RW Article discussion

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search


[view] [edit]

Gulf War Syndrome

Dear Rational Wiki Editors

I noticed that someone finally created the Gulf War Syndrome article that I've been looking for a long time, i noticed that something was missing, a clue that is not so visible for some folks, Do you know about the recent FDA Advice against the use of "Fluoroquinolones" Antibiotics? Cipro is in this family of antibiotics, it has a bad rep among pediatricians because of the damage it can cause to the minors bones and cartilages, but it may be harming more than children, btw this drug was given to soldiers in the Gulf war

http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/archives/2013/11/01/new-fda-warnings-on-cipro-may-tie-into-gulf-war/78543370/

http://www.aboutlawsuits.com/cipro-nerve-side-effects-gulf-war-illness-55747/

Please i beg the people responsible for the Gulf war article to take some time to read about this issue, its called Fluoroquinolone Toxicity Syndrome

http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/ucm500143.htm

http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm513183.htm

http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidkroll/2016/07/31/yet-another-warning-on-fluoroquinolone-antibiotic-side-effects/#5a585a0c1174

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/866689

Thank you so much for your attention! Garrysmodo (talk) 21:44, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Another useful link: Quinolone § Adverse effectsWikipedia's W.svg. Quote;
"Nervous system effects include insomnia, restlessness, and rarely, seizure, convulsions, and psychosis[21] Other rare and serious adverse events have been observed with varying degrees of evidence for causation.[22][23][24][25]"
Sounds bad. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:29, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
[view] [edit]

Donald Marshall's evidence

Music23.PNG
Album cover
His comparison of the guy on the cover and himself
Megadeth-the-world-needs-a-hero-vinyl-sticker-import--10565-p.jpg

I'm currently working on an article about a guy who claims to be a clone of the illuminati and to have written songs for many of the artists. He has 3 pieces of evidece: b.o.b and tila tequila talking about cloning (easy to debunk); a piano saying marshall something in a song he alledegly created:

I'm not too sure what to write about that but that doesn't look like evidence.

The final and the most difficult piece of "evidence" for me to debunk is this: he claims to be on the album of Megadeath The World Needs A Hero. A lot of his followers think the same and I couln't find anything about who that person is aside from people saying it's Don. I contacted Mick West (a skeptic and debunker) and he said that they don't look the same and sent me close ups

This is not a close up but he made the close up from this image* Do many people actually believe what he says? No point giving him publicity [I asked if I should create a thread].

Here's a close-up. It's not the same person, or even a plausible clone. I've never heard of him before now. He just seems like either a hoaxer, or someone who is deluded [I told him a suprisingly high amount of people belive him] Where do they gather? How do you know it's a lot?

[I asked what he though about the guy] I've never heard of him before now. He just seems like either a hoaxer, or someone who is deluded.

I hesitate to get into debunking people who might just be mentally ill (suffering from delusions of reference). Generally the only explanation for their claims ends being "they are mentally ill", and that is against the politeness policy. This particular claims seems so obviously incorrect that there's no really point addressing it. If people think it's true, then I'm not sure they are they type of people who will listen to reason.

What do you think, would you see any use in addressing it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideas_of_reference_and_delusions_of_reference.

I feel like Mick has got it spot on but they do, to me, look very similar (No, I don't belive his Fable but many do) So what do you guys think? In addition, I reached out to Donald and what he said was very unsettling--WeakMindedSkeptic (talk) 20:04, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

It's the same shit as crisis actors. There's 7-odd billion people in the world, and a limited amount of variation between humans. Hell: [1][2][3][4]

FuzzyCatPotato of the Equivalent Currys (talk/stalk) 23:49, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

That's very true. Thank you--WeakMindedSkeptic (talk) 14:07, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Also, see Dick York and Chuck Connor, and Simon McBurney and Dimitar Sasselov--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 02:13, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
[view] [edit]

A site that should be included in the Scopie's Law page

Sites that should be included in your Scopie's Law page

http://www.veteranstoday.com/ — Unsigned, by: 73.236.83.23 / talk / contribs

There's nothing to stop you adding it :) Flannan Isle (talk) 09:29, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I thought we had a page on Veterans Today here, and it turns out, we do (sort of); it redirects to our page on James H. Fetzer, the guy who owns the site. Also, it looks like all the examples for Scopie's Law, save for whale.to (the site the term was coined for), have been removed for some reason. KevinR1990 (talk) 16:43, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
[view] [edit]

I've typesetted the Atheism FAQ in LaTeX and don't know where to put it

Here's the link. It was made by using pandoc and customizing its output. — Unsigned, by: Cleverusername / talk / contribs

I've uploaded it at File:Atheism FAQ. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 01:45, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
[view] [edit]

Charles Koch edit

I made an account just because I thought this would be a nice touch to the article. Personally I don't know anything about the procedures involved in making edits on this site though so I figured I'd just leave the info here and at least see what people do with it.

Basically I heard through a KOCH industries administrative employee who overheard a conversation that one of his bosses was having that Charles Koch's son, Charles Chase Koch, killed someone when he was 16 when he ran a red light in Wichita. I guess Charles went to great lengths to keep his son out of trouble and keep it hush, and it seemed to work for the most part. I can only find a couple different sources for the specific incident online. The kid's name was Zachary Seibert.

I suppose at some level there might be altruistic reason not to make it mainstream out of respect for the family of the deceased, but on the other hand I figure that anything that Charles Koch goes out of his way to hide should at least brought to the light.

Here's a newspaper article on it that made it through the purge. https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2199&dat=19940112&id=wLUyAAAAIBAJ&sjid=quYFAAAAIBAJ&pg=5917,3493458&hl=en

Alright I'll do that later, and yeah I was just providing unnecessary background I figured this was just a forum for questions, I wasn't planning on putting anecdote into an article.

[view] [edit]

Where should I put this article?

Hello all, I'm new to RationalWiki, I just signed up recently in order to write a response to this apologetics nonsense.

But the thing is, most of the rebuttal articles are filed under creationism and such. Mine isn't really focused on that.

You can read it here to see what you think.

This is also my first article, so any feedback in general would be appreciated :) Aeonian (talk) 12:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Side-by-side rebuttals aren't just under creationism. We do have Category:Apologetics and counter-apologetics, where it would fit right in. Excellent start! - David Gerard (talk) 17:52, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
[view] [edit]

Logical Fallacy help

So I'm a bit new to this, but something I see a lot of when arguing certain topics (let's say gun control or global warming) is the idea that you're wrong or can't have an opinion if you don't know lots of technical minutia or you can't list exact laws or lots of specific data. Basically the idea that you have to be a scholar or an expert in the area to argue or discuss something related to it. Like I can't just point to the scientific consensus on AGW, I have to be well versed in physics and chemistry and understand how CO2 is distributed in the atmosphere or something like that. Is there a fallacy or logical trick that covers this? Seems kind of like a Gish Gallop but not quite. Sacrelicio (talk)

You might be looking for credentialism, though not quite. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 23:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, what I'm thinking of seems like a lot of different fallacies or fallacious argument tactics but doesn't match any of them exactly. The idea that I have to understand the minutiae and technical workings and jargon, but not quite to the level of having a degree.
Like earlier I was discussing Obama's executive actions on gun control, and the pro-gun side asked if anyone who was in favor of more gun control could list ten specific federal gun laws on the books right now. Or when discussing guns they drag you into a discussion about definitions of the definition of assault rifles and whether you can identify various ammo types. Or when discussing global warming, one has to have done extensive research in order to think that AGW is happening and/or have a list of specific laws that will curb the problem. Or when talking about economic policy, you have to basically write your own detailed legislation, which they can them pick apart.
See it a lot these days. Sacrelicio (talk) 01:25, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
This would be an interesting fallacy to document, if only it had a name. It seems like a combination of credentialism-ad hominem (you're wrong because you don't know everything about an issue) and shifting the burden of proof (you have to prove that something is entirely true, inclusive of a complete knowledge of the issue, neither of which I have to do). Any ideas for a new neologism? The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 01:31, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
"Drag-you-into-the-weeds-and-strangle-you?"Sacrelicio (talk) 15:30, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
The other aspect of it is that people using it will pepper you with requests to produce statistics or statutes on the spot. Even an expert can't always do that. "On the spot data request?" Of course someone using this always has some factoid or discredited research at the ready. It's also used as a springboard into several other fallacies or fallacious arguments, because once you've fallen for the trap, they can throw their fallacious spells at each thing you cite. Maybe "Minutiae Trap?"Sacrelicio (talk) 15:48, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
I quite like "On the spot fallacy" (since the issue isn't that you can't get the evidence they request, it's that it's unreasonable for you to have it immediately), though "minutiae trap" also work well. Do you have any examples of this behavior, or articles discussing how people do this? Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 21:01, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
I made a draft, using comment from this page, here. If you can provide any sources, that'd be great. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 21:32, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks!! I like the term. I'm looking for sources now. Here's something that describes what I'm talking about in another way: "14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely." http://www.nowandfutures.com/spew_tools.html. Here another stab at a summary: It's the idea that I, as a layperson, have to have done all of my own research on the topic and I have to understand lots of minutiae and technical details before having any opinion on the matter, and also that I then can regurgitate that information on the spot. Another way that I've seen this argument presented is around election time, that you basically shouldn't vote unless you understand everything about a candidate's platform. Obviously, being informed is good, but I shouldn't have to write a doctoral thesis on each one of their policies in order to have a say or have an opinion. Maybe it's two fallacies? One that demands that I be an expert before having an opinion, and one that demands that I produce supporting information on the spot?Sacrelicio (talk) 22:08, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
[view] [edit]

Question: Is there anywhere where I can suggest an article be written?

I'd like to suggest an article for some things that I have noticed in recent years, so that RationalWiki bloggers can assess it. Is there any particular place on the site where I can make such a suggestion? Advicedoge (talk) 22:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Either go directly to RationalWiki:To do list/Suggestions or float your idea in the Saloon Bar. Alec Sanderson (talk) 22:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! Advicedoge (talk) 23:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
[view] [edit]

Noosphere woo

Wanting to start an article: Noosphere woo, or at least, the global village myth still is a generalized misconception, that the progress in global telecommunications should create a global community of ideas, where the creative potential of the human race as a whole and of the each individual as a person, would be expanded beyond any known maximum. In fact, most modern ideologies or modern renditions of millenarian beliefs can be grossly defined as divergent sects from this myth, for most that some of them claim that they have irreconcilable aims. The emergence of a Rule 34 and political flaming gobbled over Internet, and also the factors of digital exclusion and digital incompetence, could not be forecasted or were grossly underestimated by most sci-fi writers and futurologists from the past decades. Despite this, movements claiming that the revolution should spread through Internet after having been defeated in the current world, still somewhat mantain the myth alive, giving it a certain kind of revival.

Nicoliver (talk) 21:02, 20 September 2015 (UTC)Nicoliver

[view] [edit]

Religious persection

I looked, but couldn't find anything on religious persecution, especially Christians' fascination with it and finding reasons to believe they're being persecuted when they're the ones doing the persecution. I wanted to check before adding it to the To Do list.

It should be all under Persecution complex the last time I looked. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 18:55, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. :) I swear I typed the first few letters into the search box to see if something came up, and I didn't see that.-ShorinBJ (talk) 20:40, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Not quite.Wikipedia's W.svg--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 19:03, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Humm, I read it as the persecution that Christians believe they have...but it's really just them not being able to force people to behave as good Christians. Like prevention of gay marriage, not keeping the Sabbath holy, keeping public holidays Jesus^9... -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 19:14, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Firstly when discussing these things it is important to remember that it is perfectly normal for a Christian to get riled up about their co-religionists being persecuted in other countries where there is actual persecution (like Egypt for instance), people of all faiths get riled up about that. As for the Christians in my country (USA), the belief that they are being persecuted tends to be either imaginary, or a childish reaction to their loss of influence over society. The reason why they like to imagine that are being persecuted is partly because Christianity as a religion looks very favorably upon people who have been persecuted for being Christian. Martyrdom has a very, very long history in Christianity and that religion, more than others, glorifies martyrs excessivelyWikipedia's W.svg. Essentially Christians believe that being persecuted for your faith, or suffering for the faith will absolve you of sin (and is therefore to be desired). As a result fundamentalist Christians in America tend to believe that they are being persecuted here even when there is no persecution. Alsto003 (talk) 19:50, 9 September 2015 (UTC) Alex

The only religious persecution I see is towards non-Christians or Unitarians. But then again we have KKK or Neo-Nazi members who will kill those who do not agree with their version of Christianity (Yes I know they kill mostly because of race but it is just an example)--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 23:43, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

[view] [edit]

Question: How do I make a fun/essay page?

So I've been on this site for a couple years now, but only recently became directly involved. I would like to make an article in either Fun or Essay space (whichever is appropriate) to share a "9/11 Drinking Game" for use when listening to Truthers. Do I need to ask an admin's permission, or is there a way to create one myself? Also, would the drinking game be Fun or Essay? Blitz (Complaints Box) 18:59, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Jet Fuel can't melt Steel beers. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:03, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Good one! Blitz (Complaints Box) 19:13, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Would it be of use to mock Truthers online? Maybe like a buzz word bingo? That would be great.Huttoldboys (talk) 04:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Entirely possible. But are you able to answer my questions? Blitz (Complaints Box) 08:09, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Probably for funspace, particularly since it sounds like something that would attract collaborators - David Gerard (talk) 08:14, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Awesome. Now, how do I make a funspace article? Blitz (Complaints Box) 10:46, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Same way as any other page, except you put "Fun:" at the start. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 11:48, 20 August 42015 AQD (UTC)

Okay, here it is. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fun:The_9/11_Truth_Drinking_Game Blitz (Complaints Box) 18:02, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

[view] [edit]

"Targeted Individuals"

Does anyone know of in-depth, skeptical analysis of the "Targeted Individuals" audience cult? TIs comprise an international sociological phenomenon of those who are convinced they are being remotely tortured by microwave devices and high energy radio waves, gangstalked, surveilled, hearing voices planted in their heads, subjected to mind control, and even driven to suicide -- all by governments at the federal and local level. A reasonably good but overly sympathetic piece appeared in the Washington Postsome years ago, but I'm looking for something more skeptical yet sober (more scholarly than snarky).

I'd do an article on this but really need more sources. There isn't an entry here on TIs.-Mona- (talk) 00:21, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Dunno, but I'd say it sounds like they suffer from a combination of persecution complex and pain.
Feel free to add it to our to do list! Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 06:55, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, and I did try just now. I'm just not that familiar w/ the wiki software. Clicked the "new article" box on To Do page and was told the article is locked and can't be edited. There's shit I can do here and I want to, but I may be inhibited by my wretched understanding of tech and software issues. -Mona- (talk) 16:47, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
I first heard about this in the eighties, via a much-photocopied semi-readable pamphlet. There was a lot of attempted correlation of supposed incidences of electronic mindreading/thought-implantation in Canada, Sweden and Finland. It's also worth bearing in mind that such a belief, if accompanied by other symptoms, is one symptom of paranoid schizophrenia (although not in all cases of the illness). I read an article once that this conspiracy theory makes it harder for doctors to treat schizophrenia - sufferers can point to evidence of it "happening" to other people. This website might help.BicyclewheelModerator 18:55, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, yes, I've seen numerous web sites such as that one -- the Intertoobz are suffused with them. While it is the case that some of these "Targeted Individuals" are schizophrenic, probably not the majority of them are. They are like people throughout human history who have believed, e.g., that demons were in their heads, attacking them, causing them pain, messing with their naughty bits & etc. In the last few decades the same sensations have been parsed thru a lens of alien abductions. With the rise of fear of the NSA and knowledge of the CIA's MKUltra, this TI thing has really taken off. It's a movement of (mostly, but not all) otherwise normally functioning people experiencing weirdness and attributing it to the scary phenomenon of the day.-Mona- (talk) 22:40, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
[view] [edit]

Transgender neuroscience bunk removal

greetings all. i am a trans woman pursuing medical transition, so please do not assume my having bad faith here

i have noticed that these two studies are being used to prop up paragraphs on the Transsexualism and Gender dysphoria pages

let us note that the first has a sample size of 19, while the latter says it sampled "42 brains of patients were analyzed (for an overview see Table 1). The brains of 34 reference subjects (9 presumed heterosexual males, 9 homosexual males, 10 presumed heterosexual females, and 6 male-to-female transsexuals) ranging from 20–53 yr of age, together with six brains (three males and three females) of patients with sex hormone disorders were obtained at autopsy"

i do not believe 19 is a valid sample size, nor do i believe the small sizes of the hodge-podge mix in the second study indicate anything remotely close to scientific rigor

i suggest that we stop promulgating this nonsense, as there is good work being shown in Delusions of GenderWikipedia's W.svg that there is no scientific basis for any difference whatsoever in cis women and men's brains, which would seem to need to be a well defined result before we can even make the claim that trans women have cis women's brains in a cis man's body (seriously people)

autie girl (talk) 05:01, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

You need to sign your comments. Four tildes like ~~~~. Not rocket science! LlamaPastor31 Tomatoes are not for fruit salads 04:50, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
thanks, i had not found out how to do that yet autie girl (talk) 04:56, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Also I gave you autopatrolled, so those annoying red exclamation marks won't appear near your edits in Recent Changes. I'm a sysop here. LlamaPastor31 Tomatoes are not for fruit salads 04:56, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
So when you say there is no evidence for the difference between male and female brains I think what you mean to say is that the evidence is poor or flawed correct? Is this an opinion based solely on reading The Gender Delusion and your persnal experiences, or is there some sort of scientific basis for this? Tielec01 (talk) 07:37, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
i will certainly own that i come into this with my own motivations. as an autistic person and a trans women, i have found myself running up against the exact same kinds of frustrating world views that Fine tackles in her book. however, i think it is a little unfortunate to dismiss her work as unscientific. you can find a great deal of journal articles of hers here, although regrettably they appear to be behind paywalls (i'm a computer scientist and continually astonished that people pay for papers, as that is outmoded in my field). even the book itself, though it is a work of popular-science for sure, is chock full of in depth research (she took two years to write the thing) that draws on a bunch of great meta-analysis. i am going to bed for the night, but tomorrow will try to track down some non-pay-walled studies. if you just want a quick look, there is this video that at least tears apart specific research, although i acknowledge it takes more than just a few bad apples as it were autie girl (talk) 08:15, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

More studies[edit]

  1. White matter microstructure in female to male transsexuals before cross-sex hormonal treatment. A diffusion tensor imaging study
  2. The microstructure of white matter in male to female transsexuals before cross-sex hormonal treatment. A DTI study.
  3. A sex difference in the human brain and its relation to transsexuality.

There are differences in brain structure between the genders (even if minor). These differences can be detected. Trans* people tend to have brains that are more towards their identified gender than their assigned gender. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 17:00, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

[view] [edit]

Suggestion I have for articles on schools

Knowing we already have articles on Young Earth Creationist/Biblical Literalistic colleges and universities, here is an idea I have- create articles on colleges that teach alternative medicine. There are several and we already have one on Bastyr University and I came across one called "Maharishi University of Management", they teach plenty of pseudoscience. I know there are others but I figured I would put that out there.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 19:32, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Yes you did. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 19:53, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Sounds like an idea you have already proposed but was hoping someone else would do... -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 19:55, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
[view] [edit]

The Men's Rights Movement page is biased, prejudice, and fallacious

I recently discovered this website and was reveling in the rational discussion on various fallacies and other things, but that was until I went to the page on the Men's Rights Movement (MRA). This pages level of prejudice and biased information was absolutely absurd for a self proclaimed rational website.

At first glance of the page we can see an image of a women who is being prioritized above several men with the tag on the bottom "If you draw a picture, it must be true." This sarcastic and snarky comment that contributes nothing to an actual discussion. Would someone comment on Rosie the Riveter with "it's on a poster so they be able to actually do it"?

The entire article is riddled with snarky and sarcastic comments which present a biased and prejudice opinion of MRAs. Such comments like "So apparently idiocy is a long running problem" or "Look familiar? Poor oppressed man, forced to do women's work!" These snarky asides provide nothing to the spread of information on MRA or discussion on the validity of MRAs and all they serve is the purpose of belittling and demeaning the ideas of MRAs.

Then we come across the various claims page which is riddled with bad comparisons, fallacies, and biased statements with absolutely no respect towards the ideology of the MRAs (eg. Complete Crap). This section has about a few sentances for the positions of MRAs and then paragraphs upon paragraphs for the argument of the feminists. Also a few of the comments on the legitimacy portion agree with points made by the MRA and yet there is an asumption that there opinions are wrong from the start (eg. "position" is real, this is sort of true, some of which are legitimate issues where men are actually discriminated against and the entire part is called LEGITIMACY for fucks sake) Also in all of the comments on MRA supposedly believe only have links to one or two blog posts and the various claims section claims that these are the positions that all MRAs hold.

The next secection starts out with the claim that "men's rights" is usually currently used as a cover for sexism which is blatantly prejudice and biased. Another prejudice and irrational claim in the next paragraph with "their activity seems to be mostly limited to whining about the "feminazis" or "femtards" on the internet." The next parapgrpah directly compares MGTOW members to sexists. Then it goes off topic and begins cracking jokes at MGTOW members with comments like "Sex bot obsession! Liberation will soon be at hand as the sex bot nears perfection" "Of course, the irony meter is again through the roof here." is another quick aside to belittle and demean a point without actually providing any evidence or counterclaim. More biased and prejudice jokes come at the expense of MRAs with the absurd claim that is made for comedic value on a rationalist website in "If you don't eat beef jerky for every meal, idolize Chuck Norris, and tell your bitch to make you a damn sandwich, you're probably a mangina and responsible for the ongoing "feminization" of our society."

Also the inclusion of a section on Elliot Rodger is also ludicrous; the actual page doesnt even relate Elliot to MRA activity except for it saying that MRAs became defensive. I see no reason for it to be on this page other than the fact that it is indirectly associating the murder of women to MRAs.

I recently discovered this website and I was happy to find another great website for sharing intellectual and rational thought, but I am disgusted by the lack of respect for the MRA position and the use of snarky asides to belittle and demean MRAs. — Unsigned, by: Spacerocket / talk / contribs

I know I'm just pinning down one thing to reply to, and ignoring the broader text here, but almost every rationalwiki article has snarky asides and jokes. Not just ones where you happen to agree with the crazies. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:07, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree the article is biased and that the snark is evidence of this bias. I don't see that anything you point to as actually being fallacious or prejudiced. --SpecialFFrog (talk) 16:13, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Greetings Spacerocket! Welcome to RationalWiki. Perhaps a relevant tidbit for you to know: we don't espouse a neutral point of view here, but a snarky point of view! Also, it seems you haven't been confronted with the anti-feminist bullshit loudly proclaimed by many self-identified MRAs on the internet. If this is indeed the case, congratulations! 141.134.75.236 (talk) 16:13, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
I had the same thought at first when I read that page, it seems rather irrational to immediately equate MRA to being automatically sexist. I think that there are indeed a few points that the movement makes that are at least worth exploring. Now, saying that men should be able to force a woman to have an abortion" is clearly stupid irrational, but the child custody and divorce parts raise good points. QuantumDude (talk) 02:26, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
There are many valid points that could be addressed by a men's rights movement, and not all of their talking points are obvious nonsense. But it's another echo chamber where believers talk mostly to believers, and the result is a built in ratchet towards extremism and cant. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 04:43, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Image[edit]

"At first glance of the page we can see an image of a women who is being prioritized above several men with the tag on the bottom "If you draw a picture, it must be true." This sarcastic and snarky comment that contributes nothing to an actual discussion. Would someone comment on Rosie the Riveter with "it's on a poster so they be able to actually do it"?"

Both are propaganda; neither is "true". However, it's more accurate to say that "women were part of the building effort during WWII" (riveter) than "1 woman in "sexy", expensive clothes outweighs 5 men in cheaper, work clothing" (the mra picture). Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 16:14, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
The image is about how one rich person can outweigh five poor people. *nodnods* Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyarnyar~) 23:52, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Snark[edit]

"The entire article is riddled with snarky and sarcastic comments which present a biased and prejudice opinion of MRAs. Such comments like "So apparently idiocy is a long running problem" or "Look familiar? Poor oppressed man, forced to do women's work!" These snarky asides provide nothing to the spread of information on MRA or discussion on the validity of MRAs and all they serve is the purpose of belittling and demeaning the ideas of MRAs."

As Ikanreed noted, every article is snarky; if you feel it's excessive here, edit the article and reduce the amount of snark. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 16:14, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Claims[edit]

"Then we come across the various claims page which is riddled with bad comparisons, fallacies, and biased statements with absolutely no respect towards the ideology of the MRAs (eg. Complete Crap). This section has about a few sentances for the positions of MRAs and then paragraphs upon paragraphs for the argument of the feminists. Also a few of the comments on the legitimacy portion agree with points made by the MRA and yet there is an asumption that there opinions are wrong from the start (eg. "position" is real, this is sort of true, some of which are legitimate issues where men are actually discriminated against and the entire part is called LEGITIMACY for fucks sake) Also in all of the comments on MRA supposedly believe only have links to one or two blog posts and the various claims section claims that these are the positions that all MRAs hold."

On "respect", see snark section.
On other issues. (Go to Talk:Men's rights movement and make a post that (1) quotes specific parts of the article and (2) raises objections to what is said. Regardless of the validity of your criticism, it's too vague to act on. FuzzyCatPotato™ (talk/stalk) 16:17, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Sexism[edit]

"The next secection starts out with the claim that "men's rights" is usually currently used as a cover for sexism which is blatantly prejudice and biased. Another prejudice and irrational claim in the next paragraph with "their activity seems to be mostly limited to whining about the "feminazis" or "femtards" on the internet." The next parapgrpah directly compares MGTOW members to sexists. Then it goes off topic and begins cracking jokes at MGTOW members with comments like "Sex bot obsession! Liberation will soon be at hand as the sex bot nears perfection" "Of course, the irony meter is again through the roof here." is another quick aside to belittle and demean a point without actually providing any evidence or counterclaim. More biased and prejudice jokes come at the expense of MRAs with the absurd claim that is made for comedic value on a rationalist website in "If you don't eat beef jerky for every meal, idolize Chuck Norris, and tell your bitch to make you a damn sandwich, you're probably a mangina and responsible for the ongoing "feminization" of our society.""

On "jokes", see snark section.
If you disagree with the idea that the MRM is often sexist, then argue so on Talk:Men's rights movement. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 16:21, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Elliot Rodger[edit]

"Also the inclusion of a section on Elliot Rodger is also ludicrous; the actual page doesnt even relate Elliot to MRA activity except for it saying that MRAs became defensive. I see no reason for it to be on this page other than the fact that it is indirectly associating the murder of women to MRAs."

Elliot Rodger was a MRA. He killed several people, and it appears likely that his ideology helped lead him towards violence. It's relevant. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 16:21, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
His manifesto was loaded with MRA jargon and he spent his time on MRA forums. MRAs disclaiming Rodger are not credible - David Gerard (talk) 23:00, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
[view] [edit]

Child Labor

Spotted it in the archive of suggested pages and thought it might be a nice little project for my first article. I'd like to encompass use of children in the workforce in developing countries as well as their use as soldiers (which might constitute a page of its own?). I'm having trouble relating it to RW's mission statement, if there are relations to be made. What do you guys think? Could this be a good article if the right connections are made? Crispy (talk) 16:11, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Once upon a time, conservatives said that outlawing child labor would destroy the economy. As you can see, they're absolutely correct. Missional. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 16:18, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Conservative positions of today are the revolutionary positions of yesterday.--Arisboch (talk) 18:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
I'll do more research. Any other input? Crispy (talk) 17:01, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
I would probably add something about US and other countries development of child labor laws, the exceptions that applied (school attendance during planting and harvest weeks) and the general links to education and family survival. i.e schooling may not be available to very poor people and if the child does not raise some money (or food) they family does not meet their living costs. I suppose thats general economics. Hamster (talk) 17:39, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
you could touch on jobs now in small demand that kids were good for. How do you clean a chimney if you cant have a kid climb through it with a dust rag ? or a/c ducts, sewer lines or mining. Hamster (talk) 17:44, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
All of that was on the list of things I wanted to touch on. You can see progress at my sandbox if you like, but I'm not working on it at this moment.Crispy (talk) 17:48, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
It depends on the present value of a human life doing X or Y. As humans live longer, any 'investment' via education is going to be worth more. But in the olden days when people would be lucky to make it to adulthood, education usually wasn't worth the cost, so you got more bang for the buck putting the kids to work immediately. You also have to check your "developed country privilege". The past is a foreign country, one without adequate birth control or even the most rudimentary of public health initiatives. People were literally retarded there, due to things like hookworm and iodine defficiency and measles. The masses simply couldn't do the work we do today. The reason the third world is full of sweatshops and not air-conditioned union-run auto plants is because the average third worlder isn't capable of doing the complex labor required in a modern factory. If you were to have vaccination programs and fortify the food, yeah they probably could, but not before then. And in order to do that, the countries need some form of industrial base to work with, and some form of control so that corruption doesn't undermine the initiatives. Same with the past. And that's not getting into overpopulation in the past. CorruptUser (talk) 18:17, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
in the modern factories I used to work in you could train a monkey to do the work. How do you deal with child labour in developing countries how does one deal with families and children in abject poverty who would simply starve without child labour? AMassiveGay (talk) 22:55, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
I think there is a useful distinction to be made between "child labour that has historically been part of locally-oriented economies" and "child labour that is part and parcel of the extraction of wealth from the so-called 'developing world' for the benefit of corporations in the West." A kid working her family's rice farm and a kid sewing t-shirts for JC Penney in the Philippines are both "child labour," but they're not caught in the same situation, and would therefore not benefit from similar interventions. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 23:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
[view] [edit]

Science programs at YEC page

I got a start on another college that I found that supports YEC but I can not finish it at this point.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 16:17, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

[view] [edit]

Article Suggestion

I seen a few times about a Supreme Court Case Wilk vs. AMA and it pertains to Chiropractors, maybe we should do an article about the American Medical Associations versus Chiropractors. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 22:19, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Possibly. By the by, here's where article suggestions usually go. ;) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:24, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
You know this site far to well to still be a BON. You should register an account. Samstr (talk) 21:33, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I could spear head that project, might take some time.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 19:27, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Got a start on it but I know there is a lot to be done.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 19:47, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

[view] [edit]

How about doing an article on "Naturopathic Medicine"?

I figured it would be a good idea because there is a lot of pseudoscience behind it and many naturopathic "physicians" use Homeopathic treatments and maybe mention Cancer Centers of America because they also have Naturopathic Physicians on staff there. Any thoughts on the idea? Because there would be a lot to work with.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 15:09, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

This is different from Naturopathy? I think all you want is a redirect. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:22, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


Sorry, I forgot about that article, never mind on the idea. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 15:30, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


Well I did add schools that teach naturopathic medicine to the page.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 15:39, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

[view] [edit]

I have an idea for a new article

Knowing there are Young Earth Creationist colleges that teach Biology, Chemistry and Physics (Including Biophysics) I figured an analysis page could be made about their science programs. In it also compare their science programs with secular colleges and universities. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 20:37, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

That needs some serious boots-on-the-ground work to track down syllabuses, course requirements, reading materials, and the like. I can't imagine a substantive article without quite a bit of original research. This isn't wikipedia so original research would be okay, but it's still a lot of work. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:39, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I will add some links to college websites so research can be done-

I have to go, I am using a library computer, I will add more links when I can.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 21:02, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Harvard? Really? Michigan State and Uni of Michigan are also respected traditional universities; I can't find anything to associate them with a YEC approach to science. WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:08, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
^. I suggest you go to Category:Fundie schools and find into about those; your research might also fit better at Fundie school than on its own article. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 22:24, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

That would be a better idea than my original idea, also I was talking about a side by side comparison between good schools and YEC schools. I was not talking about associating good schools with terrible schools.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 15:02, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

This sounds like a lot of work, but would be a lot of useful work. Go for it - David Gerard (talk) 18:06, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I will get a start on it, I am going to call it "Analysis of Science Degrees at Young Earth Creationist colleges". If anyone has better names then just reply.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 15:23, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I will finish the BJU science section tomorrow and then add an analysis section to it. In the article I added course requirements and descriptions from the website. Talk about mind numbing. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 18:28, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

[view] [edit]

The X-Files

Thinking of creating a page on The X-Files. It's a TV show that I'm really conflicted about — on one hand, it's a classic science fiction program that had some great characters and writing (at least until the last couple of seasons) and a huge impact on sci-fi television, but on the other hand, it likely created a lot of conspiracy theorists (especially ufologists) among those who grew up in the '90s, and a case could be made that it was promoting such material. The latter, I think, makes it a good fit for the site's mission, much like the various pages we have on shows like Ancient Aliens.

I've currently got a just-about-complete workspace version of the article here. I talk about how Richard Dawkins and Carl Sagan both disliked the show, while at the same time, one of its own stars was a member of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry in real life, and dismissed any notion that it was promoting woo. I also talk about the Lone Gunmen spinoff and how its pilot episode became unbelievable fodder for 9/11 Truthers. Anything else you think I should add on it? KevinR1990 (talk) 01:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it was promoting such material (it is, after all, science fiction), but you could certainly go into details and draw lines between the show and the conspiracy theorists who bought into it as fact. John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 08:46, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
I think I could talk about that when I discuss what William B. Davis thought of the show. Overall, I describe it as something of a mixed bag on that front — on one hand, it was very much part of the conspiracy-theory zeitgeist of its time, but on the other, like you said, it's a fictional program that, outside its own universe, isn't trying to actually say that aliens are abducting people and cutting deals with shadowy conspiracies. KevinR1990 (talk) 15:13, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
I think that an X-Files article could be useful and on-mission by pointing out where the series help codify and/or popularise particular versions of UFOlogy, such as grey aliens (as opposed to the "little green men" of yesteryear or Spielberg's E.T.) or a specific take on alien abduction or cattle mutilation lore and how X-Files tied it all into a greater story-arch of conspiracy and secret government stuff. I wouldn't be surprised if a comparison of pre- and post-X-Files UFOlogy yielded clear signs that the series' take on these issues became "UFOlogy orthodoxy". Btw, Dark SkiesWikipedia's W.svg seems to be from a pretty similar mold, but not as influential as X-Files (though Dark Skies tied aliens more directly to the Kennedy assassination, than I think was the case in X-Files. DS also put a special emphasis on Majestic 12). ScepticWombat (talk) 16:02, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Go for it (if you'll pardon the eighties-ism). We have a Star Trek article, and TXF is as missional as that for the reasons cited above. Dark Skies is more problematic, though. While obviously tying itself to the conspiracy mast, it never took off in the same way the TXF did; it's a footnote, really. BicyclewheelModerator 18:57, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I wasn't appealing for a Dark Skies article. It was more something that sprung to mind in the context of popular culture influence on conspiracy theories (and vice versa). I don't know how widespread the Majestic 12 and Kennedy assassination stuff is among UFOlogists anyway or whether Dark Skies made a difference (I doubt it). ScepticWombat (talk) 19:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

95% of UFOlogy is regurgitated pop culture[edit]

Alien abduction reports have increased substantially in the face of any popular movies that feature abduction scenes, and the experiences of the abductees tends to mirror the events in the movies. Close encounters of the third kind was particularly influential.

Singling out X-Files because The X-Files was based on the same conspiracies it fictionalized is kinda silly. Sleep paralysis used to be attributed to completely different myths a century ago. People have always been crazy. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Sure, it was based on them, but it also popularised them from the province of a tiny number of cranks to almost a mass movement, with newspaper articles and TV programmes about conspiracies and aliens. Also, saying "let's not write about people being wrong" would end RationalWiki, wouldn't it? BicyclewheelModerator 19:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
I think that the point of having an X-Files article is actually strengthened by highlighting such examples as the changing pop cultural attribution of sleep paralysis. It shows how a work of fiction can if not create then at least spread and popularise particular myths and conspiracy theories and do so inadvertently (I doubt the X-Files meant for or expected this to be taken seriously). It illustrates a kind of interdependent relationship between pop culture and conspiracy theory. ScepticWombat (talk) 19:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
That's pretty much my view right there. The X-Files certainly didn't invent the conspiracy theories it mined for story material — without them, there wouldn't have been a show. And like ikanreed said, the vast majority of ufology is, itself, taken from pop culture depictions of aliens, going back all the way back to how Betty and Barney Hill's "gray aliens" looked suspiciously like the alien from a then-recent episode of The Outer Limits. Nor do I even think that it was intended to popularize or otherwise promote those theories. Most likely, someone looked at that material and thought a cool, scary story could be made out of it. What it did do, however, was act as a "gateway drug" for a lot of credulous people who might not have heard of a lot of that stuff before the show premiered. To this day, it's pretty much the granddaddy of any TV show that's even remotely about aliens, conspiracies, or both (and which isn't set in the future), and if you look at, say, David Icke's stuff about shape-shifting aliens ruling the world (which he didn't really codify until 1999), some of its "mytharc" did in fact trickle back into the conspiracy subculture. KevinR1990 (talk) 00:32, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I think it's clear if one takes the time to seriously watch and analyze the show, the conspiracy theory surrounding aliens, the cover up, experiments, manipulating human genetics, aliens conquering earth with the help of a small human elite, etc.......It becomes clear if one looks at the show that what they're talking about is really the lack of trust in our leaders and politicians, an out of control shadow government/military industrial complex, a self-conscious elite who believes it is their right, nay, their duty to lie to the people and spread disinformation, the devastating consequences of war and genocide, an authoritarian militarized ruling class who believe in the corrective use of violence and silencing of potentially dangerous opinions.
These are all issues that matter to rationalwikians. Davis is quite right when he says that the show is not anti-science. Both agents use scientific methods to try and explain the origins for their unknown findings. It is the government which is anti-science as it attempts to suppress information of a scientific nature which would threaten their power and change the world. I can understand Dawkins going after Touched By An Angel, but X-files? And to campaign against it? Like the Pope and radical Islam? And as Davis rightly said, Dawkins presented absolutely no evidence that the show caused people to think uncritically. So basically, he behaved exactly as many religious apologists have behaved towards Harris, Dawkins, Dennett, etc. One would think that given Davis' commitment to skepticism, and the fact that the show does encourage critical thinking about the possibilities of science or to question unaccountable authority, Dawkins might revise his position. Burkean (talk) 03:16, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
William B. Davis had a number of interesting thoughts about the show. Including the not completely unfounded argument that the cancer man was actually the good guy; but at least we wouldn't be dead. Sure the human race would be turned into slaves, or whatever the hell the whole thing was about. (I lost track after around the second season). Also for whatever reason Alex Krycek is my sisters favorite character in all of fiction. Samstr (talk) 04:43, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't want to get into the entire story with you but suffice to say that all of life on this planet has been their experiment and the fusing of alien with "human" DNA (the replacement of the human race rather than enslavement) is the culmination of the project. The experiment, more or less, is coming to an end. Needless the say the activities of the US government, the whole cold war itself, is just a small piece of that puzzle. Needless to say, this slow and deliberate plan works better for them than just obliterating earth. I think the whole point of what you're talking about with cancer man is to show that it's the same old hoary line that we've heard from those who abuse power (I did it for the greater good). There is a certain element of truth to it. But needless to say, if it was about trying to placate the aliens or play for time, cancer man could've gone a different way by now. I think jeremiah smith would be a much better example of the true hero in the show. He too wants to keep things on the down low and maintain a low profile, but only to make sure that he might continue to help people and to undermine the syndicate's project. Burkean (talk) 19:33, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Pop-culture osmosis?[edit]

This topic actually stumbled onto a unique question. Why is it that people only start seeing, feeling, having some kind of evidence (like a chunk of metal in there leg that they don't remember or having unknown material),of getting abducted only AFTER seeing/reading/hearing something very similar form a media? For example they didn't talk about grey humanoids until after HG Wells "The Man of the Year Million"? It almost as if human sight alters what is actually happening.

It due, at least in part, to bias and hallucinations, but it doesn't explain everything, as in WHY & HOW otherwise normal humans would all of a sudden have hallucinations of what they saw in media.--Steampeng MK.1 (talk) 23:14, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

With a new season about to begin...[edit]

I still have the workspace version of the article saved, and given that they're about to relaunch the show in January, I was considering moving the article to main. It's definitely become more relevant and on-mission than it's been at any point in the last fifteen years. Any suggestions for last-minute changes? KevinR1990 (talk) 16:06, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Would it be too much to ask that the Cigarette Smoking Man redirect to all the things he did in the "Musings of a Cigarette Smoking Man?" (I kid, I kid.) I don't see anything wrong with the article. In fact, I think it summarizes everything without going into outrageous detail. The only other thing you could do is add a section that includes a list of everything mentioned in the series. Yeah, I know you mention it all in the body of the article, but a list would be nice just to show readers how much BS went into the series. jrussellwrites (talk) 06:00, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Yep, do it. BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 11:16, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
[view] [edit]

I want to add an article suggestion...

The text in the edit section for new suggestions is a big block and I can't find where to edit it.

Suggestion is the website "Egomoral"; to give you the rundown its a pedophile website recent featured on FSTDT in several disgusting comments such as this gem:

"Age of consent laws conflict with biology, history and principles of equal rights. The age of consent laws in modern society revolve around cultural taboos, illogical maternal instincts among women voters suffering from Child-Bride-Denial. I say this because the reasoning for age of consent laws is to protect children from being manipulated into having sex with adults since feminism views children as overly emotional and easily swayed. The irony is that men used to use this exact excuse to deny women their right to vote…"- webwub

— Unsigned, by: Akiyama Yuu / talk / contribs 00:57, 17 March 2015‎

perhaps start a section in Pedophilia to start with ? Hamster (talk) 20:32, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
[view] [edit]

Statelessness

There's a few hints here and there on RW on libertarian related pages about statelessness and how awesome it would be, and I was wondering if a page about how shitty statelessness is would fit with the mission of RW. In all honesty, I'm not sure how much cranky woo there is out there on this - my interest stems from studying statelessness in a legal context, specifically the UK government removing people's citizenship and making them stateless. But I'm sure I've heard plenty of libertarian and other woomeisters go on about how awesome being stateless is, which anyone with 2 minutes of research under their belt can tell you is a pile of bollocks. If there's support for a page on this, I'm happy to make a start on it, but I'm concerned that it doesn't really fit in RW. Thoughts? Pascal yuiop (talk) 13:20, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea. We touch on it at Somalia, but I think that's about it. Why not also add an entry at RationalWiki:To do list/Suggestions]? Cømrade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 13:51, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Isn't that considered a human rights violation? Landmartian (talk) 14:20, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Nope - the key word is "arbitrarily". The UK government is permitted to remove your British nationality if the Home Secretary considers that doing so would be "conducive to the public good". Yeah. Previously, this could only be done if you had another nationality to fall back on and wouldn't be left stateless, but the Immigration Act 2014 added another section that permits statelessness 1) if the person has conducted themselves in a manner seriously prejudicial to vital UK interests and 2) they are able to acquire another nationality. 1) is just as dodgy a test as the existing one, and in practice, no 2 is never going to be satisfied. Anyway, legal rant over. The UK government can deprive people of their citizenship, many other countries do too. But statelessness is pretty shit. Anyway, what was I talking about? Pascal yuiop (talk) 15:35, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Sounds interesting. Where would a stateless person be deported to? Antarctica? nobsI was in Bagdad when u wer in dadsbag. 19:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
They don't seem to have considered that. The usual tactic is to wait until the person leaves the country (for a holiday or whatever) and then remove their citizenship so they can't come back in. Fine if they have another nationality like in the past, but if you've made them stateless, the host country isn't obliged to accept them like second hand clothes. They would get sent back here. And if they're in this country (which is a minority, but still a problem) then you're right, there is literally nowhere to send them. Even if they originally came from, say, India, India would have no obligation to admit a stateless person into the country so they can attempt to gain nationality. Further, what countries are going to be keen on accepting a person who the UK has stripped of their citizenship on the grounds that they are involved in terrorism, which is usually the allegation? The only country that would let them in is a country where we wouldn't want them to be. Pascal yuiop (talk) 20:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
What I don't get is why unwanted people get deported to the country they were trying to get away from. They're obviously gonna try to get away from it again. Why even waste airplane fuel on that? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:20, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
the host country isn't obliged to accept them ...They would get sent back here.
Easier said then done. If the UK denies them citizenship, they have no right to return. And I'm not certain the host country can force them to take somebody back. nobsI was in Bagdad when u wer in dadsbag. 22:21, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
The host country allowed their entry on the basis of their British passport and they therefore have the right to deport him back to the country that issued that passport i.e. Britain. Fairly uncontroversial, but overlooked by the politicians. EDIT - I should say, this relates to when a person is in another country when their British citizenship is removed. If they are in the UK at the time, then you would be unable to deport them to another country because a) now they have no passport and b) no other country is obliged to allow the entry of stateless people, or anyone for that matter that isn't one of their nationals. Pascal yuiop (talk) 22:45, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Ir's not like a person's without choices, a person could convert to Islam and move to the Islamic State; I think this may be true for converts to Judaism and Zionism as well, but I'm not sure. nobsI was in Bagdad when u wer in dadsbag. 01:58, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
1) Forced conversion? In this day and age? Also, IS is not a country under international law and therefore you can't deport someone there. Also, it's a SUPER good idea to send someone we think is heavily involved in terrorism TO the mardi gras of terrorism [/sarcasm]. 2) Israel's policy isn't just "be jewish and we'll let you in". Their law states that they can refuse entry even to Jews if the person (1) is engaged in an activity directed against the Jewish people; or (2) is likely to endanger public health or the security of the State. All UK deprivations have been on the basis of national security, so how likely is it that Israel will agree to let the person in? And anyway, what if the person has zero connection to Israel and has no desire to settle there? Even then, you wouldn't acquire citizenship immediately on arriving in Israel, you would still have to apply and Israel could still turn you down - the vast majority of countries have a "good character" requirement for gaining citizenship. Pascal yuiop (talk) 08:18, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
On an even darker side of things, the Dominican government left around a million people stateless when it ruled that Dominican children borne of Haitian parents are not Dominican citizens based on an obscure interpretation of an even more obscure law from 1920 still on the books. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg Burning this game would be an insult to fire. 20:10, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, obviously the main thrust of the article would be statelessness in general. First move by dictators to persecute a minority is usually to take away their nationality - Hitler and the Jews, obvious example. Also lots of people get left stateless because children don't get registered or the system is shoddy and migrants fall through the gaps or even just that countries break up (like Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia) and the nationality issues aren't sorted out properly and people get left stateless. Loads of angles to look at, and its pretty horrible being stateless. Hannah Arendt famously described nationality as "the right to have rights". Pascal yuiop (talk) 20:13, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Guantanamo is relevant. Many (most?) detainees are stateless, either legally or de facto. They can't be convicted (lack of evidence in most cases), released (not US citizens or legal immigrants) or deported (their home countries won't allow them back), so they're just held indefinitely. WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Statelessness "and how great" it would be? Tell that to this guyWikipedia's W.svg. Alsto003 (talk) 20:55, 1 March 2015 (UTC) Alex

Be careful not to conflate different concepts of statelessness. When libertarians (or anarchists) talk about "statelessness and how awesome it would be", they're talking about the ideal of a stateless world: a utopia where there's no government, no taxes, no laws, no borders, etc. Whether or not that's practical or desirable is another question, but it's a completely different kettle of fish from the experience of individuals who are left stateless in a world where governments, laws, borders and citizenship are a big deal. WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:35, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Years ago I read a memoir by an American guy who fled to Canada to avoid the Vietnam draft, and then, with the wisdom of an 18-year-old, renounced his US citizenship to protest the war before thinking about how Canada won't just bestow citizenship on an undocumented migrant. So even after Carter's amnesty, it was years before he could go home; he missed his mother's funeral and other key life events because he was stateless and could not cross the border. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 20:40, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps the oddest story I've heard is that of David Hicks. He was an Australian who found himself in Gitmo and he noticed that British citizens had a much better chance of being released than others, and lo and behold he was able to claim British citizenship via his mother. There was a big stink in the UK about this, but in the end the government agreed that he was legally entitled to british citizenship. One day, David received two letters - the first congratulated him on acquiring British citizenship and the second saying that he had been deprived of his citizenship. Pretty dark really. Pascal yuiop (talk) 21:09, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Since it's about two things, it should probably be written about in two places. First in Statelessness, when governments remove citizens' rights to make oppression easier. Second in Statism, to talk about why statism is at least better than the alternative. FuzzyDogPotato (talk/stalk) 00:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. I would only feel comfortable working on the former, as it is what I've studied, and leave the libertarian stuff to someone else. Pascal yuiop (talk) 08:18, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
[view] [edit]

Rent-a-friend2000/creationsoapbox: Should we make an article?

So I recently found these two Wordpress blogs about Young Earth Creationism run by the same person: Rent-A-Friend 2000 and Creation Soapbox. They're full of the Young Earth arguments you've heard dozens of times, a lot of which you've seen in places like this. Here are the two blogs: http://creationsoapbox.wordpress.com/ http://rentafriend2000.wordpress.com/ Should we create an article (Or at least put it on the "To do list")?

That depends. Do you see them being referenced anywhere else on the internet? There are more creationists than we could ever document, and particular blogs only need to be addressed if they're kinda important in some way or another. Ikanreed (talk) 21:50, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, both are active on twitter but less than 100 followers between them despite a two year presence. I'd say for bloggers this make them irrelevant. Marlow (talk) 22:15, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't see enough there for an article, but you could add them to the webshite list. --Castaigne (talk) 18:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
[view] [edit]

American Service-Members' Protection Act?

Was thinking of making an article about it. It's pretty batshit crazy, does it belong on RW? Pascal yuiop (talk) 19:40, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Care to share the cliffnotes to us? Zero (talk - contributions) 13:19, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
There's nothing "batshit crazy" about it. The US is an unratified signatory to the Rome Convention. So far as I'm aware, it does not recognize the jurisdiction of the ICC or any other court of universal jurisdiction. US solders might be subject to personal and territorial jurisdiction by engaging in prohibited acts within the territory of a signatory nation, so it's not outside the bounds of reason that the US would do something to "protect" service members. The question is whether federal statutory obstruction of what some reckon ought to be international law with this all-or-kicking-and-screaming-less-than-nothing-and-we-might-even-invade-the-Hague approach is extreme, which it is, and evidences an arrogant and heavy handed approach to the United States' role in the UN and world community, which it does. It also represents a marked departure approach from President Clinton's circumspect approach to signing the Rome Statute and then holding off on submitting it to Congress for advice and consent (my understanding is that it's functionally a treaty under Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution — as such, it might also create problems under Article VI, which makes makes treaties the law of the land just as much as federal law). Nutty Roux (talk) 13:44, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
While I think it is indeed arrogant and ridiculous that the U.S. took this approach to the ICC, I do enjoy this particular line in the WP article on the act (emphasis mine): "The Dutch government reacted mildly to this legislation, which entitled the U.S. president to attempt to violate Dutch sovereignty by force without congressional approval." - Grant (talk) 13:59, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Yep. Except in the criminal context, where we're familiar with people getting arrested, property getting seized, etc., people don't usually think about how a sovereign enforces the law. For example, it's sometimes surprising to people to learn that civil courts necessarily enforce their orders by the threat of coercive government power where necessary. That means that they can and will simply send the US Marshall or County Sheriff over to take the person into custody to show cause why he shouldn't be fined or locked up for contempt when he doesn't comply with an order, and seize and sell property to pay judgments when he doesn't do it himself. I think the statute represents an expected level of arrogance from the US; and there's nothing inherently surprising about the reality that the US might have to take military action against a NATO signatory or UN member state in order to enforce it. One morally and legally troubling consequence of enforcing the statute to its fullest extent is that any military action under the circumstances would necessarily entail flagrant violent violations of other treaties to which the US is a signatory. Can you imaging the international outrage over the US sending troops to the Netherlands to recover a soldier being held on charges of even heinous war crimes? And you thought the US squandered its good will in the international community by its totally incompetent (and arrogant to the point of being hateful) handling of Iraq and Afghanistan. Nutty Roux (talk) 14:16, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Indeed. The threat of military or police intervention is largely what keeps states functioning, since I imagine a sizable minority of the population would not bother obeying laws if the state couldn't enforce them. I imagine the Dutch government took the act so mildly in part because, as you say, it's not surprising that the U.S. (or any nation) would take that approach to the act. On the other hand, I feel part of it has to do with the low likelihood of that actually happening in the first place. I wonder what kind of president it would take to risk the kind of international pariah status that would accompany such a move. - Grant (talk) 15:01, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

All fairly reasonable, I suppose. My objection to it, really, is that the US is essentially saying "Don't you even dare try and prosecute a US citizen for genocide or we'll do anything it takes to release him." Which would be fine if the charges were super-trumped up or the guy wasn't gonna get a fair trial, or things like that, but the ICC is not a scary institution that should be getting such a reaction from the US. And the risk of the ICC actually prosecuting an American is incredibly low anyway, admissibility tests at the ICC are pretty strict, and if the US says it is pursuing investigations in good faith, then the ICC investigation is set aside on grounds of "complementarity". As a final point, I think that WP article could do with rewriting/better referencing - This article suggests the reaction wasn't so mild, though I am struggling to find other articles as my Dutch is as good as my grandmothers. Pascal yuiop (talk) 06:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)