RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive328

Irony meter breaks yet again, as Trump Jr. criticizes Biden's son for nepotism.
Read all about it:

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/10/donald-trump-jr-attacks-hunter-and-joe-biden-for-nepotism.html G Man (talk) 05:54, 20 October 2019 (UTC)


 * And to further the case that Trump is a moron or thinks his supporters are his slaves, nepotism is when one favors a member of ones family with a job, not when a third party does so, presumably as an investment in ones good opinion. I've heard left-leaning journalists actually say that taking a job based on ones family name is a problem. It is a point of attack for sure, but nothing more. We have come to a time when groundless assertions are said to count for something by otherwise capable journalists.Ariel31459 (talk) 16:47, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Latin American protests
First Ecuador, now Chile. People are pissed at the neoliberal governments formed in reaction to the pink tide (Macri of Argentina is also on his way out, it seems), and I wonder what's going to happen in the region. Colossal Squid (talk) 23:23, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Illusion of Sexuality
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/sex-and-the-illusion-of-p_b_334491

Basically saying that since the human body is an illusion then who are you having sex with?Machina (talk) 05:18, 20 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Oh, for fuck's sake! Bloody Buddhists talk as much fucking bollocks as bloody Christians do. For all intents and purposes, we live in a world that's real. and full of things we can touch. We have physical bodies. We can have, and enjoy, physical contact with other people. And again, if you're looking for answers in religion, any religion, you're looking in the wrong place. Spud (talk) 14:06, 20 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Something I created out of my own imagination. Same as always.  It really is the thinking man's television. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 14:42, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Did you read the article?Machina (talk) 14:23, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You know, I'm just going to skip straight to the dark humor bit and point out the fact that you're indirectly denying the pain and death of mass shooting victims. 15:14, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Almost every week we seem to get this "Hey look at this strange Buddhist idea!" I'm not sure if the idea is to convert everyone to Buddhism or to point how batshit crazy it is.Hubert (talk) 16:39, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Machina, a lot of these spiritual woo talk, non-profound philosophical concepts comes from not properly separating two different spheres. To keep it simple lets call them the cold-obective world (everything is just lego pieces with no memory with no actual objective definable objects (a person, a planet) nor concepts/actions (fun, sex, love). vs the human-centric world (the world as we see it through our limited perspective through the lens of human experience). So when you are talking about anything...you really have to keep both of those things separate and contained. For example, if my argument is "there are no real objects in the universe" then our discussion here is clearly in the cold-objective world. There is no need to drag objects defined by subjective humans into this. We are simply dealing with a basic metaphysical theory. If on the other hand we are discussing sex and the objectification of a sex partner...then we are dealing with the human-centric (subjective) sphere/perspective and there is no reason to bring in the concept of lego pieces into the discussion. Seriously...a conversation should be about how we are lego pieces...or it should be about human-centric objects and concepts and their qualities etc. Mixing them is ridiculous. If you are making love then we aren't just talking about lego pieces. We are talking about concepts invented by humans about humans through the human perspective. You are a person. You are making love with a person. The only point of mixing the two (a subjective human being making love with just lego pieces) is to inject a spiritual aura into a conversation and confuse matters (which can be solved or overwritten with the religions own world view or solution). If you are making love you make love with another object that can make love. If you are lego pieces then thats it...just lego pieces everywhere...theres nothing else to say. Don't mix them. Nothing of value comes from it. Shabi  DOO  16:51, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I really don't understand machina obsession with Buddhism. At one point they said they were convinced of its rightness but his every post is saying some fundamental tenet is nonsense. If you fully on board with Buddhism then youd be more positive about. If you not on board with the central tenet of achieving enlightenment, then what is it you are looking? Much of Buddhism is built around that. It's nonsense if aren't. Theres probably stuff that is beneficial if applied appropriately, but taken to crazy extreme probably damaging. Non attachment for example. You could apply something along that lines to your life and be a positive thing. If you go too far with it, it's probably damaging and unachievable. If you are not on board with the central tenet why go all in? If you are, take slowly you got several lifetimes to understand it all AMassiveGay (talk) 21:59, 20 October 2019 (UTC) It's because it sounds very convincing. I don't believe it but they make it appear to be true with logic and reason and to some degree science. It's like with the "perfect world 2" post that I created a few threads up, I can't really find out how it's wrong and the more I think about it the more it seems true. Like how "everything is necessary and perfect" and that problems are just our judgments placed on the world. Buddhism is in a similar vein, I just can't prove it wrong.Machina (talk) 02:21, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * the linked article is thread is just pedantic bullshit. just because we cannot perceive every minute detail it does not make someone an illusion or some how a deception. we perceive what we are able and process it in a way that is useful to us. it serves no purpose to examine your partner under a microscope and catalogue every individual atom. the some of ones parts and what we can see of it. individual bodily processes or the molecular structure of the brain are a part of the whole. it isn't a false image but an image of a particular level of detail and focus.
 * with an electron microscope i can see atoms. but you have to zoom out to see the shape of the globe. i can see the movement of bacteria if i look close enough but i'd get hit by a bus crossing the road. the exact details that we hone in on as relevant are defined by the situation. we cannot process all possible details of anyone person or object with all big picture detail and the microscopic. theres an autistic guy who draw incredibly detailed drawings from memory but because he cant filter out the irrelevant stuff hes not exactly 'high functioning'. what we see subjectively might be an incomplete picture, but its functional and not an illusion. its a bunch of bullshit arguments to make a vague not even point. if the point was something about being subjective or it has limitations, its a mundane point poorly made. if its more everything is an illusion nonsense, unless you can pierce the veil its a dead end.
 * but then the whole illusion thing isn't a logically argued thing. its a leap. to break the cycle of reincarnation, pierce the veil and attain enlightenment is literally buddhisms whole deal, everything is to an end that is unproven fantasy. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:31, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It's classic New Age woo in current form, a mishmash of the West mixed with angular Eastern mystic. (This is a decade old article, but Mr. Srinivasan Pillay seems to still be a psychiatrist who still seems to be largely in the management consultant / corporate motivational field, and typically seems to write fine articles if he sticks with the psychiatry field.) I will say that the article has a lot that is largely true, but, in true Arthur C. Clarke third law fashion, the article uses bits of science to envelope mystical religious schtuff. It's mostly harmless woo in one sense, though... there are indeed limits to human perception, which is the point I took away from the article. No need to make a big mystical deal about that, though, or even do the open-ended "what is life" nonsense the article attempted to do, seemingly. It's just a good point to remember. Soundwave106 (talk) 12:46, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

But how is it not an illusion, that what I take to be a human being is just a collection of little parts and pieces and that the brain is more space than anything else even though it feels “solid”? I mean it sounds clear to me, that what we take to be a solid and unified human being is just a collection of tiny cells.Machina (talk) 01:44, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

On the history of the RationalWiki Discord
I'm embarking on a project to rewrite some of the RW help and guide pages to reflect the existence of a secondary RW community on the Discord server. But before I can do that, I need to do some research first. Does anybody know what people were involved in the original conception and creation of the server? I'd like to talk to and interview them. You Won't BELIEVE What Astronomers Found In This Neutron Star! - Number Four WILL Shock You!  05:59, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I was not involved in the founding of the server but I am a pivotal figure in its history. — Oxyaena Harass  09:48, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but pivotal could mean a lot of things. It could mean a pivotally important troll who led to a paradigm shift.  You Won't BELIEVE What Astronomers Found In This Neutron Star!  - Number Four WILL Shock You!  17:21, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * RW has been here for yonken and during that time there have been several alternate RW 'communities' around the internet. All of these have disintegrated eventually. I'd wait another couple of years before indulging your rewriting proposal. Scream!! (talk) 18:51, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I spent about a minute and a half on the Discord before realizing that it has nothing to do with Rationalwiki and almost certainly has nothing worthwhile to offer. The only time it becomes relevant here is when some of the edgy teenagers there decide to act extra edgy and someone ends up posting about it on the Saloon. 23:47, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * At least most of them aren't capitalists. — Oxyaena Harass  14:57, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * If you haven't seen it already, here is the original notice about the server's founding. Looks like it wasn't the first RationalWiki discord server. --RWRW (talk) 11:56, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

the rationalwiki discord server was founded by Myon in January 2017 and operated until about September 2017 when fuzzycatpotato made a new server and linked it in the sidebar causing the original to become defunct. the main people involved in it to begin with were fuzzycatpotato, myon, bigs, geth, and those other people nobody remembers. fuzzycatpotato is still the owner of the (second) rationalwiki discord server but many of the original members and mods are gone or banned now and fuzzycatpotato is very inactive and no longer uses discord. you could talk to some of the current moderators on the discord server but most of the users joined in 2018 or 2019.

there was a lot of drama in early 2019 surrounding an election for new moderators mainly held to get rid of mkbw who was later banned and the banning of someone called beb. in late 2019 there was another set of drama where oxy and some other peeps were banned and a number of the mods who were elected were removed or resigned. for this reason there is another server called irrationalwiki (now on its third incarnation) and the successor servers to that like oxys server which has a ratwiki channel.

the main discord server does not actually have much overlap with the wiki since there are few users who use both the wiki and discord and there isnt much talk about the wiki. the server has a lot of overlap tho with the democrat discord server and breadtube. it should be noted the discord is significantly more left communist that the wiki is in terms of collective ideology.

at no point has this been the only rationalwiki server. there was a server called conservapedia which was founded by bigs in 2017 and deleted shortly after, there have been several other conservapedia servers since then but the current one is largely inactive. additionally there are several cabal servers, early on notably bigs new cabal server, during 2019 there were also other cabal servers which i wont name here belonging to members of the rationalwiki discord not active on the wiki. the original irrationalwiki server was one of these cabal servers but being populated mainly with right wing trolls it largely merged with the trump 2020 campaign server and the current irrationalwiki server is inactive.

i could go on but thats the main stuff ig

EK (talk) 12:58, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait, I thought Oxy got banned around August 2019 from the discord? Something about the discord allowing Nazi's on the server? Tinribmancer (talk) 21:33, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh no. Not Commies in the chat!  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:36, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The fuck you hear that from? I abhor Nazis, and I was banned in April of 2019 for matters I'd rather leave in the past. — Oxyaena Harass  06:36, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * From here. Tinribmancer (talk) 12:29, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * i mention oxy being banned in my summary. there is more than one discord server and everyone banned from the main rationalwiki specific server will still be found on other discord servers. EK (talk) 13:15, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

After a week, Hbomberguy has made a statement about the ContraPoints/Buck Angel collaboration
I'm not surprised that of the 'core five' (not counting Wynn herself) he was the first to speak - he's clearly very frustrated that as a result of this, even besides a link to Buck, he's now even remotely, tangenially connected to Graham.

I'm only stating my personal, and possibly controversial belief here, but I'm very happy he was brave enough to say this. I realise that it's the bare minimum, but it's a damn sight better than silence. It's important to be grateful and encourage this same behaviour from others, not just to demand more from Hbomberguy. I think the worst possible thing that could happen now is if people bombard Hbomberguy, since he could be seen as vulnerable. Minish (talk) 15:48, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * If it goes down, here's an archived link to the thread: https://web.archive.org/web/20191020153036/https:/twitter.com/Hbomberguy/status/1185932084172541953 Minish (talk) 15:50, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm happy as well. It's the responsible thing to do. 16:02, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, who are the core five/six aside from Ollie, HBomb and Contra? 18:53, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Is Shaun one of them? 19:05, 20 October 2019 (UTC);
 * Meant Hbomb, Shaun, Olly, Lindsay (and Contra) specifically, sorry my grammar made that unclear Minish (talk) 19:49, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Olly seems to have responded as well. Though it is a bit... Lacking in my opinion. 20:10, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah I wouldn't bring up my own experiences even in good intention to relate. You run the risk of making the conversation about you rather than the people being affected and can come off as lacking empathy. 20:37, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Olly's made a separate statement

Backup: https://web.archive.org/web/20191020184727/https:/twitter.com/PhilosophyTube/status/1185990359534489602

It's important to note a tweet that many who acted in retaliation of Contra's endorsement of Buck saw as a callous mocking of legitimate criticisms, even from before people (and, maybe or maybe not, Olly himself) realised Buck Angel had collaborated in the video:

Backup: https://web.archive.org/web/20191018172423/https:/twitter.com/PhilosophyTube/status/1183503963603263493

Olly didn't address this tweet in his statement.

I still think this is still far, far better than silence. But, especially when compared to the clear and emotional statement by Hbomb, it's impossible to deny where this falls short. Olly not only doesn't condemn Buck Angel, but doesn't note him or any of the specific details of Contra's mistakes at all.

That being said, there is no excuse whatsoever for the threats and doxxing that Olly has suffered. No ifs or buts. I also didn't know he was dealing with 'various personal tragedies'. Minish (talk) 20:41, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I spent so long writing this that GC already made a message about it, whoops Minish (talk) 20:41, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Lindsay has done one also, making me think that there might be more statements today of this is a coordinated thing. This is far too long for me to quote and I'm gonna wait until tomorrow morning to read. I haven't made any conclusive judgements yet, but there's a lot of Fucks, which is not a good sign. Minish (talk) 21:26, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * And Shaun has replied. That makes all five of the core group. 23:39, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * They're all responding at the same time because people are harassing them. 23:49, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think "harass" is the most accurate characterization of people's (particularly nonbinary people) concerns over the close connections to ContraPoints, like concern that there's a group mentality among the big BreadTubers on the issues of nonbinary. The bigger people have to respond, otherwise it seems like they don't really care and that'll aliennate a big portion of their audience. I'm not particularly happy about Lindsay Ellis's response though. Just seems like an attempt to duck because Lindsay wasn't directly involved in that video. But I can't blame Lindsay because I'd jump to the defense of my friend though tbf I'd focus more on criticizing what the friend did and send some Mario of Disappointment instead. 00:01, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Ellis' and Brewis' seemed the most genuine to me. I think it's fair for Ellis to absolve herself of responsibility because she wasn't involved. I agree with her that a bunch of internet strangers shouldn't tell someone to drop a real-life friendship over more internet drama. Having so many strangers dog me on social media and in my emails about that would probably piss me off too. 00:09, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd be really ticked off if my irl friend did something bad and now people demand me to cease ties. I do, however, would still condemn my friend. IRL my friend did an amiibo video game figure and I gave him a hard time for that because I found it conflicting my morals, so I bring this up to think about some moment my friend did something I really didn't like. But I imagine something way worse and in public, I'd be extremely shocked and disappointed too and I think I should take a stance in condemning that collaboration while also affirming nonbinary people are great and should be respected. And I'd condemn my friend out of my own love, not try to maintain loyalty like Ellis has done, because I really wouldn't like other people getting hurt by my friend either.  00:17, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with everything you're saying. I'm just also sure that there's more going on here than what's being said in public, and the internet's anger towards Wynn's friends isn't helping anyone. 00:23, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm hugely underestimating the actual harassment Ollie and Ellis have faced too as well. I thought it was just people being angry at a few, but yeah, they've been actually harassed. This sucks. These people who are angry and upset and engage in harassment really need to find out better ways to persuade people or they should at least spend the time learning about nonbinary people or talking to any nonbinary people they are friends with or at least trust. And if you're the type that's too ashamed, yet too proud to admit you've harassed people online then you're just a coward who doesn't want to admit a problem and try to reflect on what you could've done instead rather than join thousands of others screaming down. But I hate talking about that part of the Internet. I want to instead listen to nonbinary people and what they have learned from this and what we can also learn from this so we minimize hurting those that have been hurt the most, and keep the conversation on focus to them rather than a controversy belonging to far bigger YouTubers. 00:33, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You just said something that I felt but couldn't really figure out how to word well. I dislike how real social justice issues are getting buried under internet drama like this. 00:39, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I realized too. I noticed the conversation is about the popular YouTubers and their friends not the more vulnerable people that are getting hurt and that matter more to me. I hope others start to realize how counterproductive these controversies are by diverting energy and valuable time toward those YouTubers rather than the groups they're supposed to protect and bring visibility. I think you should take a stand but I rather you don't talk on and on about yourself rather than the more dire consequences and implications from the circumstances that brought on the controversies in the first place. 02:47, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry but could someone explain this whole debacle? Commie Lib (talk) 06:17, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

ContraPoints collaborated with and said it was an honour to work with transmasc Buck Angel, a horrible piece of shit notorious for outing closeted transgender people out of spite and intentionally harming non-binary and other transgender people with his truscum rhetoric. He's also friends with Graham Linehan. There is essentially no way Wynn did not know who this person was before collaborating with him (it's as easy as a Google search), so it seemed certain this was a dogwhistle - when you also consider Wynn has gotten into significant trouble for debatably spouting transmedicalist views.

In response, trans people and trans allies denounced, and demanded an explanation/apology from ContraPoints, and when Wynn ignored it, demanded statements from Contra's friends - the situation not being helped by a tweet by PhilosophyTube joking about being cancelled for collaborating with Wynn the day prior to things blowing up. During the week of radio silence, some people, disgustingly, resorted to threats and apparently even doxxing, which made the situation worse.

Eventually, most of ContraPoints' friends made statements of varying weight, the first being Hbomberguy admitting a sense of betrayal, and Lindsay denouncing the 'campaign' against Wynn and by extension her. There has still been no statement from ContraPoints herself, and the situation seems to be dying down - although there's no denying all the burnt bridges. I have to say, it's very hard to see what Wynn could possibly do at this point to fully recover from the aftermath of her behaviour. Minish (talk) 20:03, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

GrammarCommie
Why does this guy have carte blanche to remove posts? I certainly think other members would be interested in a mention of Rationalwiki in the scientific literature. Shouldn't they have a chance to comment first? Suppressing voices seems like a rather unscientific attitude. Mediocre Bob (talk) 16:46, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Because you're shitposting? Also, people can just read the logs if they give that much of a damn. 16:55, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm leaning for GC here; it's not really 'scientific literature', looked more like racialists to me. Could have stayed, sure, but it's not really important that it got removed - not like much of a discussion is prevalent from these pseudoscientists being mad that we called them pseudoscientists and called the frothing mass that is RatWiki liars. Minish (talk) 16:57, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I am reporting a mention of Rationalwiki in the scientific literature. Who are you to say nobody here will be interested? This is not "shitposting" by any stretch. Feel free to get a few comments calling for deleting my comment, and I'll accept that. Shall we delete every post and people can "read the logs"? Huh? Your behavior is very arrogant and not community minded. Mediocre Bob (talk) 17:00, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not nice to concern trolls. Some Racialists still don't like us, big deal. Pseudoscientists in general do this, it's not new or interesting. It's just "blah blah blah, they aren't buying into our bullshit, blah blah blah..." You know, white noise. 17:04, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Intelligence is a garbage journal with extremely low citescore which has board members who are major supporters of pseudoscience. Wow. What a shock. Some pseudoscience champions are whining about unfair bias against pseudoscience "research". Shock! Shabi  DOO  17:06, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Specifically what is pseudoscientific about them? "coupled with unsubstantiated claims that those researchers are engaged in ‘pseudoscience’". Mediocre Bob (talk) 17:08, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * "Specifically what is pseudoscientific about them?" See? This is why I called you a concern troll. This is just "Try to smuggle bullshit in with loaded language and feigned innocence/cluelessness." Boring... 17:12, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * So vacuous flailing and no substantiation of "pseudoscience". Mediocre Bob (talk) 17:15, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * They're Racialists, Racialism is repackaged racism that starts with "black people are stupid, white people are smart" and works backwards from there. That isn't how actual science works. Racialism claims to be scientific, yet it is unable to pass rigor. Ergo it is Pseudo (false) science (truth/knowledge). Ergo it is false and stupid. 17:29, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure they try to develop culture neutral intelligence tests and use them to gather data, rather than starting with "black people are stupid". Your transparent mischaracterisation would be laughable for its childishness, if it wasn't so dishonest and defamatory. Is this really the quality of people that run this place? You're an absolutely disgusting person. Mediocre Bob (talk) 17:39, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You know, you have several major Tells. Chiefly you're overly fond of using the word "defamatory", as well as referring to people you don't like as "disgusting." Thanks for letting the mask slip though, now I get to block your latest account for ban evasion. 17:44, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes. Commie perfectly summs it up. "Defamatory" and "disgusting" are dead giveaways. Perahps Mediocre Bob...you might fuck off with this stupid irrelevant article that bores the shit out of us. Shabi  DOO  17:46, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with the others. Now please shut the hell up no name red link. 18:11, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Exhibit #346334 in the "Racists Don't Know How To Act Like Normal Human Beings" category. 18:45, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I used to read Intelligence, and RationalWiki's article showed me exactly why that wasn't making myself more reasonably informed and I stopped reading it uncritically. I'd certainly have had some interest in the original post with some seriousness if it had been left up.  The journal's editorial standards really do seem to be lacking.   ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:02, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * My guess is the articles Intelligence was complaining about would be the ones about folks like Gerhard Meisenberg and Richard Lynn, both who were controversially on the board until recently... as well as pseudo-scientific meetups this magazine has defeneded (eg the London Conference on Intelligence). Eugenics is pseudoscience that can be dangerous in the wrong hands (with apologies for evoking Godwin's Law, see Hitler on that point). This isn't the 1900s, there's a whole bunch of history on that movement available for those who actually need a understanding of what's wrong with such a concept. Soundwave106 (talk) 17:08, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, and our one about intelligence itself. Which committed the unfortunate crime of being accurate.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:18, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

A note
It is worth noting that Intelligence, according to the Scimago Journals ranking, is actually a really good journal, first quartile, but in the disciplines of Art and Humanities, Developmental and Educational Psychology, and Experimental and Cognitive Psychology; that says more about the ranking system of these disciplines than the journal itself. Melody (talk) 15:21, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

The Rainbow argument
Dammit, dammit dammit, I don't want to look at American politics anymore. It is too full of evangelical literalists, I don't think these people are evil, I think they really believe that God made a rainbow to prove God wasn't going to flood the earth again. FINE COOL WHATEVER, GOD IS NOT THE CAUSE OF HUMAN CAUSED CLIMATE CHANGE. God won't flood us again, look at a rainbow, be very ok with that. BUT GOD NEVER STOPPED PEOPLE FROM DOING SHIT TO THEMSELVES YA FUCKING INSOLENT, ENTITLED PIECES OF SHIT. If God's promise from Genesis is that you get to do whatever you want, and Genesis 1:28 means not shit, I don't even know. I don't know what to do. The words are there, I don't like them either. But to think that a rainbow means global warming is not a real thing? A promise from God is fine. I mean, it's wild, but for this argument, it's fine. But it does not say we will not fuck up on our own. It just says "God won't do it to us," not "there won't be a next time." Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:24, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Robert Jeffress probably needs to realize that mounting biblical and scientific evidence points to the rainbow being a sign that people really need to stop kart racing on that goddamn glorified pride parade. 03:34, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Genesis 9:12-17 (the rainbow bit) is right next to Genesis 9:20-27 (Noah gets drunk and naked on wine, also racism justification!!) so Mr. Jeffress really needs to be more specific. I have no takeaway from this, of course, other than to note that climate change may cause issues with the ability to get drunk and naked on wine in the future. Soundwave106 (talk) 13:07, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know. If they understood the bible, they wouldn't be fundies.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:09, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * If anyone understood the Bible, no one would be Christians. No one wants to reform that damn book and cut out all the terrible parts for purity reasons or something. 18:36, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * If you start with the belief that the Bible is true and accurate about anything then your subsequent conclusions have a high likelihood of being wrong. So I'm not at all surprised by the rainbow - Global heating connection. Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 12:17, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Announcement
I've been going through a lot lately with school, and the initial energy I had going into moderation just isn't there. Maybe it's college, maybe it's just something else. In any case, I cannot commit the time necessary to continue being a moderator. As such, effective immediately, I resign my position as a moderator for RationalWiki. I am proud of what little I have achieved and ashamed that I cannot do more. I hope my successor will, for the short time before elections, execute the duties of a moderator better than I did, and that I may return with more energy in the future.

Thank you for tolerating my inadequacy.

With apologies, RoninMacbeth (talk) 17:08, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You did fine. Enjoy your vacation from unpaid internet labor.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:17, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * RoninMacbeth, thank you for your efforts here and for being honest that you are no longer able to be moderator. There is nothing to be ashamed about. I wish you the best in college. For me, there was a lot that I learned in college that was not useful in later life, but the most important things that I did get out of college were critical thinking skills and expanded curiosity. It looks like will be the replacement moderator. Would someone like to confirm? Bongolian (talk) 17:30, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I thought that it was DD1, but he's kind of fallen off the map. IDK. Thank you for understanding. RoninMacbeth (talk) 17:34, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Nerd has gone AWOL, I however volunteer. — Oxyaena Harass  17:53, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No mods, no masters. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:16, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * That's too bad, RoninMacbeth. FWIW it sounds like you underestimate how good you were as a mod. --RWRW (talk) 18:40, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It's okay, RoninMacbeth. We'll find someone to hold a position, or we'll just tough it through the next three months or so. Seems like the replacement mods just aren't super active either. Heck I'm not even sure you were that active. It'll be fine.
 * As for Oxyaena being a moderator... I'm not on board with that. I saw what you did recently and your overall edit history I wouldn't say is a stellar record of level-headed behavior. 18:43, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I vote we hold a snap election for a replacement. Unfortunately, I looked at the results of the last election. Absent DD1 and Nerd, the mod position would defer to nobs. 22:20, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Take some time off, the wiki should (hopefully) survive. Take care of yourself, and thank you for doing what you could while moderator. 22:49, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Sisyphus should have taken some time off too. I'm convinced. Relax. Have some fun.Ariel31459 (talk) 23:43, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I also favour a snap election. And, you have nothing to be ashamed of, you did fine and I wish you all the best. Spud (talk) 12:54, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * the next election is due to start in only slightly over a week i dont see why it has to be brought forward EK (talk) 13:07, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * OK. Just 5 mods until the shortly upcoming election is more than fine by me. Spud (talk) 01:53, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry folks! I don't go here any more. Good luck! Nerd (talk) 14:17, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

8 Moderators, instead of 6?
That way, if someone can't do any modding for whatever reason, you'd still have 7 left.

As for activity, can't we give GC & ikanreed mod tools? Tinribmancer (talk) 10:31, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * they are welcome to stand for mod in the election EK (talk) 13:07, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't run for mod on the grounds that I get really really angry at annoying users. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:50, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Do we even have enough users these days to warrant 8 mods? Even with 6 mods, we sometimes don't have enough options as is.  I'm still a tech, but I'm barely on these days so I wouldn't recommend demoting me further. CoryUsar (talk) 15:46, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

What is love? (for real this time)
I have heard it said that it is a verb, or a state of being, and in addition to the verb part that it is what you do not how you feel. Is it unconditional or does such a thing exist (the unconditional, not the love). I asked this on that actualized.org place and they said it was Attention,but then I questioned that attention doesn't necessarily mean love and many things can be "attention" but not be love. My thread was locked saying I was looking for a specific answer instead of asking a question, but I think it's because I questioned their responses. So here I am. I mean I can say it is a form of attention I guess but that's not it.Machina (talk) 19:07, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Love. It’s a chemical reaction in the brain. Developed mostly to ensure strong family bonds and mating bonds, which has been a strong adaptive feature in most mammals. As with all things in the human being, and all emotions we experience, they have spiraled completely out of control which can bring a lot of happiness, extremely strong mating bonds and family cohesiveness, happiness etc but also out of control irratic behaviour to the point that love leads humans to do remarkably unhelpful and unhealthy actions, obsessions, violence, self-destruction, hysteria, stalking, sexual harassment, lethargy, emotionally crippling depression, lethargy, emotional manipulation. Love is glorified as something more than just a neuro/physical process. Love is portrayed overwealmingly through its positive aspects giving it a cosmic quality of absolute good and apart from loss through heartbreak, only recently has the extremely destructive side of love been explored culturally and psychologically. When mixed together with religious ridiculousness and social mythology (there is one soulmate out there waiting for you, love is true, love is a profound connection beyond the physical) I would argue, that more than any other concept…love has been completely blown out of all proportion. That’s not to say love isn’t a spectacular thing for those who have found it an maintained it, or have loving families etc. It can be an intense almost intolerable emotion (in both positive and negative ways). But it’s still just a complex of emotions and physical reactions. And evolutionary process just like any other in which luck plays a very large part. Shabi DOO  19:53, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree. Love is several distinct chemical reactions in the brain(and some of the rest of the body too).  And a social abstraction of the experience of those chemical reactions into certain kinds of normative relationships.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:32, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't really see how we disagree. Shabi  DOO  20:50, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I guess the idea was a tiny nitpick over technical difference was "disagreement" in this kind of bad internet irony joke form and I fucked up the pacing by adding another(entirely sincere) sentence afterwards. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:54, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I hear a little bit of mutualism in there, you coupla softies. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:08, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * @shabidoo Can you point me in the right direction; where I can learn more about what you described as 'social mythology'? I am genuinely curious. Thank you.  Cumulus  Discuss  21:43, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Social mythology is not an academic term of art. I've seen it used mostly to mean "common narratives that society at large accepts as true", without strictly qualifying or limiting that definition.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:53, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It's just another way to say cultural narratives or even just "culture". As ikanreed implied...don't go around searching using that term. If you are particularly interested in the subject of love you can start with the Oxford very short introduction to love book. It does a good job summing up how love is portrayed in modern western society as well as in cinema, literature, history, sociology and cultural norms. If you are looking for a more general intro...zheesh that is a huge can of worms. And unfortunately 90% of it is presented through a post-modern perspective like "critical studies" which is mostly pointless babble and very seductive yet toxic when it comes to knowledge. You can start with "Social and Cultural Anthropology: A Very Short Introduction" in the oxford series (you can tell I appreciate the value in the oxford short intro books). If you have no scruples about downloading such books on torrent they have dozens of titles in the oxford short introduction series all very worth reading...though I must...ahem...say...that I don't...eh...condone that). I think there are many titles in the series that would be useful on such an enormous topic that could hardly be covered in just one book: romanticism, modernism, sociology, rhetoric, knowledge, ritual etc. Shabi  DOO  22:42, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Baby don't hurt me 22:55, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The foot that kicks your ass is not the same as the pain in your ass.Ariel31459 (talk) 23:36, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * That's gold, Ariel. I'm gonna keep that one.  I don't think love is interpreted as a reciprocal feeling very often.  I mean, we can love each other.  Or we can love a piece of art.  Love is very personal, and it's extremely unique.  It has to be narrowed if it's going to be communicated by definitions and words.  So, especially in a relationship, we have to ask "do we want love, or do we want a relationship?"  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:15, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I have heard it said that love is not enough in a relationship so maybe that has to do with the actual work that goes into it. The actualized people were wrong to just call it attention, because it's not (I know that much). They didn't take too kindly to that reply. From what I gather the social definition of it is a feeling followed by actions.Machina (talk) 05:46, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

The KLF
After reading this page (I have some songs from them), is it safe to assume that they were CTers? Also, is it worthy of it's own topic (I don't know much more about them other than what I have read on their Discogs page.)? Tinribmancer (talk) 11:20, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * CTers? AMassiveGay (talk) 11:29, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * CTer = Conspiracy Theorist. It sounds more like a couple of artistic types who are using Discordianism as an excuse to fuck with people's heads. I did enjoy hearing their "Doctorin' the TARDIS" on Dr. Demento. Nowhere Man (talk) 12:31, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * They're masterful trolls and bullshitters going back to the days when most people associated trolls with bridges (their trolling of Rachel Whiteread and the Turner Prize, and subsequent burning of an actual literal one million pounds, are some of the most masterful art provocations ever, right up there with Duchamp's urinal or Marina Abramovic inviting people to shoot her). I'm not aware of them seriously pushing conspiracy theories, but then I'm not aware of them being serious about anything. --Annanoon (talk) 12:58, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Some of Discord is parody conspiracy theory (hell, paranoid "letters to the editor" to Playboy was the basis of one of the major Discord oriented books), and I'd throw any conspiracy theory trappings the KLF uses in the "parody CT" category as well. Soundwave106 (talk) 13:22, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Those letters were written by Robert Anton Wilson and read by the then letters editor of Playboy, one Robert Anton Wilson. Cardinal Chang (talk) 09:16, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You need to be clearer with your acronyms. I thought you meant the Kosovo Liberation Front when I first read your post, and I had no idea what a "CTer" was. 13:29, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I actually thought that people here knew that "CTer" stood for Conspiracy Theorist & "CTers" for Conspiracy Theorists. They use this over at the ISF (International Skeptics Forum). Tinribmancer (talk) 14:10, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, The KLF is literally their name. Tinribmancer (talk) 14:13, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you're right. I misremembered the name. It's the Kosovo Liberation Army, not Front. Oops. Carry on, comrade. 14:20, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Heck, with the Discordianism connection, I thought it was the Kallisti Liberation Front. Nowhere Man (talk) 19:12, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Kopyright Liberation Front. They were and still are wind up merchants. Proponents of the Operation Mindfuck movement from Principa Discordia. Bad Wisdom is still one blast of a comedy memoir. Cardinal Chang (talk) 16:45, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, I still get a laugh at this. https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p05cpm29 Cardinal Chang (talk) 16:55, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

The Politics of Grievance
Because the president has no real arguments about the literal stream of shit he keeps fucking up, he has now decided to compare  legitmate Congressional Oversight  to a hate crime. Even though the WH spin doctors insist Trump is not literally comparing himself it sure seems to be exactly what he is doing. Nothing says your a tough guy quite like; comparing yourself to a marginalized group, complaining about defending allies that died fighting with Americans, complaining about not being able profit off of an international summit, not to mention not knowing a Democratic candidate for President but insisting they're not a Russian Asset.RipCityLiberal (talk) 16:15, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * While I get that trump is a whiny baby, pretty much all politics is built on some kind of grievance. If you were fine with how everything was going, you wouldn't be concerned about politics at all.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:59, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * And from WIGO - the emoluments clause is "phoney" - your President is saying one of the clauses of your constitution is phoney?? Not often I get one of these moments, but......  well.....WHAT THE FUCK??? Aloysius the Gaul 20:21, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It probably isn't a word in most people's working vocabulary any more. What we need is to get Trump started about how his emolument is bigger than anyone else.  And Ikanreed raises an interesting point.  The Soviets were partially right about this, and the classical Chinese got it a lot closer.  When things are going reasonably well, the only people who are attracted to politics are various sorts of troubled souls, the busybodies, the incurably quarrelsome, the paranoid. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 20:49, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

lol this dude is *mad*
Noah Carl includes RationalWiki in his letter about how hard it is to be a race realist (Sci-Hub):

lol 20:57, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Fucking lol at the fig 3. What's the blue line supposed to be showing?  Do they explain how they weight severity even though it's central to their "scientometrics".  Haha, of course not.
 * Jesus Christ, Intelligence published this absolute garbage. By the way, a small spoiler, that crazy outlier on fig. 3 in 2018?  That's Noah himself being fired.  The biggest crime.


 * Wow that sounds pretty serious, what thing is so unreasonable to compare to nazi eugenics? Let's go to another source and find out


 * Oh, how completely incomparable. Not at all a eugenics program based on master race ideology.  How silly of us to think it was.
 * Again, a fucking journal run by credentialed researchers published this trash. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:31, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Content warnings/trigger warnings on articles
I've noticed a few articles have content warnings for content about violence, child abuse, rape, etc, e.g. Autism Uncensored, Roosh V. Is there a policy on when they should appear? And is a standard template needed? Some of the article trigger warning may be relevant. --Annanoon (talk) 11:12, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it's a tad over the top. I wouldn't expect RatWiki readers to be susceptible to adverse effects from such things; in fact anyone who is ought probably not have access to the internet. Scream!! (talk) 12:11, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Those articles describe horrific trauma in enough detail it seems entirely justified to me, which is why I added them. They were extremely upsetting to me and I don't have trauma (related to that specific topic anyway). ⏣sapient_cogbag⏣ talk  15:48, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I guess the idea is that it's nominally for people with specific traumas who might wish to avoid certain kinds of graphic detail. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:07, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I second that we have content warnings. — Oxyaena Harass  15:55, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm in agreement for content warnings for particularly disturbing content. I think it may be better to have them with specificity at the top of sections containing said content rather than an amalgamation the top of the page itself unless it's sufficiently pervasive. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 17:56, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Hard agree with adding content warning to pages - it can only be beneficial. Minish (talk) 18:32, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Some people do go 'looking for things to complain about' and it is not possible to account for everybody's particular 'eek, don't like it' topics. In some contexts NSFW-equivalent terms (or 'This covers (graphic or detailed material/images on (various terms) would be appropriate. Possibly there could also be 'The next section is (graphic material) - click (link) to skip to skip this section.'
 * To put the question another way - how should the very graphic image heading the Wikipedia page on smallpox be flagged up? (There is occasional reference to the disease in various contexts, so people might look it up.) Anna Livia (talk) 18:36, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * To at least answer the latter half, in Cansema, the photos of people who were injured through the use of Black Salver are relegated under a collapse box. I think there's a pretty clear distinction between graphic images and graphic text descriptions. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 20:21, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Just want to point out that content warnings don't just help people avoid them but to also to help sufficiently prepare readers (including those that have suffered trauma) for upcoming disturbing content so they can engage with the content with that state of mind. I added the content warning for the Roosh V page because I found the graphic descriptions by him immensely disturbing and upsetting that I don't want others to be taken off-guard. 21:15, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm personally not convinced of the need to protect against this hypothetical risk. Are we aware of anyone actually being traumatised from reading/viewing one our articles?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 12:11, 24 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Basically - there are a small number of articles on RW which contain material (text or image) which is likely to cause a reaction to persons encountering them much as the WP image of a child with severe smallpox will to many people. Some people will prefer 'knowing such material is in the body of the article' and that they can avoid or deliberately choose to read the material in question. Anna Livia (talk) 17:13, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I mean I appreciate being warned about it beforehand and that article was unpleasant enough that if it had been a different type of trauma described it would have affected me in such a way. Better to preemptively solve the problem than cause someone to relive trauma unnecessarily (and no, they will not likely tell you about it because being "triggered" is both mocked as a joke and often makes you feel broken and horrible, and is unlikely to be something you tell random strangers on the internet, certainly not in a relevantly short amount of time) ⏣sapient_cogbag⏣ talk  06:48, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Boring troll
"I would furthermore note that one thing that makes it particularly invidious is that there is a strong self-sustaining dynamic behind it. RationalWiki (i.e. a few dystrophic basement dwellers such as Oliver D. Smith) write some hit pieces based on out of context quotes if not not outright fabrications. Left-wing journalists (as most journalists are) parrot RationalWiki, as it certainly beats doing independent research. RationalWiki then quotes the resulting articles as a citable, authoritative source. There are some examples of how that works here: https://akarlin.com/ratwiki/"

http://www.unz.com/akarlin/persecution-of-iq-researchers/

This is on The Unz Review which is probably the most prestigious of the racist, sexist, transphobic, anti-semitic, white supremacist, pseudoscientific websites, motivated by nothing but raw hatred. Do you really have "dystrophic basement dwellers" writing here? You should take legal action for slanderous descriptions. Beacon of Hope (talk) 20:09, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yawn. Cosmikdebris (talk) 20:13, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yep. Seems like bog standard vitriol. We could add it to the "People mad at us" page. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 20:16, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, we do have dystrophic basement dwellers writing here, but you could stop posting if you wanted. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:18, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * ZZZZZZzzzzZZZZZzzzzzZZZZZzzz.... 20:27, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Antoly Karlin already is tagged as "pissed at us", so it must not be the first time. It's worth noting that this guy has a Rationalwiki entry, but no Wikipedia entry, which seems about right. Soundwave106 (talk) 21:01, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

About the OP
Is he a sock with a different account? He seems to hate ikanreed for some reason. Tinribmancer (talk) 21:20, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * My guess is Mikey-boy. Also, I bet he would've reacted that way to any of us. 21:22, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh god, him again. Get a fucking life, Mike! Tinribmancer (talk) 21:24, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * "Defamation" is the only word he knows in the thesaurus. 21:25, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * That is something he won't get. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  09:21, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Mandatory vaccines, preexisting medical conditions and school
Obviously there are people who cannot get vaccinated due to a medical condition or allergies to ingredients in a vaccine. Those not vaccinated cannot attend public school so diseases are unable to spread. Those with diseases that prevent vaccination would fall under the Americans With Disabilities Act and the Individuals with Disabilities Act.

Would that create a legal grey area? Also, should there be tax payer funded schools for those who cannot get vaccinated?

I have thought about it before as those with disabilities cannot be discriminated against but mandatory vaccine laws help keep heard immunity up. The Undead Castle --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:52, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure if I understand your point. But the number of people who are medically unable to receive vaccinations is relatively very small. If everyone else is vaccinated there will be sufficient herd immunity to protect them and everyone else.  so they wouldn't need special institutions if everyone else gets vaccinated. Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 12:08, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Most regions that require vaccines leave an exception for medical reasons that make it impossible to be vaccinated, which as Bob pointed out, is a pretty small part of population and would be safely protected provided a sufficient amount of the population being vaccinated. The need for mandatory vaccines is more dealing with the geniuses who think autism is caused by vaccines and somehow, through some catastrophic failure of reasoning, have come to the conclusion that autism is worse than measles.--NavigatorBR(Talk) - 07:34, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Epstein
Would it be meaningful to mention in the Transhumanism page that Jeffery Epstein was a Trashumanist. (He had donated money to World Transhumanist Association and Yudkowsky's group).Teerthaloke101 (talk) 12:10, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see how it would be meaningful. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:26, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, there's a lot of things that people call guilt by association that aren't, but that would definitely be guilt by association. Transhumanist movements suck on their own merits.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:42, 24 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm hurt >.< but for real I agree, there's a big chunk of the transhumanist movement which is full of hardcore right-libertarians, and naturally since the people supporting that are the people with money that part of transhumanism gets the most funding, press, and ability to spread. Now, I personally do not think such people are philosophically or ethically transhumanist in the slightest (they just like the a e s t h e t i c) but that's another matter. <font face="Consolas, Monospace">⏣sapient_cogbag⏣ <font face="Consolas, Monospace">talk  09:18, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, I'm seeing increasingly unhinged conspiracies about the Epstein in general that we're gonna have to tackle some day. Like "Secret moloch worshipping cult demands pedophile rituals to enter the upper class" not just "Epstein had a body double".  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:50, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * But in addition to the unhinged stuff, there's credible sources publishing statements by appropriately credentialed experts who observed the autopsy saying Epstein was murdered. The line is all over the place with this one.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:17, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Have I missed something?
Pretty old comment (end of August). I found this on The Escapist's last article on Voidpoint (the people that made Ion Fury), and the reason why I decided to look on The Escapist's opinion on this whole thing (since we already know what side they took several years ago with another well-known topic), is because I sometimes get notifications from their YT channel and one of them was Yahtzee and his wife playing this game 2 days ago (Still need to watch the livestream). I do wonder what that Zero Punctuation will be like.

So, what's with that 'Funtime Happysnacks' character? Parents making their kids trans? Also, this guy seems to believe that left-wingers are the real fascists or something... Tinribmancer (talk) 13:56, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Addressing another topic
Are they (voidpoint or Ion Fury (we already have quite some page on games, so)) on mission? Tinribmancer (talk) 14:02, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * There are certainly some ridiculously perpetually offended types on the left wing... but certain elements of the right wing tend to overplay their importance. Homosexuality has become more acceptable these days, so the homosexual agenda boogeyman babbled on by the evangelical / tribal / "ew gays icky" crowd seems to be adding the "transsexual agenda" to the mix. I don't know what this Funtime Happysnacks is ranting about without citation, most likely it's boogeyman level stuff and/or misunderstanding something. Incidentally "Ogay" fails at the rule of funny, it's a sophomoric joke that reminds me of the boorish humor of, say, Andrew Dice Clay, or the dumb crap you see in multiplayer anything where underdeveloped boys want to be "edgy". Those that find such crap funny basically have no class. Soundwave106 (talk) 16:57, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You forgot to sign your post, mysterious person. Tinribmancer (talk) 16:28, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Corrected. Soundwave106 (talk) 16:57, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Homepathy tutorials
On a lark, I decided to look up homeopathy tutorials and a few things jumped out at me. Just all sorts of bullshit like that. Though my favorite quote comes the very end
 * In tutorial 4, they deem it dangerous to dilute a "tincture" too much. Considering that the bases of many homeopathic medicines contain literal poisons, like bella fucking donna, this is extremely dangerous.
 * the recommend human experimentation to "spare the animals"
 * symptoms returning is deemed to mean successful healing is happening

Only one of the "expected" outcomes is getting better. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:33, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The best part is that that list also applies to just not doing anything about your disease. I wonder why... 201.95.85.34 (talk) 20:30, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * (EC)Actually, it's a surprisingly honest description of what you would expect from a homeopathic treatment. It's also completely indistinguishable from the series of expected outcomes you would get from doing absolutely nothing. Which is, however, not surprising. Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 20:34, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Missing from the list: dying. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:37, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * A lot of the people in the age range for homeopathic marketing are also children of parents who said "rub some dirt on it" and "walk it off." My dad fell out of a tree as a kid, broke his collarbone, had to complain for 3 days before my nana took him to a doctor.  She tells that story herself, says she felt like the worst mother in the world.  I see homeopathy as a really normal expression of an internal conversation that basically goes "something is wrong with me" and "nothing is wrong with me."  But magical thinking, like Occam's duct tape https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor#Occam.27s_duct_tape is so common and so widely reinforced.  It's cropped back up, it's bunk, it will probably only take a generation before we're saying "I thought anti-vaxx was stupid before it was cool to call it stupid."  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:51, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Crap. I'm describing the present.  Attitudes are really different in the American Midwest, I'm the alien. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:25, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Concern troll, do not feed.
Fighting against Trump and hating him, maybe people should put aside their differences and work with him to build a better world. No one is perfect. So while trump is in office, he and the people should stop wok as a team to better mankind. &mdash; Unsigned, by: 2600:1:F148:CE93:F21:E682:9E7D:D96E / talk
 * That would be good if he was working for a better world. But he isn't.  He's working for a richer Trump.  So no - feel free to take your unsigned fly-by and fuck off :)  Aloysius the Gaul 20:34, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Atop this question, does anyone under him (executive branch) who makes a decision to work with him but not explicitly for him maintain their post? Outside of the administration, sure, but inside they all have to be screaming their heads off, thinking "I worked so hard to get here, if I can't survive this president my career in politics is dead and my life is a lie." So, I don't know, some people are probably putting aside their differences.  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:24, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

I would like to introduce a new phrase(On the stars of Debate Me You Coward)
Trash talk is one of my least favorite methods of communicating between two opposing forces. But I admit, it can be an art, and it can be mutual, and I try very hard to not let trash talk bother me. However, there's a new method, that I haven't really noticed until now, and I want to call it "dumpsterspeak."

It's that moment in a game where you see somebody gets bodied and they say "well, if you weren't [such and such] I would have won." Not exactly wrong, but not exactly being fair to your own meta.

I like pushing the meta, I don't mind being beat up, but that's the actual point of pushing a meta. In terms of the review of the Prager/Corolla flick, when somebody says something like "debate me you coward" and claims persecution over forums they don't control while still being totally accepted within those forums, that's not trash talk, that's dumpsterspeak.

When somebody gets beat by a new meta and they say "well anybody can spam that bull" but refuse to change their own playstyle, that's dumpsterspeak.

When somebody tries a new meta and it doesn't work and they say "well everybody plays that bull," that's dumpsterspeak.

Trying to push your meta as correct, aggrandizing/consolidating your opposition, and then playing it off like that's everyone else's fault. That's dumpsterspeak. "Debate Me You Coward" is titled as dumpsterspeak, not as trash talk.

If the challengers of the narrative actually know how to debate, they don't need to sit in their defeatist corners and drum up support. They can actually push their meta. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:48, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but I'm not sure of the power of shallow rhetoric to beat shallow rhetoric in the long run. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:58, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Good read. I am pretty sincerely sick of the phrase "just open a history book" as a catch-all defense against good things that are working.  I'm a little... Inculcated, (holy shit used that word right on the first try no clue where I learned it) by a heavy majority that cries about being persecuted to assume that classifying  arguments without listening to the argument is actually effective.  If it isn't the end-game, maybe it's at least too distasteful to employ.  But you're right, good read, it will never be good.  The people who trash talk can't stop, won't stop.  I just have to live with them.  Maybe I'll just tell them to their faces they are using dumpsterspeak.  goooood luck me.  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:18, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Started to study Esperanto yesterday
It is pretty fun and easy to learn for the most part though parts of it I am getting confused. It is not like I will learn it all over night. Wish me luck. Mi estas RZ94 --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 17:43, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Good luck learning the universal language no one speaks. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:46, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , I think you're being insulted here. Bongolian (talk) 18:54, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * What about these people? Not to mention dinky little Neutral Moresnet. Anna Livia (talk) 22:55, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It takes more than that to insult me. I know that not many people speak Esperanto. But I'm glad that another person has decided to learn it. And I hope that what I've done here on RationalWiki had something to do with that decision. Bonan ŝancon! Spud (talk) 03:28, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No interest in learning Latin aswell? Tinribmancer (talk) 21:09, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I want to learn other languages and I might add Latin to the list. Tempo --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 02:37, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you speak any other language fluently (can converse, watch a film or read online news with ease)? What attracts you to Esperanto? Shabi  DOO  23:11, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Hubbard “responded”
Zachary K. Hubbard uploaded a “response” to his article. I was hoping for a point by point refutation. Instead all we got was a 2 minute “NO THEY ARE WRONG!” Argument-Free response. Aaronmichael5
 * Not quite the right way to sign your post. Use tildes. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:52, 25 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I think you borked up those tags :p <font face="Consolas, Monospace">⏣sapient_cogbag⏣ <font face="Consolas, Monospace">talk  20:03, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Rather than try again, I'll just delete it. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:09, 25 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Ugh, my bad on the signature. I promise I will never do that again. Sapient which tags? Aaronmichael5 20:20 October 25th 2019 (UTC)
 * It was me that did the wrong, and I deleted it. I tried to type ~ but I screwed it up and it added my signature instead.  Very awkward.  Anyways, it's always great when cranks denounce us because it gets  a small chance that some part of their audience gets deprogrammed.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:48, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Where do I see this "response"? Because I don't seem to be able to see this response. Kencolt (talk) 23:42, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Go to his YouTube channel and there is a video and the first thing in the title is “Rationalwiki” It is here: https://youtu.be/UXW595CiQ5M. Aaronmichael5 03:39 October 26th 2019 (UTC)
 * I... checked it out. My brain is still smouldering from the lunacy.  And the numbers. Apparently, everything he's espousing is "undeniable", we're upset because it's "undeniable", and I'm reasonably sure he has no fucking idea what undeniable actually means.  Also... the hell does all this sports stuff have to DO with anything?  Seriously!  Yes, indeed, you found a winner here. Kencolt (talk) 12:48, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * "the hell does all this sports stuff have to DO with anything?" Shit, I think he found out that we are secretly sponsoring "The Lakers", "Chicago Fire" & "Liverpool". It's time for Plan B before he finds out that this site is owned by Bongolian and that Bongolian is George Soros! Tinribmancer (talk) 20:58, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * 58+ 72 - 87% = 333333 + 5 - 66 = RATIONALWIKI IS WRONG!!! HOW CAN YOU NOT SEE THAT?!?!?!?! 21:14, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Few people irritate me as much as writers who use numbers as cultural markers of intelligence and correctness in fiction, but people who use it that way in their own statements of fact are among those few. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:10, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Hubbard has given every indication he’s smart enough to know his system doesn’t work, and he constantly markets the content to cater to those that believe it long enough to donate to his Patreon, buy his book or whatever other fundraising idea he can come up with. My personal favorite is the effort they spent on their list of words that equal 113 for DISHONEST.  While in the meantime the single word a <I>truthseeker</i> should be most interested in ===> TRUTH=113 in Francis Bacon.  Anyone that denies that this is undeniable proof that gematria is tailor made for confirmation bias is just being a jackass.  He’s Alex Jones, Jr.Antigem (talk)

Anyone seen my draft yet?
I have been writing an article on revisionist histories of Early Islam. Anyone seen it yet?Teerthaloke101 (talk) 07:23, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've seen it. It's interesting. But it looks nothing like a RationalWiki article. No Islam template. No links. No heading for references. If it were already in mainspace, I'd have done a lot of cosmetic editing to it. Spud (talk) 12:30, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, good choice of topic, but the draft still needs some work. 16:45, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * And I have found another of these Muhammad myth book. As for your concern, I was trying to call for help Teerthaloke101 (talk) 16:05, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I've edited it to make it look more like a RationalWiki article. Spud (talk) 10:13, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

About Hubbard
It seems that, according to his page, he's not pissed at us. And after seeing Aaronmichael5's topic, shouldn't we add his stupid BS in his video to his page? Tinribmancer (talk) 21:04, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Added to category "Pissed at us". Spud (talk) 09:17, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Trump has great news: Al-Baghdadi dead?
He's going to hold a speech at 2 PM. Don't know if it's 2 PM GMT+1 time or American time, which would mean right now since it's 8:43 AM. One of our local reporters fears that this might be good news for Trump's campaign... Tinribmancer (talk) 07:47, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Many Muslims used to say that Al Baghdadi is an American agent. How will they respond now?Teerthaloke101 (talk) 08:20, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Bin Laden's death certainly seems to have boosted Obama's 2012 campaign . --RWRW (talk) 12:03, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Given the number of times the man has supposedly kicked the bucket, wouldn't it be oh so amusing if he was still alive after Trump claimed he was dead? 12:21, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I must admit that I'd never heard of him, but as Trump wants to do everything better than Obama I guess we are going to be reading endless tweets about him now.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 18:00, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The Russians are saying Drumpf's full of shit as usual. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  22:19, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm wondering if it's a coincidence that Al-Bigdaddy was killed just as Trump was facing impeachment issues. Eh, probably a coincidence.  Anyway, sure, this may not be the first time he died, but that doesn't mean he wasn't killed this time, or all those prior times for that matter; terrorists have a tendency to take random wannabes and give them the name of the prior nutjob/greasy-smear so that "Abu Faq'hed" is still out there causing trouble no matter how many times his face go boom. CoryUsar (talk) 03:58, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd like to take this moment to point out that "Al-Baghdadi" means "from Baghdad". His actual name is "Ibrahim Awad Ibrahim Ali al-Badri al-Samarrai". That would be why there are multiple "Al-Baghdadi"s, because it's a title, like Imam or Ayatollah. (To be super pedantic it's an honorific.) 14:10, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

No page?
Isn't it about time we get a page on this guy? We have one on DAESH, Al-Qaeda and even Bin Laden, so.Tinribmancer (talk) 15:28, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh but we do... 15:43, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note to self: "Ye who shalt search, shalt find..." Tinribmancer (talk) 18:41, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Whiny transphobe whines
I'm fine with letting a male child play with female toys, dress like a girl, or being called by a female name, if he wishes to. Same thing for a female child who identifies as a male. But I think that children's gender transition, from hormones blockers to sex reassignment, should be forbidden. I believe that such an important decision, effecting their whole lifes, can't be taken by a child. Melody (talk) 09:13, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I saw that you troll-collapsed my post and changed the title with "Whiny transphobe whines." Why doing so? I'm not transphobe. I'm perfectly fine with adults who wants to change their gender and, as my OP said, with children who wants to be identified by the opposite sex. My argument is that children are too young to make a decision as important as changing sex, and it is better if they wait till they are adults. Melody (talk) 11:20, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You'll note I reverted your last edit. You posted a Transphobic talking point and strawman, what exactly did you expect to happen? 12:40, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You shouldn't revert edits on talkpages. It makes difficult to follows the conversation. I do not see how my point is transphobic or a strawman. If you and Oxyaena really thing so, then you could educate me by telling why it is. Melody (talk) 12:55, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * This isn't a talkpage. You shouldn't edit war. I'm not having a conversation, I'm informing you that your "THINK OF THE CHILDREN" nonsense isn't welcome. 13:23, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * My argument has nothing to do with "Think of the children (Appeal to emotion)" fallacy. I'm not saying that to protect the children we should restrict transgender adult's rights. I repeat it: I'm fine with adults who wants to change their sex, and I'm also fine with letting children identify with the gender their prefer (like in choosing the toys they play, the dress they wear, and also they name they prefer be called by). I'm only opposing performing hormone blockers injections and sex reassignment on children. Because I believe it is a too important choice to be taken at that age. What's wrong with that? Melody (talk) 13:56, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes it is. Your argument is moral hand wringing over children. This comes down to "I'm not Transphobic but I think we should deny children their rights because they don't know anything. all to protect the children of course." This is stupid. You aren't one of the people involved, it's not your problem, this is recycled homophobia, fuck off. 14:07, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Majorreassignment treatment - blockers, surgery, on children still growing huh?  1/ Is that a thing?  2/ Is it a bad thing or a good thing?  ie, as usual, is there any actual EVIDENCE?? Aloysius the Gaul 15:33, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Nope. But it is a recurring source of moral panic by transphobes. 15:44, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * This comes down to "I think we should deny children their rights because they don't know anything. <- This is circular reasoning: The debate is IF children have the rights to change their sex. You can't reply just saying that they have it. There are many things that children are not allowed to do mostly because, yes, "they don't know anything." Driving, drinking, buying guns, watching or subscribing to certain websites, having sex with adults... So, if you really want to rebut Melody's post, you should actually explain why children are mature enough to get access to sex reassignment; not just claim that it is their right.
 * I already did. Not your gender identity, not your business. Further, I refuse to take a TERF talking point seriously. It is unprompted, unneeded, unwanted, and unwelcome. The law says transitioning is legal around age 14, and the only people who bring up underage transitioning are transphobes. Got that? Good. Now stop giving this more air then it deserves (none). 17:12, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Since you continue with strawmanning and ignoring most of my points, this is done. Further responses will be reverted. 17:38, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Just a note, the "I'm fine with a male child doing female things but" usually is a red flag for upcoming transphobe bullshit. The deliberate misgendering in particular is a give away. 17:45, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I noticed. I've also given this nonsense more time than I should have. 17:48, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Childhood transition arguments are also a common point for transphobes. Most of the time, they fail to realize trans people have to go through therapists and get evaluated to get hormones. 20:51, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming this is being cued by a particular child custody case in Texas which has triggered (heh) a lot of bullshittery among conservative media lately. Soundwave106 (talk) 23:26, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * This is about the Luna case? Fucking hell... 00:03, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Can't say for 100% certain of course, but that's what I assume based on our troll's talking points compared to the talking points generated from that case. It looks like the standard news outlets have picked up on this story now, but before then it was mainly covered by your Breitbarts and Daily Callers and other socially conservative outlets, with atypical misunderstanding of the scope (including the scope of when hormone treatment is applied, of course). It was, of course, an excellent opportunity for them to rally the ooh-trans-icky boogeyman. Soundwave106 (talk) 00:36, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Every shit involved in heckling that poor mother should do the world a favor and kill themselves. All she wants is for her daughter to be happy, something her father is fundamentally unable to provide. If you have an hour or so to spare I highly recommend Timbah.On.Toast's video on this case. Bring tissues and prepare to have the last of your faith in humanity die. 01:25, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * As an aside, where do I fit on the transphobe/transfriend scale?
 * I believe that in the future, when we upload our brains to the cloud or whatever, gender will be about as meaningful as what font you use to type, with the exceptions of Papyrus and Comic Sans, you both know what you did. Short of brain uploads, in meatspace, genetic engineering and/or nanotech could progress to the point that, again, gender will be about as big a deal to futurefolk as what color we dye our hair, so again, something that will be a non-issue in the future.
 * If you present yourself as female/male, good enough, I'm going to view you as female/male. Unless I'm trying to get in your pants, I don't need to concern myself with what's in them.
 * I'm somewhat libertarian-ish in that I think society should find a place for the entire cereal bowl of fruits, flakes and nuts, but I'm a bit weird about it; we should protect the freaks, but that doesn't mean they aren't freaks, only that they are our freaks and if you lay a finger on our freaks I'll lay you out.
 * At the same time, I'm suspicious that gender dysmorphia is over-diagnosed, much like ADHD was not just 20 years ago.
 * I also would rather not have sex with a trans woman. At the same time, no matter what a trans woman's orientation is, if you are a dude that had sex with her, you are still straight.
 * I will not use any special pronouns for you. If you are of indeterminate gender, I have no problem using "they/them" as a non-gendered word, but I am absolutely not memorizing a new set of pronouns, let alone bothering to remember who gets what pronouns and when.  English is complicated enough as it is, don't make it worse.
 * I'm also somewhat disturbed at the idea about gender reassignment pre-puberty, before the child truly is sure, but as I don't know the specifics or circumstances of this particular case, I don't think I'm qualified to make a judgement regarding the kid. CoryUsar (talk) 04:21, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Why would it make you look like a transphobe if you're not sexually interested in transgender women? Tinribmancer (talk) 09:41, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Number seven is not a thing. See my above point (within the collapse template) about U.S. law banning it before age 14 or so (I can't remember the exact age, only that it's thereabouts). 12:45, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the specifics are that the kid (again, if you are referring to the Luna case) is not going to get gender reassignment pre-puberty. Gender dysphoria is honestly a relatively rare condition, but gets far more press than it should, due to it being the new "punching bag" for social conservatives that these days, as the replacement "ick group" over homosexuals. I'm not sure if it's over-diagnosed to be honest (I've met *very* few transgender people personally), rather it's more of a convenient way for conservative politicians to rally the rubes while quietly screwing them over in legislation. I personally would agree on holding off on any surgery or hormone treatment until one is absolutely certain, but that's probably what happens anyways. To be honest, given the nature of US social paradigm on sex (in a far more common scenario, just try to be a woman that wants to get their tubes tied early), if anything the opposite problem will occur and it may be difficult to find appropriate treatment in certain areas of the country. Soundwave106 (talk) 12:55, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Adhd being overdiagnosed is actually debatable given higher diagnosis rates is attributed to better methods of detection and some demographics (girls) are actually at higher risk of being underdiagnosed. Don't state as if it is a fact. 18:12, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

There is a case for a 'third persons singular pronoun for persons of unknown gender' - babies, 'whoever nicked the last biscuit out of the box', 'IPs and some usernames' etc. Anna Livia (talk) 17:38, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * If thou wishest for a third person singular pronoun for people of unknown or irrelevant gender, thou shouldst press the one thou art not using very often into the role. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 20:23, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Ze, (Swedish) hen, it, them, modified interrobang, what? Anna Livia (talk) 23:42, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thou and thee, of course. Generic 'you' is a widespread colloquial option, but thou and thee are just lying there, waiting for someone to make them useful again.  No one will claim they sound too informal.  And they work remarkably well in the context.  You will need to learn the corresponding verb forms, of course. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 03:33, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Prithee we were discussing a third person singular not the second thou (Shakespearean word of choice) for when IPs and usernames of unclear gender, whether or not creative, trolling or partaking of activities not otherwise specified. Anna Livia (talk) 17:37, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * "they/them/their" does not require anyone to memorize any new sets of pronouns, and honestly, should probably have become the placeholder third person pronouns for anyone of unknown gender years ago. Also, it would've been nice if we had kept "man" as gender-neutral term for "one" (as in "person") the way it is in German to enable us to keep using terms like "policeman" or "fireman" without any issue; originally, to distinguish male and female humans, it was "were-man" and "wif-man", but eventually "man" alone was automatically assumed to be male, while "wif-man" would eventually morph into the word "woman".  "Were" survives in such words as "werewolf" and "weregild", thus a female werewolf, etymologically speaking, should be a "wifwolf".  Sadly, not enough young adult fiction with wifwolves.  Yet, man can dream, man can dream...CoryUsar (talk) 01:49, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm back
I could not continue this thread because blocked me from (15:01, 27 October 2019 Tinribmancer (talk | contribs) blocked Melody (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of 314159 seconds (about 3.6 days) (account creation disabled, cannot edit own talk page) (Clear spam/bot account)). Anyway I read the arguments you wrote in the meantime and now I understand and agree with your main position and I apology with and  if I somehow offended you. Melody (talk) 12:41, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't believe you. 12:53, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think English is their native language, and my impression is that Melody is here in good faith. Let's give them the benefit of the doubt for the time being. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  13:09, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll think about it. 13:25, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you . Melody (talk) 13:42, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Can we now restore the title of this section as I wrote it at the beginning and remove the troll-collapse? Melody (talk) 15:49, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Meanwhile at Infowars HQ
First reaction on ISIS leaders death (read the commentary section aswell for some extra lulz). Second reaction: "EBIL OBAMA111!!1". How dare he insult the great one? Tinribmancer (talk) 18:47, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't want to click any links to infowars. What's the "first reaction"?  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:04, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * First link re-directs to a site called "banned.video", so, it's not on Infowars. The video is entitled "Watch Mainstream Media Bash Trump for killing of ISIS leader". A loyal watcher decided to upload this video to youtube. He even copied the inscription from the infowars video aswell, which said: "Compilation of MSM bashing Trump for killing ISIS leader. By the way, our Everything Must Go Emergency Sale is now live! Get 70% off Survival Shield X-3 and an additional 50% off other products with free shipping and double Patriot Points!" Tinribmancer (talk) 19:30, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking of filing a complaint with ICANN that banned.video is not compliant with accuracy requirements for WHOIS registrar contact information. They've put "REDACTED FOR PRIVACY" in every field, including several dozen mandatory ones.  The correct way to do the exact same thing is to use a anonymous holding company that has anonymous contact phone numbers and email addresses because that allows for resolution of legal issues.  But it seems petty and if it amounted to anything, it would only ever be increasing cries of oppression.
 * And no one but overly techy losers like myself ever use WHOIS for anything anyways. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:56, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Viewing the site through Chrome's debugger shows all of the images come from "assets.infowarsmedia.com". So it's just an Infowars spinoff site (which is not surprising but good to know). And yes, I plead guilty to being a computer nerd too. :) Soundwave106 (talk) 23:25, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Hubbard appears to be getting desperate, REALLY desperate + his money making tactics
Okay, so maybe you guys are banging your head on your keyboard because you’re that tired of me talking about this guy, but I couldn’t resist another. I was watching Zachary K. Hubbard’s recent video today (https://youtu.be/hUP76WYanQg). At 16:20 he complains about his critics trolls only focusing on the games he gets wrong. He gets most right so it proves him right. [FACEPALM]...Okay, so answer me this, even when he gets games right, how are we supposed to undeniably believe it’s rigged, and we’re stupid if we don’t?! so he gets sports picks right, SO FUCKING WHAT, it’s NOT proof. Hubbard should pick up a book from Carl Sagan and learn a little about logic, maybe then he’d get a job. But also listen to how he calls his critics trolls “fucking stupid”, lol he actually sounds triggered. I think he’s legit “Pissed at us” (oh and btw he gives us another shout out near the beginning of the video).

Another piece of information I have yet to discuss: anyone notice that even though he claims not to be in on this for money, he’s running a Patreon, shilling out his book, shilling out his merchandise (I am not fucking kidding, go to his website and find it), and asking for donations? Seems INCREDIBLY fishy. Aaronmichael5 22:43 October 27th
 * I suppose that even he has to eat, and somehow I doubt the NWO has the budget (or desire) to send him pizza. Rigging all those games must cost a bundle. Kencolt (talk) 23:31, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Depends whether they have any spare cheese pizza Aloysius the Gaul 01:07, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Poor taste. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:51, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

A little late, but...
It has been more than 60 days (two months) since the last chicken coop case was opened. Congrats, guys! Keep up the good work. : ) G Man (talk) 23:28, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Significant expansion of the Chinese RationalWiki project
Here's something you might not know: RationalWiki has had a Chinese-language section for some time already.

I have expanded the Chinese RationalWiki project by translating Pseudoscience, a core article, into Chinese as 伪科学. I left the redlinks in instead of piping to the English counterpart so that they can point to which articles to translate next. Stubs on 理查德·道金斯 (Dawkins) and 科学 (Science) have been started.

I hope that once the pages get search engine indexed, some new Chinese users will start rolling in and translating articles into Chinese. Having more RationalWiki articles available in Chinese would greatly help stem the spread of pseudoscience. Additionally, it would be great if some Chinese-speaking users could help translate other articles into Chinese.

Right now, the articles are in Simplified Chinese. It would be great to have Traditional as well, but this raises the question of how it would be implemented should the demand for it grow.

If anyone here speaks Chinese, you would be welcome to check the Chinese articles for typos.

Also, brace for impact: I am translating Tiananmen Square Massacre, so access to RationalWiki in China could become, shall we say, spotty. Jia Zhiyan (talk) 03:06, 29 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Don't forget to add links to the pages you created to the Greek Pseudoscience article and the French and Portuguese Science articles. On your translations, you should also use the hatnote template at the top of the page to link to the English version. That's to prevent people who come to the article by clicking on "Random page" from saying, "What the hell is this crap?" I've added the hatnote to the Chinese Pseudoscence and Science pages. Since the Richard Dawkins Chinese page is currently quite short and you can see the link in "See also" without having to scroll down, I didn't add the hatnote to that page. Spud (talk) 12:34, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's great, I'm trying to use your articles to expand my practice with chinese. I hope traditional Chinese medicine is a near target, apparently we're not blocked in china yet, and that will probably get us there.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:41, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes! I've been waiting for someone to translate Tiananmen Square Massacre into Chinese for ages! Thanks a bunch and let's get banned in China! 15:12, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your efforts, Jia Zhiyan! Regarding traditional Chinese medicine, the page is in need to some important improvements with regard to Mao and the Chinese Communist Party's involvement in standardization and exporting to the West. I'll probably get around to this sometime within the next few days. Bongolian (talk) 19:35, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Just wondering, but are you aware of any Chinese skeptic resources? 23:05, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Brexit follies Part Trois: New elections on 12 December?
So, apparently the following things have happened last week (I haven't checked the whole Brexit situation in a while, so):

1. UK's brexit date has been moved to 31/01/2020.

2. Johnson wants new elections on the 12th of December.

3. According to some sources in the UK, the conservatives are pretty sure that they would win these elections.

4. Opposition parties SNP & the lib-dems are also agreeing with new elections, because they believe it's the only way to make sure there will be a second referendum by winning these elections. Labour is against it, since they fear that they might get several punches in their guts (labour isn't scoring well in the election polls, it seems).

5. And just now, I read that Corbyn is probably going to agree with new elections?

Since we have brits over here, can you answer the following questions for me?:

1. What the fuck is going on?

2. If elections were to happen on the 12/12, who would REALLY win?

3. If the opposition wins, would they be able to hold a second referendum (people who recently became adults should actually have the chance to saying whether they're for, or against it. Or whether they don't know)?

4. Is brexit still going to happen? This isn't the first time that the UK wanted to leave, and afterwards backpedaled on their decision.

Tinribmancer (talk) 12:40, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * ok in short it got delayed again and the uk is still in chaos with no working government and nobody knows whats going on or what will happen. EK (talk) 13:18, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * the tories wanted the 12th because unis would have broken up, students have gone home and be unlikely to be able to vote by that date.
 * with labour 12 points behind the tories (12 points behind … these tories), any election is likely to hand the tories a victory and the shittest of brexits possible. nothings certain right now except we are fucked from cunts on one side and the hopelessly inept on the other AMassiveGay (talk) 13:33, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * As someone who doesn't have to suffer the consequences, all I want to see is the lib dems coalition with the tories for a no-deal brexit, rather than risk any sort of positive reform with labour. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:54, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Isn't Labour supposed to be the British Socialist party? Tinribmancer (talk) 15:11, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, and the lib dems seem to exist solely to oppose them without having any particular agenda of their own. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:18, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * We are talking socialist with a very small 's' here though, and that's an improvement on the blair years. the lib dems have always positioned themselves as being in the middle of labour and conservative, but labours not really been far enough left until very recently, and the conservatives not far enough right, again until recently, for the lib dems to really stand out beyond a protest vote for lab/con voters. they only really stand out in any substantial way now as being definitely opposed to Brexit. something labour ought to have done but haven't much their detriment (and as a consequence the detriment of the whole of the uk) but to the benefit of the lib dems who seem to have managed to wash off the stench from their pact with the conservatives awhile back. enough to be a suitable spoiler to split the labour vote. I very much doubt the Brexit party will have a similar effect on the cons dispite farage's desperate insistence he has any kind of relevance these days.
 * but as I said earlier and everyone has said and can see, who the fuck knows what will happen? polls only tell half the story and they've lost so much credibility since the referendum - remain should have won according to polls around the time, the actual result was a shock to even farage (but not if you were paying attention to outside your bubble) AMassiveGay (talk) 17:19, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * If this was an option it would gain a majority. Anna Livia (talk) 17:41, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * they ballsed up their chance for anything like that when they had the opportunity. we stuck with what we have for the foreseeable future. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:48, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * at any rate, in the uk the choice is as simple as it is stark. a vote for cunts or a vote for the spineless and inept. the cunts win in all cases. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:53, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

To answer your questions:

1. What the fuck is going on? The chaos continues.

2. If elections were to happen on the 12/12, who would REALLY win? That would depend on how people vote at that time.

3. If the opposition wins, would they be able to hold a second referendum. ''"Be able to" - only with EU consent for another extension. Whether the new government would actually want another referendum is another question. '' 4. Is brexit still going to happen? Most probably.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 18:01, 29 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Perhaps this can all be explained by BoJo being in the final lap for Upper Class Twit Of The Year. Somebody needs to reserve a first class gutter for that guy before the year ends. Bongolian (talk) 19:41, 29 October 2019 (UTC)


 * 1. What the fuck is going on? Parliament is trying yet another way out of the impasse it has created for itself. Doubly so for the Tories.


 * 2. If elections were to happen on the 12/12, who would REALLY win? Pretty likely to be the Tories, given that BoJo seems to be able to convince a large portion of English voters that he’s the man of the hour, who can deliver some sort of totemic Brexit. Meanwhile, Labour still battles itself, Corbyn’s inscrutable leadership (especially on Brexit), while the LibDems have been saved from complete irrelevance by their sudden “road to Brussels conversion” to “hard Remain”.


 * 3. If the opposition wins, would they be able to hold a second referendum (people who recently became adults should actually have the chance to saying whether they're for, or against it. Or whether they don't know)? Labour said they want to (after they negotiate a new deal), with the options being Remain/(Their) Deal. This will probably not go down well if they end up in a Lib/Lab coalition, which already looks unlikely due to the LibDems’ views on Corbyn; though the LibDems have a sordid history of throwing all of their core promises overboard to get into power, so who knows...


 * 4. Is brexit still going to happen? Almost certainly, because that’s the baseline outcome of almost every scenario. The Tories have decided to none come more or less a Brexit party in order to appease those that might consider voting for Farage. Labour battles itself over what it wants from the EU and none of the other parties are going to be big enough on a UK-wide level to really push Brexit one way or another. ScepticWombat (talk) 08:08, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Bit off-topic, but...
Why does the British Parliament look alot like a Court room? Tinribmancer (talk) 17:58, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Probably because it's full of criminals.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 18:03, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm going to answer your question with a couple questions of my own.
 * What's the upper body of Parliment called?
 * Where does the word "Court room" come from? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:00, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The upper house is the House of Lords.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 18:04, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I was doing a bit. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:09, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The lines on the floor are two sword-lengths apart - and one participant normally gets a door slammed in his/her face. Anna Livia (talk) 18:16, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * that would be the parlay part of parliament. Parliament looks like it does because much like the british legal system, its meant to be adversarial rather than inquisitorial. it should be noted that much of the work in parliament is done in committee, which is supposed to take a more inquisitorial approach, as does the more the modern national assemblies of devolution. it seems most governments physical setting is of this nature, and the uk only probably keeps with its style out of tradition and convention, and the practicalities of the physical location. if the palace of westminister gets abandoned by parliament, maybe we'd see a more European style set up. dunno if that would have any kind of effect on uk politics beyond the the aesthetics. us politics is still a horror show, for example. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:10, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I must say that I quite like the British tradition of Question Time. There is something similar in the Spanish parliament but each question is a quarter of an hour and each answer twenty minutes. It's utterly utterly boring. Not at all like the British version which can be fascinating.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 21:46, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The door slamming can be seen here and here. Anna Livia (talk) 17:15, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * ...this might just be me but if I were to slam a door in front of someone, they'd probably ask:


 * 1. If I'm unmannered
 * 2. If my parents never taught me any manners


 * Then again, I'm not British so... Tinribmancer (talk) 23:32, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

(Insert) Tradition (including the fancy clothes) and symbolism - as with the bit of legislation debated but never progressed. Anna Livia (talk) 12:07, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I swear I never thought more than three years after the referendum Brexit would keep going on. I prefer not to think on how much money has gone down the gutter during that time in negotiations, bureaucracy, etc., not to mention the damage to the economies of both UK and the EU, and I suspect January 31, 2020, will come and go with everything as stuck as now. Panzerfaust (talk) 23:50, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Should Brexit be linked to 'List of predictions of the end of the world'? Anna Livia (talk) 12:07, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Poe's Law in action
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDKHOOu2Yu4

Came across this while looking for videos on Esperanto and I thought the dude in the video was an actual conspiracy theorist. Looked at the channel name and turns out that this video was a parody. The guy speaking actually does videos about teaching Esperanto and some about the Esperanto community.

I was tricked into thinking that this was a real conspiracy theorist. Tio estas bona --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:57, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The title screen in Esperanto actually reads "This video is a big joke, spread it to confuse those who believe in the NWO". 'Legion what do you want from me  05:40, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Got to love Poe's Law huh? Plenty don't speak Esperanto but there are so many conspiracy theorists who believe Esperanto is a Jewish invention to take over the world. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 13:39, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

COP25 cancellation
So it turns out Pinẽra decided to abdicate hosting the COP25 Climate Summit because Chileans are fed up with him and he doesn't want the bad PR. I wonder how long it will take before the media spins it into "Welp, I guess Chileans just don't care about climate change." That's what they already did for the protests in France and Ecuador. Colossal Squid (talk) 17:27, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The protests in France at least actually had a component of their anger relating to climate policy. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 23:58, 30 October 2019 (UTC)