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.
Beer.gif For previous conversations see the automagic barchives. Invision-Board-France-355.gif

What is going on?

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

RationalWiki:Forum
To do list


February short story competition (sticky)[edit]

topic vote is over has already ended. (refresh)ClickerClock (talk) 01:21, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I was thinking we should do a short story competition every month, so here goes. Before we can start, though, we need a topic. Vote in the poll below to decide which one we should write about. (ƨɛɪᴙᴛᴎoɔ) (ʞɹᴀᴛ) ɒnippiɿqƧ @ 15:00, 30 January 2018 (UTC) Polls are closed, vampires have won per CheeseburgerFace. the competition is over and we start voting has already ended. (refresh). (ƨɛɪᴙᴛᴎoɔ) (ʞɹᴀᴛ) ɒnippiɿqƧ @ 03:35, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Love2
Vampires14
Grawp14
Other (write your choice below)3
Tales from RW 1.01
Music0
Why Conservatism is better than Liberalism3
Why Conservatism is better than Liberalism— Unsigned, by: Right-wing RationalWiki / talk / contribs
Tales from RW 1.0. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 17:59, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I have some ideas. Pick vampires!!! —ClickerClock (talk) 21:31, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I would like to note that these are not super-rigid rules that you have to follow and you can use multiple subjects: you could write a story about how Grawp is in love with a vampire musician, which makes conservatives better than the werewolf-loving liberals at RW 1.0, and it would be fine no matter what topic is chosen. Also, I would love to see that story. Can we please make that happen? (ƨɛɪᴙᴛᴎoɔ) (ʞɹᴀᴛ) ɒnippiɿqƧ @ 22:07, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Music'Legionwhat do you want from me 02:02, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Grawp the Harry potter character?Vorarchivist (talk) 04:49, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
@Vorarchivist Grawp the wannabe troll/stalker. Comrade GC (talk) 04:56, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Stop bringing up Grawp and giving him attention. This is what he wants.—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 05:29, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Mod hat?[edit]

I see the topic "Grawp" has won. He's a troll who doesn't deserve any attention. Giving him the spotlight isn't going to help the community at all. I was thinking about tipping my mod hat to stop this, but I'm unsure if this is a mod's responsibilities. Thoughts?—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 00:21, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

We could always write parody about him, however if you think you should invalidate the votes for him and give them to the runner-up that would likely work as well. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:33, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
They're tied, no? We could definitely choose vampires since you're a mod and it was a tie anyway. (ƨɛɪᴙᴛᴎoɔ) (ʞɹᴀᴛ) ɒnippiɿqƧ @ 03:29, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Grawp was winning when I last checked, but since it's tied now...
Icon fedora.svg * dons Mod Hat *Icon fedora.svg
The votes for "Grawp" are invalidated. "Vampires" win.—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 03:31, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Once again, the elite see fit to override our democratic votes to suit their own purposes! It's okay, I didn't vote for that (I didn't vote for anything, actually) —Kazitor, pending 04:20, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
That's ok Comrade @Kazitor for it is all perfectly legal (the vote was tied at the end) and if you but accept this your fish rations shall be increased by one!! And your goat rations by two!! ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 04:25, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Odd, someone must've taken over my account. I would never speak out against our oppressive glorious moderators! I regret any trouble this incident might have caused and hope I can be forgiven. —Kazitor, pending 04:35, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
There is no cabal. Cosmikdebris (talk) 04:54, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Make a story about a troll who sucks people's blood. Oolon Colluphid (talk) 00:23, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm glad I'm not the first who's thought that. It's a great idea. Cosmikdebris (talk) 00:39, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Mine's done.Antigem (talk) 10:53, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
My suggestion of Why Conservatism is better than Liberalism could be used instead folks... --Right-wing RationalWiki (talk) 10:57, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Short story rating[edit]

I would like to inquire as to exactly how adult our short stories can become. Any thoughts on the matter would be appreciated. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 15:07, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I would personally prefer that we keep them PG-13. (ƨɛɪᴙᴛᴎoɔ) (ʞɹᴀᴛ) ɒnippiɿqƧ @ 16:44, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Submissions[edit]

Put your submissions below. Please sign them so we know whose they are. (ƨɛɪᴙᴛᴎoɔ) (ʞɹᴀᴛ) ɒnippiɿqƧ @ 16:45, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused. Do we post the story in it's entirety? Spectral Thief Marshadow (talk) 00:30, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

@Spectral Thief Marshadow Simply post your story in essayspace then add the link here. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:25, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
What's Essayspace? Spectral Thief Marshadow (talk) 02:06, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Essayspace. (ƨɛɪᴙᴛᴎoɔ) (ʞɹᴀᴛ) ɒnippiɿqƧ @ 02:21, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Here's my story, assuming it goes here. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Essay:A_story_about_Vampires Spectral Thief Marshadow (talk) 01:41, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Essay:Vampire Animals - not a story, but I did see that there aren't really any rules.Antigem (talk) 11:47, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

New Project[edit]

As stated before I've decided to write an antithesis to Left Behind and Revelation, in the form of a dystopian fiction. Basic plot is this, a guy named Yeshua rules an organization called Ark. He has mutilated human beings for the sake of what he terms purification, restraining the influence of their pituitary glands and drugging them. One of his facilities workers escapes.

Many details have been written down, but any ideas you contribute will be attributed to you when the work is published. Think of it not as the work of one, but as the work of many rational minds. Heh heh, you saw what I did there right? Darthmaul (talk) 21:20, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

@Darthmaul If I may suggest a few characters, given the metaphors used it might be best to have a supporting character who opens our protaganist's eyes to the truth (the serpent of Eden) and a separate but similar character who guides our protagonist further in their journey (The Devil) perhaps with the two supporting characters being mixed up by the protagonist. However I think the protagonist should ultimately stand on their own two feet as it were, deciding what they believe vs what others believe. This is a rationalist story after all. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:26, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps AO3 or similar might be a more appropriate place (and you can get followers/fanfic writers as well). Anna Livia (talk) 22:43, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
@Darthmaul I actually pitched a pretty similar idea as a Doctor Who novel back in the 90s. My version wouldn't work without the Doctor, so when the pitch was rejected, I dropped the idea. But I think you could make your version work.
I think GrammarCommie's basic idea solves most of the problems—you get a good, relatable hero, a driver for continuing plot conflicts, and a meaningful point. I'd emphasize the fact that the Devil is pushing pure false dichotomy: The outside world is pretty bad, and it also matches as many of the more realistic Left Behind fantasies as possible (Christianity is banned—and so is Hinduism, Wicca, etc., all trade is done through an RFID mark in the hand, etc., but probably no giant metal scorpions running around eating people; if you can actually connect everything to better interpretations of Revelation than Darby and friends, even better), but it's not nearly as bad as the Ark, and they're planning to invade the Ark and liberate its people, so you have to support them because you don't want to be an Arkist, do you? The hero could realistically be fooled pretty easily (imagine Kimmy Schmidt—or even the characters in Brave New World), but you want the reader to go along with it for a while, so, despite all the problems, the outside world has to actually be pretty livable for almost everyone who keeps their heads down. And not just the proles a la 1984; the middle class needs their comforts too, especially so your middle class readers can empathize. Sure, 1% of the population is in prison labor camps, and 60% of the population is regularly committing crimes that could get them sent to prison if they're unlucky, but most people can go through their daily lives watching good TV and marrying their sweethearts and not worrying about it too often.
If this is a novel rather than a short story, you need more ways to keep the full truth under wraps for a while. One thing that helps here is that the truth presumably isn't as simple as "evil conspiracy just in it for the evulz". The Antichrist himself doesn't just like tormenting people, and in fact would rather not. But he's a fanatic who doesn't really care about anything but preparing to invade the Ark, so he's got a government full of people who do care about the stuff that isn't important to him (read: everything that matters), which is a lot more like Reagan's government than Hitler's, but with a lot fewer restraints on them. Meanwhile, when the hero goes beyond listening to the Devil, there are plenty of dissenters out there who want to enlighten him, but they all have their own spin on things, and disagree with each other. (Look at how socialists and libertarians complained about the Gulf War, Star Wars, English-only laws, or anything else.) And of course the loudest people in each faction tend to be the most irrational, and there are some factions that really have nothing but insanity to them a la Alex Jones, which doesn't help.
The big problem for the story is the finale. For my story, the Doctor overthrows both evil governments, makes a rousing speech, and fucks off to the next timezone knowing the people are going to fix everything for themselves, but that only works because the Doctor Who universe somehow works that way. Realistically, overthrowing both governments will just mean mass starvation, local warlords, and all the other fun stuff that comes from absolute chaos (unless your hero is in a position to Marshall Plan everyone, which he won't be). You could go for a cheat—a singularitarian would come up with a solution where some piece of Ark technology can be used to solve all the problems of the outside world; an objectivist would have the hero lead a small group of people into a new society that, for unexplained reasons, totally won't at best turn into the Ark and more likely into typical collapsed libertopia, and in the epilogue they've grown to the point where they can save the rest of the world Foundation-style; etc. But making it not feel like a cheat is difficult, and still not as rewarding as playing it straight. Or, maybe, he's just not the hero and savior of the world, he ends up as one more underground dissenter with a long struggle ahead of him that might make things a lot worse before they get better even if he succeeds—realistic, but a bit of a downer. Or maybe throw in a twist—Yeshua really is God, but he's the Gnostic Demiurge (or Charlie X from Star Trek), and the real God shows up to yell at him and his friends for playing with a whole planet full of sentient beings like irresponsible twats and to set everything straight; that one could work if the tone was light-hearted enough throughout the story and it generally felt more absurdist than heavy in its dystopia. --157.131.152.164 (talk) 22:23, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for your thoughts and time. Although the story wont actually have the Devil himself, one of the characters is a man whose been accused of being the Devil/Antichrist. This character wont have a very large role, ironically, and I'll probably just have him sit back tied up in the back of a truck throughout the novel. And yes, the outside world will have its fair share of problems (mass starvation, an influx of mistreated immigrants ect), but the ARK community will be a billion trillion times worse. The protagonist will team up with a group of downtrodden rebels who are on their last limb, to liberate those living in the ARK community, and those being burned in the lake of fire. The protagonist wont exactly be a hero, but more of a behind the scenes type of guy, fighting to the very end.
As for keeping the truth under wraps, I have a second protagonist who actively works for ARK, but unlike the first, he doesn't know anything about the secret facility or mutilations done inside. At the novel's end he too will betray ARK, after discovering how sadistic and ignorant they are.
Now I might have a 1984 style ending where the reader is left crying his ass off, just to serve as a warning to current society, a warning not to let radical members of any religion try to purify the world. But I haven't decided whether I should do this or not.
About your demiurge suggestion, I would say if anything, the character who claims to be Yeshua should in fact be the god ahead of the Demiurge, and the Demiurge should be anti-Arkist. The reason for this is that the higher god would seek to destroy all flesh and purify the world, something very unnatural. The Demiurge is more of the natural, fleshly god who roots for the human race and encourages humanity to embrace their primal instincts. But with that said, the novel might end up being atheistic in its tone. Darthmaul (talk) 23:12, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
By the way the story's tone will be extremely grave and frightening. It'll have very little jokes, horrific (realistic) scenes, stuff that will shock Christians, like Yeshua castrating people, and leave you scared, depressed, angry, and in awe. The rebels fighting ARK are mostly atheists or people who just don't care. Darthmaul (talk) 23:31, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Depending on how many supernatural or at least supernatural-like elements will be in your setting, you might want to check the Salvation War series for ideas on the Lake of Fire. As for Yeshua, I can think on a RPG where there's a Christ-like figure who follows in a much larger and far more animesque scale Jesus' story, complete with his death as a martyr, to unite mankind even if everything is just a big lie. Panzerfaust (talk) 23:33, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
If the story doesn't end with the two protagonists being murdered, I'll have Yeshua possibly commit suicide after being forced to look at strippers. Now that is a shocking ending! Though if any of you have a different death for this character I might scrap that idea. Darthmaul (talk) 23:43, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
I never really thought of having the protagonist fix the problems of both ARK and the outside world, interesting... Darthmaul (talk) 05:06, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
The reason I assumed the hero had to fix the problems of both—well, the actual reason is that I was thinking of my Doctor Who story, which was (a) about the Doctor and (b) written with people like Henry Hyde on the brain, but the rationalization is that I think the false dichotomy is central to the religious right. If the outside world is the obvious best option for taking down ARK (because they’re already planning an invasion, and have massive resources) but is also too evil to support, this gives the protagonist an interesting moral choice. But it certainly isn’t the only story to be made out of your premise, and it sounds like you’re well on your way to a different interesting story, so don’t let me derail that.
Similarly, the deus ex machina/Charlie X ending doesn’t sound like it fits at all. (If someone wants to write a more James Morrow style against-Jesus’s-kingdom story they can feel free to steal it, of course.) —107.77.213.49 (talk) 17:24, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Should I have antagonists based on Kent Hovind, Kirk Cameron, and Ken Ham? Or is that going too far? Darthmaul (talk) 18:11, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
For Hovind and Ham, I think they might work better as minor characters who just appear once, rather than serious antagonists. What is there for Ham to do when there's an actual Jesus building an actual Ark that actual people have actually go to? And as for Hovind, I'm sure he'd love to take it upon himself to run the Ark equivalent of the Scientology legal department, but how could they survive even one week before he got them shut down by trying some silly Admiralty Law nonsense that he forgot was a scam he made up? Cameron, on the other hand—well, he himself is too much of a dumbass to be an effective antagonist, but his character Buck from the Left Behind movies fits perfectly, it's probably his most famous role since Growing Pains, and he's the second best Mary Sue character of all time. (The best is of course the other lead of the same series, but can you really write Captain Rayford Steele the pilotcaptain unironically in anything but gay porn?) --107.77.213.115 (talk) 04:23, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Maybe Ham could be Yeshua's lackey, sent to the outside world to gain followers. A Kent Hovind could be a jackass obsessed with achieving a universal state of no entropy, without actually realizing what this would mean for life as we know it. I'll take your advice and keep them as minors, and leave the big bad roles to self claimed biblical patriarchs. Darthmaul (talk) 06:13, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
I strongly suggest you to tackle how science (and, why not, space exploration) is treated there. It's more than likely that at the very least evolution, cosmology, and particle physics will be banned. Panzerfaust (talk) 22:04, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, the ARK community doesn't allow any scientific works to be published. If anyone wants to ask a question, they ask Yeshua and he tells outrageous bullshit. If a scientist does try to publish their work, they are sentenced to death for trying to play god. Darthmaul (talk) 00:34, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Another suggestion: propaganda and lots of it. Just like it feels the BS spewed by preachers ignoring that their "good guys" were not so, and the nasty future in store because you did not accept... blah, blah. Panzerfaust (talk) 23:40, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
And how about the those raised in the Facility speak a conlang designed by Yeshua, made to be as unhuman/unfleshly as possible. This language wont have any 1st person or 2nd person personal pronouns. All sense of individuality or ego is impossible to express in words. Darthmaul (talk) 01:05, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
1984 could also be a nice inspiration -stuff as doublethink, Big Brother Jeshua, etc.-. Panzerfaust (talk) 01:10, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
I already had a basic story before reading 1984 in 2016, but after reading it the setting became darker, worse than Airstrip One. Yeshua uses not just double think, but something called the Association Technique, which causes one to associate their pleasures with pain. Darthmaul (talk) 05:54, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Any Ex Creationist/Christian Stories?[edit]

I've read a lot of them on the internet but none on Rational wiki. Hell, I know I have one. Darthmaul (talk) 03:48, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I know Onychoprion has one. —Kazitor, pending 04:52, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
I do indeed, Darthmaul. It's on my profile thingey, if you wanna check it out. Onychoprion (talk) 23:51, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
I have one. When I was a child my daycare teacher tried to "spread the good word" as it were, and as I grew older the garden variety non-denominational Christianity kinda stuck. Then one day when I was in my early teens I went to a church for a family event, during which I picked up a Bible for the first time in my life and, out of boredom, read it. After which I promptly put said Bible down very slowly and non-obtrusively and decided I wasn't that bored. Not long afterwords I abandoned Christianity. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:55, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
A question for those of you who have deconverted: what do you think of those who are insisting on Christ's sacrifice for all of us as well as talk a lot about the "divine omnibenevolence", but at the same time say that there's no salvation for those who do not accept it, and all that?. Knowing the truth that appears on "the book", when I hear those people I feel as if I was listening to propaganda. Panzerfaust (talk) 22:52, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
My opinion is that it is propaganda. Just replace God with your dictator of choice and the whole Jesus thing with any significant event to the regime and ta da! Instant propaganda. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:04, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know I'm not alone. Preachers and similar people must have either a lot of cognitive dissonance or doublethinking, or both, to accept how an all-loving God will condemn to eternal torment anyone who has not accepted Jesus (read: its middlemen) or how if Jesus' sacrifice weakened so much Satan, God does not end with him (or, for the case, why God let the latter exist). Panzerfaust (talk) 14:24, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
My own story in a nutshell is this: pudet, percussus, excito. Darthmaul (talk) 06:21, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Here is mine- I was a Christian as a child (well, forced on me). I became skeptical of the faith itself, not of a God. I ditched Christianity after learning about dinosaurs and evolution. I practiced Paganism for a while but went back to Christianity. As of 2017, I went back to Paganism. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 23:43, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Competition: Short Story.[edit]

Inspired by Fun:Nina The Naturopath.

Rules:

  • Write a short story in the Essay namespace.
  • Submit your short story.
  • Topic of the short story: Tea.


the Submission Period is over. has already ended. (refresh)

After the Submission period is complete, we will vote on who has written the best story. I will use a DPL list to randomize the order because I have a feeling that Rationalwikians are so lazy that they will only bother to read the first entry.

Award: *it's a secret*

ClickerClock (talk) 06:00, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Submissions[edit]

  1. Essay:Escape from the Tea GodsClickerClock (talk) 08:43, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
  2. I was bored, okay? Spriggina (parolo) (kontribuoj) @ 23:21, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
  3. Essay:Tea Story€h33s3βurg3rF@€3Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 07:09, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
  4. Essay:Timeline of the Caffeine War 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 19:08, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
  5. Essay:Kazitea Finally got around to it. No title. —Kazitor, pending 05:28, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
  6. Essay:Betta - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 06:28, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Vote[edit]

Submission period is over, voting begins now! voting period ends has already ended. (refresh)ClickerClock (talk) 01:20, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Escape from the Tea Gods3
Teanage Mutant Ninja Goats6
Tea Story2
Timeline of the Caffeine War4
Kazitea7
Betta2

Goat[edit]

Just... just a short story about "tea"? —Kazitor, pending 06:43, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you need to submit a short story about "tea". Creativity is appreciated. —ClickerClock (talk) 08:42, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Are multiple submissions allowed? —Kazitor, pending 09:09, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Sure! —ClickerClock (talk) 09:12, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Just to 'tick the joke off': Why do anarchists drink herbal tea? Because proper tea is theft. Anna Livia (talk) 20:45, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm compelled to just write the plot of Cuphead. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 21:13, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
I wrote mine like something you would see from a book. Is that okay?—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 07:09, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
@CheeseburgerFace It's cool. —ClickerClock (talk) 09:24, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Don't ask. I can still do my original idea. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 19:14, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

It would be fun to have competitions to see who can write the best short story about any particular topic each month instead of it being a one-time event. Of course, we'd need more than 4 submissions. (ƨɛɪᴙᴛᴎoɔ) (ʞɹᴀᴛ) ɒnippiɿqƧ @ 20:59, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Bumping so Archivist doesn't execute this. (ƨɛɪᴙᴛᴎoɔ) (ʞɹᴀᴛ) ɒnippiɿqƧ @ 03:37, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I assume the votes for my story are British nationalists glad that Britain conquers the world. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 20:59, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Bummer I only noticed this now! I have to say Bigs's timeline of the caffeine war made me laugh out loud multiple times. Well written!!! ShabiDOO

Results[edit]

  1. @Kazitor received 7 votes, putting him at first place with his story, Kazitea.
  2. @Spriggina received 6 votes, making her the runner up with her story, Teanage Mutant Ninja Goats.
  3. @Bigs received 4 votes, putting him in 3rd place with his story, Timeline of the Caffeine War.
  4. @ClickerClock received 3 votes, fourth in line, with his story, Escape from the Tea Gods.
  5. @CheeseburgerFace and Smerdis of Tlön both received 2 votes, which tied them at fifth place with their respective stories Tea Story and Betta.

Since ClickerClock is the one who started this, I'll let him give out the award to Kazitor. (ƨɛɪᴙᴛᴎoɔ) (ʞɹᴀᴛ) ɒnippiɿqƧ @ 16:31, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

inb4 the prize is a userbox or a template of the like.—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 03:44, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
I imagined that that would be the case, as I was poking around in ClickerClock's sandbox (I was trying to see how he had made a particular template) and found a "best short story" thingy. I don't really know what else it would be. (ƨɛɪᴙᴛᴎoɔ) (ʞɹᴀᴛ) ɒnippiɿqƧ @ 04:37, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Bump. (ƨɛɪᴙᴛᴎoɔ) (ʞɹᴀᴛ) ɒnippiɿqƧ @ 15:30, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Can I be in last place? If I'm not going to be the best, I might as well be the worst!—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 19:14, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Answers in Genesis' new series: Is the Bible True?[edit]

The Bible is clearly unlike any other document in history. Every claim it makes about science is not only true but crucial for filling in the blanks of our understanding about the origin of the universe, the earth, fossils, life, and human beings. The more we study and learn about the world, the more we come to appreciate the Bible’s flawless, supernatural character.

[internal screaming intensifies]

oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 20:56, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

This is a laughable statement, if scientists took the Bible as their guide then they'd try to cure adultery across America, by making women (what about men?) drink bitter water and eat a book. Sounds brilliantly scientific and totally non sexist to me. Darthmaul (talk) 21:56, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Hey, you've done this a lot and I don't think anybody's told you yet. Can you please make sure to indent your talk page comments using colons : before them? You can look at the source of this section to check how it's done. Thank you! (ƨɛɪᴙᴛᴎoɔ) (ʞɹᴀᴛ) ɒnippiɿqƧ @ 22:31, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Could care them to explain why no mention at all exists there of, say, the phases of Venus, the four largest moons of Jupiter, Saturn's rings, the planet Uranus -there supposedly was a tribe of the Pacific that knew about it before the telescope was invented-, or the Milky Way consisting of many faint stars (I'm being merciful enough just to cite things that could be known with a very simple 'scope?. Or why are also not mentioned places as Japan or America?. Panzerfaust (talk) 23:08, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
@Panzerfaust Clearly Christians weren't meant to experience such things, and that it's all part of God's plans using his mysterious ways. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 02:25, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
The suggestion that all scientific knowledge can be found in the Bible is obvious Christian propaganda. In fact the Quran contains scientific knowledge that could not have been known 1400 years ago. Heathens! Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 22:34, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
@Bob M Don't be silly, the only reliable book of of knowledge is.... the dictionary!!! ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:37, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Works fail me. Actually that Islamic site I lined to above is really worth a visit. It's almost like an Islamic Conservapedia where you are never quite sure if it is serious or not.
For example under Speed of Light: "Moslems (Muslims) believe that angels are low density creatures, and that God created them originally from light. They move at any speed from zero up to the speed of light. It is the angels who carry out God's orders. Those angels take their orders from a Preserved Tablet somewhere in outer space, and not from God's Throne."
Their article on wormholes also involves angels: "A wormhole acts as a shortcut connecting two distant regions in the universe. God gave this method of transportation to his angels throughout the universe. The Quran calls them 'Ma'arej' (معارج) and describes how angels use them for long distance travel. Today Moslems know that these 'Ma'arej' is what scientists call wormholes."
I tried to find a good quote from their evolotion article but the thing is just to weird.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:32, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Two words, Bob: Harun Yahya... ScepticWombat (talk) 09:02, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Holy Mystra, that goes even beyond that preacher who compared Jesus with dark matter telling he's the one who holds the galaxies together (I guess since dark energy does exactly the opposite that it will be the Devil and since dark energy is almost three times more abundant as dark matter Satan will be more powerful than God (oh, well, don't expect much scientific knowledge on a Pentecostalist who takes Noah's Ark story to be true)). Panzerfaust (talk) 22:37, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
For anyone who wants more of this, there's a Wikipedia article Scientific foreknowledge in sacred textsWikipedia's W.svg which covers Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism, while they cover Buddhist beliefs separately. Buddhism and scienceWikipedia's W.svg describes how Buddhism predicted black holes and various modern cosmological ideas. --Gospatric (talk) 13:09, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
It's hard to call that "foreknowledge" -at best, interesting coincidences-. Now, while I'm not wanting the equations for a valid quantum gravity theory hidden on the text, a currently well-known fact described in poetic form but still quite recognizable (and not vague) would well fit. Panzerfaust (talk) 14:58, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
If you write vaguely enough, it is easy to make a liberal interpretation of the text to fit known science. But the question then becomes, what about the other "predictions"? Cherry picking much? Science is all about making definitive predictions that can be falsified by observations or experiments. Vagueness has no place in science. Nerd (talk) 03:39, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Imagine that, say, in a Bronze Age text an statement of the like: "The King star of the night has a red eye, four daughters, one fiery as a volcano, and the three others cold as ice, and dozens of attendants" is found. It's not difficult to see it's referring to Jupiter, its Great Red Spot, its many moons, and even the characteristics of the four largest ones and that would be what I want, but nothing like that has been found as much as I like to see the Sumerian/Akkadian (whatever) poem of Inanna's descent to the Underworld describing how Venus changes its aspect as the planet draws closer to the Sun on its trajectory in the sky. Panzerfaust (talk) 14:26, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

What up?[edit]

Used to edit this place, most recently as AgingHippie, but none of my old log-ins seem to work anymore. Just thought I'd say HI and see if any old-timers are still around. RagingHippie (talk) 05:56, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, I am. It's very good to see you again, AH. Spud (talk) 06:45, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
And you. RagingHippie (talk) 19:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi there, @RagingHippie! Good to hear from you. I'm not sure if I count as an old timer, but there are a few others who come around now and then. Bongolian (talk) 06:51, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
On the internet, last week is an "old-timer." Good to see you. RagingHippie (talk) 19:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
I remember when you were known as Father Vivian O'Blivion. Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 16:05, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
I go back a bunch of names further than that. I think PFoster was the first, back in '07.RagingHippie (talk) 19:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
AgingHippie has returned to us! RoninMacbeth (talk) 16:06, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Probably not in any meaningful way. We'll see. RagingHippie (talk) 19:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Don't feel pressured to, okay? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 20:33, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
I remember you as the crabby User:PowderSmokeAndLeather. Leuders (talk) 20:57, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Trying to be less crabby. Life is too fucking short now. RagingHippie (talk) 06:37, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Damn lost control of my account again! Someone help! --SagingHippie (talk) 12:39, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Hey, the greying bong jockey has returned! Groovy. Sorry to hear about your account troubles, though. ScepticWombat (talk) 14:05, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

All those people were one person? I don't know what's real any more! 2A02:C7D:164F:6B00:9E2:3B47:D026:B241 (talk) 14:51, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah I keep losing control of my account, silly me! --FAgingHippie (talk) 16:47, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
@FAgingHippie What exactly are you having an issue with? Perhaps we could offer some pointers. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:14, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Are you aware of Special:PasswordReset? —Kazitor, pending 21:48, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I'll give it a go, cheers. --FAgingHippie (talk) 00:59, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Some things don't change. Some things do. I missed this place. RagingHippie (talk) 05:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm sure we'll learn to hate it again soon enough. --Parevent (talk) 05:56, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Yeah I'm sure I'll be hating this place very, very soon. --SagingHippie (talk) 12:47, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

What's the big deal about Trump and the Porn Star?[edit]

So... Why is it such a big scandal that Trump had sex with a porn star? There are people who didn't think he was having affairs one after another? If anything, the story feeds into his whole persona; "I sleep with the girls you wank to!". The news is doing him a favor by keeping the story in the press. So what am I missing? The part where he paid hush money? So friggen what? CorruptUser (talk) 01:09, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Let's see. From what I read, his personal lawyer Micheal Cohen argued that the "hush money" was not illegal campaign contribution because he paid her out of his own pocket and was not reimbursed by the Trump campaign. Stephanie Clifford, through a spokesperson, said Cohen invalidated the nondisclosure agreement and that she will tell her story soon. Other than that, it is a tale of an idiot, full of fire and fury, signifying nothing. Nerd (talk) 03:28, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
If you found out that the CEO of a company, in which you are a shareholder had betrayed your trust, that he worked on the side with a competitor of yours, covered it up, lied about it, tried to pay him off to not mention it again, would you ever trust that guy to make good sound decisions in the best interests of both of you? Would you have confidence in him to keep running the board and the company? If you found out that your child's kindergarten teacher had screwed a porn star, invited that porn star to official functions sitting at the same table as his wife, multiple times, lied about it again and again, burried it through the use of an expensive expert lawyer and then told another large package of lies to everyone...would you feel comfortable with him educating your child? Would he impart the values you care about? Would you leave your child alone with him? 87.218.201.135 (talk) 04:17, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
We already know he is a creep and a liar. Nerd (talk) 04:24, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
This is why I became a lawyer -- so I could pay off the tab for my friends' hookers. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 17:08, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
The fact that Cohen is Trump's long-time lawyer and is likely on a retainer indicates that there is an implicit monetary quid-pro-quo between Trump, Cohen and Daniels, which could be interpreted as an illegal campaign contribution. There is also the double standard that no one cares about any more (crucifiction by the GOP of Clinton over Lewinsky). Bongolian (talk) 05:32, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
There's also the sheer frikken' hypocrisy of it. As long as it's consenting adults, I have no interest in who my political leaders bump uglies with. But when a man who's been married three times with numerous affairs is held up as a model moral figure by the same people who condemned the solidly dedicated family man who preceded him? That's a travesty. RagingHippie (talk) 06:35, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
That story is just yet another example of life imitating art in the Trump White House, to wit, a bad sitcom/reality show. ScepticWombat (talk) 14:09, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
It is also noteworthy that Trump is the US' first pornstar president,[1][2] eerily reminiscent of President Camacho in Idiocracy. The spare-us-the-geriatric-sex-details from Stormy Daniels are sort of a yawner in this regard. Bongolian (talk) 05:26, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

People jumped on Bill for this kind of stupid shit but they're willing to give Don a pass by comparison, in addition to all of his other numerous transgressions. And he has the support of evangelicals and god-fearin' types. Then again they're probably just as guilty and know it, but STILL! Let's have some standards. James Earl Cash (talk) 22:16, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

What do you think is the likelihood of world war 3?[edit]

Lately there's been a lot of tension, it seems, between countries and due to that there's been many articles about likelihood of world war 3. One article (well, not really article) was that of the economist, it was one of those snapchat discover things so unfortunately I cannot provide links so I'll try to summarise what was on it as best I can.

The main factors that could spark world war 3 (according to the article) are: Russia's will to dominate central and Eastern Europe, China's will to dominate parts of Asia, North Korea attack and America's dysfunctional politics.

From what I gathered, Russia and China want a "greater sphere of influence" without "Ameirca's interference"; there's a " Pressing danger of war on Korean Peninsula, perhaps this year" which could cause and all out war and the fact that American isn't doing anything about this could cumulate into a world war 3. The use of drones could also be devastating and Russia has more nuclear weapons than Ameirca. According to the economist, the best way to keep world peace going is for America to be a stronger power ("The best guarantor for world peace is a strong America") I assume this would be used to deter any conflict. The economist put that Russia and China won't "start a war they'd surely lose" so if America is strong it would seem that they wouldn't be able to win a war with it, I'm not really sure I understand it well enough so excuse the poor reasoning. The overall argument from the Economsit is that world war 3 (currently) is very plausible if America doesn't sort itself out and let's other powers do what they want to do (I think that's what they're aiming at).

So what do you guys think, sorry if this summary is a bit wishy-washy but I'm not really that good at summaries it seems. Anyway, what do you guys reckon about this whole ordeal, do you think world war 3 is likely anytime soon and would the listed factors be detrimental to its initiation?--WMS (talk) 23:15, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree with that assessment, from my point of view the US has spent too much time playing policeman of the world and not enough time shoring up our economy and infrastructure. Although to be fair I do have a large anti-interventionist streak so I am biased somewhat. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 05:06, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie Goodpost.gif Nerd (talk) 22:22, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Look no further than the doomsday clock to see how close we are to nuclear war.[3] It's fallacious to think that more nuclear weapons means more security. Bongolian (talk) 05:44, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
I spent the first 25 years of my life in a world in which the prospect of nuclear annihilation seemed all but certain. Then came another 20+ years in which it seemed a dim memory. Now, I am more sure of it than ever before. RagingHippie (talk) 05:50, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
@Bongolian I'm afraid that's too simplistic. You need ample nuclear weapons of all kinds — strategic and tactical — for an effective deterrence policy. The question is whether or not you can afford it. Also, nuclear weapons may not be as destructive as you think. Bunkers and various hide-outs can be constructed. Modern battle tanks may have the ability to resist radiation damage up to a point. Nerd (talk) 22:26, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
I agree, @Nerd, I was being too simplistic. I had to shut down just as I finished the second sentence. The idea behind deterrence in the Cold War was basically between roughly co-equal nation states (US & USSR), there was no need to develop more nuclear weapons than were necessary to assure a devastating retaliation in the case of first strike. The retaliation was assured a fleet of near-impossible to prevent launches from nuclear weapon-equipped submarines. Both the US and USSR produced many more weapons than were necessary, which was more of an ideological (rabid anti-communism)/political (we must have more than the adversary) decision than a strategic decision. The US building 100 or 1000 or however many more nuclear weapons isn't going to add any additional deterrence to anyone, especially not North Korea. North Korea on the other hand probably does have something to gain strategically by continuing down the nuclear weapon building path since their long-range missile accuracy is unknown, and their submarine capacity is quite limited so far. Bongolian (talk) 01:25, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Late last year I had a dream: I looked out my front door as a mushroom cloud bloomed in the distance near a major American city. That being said, I understood the dream as compensating for my disappointment at Trump's election and my own conscious certainty that no such thing would happen. Thus two certainties were conflated. My reasons: Now that Russia has gone over to gangster capitalism, there is no ideological reason for Russia to violently expand into Europe. Conventional war is too expensive. Nuclear war destroys the property the victors would be fighting for. Not many have noticed that going off the gold standard has made small-time war unaffordable. Also, Trump would rather make a deal with the Russians and Chinese to take what they want for a cash payment. You know he would do that too, that crook (sort of a good thing here). I don't imagine N. Korea has enough fissile material to destroy even itself. So, I guess it could happen. I doubt it.Ariel31459 (talk) 19:09, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@Ariel31459. "there is no ideological reason for Russia to violently expand into Europe." Ukraine. Crimea. They've already done it. Plus, the idea that NATO now encroaches on their borders gives them every reason to want a buffer zone between them and what they percieve as a hostile, expanding power. RagingHippie (talk) 01:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
@RagingHippie I don't think we disagree on that. But the reasons are not really ideological with respect to Russia's invasions. Crimea was once part of Russia. Stalin ( an ethnic Georgian) gave it to Ukraine. The Russians wanted it back. Now the border incursions into the Ukraine could mean The Russians think they need the agricultural potential of Ukrainian farms. The west won't let them take it, I think. But that's not worth a nuclear war...I guess.Ariel31459 (talk) 15:09, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
It depends on what you mean by a "Third World War". If you mean a war in which which many major powers and some minor ones are involved - well, that was (and is) in going on in Syria. If you mean a war in which The US, Russia, China, Europe, India and the Middle East are all involved in some kind warlike activity which spans the globe and in which they are actually fighting each other then I think it's kind of unlikely as - the way the world is structured now - it would be in nobody's interest. (But, hey! Humans?) If you mean an all-out nuclear war between all the nuclear powers (OK, between Russia and the US) then that seems even less likely. (But on the other hand - Putin? Trump?) Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 22:08, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Why I changed my views on abortion[edit]

For a while, I was Pro-Life. I ignored arguments against it. But seeing an episode of Grey's Anatomy (the episode where the character Christina Yang gets an abaortion), I got some new perspective on it thought the show is fiction. I was wrong to say women cannot choose. If a woman is single, go for it. Not everyone is cut out to be a parent. If someone is married, discuss it without judgement. I may not like the idea of abortion (I am not sure how I would describe how I feel), abortion should be 100% legal. This has been a public service announcement from RZ94

its a true but long suffering aspect of our existence that emotional presentations can be far more effective at changing the minds of others than arguments, mostly because people are more receptive then. As much as would want to say that I came to all my ideas through pure reasoning I mostly looked them up after a game, tv series or book put them into my mind.Vorarchivist (talk) 04:19, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Most, if not all, of what you see on television is false. Women should be able to choose their own destiny. Please change the channel. Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 04:30, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
I am strongly pro-choice, for several reasons. Abortion heals child support. The anti-abortion cult is maudlin and contemptible; I gather Europe got the vegans and we got these assholes. Finally, life itself is evil, so abortion is always an act of mercy. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 05:27, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
The anti-abortion cult is maudlin, contemptible... and hypocrite. "(...) there's an abortion every five minutes. That's one hundred thousand murders per year (...). Help us (of course to ask for money could not be absent) to defend those who cannot defend themselves (...)" (anti-abortion group commanded by a female Evangelical pastor. No mentions at all even on their site of what will happen after birth. And it's not the worst I've seen (pro-life Catholic minarchists who could not care less if you cannot afford what costs to maintain someone crippled come to mind). Panzerfaust (talk) 14:12, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
I am an anti-authoritarian. Leave people to decide for themselves. Many have qualms about abortions. It isn't murder, and government should not forbid medical procedures, they should stay out of the politics, while advancing high standards of healthcare. The problem is, 2 out of 5 American women poll as pro-life (accepting of some restrictions on abortion). That is a lot of women. I doubt resorting to insults will change many minds.Ariel31459 (talk) 17:46, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I think abortion is a lesser of an evil. But from a quality-of-life standpoint, most of the time, there is a very good reason to get an abortion (virtually all situations, the couple is unprepared to raise a child) and I think abortions are beneficial to society, especially when there is no realistic 0% chance of getting pregnant from sex. Finally, forcing to term doesn't resolve the guilt of knowing this child is unwanted. Putting a baby immediately for adoption is, I think, a very cruel action worse than abortion (and that's not going into how adoptions have a ton of unloved children, like they need more), and I bet I'll have far more guilt knowing this person is alive, somewhere, and unwanted by the mother than just ending it already. The child also deserves a quality life and the child shouldn't grow up knowing how much of an accident, a burden on the family it was. I think abortion is good for both the mother and fetus. I've trouble understanding what's the big deal behind abortions. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 03:55, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Some welcome though[edit]

Decide to come back 2 years later and first thing I get is a hammer to the face and then my secret ninja rights taken away--Parevent (talk) 15:46, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I've not had a particularly warm welcome either. The lefties who run the show here are somewhat oppressive. You could join my crew and overthrow them! --Right-wing RationalWiki (talk) 15:52, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
But what if I support the leftist tyranny of Ratwiki? --Parevent (talk) 15:58, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
I thought you was wiser than that...--Right-wing RationalWiki (talk) 16:03, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
I tried to ban Rob from the wiki for being an annoying right winger who only wanted to shit on the site, i'm clearly not going to be on your side. --Parevent (talk) 16:05, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
So be it. I see you deserved your cold welcome back. --Right-wing RationalWiki (talk) 16:06, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@Parevent You could always join my Party, or not. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:56, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Editfilter[edit]

"Paravan " is actually in the editfilter now? That's great. It's no wonder I couldn't edit with that account without tripping it.--Parevent (talk) 16:01, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

You can thank FatAardvark for that. Anyways, I've heard you were a good user back in your day, so welcome back! RoninMacbeth (talk) 16:10, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
I can testify that Parawotsit wore a mod hat well. Looks like Foster the Cruel has also made a reappearance, and a welcome one in my view. Further, deponent saith not. Anonymous User (talk) 18:03, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
More like Foster the Tired these days. Getting old sucks. RagingHippie (talk) 18:50, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
In case you missed it, Christopher said it was a misunderstanding and has restored you to Sysop, @Parevent. Bongolian (talk) 20:14, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Not really meant to talk about filter 11 where non techs can see it but I believe I’ve removed all bans on the word paravant and variations. Christopher (talk) 20:43, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Para, you sound like a "paraprofessional" ;) Cat Lover (talk) 01:49, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

The a sound[edit]

By a I refer to the open central unrounded vowel. This sound is suppose to be extremely common, is it possible that that this is due to centralization? Wikipedia says, In most languages, vowels become mid-centralized when spoken quickly, and in some, such as English and Russian, many vowels are also mid-centralized when unstressed. This is a general characteristic of vowel reduction.. [1] Because if this is true, maybe /a/ was not as common in prehistoric times, but became prevalent because of this trend. Kartvelian, Uralic, Nivkh, and Chukotko-Kamchatkan are all suppose to have been a-less. Darthmaul (talk) 02:51, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Isn't /a/ simply representative of /ɑ(ː)/ or /æ/ depending on the prevalence of both? (ƨɛɪᴙᴛᴎoɔ) (ʞɹᴀᴛ) ɒnippiɿqƧ @ 02:58, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
/ɑ/, /æ/, and /a/ are three separate sounds. Listen to the sound files to hear the difference. [2] [3] [4] /ä/ is another way of representing /a/. Darthmaul (talk) 03:18, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
That says that /a/ technically represents the open front unrounded vowel, not the central, although I do see that /a/ differs from /ɑ/ and /æ/ now. Thanks. (ƨɛɪᴙᴛᴎoɔ) (ʞɹᴀᴛ) ɒnippiɿqƧ @ 05:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I should probably use /ä/ next time. Easy to see how it can be confused with /æ/ or /ɑ/ given how screwed up and outdated English orthography is. Darthmaul (talk) 05:50, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
At least in my idiolect, /ɑ/, /a/, /ɒ/, and /ɔ/ all get filed in the same pigeonhole; they are allophones of a single underlying sound. The sound /ɔ/ or /å/ doesn't really exist except as a variant of /ɑ/ in a diphthong or before 'r'. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 15:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC):
Surprisingly any open vowels other than /ä/ aren't too common. The open front vowel, or the low front vowel for instance, doesn't occur in 87.80% of all languages in UPSID. [5] It is only the central one that's common. This leads me to believe that the feature which makes this sound so naturally widespread isn't its openness, but its centrality. Darthmaul (talk) 18:34, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
For one of my conlangs, Vandalic, I took Vulgar Latin and ran its vowel system through a sieve that reduced its vowels to three /a i u/. I feared that the end result would be unintelligible. It actually worked rather well. Of course, most English based creoles sharply reduce the vowel distinctions of the source language. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 02:36, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Just my two cents: my native language is Russian and English is my second language, and it took me some effort for me to hear the difference between /a/ and /ɑ/ (the first sounds closer to the a sound in Russian) in those three audio files, while /æ/ sounds very distinct from both of them to me. - LucidFox (talk) 14:14, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Smerdis of Tlön I reconstruct Early Indo European with three as well, /æ ~ ɛ/ and /i u/. Also I don't believe that /i/ and /u/ were vocalic allophones of semivowels, but that it was the other way around. Darthmaul (talk) 18:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
The /a i u/ trio recurs in many, many languages. If there's another it's usuallu /e/. The basic three are what's usually constructed for Proto-Afroasiatic; Akkadian and Etruscan add the /e/. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 19:18, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Smerdis of Tlön Afroasiatic may not be well enough researched to determine what its vowel system was like. Sure, Semitic had /a i u/, but to say the same for Afroasiatic might be too biased towards Semitic. I think if one is talking about the Open front unrounded vowel, /a/, it wasn't present in any proto language. The Open central unrounded vowel however is another story, since it is so common today it was probably common back then. But as asked earlier, is this due to centralization/vowel reduction? Darthmaul (talk) 02:35, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Noticable bias[edit]

Sup y'all. Having read through U.S politics related articles I couldn't help but notice some obvious biases. For example the Republican Party has categories such as Government Incompetence, Insufferable Asseholes,Smooth-talking bastards and Authoritarian wingnuttery. Democratic Party has none of these. I for one would sooner vote Republican than Democrat. --Princeps Civitatis (talk) 13:43, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

yeah this slander occurs on almost every article about conservatives/right-wing people or movements. It’s an epidemic. —Right-wing RationalWiki (talk) 14:22, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
@Right-wing RationalWiki First off, the Y at the beginning of your first sentence should be capitalized. Second off, slander is a rather strong term given most if not all of this site's content is protected under the first amendment (under U.S. law) or it's equivalent. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:45, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Ha ha criticising my spelling and grammar...you’re username suits you. —Right-wing RationalWiki (talk) 14:49, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Really? You're only noticing that now? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:53, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
...—Right-wing RationalWiki (talk) 15:06, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Ah!! Such witticisms wound me sir! How doth your enemies stand against such cleverness? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 15:12, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie You should have used its, not it's. CowHouse (talk) 16:23, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
@CowHouse Damn you Muphry's Law!! ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:50, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Unfortunately, reality has a well-known liberal bias, and we just happen to reflect that. (ƨɛɪᴙᴛᴎoɔ) (ʞɹᴀᴛ) ɒnippiɿqƧ @ 15:14, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Although the example you used isn’t the best (the Republican Party is clearly worse than the Democratic Party), we do suffer from left-wing bias and it often affects the accuracy of our articles. If you see any examples of factual inaccuracies, feel free to remove them or bring them up. Christopher (talk) 16:34, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, thank you. That bias is real and not enough people point it out. By merely describing them as incompetent and insufferable, we're really pasting a bias of decency and fairness over a reality of scum-sucking, vile worthless, often fascist trash. We could do so much more to portray just the facts of reality, but unfortunately, we are often bound by social convention. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:03, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
I still wonder if there is anything redeeming about today's conservatism in America. Social conservatives? They're always assholes who want to restrict rights of minorities and women in the name of "tradition". Fiscal conservatives? That doesn't exist when fiscal conservatives (aka the Republicans) want the ballooning the military budget and giving corporations tax cuts via "trickle-down" which is based on literal horseshit and is theoretically and really horseshit. Small government conservatism? Yeah, sure, subscribe to the complete and dicky myth of people living on food stamps. A lot of deregulation they support is usually allowing corporations the right to screw us over. De-tooth the EPA, FDA, the medical stuff (cancervatives lolol). How do people believe any of this works when time and time has shown again that they work as well as using a Spiny Shell when you're in first place? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 03:36, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
part of me believes that they don't actually believe in any of this shit and have deeper, financially motivated reasons behind some of these. БaбyЛuigiOнФire(T|C) 03:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Of course, but people vote for these positions. Which means there are people out there who support them. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 04:07, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

The categories are regularly vandalized after midnight by political chupacabra that has yet to be identified.Ariel31459 (talk) 20:01, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I actually don't like the categories "Insufferable assholes" and "Smooth-talking bastards": they're too subjective. Nonetheless, I did use the former on Roger Stone: how can the quintessntial ratfucker not be an insufferable asshole? We have both a Category:Authoritarian moonbattery and a Category:Authoritarian wingnuttery; these should be merged. This is a legitimate category because it is a demonstrable concept that supports our mission: dictators, near-dictators, and those who support them. The combined categories include members on both extremes of the political spectrum. Category:Government incompetence does include members on both sides as well, but it's not particularly missional. Bongolian (talk) 20:57, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
I've always thought that the over-snarky, overly-subjective categories you mention above probably need to be removed. They add very little to the pages they're attached to. Government incompetence is kind of a misnomer; anyone can find an example of any government that has some something incompetent. Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 23:51, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
idk if it's just me but i've always found the insufferable assholes and smooth-talking bastards funny and never took it too seriously БaбyЛuigiOнФire(T|C) 03:20, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
@Cosmikdebris @Bongolian I don't like the subjective categories either. A category such as "insufferable assholes", since it is subjective, can cause unnecessary edit wars. CowHouse (talk) 07:06, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
I'd be in favour of scrapping that cat completely. —Kazitor, pending 10:33, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
This cat asks 'after midnight' where? Anna Livia (talk) 18:39, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
The categories aren't useful at all (after all, most people we document are batshit crazy and/or insufferable assholes, aren't they?). I'll still miss them, but the only reason they're there is just for snarkiness. I entertain the thought of some categories get renamed like "Anti-vaccination movement" to "Anti-vaccination paranoia", "Shysters" to "Shyster bastards", "Creationists" to "Creationist idiots" but I'm not begging for it; it's not a serious proposal. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 20:01, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Vote[edit]

It looks like there are enough people with an opinion against those cats that we should have a vote on whether to keep them or not. (ƨɛɪᴙᴛᴎoɔ) (ʞɹᴀᴛ) ɒnippiɿqƧ @ 18:23, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Just to be clear about what is being voted on. It is elimination of the two categories Government incompetence and insufferable assholes. Is that what you had in mind, @Spriggina?— Unsigned, by: Bongolian / talk / contribs
@Spriggina Christopher (talk) 19:44, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, unless people would also like to add categories like "smooth-talking bastards" to the vote. (ƨɛɪᴙᴛᴎoɔ) (ʞɹᴀᴛ) ɒnippiɿqƧ @ 02:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
I would be cool with getting rid of vague categories entirely. Keep definite stuff: Shoe Stores of the World, Eskimos with size 15 feet, women with big hands, etc.Ariel31459 (talk) 03:47, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

  1. (ƨɛɪᴙᴛᴎoɔ) (ʞɹᴀᴛ) ɒnippiɿqƧ @ 18:23, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. БaбyЛuigiOнФire(T|C) 20:01, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  3. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  4. Eliminating these categories is over kill. As for if they should apply to republicans and democrats...I would have to say...goat. ShabiDOO 21:54, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  5. The n00bs need to look up "snarky POV" and the right-wingers need to fuck off. LongLostLegend (talk) 12:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  6. Keep. It's both amusing and therapeutic; as well as full deserved and apposite. If the issue is a perceived bias, then get nominating the fools on the left. There's enough of 'em. Nominate me. I'm sure I deserve it. Scherben (talk) 19:06, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  7. RW has always had a Snarky Point of View and it's always been part of the way it works that gratuitous insults against people we hate are as much aprt of our articles as factual material. Do we really want to excise the humeur and turn serious and dull? WilderBicycle 18:02, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
    A small category at the bottom of a page isn't snark, it's just senseless name-calling. Apart from the fact that nobody looks at the categories anyway, I can't imagine why you would think calling someone an insufferable arsehole is "snark". —Kazitor, pending 04:34, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
    Nobody looks, so you won't mind it staying then? Also, what's wrong with senseless name calling against the rich, powerful and stupid? It's all some people have. Scherben (talk) 17:17, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
    If that was an attempt at exposing inconsistency, it failed, because I don't really care that much. I would prefer to see it gone though. —Kazitor, pending 21:03, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  8. What Bicycle said. Christopher (talk) 18:22, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  9. Keep it. I don't think I've ever seen a page where it was undeserved. James Earl Cash (talk) 22:09, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  10. I always treated the cat as a sign of something or someone batshit insane. Maybe we can make a proper criteria. Dogeatsdog (talk) 18:36, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  11. Quit trying to take all of the fun out. Cat Lover (talk) 01:50, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Eliminate[edit]

  1. Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 19:01, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
    Reading a vote-comment above I'm somewhat surprised to find that I seem to be either a "n00b" or a "right winger". I guess that you learn something new every day. :-) Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 10:01, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. Ariel31459The Hypocryphal
  3. "Insufferable assholes [sic]" doesn't tell you anything. I can't imagine someone thinking "man, I wish RW had a list of insufferable arseholes." —Kazitor, pending 04:08, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  4. I'm mainly against the "insufferable assholes" category. Whatever makes them an insufferable asshole should be covered by other categories. It's also uninformative and too subjective (what makes a person an insufferable asshole is subjective, as well as whether or not you find that particular person to be one). CowHouse (talk) 06:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
    This is in response to the popular "keep" argument that RationalWiki has a snarky point of view. SPOV: "[s]nark can include sarcasm, irony, satire, absurdist commentary, subversive humour and witty asides." I don't see how the category "insufferable assholes" has anything to do with snark. I'd also like to point out that removing a childish category doesn't mean we will become serious and dull (See Slippery slope). CowHouse (talk) 04:58, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  5. Cosmikdebris (talk) 13:47, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  6. Mostly agree with Cowhouse, in that 'insufferable assholes' is a bit too subjective. (If kept, there are many movements and people that meed to be added: veganism. Women's Christian Temperance Union, Christopher Hitchens, and probably many many more.) - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 18:07, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  7. Right-wing RationalWiki (talk) 22:39, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  8. 05:13, 22 February 2018 (UTC) —half unsigned, by CheeseburgerFace / talk

Goat[edit]

  1. ive no problem with bias. if its obvious bias you take it into account, like when you read a newspaper. godawful snark posing as 'satire' or humour on the other hand can die in a fire. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:49, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. While I think some categorizes serve no purpose aside from snark, there is no set line of what is "subjective" and what is "not". We haven't factored other subjective categories including Category:Enablers, Category:Shysters (debatable), Category:Smooth-talking bastards, Category:Batshit crazy, Category:Bullshit, Category:Crimes against humanity, and a few others I've missed. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 20:10, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  3. It has been suggested (and seconded) that there are "people we hate." Is there a list, or (my preference), can we just hate everyone?Ariel31459Περιμένετε! Είναι περισσότερο!

Come join the Clown[edit]

You'll float down here. We'll float down here. --Pennywise (talk) 17:19, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Pennywise I thought you died. Darthmaul (talk) 18:40, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
I’ll be backPennywise (talk) 19:22, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Do me a favour Pennywise and tell your director not to fuck it up this time. Darthmaul (talk) 19:54, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
What the hell was wrong with the last one?—Pennywise (talk) 22:07, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
I'll tell what was wrong:
  • lacked a climax because the movie featured too many climatic scenes from beginning to end.
  • pennywise uses clown form with too many children, he's suppose to change form according to your fears but doesn't always do that.
  • origin isn't really explained, and I haven't read the book.
  • pennywise feeds off their fears and yet most of the time the boy band is anything but afraid.
  • Mike Hanlon not given enough screen time.
  • Crazy parents trope used twice.
  • Beverly either ditched Ben or is screwing them both, sad. Darthmaul (talk) 22:21, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
You're talking out of your rear. Come join me, when you're down here with me YOU'LL FLOAT TOO --Pennywise (talk) 12:19, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Stop or I will start spouting Ugandan Knuckles. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 14:53, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Pennywise I see what you did with your profile. It says Georgie for a split second then changes back to Darthmaul. Darthmaul (talk) 18:25, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
It’s not meant to say Georgie at all except for when you’re not logged in. I used to have one in my sig. Christopher (talk) 18:15, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

My Chuckle For The Month[edit]

It is with great (personal) amusement that I report that LOGICAL FALLACY has a gematria value of 911 in the English system.Antigem (talk) 13:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for an excellent example of synchronicity: seeing a meaningful connection where none exists.Ariel31459妈的!
What's gematria?-ⅅℐᎯℳᎾℕDⅅℐЅC1 (talk) 05:48, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
@DiamondDisc1 New gematriaKazitor, pending 09:28, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Remark on falsifiability[edit]

There is a small misunderstanding common to a number of wiki articles and talk pages about the necessary connection between unfalsifiable ideas and pseudo-science: There isn't any. At least not according to one of the greatest philosophers of science in the 20th century, who introduced the term. "Karl Popper described the demarcation problem as the “key to most of the fundamental problems in the philosophy of science”. He rejected verifiability as a criterion for a scientific theory or hypothesis to be scientific, rather than pseudoscientific or metaphysical." Food for thought.Ariel31459Wait! there's more?

Unfalsifiable claims <> pseudoscience. First, "pseudoscience", to be meaningful at all, must be somehow scientistic. To be pseudoscientific, an activity or belief has to pretend to be scientific, without the appropriate rigor and method of science. A tarot card reader may be pushing superstition, but unless she somehow claims to be doing science, s/he should not be accused of pseudoscience. Nor is unfalsifiability essential to pseudoscience; there are and have been many falsifiable pseudosciences. Then there are protosciences like astrology, alchemy, or phrenology. All of them were in some sense on to something. They solved problems and did useful work; spherical trigonometry was invented for casting horoscopes, alchemists discovered many useful recipes, and phrenology was on to something about the different areas of the brain having different functions. But all of them ultimately made falsifiable claims about how the world worked that were capable of contradiction by evidence. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 03:32, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes. In fact the most characteristic feature of pure pseudoscience, is that it is usually falsifiable. Alchemy was the very first form of knowledge to be termed pseudoscience. Ironically, it was possible to turn lead into gold after all (but too expensive), though it is easier to turn gold into lead through nuclear transmutation. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy discusses general distinctions: "All non-science is not pseudoscience, and science has non-trivial borders to other non-scientific phenomena, such as metaphysics, religion, and various types of non-scientific systematized knowledge...
“Unscientific” is a narrower concept than “non-scientific” (not scientific), since the former but not the latter term implies some form of contradiction or conflict with science. “Pseudoscientific” is in its turn a narrower concept than “unscientific”. The latter term differs from the former in covering inadvertent mismeasurements and miscalculations and other forms of bad science performed by scientists who are recognized as trying but failing to produce good science."Ariel31459 (talk) 04:26, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Return of manual archiving[edit]

Do I need to do it again? —Kazitor, pending 09:33, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

My rule of thumb about this is, if it looks like it needs doing, do it. It can be a pain picking the obviously dead threads from the still active ones, but yeah, do the job. WilderBicycle 17:57, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Was watching Youtube when...[edit]

I saw an advertisement at the beginning of a minecraft video that claimed that "Anna Szabo, JD, MBA" got through clinical depression aka major depressive disorder, a disorder that is treatable, and one that does NOT go away on its own, was apparently cured by the Abrahamic God, and that God was what got her through divorce. She calls this a "poem" even though it's actually a speech done in video form without any editing. She claims that she had binge-eating issues during this period of time, even though her mentioning this makes me suspect bulimia instead, since bulimia means that someone binge-eats, and then feels bad about it and often tries "purging" (read: vomiting) the food. She also says this line: "But none of it mattered when a Narcissist intentionally decided to mental cruelty on me exercising start." I found the URL for this silly "poem" that was being used as an advertisement for her channel, which is right here. Anyways, after more grammar mistakes, she claims to have "lifted" her "emotional pain" and "depression" up to "God" through prayer. Then there's this line: "God gave me a new understanding of my identity in Christ." I went to Catholic school for 6th grade and I can tell you that, at least in Catholic Christianity, humans are not part of any member of the "Holy Trinity." She then tells the viewer to share the video to anyone they know who is depressed. I feel that this video was just straight-up clickbait by a creationist who wants views. It clearly did not work, since the video only has 589 views at the time of me watching the video, and her channel only has 278 subscribers. Not sure about what this series of videos, many of which describe a "Narcissist" who she uses as a stand in for Satan. I am not too worried about the possibility of her getting more coverage than this. She also describes this "Narcissist" in psychological terms that make him look more like a psychopath than a narcissist. Given who she likely means by "the Narcissist", and how she seems to be in love with the bible, this could become popular among creationists if she started promoting it towards Aschafly or BANANA MAN Ray Comfort. Peace. --UglyRat (talk) 17:24, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

what exactly is your point here? your criticisms, are more than a little petty and mean spirited, and much of your assumptions baseless. religion provides a great comfort to a great many people, and can help in times of crisis. its not for everyone and if its not for you why waste your time picking at them? im sure you could find something on the internet truly egregious to rail against, something worse than a poem you dont like AMassiveGay (talk) 18:05, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
This sounds like a very long YouTube ad. Why didn't you just skip it? 174.200.11.172 (talk) 19:51, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Avast warning[edit]

I just wanted to give a heads up that for some reason Avast flags the entire Rationalwiki site with "This site has a bad reputation" (a yellow !) when you look for it via Google.--BruceGrubb (talk) 18:54, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Very interesting,...do you have any suspects?Ariel31459Wait!..there's more.
Not really as the drop down menu in my browser (called "Avast Online Security" Chrome on the Mac) says "how do you rate your experience" (positive or negative). That is supposed to be with regards to security but I wouldn't put it past people for treating the security prompt as a like/dislike button. That would explode the number of possible suspects as it would include the clueless as well as the malicious --BruceGrubb (talk) 17:31, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Brain Emblems.[edit]

The brain emblems, denoting article quality, sometimes seem to be applied in an indiscriminate manner. Does anyone know if there are actual requirements for use of these the emblems? They sometimes seem to be, quality-wise, little better than participation awards. I propose a new type of self-deprecating humor: represent the brain to be sitting on a whoopie cushion as it expels wind. This should have a disarming effect on the overtly captious, especially over articles that have a pulverizing effect on the cerebral cortex. "Ariel31459Ne levigxu, mi forliberigos min

They're called brainstars, and they are usually voted on by the community. Most of the brainstarred articles that I've seen are better than average quality. (ƨɛɪᴙᴛᴎoɔ) (ʞɹᴀᴛ) ɒnippiɿqƧ @ 15:40, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Is there a standard method for notifying the community that brainstars are being considered? What about having a brainstar festival: Town-crier notifications, publicized nominations, speeches, presentations, monitored voting; bringing together proud authors and brutal mobs to defend their exposition and/or obscurantism? Ariel31459Περιμένετε ότι υπάρχουν περισσότερα
RationalWiki:Article rating has a list of criteria, although they’re a bit vague. Also @Ariel31459 remember to sign with 4 tildes not 3. Christopher (talk) 17:35, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Generally, gold articles have been read for content & quality by multiple sysops, vetted and voted on. Bronze & silver, not really. We had one article (Herbal supplement) that somehow became gold in 2008 (shockingly, User:SusanG, a famed editor from the earliest days of RW, nominated it — no one's perfect). It was subsequently demoted to ordinary article 2016, then improved to bronze status. See its talk page for the history. Bongolian (talk) 21:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
To be fair, the rating criteria were made up by one user, and everyone else went "yep, that looks good" and went along with it. So it might well be worth taking a look at those criteria, seeing as just about everybody involved left RW long ago - some, like me, never to return. WilderBicycle 21:52, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, antidepressants work. What a shocker![edit]

Don't tell me actually inhibiting serotonin reuptake may actually help with depression, an illness associated with low serotonin levels!

Yes, I'm a bit salty about this but as a psychiatry resident I get far too many accusations of just being a pill pusher or something (a doctor prescribes pills? What on Earth is next!?). Ibrahim Moizoos (talk) 19:46, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

We live in a science blind society. The majority of the world still believes in God, and fake news is a huge problem in this era. The fact that snopes and rationalwiki exists should be a good indication that the world is filled with woo.—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 19:04, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I was put on extra Bipolar and Schizophrenia medication recently. It is slightly working. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 23:47, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, bipolar. In the words of famed wordsmiths Run-DMC, it's not that easy. It's tricky. Lamotrigine is the med with the highest success rate in my experience but it's a pain in the start with its eight weeks until therapeutic dose business. Lithium is a close second. Abilify is third, in conjunction with lithium but Abilify has nasty side effects like akathisia. Ibrahim Moizoos (talk) 01:28, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

What's wrong with edit war?[edit]

In a mobocracy, when two users go at each other over an edit dispute, most often what they are doing is arguing over which version of insipid prose to use. I propose that it would be best to use the Persephone solution. Why ask administrators, who are more likely to be annoyed by the problem, to settle such questions? Just let the two primates revert one another; maybe post a note at the beginning of the article: UNDER CONSTRUCTION, NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR FALLING STANDARDS. If many editors revert the same version, the reverted editor should get the idea. They should only lose privileges if they whine about it. Alternatively, sooner or later someone will just give up and go bowling or to the Catholic Church to play bingo instead of editing this wiki. In short, what's the hurry? Ariel31459'जिग ऊपर है'

This coming from the guy who tries to use his sysop powers to get his way over regular users? Wow. James Earl Cash (talk) 23:45, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Edit wars are bad because they're counterproductive, they clog up history sections, they're unnecessary, and they're ultimately an extremely immature way of dealing with a disagreement. It's always better to discuss the disputed edits through talk pages rather than engage in a shouting contest with another editor. БaбyЛuigiOнФire(T|C) 23:48, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
You missed the point on whining. The other guy above, didn't hesitate to be abusive and discordant in a discourse I attempted with him. I like him. But I don't think we can live together. It is unrealistic to think anything like a quorum (that makes sense) ever decides these questions. Immature? really?Ariel31459ignore the man behind the curtain
You are so unbelievably passive-aggressive Ariel. And sign yourself fer cryin out loud. James Earl Cash (talk) 01:02, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Then don't contribute to the edit war. Lock the page, request him to take it to talk pages rather than entertaining the edit war and giving other editors a headache. Deal with the issue rather than yelling back in forth than in condescending edit summaries. БaбyЛuigiOнФire(T|C) 01:46, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
@BabyLuigiOnFire: what do we do when the history sections clog up? Call a postmodernist plumber?Ariel31459fiat lux
Prevent the edit war from happening in the first place by not edit warring. БaбyЛuigiOнФire(T|C) 01:46, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
I just noticed this, but you're saying people who get the higher-ups to help them should be reprimanded. When you advised me to call on Fuzzy while you were being stubborn re: Peterson. And you called for CowHouse against Hawaiianred and I on the Sommers article. Uh-huh. James Earl Cash (talk) 02:03, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I also suggest that both of you knock off the pissing contest between each other or you both might lose your sysop privileges instead. БaбyЛuigiOнФire(T|C) 02:06, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Y'know, by definition, conflicts which cannot be solved through normal talk page discussion should be referred to the Coop, but only as a last resort. Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 02:30, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Honest to god, this is not something that bothers me in the slightest. This isn't something I was seeking out, I was casually reverting this page when a vandal called LilRW with no other contributions started a stupid section on his dick and I saw this section sprout up not too shortly after. I just came to offer my side if only because I don't want anyone getting the idea that Ariel has been particularly innocent when it comes to our checkered history together. I especially don't want people taking seriously the idea that those who run to the brass should have repercussions since during our debates when we didn't see eye to eye on the talk pages, Ariel recommended me to do exactly that when I was a regular user and he was a sysop. But if nothing else, Luigi's warning has straightened out my priorities. It's not worth the hassle and stress. Time better spent on other activities James Earl Cash (talk) 02:55, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Vandals are easy to ban. If you revert their persistent vandalism, you won't get get penalized for edit warring since it's obvious what your intentions are. I also don't think Ariel is innocent either, he has a history of rubbing badly against other users as well. Don't take it too hard on yourself. БaбyЛuigiOнФire(T|C) 03:09, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your support. The only reason I didn't ban Lil RW in particular was because I was under the impression from some other exchanges between higher-ups and sysops that banning people in general was frowned upon and as a new sysop, didn't want to incur any negative attention or take any chances. James Earl Cash (talk) 03:15, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Don't worry too much about it. Usually, the worst that happens if you make a mistake in a ban is that others undo your ban/adjust your ban amount; only sometimes you might get a message from them. In the case of Lil RW, I've vandal-binned that user. You should use vandal bins more often than permabans for obvious vandals unless of course the user is a spambot in which go crazy with the permabans. БaбyЛuigiOнФire(T|C) 03:20, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Just do the coop idea if you lose it on each other, and don't do edit warring. I mean, it happened in 2016 apparently, and it drove an unrelated user away after one of the warrers started witch hunts claiming everyone was a sockpuppet of the other. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 03:00, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Coops generally have no winners, and should be avoided if possible. Cosmikdebris (talk) 03:19, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

So much drama over a simple question. While the specific conflicts I have encountered with the aforementioned individual can prove instructive upon examination, they are only small examples of the general phenomena observable on this wiki. I have no interest in bothering administrators in the coop. I am not innocent, as has been rightly pointed out by one alert individual and, to draw heavy lines under the obvious for them, I am certainly ablist with regard to making certain judgments. And they concern those persons without perspicacity sufficient to apprehend a complex proposition, even if the entailed argument were shown to be specious. They are recognizable, in my view, as vandals from all ideological perspectives who rather than write accurate, acerbic, witty, sometimes hilarious criticisms, proceed in the manner of inept graffiti artists, drawing mustaches on portraits, writing long ungrammatical sentences in regional vernaculars, and generally doing the literary equivalent of pointing and smirking. Progressive or conservative, inept prose is likely to garner my attention. I am not opposed to moonbats expressing themselves. I am opposed to poor grammar, insipid jokes, unoriginal ridicule and, most of all, misleading statements initiated through a corrupted representation of language.Ariel31459 (talk) 17:56, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

The simple answer is don't edit war with other users. You're the one drawing it out longer than necessary. Also, I didn't read the rest of your cruft, which I find frankly pretentious. БaбyЛuigiOнФire(T|C) 19:16, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Agreed.—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 19:18, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. Bongolian (talk) 19:33, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. Christopher (talk) 20:01, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
C-c-c-combo breaker. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 20:04, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Wait, what are we agreeing to? That you didn't read what I wrote but nevertheless find it pretentious? And the pretense being what? That I can recognize chirpings of nonsense while you are either unwilling or unable to do so? The first I do hold to be true, while the latter is, in my view, yet to be decided. Certainly don't prove anything on my account. The question was never meant as a threat, indeed, no such thing is even possible given the order imposed here. Criticizing style is not personal. One is supposed to try harder to do better. Ariel31459 (talk) 22:09, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
What I meant is that I just gave up attempting to understand your point because I find it nonsense backed up by lots of cruft to give a false level of sophistication. We're talking about edit wars on a free-to-edit wiki by any person. We're not writing a novel here. БaбyЛuigiOнФire(T|C) 22:43, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

how is edit warring even avoidable? and lets be clear about this - it takes more than one person to make the war AMassiveGay (talk) 22:33, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

It's avoidable if you discuss it on talk pages (that's what they're there for) and you don't act immature over it. БaбyЛuigiOнФire(T|C) 22:43, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
and how often does that happen? too often folk repeatedly revert without any explanation and that really puts people back up. one reasons why do not bother editting mainspace (on the few subjects that i have some knowledge of) AMassiveGay (talk) 23:20, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
I actually find this a huge problem too, where I've seen various users undo revisions without any further comments. One of the problems with that is that they use rollback instead of the undo function, and that doesn't allow further reasons for explanation. But, if someone does revert your changes without reason, ask them why they did it in their talk page rather than undo their undo and precipitate a possible conflict. БaбyЛuigiOнФire(T|C) 23:24, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
I still don't understand what you are complaining about. You object to verbose satire do you? How is that different from me criticizing immature, repetitive ridicule. That's what leads to some edit conflicts. We are discussing forms of humor, not novels.Ariel31459 (talk) 23:01, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
that was supposed to be satire? БaбyЛuigiOнФire(T|C) 23:03, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
there in lies the problem. the thing with satire is that most folk here are shit at it. as for snark its wank anyhow, and we shit at that too. just saying the magic word 'snark' seems to give carte blanche for some fucking awful attempts at humour AMassiveGay (talk) 23:08, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
My question is: why is the satire even warranted? I gave a fairly serious response to a rather straightforward question and now we're discussing humor (which is mostly subjective anyway). БaбyЛuigiOнФire(T|C) 23:11, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
OK see, that's why it was funny: MG took two lines to say what took me a paragraph because I didn't want to hurt anyone's feelings, but managed to do so anyway. Ariel31459 (talk) 23:15, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
it becomes even more egregious when poorly executed snark obscures and diminishes already weak argument. if folk must try to be funny, at least make it an after point, not the main event AMassiveGay (talk) 23:31, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Anti-edit-warring is a literal community standard. If you don't like it, ask for a rule change located in this link. There's no reason this needs to be in the saloon bar topic other than to get attention. I was contemplating on tipping my modhat to stop this discussion. Anyone for it?—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 00:10, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't have more to say. MG basically recapped it. I am embarrassed that you find this upsetting.Ariel31459 (talk) 00:31, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Toast Day.[edit]

I don't know how many of the Old Guard will see this, but please raise a glass in honour of one of the most phenomenal people this community has ever known. Ask @Human or Goonie how much she did to make this place what it is. We loved you, Susan. And you loved us. And we were the richer for it. I miss you so damn much. RagingHippie (talk) 05:40, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Salud!!! ShabiDOO 06:20, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't drink alcohol, so I guess a glass of milk will have to suffice. Sláinte! RoninMacbeth (talk) 07:56, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Drink done. :-) Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 09:54, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
I've heard some stuff about her on RWW 3.0's archives. And I also don't drink, so I'll just have a 2-liter of soda. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 16:19, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
She did a lot of her contributing from a mobile phone, no easy feat. VALE Susan! Anonymous User (talk) 16:44, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
I'll raise another mug of coffee to her. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:12, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Guess this'll be an excuse to drink a cooler. Or hard root beer. Or even vodka. БaбyЛuigiOнФire(T|C) 19:20, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Old Guard[edit]

I wonder how it is for them, with the wiki far bigger and the userbase virtually unrecognizable. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 16:35, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

You mean Wikipedia? Darthmaul (talk) 17:57, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
I think he means "I wonder what the founders of this site think of how it has grown?" Cat Lover (talk) 21:56, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
They're pretty much all on Facebook instead of here. There are two RW groups on Facebook, full of former RW users. The groups function as a WIGO/Saloon Bar hangout place; the site itself rarely gets a mention. Also they don't talk to each other because of a nasty falling-out a while back. So the answer to "what do they think of RW these days" is: they don't. WilderBicycle 22:07, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Some of them are still here under different names too. Cat Lover (talk) 22:13, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm only here to bore people rigid about the old days. WilderBicycle 22:34, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
does anyone actually give a shit about this old guard/new guard nonsense? AMassiveGay (talk) 22:29, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't particularly care. —Kazitor, pending 22:32, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
no but you could be a lot less rude about it. БaбyЛuigiOнФire(T|C) 22:58, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
I was kicked out of one of the FB groups, which probably works to my credit. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 02:03, 25 February 2018 (UTC)