General discussion

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search


[view] [edit]

Should public libraries contain anti-scientific books?

In my local library on the medical shelves are books such as Mum's Not Having Chemo by Laura Bond which promotes so-called alternative therapies for cancer rather than treatments with an evidential basis. I'm deeply suspicious of anyone who wants to ban books from a library, but volumes such as this are misleading to the point of lethality. Is there a case for requesting their removal on public health grounds?— Unsigned, by: 1980-f / talk / contribs
If you tried to remove quack books from libraries it'd validate their claims that they're being censored, so no. Christopher (talk) 18:09, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
It's probably easier to regulate books via warning label, but there is still a moral dilemma here; the moral thing would be to not let anyone read the book since this stuff can literally kill people, but the thing is, it might open gates to other actions that laypeople might find unacceptable and leads to the question of free speech. Maybe we can find a way to hold the people behind the books accountable instead rather than banning the book. (talk) 18:40, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
How would it work? What books do you decide are pseudoscience? You can't fact check every book ever written. Christopher (talk) 19:08, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Just stick all the pseudoscience-y books in a section wayyyy in the back and label it 'pseudoscience'. That way you aren't censoring, but you aren't advertising it either. Oh, and apply general categories to the books. Obviously you can't fact check them all, but you can look at titles and general content to determine where it should be placed in the library. Vive Liberté! 03:07, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Cranks would still cry "censorship", that I can guarantee. If you're going to base it on titles plus a quick skim a lot of cranky books are going to slip through (with the illusion of being fact checked by the authorities making people less skeptical) and a lot of perfectly legitimate books are going to be labelled pseudoscience. Christopher (talk) 16:12, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I still won't forget the day I saw Deepak Chopra in the science section of my local library.'Legionwhat do you want from me 17:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Christopher: That's the problem, and quacks will find a problem with their books labeled as pseudoscience and they think it's a way to out them. But I'm thinking, if we have a quack Miranda warning on alt med treatments, why not on the books that promote them, if not already? And yeah, the slopey concern you have I understand and I think it's legit; it might open the gates to clamoring of labeling books as pseudoscience and it might eventually lead to suppressing new thoughts. Sometimes, a new, crazy idea comes up and it gets rejected, but it might have standing later. There are also books that have a combination of science and pseudoscience (like Michael Pollan has some valid points but mixes with nature stuff) and how would you label those? (talk) 18:49, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
The ideal course of action - encourage people to take ongoing/intermittent study of 'science in all its forms (at 'popular science' level)' so they can understand what they are encountering.

And some scientific fields are 'a tad borderline'/contain much woo/are the cutting edge to what turns out to be nowhere. (Add personal taste examples of 'science that failed') (talk) 18:36, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

It's an attractive suggestion though it's unrealistic to be an expert in all fields and considering the amount of information from various fields that bombard our minds every day, you can't be expected to know immediately which is woo and which isn't unless you have some critical thinking skills (which isn't infallible as long as we're human). (talk) 18:49, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
I don't want them there, and yet exclusion from collections would be against my own principles. Anti- & Pseudo-science definitely shouldn't be in the Dewey science categories (300-699). There are a number of probably-more-applicable sections of the the 100s (Philosophy) and 200s (Religion), as well as a number of no longer used ranges therein should new classifications be needed.
As Christopher points out, this is both logistically-involved and probably can't escape politicisation. However the (the nonprofit who owns and maintains the Dewey Decimal Classification since 1988) wouldn't have to go through every book ever published, 'just' an a subset of those in the DCC range 300-599 or 699 - and then not alone (eg the USA Library of Congress).
I am assuming Dewey, obviously.
List of Dewey Decimal classesWikipedia's W.svg
OCLC Dewey Updates
Wow, turned busy in the last 30 minutes or so.
Daev (talk) 19:19, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
And as for the OP & particular book mentioned up top, its DCC is 362.whatever, so it shouldn't be in the medicine section at all. You should only need to notify the librarians (ISBN 9780749958961) for them to check their database and get it on the 'correct' shelf; that is 'Social problems of & services to groups of people.' Which in my mind doesn't fit the content at all - I'd place it in the no longer used 619 'Experimental Medicine' or the 920's (Biography). As for getting actual classifications changed, the would be the people to contact there (using this form, I think). Daev (talk) 19:46, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Distinction should be made between 'pseudo-science proper', 'real-world-based science fantasy', 'doom-and-gloom merchants', 'let us stop pursuing these activities which are likely to cause problems or are already doing so', 'speculative semi-fiction (of positive or negative intent) based on science', 'anti-science', 'anti-this particular aspect of science' and 'religious, philosophical and similar explorations' etc (there being some overlap between these categories) - which range from the totally bonkers to the reasonably scientific. (talk) 09:57, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

the very idea that we should ban books we dislike is abhorrent. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:46, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Maybe it's possible to get it into 827? (talk) 14:43, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't think we should. It would be kind of dangerous to get the state to decide all of what is right. And then, what do we consider as science ? Do economics, socioogy or such things count as science ? Then, if libertarians are in charge, all non-libertarian economic books are banned ? And what if a creationnist government gets elected, do all non-creationnist books get banned from public libraries ? I don't see how this could be a good idea. Diacelium (talk) 23:00, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't see it a good idea at all. Not only cranks and the like would cry about censorship but also pushing them to, say, Internet, would bring benefitial Streisand effect -plus it's always a good idea to know your enemy-. But that's one thing and other far more different is to mix both types (say, a book about astrology in the astronomy section, or one about Tarot (in occult sense, not a card game) among quantum physics ones). The best is to have all and each section well separated from each other. --Panzerfaust (talk) 13:45, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
My interest in woo flows from my bibliophilia. Eccentric screeds and occult literatures interest me. The library is one place to go to learn about new ones. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 19:32, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
I admit I like to peek at Tarot decks but just because some of them are quite neat works of art and it looks nice in a fantasy setting where magic exists. Of course things stop there. --Panzerfaust (talk) 23:26, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
[view] [edit]


I AM BY NO MEANS a geocentrist... But I like to listen to outrageous ideas and conspiracy theories... For the sake of the argument... can we talk about this... I have heard... that according to some poll, 20% of americans believed in a Geocentric model...

So for the sake of the argument... do you think it's possible...

The sun goes around its barycenter... And since it is the bigger body... it pulls the planets....

What if the earth is this barycenter?

Would you leave a 0.3% chance that we might be missing something... and heliocentrism not be accurate... Thanks--Kingdamian1 (talk) 03:03, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

All of the evidence supports heliocentrism, unless you provide a link to the survey I find it hard to believe that 20% of Americans believe otherwise. Even if 20% of Americans did think this it would be an argumentum ad populum to think this was evidence for anything. 0.3% seems rather PIDOOMA but if there was evidence for geocentrism I'd believe it. Christopher (talk) 09:11, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
I mean more like... Is it still a possibility... Like, for example, flat earth... is not (unless there is some HUGE conspiracy, and we've been drugged to perceive spherical earth)... But like geocentric model used to be very popular... and predictions actually worked on that model... What I am saying... is... is there a chance that we are wrong... even a slight one?--Kingdamian1 (talk) 15:42, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Well, I mean, of course there is always a slight chance. Naturally. BUT, it's not even a matter of what could be imagined to be going on. I mean, ANYTHING could be imagined as "the real" situation. What matters is — and is onlywhat do we have reason to believe? And thus, reasonableness begins... Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:01, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
the common centre, the BarycentreWikipedia's W.svg, of Earth and the Sun is only about 300 miles from the Sun's centre, so effectively it makes no difference in regards to plain old heliocentrism. BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 16:09, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
While true and interesting — that seems, to me, more of an argument against privilieged motion of any sort. Keep in mind that "Geocentrism" doesn't just mean "the Sun goes around the Earth". Geocentrism almost always entails another premise as well (perhaps even primarily); that "the Earth does not move" (as in, "is stationary" in some pre-Newtonian absolute sense). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:16, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
True, that. BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 16:20, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
I was watching a movie The Principle... So... I mean I am not a geocentrist... But is it a possibility... And yes... that includes the earth not moving. Robert Sungenis seems convinced that it would not be such a big blow to modern physics... The question is more like... is heliocentrism 100% proven.... The fact that the earth isn't flat is PROVEN... But has heliocentrism been proven 100% with 0 doubt?Kingdamian1 (talk) 18:38, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Let's say that it's "only" proven to 99.9% probability. Let's say that you agree that those are the odds; 99.9% chance of heliocentrism, 0.01% chance of geocentrism. Hell, it could be 99% to 1% for all I care.
In either case — assuming you accept the numbers given — tell me which hypothesis wins? I.e., do you realize that the most likely things are in fact the most likely things?
Or would you say that, on average, the less likely thing — even by your own estimate — should (for some reason) be treated preferentially (rather than rejected preferentially)?
I ask because I kinda get the impression that the moment there's a debate between the scientific consensus view and [INSERT UTTERLY UNLIKELY/INCOHERENT VIEW], you're there to prop up the underdog by default.
So what I'm asking is, in part — do you realise that 99% is bigger than 1%? No offense. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:42, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
The question is about the status of heliocentrism... Is heliocentrism proven... That is what I am saying... Spherical earth is proven (we have pictures)... But is heliocentrism proven too... Or could it be that there is an overwhelming consensus, it is viable, but there is a chance we might be wrong!--Kingdamian1 (talk) 19:25, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
But what if the pictures were faked? You can never 100% prove anything. Christopher (talk) 15:54, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Though, if you can never 100% prove anything, then that means you can't 100% prove that you can't 100% prove anything! (I'm not just being annoying — this, by the way, is pretty much exactly what the Academic Skeptics tried explaining to the Pyrrhonian Skeptics back in ancient Greece Th hug.gif). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:36, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
You can take any object in the universe and work out the numbers-schmumbers and the calculus-schmalculus putting that object in the centre of a system or galaxy or whatever you desire. That is, there is no reason why you cannot work out the movements of the sun and planets and stars all relative to Earth though you'll spend a long time widdling through elaborate equasions. If we made an animation where the Earth stands still, the sun sort of goes around earth dragging the orbiting planets with it and the stars will shift around like a bunch of fireflies on speed. (it will look quite strange). However, enter the good old concept of "parsimmony".
Numbers-schmumbers for Earth as centre of system:
  • #~|#~813½{[#~]¬{[#~@½{]|[¬@#]½1845@[34659|[#~¬½]#@[~{½]|[#~½]|[@#½]@#[~{½]|[#~½]|[@#{½]@#[~¬]@[#~{½#[]~½{|}@[#½|}@[#½{}|#~]½|}@#~½{|}]@{#½|}@#]~|}@#[{½}#~]½|@}½|@~}½|}#]½{|}@#]~{|}@#[½¬|}#[~¬½}|]@#{~}|@]#½{|}#@[¬½}|@#{½}|@]#½{|}~@]½¬|}@#]~{|}#]{½#}[~½{]#@[~½|}@#]~|}@#~{|}@]#{~}#]{½~[½{[~¬#½@[#~½{}@#~]#¬|½}@[#¬½|}@]#{~|}@½¬@#}[~½|}[#~{%/)("·$/=%)!"$=·%)"·=$)&!=$·)%/!="·)$!(?")·(%"=·)$/%?!)/$%?!)"(·%?!)·$%?!·/$)%!/·$?%)!·=%)"·$?)!"·?)$%!·?$)/&?!$·/!$&)!$·&?!$·(?!$&/"$=/!"?%/!?"=$/%!?"($%=!"/$?&!/·$?=)/"·=$)&/!?"·%(!?·$"/&?!"/$?!%"(·%?!/"·?&/
Sun is centre of system:
  • !=·%"·)$%!=·$)%(!"=·)$!?
So you can choose which one you prefer. Do you want to make things horridly, bafflingly and unecesarily complicated? (talk) 00:18, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

And what about anthropocentrism?

Heliocentrism? The Sun is supposed to be the center of what, exactly? Since even the Sun is supposed to be revolving around the core of the Milky Way, and relativity doesn't allow fixed frameworks anyways, we may as well define the Earth as the center of the universe. Ptolemy got it right the first time. I am more attached to the Earth than to any of the other planets. And all my stuff is there. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 19:02, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Extending your line of reasoning, the only person I know to really exist is me, anyways. As such — much like my cat before me — I must safely conclude that I am God. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:17, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
[view] [edit]

Climate news


There has been a flurry of climate-related news these past few weeks. I thought it would be convenient to have relevant material to discuss here instead of clogging WIGO. New entries and constructive comments are welcome (especially if some entries turn out to be fake news or otherwise incorrect), but this is not the place to debate the science: there is already a nice page on climate change and other websites providing accessible analyses. Instead, this is for news (and occasionally opinions) providing insights about what is happening, how bad/good it is going to get, and what to do about it. --Cmonk (talk) 19:53, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Great idea! Also, let's please use this as a source dump with the goal/intention to implement some of this into our articles. Our climate change article — while neat — is in dire need of updating. Much development has occured since the Bush era. Thanks in advance. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:02, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

April 2017

Oil demand growth slows for second year. But the International Energy Agency predicted supply would grow in coming months, with US oil-producing firms driving the increase.

The G-7 meeting between energy officials underscored the increasingly wide gulf between the Trump administration and its allies over climate change. (Chair's Summary)

Climate change has caused the rerouting of an entire river because of a retreating glacier in Canada's Yukon territory.

Photosynthesis grew rapidly in the 20th century, according to new research published in Nature. The research did not identify the cause of the increased photosynthesis; the leading candidates are rising atmospheric CO2 levels, a result of emissions from human activities; longer growing seasons, a result of climate change caused by CO2 emissions; and nitrogen pollution, another result of fossil fuel combustion and agriculture. However, "The increase in photosynthesis has not been large enough to compensate for the burning of fossil fuels" according to a co-author.

New research shows that many people alive today could see substantial benefits of efforts to reduce emissions thanks to a greatly reduced risk of heat waves in as little as two decades.

After 25 years of trying, why aren't we environmentally sustainable yet? The economic failures stem from the basic problem that environmentally damaging activities are financially rewarded. Political failures happen when governments can't or won't implement effective policies. Communication failures centre on poor consultation or community involvement in the policy process.

Time lapse photos shared by the Washington Post.

Scott Pruit acknowledges that humans are contributing to climate change. Also, Pruitt gets attacked by both the left and the right, including Fox News.

March 2017

Studies of two coral reefs reveal they may be damaged beyond recovery.

Secretary of Defense James Mattis has asserted that climate change is real, and a threat to American interests abroad and the Pentagon’s assets everywhere.

No publication bias found in climate change research.

A new study from the University of Delaware is one of the first in the world to show that tree trunks in upland forests actually emit methane rather than store it. The authors suggest that global and ecosystem models should take into account methane produced from tree trunks as a new source of methane to the atmosphere.

As sea level rises, much of Honolulu and Waikiki vulnerable to groundwater inundation. The researchers also discovered that some active cesspools are likely currently inundated by groundwater. This presents a serious health concern that will become progressively more serious as contaminated waters begin breaching the ground surface.

Climate-friendly coal technology works but is proving difficult to scale up. Contributing to Trump's "clean coal" vision, carbon capture technology can be used to inject CO2 deep underground and make existing oil wells more productive.

Utilities say the 1978 federal Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act is upending their ability to plan, control and profit from new electricity generation being added to their territories. The law is now emerging as a boon for many solar developers in select states, but a nuisance to many power companies. (not directly climate-related, but relevant to understand transition to renewables)

Ignoring European warnings, US president Donald Trump signed an executive order putting American jobs above addressing climate change.

Illinois scientists suggest cropping strategies to help farmers mitigate risks related to the impact of climate change on planting windows.

A new study reports that deaths related to extreme heat are expected to keep rising, even if most nations can contain global warming at agreed-upon levels.

Forests play a complex role in keeping the planet cool, one that goes far beyond the absorption of carbon dioxide.

For the first time, model calculations show a plausible way that fluctuations in solar activity could have a tangible impact on the climate. Studies funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation expect human-induced global warming to tail off slightly over the next few decades.

Sea ice extent sinks to record lows at both poles.

Prominent scientists operating outside the scientific consensus on climate change urged Congress on Wednesday to fund “red teams” to investigate “natural” causes of global warming and challenge the findings of the United Nations’ climate science panel. i.e. Pseudo-skepticism.

This is back in February, but there are unusual migration patterns for some bird species due to record-breaking temperatures caused by anthropogenic global warming.


How to get communities in east Africa to trust climate science.


The Guardian offers an index of sources

Aptly named Climate Consensus - the 97%. Let's use these sources as well (where applicable), to keep our climate change articles up to date and our refutations fresh. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:52, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Anti-Environmental Archives

Historic documents cataloging organizations and individuals who work to undermine environmental protection and conservation. Documents (not all climate-related) are about Cato Institute, Society for Objective Science, George C. Marshall Institute, Competitive Enterprise Institute (they have a typo: "Competetive"), Heartland Institute and others. --Cmonk (talk) 10:20, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Earth visualization

A visualization of global weather conditions forecast by supercomputers updated every three hours. Not really about climate, but this interactive 3D globe gives an idea of what temperatures, winds, and ocean waves look like. (if someone can find an equivalent for climate data, please add it to this section) --Cmonk (talk) 15:41, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

[view] [edit]

A couple of cute goat pictures

Link one. Link two. Ru1138 (talk) 03:22, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Awww! (talk) 15:50, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
[view] [edit]

Would human extinction be such a bad thing?

At this point I'm not sure. Humanity's course is being dictated by incompetent, willfully ignorant or just plain hate-filled people. The institutions and people who used to oppose them have been fragmented or outright corrupted. I have no idea what I could do, I'm just a learning disabled adult dependent with no job. Maybe it's just because I'm sleepy right now (I seem to be sadder before going to sleep), or maybe not. Does it matter anymore? Ru1138 (talk) 05:06, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I believe it was the late, great, Bill Hicks who said of us human beings, "We're just a virus with shoes." not a real jedidamn right i'm paranoid 14:16, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Whether due to my depression or pessimism, I tend to view life as objectively meaningless. More so I think it's our own subjective experiences that give life meaning. So no, I'd say from my point of view as an individual, I couldn't care less. What does it matter if the human race dies out? It was my experiences in life that gave my life meaning, not merely the act of procreation and continuing a race. On the topic of a seemingly more hate-filled public, I personally believe humanity has always been as hateful and ignorant as it is, it just now has the opportunity to openly display it. History (in my opinion at least) is cyclical, and looking throughout history, ignorance and hate are never generally the winner when they go toe-to-toe with intelligence and empathy, at least not for long. megalodon (talk) 15:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
As a human, I'd rather not go extinct. Death is just so dreadfully boring. At least the incompetents are entertaining. RoninMacbeth (talk) 18:39, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Proanthrophic ideas maybe?

lets all enjoy the idea we maybe the most intelligent form of existence in the whole universe. Swallow it all in. Don't be down on us, without us all, the bacteria have won.— Unsigned, by: Godhelpusall / talk / contribs

Life is a natural process, and as such it could be seen as having a goal, the "output", related to the processing of matter and energy. For instance, biologists say that living cells maintain their internal states by increasing the entropy of their surroundings (my interpretation of thisWikipedia's W.svg). We accomplish this by just being alive. Beyond that, we are on our own. Good and bad are not physical quantities, so objectively human extinction would be neither good nor bad. By contrast, based on their subjective world views, some people would say it's good, some would say it's bad, and some wouldn't care. Maybe we, as a sentient species, are a process that accelerates the entropy increase as much as possible. We are on the right track for that, but in order to maximize our impact, our species also needs to survive as long as possible and expand to outer space so that we can consume all those tasty resources. So, any behavior that would hasten our demise (war, ignorance) would be our failure as a process. But we are Great apesWikipedia's W.svg, so we are Great, we are winners, we will survive, we will make love, not war, we will grow our knowledge and hunt down every single bit of usable resource, and we will swallow it all. Eat snot, bacteria! --Cmonk (talk) 17:36, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure that increasing entropy is a worthwhile goal. Of course that does fit into your position that there is no inherent purpose or goal behind life, which I agree with. However, I do believe that there is inherent beauty in intelligence. Perhaps we are the very first beings that can comprehend the vast complexity of the universe, even if only in the smallest of terms. If that is true, we represent something of an awakening for the universe. I would consider the pursuit of knowledge a more important and ultimately satisfying goal. As stated previously, I do not believe that life has an inherent goal, i.e. a goal imposed on life through necessity. However, I consider the pursuit of knowledge a manifested goal, i.e. a goal that we arrive at through the faculties of the mind. Samstr (talk) 02:18, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree with you that the pursuit of knowledge is a worthy goal. I was trying to make a sort of half-joke by playing on the confusion with the idea of goal. Many (all?) physical systems can be described as some kind of local energy minimization device: if I drop a ball, it will fall straight down (instead of just standing there or spiraling sideways) to reduce its potential energy. This is only an interpretation, and I am not saying that the ball is consciously trying to reduce its energy, but the universe appears to be trying to solve a constrained optimization problem, and cosmologists hypothesize that the ultimate stateWikipedia's W.svg will have maximum entropy. In this context, what would be the point of life? To accelerate the process. And by building and blowing stuff, sentient life could accelerate things even more. But that is the goal of life from the "point of view" of the universe. In my scenario, the universe's bet with sentient life pays off if the sentient creatures figure out the best way to do the job, and this happens indirectly by them choosing as their life goal the pursuit of knowledge, which is required to grow their civilization by consuming everything and thus accomplishing the universe's goal. I guess it wasn't that funny... --Cmonk (talk) 23:35, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Ecological significance

All organisms have an effect on the ecosystem, and those with a stronger presence will cause the most harm if removed. Take humans out of the equation and there's a whole bunch of cats and dogs dying due to not being able to adapt - let's ignore any pets locked inside their houses. There's a few cereal crops that need manual assistance in their reproduction - they'll go extinct. Then there's the plants that are susceptible to diseases due to their genetic bottlenecks - they'll be at risk. Europe could see the adaptable dogs eating horses; lets hope we bred the horses well before dying, since there's not much other game for dock packs to attack outside of sheep. There's bound to be more issues that sudden human disappearance would have, but yeah - extinction is a bad thing no matter the animal.-- Forerunner (talk) 02:27, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Sudden human disappearance? Are we on about zombies again? (talk) 17:25, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Almost. I say this one is about smartphone overuse: people stay glued to their screens, forget to eat, and starve to death. Luckily, the global ecosystem was thriving before we arrived, and it will thrive even more after we are gone. No issue there. --Cmonk (talk) 17:51, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
FWIW, dogs, cats, horses, pigs, goats, and sheep all appear to become feral very easily; so much so that their introduction as invasive species causes all kinds of problems in ecosystems where they aren't native. Not sure our cattle, chickens, or turkeys would survive all that well. The only vegetable crop for which extinction seems likely is maize corn, and even it may adapt, given that there's so much planted. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 17:58, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
[view] [edit]

Beating a Dead Horse For the Third Time!

In other words, this: (Which as the topic title hints at, is the third iteration of said forum) Yeah, I know I've probably mentioned these guys before, but I feel they might still be of some interest here. If anything of having a similar shtick to KiwiFarms, like dumping on "Internet Nobodies" for starters. That includes hating on 'Farms as well, without noticing the irony inherent within, apparently.

But there's something I wanted to get off my chest as well. I was once a member of the DHI forum, albeit briefly during it's previous incarnations. Originally I lurking there, interest piqued by their put-downs of "angry reviewers" especially from the TGWTG crowd, then joined up as a larf, with the intent of being the resident fun member, or "TokenGoodTeammate", adding less acidic commentary in threads or starting my own, in order to add some of my brand of levity to the place, if not to attempt to turn some attention to other topics. Not to much real avail. Though I never had any real problems with that lot, as the years passed, something happened; as my interest in the internet reviewing fad waned, so did it, too, in the haters. But not only did the negativity become ponderous, but so did their slide into "red pill" mannerisms. With this in mind, I started posting less, let alone simply lurking. It's doubtful I'll sign up for a third go-round on the "Dead Horse" either.

This seems like a ramble, true, but if there's any interest, well, thanks for paying attention. Chair tater (talk) 01:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

[view] [edit]

Is there any hope

I saw this article earlier today. It worries me not just because I'm a furry, but also because I worry about neo-Nazi pricks in general. On a wider look, is there any hope at all for humanity? I just... sorry. I don't have much else to say right now. Maybe later. Ru1138 (talk) 00:23, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what a furry is, but I think everything is going to be fine for mankind. All this nazi and alt-right dumbasses were there all the time and had not been a problem, they're not going to be a real problem, anc Trump's presidency is just a bad period. Neo-nazi have no real power, and the far-right republicans won't be in power for long. Ecological problems will probably put an end to the far-right, if economic problems don't. Diacelium (talk) 00:46, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
A furry is someone who takes interest in human shaped animals.-DiamondDisc1|1csiDdnomaiD (talk) 02:28, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
No, there is not. Humans will continue to be the same greedy, thoughtless, and evil shits they have ever been throughout their history. The only difference is that they will be evil shits with the technological abilities to strip-mine the ocean floor and start thermonuclear wars. Fortunately, intelligent life is a self-limiting phenomenon. Something will outlive us and the catastrophes we create. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 18:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
I tend to agree. The continued existence of thermonuclear weapons and our inability to solve major worldwide problems such as global warming don't give me much hope for the survival of the human species. --Samstr (talk) 23:10, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
isnt that basically what the end of mass effect 3 was, that everyone lost there shit over? as for Nazi furries? who gives a shit. furries are people and some people are pricks. therefore some furries are pricks. this much is mundane. such is the world. there may be 'no hope' buts that nowt to do with nazi furries. that in my mind is a positive, because the same thing that always such niche interest to exist, the internet, is the same thing that has allowed many more, myself included, to come out, to find like people, to know you are not alone no matter how niche or weird or freakish you may think them. its idiotic to dwell on an as futile an idea of no hope for humanity. in the fullness of time the sun will engulf the earth just as surely as you are will one day die. it hasn't happened yet. it probably not going to be today or tomorrow or next year. we may bomb the shit out of us or poison us all with pollution. but it hasn't happened yet. its not going to happen soon. what gets us in the end will happen lot sooner than if we genuinely believe in there is no hope. all you can say with any certainty is that we are here now, how ever briefly. make the most of it. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:14, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
"Their [sic] two parts to that one, in my normal day life not at all," he says." But in my personal sexual life 'I don't like any race', which means I wouldn't sleep with black man [sic]. Now my boyfriend is mix black/asian. I sleep with him just fine, when I was young I use [sic] to be anti-gay. So why the change? It's because he [sic] not a 'human'; to me when I look at him. He [sic] a blue wolf." When I say I feel misled by the fact that, over the phone, Foxler denied having any Nazi views, he says: "It's hard, we are talking about my whole life story here."

What concerns me is not the statement above or people described in the article. What concerns me is that some people, such as the six individuals above, and the writer of this "piece," and the people who had it published, and by association the whole magazine, are discussing it seriously. Lord Aeonian (talk) 00:48, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

[view] [edit]

First aid kit for people who read the comments

I read the comments section on a webpage because I'm stupid like that, now I'm ticked off and I can't stop thinking about the comments. So I think what's needed is a "first aid kit" of chill-down techniques for people who read them.

Any suggested techniques? Ru1138 (talk) 19:50, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

If possible, talk with a friend in-person about anything.
If not, cat videos. *shrug* The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 20:17, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
I sincerely advocate punching some Nazis. Nazis need to be punched. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 21:02, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
And I don't. Violence-as-a-catharsis leads to some unpleasant places.--ZooGuard (talk) 21:22, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
This isn't really about catharsis, this is about stopping the inroads that ethnonationalist fascists have been making in American political debate. They're already causing harm and they need to be stopped. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:08, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
This particular thread is about how to overcome a mental state, as stated only a few lines above. So adding a suggestion to punch Nazis is either advocating violence-as-catharsis, or a derail.--ZooGuard (talk) 16:44, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Online whack-a-mole games and similar is the answer to one component of this thread.
Otherwise hit the 'random page' button on your favourite wikis till you find something interesting/which you can improve.
'Smile and make them wonder' is a useful way of dealing with nuisance people. (talk) 18:25, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Honestly, I'm too much of a softie to punch people. Though I would gladly watch neo-Nazis go through [this]. >:) Ru1138 (talk) 03:02, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
I guess you can get away from the Internet for a while. And think of the Woman's March protests, think of all those smiling faces of people and their children. Think that these Neo-Nazis are in the minority and none of them have ever the mental capacity to make a half-decent video game. LEFTYGREENMARIO 03:12, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
[view] [edit]

R/K selection BS

If you look up "r/K selection" on Google you'll get a few reputable biology articles followed by a veritable slew of right-wing and reactionary bloggers (including Stefan Molyneux). Basically, r/K selection refers to whether an organism has lots of poorly-raised offspring or a few well-raised ones. The crank bloggers seem to think that liberals are r-selected and conservatives are K-selected, even though conservative politicians have been against abortion and birth control from the beginning. Someone ought to write a rebuttal. Rnizam (talk) 13:43, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

It's the other way around. Wikipedia: "...r-selected species are those that place an emphasis on a high growth rate, and, typically exploit less-crowded ecological niches, and produce many offspring, each of which has a relatively low probability of surviving to adulthood (i.e., high r, low K)." In other words, people in rural areas who eachew contraception. At any rate, r/K selection theory has mostly been subsumed by life history theory, which also allows for adaptability within a population as to their reproductive strategies based on environmental triggers. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 15:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Honestly, my biggest problem with trying to write a breakdown of why r/K as applied to humans is garbage is that there are so many problems, and "race realists" don't care about any of them. Gonna try and do some example subsections below. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:03, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Excuse you, but the new hotness in alt-right neo-Nazi dogwhistling is "human biodiversity" (dry heaving sounds come from behind the monitor), not "race realism". :P Ru1138 (talk) 20:12, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Discussion of individual ways r/K is bullshit as used by neo-nazi fuckwits

There isn't any substantial biological variation in reproduction rates among races

Emphasis on biological. If it's something selected for, you'd expect to see the most obvious results in simple physiology well before any biological impact on the complex social behaviors that surround sex and raising children. Pretty much all of humanity hits that 9.25 month gestation period, that's almost completely unrepresented in the entire rest of the class mammalia. You'd think from a naive(and race realists are SUPER naive) application of r/K theory if adult success were less important and r were more important, there'd be more children more frequently, with less development.

Or perhaps you'd see a lot more fraternal/identical twins. Not that either. This should be a giant red flag to the application without going into any of the specifics of r/K. For it to only show itself in behavior and not at all in physiology is... extremely unlikely. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:03, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

r/K has been outmoded for decades

This is a classic case of someone over-extrapolating something in a high-school textbook, just like quantum consciousness, they take a simplified version of what actual science uses designed for kids, and then proceed to misapply it haphazardly to something that they think sounds related. "Higher birth rates? Yep, that's r selection" *proceeds to ignore every other characteristic of r/K selection theory because they've got far enough to confirm their biases*. Definitely ignore that it's an equation that throws out more variables than you can count to focus only on the "dominant" ones under extreme conditions. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:03, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Regardless of more likely there being an underlying genetic homogeneity behind the behavior (and environmental modulation, rather than just strict genetic variation), and of how the concept may have fallen in disuse in biology, an "analogy" with it, regarding how some groups of people have more children than others, and how it impacts the investment possible for each individual, shouldn't be dismissed. One can make completely non-racist (and non-classist) arguments in this regard, that poorer people tend to have more children, and, as a consequence, they tend to delay their own economic ascension, or even go further down economically. And that will also correlate with social pathologies, and even with biological consequences of less resources per children.
Aided with information like that, one can make a liberal/progressive counterpoint, while not being as vulnerable to be painted as a "denier of facts", that dogmatically assumes a rosy PC picture of reality. — Unsigned, by: / talk 23:15, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Pretty much every race had similar birth rates until industrialization and birth control

Duuuuuh. Let's focus on the giant fucking k-selected elephant in the room. Having few children is a modern luxury that has jack shit to do with race, and everything to do with circumstance, and a trivial inspection of history will tell you that near a dozen children were normal in pretty much every European country up until the 1800s. Hell it was a common convention in the roman empire to name your children numbers, like quintius, sextus, or decimus, because so many would die young. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:03, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Actually, some traditional tribes will limit their fertility rates through celibacy. From the abstract of "Post-partum sexual abstinence in tropical Africa","In sub-Saharan Africa, women consider ideal birth spacing to be 2 to 5 years. Sexual relations while lactating are taboo. A new pregnancy during lactation brings criticism to the mother. Public opinion upholds birth spacing as a means to preserve the health of mother and child, especially among the Yoruba of Nigeria where postpartum abstinence may last up to 3 years." - — Unsigned, by: / talk

I've never heard of this used for race

Where I've seen it used is among social conservatives who push "evolutionary psychology" and the like in order to justify patriarchy. Supposedly humans are a "K selecting" species and thus we need complete monogamy and strict marriage. Ideas like feminism and women's liberation are especially dangerous because only "r selecting" species are not monogamous, because the only possible reason to have sex with multiple partners would be to crank out large amounts of children. Of course, they then bring up evolutionary psychology to say that men are genetically designed to be as promiscuous as possible and women are designed to be monogamous caretakers due to the energy investment differential in pregnancy. Because this is the 'natural' way, society and culture should work to impose these norms, which always means restricting women as much as possible while giving men free reign. This is the only context I've heard cranks use r/k selection in, them using it for race is new to me. Lord Aeonian (talk) 06:08, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Because this is the 'natural' way, society and culture should work to impose these norms, which always means restricting women as much as possible while giving men free reign. This isn't quite it. Because these different strategies are bred in the bone, they will spontaneously reappear in different cultures and throughout the centuries; as, in fact, they do. There has never been a human society that is not a "patriarchy", if by "patriarchy" you mean one where most of the formal and public political, economic, and military leaders are male. This has nothing to do with the regard these many cultures hold for women, or the autonomy they have in local norms. Visions of political equality that pretend these things shouldn't exist will at least require significant investment in enforcement, and in the long term will not work. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 05:10, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

"Because this is the 'natural' way, society and culture should work to impose these norms" - this does not make sense and probably no one minimally respectable has ever proposed it in reality. It's like saying that men are naturally more violent (standard assumption, and matches empirical data quite well), "therefore" laws regarding homicide or violence committed by men should be more lax, whereas for women, the sentences should be harsher. In reality, the opposite happens, even if the law is isonomic. Please spare the MRA/MGTFOH/whatever accusations, I'm not any of that.— Unsigned, by: / talk

[view] [edit]

I have no idea what i'm doing here and you guys scare me.

The title says it all really. I've just seen it reported on BBC News that NatWest has frozen all UK accounts of kremlin funded tv propaganda news channel RT. As I have no idea what i'm doing here, i'll just leave a link below and maybe one of you scary people can decide what to do with it/where to put it. Thanks muchly. [1] Obi-Jon (talk) 13:59, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

We don't bite :) most of us don't, at least. I hope you haven't had a bad experience here somewhere. B) talk 16:21, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Correction: MOST OF US don't bite. I bite when I'm hungry, but that's part and parcel of being this. ;) But yeah, if you've had a bad experience here then please let us know.Ru1138 (talk)
No, no, nothing bad. Just you guys are scarily good at this wikiing business, compared to a complete novice and borderline technophobe like myself. :) not a real jedidamn right i'm paranoid 09:09, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
We were all newbies once, have occasionally got fingers in a twist/got slightly chewed (in a usually friendly fashion), and have decided what our levels of wiki-competence are (creating tables, rather than 'merely tweaking them (and occasionally dislocating them as a result)' is something I leave to others. (talk) 10:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
[view] [edit]

Page listing top moronic quotes from the internet?


I remember seeing a link to a page here a while back that pointed to a page That had a collection (and a top 100 list) of stupid quotes made by conspiracy theorists, creationists, MRAs and other groups of people representing the pinnacle of human evolution.

I don't recall the name or what rational wiki page had the link. But the page was very gray in appearance and had a nice Netscape look.

Does anybody know which one I mean ?

'Stupid quotes on the internet' produces quite a few such lists with varying numbers of entries. (talk) 18:11, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

FSTDT is probably the site you're thinking of actual link to the site not just our article. It's probably about to shut down, though. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:24, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks!!--TheGrandmother (talk) 19:55, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

No problem! ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:12, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Asking such questions tends to lead to 'all sorts of pages you didn't know you wished to read (especially if holding a hot drink close to keyboard/eating crumbly biscuits). (talk) 15:53, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
[view] [edit]

Thank you RationalWiki

An article here suggested watching the film Contagion. I did so yesterday and I loved it. Thank you for the suggestion all. :) Ru1138 (talk) 12:39, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I was the one who wrote the article. You're welcome! Good movie. KevinR1990 (talk) 17:48, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Quite. Beats the living snot out of the usual tripe the movie industry puts out these days. My only regret is that I never got to see it in theaters!Ru1138 (talk) 19:10, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Hey, now, don't insult tripe. Even though it's really high in cholesterol, if made right it tastes really good! The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:06, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
[view] [edit]

Dr William Whitby - "Smoking is good for you"

Perhaps we should include a brief article on this gentlemen - a devote denier of the damaging effects of smoking and self-publisher of two books: "Smoking is Good for You" and "The Smoking Scare De-bunked." Would slot in with articles on techniques used by modern deniers of climate change, etc. See:

Let User:Krej know, he does a lot of work on tobacco smoking - David Gerard (talk) 23:48, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
The dramatization of William Whitby's near-future realisation (Whitby here depicted by actor Michael RichardsWikipedia's W.svg). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:15, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
[view] [edit]

Philip Goddard's site on Self-Realization & Clear-Mindedness

I'm a bit surprised nobody so far has brought this site here into attention. It's got quite challenging content, and a certain portion of it is of particular interest to me personally. A deal of cautiousness is adviced, to not be mistaken into believing it's just a "yet another New-Agey webshite", as some might get an instant opinion of it as such, just by looking at its design theme (actually it was once something like this, but later on much of the "spirituality" stuff was dumped away in favor of focusing directly on the topic of clear-mindedness). With that in mind, I would very much appreciate if some people with enough awareness and relevant expertise had done rigorous, open-minded, comprehensive analysis and review of its contents.

I understand that this is going to take a lot of personal motivation and time investment, however any steps towards such goal would still be appreciated. Here is a list of some page links for starters:

Yours sincerely, Protagores (talk) 19:21, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I know you said to go into this with an open mind, but the more I read the more I think it is just a new age-y webshite. All Mr. Goddard has done is mix a few Computer Science 101 vocabulary words in with the usual new age potpourri. (talk) 23:51, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Could you elaborate on that please? Apart from bringing in lexicon peculiarities, that is. Protagores (talk) 12:01, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
New Age "one consciousness" claptrap. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 12:41, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
I haven't exactly seen the term "one consciousness" anywhere on the site (except for some weird question in FAQ), but let me add my two cents on how I see what it is about. The problem with the definition of consciousness here is that - it cannot actually be fully defined, let alone any of its boundaries and alike. (Yeah, the glossary markup is glitchy and causes page scrolls at random on many browsers, that's a known issue.) This also means that common scientific methodologies (especially the falsifiability criteria) aren't so much applicable to the domain of consciousness in principle. What matters, however, is when a model based on observations can be proven helpful, rather than correct. Strictly speaking, this can't be established in an objective way, of course, but there are enough pointers that such observations are reproducible in regards to different people to some extent. Can't say if reasonably enough, however. ;)
As for the fundamental consciousness aspect, as it is presented on site, there's also its defining non-dualistic quality, because of which any attempts on distinguishing between "me" or "you" or "anyone else" on that level are pointless, and any concepts are meaningless. It can only be experienced, and the only people who perceive it supposedly in direct, undistorted manner, are those with fundamental clarity (i.e. "enlightenment", which the author claims to have gained most likely). This isn't the same as what those New Age (and indeed various spiritual traditions) folks are rambling about - it actually looks more like a coherent point. Make of it what you will. Protagores (talk) 13:49, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
[view] [edit]

Somebody sent me this Gish Gallop. Can anyone help?

I asked this guy on Reddit (/u/AutisticSubhuman) to provide evidence that diversity has no benefits to society. This is what he sent me (shown below):

– Social trust is negatively affected by ethnic diversity, case study in Denmark from 1979 to the present. [Link.](

– Ethnic homogeneity and Protestant traditions positively impact individual and societal levels of social trust. [Link](

– “In longitudinal perspective, [across European regions], an increase in immigration is related to a decrease in social trust.” [Link.](

– Immigration undermines the moral imperative of those who most favor welfare benefits for the neediest. [Link.](

– The negative effect of community diversity on social cohesion is likely causal. [Link.](

– In Switzerland, social peace between diverse factions isn’t maintained by integrated coexistence, but rather by strong topographic and political borders that separate groups and allow them autonomy. [Link.](

– “Our analysis supports the hypothesis that violence between groups can be inhibited by both physical and political boundaries.” (

– Diversity hinders between-group cooperation at both the one-on-one and group levels. (

– The best chance for peace in Syria is better borders (intrastate or through the creation of new states) “suited to current geocultural regions”, and tribal autonomy. (

– Using data from US states, study finds a negative relationship between ethnic polarization and trust. (

– Diversity is associated with more White support for nationalist parties, except at the local level where large immigrant populations cut into vote totals for nationalist parties. [Link.](

– In Australia, ethnic diversity lowers social cohesion and increases “hunkering”, providing support for Putnam’s thesis finding the same results in the US. [Link.](

– After controlling for a self-selection bias, study finds that ethnic diversity in English schools reduces trust in same-age people and does not make White British students more inclusive in their attitudes towards immigrants. [Link.](

– In Germany, residential diversity reduces natives’ trust in neighbors, while it also reduces immigrants’ trust but through a different pathway. [Link.](

– Increasing social pluralism (diversity) is correlated with increased chance of collective violence. [Link.](

– “[E]thnic heterogeneity [diversity] explains 55% of the variation in the scale of ethnic conflicts, and the results of regression analysis disclose that the same relationship more or less applies to all 187 countries. … [E]thnic nepotism is the common cross-cultural background factor which supports the persistence of ethnic conflicts in the world as long as there are ethnically divided societies.” [Link.](

– Genetic Similarity Theory (GST) could help explain why diverse groups in close proximity increases ethnic conflict and ethnic nepotism. [Link.](

– Genetic diversity has contributed significantly to frequency of ethnic civil conflict, intensity of social unrest, growth of unshared policy preferences, and economic inequality over the last half-century. [Link.](

– Using social science data and computer modeling, researchers found that policies that attempt to create neighborhoods that are both integrated and socially cohesive are “a lost cause”. [Link.](

– The numbers and the genetic distance matter. Minority groups that get above a certain critical mass, and that are culturally distant from the majority culture, begin to self-segregate from the majority, moving society toward division and away from cooperation. [Link.](

– Using data from Copenhagen school registers, researchers found that native Danes opt out of public schools when the immigrant population concentration hits 35% or more. [Link.](

– In the most liberal region in the US, San Francisco and surrounding suburbs, White parents are pulling their kids out of public schools that are becoming increasingly asian. [Link.](

– School integration (forced proximate Diversity) will not close race achievement gaps. [Link.](

– Exclusionary dating is a natural consequence of racial diversity. [Link.](

– As diversity increases, politics becomes more tribalistic. [Link.](

– Company diversity policies don’t help minorities or women, and they psychologically discriminate against White men. [Link.](

– Greater classroom and neighborhood diversity is linked to stronger tendencies to choose same-ethnic rather than cross-ethnic friends. [Link.](

– A longitudinal test of the impact of diversity finds that it makes existing residents feel unhappier and more socially isolated. [Link.](

– Internal dissension stoked by ethnic, social, political, and religious diversity, rather than environmental degradation, caused the collapse of the urbanized Cahokia Indian Tribe. [Link.](

– The volunteer participation rate in America hit a record low last year, declining 0.4% from the previous year, and has been declining since 2005. Not coincidentally, the racial composition of America has become more fragmented during the same time. [Link.](

– A sense of social cohesion with the people who live around us is as happiness-inducing as love for the place itself. [Link.](

– Our desire for ‘like-minded others’ is hard-wired. [Link.](

– A wealthy Virginia county that is rapidly racially diversifying is getting poorer and less socially cohesive. [Link.](

– Gender diversity does not promote nonconformity in decision-making bodies. (But individual ability diversity does.) [Link.](

– High ethnic diversity has a negative effect on innovation, but high “values diversity” has the opposite effect, as long as ethnic diversity is low. The best innovation happens in countries that are ethnically homogenous but diverse in values orientation. [Link.](

– Growing racial diversity in Houston is contributing to declining construction standards and aggravating the impact of natural disasters. [Link.](

Discussion on the above

I moved the "reply" section to down here, to not interfere with the text above. You did one thing right (aside from coming here) - you correctly identified the above as a gish gallop. Remember, the "academic" term for the fallacy behind a gish gallop is "proof by verbosity". Brian Dunning puts words on it quite well here. Take a look. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:44, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Also, probably worth pointing out is that these are all his own cherry picks, feeding his original confirmation bias. Tossing together the above "trail of crumbs" is impossibly far from how you form a coherent understanding of anything - it's closer to the way moon landing hoax theorists pile up junk, confusing it with building a case for their views. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:52, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Another classic sign of his submission being an absolute mishmash of nonsense is the way he seems to jump arbitrarily between newspaper editorials, random crank blogs (like this manufactroversist source), random study abstracts, random observational study abstracts, and different languages and disciplines... Because it's not like he started with an opinion and then went out to collect a sand castle of data to prove his point, right? Despite the amount of verbosity, the above is in fact about as well sourced as a shrill Infowars article. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:58, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Whether something is Gish Gallop or not is unrelated to whether or not its contents are correct. In some circles, "diversity makes societies better" is regarded as a PRATT, and groups assemble lists like the one posted for quick reference in discussions on the topic. Consider applying Reverend Black Percy's criticisms to this collection of links for comparison. Of course, in considering whether diversity of some kind makes things better, worse, or no different, the kind of diversity and criteria for evaluation should be specified (what benefits to society did you have in mind?). Most of the list above is about racial and cultural diversity and effects on social cohesion and politics related to how nice to live in people consider a place. FuzzyCatPotato's links are about specific looks at business performance. Since they don't address the same questions or contexts, they don't counter the original points. And I would caution against treating them with less skepticism. For example, in the first countersource below, the actual results are somewhat different from what the quoted blurb implies. "Hypothesis 1 states cultural or racial diversity will be positively associated with firm performance. Table 3 reveals that, in step 2 of the outcome regressions, after controls were accounted for, no significance was found across any of the dependent measures. Hence, no support was found for Hypothesis 1." The actual difference found for greater diversity was increased performance as a bank was growing and decreased performance as a bank was downsizing, which suggests to me that the control variables may have second-order effects that were not accounted for. For the sake of framing further discussion, I will point out that the notion that racial/sexual diversity should improve things (as opposed to empirical evidence that it does or does not) is itself racist/sexist according to the older definitions. @The French Rat: Are there any particular links you'd like me to check out? Keep in mind that the truth or falsehood of a proposition is determined by the strongest evidence available, not the weakest arguments given. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 23:56, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Two very bad ones

– The volunteer participation rate in America hit a record low last year, declining 0.4% from the previous year, and has been declining since 2005. Not coincidentally, the racial composition of America has become more fragmented during the same time. [Link.](

Even spouting "correlation not causation" is sufficient to negate this. Why not also note that the US elderly population is the largest it's ever been, and blame old people for lowering volunteering rates?

– A sense of social cohesion with the people who live around us is as happiness-inducing as love for the place itself. [Link.](

This one is funny, because it implies that people of difference races or ethnicities or genders or whatever can't cohere with each other -- in other words, a fundamentally racist view.

Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 02:25, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

It also says that a sense of social cohesion is enough. That means that people lacking the sense of calm and integration with diverse people - e.g. those who don't sleep easy but sit up doubting diversity - are themselves the entire cause of the problem. They need to go (lest society go Hindenburg), not anyone else, in that case. And so on. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:28, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

A few countersources


Although "valuing diversity" has become a watchword, field research on the impact of a culturally diverse workforce on organizational performance has not been forthcoming. Invoking a resource-based framework, in this study I examined the relationships among cultural (racial) diversity, business strategy, and firm performance in the banking industry. Racial diversity interacted with business strategy in determining firm performance measured in three different ways, as productivity, return on equity, and market performance. The results demonstrate that cultural diversity does in fact add value and, within the proper context, contributes to firm competitive advantage.

Board of Director Diversity and Firm Financial Performance

This study examines the relationship between demographic diversity on boards of directors with firm financial performance. This relationship is examined using 1993 and 1998 financial performance data (return on asset and investment) and the percentage of women and minorities on boards of directors for 127 large US companies. Correlation and regression analyses indicate board diversity is positively associated with these financial indicators of firm performance. Implications for both strategic human resource management and future research are discussed.

Does Diversity Pay?: Race, Gender, and the Business Case for Diversity

The value-in-diversity perspective argues that a diverse workforce, relative to a homogeneous one, is generally beneficial for business, including but not limited to corporate profits and earnings. This is in contrast to other accounts that view diversity as either nonconsequential to business success or actually detrimental by creating conflict, undermining cohesion, and thus decreasing productivity. Using data from the 1996 to 1997 National Organizations Survey, a national sample of for-profit business organizations, this article tests eight hypotheses derived from the value-in-diversity thesis. The results support seven of these hypotheses: racial diversity is associated with increased sales revenue, more customers, greater market share, and greater relative profits. Gender diversity is associated with increased sales revenue, more customers, and greater relative profits. I discuss the implications of these findings relative to alternative views of diversity in the workplace.


This article summarizes the results and conclusions reached in studies of the relationships between race and gender diversity and business performance carried out in four large firms by a research consortium known as the Diversity Research Network. These researchers were asked by the BOLD Initiative to conduct this research to test arguments regarding the “business case” for diversity. Few positive or negative direct effects of diversity on performance were observed. Instead a number of different aspects of the organizational context and some group processes moderated diversity-performance relationships. This suggests a more nuanced view of the “business case” for diversity may be appropriate.

FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 02:23, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

It's easy to say to FCP "But you're just doing what he was doing!" when he pastes countersources. But the point is that FCP is limiting himself to a few good sources. Now, what's the point in that? Well, it's enough to not actually gish gallop for one (because it's not verbose enough to be fallacious), and secondly - and as importantly - it's enough to show how the original gish gallop impossibly contained a consensus view on diversity. And so we sink two ducks with one stone. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:30, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Providing evidence for a position is not a Gish Gallop, and a position becomes not more wrong, the more papers are added. It also doesn't become more wrong when weaker support is added, nor does it show a weakness of anything when the sources are deemed all over the map. For example my outrageous claim that “evolution occurs” does not become wrong when I cite only nonsense sources, a list of good and bad sources, or too many sources. What is true (tentatively) is independent of the abilities of the proponents. I don't know about the subject, but I see that the list above is about society, neibourhoods and such, wheras Fuzzy's stuff is about business. If anything, the “counter” only cuts back the “no benefits to society” which is far too broad a statement anyway. ~ Aneris 10:42, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
A Gish Gallop is a way of providing evidence for a position that impairs continued discussion. Otherwise, yes. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 11:23, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
The OP is a classic Gish gallop in that it simply rattles off a series of sources/claims without context (even reading the summaries indicate that, for instance, the two first sources don't actually definitely contribute decline in social trust to ethnic diversity as a clear cause-effect result). ScepticWombat (talk) 10:44, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
And being a Gish Gallop doesn't make any individual points or the overall position wrong. I would assume that the request for help is regarding whether the points are correct rather than whether they should be called a Gish Gallop. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 13:18, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
It's highly unlikely that he're read all this stuff and I doubt you want to either. I would suggest that your best bet is to ask him to identify which is the absolutely best example of his point and debate that. This will but the onus of reading all the guff back on him. If he says "they are all equally good" then really get him to nail his colours to the mast on the "equally good" idea and then skim them to find the worst example and attack him on that. If they are all equally good then dismissing one dismisses them all.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 14:05, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
[view] [edit]

I just don't know

I feel angry over the BLM people crashing the Pride event in Toronto. I mean... I'd like to think that I'm not racist, but I fear that maybe I am. Maybe I just need to isolate myself in some cabin in the middle of Nowhere Alaska for a while; just to get away from the shittiness that is Humanity.Ru1138 (talk) 17:39, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Bullies tried to commandeer somebody else's parade to direct attention to their own fine selves. Objecting to this doesn't make you a racist. Anybody who felt so entitled and self-righteous to pull such a stunt is an asshole no matter what the color of their skin is or how worthy they think their cause is. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 17:10, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
I agree that, from what little I read about what happened, their actions there amounted to dickery. It's not like they're the only organization trying to represent the cause of a persecuted group at the freaking Pride parade. As I understand it, they were invited to come. Couldn't they just join in the communal action and the parade, using the platform they were given in a - to the other social justice groups - fair and equitable way? I suppose all persecuted groups need attention, but some persectued groups deserve the attention more than others. Which is a highly divisory viewpoint, to say the least. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:20, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
I'd also like to drop a friendly reminder that it's entirely possible to be completely for a particular cause, while simultaneously disagreeing with or disliking a movement or proponent of said cause. You aren't being hypocritical if you're for ethical animal treatment, but find PeTA or the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society distasteful. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 21:18, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
The real problem with this group is their psychobabble. "Black space matters"? "We made space for ourselves in a place where we have been erased"? WTF, are these people from another planet? You could make a drinking game out of every time the word space is used. I happen to agree with them that the police should not be allowed to participate in gay pride parades, and even agree with a sit down strike during the parade to call attention to the issue, because the police have always been the historic enemy of the gay community and we must never forgive, never forget. But space space space space, WTF. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs
I think the police should be allowed to join if they genuinely support the struggle. They shouldn't be ordered there, but if they honestly wish to participate out of support, welcome them with open arms. Pride is a celebration, not a finger pointing rally. And the best way to break down walls is for people to just show up and meet some gay people and notice that they're not so different people, great and diverse people even. Also lol, you make it sound like BLM is out to get their "race" the lebensraum it so justly deserves, by force if need be. Reminds me of someone... Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:53, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
[view] [edit]

Let's play "Have you ever considered"

A lot of boring discussions have been going on lately, so I thought, let's add some interesting discussions too. The 'game' is simple, people make one or more controversial/interesting/thought-provoking/know-it-all/etc. statements and people post reactions regular-discussion-style. So let's get started.

Have you ever considered that...

  • ...punishing officers/leaders for the actions of their underlings violates freedom of speech? (talk) 03:30, 23 June 42016 AQD (UTC)
    Dubious at best. Leaders hold responsibility. Their choice of "underlings" as you call them is an exercise of that responsibility. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:29, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
    Saying 'X holds responsibility' is the same thing as saying 'X is gonna be blamed when something goes wrong', so that's pretty much begging the question. Regardless, though, I'm not saying they shouldn't be held accountable. Just that basically everything leaders/officers do comes down to speech, so logically punishing them for misusing their authority over others or failing to fulfill their duties involves penalizing speech. (talk) 00:14, 27 June 42016 AQD (UTC)
    That is the most tortured logic I've ever read. It makes no sense. People who have power can do real harm by misusing it. Nothing about speech. This is dumb. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 14:40, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
    I don't think I've said anything complicated, but let me make it simple and overt. Power operates through speech. Save for through physical coercion, those in power can only exert their will by making it known to their subordinates, who then in turn execute it. When Hitler orders his troops to kill a group of Jews, the act you condemn him for is the order he gives, which is an instance of speech, no? (talk) 05:39, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
    Godwin, drink! Anyways I don't know why you simplified "speech" to only mean spoken words with your example on Hitler; I think you hinder the greater point that Hitler only needed to set a tone through his actions in order to intimidate and encourage his underlings to commit such heinous acts. I think that could easily turn into a debate about incitement and how we may create a slippery slope.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 05:53, 28 June 2016 (UTC) 05:53, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
    I was just going for a simple, straightforward example to make my point (and military orders can be written words too btw). (talk) 06:49, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • ...the deadliest act of terrorism in US history was the bombing of Hiroshima? With the second-deadliest following a couple days later because Japan wasn't in enough of a hurry to surrender yet. (talk) 03:30, 23 June 42016 AQD (UTC)
    Wait, are you serious? Yes, we nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but that wasn't "terrorism" that was war, and one we didn't start. There is a distinct difference.
    Terrorism is using fear of (primarily) civilian death/injury to control a populace for a political agenda (ex. fear of another mass shooting or fear of another suicide bombing). Traditionally, terrorist acts may/may not be endorsed or planned by relatively large organizations, then enacted with almost complete autonomy by small groups or individuals, like the 9/11 attacks, San Bernardino, or Charlie Hebdo.
    War, on the other hand, involves hostility from both sides. Our bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were part of a long campaign wherein we moved from island to island, with massive casualties on both sides, all as a very direct result of the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941. Iggles (talk) 14:54, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
    Of course it was an act of war, but how does that exclude it from being an act of terrorism? You think ISIS isn't at war with the rest of the world? Terrorism is a way of waging war, one that seeks to make massive casualties among the enemy, often specifically targetting civilians, to make fighting them extremely unpleasant and to terrorize the enemy into submission. It's a tactic mostly restricted to guerilla warfare, but when a major state actor uses it on a massive scale, e.g. by decimating cities and killing thousands of civilians in mere instants, it doesn't magically stop being terrorism. And Truman made no secret of his intent: "We shall continue to use it until we completely destroy Japan's power to make war. Only a Japanese surrender will stop us." "If they do not now accept our terms they may expect a rain of ruin from the air, the like of which has never been seen on this earth." I'm not saying America's war against Japan wasn't justified or that there's no merit to the extent the war was shortened by the atomic bombings, but they probably could've used the bomb in a way where the Japanese were still forced to surrender but with a great deal fewer civilian casualties. (talk) 17:08, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
First, please excuse the formatting. I'm still learning wiki, and don't know how to make proper paragraphs. Also, this is a fun debate.
ISIS vs Earth isn't exactly a good comparison, since ISIS places exactly 0 value on any human life, has almost no real infrastructure beyond captured resources and what amounts to pillager's mandate, and views their war as a fundamental duty of all members of their religion. If ever a true "total war" scenario has existed, it is in the mind of the ISIS fighter.
Terrorism is a way of waging war in the same way that raping women and children until their husbands and fathers vote your way is an election strategy. It might eventually work, but everyone will hate you for it.
Yes, Truman said those things. That doesn't make it terrorism, either. His statements were essentially "we're gonna win. We are winning. If Japan doesn't agree that we've won, then we're gonna pummel them."
How would you suggest having used the bombs in a manner that would force Japanese surrender without massive civilian casualties? Ever since the introduction of ranged artillery to the battlefield, it's been a given that using said artillery (or plane-dropped bombs after the advent of flight) would entail civilian casualties, because military targets are almost always based around relatively large civilian populations to A) exploit the manpower available for manufacturing of tools and weapons in a timely and efficient manner, and B) to protect said civilian population from invasion. Quite literally the only manner in which we could have introduced the Japanese government to the devastating weapon that is the nuclear bomb without massive civilian casualty would have been to take Japanese government officials to a testing range, which they weren't exactly likely to do. Iggles (talk) 11:55, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Well, it's simple, really. Just bring the testing range to them: Bomb a largely unpopulated area right next to their capital. To intimidate the enemy into surrendering you don't need to kill thousands of people, you only need to show the people in charge the weight and proximity of the threat. (talk) 20:13, 24 June 42016 AQD (UTC)
You do realise that the bomb was a political decisiin and not a military one. Most, if not all, military leaders at the time denounced it as unnecessary and cruel. It was used to intimate the Soviets after we gave them Eastern Europe. It didn't work because they were already in the process of making their own bomb using the intelligence they gathered from our research. It didn't even force the Japanese to surrender; the Soviet invasion of Manchuria scared them not the A-bomb. All the US had to do was let Japan keep some territories and agree to not prosecute the Emperor; we never ended up prosecuting the Emperor and the Soviets took some of Japan's territories which has resulted in land disputes that have lasted to today. Regardless, if you use violence to intimidate a peoples you have committed terrorism.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 21:16, 24 June 2016 (UTC) 21:16, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
I guess terrorism has to be defined: violence against civilians to achieve a political aim. Hiroshima falls under that category, but the Tokyo firebombing actually killed more people, so I'd say that is the biggest act of terrorism. That's in the past though. PB (talk) 00:57, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
An invasion of Japan would have been an utter disaster for the Japanese. The USA already had the examples of Okinawa and Guadacanal, where literally thousands of Japanese troops committed suicide rather than surrender; and on Okinawa, the Japanese military attemped to 'persuade' civilian populations to do likewise. Fighting this kind of war on the main islands would mean a US occupation much less charitable than the one they got. And of course the 800 pound gorilla in the room is the Soviet Union, which was gearing up to do its part to defeat the last standing Axis power. Japan may have ended up divided between Cold War statelets like Korea and Germany did. The bomb was the best option at the time. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 22:40, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Well according to the United States Strategic Bombing Survey, a panel of 1,000 experts sent to Japan by Truman, “Nevertheless, it seems clear that, even without the atomic bombing attacks, air supremacy over Japan could have exerted sufficient pressure to bring about unconditional surrender and obviate the need for invasion. Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945,…Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated." Many US military leaders were against the bomb: Eisenhower stated, “During his (Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson) recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives ,”; General MacArthur saw no strategic use for the bomb and wasn't even consulted on its use nor was he even given knowledge of the A-bombs existence; Admiral Nimitz declared in a public statement that, “The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military standpoint, in the defeat of Japan.” According to Prof. Ronal Takaki in his book Hiroshima: Why America Dropped the Atomic Bomb, William Leahy said this about an invasion of Japan, “I was unable to see any justification for an invasion of an already thoroughly defeated Japan. My conclusion, with which the naval representatives agreed, was that America’s least expensive course of action was to continue to intensify the air and sea blockade…I believe that a completely blockaded Japan would then fall by its own weight. Japan had also planned to send Prince Konoye as a special emissary to Moscow on special orders from the Emperor to secure peace at any price.
So then why did we use the bomb. Firstly, according to Yale Professor Gaddis Smith, "It has been demonstrated that the decision to bomb Japan was centrally connected to Truman's confrontational approach to the Soviet Union." Secondly, Truman was a racist calling the Japanese, “savages, ruthless, merciless, and fanatic.” Thirdly, the Manhattan Project cost the US an estimated $1,889,604,000 (in 1945 dollars) so to not use the bomb would have been a massive waste of taxpayer money. Lastly, the US had killed a total of 315,922 Japanese in its firebombing of 67 cities which was higher than the estimated amount of Japanese who would die in the A-bombings.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 06:41, 30 June 2016 (UTC) 06:41, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps rationality is a vacuum. Absent of anything that doesn't matter, as it were. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 00:40, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • ...many, perhaps most, people prefer to live in communities of people who look like themselves and share their language and customs. This humble preference is judged as 'racism' and 'xenophobic' by an urban elite taught to prefer a 'vibrant, multicultural' community. To the extent the urbanites' preference is made official policy, or expressed in language of harsh moral judgment, it is perceived by folks of the opposite camp as an alien and elitist imposture: classism, in other words. Given the chance to voice their disdain in secret, the humble are likely to do it. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 05:06, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm not a big opponent of populations self-selecting to live mostly within their own kind, but when it gets to the level of actual segregation wherein there is economic harm done, that's unacceptable. For instance, Chicago is an ethnically segregated city, with city blocks divided by race. That's bad, and results in insane crime, gang violence, and gross economic inequality. Because the races segregate, racism increases. I think the government should take strong action to essentially spread everyone out equally across the space. That sounds extreme, but what's really extreme is the racial segregation that we have right now. PBFЯЗЭSPДCЗ (talk) 21:38, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Chicago falls on the 'urban' side of the urban/suburban/rural divide. And Chicago, like many other cities, fell victim to the 1960s/70s 'planning' bug, which wrecked working neighborhoods and forcibly separated residential from living space in the name of 'slum clearance'. The infamous Cabrini Green high-rise warren was in Chicago, IIRC. Wrecking the neighborhoods removed the 'eyes on the street' provided by small business owners and residents in the urban mix, and created conditions where gang violence and crime were harder to police. American culture just doesn't mix with International Style high-rise housing very well. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 15:12, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
We need new urbanism, and we need it now. Google it if you don't know what it is. PB (talk) 22:41, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Have you ever considered... what a planet would look like if ...

it had a population of sentient creatures that were separable into fuzzy-edged groups based on clusters of genetic traits (which, for want of a better term, we could call "races") and that those groups exhibited real, measurable differences in averages of quantitative traits such as intelligence? What would the social and political dynamics look like on such a planet? Klortho (talk) 21:49, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Make that question easier: What if Neanderthals were still around as an ostensibly different group? another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 21:53, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Then judging individuals based on what group they belong to as opposed to what specific traits they individually exhibit would still be total BS, sorry. (talk) 07:55, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
[view] [edit]

Dr. Sal

In 2012, a small video emerged of an alleged NASA scientist, known as Dr. Salvatore Conti (or Conte), claiming that on 14th of June, 2016, there's going to be geomagnetic reversal lasting until 19th of August, 2016. He stated that because the geomagnetic reversal is going to be so short, the van Allen belt will fall on earth killing 80% of life on Earth. He stated that he knew of the apocalyptic event because his team used HAARP to communicate with aliens whom knew of this event because... Reasons... Towards the end of the video he stared talking about religion and how if we unite as a whole we might do something to stop this disaster. People were split, some people believed him and some claimed it was a hoax. Some people even stared spotting that he looks like an actor known as Frank Vidal (on the channel which the video was uploaded, in the likes/favourite playlist there are some video starring said actor). People started drawing parallels because both of them were bold, Dr. Sal claimed to be Italian but his accent sounded more Cuban, apparently the walls in the videos were similar and such. People found Frank's social media accounts and even his dentist clinic and started threatening or asking him questions, To stop the harassment, Frank made a video saying that it was a hoax video with some truth spiced up (the video is now deleted for unknown reasons). It seemed like it was near enough certain that the video was a hoax, however, the believers weren't having that. They pointed out that the moles of Dr. Sal (one on his head and one on his cheek) were never present in any videos or photos of Frank Vidal, some claimed that they sounded different, some claimed that they looked different, some claimed that the ears seem completely different (and according to a post I found on, ears are like finger prints and cannot be altered). This entire disaster of an event stared dying out towards the end of the 2012, however a ufologist who's opsesed with Area 51: Alien Interview started theorising that the 'Victor' from the "documentary", who prophesied an end of the world via aliens sometimes between 2016 and 2017, (I'm planning to go into more detail about that "documentary" sometime in the future) was connected to Dr. Sal because 1. It involves the end of the world and 2. Involves aliens. His argument is very flawed because the "interactions" with the aliens are very different with Dr. Sal (who claims that he doesn't know who the aliens are, where do they come from, what do they look like; he just knows of the via HAARP) and 'Victor' (who claims to have met the alien). Nevertheless, a post on AboveTopSecret claimed that the stories are different because Dr. Sal maybe wanted to protect 'Victor' or something (making the theory possibly unfalsifiable). Moreover, someone in the comment section of the video said that someone on godlike productions interpreted the Mayan calendar to say June-August 2016 and that somehow links with Dr. Sal. It's also important to note that the original description of the Dr. Sal video was talking about how he received the video from a friend and he needed to share this with the world to save earth. The current description says something along the lines of "wether the end of the world message is real or not, this video should be seen by everyone..." On Frank Vidal's IMDb page it talks about how Frank created Dr. Sal's video and so it does on this resume website.

Now people think that Dr. Sal is:

  1. Legitiame NASA scientist warning people
  2. Frank Vidal doing a hoax for publicity
  3. Frank Vidal doing a hoax for the government as a disinfo agent/shill
  4. Frank Vidal's friend/family
  5. Dead
  6. Brainwashed/threatened by the CIA/Government/FBI to claim that it was only a hoax.

I knew of this video for about 6 months now and o only decided to let RW know about it now because in the begening I were totally afraid of this revelation and I needed to do research (both about a geomagnetic reversal and Frank Vidal) and I feel like this defiantly fits somewhere on RW (wether as a separate article or an addition to an existing one). Do you think there's anything we can do with this? [here is a comparison of Frank Vidal and Dr Sal]--WMS (talk) 03:06, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

On magnetic reversal apocalypse

It's such bullshit. See Geomagnetism. The magnetic field has reversed thousands of times in Earth's history -- and about 170 times in the last 76 million years. If reversals caused omnicide, there would be no life -- and there would be a *HELL* of a lot more craters from those impacts.

The magnetic field is so damn weak that your refrigerator magnets vastly overpower it (locally). The field isn't even strong enough to stop all cosmic radiation, much less space entities. So how the hell would asteroids be impacted?

As for the idea that a reversal can be too "quick", even a hugely atypically "quick" reversal might take on the order of hundreds or thousands of years -- so if it's going to cause omnicide, it's gonna take its damn time about it. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 15:10, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Ahhh, I see. Thank you again for clarifying, I think I'm gonna put this guy in the 'End of the world list'--WMS (talk) 00:11, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
[view] [edit]

Any page like "Milk before meat"?

Hi is there any page from RationalWiki that I can link as source when trying to explain to someone that most times something that try to be secret is not "good"? (in example cults /sect all take action in shadows because the only way to prevent people join them is letting people know about their existence)

In practice I need all pages that help understand the following concept:

Why something is scret ? --> because Media would destroy it, and why media should destroy it? --> maybe because it is not so good?

Thanks! — Unsigned, by: Syllabus / talk / contribs 12:01, 9 May 2016

Please sign your posts by writing ~~~~. We had a page on milk before meat, but for obscure reasons it was merged into "bait and switch". ŴêâŝêîôîďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 12:17, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Wat? -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 13:26, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Ok thanks, also articles on Logical fallacy seems helpfull for what I'm trying to do, is the signature ok now? :) Syllabus (talk) 14:23, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
[view] [edit]

Metaphysics university O O

Metaphysics university O O

what the heck, seems like the "traning point" for cults leaders.

May deserve an article here on Rational Wiki? - — Unsigned, by: Syllabus (Talk / talk / contribs contribs)

Might be, feel free to write one. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 14:37, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Just another degree mill. I hate the abuse of the word "metaphysics" to mean Archetypes, Enneagrams, Channelling, Chakras, A Course In Miracles, Auras, Astrology, etc. (per their course descriptions). They have another website which looks a lot more professionally done, but for some strange reason they keep the old one up too. Metaphysics is a division of philosophy which deals with questions like what is the nature of universals, what is the nature of causation, what does it mean to say one thing is identical to another, what does it mean to say something is necessary or possible, etc. Information about real metaphysics, not New Age crap stealing its name, can be found here. (((Zack Martin))) 20:26, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
"I was thrown out of N.Y.U. my freshman year for cheating on my metaphysics final, you know. I looked within the soul of the boy sitting next to me." --Ymir (talk) 10:09, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
[view] [edit]

Robert Anton Wilson

I'm sure you heard of Robert Anton Wilson (He's the co-creator of the famous satirical book series which made fun of conspiracy nuts illuminatus! These books, ironically, gave birth to many conspiracy theory/illuminati tropes we all see today) well I were searching the internet like I usually do and I found a part of an interview he did

"Richard Metzger: You have studied the Illuminati for years. Have you come to any conclusion about their aims?
Robert Anton Wilson: Usually when people ask me that question, I give them some kind of a put-on, but I can't think of a good and original put-on that I haven't done several times before.
So I'll tell you the truth, for once. After investigating the Illuminati and their critics for the last 30 years, I think the Illuminati was a short lived society of free thinkers and democratic reformers that formed a secret society within Freemasonry, using Freemasonry as a cover so they could plot to overthrow all the kings in Europe and the Pope. I'm very happy that they succeeded in overthrowing all the kings, I just wish that they had completed the job and gotten rid of the Royal family in England too, but they did pretty well on the continent. I'm sorry they haven't finished off the Pope yet, either, but I think they're still working on the project and I wish them luck."[1]

I decided to do a Google search on this quote and found that some people think that he believes the illuminati exists and use this quote as their evidence. I find this hard to believe considering: 1) One of the main goals of his books was to make fun of conspiracy theorists [2][3] 2) This Video 3) This Video (Both the videos seem to be showing that RAW thinks that majority of Conspiracy Theories are stupid and impossible). I feel like it's impossible for RAW to be a conspiracy theorist and that he actually believed in the illuminati, I just need the opinions of other more rational, better critical-thinkers than to me to come to a final conclusion.

  1. Do you think that RAW actually, literally meant what he said about his opinion on the illuminati? Or was it just for humour's sake and if so why do you think he worded it like if that's his definitive opinion that he truly believes in the illuminati?
  2. Is a conspiratorial mindset a mindset of a conspiracy theorist?
  3. Do you think the videos above show that he in fact didn't believe in conspiracy theories? I feel like it's pretty self explanatory but I feel like maybe I have misinterpreted the videos.
  4. Do you think he was a conspiracy theorist?
  5. Who do you think he is referring to when he mentions "the power elite" in the longer video?
  6. Finally, should we have a page on him?

On a sidenote, I'm sorry if I'm clogging up the general discussion forums of late, but I feel like this is the best place to ask rational critical thinkers about things that I am too weak minded to be skeptical about (if that makes sense).

Thank you in advance.--WeakMindedSkeptic (talk) 18:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Totally a joke at the expense of conspiracy nuts.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 18:59, 18 April 2016 (UTC) 18:59, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Awesome, thank you for clarifying! That makes sense considering his opinion on Conspirscy nuts and conspiracy theories--WeakMindedSkeptic (talk) 21:51, 18 April 2016 (UTC)


  2. Among Wilson's 35 books, and many other works, perhaps his best-known volumes remain the cult classic series The Illuminatus! Trilogy (1975), co-authored with fellow Playboy editor Robert Shea. Advertised as "a fairy tale for paranoids," the three books—The Eye in the Pyramid, The Golden Apple, and Leviathan, soon offered as a single volume—philosophically and humorously examined, among many other themes, occult and magical symbolism and history, the counterculture of the 1960s, secret societies, data concerning author H.P. Lovecraft and author and occultist Aleister Crowley, and American paranoia about conspiracies and conspiracy theories. The book was intended to poke fun at the conspiratorial frame of mind.
[view] [edit]

I found a funny pseudo-documentary

Personally I found this funny because of the levels of stupidity.

undred prucent treth, reeelly, i sware
It's so damn dumb that it gave me a stroke.
Anything we can do with it? Like put it on a page, do a debunk, add snark or whatever? I assume you have already seen this because it was uploaded about a decade ago and it has over 3 million views. I found it only now because I'm slow.--WeakMindedSkeptic (talk) 14:54, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
That thing has the internal structure of a schizophrenic's fever dream. It's literally closer to some kind of art installation or music video than it is to a "documentary", even a fringe one. Funny find. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:48, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Hahaha, I agree with you 100%--WeakMindedSkeptic (talk) 14:54, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
...and while I imagine that writing up a refutal would be funny, I suspect it would literally be impossible to - because the video barly makes a single claim that is refutable, i.e. capable of being true of false. In fact, the video barely makes any claims at all - the vast majority of it is just a mishmash of highly pixelated, unsourced clips from all manner of random sources. Sometimes with unsourced original audio playing, sometimes with other random unsourced audio playing instead. Everything stopping and starting with no ultimate logic to it. There's literally barely a claim made in this video, outside of the random Star Wars-y rolling text in the beginning of it. Even the video description just reads "new world order" - which isn't a claim either. If we wanted to do an illuminati debunking we should probably pick a video that actually makes claims. ^^ Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:31, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Hahaha, couldn't agree more! Is there still a place to put this somewhere though? Like as an example of stupidity, crankery, pseoudo "documentaries"? If not, we can keep it here for now in case something pops up into the future.--WeakMindedSkeptic (talk) 16:21, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

If anyone is still hungry for some more crankery and possible refutations or whatever you want to do with this, I found this Reddit page which claims that the eye of providence in the background of a My little pony episode stands for illuminati. There's a few reasons why this is stupid. Also, on a side note, I'm not too sure what percentage of this post is sarcastic and what percentage is actually what some cranks believe. Anyway if you want to do something with it, or if you have an idea what to do for it be my guest! If you do, please leave a link to the page here.--WeakMindedSkeptic (talk) 16:36, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Wow, good information. I had to stop because I think my brain was suffering too much. It's amazing how much of the internet has turned into a daycare for crazy people. Why have more public mental help in the US when they can be kept at home making bizarre videos to upload to youtube/reddit/above top secret/etc till they die? -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 17:17, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Speaking of that... go to my David Icke sandbox and open the collapsed titled "HERE BE DRAGONS REPTILIANS". Abandon all hope ye who enter there. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:35, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Shit's SO erratic!!--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 17:40, 14 April 2016 (UTC) 17:40, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Hahahaha indeed.--WeakMindedSkeptic (talk) 17:44, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
No wonder I haven't been able to finish that shit all by myself. Half way into that shit my brain was like Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:48, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm not surprised! Hahaha, too much crankery can really kill A LOT of brain cells.--WeakMindedSkeptic (talk) 17:51, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Speaking of that as well, one quote from the David Icke forums was so spectacularly retarded that I decided to include it in my sandbox. It reads;
"While there is a way out of this "corrupt demiurge" or "reincarnation trap" (which is a draconian technology of vibrational manipulation and hypnotism) through the aid of discovering and connecting with your Over Soul and not falling into the "false light" that feeds the corrupt demiurge (or feeds the entities that benefit from it?)."
And as I point out in my sandbox article - yes, that's literally how the original sentence starts and ends. It's not even quote mined. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:53, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

'Ello! WMS here again with a new pseudo-documentary--illuminati-crankery-all-you-can-eat-buffet[1] Here it is... I only saw the disclaimer and already became brain dead. I just skipped through the video because watching an entire hour of someone trying to say "illllumanti exest u geys" is just too much to bear. I'm still only sane because of people on this website and this forum. Anyways, say/do what you want with this, sky's the limit.WeakMindedSkeptic (talk) 22:16, 15 April 2016 (UTC)


  1. SPECIAL OFFER! Only a sacrifice of 3,000,000,000 1,000,000,000 brain cells for a family meal!
[view] [edit]

Does anybody know what this is about?

I have found a picture of different levels of being a conspiracy theorist or something like that and at the very bottom was something called the "despair code". I decided to look that up and I found a Reddit thread pretty much asking the same question. Here's the thread. Some guy on the thread said this:
"It's much more complic​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​ate​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​d th​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​an I c​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​an expl​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​ain, but the i​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​de​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​a is b​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​asic​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​ally, it is ​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​an extremely ​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​accur​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​ate ​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​an​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​d ​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​det​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​aile​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​d system th​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​at keeps some groups ​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​an​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​d in​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​divi​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​du​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​als prolonge​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​d feeling of s​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​a​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​dness, fe​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​ar ​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​an​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​d ​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

You c​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​annot sep​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​ar​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​ate the e​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​agle from wh​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​at it ​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​does; the e​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​agle simply is ​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​ ​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​deni​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​al 2311444 ​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​desp​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​air 3223412 ​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​distortion 6233322
I decided to look up the words and numbers he found and this is what I came across:
Do you guys know what any of this is about? You reckon this is some sort of Crankerry? This seems a bit terrifying but that's probably me... Again...--WeakMindedSkeptic (talk) 21:55, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Hmmm... Correct me if I'm wrong but I think this is something about mind control and people being mind controlled? Apparently this (this one is unsettling and very damn weird), this and this is "proof" that celebrities are under mind control or robots or something because they have a "glitch" or they do something weird. What do you lot think? Can you guys help me debunk this? Also do we have an article on this? Because if we don't maybe we should? I'm not gonna lie, those clips are really damn creepy and I don't know what to think of them.--WeakMindedSkeptic (talk) 22:13, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

On a side note, there's this new conspiracy theory or a joke conspiracy or woo something starting called The despair code from what I have seen it has started on Reddit or 4chan and it seems to be picking up. People are saying peculiar stuff about it. Looks like we might be seeing the birth of a new conspiracy theory (if it's not a joke). How exciting.--WeakMindedSkeptic (talk) 03:45, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

It seems like some kind of rehash of the MKULTRA conspiracy theories about mind control, using the internet as some kind of medium to send "codes" into people's brains in order to make them despair or something. It's not really a new strain of thought in the conspiracy-minded. The Hungarian wiki seems to be roughly translated to "Rectifiers Wiki", which is apparently dedicated to mind control conspiracy theories. Nothing to get too worked up about. Hentropy (talk) 04:46, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Oh ok, that's reassuring. I still find that Brittney Spears video really weird and mind boggling. It's good to know that this is just a rehash of the MKULTRA woo.--WeakMindedSkeptic (talk) 16:02, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Finally, someone made a video about "The despair Code" conspiracy theories! Here's the vid. Any opinions? Worthy a page or not yet?--WeakMindedSkeptic (talk) 17:14, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

[view] [edit]


Recently, I came across a website called, I were very intrigued paranoid by the website so I decided to do some digging and I found some things which helped me calm down my situation by a little bit. I found out that the site is owned, or at least connected to, a person called Ainsley Knight (Source 1 and Source 2) After more research I found out that she owns The Knight Company website which I found very suspicious considering that if you look at the FAQ of the website it says that a Righ Knight owns the company. I got even more intrigued paranoid so I decided to look further. I have found out that Ainsely Knight is connected with these:

How Ainsley was connected to the Knight company was beyond me so I decided to email the owner to possibly get some answers. Thankfully he replied and this is what he said: "Hi [My Name] and thanks for reaching out I apologise for the confusion and I am not sure what to tell you for most of what you asked but I can assure you that Ainsley and I were married but separated in 2010, Ainsley has apparantely purchased a lot of domain names and made many websites. I do run | | but these are all managed by Ainsley and owned by her. As I said, I update the 3 sites above from time to time, but any other sites she owns or has re-directing, or Facebook pages is beyond me. I hope I have been of some help. Sorry for the confusion. May I ask what type of agency you work for? Warm regards, -Righ Knight" At this point things started falling into place nicely. There was still one problem, the IllumiCorp "training" video. Luckily, it was easier to find information on that video than Ainsley Knight. The IllumiCorp video was a spoof/satire video made in 2010 (by the way even Mark Dice, yes THAT Mark Dice, said this isn't real if that means anything). The maker of the video is a Canadian filmmaker Matt Anderson and the actors in the video was Arthur Roberts. (source). All seemed fine when I noticed that on the IllumiCorp website they credited Matt Anderson for making the video and they said that it was specifically made for that website but why? Anybody could just search that up and find that the IllumiCorp video wasn't serious. Why credit him if people can find out through that that the video is fake? Later I just pieced the puzzle together and dismissed this entire IllumiCorp thing as scam/cranks being cranks. However, this illumicorp thing has been plaguing me for a few days now and it has been affecting me emotionally (making me paranoid or feel melancholy). The constant questions like 'why did they credit him', 'why are they treating this like a regular business', 'why are they charging so much for their "membership"', 'why do they have products based on this 15 minute video (well one really, the "membership card")', 'is it coincidence that the video was made by a Candian filmmaker and the website is from Canada' and 'what's the point of this' have been running around in my head for a good few days now. Please, I need some help to finally come to a conclusion that this is crank stuff/a scam. I hope you can help. On a side note, I don't believe in any secret cabal that controls the the world, nor do I believe that the Bavarian illuminati existed past the 18th century and somehow became all powerful. I don't believe that tripe. I'm a sceptic, however an unfortunately weak minded sceptic. Thank you in advance--WeakMindedSkeptic (talk) 19:02, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

First, let me just say: this is a lot of information you've dug up! If you're in the mood, feel free to write up an article. (Sometimes putting all the information down and ordering it helps me get things straight, too.)
Second, on your questions:
All seemed fine when I noticed that on the IllumiCorp website they credited Matt Anderson for making the video and they said that it was specifically made for that website but why?
I'd choose Hanlon's razor; before assuming that these websites are anything more sinister than conspiracist nuttery, just assume that they got things wrong.
Anybody could just search that up and find that the IllumiCorp video wasn't serious. Why credit him if people can find out through that that the video is fake?
Meh. Anyone can, but how many do? Even if 9 out of 10 viewers of the video think, "Hey, this is fucking insane" and look it up, maybe the other 1 won't question the authenticity of the video. It's the same as lieing to the public in general: not everyone factchecks, and so you'll always have some people believe what you say.
'why are they treating this like a regular business'
I think this answers your next question:
'why are they charging so much for their "membership"
Because if they make it look legit, they can get money from people. And scams (also called affinity fraud) are extremely common in media groups that pander to conspiracist peoples.
'is it coincidence that the video was made by a Candian filmmaker and the website is from Canada'
Probs. There's 35 million people, it happens.
Please, I need some help to finally come to a conclusion that this is crank stuff/a scam. I hope you can help.
It's much easier to believe that people are often greedy and willing to lie to others in order to make money. Again, affinity fraud is rampant in conspiracist circles. Megachurches and televangelists use essentially the same tactics to get rich off of abusing the average person's belief. The alternative (the site is real and so are the illuminati) is much, much harder to believe. And both theories have the same explanatory power: they both state that there will be people like this, selling Illuminati products. Occam's Razor says to choose the former. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 20:42, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for responding, you have helped me clear things up and I thank you very much for that. I assume, looking back at it, it was really hard for me to comprehend that people would actually do something like that to just get money. It's quite sad really but, as you said, people do things like that and have done so for quite some time. I can't thank you enough! Now that i think about it, I will make an article on this, thank you for the suggestion!--WeakMindedSkeptic (talk) 21:20, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Nah, thank you! You've documented another nutty site. There's a lot of insanity out there -- at the very least, RW can showcase it. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 21:45, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Are you the same person who's been around as a BoN? If dumb websites "affect you emotionally" to that degree you should probably see a therapist. Don't take offense. There's nothing wrong with seeing a therapist. I myself am seeing one; I have depression and am on medication. --Ymir (talk) 22:08, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by BoN but you are probably right about therapy (also no offense taken and I agree with you that there's nothing wrong with seeing a therapist) for at least 5 months now I have been affected by various conspiracy theories and it was not a pleasent experiance to say the least. Thank you for the suggetion. However what would I say? I find it really embarassing that I get affected by such bunk. — Unsigned, by: WeakMindedSkeptic / talk / contribs
There's no embarrassment in improving your life. Just say what's true! Opening up is hard, but it's worth it if it can bring you a more stable mindset. (Admittedly, my advice might not apply to you -- but you can always ask the therapist, and they can provide advice for you.) Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 23:45, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I have created the article (yay!) if it's unprofessional that's most likely because that's my first ever article. If any of you feel like the article needs changing go for it! :-) Other than that, thank you all for calming me down and giving me those suggestions. This has always been my favourite wiki.WeakMindedSkeptic (talk) 02:08, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

[view] [edit]

Should IQ tests be standardized within race?

IQ tests are biased aganist certain cultural groups. However, biological evidence suggest there is no such thing as "race". But it seems some social surveys report data standardized within the so called "race", making each "race" have the same average of 100. Should this be done? Or should they be standardized in the population?--Scientist (talk) 03:54, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

IQ tests are already problematic predictors of future success anyway. But no, racial boundaries should not be further delineated. Instead we as a society should strive to equally educate everyone and ensure all races have equal education. Fix the problem. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 03:58, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Not really any point. Race is really poorly-defined and isn't really the biggest factor affecting test scores. If you do race, you might as well do sex, education, socio-economic background, and all kinds of other specific things to the point where the test becomes useless at measuring actual aptitude.TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 00:44, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Probably the biggest determining factor in IQ results is education. Which rather raises the question of what IQ tests are testing anyway.
So should we further delineate one rather badly-defined thing in terms of another badly-defined thing? Probably not.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 06:34, 28 March 2016 (UTC)