RationalWiki's 2018 Fundraiser

There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff — we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.

If everyone seeing this today donates $5, we will meet our goal for 2018.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!

Donations so far: $3383Goal: $5000

RationalWiki:Saloon bar

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Saloon bar
WIGO Bar colour.png

This is a place for general chit-chat about virtually anything that doesn't fit anywhere else.
Guinnesssmiley.gif For previous conversations see the automagic barchives. Laughing.gif Puke.gif

What is going on?

The Bar
(talk) (talk) (talk) (talk) (hic)

To do list
Monday morning dumpster dive

Are pets slaves?[edit]


It's just that reading that kind of got the thought into my head and I cannot seem to shake it, actually it sort of started with me playing pokemon and then I drew the analogy from that to the pets that we own. Are we essentially keeping them against their will?Machina (talk) 03:41, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

What kind of messed up things are you reading? That's a crank site. I don't know. Ok. So you get a dog and you treat it very well. Your dog loves you. Does the dog do want to be with you? Yes because you treat it very well. Children do not get to choose your parents and pets are part of the family. Children are born into this world without their consent. Children are given parents without their consent. A child is at the mercy of their parents. But is that necessary always bad? I argue no. If a child's parents are decent and nice, than that child will not suffer. That child will be very happy. If a dog is very happy with its owner, the dog is not suffering, that dog is happy.
"Happiness" is what I use to qualify whether something is just or not. Do you agree that happiness is a better measure of whether something is ok or not? If you answer "yes", than it would be logical to disregard that crank site.
ClickerClock (talk) 04:07, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
My family adopted a cat our neighbors found outside. He seems very happy here, and they didn't take him, he followed the neighbors home. As long as there is no forced labor, no, pets are not slaves. —ѕυρяємє ℓєα∂єя вιgѕ σf gσαтιѕтαи (ᴡᴏʀᴅs ᴏғ ᴡɪsᴅᴏᴍ/ᴀᴄʜɪᴇᴠᴇᴍᴇɴᴛs) 04:15, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Goodpost.gifClickerClock (talk) 04:23, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Happiness to me is usually a good indicator of something being just. I mean there are pets that run away and come back, and separation anxiety is something that happens in the wild (but we can train dogs to be ok with it). SO would it be safe to ignore anything that comes out of that site?Machina (talk) 04:27, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes it would. Because you value "Happiness" as a moral indicator and that site does not. —ClickerClock (talk) 04:35, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
The assumption that pet birds are in prison is terrible and offensive even. Releasing pet birds from their cages is cruel since you willingly let a dependent exotic bird go on its own. Most of the time, the bird will die. Not only that, that runs the risk that if the environment is right, the people who have released the bird creates a new invasive species that may or may not affect the native population. Either way, releasing birds from their cages is highly disorienting and stressful and most birds who accidentally escape are looking for their cage. Putting their cage out is one of the methods recommended to get them back even... So just from the bird experience I have, it's similar to cat and dog: treat a parrot well and she'll love you and even demand your attention. (talk) 07:55, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Not all times die. No predators (minus cats or rats at best) + Food in abundance = Parakeet invadersWikipedia's W.svg (and not to mention those idiots who release in the wild species as the american minkWikipedia's W.svg, without caring for the consequences for native species as well as their welfare on the wild). 'Nuff said. Panzerfaust (talk) 11:36, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Most of us have known animals which #choose# to interact with us: while are the fish in the pool and similar even aware that we exist?
Are working animals slaves? Anna Livia (talk) 08:40, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
I believe fish in the pool are aware we exist, but they don't care all that much about you unless you condition them to associate your hand with food.
As for working animals, interesting question, perhaps. It seems like unlike a master slave rerelationship, there are more cases where both animals kind of need each other to survive? Though would you consider animals raised for food slaves? And are work animals better off than their wild counterparts? Work animals, say if they are liberated, exactly what should happen to them? They can't exactly go to the wild, they just aren't the same species and the wild is a dangerous place. The analogy just isn't great... --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 08:55, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
There is also a case for 'zoos (and their equivalents - eg these beasts and breeding programs' (including 'less flying etc to see the creatures in the wild, so less pollution').
Whatever the exact relationship(s) it should not be abused by the human participants. Anna Livia (talk) 14:10, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
All domestic animals are better off than their wild counterparts, even if we breed them only to kill and eat them. They are after all also at hazard of being killed and eaten in the wild. They made the same tradeoff that humans made when we took up agriculture: their numbers increased exponentially and their food supply became more reliable. In terms of the Darwinian agenda inherent in life itself, this is a win. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 15:39, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Depends. Some dog races as pugs of those short-nosed cats would have better not exist. As cute as they're, said short nose as well as other more issues give them lots of trouble. (talk) 11:09, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
If I ever have another dog, that dog will definitely be a mutt. Kennel club standards do the breeds no favors, it's true. OTOH, none of those dogs would ever have lived without domestication. How many timber wolves have you seen recently? - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 16:27, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Hot take[edit]

Full sentience (enough to understand and declare self-intentions) is a prerequisite of slavery. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:44, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

What if one were to force someone mentally deficient to forced work? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 23:48, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
@LeftyGreenMario As I pointed out, forced labor by animals is wrong, but otherwise, it is not slavery. —ѕυρяємє ℓєα∂єя вιgѕ σf gσαтιѕтαи (ᴡᴏʀᴅs ᴏғ ᴡɪsᴅᴏᴍ/ᴀᴄʜɪᴇᴠᴇᴍᴇɴᴛs) 23:54, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Why isn't it slavery? Slavery seems to be treating people as property and a source of labor, which oxen, horses, and donkeys do too? I suppose in the case of horses plowing a field, if the horse can't get the job done, then the human can't survive on the land and so both don't benefit. As with slavery... I think slavery is more of a luxury and the power relationship is much more imbalanced? You know, it doesn't help that Aesop fables portray working animals like donkeys as slaves. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 00:05, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
@LeftyGreenMarioMentally deficient isn't necessarily the same as non-sentient. Plenty of people who have many different severe mental disabilities are able to express the kind of life they want to live in a direct and clear way. Those who don't probably aren't actually going to make very useful slaves(just a guess). At some level we do treat people beneath that threshold with similar levels of self-direction as chattel slaves, without the forced labor part being incorporated; nearly every aspect of their lives is controlled by outside forces for their own health and safety. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:24, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
But the other animals seem to be sentient too. At this point, it seems more like again we hold an arbitrary standard for humans. Now I don't think it's a huge problem that we do, but it's logically hard to argue for it. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 18:42, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Well the major issue I have is with the website I got it from. There are other things on there but I don't want to be guilty of confirmation bias/ ad homeniem by writing him off.Machina (talk) 02:38, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Weinstein and trial by media[edit]

i am sure everyone is aware of the allegations. how could you not be? they are everywhere. new ones each day. sexual assault. rape. truly heinous. they are printed with the caveat of 'allegations', but at this point they are not allegations they are fact. weinstein is a rapist. theres been no court case, to my knowledge, yet his guilt definite, he is a rapist. i find this troubling. we are told we must believe the victims of such crimes, to take them seriously. i have no reason to doubt weinsteins accusers - their allegations are reported as fact. to question them is almost a crime in itself. i am a believer in innocent until proven guilty, that trial by media is not a fair trial, but here we are. i believe weinstein guilty as charged because the media tells me he is. that troubles me. if these allegations were not so serious, i would dismiss them as gossip, as he said/she said. i would look at the people making the claims and be skeptical. i cant do that here. id be a terrible person if i did. i am not the police. i cannot investigate the claims. i can only see his guilt in every headline and i must take the allegations at face value. id try to reserve judgement on any other claims until something more concrete is presented - an admission of guilt, a police investigation, a criminal trial of some sort, but here? guilty as sin. should i be concerned? has a line been crossed? is this a trial by media? should i be taking such serious allegations unskepticly as fact? i am genuinely uncertain what the correct response is AMassiveGay (talk) 15:09, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Substantially spilled evidence of huge cover-ups should be more than enough for you to draw a conclusion about a major public figure, regardless of any legalistic view of their individual rights. Reputations being destroyed by credible evidence is fine; the courts will have their own standards. Also: recorded unambiguous public confession wasn't enough to even indict trump, so... maybe don't worry so much about standards of evidence, the American people are bad. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:49, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
In general I agree with AMassiveGay, but the evidence against Weinstein is so damning. Naturally, law enforcement will decide if there's enough evidence to warrant a trial, but there's probably enough to say, "Harvey Weinstein is not a good person." RoninMacbeth (talk) 16:53, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
No campaign financiers are good people. None of them. They're all awful power brokers at best. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:08, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Fair point. RoninMacbeth (talk) 17:11, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

It seems to me that you have given the correct response modified by self doubt. There is no defending Weinstein, and no one will do so, unless they are paid to do so. He is emblematic of bad and even criminal behavior. The reprehensible part of the coverage involves willingness to associate the Democratic Party with Weinstein's scandel, e.g. Politico, NPR, CNN, etc.Ariel31459 (talk) 17:26, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

He was a democratic fundraiser, and there were no doubt people within the party infrastructure who knew but didn't say a damn thing until it became a PR disaster. There's a lot of notasbadas comparisons to be directed at the republicans who are inclined to elect such people in spite of evidence. As stupid as argument by association is, there's probably some marginal accuracy to it in this case. Probably. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:48, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes. Here is a good polemic on Trump some might find interesting.Ariel31459 (talk) 00:09, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Crash Course Comments Section[edit]

I've noticed the comments of any Crash Course (or any channel) video mentioning Islam are full of both extremely Islamophobic and anti-Christian statements. —ѕυρяємє ℓєα∂єя вιgѕ σf gσαтιѕтαи (ᴡᴏʀᴅs ᴏғ ᴡɪsᴅᴏᴍ/ᴀᴄʜɪᴇᴠᴇᴍᴇɴᴛs) 04:38, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

In other words, Youtube has terrible comments. People really need to do a better job filtering their comments sections IMO. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 04:42, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
And crushing all that healthy free discourse the internet fosters? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:26, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Peak Oil[edit]

Hi, It's been some time but I returned. Yep, it's true. I am here for a fact. You can stop applauding. (Where the hell are the emoji?)

This excerpt is from the RW article on peak oil:

"Some who maintain that those who believe (sic) demand for oil will keep going up (as available supplies drop) also fail to understand how supply and demand, price elasticity, substitute goods, and other basic market mechanisms work. According to this argument, if and when oil becomes too expensive for economic functions which depend on it, the market will seek substitute goods, which will progressively reduce the demand for oil as this process continues to the point that oil actually running out will not be a concern.[14] Those who believe substitute goods are too expensive, or do not exist, fail to understand other basic market mechanisms such as economies of scale, human ingenuity, and, perhaps, hubris. Analysts have noted that high oil prices are bad for the future of the oil industry, as it encourages people to develop cheaper alternatives."

This seems like bad thinking to me. That would be the case with any other commodity. But oil is not just a commodity like any other. Particularly in the form of diesel fuel it is the bedrock of civilization. Tractors, harvesters, logging and mining trucks and equipment, construction and road trucks, cranes, forklifts, 18-wheelers, to name a few, all run on diesel fuel. What are the substitutes? Gas-to-liquids (GTL) and coal-to-liquids (CTL) cannot compensate for declining oil production. There are many reasons for this that I won't bore you with but a major argument against hydrocarbon liquefaction is low thermal efficiency. I won't even comment on battery trucks. Prosaic reasons that have to do with the laws of chemistry and physics rule out this possibility. Get me a breakthrough in battery technology and then we'll talk. Folks, call me a crank but I don't think very highly of Musk's ventures. His companies are nothing more than yet another Wall Street scam to defraud the middle class of its money. The government collaborates because Wall Street became its de facto boss a long time ago. Musk's companies wouldn't be around without billions in government subsidies. Wall Street wouldn't be around without 10 trillion of your money either but that's another story. You know... these are 'populist' things to say, right?

There is much bullshit coming from some peak oil advocates and opponents but let's point out some truths from A to F:

A. Modern society is dependent on fossil fuels, especially diesel.
B. Nothing that generates electricity can replace fossil fuels because trucks which are the true bedrock of civilization require diesel and cannot possibly be made to run on batteries. Sorry.
C. Only fusion can conceivably replace grid reliance on fossil fuels but that's very unlikely.
D. Fossil fuels are finite and depleting fast. Demand will increase because global population is increasing too, demanding a greater share of the pie. True, demand won't outstrip supply but free-market forces will not act as the mediating mechanism.
E. At some point the energy-return-on-energy-investment principle will start to put a natural halt to oil production.
F. Global civilization, dependent on fossil fuels as it is, will unravel and eventually collapse.

The reason oil production will at some point (I don't know when exactly, don't ask me) cease altogether (not all at once of course) is due to a fundamental mechanism that has as much to do with the physics involved in the process of getting the oil out of the ground as with the financial parameters of the whole process. It's the energy-return-on-energy-investment(EROEI) principle. You invest more resources than you are able to get out so that you end up with a net loss and oil extraction becomes uneconomical. Naturally, it won't be as if life will go on as it is until that abstract point is reached. Nations will latch onto their reserves well before that, oil will cease to be exported on domestic and international markets, oil corporations will be nationalized and the end product will be allocated however the authorities choose.

When that happens, it would indicate that the global free-market model has essentially collapsed. Globalism will remain but free-market capitalism will no longer be the dominant factor underlying intercourse between nations globally. If oil is the magic wand that keeps modern civilization running, once it stops being traded freely on the markets other key resources will cease to be traded too. The world's major players will resort to imperialist-like methods to acquire all important commodities and nationalist tensions will be the order of the day. Proxy wars between the major nations are likely but not an open confrontation. It's impossible to predict when and how but I am convinced that even the US, with all the checks and balances provided by its constitution, will eventually evolve into some sort of oligarchy or dictatorship (the latter is less likely). The pluralist model of modern representative democracy with separation of powers will not survive. Elections and the parliament might be maintained in a fig-leaf role (as in the EU, Turkey, Poland or Russia) but real legislative, judiciary and executive power will be permanently vested in a single or a handful of individuals that you can't get rid of. In my estimation, the first steps in that direction will be made during Donald Trump's tenure. His administration marked a turning point in US politics. Gewgtweg (talk) 21:13, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

As for transports, one can but hope both hybrid and electric vehicles will improve with time having better autonomy as battery technology improves, as well as that engines will be more and more fuel-efficient, even if I'm more than sure there are limits to that. CNG may also help. My concern are other products as plastics and the like.
Sure, the use of oil will someday end but as peak day approaches one guesses the research on alternative technologies will be pressed on. What will happen to the likes of BP, Mobil, and many others plus those countries that export it is open to debate. Panzerfaust (talk) 22:18, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Diesel electric engines are more efficient than steam engines. That's why steam engines are no longer used. If obtaining diesel fuel became impractical, the highway transport paradigm might, in lieu of better technological solutions, become overtaken by a shift back to steam locomotives. Almost every town in America once had rail service. It would be more expensive to use steam locomotives, but civilization would not collapse. Sorry. Ariel31459 (talk) 01:30, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
I doubt steam engines will ever make a real comeback, but we are overlooking something that is already in common practice in many developed countries: Full electric heavy duty vehicles. In the face of a fossil fuel shortage and a switch to electricity, it'd probably be most economical to add overhead power lines, a la electric street cars. An onboard battery could be charged while in motion, and stored power used for remote stretches of cargo routes where it is difficult to run the overhead lines. If high speed trains and municipal buses alike can use overhead power lines and retractable contacts, why not tractor-tralers? TeflonTrout (talk) 04:58, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Steam engines cannot and will not come back. It's almost crazy to imagine that. Steam engines for transportation reached 10-20% efficiency at best. Oil engines were more powerful, efficient, far less dangerous and cheaper. Natural selection did its thing and today a few steam engines survive only as turbines used for electricity generation. These are very efficient (at best 40% or more) which is why they're still around.
Even if we spent ludicrous amounts of money and energy to make America run on steam again what would the primitive and environmentally prohibitive locomotives carry all around anyway? We have the best freight trains in the world (diesel-electric) and almost half of the insane loads they carry is crude oil. In times of scarcity the authorities will force the population to a few gigantic urban centers rather than spread it out. Steam vehicles are too inefficient and cannot do what diesel does. Stationary steam engines that use biomass cannot be a viable alternative. Biomass won't scale up for use in vehicles and engines for the same reason it didn't in the past when Mississippi steamboats ran on wood. It would run out quickly. Since photosynthesis is inefficient forests take decades to grow back with only about half a percent of new biomass added per year. Not to mention the process would be so ecologically destructive it is near criminal to even contemplate.
It will be hard to build dual-mode trucks that can even come close to matching the performance of today’s diesel drayage trucks, which go 400 miles between refueling, last 604,000 miles, haul up to 44,000 pounds, operate at temperatures from 23 to 113 degrees F, go up 6% grades, and travel 10 to 14 hours a day. Diesel drayage trucks are also far less expensive — a used one can cost as little as $3,000, a new one $104,360 (Calstart 2013). A Battery Electric truck (BEV) truck costs $307,890 (ICCT 2013), a hydrogen fuel cell truck $1.3 million (ARB 2015), and a natural gas catenary truck $282,000 (GNA 2012). Gewgtweg (talk) 14:11, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Maybe so. But in order to prevent the collapse of civilization, steam engines or electic-line trolley-type transport would suffice. Sorry, civilization will survive.Ariel31459 (talk) 14:39, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
First of all, I hope you realize that 100% electric trucks are impossible. Battery packs weigh too damn much. Even if 5 to 10 times as much battery energy density (Wh/kg) were to be achieved and other technical issues solved, batteries would still be too heavy: 2 to 4 tonnes (4400 to 8800 pounds) in a 40 tonne truck. Today’s batteries are 5 to 10 times heavier than 2 to 4 tonnes (ICCT 2013).
With today’s technology, driving a semi-truck 500 miles would require a 23-ton (46,000 pound) lithium-ion battery, half the weight of the truck itself (Coren 2016).
This is why the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach ruled out battery-electric (BEV) trucks, which need a 7,700 pound battery, since the weight cuts too much into the payload. Also, the battery only lasts for 100, half the 200 minimum-miles required. BEVs are also out of service too often, and take too long to recharge — 4 hours every 120 miles (Calstart 2013b).
Alternatives like CGN, Hydrogen fuel cell and fixed-guideway system are not viable either.
CNG trucks. Aside from the fact that natural gas is finite and not a solution, CNG tanks are heavy as well, would require a new fuel distribution system, with each station costing $1 million or more. CNG would add over 5,000 pounds to the truck weight: 300 gallons of diesel = 1,140 gallons of CNG at 1.81 lbs/gallon (2072 lbs), CNG tank 1,800 lbs, 1,300 pounds for the racks and protective plates (Schneider 2014).
Hydrogen fuel cell trucks are too heavy. Even if this technology were commercial for trucks, each one would need a a $2 million hydrogen fuel tank to go the distance (Coren 2016). The cost of building a hydrogen distribution system is far too high since very expensive special metals and gaskets are needed to keep the hydrogen from embrittling the metal and escaping, so the hydrogen would have to be made on-site. Each station would cost $1 million or more.
Fixed-guideway system. This zero-emission solution was rejected because over 20 years it would cost 14 times more than a dual-mode catenary system (GNA 2012 page 18).
Catenary trucks are more serious but there are many obstacles to building a catenary system.
A catenary truck is a lot like a trolley bus. Both run on electric motors powered by overhead lines, the catenary system. Catenary trucks differ from trolleys though, because they need a second propulsion method after they get off the wires to deliver their products and get back to the overhead lines. Trucks also need to get off the lines to pass one another, operate when the electricity is down, and get around trucks that have broken down.
The need for a dual mode doubles, or even triples the cost of a catenary truck. On top of that, it costs millions of dollars per mile to install a catenary system, plus add more electricity generation, substations, and transmission. Catenary is expensive to maintain as well, and if you’ve ever ridden MUNI trolley buses in San Francisco, you’ve probably been on a bus where the trolley poles detached from the catenary at a bad switch or too sharp a turn and waited many minutes for the driver to reattach the poles.
Even if we could build catenary systems for long-haul and delivery trucks, what about all the off-road trucks? Can you imagine stringing overhead wires across millions of acres of farmland, construction sites, sand and gravel mining, logging, and along transmission wires to maintain them? Rural areas were the last to be electrified, and would need a great deal more power plants, substations, and other electrical infrastructure to power these off-road uses.
If this were attempted, the rough terrain is likely to cause dewirement when the catenary poles detach from the wire at a pothole or bad switch.
Of course, there are mines that have electric mining trucks that run on extremely smooth roads, but the vast majority of the world’s ores are too far from the electric grid to electrify them. Mining sites that use catenary trucks typically have an onsite power plant generating electricity because the cost of diesel is so high in that region. These trucks only use electricity on the uphill or downhill part of the road, and operate on diesel when the road is level. Diesel operation is also required because catenary is very expensive and can’t be placed everywhere at the mining site. Batteries are not used because they drain quickly, are heavy and expensive, and take a long time to charge (Python 2010).
So far the Ports of Los Angeles and San Pedro have done the most research on what it would take to make a catenary system possible for drayage trucks between the ports and inland distribution warehouses. Their interest in doing this is solely for air quality. Energy efficiency and conserving oil aren’t considerations.
The ports don’t know if a catenary system for trucks is possible. According to Calstart (2013), this is a new situation. San Francisco has one of the largest catenary transit systems in the world, with 300 trolleybuses and 150 light rail cars. But on average they’re running 10 minutes apart. In contrast, the I-710 drayage truck corridor has over 10,000 trucks that can weigh twice as much running seconds or less apart. Estimating the power needed, and whether the power can be distributed to all of them is unknown.
Although Sweden, Germany, and the USA are all in the process of building demonstration catenary systems about a mile long and a few dual-mode trucks to run on them, most of them with non-renewable diesel or natural gas backup), these experiments are more concerned with whether trucks can connect and disconnect from the catenary at high speed and won’t answer the question of whether thousands of trucks can run seconds apart, and how much power it would take to do so.
And consider the scale. There are 16,349 catenary trucks expected to be running in 2020 (SCAG 2013), that’s orders of magnitude more than San Francisco’s MUNI catenary vehicles: 311 trolley buses and 151 light-rail cars. And heavy-duty trucks are heavy. They can weigh twice as much as a trolley bus and require more power to move.
In California, four demonstration trucks (and a similar number in Sweden) are planned for the mile-long catenary being built, with the following second modes after leaving the wire: one with a battery that can go for 10 miles (ARB SEP 2014), one that runs on diesel, and two that run on compressed natural gas (Hsu 2016).
Finally remember what I wrote about performance earlier.
The ultimate conclusions are two. Civilization as we know it depends on (i.e. is addicted to) fossil fuels, especially diesel and there's no real alternative yet. Talking about new green technologies that will sort the predicament out for us and preaching the supposedly unlimited ingenuity of the human spirit is the easiest thing to do in the world. Such is the case with statements that are not based on hard reason. It's easy to speak on a non-technical basis about complex things. But the practical work of actually developing such technologies and means and putting them in place as well as the theoretical work analysts and policy-makers have to do is heavyweight stuff.
There's nothing crackpot about saying civilization will fail and collapse. It just means lots of suffering and unwilling adjustment until the material, social, and political relations that reproduce society change radically. Societies in recorded and pre-recorded human history have always followed this road. The difference is that the collapse of own global society will be of an unprecedented magnitude for obvious reasons. Mass globalized societies are a world-historical novum. Gewgtweg (talk) 17:06, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
I never tried to imply that the collapse of Civilization was a crackpot idea. It is possible, I suppose. Just not because of the availability of diesel fuel. Cities don't require long-distance truck service to survive. Power line trolleys and steam-powered locomotives could do the job. Local distribution doesn't require large trucks.The difference would amount to a change in the standard of living due to increased costs. Forget about battery-powered trucks: they are irrelevant to the survival of civilization.Ariel31459 (talk) 19:18, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
You left out what will happen to big oil as well as oil exporting countries. I guess solar power could be for the latter a way to survive. The problem is the infraestructure to carry electricity from there elsewhere. Panzerfaust (talk) 21:13, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
@Ariel By civilization I mean the mass society model that has now gone global. There are trillions of dollars worth of billions of trucks, ships, locomotives, and equipment essential for planting and harvesting food, building and maintaining infrastructure (roads, bridges, construction), and mining.
They all have diesel engines and there's a good reason for that. It's absolutely erroneous to say that cities don't need heavy-duty trucks to survive.
Take a look inside your refrigerator, cupboards and on your dinner table. Wouldn't there be foodstuffs that you bought today or the day before yesterday? How did they reach your local retail grocery shop chain? They all got there on a huge truck and could never have gotten there on a trolley car. Those are meant to shuttle people, not materials.
After consuming the foodstuffs you bought I am supposing that you had garbage to take out today or yesterday. Who's going to take that garbage away? It's trucks that run on diesel and which couldn't run on anything else.
Today or yesterday you emptied your bowels of waste. Who makes sure that the city doesn't drown in its own filth? It's a vacuum truck that pumps our crap out for us and takes it to the disposal site.
Take a look around the room where you are located as you are reading these lines. Your furniture reached you by truck and miscellaneous items of all kinds reached your retailer by truck as well.
Next time you leave your home for any reason, take a good look at the building you live in and to which you'll return to. The materials used to build it not only got there by truck but were mined by truck as well.
Once you arrive home you'll probably help yourself to a glass of water from the tap. Who purified your water for you keeping you safe from waterborne diseases? It's the good people working at water treatment plants. Their job couldn't be done without trucks.
You require electricity to prepare your food. Can you guess what kind of vehicle delivered fuel to the power plant?
You are either a commuter or drive a car or motorcycle to work. If you use a trolley car, a tram and the like, what kind of vehicle supplied fuel to the power plant? If you use something else, what kind of vehicle supplied your local gas station?
I could say much more but there's no need to. Nobody wants to imagine what their life would be like without trucks. It's horrendous. All that stands between you, your next door neighbor and cannibalism, is diesel. We have become so used to our way of life that we've forgotten that it's not necessarily the natural way of things. It is the result of concerted effort by a humble minority of people doing the essential jobs. No job is more essential than transportation. Gewgtweg (talk) 23:17, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
What you fail to imagine, and I'm not sure why this is so, diesel fuel will not suddenly disappear. Production would gradually decline, allowing for engineered compensations. Your arguments don't sound fallacious if you say them fast. None of them are convincing. Civilization would not collapse, it would change. Ariel31459 (talk) 00:31, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Of course it won't suddenly disappear. I never said that. But as it gets scarce, life will change too, and certainly not for the better. There are no 'engineered compensations', whatever that means. I explained why adequately. The mass consumption model that we all live by is not sustainable because fossil fuels are finite. Technology doesn't have a way to bail us out because there's no conceivable engine, contraption or invention that can do the work that fossil fuel does for us now, especially diesel.
The point is moot. Collapse is change by definition. Just the most sudden and violent. Radical i.e. 'to the root'. You see, when societies crumble they are struck at the root. Most instances of societal collapse that our historical consciousness is familiar with are political. One doesn't have to look centuries back. Think about Yugoslavia, the USSR or Syria. There was a political convulsion and degeneration of the political power bearer. The locals were afflicted with hardship and their lives dramatically worsened. The collapse we're talking about is different. Once global industrial society loses the capacity to reproduce itself, whole humanity will be struck at the root. It won't be just another political collapse. When the material means that sustain life disappear, the human species as a whole degrades dramatically in its capacity to self-preserve. So collapse of civilization will bring about a situation where humanity will partially return to the animal kingdom. This won't come suddenly. It will come slowly and excruciatingly from the POV of humans and their limited attention spans. From the POV of history, it will be very quick. I'd be surprised if by 2100 the world's population exceeded one billion. Gewgtweg (talk) 02:25, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
That it will be so slow gives some hope for at the very least somewhat mitigate its effects. — Unsigned, by: / talk
The rate of world conventional oil production (attention should be paid to the words RATE and CONVENTIONAL) happened in 2005 and conventional oil production has been on a plateau since then. Robert Hirsch wrote that we ought to prepare 20 years ahead of time for peak production, but really he should have said 50 to 100 years. In Vaclav Smil's book 'Energy myths and realities' the author explains convincingly why energy transitions take such a long time. You could google 'Moore’s Curse and the Great Energy Delusion' for more.
Clearly once oil production begins to decline, we aren’t going to be able to make the transition, because from mining to fabrication to supply chains to final delivery, electricity generating contraptions and biofuels depend on heavy-duty diesel-engine trucks, railroads and ships. Most 'alternatives' generate electricity, and we don’t have heavy-duty battery or catenary or hydrogen fuel celled trucks, and probably never will.
The only encouraging sign, at least for US citizens, is that there's a US institution which is more concerned for the future of energy than any other government institution in the US and the planet. It's the military. Gewgtweg (talk) 00:31, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

What is this rant for? Presumably Gewgtweg has this one particular axe to grind about how Diesel is at the heart of everything (and so nothing existed until 1892?), OK, and they've constructed this elaborate fantasy around that, but, how does RW get involved in that craziness? At what point in Gewgtweg's day did they stop mumbling "Diesel. Diesel diesel. Everything is diesel and diesel is everything. Diesel diesel diesel" to themselves and find the need to look up RW's Peak Oil article and write all this? Did we trigger that somehow? And is it specifically diesel? There's also a lot of weird stuff about trucks. Is the key that they're diesel trucks, or is it the trucks themselves that captured his imagination? I know that toddlers often become fascinated with trucks for a while, they're very big and, unlike elephants or whales, most of us see them around us, they're a bit newer than Rudie's coal-powered engine but if you're crazy enough to think this all began in 1892 why not a few years later in 1898 with the semi... So maybe it's that ? Tialaramex (talk) 12:11, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

The only fantasy, the only dream, is believing that our way of life is the quasi natural way of things. We've become so used to it that we've put ourselves on autopilot. We're somnambulating from paycheck to paycheck and have lost the time and the interest to see how the world actually works. If you try to get people to snap out of it, they're going to talk gibberish, like someone mumbling in his sleep. That's exactly the case with Tialaramex who is unfortunately not only ignorant but supplements his ignorance with poor reasoning skills and a trivial attitude.
From the logic of all I said, it doesn't follow in any way that human society didn't function before uncle Rudolf's prototype engine. On the contrary, I talked about how long energy transitions take. Also, I expect any commentator to have the working brain enabling him to understand that I am referring to modern mass societies, modern globalist civilization, and that 1892 was very different. I expect the commentator to be able to understand the difference between static and dynamic developments too. If diesel engines stopped working today, that doesn't mean that we would simply go to where we were in 1892. Billions of people are alive now and more are expected, the majority live in cities and require diesel to mine topsoil, produce fertilizer, operate intensive agriculture, operate the earth-moving machines that harvest coal and other minerals and metals, maintain supply chains, service their cities, maintain their infrastructure, build up a modern military, the list is endless.
If Tialaramex has serious proposals about how the modern world could work without heavy-duty diesel engines, I'm listening. But nobody can deny that diesel plays the most crucial role and that diesel comes primarily from oil. In fact, there is nothing that doesn't depend on oil at some point during its life cycle. Gewgtweg (talk) 15:44, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Well I guess that firmly answers the question in favour of the "just crazy about diesel" thing. Should I experiment? I am sorely tempted. OK, so, Gewgtweg do you understand the difference between fuel and energy? The big moving engines you were so enthralled by happen to need lots of energy, so if we can't bring the energy directly to them as it's used we need an energy dense fuel. But they don't care how we get that fuel. The only constraint is that we need to get the energy in that fuel from somewhere. There is a nearby star (you've probably seen it) pumping out far more energy than we'd need for that, orders of magnitude more, we just need to use it to make fuel. Again, the trucks do not care whether the "diesel" came from a fractional distillation of crude oil drilled out of the ground after millions of years, or was made from the used cooking oil from fast food places in a big vat on Thursday. The latter, in case you're not paying attention is not a "fossil fuel" and isn't subject to "Peak Oil". We can make more. In many countries the common "diesel" you keep talking about is already mandated by law to be 5% produced by the latter method, and this fraction is expected to rise. Tialaramex (talk) 18:45, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
@Tialaramex: the public bus company here is replacing Diesel buses -that use a Diesel/Biofuel (whatever) mixture- with CNG ones, and it's planned Diesel -except some brand-new hybrid models and perhaps old buses to have as backups- will be phased out within a few years, leaving the mentioned plus some electric buses (mid-sized (12 meters-long), not smaller ones, and with juice enough for six hours, I think). A bus is not the same as a truck, but one gets the idea
Even on the scenario depicted above, I can think changes. Maybe the big rigs will forever be gone, but changes on the way goods are delivered could somewhat alleviate that, however what he also fails to mention is that will happen to planes and freighters, that use derivatives of petroleum to work and I feel that's more important than (Diesel!) trucks ceasing to be.
Stuff as solar-powered blimps (the issue is how to fill them, as helium is so scarce and hydrogen so dangerous) may also pop up. Panzerfaust (talk) 22:10, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
@Tielaramex So photosynthesis is enough to solve the liquid fuel crisis. Trucks don't care how we get fuel. It could be spent cooking oil. Is that it, genius? Biofuel distribution wastes valuable diesel fuel. http://publications.apec.org/publication-detail.php?pub_id=1166 Biofuels are an environmental nightmare. 'The nation that destroys its soil destroys itself', said president Franklin D. Roosevelt. There's not enough biomass to fuel transportation. It's a matter of scale. When it comes to heavy-duty engines things are even more dire. The chemical structure of material that comes from agriculture is different to that of petroleum. Fuel economy, efficiency and safety are compromised.
Rudolf's first engine was designed to run on peanut oil, and Henry Ford envisioned plant-based fuel as the primary fuel for transportation and partnered with Standard Oil to develop biofuel production and distribution. However, currently the only type of biodiesel fuel that can be used in vehicles in North America without violating manufacturer’s warranties is B5, a blend of 5 percent biodiesel and 95 percent regular diesel. Most diesel engines run just fine on blends of up to 30 percent biodiesel. Heavy-duty trucking engines don't. They require 2-D diesel. It’s less volatile than 1-D and provides greater fuel economy. Gewgtweg (talk) 22:53, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
@Ariel Sorry, but you need to get something into your head and let it sink. Diesel combustion engines do the actual work that keeps us ALIVE. Ships (Marine residual fuel oil plus diesel fuel), tractors, harvesters, equipment, and all the infinite types of trucks use such engines and require diesel fuel. It is the true bedrock of modern civilization. Gewgtweg (talk) 00:39, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, but your specious arguments suppose that fossil fuel might suddenly become unavailable. This is extremely unlikely. It presumes that the petrochemical managers might forget how commodities markets work: prices rise over a long period of time as suppliers predict the size of future inventories to maximize profits. It basically invalidates your entire perspective about civil collapse. Sorry to be the one to inform you. If wishes were horses then beggars would ride.Ariel31459 (talk) 15:52, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
'Extremely unlikely'? Are you aware that fossil fuels are finite and that humanity's consumption requirements (requirements not 'habits' is the right way to put it) are enormous? It's dead certain that they will become unavailable. Few things could be as certain in life. It has to do with physics not with economics or finance. Global rate of conventional oil has already peaked more than a decade ago because there's simply less oil than before. What you just described is what black marketeers do. That's not the way the fossil fuel industry or the commodities market work. Fossil fuels won't become 'suddenly' unavailable and, I repeat, I never said that. Instead they will be available to less and less of the global community and nations will fight over them. Hell, we're already fighting over them. Why are we in the Middle East in the first place? Of course it has to do with oil. It's about securing the world's energy hub. We will never get out of there. Gewgtweg (talk) 17:24, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Apparently being a Antisemit and a Zionist means ignoring war crimes,and apartheid[edit]

https://www.quora.com/Palestinians-often-compare-their-situation-to-Apartheid-so-why-dont-they-learn-lessons-from-how-Apartheid-ended-in-South-Africa-and-try-to-apply-it-to-their-situation?share=3661f838&srid=hywZ3 ShiningSwordofThoughts (talk) 03:55, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Archivist is out of control![edit]

102,352 bytes removed in a single hit! What has the world come to? —Kazitor, pending 07:31, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

This page was getting very slightly long.
How many conversations can be kept on the go for long enough to give the Archivist an even larger infodump? Anna Livia (talk) 09:52, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Theoretically infinite, but of course there are concerns of bandwidth, efficiency, and having a life instead. —Kazitor, pending 09:56, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
And most topics do have a natural lifespan. Probably other people had the same thought. Anna Livia (talk) 10:16, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Dare I say that one topic had a very unnatural lifespan. NoJohYouAreTheDemons (talk) 11:03, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
And just as the WP Main Page Talk Page occasionally has a 'what is WP coming to/consider the children/consider my choking on my tea and biscuits/why is this offensiveness' ding-dong and even 'flare ups over nothing' the same will occur here (often involving 'why will nobody support my illogical position/PRATT and similar). Anna Livia (talk) 12:02, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
I know it's against the usual policy, but I had to edit in a closing parenthesis to your statement. —Kazitor, pending 04:46, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
No! Not my kibbabytes! ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:44, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Kibbabytes? (Would the answer involve Earl Grey or herbal?) Anna Livia (talk) 16:28, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
It's a mangling of w:kibibytes which is itself a purposefully distinct representation of "kilobytes" to emphasize that it measures 1024 bytes intead of 1000. There's not a lot to read into there. If there's a joke here at all(a dubious proposition), it's totally destroyed, unmade in its entirety through this explanation. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:32, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
The joke is Norwegian blue? Anna Livia (talk) 16:45, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I have lost some weight[edit]

Can you see me when you are not signed in?Ariel31459 (talk) 19:21, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

So the latest in Nazi nonsense[edit]

I've decided needs to be an article. Here you go everyone: Wolfenstein (Todo: References, padding stuff about violent panics and/or Nazism) Zero (talk - contributions) 19:46, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I think the game series is banned or heavily censored in Germany. In fact, Wolfenstein: The New Order is heavily censored and will be the first game that will even be released in Germany. So take note of that. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 19:49, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
I still can't quite process that Nazis are back (and getting offended at being accurately characterized) and 90% of people don't give a fuck. How do you live in this world? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:20, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Economic crises don't tend to be very kind at people's ability to punch extremists in the face. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 00:03, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Political extremism is not pleasant but it's always been natural. It's an essential phenomenon and has always changed the course of history. Right-wing extremism has already led to Brexit and to Trump getting elected. We talk a lot about right-wing extremism but we have forgotten how left-wing extremism has shaped the world we live in far more deeply than its counterpart. Russia would never have been a world power in the 20th and China would never have played the role it will play in the 21st without left-wing extremism. Western mass societies would never have become more egalitarian without the indirect influence of left-wing extremism and the globe wouldn't have witnessed significant decolonization without left-wing extremism.
Alexander The Great was reviled as a beast when he lived and shortly after he died. But with time his crimes got rusty and future generations not only glorified him but tried to emulate him. The same will happen (is already happening) with Adolf Hitler. Ever since it arose in the Mid-East thousands of years ago, civilization has an endemic militarist, misogynist etc. streak. It's normal that many people find the personae of war-makers and conquerors interesting and attractive and it's all too human that some take interest and attractiveness a bit too far and are drawn into a cult of personality. Gewgtweg (talk) 02:56, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Alexander is remembered for his nearly successful attempt to conquer the world. It was not the generations that followed, but the individuals with the same ambitions who emulated Alexander. Most people have the vaguest idea who he was: a great general. Napoleon is a better model for this type of argument. The modern view is that only lunatics think they are like Napoleon. Hitler is a much different example. Known now not for conquest, but madness. Ariel31459 (talk) 14:57, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
@LeftyGreenMario >"people's ability to punch extremists in the face." They can try... 2d4chanfag (talk) 12:13, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
@Ariel It was coming generations too. Plutarch didn't have ambitions of conquest but he was a textbook myth-maker. One of those intellectuals who push aside hard history and paint their idols and heroes in fictional colors for the world to admire. That's what modern fascists do. But indirectly, anti-fascism helps because it's just the reverse. It vilifies individuals and keeps them in the sphere of myth. Each time we use an argumentum ad hitlerum we actually contribute to the work of admirers because we become trivial and seem biased. Some people will push to the opposite direction.
It was not by accident that Alexander was loved the most in the country he was initially despised the most. Forget the Hollywood movie. Alexander and his successors were for the Hellenes a far worse enemy and oppressor than any Persian monarch had been. No other of many conquered nations fought and rebelled with the same intensity against his rule. No other suffered more grave consequences. War, massacre and immigration destroyed the Hellenic city-state and impoverished and depopulated the area. The Hellenic nation essentially suffered an ethnic and cultural death and this is not at all exaggeration. A Hellenist was not the same as a Hellene. He spoke a related but wholly distinct language. He was a heathen but his religion was syncretic to the point it would have been alien to Sophocles. He might have had a fraction of Hellenic blood but just like modern Americans he was a diverse genetic product. A modern American may be of Irish stock but hardly just Irish. Late Hellenists loved Alexander. They would not exist without him.
Most Neo-Nazis live in America and Russia, in countries that during wartime hated him. Racialism, eugenics, anti-semitism etc. have a long tradition in America and other formerly imperialist western countries. They weren't born in Germany nor did they become more widespread in Germany. All the völkisch movement did from which Nazism sprang, was give them a nationalistic twist and imbue them with paganism and the occult. Today liberal capitalism is not what it used to be. So the popular consciousness is searching alternatives elsewhere and nationalism gains ground. In a country where many people come from areas formerly under the rule of German-speaking monarchs, where protestant anti-semitism is widespread, that invented the idea of the 'under man' which the Germans translated as untermensch, where racism runs very deep, where racial segregation is still the order of the day, which stations troops everywhere across the planet, that experiences demographic decline, that has always lacked a serious left and associates the left with every sort of profound social negative, that faces terrorist threats from brown people, that has a government beholden to Wall Street bankers and corporate executives, is it any wonder that white nationalism and Neo-Nazi sympathies are present in every third white republican voter?
Russia has perhaps fewer Nazi sympathizers but definitely more Neo-Nazi extremists than America in absolute numbers and they're even more violent. It is felt as a way to regenerate a national consciousness after the demise of Soviet communism. Since Russia is a multi-ethnic state headed by a Slavic nation, lacks a nationalist tradition (in the historical absence of a bourgeois middle class), and has reasons to reject its communist past, Nazi collaborators are seen as heroes that wanted to take out a supposedly anti-Russian regime and Russian Slavs are seen as a sort of superior race. Furthermore, given that the Russians won the war (no need to feel inferior) and given that aggressive expansionism is how they imagine their country's future, teenage thugs and violence professionals (ex-military, private security, criminals) are drawn en masse to Neo-Nazi cults. Neo-Nazi sympathies are spread elsewhere throughout the former Soviet bloc. In the Baltic, even functionaries from the highest levels of government are seen attending pro-Nazi anniversaries and ceremonies. The Baltic states have perhaps the most Nazi sympathizers in terms of population percentage and historically they were the most collaborative of all subjugated nations. More wartime German graveyards exist there than anywhere else even if relatively few died at those places.
Personally, I don't believe Nazi atrocity was as exceptional or mad as it's been claimed to have been. Only a relative ignorance of the reality of violence in the past and present can justify this. The genocide of the Jews was ultimately a decision by a few people who had this belief the Jews are by nature malignant and destructive for societies and that there were in control of Nazi Germany's enemies. If Strasser or some other Nazi were leader of the Nazi party, the Jewish genocide would not have happened. But in the final analysis it doesn't really matter. The Jews were generally highly urbane and skillful people (unlike many Nazi collaborators who were of peasant origins) but populations rose so rapidly following the end of the war that their absence was hardly felt anywhere, except maybe in Poland. The majority of the victims were shot. The rest were gassed. But a good portion of those who were sent by the trainload to their deaths, perished inside the cars, often by suicide. The gassings were very painful but must resemble crushes and stampedes. The majority of the victims inside the chambers died as a result of crushing rather than the toxic gases.
After so many stunning victories that made it obvious he was commandeering the best tactical army in the world with the most senior and experienced staff, Hitler might have been excused for believing he could finish off the USSR in a swift campaign. At the time of the invasion, American analysts didn't expect the regime to last till summer's end. After all it was logical (not 'mad') to believe that Germany would not have been a world power without more land, more people and more resources. In fact, the most fundamental reason the war was lost was not Hitler's errors (these have been grossly overhyped by former German generals as an alibi for every defeat and Stalin made extremely costly errors too) but logistical shortcomings. The war machine needed more men and materials and the economy needed more rationalization. Gewgtweg (talk) 17:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

The New Cabal[edit]

Remember that old Discord server I made? Now it's a category of users.ѕυρяємє ℓєα∂єя вιgѕ σf gσαтιѕтαи (ᴡᴏʀᴅs ᴏғ ᴡɪsᴅᴏᴍ/ᴀᴄʜɪᴇᴠᴇᴍᴇɴᴛs) 21:28, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Rescue Dogs[edit]

Since it's in the news regarding California, what processes are in place to ensure that the animal shelter isn't itself feeding into the problem of puppy mills? Animal shelters typically charge $200-$500 in order for you to save a dog from euthanasia, but such large amounts of money is basically comparable to getting the dog from a shady breeder. How do we know that the shelter isn't buying rescue dogs from the sketchier breeders, effectively making rescues a horror story in itself? Note that it's not entirely basis paranoia on my part; online pet rescue sites are frequently fronts for puppy mills CorruptUser (talk) 03:24, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Otoh, pure bred puppies are typically bred for $1k or more, even by mills, and puppy mills would be taking on relative losses to do fake rescues at that cost. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:12, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
This differs radically from my experience adopting our two mutts in California. One was being fostered, the other rehabilitated via a prison program after being abused by an owner. The foster was free, the jail rehab dog $50. Also the article you cite points out a case that isn't a shelter buying dogs from a sketchy breeder but rather a sketchy breeder -posing- as a rescue operation. Shelters, actual shelters, the shelters I have seen and been inside of, are run by people who love dogs. If some guy shows up with a dozen cyclops Beagles oozing pus from their noses, the cops are getting called. Bottom line: before you adopt a dog from a place, go to that place. Semipenultimate (talk) 16:21, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
If I ever wanted another dog (doubt I will) or even a cat, I would want one that is entirely free of official pedigrees. Kennel club standards tend to lead to pets with physical and mental health problems, the result of wholly cosmetic standards that lead inevitably to pedigree collapse. Mutts bring less heartbreak. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 19:19, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Mutts are the natural form of dogs. An artificial genetic bottleneck has been created by our bizarre standards for them. —ѕυρяємє ℓєα∂єя вιgѕ σf gσαтιѕтαи (ᴡᴏʀᴅs ᴏғ ᴡɪsᴅᴏᴍ/ᴀᴄʜɪᴇᴠᴇᴍᴇɴᴛs) 20:17, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Wolves are the natural form of dogs. They don't get along with people. You just set an arbitrary standard for naturalness and then act indignant that others don't subscribe to it. Pure bred dogs, of many breeds, are smarter, more vigorous, or more capable of specific tasks than mutts. Other breeds are useless, ugly, disease ridden garbage that people made just because they could(I'm specifically talking about pugs). But such attributes aren't universal the way moralizing busybodies pretend. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 22:13, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
My understanding is that the genetic lineage that led to modern dogs separated from the Eurasian timber/gray wolf lineage during the Stone Age, very long ago, before the beginning of the last Ice Age in fact. While feral dogs can interbreed successfully with timber wolves, and also with coyotes, they have been separated from wolves and dependent on humans for a very long time; more than 15,000 years. No other critter has such a history of co-evolution with humans. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 01:03, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Except for, of course, goats.
And I suppose the 200 or so parasites that are specific to humans, but fuck those. CorruptUser (talk) 03:03, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Goats and humans also go back a long ways. But of the animals domesticated by humans, only dogs and chickens were domesticated early enough to accompany the earliest Native Americans into the Americas. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 03:46, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't think the Amerindians had chickens. There was a question about some chickens in South America, but it's disputed as to the origin. CorruptUser (talk) 05:33, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
There were domesticated chickens in South and Central America before Columbus. There's some controversy as to whether they came over the land bridge, or got them in trade from Polynesians. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 16:30, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

can you unblock my EmilOWK1 account?[edit]

EmilOWK1 was blocked for 3 months, can you unblock me? thx.EmilOWK2 (talk) 20:35, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

@EmilOWK2 I have unblocked EmilOWK. But NO DOXXING! And if you do it again I will reinstate your ban AND ban your IP for the same length of time. —ѕυρяємє ℓєα∂єя вιgѕ σf gσαтιѕтαи (ᴡᴏʀᴅs ᴏғ ᴡɪsᴅᴏᴍ/ᴀᴄʜɪᴇᴠᴇᴍᴇɴᴛs) 20:47, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
The above comment was also not actually made by the real Emil (only this account is real). Also, your no doxxing policy is not documented as far as I know, making it hard to follow. As far as I know, I only broke it once. Don't know why there was a second ban. Admin didn't reply to my email asking for clarification. Can it be clearly stated somewhere how to refer to a single individual hiding behind many accounts, maybe the person can be given some kind of RW-wide nickname. EmilOWK (talk) 21:24, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Doxxing has the "porn test", it's hard to rigorously define, but you know it when you see it. You want a working definition? Using the publicity of this website to spread personal details about a second or third party who wishes to remain anonymous in an attempt to insult, threaten, or cajole them. If your only defense of such information is golden rule-esque "I wouldn't mind it if it were about me" you probably went too far. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 22:19, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
However I think are some obvious things that would constitute doxing:
  • revealing a user's real name when it is not also their user name
  • posting a private phone number in just about any context
  • posting personal details about a user that the user has not themselves posted and that could lead to derivation of their identity (e.g., age, specific occupation, specific residency)
This list is not meant to be complete or a RationalWiki policy. It is just my view. Bongolian (talk) 22:41, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Fun fact, y'all: while we don't have a doxing policy per se, it is defined under the Blocking policy. To quote, "Doxing: Adding personal information about others into a page. This also includes soliciting for such information off of RationalWiki." It is enumerated under the section titled Long-Term Block Reasons. RoninMacbeth (talk) 02:52, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
As far as I know, what got me blocked the second time was that I mentioned the most common (or just a very common) username of that particular person. One can easily google that to see the person's long history of internet shenanigans, impersonation, harassment etc. as well as their real name. So, it may be considered doxxing by proxy, telling people where to look. Similar to how Big Copyright tried to prosecute people sharing links to copyrighted material, or links to pages with links etc. However, what other username should one use? They are all easily traceable to their real name. How does one refer to this kind of person? Apparently, the admins force one to refer to them using whatever sockpuppet they are currently under, which is quite misleading and annoying. EmilOWK (talk) 16:22, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Just to point out it is notoriously difficult to connect someone's real identity to a RW user; there's no check-user tool here. You claim if you "google" this person's RW account to find their real name somehow connected, yet that could be speculation or misinformation from other websites- this is noticeable on the troll website Encylopedia Dramatica that has a RationalWiki article that says x, y,z is someone on RW, but rarely provides proof for this.Skeptical (talk) 18:36, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
I wonder who the impersonator could be... also see this talk page for a log of impersonations by the same person- he does it on both Wikipedia and RationalWiki. Has done for years. He might target you because you banned him from OpenPysch.Asgardian (talk) 23:18, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
also see the account name under the impersonator: [1]. There's a word filter on this person's name because he vandalised this place so much.Asgardian (talk) 23:23, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Looks like he's back. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:KirkegaardEmil Skeptical (talk) 18:46, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Apropros of what constitutes doxing: posting an email address does. Also posting information about oneself — if specific enough — can constitute doxing. Why? Because nobody knows you're not a dog… until you dox yourself. Bongolian (talk) 21:02, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I have blocked Emil, he has been posting dox of someone including full real name of someone called "Ben", also linking off-site to other accounts and IP addresses. Skeptical (talk) 01:26, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Sometimes the Onion brushes too close to reality[edit]

New Evidence Reveals Pythagoras Wrote Dozens Of Unhinged Conspiracy Theorems About Triangles. If you read more than an elementry school summary about Pythagoras, you find out he ran a crazy cult that believed all sorts of batshit things about math, going so far as performing literal animal sacrifices after discovering new mathematical theorems. And they absolutely thought the rules of geometry dictated the behavior of the universe in insane ways. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:56, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

At least the fallacy fallacy plays here: just because a crazy person came up with the idea doesn't mean the idea is wrong. After all, science and math are only as good as the evidence. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 22:36, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm gonna say something stupid based on hearing it once from a half-credible source: there's no real historic reason to believe that Pythagoras created his eponymous theorem(though before posting this, I did review the wikipedia article saying the same thing). It's definitely hundreds of years older than him, possibly over a thousand. Many mathematical historians think it was attributed to him by the very same cult we're talking about in a deliberate attempt to deify him, and the name stuck. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:14, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Sounds missional. Maybe we should talk about it in our articles if we haven't already. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 00:07, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Abd drama[edit]

He seems to have attracted a lot of attention and is stirring drama. Can anyone help in deleting all the related articles? Seems to be nothing more than spam mentioning Abd and some guy called pyramidologist. I have deleted about four of them. Skeptical (talk) 16:42, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

The text does appear to be along the lines of the 'Postmodernism Generator' (with a dose of pyramid woo/pyramid scheme. Anna Livia (talk) 17:34, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
You know what I don't like about the postmodernism generator? The datasets feeding it seem to include critiques of writing/art in the realm of its generation. It's not like there are objective standards you can use for that kind of analysis(subjective ones with objective inputs: sure). Am I supposed to be offended at the idea of some imagined Film Studies major somewhere writing a paper called "Reading Marx: Socialist realism in the works of Tarantino"? I don't know I could argue effectively that there aren't marxist themes baked into Pulp Fiction. If you have some kinda post-modern deconstruction that sort of something like "reading marx in the mating flight of north american ants" or something. I dunno, maybe I'm just an evil post-modernist myself, but that seems like a potentially informative question to ask.
Titles like "The Defining characteristic of Reality: Postsemanticist situationism and neotextual deappropriation" are more absurd. Just like a quarter of the time it comes out as "There's literally nothing wrong with using that analysis on that subject" ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:09, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Objectionable usernames[edit]

Whoever has the power to change objectionable usernames needs to do that. Blocking isn't enough. (talk) (sophie) 19:40, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

When I personally notice usernames that are doxxes-as-username, threatening, or something similar, I tend to change those. For those making a stupid "point" with their name, it's fun to change too, but only as a lark. But "objectionable" is maybe not specific enough. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:44, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Ze vs xe vs hir vs they[edit]

What exactly is the difference? I just know that all but the latter are neologisms, they're all used for singular gender-neutral, and "xe" is pronounced "ze". —Supreme Leader Bigs of Goatistan (Words of Wisdom/Achievements) 19:56, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

There is no substantial difference in meaning and the primary reason for there being multiple such options is multiple people ariving at the same conclusion "There should be a new gender neutral pronoun to describe people like me" independently. I expect the eventual resolution to this dilemma will be some kind of compromise that makes no one happy, especially social conservatives. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:01, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
I have three big complaints about the English language.
  1. We have no decisive singular gender-neutral pronoun (I prefer "xe")
  2. We have no verb inflection for future tense
  3. Our writing and speaking don't match up at ALL
Supreme Leader Bigs of Goatistan (Words of Wisdom/Achievements) 21:17, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
In order: we'll get over it, you'll get over it, that's every language. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 22:20, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  1. It better.
  2. I guess I see your point.
  3. Yes, but I mean how in other languages, you say it how it's written, but it's not like that in English.
Supreme Leader Bigs of Goatistan (Words of Wisdom/Achievements) 22:49, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Humans should human up and be referred as "it". --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 22:33, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Goodpost.gifSupreme Leader Bigs of Goatistan (Words of Wisdom/Achievements) 22:34, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
If thou needest a gender neutral pronoun, thou shouldst use the one thou already hast but get little use from today. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 02:10, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Singular they has been a part of English language for a few centuries now. If not for all those language purists who for some reason have no problem with neologisming computer to talk about a thing, not a job yet can't stand something that has been used longer than they live it would be completely natural by now. NoJohYouAreTheDemons (talk) 07:39, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

There is no distinction between he, she, and it in spoken Chinese. The distinction was made in the written language some time after after contact with Europe. Has this fact made a real difference in Chinese society? Ariel31459 (talk) 02:34, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

"Spoken Chinese" is, being generous, a very vague phrase. Modern Standard Mandarin? Wu? Hakka? I won't rule out the possibility that there is no distinction in any of these languages, but the lack of that detail makes me instantly suspicious. Tialaramex (talk) 12:41, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Suspicious of this?Ariel31459 (talk) 14:06, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Your thoughts?[edit]

Are they even that commen of a site? https://news.vice.com/story/face-veils-are-now-banned-for-quebecers-receiving-government-services ShiningSwordofThoughts (talk)

Aside from legitimate religious discrimination interpretation, does this law only cover face covering or just Muslim-wear? If the former, then might related to people identification in case of a crime; however, this is optimistic.—CheeseburgerPlate (talkstalk) 03:54, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
There are some good articles from the CBC on the subject. I particularly liked this one. AcidTrial (talk) 15:59, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
It's been so weird to me that the minority language Canadians are the biggest bigots. I guess it's because all the pseudo-nationalism harmonizes naturally with the xenophobia? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:03, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
i'd imagine its because they are the minority language canadians that might make them prone to thinking their sense of national identity is under threat. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:27, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, language is a really good target for divisive politics. It's a nice in-group marker, better in some ways even than skin colour. We know you're one of the tribe because you sound like us. If you are a professional rabble rouser language has the benefit of code switching. Skin tone can't be changed dramatically mid-sentence. But you can switch from talking like a Cambridge academic to Jamaican patois in half a sentence, which lets you flit from one tribe to another at your convenience. Tribal membership is important to most humans, indeed we regard people who are comfortable without a tribal affiliation with suspicion. Requiring that outsiders will look and sound like us reinforces the supremacy of our tribe over theirs. Their existing speech, clothing or standards of beauty are garbage, our tribe is better than theirs. And though it's not causal here, French as a language dominates because of this in what is now France in the 19th century. People who spoke some other language (arguably dialect, but you'd have to stretch a point) were regarded as outsiders, they must now learn Parisian French, even though that's never been what was spoken in the part of France where they live. France isn't allowed to have this as an overt policy any more (it would contravene EU regulations which say minority local languages are to be preserved) but French people may not have got the memo. Tialaramex (talk) 23:26, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
the part of Quebec I live in has a higher than average middle eastern population and I saw 10-20 people with any versions that cover their face, its much more common to cover the hair. However the number of people a law effects doesn't matter in regards to population. There are far less jewish people than muslims but forcing them mix together men and women in more conservative temples or stopping them from covering their heads since its not part of the uniform (and therefore not "secular" enough for the the writers of the bill although crosses get a pass due to "tradition"). This is an attempt at forceful cultural integration and ignore the moral issues this tends to breed cultural friction. Vorarchivist (talk) 05:45, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

And then there's this.Ariel31459 (talk) 16:27, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I hate when I over over a link and the slug is an unreasonable mishmash of keywords with no hint as to whether there might be merit to it. Please feel free to ignore this gripe that is directed at the writers of the independent. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:35, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
That's a bit random. "china burqa abnormal beards ban muslim province xinjiang veils province extremism crackdown freedom" makes absolute perfect sense. —Kazitor, pending 21:46, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Jimmy Dore Wandalisim[edit]

I took care of the main perpetrator, and good old Ronin protected the page, so it should be okay. Plus, I finally have a chance to use this:

Detectivepikachu.jpg Have no fear, Problem Sleuth WonderKirby577 is here!

He will not rest until the Corsolas are safe guilty parties are give a stern talking to and sat in the time-out.

If you think the detective is not doing his job, you can get off of my property discuss it on his talk page.

The Rational Gamer, WonderKirby577Let's chat!box 01:31, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Hold that thought, I'm going to make a banner like that for myself. RoninMacbeth (talk) 04:19, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
"Oh dear, Kazitor is here. / Damn, that's a downer." —Kazitor, pending 21:49, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
"Supreme Leader has ended the threat to the Glorious Rationalist Republic of Goatistan." —Supreme Leader Bigs of Goatistan (Words of Wisdom/Achievements) 23:24, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
I have my own crap in my userpage, but I hope some day, The Mario of Disappointment image will get some use. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 00:06, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Here's mine:

Oh dear — Kazitor is here

Well, isn't this a downer.

Maybe if we ignore him, he'll go away?

Yep, I copied someone else's idea for no particular reason. I guess we'll all just have to deal with it. —Kazitor, pending 01:48, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Who wants this to be in Project space?[edit]

ClickerClock/Vandal catcherClickerClock (talk) 01:01, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

5Would you like a page like ClickerClock/Vandal catcher in the RationalWiki namespace for easier patrolling?
Made a vote. —Kazitor, pending 01:23, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Eh, what the hell. —Supreme Leader Bigs of Goatistan (Words of Wisdom/Achievements) 04:12, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
It's a thing that helps catch vandals. It may be boring but it's very useful. —ClickerClock (talk) 04:14, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
@FuzzyCatPotato and Christopher, in case they haven't seen it. —Kazitor, pending 05:20, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
I like it very much! Spud (talk) 05:54, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Defining Sexual Freedom[edit]

This kind of got me thinking because of the whole free love bit in the 60's and my recent learning about asexuality in the current time. THen there is stuff like this:


Point being, how does one define it? Is it the freedom to have as much or none as you want without judgment? What about those who abstain, should they at least try it first before saying they don't want to be any part of it all?Machina (talk) 01:33, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it should be much different from idea of freedom in general. Something along the lines of - you should be free to do whatever you like unless it impinges on the freedom of others.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 07:23, 21 October 2017 (UTC)