RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive264

Stop The Dakota Pipeline
A few more signatures are needed (from you Americans). Also see Mark Ruffalo's Timeline for more information. And alas, Arctic Oil is also still an issue. ~ Aneris 13:47, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I dunno; it looks like a Putin/Saudi plot to make oil dependent on goddam ferners again.nobs 15:43, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * If you want to stop the Dakota pipeline, drive less or not at all. Worzelpete (talk) 16:07, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Valid sentiment, though IMO most applicable to those in better socioeconomic conditions. A huge fraction of the people driving cars probably shouldn't be blamed for doing so, unless you expect global-purview utilitarianism from someone struggling to feed and house a family. A little financial stability helps before you begin molding yourself a life sans automobile. B) talk 19:50, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Not that I am trying to discourage anyone from signing but I don't think a petition is going to stop this.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 19:55, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I see it more as an attempt to get noticed by the general public. Somebody ring up Elon and tell him he needs to stop making fucking sports cars and start pushing out eco-clunkers, pretty please B) talk 20:04, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Except that he needs to make electric cars "cool" before the middle class would even consider getting one. And the latest models are priced for the upper-middle class, which means that in 5 years the lower-middle class can get them in used car dealerships. CorruptUser (talk) 05:33, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that the point of most of these pipelines is to enable Canadians to ship crude to US ports for export around the world. Given the fact that the oil eventually will start running out, I'm not convinced this is in the long term best interests of the greater number of North Americans.  But apparently NAFTA took these kinds of decisions out of our hands.  I have no opinion on the immediate environmental issues, but saving rather than burning probably doesn't hurt. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 20:48, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That's a good point. Increasing world supply will have a downward effect on world prices, making former second and third world consumers able to compete with US consumers for supply. But a certain amount will be siphoned off for US consumers, at the lower price, as well.nobs 01:06, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Rome Viharo spams his Wikipediawehaveaproblem
https://twitter.com/rome_viharo/status/793469016744472576 http://archive.is/wygEZ "Thanks for the spam, two months later. Hope you step on a LEGO barefoot."

This is rather funny and shows how much a buffoon he is, you should add it to his page. Viharo is spamming twitter and dozens of forums with his website, but he's either ignored or people tell him to get lost for spam. Note also again the hypocrisy, he moans about people spamming links criticising him on Reddit, but he does 10 x worse on Twitter. Arcticos (talk) 04:29, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Fox News admits Benghazi hearings were a hoax to smear Hillary?
Is this for real? The site looks like the left wing of the horseshoe... I don't come around much any more, but thought some RWians could use a giggle. Alec Sanderson (talk) 22:16, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Several FOX News anchors appear to have been disgusted by Trump's conspiracist rhetoric and now turn explicitly against its modern strains in the Republican Party. This has made them very unpopular. I absolutely buy it -- Megyn Kelly just slaughtered Newt Gingrich today/yesterday. FOX News, for all the crap we give them, isn't a monolithic hivemind. Some influential folks within it are not blinded to Trump's failings. Whether they will survive as a modern conservative media group may hang in this balance. 23:51, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * In what way exactly has Fox admitted that the Benghazi hearings were a hoax? The various segments/clips embedded into the article do not remotely suggests that. The writer has merely inferred this conclusion from them. All those segments really says is that an investigation was carried out and nothing was found. Usually when that happens, people ask why the investigation was necessary in the first place, as these things cost the tax payer a lot of money. I don't doubt that political point-scoring was a motivating factor in the calling of the investigation, however, HH was secretary of state at the time, therefore she was accountable. Mistakes were made, some of which were unavoidable, but in the name of accountability, surely an investigation had to be carried out, if for no other reason to exonerate Clinton. My point is this, Fox News did not admit that Benghazi hearings were a hoax; they merely allude to what we already knew: a large part of it was political maneuvering and point-scoring. Also, the website, "Occupydemocrats", judging by its name, is not exactly what one would call fair and balanced journalism, and therefore, reliable. --Levi Ackerman (talk) 08:27, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Reverend Black Percy (talk) 08:40, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I really don't know what it means to say: "The Benghazi hearings were a hoax". Is the suggestion that they never took place? I mean, people who believe the moon landings were a "hoax" believe the moon landings never happened.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:37, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, Bob. The hoax is the tale that the hearings were simply in aid of "finding the facts" about the vulnerability of US diplomatic and CIA presence in Libya. In case anyone missed the memo, the hearings were a blatant exercise in PR, pushing a narrative into the public awareness over and over. Alec Sanderson (talk) 16:34, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Then they were "biased", "politically motivated" even "based on false premises" or whatever. Calling the hearings themselves a "hoax" is distorting the common meaning of the word. If they were completely useless and based on false premises then "farce" would work.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 18:26, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Sounds like that particular (and not the least bit clickbaity) headline wasn't an accident, considering the source is a site called "OccupyDemocrats". Just saying. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 08:44, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * In this day and age, knowing the source is often knowing the news. Worzelpete (talk) 20:48, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Hillary don't need to be smeared. She's perfectly capable of smearing herself.nobs 23:55, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hola, Roberto. Hillary no es mi abuela... Sin embargo, she is the less vomitous of the two main choices the main parties have seen fit to offer us. She may be a slime bag fat cat, but she is better suited to be our slime bag fat cat, in these parlous times. Please proceed... Alec Sanderson (talk) 16:16, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

How did you guys become atheists? (If you are)
I was born into an atheist family, if you must know. - 04:23, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I was born into a Roman Catholic family, but the atheism came from the whole problem of evil and a few personal things going on in my childhood. Also, I wasn't as indoctrinated into the faith as the rest of my family were. Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt Noooooooo!  Look! Up there! 05:07, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Grew up in the deep south, but ADHD meant my folks didn't really take me to church. I was vaguely religious until late high school/early college when I began to pay attention to more stuff. Then I started reading around and thinking a bit and, along the way, found the videos of Aron Ra and some of the other atheist youtubers who did rebuttals to creationism. It was around this time, too, that the 2008 elections were incoming so it was giving me a lot to look at the effects of the religious right. So what with one thing and another, I just basically don't even think about religion except when religious people are doing hinky shit or sometimes when I'm mopping floors for a couple of hours and want to give my brain something to chew on. --Maxus (talk) 05:19, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I was on the road to Damascus to kill atheists when a sudden light appeared before me and I heard a voice saying, "why do you persecute me?", to which I replied, "who are you?". This voice, emanating from the light, answered, "I am Christopher Hitchens, whom you are persecuting? Now get up and do into the city. You will be told what to do." Did I forget to mention that I was in ward 5 in Broadmoor at the time this took place?--Levi Ackerman (talk) 10:41, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I became an atheist when I became an Anti-American anti-jingoist anti-Traditional Values ultra-communist . Religion is the opium of the masses. TheAmazingSkeptic (talk) 09:54, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I was born in Sweden in a non religious family. So I was theist by default and I have never found a reason to reject it.--TheGrandmother (talk) 12:31, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I am a fan of Sweden, quite a few fellow ultra-communist anti-Traditional Values anti-jingoist atheist comrades. ☭ TheAmazingSkeptic (talk) 14:37, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Unfortunatley that is being slowly erroded away. More and more parties are starting to drift closer to the Sweden Democrats.--TheGrandmother (talk) 15:03, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * In Berlin too, reactionary white people will push but my comrades will push back. TheAmazingSkeptic (talk) 15:47, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It's sad, I was planning on making my emergency escape if Trump won to Sweden. This no longer looks as viable.  I guess I'm still working on my svenska for a visit to that former utopia.  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:53, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The Western far right has been emboldened this year. TheAmazingSkeptic (talk) 16:02, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * @ikanreed: You can join me in my escape to Chile in case the nothern heimsphere decides to actually jump the shark. Chile seems to be a fairly nice place (social democrats) with a high standrd of living. Chile is also of low strategic importance so it might be a nice place to hangout if the bear and the eagel decides to throw down. --TheGrandmother (talk) 16:36, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I regularly went to Catholic Mass as a child, and it never really occurred to me that it was true stuff. They read stories from a book to us, and I kinda treated it the same way I treated stories read to me by elementary school teachers.  Even so, I recall when I went in for the rite of first confession, got a piece of paper listing common sins to confess, the highest of which was "Doubting God" and the priest was utterly aghast when I asked if not believing in god at all was a sin too.  It didn't even occur to me that others wouldn't have the same thought.
 * Later he tried to build my enthusiasm for church with singing "He's got the whole world in his hand" and my mind literally interpreting that made me realize just how silly the whole concept of religion was. Obviously it wasn't intended as literal, but I could see everyone around me taking it seriously.  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:33, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Off-key overenthusiastic singing in the local evangelical church in addition with convulsions and "speaking in tongues" killed any remnant of faith I might have had. But I do have some remnant fondness for some buildings or imagery. After all, making a sheep badass is impressive. Worzelpete (talk) 18:21, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Raised in the United Methodist Church doing bible camp, Sunday school, youth group retreats, all of it. The UMC tends to be moderate and tolerant, so I had "Jesus loves everyone", platinum rule values drilled into me. In my mid teens sermons started sounding the same, I got into sci-fi literature (had a huge effect on me), I got tired of self-shaming, and being a decent person for fear of hell and because God wanted me to seemed a lot shallower than doing it on intrinsic motivation. I started to think my church was encouraging learned helplessness ("put it in God's hands and pray about it"), and I hated that. By senior year of high school I was an atheist, but I hid it from my parents for several more years because my mother was quite devout. B) talk 19:16, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I grew up in a religious household and was actually quite religious throughout my youth and early adulthood. I regularly attended church and youth group, I read the bible (more on that later), did bible study at least once a week, etc. When I went to college, I became a small group leader, and I took New Testament Greek so that I could read the bible in its original language. At the same time, I have always been passionate about science. For some reason the two never seemed to be at odds (I suspect a good bit of confirmation bias was going on there). However, as I read more of the bible and thought more critically about it, issues started to arise that no one had good answers to, not even my theology professors, who were very intelligent people with PhDs. To my surprise, there seemed to not be any good answers to my questions, and all of the arguments coming from the atheist side were way more reasonable and evidence based. Eventually I realized that I couldn't honestly say I believed in a god anymore and was then an atheist. (please fix any formatting I messed up, I'm new to this whole wiki thing) 20:46, 28 October 2016

I was an atheist from about age 12 to 24, but when I realized it was just commie propaganda, I ditched it. nobs 03:01, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks guys, this was informative for me!- 04:58, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Lol, seriously nob? Atheism predates Marx's date of birth, ya know. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 03:25, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * From Adam to Marx, athieism was fringe quackery. Marx made athieism gospel.nobs 00:44, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd say that ignores several prominent Greek and Enlightenment philosophers, the whole freethought movement, plus Buddha. Also, while I'm not an atheist by any regular definition, I'd say Marx was right about religion being commonly used by the ruling class(es) as an opium for the masses. But that people's faith is misused by others doesn't make it invalid. By the way, what time period are you referring to with "From Adam (to)"? About 200,000-300,000 years ago? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 01:08, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Wow. Read that in its entirety (almost) and found this:


 * Wouldn't it be more accurate to say, revised downward, rather than corrupt young minds with the moral judgement 'science' has 'corrected' this estimate? I don't know enough know about it or feel confident to alter this eggregious error and propagandizing.nobs 02:09, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * For all their talk of reason and skepticism, they do love to present their most updated hypotheses in absolutist language (plus attach their personal name to everything). When are they gonna put 2 and 2 together and figure out the human brain isn't capable of processing the absolute truth to any reliable extent? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 05:33, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

So to the others raised as religious(especially christian)
Did you get any weird sex guilt? I never did, which is particularly odd for a Catholic, but maybe it's because I lived in a college town. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:27, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Weird sex guilt isn't necessarily religious. 19:41, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * True. I suffered from an absolutely crippling pornography addiction when I was a teenager. The majority of the guilt was religious, but some was other people's expectations, social reasons, etc. The shame never pushed me to kick it, only did that after a sober evaluation of the effect it was having on my life. I never had a chance for any religious guilt about sex with partners, that didn't come until after I left the faith B) talk 20:17, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, no, and maybe. Raised Catholic yes, but catholicism is a gospel of works, not grace, hence bogus, an agency of Satan (I can say that as an ex-Catholic; if a Protestant says it, I'll get offended) and decieves people with the Satanic idea that God is against sex. Then I spent many years wondering in the wilderness of atheism. Then God saw fit to save me, so I accepted. Praise God! He invented pussy, after all.nobs 00:52, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Jill Stein takes a stand against oppression from comedians
Source:

Translation: John Oliver criticized me and it hurt. Reminder: this woman is a candidate for the highest office. Good job tarnishing your relationship when you had your best shot, Green Party. 18:27, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Jeez, did she just Donald Trump out at being made fun of? ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:51, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Aside from the kinda whimpish phrasing "begin having honest conversations about", yeah, it's a typical Trump U-Turn trying to twist the situation around in her political favour. I've seen a bunch of groan-worthy 'humour' in the media about the election (When are they gonna get tired of the "small hands" thing?) but the John Oliver segment mainly just listed (pretty valid) criticisms about Stein, so concerns about 'oppressive comedy' aren't even in play here. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 19:25, 31 October 42016 AQD (UTC)
 * There's a point in there. Or two.
 * It's an interesting discussion at least on two different levels.
 * Metadiscourse, or the deceptive use of comedy: "it's very sly [but it is] deceptive bullshit [...] he's using comedy to confuse the truth"
 * Matters, banks, quantitative easing etc. ::Take a look. ~ Aneris 19:29, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * In English please! --Levi Ackerman (talk) 20:02, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * In English please! --Levi Ackerman (talk) 20:02, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

It is very unbecoming of her to refer to being mocked as oppression, especially the part about minorities and indigenous folks: it's very, dare I say it, "SJW" (God, I feel sick having to use that meaningless buzzword). It also shows what a noob she is. Most experienced politicians don't pay these things any mind, or when they do, they point out where the errors and/or misunderstandings re their positions are. For her to cry "oppression" just shows she's not a serious candidate for the WH. And I haven't even seen the skit.

I will say this about these so-called satirists: they hardly, if ever, criticise the Democrats in the reductionist way they do other parties. They always pull their punches. That says quite a lot. --Levi Ackerman (talk) 20:09, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, to be fair, back when it was a term used by people concerned with social justice, rather than how it's used now by aneris types "SJW" referred to people who'd use the language and concepts of social justice a rhetorical cudgel to "win" fights. Things like playing the "I'm more oppressed than you, so my concerns are more important"(the so-called Oppression Olympics) or "You're part of an empowered group therefor I'm right and you're wrong"  It makes a lot more sense as something to despise than the vague group of people who could generally agree that society has systemic problems.  In that legacy usage, this is pretty much straight-up exactly what people talked about.  "As a green party I'm marginalized, you can't make fun of me!"  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:37, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppression Olympics? We just called it Misery Poker. CorruptUser (talk) 20:51, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * @ikanreed, I guess, then, that my referral to Stein as an "SJW" is apropos.--Levi Ackerman (talk) 21:04, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Alternative Universe again? Could it be, that I'm defending her, and you accuse her of being an "SJW"? What the heck! This Halloween goes a bit too far. However, it was always used as a cudgel in the recent years since the SJW term is in use. It's not that it mysteriously changed a few days ago. ~ Aneris 04:33, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand, I'm using you as an example of the kind of person who uses the term "SJW" to whine about people you disagree with, since you've done that plenty around here. Not specifically related to Stein.  Hope that helps.  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Stein is an idiot who should a) shut her whiny mouth and b) learn to take a joke. Worzelpete (talk) 21:07, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * A little harsh to label her an idiot. She and Johnson are putting themselves out there trying to break the Democrats and Republicans' monopoly of the American political system. Also, why should she shut her "whiny mouth". I always find it amusing when people tell others to shut up. How will you be able to learn one's position and scrutinise accordingly if they do not reveal them? Lastly, "learn to take a joke"? Personally, I feel she should have ignored it, because it's not as if comedians like John Oliver care about both sides of the argument; they largely pander to their audience, most of whom are Democrats, or independents who vote Democrat. Nevertheless, the entire skit was aimed at dismissing Stein completely by focusing on the most "out there" or "radical" of her policies. Well, couldn't you do that with all of the candidates - Hillary included? (Well, probably not Hillary. She's as "moderate" as they come.) Therefore, Stein was entitled to respond. Her response just happened to be piss-poor, and, without mincing words, pathetic! A good response would, perhaps, have been to invite herself to John Oliver's show to clarify her position. Engaging in oppression olympics (I like the sound of that), however, was just....No! Bad Jill! Bad! --Levi Ackerman (talk) 09:26, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * If one is to dismiss a candidate, do you suggest it's effective to do it based on their "moderate" or "predictable" policies? Ignoring Trump's psychological issues, aren't those opposing him likely doing so largely for his "radical" policies? One could try to dismiss Clinton on the basis of hers, too; except, she's as malleable in the face of public opinion as silly putty, and as you yourself state, barring the obvious points of contention between right and left in the US, she doesn't have many radical policies. She's the picture of a moderate. She tossed the most "radical" planks into her platform in response to Sanders supporters' saying she wasn't progressive enough. Finally, Stein is "entitled" to nothing, and we should let idiocy be so labelled when it appears. She has precious little actual experience in government; she has shown herself to be incompetent in terms of public image (her response to Oliver, for example); she either believes pushing anti-vax and other bullshit will broaden her appeal (here's a hint, Jill: are your more popular competitors doing this?), or she doesn't deserve her Harvard Med degree; she is doing a piss-poor job of working to break that monopoly (perhaps she should get on the campaign trail to win a broader audience instead of spray-painting bulldozers?). If her goal is truly to disrupt the two-party system, she's doing it about as deftly as my cat repeatedly butting his head against a screen door. B) talk 17:19, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * (incoming Godwin) "Well sure, it's easy to make fun of Hitler based on his anti-Semitism and his war-mongering, but have you taken a look at his economic policies? And he has some quite interesting things to say on infrastructure. You are just dismissing him based on his most out there positions". I liked Oliver's piece. Could he have gotten into more detail? Of course. Is his point a bit exaggerated? That's the point in comedy. But I think the issue he raised - vote for someone only after you really know what they stand for, not just because you think they cannot be worse than the other option is an important one. Every election is a vote on the least of several evils. Thankfully in many places it's more than two. But just because you think the top two choices are unappealing to you does not mean that the third or fourth choice are necessarily better. It is still your responsibility as an adult to inform yourself. Worzelpete (talk) 01:21, 2 November 2016 (UTC)


 * If you're going to Godwin, at least do it properly, after some research perhaps.


 * You say, "Well sure, it's easy to make fun of Hitler based on his anti-Semitism and his war-mongering, but have you taken a look at his economic policies? And he has some quite interesting things to say on infrastructure. You are just dismissing him based on his most out there positions". I know it's meant to be a flippant comment, but anyone who has studied the history of the Third Reich and the rise to power and eventual seizure of power of the NSDAP, would tell you that the Nazi's anti-Semitism and war-mongering were among the least of their most radical policies when they "renounced" violence and decided to embrace the political process. This possibly why the main parties - the SDP, the Catholics et al - did not attack them for it. There was already an undercurrent of anti-Semitism: the Jews were blamed for inequality in terms of wealth, loss of the Great War and the Great Depression and Nazis capitalised on this. Their economic policies were in far more radical than their anti-Semitism. That's not to say that there weren't elements of their particular brand of anti-Semitism that were not radical, for example, their volkisch brand of anti-Semitism. What made them even more radical was the fact that here was a far-right party espousing ideas that were usually the domain of the left (Soundfamiliar?). Just read their manifesto or 25-point programme. Aside from that poor analogy, I agree with you.--Levi Ackerman (talk) 07:07, 2 November 2016 (UTC)--Levi Ackerman (talk) 09:04, 2 November 2016 (UTC)


 * @B, I don't even know where to begin, so I guess I'll start at the beginning (as you do).
 * You claim, "If one is to dismiss a candidate, do you suggest it's effective to do it based on their "moderate" or "predictable" policies? Ignoring Trump's psychological issues, aren't those opposing him likely doing so largely for his "radical" policies?". My reply is this, isn't Hillary's moderation the reason why Bernie almost gave her a run for her money. Isn't it why she is so unpopular (in addition to her corruption)? Hasn't she been dismissed by some on the left (not far-left) because of her "moderate" or "predictable" policies. Now, let's look at the other side of the spectrum. Were not their "moderate" or "predictable" policies the reasons why Cruz (Christian fundamentalism and desire to abolish the IRS aside), Jeb!, Little Marco et al, lost to the far more radical Donald Trump. Yes, there are those opposing Trump likely because of his "radical" policies, but there are also a large section, even on the left, even who voted for Obama in 2008, and would normally vote currently Democrat who are supporting Trump because of his "radical" policies. So, it goes both ways.


 * " She tossed the most "radical" planks into her platform in response to Sanders supporters' saying she wasn't progressive enough.", you claim. Name one example please! I hear this a lot! "Bernie has pushed Hillary further to the left!" Ha! How? What is she saying now that she wasn't saying before? Is she now in favour of single-payer? Is she in favour of free college (which I am not in favour of by the way)? Is she now against intervention in Syria? Is she now in favour of breaking up the big banks? Is she now in favour of bringing back Glass Diegel? How has Bernie pulled her to the left? Let's face it, he lost and his ideas/policies are not going to be adopted by her administration, his endorsement notwithstanding. The whole "Bernie pulled Hillary further to the left" is just smoke and mirrors and spin. I see the same kind of bogus Jedi mind trick here in England (the Labour Party's nomination of Corbyn during Labour Leadership Election 2015, which backfired spectacularly, was an effort to widen the debate. They didn't actually expect him to win).


 * "Finally, Stein is entitled to nothing", you say, as if I was claiming in any way that she was entitled to respect, or something. All I said was she was entitled to respond. Surely, we can agree about that, because, if for no other reason, Freedom of Expression. Also, that's what you do when someone calls you out! You respond (if you think that person and/or claim is worth your time)! --Levi Ackerman (talk) 09:04, 2 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Your point that it goes both ways is a valid one. Certainly you or I can decide to rule out a candidate for whichever reason we like. That doesn't imply that all lines of political thought are equally common. A politician can often gain support by moving towards the center, in order, of course, to appeal to the largest possible number of people. In a polarized political climate (like the current American one), this can backfire; it does remain a common strategy though. Clinton embodies it. If someone like Oliver is going to attempt to dismiss a candidate, it's highly likely that doing so on the basis of their more unusual (read: radical) policies will be more effective than otherwise.


 * "Name one example please!" This article names a few.


 * "The whole 'Bernie pulled Hillary further to the left' is just smoke and mirrors and spin." Aren't political platforms themselves often smoke and mirrors? How well do politicians typically deliver on their promises? Not too well. When I suggest Hillary was pulled to the left, I don't mean to say she went through some sort of ideological epiphany, or that Sanders' policies will be adopted by a Clinton administration. I mean to say she realized there were dissatisfied people on the left to whom she should at least pretend to listen, and she is now doing so.


 * "All I said was she was entitled to respond." You stated a premise ("Nevertheless, the entire skit was aimed at dismissing Stein completely by focusing on the most 'out there' or 'radical' of her policies"), and then stated a conclusion ("Therefore, Stein was entitled to respond") that doesn't follow. The conclusion's assertion itself is correct, but all it takes to reach it is to acknowledge, as you do, that Stein lives in a country in which she's free to express herself. I apologize for my wording; I should have said, "that does not entitle her to anything." B) talk 15:20, 2 November 2016 (UTC)


 * This is going to be a long-winded response. You've been warned!
 * Let us examine some of this claims, written by what I suspect is another pro-Clinton/pro-Democratic hack:
 * Claim 1: Hillary’s current college proposal is a response to Bernie’s campaign. The article claims, Mrs. Clinton announced a debt-free college proposal that mirrored Mr. Sanders‘ plan. However, if you go to Hillary’s website, in an article dated 08 April 2016, months before Sanders conceded, you will see that Hillary’s proposal now her proposal then. Nothing has changed:


 * (https://www.hillaryclinton.com/feed/how-much-would-hillary-clintons-debt-free-college-plan-save-you-even-if-youve-already-graduated/, April 8 2016)


 * So, you see, her current plan re college was always her plan. It hasn’t changed, as confirmed by this article: http://uk.businessinsider.com/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-education-college-affordability-2016-2. The conclusion, therefore is this: Bernie didn't do shit!


 * Claim 2: Hillary has adopted, as result of Bernie, a health care proposal that would institute a “public option”.


 * The article also claims Hillary embraced the “public option” as a result of Bernie, or at least implies it, but as you can see, from this article, Hillary had been in favour of a “public option” as early as Dec 2015, when the race wasn’t even on, talk less of close: https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/health-care/. Here’s an excerpt from the webpage:


 * Conclusion: Again, Bernie didn’t do shit!


 * Claim 3: The Democrats adopted in its platform Mr. Sanders‘ call for a $15-an-hour federal minimum wage. Notice how it says “The Democrats” and not “Hillary”. Regardless, here is an excerpt from Hillary’s website, which was published in March 2016:


 * So, as this article, http://www.attn.com/stories/11192/hillary-clintons-stance-on-minimum-wage, published in Sep 2016 - after the race was over, makes clear, Clinton is in favour of a $12 federal minimum wage, but she supports efforts to raise the wage to $15 per hour, as recently approved in cities such as Los Angeles and New York.


 * Conclusion: Again, Bernie didn’t do shit:, Hillary is still in favour of $12, but she believes, as she always did, even before Bernie entered the scene, that it should eventually rise to $15.


 * Claim 4: As a result of Bernie's influence, Hillary calls for stronger action on climate change.


 * The article is not specific as to how Hillary’s climate change position has changed in response to Bernie. Both agree, broadly, on climate change. Their one area of substantive difference is fracking. Hillary is pro-fracking. Bernie, like many on the left, is not. Has Hillary’s position changed? No, not really. She still supports heavily regulated fracking. So, claim 4 is bullshit.


 * Claim 5: Claim 5: As a result of Bernie, Hillary now proposes “…a pathway to the legalisation of marijuana”


 * This one is just false. Whereas Sanders supports legalisation of marijuana, Hillary has not come out in favour of it. Personally, I don’t even think she wants to legalise it. But, this is her current position: she’ll continue the Obama Administration’s enforcement guidelines that allow states to experiment with marijuana and she wants to move marijuana from as a Sch. I drug to a Sch. II (https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/criminal-justice-reform/).


 * Conclusion: Bernie didn’t do shit!


 * Overall conclusion: contrary to what the hack who wrote this article says, Bernie has not left his mark on Hillary Clinton’s campaign and/or the Democratic Party. Bernie came, he fought, valiantly so, and he lost. Him and his supporters will not get anything but what Hillary gives them. That’s the sad but unyielding truth of politics. Look, I'm not saying Hillary's positions/policies are bad. However, to paraphrase a line from the Simpsons that has stayed with me since I first heard it, "don't spit on my cupcake and call it sprinkles". In other words, don't (I don't me you specifically. I mean hacks like these) lie to me and others in order to trick us into voting for Hillary by claiming she has adopted some of Bernie's policies, when the cold hard truth is she hasn't. Just be truthful, Bernie and Hillary met in the public sphere, and his ideas lost. --Levi Ackerman (talk) 09:58, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll be succinct :)
 * In my original post, I think my claim that Clinton added "planks" (policies recorded in a written medium and from a primary source, such as her website) to her platform was indeed wrong. You offer good counterpoints to the claims made in that article I linked to. Rather than adding planks to her platform, perhaps I should have said she made subtle changes to her rhetoric. As I stated in my second post, however, my primary point was and remains that "there were dissatisfied people on the left to whom [Clinton realized she] should at least pretend to listen, and she is now doing so." Note the word "pretend". As for that ridiculous article I cited; my mistake. I Googled the topic, then confirmation bias took over and I posted one of the first hits I saw. Turns out, upon more investigation, that news outlet seems to lean right. As in, far enough right to list Newt Gingrich as a trusted source. It sounds like you got the impression the author was a left-leaning hack trying to trick you into voting for Hillary.
 * No doubt, though, there certainly are those doing exactly that. I am not one of those people. Nowhere in this thread, in fact, do I advocate or discourage voting for any candidate, save to say that Jill Stein often acts like my cat, who often acts like an idiot.
 * Sanders' "supporters will not get anything but what Hillary gives them." I agree. Which leads me to say...
 * ...as I said before, political platforms and campaigns are very much smoke and mirrors. If Joe Bob thinks he's found "cold hard truth" amid what politicians say, then at best it's a convincing theory. At worst, he's being duped.
 * In response to "Just be truthful, Bernie and Hillary met in the public sphere, and his ideas lost": that misrepresents the workings of politics. Of course it's useful to compare the ideas of different politicians, but politics - even democratic politics - is not a gilded arena in which heroes conjure ethereal forms called "ideas", pit them against one another on their merits alone, crown victorious the one for which the "public sphere" roars the loudest, and throw the rest to the lions. Sanders' campaign 1) began at least in part as a result of and 2) has advanced causes stemming from a growing sense of dissatisfaction with the Democratic Party among the American left. Will die-hard Sanders supporters jump for joy if Clinton is sworn in? Probably not. Was Sanders' campaign a total failure for the American left? Probably not, as it's generated both momentum for and awareness of lines of political thought which, before now, the rightward drift of American politics seems to have concealed from the broader public for quite some time. Conclusion: Bernie did (some) shit!
 * Lastly - I'm a friend! Nobody here's out to get you! At least I'm not. Also, sorry for editing your post, I just fixed the indenting so it's easier to follow the conversation. B) talk 22:54, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Who's Jill Stein again?nobs 01:12, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Plutoniumboss (talk) 02:12, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

How Donald Trump Got Rich: A Capitalist Tale!
Have you ever wondered how Donald Trump became a billionaire?

This story reveals the secret to his vast wealth: free-market hard-working capitalism.

Donald J. Trump grew up as a kid in New York City. One summer day, his father said to him.

“Donald, when you grow up, you’re going to have to work hard to make a living in this world. I suggest you get a head start now and find a job.”

So little Donald started making money by redeeming glass bottles at the local recycling center for 5 cents each. (This was before we discovered that global warming was a Chinese hoax created to destroy America.) Each day, he would make the long walk to the factory carrying as many bottles as he could carry.

Soon, he had enough money to buy a large basket, allowing him to take far more bottles with him each time. It wasn’t long before he had enough cash to purchase a wagon, further expanding his capabilities.

After several weeks of this, Donald decided to expand. He began to hire neighborhood kids to carry bottles to the recycling center for him. This significantly increased his income. He was now able to equip each of his young employees with the same equipment he had purchased for himself earlier.

Then his father gave him a million dollars. The end.

--TeslaK20 (talk) 06:56, 2 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Cool story, bro. --Levi Ackerman (talk) 14:04, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Truly an inspirational tale for all American children! Well, all American children of millionaires, that is. RoninMacbeth (talk) 15:20, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I can't wait for the sequels, Running Casinos, Bankruptcy for Fun and Profit and The Art of Seduction. 90.206.201.71 (talk) 15:37, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe he could get Roosh V to help him write the last one. :-) RoninMacbeth (talk) 15:44, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Only in America! Any idiot with a million dollars can become a Billionaire! nobs 09:40, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Dull! Sad! I don't want to say it but… you left out the robbing, raping and pillaging. Bongolian (talk) 02:03, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Plus Side to decreasing edit counts?
Hey, maybe we're going to get enough of a hive mind going again to avoid chicken coops. Wouldn't that be wonderful? ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:37, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * We are the Borg. Resistance is futile. Prepare to be assimilated.- 21:33, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I feel something that is, I suspect, rather similar to the sensation you call "amusement".  03:07, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

There's an infowars ad in my local paper, takes up a lot of space too.
It's hilariously ironic as well, as the ad carries a quote from 1984 as the first sentence. Do you think the printing source will care if I tell them? Or do you think they already know? I just don't know how common this is. I'd prefer my fellow townsfolk to not be exposed to mountains of bullshit, but most of them had Trump signs up since May and watch Fox News daily, so I doubt my effort would go to good use. Still though, would rather there be less "flat-out" racists in my area. megalodon (talk) 21:09, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Newspapers often carry completely nutzoid advertisements because full-page ads pay so well. The New York Times, Washington Post and other major dailies do this when some rich crank wants to publicize their descent into insanity. You're not likely to convince the the paper's publisher about anything, but you could probably get a letter to the editor published if you don't mind getting your name published. Bongolian (talk) 21:48, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * There's a full page ad in Popular Science that is so blatantly water woo, I thought it was a prank.- 23:38, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Next Parody Book Cover...oh wait
So, here's the next conservative Christian book:



But on closer inspection of a review...

Nathan Lean, author of The Islamophobia Industry: How the Right Manufactures Fear of Muslims

Could it be??? It's come full circle! Lord Aeonian (talk) 06:54, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * "Lol. Well, New Atheists are as deranged as any religious extremist, ever." (Can you say ""? ) Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, I love the immediate crank declaration made right on the back of the book. Notably, "Werleman demonstrates how, instead of championing empirical evidence and reason, today's New Atheists promote white supremacy, anti-Muslim bigotry, secular fundamentalism, and thus have become the unwitting pawns of the military-industrial-complex, the homeland-security-industrial complex, Zionism, and U.S. imperialism."
 * Remind me when Daniel Dennett last supported white supremacism? Also, accusations of not championing "empirical evidence and reason" (or of promoting bigotry and hate) won't be directed towards the religious people, I'm sure. A regressive leftist if I ever saw one. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:28, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Has anyone actually read the book? Or are you all simply judging it by its cover? I thought people - rational people - weren't supposed to do that. By the way, I'm no fan of Werleman, but let's not act as if New Atheists aren't guilty of some of what he has, in the past, accused them of. Most notably, peddling anti-Muslim bigotry, promoting interventionism and torture in some cases, and supporting Israel, not because they believe in that absurd concept of home of the Jews, but because they don't like Islam. --Levi Ackerman (talk) 12:50, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course there is, in fact, tons of nuance to all of these issues. The point is, Werleman doesn't agree. He just equated Daniel Dennett with Osama bin Laden. Let's dignify that statement by not ignoring it. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:58, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Hold on a sec. First you say imply that he called Daniel Dennett a white supremacist. Now, you say he equated him to Osama Bin Laden? If this is true, then Werleman is all over the place in his criticism of Dennett. If it isn't then you are in your criticism of Werleman. And let's be fair to Werleman, he isn't accusing the Four Horsemen of being White supremacists. He is merely saying their "obsession" with Islam has provided tools with which white supremacists and other "deplorables" can sound more intellectual whilst basically spewing the same hateful and xenophobic crap. Notice I didn't say "racist" - because Islam isn't a race. But I do consider what is referred to as "Islamophobia" - i.e. the fear of the Islam (yes, it is a thing!) xenophobic.--Levi Ackerman (talk) 13:13, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The New Atheist movement is defined by the four horsemen — Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris and Dennett. Werleman decides to rally against the entire banner of "New Atheism", which is already an irresponsibly simplified take. Werleman is about a three letter word away from being against the entire modern project of organized unapologetic Atheism, it would seem. Just like when people who claim to argue against ISIS still insist on using the word "Islam" as the focal point of their criticisms, as if those two were interchangeable terms (they're not). And notice how he uses the qualifier "any" in the Twitter quote. He literally says that any person who identifies as a New Atheist is exactly as deranged as any religious extremist, ever (throughout all of history). That statement is simply stupidly false, and incredibly hateful at that. Any — including the least problematic — New Atheist is as bad as any — including the worst — religious extremist in all of history, with no degrees of separation. Let the duplicity of that statement sink in. What, is he fucking wasted while Tweeting or something? Furthermore, he is literally accusing the New Atheists of promoting (his chosen word) white supremacy. Notice that I'm not defending the New Atheist movement (I would probably be counted among the Atheist+ movement, though I don't subscribe to any movement, personally). I don't need to. It's enough to just examine Werleman's outlook and realise that he is being impossibly black-and-white in his approach to this subject. And citing examples of individual New Atheists doing the same doesn't change a thing. Also, just out of curiosity, why on Earth would you assume that I don't think islamophobia is a thing?! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:30, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I wasn't making any assumptions as to whether you think Islamophobia is a thing? I promise. I apologise if it came across that way.--Levi Ackerman (talk) 14:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Since you said "Yes, it is a thing!", I thought you were pre-supposing that I didn't think this was the case. No harm done, anyway. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:13, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Here are a few quotations: "Some critics argue Harris's writings are profoundly bigoted against Muslims and extremist vis-a-vis torture and civil liberties. [...] Harris' stance on Islam is often indistinguishable from Michelle Malkin, a batshit ideologue. ["a particularly vile far-right US political pundit."] [...] Ali is a rabid critic of Islam and multiculturalism [...] Ali is unlike classic wingnuts in that she splits her time fairly evenly between offering genuine, important critiques of Islam and being a raving Islamophobe, although unfortunately it appears that lately she's been slowly moving from the 'legitimate criticism' camp to the 'jihadis are everywhere' group that the AEI attracts. Whether her beliefs are moving further into outright bigotry, or if she's playing to the crowd, is anyone's guess. [...] Like many rabid Islam-critics, she's a fanatical supporter of Israel. [...] Legitimate criticisms of Dawkins [...] Theoretical physicist Peter Higgs (that Higgs) criticized him in December 2012 for his anti-religious "fundamentalism" [...] Dawkins' Islamophobia finally reached comical levels And so on and so on. Oh wait, they are taken from the RationalWiki. Also, Werleman's views are pretty mainstream in US "third wave" social justice atheism and are similar to what the crowds at Freethought Blogs etc believe. The faction for example insinuated Richard Dawkins was a white supremacist because he is fond of white blokes like Shakespeare, Schubert, Einstein or Darwin (that episode was surrounding #CosmicTombstone). RationalWiki is not in the position to be critical of CJ Werleman and it looks dishonest to me, in particular when this has been pointed out many times before and was dismissed. ~ Aneris 15:02, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


 * As is so often the case with you, Aneris, you treat "RationalWiki" as a singular entity (and one that has a voice of its own), not as the medium for tons of various, differing voices over time that it actually is. Has it ever occured to you that quite a few editors aside from yourself have a list, sometimes a long list, of articles they'd wish to rewrite (slightly or greatly)? If you suppose that the reason they don't just spring into action is what you refer to as "dragging of the feet", you ought to factor in that most of us don't have infinite amounts of time and energy avaliable. A part of collegiality is also the practice of simply picking one's battles, instead of feeling entitled to forcing one's view on everyone in every context, all the time. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:13, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * But the RationalWiki is a singular entity, and each one article per subject exist. I once suggested to have multiple viewpoints, which was rejected. The RationalWiki establishes that it is run by one mobocracy (even when it is always composed of different editors). Further, several clearly react with mockery when such views as Werleman's are presented as external, but you get defensive when the criticism is internal. I see no way to argue about these things. Aside, you are then moving then goal post around. ~ Aneris 17:02, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Hey Levi, I wanted to ask some things of you from your Western perspective: He is merely saying their "obsession" with Islam has provided tools with which white supremacists and other "deplorables" can sound more intellectual whilst basically spewing the same hateful and xenophobic crap. What does this mean? Why use this particular appeal to consequences, out of all of them? By this logic we could easily say that criticism of Christianity would fuel anti-Christian mobs in the 3rab world. An even better question to ask is why arguments against Islam and their results are never mentioned in the context of the Desi world, where Hinduvta mobs can and do use them as a pretext for very real and large scale violence against Muslim minorities in some parts of India. Violence on the scale that I've never seen in the West against them, to be honest. I just haven't. Why isn't that mentioned?

And another issue, what is an "obsession with Islam?" If they only attacked Christianity, no matter how questionably, I'm sure the SJWs and regressive left would line up behind up. Why? In Europe and North America the most the Christ-worshipers can do is protest and complain over laws, wheras in my country and many others the religious fanatics actively kill without government assistance - though they have the government's support in most cases! So wouldn't it seem reasonable for the non-religious of the world to focus their efforts on Islam?

See, from my perspective, you're all so myopic and Euro-centric you really think that what some elderly white guys in the UK think is the most important factor in how to gauge the effects of these things. There is an entire world outside of the West - and one not nearly as spoiled. Lord Aeonian (talk) 22:12, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Well clearly atheist extremists are the problem. Just yesterday I had to witness another stoning of an apostate who had left atheism and was thus put to death. And today I was awakened by an agnostical choir singing loud praises of no god in equally dissonant and enthusiastic fashion. If only we could eliminate atheism and keep it separate from the state, there'd be peace on earth. But the radical secular fundamentalists won't let us. Worzelpete (talk) 23:10, 24 October 2016 (UTC
 * [[File:Militant_atheist.jpg]]
 * This is what Werleman actually believes. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It's almost funny to joke about in the West, but since the regressives are so emotionally concerned about the well being of their declared minority groups (except Ahmadis, Hindus, Sikhs, etc ofc), | why don't we put a face on it? Lord Aeonian (talk) 23:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Erm... who are the Ahmadis? Do we have an article on them? CorruptUser (talk) 23:48, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Ahmadis are a community within the wider muslim community. Which is why the term "muslim community" - often bandied about, is so problematic.--Levi Ackerman (talk) 08:21, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

@Lord Aeonian. First of all, I'll ignore your use of those stupid buzzwords, "SJWs" and "regressive left" (you seem to have leapt on the bandwagon of calling anyone who isn't as vocifoerous in their criticism of Islam as you are that. As if only SJWs and the regressive left take issue with the over-focus New Atheist place on Islam), but I will address your larger point. You accuse us of being myopic and Eurocentric. Well, we are talking about Western commentators - Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, Werle et al. Indeed, the book we are speaking about is Western literature. So, I think a little tunnel vision is warranted in this regard. As for your other point -

"what is an "obsession with Islam?" If they only attacked Christianity, no matter how questionably, I'm sure the SJWs and regressive left would line up behind up. Why? In Europe and North America the most the Christ-worshipers can do is protest and complain over laws, wheras in my country and many others the religious fanatics actively kill without government assistance - though they have the government's support in most cases! So wouldn't it seem reasonable for the non-religious of the world to focus their efforts on Islam?"

"The most Christ-worshipers can do is protest and complain over laws"? Really? Enlighten yourself will you: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/02/us/robert-dear-planned-parenthood-shooting.html?google_editors_picks=true&_r=2. Protest and complain over laws is evidently NOT the most Christ-worshipers do! It's one thing to say Christians resorting to violence in the name of Christianity is fewer and far between especially when compared to Islamic fanatics in your country, it's another to deny its complete existence - which is what you have just done. A disingenuous assertion on your part.

As for my "appeal to consequences", if you had read my entire exchange with Black Reverend Percy and contextualised, instead of quote-mining, you would realise that I was explaining that Werle's link between the Four Horsemen and white supremacy is not entirely far-fetched. When Sam Harris comes out in his Islam-obsessed zeal to proclaim, "The people who speak most sensibly about the threat that Islam poses to Europe are actually fascists", who do you think that empowers? Who do you think that emboldens and helps? The Nation of Islam? As for why Hindutva mobs don't use these arguments as pretexts for very real and large scale violence against Muslim minorities, the answer is simple, these arguments haven't reached them yet - not that they even need them (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-34421417). --Levi Ackerman (talk) 09:08, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I would just like to point out that while there are many really stupid Sam Harris quotes to chose from, that particular quote right there is clearly a warning against conceding valid points to the forces of fascism. The New Atheists don't call ISIS "islamofascists" because they're such fans of fascism, don't you know. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:56, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The New Atheists emerged about ten years ago, and for most of the time they debated and argued with Christian believers. Another good decade before that was a heated conflict between proto-new-atheists and creationists (including the ID movement). In my view, New Atheism is a reaction to the growing religiousity in the Western world, which is itself a response to 9/11 and War on Terror. New Atheism was a reaction to all (monotheistic) religion, but in particular dealt with Chritianity. Its influence could be felt more directly in politics, science and education (e.g. Wedge Strategy) and most New Atheists were more familiar with its theological traditions. But that was “done” at some point as far as internet activism goes.     There is little to add when some famous person already made the point nine times eloquently, and it can be linked to at any time. Several authors go through “seasons” of what topics are currently on their plate. Sam Harris did Christianity. He was then taking on various other subjects, from spirituality to lying. Free Will was a major discussion a few years ago, and Harris chimed in with his own book. After that was through, and coinciding with growing terrorism from Muslims in Europe, he penned his first book on Islam with Maajid Nawaz. Now the conflict between so-called Regressive Left and New Atheist is also not entirely new. There was one episode before sometimes dubbed the “Accommodationist Wars” where believers-in-belief took issue with the “stridency” of New Atheists. They didn't have arguments before and preferred smearing and ad hominems in general. With the focus moving to Islam, they just got additional smear terms to disguise the fact that they have nothing to add.      Of course the struggle about priorities is also a classic in all “movements”. North and Western Europe (excluding Ireland) have tamed religions that are near deistic. The emergence of strongly pious Muslims is a new situation, which Americans simply don't get. European countries are super small and not every freak group can have their own cult in Backwater, Michgazona. Add other problems, and then consider that you cannnot ignore this even if you want to ignore the stove-fire. While we are at it with the Godwinning: The curtain on the far right also caught fire, even if you think the little stove fire is not an issue. One main difference is that people like Werleman are like Nazi Mitläufer. They pose as the well-adjusted “middle” and dislike disharmony and dispute, and smear everyone that steps out of line. When the problem grows, they are the first to support the Far Right's  “solving the problem”, as long as they do it somewhere else and they aren't annoyed with wiping their windows of human ashes every other day. Yes, this is precisely how I see many of my esteemed opponents, as little more than Mitläufers. Don't rock the boat, they say. And when everything is done, they claim to have not noticed anything. ~ Aneris  11:48, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm also under the impression that if the likes of Werleman wrote in the southern US during the first half of the 1800's, they'd worry about the "radical abolitionists" stirring the pot, or indeed if writing in India during British colonial rule in the first half of the 1900's, they'd lament the worrysome friction generated by Ghandi's protests with "calls for sanity". It's worrying to see them prefer non-abrasiveness over taking the fight, and it comes off as quite regressive indeed. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:01, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Why is it worrying to see them prefer non-abrasiveness over taking the fight? What has abrasiveness, the kind you see from Dawkins, Nawaz, Harris, Hirsi Ali etc, achieved thus far? Has it led to some sort of Islamic reformation? In my view, their abrasiveness has only served to further push away those they ought to be converting, while recruiting those they really shouldn't be affiliated with. I'll give you an example, Quilliam. Quilliam hosts a lot of events. Do you know who mainly attends these? White non-muslims. Yet Quilliam claims to be trying to start a reformation within Islam. There's something to be said there about preaching to the choir, but I digress. My point is, the approach of the  New Atheist leaves a lot to be desired. For one thing, they place far too big a burden on the role of religion and not enough on the role of politics. There seems to be an underlying thread that if religion were removed from the equation, all of the problems in the middle east, with terrorism etc, would go away--Levi Ackerman (talk) 14:57, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The fact of the matter is alot of the problems will. "Reforming" Islam may very well succeed in the short run, but religious conservatism is cyclical and affected by social and economic factors, i.e. the Golden Age of Arabia features a religious discourse most ulama decry as kufr today. "Reforming" Islam while keeping the beliefs will just cause another Salafi revival the next time anything goes wrong and people without critical thinking skills look towards the sunnah for answers once more. The only decent long term solution is thorough education, but in order to embrace this we must be first acknowledge the eradication of superstition and ignorance as a worthy goal - and the selfish, "got mine, fuck you" attitude of the western regressives is often in the way. Lord Aeonian (talk) 20:52, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * "An audience on the Left now frightens me nearly as much as an audience of Islamists does." Islamists! Those Huffington Post style "leftists" are fake, but through their excessive posturing have convinced themselves and others that this is actually a left wing position. No wonder that the left is now in a crisis thanks to such imbeciles, who applaud for the "bravery" of a Muslim fencer to wear hijab, but are silent or apologetic against a chess player who refuses to pander to Islamic dress code. ~ Aneris 22:24, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Western liberals seem to want to be both libertarian hyper-tolerant relativists and progressives fighting for a cause at the same time. Of course, the average SJW doesn't have an ideology as much as they have a "western imperialism is bad non-western stuff is good" mindset...which in itself wouldn't be too bad because it would recognize the very neo-colonial origins of the Salafi revival and the SJW's patronizing attitude towards the non-white religious, as if only Westerners have the intelligence to see through fairy tales and everyone else is regulated to ignorance which in turn can only be "respected" as part of their racial heritage. Of course even this they don't think through, as the majority of the world's Christians reside in Africa and Latin America and probably don't appreciate the attacks on conservative Christianity that the SJWs back, Lord Aeonian (talk) 23:22, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It gets entirely comical because the same people also view themselves as being into "intersectionality", which in their corrupted version just means "diversity" or is proxy for a "axis of oppression" ideology that has actually nothing to do with the concept as proposed by Crenshaw. Her idea is the exact opposite: she argued that black women are overlooked because they are often victim of black-on-black crimes, but the so-called antiracists turn a blind eye on it, because this might make them seem bigoted, or calling it out, might give ammunution to racists. And feminists also overlook them, because feminism is mostly shaped by educated women who attend women or gender studies and are likewise not interested to "go there". In other words, the same dynamics Crenshaw criticized now drive the so-called "Regressive Left" or so-called SJWs, yet they are the people who claim to be intersectional. It's really bizarre and just goes to show that maybe these people don't think at all. They are purely and selfishly driven by a primordial drive to look good to their flock (which incidentially is the original definition of SJW). ~ Aneris 23:45, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It's one of the reasons I really should stop dissecting their ideology to expose the numerous angles of contradictions; there really are no contradictions because there is no ideology. They don't go around debating on whether intersectionality (by definition a | popular front of sorts) is capable with cultural relativism, they don't go around arguing over whether or not progressives should incorporate Enlightenment rationality as opposed to "lived experience" narratives, and they certainly don't discuss any of this from a sociological or historical standpoint. All they do is go with whatever cultural attitudes are considered "liberal" at the moment and repeat them on social media for endless likes and applause. Lord Aeonian (talk) 00:12, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Here's an actual CJ Werlman quote: "I often err on the side of extreme rhetoric to make a point." TeslaK20 (talk) 17:30, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That's pretty much Sam Harris' entire shtick. He will say something extreme and when he gets picked up on it, he'll send you an email telling you you've smeared him. The poor misunderstood Sam Harris is what I like to call him. --Levi Ackerman (talk) 20:34, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll gladly accept that nuancing statement from Werleman. Assuming, of course, that that same right is extended to everyone else — including to Sam Harris. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:34, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Funny how everyone ignores that the reason that Salafism is now the dominant thread of Islam is that all successful progressive movements in Islam-dominated countries were uncomfortably leftist and Soviet-backed for US tastes and consequently eradicated ... so it's actually the US anti-commie paranoia that's to blame for the rise of Islamism, not anything inherent in Islam that somehow makes it magically incapable of a progressive interpretation (or magically prevents Islam-dominated countries from secularizing).
 * Islamic socialism used to be a thing, folks. Now all that's left are right-wing and theocratic regimes in the Middle East that are being propped up by the US, Germany and the UK among others. Great job, West. Islamic fundamentalism is a completely homegrown problem, and so is the Israel-Palestine conflict. That's hardly news, but still everyone goes on and on about how Islam is an inherently violent barbaric stone-age religion yadda yadda.
 * It's getting incredibly tedious and accomplishes nothing except alienating potential allies further, but if you try to be less antagonizing and even reach out to Muslims who you think could be converted to the side of social justice (if they aren't already on board, basically), without them necessarily having to give up religion altogether (which is quite a demand especially for Muslims living in certain countries, y'know), you're being labeled "regressive left". Yawn. Because saying anything about Islam but "KILL IT WITH FIRE!" – let alone distinguishing between Islam and jihadism – is apologetics. History? Nah, irrelevant, that's humanities fluff. Nuance is seriously going out the window these days. --91.7.8.175 (talk) 21:29, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * As a Latino, let me just point to Latin America, where the US has squashed everything even somewhat leftist for the better part of a century yet there are still leftists (some of them even in power) and religion has actually lost much of its role in politics in recent decades. Worzelpete (talk) 21:57, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

What you missed regarding the Salafi revival's Western origins is that 'progressive' Islam was not really coming up as much as outright secular forces. If anything, today we're seeing the largest amount of progressive reform movements since the Ottoman Empire decriminalized homosexuality in the mid 1800s. Lord Aeonian (talk) 00:47, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

My two cents
Allow me to quote from QualiaSoup's excellent video Lack of belief in gods:

Considering the above, I don't trust appeals to "militant atheism" or "atheist fundamentalism" in the sense that Werleman makes them. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:56, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * +1
 * Shabi DOO  18:45, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Now we see the violence inherent in the system! Christian Violence in the Name of Religion: The Pursuit of the Millennium & Europe's Inner Demons by Norman Cohn, for a corrective to the Christianity peaceful; Islam violent meme.
 * I've been following Werlman on Twitter for a few years and reading some of his material for that long. Disclosure: I'm an atheist my whole adult life; I'm 60 (and am happy and vain enough to report I look 45). He's a showboater. Just like all the Quilliam and other "reformed Muslims." Many -- not all -- in both cohorts are full of shit to varying degrees, in it for publicity, fame and money. C.J. overstates his case on occasion. But some of his material is true and useful. Ultimately, he is not my choice for critic of New Atheists, of which there are many better. ---Mona- (talk) 06:05, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Anyone else read this article?
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/the-rise-of-neo-geocentrism/ Rationalzombie94 (talk) 22:39, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks like it's been removed.--WMS (talk) 01:02, 4 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I guess so, I clicked on it just now and it was not there. It worked when I read it yesterday.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 16:39, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It's the dashes, yo. Link fixed.  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:46, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Although, I will confess, trying to make the anthropic principle into an analogue of geocentrism is pretty dumb. "By our nature, we must exist in a universe that allows us to exist" isn't a narcissistic assertion about how the universe requires us, it's based on the converse: we require the universe.  :-/  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:50, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

"Geocentrism" is a bad name for what Chopra puts out. Just because the philosophy is narcissistic doesn't mean that the quantum woo underlying it is. 17:00, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

It Appears Mike Has Too Much Freetime
So there is a big batch of new accounts apparently by mikemikev including some that directly reference trolling us and at least one attacking Joris in particular. What is the procedure for dealing with this? Arawn Emrys (talk) 12:40, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I would say ignore them until they start causing trouble, once they do drop the banhammer. Bubba41102Is reaching a breaking point 14:12, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Wait, do you mean all those awesome new accounts named for how awesome rationalwiki is? ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:06, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Ahahaha. Thanks for that, Ikanreed. 15:36, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Voting Democratic is "mortal sin," apparently
Remember, God is watching how you vote. I didn't think this was WIGO:E worthy, so I just thought I'd bring it up here. RoninMacbeth (talk) 15:44, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I can't support Trump -- he produces clothes of mixed fabrics and consumes shellfish. On the other hand, Clinton is a woman seeking political power -- also unbiblical. Tough choices. 16:38, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't forget there's such a thing as write-in candidates in America. Jesus for President! 141.134.75.236 (talk) 17:19, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm casting mine for Jason Giambi. Waiting to see how many vote for Harambe. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい ) 23:58, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, too bad for them. I've already committed a mortal sin since my last confession.  Guess I've got nothing to loooooooooooooooose. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:44, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh crap! What if saying that counts as confessing my sins!  Then I might be in danger from making a sane vote.  Uh... Jesus is dumb!  Blasphemy saves the day.  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:46, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * He never answered to the name Jesus, though, so maybe it doesn't count! 141.134.75.236 (talk) 17:24, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * ישוע is dumb too! ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:27, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Then again, Jesus was probably never actually God, so perhaps implying that insults to Jesus are blasphemy is in turn itself blasphemy. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 17:30, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Only "probably" not god? ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:44, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, there's some unknown parameters and semantic ambiguity to the question. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 18:19, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Why do Christians worship Jesus when God (swt) clearly said: And [beware the Day] when Allah will say, "O Jesus, Son of Mary, did you say to the people, 'Take me and my mother as deities besides Allah ?'" He will say, "Exalted are You! It was not for me to say that to which I have no right. If I had said it, You would have known it. You know what is within myself, and I do not know what is within Yourself. Indeed, it is You who is Knower of the unseen. I said not to them except what You commanded me - to worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord. And I was a witness over them as long as I was among them; but when You took me up, You were the Observer over them, and You are, over all things, Witness.

Every Christian is in mortal sin and blasphemy! Lord Aeonian (talk) 00:09, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, the Trinitarians and Binitarians. Also, Christ, you call that "clearly"? Is it this much of a word salad in Arabic too? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 00:30, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Alternative medical schools
I got a (crappy) start on it and I am aware I am missed some stuff while editing. Go ahead and pick it apart.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 23:59, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Stats (Oct 16)


20:26, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * So, total users rebounded, but edit counts continued to plummet to 2014 levels. Not promising, but that's life.  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:34, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I hold out hope that this is just the election pulling away users. 21:25, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Nope, it's me. I'm making them all go away.  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 21:31, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * What caused that big spike yearend 2012?nobs 01:27, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Just before my account was registered. Coincidence?  I don't think so!  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 03:17, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * So, it looks like the problem is just we need to edit more, or get more people to edit. The to-do list is a kilometer long, we might be able to start there. Or am I misinterpreting the data? RoninMacbeth (talk) 04:10, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The problem is that you're all a bunch of SJW fuckwits. 193.61.28.47 (talk) 10:50, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Wow, excellent contextless slur-gasm. 11:15, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I really need to avoid the talk pages at night. I was tired when I wrote that, so...yeah. Sorry for the word salad. RoninMacbeth (talk) 13:12, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Not you, the BoN whose feelings are really hurt. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 14:57, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Heh. Didn't even notice the BoN. lol. It's nice when they provide such constructive and eloquent criticisms, isn't it? RoninMacbeth (talk) 15:04, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, to be fair, there is at least one user who takes the same basic position with a bit more eloquence. Still feel like he's full of shit, mostly.  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:20, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

The monthly handwringing is kind of tiresome. Do these stats clearly indicate a "problem"? Not just an imagined problem because some numbers are different from what they were a while ago but something tangible? If there was a need to constantly expand, the obviously solution would be advertising, which we don't do because (as far as I can see) there isn't.  13:34, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Hillary and Huma
Had Hillary immediately fired Huma last Friday, this constitutional crisis would have been averted. But Hillary took the Nixon course of standing by loyal underlings, rather than throwing troublesome advisers overboard (as JFK did to Allen Dulles or Reagan to North & Poindexter).

Why did Hillary stand by Huma? Here's a parallel: In 1943 the FBI recorded First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt under surveillance with. It was leaked to the press. Eleanor Roosevelt arranged a sham marriage with a friend of her's,, to deflect criticism.

Huma married Anthony Weiner in 2010 in a ceremony presided over by another crazed sex pervert, Bill Clinton, as rumors abounded about Hillary's lesbianism. Huma & Weiner never were that close, evidently, as Huma spent most of her time travelling with Hillary, while Weiner was in Washington and New York sexting. Huma and Hillary's relationship started in 1994.

But now it's all starting to come together: the child sex trafficing in Haiti and the Virgin Islands, the Clinton Foundation and Jeffrey Epstein, etc. Now we know what advice Eleanor Roosevelt gave Hillary during her 1996 White House seance reported by Bob Woodward. nobs 21:20, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The conspiracy theories are coming from inside the wiki! ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 21:33, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Nobs, I ate this shit up in the 90s when Rush was promising, any day now, tomorrow, always tomorrow, the big indictment would come and the bitch was going down. Right wingers have had a hard-on to annihilate her since she had the temerity to do more than bake cookies as a first lady. I was a teenager then; what's your excuse now? But again: this statement is completely pointless, since you will not be reasoned with - your reference to 'child sex trafficking' laughably miscasts what actually happened - and therefore everyone's time has been wasted. Besides, she can't be gay, otherwise how do you explain the gangbangs with Vince Foster, Ron Brown, and the other 75-to-several-thousand people she allegedly murdered/sacrificed to Dagon in Babylonian blood rituals? Semipenultimate (talk) 21:59, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * So what have we learned? Everything Rush's critics said was true and everyhing the Clinton's critics said was true, as well. Part of growing is incorporating your experience into the fiber of your being. nobs 22:34, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You know, besides the blatantly factually incorrect things Clinton's critics said were true, e.g. Vince Foster conspiracy theories. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 22:46, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Right. And Papa Bush was not involved in narcotics smuggling, either. As to Foster, according to WP, Foster had a Swiss Bank account and was under investigation for espionage at the time of his death. nobs 23:00, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This might be my caffeine withdrawal, but I have no idea what you're talking about. RoninMacbeth (talk) 22:45, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, how is that a "constitutional crisis?" It's a scandal, sure, but I fail to see how it qualifies as a constitutional crisis. RoninMacbeth (talk) 23:15, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * As former Clinton White House adviser Doug Schoen points out, a would be electing a president under criminal investigation. How many Democratic Senators do you think would vote to confirm Comey's replacement, or any federal judge, or Supreme Court Justice, or appointment to a regulatory agency overseeing pay-to-play allegations?
 * As the WP article points out, the only constitutional crisis in America for 100 years after the last two - Reconstruction and the Civil War - was Watergate (WP doesn't even cite Bush v. Gore as a constitutional crisis, as other sources do). And all the charges against Hillary stem from efforts to skirt post-Watergate era reforms, namely, the Campaign Finance Reform Act and the Freedom of Information Act. nobs 02:41, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That's more like it. Thanks for an actual explanation.RoninMacbeth (talk) 04:09, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Ah, nobs: the globalresearch.ca of RW posters. 50% links to news articles, 50% discreditable junk. 23:48, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

About Huma and Hillary humping each other: Pics or it didn't happen. (Get on it, WikiLeaks.) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 02:58, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Here's a good pic showing their intimate relation (and it doen't appear photoshopped). Huma was bred by the Muslim Brotherhood (its been well documented how the KGB and other intelligence organizations train children for intelligence work, infiltration, and placement) to be Hillary's lover and Chief of Staff to take over the White House in her incapacitated state from her nuerological disorder.nobs 03:18, 5 November 2016 (UTC)k
 * Sounds perfectly plausible. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 03:46, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hillary and Trumpkin both went to Moscow several times over the years. One of them was briefed on the Russian's propensity to engage in espionage on important visitors to record compromising information for their Kompromat files, the other is an idiot blabbermouth who is being sued for child rape. Guess which one now has a Kompromat file and which one doesn't. Blackmail anyone? Bongolian (talk) 03:54, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * What else is new? He's blackmailing Hillary. He's blackmailing the city of Warsaw with nuclear destruction in 2 minutes. Ohh, I see. A grave international nuclear crisis is exactly what President Hillary needs to rally approval ratings away from scandal and a constitutional crisis. Do you think it will work? nobs 04:11, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * No offense, Bongolian, but Kompromat isn't new and the West has used corruption scandals to push for soft coups in various nations. I find it troubling that Russia is meddling in the election but the FBI determined that Russians are more interested in disrupting the election than having Trump elected but it does benefit them; Clinton has had billions poured into her campaign from fossil fuel, pharmaceutical, financial, private defense companies and the Gulf states (specifically Saudi Arabia), Morocco, and Israel also favor her among others; the neocons are also not too far from endorsing her with many already openly doing that.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:54, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hillary is perhaps better positioned to hit the Reset button, ease tensions, pull back from the brink by negotiating withdrawl of Missile Defense and Iksanders, rally a common cause against ISIS (which means abandoning the anti-Assad forces). But Hillary can't do it alone. She needs a Kissinger-type character to do it. The parallels with Nixon just keep on coming. Like Nixon, I don't think she can champion the cause of world peace and survive a domestic corruption scandal simultaneously. nobs 17:42, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

A college that is ripe for the picking
It is called Principia College, while not actually associated with the Christian Science Church, all students and staff have to be Christian Scientists. http://www.principiacollege.edu/christian-science --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 18:54, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Favorite Nut Job Conspiracy "Theories"
My all time favorite is the FEMA camps. I would like to hear from other users about their favorite conspiracy "theories". Post your thoughts! :) --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 15:06, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I like the — the idea that we're actually living in the 1700s. Skeptoid did a great episode on it. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:11, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I like Papa Bush flying to Madrid on an SR-71 to meet with Iranians so Reagan could steel the election.nobs 15:26, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Not sure if it counts as a "conspiracy theory" exactly but I love Sovereign Citizens just because their beliefs are so regularly and blatantly disproved. X Stickman (talk) 15:34, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Never heard of the Phantom Time Hypothesis before to be honest.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 17:18, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * We do cover Herbert Illig's ideas about phantom time in our article on alternate historical chronology. ScepticWombat (talk) 17:30, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know if I have a favourite nutjob conspiracy theory, but I've always found David Icke's shape shifting lizard men to be something of a gold standard on the topic due to it bizarre basic premise and vast scope. ScepticWombat (talk) 17:33, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The Earth is a cube with four corners, expanding rapidly at an accelerating rate. This expansion creates the illusion of gravity. Meanwhile, the Sun, Moon, and Stars are holograms projected by the Illuminati. Any objects seen through a telescope are fakes, since reflecting telescopes were invented by Isaac Newton, a known Freemason and the inventor of the hoax of gravity. --TeslaK20 (talk) 20:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Cool crankery, Tesla. Where did you dig that one up? Or is it a Poe? ScepticWombat (talk) 21:38, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It's a mix of flat-eartherism, time cube, Texe Marrs, and David Icke. --TeslaK20 (talk) 13:54, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * My favorite conspiracy theory is that democracy, the French Revolution, the American Revolution and all those things that happened since are one long con orchestrated by - take your pick. Because we all know complex systems can just be taken over by small groups of individuals and nobody will ever spill the beans, not even at the end of their life or under torture. Worzelpete (talk) 21:41, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

My favorite conspiracy theory is that scientists are planting fossils to prove evolution..or something.- 02:02, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Has to be Obama teleporting to Mars as a teenager. 197.87.142.142 (talk) 10:19, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, the Obama one was pretty great as far as nutty goes. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:46, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Anyone got a conspiracy theory about why there haven't been any major mass shootings in the US lately? (By "major" I mean 30+ victims. Kinda sad we accept 10 or 20 people slaughtered as somehow normal). Leuders (talk) 14:32, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It's the economy, stupid. Bullets are costly and it requires the expenditure of calories and energy people just don't have anymore.nobs 04:22, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Is waiting for the Trump-calypse. 86.191.125.240 (talk) 21:32, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Probably that Bush and/or Cheney were behind 9/11. A couple people in my family believe it, so...yeah. But another good one is that Osama bin Laden isn't dead, and that he's being held and interrogated by the government.RoninMacbeth (talk) 16:16, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

To the people who believe in paranoid conspiracy theories about Hillary Clinton
Please crawl back under your paranoid rocks and stay; also please don't reproduce. Sincerely, a rational wiki user.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 16:08, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you sincerely believe that poor reasoning is mostly genetic, and not inculcated by various complex aspects of both lived experience and social upbringing? I continue to insist that the internet is fucking up people's information quality and reinforcing dumb-as-hell biases in a way that is pretty modern.  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:26, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm curious now, since you mention 'lived experience', what do you mean by that, and what are your thoughts on relativism from where it is taken? ~ Aneris 17:05, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * First off: You're making a mistaken assumption here. You're trying to conflate the "lived experience" of post-modern rejection of empirical conclusions(which is way less common than you act like it is even among post-modernists) with what I meant "The life you live affects the mind you have/are", which I consider to be such an intuitively obvious logical proposition that I would go so far as to characterize as a first principle from which I derive my beliefs on the same order as "cogito ergo sum".  The extent to which that's true is a nature versus nurture debate that has been rehashed a thousand times.
 * Secondly, as a consequence of the above explanation, it's pretty apparent to me that in order to have proper human empathy for another person, a relativist approach is at least modestly necessary. Not all ideas need relativism to interpret, sc LPience kicks ass at objective analysis of basic(and even fairly complicated) facts and systems, but all people need to be understood through the lens of the life they've lived.  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:27, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * As I see it, you are making it a caricature. Relativistic ideas have cropped up several times and are concerned with one key problem, namely how real is reality and to what degree can we trust our senses. There's Sapir-Whorf in linguistics, or Franz Boas in anthropology, Derrick Bell in law, not to mention the usual French suspects and their Austro-German precursors. I'm not against all of this, and I am not aware that serious proponents of the realism camp reject everything out of hand. This is also a caricature drawn by certain groups, who maintain that everyone not agreeing with them was (if not conservative or burgeois) at least one of those positivist. This framing is of course false. I'm asking what you genuinely think about the matter, and find your repeated mentioning of Descartes puzzling, since you even mentioned the deductive approach recently when the subject was critical thinking (and you now argue with "intuitively obvious logical proposition"). With the other things you write, that sounds like classic dualist framework, where the mind half allows for relativism. Is this somewhat correct? ~ Aneris 18:40, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not a fucking dualist. Come on.  How on earth did you get that from what I said there?  Just a relatively simple assertion: the life you experience affects the person you are.  No need for a non-physical mind for that to be true.  No need for a true tabula rasa for that to be true.  No need for either free will or absolute determinism for that to be true.  Just the relatively innocuous assertion: things that happen to you affect you, and the way you think about things.  That it happens to a collection of brain cells that we call your mind they're still changing in response to the environment.
 * If that's not got anything to do with the relativism you seek to undo, then it's got nothing to do with the post I made and you called relativism. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:01, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Frankly, at this point I don't really care about the why. --Castaigne2 (talk) 17:17, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Seems relevant if your conclusion is "don't reproduce" ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:27, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't forget that the procreators (and their family) also tend to be the ones raising the child, in our society. Whether it's genetic, social, cultural, environmental, medical or financial circumstances, chances are it's gonna be passed down to the kid. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 02:05, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * If they are prevented from procreating, the problem ceases to exist. I'm a big fan of extinction events. --Castaigne2 (talk) 20:33, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * If you take that stance, though... if human existence is insignificant, how are the things humans describe as 'problems' and the latter's elimination not also insignificant? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:40, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I am not saying ikanreed is wrong, it could be both genetic and social.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 17:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I dunno, I just see people casually toss half-thought eugenics ideas(mostly as jokes) out without considering exactly how much of a phenomenon is attributable to genetics all the time on the internet. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:27, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I would be very hesitant to blame conspiracies, racism, sexism, etc on genetics for two reasons. Firstly, the logic reeks of biological determinism and leads to endorsement of eugenics; such beliefs deterministic beliefs are over stressed, at best, and racist at worst. Secondly, if you begin to believe that discriminatory or paranoid beliefs are genetic, then you will have eliminated much of an individual's agency and begin to believe that such beliefs are natural and unavoidable.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 17:00, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

The Classical and neo-classical philosophers seemed to define the intelligent (or in their phrasing, the elect or "philosophers") as those who could see beyond their cultural upbringing and personal experiences to reach rational conclusions. For the majority of the world, I would argue that personal conclusions are entirely due to personal experience and upbringing combined with simple heuristics. Lord Aeonian (talk) 19:39, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * And overwhelmingly those "elect" happened to come from upper classes who were provided with education and a life with enough freedom from toil to contemplate such things. In spite of the majority of people living in antiquity living as either slaves or serfs, I can think of exactly one classical philosopher from those classes, Epictetus.  And surprise, surprise, he had a wealthy patron who provided him with an education.  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:45, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Sidebar: what is it between Aneris and ikanreed? You two obviously don't like each other, yet you seem to always be in the same place? If ikanreed comments on an issue, you can be sure aneris will too - either directly or indirectly in response to aneris - and vice versa. --Levi Ackerman (talk) 09:35, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * What do you expect to achieve by asking that here? Better to address your questions to one or both of them directly, perhaps in a place slightly more private than the saloon bar. Or better yet, simply read their user pages, talk pages, essays, and conversations; the dots shouldn't be difficult to connect. B) talk 14:33, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I can give a really biased account if you'd like though. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 14:55, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thought I'd leave this here for Levi's benefit, and so you don't have to direct him there yourself :) B) talk 20:05, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You might want to check this very page (accommodationism above, for example) how true such assertions are. It's comical. It works for me that those longer on board know it, too. You can also check older revisions on my talk page. See yourself how "vague" my views are. Now that I deleted it (it's no longer on my talk page), suddenly being "vague" is the problem. My suggestion, don't take those figures of "authority" all too seriously, even if they are authoritarians who can block and ban you (and will), or create drama. If you have trouble with them, other users and mods will help you out (I might too). Good luck. ~ Aneris 21:17, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Sick of your shit specifically: authoritarian. Proclaiming wide conspiracies to undermine modern science by willfully misunderstanding things: defying authority.  You're not a rebel, Aneris, you're obnoxious.  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 21:33, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You mean “i see no reason anyone else needs to see your [talk page] drivel” not-authoritarianism? Or the against the rules blocking, twice? And once more, things from SSSM, to Critical Race Theory to postmodern relativism aren't a “conspiracy theory”. If you think it is, it's time to pick up a book or two, or read one of those papers I provided long ago. ~ Aneris 23:08, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Back to the topic. Look, Bill Clinton was pressed into CIA service in 1969. Hillary Clinton has been an NSA stooge since at least c. 1985. And Vince Foster got whacked by the Mossad. These are just facts. Live with it.nobs 01:19, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * "These are just facts. Live with it." Is this Poe's Law or are you serious? Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt Noooooooo!  Look! Up there! 01:59, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note to millenials: If Hillary wins, you are going to hear a shitload more about this, whether you want to or not.nobs 02:15, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Eh, I can live with that. RoninMacbeth (talk) 15:09, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * As a millenial, the only shit I don't want to hear is coming from you. -.- Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt Noooooooo!  Look! Up there! 06:06, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Boomer here: I don't believe in god(s). My genreation was moved by the draft and gross levels of racial discrimination. We marched, rioted and organized. Then Vietnam ended, so did the draft that threatned my peeps. Some ointment was pasted on racial discrimination, so my generation then got fat and rich.It went Reagan and all far right after the 60s. Millennials won't. There is no upward mobility left to seduce them. They get poor like all the rest.---Mona- (talk) 06:19, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * They're too few in number to have a significant impact on anything, be it as voters or consumers who move prices. We put too many demands on them. I feel sorry for em. nobs 10:42, 4 November 2016 (UTC)–
 * Mona, that isn't entirely true. I'm technically a baby boomer, but I came in a bit too late to be seduced by upward mobility, which was already disappearing in my chosen career by the time I started.  The generation of marchers, rioters, and organizers that protested the war has always been an inspiration for me first and foremost.  This is one reason why leftish identity politics and its associated prissiness are such a disappointment to me. I find I can't be anything but a "cultural libertarian".  This is also one reason why I can't hold my nose tight enough to vote for Hillary Clinton, though in my state it luckily makes little difference. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 21:09, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Let's constitutionally mandate age discrimination
I was reading this article, which advocated forced retirement for military officers by age 50. Why not do the same in politics, and have a law that says that only people under 50 can vote or hold office? Or, at any rate, there should be a strict up-or-out rule, where you have to keep rising through the ranks in order to continue participating. For example, the U.S. House might have a retirement age of 40 years; the U.S. Senate 50 years; and U.S. President 60 years. Similar rules could be enacted for members of the civil service and the judiciary. For example, if you're a U.S. District Judge and still haven't been promoted to Circuit Judge by age 50, you need to leave so that you're not blocking some ambitious young prosecutor from becoming a District Judge.

This will help weed out people who aren't competent enough to advance, and therefore would otherwise tend to just stagnate in one place because their district is gerrymandered or because they're owed too many political favors (in the case of politicians) or because no one can, or wants to, fire them. FDR may have had nefarious reasons for wanting to impose a mandatory retirement age for Supreme Court justices, but the idea isn't necessarily a bad one.

The Constitution already has minimum ages (18 to vote, 25 for U.S. House, 30 for U.S. Senate, 35 for U.S. President), so why not maximum ages too. L&#39;s Ideology (talk) 16:01, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * mmm how 'bout a law that says, if you have recieved Pell Grants, by the age of 30 you must move out of your parents house and get a job. nobs 18:43, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to Logan's Run. 20:53, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:34, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * - 22:12, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt Noooooooo!  Look! Up there! 03:07, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Leuders (talk) 04:18, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I can't do friendly blocks
This was among my primary methods of communicating. David Gerard took my mop. I've heard by email some want me to return. Give my mop back and I will return, from time to time. Otherwise, not. This site isn't probably best for me, but I was asked to reconsider and would at least finish the Targeted Individuals piece. Will check back in a few days. No biggie if the ones who hate me say "no."---Mona- (talk) 05:46, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * If you can't communicate via jokeblocks, use the user talk pages. They allow for longer messages as well.--JorisEnter (talk) 10:13, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I was alienated from my community after a change of diet. I could no longer communicate through Morse code farts and had to resort to speech. So I understand Mona's pain. 94.7.161.137 (talk) 14:35, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Some anonymous aliens have contacted me to tell me I should return to RW, so here I am. I used to try to communicate telepathically with many people by transmitting random flashes of migraine, but since the last software upgrade I don't think it's working.  Could we return to an older software version so that my prefered method of communication works again?--Weirdstuff (talk) 15:41, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Mona, your final actions before leaving RW were to spam Weaseloid, David Gerard, Pbfreespace3, and me to aggressively ask for your mop back. You, in particular, wrote:

The burden is on you to prove your decency, not on us to bestow sysop upon you.

If, however, you are to remain here: please continue not being aggressive to other users and against the site as a whole. 15:45, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Mona, I've given you a mop. Don't do anything crazy with it.
 * Related (but @ RW in general, not just Mona): I find the whole conversion-by-block-message meme very tiresome. It leaves disconnected fragments of dialogue scattered in recent changes, logs & watchlists and makes it hard to unravel the actual conversation, which could actually take place just as easily & much more neatly on a talk page. & It makes a mess of everyone's block og by filling it with meaningless cruft, making it hard to gauge a user's actually history of being blocked or blocking others.  22:26, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, notably, I think I often miss messages that way. Use my damn talk page to reach me.  I use joke blocks for one thing: "punishing" people for "crimes" that aren't real.  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 22:30, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Re:BlocksSuck: Agreed, now let's just change RW culture real quick.
 * Re:GivingMonaAMop: Nope nope nope nope nope nope nope nope nope. RW just collectively shat on three dramamakers with bans and vandalbins. Mona is a dramamaker supreme -- and she's got relatively free range, being unbinned and autopatrolled. If she's changed her ways, fine. Otherwise: Nope nope nope nope nope nope nope nope nope. 23:52, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. If Mona wants to contribute constructively to RW, she can do so without a mop. Bongolian (talk) 03:40, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed as well — no need for a mop. And I'd be delighted to see her continue work on the TI article (as one of several voices that equally dictate its direction), for the record. Good stuff from Mona, and besides, we had fun times on the talkpage. Those rare calms before the storm when people could treat each other like people... Brings me joy to recall. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:59, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * @Weasel. Moana's reason for wanting her block privileges back was that it "was among (her) primary methods of communicating".  You give it back to her under the understanding that she "(Doesn't) do anything crazy with it."  But you also state that "I find the whole conversion-by-block-message meme very tiresome."  Am I the only one to see a contradiction here?--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 13:34, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:59, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no contradiction because "tiresome" & "crazy" aren't even similar things. Yes, I do find the penchant for communication by block message irksome, but I'm not going to remove or withhold sysop abilities from those who do it, which would effectively be declaring war on half the community.  & While I find it odd that this particular ability would apparently be a dealbreaker for Mona, I don't have objections to her being a sysop.   20:43, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, PLEASE return. I would love to question you about your best bud Greenwald and why he's acting as a go-between for Assange, Dotcom, and Snowden...and if he's paid to do it or just being "patriotic" for the masters of those three. --Castaigne2 (talk) 21:11, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Moderator elections should probably begin soon
Last year's supplementary mod by-election ran in late December 2015-early January 2016. Last year's main mod by-election ran in November 2015. As such, we're about 11 months out from the old by-election and about 12 months out since the main election. It's probably time to have a new one.

Current moderators:



Two questions: Two Answers
 * 1) Should we have another mod election in the near future? (Please say yes.)
 * 2) If so, when should we have it? (Give 2-3 weeks for nominations/campaigning, 1 week for voting.) 17:03, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Yes (<3)
 * 2) I say maybe a week longer for nominations and campaigning. 'Legion what do you want from me  17:16, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Just as long as it's not as bad as certain other 2016 elections.
 * I probably will know who I'll vote for without any campaigning, but I can respect that a couple weeks ought to be allowed. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:29, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The multiweek nom/cam period is mostly to let newcomers get their names out there (& make sure the mods are actually active). 17:50, 4 November 2016 (UTC)


 * 1) I think we should have mod elections. Maybe we should elect mods on the "yes no system". Every person gets to vote yes or no on every candidate and the number with the best yes vs. no difference gets to be elected. That precludes divisive campaigns and widely hated winners, which seem to plague the 2016 Presidential elections. Worzelpete (talk) 19:07, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The mod election and board election both use single transferable vote, which is pretty good at selecting the candidates least disliked by everyone. 19:32, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

One answer: No. Are the current mods doing an horrendous job? Seems like voting for the sake of it. -- MtD Bogan   20:18, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I mean, nominally, I'm okay with that, but we have regular elections to maintain a pretense of democracy. You know, like Putin or Hussein do.  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:25, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Doing it every year, and now coinciding with the US elections, might be too taxing on the community though. And as Matty said, there doesn't seem to be a particular need for new mods atm. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:11, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Here's an alternative: run the elections in June/July (like the RMF board elections) and get 'em all done at once -- and not during election season. Eh? 23:49, 4 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Wait, I thought we were having elections from January 1-7 2017.RoninMacbeth (talk) 22:52, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That's last year's template. I updated it. 23:45, 4 November 2016 (UTC)


 * 1) I support having moderator elections soon. Applesauce (talk) 00:18, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Yes.- 01:13, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) We should at least keep up the illusion that we're some sort of democracy. So 1) yes to an election and 2) Yep. Agreed on the 2-3 weeks of campaigning, too. Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt  Noooooooo!  Look! Up there! 19:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) I don't mind having mod elections now. Checking my talk page, I can see that it's just over a year since the nominations began for the last mod election so it's clearly about time. I say we open for nominations very soon (e.g. at the end of this week or during next week), followed by 3 weeks of campaigning and one week of voting. That should allow for everyone who wants to (and is eligible) to notice and participate. A site notice should highlight the process. ScepticWombat (talk) 05:32, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Wow — great moves, Ethan! Keep it up! Proud of ya.
Enjoy another grade-A debunking from h3h3, the same YouTube channel that was recently lauded in the Saloon Bar for exposing fake, racist "social experiments" that cast the black community as black brutes.

Now, if you; Then please view those first, in order to get the necessary context for the clip embedded above. Thank you, and goat bless. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:54, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't know who Hugh Mungus is
 * Haven't seen the original h3h3 coverage
 * Haven't seen the interview with Hugh Mungus, providing his side of the story
 * Haven't read the Saloon Bar discussion generated by the initial h3h3 coverage
 * We know the humungous, He is Warrior of the wasteland, the ayatollah of rock and rolla! Gadzooks (talk) 01:17, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This guy is so obnoxious & I'm tired of seeing his videos here. To me he seems pretty much indistinguishable from TheAmazingAtheist & other such shouty anti-feminist YouTube dudes who act like they've got the whole world figured out while dismissing a bunch a real social issues.  01:50, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Clearly, the echo chamber is loosing its impeccable accoustics recently. If you like some other style, try Chris Ray Gun's take. ~ Aneris 02:55, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * But it's not an echo chamber. We're having a discussion, like always. Weasel and I disagree. How is that constitutive of an echo chamber? Also, I don't stand by your recommendation of Chris Raygun. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 03:07, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Weasel, jonanism doesn't become you. Suddenly he's "just like X, Y" unrelated people? Also, did you somehow miss that Ethan overtly endorses feminism (verbatim), and has recently made videos targeting the alt-right? Added to the fact that Ethan is actually not obnoxious at all, but a good and decent person — but you could care less about actually getting a clue about him before judging him, I suppose? And besides, like the fact that that zealot woman openly endorses actual mental illness denial (per Foucault) is not missional to bust her on? Honestly, it's rare to see you fall into this overtly. Please don't. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:58, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Everyone "endorses feminism". It costs nothing, like "I'm not racist".  & I don't know where you're getting "mental illness denial" from; the bit you link to just shows the woman saying "crazy" isn't a mental condition.  But if you want to discuss attitudes towards mental health, your guy's frequent use of "triggered" as byword for peevish outrage is the kind of mental health shaming we really don't need.  03:45, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * How is it a problem that people tend to endorse feminism and not be racists without this "costing them"? A society where these viewpoints are not the norm is clearly a much worse off scenario, seeing as these movements exist for a reason, and have fought for a long time to reach the wide, largely unpersectued acceptance that they enjoy today. Or, wait — by "costs nothing", you meant to imply that all the varied people who "use the terms wrong" are in actuality either liars, incompetent, or malignantly misappropriating the term? I would expect you to know that, nor will it ever. Feminism is not on trial here, a lone crank is. And deserving of the negative publicity, she is. Also, the context in which she makes the cited statement is perfectly on par with the one provided in the related text Madness and Civilization. She makes the completely trivial point that "crazy" doesn't actually specify anything meaningful, and then goes on to use Foucault's literal terminology of "term policing" — which belongs to the postmodernist case for mental illness denial. And for the record, there's no need to purposefully confuse actual ableist slurs with the socially just criticism of the cult of outrage. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 04:19, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Bingo about the Foucault influence. In fact the whole "internalized oppression", at least being used in this specific way (the members of the class that I claim to represent who disagree with me are mentally deficient) has a very obvious similarity to one of the other core beliefs held by the early radical postmodernists. Ah maybe I'm stretching with that one but it seems to be a cornerstone of radical ideologies to find a way to handwave away those who disagree with you even though, according to your ideology, they should agree with you. ClothCoat (talk) 09:14, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * A great study in that precise form of condescending dismissal is Weasel's kneejerk namedropping of The Amazing Atheist (who is an asshole) at the sight of (the completely unrelated and socially just) h3h3. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:30, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Everyone "endorses feminism WTF? I consider myself a feminist too but practically the entire American right-wing that was large enough to run the country for twenty years was explicitly anti-feminist, as is most still much of right-wing politics (especially right of center-right). If you seriously think it's uncontroversial to endorse feminism Aneris might have a point about the whole echo chamber thing... check into FOX News and talk radio to hear their feelings on the subject. ClothCoat (talk) 08:55, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * But you're not a real feminist, or something... Ask Weasel. He seems to be the arbiter of who is actually an undercover anti-feminist around these parts. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:30, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Her views are pretty standard. Only the Hugh Mungus situation made it special. The Weaseloid is correct, here's what the orthodoxy says. Calling a woman crazy. Mental illness vs sexism,  You're crazy, also for similar terms, like stupid are verboten. It should be missional, but it isn't, obvious is obvious. Obviously, I disagree. It's also not actually mental health shaming. ~ Aneris  03:59, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello again. I may have to ask. Do we need to make an article about "Hugh Mungus"? If yes, we might have to see more of both Rudy the Hugh Mungus and Zarna Joshi. Erebus Belmez Talk  04:41, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see the need for an article on Hugh Mungous. The need for him to be brought up in the Saloon Bar as food for thought and discussion is a given, however. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 04:45, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, I find Zarna's position quite interesting. Here's what I understood for now: She is a Black Lives Matter activist, is against rape culture and white supremacy, is supportive of transgender people, is an intersectional woman... That's what I've researched. But... treating a joke about someone else's weight as "sexual assalt"? Also, I don't know what her position was since that woman also had used "#TrueMatriarchyOnly" on her Facebook page against Hillary Clinton before... Strange. Erebus Belmez  Talk  05:08, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * (It seems I've found more about her, but I might not post it here. Also, since that name was already known by many and was never a secret anymore, I've decided to just say the name Zarna Joshi. (Hey, Ethan had said the first name of her in the video above.) Erebus Belmez  Talk  22:55, 7 November 2016 (UTC))

"This isn't a village in fucking India, where people punch you in the vagina or whatever".... Really, that's the guy you wanna advertise here, Rev? Even taking that bit seriously for a sec and ignoring the crass and dismissive tone accompanying it. Yep, she looks Indian and has an Indian name, so it's not crazy to think she could've had some experience with India's toxic culture of misogyny and that this might've informed her personal take on feminism. Some might–somewhat West-centrically–say overly informed or misinformed. This woman might've gone through some really traumatic shit and he uses that against her, because her views aren't properly attuned to the West's not-as-bad-as-getting-punched-in-the-vagina attitude towards women? If that wasn't bad enough, this whole video is him basically 'debunking' a decent feminist video (that it's misapplied to the Hugh Mungus situation doesn't mean its message isn't legit) because he's so intent on tearing down his perceived opponent. And for what, to defend the great plight of mediocre jokes from overactive/misdirected feminism? Sigh. Sure, she blew the Hugh Mungus thing way out of proportion, and then this guy did just the same thing, and then Rev overhyped it here. Can we stop this ceaseless antagonism already and get that blissful, peaceful society started everyone says they want? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 05:41, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Good post.   11:31, 6 November 2016 (UTC)


 * You lost me at calling her original piece a "decent feminist video". You know, the video where she;
 * You lost me at calling her original piece a "decent feminist video". You know, the video where she;


 * Displays statistics with their sources and p-values cut out of the picture
 * Quote mines or verbatim misquotes (!) the very same posts she display as screencaps
 * Cherry picks citations from fringe radfem blogs in order to support her pre-suppositions
 * Seriously resorts to using WikiHow guides as a source for far-reaching claims about society and culture
 * Openly endorses mental illness denial
 * Still thinks she's the victim here
 * And no, the fact that Ethan is really funny is not an argument in favor of her original video being qualitative. If the topic of her video was homeopathy or supressed anti-gravity technology instead, your biases wouldn't prevent you from realizing her actual level of crankery. And speaking of the importance of respecting other people's exposure to trauma and the likes, what about the trauma that this man had suffered? He was there to thank those who had helped get his heroin addicted daughter off the streets, and he's used the aftermath of him getting attacked not to stir any shit, but to drive for public donations to the same women's shelter that helped save his daughter's life. He did not deserve being preyed upon and attacked by a random, self-righteous asshole. It really is that simple. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:24, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * A pity you stopped reading, the last sentence was really nice IMHO. Really, the big mistake all factions in this Hugh Mungus debacle keep making–with the exception of the Mungus dude himself–is the solid conviction that they need to be–and continue being–enemies of each other. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 18:20, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * To be fair, it was actually a nice (very last) sentence. And I don't disagree with your general sentiment. Though, it's not like the bullet point list I gave just above your reply here is worth missing. The woman is a crank; rude at that. Genius. Also, you can add Ethan to your list of exceptions alongside the Mungus dude himself. Especially at around 1:24, 1:57 and (importantly) 6:31. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:28, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Ideally, it shouldn't matter much who the critic is, but what they say. And you know something is wrong, when this principle is obviously reversed. Also interesting the typical drift to the meta, not the video or context are discussed, but it's quickly about whether the bloke in the video has “permission” to be critical, whether he has obtained a thought-licence before and so on. Such are the hallmarks of (intersectional) “social justice” — the magic pixie dust that allows even extreme bullies to gain sympathy (and hence sociopaths and cluster B personalities flock to it). ~ Aneris 19:04, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

How to respond to this?
Racialism TheAmazingSkeptic (talk) 19:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * A quick wiki skim says the genetic difference between them is on the order of 7% where it's .5% in humans. If my reading is right. Dustandshadow13 (talk) 20:04, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * If only the person who made that picture knew about . Fun fact — just because two organisms look very different, that doesn't mean they're not genetically very closely related. Another fun fact — just because two organisms look very similar, that doesn't mean they're not genetically very distant. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:16, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, the old: "My visual impression of things are totally equatable with scientific analysis" school of bullshit. It's like showing two office buildings, one belonging to a bank and the other a dentist with the caption "THESE ARE DIFFERENT INDUSTRIES" and then two very different looking factories that both produce, let's say... grain products and saying "BUT THESE ARE THE SAME KINDS OF INDUSTRIES?"  It's intellectually lazy, and not very interesting.  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Well the alt right needs a way to justify their racism. TheAmazingSkeptic (talk) 20:40, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Did anyone else hear the part where the Trump supporter closes his car door and tells his girlfriend/wife, "Let me handle this. Be a woman"? RoninMacbeth (talk) 01:46, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Malevolent sexism is an even better predictor of trump support than party affiliation. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:29, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * There's a term for this kind of idiot - it has an entry on this wiki: a term for people who seem to be compendium of every attitude society ought to stamp out, i.e. racism, sexism, etc. The can generally be described as this. I can't remember the term, so, if anyone does, please let me know in a reply. Thanks! --Levi Ackerman (talk) 16:40, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Lol at the people who didn't vote for Trump, but are "rooting for him"!
Like this guy:

Ethan is "rooting for him". Hahahaha! Given that a president's success is - or should be - measured by how well and how much of his policies are implemented, I guess Ethan is rooting for that's ban on abortions. Oh, excuse me, that ban on abortions ONLY in exceptional circumstances. That repeal of Obamacare. That ban on Muslims from countries like, I don't know, Pakistan, Belgium and Germany. That return to Reagonomics. What else? Oh yeah, keeping Guantanamo Bay open. Continuing the Bush administrations rendition and torture. Increasing the US's army spending, including increasing the USMC, Air Force etc (which will eventually lead to an invasion (You gotta feed the beast, or people start asking questions)). Oh yeah, ripping up the Cuba and Iran deals respectively. It's almost as if these well-wishers, in an attempt to appear oh-so-gracious, forgot Trump's promises to his voters, many of which are on paper, published on his website. So, one can't just claim they were "campaign rhetoric". Unless, of course, they, these well-wishers, know something we don't. Oh, yeah, let's not forget starting a trade war with Mexico and China. Personally, if Trump really intends to implement his policies, then I hope he fails. I hope the Republicans - the sane, not-fundamentalist christian, fairly rational ones among them, team up with the progressives on the other side and stall him for the next four years. --Levi Ackerman (talk) 20:46, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comparing this election to the previous has demonstrated that if there are sane republicans, the number, at most, in the hundreds of thousands. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 21:06, 10 November 2016 (UTC)


 * "That ban on Muslims from countries like, I don't know, Pakistan, Belgium and Germany." I think I see what you're angling at here and it's humorously false, Muslims in Europe are |much more radical than Muslims in MENA, outside of certain exceptions. Lord Aeonian (talk) 21:18, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll be honest with you, Lord Aeonian, most times, I have no idea what you're talking about, which is why I don't respond. This is one of those times. You just seem to extrapolate what you wish to counter by way of argument, rather than points I could reasonably be held to have made. So, good luck with that. I myself will not be engaging in another one of your "let's have a go at Islam" episodes.--Levi Ackerman (talk) 21:28, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It's a straightforward point. He's addressing the underlyng belief of European Muslims being more harmless as misguided (in his view). It's either reasonable (one can see it that way), or not. ~ Aneris 05:49, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I was almost tempted to add to my previous comment, "don't worry, I'm sure aneris will be along shortly, so you two can engage in another "Islam is the root of all evil" circlejerk". It seems I would have been right. It seems you two are joined at the hip. --Levi Ackerman (talk) 11:13, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Somehow I doubt those who voted against Trump are "rooting for" his ridiculous policies. Nor is Ethan. As he clearly states in the video, he thinks it's absurd that Trump will be POTUS, and as he goes on to say, "we gotta come together and tell that guy how to fly this fucking plane". Your post is an enormous misrepresentation of Ethan's perspective. His point is that suddenly becoming a fatalist and/or flinging accusatory rhetoric at individuals or demographics because you're upset your candidate lost is 1) fucking counterproductive and 2) has more in common with Trump (and the average two-year-old) than it has with a level-headed response to a shitty situation. B) talk 22:31, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how I have misrepresented Ethan's perspective. It's in the video! He said it! I am quoting him. He said, "I'm rooting for him". A silly position to adopt in my opinion. But, hey, that's just me. I understand Ethan's desire to be "an adult". But, unless he plans on adopting Trump's policies entirely, how exactly is he rooting for him? Don't get wrong. It's not just people like Ethan here. We also have Mark Cuban calling for people to give Trump a chance. Lol. First, whether or not they give Trump a chance is irrelevant. It's not in their power to give him a chance. He is president-elect. That's reality. Second of all, did the Tea-Party and the Republican Party give Obama a chance? I didn't think so.--Levi Ackerman (talk) 10:48, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This happens in every cycle. The Republicans elect a reactionary who promises to make life hell, of varying degrees, for a third of the population, and privileged white liberals get very self-righteous (now now, let's see where he goes with this), and muzzle anyone who doesn't approve. 108.21.181.254 (talk) 22:43, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with you and Ethan both in that the self-righteousness of some so-called "liberals" is inversely related to how truly "liberal" their beliefs actually are. I'd argue that condescending attempts at provocation, however, are hardly better than the tantrum-throwing Ethan criticizes in the video. B) talk 23:56, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, you people keep talking and I understand maybe a third of what you're saying. It's as if you're throwing around shorthand terms you've overheard on Reddit. How did that statement provoke and condescend?  Plutoniumboss (talk) 00:14, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it provokes by being condescending? Something like that. Lord Aeonian (talk) 00:41, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * @Levi, you're leaving out one big factor: Trump has to deal with an opposition Republican Congress. If you wanna oppose the Republican agenda, you need to get aboard the Trump Express. nobs 14:12, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * privileged white liberals Aaaaaand I tuned out. No seriously though what exactly is your alternative? Perhaps the ONLY alternative to electoral democracy is an actual revolution, in which case we would likely be trading out a right-wing authoritarian with a left-wing authoritarian. We should block, block, block him, try to impeach him when he screws up, run against him in 2020 (if he makes it that far) but revolution? Call me a silly liberal who doesn't adore the idea of the USA potentially becoming another USSR, as hyperbolic as that may sound. ClothCoat (talk) 01:20, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm of two minds on it. I remember how the Gore voters were raked over the coals during the recount, and how crushing it was when the decision was passed. We forget, but contrary to what Michael Moore would tell us, Bush had a remarkable amount of leeway. The constant calls for his impeachment did not help at all. And by the end everybody just wanted to move on and forget about it, Gore most of all.
 * On the other hand, what exactly do we gain by playing the game? Trump will have incumbency on his side in 2020. And I doubt that the Sanders movement is sophisticated enough to beat him on his own turf—the economy—where he can boast of "real world" experience. (And not too get too far afield, but when it came to the Fed, Sanders was even weirder than Trump.) So, to quote the man himself, what have you got to lose?
 * Sorry, I'm still processing the past couple of days Plutoniumboss (talk) 01:46, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The big question now is, Will Trump appoint Ted Cruz to the Supreme Court (despite all trash-talking he did about his wife in the primaries)? Senators of both parties will be glad to be rid of him from the Senate, and vote to approve. This would be throwing a bone to conservatives. Then there's Ruth Bader-Ginsburg, who's held together with duct tape, bailing wire, and Depends. Another opening is soon to follow. nobs 18:05, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

When Obama won in 2008 and 2012, did the Right come together and support him? Fuck no! They blocked him, almost shut down the government, frustrated his presidency and formed the Tea Party. Where did the Tea Party get us? Look around you. Read your papers. Trump! That's where the Tea Party got us! Trump! Right wing outsider politics! So, fuck all this "let's all come together" bullshit. I'm not calling for Russia 1917 here, but I would like to see a revolution of the kind we saw on the Right! A left wing Tea Party is very much needed! There's no fatalism about that! It's not as if these people declaring "not my president" have a choice. "Not my president" doesn't mean anything! Which is why I think those proclaiming it are stupid. However, just because your side lost the election doesn't mean you sign up to the other side, which is essentially what some of you are advocating. You may disagree, but that's what it is. There is no other practicable meaning to "come together". "Come together" in practice means "concession" by the losing side, because having the won the argument, the winner does not have to give ground, and rightly so. However, neither should the losing side, not if they really believe in their arguments. That's not how philosophical and political discourse works. Just because you've lost the debate doesn't mean you throw all of your arguments out of the window and support your opponent's. If it does, or if it did, then we would either never have elections more than once or we wouldn't have need for them because the losing side (the side not in power) would have accepted the other side's arguments. --Levi Ackerman (talk) 11:00, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Enroll at Bastyr University today!
You will get an extensive education in- pseudoscience, medical quackery and bullshit! Contact an admissions advisor today!--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 19:00, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

The unified conspiracist-bigot axis has prevailed.
Does this in any way change the goals of RationalWiki? 13:32, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Idea 1: "Not getting shut down, Erdogan-style"

 * Motion to add "not getting shut down, Erdogan-style" B) talk 13:50, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Seconded. RoninMacbeth (talk) 14:14, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Heh, started as a bit of black humor, now it gets a black boldface header and an index! B) talk 04:18, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Idea 2: Less politics, more pageviews
A higher Alexa rating, and the more-sensible people steer clear of the politics pages. (Actually, that goes for the rest of social media, too.) Plutoniumboss (talk) 14:21, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Since the American Left is demonstrably — well — total crap, how about providing a better, empirical left platform. The identitarian strategy to make it all about race and gender didn't exactly work out so great, did it? This was not the reason in my view, but I think it did contribute to this misery. The CTRL Left helped promote the Alt Right. So, if the RW wants to redeem itselves and is actually progressive or left, I suggest this change in direction. ~ Aneris 14:36, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, I must be this "regressive left" I keep hearing about. Be my guest, nobody is going to stop you. It takes too much time and energy to dismantle your distortions, Aneris. Plutoniumboss (talk) 14:43, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * --Levi Ackerman (talk) 16:00, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Evidently, the so-called "Left" in the USA has elected a Wall Street corporatist as their representative who considers Henry Kissinger her friend. This should give you pause. Evidently, the style of this type of "Left" reads like this. They evidently talk about race (and gender) all the time, just with inverted values attached to the categories. So you have the amazing ability to detect three people in their basement and their fringe theory to furnish an article, yet you haven't noticed anything in this matter? Zilch, nada? You come up completely blank and you cannot fathom what I could possibly mean? I find that impossible to believe. ~ Aneris 15:35, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Your self-satisfaction is fragrant. Plutoniumboss (talk) 15:42, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Can't we just be, like, non-partisan? You know, because every political party and ideology is irrational and full of crap and deserves to be mocked appropriately?  Why does it seem like a lot of people on this site think that leftism and rationalism are synonymous? Hmmph (talk) 20:12, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Idea 3: Do what you do well, but do more of it
Since Trump will be the first anti-science president we've ever had, RW can help push back against the inevitable surge in antiresearch, antivax, climate change denial, etc. bunkery. Just a thought. Leuders (talk) 15:39, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Seconded. CorruptUser (talk) 15:58, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree as well.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 16:14, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good idea. I would gladly help if let out of the bin. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 16:29, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Dubya was also anti-science, in a fundy way. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:46, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, don't give Trump credit he doesn't deserve. He'll gladly steal it if he wants it. Bongolian (talk) 17:54, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * “Trump will be the first anti-science president we have ever had” says Michael Lubell, director of public affairs for the American Physical Society in Washington DC." If Nature is publishing this, clearly they have some legitimate concerns. Leuders (talk) 17:42, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, for sure. Maybe a clearly anti-science president will prompt an influx of productive editors and/or active spates from those already here. Who knows, maybe in 6 months we write a gracious letter to the orange-haired buffon for pushing the stats back up. B) talk 04:22, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

The election of Trump doesn't mean the separation of our coverage of pseudoscience/crankery and politics here at RW. Rather, these two topices are now married never before. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:41, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Proposed constitutional amendment
So now that it appears increasingly likely that Clinton "lost" the election by getting more votes - the second time such a mockery of democracy has happened in the country that came up with representative democracy in its modern form in barely the time it takes for a toddler to become a college kid - I propose you pester your congressperson with the following amendment to the constitution:

(1) The Presidential election shall be held on the same day as the elections for the House of Representatives and one third of the members of the Senate on a Sunday or public holiday no later than four years after the last election

(2) The person who receives more than half of the valid votes of all American citizens is elected President

(3) Should no person meet the requirements of (2), the two persons with the most votes will enter a new election no later than two weeks after the results of the first have been officially announced

(4) In the case of a election according to (3), the person with more votes in said election is elected President

(5) The newly elected President shall be inaugurated into the office no later than two weeks after the results of the election establishing the person elected President shall have been certified by Congress and the States as prescribed by federal law

(6) Any person previously holding the office of President or Vice-President or any person that brings forth a signed declaration in their favor by one hundredth of the voting eligible citizens of the United States who has consented to such candidature shall be a candidate for President or Vice-President.

(7) A blank space shall be provided on every ballot for citizens to write in any candidate they chose.

(8) This amendment shall become law if it has been accepted by the Congress and the people or its duly chosen representatives in the manner prescribed by the constitution.

What's not to like about this? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 16:29, 9 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Nothing. I'd also propose an amendment to cap Presidential vacation days. Trump doesn't appreciate the WH; he's just going to fuck off to Trump Tower every other Friday and "conduct business" there. Plutoniumboss (talk) 16:38, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Two weeks for a runoff doesn't give the Democrats enough time to stuff the ballotbox with early voting. What is this, a GOP effort at voter suppression? nobs 20:38, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

An amendment won't happen – here's what you can do instead
Support the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, in which states pledge to assign their electors to the candidate that wins the popular vote. (It's really that simple.) The NPVIC only comes into effect once the states in it reach 270 electoral votes. Currently we're at 165 electoral votes, with legislation pending in Pennsylvania (20 EV) and Michigan (16 EV) -- possible total of 201 EV. Petition your state congresspersons to see this democratic dream become law. For more information, see National Popular Vote's website. 16:41, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Pardon my questioning, but why exactly won't an amendment happen? I've seen decent support from both sides. megalodon (talk) 16:52, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh man. It takes 3/4rd of state legislatures(heavily republican benefiting from the arrangement) or a never-before-happened state constitutional convention to amend the constitution, in addition to 2/3rds majority of the house and senate(also now republican and disinclined to give up power).  State-by-state changes in how delegates are assigned is pretty much the only achievable avenue.    ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:21, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * In fact, looking at the data, the republicans have almost enough power right now(except 2/3rds of the senate) to pass whatever constitutional amendments appeal to them. So.  Fucked.  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:36, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Meanwhile, the Democrats will be left quibbling over "bourgeois feminism". The only way this would be a bigger blowout is if the DNC folded and went the way of the Whigs.
 * Trump, like him or loathe him, single-handedly resurrected the GOP and dragged them (by the neck in some cases) to the top. Plutoniumboss (talk) 18:13, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That's like saying "The social democrats folded, and like him or hate him, Hitler dragged the national socialists to the top." It praises evil for being successful at being evil.  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:27, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You said it, not me. And how would you describe it, exactly?  He's secured one-party rule for the foreseeable future.  Also, and this can't be discounted, the new memo from Assange suggests that he and his organization will continue to hammer the DNC. Plutoniumboss (talk) 19:26, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand how daunting and complicated it would be, but why would republicans be opposed? aren't they just as at-risk of this happening to their party as anyone else? Theoretically, the college could end up electing a democrat when the majority says "republican". Does the college just tend to screw their party less for some reason? megalodon (talk) 18:57, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * At least those small Great Plains states tend to have a disproportional amount of EVs. 538 posted a map about it somewhere in their electoral coverage last night but I'm not in the condition to go dig it up. Vulpius (talk) 20:36, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The only way to get rid of the Electoral College is (1) you got to take over the states, and then (2) vote to limit the power you have. Quite simple. nobs 20:41, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * We really are through the looking glass when nobs says something clever. Vulpius (talk) 20:57, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Pluto, I am going to try and be as nice as I can be when I explain this. Your insistence to blame the voters (whether they are millenials or poor), Assange, or Sanders (or the FBI, or a third party, or Russia) instead of the Democratic cnadidate, Hillary Clinton, will doom us. Obmam had no problem winning the Rust Belt, twice, and he did better than Clinton did with minorities in 2012. Hillary comes off as robotic and her vast wealth alienates her from the general populace; to dismiss criticisms of her feminist bons fides, her foreign policy, or her economic policy as inconsequential lessens the voices the American left will need to her lest we evaporate into non-existence allowing Trump to recreate the US's political framework unopposed.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 21:02, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Such entitlement. The reason the party hasn't come together is because you can't and won't compromise.  Who are you putting up now? Tulsi Gabbard?  The Islamophobe who helped swing Hawaii for Bernie?  That's your definition of a true progressive?
 * For us to move forward, you need to abandon the Tea Party tactics that landed you into this mess. WikiLeaks, TYT, and The Intercept are out for blood.  They aren't going to rest until this party is a heap of smoldering ash.  Until you stop tuning in to that agitprop, we're going to get nowhere at the polls. Plutoniumboss (talk) 21:10, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Nice try with the entitlement BS; I doubt that you ahave been affected by mass incarceration, DOMA, or the Middle East wars. I glad people like you have nothing now since, you self interested morons who will support white supremacy wherever you see it.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 21:25, 9 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Is going with the popular vote necessarily the right way or an effective way to get a better democracy (in America), though? Trump won by a great margin because of the electoral college system with winner-takes-all in most states, with Hillary getting the popular vote just barely. But if you make the popular vote the be-all end-all in a country divided along racial lines and with a 70% white population, you're pretty much ensuring a Trump scenario (or multiple ones even) in the long run. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:32, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * What you want is a less-polarized political discourse where people besides the winning majority can also have a say (i.e. proportional representation, possibly with third parties). Plus it's about time all the not-offial-states territories of the US get their own electors and representatives, and maybe the Native American tribes too, because political-power reparations FTW. And if you can get away with it, maybe give some more electors to liberal/progressive states too. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 23:10, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

My state already passed it, time to reach out to friends in other states I guess.- 00:28, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

In student elections it is referred to as 'Re-Open Nominations/None of the Above.

Amendment suggestion number 2 - strictly control the possession of #bullets# (leaving the guns alone). 31.51.113.11 (talk) 10:40, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Territories getting their own electors? Currently they have tiny populations.
 * Puerto Rico. The last census estimated the population to 3,725,789 people.
 * Guam. The last census estimated the population to 159,358 people.
 * United States Virgin Islands. The last census estimated the population to 106,405 people.
 * American Samoa. The last census estimated the population to 55,519 people.
 * Northern Mariana Islands. The last census estimated the population to 53,833 people.
 * The rest of them are the Bajo Nuevo Bank, Baker Island, Howland Island, Jarvis Island, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, Midway Islands, Navassa Island, Palmyra Atoll, Serranilla Bank, and Wake Island. Combined they have an estimated population of 300 people.

All 16 territories of the United States combined have a smaller population than Colorado.Dimadick (talk) 18:29, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Not a compelling argument. South Carolina, Alabama, Louisiana, Kentucky, Oregon, and Connecticut also have smaller populations than Colorado.  Puerto Rico has a greater population than Iowa, and was bigger than Connecticut only a few years ago (before the crushing economic downturn started draining their population).   23:14, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately the NPVIC has only been signed by solid blue states so far, and while the general population supports NPV, in all types of states and political parties, it seems unlikely for the legislators of red and swing states to vote to reduce their own power. (EC has never helped a Democrat win when the Republican won the popular vote, and swing states get all of the attention and all of the campaign spending.) So how will we get it passed? Hmmph (talk) 23:44, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Just an observation
In the past 20 years, whenever the popular vote splits from the college, the college picks an extremely bad president? Bubba41102Is reaching a breaking point 18:22, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Eh sure, Hillary won the popular vote, but only by 0.2%. :/ 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:11, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Zero point two percent is still a lot of votes. And the person with less votes should never become President. Worzelpete (talk) 19:34, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * After considerable voter suppression efforts. Vulpius (talk) 19:39, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hillary "more popular" than Trump. That's a laugh. More proof the popular vote was "rigged". nobs 13:11, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

"the person with less votes should never become President." That ship sailed a long time ago. This is the 5th time that the person with less votes wins.:


 * In 1824, Andrew Jackson received 151,271 votes, while John Quincy Adams received 113,122 votes. Adams became President.
 * In 1876, Samuel Jones Tilden received 4,288,546 votes, while Rutherford Birchard Hayes received 4,034,311 votes. Hayes became President.
 * In 1888, Grover Cleveland received 5,534,488 votes, while Benjamin Harrison received 5,443,892 votes. Harrison became President.
 * In 2000, Al Gore received 50,999,897 votes, while George Walker Bush received 50,456,002 votes. Bush became President.

In the 1824 case, both major candidates were members of the same party: the Democratic-Republican Party. In the 1876, 1888, and 2000 cases, Tilden, Cleveland, and Gore were all candidates of the Democratic Party and won the popular vote. But the candidates of the Republican Party "won" the election.

As long as the popular vote does not ensure the victory, there is nothing preventing other unpopular candidates from becoming Presidents.

By the way, John Quincy Adams remains the least successful President in getting the popular vote. He actually lost the election by a margin of 10.44%. The most successful President in getting the popular vote was Warren Gamaliel Harding, who won his election by a margin of 26.17%. Dimadick (talk) 19:06, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Who should Obama pardon on his way out?
Hillary Clinton?

Bradley manning?

Julian Assange?

Edward Snowden?

Agree? Disagree? More?--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 18:23, 10 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Two thanksgiving turkeys, instead of the usual one. --Levi Ackerman (talk) 18:36, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Me. I know what I did.  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:43, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden only. CorruptUser (talk) 19:40, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Is Julian Assange even accused of any crimes in the US? Sure he leaked classified US documents, but he did so with: no US affiliation, outside US territory, and without direct access to the classified sources.  It's not like Obama can vacate a Swedish rape charge.  Though I strongly suspect (hypocrisy alert: ikanreed buying into a conspiracy theory without any irony) Trump will try to do so almost immediately.  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:54, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Commute all death sentences on federal and military death row. That's something he can do, and will make a big impact. (The exact details of Obama's personal position on the death penalty is unclear; from what I've heard, he's said he supports it in theory but has a lot of doubts about how it works in practice, so I don't know how much this course of action would appeal to him.) Especially given that Clinton lost, he has far less to lose in terms of worrying about creating political problems for his successor. This won't abolish the federal death penalty but it would reset it all back to zero, and deprive Trump of the opportunity of carrying out any executions in his term. (I'm not sure if Trump plans on carrying any out or not; he's said some pretty pro-death penalty things in the past, but it is very hard with Trump to work out if he really means what he says or if he is just saying what he thinks people want to hear; I think if he felt it would buy him something politically he'd probably do it.) 20:37, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Are there any people on federal death row? En mi opinion he should issue a blanket pardon for all nonviolent drug offenders. Worzelpete (talk) 20:45, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * He's actually been doing that, but it turns out it takes a lot of work to review someone's case to see if it was nonviolent. So the justice department has been taking huge numbers of cases to examine and pass on to obama to sign.  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 21:04, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

If Obama is seriously afraid of Trump he should release everyone from Gitmo, every non-violent drug offender, every whistleblower and hacktivist, and every undocumented immigrant and let Trump suffer.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 20:54, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The sad part is I can't tell if you're joking. I assume you're serious, because a dour personality is sort of a requisite for voting Sanders.
 * ACA will keep Fox busy for four years at the minimum. They can blame the skyrocketing premiums and joblessness on its failure. And you want to give Trump more mud to sling at the Dems? As it is, he's happy as a pig in shit. Plutoniumboss (talk) 00:21, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * So your are absolutely okay with keeping the gulag open, keeping undocumented immigrants in limbo, torturing whistleblowers and hacktivist with solitary and life sentences, and continuing the drug war? If so, thank goat that people like you lost.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 05:09, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Obama's legacy is at stake. Wait til the first pardonee returns to the streets of Chicago and murders someone in a black-on-black crime. No wonder he's not returning to Chicago but staying in Washington. nobs 07:02, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Chelsea, everyone. Please use her name. 73.168.233.181 (talk) 23:54, 10 November 2016 (UTC)


 * FYI, it is decided law that a president can pardon anyone for crimes convicted, crimes charged but not convicted and even for theoretical crimes that have not been charged. The exception is impeachment, which is unpardonable. Bongolian (talk) 04:35, 11 November 2016 (UTC)


 * It's also widely believed that accepting a pardon implies an acceptance of guilt, although legally this seems to be a grey area (see ). So Hillary may be reluctant to accept, particularly if she's looking to 2020. Annquin (talk) 11:15, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Manchurian Candidate
I'm reading in WaPo that Russia had people managing the President-elect's campaign. Which isn't illegal, but not kosher. Plutoniumboss (talk) 22:46, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Assange and Putin are the real winners in all this. They sowed discord between people who should naturally be allies (center-left and far-left), and that kept enough people at home. They executed their plan to awesome effect. The question is, will the Bernie loonies continue to be tools for right-wing propagandists and continue pointing fingers at the Blairites DNC, or barrage them with unprovable counterfactuals, or will they help the DNC unite the party tent and whip their core into shape? 108.21.181.254 (talk) 22:54, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Enough of the identity politics; this whole insulting of the Bernie supporters was a huge part of the reason that Hillary lost. CorruptUser (talk) 00:03, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You mean by not engaging an unnecessary war with Russia for Ukraine (especially after rooting for a neo nazi coup in Kiev, which endangered the russian community), keep financing rad muslim "rebels" against Assad, why not Iran too, while we're at it. That said Trump is despicable and dangerously dumb, among one thing, on global warming denying and reopening the coal mines! I mean, the work and job is a mean not an end, but he's "right", the profit is god inside capitalism. You should have voted Jill Stein en masse, rather. --78.15.231.110 (talk) 19:53, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * "Identity politics", that's adorable. Did you hear that from RT? Plutoniumboss (talk) 00:06, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * "Oh, you're for Sanders or Trump? You must be an unwitting Putin puppet working to undermine our country!" 00:36, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, if you're for trump, kinda, yeah. I mean, you could want to destroy the country for your own ends, but it seems unlikely.  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 01:04, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Day 1 in Trump's America. Spoiler: Racism, sexism, and literal Nazism.
Thanks, Obama. 00:30, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The | original version on Twitter is much longer and even has this | Trump supporter beaten up at the end lol Lord Aeonian (talk) 00:48, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Look up,. Everyone seems to know it, few seem to understand it. ~ Aneris 11:10, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * What a surprise, aneris and Aeonian are in agreement!--Levi Ackerman (talk) 12:53, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * What does it mean, in what way is there agreement, and what's the point of this? (I have a suspicion) ~ Aneris 13:05, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Technically - TECHNICALLY - it's still Obama's America. --Levi Ackerman (talk) 12:55, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * If Obama pardons Hillary, that blows her 2020 chances (at the age of 72). Her concession speech sure sounded like leaving the door open for another bid. nobs 15:51, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * No one is voting for Hillary in a primary, nobs. I know you get your rocks off to her being an evil mastermind, but she's not running again.  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:08, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I dunno, only a wooden stake might stop her. nobs 16:12, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Better start sharpening your head then. Vulpius (talk) 16:42, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Plutoniumboss (talk) 17:20, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Regarding the young kid being beaten up at school: That's about what I saw during George W Bush's presidency when I was in Elementary school. A vocal Bush supporter (he constantly ranted about immigrants and ESPECIALLY gay marriage) beat up a black kid, and everyone else cheered. I don't recall anyone else with me when I ran to tell the teachers. So, yeah, this is exactly how stuff goes down. 11:05, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Never forget

 * ...that the upcoming President of the United States — for all you Americans, your president-elect — gave Alex Jones (of all people) a half-hour long, InfoWars-exclusive interview as recently as December, 2015. Aside from, y'know, just tweeting InfoWars to the world (and advertising InfoWars merchandise). First president to personally feature on InfoWars! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:56, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * We can probably fully expect Infowars & Briebart to get White House Press Office credentials. Don't watch the State of Union anymore, watch Briebart & Infowars. And seriously, read Trump's Al Smith Dinner transcript (which according MSM, was a concession speech) for some clues how he's gonna govern. nobs 20:34, 11 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I suppose it'll be fun to watch some of those in the conspiracy sphere have to reconcile their "government is out to get me, personally" mentality with the new reality that the person leading that government is someone they promoted and endorsed, personally. «-Bfa-»  01:26, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Fundamentally, Trump has a coalition of Main Street Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats. This is a very centrist coalition, probably more so a working coalition then Hillary could have mustard (emphasis on "working coalition"). Now the focus shifts to the House. Prediction: Ryan keeps his job, Pelosi get shit canned. If this Were Great Britain, Pelosi would have been shit canned 6 years ago. nobs 03:39, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Easy, actually: The reptilians got to Trump, and/or he lied. 11:16, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Need more reasons to oppose the Electoral College?
I got you covered. Short version: The Electoral College was created by and for slave owners. Worzelpete (talk) 20:20, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Counting each Negro as only 3/5 of a person was a Yankee plot to take away electoral votes from the south. If they had been counted as full persons, the slave states would have had more electoral votes and Breckenridge would have been President, not Lincoln. Arf arf arf (talk) 20:42, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * And if they could fucking vote we wouldn't have needed any of this shit to begin with, because there would be no fugitive slave laws for the South to whine about in the first place. Let's not get into reality denial here: slavery was the thing that the electoral college was designed to protect, you pedantic ass.  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 21:10, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yankees invented the electoral college to colonize, oppress, and erase the south. The reason was to give little states like Vermont and Rhode Island more power. Stop your denialism. Arf arf arf (talk) 21:19, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * - 22:45, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:34, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know what's true, but I suggest that instead of denouncing someone as a troll, why doesn't each side make their case. There's prima facie nothing trollish about it. Yankee politics could be responsible, and it does not take away from other things, like slavery of the south. History is not neat and well ordered, and rarely like Star Wars or Lord of the Rings with Good vs Evil. ~ Aneris 22:43, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * So far the arguments against the Electoral College only convinced what a waste of money public education is. nobs 01:59, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit confused. Wasn't the Three-Fifths Compromise created sometime during the 1790s or something like that? Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt Noooooooo!  Look! Up there! 01:00, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 3/5ths relates to Congressional apportionment. Slaves and untaxed Indians were counted in the Census which then apportioned state Congressional delegations accordingly. A slave owner for example, with 50 slaves was awarded Congressional representation in the US House for 30 persons plus himself and his non-voting wife. So it is bullshit to say slaves had no rights, they were represented in Congress, only they were denied the vote. nobs 01:52, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I thought untaxed Indians were explicitly not counted. Worzelpete (talk) 20:51, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * ur rite I misspoke nobs 02:31, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

TIME has an article on the electoral college where it's linked directly to slavery. I haven't scrutinized it closely, but I'm tossing it in here as food for thought. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:41, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I have now read the Time article and it bascially makes my point. Worzelpete (talk) 21:11, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I prefer the electrical college. Leuders (talk) 14:21, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Contingency plans
Given the unprecedented attacks on the First Amendment that Trump appears to be planning (expanded libel laws, suppression of the media), it might be worthwhile for the Board of Trustees to consider contingency plans if things really do get that bad. Bongolian (talk) 01:08, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You're right. And you'll probably need some survival food, 50,000 rounds of ammunition, gold bullion, and a fallout shelter, too. nobs 02:02, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, nobs, better invest in Ron Paul's latest gold bug scheme! You too can profit against the coming trumpocalypse! Bongolian (talk) 05:50, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Never fear — Gerard has a vision for our future, and he promises it'll be so bright you'll have to wear shades. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:08, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Seasteading? Really, Reverend? Running away to the seas isn't going to help. However, Tim Curry has a far better idea...RoninMacbeth (talk) 19:56, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd like to believe it's unlikely, but his attitude towards the press so far isn't promising. Somewhere in my head I was hoping to read some really convincing posts about why the risk (about this and everything else) is getting blown way out of proportion, but... there's more of the opposite. :/.  _ 23:22, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

The Electoral College madness
Now that it looks like Trunp actually won the election, a lot of people online are spreading the 'fact' (because I'm not sure) that the Electoral College can vote for their own candidate (the faithless electors), and that about 23% of the electors in December could turn the win to Clinton. Quite honestly, it seems really like wishful thinking, but I have no knowledge of this, and want to know if the above is true or not or somewhere in between. Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt Noooooooo!  Look! Up there! 01:43, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Whatever you do, make sure to assume it is false until the contrary is proven. (Sorry I can't be of more help). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:58, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Which isn't a good advice, alas. A lack of evidence or other compelling material simply does nothing, either way. ~ Aneris 19:18, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is true Trump won the election. Electors are chosen (by different methods in different states) on a party slate. While there was much chaos in the GOP & state parties this go round, outside of a few state party individuals, I cannot think of one state party GOP apparatus that was actively working to subvert the national party candidate and remains committed to a corrupt Democrat. And if it were so, it would be a natipnal scandal and possibly a violation of The Fairness in Elections Act (the sort of crap that got Nixon impeached). nobs 02:11, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Several states have laws that claim to bind the electors to supporting the local winner they're pledged to. The validity of those laws has never been tested, mostly because there's never been a case where an unfaithful elector has made a difference.  Bear in mind that only the top three electoral vote winners are eligible, and in this race there are only two candidates with electoral votes pledged.  You're basically asking Republican party stalwarts, chosen for their allegiance and service to the party, to throw the race to Clinton.  I don't see this happening. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 02:20, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * There is a petition for this.- 18:53, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The electoral college would not have to chose between Trump and Clinton. Every elector is free to chose any person for President or VP. That's what the founders intended (even though they slightly changed their minds). The electors would be fully within their constitutional rights to write in Bernie Sanders. Worzelpete (talk) 20:36, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Or Pepe. 21:11, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I would totally write in Jason Giambi as an electoral college vote too, just like I did in the general election. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい ) 23:24, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Choosing state electors, which is a party function, would have to be part of a reform process in choosing national delegates. Again, rules differ state to state. IOW, reforming the electoral college is part and parcel of reforming the primary, convention, and nominating process. nobs 02:37, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

It feels like the petition gets a few thousand signatures per second. Right now it has 4 million signatures.- 22:30, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

This girl nails it

 * Provocative video title? Check. Young, likely stupid girl? Check. YouTube? Check. Endorsement from Percy? Check.


 * So in other words — this video has all the ingredients for being fuck-all worthless. Some stupid girl, more Trump apologism, clickbait title, usage of the phrase "wake up", endorsed by an alt-right gator assclown like Percy... What's not to hate?


 * Well, the joke's on you, because the video is about learning how to listen — you know, instead of instantly drowning in your own biases (which you — yes, you — are riddled with) and dismissing people out of hand, based on giving them a condescending two second glance and sorting them away.


 * Give this girl just eleven minutes of your time. Granted, she's not a political scientist — but neither are you, you crayon eating genius.


 * Love it, hate it, anything inbetween — her message isn't infallible or above criticism. Just don't lie to my face and tell me that you're capable of listening, while skipping out on doing precisely that, in this very instance.


 * Either take the time watching from beginning to end, or don't. It's not rocket science — especially not for anyone with as much as a pretence to fairness.


 * All the best, your co-pilot in the fight against, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 04:19, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Look, we went through this shit in 1980 with Reagan. How Reagan was unqualified. How Reagan was backed by the KKK; How an incompetent was preferable to a dreamer and liar; How every fart and hiccup was s dog-whistle for racism; How the election was too close to call on election eve. The media then spent the next four years kissing up and making up for its fuck up. nobs 06:48, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey nobs, were you an adult during the 80s? --Levi Ackerman (talk) 11:23, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, married w/children & a mortgage. nobs 14:43, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Hey, RBP, could you give me a brief summary so I don't have to watch? I'm slightly biased against following links to YouTube videos, a fact of which I am not even slightly ashamed. 90.222.131.11 (talk) 15:44, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I can offer no shortcuts in this instance. The message is about leaving your comfort zone. I'm not demanding that you do, I'm just saying it can't be done without actually being done. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:19, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I make it a point not to listen to anyone who takes selfies of themselves drinking "liberal tears" Plutoniumboss (talk) 17:03, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I listened to the whole thing (it's hard because she rambles quite a bit in the beginning and end) but what she seemed to be saying is (and I'm summarizing)...
 * Trump won and that's bad, but having a common enemy (Trump) will serve to unite a lot of disparate progressive communities and result in a more powerful movement than ever before. So in that sense, she's "glad Trump won".
 * Yes, a number of racist idiots voted for Trump, but a huge number of sane, non-racist people voted for Trump, so start listening to those people, and work to integrate their concerns into a new progressive agenda.
 * That's really it, unless I missed some key insight. Nothing you can't read in some recent NYT opinion pieces. Leuders (talk) 17:39, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Rational.wiki users take on "Biokinesis"
On Youtube, I listen to ASMR videos because I find them to be relaxing. I get recommended plenty of videos on the subject, usually from people I commonly watch but sometimes from random channels that also make ASMR videos or ones that share a similar use and viewer base. Recently, this included a Binaural Beats video (which isn't uncommon) that proclaimed I could change my eye color to golden by listening to it and using "Biokinesis" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jY-QveiRX7A the video for reference).

Biokinesis is, put simply, being able to control ones own body with their mind. Honestly, I had never heard of this before. While the concept itself is sound (IE. being able to control ones own heart rate and through proper meditation), I'm skeptical of the degree to which this video claims I can take it. So I wanted to get everyone's take on this. Do you think it can work? Have you ever had any experience with it? Have you ever researched it to any degree and if so, what were your findings?

I'm considering trying it and recording the results after a some time for myself (I'm not sure of the length I'll go for, comments claiming success range from a few hours to a couple of weeks).

By the way, this is just something of a random topic that I wanted people's opinions on. Given recent events, a nice, somewhat relaxing change of pace seemed appropriate.--MyNameIsMike (talk) 06:02, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Googling for the term only results in a crank website cavalcade. That's never a good sign. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 06:08, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * No, it's not. That's what made me skeptical of this in the first place. But given the minor things we can control using certain techniques and our mind, I thought I would get the opinions of those who use their minds regularly. Unfortunately, Bill Nye wasn't available and Steven Hawking kept rambling about Black Holes so I came here.--MyNameIsMike (talk) 06:54, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * What the hell is "biokinesis" even supposed to be? Sounds like "telekinesis" with a fake beard. I mean, just the stated goal of "being able to control ones own body with [your] mind" is highly dubious. In a trivial and shallow sense, this is what we already do when we do anything — I have the intention of writing this, so I'm using my fingers to type it out. And in the sense that has actual philosophical depth, "biokinesis" instead becomes paradoxical, as the mind is in fact a product of the body, not the other way around. Nor is it separate from the body. And, by the way, the concept of turning your iris color golden is — while relatively imaginative — complete bullshit woo that appeals to magical thinking. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:39, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * While the concept of your body and mind being connected sounds alright, humans do not have the freewill to do anything, things that I am reading from biokinesis. For example, I cannot sprout a third arm no matter how much I think about it. One article I found was titled "How to re-program your cells and DNA", bullshit. 18:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

How exactly is Trump's victory going to end PC culture?
Many, like the idiot in this video (yes, she's an idiot. I'll explain why in a minute), seem to celebrate Trump's victory as a defeat of PC culture - "the liberal honour brigade", she calls it. Well, as someone who considers himself PC (not an SJW or a regressive leftists, to be clear), I'm not going to stop espousing my PC views because Trump is president, and I doubt others like me will either. Her entire support for Trump (an illiberal candidate by the way) is predicated on this notion that the Left let liberalism down, as oppose to, say, liking his domestic policies or foreign policies. What's even more confounding is she deigns to call herself a liberal, yet she supports illiberalism (discriminating against people on the grounds of their religion) whilst condemning others for being illiberal. It's the kind of lack of self-awareness stupid people have. In fact, she reminds me of the description of stupid people from the "The Basic Laws of Human Stupidity": "A stupid person is someone who causes damage to another person, or a group of people, without any advantage accruing to himself (or herself) — or even with some resultant self-damage." How will a conservative executive, legislature and judiciary preserve liberalism? How do people like this even exist? I guess the fact that I have to ask the question I just did is why they keep surprising me. It's not just her either. You have that well-known pastor of the brogressive movement, Dave Rubin, whose other takeaway from this election (the other being the crushing of mainstream media) was that the SJW was crushed (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UE4qT_-sgq8). Again, this supposes that SJWs, liberal honour brigade, regressive left or whatever, will cease to be because Trump won. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Obama's re-election give rise to the Tea Party? Didn't the progress made in the recent years, gay marriage, more women in work, more women earning more than men, give rise, some might argue, to the MRAs, MGTOW and the brogressives? On that basis, what makes him think the SJWs and regressive left are done? Unless of course, things go a little 1933 - 1945 and Trump starts sending the SJWs to tolerance camps. I'm sure some would love that idea. Doesn't Pence believe in gay conversion?

TL;DR? This moron voted for Trump to spite "the liberal honour brigade".--Levi Ackerman (talk) 14:42, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Personally — and this reply will be a little all over the place so please don't ride my ass over specifics here — I think the relevancy of the whole controversy over "PC culture" (as you term it) is secondary to quite a few things, including the fact that this election was perhaps primarily (in the minds of the voters) a — a fight between the masses and an elite, which is why both Bernie and Trump were the ones who atleast electrified the grassroots (and why even nutty third party candidates got more-than-nil in terms of votes and coverage). I think the basic factors are the most likely ones — exit polls said that people who voted Trump were overwhelmingly concerned about terrorism and immigration. Those are thus atleast two of the central issues that reflect his win, and they are more central to this than most other pet issues — including the whole "PC culture war". But the backlash to no platforming and other undemocratic nonsense also a factor, certainly — spilling over, on the end of the "horseshoe of stupid" opposite to the triggered radfems, as the alt-right taking the Trump win as nothing but a misguided endorsement of acting like insufferable gators. What's so disgusting is that I've never had reason to respect people who revel in "the defeat of PC". In my limited experience, the overly anti-PC crowd basically always consists of assholes who won't accept that other people don't like their Alt-right bullshit (typically confusing "freedom of speech" with "the imagined right to be listened to and not called out for being hateful"). Besides, framing the entire US election as "SJW's versus reality" or something to that effect is just mind-numbingly silly — it'd be like framing a Trump loss as a "victory for cultural marxism" (and yes, adherents to the expression actually believe that they are "the counter-force to PC dictatorship"). With that in mind, however, there's also truth to the fact that the "inquisition" (pardon the hyperbole) being conducted by adherents to a toxic branch of identity politics (see Zorna v. Mungus) isn't sitting well with the vast majority of functioning adults. See here for more on that point. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:54, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Eight years of Tea Party Republicanism and Donald pushing birtherism gave free range for everyone to react. We don't owe these retrobates anything. Plutoniumboss (talk) 16:59, 12 November 2016 (UTC)


 * @Reverend Black Percy, I'm not disputing anything you've said, and I don't dispute the fact that some people - many people - voted for Trump as a backlash against third wave radical (and in some cases, believe it or not, first and second wave (Gavin McInnes anyone?)) feminism, no platforming, SJWs, political correctness, regressive leftism, and plain ol' irrational people. And I get that! However, how EXACTLY, is a Trump administration an antidote to that? I guess, he and the Republicans could go ahead and repeal the 19th amendment as he promised and repeal many anti-discrimination laws and possibly end any affirmative action policies in place. I'm sure these people who voted for Trump as a backlash against "the liberal honour brigade" would like these things. But, how will that defeat "SJW-ism"? How will that defeat no-platforming? How will that defeat PC culture? How will Trump's victory bring about an end to identity politics? This video, by David Pakman (Do we have an article on him?), pretty much proves my point:


 * The caller, who admits he voted for Trump as a backlash against PC culture, is asked again and again how he thinks Trump's presidency will "fix" that? He couldn't answer. I guess what I'm trying to say is, these so-called liberals (brogressives) who voted for Trump in order to, in their opinion, save social liberalism, might find that they've just done the opposite. --Levi Ackerman (talk) 20:43, 12 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I found more on the idiot in the video. I'm sorry if it feels like I'm being discourteous, but I have very little patience for stupid people, even less for stupid people who think their stupidity is some sort of intelligence that the rest of us are failing to grasp. This is her article, published by the Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/global-opinions/wp/2016/11/10/im-a-muslim-a-woman-and-an-immigrant-i-voted-for-trump/


 * A couple of interesting points:
 * She supports the Democratic Party’s position on abortion, same-sex marriage, equal pay and climate change yet she voted for a candidate who thinks there ought to be some sort of punishment for women who get abortions and believes climate change is a Chinese hoax (Trump has just appointed as head of the EPA, a climate change denier btw).


 * She is a single mother who can’t afford health insurance under Obamacare. The president’s mortgage-loan modification program, “HOPE NOW,” didn’t help me, but she doesn't say whether Trump's plan or that of the Republican Party in general would help her. That was all she had to say on policy. The rest of her stream of consciousness is about how she hated how Hillary and Obama danced around Islamism, by refusing to say the words "Islamic Terrorism". LOL. Really! I shit you not. That's the crux of her argument. Despite being a believer in climate change and the right of a woman to choose herself, this clown voted for a candidate who thinks climate change is a Chinese hoax and has just appointed as head of the EPAa climate change denier and thinks there ought to be some sort of punishment for women who get abortions, because "political correctness".


 * I think this particular extract from the article is telling of her stupidity (again, I am using the definition of a stupid person according to Cipolla):




 * She talks about "checks and balances". These checks and balances didn't stop US mass surveillance of ordinary US citizens under a pretty liberal president, did it? They didn't stop Jimmy Carter imposing a a moratorium on visas to Iranians (which is effectively what Trump is proposing, at least, according to his policy statement on his website).
 * "Our rich history of social justice and civil rights will never allow fear-mongering that has been attached to candidate Trump's rhetoric to come to fruition", she says. Umm...McCarthy, anyone? Plus, WHY WOULD YOU VOTE FOR A FEAR-MONGER IF YOU BELIEVE OR KNOW THAT HE IS FEAR-MONGERING? She also contradicts herself. She's confident that the US's checks and balances can stop prevent Trump's "wall" and "Muslim ban", but she is not confident that they can stop the influence of Islamic theocracy on the US under a Hillary Clinton presidency? The stupidity is making my head hurt. (Also, what does "immigrants from India" have to do with anything?)--Levi Ackerman (talk) 23:31, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean by "PC Culture", or "SJW"?
What do you guys understand by PC Culture, or SJWs? What is a "social justice camp", the article sneakily introduces? I know it sounds like a trick question, but if you actually think that, you would be staring in the mirror. After all, I know what I mean, zeitgeist/movement of sorts, influenced by postmodern critical race theory (intersectionality etc), as suggested by observable jargon, attitudes and behaviours, associated with Tumblr etc. However, I see the common conviction here, an adamant insistence that it's not really a thing at all (as reflected by the article): snarl word, a "SJW" conspiracy and a few nuts is all there is. So take my question as straightforward: what do you actually mean, is the article wrong, did you change your mind in the meantime? ~ Aneris 18:03, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I reported Rome Viharo's wikipediawehaveaproblem and it gets suspended
I reported his site for defamation to his host and within 24 hours of my email it got suspended. I think Tim Farley also sent a legal complaint about the defamation on there.

http://wikipediawehaveaproblem.com/cgi-sys/suspendedpage.cgi

Good riddance! Creationistsareloons (talk) 19:07, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That's... kinda cool, pretty mean. 04:27, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

What's up?
Only a handful of edits so far today. 86.191.145.37 (talk) 00:16, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * ??????????????????- 00:48, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * RW's days are UTC (I think) and so, to (N&S) Americans and Asians, the days will be off. RW has actually had plenty of edits recently. 00:54, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * To anyone accusing the patient of being braindead — please allow me to point out that his big toe is in fact wiggling furiously. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:51, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

How to get back at a right-leaning friend?
I have a friend (best friend in fact) who has opposite political views to mine. This does make for some good debates but mostly it just turns into a fun and friendly bicker. Unsurprisingly, insults are thrown (always in good fun and they're not taken seriously) during the arguments. However, I do lack the whit to think of comebacks on the spot, I always go with just calling him a 'wingnut' but that's as far as my imagination takes me. Meanwhile, his arsenal much more varried than mine: "libtard", "Social Jusitce Faggot", (my personal favourite) "socialist beta-male cuckold" and such of sort. Would anyone be so kind to lend me a comeback for when we get into one of our bickers? As I mentioned previously it's all in good fun, I don't take what he says seriously and he doesn't take serially what I say.

I'm not really sure exactly sure where politically speaking he is so I'll just give an outline of his beliefs, maybe then his political label will be more apparent.
 * Supports Trump
 * Not a fan of migrants
 * Thinks that disabled people should be euthanised because they are (quote) "useless and don't help further the progress of humanity"
 * Strong anti-feminist
 * Strong atheist
 * Loathes religion
 * Believes liberals are restricting free speech
 * Anti black lives matter
 * Pro war and pro WMD

I always through he was a conservative but the atheist part doesn't seem to fit.

Anyhow, hopefully you guys will be able to lend me some good ways to verbally come back at him. Remember, it's only for a little bit of banter :).--WMS (talk) 03:23, 13 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Your friend sounds like a brogressive to me. If he is genuinely a white nationalist/separatist then he is alt-right. Alt-right are not merely "non-religious conservatives" as Aeonian states below. Alt-right, are self-professed white nationalists. It's part of the club ethos: white nationalism. I don’t know why some keep pretending they aren't. Look just call your friend a brogressive douchebag and tell him to stop spending his time watching Gavin McInned, Milo, Sargon, TJ the Amazing Atheist videos, log out of the Manosphere sites and get out more. Maybe get laid. He might rediscover that women aren't all bad if he gets laid, even if he has to pay for it - which I suspect he probably does. --Levi Ackerman (talk) 08:49, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Tumblr or Kotaku are not a good substitutes for political education. The atheist faction you mention disliked Clinton because of her pro-war record, for instance. ~ Aneris 08:59, 13 November 2016 (UTC)


 * You could try browsing some subreddits (r/shitrconservativesays, r/enoughlibertarianspam, r/conspiratard, r/panichistory, r/shitredditsays, r/topmindsofreddit) to brush up.
 * Wild-eyed Trump supporters are not pretty. They will repeat the same disinfo over and over again, until it reaches a crescendo. I'd much rather deal with them over a wi-fi connection. Plutoniumboss (talk) 03:33, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The USA has be very liberal so it was only a matter of time until they got a complete opposite. 03:40, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Those sub-reddits do sound pretty promising, thanks for the recommendation :).--WMS (talk) 03:50, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

I would say he's "alt-right." Alt-right seems to be "conservative but non-religious" while right is more like "conservative because religious." Lord Aeonian (talk) 04:43, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The alt-right, non-religious? Surely you're joking, Mr. Aeonian!. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:24, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

You could try to find out what motivates him. Is he someone who knows he’s won the cosmic lottery and thus has no moral qualms to insist on this advantage he happened into? You could ask him, if he were to design a society, but would not know in which position he would be born into, would he like it the way it is? (this is ). If he is indeed motivated by selfishness and egoism, there is no rational basis for argument. At best, you can try to posit a scenario that threatens him. Say, damaging lies are spread about him on the internet, is he fine with this (freedom of speech absolutism)? If not, why not? Would he like North Korea drop a nuke on the USA, and what’s his problem with this? He happens to dislike everything that is not himself, blacks, disabled people, migrants, those who live in other nations, etcetera. And if that’s his outlook, mock him for it, or add more things that make it look absurd. Shoes should have build-in stones in them, as long as he has a pair without. You can agree to every horror, or first world problem in a mocking way, by adding “as long as we’re not affected personally”; You can only hope it makes him think. ~ Aneris 07:15, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

. I especially like the part about, "Is he someone who knows he’s won the cosmic lottery and thus has no moral qualms to insist on this advantage he happened into? You could ask him, if he were to design a society, but would not know in which position he would be born into, would he like it the way it is?"--Levi Ackerman (talk) 10:33, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * If all you do is trade insults, basically ad hominem attacks, perhaps he is not really your friend. If you can get him to agree to stop trading insults with you, perhaps you can then get to the point of reasoning with him… why does he hates a certain group, etc. Bongolian (talk) 17:35, 13 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you all for the great advice! I appreciate it tremendously and I'll be sure put it into action to all of you :). Also, Levi, I'm surprised you pretty much got spot on which YouTubers he watches.--WMS (talk) 20:45, 13 November 2016 (UTC)


 * It wasn't that hard really to "read" your buddy, if I'm honest. If you've seen one brogressive, you've kind of seen them all. Apart from the ludicrousness of most of their positions, they ironically share one key attribute with their nemeses, the so-called SJWs and regressive lefties: groupthink. --Levi Ackerman (talk) 13:34, 14 November 2016 (UTC)


 * @WMS. Are you and your friend by any chance 14 years old and trading insults in the schoolyard? From the extreme positions (war for war's sake, the euthanization of the disabled, etc.) one of you is taking, that's what it sounds like to me. Leuders (talk) 15:58, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Or it could be that they are fully grown adults, and one of them is a far right extremist, who has taken the Alt-right thing a little too far and is now in the Nazi turf. Or maybe, he's just trying to be "edgy". "Oooh, I'm so base! Check out my extremist beliefs!", not realising how idiotic he looks and sounds.--Levi Ackerman (talk) 17:19, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it's half and half. He does try to be 'edgy' by "ironically" doing or saying stupid things (like constant referring to black people as the N word and saying outrageous stuff, but supposedly that's ok because it's all for the sake of "irony"?) but the his beliefs I listed are beliefs that he thinks are correct and subscribes to them. His beliefs are quite extreme about disliking certain types of people, hopefully they'll clam down at some point but, knowing him, that will not be the case unfortunately.--WMS (talk) 23:39, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You need new friends. Lord Aeonian (talk) 01:29, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Will Donald Trump become the greatest president of the United States?
--47.89.42.71 (talk) 09:13, 13 November 2016 (UTC)


 * No. Next question.--Levi Ackerman (talk) 09:54, 13 November 2016 (UTC)


 * As Socrates might ask, "what is the greatest?" Indeed, it is necessary we first establish the criteria for "greatest." Surely, there is no confusion when somebody says that someone "greatly" holds a trait. So, should we look for the trait he holds the greatest excess of? Mayhaps he will be the greatest President of the United States in some category. Nobody else, to my knowledge, gave their assets to their kids and then appointed their kids to their transition team. There is truly a great excess of something to be found there. Sir Sawtooth Nimrod Maxammalian, Esq. [[Image:Narky.png|20px]] (Indeed!) 10:23, 13 November 2016 (UTC)


 * See the main article on this topic: Betteridge's law of headlines Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:45, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Will he be remembered as "Trump the Great"? Typically history remembers people as "X the Great" when they were involved in a lot of wars and killed a lot of people. So I rather hope that he won't be remembered this way.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 18:53, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * There's already talk of the GOP Congress impeaching him so the establishment boy Pence can take over. It's all up to Trump now to rehabilitate himself with conservatives and the Soros-paid terrorists in the streets of America. nobs 19:04, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Goddammit, Soros said he'd pay me $10,000 if I held up a "Dump Trump" sign for 5 hours. Give me my money, Soros! Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt Noooooooo!  Look! Up there! 21:00, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That fucking Soros needs to be prosecuted. nobs 11:33, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Running on no sleep and I see this
So, it's almost 6am, I still haven't slept because I'm reading the saloon bar. After chatting with someone about something, I flip back to Firefox and read some text. I'm thinking I'm still on the saloon bar, since I'm so sleepy that I can't focus. I'm thinking "oh, this must be someone comparing Trump's victory to the 2000 election." This is what I thought was posted to the saloon bar. It looked like someone was saying "Hey, all this talk about Trump's legitimacy? Guess what good that'll do you." Damn, this person doesn't even exist, and they're making some dark and cynical posts to the saloon bar. 11:58, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It's a new era. This is the end of the Clinton and Busy dynasties. nobs 19:10, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Haha, busy. Bush wasn't busy during his presidency, he was letting Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld run everything while he played golf, vacationed with his family down at the Ranch, and painted things. Great president. Also, this is just the beginning of political dynasties. If Trump doesn't try to get the states to abolish his term limits, he's going to have Eric Trump or Donald Jr. run to continue his rein. That's if he lasts 8 years. Mark my words, Rob Smith. 03:01, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Ahh, Trump showed he's as much of an idiot as those who think the Electoral College can be abolished when said Congress should term limit itself. Ah, tell me, where do you get your so-called news and information from? nobs 11:30, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Israelis elect ISIS due to concerns over Netanyahu's emails
http://www.themideastbeast.com/israelis-elect-isis-concerns-raised-netanyahus-emails/ 22:00, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Not a funny satire article to be honest. Trump is nowhere near as bad as ISIS and its just not comparable. 03:01, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Why was Fun:Zionism deleted?
I wanted to make some fun about conspiracy theories regarding Zionism, but it was deleted by one user without anything that I can ascertain as a formal process as to whether or not to delete. In fact, it was not even moved to my userspace instead as some underdeveloped articles have been. Could you please at least restore it to my userspace? Worzelpete (talk) 02:37, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The article was deleted because it was very biased in favor of the article's topic, even though RationalWiki had not declared its support of Zionism. It would be one thing if we actually wrote a fun article about, say, liberalism. That article would be fairly uncontroversial. However, there is a big disagreement on this site about Zionism, and we have not resolved ourselves to support Zionism, so it is inappropriate for the fun article to flat-out endorse Zionism, which is what that article did. Also, no sources whatsoever were given for the article's content. No people who oppose Zionism are sourced. So how do we know if the arguments mocked in the article are even the ones used by anti-Zionists? There was a ton wrong with the article and it's good that it's been deleted. Applesauce (talk) 02:49, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It's a fun article. It's supposed to make fun of something. In this case, it is supposed to make fun of the Stormfront people who actually believe there is an ancient Jewish conspiracy called Zionism that is behind the French Revolution, the Federal Reserve and a million other things. The intent of this article was to make fun of that. It may have been badly written and it may not be funny, but it clearly was not intended to be a factual article with sources or to argue any other point besides: "Conspiracy theories about Jews are ridiculous". The article was not intended to "support Zionism". How do you even get that view? Worzelpete (talk) 03:33, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * If you don't explicitly oppose Zionism you must support it, duh. Lord Aeonian (talk) 03:48, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's perfectly possible to be be ambivalent about Zionism. In fact, I think one of who I would hazard a guess are your favourite people is ambivalent about Zionism. So, no. Not "duh". --Levi Ackerman (talk) 16:58, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, then the article was deleted because it was badly written, and most important of all, not funny. Make it good! Also, my position on Zionism was never even mentioned by me. I never implied that everyone who doesn't explicitly oppose Zionism must support it. And any speculation on my personal view of it I will consider a strawman argument. Applesauce (talk) 04:01, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Applesauce, it seems you are abusing your sysop privileges. Just because you don't believe in an article doesn't mean you can bypass deletion protocol. Here's a quote from the sysop page:
 * With the exception of obvious spam or vandalism, articles or files should not be deleted without first discussing and finding agreement with other editors. For guidelines on page deletion, see the relevant section of the Community Standards.
 * I'm restoring the page, you clearly have abused your sysop privileges. 04:05, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Before this turns into a "but teh rules say" circlejerk: deleting shitty articles, especially shitty funspace articles, is not a big issue. That's why we give everyone sysop -- so they can do and undo simple deletes like that. Move on, grow up. 13:38, 14 November 2016 (UTC)


 * You give everyone sysop? I was so proud of myself when I got it. Aw man! You just pissed on my bonfire.--Levi Ackerman (talk) 13:44, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You're 78th in line for sysadmin, that's got to count for something. Plutoniumboss (talk) 15:51, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll take it!--Levi Ackerman (talk) 17:01, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't have sysop. :-( Worzelpete (talk) 22:21, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

RationalWiki Foundation bylaws change
At the last RationlWiki Foundation board meeting, the board voted unanimously to adopt new language regarding the election of board members. The reasoning was straightforward. We discovered that knowing how to run meetings and keep the foundation's concerns properly organized was not clear after the election. Keeping approximately half the membership each election would make such transitions easier in the future, by having basic plans and offices already in place from the prior session to not cause a disruption.

To that end the board voted to amend the foundation's by laws, to split the board into two staggered groups of members. The board would also like to solicit community feedback about the change, as it values an open and positive relationship with the wiki editors. Please leave any questions or concerns (or outraged indignation) at the talk page ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:16, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * In short:
 * We hope that longer staggered terms will promote institutional memory (nod to Goonie) & basic competency (nod to Paravant). 23:03, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Y'all are the bosses, do whatever you want. --Castaigne2 (talk) 00:09, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, we already did, we're just making sure the community has no issues with it because we like getting along with the community. Well, except me.  I'm a tremendous misanthrope.  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 01:56, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Even if the community did have an issue, would anything happen?  02:56, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Seems like a reasonable system and I don't recall the board elections being particularly hotly contested or any widespread dissatisfaction with its members or decisions. ScepticWombat (talk) 05:22, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The tiny bit of the community comprised of me thinks this change is a good idea. SolPyre (talk) 18:51, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * How do we decide whether it's 2 or 3 seats?- 00:04, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * First re-election is 2: myself and david, one after that is the other 3 seats, then 2 seats, etc. Also: burn the US to the ground.  Salt the earth.  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 03:42, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * First re-election is 2: myself and david, one after that is the other 3 seats, then 2 seats, etc. Also: burn the US to the ground.  Salt the earth.  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 03:42, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Why are you pretending to care about user feedback? This place is stacked and whacked by a special interest group anyway, there's not even a semblance of rationality or neutrality on this wiki. It died several years ago and has ceased to be a trustworthy source of information for a long while hence. I'm surprised they aren't trying to change the election periods to life, and ban elections. It's pretty much how this shitty wiki has been run anyhow. 124.190.227.150 (talk) 09:47, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * So, we were trying to solicit exactly these kinds of concerns, and I'd be remiss not to engage with them, what do you think of the problems with trying to maintain continuity between sessions? I'm pretty sure everyone on the board is at the very least open to a repeal if there is enough concern of the sort you just expressed.  It doesn't help you to assume the desire for feedback is anything but genuine, though.  That makes it so much easier to roll your eyes and just assume you're being needlessly contrarian, rather than take your objection as exactly the kind of feedback we were indeed seeking.  If you think it's undermining the site's democratic principles, I'd certainly like to hear more of your perspective on why that is, and why the reasoning we had was unreasonable.  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:06, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:04, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

This sounds super complicated and I don't like it. No staggered terms, just elect everyone at once. It's more democratic that way. 03:01, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know if it's super complicated. But I can certainly understand not liking it.  I had a feeling that someone would feel exactly like you do.  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:06, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You're getting to be super complicated yourself these days, you know ! But really, the idea is that it's important and helpful that we have a board that is actually conducting business — which we actually are this time around! Another facet is that we're a volunteer project, so naturally, we're taking precisely all the time we can get out of certifiably good people. Turns out, we have active, democratically elected board members that can — and will — abide by the rule change lined out here (and as agreed to by the community above) which will extend the terms of said three board members from 1 to 2 years. Net result is that we just managed to nick an extra years' worth of dedication from three certifiably good editors. It's win-win. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:04, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Really? If this is such a good and altruistic proposal, why is it I'm seeing holes in just about every reasoning that's been posted in support of it? -- 04:58, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * For the same reason Alex Jones sees the bankers, the bankers, the bankers everywhere he looks? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 05:07, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Great, compare someone who disagrees with your position with someone so crazy their xerox version nearly causes the end of the world in Arrival. Good going. -- 05:23, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, come now! Let's have a sense of humor. I was just horsing around. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 06:06, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The board asks for user input, a user expresses a dissenting opinion, the first response of a board member is to attempt to ridicule that user. And I need to have a sense of humour? -- 06:17, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Firstly, you asked how come you alone are seeing holes everywhere you look. Which is a funny premise to begin with. Secondly, maybe this young woman can teach you something about not assuming I'm "out to get you" or anything. Thirdly; yes. Yes, you need to have a sense of humor — because, speaking of offical policy, RationalWiki has a sense of humor. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 06:29, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * @Iscariot: What holes do you see? 17:39, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan to me. I think the people complaining about the amendment are not really complaining about the amendment. Hmmph (talk) 19:35, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I can totally see the problems exactly one person has raised: it's less democratic. And it is.  It's like... 50% less democratic per year.  I just hoped when someone raised that objection we could have a discussion about what might a better way to address the fact that no one has any idea what's going on after an election.  I did some work setting up a mailing list that might give a better sense of continuity, and FCP is actually doing a great job now of keeping this year's meetings organized and attended.  And all that means this measure might be less necessary than it seemed when we started, but it would still be great if there was a secretary to schedule the next year's meetings and know what's going on and get people up to speed.
 * Back when trent was more active he was that force of continuity, I'd wager. I wouldn't know, though. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:06, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump, merely a symptom of the deeper pain that society feels
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3Ou5uFFn8Q

I feel that Russell Brand has a point when he says people have become so disaffected with the sane establishment that has done nothing to better their conditions that they will vote for a radical change, regardless how insane. 109.175.208.0 (talk) 22:10, 12 November 2016 (UTC)


 * This is now the tenth YouTube embed on this page. Can we please go back to just linking to videos?  23:46, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Changed to a link. Sorry about that. 109.175.208.0 (talk) 08:45, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Trump is a reaction to the Trayvon Martin and Ferguson Missouri cases, where the perp is celebrated and the victim ostracized. Obama and the media fucked up. They stoked racial tensions where they clearly were in the wrong. nobs 15:26, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

#Calexit?
Thoughts? Is it worth having an article on?- 23:36, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Is it something people will still be talking about next week? Or next month?  Or want to read about in a year or two's time?  See RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/The Triggering for comparison.  23:57, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks.- 00:08, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't recommend writing an article on Calexit until it reaches the required number of signatures to get on the ballot. From what I've seen, the mood here is less "Secede because Trump is elected" and more "Trump is elected, so just lie back and think of England until 2018." Maybe just file it under the current secession article. RoninMacbeth (talk) 15:32, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * RW could do with more coverage of the various secessionist loons; there's not even an article on the Alaskan Independence Party or Texan secession, just Second Vermont Republic. Annquin (talk) 15:40, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Good riddance. Take Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein, Henry Waxman, and George Miller with you. nobs 15:21, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * "Good riddance." Uh-huh, and at least we'll take those avocados and our high GDP ranking. Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt  Noooooooo!  Look! Up there! 16:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Good luck getting fed if CA secedes, because California produces a lot of the nation's food supply.- 17:31, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, we'll take Silicon Valley with us.- 17:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * California could join NAFTA, but Mexico & Canada wanna renegotiate it with Trump anyway. nobs 17:59, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Bleh. Can we get Nevada to go along with us? We love Vegas as much as they love our beaches. Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt Noooooooo!  Look! Up there! 20:57, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * We might even get Oregon and Washington to go with us. RoninMacbeth (talk) 22:55, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh god yes, that way we get Seattle from the bargain. Do we align ourselves with Canada, Mexico, both? Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt Noooooooo!  Look! Up there! 23:19, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Canada. Maybe we can convince New York and New England as well. Or we can combine Canada, the People's Republic of the West Coast, and Mexico into a supernation. North American Union for the win! RoninMacbeth (talk) 23:27, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * [[File:Protest.gif]]- 00:16, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The most atheist states in the U.S. seceding...Cool!- 00:17, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Woo! Our capital? I propose to change it to Redondo Beach, SF, Sacramento, or a new city. Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt Noooooooo!  Look! Up there! 00:26, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Change it to the most atheist city in CA.- 21:32, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I added a couple of sentences to Secession. There was a California National Party founded in 2015. Annquin (talk) 17:57, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Trump is the Illuminati
I revoke my previous stance: the conspiracist fringe has turned against its own.

How long until Alex Jones declares Trump in the pockets of bankers? 19:59, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It's too close to reality for the likes of them. Bongolian (talk) 21:21, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Alex Jones needs to get pissed at something otherwise he would lose his sheeple audience. If Alex Jones says all is right in the United States because Trump is president, he wouldn't have an audience that is pissed off to listen to him, would he?  06:41, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * All this does is provide further evidence that religion is a form of mental illness and that the guy in the video is somewhat detatched from reality absolutely fucking batshit insane. not a real jedidamn right i'm paranoid 09:14, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You think Trump will deport his wife? nobs 15:18, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * CF makes a good point. Alex Jones, Breitbart, Fox, etc. require an enemy to survive. I think we'll see a constant stream of scare stories exaggerating the amount of crimes by muslim, undocumented immigrant, or black people. Also I think the drumbeat of fear and loathing of the Clintons will continue even though no Clinton will be in office, so that any politician that gets in the Trump administration's way gets branded with the Demon Hillary stamp. Bannon et al learned that hate for Hillary directly mobilizes support for Trump, so I think they will figure out a way to keep it working. Leuders (talk) 16:36, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You obviously weren't an adult during the Bush the second years. The right-wing Wurlitzer will do what it did then - pretend that the protestors and intellectuals arguing that whatever Trump is doing is wrong are actually trying to bring down our government and it is your patriotic duty to support Trump, or you are an idiotarian. Hipocrite (talk) 19:05, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Breitbart is obviously itching to become Trump's Der Stürmer, but I think he'll eventually have a falling out with Alex Jones. There's just too much paranoia in that man. Vulpius (talk) 20:12, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Breitbart or Bannon? Breitbart got whacked by Obama, remember? nobs 20:34, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Breitbart the website. Vulpius (talk) 20:51, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I actually was an adult during Bush II's reign, but am predicting that Bannon will adopt tactics to fit the new populism rather than work from the traditional right-wing playbook. Leuders (talk) 03:16, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I have a friend who is a gifted programmer but also a conspiracy theorist. He supports Trump because supposedly "all the other candidates are freemasons" and "Trump is anti-Illuminati". He might have mixed in Jewish conspiracy theories too, but he himself is a Jew, so... TeslaK20 (talk) 19:41, 15 November 2016 (UTC)