RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive290

I am pro-life. AMA!
I am pro-life, and I think that there are non religious pro-life arguments. Ask Me Anything! Kingdamian1 (talk) 02:28, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Why are you so proud of having awful opinions? 02:58, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Why is that opinion aweful? Kingdamian1 (talk) 03:02, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Based merely on the declaration of being "pro-life," I assume you are in favor of prioritizing fetuses over their parents' lives, mental health, physical health, and the child's own well-being. This is one of the most awful opinions you could possibly have. 03:17, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * "Pro-life"rs don't stop at the fetus, after all, microbes have rights too (for extreme fun, inform "pro-life" advocates that their entire body is basically a giant graveyard), and after all, every sperm is sacred. 03:24, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Because they're a troll? 22:04, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you in favor of a recreation of My Immortal but with RationalWikians? RoninMacbeth (talk) 03:04, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you talking about or ?  03:12, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The fanfic. RoninMacbeth (talk) 03:51, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Gods no. Kill it with fire and nuke it from orbit. It's the only way to be sure. 03:53, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure, OK, it's terrible. But that's why it must be preserved! Ms. Gillespie contributed a work on the level of The Room and Manos: The Hands of Fate. Would you take these from our culture as well, GC? RoninMacbeth (talk) 04:01, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * PS: KD1, almost everyone is "pro-life", i.e. against kill/dying, it's just many of them are also pro-choice. 03:15, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That makes no sense. Abortion is murder or close. Kingdamian1 (talk) 03:22, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Say it: you're pro-birth. You're not pro-life. 03:24, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Until the third trimester it isn't viable outside the womb, ergo it's death doesn't matter. Besides which, why are human lives more important than the lives of pigs for example? How is it ethical to kill some animals and not others? Does it really matter since our bodies are literally made of both living and dead cells? 03:28, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * What does that mean?
 * In a society we have laws. If a conceived human is not alive than what is it? The cells are growing, developing... Dead things don't do it! Also, if the mother decides that she is going to give birth, and someone where to cause a miscarriage, would it not be treated as an infanticide? So does mother decide the value? Kingdamian1 (talk) 03:43, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the mother ultimately applies a subjective value to the potential human life, however, there is no inherent value to human lives, nor life itself for that matter. And you still haven't explained how a human's life is more valuable than that of a pig or skin cell. 03:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You value life over quality of life. It's not very pro-life to force a woman to carry life she knows she can't support. It's not like abortion is exactly something women buy a huge cupcake to celebrate over. 03:51, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * When you say that something is valuable, the natural question is to ask, "to whom?" Since we are talking about a HUMAN society, it is logical that human life would be valued above that of a pig. Kingdamian1 (talk) 04:15, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Human life is valued, so let's respect that value and not force life to enter a family that's not prepared to sustain it. 04:24, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Not "forcing life to enter" is a polite term for infanticide. Kingdamian1 (talk) 04:28, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you want a child to grow up in circumstances her parents cannot afford? 04:30, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Wait till it reaches an appropriate age before considering euthanasia! Kingdamian1 (talk) 04:38, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Drink! Why is there no pro-life bingo?

Bongolian (talk) 04:40, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the point. The sperm is not alive! It does NOT meet the definition of being alive. Kingdamian1 (talk) 04:44, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * "Are sperm alive? The definition of life isn't straightforward, but sperm cells fit the bill." Bongolian (talk) 04:52, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * But it's not a human, is it? Kingdamian1 (talk) 05:12, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * A foetus is about as much a human as any single cell in your body. —Kazitor Kazitor sig pic.png 05:14, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * A sperm is clearly alive, it's clearly human and nobody cares about it.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 15:07, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Those familiar with me shouldn't be shocked to hear that I also consider myself to be pro-life. I think there are a couple of exceptions where abortions are justifiable (e.g if the mother was raped or giving birth could put the mothers life in danger) but other than that I see a foetus as a human life and killing it is wrong. A few months ago the Republic of Ireland held a referendum on abortion and (predictably) the country voted in favour of its legalisation. I was stunned and slightly disgusted to see that there was people literally crying with happiness at this, given how t will lead to the unnecessary deaths of thousands of unborn babies. --RWRW (talk) 08:50, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Why is abortion justified if the mother was raped but not if the mother is too poor or ill to adequately support a child? The rape exception is suspicious to many feminists because it denies women control over their reproduction, while allowing men control over their paternity and their wives' reproduction: "In the abortion debate, most anti-abortionists allow exceptions for rape and incest. This makes no sense if all life is sacred, but it fits the male paternity theory perfectly because these pregnancies represent unauthorized paternity." (There are also serious practical problems with implementing a rape exception, like how to prove rape, what to do in the common case of an unreported rape, and that it requires judgment about whether a woman is sexually active or could have become pregnant another way.) The only logically consistent and feminist option is abortion on demand. --Gospatric (talk) 09:13, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The problem is one of those where there will always be a certain amount of (probably necessary) fuzzy thinking on the subject and where responses to 'the theoretical' and 'the actual and personal' will differ - and where there is likely to be some allowance for 'violence, "being in a bad place/set of circumstances" and serious health problems with the unborn child etc.'
 * There are other logical options - taking full responsibility for one's life (but allowing for the unexpected and accidents), and ensuring that 'the wider society' provides several viable options. Anna Livia (talk) 10:40, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * @Gospatric Abortions for foetuses conceived by rape is justified because the mother became pregnant from no fault of her own and it would be cruel to make her raise the child of she didn't want to.
 * But if she knew that she was too poor to raise a child but made a conscience decision to have sex without contraception then it is unfair to terminate the life of an unborn baby as a result of bad decisions. Of course on this scenario the father should be compelled to provide financial support as he is equally responsible. --RWRW (talk) 15:14, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * There are several points in that post that should be addressed.
 * Given that most "pro-lifers" appose contraceptives, it really is rather fallacious to blame the mother for not using them when she may not have social or physical access to them, or may be pressured out of using them even if she does. Add to that the failure to encourage the male gendor to do the same and things really start to gain perspective.
 * Existence itself is "unfair". Is it fair that some have more money than they could ever spend but others die in the gutter with nothing? Is it fair that some countries have relative freedom while others labor under the yoke of tyranny? No, yet such things are a reality of existence.
 * Finally we run into the meat of the issue, and that is that like it or not a Fetus is not the same as a human child, neither is an Embryo, nor a Zygote, nor are Gamete. 15:28, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That is no argument. If they are pressured out of using contraceptives I highly doubt they'd be able to have an abortion.
 * True, life is unfair. But that doesn't justify snuffing out a potential humans life.
 * A foetus is not a human, but it is a potential human. I still believe it should have the same rights as an actual human. --RWRW (talk) 16:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * And how exactly do the "rights" of a creature that is literally lower than a rat biologically, take precedence over those of an established human being? After all, every human sperm, Zygote, embryo, and Gamete is a potential human life, yet I fail to see movements dedicated to saving each and every one of them. How is the fetus different? Is it because you believe that the word "fetus", which you have little to no emotional attachment to, is interchangeable with the word "baby", which you do indeed have emotional attachments to? 18:18, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Because a rat isn't going to grow into a human. Nobody should have the right to take another human's life. In my eyes a fetus should be given the same rights as a baby because a foetus will ultimately become a baby. --RWRW (talk) 20:52, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No it won't. There is zero guarantee that a fetus will not die in the womb, not split into two fetuses, not consume another fetus, not gain untreatable illnesses that will cause it to die a horrible death after being carried to term. And again, a potential life is not equal to one that already exists, is not worth treating another human being as little more than an incubator, is not worth them risking their lives if they possess health problems. In an ideal world abortion would not be necessary, however we do not live in an ideal world, and in all likelihood we never will. 21:10, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't get how a pro-lifer (pro-birther) can logically not be in favour of conceiving as many children as possible. That's literal millions (someone else can run the numbers, I suspect it's much higher) of living cells and potential humans being "killed" by each person over a very short timespan! If you're not having sex every spare moment of your life, you are literally worse than Hitler. —Kazitor Kazitor sig pic.png 11:59, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The only "Pro-life" advocates I respect are those that practice Consistent life ethic. All of the others are morons and/or sexists who hide behind a moral system they don't understand. 13:25, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, no such people exist. —Kazitor Kazitor sig pic.png 13:33, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No such organization exists, sadly. Someone who practices true consistent life ethic (ethical veganism included) would make an excellent foil for my rather cynical and borderline nihilistic views on life. 13:41, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * TBH, consistent life ethic also bothers me, because it still seems inconsistent if mysticism is removed from the equation. Without a "soul" to ground what makes a fetus special, I cannot fathom a reality-driven reason to treat it as equivalent even to the death row murderer.  If the lines in the public debate were CLE versus modern individualistic liberalism, I'd still view the CLE folks as a bit nutso.  The fact that pro-life people take those same positions but with tremendous amounts of hypocrisy just makes them worse.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:30, 1 August 2018 (UTC)


 * "made a conscience decision to have sex without contraception"
 * How do pro-lifers keep consistently missing that contraceptives do not reduce pregnancy rates to zero??? How the fuck does abstinence-only education (where people keep screaming that abstinence is the only 100% way to not get pregnant) produce idiot pro-birthers like this!? And why should a child be punished for living in circumstances their parents cannot care for? No pro-birther can ever answer that question. Why is it more morally acceptable for a child to be either abandoned for adoption or be raised in a sub-optimal environment rather than have a child be raised only to best circumstances the parents can provide? Why is life under any circumstance more valuable than a life under good and appropriate circumstances? 18:23, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Because Moral Absolutism mixed with "interpretations" of outdated religious ideas (isn't that redundant?) leads to shitty logic. Also babies = cute and most people are morons when it comes to science. 18:30, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Of course it doesn't reduce pregnancy rates to 0, but it significantly reduces them. As for the rest of it all I will say is if I was given the choice of being aborted or being adopted, I'd choose adoption. --RWRW (talk) 20:52, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I highly doubt you are pro-life. You are most likely pro-birth...which is very different. From what I've seen of your comments and your self described world view, you are unlikely to support a universal minimum income, complete universal healthcare, generous welfare funding for single parents, generous welfare to parents living below the poverty line, financial and psychological assistance to pregnant teenagers carrying the baby to term and giving it up. If you would support this (all things which are necesary for to ensure the child is actually living...not rotting in poverty, malnutrition and dangerous medical problems...then I'd believe you when you say you are pro-life. If not...then you are just pro-"baby coming to term and being delivered from a uterus". An overwealming number of pro-life people simply obsess over babies being born and get extremely angry when the government tries to create well funded by taxpayers program to give welfare to help a single mother and their baby living in poverty with little to no financial support. That's pro-birth. They don't care about the baby having an actual life, surviving to adulthood, free of easily avoided misery, having the basic physical and psychological nourishing that every mammal naturally needs. Shabi  DOO  19:31, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Baboon buttocks.jpg humans.]] The problem with the "conceiving as many children as possible" argument,, is that "God" would seem to be against it by making human fertility different that almost all other female mammals that an have an overtly obvious estrous. Bongolian (talk) 19:43, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for making Fun:Pro-life argument bingo, ! Bongolian (talk) 20:41, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I've always been in favor of some version of a third trimester abortion ban. Before that, I don't understand how anyone can have a problem with allowing women to take a few pills and expel a bundle of cells. That's what most abortions are. However, I do have a problem with abortions that occur later than this. Obviously, abnormalities that threaten the life of either the fetus or the mother should result in exceptions. My objection to third trimester abortions stems from when I think human life actually begins. I've seen people here refer to fetuses as being "less than rats" and "not human." I don't hold this view. If we decide that human life only has value due to a person's advanced intelligence, then we could theoretically justify murdering children for years after their birth. Instead, I believe that human life begins with consciousness. There is evidence that fetuses experience dreams and brain activity at roughly seven months into development and perhaps even earlier. (There is also evidence from pro-choice sources that fetuses can feel pain at that point as well.) It sucks to have to put an arbitrary number on this, but there is a point where a package of cells becomes a human being. A fetus may not understand its surroundings, but it is clear that they are at least somewhat aware of their surroundings. I think legal abortions should be cut off at roughly the beginning of the third trimester. Most reasons for abortion should manifest themselves far earlier and allow for the procedure to be conducted before this time. Heck, I'd even accept state support for abortions to make it easier to get them in before the deadline. But I believe that aborting a fetus during the third trimester is unconscionable. I know it's rare, but it can happen. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano Make a Reservation  20:55, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * In my defense I A) am extremely cynical bordering on nihilistic in my views on life, existance, and the meaning (or lack) thereof. And B) using vulgar metaphors to explain how fetus isn't the same as a human child. The only ethical opposition to the typical abortion procedure is during the later part of the pregnancy when the child (and yes, medically it is a child at that point) is viable outside the womb and has developed to the point where it can feel pain, both physical and emotional. In short, despite (or even possibly because of) my more cynical views I abide by medical science and evidence. 21:20, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * So long as the anti-abortion cranks remain such bullies, abusing confidences, screaming "murder" at people, blocking clinics and the like, I refuse to take them seriously. (It's the same for me with the goddamn vegans and animal-rightsers.)  Giving such obviously deranged fanatics political power strikes me as a recipe for disaster.  Giving them their way in anything can only count as appeasement; it will only leave you in a weaker position when confronted with the next round of demands.  So I refuse to consider questions about 'when life begins' or take anything they say at face value.   It strikes me that the worst brands of fanaticism arise when people pick inappropriate targets to sentimentalize, be they fetuses or livestock, and then suffer cognitive dissonance when they learn that nobody else cares. There's something that seems inherently toxic about that situation. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷom teḱs. 00:43, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Interestingly in the case of the anti-abortion/anti-choice crowd, most would be unable to identify the results of a first-second trimester abortion, given that the remains look little to nothing like a human child. 01:14, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, honestly, I wish people stopped caring about this debate. This whole "murder" thing is blown vastly out of proportion. Can we care more about food and housing for children?? 03:37, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * To add a bit of fuel to the fire, yesterday one of those preachers I love so much was accusing abortists of murderers and criminals, and especially complaining about so many millions wasted on probes to Mars (and that a lake and life were discovered there), the kind of sayings that causes my blood to boil as insulting BB and evolution theories, while so many foetuses are killed.
 * Maybe that idiot, who given the way talks or rather almost screams is likely as high as a Boeing 747, could explain why there're natural abortions (and not few of them), and from a religious perspective why to bring children to the world knowing they've a not precisely small probabilibity of ending up being tortured for all eternity after death (same if the End Times are so near as some of them love to much to say). Just to begin with something. Panzerfaust (talk) 13:41, 2 August 2018 (UTC)


 * So. Since you are pro-life, are you making a big family of your own? Certainly the size of other people's families is no business of yours.Ariel31459 (talk) 13:59, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

New article
Created new article on the Pentagon Papers. It might need a look-over. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano Make a Reservation  21:50, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

"Magic"
Just gonna leave this here... RoninMacbeth (talk) 14:39, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmm... I wonder how this is different from prayer... 15:02, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Magic is prayer without faith. Even pagans prayed. 15:18, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Faith in the religious sense is actually just blind belief and assumption mixed with the religious ritual of choice. Given that fact, arguing that "magic" is the same as prayer is not very far fetched as both rely on blind faith in the methods used and both make positive/negative assumptions about the results or lack thereof. 15:28, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You have a valid point there. Though in my view religion is lacking in faith these days, so the distinction is becoming even less. 18:56, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Jenny Nicholson is one of my favorites. Her teardowns of corporate mandated storytellings are phenomenal.  She does good teardowns of fanfics too, where she really sets herself in the narrative.  It's great to see somebody who actually listens to a fiction before making fun of it.  Lindsey Ellis does a less charismatic job of it.  Still, I wonder about some of Jenny's really old Bible Study looking videos.  It looks like California Straight-Edge Christianity, which is unfortunate, but I grew up with plenty of Midwest Bible Study Straight-Edge friends and at least she's never shallow in her teardowns like CinemaSins.  GoshDarn (talk) 05:34, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd like to thank for introducing me to Jenny Nicholson. I've enjoyed watching a lot of her videos over the past week. Well, listening to them in a lot of cases because most of them aren't very visual. Which is good, as it means I can listen to them while doing other stuff. She's no Lindsay Ellis. But she might be when she grows up! Spud (talk) 11:30, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome. Mostly, I go to Lindsay for serious analysis of silly topics, and to Jenny for snarky analysis of silly topics. RoninMacbeth (talk) 17:48, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

If you need magic to do the fighting, then you're a pussy in my view. 18:57, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Extreme eclipse in 10 hours
Longest of the century, four minutes short of the longest possible duration. From 2018-07-27 18:24 to 2018-07-27 19:30 (UTC). Info here. —Kazitor 08:28, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The end is nigh! Kravdraataf (talk) 11:24, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The day of the Long Blood Moon is come! There will be no salvation! —Kazitor Kazitor sig pic.png 11:27, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * This be an omen of doom... 11:28, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The con artists conspiracy theorists will be coming out of the woodwork to spew their nonsense. Which Bible verse do you think conspiracy theorists will distort today? --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 14:15, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * SOON, I SHALL TAKE MY RIGHTFUL PLACE AS THE ANTICHRIST!!11!!!!111!1!1!11!!!!! MWUAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHHAHAHAHAHAAHA!!1!!!!!!!111111!!!
 * PS: It's my Birthday today in case you're wondering what the hell I'm talking about. 14:24, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Happy Birthday. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 14:38, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Happy Birthday! --RWRW (talk) 20:13, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

'extreme eclipse'? is it going catch some gnarly air or something? will i see it and shout 'radical'? AMassiveGay (talk) 14:59, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Only if you are an Australian Werewolf. 16:01, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * "Extreme" as in "lying at an extremity," specifically that of its length. —Kazitor Kazitor sig pic.png 00:27, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

It’s too damn cloudy where I live so I can’t see the moon. Sad! --RWRW (talk) 20:13, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Got too cloudy where I am. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 21:34, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Caught it. Clouds when the Moon rised up ruining to watch her low in the horizon but could see everything else. Since the camera is a potato, all I got during totality was a red blob and after it things weren't much better but at least got to stop and picture something. Panzerfaust (talk) 23:34, 27 July 2018 (UTC).
 * I saw it at approximately 15-minute intervals, trying to get some sleep in between (4–5 am here). At first it seemed like it wouldn't go red, but I guess that's just because the rest of it was too bright to notice. Fortunately clouds didn't get in the way at all; the sky has been oddly clear these last few days anyway. —Kazitor Kazitor sig pic.png 00:27, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * , Happy birthday. . Guess any of those where a blood red Moon means the end times are nigh. Mix with the solar eclipse that always precedes and lunar one and you've an unexhausting source of BS. Panzerfaust (talk) 23:37, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Take a perfectly natural event that happens from time to time and then add some distorted pieces of distorted religion- now you got a doomsday prophecy. Now a little dose of distortion on YouTube. The other day I was looking for emergency alert system scenarios and I came across a video relating to an EAS hack back in 2013. A whack job hacked the EAS to bring a doomsday message. Unlike the actual news story, this was told with a dash claiming the end was coming; this video even cited dear old quack David Meade (yes, that nutcase). Relating to what I mentioned above, people take events that happen periodically and distort them. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 17:53, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Just see Meade's famous 23 September 2017 fail prophecy. Even assuming Hebrews had taken Babylonian constellations (see here, granted there are planets on the Bible but not the planets as we know to be), which is likely, the amount of BS on it is hard to measure. Panzerfaust (talk) 08:21, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

That blood moon was a sign of chaos, they say kneel before Abaddon. 19:03, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Official State Religion Instructions
The first instructions are to record yourself on YouTube reading Numbers chapter 31 and Ezekiel chapter 9 (the baby killing chapters) to fundamentalist church  goers, you all know that the reaction would be priceless. This will serve the ends of our gods. BobRoss (talk) 03:19, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * What's your point? A 'fundamentalist' doesn't understand what he's reading? That makes you an idiot for such a moronic statement. nobsI survived a vast leftwing conspiracy 04:41, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, they do have a tendency to blatantly ignore several passages that contradict others or say things they don't like. They criticize more moderate forms for picking and choosing despite doing it themselves. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 07:36, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * A 'fundamentalist' has chemical reactions and responses which tend to result in bellows of laughter emitting from my throat. Why wouldn't I want to see these passages read by them, even if they totally dont understand what they're reading? BobRoss (talk) 18:37, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Duh, so what you're saying is a 'fundamentalist' has no fundamental basis for being a fundamentalist. nobsI survived a vast leftwing conspiracy 19:23, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Even more amusing is watching someone go all out, fire-and-brimstone revivalist Bible-thumping southern drawling, preacher while reading the Bible cover to cover. 12:50, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Raining on parades for no reason at all
NASA says terraforming mars literally impossible with current technology, no matter how much money is spend. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:37, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth I also came to that conclusion from reading Science News. Atmosphere loss due to high levels of radiation is probably the clincher as far as making it near-impossible, but there are other severe problems besides minimal atmosphere and high radiation: toxic soil doesn't help matters. Mars' weak magnetic field means that even if you pumped the atmosphere up to breathable levels, it would still get stripped away by the solar wind. Earth's relatively high magnetic charge helps repel the solar wind. Bongolian (talk) 20:41, 30 July 2018 (UTC)


 * This is stupid, they say it's impossible because there is insufficient material on Mars. The material they need is greenhouse gas mostly, ergo they simply need to transport it from Venus, whose high pressure atmosphere is mostly carbon dioxide. Perhaps they could terraform Venus at the same time. 20:33, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe they could run a tube from Venus to Mars and send a bunch of that CO2 from Venus to Mars and maybe they could borrow some of the magnetic field from Venus and give it, at least temporarily, to Mars so that the solar gales don't blow away all the pretty costly CO2 that is being transfered through the tube from Venus to Mars. Shabi  DOO  22:17, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Or wrap Mars in a giant plastic bag to make a big bubble. :D 01:13, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Is this supposed to be news? —Kazitor Kazitor sig pic.png 06:32, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I mean... that's more a question for NASA who gave the press release, than me, internet poster extraordinaire. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 13:33, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * What kind of stupid human is Elon Musk anyway? I'm glad I gave up my own humanity long ago. 19:05, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Anti-White Sentiment in the West
With the recent events of New York Times "writer" Sarah Jeong being hired despite her anti-white views, and many people making excuses for her, is anti-white sentiment becoming more acceptable than racism against other minorities? Or is it just white guilt? Kingdamian1 (talk) 20:01, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Or are your news sources crap? Who knows!!! Hint: Fox News is crap. 20:03, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Let me help! Kingdamian1 (talk) 20:04, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh wow!! Gosh Golly geewilickers that was so helpful. Fox News is still crap. 20:09, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you stop changing the subject! Kingdamian1 (talk) 20:09, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You cited a shit source for your claims so... No. 20:12, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Ant-White politics has been becoming more acceptable for years. Just look up some of Diane Abbotts comments (and she will be our Home Secretary when Labour wins the next election!) --RWRW (talk) 20:12, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The NYT hired a writer who made some dumb tweets. Who gives a shit? She already walked them back, said she regretted writing them, and she's going to be reporting on tech news, not culture or politics. Okay? Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano  Make a Reservation  20:13, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Would the same "apology" be acceptable if she called black people "goblins"? Or stated she "enjoyed being mean to old black folks"? Why not? Kingdamian1 (talk) 20:14, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh noes!! She said mean things that hurt your whittle feelings? Good. 20:16, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is a double standard. People have more visceral reactions to bigoted statements about minorities than they do to moronic statements about white people. That's because there are various cultural and historical factors that make one worse than the other. The day when white people start being subjected to systemic legal and societal discrimination is the day I'll start listening to complaints of "anti-white racism." Right now, it's not much worse than some tweets that make you feel angry. Suck it up. (And I'd also like to point out that I don't like her tweets any better than you do. But it's still not the same thing, and I suspect that on some level you know that.) Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano  Make a Reservation  20:23, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I will make it clear that I am NOT a racist, nor do I support ANY TYPE of colorism, and I think the concept of race is outdated, mostly. But I am just going to say, you guys complaining that white nationalism is on the rise- yup, that is because of your sentiment. That these statements are just "making me angry" against whites, but when against blacks they show how corrupt republicans are. That sentiment is responsible for Brexit, Trump and the Italian government. Keep on doing it, and see how popular that gets! Kingdamian1 (talk) 20:28, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe we're just sick and tired of right-wing persecution complex bullcrap? Tired of having it shoveled down our throats day in and day out. Tired of being looked straight in the eyes and lied to. Is it any real wonder that we've grown callous towards such blatant horsehit? 20:33, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Lol, you're a goddamn fucking moron. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:35, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * So why are you surprised when republicans and right wingers win then? You know FULL WELL that America is a right-wing country, that values freedom, independence etc. And all these Democrats are going further to the left. Some openly espouse socialism, call for abolition of ICE (even Bernie Sanders thought that was too much), and open borders. And you know, shit like this?Kingdamian1 (talk) 20:38, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You posted literal nazi smears, go fuck yourself. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:38, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Nazism is a form of fascism. Fascism is an ultranationalist form of government that advocates violent suppression of opposition, seizure of commerce etc. I am a capitalist libertarian. I am a DIRECT opposite of National Socialism. I don't expect your IQ to catch up to this, though! Kingdamian1 (talk) 20:40, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Uh-huh. That doesn't really change the fact the what you posted is Nazi in origin, just like say... Your usage of the term "Cultural Marxism". 20:44, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Ikanreed just desysoped me. I think he should be sysop revoked! And I should be re-sysoped! Can you quote one thing which was Nazi? Kingdamian1 (talk) 20:46, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You banned me after posting nazi propoganda. Not a fucking game.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:46, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 1)It was a JOKE BLOCK. Since you were a sysop you can unblock yourself, I get blocked like that too.. 2)I have a problem with debating people with subpar IQ. Sorry! Kingdamian1 (talk) 20:49, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * "Ant-White politics has been becoming more acceptable for years." Yawn, you might as well ask me to prove that you're using the internet. 20:52, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Wait. Do you disagree that anti-white sentiment is generally more acceptable than anti-minority sentiments? Also, I did NOT reference the white genocide... Did I? Kingdamian1 (talk) 20:53, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Look at this, now he can recognize when something is a joke. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:00, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Racism is never acceptable. However, "anti-white" is a load bullcrap made up by people who think they're special. "Anti-minority" sentiment is very much real, and very, very lethal to real people. 21:05, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't understand. When a woman says that she thinks that white people are "goblins who should be in the underground", when she says that she is "happy" that white people are not reproducing, that she enjoys being mean to old white men, why is labeling this anti-white a "load of bull crap" or "Nazi"? Kingdamian1 (talk) 21:08, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Why are her tweets okay? Because of this simple word: context. Overwhelmingly context that establishes that she was responding to the real racists: actual nazis.
 * Why am I calling it a nazi, because this a controversy literally ginned up by people who adhere to white nationalism.
 * Why am I being an asshole to you? Point #2, conservatives regurgitate nazi propoganda without thinking.   Fuck you so much for not thinking. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:14, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 21:17, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * So if a white person got called racial slurs and decided to retaliated by calling blacks "goblins" etc. Would you think it is ok for him/her to be hired for New York Times? Also, why do you people expect this sentiment to become prevalent in the USA? Do you actually think the US people will vote for white guilt? Kingdamian1 (talk) 21:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Turns out I'm perfectly qualified to discuss white male lived experience in the US. And in my totality of experience, there's nothing worth complaining about interfering with people's lives whatsoever with regards to the unabashed bullshit you're spouting right now. Maybe shut the fuck up. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:26, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * This is in today, conservatives say stupid shit, provoke a reaction for stupid shit, and then they say, "this is why trump won". No, Trump won because the stupidest crop of conservatives have voting power. 21:33, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, conservatives, try not citing Fox News, The Daily Mail, The Sun, Breitbart or any low-quality publication if you want to be taken seriously (and the turning around to call The Independent garbage). You might come off a little less than absolute jokes. 21:37, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Ha ha, I like your reference to me and my opposition to the Independent there. Tell me, how can left wing sources be seen as credible when right wing sources are "low quality" --RWRW (talk) 21:40, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * We have entire articles why your beloved The Sun is a POS bird cage liner (calling it a "rag" is generous). So go there if you want an elaboration. There is no left-wing equivalent of toilet paper matching the size of The Sun's readership. While left-wing sources aren't exactly perfect (and often times, people who simply do good reporting can be called 'left-wing'), left-wing trash (yes there's left-wing trash like Rawstory, Daily Mirror), they don't reach quite the same consistent frequent crap as right-wing publications, especially not the same degree of influence. 21:42, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * What does any of your conservative bashing has got anything to do with the topic here. Why do you expect NY Times to NOT be seen as biased, when in the current climate, where white people get fired for the slightest racial jokes, it is ok to hire a woman who has explicitly made her views on white people clear? Kingdamian1 (talk) 21:55, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Because you're citing a slanty publication, Fox News, which has an axe to grind on anything to the left of it. I don't trust Fox on anything as it has proven itself to be a liar and spinner with a reckless disregard for responsibility and accuracy. See our article, which explains thusly why Fox News can't be trusted for anything. You might as well be citing RT or Sputnik, which are Russia's equivalent of right-wing nationalist propaganda.
 * Even so, you didn't read your own link. Said person redacted her views and apologized, even though comments were back in 2014. People say stupid things back then. But calling her "anti-white" for her reverse trolling remarks (she was responding to her harassers using the same rhetoric they were using) made 4 years ago is a stretch and dragging someone through the mud. This is different from Kevin "Women who get abortions should be hanged" Williamson, who I don't think apologized for what he has said and having support of conservatives as they decry as "censorship" and "just another viewpoint". Though even then, people opposed to his firing made a statement that should apply here


 * But I think Williamson is subject to a different standard as his tweets aren't made in the heat of the moment and they echo conservative trash and his personal views. Also, in the Fox News article, you don't see reports of liberals coming to her defense for "free speech" do you? It's one-sided, if you can call it that. 00:46, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Wow, this blew up quickly. TheEOE (talk) 01:45, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Q: What's the difference between Kingdamian1 and a troll?
 * A: Fuck all. Spud (talk) 05:19, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

MMMMMM! Yummy flame war! Can I have some more? Ha, humans are so stupid. No wonder these worms can't even cure cancer. 19:15, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Life can't go wrong?
It's something I heard in regards to how we perceive life. To a degree I can understand it, since life just happens without any real regard for what we want and when we say it goes wrong it's more like we don't get what we want. I don't know, it just seems kind of flippant to me. It's like "yeah objectively life can't go wrong it just happens" but anything beyond that is just people projecting. My stance is the life/existence simply IS and anything beyond that is just us painting over that.Machina (talk) 20:35, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Existence "is" as you put it, life however is something that just happens on occasion. 20:40, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The universe couldn't give a shit. That means literally, even if the universe wanted to give a shit...it cannot...because it isn't an entity that could give a shit. It's just an enviroment, one very very hostile to life. Scale down the question and religious appologists response. You wouldn't ask "does the wind care about it if something is knocked over"? Then clearly there must be some wind-God that can explain things being knocked over and broken. I cannot accept a climate system where things are destroyed for no reason. Otherwise we are suffering for no reason. The weather is indifferent to human misery. Exactly. Just as the universe doesn't give a shit. Shabi  DOO  23:39, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * A rather crude way of putting it but true. The universe is indifferent to suffering or pleasure, sadness or joy, life or death. These things are but fleeting ghosts upon the cold but beautiful wastes that are the cosmos. 01:24, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

RW gets a nice shout-out from Joseph Farah
Religious-Right nut, WND founder and mustache enthusiast Joseph Farah had some nice things to say about RW in a recent editorial. Likewise, if you should Google the independent, right-of-center news sites like WND, Breitbart or Daily Caller, you will quickly be confronted with attacks on their credibility from a pack of lying, partisan hack sites from Rational Wiki to the SPLC to Media Matters to Snopes. https://www.wnd.com/2018/08/google-king-of-trump-derangement-syndrome/ it's nice see my efforts on the WND page pay off :D Petey Plane (talk) 13:30, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * WE'VE HIT THE BIG TIME BOYS AND GIRLS!!!!! THE WINGNUTS CURSE US IN THE SAME BEATH AS SNOPES AND THE SPLC!!!!! 13:33, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Cool. All publicity is good publicity, even if we are a "lying, partisan hack site". :D 13:36, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * In the context of political debate: 2018, I honestly don't think there's a way to be decent and factual and still be called non-partisan by these particular people. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 13:40, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I gues they're also celebrating over at Media Matters (whatever that is). Spud (talk) 14:26, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Media Matters for America. "Media Matters for America is a progressive tax-exempt, nonprofit organization, with the stated mission of "comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media" 14:35, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * OK. I suppose we're in good company there. Spud (talk) 14:45, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * independent, right-of-center news sites
 * like WND (which Farah happens to be a founder), Breitbart or Daily Caller
 * Pick one. 17:34, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * "Likewise, if you should Google the independent, right-of-center news sites like WND, Breitbart or Daily Caller" Can we take a moment to notice that WND is in fact correct, and that they and their peers are indeed right of center? Far, far right!!! Other things they are to the right of include but are not limited to, reality, sanity, and truth. Thank you for your time. 17:35, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * WND isn't just to the right of reality, it's sailing off the spectrum into the horizon toward probably Space Junk Galaxy. 17:38, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 18:37, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh dear, it looks like they may prove that the political spectrum is indeed flat... 19:03, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Tim Pool and "left-wingers" with primarily right-wing audiences
Have any of you guys heard of Tim Pool? He started out as a journalist documenting Occupy Wall Street and won a few awards for it. These days, he strikes me as a "neutral" centrist type that spends his time "helping out the left" (a la Sargon) by focusing entirely on issues he has with left-wing identity politics, alleged media bias against figures like Trump and Jordan Peterson, the upcoming civil war and whether liberals will survive it, #freetommy etc. He's also done short documentaries on Ben Shapiro, Sweden's "no-go-zones", and other topics. Tim's garnered a relatively large audience since taking a tack towards criticizing the left (nearly 200k subscribers, 160K Twitter followers) and has done interviews with Sargon and other right-wing Youtubers. He seems to have gained a following of alt-right/right-wing nuts based on his Twitter feed and his videos' comment sections.

Below are a few sample videos, along with links to his Twitter account and Youtube channel. It seems that there are a growing number of pundits that claim to be left-wing at heart but dedicate their time to placating to the right-wing and pushing fear-mongering narratives about how the left is out to hunt down conservatives. May consider writing an article on him.


 * Pool's take on the recent Sarah Jeong/NTY controversy (endorses the right-wing viewpoint):
 * Pool arguing that affirmative action is racist:
 * Pool reporting on someone who was attacked for wearing a MAGA hat and implying that this is a growing trend:
 * Pool arguing that Millenials are becoming more conservative:
 * "MMA Trained Antifa vs Tommy Robinson":
 * Youtube channel
 * Twitter

-KingWill473 (talk) 18:29, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Another Nurgle hireling? Thanks, but no. 19:19, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * or another Dave Rubin. -Petey Plane (talk) 19:41, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Sarah Jeong Controversy
In light of the recent controversy involving Sarah Jeong, I think we should create an article about her and/or the controversy. 68.0.189.224 (talk) 05:07, 3 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't even know who the hell that is, or why we should create a page here. I'm jet lagged and have no desire to google this person now. You're free to add a suggestion for a new article to our to do list, but please add some relevant links and context so we don't have to guess what this "controversy" is all about. Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 05:11, 3 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Sarah Jeong was recently hired by the NYT and some racist tweets that she made were dug up. She is now being berated by a whole bunch of people. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/sarah-jeong-new-york-times-tweets_us_5b633c12e4b0b15abaa0e80e I don't like HuffPo, but at least it's not Fox News. 68.0.189.224 (talk) 05:29, 3 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Also here are the people berating her. https://twitter.com/sarahjeong/status/1025049961472253957 68.0.189.224 (talk) 05:29, 3 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the background; now I remember the reference. It seems worthy to add to the to do list. Cosmikdebris (talk) 05:31, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The BoN is leaving out context, as tweets in question were the result of repeated bouts of trolling and harassment. In addition she did walk back her words and apologize. 12:07, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The link they most recently posted was that context though? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 13:42, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It appears that this issue represents a right-wing attack on the NY Times. No article.Ariel31459 (talk) 13:59, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * We have articles on other Manufactroversies, however we should point out how the right-wing is just fine and dandy damning her, but will fall on their swords for right-wingers who say similar and worse. 14:05, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think this thing is big enough for an article. I'm almost certain this will cease to be a news item by the end of the week. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano  Make a Reservation  15:16, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I say we should because this Wiki needs a flame war to be purged. 19:17, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * What about adding this to the article about the New York Times in this wiki? The article itself is not much more than "people on the right say it is liberal, but look at all this neocon bullshit!" It is generally liberal, and most attacks from the right are specious. Maybe they should be cataloged.Ariel31459 (talk) 14:22, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I like that idea, however I think we should hold off until afterwards so that A) we can document the bullshit narratives more effectively and B) see if the NY Times caves in to the trolls or not. 15:40, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Wish I wasn't wasting my life paying attention to this
But this one bit is hilarious, one of the more prominent thinkpiece writers attacking her, Andrew Sullivan, cited as evidence that she should be fired, a tweet that was explicitly a satire of another piece that he had written suggesting we hear "both sides" on whether black people are innately low-iq and thus unable to join society. She made a tweet in response to that piece with the text "Are white people genetically predisposed to burn faster in the sun thus logically being fit to only live underground like goblins, let's hear both sides". He's now citing that parody of his own views as evidence of her being racist. It's a perfect encapsulation of the complete and total intellectual dishonesty on display here. His: Hers: It's not just a double standard, it's an insane, completely fucking out-of-your-goddamn-mind standard for thee, and no standard of any kind at all for me ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 04:43, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Sincere
 * 2) Giving undue credence to one of the most bunk racial pseudoscience claims that is widely made
 * 3) Prewritten, edited, reviewed, and still went out in a full-on major publication
 * 1) Obviously a fucking joke based on any reading of tone and content
 * 2) A parody of someone elses' views(his)
 * 3) Just a goddamn spur-of-the-moment tweet
 * 4) Not representative of an actual movement of racists' real positions on anything.
 * Her tweet made me laugh. It encapsulates the shallowness of Racialism's understanding of biology so perfectly. 13:03, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia Bias
First of all, let me say, I am not trying to complain about Wikipedia. I think that almost ANY encyclopedia that operates like Wikipedia is going to have some bias, and what Wikipedia has achieved is really remarkable for me. I definitely think that the negatives are DWARFED by the positives. Also, I have paper encyclopedias that were written by experts, that show bias. We have a late 50's (early 60's) encyclopedia. When I read the page on communism, it felt like an anti-communist propaganda. But lately, I have been finding some biases in Wikipedia. And also, I am pretty liberal about what qualifies as bias. I do NOT call bias when an entry does not mention someone's religion, or does not include AIG as a source on evolution... But I did come across some biases. What amazed me more was that the editors in power were ready to defend these biases. My first major experience came on this article. It is about a far-right group, Britain First. I have to state right away, that I do not support Britain First. But I had known some things about them. Britain first is described as fascist. Later in the article it elaborates that they have simply been called "fascist", there is no evidence that they are actually fascist. They openly disavow fascism. A lot of us made very good points and explained that we should perhaps describe them as "far-right who have been labelled 'fascist'." But they would not change it. Literally, all of their sources simply CALL them fascist. And it is a passing mention. So we have no evidence that Britain First is fascist, they disavow fascism, even Wikipedia elaborates later that they have been CALLED fascist, but, DESPITE all of this, their main description states that they are fascist. Then was this article. The article about reverse racism. I have never been a fan of that term. I think that racism is racism. This article is protected to prevent editing. This article basically embraces the Neo-Marxist idea that racism is a class struggle between the powerful (white) and the weak (POC) and that racism is not about individual discrimination but rather about the history of which race held power. This contradicts Wikipedia's own main definition of racism, which defines racism as, "the belief in the superiority of one race over another, which often results in discrimination and prejudice towards people based on their race or ethnicity." Also it mentions that generally conservatives complain about Reverse Racism and that there is no evidence that you can be racist to the powerful (white). And then I read this article about Trump Derangment Syndrome. Again, I am not trying to promote this as an actual thing etc. But I think there has to be a neutral POV. I do not see how this article is neutral. What do you think? Kingdamian1 (talk) 17:50, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I've been letting LGM handle these so far, but I'm gonna dope-slap you with a CAPS block. It's for your own good. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano  Make a Reservation  18:12, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * What ya know? KD1 posted more shit in the bar after his recent Coop case. Some people never learn WestlifeFan (talk) 18:15, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * tl;dr 18:26, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1600/1*wuhil5dHn7k-RYG7JW3Uqw.gif 18:46, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Its one more example of your inability to work with others. You seem terribly unable to collaborate with others and accept a consensus...even if you don't like it. Maybe wikipedia editing isn't for you. Shabi  DOO  22:30, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

IQ testing parties
If we tested the IQ of those who identify as conservatives and then tested the IQ of those who identify as liberal, which side do you think would have a higher average IQ? I am going to say the Conservatives. Kingdamian1 (talk) 03:04, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I am going to say that with a large enough sample size, the difference would not be significant. —Kazitor Kazitor sig pic.png 03:19, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Nice try. Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 03:20, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The group with the higher IQ would naturally be the ones that think the idea is farcical and didn't bother. 11:42, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The group with the higher IQ would naturally be the ones that think the idea is farcical and didn't bother. 11:42, 22 July 2018 (UTC)


 * This has already been done on a state by state basis in the US. You can compare the red states with the blue states and make your own conclusions. Ariel31459 (talk) 14:27, 22 July 2018 (UTC)


 * The states seem pretty intermixed to me. California and Hawaii are both in the bottom four, below Alabama of all places. That that those numbers mean anything, but it's not enough to fit either side's narrative of who's smarter. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano  Make a Reservation  16:12, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Look at the distribution on the bottom half (26-50) for greater clarity.Ariel31459 (talk) 16:46, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * 14-11 in favor of the red states, but only if you throw the notoriously unreliable Florida on the red pile. The reds also only have 6 of the bottom 10. I don't see anything to write home about. Plus, we're completely disregarding the numerous other factors which are almost certainly impacting the results more than "who this state voted for in '16". Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano  Make a Reservation  16:59, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Only 5 of the bottom 25 are blue states, a couple are purple, the rest red. There were 17 blue states in 2016. It does not suggest anything, except: even the specious arguments don't work out for conservatives. These red/blue designations are not determined by any one election.Ariel31459 (talk) 17:48, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I can't believe you guys are arguing over settled science. nobsI survived a vast leftwing conspiracy 10:05, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Even if the results were statistically significant, IQ as a measure of "intelligence" is severely flawed. RoninMacbeth (talk) 15:41, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I have no idea. People who boast about their I.Q. are losers.
 * I'll just leave this here... 16:22, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Drawing conclusions about a state's "intelligence" with average IQ scores without any sort of context or explaining the possibilities of the scores (making these numbers meaningless) is unwise, and going further by trying to draw political relationships from such limited information is reckless abandon. Finally, there's no direct relationship between IQ scores and critical thinking ability, as smart people fall for dumb things, and I believe critical thinking skills are far more valuable than inherent IQ score. 18:15, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * States don't have "intelligence" and they don't have intelligence either. Don't drive your car with reckless abandon. On the other hand, make all the IQ jokes you like. It is possible that intelligence is more like beauty than like a developed sense of humor.Ariel31459 (talk) 20:07, 22 July 2018 (UTC
 * IQ tests aren’t an accurate means of measuring “intelligence”, as there are many kinds. And some persons have levels of intelligence so high that their overall sanity is questionable. Look at Albert Einstein, seriously who would want to be that smart? I’m thankful to be jack shit at math, even division and multiplication are a struggle sometimes. BobRoss (talk) 20:45, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Didn't intend to smear anyone. Just a fun question! Kingdamian1 (talk) 23:06, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

In all seriousness, if that survey of IQ state by state was meaningful (which I doubt), then proximity to Canada is far more telling than being a blue or red state. Shabi DOO  01:05, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sure that lots of Christians, Scientologists and Homeopaths will have high scores. It's what you do with your smarts is important.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 09:53, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Any interpretation of the IQ map would probably qualify as a meaningful coincidence. I personally like, the closer you get to Canada, the smarter you get. Ariel31459 (talk) 15:35, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh man who could possibly have seen this coming
Seems like while IQ does predict school performance, believing in immutable innate intelligence negatively predicts stress and school performance outcomes. I wonder what that means for our local IQ obsessed assholes and their ability to adapt to new challenges. (okay fine, in high school like this study, I was one of those IQ obsessed assholes). ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:02, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Last time you posted about IQ you seemed to indicate that IQ was useless to predict school outcomes; good to see the incremental changes in your position. Interesting study that you posted above, I guess it's hardly surprising that if you are struggling at school, holding the belief that your intelligence is fixed will likely cause you stress, and further deterioration of results. In case anyone is wondering, the best evidence that we have suggests cognitive ability is consistent over long periods of time; there have been a few studies conducted in the UK (eg. https://www.gwern.net/docs/iq/2004-deary.pdf) starting early last century and continuing to this day.
 * I also remember the last time we talked you said that IQ had no effect on life outcomes. It would be interesting to hear your take on this study given the finding that it had a wide-ranging effect on life outcomes such as morbidity. For example, an 11 year old with a score ~ 3SD lower than another was half as likely to be alive by the time of this study. Is this study flawed? What studies do you have that show IQ has no effect on life outcomes? Or are you defining life outcomes as something completely different?
 * This leads us to the thought experiment - if IQ is fixed (or to be precise, very stable over time) and it's maladaptive to think so - do we lie for the benefit of our children or tell them the truth? 49.255.251.242 (talk) 00:52, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Hot off the Presses
A new Harvard study claims that much higher than average temperatures result in reduced cognitive ability. It seems that Intelligence testing should be done at a constant temperature, if it needs to be done at all.Ariel31459 (talk) 13:50, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You mean I was on to something when I noticed that stupid people/crazy people/fundies seem to prefer overly warm climates?!?!? Damn, I could have been famous if only I'd done a study... 16:22, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Survival of the Canaanites
I'm not hating on Jewish people, but I just think its truly beautiful that the Canaanites have survived. I recently found a DNA study that said 90 percent of Lebanese ancestry is Canaanite. They lived through the purge (if there ever was one). There's still a chance that the worship of Baal Hadad and Anat can be revived. Heck sign me in. BobRoss (talk) 04:01, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * "Tribal mythology of a bronze-age culture doesn't hold up to historical scrutiny." Seems about right. But, to be fair, I don't think the Bible explicitly says that the Canaanites were completely wiped out.  Rather, it's more along the lines of "expel and/or kill those in your destined homeland"(thus driving them North into modern Lebanon), instead of "genocide all Canaanites". Petey Plane (talk) 16:36, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The Bible is very clear that the Canaanites survived -- Joshua 17:12-13 also shows that the Israelites used the Canaanites for slave labor, rather than killing them. Also, read Judges 1:27 - 2:5, especially 2:1-5, where God explicitly states that the Canaanites would never be driven out of the land. The Bible records the Canaanites as being alive and used for slave labor as late as the monarchy period of Israel: 1 Kings 9:20-21. The Israelites were intermarrying with the Canaanites after the Babylonian exile, as late as the 500-400s BC: Ezra 9:1-2. The Bible also has no problem showing that Jesus was a direct descendant of a Canaanite woman (Matthew 1:5).Sovereigntist (talk) 17:25, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I know, but the study just sparked me as beautiful, a testament to the strength of a people demonized and reviled for millennia. Even if the massacres recorded in Joshua aren't true, evidently some terrible persecution must have existed to cause myths like that to circulate. BobRoss (talk) 20:15, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification, Sovereigntist! Petey Plane (talk) 00:03, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The Israelites were actually a subset of the Canaanites, and then gradually assimilated the rest, except for the Phoenicians of course. Hebrew is actually one of the Canaanitic languages after all. It's pretty much excepted that everything in Joshua is literally a nation-building myth, that's it, a myth. Just as the Exodus never happened, neither did the events of Joshua.--Palaeonictis (talk) 12:18, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Is it weird that I print Wikipedia?
So I have printed Wikipedia articles. I keep them as papers. It's not that I print them, I make my mother print them on her job. Not so long ago, I made my mother, on her job, print out Wikipedia entries on "biography". And on that same day, I had her print out the article on Charlemagne which consisted of 45 pages. She printed 45 individual pages at her workplace. I also have rationalwiki entries and many Conservapedia entries printed, like that, at her workplace. Would you describe this as weird? Kingdamian1 (talk) 05:23, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You spelled "wierd" twice. That's weird. 05:24, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Done! Kingdamian1 (talk) 05:29, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You forgot an adverb in your first sentence. The word is "incorrectly." 68.0.189.224 (talk) 05:32, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You "forgot" an adverb in both of those sentences; I don't see how that's relevant. —Kazitor Kazitor sig pic.png 05:40, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * What adverbs did I forget? 68.0.189.224 (talk) 05:47, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Every single adverb in existence. —Kazitor Kazitor sig pic.png 05:59, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You're just fucking with me now, you piece of shit. 68.0.189.224 (talk) 06:03, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That you print wikipedia pages...weird? Not neesarily...if you prefer print why not. The weird thing is the way you talk about your mother like a private secretary, someone you have do things for you and worse someone you make do things for you. That's weird. If not slightly creepy. Shabi  DOO  06:06, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not my fault if the quotation marks around "forgot" didn't clue you in. —Kazitor Kazitor sig pic.png 06:16, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Funny cause Charlemagne is only 37 pages for me (on A4 size) so it must have been rewritten somewhat. I dunno if it's weird, but I don't. 12:07, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I like this thread. 15:26, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is weird that you are printing Wikipedia articles, although I think you may want to consider saving them as PDF, but I do think it is weird that you are making your mom do it for you. Why not do it yourself? Nerd (talk) 16:04, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Mom has access to a better printer, or an unlimited supply of free paper? Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 16:53, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Printed out wiki articles are essential for a crazy wall. Millennium Scallion (talk) 17:05, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I do not own a personal printer. We have several as a family, but the printer would run out of ink if I printed Wikipedia. My mother has a better printer at her workplace! And running out of ink isn't a huge problem, I guess! Kingdamian1 (talk) 17:15, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If I were her boss, I'd be somewhat annoyed with her using a workplace printer for personal reasons, especially since it sounds like you're printing dozens of pages each time. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano  Make a Reservation  17:21, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Very-seriously-helpful bon-bon: I don't think you understand how quotes work. 17:22, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * She seems to be doing fine so far. But, I agree, that Charlemagne article was a little too much! Kingdamian1 (talk) 17:25, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you at least print them double-sided? 17:27, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * NO! I specifically ask her NOT TO! It looks kind of annoying. Kingdamian1 (talk) 17:28, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I hope one day a tree from a tree farm takes off like a rocket and falls on you just to say "thanks". 17:33, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hey, I DON'T chop down trees! Kingdamian1 (talk) 17:37, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Wee-woo wee-woo! That's a ALL CAPS violation, citizen. You know what that means! Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano  Make a Reservation  17:37, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Hey, speaking of Non sequiturs: what no one was speaking about them? Time to recurse! Has anyone read ? It could be enlightening. Bongolian (talk) 19:22, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * What RW and CP pages did you print out?Sovereigntist (talk) 20:57, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Since CP has short articles, I have a lot of them, on Charlemagne, Pepin, King Tut, Akhenatin, Caligula, Nebuchadnezzar etc etc... From RW, I have articles on pseudohistory mostly. Kingdamian1 (talk) 21:03, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Depends. For those that are edited quite frequently and/or are long it's a waste of paper, as said article may have been modified -especially those about current events, etc-. For short ones and/or those that are hardly ever or never edited may be reasonable.
 * If I need them I'd prefer to have them as PDFs, even if said PDFs become obsolete in some articles. However with cheapo tablets/smartphones and WiFi almost everywhere even that is not necessary. Panzerfaust (talk) 22:04, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Is it weird? Probably. Is it an attack on the environment? Definitely. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:20, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Anti-white
Has anyone else noticed that when someone uses terms involving the prefix "anti-white" rather than the normal version of said terms that it comes across as elitist? It's as if even as they scream "help help, I'm being oppressed" (as if that's how oppression actually works, but more on that another time) they feel the need to separate themselves from those they secretly look down on and view in a negative light. 15:20, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It seems to mainly be used by bad-faith actors who don't care at all about racism (which most of them openly engage in), but who are only concerned about "owning the libs" by pointing out what they perceive as hypocrisy. Petey Plane (talk) 16:00, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes yes, there's that. However have you ever really noticed the linguistic implications of the "anti-white" prefix? Not plain old fashioned racism, no no no!!! But a special type of racism/discrimination that white people apparently suffer from, to the exclusion of all other groups. To put it into perspective how often do you hear "black people" complain about "anti-black racism"? Not very often I would expect given that the word "racism" is more than enough to describe the situation and/or attitudes. 16:26, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah. I see what you're getting at.  I guess when your ethnicity is in a position of power, you are able to label any perceived bias against you as extraordinary and unique in relation to other ethnic biases.  Yep, you have a point about it being an elitist term, from a dialectical perspective.  Petey Plane (talk) 16:57, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * To be fair, the term racism has been hijacked. I personally agree, racism is racism. But modern radical liberals do not use racism as we use it. What we mean by racism is an individual or a group of individuals discriminating based on a person's race. This is not what they mean, when they say racism. They have re-defined it to mean historical power. According to them, you cannot be racist to a white person, because white people have had power historically and thus racism can't exist. Because for them we are not individual people, we are parts of groups fighting for power. This is why they support "color conscious" policies, like Affirmative Action or Racial quotas. Kingdamian1 (talk) 17:22, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Who are these "modern radical liberals"? 17:25, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * here Kingdamian1 (talk) 17:28, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The problem is that dumb people conflate "racism" with "institutionalized racism." The latter is the power+prejudice definition. The latter is what you would have seen in apartheid South Africa, or in the American South. And in that case, it makes no sense to have white people complain about suffering from institutionalized racism when they're also victimizing black people. Racism, on the other hand, is just discrimination based on race. And it can happen on the individual level. And because it can happen on an individual level, there are extreme variations on the circumstances in which it arises. If a group of racial minorities were to beat up a white person behind a bar for being white, that would be pretty feckin' racist. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano  Make a Reservation  17:29, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That is EXACTLY why I think that people like Donald Trump are necessary from time to time. I have no problem with some left wing policies. I would not mind voting for a balanced, rational center-left person, but some of these lefties just go WAY TOO FAR. And the difference is that they control mainstream media/entertainment unlike right-wing loons. CNN, Vox and NY Times from time to time endorse these CRAZY ideas. Vox even started justifying Sarah Jeong's racism using that bullshit definition. That is why USA needs people to keep these leftists in check, when they go too crazy, you get a wake up call. I have no problem with rational, center left people! Kingdamian1 (talk) 17:35, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, when the left arm has horrible gangrene, the obvious solution to the problem is to give the right arm horrible gangrene as well. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano  Make a Reservation  17:40, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Please stop the all-caps stuff, it's very annoying and make you sound crazy. Cosmikdebris (talk) 17:43, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Donald Trump is not necessary, not when right wing policies dominate all forms of government.
 * Teh Left-Wingerz absolutely do not control radio, and Fox News has the highest ratings of all TV media.
 * Sarah Jeong's issue has been handled and no, she's not racist.
 * Leftists are already kept in check through egregious gerry-mandering, fake hysteria about voter fraud, and pandering to people in strategic locations (like Iowa) rather than appealing to whatever idea is popular.
 * I want to go back to how you're mercilessly killing trees.
 * For the last time: Stop with the all-caps or you are going to get sysoprevoke and be placed actual bans you can't unban yourself from. I and many other users gave you far too many chances and warnings but you never listen. The next slip up is a real ban. 17:45, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Not what I meant. The left-wingers will be kept in check. When they see that people support more right-wing policies, when lefties go crazy, they will try to compromise more and thus, be more reasonable. For example, let's assume that left-wingers want all illegal immigrants to be pardoned, when they see that people vote for deporting ALL of them, they will compromise and come up with more reasonable solutions, like pardoning those who have families and no history of crime while deporting those that are criminals. Similarly, when leftists push for all guns to be banned for citizens and only police be left with guns, when they see that people do not support this extremism, they will come up with a compromise, instead, for example, they will push for the legal age to be increased, certain dangerous guns be banned. Thus, the lefties will be kept from going WAY too radical! Kingdamian1 (talk) 17:50, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It seems you all have missed the original point somewhat. 17:53, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That's not how any of this works. Trump and his crazy rightie pals pisses off the crazy lefties which makes them act even crazier. Trump encourages and enables the crazy righties, which makes them act even crazier. It's a vicious cycle. He makes everyone worse. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano  Make a Reservation  17:58, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Honestly, this growing division people keep talking about, it's not mostly the "crazy lefties'" fault. It's not mostly the crazy conservatives faults either (though I think they're far crazier and more dangerous as there are more far-right politicians and radio pundits and being anti-intellectual is firmly a right-wing component). It's mostly Trump and his cronies continuing to divide America so he can personally benefit, by cutting taxes for the rich, de-toothing regulatory agencies, continuing to keep everyone off healthcare, promoting guns over actual necessities, so he and his cronies won't have to pay their share. In the short term, people might experience some economic success. When the stuff he does goes around and comes around, it might be a Democrat that takes power at the time and people just blame the Democrat for Trump's legacy. Or, the Republicans decry the Democrats for not letting them push farther to push Republican policies because it might've been more successful and we could've avoided all this. 18:15, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

When someone uses terms involving the prefix "anti-white" rather than the normal version of said terms, it comes across as elitist, because it means that someone is using it as a (yet another) dogwhistle buzzword to disguise their real racism and distract from actual injustices involving race. Beyond racism, there isn't any real points to make when it comes to actual anti-white racism. Even if anti-white racism is experienced in the U.S. (limiting to that scope), it's not widespread enough and it doesn't manifest itself through income earning, poverty, education, police brutality, voter ID laws, lack of political power, racial profiling, death penalty (and other ways people are punished), and literal white supremacists supporting the Republican Party or is a Republican trying to pander to white supremacists to get votes. None of these factors white people experience disproportionate to any other racial groups. 18:09, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

"Anti-white" is a lot like "anti-Christmas." Some people are anti-Christmas, but who the hell cares?Ariel31459 (talk) 18:07, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The people living during the times where Christians (Puritans) banned Christmas would've cared. 18:26, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

It comes across as elitist because you're projecting that onto the words. Re:Jeong's Twittery controversy people have specified it as "anti-white racism" because 1) that's the group these tweets target and 2) they want to allow for 'punching-up' racism to be distinguished from 'punching-down' racism to come off as less controversial to the power+prejudice doctrinaires. I assume there's white supremacists out there who only care/speak out about anti-white stuff (surprise), but despite RW's focus on the latter, it's an incredibly fringe phenomenon that shouldn't taint your view of language used by regular human beings. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:46, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I would have to disagree there, (See my point about "anti-black") The prefix itself has elitist connotations because it's added before a word that covers the subject. for example compare the phrases "That's anti-white racism." and That's racist toward white people because of what it implies. As for the topic of Jeong, I'd like to point out that Twitter is a terrible vehicle for nuance. 20:57, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No one says anti-black racism because the default assumption with racism is that it's towards black people. Anti-Jewish racism has its own term and anti-Asian racism is rarely heard of (except when people freak out about a prom dress *shrug emoji*). 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:12, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Anti-asian racism does happen, I don't know what you mean by "is rarely heard of). 21:18, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I know it happens. I've read about an Asian man being attacked by a white nationalist, and Asians being targeted by some black supremacist groups. And apparently Harvard has been discriminating against Asian applicants in the name of Affirmative Action (irony). But because it's less widespread and a lot less reported on in the media, anti-Asian sentiment doesn't come to mind as readily when people talk about racism. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:31, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That's true (not sure about affirmative action though), but I don't think I can comfortably say it's "rarely heard of". I think it's because of historic "model minority" and maybe marginalization, those two playing hand-in-hand. 23:04, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

What's Wrong with Citizendium
So, I understand why people make fun of various wikis. But I do not understand what is wrong with Citizendium? They tried building a serious, neutral POV encyclopedia. It was supposed to be an improvement of Wikipedia, and had some reasonable policies. They tried to have people edit seriously, and it was founded by Wikipedia co-founder (a serious guy with real intentions of building an encyclopedia), so why do so many people make fun of it, or mention it in negative light? Kingdamian1 (talk) 04:34, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Because everything they did was incompetent. The reason that we don't have a bureaucracy on WP's scale is because we don't have a community that large. CZ tried building the bureaucracy before establishing its community. RoninMacbeth (talk) 04:37, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by that? Do you disagree with their idea that experts should be respected, that real names are proffered? Kingdamian1 (talk) 04:38, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Now that's a strawman if I ever saw one. I would really like to know which part of RoninMacbeth's statement even comes close to "I disagree that experts should be respected, that real names are proffered." —Kazitor Kazitor sig pic.png 08:07, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Where does Ganfyd (only medical doctors can edit) fit into this discussion?
 * Some specialist/particular coverage and interest wikis can justify constraining who can contribute to them and have an expert overview.
 * What about CP and its rules of engagement? Anna Livia (talk) 09:20, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

A very comprehensive critique of Citizendium from the RW POV can be found here.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 12:12, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * They also followed the Conservapedia route of making joining and editing as hard as possible, with obsessive focus on the "credentials" of potential editors, and demanded proof of the same. Count Bezukhov (talk) 18:46, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Trump & Tucker vs. Montenegro & NATO
Now, Trump’s comment, prompted by Tucker Carlson’s question about Montenegro has, for good reasons, gotten a lot of coverage. Most of it has been outraged over Trump’s undercutting of NATO’s Article V (common defence against an attack on any one NATO member state), but I think Vox hit much closer to the mark with the article Trump somehow still doesn’t understand NATO. It correctly pointed out that while Tucker Carlson asked about a hypothetical scenario where Montenegro was attacked, Trump apparently either didn’t understand the question or for some other reason decided to actually answer with a(n even more absurd) scenario in which Montenegro was the aggressor. Now, anyone who knows the first thing about NATO, knows that it most certainly does not compel solidarity with member states who decide to launch a war of aggression (just ask Dubya) and as Vox points out, it’s extremely worrying that Tru okmp still doesn’t know that.

However, Vox gets it wrong when categorically stating that ”Carlson’s questions were entirely fair ones to ask”. Of course, there is nothing wrong, in principle, by asking such “difficult” questions on the line of “Why should our boys die for other countries?” But coming from Fox News, it can hardly be taken as being asked in good faith. Why? Well, let me quote a question that sounds hauntingly familiar to Carlson’s:

[https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/Neville_Chamberlain#Prime_Minister ''”How horrible, fantastic, incredible it is that we should be digging trenches and trying on gas-masks here because of a quarrel in a far away country between people of whom we know nothing. It seems still more impossible that a quarrel which has already been settled in principle should be the subject of war.”'']

That was Neville Chamberlain on Czechoslovakia in 1938, just before he went to Munich and sold that country out to the Third Reich. Now, I do not unreservedly condemn Chamberlain for this (due to the historical circumstances and especially how World War I started), but to hear his words echoed from the news TV channel which used the “Saddam is Hitler and anyone who won’t go to war in Iraq are cowardly appeasers!”-line day in and day out strikes me as possibly the height of hypocrisy and thus undercuts whatever “fairness” the question might reflect in principle.

Secondly, the choice of Montenegro, rather than some of the more obviously problematic member states, such as Turkey (remember that they actually shot down a Russian fighter, albeit over their own territory) is equally telling. Carlson apparently needed an (to most Americans) obscure and most of all small country. It seems that Carlson (and here he is probably totally in line with Trump) doesn’t seem to think that small countries have the same right to exist as large ones - especially not if they are obscure to most US voters (and don’t have any (in)convenient natural resource à la Kuwait). This is truly an Imperial view of the world, echoed in Thucydides’ famous rendition of the Athenians’ answer to the Melians: ”... right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.” (Note that things did not go well for the Athenian empire, a fact which Thucydides well knew).

What is even more cringeworthy is that NATO’s article V has only been triggered once: To launch the invasion of Afghanistan due to 9/11, as a consequence of which, Montenegro now has troops in Afghanistan, despite not even having been a NATO member when the decision was made (Montenegro only joined NATO last year). Along with no obvious threats against its territory (having no outstanding territorial disputes is a precondition for joining NATO) makes Tucker’s question even worse and Trump’s answer about Montenegro’s supposed “aggressiveness” yet more absurd and ignorant. Yes, there was apparently a coup planned before Montenegro joined NATO by pro-Russian/Serbian forces, but coups are not something that require NATO intervention (just ask the Greeks or the Turks).

Okay, that’s enough ranting for now. ScepticWombat (talk) 23:38, 21 July 2018 (UTC)


 * The big thing for me is that Montenegro has troops on the ground in Afghanistan. They are behaving honorably as an ally, and they should be treated honorably. But the question itself is stupid, since I'm pretty sure Montenegro has no external threats nearby. NATO is designed to prevent war through deterrence, and adding member states only strengthens this goal. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano  Make a Reservation  01:09, 22 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Yeah, unfortunately, neither Trump nor the Fox idiots know or care about diplomacy, building long-term alliances and international order, but instead think that gunboat diplomacy, yelling and sabre rattling will make everyone comply. ScepticWombat (talk) 21:29, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The larger question is, Supposin' U.S.-backed Kurdish forces in Syria and Iraq invade Turkey. Supposin' Turkey invokes Article 5. Which side would the US come down on? Would NATO support Erdogen? nobsI survived a vast leftwing conspiracy 01:29, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It would likely depend on which side has more natural resources to bribe the U.S. with better values. 01:36, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The Kurds wouldn't do that because they'd get squashed immediately. Beating up ISIS and invading an actual country are two very different things. Really, the better question is what will America do if Turkey goes after the Kurds? And the answer is nothing, because the Turks have gone after the Kurds in Iraq in Syria several times already, and the US has not responded. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano  Make a Reservation  01:39, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * So what if Turkey crawls in bed with Putin or Iran to crush the Kurds? Would NATO stand idly by while a NATO partner crushes the Democratic aspirations of the Kurds along with NATO's principal adversaries? nobsI survived a vast leftwing conspiracy 02:02, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, probably. The worst that could happen (and even this is highly unlikely) is that NATO kicks Turkey out of the club. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano  Make a Reservation  02:06, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yup, I sadly have to agree with Moosolini; the Kurds have already been thrown under the bus when Turkey balks and they will be again. Their only fallback is their role in Iraqi politics, balancing against the various other factions, and if the US had a better alternative, I wouldn’t be surprised if the Kurds got shafted there, either. Basically, the Kurds in Iraq were quick to see that their best case scenario was the current quasi state with large autonomy within Iraq as an alternative entailing formal independence would likely result in a coordinated smack down from Ankara, Bagdad, Damascus and Teheran. ScepticWombat (talk) 07:56, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, there's a consensus on everything everyone had said above. Now, supposin' Russia or Iran, or Russia and Iran, attack Turkey; would the US, EU, and NATO rise to defend Turkish democracy? nobsI survived a vast leftwing conspiracy 19:19, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Eh, yes, nobs, that’s kinda what NATO is for. If NATO was prepared to defend the Greek Colonels and the various Turkish juntas against the USSR, I don’t really see why you have to ask about a Russia/Iran vs. Turkey scenario (even if I have some serious questions about the state of Turkish current democracy under Sultan Erdogan’s stewardship, it’s no military junta). Not that I see such an attack as a very likely prospect, mind you (what would either hypothetical attacker hope to gain?). ScepticWombat (talk) 10:27, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Very good question, really. While it's not hard envisioning several scenarios where Russia/Iran v. Turkey war could break out (support for the Kurds, for example), the question of aim is paramount. Most wars begin with stupid aims, miscalculation, and bit of a gamble. Supposin' Russia and Iran figured Germany, the US, the UK, etc wouldn't honor NATO Article 5, that would be the end of the NATO alliance. It would be exposed as the Paper Tiger it is. It would no longer be a threat to the Ukraine. Hell, maybe even China would get into the act. The peoples of the NATO alliance might consider it's not worth getting involved, no matter what the generals and political leaders think.
 * The NATO alliance, in my personal opinion, has cultivated an image like that of the Prussian Army from the defeat of Napoleon to the defeat of Hitler, detached from politics and public opinion. nobsI survived a vast leftwing conspiracy 09:23, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * More specifically: Prussian militarists believed people and governments exist to serve the military, not the other way around -that the military exists to serve people and governments. "We're not in Kansas in anymore, Toto," if you think you can sell NATO as the armed force of the globalization movement, which is precisely what Cameron, Sarkozy, Obama, and Hillary Clinton did. nobsI survived a vast leftwing conspiracy 09:38, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Progressives got it all wrong. I just don't see people flocking to recruiting stations to die fighting Putin and protect our God-given constitutional right to get buttfucked. FDR forget to add gay marriage and anal sex to the .nobsI survived a vast leftwing conspiracy 09:46, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I still think a crisis is brewing, kids. 18:56, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

There I was thinking Malcolm Tucker was being referred to. Anna Livia (talk) 16:42, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * FUCK’S SAKE! JESUS CHRIST! Well, now we’ve got another fuckin’ adjective to add to fuckin’ ‘smug’ and ‘glum’, haven’t we? FUCKIN’ ‘RETARDED’! Jesus Chri– Do you not think it would be germane to check who you’re talking to?! IT’S A FUCKIN’ NEWSPAPER OFFICE! IT’S NOT A FUCKIN’ SANATORIUM FOR THE FUCKIN’ DEAF, IS IT?! ARE YOU SO DENSE?! Am I gonna have to run around, slapping badges on people, with a big tick on some and a big cross on others, so you know when to shut your gob and when to open it?! Jesus Christ! Oh, but that’d probably confuse you as well won’t it! THAT’S BE TOO CONFUSING! YOU’D SEE THE CROSS AND GO “OH, FUCK, X MARKS THE SPOT! I’D BETTER TELL THIS LITTLE PERSON ABOUT THE PRIME MINISTER’S FUCKING CATASTROPHIC ERECTILE DYSFUNCTION!” Oh, but not to worry, not to worry. You’ve sent fuckin’ Ollie over there to deal with it. FUCKIN’ OLLIE! HE’S A FUCKIN’, HE’S A FUCKIN’ KNITTED SCARF, THAT TWAT! HE’S A FUCKIN’ BALACLAVA!! Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano  Make a Reservation  19:10, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * And not to be confused with Bush Tucker.
 * You haven't quite MT's style/panache (or the sonic screwdriver for that matter).
 * I can bland-response any remark you make (with implied 'wide eyed innocence' to boot). Anna Livia (talk) 13:48, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you gonna watch the new Doctor Who? I've been losing enthusiasm for the show over the last few years, but the new direction they seem to be going in has me hoping it'll be fresher and better. [And what do you mean I don't have MT's style or panache? I just copy-pasted one of my favorite quotes of his from the show. It's his rant about Nicola Murray yammering about sensitive information in front of an on-record reporter.] Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano  Make a Reservation  14:37, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 'Just copy pasted' rather than do your own. What about B7 Orac on insolence? Anna Livia (talk) 15:32, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Who's dumb enough to want to moderate the /r/rationalwiki subreddit?
So far it's only me, and I can't be bothered with the idiot pile of shit that's the actual content to date. (Fuzzy somehow got his Reddit account suspended.) What little is posted is frequently personal attacks. So I've put it on "restricted" (all posts need mod approval) and we probably need mods, if anyone cares. Anyone? - David Gerard (talk) 21:37, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm interested. Nerd (talk) 21:41, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Contacted you there. Nerd (talk) 22:28, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I would, but I don't want to descend into the mess which is Reddit. So, maybe someday. Mike V • Talk 22:22, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Internet, mate! Nerd (talk) 22:28, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I would offer, but I post on reddit so little. I doubt I would be of much help. 22:34, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Despite (or maybe because of) my long history of internet use I lack a reddit account. I am unlikely to change that arrangement any time soon. 22:36, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * How did FCP get suspended? Just create a new account, . 23:27, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

I'll do it. Make Subreddit Great Again! --RWRW (talk) 00:20, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * NO. 01:04, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

The further I stay away from the hellhole that is Reddit, the better I'll be. I must decline. RoninMacbeth (talk) 01:18, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I thought we got rid of that. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 04:31, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Reddit isn't a hell hole. It depends on the subreddit. 23:41, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Same with 4chan. Still not a good idea.
 * I guess my problem is that I'm going to college soon, and dividing what limited free time I have between here, TVTropes, Wikipedia, and RationalWikiWiki will be hard enough without moderating a subreddit that will almost certainly be filled with nothing but trolls, unless a whole bunch of us go back to Reddit. RoninMacbeth (talk) 23:49, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Come to think of it, why do we even still have a subreddit? RoninMacbeth (talk) 07:00, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Profile reason I expect. It stops someone else impersonating? Not sure if there is any need for it, but the same could be sad about Facebook, Discord, etc.. 09:58, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Why don't we just private the sub? Mike V • Talk 00:25, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * An old poster created it years ago (HeidelbergKid). He abandoned it, I took it over with his blessing. I read a coupla subreddits (buttcoin, sneerclub) but yeah. Fuzzy got mod on it too. Trouble is there isn't much point to it. Rome Viharo keeps trying to post to it, under a series of alts. Its present quasi-locked condition is probably fiiiiine really - David Gerard (talk) 12:02, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Screw it, I'll volunteer. '— Saj ∞' 23:29, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

What do you think about incels?
What is your true opinion on incels? Do you pity them or find them annoying? Are you scared of them or do you see them as messed up? Why? Kingdamian1 (talk) 06:18, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't hang around the sort of places they occupy, so... not really sure why I responded to this. —Kazitor Kazitor sig pic.png 06:41, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Sex has never been particularly important to me, so I have great difficulty grasping their sex-centered view of the world (one shared with MRAs). Count Bezukhov (talk) 07:42, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I tend not to think about them, actually. But it's kind of stunning that they exist when sex workers and mail-order brides are a thing. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 11:41, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Incels are pathetic little egocentric shits who are obsessed with a power dynamic based on sexual conquest. Their failure as PUAs has led to them becoming obsessed, and to put it bluntly, unhinged. 13:02, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I think that sexual intercourse is overrated, much like romantic love. People who are obsessed with them need better things do to. Women should never be treated as trophies, peripherals, or otherwise objectified. Frankly, I have never heard of them till very recently. I doubt they are that significant; we might as well pretend they are non-existent. Nerd (talk) 13:30, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that studying what makes PUAs turn into Incels (as some studies have shown) is an important step in understanding the nature of institutionalized Patriarchy, how it affects people, and ultimately how to counter it. 13:34, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm shocked, Comrade! Shocked! There are people who call themselves "pick-up artists"?! For the love of Aphrodite, they should find something better to do with their free time. Nerd (talk) 13:48, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I did some cursory reading on PUAs. I must say it was very bad for my eyes. I cured myself by reading the Wikipedia page for . Good old days. :-) Nerd (talk) 14:01, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I don’t think it’s a bad thing that these people can’t (or won’t) reproduce. Kravdraataf (talk) 13:44, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The transition occurs when they are 'slightly too old' for the target audience and they have not built up the practical resources and status to compensate for being seen as past it (and there is a new generation of PUAs taking over). Anna Livia (talk) 13:52, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

They're fairly typical of modern right wingers. Hyper-aggrieved at not getting everything they want with no effort, blaming people who have been historically very oppressed for ruining their lives by gaining a modicum of equality, often not viewing themselves as liberal even as they cannot articulate how that's true, violent, petty, and, most of all more, obsessed with fighting their enemies than helping their friends. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:09, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

i am continually amazed at how little emphasis or how little importance people here put on sex that i wonder how useful your take on these things are if you cannot understand how much of a driving influence is on people. its my number 1 motivating factor in my life. pretty much all of my free time is devoted to this end. the lengths i have gone to for this end. the places ive been, the things i have done. i do not feel that i am in anyway unusual with this. how could it be so when virtually all forms of media drums this into you at young age. that if you are male and a virgin then you are a failure as a man. that people look at you with derision, that you are a joke to them. incels are what you get when men rights and pua exploit these chaps. they turn their frustrations to anger directed at women and society at large, while we tell to be not so obsessed with losing their virginity, all the while mocking them for their virginity. we basically help MRAs exploit these people. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:10, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * When I was a teenager, sex was the focus of my life. I did complain in my own mind, about society, and about women because of my own inability. Perhaps I would have been called an incel. But, despite being angry with my situation, I never desired to punish anyone. I don't see any practical use for this term. Perhaps these people just need friends.Ariel31459 (talk) 14:34, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * thank fuck i didnt have internet in my formative years to validate all the bullshit that entered my head. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:03, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I've only ever been interested in sex as part of a loving relationship. It has little value to me on its own. So I thought about love instead. Count Bezukhov (talk) 16:14, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm disgusted by sex in general so please don't kill me when I say no. 18:35, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * So you are a volcel? LOL Kingdamian1 (talk) 18:53, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I just have a lack of a sex drive.
 * So don't kill me over that. Thanks. 18:58, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * So does that make you a voluntary celibate (volcel)? Jokes aside, I doubt majority of incels are violent! Kingdamian1 (talk) 19:01, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not a celibate. Celibates have a sex drive but refrain from sex for several reasons. I'm just not interested in it. You can call it "volcel", but I feel it doesn't accurately represent my sexuality. See asexuality. I think incels started benign (concept was just lonely, sad people but it blew up), but just like GamerGate, the nonviolent incels will have to make an effort to disassociate themselves with this movement. 19:07, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Incels.me. It's one of the main Incel forums outside of Reddit (yep, they snuck back in and it doesn't look like Reddit cares so long as the Reddit brand remains relatively untarnished) and the Chan boards. And yes, they really are that bad. 19:39, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I have only heard of about 3 high-profile incel attacks... I think there is a LOT more people who are celibate involuntarily. I think they are mostly depressed young adults. Kingdamian1 (talk) 19:40, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * i might be reading you wrong here, but just to be clear not getting laid is not enough on its own warrant the label 'incel'. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:47, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Not get laid ever? You're not an incel.  Get laid last years ago, but post on a misogyny/hate forum?  You're an incel.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:49, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you actually know where "Incel" comes from? Ideologically? Mentally? Because to be honest (and blunt) you really should go look at some of the crap they've posted on that forum (and that's just one of their hangouts). They idealize mass shooters in a faux cult. On good days they openly pray for Women and Feminists to die, and on bad days they express the desire to rape and/or torture them. You really have no idea what kind of group you're defending. 19:53, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Am I hysterical for saying that incels legit scare me? 20:26, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * (EC)i suspect its more we are 'against' them so they are 'for' them. from looking at discourse on trump and such like on this page, i believe this is the level that they are at. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:31, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Incels are mostly a bunch of depressed people. Most of them are probably harmless. They are mean on the internet, but I doubt that they would be dangerous irl. Kingdamian1 (talk) 21:16, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not defending incels. I just think they are mostly depressed internet tolls. The more attention they get by idolizing mass shooters, the more they will do so. I doubt the majority of them are violent irl. Kingdamian1 (talk) 21:17, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * For a variety of reasons they had a bad experience with their target woman (frequently cliche smoking hot wonderwomen), due to bad timing, personal akwardness, lack of social skills, bad luck, unkindness (possibly both him and her), lack of chemistry etc. Unwilling to consider other women, to consider the root of their lack of success as anything but the stupidity and cruelty women, and convinced masculinity hangs on having sex (and possibly a relationship) with these women, they choose to withdraw rather than suffer more humiliation and pain. Add to this their own insecurities and belief they are hopeless cases (social awkwardness or being unattractive) they spiral in self loathing and hatred of target women, women in general and successful men. In this isolation living in online echo chambers they brood and being to hate and spread hate extending it to modern feminism, which is apparently partly responsible (according to them) for putting up more barriers between them and their target women (and therefore happiness and fulfilling their sense of masculinity which all men deserve). Miserable they can obsess over this, and how they met the short end of the stick, begin to make hyper generalizations about women (want a nice guy but really want to be treated like shit, generally cruel to men, keep men in the friend zone, succubi, denying the fulfillment of their masculinity, standing in the way of their happiness, ) and that can morph into a hate to severe that assault (and even murder) against target women, or women in general is not such a stretch. Throughout this process they show a strong confirmation bias, seek out men with similar stories and avoid narratives that demonstrate examples of men like them being happy, they resist arguments to the contrary of their warped view of women and dating, fail to consider other possible women, fail to work on personal development, fail to do almost anything but discuss endlessly their sad fate, the hopelessness of it. It's an ugly result of many men pointlessly banishing themselves to unhappiness. If it's really bad then they will Go Their Own Way. It also helps fuel a lot of toxic sexism and hate online in comment sections, social media and other flame-prone forums.  Shabi  DOO  23:26, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I discovered Incels a year or so ago and occasionally check on their reddit sub and a sub made to counter and mock them, IncelTears, for fun and laughs. The latest trend among incels is so called "shariacels," who are either Muslim incels or non-Muslim incels who appreciate Islam for keeping women in their place. At least one of the mods on the incel subreddit is a Muslim and calls himself a "Hezbollahcel," which is humorous because he is Sunni. I find this noteworthy and funny for two reasons: For one, it's very hypocritical; it reminds me of how I have found people on reddit whom have half of their posts in Islamic subs complaining about the West's lack of morals and yet the other half where in pick up artist subs trying to have sex with women. The other reason is that most young Westerners, especially on reddit, have a very odd view of Islam and believe it is feminist and so on, and yet here we have this group of Westerners who not only see Islam as misogynist but love it for that reason. Their fascination with Islam goes back years; it was present on the old subreddit before it was banned, but in recent times it's gotten big. Some people have even converted due to incel ideology. Sadly, some people are trying to spoil the party by pointing out basic logic: incels believe "Chads" dominate the economic sphere due to the halo effect, so surely the Chads would end up with four wives and numerous sex slaves, leaving no women for the poor incel sub-class. Fortunately, incels seem immune to logic and I have not seen anyone deterred by these facts. Lord Aeonian (talk) 23:55, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Using "who" instead of "whom" is tolerable, but using "whom" when you mean "who" is a gravely unjustifiable offence. —Kazitor Kazitor sig pic.png 05:48, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 'most young Westerners, especially on reddit, have a very odd view of Islam and believe it is feminist' - who the fuck thinks this? AMassiveGay (talk) 07:07, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Apparently total idiots on Reddit. This is new levels of complete bollocks. 09:07, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, I have to say that one is new to me also. No offense to those who follow the Quran, but in general I have about as much success envisioning Islam as Feminist as I do envisioning a hard Vegan ripping into the belly of a deer with tooth, claw, and blood dripping down his face.
 * Actually, it's easier to do the Vegan. (And a lot more amusing.) Kencolt (talk) 10:48, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * r/news, r/againsthatesubreddits, and similar subs have lots of those people. Lord Aeonian (talk) 15:41, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * In the West feminist, LGBT-friendly, anti-Islamophobic etc. sentiment all go together, so it's understandable to think they (including "organized Islam") therefore must all must be allied with each other in the cause of justice Count Bezukhov (talk) 11:51, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

The key problem with the people being described - the use of 'target.' Anna Livia (talk) 11:49, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It gets more (less?) hilarious when you find out that Al Qaeda itself is made up of a bunch of whiny incels, and the core ideology of Islamist terrorism was created by an ugly douchebag who in th 50's couldn't get laid. CoryUsar (talk) 17:26, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Incels as a whole are utterly horrible people, case closed. 23:41, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Latest infant death from parents' wacko beliefs
This doesn't really fit into any of our categories. Maybe we need a religious-based infanticide page or a medicine denialism page? The parents are antivax, and the father stated that he didn't trust any doctor who wasn't a creationist. Not all the details are out, but they didn't seek medical attention and the infant died from malnutrition and dehdyration. Bongolian (talk) 22:41, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Funny, I wouldn't trust any doctor who I knew was a Creationist. As for the Category... How about "Anti-science" "Crime" and "Religious extremism"? 23:23, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * There's also a missing 4 year old who apparently died at some kind of Muslim cult compound in New Mexico. Not sure if that's been confirmed yet, but human remains were found at the compound.  Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 03:20, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * What makes it extremely... interesting... is that three of the adults are the kids of a "prominent" NY Imam, who was the first Muslim to lead prayers for congress or somesuch.CoryUsar (talk) 16:14, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Fact checking
So, we link to a website called minorites of india twice in our Gandhi article. Is there a way to verify that this is a legit website and not an anti-Ghandi propoganda thingy? It claims for instance, that Ghandi led a campaign to expand proto-Apartheid in Durban, and that his Natal Indian Congress was focused on oppressing black Africans, "facts" which I can't quickly verify on Wikipedia. While exposing uncomfortable truths is pretty much our goal, I'd like to confirm that they are indeed true. CoryUsar (talk) 05:53, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That's probably close to the truth but there are different views that you can see here: Gandhi's views certainly did evolve over time, particularly on his return to India. Bongolian (talk) 06:44, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The references are to the website of the Organization for Minorities of India (OFMI) which is a California-based pressure group formed in 2006 who seem to spend most of their time campaigning against Gandhi statues worldwide. They have produced reports on other more serious issues in India too, so maybe it's just that the statue thing is what gets the press. They seem a bit of a small fringe group, which doesn't mean what they are saying is untrue, but certainly it would be good to have better sources. --Gospatric (talk) 09:39, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * This is an important question. How much weight should be given to the moral failings of those considered to be of great historical importance? For example, should any article about George Washington mention he was a slave owner, even though that was not unusual at the time? More recently, Martin Luther King is reported to have been unfaithful to his wife. How is this important to his effect on history? Ariel31459 (talk) 13:52, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * These failings deflate the rather naive idea that these people were righteous saints gifted to us mere mortals from on high. 14:01, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Turns out all my favorite sources to check on non-profits' motives and funders are super eurocentric and OFMI isn't listed on any of them. Best approach I come up with here is to shift burden of proof and ask if you have any evidence any of their stories are specifically suspect on details.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:08, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It's an absence of evidence thing. I don't have additional evidence showing what they say is true, but given that such claims about such a public figure should have additional evidence, the lack of evidence is indeed evidence of falsehood. CoryUsar (talk) 16:11, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I mean... in the case of particular stories currently on their home page, many are cross validated through other sources. They even do citations.  It's hard not to see a slant to their content, but really there's gotta be more to your objection than an argument from personal incredulity.  There has to be something that makes you find them suspect.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:50, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Alex Jones (slippery slope)
I am kind of upset that Alex Jones got banned. The man exposes some truths. Also, now comes up the question "where does it stop?" If Facebook can decide that what Alex Jones was saying was hate speech, who's to say that tomorrow saying that European Civilization was the best civilization won't meet their definition of hate speech? Maybe people will get banned for criticizing Cultural Marxism next. This is political censorship. They labelled him a loon and crazy buy that did not work, he was one of the reasons for Trump's election, awakening against Cultural Marxism, anti-white hate etc. I think the tactic will backfire, ultimately. Infowars.com! Kingdamian1 (talk) 03:46, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * what truths has he exposed?? I think if the US had defamation laws along the lines of the UK ones he'd have been sued out of existence already......   but yeah, in general IMO it is better to know who the idiots are than drive them underground.Aloysius the Gaul 03:59, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * "What truths has he exposed??" This is a very valid question. Has he ever been the only (or first) person to get something right? I suppose he may have been - but  Kingdamian1 is making the claim so let's have a few examples.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:47, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * What crazy juice did you slip in your fruit loops this time? 04:02, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah. That is what I mean. Label everyone who does not agree with Cultural Marxism crazy. But that didn't work, did it? Kingdamian1 (talk) 04:07, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I will say this one last time, then you will simply be mocked when you use it: "Cultural Marxism is Nazi bullshit. 13:14, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * KD1, you've created a bunch of topics here for what appears to be entertainment purposes, as if to fill your emptiness. We are a nutty bunch, and if you want to talk you can just talk, but please, don't intentionally start drama. CoryUsar (talk) 04:11, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Q: What's the difference between Kingdamian1 and a troll?
 * A: Fuck all. Spud (talk) 05:45, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Jones has the basically the same terms of service on Infowars that caused his bans elsewhere. You will not post anything libelous, defamatory, harmful, threatening, harassing, abusive, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, racially or ethnically objectionable, or otherwise illegal.… Remember: you are a guest here. It is not censorship if you violate the rules and your post is deleted. Jones is a hypocrite and a vicious greedbag. Bongolian (talk) 06:46, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Jones is a 9/11 truther, an anti-vaxxer, an NWO conspiracy-monger, and he's instigated vicious harassment campaigns against the parents of children who were murdered at Sandy Hook. If you think he's just "exposing some truths" then you're either a moron or you're actually a bad person. He hasn't been "censored." He's been banned from some social media websites. He can still scurry off to his little shithole of a website and spout off there. No one is entitled to a social media account. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano  Make a Reservation  07:11, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

We're already 90% down to the bottom of that slope where people without media empires are banned for little justification by an opaque algorithm. There is no coming crisis of corporate suppression of free speech, because we're already in that crisis, and pretending that protecting the worst scum will somehow shield the people already being fucked is dumb as hell. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 13:25, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I also have concerns about the way this was done, and the obvious, unaccountable, and unscrutinized collusion between the corporations that control access to social media. These reservations have nothing to do with the fact that Jones is a repulsive figure who probably deserved it. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 16:03, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I will agree that the timing is certainly suspicious. It probably comes down to evaluating "Don't be evil" the profit matrix of keeping vs. chucking the Jones sub-empire. Since Jones may very well get his ass sued off, the deeper pockets have decided there's no overall benefit to keeping him. It's too late from a culpability standpoint, but maybe they're safe for the time being since they're not named parties in the lawsuit. Bongolian (talk) 18:01, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Exactly, this isn't about morality or politics, but profit versus risk, plain and simple. Jones has become a toxic asset, and the media giants are simply writing him off. 18:05, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Swastikas in games no longer grounds for an immediate ban in Germany
See here. They are now held to the same standards and criteria as movies. —Kazitor 07:28, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Makes sense to me. Wolfenstein ain't a pro-Nazi franchise. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano  Make a Reservation  07:43, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Exactly, I have no issues with this. Seems to me that Germany is, somewhat unsurprisingly, a bit harsh on the anti-Nazism side. —Kazitor Kazitor sig pic.png 07:59, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * To quote Tychus Findlay of the Starcraft series, "Hell... it's about time." 16:24, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Wow, decades of Paradox Interactive strategy games not including the swastika in games sold *anywhere* even in the WW2 era to enable sales in Germany are over. Count Bezukhov (talk) 10:54, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, now if only they would stop with the shit tons of DLC that make it feel like you have to pay $200 for a full game and the screwing around they did with Stellaris.Teurastaja (talk) 15:46, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hearts of Iron IV Historical Accuracy Expansion: Only $19.99! KevinR1990 (talk) 17:09, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I got some of the DLC on sale, while I did buy Stellaris full price when it came out. I give them a bit more slack, because Stellaris is indeed a full game and the additions really are pretty big. CoryUsar (talk) 17:33, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Nor the Silent Hunter series is pro-Nazi even if you control except in the fourth entry just U-boats. Comes too late to see those two white circles on the battleship Bismarck filled. Panzerfaust (talk) 23:05, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Is it time to leave transhumanism behind?
I had written a rather crappy blog post (toot-toot) on this recently, but I think the idea is worth mentioning considering the whole fake news and social engineering through Facebook/Twitter/Google thing.

My idea is this: transhumanism has a fatal flaw in that it views technology solely in the context of an individual and/or is treated as a panacea on its own. The wider world is too often ignored in favor of this tech fetishism until a crisis occurs because of said ignoring.

Maybe it's time to leave transhumanism behind in favor of something a bit more involved with the world and its current problems.

Or maybe I'm just being my usual idiotic self and deserve derision and flames. Either way, have at it. Towards-the Unknown (talk) 19:44, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Transhumanism lost it's credibility back in the 1990s-early 2000s 19:47, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * If scientists doing transhuman research have studies to confirm it, then prove the processes they used. You have to replicate the studies. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 20:13, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I only hate transhumanism because of every single transhumanist I've ever met. Oh, and because of those big fundamental flaws your post highlighted.  But mostly the people.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:26, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh? What about the people? I ask out of curiosity, not belligerence. Towards-the Unknown (talk) 22:00, 31 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I think the concept of mind uploading is cool but at best, we are probably several decades to a century from uploading the minds of animals to computers. Like I said, the idea is awesome but won't happen in our lifetime. Toss as much money as you want at the project but demands do not make results. Time, studies and tests make the results. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 22:50, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, it's so complicated. There's about a quarter who are cryptofascists.  They aren't the ones I'm mostly talking about but they're certainly the worst.  You know the ones who go "we can just genetically screen (big social problem) away".  Eugenics for things that aren't even remotely genetic.  The ones who think you can identify an ideal philosopher king with 23-and-me results.  But they aren't the majority.  The majority of the people I meet who really repel me, are the ones who abstract away the difficulties of progress and treat science and technology like a magic spell.  One where enough time to cast it just fixes everything.  The "singularity" is perhaps the perfect encapsulation of this approach.  And the kind of universal uncritical acceptance of the core philosophy by actual human beings repels me far more than that core philosophy existing.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:31, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed, while many Transhumanist ideas have provided material which has become staples of science fiction, including more or less founding the Cyberpunk genre (My personal favorite genre if anyone recalls), their applicability in reality has been far less successful than in fiction. 19:09, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Ugh, agreed on all accounts! There is something that might interest both you and written a while ago (not by me this time) titled Technology is NOT Enough! which could use better wording in some places IMO but is an argument I agree with. Towards-the Unknown (talk) 20:18, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I too would agree with that article. Human beings need to get their act together and solve their own problems using the tools they've been given rather than waiting for a magic solution to fall from the sky. In a slightly related note has either you or noticed that similar situation occurs during every single U.S. POTUS election? Where the masses vote for someone because they believe that person will magic up a solution to every single problem, and then become unhappy when that inevitably fails to happen?  21:28, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * and I honestly think part of it is the "hard science is the ONE true science and soft sciences are WRONG!!!" mindset coming home to roost. How much good is ejaculating Web connectivity everywhere doing if it's not provided in regards to societal context? I think this stuff would make for an interesting group somewhere... Towards-the Unknown (talk) 01:27, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * ａ ｎ ｐ ｒ ｉ ｍ 　 ｇ ａ ｎ ｇ 02:59, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

No. Humanity is full of nothing but worthless worms. Transhumanism shall make us better. 19:21, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Even with your transhumanism, you will still never be equal to the Aeldari, Mon'Keigh scum. RoninMacbeth (talk) 06:50, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Are Democrats generally less patriotic than Republicans or is this just a stereotype?
So, I am sure that most of you have heard of this stereotype. I was wondering, are Democrats and supporters of Democratic party less patriotic than Republicans? Do you think there is some truth to this opinion, or is it just a stereotype? Why? Kingdamian1 (talk) 21:51, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No they are not, and yes, this is a meaningless talking point. "Patriotism" or accusing others of lacking it are just buzzwords to discredit opponents. 21:55, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not unpatriotic to criticize your own country, and it's not unpatriotic to refuse to participate in bullshit pseudo-patriotic rituals. What do you think mattered more to the Founders, a flag and a dumb song, or the ability to express yourself and question the government's actions? Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano  Make a Reservation  22:07, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, usually the stereotype involves Democrats being for more open borders, opposed to American traditions (gun culture etc), more critical of the free market etc etc... I am not saying I think like that, NO! Kingdamian1 (talk) 22:09, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * None of those are "unpatriotic" policies. Those are signs that progressives want their country to change for what they feel is the better. That's the opposite of unpatriotic. Really, the only policies I'd see as "unpatriotic" would be ones that directly violate our country's founding principles, such as any laws that severely curtail civil liberties. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano  Make a Reservation  22:13, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Patriotism is overrated. The best countries I lived in had a relatively mild, respectful, slightly modest form of loving their country that didn't need endless songs, pledges, flags everywhere, non-criticism of military strategy, bowing before war-vets, endless questions about "what it means to be from x" or hatred towards countries percieved enemies. It's amazing how one can hope for and work for the best for their country without doing so much cliché robotic and often time and resource wasting drivel. Shabi  DOO  22:38, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That quiet affection for your own country is what I think real patriotism is and should be. I guarantee you that the morons who insist that everyone around them stand for the anthem and who view criticism of the government as treachery have little true understanding or appreciation for their own country. Those people aren't true patriots; they're authoritarian idiots. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano  Make a Reservation  23:15, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Some food for thought for you. People to watch sports may get angry if the players decide to do unconventional and distracting things just to express their political views. The audience expects athletics, not politics. Plays have the right to express themselves, but that does not mean people have to agree with them.
 * Shabidoo, depending on where you are, patriotism may well be underrated, not overrated. Nerd (talk) 13:08, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * As I said in a previous discussion, the US version of patriotism is basically nationalism. —Kazitor Kazitor sig pic.png 00:15, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * For that matter, there is nothing necessarily or inevitably wrong with nationalism. I expect US leaders to put US interests first, and expect the same of Russian or UK or Japanese or Iranian leaders. The US problem is that 'patriotism' has become one of those cultural totems that are used to divide Americans into Us and Them.  This is the exact opposite of US nationalism. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 02:26, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I do think it is a stereotype. There are different ways of being patriotic. However, some are better than others. For example, it means more to your country when you vote in every single election for which you are legible than when you wave the national flag after a stupid soccer match. It means more to your country when you learn about the possible problems facing your country then when you look down on informed criticisms. I think you get the idea.

Each country has its own brand of patriotism or nationalism. Remember what I said about each country being different? I like seeing my favorite flags everywhere, and I like some flags better than others, e.g.         $$ > $$. I generally refrain from criticizing military strategy because I am not an expert. I respect veterans for their service killing people who have no business being alive. I don't mind listening to people's take on what it means to be from a certain country; I'm curious and tolerant that way. I harbor hatred against certain groups. Sue me! Nerd (talk) 23:40, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Once again, in the Western world you have another exceptional country...the United States who has a love affair with patriotism. Be as patriotic as you like. I don't particularly see the harm of obsessing over symbols and identities and slogans in and of itself. And I don't judge people from taking pleasure in that (though it certainly uses up a lot of time and resources). The problem is when it becomes toxic...especially when it's used to attack arguments by addressing their "loyalty" and "mindless acceptance" of things, discredit those who question policies and most especially vilify those who won't stand up for a national anthem. That's a form of civic malfunction and its something I've enjoyed not being around in places I've lived. Here in Spain during the Catalonia crisis...I saw this toxic form of patriotism for the first time...it involved flags as an expression of centralised authority and lack of autonomy for non-Castillian cultures in the country. It was ugly. And I'm glad it is over. Shabi  DOO  00:18, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Those flags are in some cases still around as you probably know. Interestingly enough, before the Catalonia crisis the only moments where one could see them almost everywhere were football mundials and similar events (I'm purposely leaving aside places as government buildings, etc). Put one as decoration and you were almost certainly guaranteed to be seen as a fascist even if the flag was the current one, not the Francoist era one with the turkey eagle. Panzerfaust (talk) 22:09, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You also seem to like flags based on the behaviour of their leaders as opposed to aesthetic motivations or the country itself and the people who live there. Or maybe its just a coincidence? You don't tend to like red flags with stars on them (but like ones with blue or white stars)? Shabi  DOO  00:27, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You see, I do not have a problem with clear-headed patriotism or nationalism. I only oppose jingoism. (Some people seem to confuse nationalism with jingoism.) There are different reasons why I prefer some flags over others. Aesthetics is only one. Forgot to add these:      . Keep them flying, ladies and gentlemen! Nerd (talk) 00:42, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. So do you like any flag of a country whose leader is authoritarian? Shabi  DOO  02:59, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Denmark and Sweden Authoritarian? Are you high? 03:03, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you talking to me, Comrade? Denmark and Sweden are as authoritarian as North Korea is a free country. Nerd (talk) 16:01, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No, I was referring to 's Comment following your post, wherein you added several flags including but not limited to Denmark and Sweden. 00:34, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * And Taiwan's not authoritarian. Not anymore. Chiang Kai-Shek is dead, you know. And it does indeed have a well designed flag. Spud (talk) 03:12, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * And the Taiwanese star looks great on tanks, ships, and aircraft, much like the American white star, the Canadian maple leaf, or the German cross. Nerd (talk) 16:01, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The distinction between nationalism, patriotism, and jingoism all seem to be pretty arbitrary to me. 05:17, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The distinction between patriotism, nationalism, and jingoism are as arbitrary as that between realism, pessimism, and cynicism. Please look them up in a dictionary; they are not synonyms. Nerd (talk) 16:01, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * As I understand it...the new flags he added are flags that he likes (he wanted to show examples of flags that were red and a flag with a star (or similar to a star on it). So the question remains...is there any flag of a country with an authoritarian leader...that you like? Shabi  DOO  06:03, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Flag of Cornwall.svg ← Yes. :D 11:25, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I think simple designs are usually the best when it comes to flags. So the flag of Cornwall fits the bill. Spud (talk) 12:37, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Since you asked, there is a particular flag of an authoritarian country I like, namely Nazi Germany. It goes without saying that I like it for reasons of symmetry, not ideology. It looks great flying horizontally on a pole and hanging vertically from a balcony. I could also cheat and add Hong Kong,, because the Special Administrative Region does not function as if it is a sovereign country, unlike Taiwan, but is under the control of the Chinese Communist Party. Nerd (talk) 16:01, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yikes! Shabi  DOO  22:38, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

How about this slightly less evil swastika? 01:50, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Interesting question, but it is specious. The idea that republicans have been the patriotic party originates from the time of the American Civil War. At that time the democratic party was associated with sympathy with the south. In 1864, the democra upt running against Lincoln (George B. McClellan), campaigned on ending the war through negotiations. But that was long forgotten. Nevertheless republicans have flagged patriotism as a republican trope. See, the thing about tropes is, they are not logical. You'd think that if Republicans are more patriotic, democrats would have to be less patriotic. Nobody but republican flacks and their followers think that.Ariel31459 (talk) 15:36, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * At the time of Bill & Hilly's election in 1992, Democrats still had the image of being a bunch of McGovernite flag burners and the party that gave away the nuclear secrets to Russia prompting the insane nuclear arms race and Cold War. Bill & Hilly became big flag wavers to try and turn that around. Hilly sat on the board of Wal-Mart, and they wanted to go through with the Nixon/Kissinger/Reagan/Papa Bush globalist deep state plot to ship all our jobs to China and buy back cheap manufactured shit at Wal-Mart. Additionally, Altel is owned by the Clinton's political grandfathers, the Stephens family of Arkansas, and is a leader in mass surveillance technology and crowd control (ZTE has become one of their biggest competitors). For this, the mantle of patriotism had to be wrestled from the Republicans.


 * So today we see the cunundrum of the Democrats: While calling nationalists racists, they want to claim the mantle of nationalism. While calling patriarchy sexist and bigotted, they want to be seen as patriotic. nobsI survived a vast leftwing conspiracy 18:40, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I had no idea that the institutionalized treatment of women as nothing more than robots and sex dolls was component of patriotism. How fascinating, do go on. 18:53, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Social Democrats aren't matriotic, rather some form of gender neutral-otic for which a word (other than nationalist) has yet to be coined. nobsI survived a vast leftwing conspiracy 19:05, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Is Bernie Sanders authentic and consistent?
If you have an opinion on this, you might want to contribute to the discussion here: Talk:Bernie_Sanders. Bongolian (talk) 04:09, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If you don't, you can celebrate having a life right here with me. (sorry Bongolian, just hijacked your thread) —Kazitor Kazitor sig pic.png 04:41, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Live from New York, it's Saturday Night Live! Nerd (talk) 13:04, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I actually haven't cared much about Bernie at all until his campaign manager, Tad Devine, testified against Paul Manafort. I hadn't even read the Bernie page until this month. Bongolian (talk) 06:05, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Bernie promised a lot, but a lot of his promises were unfeasible. Free college and healthcare sounds nice but it's freakin' expensive for the government. 13:18, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I think I can safely ignore him. :D 13:22, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Is there a similar article not behind a paywall? Thanks! Also, his plans are going to cost money, which is not surprising. Over what period are they going to cost 18 trillion dollars? Ten years? What about the returns on investment? Society is going to be better off with no more people worrying about debts and bankcruptcy when obtaining the education and healthcare they need, don't you think? And that's before we talk about infrastructure. Nerd (talk) 13:25, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Here's a Times article but with a bigger figure. And it's over 10 years. I think the US should work on getting rid of debt before supporting pricey programs. Military cuts should come first. 13:33, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That article focuses on Sanders' universal healthcare proposal only, which will cost the government a sixth of 18 trillion dollars over ten years. Public debt is not the same thing as private debt. Governments can take greater risks than individuals or private businesses. Sanders also wants to raise taxes, especially the wealthy. As for military cuts, Sanders already wants less involvement overseas. Nerd (talk) 13:40, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

When deleting spam pages
... make sure to delete the deletion reason. It grabs the deleted page's original content. It could contain links to a website. Also, the text clutters the recent edits page. 15:37, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't tell me, tell those other lazy guys. 18:02, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I try and replace it with "spam" or somesuch eg "11:04, 7 August 2018 Dysklyver (talk | contribs | block) deleted page shttityy spam (Spam: content was spam) (restore)." but have been known to succumb to laziness... 19:54, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Fermilab, CERN and the antimatter agenda
I ran into this crazy video from a guy who thinks he knows physics better than the physicist. The Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment (DUNE) is totally a doomsday project. (The 's' in Illinois is silent, damn it!) Nerd (talk) 17:59, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * What's he worried about, getting neutrino poisoning? Nowhere Man (talk) 19:55, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Every year, hundreds of holodecks are rendered suddenly real by excessive neutrinos. Are you at risk?  Call our experts to find out.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:17, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

For anyone who finds this discussion through google - this is satire and DUNE is harmless. It's an experiment to fire a beam of neutrinos from Fermilab in the US. The prototype detectors are built om CERN. Neutrinos are totally harmless. You get many of them fly through your body every minute. They can travel through a light year of lead and only half of them will get captured. They will send vast amounts of neutrinos in the hope that a very few will cause faint sparks in a big chamber filled with argon. Added this as I got a PM from someone who got scared of DUNE as a result of reading this conversation. Robertinventor (talk) 04:35, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying. But we are being sarcastic here. Neutrinos barely interact with other particles in the Universe, making their chances of causing a catastrophic event due to an Earthly experiment is laughably small. This is the real world, not like one of those trashy science-fiction movies where neutrinos can boil water. Nerd (talk) 13:05, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

There oughtta be an article or section somewhere about how the term "The Narrative" has been used like it was some ominous...thing
Random example. And another. And yet another. And I'll bet you can find hundreds of more examples if you have the patience. But for all I know there's another term for this sort of thing.--DoomTay (talk) 06:54, 11 August 2018 (UTC)


 * It's the party line of cultural-Marxist media/academia. It's a real phenomenon. 109.144.208.149 (talk) 10:37, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I highly doubt that Mr. BoN. 11:33, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Narrativization is a very human bias. We create stories to explain how events unfold to ourselves, and when things don't fit the stories, it's effectively cognitive dissonance.  That behavior, to me, probably underlies conspiratorial ideation even moreso than lack of critical thinking.  "The Narrative" then is just a specific case of that behavior as portrayed by someone on the outside(and who don't see themselves doing the same thing)  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:00, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I think Michael Shermer invented a word for this in one book of his that I read. The sequence was (1) overactive pattern recognition, (2) invent a narrative to explain this pattern (3) use confirmation bias to establish that your narrative is correct (4) present your conspiracy theory. He didn't use "narrativization" but that was clearly the idea.
 * Once you are aware of the sequence you see it all the time. OH! But wait a minute ...Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 17:41, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The word narrative, from the middle Latin "Narrativus", telling a story.Ariel31459 (talk) 20:12, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The original premise is a good idea - an article is needed. As somebody who spent years studying epic poetry and historical narrative, I can attest to the fact the word seldom occurred in news media until the rise of Wikipedia talk page discussions where groups of editors tried to hammer out consensus narratives. It was always rare in news reporting because of ever changing narratives in journalism.
 * This is a serious issue: in recent years we've seen several false narratives that politicians, journalists, and large blocks of people have to walk back - the WMD narrative and Trump-Russia narrative (while Truthers & Birthers had their own narratives, none were widely embraced and were relagated to conspiracy theory status). WMD and Trump-Russia caused government actions that intruded on people's lives. One can argue for example, that WMD was a deep state conspiracy that the public swallowed wholesale, but politicians, journalists, and voters all had to repent and get baptized to retain any credibility. We'll see the same scenario played out in Trump-Russia, presumably. nobsI survived a vast leftwing conspiracy 01:38, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You took 7 edits to say that? —Kazitor Kazitor sig pic.png 02:46, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That's right. It's called a revised narrative. Should get me some job at WaPo. nobsI survived a vast leftwing conspiracy 03:10, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I feel a nominal fallacy here. I don't sweat it, but it is causing me to perspire.Ariel31459 (talk) 15:01, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You know what I love about the "deep state" conspiracy? It takes the otherwise basic corruption in government and turns it into a massive conspiracy run by shadowy cabals. And all because some people can't understand the concept of good old fashioned bribery. 13:34, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I mean, the original term isn't even that. It's that turning over every federal employee every president brought in more corruption than it fixed, so there's hierarchy levels where you get to keep your job, as it's a nominally apolitical job.  Those people are "deep state" in that they're out of reach of incoming presidents to dictate to directly.  That's right.  The deep state is "regular federal workers doing their jobs."  If I had to guess, I'd say there's less corruption there than in the political positions that have more authority, but less permanency.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:14, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Then you have the phenomenea of "burrowing"; they used to call it "transitioning" from political appointee to civil service, but that made them sound like they were having a sex change operation. nobsI survived a vast leftwing conspiracy 00:33, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I found RationalWikiWiki on the Wayback Machine!
Since others here have said they couldn't find RationalWikiWiki on The Wayback Machine, here it is: https://web.archive.org/web/20100420211128/http://rationalwikiwiki.org:80/wiki/TK. Turns out using a specific URL instead of just rationalwikiwiki.org bypasses the e-cigarette redirect. You're welcome. What a Wonderful World (talk) 02:33, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Who exactly, has claimed that they couldn't find RW on the WBM? And when exactly? I've always been able to find it just fine. 02:36, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, Just re-read the part stating that this topic is about RWW. Carry on. 02:41, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * E/C See this thread in the bar. Ha, if only people knew what I was known as there and looked up my article... I'd be in some trouble. What a Wonderful World (talk) 02:43, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Now you've got me wondering... ListenerX? 92.5.142.162 (talk) 14:30, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Looking at the user page - perhaps either "Bhodan" (though I'm not sure of the spelling) or "HeartOfGold". I seem to recall that they were both some type of Young Earth Creationist. ("ListenerX" had some equally weird Norse Gods idea if I remember correctly.) I had the impression they were all older than the user page claims though. Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 19:56, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I know so I won't say. muhahahahaa. 19:56, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * None of you got it right. It's amazing how clueless people on this site are. ;) Sigh, there's nothing that either of those did that would get me in trouble in the way I was thinking. What a Wonderful World (talk) 01:04, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Pro-trolls don't beg for recognition, you abject cretin. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 21:57, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Gematria blog suspended
One of the big names in the gematria misinformation world had their blog yanked by WordPress within the last few days. I expect the typical backlash. (Making them more determined than ever). Antigem (talk) 10:43, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I have no context to understand what you're talking about. Who? What?  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:11, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

RMF elections
Pardon me if I'm mistaken, but isn't there an election that's supposed to be starting around now? —Kazitor 06:40, 31 July 2018 (UTC)


 * To elect who though? A better US President? :D 09:56, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Dear subset of the world that makes these sort of jokes,
 * Get some new material.
 * —Sincerely, Kazitor Kazitor sig pic.png 10:21, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Now that you mention it the election does usually happen around this time of year. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 13:15, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It’s quite funny how lax everyone is being over this election. Can you imagine if the U.S decided it was too much effort to hold a presidential election? 86.161.36.84 (talk) 18:13, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * : WAKE UP!!!! 22:18, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * ikanreed's not on the board this year. —Kazitor Kazitor sig pic.png 22:38, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not part of the board. I'm only a moderator and I'm still not sure how these elections are supposed to be run. 22:40, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No, neither are Bongolian, CowHouse and DiamondDisc1. *shrug* —Kazitor Kazitor sig pic.png 22:43, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I am here and reporting for duty. Spud (talk) 08:32, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * And there we have it. Some moron starts shitposting in the bar causing a calamity and distracts everyone from the election. 82.132.230.153 (talk) 13:17, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You've clearly never heard of the concept of multi-tasking. 13:20, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Haven't seen much multitasking thus far. 86.165.90.111 (talk) 19:07, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

It's New Cabal time!
Given that there are no elections and no plans to hold them, it should be abundantly clear to everyone that Rationalwiki's democracy is a failed system. The only hope for our continued survival is for a group of strong-willed individuals to seize absolute power over this wiki as soon as possible. I hope to be one of these brave individuals, and I invite my fellow members of the New Cabal, , and to join me. Together we can lead RW into a new era of totalitarianism greatness! Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano Make a Reservation  04:50, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I honestly forgot I made that. Glory to the Democratic Republic of Goatistan. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 04:55, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I only joined recently, good timing I guess. —Kazitor Kazitor sig pic.png 05:49, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Who did the elections last time? Anyway, Glory to the Democratic Banana Republic of Goatistan 10:39, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Glory to Goatistan! Anyways, I'm setting up the Internal Affairs Agency, and I'm inviting enterprising young authoritarians patriots to join me. RoninMacbeth (talk) 14:26, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * All stand to attention in the presence of the Director of Internal Affairs, glory be to Goatistan! 16:57, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll put all of you into my special department of sysoprevoke, isn't that nice? 18:56, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Why protect the old order? RW is a failed state. There will be no elections to replace our corrupt and illegitimate rulers. But if you join us in our coup, you can have a seat on our Ruling Council and help us build something better in its place! Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano  Make a Reservation  19:14, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * There's a slight flaw in your revolutionary plan Comrades. The establishment has complete control over the site's funds. 19:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

New election
If you set up the election pages (see RationalWiki:2017_board_of_trustees_election to compare) then I'm sure we can pester David to actually run the election plugin 02:39, 4 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Election pages are made. Someone needs to fill in the number of trustees being elected and proofread it. Of course we need some candidates as well. 15:53, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, damn. I guess it's not New Cabal time. But perhaps I can nominate one of our members to be elected... Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano  Make a Reservation  18:24, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Here's a link, FYI —Kazitor 08:02, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * And I think it's about time that some of the nominees accepted and started campaigning. Spud (talk) 12:27, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll say it again. It's either time to decline or accept and start campaigning., and , I am looking specifically at you. Spud (talk) 06:31, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Will you endorse me if I accept?? 17:46, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Of course I'll endorse you. You're officially the best editor on RationalWiki. I'd be a fool not to. Spud (talk) 23:12, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd throw my support behind you, as per Spud above and also because I'm reluctant to run myself. I'd only do so to make the election at least competitive. RoninMacbeth (talk) 05:03, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * What? You're not going to give an easy win for me?? 18:02, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd be lying if I said I wasn't a little tempted to run. Then it would be competitive. --RWRW (talk) 18:19, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Labour antisemitism in the UK
Can someone give me a breakdown of exactly what antisemitic things the labour party and/or members of the labour party has/have done? Because I'm hearing a lot about it on the news but the news sources I'm on (which nowadays honestly is mostly just BBC Radio 4 on my way to / from work) are doing a lot to cover reaction to it but have said very little about what has actually been done to cause the reaction. Things I'm aware of include Labour's definition of antisemitism not including specific examples from somewhere else, and some guy recently saying that Jews love Trump and are playing up victimhood for politics. And neither of those things seem sufficient to support the claim that Corbyn as PM would be an existential threat to Jews in the UK.

So can anyone write out a handy breakdown of the history of this? Because whenever I try to google it I come across all the wonderful things relating to Jews that the internet has to offer. X Stickman (talk) 16:17, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think that Corbyn would personally be a threat to Jews, but there is no doubt that antisemitism has been allowed to fester in the Party since Corbyn took over (with much of it coming from the hard-left 'Momentum' wing of the Party. The Ken Livingstone controversy from a couple of years ago is the best known antisemitism case, but there has also been a series of antisemitism incidents from small time Party members (Councillors, campaigners ext.) Corbyn describing Hamas and Hezbollah as "friends" most likely hasn't helped the situation. --RWRW (talk) 16:45, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * So, it's basically hostility to Israeli aggression being tagged as 'antisemitism', then? Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 16:54, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Apparently so. 17:00, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Describing terrorist groups (who have stated their desire to kill Jews worldwide) as "friends" is completely unacceptable. And like I said, there have been many other incidents of Party members saying things blatantly anti-Semitic, including a Labour Council candidate saying "Jews have reaped the rewards of playing victims" and "what have the Jews done good in this world?". --RWRW (talk) 17:03, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * it would be easy to write this off as a fabrication of the right wing press but sadly its a mess of labours own making. this gives a little overview of the most recent drama with labours definition of antisemitism, with some more general links.

my reading of the whole thing is not so much outright unvarnished antisemitism, its more about the handling of historic antisemitism in the labour party, how post war labour took their cues from the far right to criticise israel and how corbyn has fucked his handling at every step of the way. he could have put an end to this a year ago, but he arsed it. the new definition of antisemititism should have done it but he ballsed that up too, and it certainly does not help when folk come out and claim all criticism of labour is motivated by rabid trumpites. this is not all semantic quibbling. this is not about criticism of israel. there has been an upsurge in antisemitiwm in recent years, and with a resurgent far right, labour cannot afford to keep botching this. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:12, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. 17:15, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Basically all poor Corbyn has done wrong is that he has done nothing right. Somehow everything he does to try and make things better just makes things worse. His collection of "friends" includes every imaginable Jew hating terrorist leader the people of Israel (ie the main Jewish state) hate the most, and he may or may not have actually denied he is anti-semitic, and if he did it probably wasn't quick enough for some people, and those people are causing a huge ruckus. 00:07, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * And the sad thing is that I am pretty sure he is not even vaguely anti-semitic, regardless of what people say about his questionable past affiliations, there is no evidence or indication he holds any such views now or then. 00:12, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * thats just it though, isnt it. his past complicity with unabashed antisemites makes his poor handling of all this sting even more. what really fucks me off is he wasnt so keen on being complicit with the tories, refusing to share platforms with them during referendum. a bit of effort on his part might have changed the whole outcome. seriously, corbyn doesnt get anywhere enough shit over his behaviour during the referendum. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:04, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * To be honest he kept such a non-committal low profile during the referendum it's as if he didn't exist. The whole thing was dominated with Boris and Farage vs Common-sense, reason and logic... 18:08, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I've always thought Boris and Corbyn were both on the wrong sides of the argument. Deep down Boris probably wanted to remain in the EU, and deep down Corbyn probably thought the UK should vote to leave. They both put their own careers/Party's future ahead of what they thought was in the country's best interests. That being said I can't complain too much, they both contributed to a result that I was hoping for. --RWRW (talk) 18:24, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I could never make up my mind on it, on one hand Cornwall receives a disproportionately high amount of EU funding. And on the other hand EU quotas and rules stangle Cornish fishing and agriculture... just doodle nazi symbols on the ballot. 18:34, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * @RWRW just what was the 'result you were hoping for'? was it the shit show we currently have? which of the lies and exagerations were you hoping for? or was it enough that 'yourside' won, even though the lies and misinformation that plague us diminish us all? AMassiveGay (talk) 18:51, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * @Dysklyver Don't get me wrong I know there are many positives for being in the EU, but for me the negatives vastly outweighed them. My main reasons for supporting leave are the huge amount of regulations and bureaucracy, loss of sovereignty, the so called 'EU army' and uncontrolled immigration. Given how the EU is very corporatist I can't understand why the hard left Parties (SNP, Greens and the like) supported remaining.
 * @AMassiveGay I'll admit that the current situation isn't ideal, Theresa May has botched up the negotiations badly. But the EU is on a downward slope and regardless of what deal we will get (and we almost certainly will get a deal) it will be much better off than remaining. As for the lying you must acknowledge there was lies on both sides of the campaign. Remain supporters kept saying that a recession would occur the moment the Leave vote was announced and David Cameron said there would be a greater risk of WW3 outside the EU. I would challenge you to name a single political campaign/Party that has never lied. --RWRW (talk) 19:05, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * it will be much better off than remaining' this is a delusion. there is no aspect of british life that wont be negatively effected. even brexit cheerleaders have said it will take decades to reap any supposed benefits. and lets be clear about lies and campaigning. i was scathing about the remain campaign, so im not pretending their was no bullshit. but can you see a difference between a rather melodramatic suggestion about ww3 and and the utter bullshit plastered on the sides of buses? about the litany and of lies, bullshit and exagerations that were presented not as vaguely possible outcomes but as statements of fact? if you cant then you an imbecile. 'I would challenge you to name a single political campaign/Party that has never lied.' this is just facile and is exactly why i have no respect for people of your ilk. the lies and bullshit presented during the referendum were so unashamedly blatant they went far beyond the usual campaign slogans, and have permeated the political discourse to common place everywhere. this is an appalling situation, and if you cant disavow this kind of shit but endorse it with an 'alls far in love and war' approach, then you are beneath contempt. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:18, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * There was an interesting but paywalled New Statesman article recently that claimed that Labour actually plunged in Jewish support under Ed Milliband when he forcefully condemned the 2014 Israel-Gaza war and a lot of Jewish people left the party as a result. Support fell from 31% in 2010 to 14% (according to the NS) or 18% (Jewish Chronicle) in 2015 (probably different polls), and 13% now (Jewish Chronicle). --09:40, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * he was never accused of antisemitism though, and he doesnt have the dubious history corbyn has. also, this isnt about votes (though im sure labour arnt keen on losing any) AMassiveGay (talk) 13:35, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * My take on the Labour antisemitism brouhaha is that it essentially encompasses two strains, one legitimate and one seedy. The legitimate strain is the tendency of some left wingers to veer off from criticism of Israel into borderline, veiled or outright antisemitism. However, the actual examples brought up have either nothing to do with Corbyn’s (now not so) new leadership (e.g, Ken Livingston is hardly a recent “entryist”, nor are his attitudes new), focus on very few individual cases, or they are based on vague accusations about “condoning” antisemitism by, for instance, (and this is the latest bizarre example) Corbyn being at an event eight years ago when the now deceased Auschwitz survivor(!) drew parallels between the treatments of Jews by the Third Reich and the Israeli treatment of Palestinians. If Meyer made a direct parallel with the Holocaust, this would obviously have been false, whereas some similarity with the pre-Holocaust marginalisation and stigmatisation might hold some merit (I have not found direct transcripts of his speech yet, so I can’t say how nuanced Meyer was on this crucial point of genocide vs. stigmatisation/marginalisation).
 * This leads to the more seedy angle, the use of the antisemitism allegations as the one indictment of Corbyn’s leadership that actually has gotten some traction and is thus milked for all it’s worth by those who would rather see a more palatable (e.g. Blairite) leadership of Labour.
 * What I have so far seen little of, is actual, hard evidence that antisemitism is rampant, widespread or even just not infrequent in Labour, or that it is tolerated, condoned, nourished or encouraged by Corbyn’s leadership. Compare and contrast with Trump’s mealy mouthed reaction to Unite the Right when there were actual swastika banners and chants of “Jews will not replace us!”. ScepticWombat (talk) 16:41, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * it is an indictment of corbyns leadership. this has been rolling on for over two years when it should have been simple to draw a line under. combine it with the almost nonexistant policy on brexit, both before and since the referendum, the most pressing issue in a generation, i'd say that was a pretty damning indictment of his leadership. the tories are a fucking shambles yet they have a slight lead it should be easy for labour, but corbyn.
 * im not sure of the point with the trump comparison. no, corbyn isnt trump. no, there hasnt been swastikas flying around. it sets a low bar though AMassiveGay (talk) 17:57, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * One major reason that I predict that it will be impossible “draw a line under” is just as twofold as my interpretation of the conflict itself:
 * There will probably always be someone or something that can be dragged up as examples and there are plenty of those who despise Corbyn and all he stands for to drag it up and provide sound bites to willing media.
 * While I’m not surprised that the generally rightward skewed overall UK media landscape has given Corbyn a rough time (it goes with being Labour leader, with a brief part of Blair’s term being the exception that proves the rule), the hostility and vitriol of especially The Guardian (with the exception of Owen Jones) has been astonishing. Sure, Corbyn must be kept to account, but quoting well-known opponents of his leadership within Labour as if they are impartial sources is terrible journalism.
 * As for the missing Brexit line (a somewhat off topic item in this thread); what exactly should Labour and/or Corbyn have done differently and what would the trade offs be? A hardline Remain stance has only been taken by the politically insignificant LibDems and while some sort of Remain line might chime with a majority of Labour voters (of whom barely 60% voted Remain), it is not an overwhelming one. Also, Labour campaigned for Remain, while Theresa May won (sort of) a general election on her “Brexit means Brexit” (whatever that means) slogan and it is her and her cabinet that is in charge of negotiations. Labour has tried to make sure that May & Co. has to get Parliament’s approval of her deal and to check any use of Brexit to weaken various pieces of labour, environmental and other protections, but such amendments have been voted down (May has a majority, after all). As for the Tories’ lead, I’m not surprised when so many British newspapers are happy to bang the chauvinist and nationalist drums whenever her unrealistic promises get shot down by Brussels. Btw, the “Blame Brussels” syndrome (along with a ludicrous overestimation of the UK’s international importance) is such a well worn trope that it was one reason I wasn’t that surprised at the outcome of the Brexit referendum. This is also why I don’t think a “happy clappy/big scare” Brexit line would have been effective Corbyn policy.
 * And just for the record, no I don’t think Brexit is a good idea, mainly because I’m fairly sure it will deepen the problems that decades of neoliberal Westminster rule have already created in the UK (much of the blame laid on Brussels belongs squarely in Westminster, no matter that the EU has its own neoliberal biases and bagage).
 * The point of the Trump comparison is what a genuine sympathy with/infiltration of extreme right wing views in a major political party and hard evidence of such might look like. Contrast this with the vagueness of the evidence of antisemitism within Labour in general and Corbyn’ supposed sympathy with/toleration of it in particular. And, believe it or not, there have been allegations that Corbyn is a sort of “British Trump”, though these mainly focuses on his economic policies. ScepticWombat (talk) 14:06, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 'the hostility and vitriol of especially The Guardian' do you know, that as a regular guardian reader, i cant say i have noticed much in the way of hostilty and certainly no vitriol in the guardian. i mentioned brexit as in reference to his leadership capablities, which is pertinent with antisemitism with his overall leadership or lack there of. and it is brexit that really angers me with corbyn. i was on fence about him till the referendum, then he went on holiday. labour constituencies voted for brexit. constituencies where a bit effort could have swung it - leave didnt win by much - and he made no effort. its pretty apparent that he does not like the EU, but he lacked the balls to come out and say that, lacks the balls still and we are stuck with his characteristic vagueness. hes as much responsible for it as cameron, but at least he had the decency to fuck off after it. he does not deserve a free pass.
 * the trump comparison just is not relevant. you may as well be saying there is no antisemitism in labour because look at iran - i'm thankful things arnt as bad but it does not mean there is not a case to answer. corbyn does have a history (some very recent) of associating with very dubious people showing at the very least poor judgement. this is known and has been for some time. he could get away with it as a back bencher, but hes leader of the opposition now. he needs to get a grip on this. he should have done so already. that hes not not popular in some segments of the press is just not an excuse, and it cuts no ice when any criticism is hand waved away as hostility and vitriol. he is leadership of the opposition, he should be able to manage these things better. he should actually lead. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:37, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Again: What is the evidence that Labour has particular problems with antisemitism or that Corbyn and/or the rest of the Labour leadership condones/ignores this? This is why I drew on the Trump example as just one in which the evidence would be clear.
 * As for the Guardian, try browsing its coverage of Corbyn and try to see how many of its article’s are not of the “Corbyn is a terrible leader” variant. I completely agree that Corbyn’s nature and habit of being a “backbencher activist” type politician are problematic and his inexperience with leadership have been clearly evident, but there’s almost no coverage of Labour policy on Guardian’s first two web pages on Labour, here is former close Brown supporter Ian Austin being used as a prime source of why his attack on the Labour leadership is certainly not about his dislike of Corbyn, backed up by quotes from Blairite MP Wes Streeting and an anonymous MP.
 * Labour under Corbyn’s leadership managed to get almost the same percentage of Labour voters (roughly 65%, I recalled wrongly earlier, sorry) to vote Remain as the SNP, so I’m assuming you also blame the SNP for Brexit? A YouGov poll also put Labour only slightly behind the hyper pro EU LibDems (68%) in its ability to convince its 2015 voters to back Remain, so how much are the LibDems to blame for Brexit and how realistic would it be that Labour would have convinced more than 65% of its electorate to voters remain under a different leadership? And where did you get the idea that “he went on vacation”? Corbyn campaigned for Remain, but in contrast to the silly Brexiteer claims or the “The sky is going to fall!”-campaign favoured by some Remainers, his was more of a “warts and all” message (yes, the EU has its problems, but on balance we’re better in than out) that was apparently too boring for the media which apparently preferred covering the doomcriers duking it out. One criticism of Corbyn’s approach is that he prioritised old school campaigning by rallies and in person speeches, rather than through the media. The idea that Brexit is Labour’s fault is ludicrous when a solid, if not overwhelming, majority of its voters backed Remain. The narrative that Brexit was Corbyn’s fault was fanned by Blairites wishing to use it as a pretext to oust Corbyn without an actual membership vote, giving rise to the derisive term “the chicken coup”. The fact is that Brexit was delivered by UKIP (who was and is woefully underrepresented in Parliament due to the electoral system) and by Cameron’s dismal failure to convince a majority of those who voted for him in 2015 to vote for Remain, rather the opposite, in fact (polls Tory Brexiteer voters range from 54% to 61%). Looking at the results by constituency simply illustrates the core problem with the UK electoral system: That huge amount of votes are “wasted” with many of voters going unrepresented in Parliament or forced into tactical voting. ScepticWombat (talk) 06:45, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The problem is actually with those who bitch about doomsayers and who bitch about anti-EU hysterics. Some people focused on the doom and gloom because others preferred to ignore the disaster coming and the so called "doom sayers" didn't want to face the real consequences (especially a hard brexit). I'm utterly flabberghasted when I hear the term "project fear". It's actually "project wake the f*ck up" and "project reality check". The UK is already suffering significant problems because of Brexit and they haven't even left while those who bitch about "doomsayers" act like people on a boat with a hole in it ignoring the alarms and not looking for a safety-vest. Only the tiniest vocal minority were blowing the Brexit consequences out of proportion. And branding the other side as "anti-EU hysterics" who are ignorant and blindly follow Boris Johnson's engineered EU boogeymen is disingenuous (he did create a preposterous boogeyman but that's not what drove people's vote). They are aware there will be some consequences (even if they dismiss some of them) and don't care because they value Autonomy and Sovereignty. The idea that the UK will prosper even with a hard-brexit is a stupidity conservative MPs say and a few colum writers, but even if a few brexiters believed that nonsense (most people are well aware there will be gloom) it doesn't matter, independent decision making, budget, trade and borders are more important to them and they genuinely care about that. That isn't hysterics. It's a fair position (even though I seriously disagree with it). The problem were people who dismissed the other side a ignorant fanatics. That drove most of the narratives about Brexit. It was an ugly mess, mostly because some villified the others, not because of hysterics. Shabi  DOO  06:33, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm a German, British (father) and Canadian (mother) citizen having lived in all three countries as well as Spain and Belgium. I closely follow UK politics not the least because it is so interesting but because I also love the UK and care about it. I'm pro-EU for obvious reasons and it's very painful to see the UK leave (it broke my heart). As it is for most of my European friends who found the Brexit vote traumatic (they were all stunned for several days as was I). They really adore the UK (or at least London) and the UKs many very distinctive traits and culture and traditions (as do I). They value the EU project too (I love it) and it hurts them to see the UK exit and the feeling of rejection that comes with it. Despite that, I don't remember any of them, even those who closely followed the Brexit, using terms like "doomsayers" or "hysterics". They knew that it was mostly a question of autonomy and they sadly respect it. Shabi  DOO  06:33, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Alex Jones Kicked off Apple, Facebook, and YouTube
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoojVXE5Xao&lc=z23czbbaewfiejidjacdp43ad1scrcjfpcfp1b5mbf1w03c010c.1533588522885626. About fucking time].Ariel31459 (talk) 20:58, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I would hope he would be kicked off the planet next, but that might be a bit of a long shot. 21:01, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Shame it took this long to remove the ignoramus, though. Should have been banned from multiple social media platforms many times over for the exact same stated reasons that have been enacted now. Can't wait to see the "free speech" martyrs get all uppity over a corporate space banning a user for violating the terms he agreed to upon joining, 'cause that's how governments stifle criticism these days, don't ya know' Cardinal Chang (talk) 21:37, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * "We're all Alex Jones now" - Alex Jones on Twitter complaining about YouTube's censorship, August 6th. Kravdraataf (talk) 22:10, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * This guy deserves a deplatforming wherever he goes. He's responsible for those loathsome conspiracy theories especially those rancid Sandy Hook ones. I do wish he can pay the money he gets to Sandy Hook victims and other people he's responsible for harming. Fuck those free speech warriors, particularly people who think this is "censorship" and they believe CNN and "liberal" news is any way equivalent to Alex Jones conspiracy theories. 22:25, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The Onion nailed it: "First Amendment Experts Warn Facebook Banning InfoWars Could Set Completely Reasonable Precedent For Free Speech." Cosmikdebris (talk) 22:44, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hot take: It's possible to say defending Alex Jones is a dumb hill to die on without going "fuck the free speech warriors". 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:55, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I have strong opinions when it comes to platforming and de-plaforming views. Free speech absolutists (which I was referring to, the kind that believe this is an attack on free speech as a concept, the kind that say "why not CNN or everything be deplatformed?", the kind that say that Jones is entitled to spout whatever he wants on any platform and cause actual harm and defamation without repercussions, the kind that think somehow that all sorts of speech is allowed, the kind that think Alex Jones is just "criticism" of "mainstream media" and he's getting "silenced") are pains in the asses. 23:02, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I have very strong principles concerning free speech; I've been on staff at WBCQ for fifteen years and they will literally put anyone on the air who can pay for the time as long as they don't advocate genocide. Since WBCQ signed on in 1998 there have only been two programmers kicked off for their program's content (they were Nazis). I have tremendous distaste for some of WBCQ's programmers but I believe that they should have their place, again, as long as they don't advocate genocide or other blatantly illegal acts. Facebook and YouTube have their own terms of service just like WBCQ has, and Alex went over the line once too far. I can't say that I'm sorry he's off those platforms; in fact it pleases me. Framing this issue as a "free speech" one is just plain wrong. Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 23:18, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I think Alex Jones is disgusting, but it is pretty remarkable how after all the time he's been spouting his bullshit, these big companies all suddenly act in unison to throw him off their platform for violating community guidelines. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 23:44, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * They threw him off their platforms because he's fucking vile. I just don't know what took so long. This isn't a free speech issue, either. Jones has the right to speak his twisted mind, but he isn't entitled to a platform. And those social media companies have the right to choose not to be associated with him. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano  Make a Reservation  00:34, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

People who applaud corporations setting limits to allowable public discourse ought to be a lot more careful about what they wish for. It's only a matter of time before proposals that will raise their taxes or otherwise cost them money get called 'class warfare' and therefore 'hate speech'. Don't come crying to me when it happens. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 00:35, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't trust corporations either, and I'm concerned it took them so long to respond this way. But when they start going after viewers that have controversial (or wrong) viewpoints (unlike advocating harm or being responsible for harm; I understand those two can be tricky to pinpoint but Alex Jones clearly crosses that threshold to me), like global warming denial (even if I think it's harmful for everyone, but that threshold would be spreading lies about Michael Mann's or John Cook's of Skeptical Science credentials or something), anti-vaccine views (threshold would be inviting harassment of doctors, inviting to sue doctors, spreading shill lies about doctors), flat Earthering, chemtrails, that's when I worry. But again, there can't be direct harm or advocacy of harm to individuals unlike what Alex Jones or Mike Adams (who also had platforming issues) are doing. Sorry for the parentheses overload. So far, most of the deplatforming I'm seeing are involved with harassment, advocacy of harm, and malicious lies to vulnerable targets, not the political views in of themselves. Also, I don't think it's sudden. I view it as part of a bigger picture of corporations willing to tackle fake news and harassment, responding to the rise of "post-truth" and the abuse of anonymity. Again, I don't think this is reason to be concerned yet. If they take down Fox News, then I'd be concerned, as much as I hate Fox News.  01:02, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * First they came for Alex Jones, and I did not speak out because I'm not a terrible person who accuses the parents of murdered children of being crisis actors. Then they didn't come for me, for much the same reason. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano  Make a Reservation  01:26, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * So the radical leftists never learn huh? They oppose free speech. Make no mistake, by kicking Alex Jones, they are sending a clear message, that Facebook etc are politically motivated. We all know that Alex Jones was one of the key reasons for Trump's election, so now, just before the midterms, they are kicking him off... This will backfire, and then they will have the audacity to blame the American public for being "stupid". Kingdamian1 (talk) 02:45, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't forget we're talking about Facebook, Apple, and Google. Once they figure out how to monetize their role as censor and gatekeeper, it will be monetized. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 02:55, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I remind you that Apple, Facebook, and Google are commercial businesses. Do you think they would agree to broadcast public executions, say if the state of Texas wanted to put on a show? Who do you think the sponsors would be? The NRA? These entities were tired of taking a beating from sponsors repelled by the possibility of being associated with Jones. They didn't do it because we don't like him, or because Jones is tight with Trump. They did it because he was degrading the value of their platforms. Ariel31459 (talk) 03:16, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Which is to remind us of first principles and remember that this is all about the money. Again, do you trust Facebook, Apple, and Google not to abuse their power?  Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 03:55, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No. What is your point? The only thing that keeps corporados in line is law enforcement and the good taste of advertisers. I don't trust anyone to lift a finger otherwise.Ariel31459 (talk) 13:38, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Jones was bad for business, ergo they dumped him. The reasoning is as simple as that. 13:41, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That the Trumpists are claiming Alex Jones as one of their own is just another sign that the Trump movement is irredeemable. Also, I find it hilarious that you're accusing a bunch of multi-billion dollar corporations of being "radical leftists". Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano  Make a Reservation  14:41, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It is the black heart of Reaganism to weaken the sorts of power that are accountable to constitutions and voters, and swap in unaccountable private power. What this says to me is that the First Amendment is no longer enough. - Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 16:52, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I also believe in nationalizing social media companies. Government control over communication and information sharing has always led to greater freedom and openness in society. If it works to facilitate such robust public discourse and fair democratic processes in China, I'm sure it will work here, too! Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano  Make a Reservation  17:53, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * "Make no mistake, by kicking Alex Jones, they are sending a clear message, that Facebook etc are politically motivated."
 * No, it's that Facebook, etc. are motivated to not taint their platform with views that have actually harmed people, Sandy Hook survivors. I think Alex Jones is facing lawsuits by these people for defamation and I think those corporations also want to stay out of it, and their way of disassociating themselves with Alex Jones sends that message to not only Alex Jones, but these corporations' other customers, who might react negatively too through this platforming. These corporations, as much as I despise them, have their right to free speech and who to accommodate and who not to accommodate. Their rules aren't unreasonable either, being basic "don't harass, don't dox, don't libel/slander", it's like our own RationalWiki policies of "don't slander, don't use legal threats, don't attack anyone based on religion, sex, gender identity, race, etc.".
 * They haven't abused their power here, not in this specific case. I can criticize them about tax havening and treating users as advertising vessels and having bad privacy policy and tracking, but criticizing them over this is not the right battle. The moment they ban other right-wing outlets like Ben Shapiro or even Fox News, then I'll worry. Otherwise, nothing of value was lost. Simply ignoring Jones does not work, as we got relatives of Sandy Hook victims and survivors have their lives ruined even more by him while he makes a ton of money off those lies. 18:01, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Token thought to free speech
Oh wait, no he used third parties to commit blood libel. Guess those third parties would be pretty justified in not wanting to host that. Oh well. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:06, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Lmao, infowars ToS includes the clause "Remember it is not censorship if you violate the rules and your posts are deleted." ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:21, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The plot thickens. 21:29, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Look at all the truths he's revealed. RoninMacbeth (talk) 23:53, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That video is hilarious. 01:21, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm here, and that remix is TOO GOOD. Shows just how dumb Republicans are nowadays. --UglyRat (talk) 23:37, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Richard Spencer Conservative?


Richard Spencer, a different kind of "conservative" Kingdamian1 (talk) 01:33, 13 August 2018 (UTC)


 * He's not a Nazi. Because he's definitely not a Nazi. He's a  not -Nazi, see. Not-zi for short. 03:21, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Kingdaniam1 Do you think identitarianism is more acceptable than white supremacy? Shabi  DOO  04:21, 13 August 2018 (UTC)


 * GUYS, you are missing the point. I do NOT support Spencer. I am saying that Spencer's positions are NOT mainstream conservative/center-right positions, like people make it out to be. Kingdamian1 (talk) 04:32, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * KINGDAMIAN1, you are needlessly capitalising words. We do NOT like that. We have said that you should NOT do that, so please don't. —Kazitor Kazitor sig pic.png 04:38, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * While it might be true that Spencer is not a "mainstream conservative", at least in the classical politically scientific sense, his views have become at least tacitly accepted by enough people that they have entered mainstream political discourse. RoninMacbeth (talk) 04:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure that it's because his views are becoming more accepted so much as it is the irresponsible media coverage around these people. Around thirty of these assholes showed up in Washington DC, and it was wall-to-wall media coverage. Last night, I watched NBC interview one of them, who helpfully explained that Unite the Right is actually about "white civil rights," a concept which went unrefuted by the anchors or analysts. Trump may have pointed at the white supremacists, but the media chose to shine the spotlight on them. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano  Make a Reservation  06:54, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 'Trump may have pointed at the white supremacists, but the media chose to shine the spotlight on them.' what alot of shit. how is this event not news? the police clearly were expecting much more judging by their presence, but the media is wrong to cover this? a year on from charlottesville, and the media shouldnt bother? the fact the they were outnumbered by the counter protest and the media was there so the whole world can see their humiliation, is a good thing, yes? AMassiveGay (talk) 08:00, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * What humiliation? They got and get news coverage massively disproportionate to the actual significance of the movement. Their pathetic little group marched around with signs for a bit, and media outlets from the entire country hyped and amplified their message for them. That's why they're going mainstream. The media wants them to be mainstream. They want to hype the Nazis as a threat, and the Nazis want to be hyped as a threat. Nothing that happened with them this weekend was newsworthy, but the Nazis will still keep showing up to get screamed at every year because they know the world will be paying attention. They get all the prestige, fear, and attention they could ever want for almost zero cost on their part. The Nazis wouldn't have half the power they do now if the media stopped pretending they did. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano  Make a Reservation  08:51, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * im not sure what it is you want. the was a march and the press covered it. this is as it should be. it was undeniably news. deal with it. charlottesville was massive. how are event one year later, not news? and they got humiliation. their movement, such as it is, one year one is shadow of it was. this is not news? this is not something to be celebrated? you call it prestige? i can guarantee they wont get nearly so much coverage next year, and much less participation. they have gained nothing from this. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:51, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * A march is not necessarily news. People have the right to put them on, of course.  But they're artificial, manufactured events that try to seize people's attention, when they are not owed any.  Some measure of decent silence would have gone a long way to defuse Charlottesville and the host of other staged events made by busybodies seeking attention. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 02:52, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Saying you’re a liberal but consistently supporting right wing people and views makes you right wing, not liberal. Christopher (talk) 13:21, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No True Scotsman would be born and Paris and live his whole life in France, ya know. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:04, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Why would he want to be a Liberal anyway? Have you seen the disasters that ideology has caused? Personally, I believe that this "Classical Liberalism" doesn't actually exist, and is simply used as a cover-up for less appealing words. This idea that it can even be made good is frankly a problem on both sides, especially with "Centrists" who claim to not support any side at all, yet seem far more sympathetic to Neoliberals........Click Link Or Gulag (talk) 18:09, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I mean... it's pretty clearly a case you can make that "classical liberalism" as a historical antithesis to the then-thesis of divine-right monarchy was a real thing. "Self determination is good, actually" is a pretty sensible response to "Whatever those above you in the social order decide is inherently just because they are your betters."  It becomes a lot more reactionary to respond to "No group should have the power to self-organize and ostracize another group purely based on the color of their skin" that way.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:32, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * i have never seen much point in openly declaring ones self as 'conservative' or 'liberal' or whatever. if your political views push you one way or another, so be it, but why go to bat for things purely because they wear the same badge? such people are contemptible. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, it is nice to be able to summarize without going "my views on contemporary issues X and Y are Z, based on philosophical traditions A, B, C and D, with some emphasis placed on attribute E, which happens to be similar to millions of other people".  I guess I'm saying all words are labels, and your views, expressed in their fully articulated form are still just extremely verbose labels that do not necessarily communicate the full and totally accurate idea that exists in your head.  There is no escaping reductionism.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:48, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Labels, despite their critics, are still useful quick way to express your views. Nuances can be elaborated too. It all matters how you use the labels, however, and sometimes, "conservative" doesn't quite exactly describe a lot of things I'm seeing, though. Sounds too mild. 21:39, 13 August 2018 (UTC)


 * You guys are absolutely right. The media has amplified these guys. I mean Charlottesville was huge and I get it, but really, any time there is some small Nazi community, we see in-depth interviews with them, and this gets their message out. It doesn't matter if you try to make it sound bad, as long as you put their views and opinions out there, there is the impression that this is becoming more popular. Just stop covering these random wannabe Nazis, only cover the big events! Kingdamian1 (talk) 00:23, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Look at how much all of that media coverage of first Unite the Right rally bolstered the second one. I couldn't count how many more neo-Nazis showed up this time.174.200.9.86 (talk) 15:55, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It's impossible to prove what would happen in alternate universes, but I hold that this level of media coverage without the antifa counterprotests would have amplified the numbers beyond your imagination, we'd have gotten Tea Party 2: This Time We Hate All Black People, Not Just Obama. Cannot prove that, just my intuition about how right wingers work.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:09, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * "You can call a shovel an ice cream machine, but it's still just a shovel." -Butters Stotch Asaac Isimov (talk) 17:00, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Fake news
Our article on fake news has been nominated as a silver rated article. There's interest in preparing this article for a gold rating so it can be included as a cover story. If this topic interests you, please come over to the talk page and help us get this one to gold. Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 21:50, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Monsanto court case
Was there any evidence, at all, that Roundup actually causes non-Hodgkins lymphoma? And was there any evidence that it didn't arise from other more common causes, e.g., HIV? I just, I just don't want to believe that California is about as scientifically literate as a third world country. Really hoping the court case be appealed...CoryUsar (talk) 22:39, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I was kind of irritated by that one as well. I'm sure it's going to go to appeal.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 19:38, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No, there wasn't any actual evidence. California has moonbattery, yeah, but at least it removed personal belief exemptions back in 2016, so it's not all bad!
 * I added a note on the Glyphosate page, but probably needs a bit more.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 20:45, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It's rather odd that according to Snopes, the strongest assessment for glyphosate being carcinogenic is IARC and that it is this assessment that is usually used in court cases. The IARC assessment is only 2A, " limited evidence" in humans. IARC's strongest level of evidence is 1 for known human carcinogens. IARC evaluations have occasionally changed over time, and it's not inconceivable that they could downgrade the assessment from 2A at a later date. They've never downgraded a level 1 assessment, however.   Bongolian (talk) 03:37, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Even the 2A assessment is dubious, with a potential conflict of interest behind it.. 04:04, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

CNN screws up a major story
CNN published a story about a teen being kidnapped by a hospital, basically where abusive doctors tried to obtain custody of a girl, and remove her from the mother. But they left out key publicly available details which change the entire nature of the story, specifically that the mother in question already had 5 children removed by the state and the mother had been found to be using multiple drugs. Furthermore, Mayo Clinic claims the mother was demanding the daughter remain on opioids; as a doctor, what would you assume would be the reason a drug addicted family member was demanding that the patient continue to receive opioids? CoryUsar (talk) 22:59, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Do other Christians go to heaven, according to the Catholic Church?
Probably isn't the best place to ask this, but whatever. I know the Church says you can only go to heaven if you're baptized, but does this only apply to Catholics or to all Christians? That is, if you're say a rightous and pious Protestant, are you doomed to Hell for not embracing Rome while alive? Count Bezukhov (talk) 16:14, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not sure, but I think they have a concept of baptism that is important to them. So I think that they think that good people who were not baptized/converted to Catholicism have a chance in the purgatory. At least, so I think! Kingdamian1 (talk) 16:17, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * From some conversations I had had with Catholics I would have said the answer was "no". But after spending a little time on Google it looks like the situation is more complex than I had thought. Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:30, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The traditional answer to this was purgatory(then eventually heaven), because trying and failing to live your life as a good christian(because you engaged in some heresy) meant that you carried a lot of unconfessed sin. Catholics didn't used to consider sola fide a thing.  Nowadays the Catholic Catechism is all mixed up with first world Protestantism, and I couldn't tell you what they, as in church higher-ups, think.  As to what the unofficial views held by actual followers of the Church think, it's all over the map, for example American Conservative Catholics having a higher view of American Conservative Protestants than non-garbage American Catholics.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:35, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, very helpful! Count Bezukhov (talk) 18:43, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It depends. Are we talking the nebulous consensus and a few papal decisions...or actually rational arguments based on biblical text? If it's the first then yeah, their purgatory cop-out pretty much explains it. If we are talking rationally...then there is no clear answer. In so many texts God is all knowing, all loving, all forgiving. And yet God has deemed it a proportional response for doing a few things he thinks are bad...to unimaginable endless torture. I know you know this argument already but its sometimes nice to see it spelt out. It is...impossible to give a rational answer to this (and many other conflicting texts) because no answer to who goes to hell by the qualities and world of God...makes the slightest amount of sense. Even for the worst crime imaginable by the biggest monster on Earth, would a kind forgiving loving God punish that person for a billion years of torture, and then another billion years more, and the a quadrillion years etc without end? And is the crime of not believing in an invisible diety from a very old book...remotely worthy of even one single year of burning torture? Let alone eternity? There is not answer except cop-outs. And the Catholic church has no choice to give a cop-out, cause at least compared to evangelical churches...they do try to at least show a minimum amount of textual explanation and reason. Shabi  DOO  22:59, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed... Protestants, those I know of at least, have it crystal clear: an eternity of Hell even if you've been the kindest people in existence, which also makes Christ's sacrifice nonsensical if truly everyone has been saved after it. However, being this RW we know that has nothing to envide to North Korean/Stalinist propaganda. Panzerfaust (talk) 21:07, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The Vikings etc would consider 'milk and honey heaven eternally praising some god they don't believe in' a waste of time, while the astronomers would be complaining about not being able to do 'proper' astronomy (and how God got astronomy #wrong#), various categories of God-botherers will be bothering God as to why He should smite other groups of God-botherer etc... and the cats treat God as staff. Anna Livia (talk) 23:40, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * i was taught catholic dogma in hte 60's and 70's, and back then it was real clear - no baptism means no heaven! "But what about the little babies who die before baptism??"  Well they went to Limbo - but apparently that is not and never has been "official" doctrine - although it was definitely taught to me!  these days - doesn't look like anyone really nows - which is, of course, exactly as it should be - if there is a god(x-ian type, for the sake of argument) then no human being could possibly understand its thought processes and assuming to be able to do so would be the ultimate vanity!Aloysius the Gaul 04:16, 15 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I went to a mass at Saint Charles Boromeo Catholic Church once, and I talked with a lady at the church office about Catholic doctrines, and she basically said that, according to their doctrines, I am saved because I was baptized (in a Baptist church). What a Wonderful World (talk) 17:28, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually - anybody who has been 'reasonably well behaved' (ie the most of us) gets sent to a heaven - but not necessarily the one they were expecting. Anna Livia (talk) 15:29, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That isn't how it works. If you are a Christian, God will ask you, 'But did you fast in Ramadan?  I thought I was clear about that.  Sorry, eternal damnation is your doom.' But if you fasted in Ramadan, God will say, 'But did you eat fish on Fridays? ...' And so forth. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 16:54, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

"Wikist" - an editor of wikis
Is there a word for an editor of wikis? Not a Wikipedian, for he might venture outside Wikipedia - not a Wikian, for he might venture from Wikia back to Wikipedia - just an editor of wikis? Wiktionary lists a single term derived from "wiki" to this end - wikiholic, however this definitely refers to a fanatical subset of the userbase.

I thought that for Wikipedia's and Wikia's satisfactions with their own terms, and Wiktionary's resistance to internally generated coinages, I would ask here for your opinions on the word wikist for, plainly, an editor of wikis. Doesn't it fit the bill? 24.94.224.121 (talk) 17:24, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Why not simply use "Wiki Editor(s)"? What's wrong with using two words instead of one? 17:29, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I think English-speaking folks I would call "wikist" ought to be capable of cognizing the word off the bat. Have you required a definition for every new word you've heard, or did you understand yesn't without as much? Or Shania's "that don't impressen me much"?
 * Given that it ought to be immediately intelligible, it falls to a matter of preference, and I rather prefer to save those five keystrokes. To you I say, why not simply use "wikist"? What's wrong with using one word instead of two? It even interfaces with the wiki name - RationalWikist. 24.94.224.121 (talk) 17:53, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I favor "broken human being". ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:00, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That's Wikist. 18:01, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I prefer to simply be a cabalist, since I don't spend all my time only on wikis. 22:11, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * But... but going from the above... how in hell do you edit a cabal? Kencolt (talk) 22:52, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * On wordpress :D 09:46, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * *shudder* noo, not WordPress! Please don't tell me you would use it as a CMS... —Kazitor Kazitor sig pic.png 10:48, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It's a terrible CMS, but good for randomly moaning about people. 15:06, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Why create a word when "nerds with too much spare time" does just as nicely? I have missed all you bastards. 01:31, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Wrap it up, there's no fucking point
Look at this actual article in an "actual" journal that actually cited rationalwiki just look at it. Rationalwiki was cited as "Wikipedia", and they cited our science was wrong before article to support the claim that science was wrong before. I looked em up. This person has an actual Doctorate from a real university. And in spite of all our effort in documenting the idea and how dumb it is, just the fact that we wrote those words in that order was enough for it to mean it's true.

There's no more point to this project. Everything will be just so stupid forever. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:12, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The irony. 82.132.213.5 (talk) 21:05, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Jumping Jesus, that "journal" "article" is one of the most idiotic things I've ever seen posted to the internet. Cosmikdebris (talk) 21:18, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * We have a serious reading comprehension shortage. Wow. 21:19, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Whenever someone asks "Is evolutionary theory incorrect?" (or any variation thereof) I usually answer "No." Now, before anyone jumps on my case for not hearing the other person out I'd like to point out that if someone took every fossil, every peer reviewed paper, every sheet of data, every photo (when applicable) and each and every video made on the topic and put them all in one place, the collective size would be larger than a football stadium. So, given the literal mountain of evidence, the only reasonable answer at this point is "No."  22:08, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

The Abstract: "Evolution theory was examined with respect to the rules we follow on observation, testing of hypothesis and formation of a theory. The observation of spontaneous generation of life reported by Aristotle was the foundation for proposing the evolution theory. Since the spontaneous generation of life is now considered a debunked theory, the evolution theory also stands as a theory with no strong foundation. Therefore the alternate option is to accept that there is a creator behind the creation of universe and life." lol, how did you find this? Lord Aeonian (talk) 04:08, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * This was published in a pseudojournal: International Journal of Creative Research Thoughts. The title of the journal itself is laughable, but confirmation of pseudojournal status is: 1) They charge US$50/article for an open-access online-only publication 2) no specificity in what they publish 3) numerous typographical errors on their webpage 4) no list of peer reviewers as far as I could see 5) they will sell you a certificate of publication to show off to unsuspecting rubes Bongolian (talk) 05:03, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's perhaps even beneath a pseudojournal in that they don't really pretend at all.
 * I found it by searching google scholar for the last year of papers that contain the text "rationalwiki.org" which tends to only happen when they cite us. Mostly.  We were a research subject in one case, but generally there's a just lot of mid-quality sociology research that uses us to define terms related to conspiracy theories and woo and (recently) alt-right stuff.  But this one was a standout immediately for just how amazingly insane it was.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 05:16, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * On the plus side, we're mentioned as Further Reading here. RoninMacbeth (talk) 06:25, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Wait, when were we the research subject? 22:16, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You posted it in your mentions dealy you maintain. The one about linguistic analysis of speeches tried to make us a liberal analogue of conservapedia.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:34, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Also, remember, using these people's logic, the Bible officially says, "There's no God". 21:52, 16 August 2018 (UTC)


 * The abstract presents a post hoc ergo prompter hoc fallacy as the basis of the discussion. I think I'll stop now.Ariel31459 (talk) 14:18, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with . This does not seem to be a genuine research journal; there are way too many things wrong with it. Besides, I looked at the author's profile just for fun. I can't believe this is the second time I run into a pseudoscientist with presumably proper scientific training who once worked at the Bhabha Atomic Research Center in India. This was the first one. would certainly be disappointed.
 * As the article itself, the writing is ostensibly weak. The first sign of problem was an overdependency on Wikipedia in particular &mdash; not to mention confusing us with our more famous cousin &mdash; and the Internet in general. If this person is really a physicist, why not grab a book on elementary fluid mechanics before discussing airfoil theory? Humans have more than five senses? Yeah, we know. I learned that in AP Psychology class. It's more of a common misconception than a scientific theory that was overthrown. Nerd (talk) 14:48, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Another red flag is the fact that the writing style is completely scattershot, with topics changing rapidly with little attempt to properly organize the various points. Anyone else thinking of Gish Gallop when they read it? 16:39, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd be interesting to know what "creator" the article refers to. As you know, creationists always think on this one, not in any of those thousands of deities that have been venerated or are fictional. Panzerfaust (talk) 10:43, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I think Gish Gallop makes sense as a tactic only in a verbal argument. Since we are dealing with written arguments here, we can read them at our own pace. Swarming will not work. And because it is easier to absorb and process information by reading than by listening, it is clear how feeble the arguments are. In any case, no respectable journal will accept this nonsense. Nerd (talk) 14:49, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Reliability
An occasional feeble research paper published in a pseudojournal is nothing to worry about. This, on the other hand, is a more pressing concern. Nerd (talk) 13:45, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * This, too. Nerd (talk) 13:56, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * (ec)If you take a position of debunking someone's deeply held(but also deeply wrong) beliefs, you're never gonna get a position of universal popularity, and the people who hate you will be louder and more persistent than those who appreciate it. And possibly even more numerous.  What you've got here is someone objecting to rationalwiki's trustworthiness on the basis that they don't like the positions we take, positions I think we'd be hard pressed to even briefly consider giving up, namely that ufology is pure bunk.
 * Some of the replies are basically sincere answers that rationalwiki purposefully fills a role that wikipedia doesn't: being straightfoward about describing bunk, bullshit, and the nutbars who back it. There's a parade of those nutbars at various levels in the comments
 * the aggrieved creationist thinking we're unfair to creationists
 * the aggrieved global warming denialist saying we're unfair to conservatives
 * The aggrieved eugenicist, saying we're unfair to euginics
 * These are not positions there's much room to give on. Because the "other side" in each case, is just patently full of shit.
 * Some people would make the case that the "They're SJWs rabble" crowd aren't exactly the same as the above pseudoscience nutbars, so I omitted them. But I'm personally pretty sure it's every bit as dumb.
 * Also I'm even less worried about urban dictionary, which is a place where you go to upvote your pet grievances. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:05, 20 August 2018 (UTC)