, healthy brain. As for me, I weather my rough patches by thinking about my girlfriend and how I don't want to leave her ever. 173.175.43.44 (talk) 17:39, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yah, well I happen to remember reading the first articles in the Wall Street Journal in 1982 about how Big Pharma wanted to move into the psych-med market which required revolutionizing the whole field of diagnostic theory. Now 70% of all Americans take some prescription drugs. They've been widely successful. I should have bought G.D. Searle stock back when Donald Rumsfeld was CEO. Even the Libyan operation against Gadaffi was undertaken in the hopes of getting Big Pharma into that market. nobs 18:31, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If you think the proper response to someone asking for advice about going through depression is to shoot off at the mouth about Big Pharma conspiracy theories you're living in a whole other universe. 173.175.43.44 (talk) 18:38, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No, I'm just giving the prevailing scientific opinion prior to Big Pharma themselves authoring the medical textbooks. nobs 18:43, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The Big Pharma conspiracy has some truth to it. But really, pharmacy companies are driven by personal interest. Like any other business, the wellbeing of the business comes first, while the consumers come second. For example, the drug Nalmefene is effective in treating alcoholism; however, it is not sold because it is "out of patent", therefore, no profit is to be made. 18:47, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * @Cheesburger: Wikipedia has an article on it..
 * I'm not following this logic. Person A says "I'm going through some rough times, how do you cope?" Person B says "well what I do is X, Y and Z and I hope these things help you." Person C chimes in with "Well Big (insert unethical industry here) does such and such, including starting wars." What exactly is Person C doing in this situation, even if what they are saying is one hundred percent true? 173.175.43.44 (talk) 18:53, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what bringing up a conspiracy theory has to do with Bipolar Depression? To everyone else, thanks for the advice--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 19:02, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It's no problem at all. You'll make it through this, I know it. 173.175.43.44 (talk) 19:09, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I think what Rob Smith is implying here is that the chemical imbalance theory of depression is something made up by Big Pharma to get people to buy their pills. And it's certainly true that Big Pharma promotes the theory, but I don't think they actually invented it. I'm not an expert regarding brain science, but what I do know is that depression is very, very real and it shouldn't ever be discounted, only treated. 22:23, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * One of these days I'll retrieve one of those Wall Street Journal articles from the early days. Point is, the first time I ever heard "chemical imbalances in the brain" was in a financial publication seeking investors for new marketing promotion, not a scientific journal, and was reading both for a longtime. In fact, I gave up reading science publications after witnessing exactly what happend here in this case regarding "bi-polar" disorder. There are numerous other similiar cases I'm less familiar with, ADD, PTSD, and now TBI. But I'm well familiar with the alleged "science" behind it. nobs 23:20, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I just left a Depression "support" group. All I am seeing is nonstop complaints and depressing pictures on my FB feed so I choose to dump that Festival of Despair. Not one person in that group is even making an attempt at being happy and I certainly don't need that negative influence in my life, I am trying to escape the pain, not being consumed by it.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 23:15, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey, don't worry about it, I've had to cut friendships off because the other person was a nonstop barrage of complaints and suicide threats. When it comes to mental health always resist the temptation to reach out to toxic relationships and never be afraid to walk away from any situation that threatens your peace of mind. MyNameIsMudd (talk) 23:21, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Pre-Phrama, the Fruedian Pschycoanalytic theory was, depression is a temper-tantrum directed inward. Some therapists today, who have actually researched the subject, agree with this assessment. Others schooled in modern textbooks don't wanna hear your personal problems and say, " Here, take a pill". You decide on your own coarse of treatment. nobs 23:27, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You realize many of Freud's theories have been largely discredited by more recent science? Regardless of whether pharmaceutical companies have incentive to sell the largest volume of SSRI's they can, they do often help treat depression effectively. Psychological science is not so bought and paid for that pharma is selling nothing but placebo pills. That's not to say preventative measures and alternatives to medication are not worth pursuing; they absolutely are. But you grossly misrepresent the situation. B) talk 23:36, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * A lot of Frued's work is speculation and pseudoscience by today's standards. Also, who are these unnamed “therapists” that are in the quantity of “some”.
 * According to recent science, 69% of people prescribed antidepressants do not meet the criteria for clinical depression. nobs 01:13, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * As a result of my Aspergers and socialization issues, I have clinical depression I was diagnosed with a couple weeks ago. I've been taking Bupropion for 2 weeks and I feel like it's marginally improved my mindset, although some of that is undoubtedly placebo. I'm also scheduled to have talk therapy soon. I guess I'll be something of a guinea pig for this discussion. AnonASP (talk) 01:34, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't argue that antidepressants aren't over-prescribed. That does seem true. But your characterization of depression as nothing but repressed anger, a "temper-tantrum directed inward", is baseless and diminishes the debilitating reality that depression can be. Would you instruct someone suffering from schizophrenia to ignore their hallucinations and try to focus on the "real" things in front of them? B) talk 01:56, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I think Rob Smith has the old conservative view of "damn depressed kids, they need to toughen up and just stop thinking bad thoughts." I honestly believes that's what he thinks because he was raised in a conservative traditional environment. 03:28, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Waelll, it just so happens I know a few schizophrenics, some since birth, in the ministry I'm involved in. While I don't know everyone's individual case, IMO, those who refuse halidol versus others who walk around like zombies, have violent mood swings, and are generally near impossible to communicate with, the drug-free ones I have no problem communicating with and have good ongoing friendships with. But I would never discuss prescription medication with any of them, nor dispense any advice on whether they should or should not take them. nobs 03:31, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think going to a ministry is going to help those people. I know I wouldn't be helped by it, and I think trying to get people to stop believing in weird things that aren't true by teaching them weird things that aren't true is probably not a good idea. 03:45, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about giving them a blanket at nite or a cup of coffee in the morning. I know it's not much, but generally they seem to appreciate the gesture and some of them are willing to talk. nobs 03:55, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That won't stop their disorder. If I've got someone with the flu or measles, sure giving them a blanked and a cup of coffee is a good thing, but they also desperately need drugs. To ignore that is felony abuse and neglect. 04:10, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * @Rob, respect to you for trying to do something to improve lives. I imagine your kindness could mean a lot to somebody who has a serious mental disorder. My point above is particularly relevant in light of this; rather than speculating about the root cause of depression and advising people suffering from it how to think and react to stimuli, why not leave that to psychologists and adopt an approach similar to that which you use for your friends suffering from schizophrenia? A cup of coffee, an empathetic conversation, and acknowledgement that their experience is legitimate might go a long way.
 * @PB, it may not directly treat the disorder, but it's also not necessarily nobs' place, much less responsibility, to advise another adult on what drugs they should or should not be taking. Presumably these people have legal caretakers if they suffer from acute schizophrenia. B) talk 04:21, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * They don't. Their homeless on the street and a prey to dope dealers who take them for their disability check. But among this group I've two known two particular individuals for many many years now, one a man the other a woman, both born with severe mental defects, rejected by their families, grew up in state institutions, and both privately have volunteered to me they do not want any sort of prescription medication. And they both value my friendship, probably because I accept them as equals and do not treat them as "special" cases in anyway, and regard them just like any other "normal" person, which is what they want. nobs 05:09, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I have friends who have schizophrenia and therefore [INSERT ARGUEMNT HERE] is valid. I also cite daily mail because it's on rational wiki's Webshites page and I trust articles that refer to unnamed doctors. 06:44, 18 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The idea that depression is an inward temper tantrum is complete horse shit. I have both regular depression and Bipolar Depression which I can tell you is like being in a dark bubble where you scream and scream but nobody hears, it is like feeling lonely even with people around, it is like feeling that you are a waste of space, it is like a pit of despair, it is like you were better off never existing at all. That is depression, a true hell. It is not fun, nobs, educate yourself by reading medical books or journals.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 15:12, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

My personal experience goes like this. I have an inevitably fatal disease, of the sort that requires me to hook up to a machine several times a week. The machine keeps me alive, or sort of alive, but it is inevitable that my condition will continue to worsen over time. I could be spared this only with a very scarce organ transplant, which I have not applied for. Being a single, childless guy, I would likely refuse and give the transplant to someone else if offered. I would only accept if no one else was available to benefit. But when I speak to the people at the clinic about disconnecting and giving up the painful therapy, they want me to see a shrink. Even in these circumstances, accepting and preparing for death is not allowed. I find this harder to accept than death itself. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 20:18, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * There are several reasons I can think of for their actions, all of which center around themselves instead of you. Disbelief at your outlook, not wanting to have to look at death even in some indirect way, past experience with actual psych patients, money they get for treatment... there are a lot of things, none of which seem to have your interests in mind. All it goes to show is we're in this world for ourselves and only ourselves because that's how we're all wired, and even though that makes life difficult it's also what makes it possible since our survival instincts wouldn't be there to keep us alive otherwise. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい ) 23:34, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I simply must disagree. If humans were truly out for ourselves, and only ourselves, civilization wouldn't have happened. We probably would have brained each other to death with rocks before we learned how to make cave paintings. No, our capacity for empathy is what made us capable of working together surviving in a world full of predators that were bigger and badder than us, domesticating wild wolves and eventually cattle, everything snowballing and building up to modern society as it exists today. Do wars happen? Yes. Is their monstrous cruelty? Yes. But if each and every person were wired to the core with "look out for number 1" none of us would even be here right now. MyNameIsMudd (talk) 23:46, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * My view is definitely skewed from PDD-NOS and the resulting lack of empathy, to be sure. The dissonance between that and my recognition of the importance of interpersonal relations (I work serving disabled adults for well below market pay, to deal with what society doesn't want to) is what lead me to my conclusion, basically that I work with others to further society so that it works better for me. It furthers my interest to have a greater survival rate because it increases my chances of survival, and if working with others to achieve that higher chance of survival is what's necessary it's what I'll do. At least that's how I make sense of it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい ) 03:54, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Human moralities seem to me to be concocted out of a fixed number of elements that tend to be present to some degree in all human cultures. We evolved modules like 'fair and unfair' or 'clean and unclean' to answer various repeating questions in our social environments.  Where we differ most is in the local emphasis given to these several subroutines.  Human brains are designed for networking in human societies.  So we have this 'fairness' module; our innate social nature is quick to accuse her neighbor of cheating that is driven by the same dynamic. And for some people, instincts like 'clean or unclean' and 'trusty or disloyal' have much greater moral salience than elsewhere.  These dynamics also define a society's boundaries; there are our ways, and there are outsiders. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 05:38, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * "When I was young, I admired clever people. Now that I am old, I admire kind people." -- Abraham Joshua Heshel

I'm not inherently given to ponder too much on what empathy and morality is constructed on. Maybe that makes me naïve or backwards but I always think that the need to be there for folks, to be present and understanding of their situation is what makes good things happen. It's just plain doing the right thing for the sake of helping others. MyNameIsMudd (talk) 05:46, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Trump's Presidential Cabinet
Here is how I feel- "Oh Dear God! What the fuck are you thinking you fucking retarded jack ass?! Are you really that fucking stupid?!". How I feel about Trump's Presidential Cabinet.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 19:12, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Klept ocracy plus starving the beast equals a match made in hell. I'm hoping a few of them are blocked since almost literally anyone would be less heinous in their place. 173.175.43.44 (talk) 19:19, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * "Kleptocracy". See how this works, it starts with Paul Krugman on Nov. 15, picked up by the Washington Post on Nov. 16, and repeated in the New Yorker on Nov. 21. They have learned nothing from all this bullshit. The good news is, it's good to Krugman rehabilitated; you'll recall the Obama campaign called Krugman 'a complete idiot'. nobs 22:33, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know anything about anybody named Krugman, I was just stating a fact. Herr Gropenfuhrer's cabinet picks have a combined wealth exceeding that of one third of Americans, they're going all in and looking out for their own business interests at the expense of the American people and the departments they run. It's a horrible situation all around. Kleptocracy is defined as a government shot through with corruption and the people at the top amassing vast amounts of wealth for themselves no matter the cost, and that's exactly what we're getting. MyNameIsMudd (talk) 22:40, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Herr Gropingfuhre Dumb-kopf?

And where is Dr Srangelove (and I can walk...) 31.49.51.72 (talk) 22:59, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey hey Guys! It is Gruppenführer (you can drop the umlaut), for the proper NS allusion.

Anyway Now we can all watch these people loot the USA, while the left will probably be blamed for that too. We are indeed living in intresting times. --Benaresh (talk) 23:13, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * One cold, bitter satisfaction I can take from all this is that no, Republicans cannot blame Democrats anymore. They have the Senate, the House, the White House. Whatever decisions they make and the consequences are wholly, completely on them. Let's use an obvious example, the Affordable Care Act. Six god damn years of bitching and moaning about it, comparing it to a plane crash and all sorts of hullabaloo and now what? Suddenly they're all looking at each other, thinking, uhhh, what do we do with it now? They haven't come up with a viable replacement for it in six years so now they're backtracking, saying repeal and replace could take three years or more. Republican governors suddenly can't blame Obama anymore and have to care about the huge part of their constituency that stands to lose insurance and possibly die from repealing this thing. They have to totally own this. MyNameIsMudd (talk) 23:29, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Ya think?
 * Anyways, at least Trump's appointees are so utterly inexperienced that they may ultimately have trouble getting anything done. Vulpius (talk) 23:39, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Some of them are, yeah. Good point. MyNameIsMudd (talk) 23:45, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * They're just gonna repeal the mandate and fines, and keep "universal access". It's your if you want it, at $3500 a month, right were Obama left it when he left office. But hey, no fines if you don't buy it. nobs 23:50, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * And I'd like to dedicate this next song to President Obama's signature issue, The Affordable Care Act. Even Democrats want to see it gone. nobs 00:10, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that you willfully distort facts to fit your biases nobs. That Politicalwire headline is totally misleading, I think it's just weak centrist Dems kind of hemming and hawing, what with the "smooth transition of power" and "reaching across the aisle" stuff that a lot of them unfortunately subscribe to. MyNameIsMudd (talk) 01:32, 18 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I will give Trump this (and this is probably the only thing) is the complete distrust of the Chinese government. When China totes a nuclear weapon in a threatening manor and captures a research drone in international waters that screams hostility; the only thing I like about Trump is pulling American companies out of China, as for the other stuff he is just fucking crazy. On the political spectrum I would say I am a centrist or completely in the middle; on some issues I am conservative while on most other issues I am fairly liberal (such as gay rights, helping refugees, improving the Affordable Healthcare Act and so on). Out of every ten issues I only agree with Trump one out of ten times.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:25, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * They didn't just up and fly a bomber and capture that drone for no reason. Trump upended forty years worth of diplomatic norms by getting into that convo with the Taiwanese president, seriously hacking Beijing off. He might have been sane fifteen, twenty years ago (though still a completely garbage human being) but around the time Obama's election rolled around some wires got crossed and he morphed from a sleazy businessman to a full tilt gibbering manchild that can't put together a coherent sentence, let alone swim in the waters of international diplomacy. MyNameIsMudd (talk) 01:32, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the Taiwan thing is overblown. It's an independent country that'll never reunite with China. That's it. Simple as that. And now, because Trump acknowledged factual reality, he's getting shit from the rest of the corrupt establishment over it. And why does China seizing this drone have anything to do with it? It's likely a coincidence. If China was operating a sub-hunter underwater drone 80 miles off the coast of Florida, you can bet your ass the US Navy would capture it and never give it back, unlike China (that is to say after they're done tearing it apart and reassembling it to make a copy) . Believe me. 01:40, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You're honestly saying that doing something that provokes a buzzing from a plane capable of carrying nukes is overblown? The "One China" policy is incredibly stupid yes, but it's a tacit agreement that keeps China and Taiwan from going at each other's throats. Violating this policy could be seen as brilliant international brinkmanship to see how far they're willing to go for their "rogue province" but...come on, this is Trump, and if this blows up it'll be the dumbest cause for a balls out, full scale war since WWI. MyNameIsMudd (talk) 01:51, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * @Mud (1) Schumer, the lone Democrat whose career is advancing, said Obamacare was a mistake. Even Hillary ran against Obamacare. (2) The scenario is being scripted right now. Obamacare will be repealed on a straight partyline vote (with Dems screaming its the end of the world). Afterward there will be cordial bipartisan cooperation. (3) Taiwan is a bargaining chip in trade talks with Beijing. Imagine the Taiwan president's reaction when she realizes she's been sold down the river. The only reason the US has held onto Taiwan all these decades is for cheap labor. Even those jobs can come home now, too. (4) The drone incident is similiar to an incident in the early days of GW Bush, a test to see what they can get away with. Only it's not a feeler on a new president, its a test on a tired old president who doesn't give a fuck anymore and must wants out with no further crisis. nobs 02:16, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * "Cordial bipartisan coordination" is what's fucked everyone in this country to the left of Rush Limbaugh up the ass. I'm just about sick and tired of Dems having platitudes of unity and cooperation when most Republican politicians don't have any principles worth a good god damn. Romney, Ryan, Pence, they're all wannabe emperors on the top of the hill that never had to struggle a day in their lives saying "we made it without these things and so can you." If there's no social security net, people are unhappy. When people are unhappy, ruthless politicians can exploit them. When ruthless politicians exploit them, stripping away their dignity and money and rights, the vicious circle eventually makes the whole damn thing implode. It's a cycle that's happened in so many countries all around the world and yet still this pull yourself up by the bootstraps b.s. keeps getting sold on every single right wing channel, radio station and news outlet. We've needed reform of how this place works since Reagan, and since we haven't gotten it...we get Trump. MyNameIsMudd (talk) 02:29, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I have to confess, despite supporting Trump ardently during the campaign, I am appalled by some of his Cabinet choices. Rex Tillerson, for instance, is a self serving lover of all things Russia and seems to be pro-homosexual. Priebus is a traitor RINO with absolutely no redeeming qualities whatsoever and should just defect to the Democrat Party where he belongs, and Bannon doesn't support the role Israel has as the Holy Land of God. I'm hoping that this isn't an indicator that Trump himself isn't a RINO because this country can't survive another term of Obama. --Elvis is King (talk) 01:46, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey bud, as one of those degenerate homosexuals you hate so much I hope Trump continues to disappoint you in the deepest, most profoundly brutal and shocking ways you can imagine. I hope you cry yourself to sleep at night and look in the mirror every morning at someone that fell for the biggest con in American history. MyNameIsMudd (talk) 01:51, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

December 2016 (UTC)


 * Oh come on. You're pissed because Rex Tillerson thinks men sticking their penises inside other men's buttholes shouldn't be a felony offense? This obsession with politicians' views on gay sex is . . . weird.


 * Israel isn't the Holy Land of God. God isn't real and there's no such thing as 'holy'. Israel isn't special and it doesn't deserve preferential treatment due to its terrible human rights record.
 * Trump isn't a 'RINO'. Terms like that don't really mean anything. He's appointed almost all Republicans, most of them authoritarian conservatives. His cabinet is set to be as bad as, if not worse than Bush's. He could've bright actual change with the feverish support of his fans, buy instead chose to go along with the corrupt Washington establishment. Screw him and his administration. 01:55, 18 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I sincerely believe that the Trump Administration is going to be as pro-homo as the Obama Administration, and this is an absolute crying shame. I feel betrayed because I didn't vote for four more years of the same liberal hogwash. Homosexuality led to the fall of Rome, and homo "marriage" is an absolute sham that needs to be outlawed in its entirety, with homosexuality, premarital and extramarital sex, contraception, and self abuse becoming felony offenses because that's the only way America will be saved from becoming Europe. Israel is America's only ally in the Middle East and we need to support Israel, and not Russia, Iran, or China, because if we disregard Israel God will disregard us. Trump better use the FCC to ban Taylor Swift's seductress act or else I'll lose all respect for him. --Elvis is King (talk) 02:08, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * My guy my pal my buddy, if you think this administration is going to be anything but completely favorable to kowtowing to Russia's interest you are on another planet. As for gay marriage and suchlike, cry me a river. We've come too far to slide right back to the fifties. Oh, and by the way, I'm an Elvis fan and I know for a stone cold fact he'd roll over in his grave if he knew he had fans as hateful and bigoted as you are. MyNameIsMudd (talk) 02:16, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * @Elvis is King: Homosexuality brought down the Roman Empire? Tell me more, I need some comic relief tonight.RoninMacbeth (talk) 02:22, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The idea Trump is anti-gay is something the Democrats pulled out of their asshole in a lame attempt to hold their crumbling coalition together. Call it the politics of fear, the same crap they accused Trump of. nobs 02:23, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Dump himself might not be outwardly anti-gay, but Mike "electrocute the homo out of our kids" Pence sure as shit is. What's it like twisting yourself into these pretzels to defend a man that's objectively undefendable? MyNameIsMudd (talk) 02:31, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Not to worry, Pence is concentrating on nstional security and foreign policy (the guy getting CIA briefings) while Ryan and his boy Priebus run the budget and domestic policy. (IOW, Pence is the lone civilian giving oversite to the Gen. Flynn & Gen. Maddog Mathis. He's too far removed from domestic gay issues to worry about). And it's pretty obvious here Trump's relying more on DIA than CIA. nobs 02:41, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Trump better ban the homos, and ban premarital and extramarital sex as well as self abuse, or else he's a RINO. Pence never supported that: he only supported reparative therapy as an option for people, which is certainly better than nothing. I'm hoping that Taylor Swift will be exposed as a dire threat and evil succubus or else this administration is a failure. --Elvis is King (talk) 02:45, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * "Ban the homos" huh? How are you going to do that exactly? Outlaw homosexuality? Sorry, I strenuously object to being outlawed on the basis of who I love. Plus, uh, your self-flagellating (dare I say masturbatory?) obsession with Taylor Swift is pretty creepy dude. MyNameIsMudd (talk) 02:50, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * "Ban the homos". Oh boy. Can you tell me what your objection to a man sticking his penis inside of another man's anus is? Why does this bother you so much? Why do you spend so much time thinking and talking about men putting their penises inside assholes? Why does it concern you? 02:58, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Trump wanted to appoint a gay to the Supreme Court. He hasn't appointed Thiel to anything else yet, so maybe that's still in the works. nobs 03:00, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It's quite simple. We either ban the homos or else we fall like Rome. Therefore we have to outlaw homosexual behavior and punish it with life in prison because God hates a culture that glorifies sin and deems righteousness as prudish and old fashioned behavior. We wonder why kids have discipline problems today. Liberals have ruined our culture just like they already have in Europe. What are you implying? Taylor Swift is an abomination unto the Lord and a disgrace to our Republic. She flaunts her flesh and moans in a seductive fashion in her "songs" which celebrate premarital relations. She flaunts her flesh and exposing her breasts damns everything that the Founders made great about America. --Elvis is King (talk) 03:01, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * There's no "we" here. Stop skirting around this and talk to me straight up. Don't say "we" here. You want to ban people like me from existing, from marrying, from living normal lives for no other reason than blind hatred and ignorance masked with a religious pretense. And as for all that flesh flaunting and moaning and so on, someone who's not completely out of their gourd could read quite a bit with your single minded obsession towards this one solitary performer. MyNameIsMudd (talk) 03:09, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * @Elvis: So rather than the Electoral College making that bull dyke Hillary president, Trump could surrender the US to Putin, thus upholding his commitment to the vorers to protect gay rights, while at the same time allowing Putin to step in and enforce the will of America's founding fathers. Hmmm, something to think about.... nobs 03:14, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Jesus Christ nobs, could you at least pretend we aren't sitting around your table at Thanksgiving dinner and keep the homophobic slurs to yourself? MyNameIsMudd (talk) 03:19, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, what's with this view that sticking penises inside of buttholes caused the Western Roman Empire to dissolve as a political entity? That makes no fucking sense. Maybe Rome fell for reasons that actually make sense, like the fact that all their water pipes were lined with lead, and their military and economy was corrupted by a rich oligarchy that didn't care about the urban peasants. Stop with the conspiracy theory BS. 03:25, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

@ PBF3: You're right. That belief makes no sense whatsoever. Oh, and

Homosexuality leading to the fall of the Roman Empire? Bullshit! A rational reason would be the fact that the Empire was massive and hard to control or the government of Rome failing internally or rebellion from other groups within; homosexuality being the cause of the fall of the Roman Empire is a bullshit conspiracy "theory" and nothing more. Learn a little world history Elvis is King--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 14:51, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It's simply obvious. Homos are womanly and therefore unable to fight and thus emasculated soldiers caused the fall of Rome, and men here today are emasculated. We have the "Cover Boy" and men dressing up like women and engaging in sodomy with one another and the American Empire is going to fall because we let the men get effeminate, this repeating history. --Elvis is King (talk) 00:55, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If the American Empire falls, I'll be the first one to stand up and clap. And I don't think I'll ever stop. Mark my words. 01:01, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Motion seconded, and we'll celebrate hard. Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt Noooooooo!  Look! Up there! 04:06, 20 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Really Elvis is King? Do you not know the difference between Gay and Transgender people? Just because someone is gay or transgender does not mean that cannot fight. Plenty of straight people don't know how to fight thus your "reasoning" is invalid.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 14:48, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Against Empathy
During a discussion on political divisions, I managed to bait some alt-righters into attacking the concept of empathy. The source they ended up rallying around is the upcoming book "Against Empathy: The Case for Rational Compassion". "Rational compassion" sounds positively Randian to me, but we are all about "use your head not your gut" here at RationalWiki. I dunno, just seems like typical apologia for selfish, bigoted behavior. --CoyoteSans (talk) 11:46, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with CoyoteSans, it is something a Bigot came up with and has a treasure trove of pseudoscientific bullshit--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 15:17, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Had the alt-righters read the book? Have you read it (@CS and RZ)? B) talk 16:10, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I heard this author speaking on a podcast. His point was that if you have a doctor you don't want that doctor to share your pain. That would make him/her less effective and - if they felt the pain of every patient - it would soon make them incapable of functioning.
 * What you want is for them to be sympathetic to your pain and do what they can to help you in the calmest way possible.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 20:35, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I quote the Guy himself:"Toward the end of “Against Empathy,” Mr. Bloom concedes that “rationality in political domains often does seem to be in short supply.” He theorizes that this is because people treat politics like sports — their opinions are based on team loyalty, not objective merit. “Political views share an interesting property with views about sports teams — they don’t really matter,” he writes, then further explains: “Unless I’m a member of a tiny powerful community, my beliefs have no effect on the world.” &mdash; Unsigned, by: Benaresh / talk / contribs
 * That seems reasonable then. I'd prefer someone whose actions affect me to empathize with my position, but be capable of turning the empathy off and substituting cold hard reason when they do whatever they're doing. And "rational compassion" sounds too, well, compassionate for Rand to have come up with. I'd still like to read the book though. It sounds like the alt-righters misunderstood the author's premise, but it also doesn't make much sense to say it's pseudoscientific bullshit until you've read it, RZ. Unless you have, in which case, my mistake - can you tell us more about it? B) talk 20:08, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

But of course political beliefs matter. Every four years, they matter a lot. This year, they mattered especially. If you believe the worst, the next four years will be low on both empathy and rational compassion. If so, our world won’t be simply be post-truth. It will be post-moral."

And Post moral is what the alt-reich is going to intrepret it to, often enough they seek out reasons to dislike anybody, but themself. Gregor Mendel and Charles Darwins work were used to legitimatise the Nazi world view and i would argue that missing the point is the Life philosophy of fascists.--Benaresh (talk) 22:42, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * blah blah blah what a bunch of crap. This is 2016, not 1980. Donald Trump was elected, not Ronald Reagan. Last time Dems and libs started talking that crap, what did you end up with? The Clintons. WAKE THE FUCK UP!!! Creating jobs is not empathetic? Spewing commie crap ain't gonna make Progressivism relevent again anytime soon. nobs 06:19, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Once more you're going on about eevul communists where none exist. This is a really sad thing to be doing at your age man, have you given thought to maybe hanging with your grandkids or doing puzzles instead of tilting at windmills online? This stuff isn't healthy. And I'm not saying this to be a smartass either, there are better things you could be doing in your twilight years. MyNameIsMudd (talk) 06:23, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * nobs, go outside. Seriously.  06:50, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe you guys are right. Now that economic opportunity and wellbeing are back in vogue, I'll give it some thought.nobs 05:23, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, Mr. Wizard, tell us then, what is the differance between classical liberalism and neoliberalism? nobs 05:23, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Shiny New Thing: A public essay
So, I made an essay on the tendency of revolutions to end in an incompetent government. Looking for other examples than the three I cited, so... edit away, ladies and Goats. TheMyon (talk) 17:28, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The easiest way to expand on this is to look at the inability of the "winning" party to switch from liberation politics, to mainstream politics. The former is great for running a revolution, not so much running a country - especially where positions of power are dished out on a basis of "cadre deployment," rather than competence. Look at the regimes in Paraguay, Argentina, Uruguay, Zimbabwe, Guatemala, and even lately the ANC in South Africa (which is a great example of the unraveling of liberation politics), as examples. 197.89.223.30 (talk) 10:47, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I have an interest in Science, Religion and Theistic Evolution, can anyone recommend any books?
I like the subject of Theistic Evolution and support it, I read about some of the books on RW and I was wondering about any other books anyone would recommend.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 23:35, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If you enjoy the concept of theistic evolution (which is a million miles better than creationism), that means that whatever science finds and proves to be real is simply to be understood as another facet of God's creation. Meaning: just read real evolution textbooks. Whatever science has discovered, it's just a more detailed decription of creation. In that sense, real science alone can bring you closer to God (by letting you partake of the fine tapestry of creation, instead of reading moronical bronze-age scripture which slanders God). And you know full well that those who confuse religious studies with science make an absolute joke out of their own worldview, and of all creation. So please, don't go looking for particularly doctored "theistic" science books; those will be crap. Instead, read regular mainstream science books, and just square the scientific findings presented there with whatever views on God as the initial cause that you may have. I'd recommend Bill Bryson's A Short History of Nearly Everything (get the illustrated edition if you can!). I'd also recommend Matthew Kneale's An Atheist's History of Belief: Understanding Our Most Extraordinary Invention (it's quite nice, not an "angry" book at all. You'd like it very much, I think). All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:40, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I've not got around to it, but lots of people speak highly of as a writer, especially . Annquin (talk) 11:14, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Lots of people speak less highly off him as well. His Wikipedia summary states:
 * "The response to his writings by evolutionary biologists has been, with some exceptions, decidedly negative."
 * If we're going to be giving out recommendations to RationalZombie, who is a courageous schizophrenic trying to make sense of the world (like we all are), it's very important that we don't lead him astray down a woo-laden path. I repeat — RationalZombie, even as proponent of theistic evolution, please read real science-, cosmology- and evolution textbooks. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:26, 20 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Not a problem, I can start with books that are strictly science--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 13:03, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Reasons to be cheerful

 * Only 9 days until the last Christmas carols are sung.
 * Only 10 days until the Sales start and the first Easter Eggs adverts.

Any more? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 14:58, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Cheerful? Heck, this always makes me bawl in ecstatic awe like some freshly dropkicked Evangelical. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:28, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Enjoy your weird Swedish Christmas Cake, Percy. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:11, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Appreciate the sentiment, buddy! Though, to be fair, — to Swedes, it's better known as Godwin's cake (run this in Google translate). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:42, 16 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Hey, Percy, you're a Swede, right? Or do you prefer "Swedish"? What's up with the Gavlebocken? How hard is it to keep an eye on a giant inanimate goat made out of hay and ensure it lives to see Christmas! Lol. 7.32 in the video below:

--Levi Ackerman (talk) 17:05, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I am indeed Swedish (read: from Sweden) and indeed a Swede (read: a Swedish person). These are basically synonyms — afaik, saying "Swede" to someone from Sweden is like saying "Brit" in reference to someone from Britain (in other words, it's an appropriate term). Regarding Gävlebocken, in super-short, this is what's up. Despite the brevity, LEMMiNO (the YouTuber who made the video I just linked to) is Swedish, which helps with the accuracy of his information on the goat. That being said, the video you linked has way more info (and it all seems accurate — aside from the fact that they mispronounce "Gävle" as "Ge-va-lie"; phonetically, saying "Jay-vele" is waay closer). Here's, just in case you're a betting man. Regarding the difficulty of keeping the goat out of harm's way all the way 'til Christmas eve, keep in mind that it's erected as early as November 27 th . This means that in order for it to see babby Jebus' birthday, it has to stay alive for about 25 days (discounting the approx. 2 days it takes to construct the darn thing). Now, the actual town of has just over 70,000 inhabitants (making it the 13th biggest town in Sweden — yep, we're adorably tiny!). My own original research on the topic is that the burning of the goat is one of the few things that has a shot in hell at bringing Gävle any international mention whatsoever. So the burning is a necessary component. The resistance to the burning is also necessary, as it adds to the wonderful whimsy and weirdness of the whole tradition, as well as to its history. If we just torched it, what's the point? If we just built it, what's the point? But we build it and it's not supposed to be torched but it keeps getting torched.  Even better is the fact that the original purpose, afaik, wasn't for it to ever be burned. Rest assured that there are real efforts for it not to be burned, just as there's real efforts to burn it. It's like a real-life version of a prank from Animal House, where the dean's curmudgeons are trying to prevent Belushi (et. al) from pulling off the stunt — which they always find a new (and often hilariously stupid) way to do. This all comes together in a manner that results in a genuinely interesting anecdote, even to listeners abroad. And so, the tiny town of Gävle keeps earning its place among the world's best Christmas trivia. That's my two cents. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:48, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You had me at "Every year, Swedes build this gigantic straw goat..." Leuders (talk) 03:07, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It is pretty metal. Also, if you care about Krampus, don't miss our article on him! It could use some homie love. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:49, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Rather than translate it with a computer, I'm gonna get back to my learning Swedish train and actually try to read and understand the text. See you in a week when I'm done slogging through with my broken, shallow vocabulary.  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:06, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Tveka inte att fråga om du undrar något! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:50, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Tack mycket, percy. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:41, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Tack så mycket, själv! :) Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:47, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Only a few days until finals, and so far no one has gone off the deep end. Yay? RoninMacbeth (talk) 16:26, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Nerd271 (talk) 16:45, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * This be my Christmas album.

Still over a month till You Know Who gets sworn in. 31.51.114.38 (talk) 22:49, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Better start searching for those horcruxes. 20:38, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I wish we kept Fudge...Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt Noooooooo!  Look! Up there! 02:15, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

An argument against the creationist concept of a "Six Literal Day Creation"
When creationists say the world was created in six literal days, one could argue- which perception of six literal days? Six literal days for God could be viewed as the billions of years of cosmic history which humans perceive. It is all about perception as God may perceive the billions of years of history as six days. But then again, creationists would say, "That is not what the bible said", however, who perceived the six literal days? Humans or God--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 03:20, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Good question. It takes faith, my boy, not reason, to understand. nobs 04:00, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * @RationalZombie Augustine of Hippo tried to solve this by writing apologetical metaphysics about the nature of time. While imaginative (and a brave attempt to actually use reason instead of "" like old man nobs suggests above — for the record, an attitude which would've pissed off the church father), ultimately his theories are inconsistent — like the biblical account of Genesis itself — and thus, bear no weight. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:16, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

We already have a page on these arguments. Lord Aeonian (talk) 04:12, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Better yet, ask about the meaning of 'evening and morning' before the creation of the sun on the fourth day. Or how the plants created before the sun managed to get by. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 04:13, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed; the real question is "what the hell is even a day before the solar system was set up in the first place!?". You bet the God of the Bible has no answer to give and is left standing there with his pants down, as usual. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:16, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Gen. 15:6 would be the basis of fideism. There is no reason involved. It is, as Dr. Scoffield explains, "taking God at his word." It's not an intellectual exercise. nobs 17:29, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Different kinds of creationists jump through different sized hoops in an effort to reconcile their ancient book of myths with what we now know. --Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 20:02, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


 * On the subject of the bible itself, I have no problem as seeing biblical stories as stories to live by as some bible stories (I place heavy emphasis on the word some) have good morals to live by. I am an Omnitheist who sees all religions as a path to the divine; I do not see the bible in a traditional way, examples include seeing God as one of an infinite amount of Divine beings and Satan as simply a being who punishes evil people and not as an evil force per say. Again these are my personal theological views and I know others disagree which is okay--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:32, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you are completely and utterly wrong, but it's kind of you to be cool about that.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:44, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * @RationalZombie I think instead of calling yourself an "omnitheist", you are better advised to simply adopt the established term for the definition you give above — . All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:51, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

What is neoliberalism? Who believes it? Why is it bad?
I believe "neoliberalism" is an ideology very few people subscribe to but a great many people love to hate on. That's especially true here at RW. (1) What is neoliberalism? (2) Who believes it? (3) Why is it bad? 20:14, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * From RW's own article on the subject:

"Neoliberalism portrays political decisions like free trade and economic globalization as inevitable forces of nature, like the weather, rather than the work of human agency. George Monbiot writes that "So pervasive has neoliberalism become that we seldom even recognise it as an ideology. We appear to accept the proposition that this utopian, millenarian faith describes a neutral force; a kind of biological law, like Darwin’s theory of evolution. But the philosophy arose as a conscious attempt to reshape human life and shift the locus of power."[4] Its effect is to reduce the bargaining power of workers as a class, even as it benefits the class of managers, professionals, and investors. "The organisation of labour and collective bargaining by trade unions are portrayed as market distortions that impede the formation of a natural hierarchy of winners and losers. Inequality is recast as virtuous: a reward for utility and a generator of wealth, which trickles down to enrich everyone. Efforts to create a more equal society are both counterproductive and morally corrosive. The market ensures that everyone gets what they deserve.[4]

The Neo-Cons, for the most part, universally accept neoliberalism, although they bend the rules by allowing for full-press corruption. Conservapedia and most of its users are strongly pro-neoliberal and they demonstrate this by their disdain for public health care, public education, welfare, nationalization of any kind, and their criticism of welfare capitalist economies as "dictatorships"."

And also:

"However, there are some criticisms of neoliberalism. One of the most common, even espoused by some prominent neoliberals like Robert Rubin, was that it was too concerned with raising incomes and less with overall income equality, that is, that most of the increase in income reported as a result of neoliberalism around the world goes into the hands of a small elite. Many traditional liberals worry that the increasing gap between the lower class and the mega-rich is undermining democracy as we know it. This reflects the prediction of James Madison, the 'Father of the Constitution', that "We are free today substantially but the day will come when our Republic will be an impossibility. It will be an impossibility because wealth will be concentrated in the hands of a few." He then goes on to say that we must then rely on the "best elements in society" to readjust the laws of the country to the changed conditions. Of course, many neoliberals also like to defend themselves as 'constitutionalists'."

Personally, my main gripe is Democrats occasionally stooping to leftist rhetoric like the stuff Obama campaigned on and always turning out to be more centrist than most would like. This feeds into right-wing populism, when neoliberal economic philosophy leaves people destitute they start looking at populists that promise them change. You can't defeat extreme right wing stuff with the status quo and lip service to leftism, you have to steer hard to the left and actually use the people's discontent to do good instead of letting the right wing blame minorities and set up a kleptocracy for their rich buddies. 173.175.43.44 (talk) 20:28, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * ok, this is all very good, and convincing. But what then is the difference between a classical liberal and a neoliberal? It seems rather thin. nobs 21:46, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You bring up an excellent point. It seems the line between free market favoring classical liberalism and neoliberalism is so fine as to be practically nonexistent. Remember, in this sense the word "liberal" means "the market is free to do as it wishes" not liberal as in the "people should be equal, the government should look out for the marginalized and hurting" types. MyNameIsMudd (talk) 21:53, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Many of today's so-called classical liberals are really just libertarians (of the Ron Paul variety). They shun the label "libertarian", because...well...Ron Paul. While classical liberals and Neoliberals are very pro-Free Market, the former aren't proponents of foreign interventions. Levi Ackerman (talk) 22:42, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * My thoughts: neolib is a term given to of the  in the mid 80s and 1990s such as Bob Rubin and Bill Clinton who courted Wall Street and corporate donors. Basically, neoliberal became warmed-over Reaganism with its focus on free trade and a balanced budget. Classical liberal tag was too close to Reagan, Friedman and Hayek, so they donned neoliberal to separate themselves from traditional tax-and-spend New Deal and Great Society liberals. But this group of neolibs were corrupt to the bone, as we just revisited them in their Clinton Foundation dealings. nobs 01:29, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Historically, from what I understand, Hayek was one of the two Americans who tried to reform economic liberalism after it caused the Great Depression; the other one was Von Mises. These two joined a group of European economists to attempt to reform this but they began to disagree and split along a line between Europen and American. The Europeans would come up with Ordoliberalism (social liberalism) which supports a strong welfare state and heavily regulated financial market but also free trade; the Americans opposed this acceptance of government intervention and a social safety net but effectively lost when FDR created the New Deal and Europe started to rebuild using government supported jobs and benefits. Hayek and Von Mises's ideas would be revived in Scandinavia during the '70s in reaction to stagflation but the Scandinavians had far stronger socialist movements that opposed them. The financiers in the US and the UK would import these ideas to try and become the dominate the economies, and in turn, the politics of their respective countries; Carter originally began deregulation in the US but Reagan (and Thatcher in the UK) proved to be a far more perfect vessel to do so. The Democrats would capitulate and the Koch-funded DLC would later overtake the party. I would say that the neoliberalism normally opposes the Ayn Rand, as well as the ancaps, because such a minimal state would threaten their economic order; they also aren't big fans of Hayek since they usually oppose any form of welfare like food stamps ehich, if I am not mistaken, Hayek supported.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 03:57, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That's a pretty thorough recap that covers it pretty well, I think. Neo!ib is probsbly a way for American New Democrsts of the Clinton era to disguise their adherence to the Austrian School, tainted among leftists by Reagan and Thatcher. As an aside, there was a generational difference between Mises and Hayek, making Mises probably a little more anti-Socialist than Hayek, or Friedman who came after him. nobs 04:12, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * This is the dumbest shit said today. You believe that the DLC, with it's core beliefs in strong central banking and it's radical adherence to Keynesian principals of taxation is a way to do stealth Austrian economics? Get a clue. Hipocrite (talk) 16:14, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, Mr. Wizard, tell us then, what is the differance between classical liberalism and neoliberalism? nobs 05:34, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I would draw the line between classical and neoliberalism in the way they view the market and market forces. In classical liberalism, while the market and market forces are definitely viewed as good and proper, they are also understood to belong to a certain sphere, i.e. there are areas that are perceived as being properly outside the domain of the market and market forces. Neoliberalism, by contrast has an idea, based on market fetishism or out and out market worship, that there is nowhere that markets and market forces shouldn't potentially be extended to. Rather than a utilitaristic solution to the question of how to distribute resources (which I think is a useful conception of a classical liberal view of the market) it has become a magical panacea to any problem. It's the difference between Adam Smith, who also considered problematic aspects such as the greater ease with which employers could band together as opposed to employees and wrote at length on moral philosophy from a decidedly non-market perspective, and the quasi religious market worship of, for instance, Ludwig von Mises Institute. Classical liberalism was created in opposition to a system of government monopolies and guild oligopolies in the countries where the classical liberal thinkers actually lived and work. By contrast, neoliberalism was created and promoted as a Cold War Western mirror image of doctrinaire Marxism-Leninism, concerned not with countering any actually existing Marxist totalitarianism in the West, but from the fear that any dilution of the "sacred" market would set a country on a slippery slope towards communism. Thus, rather than starting from the point of dealing with practical problems (are these guilds/monopolies really the best way to distribute goods and services), neoliberalism started from an a priori dogma that only markets are compatible with freedom and that any limitations of markets are unwarranted coercion that will inevitably lead to loss of political freedom and set us on a path to totalitarianism. Ironically, while classical liberalism was developed in opposition to the states, in which its proponents lived and especially the rulers and their policies, being originally a genuinely revolutionary concept, neoliberalism has been developed in "state shelters" (through persons and institutions that are either employed or heavily subsidised by the state) and promoted heavily by (some) states as part of an ideological/intellectual war of ideas. In the end, neoliberalism seems to me to hold little but the notion that corporations should be free to do what they want and that any attempt at constraining this narrow view of "liberty" will always, by definition, lead to bad outcomes, and eventually to Stalin. For a more artistic view on the matter, I'd recommend watching Adam Curtis' 3-part documentary series ScepticWombat (talk) 07:16, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmm, very well put. Would neoliberalism extend to the ideological converse, such as any repeal of government mandates that interfere in market forces (Obamacare for example) put us on the road to fascism? nobs 12:51, 20 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Neoliberalism is a belief that market forces should be used to improve society where possible, but the state should intervene in market failures, including the externalities inherent in environmental damage, the failure of individuals to appropriately price risk and the associated market inefficiencies in the health insurance market, the, the inherent failure of society to provide equal opportunities, and the time-series failure to provide a social safety net that, if societal positions were randomized, the rich would in fact support.
 * Classical liberalism is a bullshit term used by people who believe the government has no role in society except spending ever-more money on worthless military adventures to pretend they are the "real liberals," when they are actually just reductionist conservatives. Hipocrite (talk) 13:54, 20 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Hey There. I might be a little bit late to the discussion. But since I might be considered a neoliberal by many (although I would self-identify as a market-friendly progressive) I thought I'd chime in. Also, I hope it is ok if I remain a BoN for now. "Neoliberalism" in its modern usage (barring another distinct definition of the term within International Relations) has little to do with the original intent of the mid-20th century "neoliberals" such as Hayek. It is hardly ever used as a self-identifier but coined by its critics. In this form it is a critique of perceived market fetishization leveled against centrist politicians both from the left and from the right since the early Nineties. Indeed, the world has seen a rise in globalization and privatizations in this period, so the allegation is not completely unfounded. Unfortunately though, I have seen it used too often as strawman against political opponents. Few "neoliberals" that I know of actually believe that markets will always lead to perfect outcomes but see an important role of the state in regulating them and preventing too strong market power. They are not proponents of unhindered markets but prefer regulated markets to state monopolies.


 * Thus, if I could define the ideology myself more positively, I would ground it in three principles the defining one being the first: (1) A market-based approach to public policy, which means both and embrace of markets and smart, research-backed regulation of them as well as incorporating market ideas into public policy (A great example would be Alvin Roth's kidney exchange program or microfinance programs); (2) globalism, an embrace of trade, migration and cosmopolitism (although, maybe this may be simply a sign that many of the "neoliberals" I know might be considered part of the well-educated and well-off "elite"); (3) Support for financial redistribution, most favourably through progressive taxation and (!!!) with little allocative/market disrupting effects.


 * Under these or similar definitions, I've actually (anecdotally) witnessed a few aquaintances trying to reclaim the term from its critics in recent times. For instance I've come across this write up on medium a while back whose author similarly to me defines the principles of his neoliberalism (and probably does a better job at it): https://medium.com/@s8mb/im-a-neoliberal-maybe-you-are-too-b809a2a588d6#.k1khj2ahf
 * Similarly, the British Adam Smith Institute has recently announced, they would no longer refer to themselves as libertarian but as neoliberal. Although I am not sure if I would want to be associated with their libertarian-light brand of neoliberalism, they do indeed propose a few policies I could get behind such as liberalized immigration laws, NIT or an opposition to zoning laws. https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/coming-out-as-neoliberals 128.176.164.21 (talk) 00:45, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, so we're getting this discussion on solid footing. So neoliberalism become prominent after the 1990s. Two questions: what is neoliberalism's relation to the globalization and free trade movements? and how does neoliberalism differ from Keynesianism? nobs 06:32, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Against Empathy
During a discussion on political divisions, I managed to bait some alt-righters into attacking the concept of empathy. The source they ended up rallying around is the upcoming book "Against Empathy: The Case for Rational Compassion". "Rational compassion" sounds positively Randian to me, but we are all about "use your head not your gut" here at RationalWiki. I dunno, just seems like typical apologia for selfish, bigoted behavior. --CoyoteSans (talk) 11:46, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with CoyoteSans, it is something a Bigot came up with and has a treasure trove of pseudoscientific bullshit--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 15:17, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Had the alt-righters read the book? Have you read it (@CS and RZ)? B) talk 16:10, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I heard this author speaking on a podcast. His point was that if you have a doctor you don't want that doctor to share your pain. That would make him/her less effective and - if they felt the pain of every patient - it would soon make them incapable of functioning.
 * What you want is for them to be sympathetic to your pain and do what they can to help you in the calmest way possible.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 20:35, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I quote the Guy himself:"Toward the end of “Against Empathy,” Mr. Bloom concedes that “rationality in political domains often does seem to be in short supply.” He theorizes that this is because people treat politics like sports — their opinions are based on team loyalty, not objective merit. “Political views share an interesting property with views about sports teams — they don’t really matter,” he writes, then further explains: “Unless I’m a member of a tiny powerful community, my beliefs have no effect on the world.” &mdash; Unsigned, by: Benaresh / talk / contribs
 * That seems reasonable then. I'd prefer someone whose actions affect me to empathize with my position, but be capable of turning the empathy off and substituting cold hard reason when they do whatever they're doing. And "rational compassion" sounds too, well, compassionate for Rand to have come up with. I'd still like to read the book though. It sounds like the alt-righters misunderstood the author's premise, but it also doesn't make much sense to say it's pseudoscientific bullshit until you've read it, RZ. Unless you have, in which case, my mistake - can you tell us more about it? B) talk 20:08, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

But of course political beliefs matter. Every four years, they matter a lot. This year, they mattered especially. If you believe the worst, the next four years will be low on both empathy and rational compassion. If so, our world won’t be simply be post-truth. It will be post-moral."

And Post moral is what the alt-reich is going to intrepret it to, often enough they seek out reasons to dislike anybody, but themself. Gregor Mendel and Charles Darwins work were used to legitimatise the Nazi world view and i would argue that missing the point is the Life philosophy of fascists.--Benaresh (talk) 22:42, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * blah blah blah what a bunch of crap. This is 2016, not 1980. Donald Trump was elected, not Ronald Reagan. Last time Dems and libs started talking that crap, what did you end up with? The Clintons. WAKE THE FUCK UP!!! Creating jobs is not empathetic? Spewing commie crap ain't gonna make Progressivism relevent again anytime soon. nobs 06:19, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Once more you're going on about eevul communists where none exist. This is a really sad thing to be doing at your age man, have you given thought to maybe hanging with your grandkids or doing puzzles instead of tilting at windmills online? This stuff isn't healthy. And I'm not saying this to be a smartass either, there are better things you could be doing in your twilight years. MyNameIsMudd (talk) 06:23, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * nobs, go outside. Seriously.  06:50, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe you guys are right. Now that economic opportunity and wellbeing are back in vogue, I'll give it some thought.nobs 05:15, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If "economic opportunity and wellbeing" are code words for siphoning money towards the one percent while gutting the social safety net, having a skyrocketing deficit and in all probability another global economic crash, then yeah. All that shit's back in vogue. MyNameIsMudd (talk) 23:13, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Words of inspiration for those who are mentally ill
You are in a battle for control of your mind and body, you are a rebel fighting against a dark mental dictatorship that is trying to control you. You are not alone in your fight for freedom, the people who care are your allies in your mental revolution. Your medications are your weapons and your psychiatrists and therapists are your arsenal. Those who have killed themselves are fallen rebels, let the pain of the dead inspire you to continue their fight! May the divine give you spiritual guidance, let others who fight the same battle be your brothers and sisters in arms against mental tyranny. It boils down to this- Fight or Die. Remember, you are not alone in this war against mental illness! May the Divine bless you all fighting in this mental war!--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 19:18, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Those are some nice words there. (Understatement)- 07:03, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Maajid Nawaz is a garbage human being!
Now, first off, I don't think Nawaz is an extremist or a bigot. I do think he is an asshole who likes to draw attention to himself by saying and doing controversial things. The guy is a textbook narcissist. I strongly suspect his narcissism is what led him down the "radicalism" path in his youth. He wanted to be noticed, he wanted validation; a bit like Anjem Choudhary. It probably got a bit too real for him after his arrest, but being the attention-whore that he is, he created a "conversion on the road to Damascus" story and that has been his shtick ever since: the radical who who became anti-radical, anti-extremist. It's a good story. In fact, one of his books, not the new one with "massa" Harris, is called "Radical" and his twitter name is "Radical".

Anyway, the point of this thread is to show you exactly why he may be considered by some, despite his religion (bear in mind he is not even close to being devout (in fact, I think he is secretly an Atheist, using his claim to being a Muslim as a hook).

Have a look at this article by the Express, that well-known liberal outlet (that last part is sarcasm by the way). You can also watch an excerpt from his one hour spectacular on the death of multiculturalism in the article.

To make matters worse, rather than refute the article on his twitter, he simply retweets it. He doesn't add any caveats. He just retweets it.

Nawaz is not a good person. He is not a bigot. He is a liberal. I believe he is. But liberalism does not a good person make. He is a shameless self-promoter, who has little regard to the greater evil, by way of division, he, and others like Sam Harris, contribute to.

Every time he and Sam Harris and their ilk come out with this garbage, what they do, whether they realise it or not, is arm the far-right with more recruiting tools. I suspect they know this, which is why a few years ago, Sam Harris said:

I actually listened to the entire hour on LBC within which Nawaz slammed multiculturalism; within which he took a broad brush tarred the entire concept. A black, non-muslim woman called in and confronted him about making such a sweeping claim about multiculturalism being a total failure, as she, being black, was a product of multiculturalism. She also tried to warn him of what I have just alluded to above, that he was intellectually arming the far-right, especially since people on extremes of either side of the spectrum tended not to look for nuance. She tried to get him inject some nuance into his sweeping statement by defining what he meant by multiculturalism or to, at the very least, be specific and more explicit/overt - perhaps limit his criticism to specific parts of multiculturalism - rather than just condemning the entire thing because certain aspects of it have failed. She was trying to prevent him throwing the baby out with the bath water, you might say. Because, after all, although multiculturalism encompassed a wide range of things within society, for some, the far right, and ordinary people, not far-right, but with prejudiced leanings/dispositions, for example, it means multi-racialism, multi-ethnicity; it means speaking a different language on the bus; it means the sight of mosques; it means that myth that they can't say "merry Christmas anymore". So, when they hear a liberal saying multiculturalism has failed, it validates their hateful positions even more; it allows them to say and think, "see, I'm not a bigot. I'm not a racist. I'm not crazy. Even smart, intelligent, people, liberals, feel the way I do". It's what given rise to that saying, "I'm just saying what we're all thinking" - and garbage like that.

Like I said, this guy is a garbage human being.

Please forgive any spelling, grammatical and/or punctuation errors. I was seething with rage as I wrote this, and the more I wrote, the angrier I got. It's just I know this guys know they are being irresponsible, but they don't care. Responsibility pales in comparison to clicks. --Levi Ackerman (talk) 17:08, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * A good half of this could be said of Noam Chomsky and his ilk. CorruptUser (talk) 17:14, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm curious what Chomp Chomp Chomp Ski has said that's remotely comparable to the fascists quote above. His particular brand of liberalism isn't identical to mine, but be wary of saying both sides are equally bad.  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:22, 19 December 2016 (UTC)


 * @Corruptuser, What is your point, if you even have one? What does Chomsky have to do with this? Do you think I approve when Chomsky and his ilk do that (by which I assume you mean when they are too introspective of American and Western foreign policy and overly critical of America and the West)? That's classic whatabouttery right there! Well done!


 * You see that's your problem and that of people like you, you think everything is binary. You think one either completely agrees with Sam Harris and disagrees with Chomsky, or vice versa. There is no room for nuance in your dim world view. --Levi Ackerman (talk) 17:30, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * (EC)
 * "Now, first off, I don't think Nawaz Chomsky is an extremist or a bigot. I do think he is an asshole who likes to draw attention to himself by saying and doing controversial things."
 * "Every time he and Sam Harris Chomsky and their ilk come out with this garbage, what they do, whether they reali s ze it or not, is arm the far- right left with more recruiting tools"
 * He's one of those guys that has no formal training in history but sticks his nose in the history books with an agenda the size of the Pentagon, says things that the far left wants to hear, and then they shut down any criticism of him because he's on "their" side. It's partisan post-modernism (postisan-modernism?); "everything should be open to criticism, except things we agree with".CorruptUser (talk) 17:34, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll refer you back to my previous comment, as you seem to have a reading comprehension problem:

--Levi Ackerman (talk) 17:37, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I was answering ikanreed, not you. CorruptUser (talk) 17:47, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I apologise. Sincerely and unequivocally. Levi Ackerman (talk) 18:23, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * And your answer doesn't actually answer what I asked. I don't think Chompsky is a great-and-grand icon of liberalism who I align with: anarchy-syndicatalism is a pipedream with no grounding in reality.  But he's not an ass going "Look, the fascists know who the badguys are(the people I don't like, mostly through oversimplification) so fuck everyone left of that."  It's just not comparable.  He gets things wrong, but he's not a fascist apologist, and the "You could say the same about X" is just tu quoque and generally not true.  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:18, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Part of why I said half, mostly in the part where his works have been co-opted by people looking for any excuse to hate the US. Oh, and he is an apologist in that he was overly skeptical of the claims of Pol Pot's brutality and veered into outright denial of the Serbian atrocities of Milosevich, but I will give him credit where credit is due; aside from being mostly right in 'Manufacturing Consent', he has proven himself capable of admitting when he was blatantly wrong even if only grudgingly. CorruptUser (talk) 19:42, 19 December 2016 (UTC)


 * @ikanreed, if I might interject, I wouldn't describe either Nawaz or Harris, or people of their school of thought as "fascist apologists" (which I think is your insinuation. I do, however, think there is a thin line between some of the shit they say and far-right fascism apologia. So virulent is their hatred of what they call the regressive left (you will notice that they have dumped the "regressive" and now simply day "the Left", as if the Left is one big monolith; as if there aren't disagreements between people who consider themselves to be on the Left), that sometimes they will, and I believe deliberately so, wander into far-right fascism apologia, just so they call create a storm and garner themselves some attention. Then when they are confronted, they do what they always do and say their comments were taken out of context.Levi Ackerman (talk) 19:52, 19 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The bottomline is this: multiculturalism is not a government policy. It's a fact of life. Yes, there are policies made around multiculturalism and many are deeply deeply flawed. But, wherever you find a significant number of people of different antecedents - they don't even have to be different colour of skin, you will find different cultures. How the government responds is what should be under scrutiny and deserving of condemnation if condemnation is deserved. So, to condemn multiculturalism as a whole is just ludicrous. Yet, idiots - useful idiots, like Nawaz, who should better, would rather throw the baby out with the bath water for some cheap point scoring. For crying out loud, his name is MAAJID NAWAZ. Even if he wasn't a Muslim (and I doubt he truly is), he is a product of multiculturalism. He is multicultural: an Essex boy of Pakistani descent, who speaks English, Urdu and Arabic. So, shitting on something that is so integral to your identity just to make a point and get yourself some attention and trending - among the far-right, more than any other group, I might add, is not only irresponsible, it smacks of a serious lack of judgement and a level of amorality. Levi Ackerman (talk) 20:12, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * And that ignores the fact that Nawaz is actually still a devout Muslim and has argued that Islam is not in fact inherently violent but rather that only fundamentalist Islam needs to be rejected.&mdash; Unsigned, by: CorruptUser / talk / contribs


 * Did you just call Maajid Nawaz a "devout Muslim", something he himself has admitted - explicitly - not to being? This is him, on Twitter, admitting that he is not devout: https://mobile.twitter.com/MaajidNawaz/status/682687321867694080 Levi Ackerman (talk) 20:49, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * @CU Do you even know what are you even talking about? Chomsky is irrelevant to the discussion about Nawaz and Harris and you know it; you only bring Chomsky up because he is your favorite dead horse to beat so you can create a balance fallacy. Chomsky criticizes the US because he is a citizen of that country and he believes he can change it; it just so happens the US is a larger component of the violence seen in the world. There are Left criticisms of his style of anti-imperialism but they have nothing to do with hating America. On a historical note, in 2007, the International Court of Justice Milosevic and Serbia were not responsible for the genocide committed by Bosnian Serbs and in 2016 the Hague indirectly exonerated him during Karadzic's trial. Also, as Levi pointed out, you seemed to be unawre that Nawaz has always stated that he isn't a devout Muslims. Ironically, it seems to be you poking your nose into history with an agenda.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 21:22, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Spoilsport nuance
Speaking of Fascism; even though I don't give a rat's ass about Maajid Nawaz, I don't think the contention that anyone is really a "garbage human being" is particularly humanist. I mean, people's views can be dead wrong, silly and dumb, and likewise their actions can be pointless, malignant — even evil — but I don't trust efforts to actively dehumanize the opposition. If the argument is that he's a "garbage human being", I'm out, because no valid premises that could be given will be able support that statement. And, for the record, I overtly mean not to dehumanize even those who would dehumanize others. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:39, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, there is a threshold wherein moral judgement is not only necessary, but required, no? Obviously, condemning people too easily is a terrible idea, and can destroy your society slowly as everyone turns against eachother over slighter and slighter differences.  However, some people can, and do, murder without guilt.  Rape because they think they "deserve" sex.  Defraud willingly and even feel contempt for their victims.  These are failings that, when examined casually, appear to be failures as rational, ethical actors without excuse.  Sure, we can think those people deserve reform and not destruction for those failings, but they are still failings.  I happen to believe, as a totally unreasonable liberal, that political opinions that amount to the above are almost as bad.  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:53, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * As I understand you, we're in perfect agreement. What I'm saying is that opinions and actions are not excempt from criticism. But to attempt to literally derive the quality of a human being is, I think, unappetizing. If you start with that conclusion (see headline above), and then add your premises, I'm out. The premises won't be able to support that conclusion, because I don't make an equivalence between people's actions and opinions, and the quality of the human being. In fact, I don't even recognize that humans can be "qualitatively" assessed (though, I maintain that their opinions and actions can be). If the conclusion was that his opinions and/or actions were garbage, I'd have no beef. But that isn't what is being argued, and the difference is essential — to any humanist, at least. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:58, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * "In fact, I don't even recognize that humans can be "qualitatively" assessed"
 * I disagree on that point, but that's probably because I'm a mathematician. CorruptUser (talk) 18:04, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I mean, I don't deny empirical enumeration of bodily qualities (e.g. number of atoms). But as we all know, this use of the word "quality" denotes something entirely different from what the "moral" sense of the word does. Mathematics, eh? My background is in . Does my argument seem a bit pedantic? If so; welcome to the field! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:17, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh no, I don't mean "this person contains 3 moles of carbon and 2 moles of nitrogren". I mean, "we are on a sinking ship and rather than rely on emotion we could use an algorithm to determine who should get a spot on the lifeboats". CorruptUser (talk) 18:51, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Lol. Well...this took a rather unexpected turn. Levi Ackerman (talk) 18:53, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * @RBP It's actually one of those areas where math and philosophy tend to butt heads.  You can't put a value on a human life, can you?  Ultimately, you'd be surprised at the number of people that will pick the ruthless mathematics answer when forced to even as they profess otherwise.  Say for example, you are a firefighter in a burning building.  In the room to your left is an elderly couple.  Up the stairs is a toddler.  The building is about to collapse, and you will have time to either save the toddler, the two old people, but not all three.  Who do you save?  Well, obviously you choose to save the baby even though you only save one life instead of two.  This means you have implicitly agreed that this one person's life is worth more than two people's lives. CorruptUser (talk) 18:57, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Wouldn't purely Mathematical consider the Value 2 to be higher, and thus more worthy ? In addition how old is to old? The maximum human lifespan is 120 if the couple hit 60 or 70 id say their expierience is still worht something while the little Shit (jk in case you can't tell) upstairs contributed nothing to society yet. In addition even if the toddlers grows up he might considering his Socioeconomic Background grow up to be a Criminal. So letting him roasting alive might be the most 70's handling of that situation. Also a point to consider(we talk about values added to humans right?) what is the couples and babies Skin Colour?--Benaresh (talk) 20:59, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * An infant has more expected years to live than a geezer. Therefore you save a total of more lifeyears by saving 1 infant over 2 old people.
 * Not all lifeyears are equally valuable. Saving the lives of 50 people who only have one year left of senility stuck in the nursing home is not as good as saving the life of one person who has 50 years left to live.
 * Even equal in expected years, some people are more "worthy" than others based on the actions they have done and are expected to do. If you have two people in need of an organ, do you save the young guy in prison for rape or the middle-aged teacher?
 * The trick is trying to figure out a "good" system for determining what that worth really is, and I do not have a solid answer for that, and I'm not sure anyone does.
 * Oh, and HERE is a real world horror story for you courtesy of a cousin who actually does stuff like this for prisons. No, it gets even worse than what you are initially thinking.  The prison systems have a limited amount of money to spend on drugs.  So who gets the drugs?  Let's say there's an STD that's only curable through horribly expensive means.  Now, you have one person in prison for beating up a guy who attacked his little brother.  You have another person in prison who, while you can't prove he's raping the other inmates, has had "consensual" sex with a dozen of the inmates.  Both are infected and you only have funds for one cure.  In terms of most lives saved, you cure the rapist even if he clearly is less deserving of the cure than the first guy. CorruptUser (talk) 21:06, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I personally always go with the greater good. So yes to the Rapist curing(Even if i would argue that this person most probable recatches the bug and thusly disqualifies). The expected lifespan is determined by statistical variables if that baby has a lesser expected lifespan than the expected remaining lifespan of the 2 older people then again you should save the elderly couple. Again elderly doesnt tell me how old they are... I agree with you but i doubt that mathematics but a already existing neutral set of values drives your rationale. Back to the baby versus old people: if the baby has an condition that predicts he wont see his 35th birthday and the combined remaining lifespan of the Elderly Couple exeeds 40 Years, wouldn't you say still save the baby since he unlike the couple had yet a life to expierience? My point is that these speculations and values are impossible to derive without philosophical means. --Benaresh (talk) 21:44, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I had already mentioned in my second point that not all lifeyears are equally valuable. If you can determine that the expected lifeyears of the baby with the medical condition are worth more than the expected lifeyears of the elderly couple, even if the elderly couple have longer to live, then yes I'd say save the baby.  But you need to do the math to make that call rather than rely upon whatever emotions you have at the time. CorruptUser (talk) 02:28, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You mentioned that yes, and i countered that the babies lifespan might be less worth by socioeconomic considerations, above even that. You also mentioned that there is no good way to tell the worth. Nevertheless you keep on doing exactly that.The baby has less years than the elderly couple the circumstances of the Baby lead to a probable life of crime. Still you shouldn't dismiss the Baby, since it hadn't lived a life yet. You seem to adhere to determisn while reality has that Uncertainty thing ruining the purely mathematical approach.
 * I am not saying that you are wrong, when you say we apply values to people, but it is not mathematical in any way, to do so.--Benaresh (talk) 07:45, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * And I am saying you are cowardly, when you refuse to believe that it's possible to rationally quantify the value of a life. What is art; can we place a value on beauty?  Yes we can and do all the friggen time; the Mona Lisa is worth 780 million dollars.  I wouldn't be the one to tackle a gunman with a vendetta against Renaissance artwork, but I would understand why the government would spend millions on security around the Louvre instead of spending more money on traffic police. CorruptUser (talk) 00:19, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You know why on a porn site there's so many different categories? Because there's different things to cater to wildly (pun intended) different tastes. My sexual partner is a 62 year old woman that is not exactly what you would call 'beautiful' but for me she seems more attractive than any bimbo. Christine Lagarde or Hillary Clinton seem very attractive to me too despite their age. I don't like fat girls but my friend who is fat does. So, obviously what is 'beautiful' is far more relative than you have in mind. And remember that after you've tasted 'beauty', it tends to spoil and lose its former allure or 'value'. Even the most astonishingly attractive women are the victims of infidelity.
 * The example you used with the fireman is pretty convoluted and artificial. Real life is just far more complex and chaotic than such naive 'examples' suggest. It's true that society conditions us to value and protect the young more. However, if the life of my elderly parents was at stake, I'd give up on any other person. At any rate, not all people value babies. Anti-natalists for one and many radical environmentalists don't. Plus, the baby might turn out to be a 'garbage human being' in the future (which makes us wish 'it had never been born') or might already suffer from a hereditary decease that makes it (for some) unwanted. You might also discover that it's not your kid but the secret fruit of your wife's misadventures and thus come to hate it. Or it might perhaps be an accident that brings you nothing but misery and adds to your impoverishment.
 * So, there's a reason foster homes exist and a reason why infanticide has been widely practiced in history. The conclusions are clear. Being a baby or a kid doesn't mean you are necessarily valued more or treated better than other human beings. It certainly doesn't mean you are worth more. The things you say about mathematics are bullshit. Life has no objective meaning at all. Personally, I could give two shits about Mona Lisa. There are artists who don't like it or despise it. Much of stuff sold at auctions is useless garbage but there are people willing to pay millions for it. Values are inherently relative and unstable. You think that we relativists and nihilists are 'emotional'? Think again. Gewgtweg (talk) 16:40, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

My thoughts as a former Marxist
Since Marxism and the failure/success of modern left movements are the topic, I thought I'd share why I disagree with Marxism.

Where Marxism fails is when it behaves like a religion. First of all, it makes itself unfalsifiable. Point out the failings of any given socialist country and all you hear is "if they had just implemented it correctly it would have worked!" It's no different from saying if we had a caliphate with true sharia everything would be perfect. True sharia isn't defined, the only criteria for true sharia is that it would create a utopia - because they circularly assume sharia would have to do that. Same thing with Marxist thought in many areas.

The next issue is the holistic nature of it. Marxism doesn't stop at economics. You have 'historical materialism' which purports to explain all of history - not just economic issues in it, everything - through a Marxist lens while also providing a predestination narrative - the "inevitable" transition to communism in the stages of economic eras. Marxism tries to shoehorn everything into a framework of class struggle. Class and wealth distribution do affect everything, but Marxists usually try to say that every problem has it as the root. You may have heard Marxists who claim that ideologies like religion, nationalism, racism, etc are actually a secondary or tertiary result of economic issues, or that they are directly engineered by a mystical bourgeoisie which is somehow immune to them. It's denying the agency of the actual people involved, people who do sincerely hold the beliefs they do. You can think of the wealthy Saudis who run Islamic charities and try their best to spread Wahhabism around - it's not because they're making any financial return by building mosques and feeding people in poor countries, they are doing it entirely because they believe they will help these people on a spiritual level.

When you try to take complex, interconnected systems like religion - where very many factors are at play - and try to say it's ALL due to one factor, you're gonna get it wrong. For instance, the Soviets were surprised religion didn't go away once they had a socialist system - because they fully believed religion was just a tertiary consequence of capitalism and would disappear naturally. They couldn't see things outside of the class struggle.

Another issue related to the above is that it's all self-contained. Not only does Marxism attribute everything to a few issues, Marxism itself contains the answer to every given problem. You can solve any problem by using the self-contained premises, you never have to look outside of the ideology. Marxists tend to be quite proud of this "all-encompassing science" but that aspect always troubled me.

And finally, it uses the simplified social theory to create an us vs them narrative - you always need a simplistic worldview to have "good guys" and "bad guys."

And, of course, most Marxists I have met tend to be quite dogmatic and adamant. They use the same debating tactics as the religious, i.e. lots of emotional appeals, skirting around the topic, whataboutism, etc., and they're just as convinced their single ideology has all the answers - in the form of absolute truth - as any religious person. Eventually it became clear to me that the whole thing was just another religion.

Just my disordered thoughts on the matter. Lord Aeonian (talk) 21:21, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your thoughts. In my experience it seems like every single system that purports to know everything about everything is feeding you b.s. MyNameIsMudd (talk) 21:25, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yup. Never trust an ideology that claims to know literally everything. Lord Aeonian (talk) 02:07, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Some of my thoughts on the problems with Marxism can be found here, under the (otherwise unrelated) headline "Saying something is reasonable isn't the same as saying it's my opinion". Despite the length of the discussion, I only make two posts. Feel free to ignore the rest and go straight for them (CTRL+F "Reverend Black Percy"). TL;DR: Hegel ruins everything. Find out why in the link I gave. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:28, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's a good discussion! Lord Aeonian (talk) 02:07, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * A bit off tangent, but i rember when i checked out the Karl Marx Video of School of Tought and the completly tonedeaf Crowder "refutation" popped up in my list. I watched his shit (didn't know who he was untill then) and actually felt like defending Karl Marx.I didn't, i am not that stupid. Anyway my two cents: I feel you! I used to believe in conspiracies and the whole us vs. them thing was destroying my life, oversimplyfication is usually a way to make life less complicated and it turns into a kind of Raft on which your worldview float.--Benaresh (talk) 22:02, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I can see the appeal of Marxism, especially among young people and others who tend to be 'radicalized' easily. People want to be able to fully understand the world, and holistic ideologies - especially inherently simplistic ones - make an otherwise complex world very easy to understand. Well some people are looking for more emotional or 'spirtual' worldviews, Marxism appeals to people who like the appearance of hard science and naturalism. They want to appear rational and philosophical - and tomes of Marxist dialect are by no means easy to grasp - but they don't really want the nuance and, often, relativism and neutrality that actual rationality requires. They like arguing forever about the logical details of one branch of Marxism compared to another while never having to abandon that simple binary view of the world, and the moral crusade that comes with it. Lord Aeonian (talk) 02:07, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that reducing everything to class is a vulgar way of looking at the world. I think that it is hard for any group to avoid creating a religious structure with their ideology but I wouldn't say that this is necessarily a bad thing; it only becomes a problem when dogmatism and personality cults take over since this prevents any form of critique. I don't think that any modern Marxist would say that the rich Saudi princes only have an economic benefit to spreading Wahhabism, only that they spread it in order to gain control over the masses.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 22:11, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, that's the thing. How much of it is to gain influence for themselves and their American masters, and how much is because they legitimately hold these beliefs? I can tell you most people will not donate large sums of money to causes they don't personally believe in just for dubious influence on a collective scale. They influence they acquire is a (welcomed) side effect, not the goal. Lord Aeonian (talk) 01:56, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't exactly see how those are mutually exclusive goals. It is beneficial to the Saudis if they can marginalize the Shias as much as possible while also spreading an ideology that favors them. I don't see why they wouldn't also believe Wahhabism to be true while also trying to stifle dissenting ideologies.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:01, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That's what I'm saying, they're not mutually exclusive goals but the primary motivation is still religion. An individual wealthy Saudi doesn't personally gain anything by marginalizing Shias or winning more supporters for Saudi policies, though it's an outcome they would probably welcome. What they gain is the feeling of helping spread deeply held beliefs. Lord Aeonian (talk) 02:24, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Marx should never have been used that way
I mean, I admit, when it comes to actual implementation and the overwhelming majority of people who identify themselves as marxist, "everything is class struggle" is an incredibly common refrain. "Class struggle exists and should be used to interpret some elements of human society and history" is a much softer stance to take. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 22:43, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I mean — while I hate labels, politically I'm basically somewhere between a and a  (though, as far as civil rights go, I'm an ardent ). Likewise, I'm basically in favor of  and (more specifically) the . Meaning, I obviously believe that socioeconomics constitute a really, really important factor — likely the most important single factor — to ending up with a society that doesn't blow. That being said however, my impression of politics is that the more I invest in any particular position, the more warped my view of both the alternatives and the position I favor will become. Therefore, in an attempt to stay as nuanced as possible when it comes to politics, I personally treat it primarily as a phenomenon to observe first and enact second. That's just me; an analytic philosopher who would abdicate as my first act if I was made dictator. I can't claim to know anything in particular, so I certainly can't (nor want to) tell people what to do. When it comes to politics, I try to stay "behind the curve". I don't always want to be tossed into the latest drama; often, I prefer to read up on specific events years later, when all the facts are in. That being said, I'm not (willfully) blind to current events, nor to trends, et cetera. So I'm like a non-revolutionary centre-left progressive liberal thingy. Also known as a kinda sorta social democrat. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:23, 19 December 2016 (UTC)


 * While Marxism is mostly bullshit, it's because the chunks of Marx that weren't utter tosh were separated from Marxism and adopted by the mainstream but subsequently sanitized of their origin in order to keep the narrative that all of Marxism was bullshit from the start. The Communist Party USA was directly responsible for the Civil Rights Movement, had a huge hand in the Labor Movement and unions, pushed for women's rights, etc.  Once the powers that be realized that these were things that the public wanted and were inevitable, quite a bit of whitewashing had to be done, even if that meant throwing some government agencies under the bus in order to do so.  What, you thought it was only out of malicious racism that the FBI was constantly monitoring all the Civil Rights leaders? CorruptUser (talk) 02:34, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Huh, I didn't know that. That's far cry from a lot of people my age I see calling themselves communists and going in circles about who's praxis is better. We lefties of all stripes should get back to, you know, getting shit done. MyNameIsMudd (talk) 02:39, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * @CU What makes it mostly bullshit, in your opinion? I haven't read a lot of Marxist works but the central tenet that everything is class struggle seems correct to me.
 * @MNIM I think it is more than that. I agree with Adam Curtis that the problem with the Left is that it no longer has an imagination because it has abandoned reality. The Left is ultimately too busing trying to manage people instead of developing a better world because it is too afraid to institute that radical change.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:57, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * ignores that there are struggles beyond class
 * the whole Labor Value of Goods idea (that everything is worth the effort that went into it) is just wrong
 * the economics it espouses is for lack of more descriptive words "outdated"
 * it's a combination of utopianism and futurism; talk about what society could look like if the farms and factories and trains (and cars) are completely automated is a perfectly valid hypothetical discussion, but once you start insisting that you know how the future will turn out you have left the realm of rationality and entered that special state of narcissism common to radical ideologies
 * oh and the whole empirical evidence thing what with every single communist country turning into disasters and the least horrific examples can at best be described as "the death squads kept things safer than anarchy"
 * Remember Fourierism? Owenism?  Taylorism?  The 19th (and 20th, and 21st) centuries were full of quackonomics.  What Marx saw in the 19th century wasn't much better than slavery, and the socialists did work with good intentions; sometimes with good results.  But when Marx was alive, democracy was only an unproven experiment rife with far more issues than the 2016 election.  Perhaps his biggest flaw in his thinking was that revolution was the only way for workers to get what they needed, which is forgivable before elections allowed for mini-revolutions every couple of years with much less destruction.  A close contender for biggest flaw include the idea that class was the only important social construct, ignoring religion, social associations, race/tribe/ethnicity, or even which football team they like (5 capitalist pig-dollars says Marx would root for the Greenbay Packers).  Then there is the issue of "class traitors", or that whole "social mobility" thing that is in actuality quite popular; everyone loves a good American Dream or a Rags to Riches story. CorruptUser (talk) 05:59, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure, like I wrote early, reducing everything to class will doom you but class intersects with race and gender issues.
 * I am not an economist but I would say that the Labor Theory of Value isn't so much as wrong as it doesn't take into account that people judge value subjectively; I don't care if it took you twelve hours to make ice cream, I won't pay $30 for it.
 * I am not really sure how it can be outdated if Marxism is built on as a futurist philosophy nor do I understand how any economic school of thought can be outdated since economics isn't a physical science; economics is all about how we are to distribute the limited amount of resources we have, that will never happen perfectly.
 * Not all communist countries had death squads or turned out horribly. Cuba has done without them and has continued to function as a state albeit harmed by the US sanctions. Suharto, Lumumba, Mossadegh, and Arbenz didn't have them but they didn't stay in power long enough to do much. Every time a state has instituted socialism, it has immediately been attacked either economically or militarily.
 * True, "false consciousness" was a terrible way to explain away social mobility but social mobility is essentially just gambling with the system in the hope that you strike it rich. You are always going to have losers and the losers don't get food. I think a lot of what you describe is orthodox Marxism; there has been plenty of attachments since Marx. I think there are problems with Marxism but I wouldn't say most of it is bunk.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 06:55, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't want to explode this thread into a communist debate, but social mobility is most definitely not "gambling". As for economics being outdated, keep in mind that while it's a social science it does apply the scientific method where possible and does have major discoveries and proofs much like mathematics.  Keynes made a large number of discoveries (note that Keynes was a staunch Capitalist), and Friedman also made a large amount as well.  Ideas like "monopsonies" weren't a thing in the 19th century. CorruptUser (talk) 07:23, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure, economics follows the scientific model and makes new discoveries but any school of thought can adapt. Whether it has adapted is another question entirely. I will leave the discussion of social mobility to another day.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 08:02, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It's empirically proven to be terrible. You can't logic your way out of the facts. CorruptUser (talk) 14:20, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * How has it empirically proven to be terrible?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:15, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Every country that has gone Communist has turned into a hellscape of varying levels and had to make numerous 'adjustments' to their original ideology to make life even remotely tolerable (e.g., China's Market-Leninism, or even Lenin's constantly changing viewpoints in the interwar period), and every single time that significant Democratic reforms were implemented the people immediately chose something else.
 * To argue otherwise is to basically be in the same boat as the Islamists. "Communism/Sharia will create a utopia, all those other examples where Communism/Sharia turned into a hellscape were because of deviation from TRUE Communism/Sharia, which is what I have, so any who oppose me are subversives/heathens who need to die". CorruptUser (talk) 16:53, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Well I was talking about Marxian economics which isn't exactly the same thing as ML. To say that every country that has instituted such ideas turned into a hellscape is inaccurate at best. Yugoslavia and Cuba weren't hellscapes after their revolutions. To even say that the Soviet Union, for example, was a hellscape is ridiculous: Lenin ended segregation between the White Rus and Central Asians and he ended the serfdom; the Soviets also, if I am not mistaken, were able to achieve more equality between the various ethnic groups and both sexes. I still don't understand your criticism of an ideology making 'adjustments' since that would seem to be the most reasonable thing to do; what ideology hasn't made adjustments over time? Lastly, I don't think very many countries have "chosen" another system; the US openly meddled in Russia's election in 1996 and Yugoslavia broke along ethnic lines in a bloody civil war later exacerbated by NATO bombing. At no point did those people "chose" capitalism.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 00:54, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Really? Dang, I didn't know any of that. I still think Castro and Lenin were assholes though, and Cuba is better off without him around. Why did we interfere with Russia's election? MyNameIsMudd (talk) 01:22, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Lenin and Castro are a mixed bag, especially Lenin since he put in place several of the state powers that Stalin would later use. In 1996, Boris Yeltsin was heavily unpopular but we liked him because of his push to move Russia into a more globalized market and his mass privatization of government assets. He was also running against Russian Communist Party's candidate, Gennady Zyuganov; the Russian media was controlled by oligarchs who favored Yeltsin's reforms and chose to paint Zyuganov as a Stalinist and admire of the Cold War. You can read more about how weird that election was on Wikipedia or ExiledOnline.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:38, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the links, I'll give it a looksee. MyNameIsMudd (talk) 01:52, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

First of all, let's begin by saying and stressing that I am NOT a Marxist or even a leftist myself. Yet I hereby aver that popular thoughts on Marxism typically represented by LordAeonian and CorruptUser are bullshit. Read my essays on Marxism and Communism and educate yourselves and let's continue these discussion there, on the talk pages.

The notion that Marx and Engels disregarded national, geographic and other factors is bullshit too. Whoever says that is woefully ignorant of their voluminous historical and journalistic work (and is also unwittingly just regurgitating cold-war era propaganda). First of all, we need to separate Marxism from Marx and Engels (it was not by accident that Marx said: 'I for one am not a Marxist!') and we also need to understand that not only marxism but also liberalism confessed faith in the primacy of the economy and society as opposed to that of politics and the state. Both believed that the economy and politics could and should be integrated.

This happened in our society in a way that led neither to the rule of pure economic management nor to the obsolescence of the political sphere as was envisioned and expected. Instead what happened is that politics was forced to occupy itself incessantly and systematically with economic matters beyond simply carving out general directions while the redistribution of political power today is more closely linked to economic developments than ever before. On a side note, perhaps the most important thing in getting Trump elected beyond identity politics and racism (which were after all stressing the negative impact of foreigners on our economy and our jobs) was that he managed to successfully signal to popular imagination that he's a man who 'knows about money', about the 'art of the deal' etc. If he had not portrayed himself as a passionate businessman he would never have won.

Moving on, we have to separate marxist and liberal theory from reality in the 'capitalist' and 'socialist' countries. Liberalism and 'neo-liberalism' have as much to do with really existing capitalism as Marx's writings had to do with the Soviet Empire: nothing! The reason why economics is accused of not being a science is because of the presence of crucial ideological elements in it. But on the other hand, that doesn't mean that economics cannot in fact be scientifically studied and understood. Contrary to popular opinion that thinks Marx is totally useless and outdated or perhaps even an abomination of a human being, he can help us understand social reality and the economy in it in a way few other thinkers can. In fact social science itself wouldn't have been able to deliver the best things it's delivered without Marx.

Finally we have to understand that Marx's conception of capitalism describes a world-historical era which displaces feudalism and other forms of despotism and patriarchalism forever. That means that 'socialism' is part of the development of capitalism too. Indeed, the fundamental features of capitalist society were attested in the Soviet society too: state, alienation of the working class from the control of production and wage labor. Finally, let's just not forget that many states that received the brand 'socialism' during the cold war were nothing more than nationalist dictatorships. Gewgtweg (talk) 17:01, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Extra, extra! Debating the Hegelian dialectic!
Don't miss it. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:35, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Searching for a Source
I remember stumbling upon a scholarly (or at least, it appeared so) article explaining the development of art from a feminist perspective. Part of the argument was based off of McCoid and McDermott's analysis of Venus of Willendorf and explaining it to be female-made. Another part indicated that the use of red ochre as a pigment began because evolutionarily, women had to hide their period as much as possible, so that males were forced to remain near them as throughout their offspring's childhood. I can't find this paper/article/blogpost/otherthing anywhere, so it would be helpful if someone who has seeen the same thing could provide a source. Qwed117 (talk) 22:56, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know the article, but the red ochre bit sounds like over-reaching/BS. Red ochre in The evolutionary elimination of obvious signs of ovulation (unique or nearly so among primates) is the much more likely method of male retention by females in human prehistory. Bongolian (talk) 23:48, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your advice. I found the "thing" I was looking for. It was called . For a minute I almost thought I hallucinated the entire thing :P Qwed117 (talk) 00:23, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I find it somewhat hard to believe that human use of cosmetics preceded behavioral modernity, which was around 50,000 years ago. That's the point when complex symbols like cave art, decorated tools, and sculptures appear in the archeological record.   It's also the point at which anatomically modern humans began to replace Neanderthals. It is generally understood that these things emerged with the development of fully recursive languages.  That kind of symbolic proficiency would appear to me to be a pre-requisite to any elaborate scheme to conceal your place in the menstrual cycle with cosmetics.  - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 17:47, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

35 years
... since Gauda Prime.

Could the series be made today? 31.49.51.66 (talk) 13:59, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Could you perhaps provide some context? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:10, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * What the BON means is that the final episode of the British science fiction TV series  was first shown on BBC 1 on December 21, 1981. The action in that episode takes place on a planet called Gaude Prime. Spud (talk) 16:15, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * And it involves 'a bunch of dissidents/bounty hunters, thieves, killers, mercenaries, and psychopaths attempting to bring down the system.' 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:51, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Wow. So many nerd points for understanding the reference! I'm really impressed!--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 19:36, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 'The one where nearly everyone is theoretically dead at the end' (and the fanfic persists in bringing back the character the actor in question wished to have definitely killed off). The BoN's point probably does make it RW-relevant. 86.146.100.116 (talk) 10:32, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I was thinking about doing an article titled "Pseudo-History of World War 2"
Have it about pseudo-history thought of by cranks--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 19:25, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It all started when a young Austrian man named Adolph picked up and read the god delusion... ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:36, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:42, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * WWII is a pretty massive subject, and there is plenty of pseudo-history there, but there are already pages on Hitler, Nazis, the Holocaust, Stalin, etc... What did you have in mind that isn't covered on those pages?  Not to dissuade you, though. Petey Plane (talk) 20:41, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I would say World War 2 Conspiracy "Theories" in general--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 21:56, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I've been thinking for a while now that there might be an use for an article about myths and misconceptions about Nazi Germany. There'd certainly be a lot of material, ranging from generally harmless (If Germany had finished this wunderwaffe they'd have won the war, Autobahn was built for troop movement...) to downright Nazi apologetic (Hitler fixed the economy, Stalin would've started WW2 if Hitler didn't...) Dunno if it's a bit too Snopes for RW though. Vulpius (talk) 21:48, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Die Glocke (alongside certain wünderwaffe in general) constitutes classic WW2 pseudohistory — Skeptoid has an excellent episode on it here. Another classic WW2 conspiracy theory is that of the Philadelphia Experiment (Skeptoid episode here). Also, while not pseudohistory, this is also pretty interesting. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:41, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Nazi UFOs is another. Petey Plane (talk) 00:29, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Another good place to start before you get into the wacko stuff like UFOs and Hitler living out in Argentina, start with all the nationalist crap that every country believes, especially propogated by historically illiterate YouTube commenters such as "God dern france complanin abut us al tha tim if it wernt fer us theyd stil b spiking german". 'Legion what do you want from me  08:41, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

WLU in the Wrong?
Wilfrid Laurier University (Waterloo, Ontario) fired the campus café operator, Sandor Dosman, over a help wanted post that asked for a "slave" to help run the café and promised the "pay is crap" which was deemed offensive by the student association. Currently, there is a petition to reverse the decision, but I feel that such a posting by an owner or manager for a restaurant or any other business, whether it was a joke or not, should be taken very seriously.--Cms13ca 22:12, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Far more offensive in a job advert are phrases like "exciting opportunity," and "the successful applicant will be passionate about customer service." 90.210.93.12 (talk) 01:49, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Is the student association willing to actually complain about the working conditions Dosman was pretty accurately describing, or is this more shooting the messenger?204.11.142.106 (talk) 02:55, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It's a goddamn joke. You find it to be in good taste or not, but it's no different than joking that your job is gonna kill you or anything else. People should quit assuming the worst intentions in other people, a joke is a joke and finding it offensive shows a disturbingly thin-skinned demeanor.
 * Maybe. However just like the people that shout "It's justs a prank, bro!" before getting beaten up joking about some matters (like the Holocaust) tend to be in bad taste. Remember when the Guy who played Krmaer chanted Ni**er and got his Carrer destroyed? There is a line between Humour and going "too far". --Benaresh (talk) 09:23, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * what line has been crossed here exactly? AMassiveGay (talk) 12:07, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

RationalWiki:Moderator_elections/Campaigning
Please read.- 23:27, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Can someone explain to me (not trying to be stupid here)?
Back in 2014 when I went to the Chiropractor (who was the biggest medical quack I have ever met) for massive back pain to the point where I was hunched over for a few weeks, my back was manipulated which was fine, what I don't get is why on Earth did he manipulate my neck?--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 14:39, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Because chiropractors are essentially germ theory denialists, since they believe that the body creates its own illness — historically, a popular altmed belief. They believe — for no scientific reason whatsoever — that "misalignment" of the spine is what causes disease, and thus, that "realignment" of the spine can heal disease. The spine stretches all the way up into your neck. Thus, since felt pain somewhere, a magical part of your spine had to be responsible. Thus, he decided on manipulating your neck, because according to his woo belief, the pain was originally caused by the neck part of your spine being "misaligned" or something something darkside. Oh, and ps — the exact procedure that was performed on you actually kills people. Just something to think about. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:22, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, if you are suffering from back pain, a severed spine above that point will cause the pain to cease... CorruptUser (talk) 15:40, 23 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I was shocked that my neck was not broken--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 15:45, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The neck is a massive bone,that isn't easily broken, rupturing your neck veins however is how some Chiros killed patients --Benaresh (talk) 16:21, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * To qualify fof US Social Securify Disability benefits, a claimant must submit to an independent examination by a chiropractor paid for the US Department of Health and Human Services. This group has a powdrful lobby, evidentally. But why then, if the benevolent government is so concerned about the health of its citizens, does it financially support quack medical practicaners and require beneficiaries to patronize them? nobs 23:04, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I went to a chiro once for back pain. The neck crack seems to be a required service, always provided last, and the cracking sound probably provides an "assuring" sound meaning &mdash; there, I actually did something, that sound is proof! Bongolian (talk) 21:16, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Where's the hat chat at?
It's December 23 (in fact, where I live, it will be December 24 in 20 minutes) and nobody's talked about putting a Santa, Satan or Santana hat on our brain logo this year. What the hell's going on? Spud (talk) 15:41, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

From some localities it has been visible for days. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:04, 23 December 2016 (UTC)


 * There is a Santa hat on my computer (I live in Michigan)--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 16:35, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I just tried a different browser. And the hat was there. Obviously one of those weird technical issues about which I know nothing. I'm still disappointed that what used to be an annual debate about whether or not it was too early to put the hat on the brain didn't happen this year. And that nobody suggested putting a pork pie hat on it this time around either. Spud (talk) 17:11, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Blame the cache. Ask Santa for a software upgrade. 17:51, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I was doing research on a creationist so I could create an article but I found a radio show that could use a RationalWiki sucker punch
This radio show promotes creationism and has a radio show called "Real Science Radio", here is a link- http://kgov.com/ --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 20:05, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Trump is going to start WW3. (I'm serious!!!).
I have this horrible feeling that this maniac is going to piss some world leader off and cause them to declare war. Please tell me I am overreacting?S.H. DeLong (talk) 01:20, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * International relations may get a little tense but declaring war against the USA would be an insane move for any world leader. 02:04, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You're overreacting. Probably. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 02:14, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I would say the whole WW3 thing is an overreaction. If anything Hillary Clinton would've been more likely to start such a conflict, definitely a second Cold War with Russia. Trump is going to be fairly neutral on Russia, friendlier than any recent president.


 * Let's talk about Ronald Reagan. People thought he would be very hostile towards Russia, and in a way he was. He was quite aggressive with his arming the Mujahideen and countering the communists in Nicaragua and Granada, but he came quite close to literally ridding both nations of nuclear weapons, and led a detente with the USSR that actually helped contribute to its collapse.


 * If Trump does get into a conflict, I'm thinking either a cold war with China over the South China Sea islands, or a war with Iran that's concocted for Israel's benefit. I doubt it'll happen, but it's a good possibility. If I were in poker though, I'd bet on it, as it's something like a 33% chance. 02:36, 24 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I definitely overreacted here. Sorry about that. S.H. DeLong (talk) 02:49, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Seasonal greetings
... to everyone (from solstice worshipers to Julian calendar followers). 86.145.120.171 (talk) 22:25, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Happy holidays to you too bud. Stay safe out there y'hear? MyNameIsMudd (talk) 22:29, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Knowing international relations is like a powder keg right now, it will take one spark to start WW3
The powder keg mix includes- Trump Presidency, Russian ambassador assassination, 2016 U.S Election Hack, Syrian Civil War, ISIS terrorist attacks and so on. The spark probably would be something stupid Trump or Obama does. What does anyone else think the spark would be?--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 22:54, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I will say that a large scale armed conflict or a nuclear exchange is a very scary possibility right now. But I counter with two observations: one, the president of the United States cannot unilaterally decide to launch a nuke. Contrary to what some seem to believe there is no big red button Trump or anyone else can press to get them into the air. The decision comes after consulting military leaders, filing the codes and getting them activated at the silos. It's a whole chain of things that has to go down, not Trump deciding he wants to wipe the Middle East or China off the face of the Earth and hitting the switch. In fact, there's a whole process in place to get the president removed from power if the brass decide he's acting recklessly about wanting them set off. Second, I doubt that the ambassador's shooting is going to be a Franz Ferdinand situation. Both Putin and Erdogan have spoken out about it being a clear attempt at undermining the country's solidarity and reaffirming their war against terrorists. This isn't exactly a good thing by any means, since both are brutal autocrats, but I don't think it's going to spark a global conflagration either. Just my thoughts on the matter. MyNameIsMudd (talk) 00:21, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Listened to an interesting discussion yesterday: Trump is actually following Obama's foreign policy. From FDR to Baby Bush the US showed leadership in the world. Begininning with Obama, and now with Trump, the US wants to withdraw from some of the responsibilities it has assumed for itself. nobs 06:09, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Which makes sense. It costs to much money and the modern interferences rarely worked out for anybody. In fact financial and technological aid are less intrusive and help out more in the long run. The threat of WW3 is actually not likely, the current trend for autocrats and fascists seems to be less about imperialism and more Isolationism. Consider this: Reactonaries have to react to something and i believe they react to Globalisation. --Benaresh (talk) 11:04, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The shrill wailing about the Orangeman sounds an awful lot like the flailing about Republicans did after Obama's election. On different issues, of course, but the same general tone of OH MY GOD THIS GUY WILL RUIN THE WORLD AND CHAOS FURY BOMBS I DON'T EVEN KNOW BUT THE COUNTRY IS COLLAPSING AAAAUUUUGGGGHHHH!!!!11!1111!!!1 I didn't find it productive then (I voted McCain 08 and Obama 12), and it's just as unhelpful now. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい ) 23:39, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The difference of course being that they were screeching about Obama for entirely made up reasons, we're scared shitless because Trump has actually said lots and lots of awful things. This chest thumping bullshit about expanding our nuclear arsenal is just the latest in a long, long line of off-the-cuff promises. This isn't just some internet troll we're talking about here. This is the guy that's going to be in the highest office of the land and he alternates between bitching at people who criticize him in any way and making terrifying pronouncements on his Twitter account. There are plenty of good and valid reasons to be scared, be angry, sit up and take notice. MyNameIsMudd (talk) 23:52, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Nuclear arms race my ass. First Trump appoints Putin's 'ol drinking buddy Tillerson to mend fences, then a week later the sources screaming about collusion between Trump & Putin are scared shitless of a nuckear arms race. Balderdash. nobs 00:20, 24 December 2016 (UTC)a
 * Then why did both of them say they needed to expand their nuclear arsenals? I get the sense that we're being played somehow, since Putin is...well he's evil, but he's not stupid. Trump is evil and stupid. I hate to go all-in with the tinfoil hat crowd, but just what the hell is going on? Any way you slice it this doesn't bode well. MyNameIsMudd (talk) 00:29, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

It's a tri-polar world. The Big Three dominant hegemons, US, Russia, and China are asserting leadership in troubled world. Their dividing the planet up in spheres of influence where each, and their minor allies, assert authority and influence. Sure, a handful of other powers and wannabees have a handful of nukes, but the US & Russia have 93% of all of nukes, and the US & Russia dictate the rules (with deferance to China, which still isn't among the big boys in nuclear power and probably doesn't want to take on a US-Russian alliance despite China's overwhelming manpower advantage). nobs 00:50, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

IOW, the US & Russia must continue to compete and upgrade their nuclear weapons stocks into the foreseeable future cause nobody is ready to hand China a monopoly as the world's sole or dominant nuclear superpower. nobs 12:33, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Death Penalty- Yes or No?
I myself am in favor of it, why waste taxpayer dollars on feeding and clothing violent murderers/rapists/pedophiles/terrorists? While it is true that it would not bring victims back, at least they could never murder again. Let those monsters reach the pits of hell, it is not like the criminals would feel any remorse for their crimes anyway. Okay, I have some conservative political views but I am mostly progressive but on this issue I take a conservative stance.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 02:46, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * This exact discussion was had recently. Merry christmas, RZ. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:50, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * My principal problem with death penalty is that it doesn't take account of social, psychological causes of crime. I do not think that murders and other crimes are just simply explainable by "they are monsters". It is much more complex than this. I believe we should rehabilitate, not punish. Punition in itself is useless, and makes no sense to me. Diacelium (talk) 03:58, 25 December 2016 (UTC)


 * My constructive criticism: If someone enjoys killing, why keep them alive when they would kill again? I am not getting mad, I respect your opinion but what would be the point of punishing a child for doing wrong when we could "rehabilitate"? People need to learn right from wrong, how could a mass murderer who has no regard for human life be rehabilitated? or someone who rapes and murders an infant with zero remorse? Again, just my constructive criticism--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 04:32, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If someone enjoys killing, it isn't his choice, it is pathological and must be treated medically. It is probably the same with pedophiles. On how they can be rehabilitated, with therapy, with teaching, some special education... There can be many ways rehabilitation can be done. It is possible to make them accept morals. Diacelium (talk) 04:48, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Most adult males have some extent of pedophilia in their desires(refer to google porn search rankings to verify this), the search for youth is a desire in of itself. The DESIRE is not the issue, it is the ACTION that is the issue. Most people with pedophile thoughts do not act on them, and actively work against the desires that they understand are wrong. Your position is erroneous in the belief that one can be rehabilitated when they have already shown that they act on said thoughts and cannot tell what they have done is wrong. Then again, this brings in a lot of legal wrangling about how one can be punished when one cannot comprehend why they are being punished. People enjoy doing things, just because they enjoy something does not mean it is above legal recourse. That is the whole point of laws.NolanSyKinsley (talk) 06:35, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hang 'em by their nuts, unless they're innocent, of coarse. nobs 13:26, 25 December 2016 (UTC)op

My prediction for student loan debt
College graduates will probably be so deep in debt that everything the person owns gets repossessed including their college degree and credits getting repossessed--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 03:22, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * And yet, people continue to go to college, when there are other routes to success. It's the same in the UK. Tuition fees were trebled and yet people kept applying to university. It's called supply and demand. As long as people keep applying to college/university, the institutions have no reason to drop their prices, and the governments of the countries where student loan debts are an issue will not intervene because economic/classical liberalism. --Levi Ackerman (talk) 15:34, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The problem with that approach is it stagnates social mobility. The middle class kids continue going to university because they kind of expect to, even if they have no career plan & end up doing mediocre jobs they could probably do without a degree, while working class kids who could actually hugely boost their career prospects with a degree are put off by the cost & debt commitments involved.  15:40, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

And so this is Shitscram. And what was your haul?
List yours here!


 * Fancy beer from Hobgoblin (I have noted to all that fancy beer is always on-topic) and the Ladybird Book of the Zombie Apocalypse, which is a delight - David Gerard (talk) 09:09, 25 December 2016 (UTC)


 * My mom's mailing me some sugar cookies and my girlfriend says she might be throwing me together a new PC for gaming. Both of them are very thoughtful and kind. MyNameIsMudd (talk) 09:27, 25 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Assuming this thread is on what we got for Christmas — just like Mr. Bean, I gift myself things for Christmas. Mainly because the members of my family are under the happy and mutual agreement that presents are mostly for the kids anyways, and — importantly — because we all think that surprising a loved one with the gift of something they'd truly enjoy is an undertaking one ought to pursue regardless of the season. Regardless, I got myself a fantastic book; Cults, Conspiracies, and Secret Societies: The Straight Scoop on Freemasons, the Illuminati, Skull and Bones, Black Helicopters, the New World Order. It's actually really great — the downvotes on Amazon are literally either from people who were offended that their particular pet crankery was debunked in it, or from disappointed truthers who read the title of said book and bought it, assuming it'd be more like a David Icke tome than like The Skeptic's Dictionary. But Mr. Bean aside — on Christmas eve, I also recieved a gold-wrapped flask of Captain Morgan from my brother and his wife — a prescient choice, as it came in handy to help me handle my three super lovely (but highly energetic) nieces. Thanks, fam! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:01, 25 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I got a head message thing, a shepherd figurine, a bottle of Mountain Dew, Generic Pop Tarts, Microscope, a mini-drone, pajama bottoms, and a few other things.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 16:21, 25 December 2016 (UTC)


 * About $250 and a bunch of socks 'Legion what do you want from me  00:07, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Fun:12 Medical Problems of Christmas

 * 12 Cancerous Tumors
 * 11 Open Sores
 * 10 Infected Pimples
 * 9 Tape Worms
 * 8 Ruptured Veins
 * 7 Hemorrhoids
 * 6 Genetic Mutations
 * 5 Days of Vomiting
 * 4 Swollen Lymph Nods
 * 3 Broken Bones
 * 2 Bloodshot Eyes


 * and a case of Meningitis!--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 17:39, 25 December 2016 (UTC)


 * God bless us every one. 17:46, 25 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Excess of Christmas carols and music-itis
 * Excess of Christmas decorations-itis
 * Galloping sales-phobia 86.146.99.34 (talk) 22:03, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Best Christmas song
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-1nTwiHxic Merry Christmas everyone ! Diacelium (talk) 22:41, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Changing "Footnotes" sections to "References" sections
More and more articles have a separate "Notes" section for snarky footnotes / explanations and a "Footnotes" section for actual references. For examples of the new format, see Hollow Earth or Racialism. For examples of the old format, see Q gospel or Atheism FAQ. IMO the new format is good -- it shows that the snark is not meant as evidence in itself and encourages editors to add, well, actual references.

To make this distinction clearer, I'd like to rename "Footnotes" sections to "References", as Wikipedia does. This is very simple to do by bot. Before making any changes, however, I would like to ask for community's consensus on this change.

Thoughts? 23:34, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That's fine with me. Bongolian (talk) 23:39, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Good idea. Also, I completely agree with moving the snarks to a "Notes" section. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 23:43, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I've been doing my part to move the snark sources (which are often great) to a new "Notes" section, keeping actual sources exclusively in the "Footnotes" section instead. In many cases, making this division also serves to show that we've got like one actual source on some articles. I fully support renaming all instances of "Footnotes" to "References" via bot, and I think the manual of style should mention that snarky/funny/food-for-thought refs (which are fine) should go under a section titled "Notes", while actual sources go under "References" per . Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:30, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I like it the way it is. A small gratuitous quirk that differentiates us from Wikipedia, and allows mixing references with aside rants. YMMV of course. I'd be sad to see it go for aesthetic reasons - David Gerard (talk) 00:36, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If done well, I think the mixture can work. But what usually happens is "Person X did something stupid. " . IMO, forcing notes and references to separate also forces editors to, you know, make their snark not terrible and actually have references. 00:45, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * @DG: Here's irrefutable proof for my side: The references section of this article. Irrefutable! 00:49, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I see no harm or benefit to this action. People just click on the [1] and read(and mostly they don't even do that)  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 00:57, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * In other words, we're at 4 in favor, 1 against and 1 goat. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:02, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Idk -- people might be more likely to click on [note 1] than [1], if not just because it's bigger. 01:04, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I certainly treat [note] and [1] differently, and I expect many of our readers do, too. But that's beside the point — what's important is avoiding the utter disappointment that comes from pressing [1] and arriving at a Footnotes section containing only puns. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:07, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I hate the separate "notes" sections & would like to see them scrapped. In the rare cases where they contain something relevant, there's no reason not to include them either with other footnotes or in the article text (e.g. in parentheses).  But in most cases they're either unfunny asides that would be better omitted entirely, or irrelevant digressions into trivia.  & Having a section marked out for these pointless "notes" just encourages more of them.  01:31, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:32, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Eh, it's not a stupid response. But frankly, RationalWiki has long had a userbase that puts notes into footnotes. That probably won't change soon. But some of those asides are genuinely funny or genuinely informative -- eg, the notes on Racialism all serve a purpose, but aren't references proper. Encouraging substantial notes seems a worthy cause. 02:48, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * My personal preference would be to keep both notes and references together. A lot of the things we're going to be citing as 'references' will be various occult or crackpot texts, of a sort that may need commentary as well as simple links.  I prefer to keep snark in the articles themselves, and use notes for both explanations of peripheral points as well as references. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 04:34, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I support the idea of notes and references being separate sections.--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 11:24, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Placing us at 5 in favor, 3 against and 1 goat. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:38, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * OK. I'll throw my support behind it too. A change by bot will leave some pages with references sections that contains no references and only snarky footnotes. But those few instances could be easily enough fixed by hand. So make that 6 in favour. Spud (talk) 16:03, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Uh, no. I've found articles that still use the old "references" section as recently as last year (and we switched to "footnotes" circa 2009).  This is RationalWiki:  the follow-through almost never happens.   18:38, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If the change is done, will someone write a style guide including it, or will it just remain secret lore? Annquin (talk) 10:26, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 7 in favor. Seems like at worst it'll make articles appear more organized, at best it'll encourage editors to use more refs and discourage bad snark. B) talk 17:00, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree. At worst it'll slap a fresh coat of paint on shitty content and we pretend the problem is solved when it isn't, and at best it will, via mysterious and unknown processes, teach a community to write better by slapping a new coat of paint on total garbage.  18:38, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Make that 8 in favor.- 19:02, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Opposed. Editors write bad snark because they see bad snark all over articles, not because it's sometimes labeled "footnotes".  This is like trying to give a frat house a new coat of paint in the hopes it'll lead them to throw quieter parties.
 * Furthermore, since this entire discussion is already pedantry masquerading as serious reform, I'll indulge in some pedantry of my own: the proper term is neither footnotes nor references.  Technically they're endnotes.  Also, "references" are, by definition, a barebones listing of references.  If you have to explain or expand on any references, then it's an endnote or footnote. (Our articles are one endless page, so everything is an endnote.)  18:26, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Placing us at 8 in favor, 4 against and 1 goat. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:10, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Fuck it, I'll vote yes, if only to help resist entropy in some small way. Leuders (talk) 19:18, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That makes 9 in favor, 4 against and 1 goat. Fuzzy? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:49, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It has begun. 21:37, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Update
has changed the text of 6196 mainspace (ns:0) pages to "==References==".

Enjoy.

And yes, it's exactly this easy to change it back, should our community change their minds. 01:05, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas/Feliĉan Kristnaskon/Feliz Navidad/God Jul

 * It's not Christmas yet where I live but I'm pretty sure it is in most time zones. Blah blah blah merry holidays.


 * 'Legion what do you want from me  05:59, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Stay safe and have a good one wherever you're at. MyNameIsMudd (talk) 06:12, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Merry Christmas, one and all. Hey do we have an article on the so-called "War on Christmas"? Levi Ackerman (talk) 06:16, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * War on Christmas MyNameIsMudd (talk) 06:23, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Much obliged. Levi Ackerman (talk) 07:21, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No problem. MyNameIsMudd (talk) 07:40, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Holy Stereophonic Batcrap, that had to be a Syd Barrett Joint right? Ye gods. I don't know why I call him Gerald. He's getting very old, but he's a good mouse. Did we put something in the Eggnog again because the elves are dancing. la la la. And a floydy Mishmash to one and all. set the controls for the heart of my couch.Gadzooks (talk) 01:21, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Christmas greeting poll
14:49, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * "Everyone knows you have to eat your fair share of hair, or the Winterman doesn't come!" Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:03, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

"Happy Hannukah" should cover most of the editors. 94.118.33.39 (talk) 15:26, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Shalom. 15:43, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Haha Jew jokes edgy 23:33, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Now that was funny. Make me chortle my tea.Now Make With Comedic German Accent!.Gadzooks (talk) 01:30, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm a quarter Jewish on my father's father's side(except religiously he was christian, but neither of his parents were), but that makes me twice removed from the "tribe of Israel" since that's a matrilineal heritage, but I suspect this extremely distant purely biological relationship is more than enough to flip the lid of some neonazi losers. I'm clearly not a standard-ass white American mutt, but instead part of the Jewish conspiracy to undermine America.  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:17, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are. 94.118.167.80 (talk) 11:14, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Good news of a new King: the Jesus or the Donald?
Here's another Christmas Day poll (depending on your timezone), as it's a thing people are talking about (at least people on social media who have nothing better to talk about on Christmas Day).

RNC chairman Reince Priebus put out this Christmas message, including the following statement:

Over two millennia ago, a new hope was born into the world, a Savior who would offer the promise of salvation to all mankind. Just as the three wise men did on that night, this Christmas heralds a time to celebrate the good news of a new King.

People are arguing about whether this "new King" is a reference to President Elect Trump, effectively comparing him to Christ.

What do you guys think? Is this a comment about ... ?

 Jesus Christ Donald Trump deliberately ambiguous 22:59, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The antichrist. The False Prophet brings the One World Religion, and this religion is consumerism, the worship of the product, the Spirit of the Antichrist. A person is born this Christmas, who will destroy all religions and make us all consumerists. Just wait, you'll see ! (Am I doing this right ? Or should I have mentionned vaccines and GMOs ?) Diacelium (talk) 23:14, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Some few weeks back, I shared this article in the blogosphere on how to fight Trump. One of the prescribed methods in that article of fighting him is not to engage in non-issues like this, not to be distracted by them. Instead of political commentators sympathetic to the Democrats to be doing a little introspection and figuring out how they will fight the next four years, help protect what little Obama has achieved and help win back the support they lost in 2016, they are focusing on bullshit like this. I mean who gives a fuck? Sigh! It's going to be a long four - maybe eight - years. Levi Ackerman (talk) 00:25, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * In which journalism & social media are a zero sum game? 00:36, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * @Levi: interesting article. Here's my prediction: Trump is likely to gain support from among those who now ardently oppose him, and lose some support from among those who now vehemently support him. nobs 00:42, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * @Weaseloid, I don't follow. Levi Ackerman (talk) 01:59, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You seem to be suggesting that focusing on issues like this is at the expense of focusing on other issues, i.e. a zero sum game, & I disagree. While there have been recent events where one thing is blatantly distracting from another, like when Trump created an inconsequential media circus around a visit from Kanye West on a day when he was supposed to be addressing concerns about his businesses & when he made some controversial appointments, in this case I don't see it.  The GOP has put out a strangely worded Christmas message & there's no reason not to question it.  12:24, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Not to worry. Alex Jones says Priebus will be gone in 90 days. Here's a prediction: Alex Jones will become one of Trump's biggest critics or else Alex Jones ass-kissing sycophancy will make him look like a Clinton media surrogate in 90 days. nobs 12:39, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Sick of the terrorist scare
Is anyone else sick of the terrorist scare? It's and I am not really happy to see that a potentially planned act of violence is assumed to be done by ISIS. Terrorists are an issue, no doubt about this. In my view, people should stop giving terrorists as much spotlight in the news and stop assuming terrorism — especially a particular group. I see that still will stop inspiring terrorism or at least bring it to a minimum. 21:52, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. There's buckets of fear going around right now and most of it isn't even going the right way. Like here in the US, you're twice as likely to be killed by a Neo-Nazi as you are by a lone wolf ISIS attack. We should be focusing on the bad folks in our own backyard and not using scare tactics about the dreaded Other. MyNameIsMudd (talk) 22:07, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I heard once that nationalists and far-left groups commit more terrorism than islamists. Diacelium (talk) 23:07, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * And about 150 times more likely to be killed in a car wreck, factoring in 9/11. Without 9/11, several thousand times more likely. B) talk 04:42, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * A poll says that 41% of American's fear that a family member of there's will be a victim to a terrorist attack. I am curious to find out how many fear they or a family member might be killed in a car crash. ToxicPeep (talk) 08:11, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * ..or die of diabetes. I mean, this is America we're talking about. --Levi Ackerman (talk) 10:55, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Americans are more likely to be killed by a deer, a toddler, or a domestic pet than by a terrorist. But it's easier to protect yourself against toddlers, pets, and deer, and terrorists are less cute. Annquin (talk) 10:21, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * For the purpose of entertainment, would you tell us more about the risk of death by toddler? B) talk 03:21, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, when you look at all the stories about toddlers unknowingly grabbing Daddy's loaded .44 off his desk and shooting their parents/friends/siblings, it doesn't seem far-fetched that toddlers are more likely to kill someone than terrorists. Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt Noooooooo!  Look! Up there! 05:47, 24 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Can you provide cites for those so I can update this image? http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/File:Death_rates_terrorism_bar_graph_2000-2009.png Hmmph (talk) 15:30, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * How many black people were lynched between the end of the Civil War and the Civil Rights Movement? The answer is roughly 3000, the same number of people who were killed on 9/11.  How many black people died of Pellagra during this time?  The answer is 50,000.  Yet which had a larger impact on the psyche of the black community; a disease that you never heard of before I mentioned it, or the Klan lynching not even a tenth as many people? CorruptUser (talk) 00:46, 31 December 2016 (UTC)