RationalWiki:Saloon bar

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

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

What is going on?

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

To do list

Policy discussion: Youtuber nobodies (sticky)[edit]

For reference our current youtube category and pages that are in it

So, based on an AFD I started, it's become clear that we're getting increasingly many youtuber articles, and decreasing clarity of which ones to keep and which ones to get rid of. The old saying on the site is "a nobody with a blog is still a nobody". But a nobody with a youtube channel beyond certain number of subscribers isn't necessarily a nobody. And sometimes they're very missional, being members of the skeptic community and thus a resource(and sometimes a bad one), or woo peddlers who originate new bullshit all the time and we might want to document, or sometimes they just occasionally broach those subjects, but focus elsewhere.

As much as a loathe hard standards, I feel like we might need to hammer out some. Notability is a nasty wikipedia concept, but it's relevant if we want to avoid puff pieces on irrelevant people who don't matter that misinform as much as inform. So, rationalwiki community, what are your thoughts on youtube channels on rationalwiki, and how we decide if they're relevant to our mission? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 04:28, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Off-topic, but I think we should scrap their navbox, along with the ones for books, films, etc. Something like "scepticism" or whichever topic is always far more relevant. —Kazitor Kazitor sig pic.png 04:31, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm in favor of keeping the books and films navboxes, but the YouTube navbox might be a good thing to get rid of.
Back to main topic, I think the standards proposed on one of the AfD pages sound good, but I'll have to get more detailed statistics to come up with hard standards. RoninMacbeth (talk) 04:39, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
So... within youtubeland it seems like subscriber counts are kind of the go-to metric. Totoal view counts can be pretty distorted by one viral video. I feel like maybe 100k is around the breaking point where you'd call it an audience, because that's roughly comparable to unsuccessful network TV shows. But that thresholds seems applicable for woo-spewers and skeptics. Should it be higher for "occasionally relevant" or is "occasionally relevant" just something that should be binned always? Hard standards are always so hard. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 04:54, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm going to be on-topic this time. I don't think the issue is with notability (remember, we don't like it). The problem is the depth of the articles. If someone with 1000 views has a proper article thoroughly debunking everything they said, I don't see a problem with this hypothetical article. If someone has "substantial" popularity but the article just repeats what they say, that hypothetical article is bad. This is an existing issue with other articles about websites and books and the like: they document, but don't analyse. I think any proper analysis is okay regardless of importance, and it's mere documentation that should be eyed suspiciously. —Kazitor Kazitor sig pic.png 05:03, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
The problem is that, although we can have an article on every crank idea, we cannot have an article on every crank. There are just too many of them. And the internet, first with comment sections, then with blogs and now with all the kids having their own YouTube channels, has made us more aware of those cranks than we ever were before. The vast majority of those cranks just repeat the same bollocks that dozens of other people are also saying and are really not worth having articles about. Similarly for skeptics. I mean, how many different ways are there to say, "There's no such thing as..."? I agree that, generally, we shouldn't have hard rules on RationalWiki. But we should have guidelines. There might sometimes be a good reason to have an article about a YouTuber with hardly any subscribers. But I can't see that happening very often. I support the idea of usually only having articles about YouTubers who always either support or debunk woo if they have at least 100,000 subscribers. As for the ones who occasionally comment on on-mission topics, I think we're talking about the really big beasts there, the YouTubers who get talked about in the traditional mainstream media. Spud (talk) 05:42, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
How about, only articles about people when there's something new to say. If they just repeat the same talking points we already have articles on, scrap it. If they bring something new to the table, have an article if it actually analyses that. —Kazitor Kazitor sig pic.png 07:34, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Yeah. As far as totally new ideas go, that was really what I was thinking about in the hypothetical situation that it might sometimes be all right to have an article about a YouTuber without many subscribers. But like I said, I can't see that happening very often. We should still have articles about the YouTubers who just repeat the same bollocks as everyone else if they have hundreds of thousands of subscribers, though. Because they are the influential ones. Spud (talk) 07:43, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
There #are# a few cases of 'passing mentions' (in newspapers etc) of people who later become famous (often in other contexts). Anna Livia (talk) 10:05, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Well, that's not what I meant and you know it. I'm talking about when the media covers popular YouTubers for no other reason than because they are popular YouTubers. Like when BBC Radio 5 Live had a two-hour interview with Pewdiepie a few years ago. And the media coverage that was given to those two arseholes' boxing match the other week. Spud (talk) 11:07, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
When bringing up any social media activity (YouTube is a social media platform after all) I usually ask "Who are these people?" I then ask "And why should I care?" For example, This idiot posted this video. Who are they? Why should I care? If a RationalWikian wanted an article about them I would demand that they answer these questions, because if not... Who gives a shit?
On a side note, this problem has begun seeping over into our webshites pages, where random YouTube nobodies with shitty opinions are being listed as "Bad Sources". I have news for those editors, someone can't be a shit source if no one cites them. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:16, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Shouldn't Alex Jones be removed from that list? Youtube did close his account, so. Tinribmancer (talk) 16:15, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
@Tinribmancer You do realize that Alex Jones has his own website right? Add to that his sizable following and noteworthy bullshit claims and... ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:25, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I know about his site. But he isn't a youtube anymore, now is he? And the only following he has right now, is on his own site and his Instagram account (for now). I'm not saying that you should delete his page here, but does he still belong in the Youtube category knowing that he's not on YT anymore?
What about that Martymer 81 guy? His page only has like 2 sentences.Tinribmancer (talk) 16:51, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
One thing I don't like about YouTube is that you have to view their videos and that increases your view count as well as screw around with the recommended videos. Anyway, no one here is supporting a hard limit, there is no real hard limit anyway when it comes to article standards, only guidelines. I think we have to impose some sort of notability cut off maybe someone with 1,000 subscribers or the videos have an average 100,000 views. If you really want to get thorough on debunking someone, perhaps that can be essayspace unless community likes it enough to be an article. Oh, and that cutoff can be increased or decreased as we see fit. It's only there so we can have something to work off first, so adjustment is enouraged. Finally, this brings another question: should our webshites list also have some sort of notability criterion? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 17:17, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
@LeftyGreenMario To answer the latter question, yes, very much so. I say that since the webshites list is supposed to work in a similar manner to MBFC, that is to say weed out crappy sources. Like I said above, why should someone be on the webshites list if no one cites them as a source? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:24, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
I completely agree with LeftyGreenMario that we will almost certainly need to revise any YouTube-related guidelines that we come up with in the future. We are probably still in the very early days of what could turn out to be the very long history of the internet. Some of today's popular sites will become even more popular. Some will fade into obscurity. In fact, the same sites are likely to experience peaks and troughs in their popularity over the years. New sites will come along. Cranks and kooks will find new platforms. Then get banned from those platforms and find new platforms again. Internet crankery certainly isn't going to go away and, hopefully, RW will still be there to comment on it. But like LeftyGreenMario said, changes in YouTube's significance are something we can deal with at a later date. Spud (talk) 01:06, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
At a minimum the Help:New Article page should be updated if required after the poll below comes to a consensus. RW could certainly use a YouTube portal page similar to webshites. As for the latter, I believe that the webshites lists have grown far too big to be useful and need some serious pruning. The guidance for adding entries to these pages should require that the submitter add some descriptive text about their entry, otherwise it should be deleted. These pages should be informative and not treated like a giant bookmark list. Cosmikdebris (talk) 23:24, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
@Cosmikdebris Agreed on all counts. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:26, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
I think that YouTubers should be judged by their levels of sanity, and not their levels of popularity. Crazy people are what this Wiki is for, and YouTube is a hive of them. Logicnsuch (talk) 22:40, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Not necessarily. We don't document people yelling at a wall in this wiki, neither should we document everyone who yells at a camera. БaбyЛuigiOнФire(T|C) 00:45, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
I mean, this should be a go-to source for the world of insanity. if it isn't complete, and full of crazy people, and we only pay attention to the famous crazy people, then what's the point? OBSCURE people can be just as crazy. Logicnsuch (talk) 01:12, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
There are other websites that fit the bill and do exactly that, but it doesn't necessarily make it on mission for us. Encyclopedia of American Loons is one of them, which documents crazies better than we can. БaбyЛuigiOнФire(T|C) 01:20, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Well, as Cold Hard Logic says- it's a WORLD OF BATSHIT. Logicnsuch (talk) 01:47, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Sanity Showdown: Jake Paul vs. Videos For People[edit]

This is a hard question to answer. Who would you say is closer to the brink of the loony bin? Jake Paul- or relatively obscure YouTuber Videos For People? I'm inclined to think both are delusional. — Unsigned, by: Logicnsuch / talk / contribs

I'm inclined to think that you came here from ED. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:49, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Considering that "relatively obscure YouTuber Videos For People" seems to think that they're fooling anyone other than themselves, they might indeed qualify. —Kazitor Kazitor sig pic.png 00:51, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
No idea what you're talking about- but what do you think? What are your opinions on the matter? — Unsigned, by: Logicnsuch / talk / contribs Logicnsuch (talk) 01:07, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
My opinion is that you should sign your posts. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:04, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
OK, how about an opinion? Anyone?Logicnsuch (talk) 01:07, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm bored now, I'm going to listen to power metal and eat fish, then watch anime or maybe watch a video of Jesus fighting a T. Rex. There, that's my opinion. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:12, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
No constructive opinion, eh? Well, anybody else? Logicnsuch (talk) 01:15, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Two tumbleweeds rolling across the screen, from left to right.
Couldn't help myself. You practically begged for it. —Kazitor Kazitor sig pic.png 01:17, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
For what? All I'm begging for here is a little commentary on the relative sanity of these two YouTube channels. Logicnsuch (talk) 01:27, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Here's Uncyclopedia's take on the matter. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 04:05, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Part of being in the anti-woo world is this profound sense of relief every time you've not heard of a particular shithead. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:31, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
How about any opinions, here? Logicnsuch (talk) 23:39, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie Show me your power metal. I am morbidly interested, as I'm an avid listener of metal. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 23:43, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
@LeftyGreenMario Here you go ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:47, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
I meant on-topic opinions related to the discussion at hand. Logicnsuch (talk) 01:08, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm ashamed that you would watch anime. —Kazitor Kazitor sig pic.png 01:51, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
I wouldn't classify Videos For People's stuff as anime. Not Japanese. Logicnsuch (talk) 02:01, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
WOOOOOSH!Kazitor Kazitor sig pic.png 02:15, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Remember, we're discussing Videos For People vs. Jake Paul here. Logicnsuch (talk) 02:54, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
[citation needed] You are "discussing" that. Though not really because you can't discuss anything all by yourself. —Kazitor Kazitor sig pic.png 03:07, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
So just go ahead and discuss it, Sir! Please quit being all destructive. Only constructive conversation, please. Logicnsuch (talk) 03:13, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── This is probably crap, but how's this: "You're so transparent, your refractive index is less than one." Boom. —Kazitor Kazitor sig pic.png 04:26, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Not really an answer. I mean, just answer the question. Just go ahead. Logicnsuch (talk) 20:50, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Probably shouldn't be bumping the thread, but I just thought of something even better ("clearer" if you'll pardon the pun): you're so transparent, you put a vacuum to shame. Oof. —Kazitor Kazitor sig pic.png 06:11, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
You oughta be banned for trolling like this. Logicnsuch (talk) 19:41, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
If you think a few teasing jokes count as trolling, well... yeah, you need to steer clear of the entire internet. All of it. This site included. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:38, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
I just thought I'd get a serious answer to this simple question. Just give me one! Logicnsuch (talk) 21:26, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Really? You think you're going to get a serious answer to the question of which of two delusional YouTubers is more delusional here, after people have repeatedly pointed out you take your topics too seriously? OK, fine, I'll give you a serious answer in exchange for a serious answer to the question of whether or not the "Age of Heroes" GoT spinoff will be good. Deal? RoninMacbeth (talk) 23:28, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't know what that is. Logicnsuch (talk) 22:03, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
I guess you're one of the lucky ones. I think Jake Paul is the more deranged of the two. He was involved in the "Streaming Suicide Forest" incident, right? RoninMacbeth (talk) 14:37, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
So Videos For People is MORE sane? I'd never have guessed. Logicnsuch (talk) 21:57, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Turing tested[edit]

Having sent out text messages recently to many thousands of people, I've actually been given the Turing test 3 times just in the past week, including twice yesterday. Coincidentally, I even stood behind someone yesterday at the supermarket who was wearing a T-shirt that said on the back, "I passed the Turing Test… maybe". I passed the first test easily according to the presumptive human who was testing me. The second presumptive human was a bit harder on me, but I passed. I had explain to the third tester what a Turing Test was after he questioned whether I was a bot or not, but after that it was a good repartee. I mostly toyed with the presumptive human because the presumptive human did not understand how easy it was to correctly answer most any question asked of an unknown entity like myself just from web-based information. This all got me to thinking, that although it is now the case that computers are very close indeed to passing a Turing Test, it has become much harder for humans to pass the converse of the Turing Test (i.e., that they are not computers), at least when not IRL and the human is not known to the tester. Bongolian (talk) 03:08, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

That's true, especially as Putin's Bots become more advanced to influence social media. Verification of real life existence seems to be more and more common. ^_^ This message is approved by Dysklyver Ensign of the Duke of Cornwall.svg (brebmyn) 13:51, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Just see the way captchas have evolved with years, as bots have become better. I still remember when at most you had to enter a code with rotated and/or strikethrough numbers, not the BS of looking for cars, mountains, shops, whatever. Panzerfaust (talk) 22:46, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
That's just Google training their cars. In my opinion, an application-specific test is much better as then a bot has to be specifically designed to handle it. I wrote one that just asks for the word "please" in a specific text box, and I've received no spam from the IPs it's set to trigger on (I ought to make it just ask that of everyone, to be honest). —Kazitor Kazitor sig pic.png 00:56, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
The Turing Test is generally reckoned to be bollocks by AI researchers[1] but it should be obvious that the more records of conversations you have the easier it is to produce a Turing-passing bot based purely on machine learning. --Annanoon (talk) 22:58, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Just had a thought: what if you told a bot to "respond randomly"? The response would have to be completely unrelated to the input, so I wonder how a bot that had not been designed with that in mind would react. —Kazitor Kazitor sig pic.png 23:13, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
The problem with that is 1) Real humans do rather poorly at making random choices. 2) Computers can do quite well as random (or pseudorandom) choices. 3) The questioner is unlikely to be specific about what the universe of possible choices are. To give a good response, the computer has to emulate what most people might think random would be rather than what would be truly random. Bongolian (talk) 07:00, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
That's all correct, but I'm more concerned with what would happen if the bot had not been designed to handle that. I feel like it would be a separate, special case; other repsonses owuld surely be somewhat deterministic. —Kazitor Kazitor sig pic.png 07:09, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

You are awareness?[edit]

http://www.zenthinking.net/blog/beyond-mind-to-no-mind-living-in-pure-awareness-only https://www.consciousnessitself.org/awareness-itself-never-changes

Because it seems to me that we are the body or rather a body that produces such a state and it affected my a myraid of other things around it. All the arguments for that case sound more like poetry than anything else.Machina (talk) 03:24, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

On the Detection and Reception of Pseudo-Profound Bullshit seems to be a consistently relevant paper. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:09, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Ha, that looks good; I'll make a note to read through it when I get an opportunity. I've long been annoyed with what I called "bullshit philosophy" which is the same sort of thing, topics that seem deep but really aren't. "Pseudo-profound bullshit" is a good way of putting it. —Kazitor Kazitor sig pic.png 00:59, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
I very frequently go to google scholar and look at the papers that cite that paper, and it's a great way to keep tabs on rationalism relevant research. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:40, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

This is what my conversation amounted to with him:

"All there is, is awareness. There is nothing else. Everything that I see, sense, feel, perceive and think, happens in awareness, as awareness.

That tree over there, blowing in the wind? It too is nothing but “an image” arising within awareness. Even if I reach out and touch it, that “touching-ness” is nothing but a phenomenal appearance arising within the otherwise empty awareness that I truly am.

“You" appear to “me” within awareness as nothing but a “movement” within awareness. Once that appearance disappears out of this present-moment-knowingness that I am, “you” remain as nothing but a concept within memory, which is no longer “real". Memory is imagination. Imagination is mind. And mind is not reality.

This awareness that I am, that permeates every single moment of my beingness, is all there is. Awareness is all I have ever known and is all that I am. All else is a story appearing within awareness.

The body is an experience, as is the mind. I experience the body. The body does not experience me. I experience the mind. The mind does not experience me. So, who am I? I am only this aware-knowingness that gives sentience and recognition and knowingness to all that is felt, sensed, thought and perceived.

All “things" pass through me, not to me.

I’ll leave it at that. I have no desire to convince you of seeing beyond your firmly-rooted viewpoint.

All words are false, including my own.

Just be.


"“Awareness… is made by the brain and it is altered based on what happens to the body.”

That, my friend, is nothing but a concept, just like everything you have expressed to me. That, however, doesn’t mean that it’s not “real” to you, it’s just not true. What you speak of is not a direct experience, it is assumed. In fact, there is no experience ever of "the body creating awareness”.

Shift your immediate attention from the mind’s thoughts to “presence" itself and you will at once realize the silence that is the core essence of your true nature.

Whatever you have read, learned or have been taught is nothing but a story. And, after all, how can any story help with being content within myself, as nothing other than myself? The only peace there is, is the peace of simply BEING. Not being “this”, or not being “that”, just pure simple beingness.

Let go of your attachment to acquired “knowledge". This isn’t to say it’s not useful in day to day life, but it has no relevance to who you truly are.

Release your hold upon whatever stories you have created for yourself, about yourself. No experience is “true", all are biased by the tainted duality and subjectivity of the “perceiver”. And, "the perceiver" of course is nothing but another concept, a story the mind has created about it being a “personal” self.

There is nothing personal happening anywhere whatsoever. All is as it is, a stream of phenomenal “appearances” arising in awareness, as awareness.

Let it all go. Rest effortlessly in the silence of your untainted Self, empty of the mind.

Your present view seems to be very nihilistic. I can assure you that if you release your hold upon the concepts that you have become preoccupied with, you will find relief in inner silence. Ultimately, any view is the wrong view. No belief is true. Let it all go.


All just poetry in the end.: — Unsigned, by: Machina / talk / contribs

So my dick is conscious and it likes poetry? Because the page you linked said that the body is aware and linked with the- you know what, fuck it.--Palaeonictis (talk) 09:18, 23 September 2018 (UTC)


I havent watched television in a long ass time, so I'm wondering if there are any good shows (like the West-wing, a show that I'm interested in seeing) or cartoons that are worth watching. So, do any of you have any recommendations? Ratatatatatata (talk) 19:00, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, let's see. On the Live-Action front:
  • Game of Thrones, at least anything before Season 5.
  • Vikings has maintained a fairly consistent quality of excellence.
  • The Last Kingdom is pretty good.
  • True Detective. Season 1 is better than Season 2, at least if you're into quasi-Lovecraftian horror.
  • It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia. Start with Season 2.
On the Animation side of things:
  • Rick and Morty
  • Disenchantment
That's about it. RoninMacbeth (talk) 19:16, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
If you like good sci-fi I would also reccomend
  • Altered Carbon
  • Dark Matter (cancelled after 3 good seasons)...Ariel31459 (talk) 19:31, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
I have a suggestion. Since you seem to have enough time to create multiple accounts on this site solely for trolling, maybe try getting a life? Or try IMDB. Either way get the fuck off this site dipshit, you're banned, get over it. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:39, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie Who is this guy exactly? None of their edits seem to be in bad faith. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 15:36, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
@Bigs Here's the contributions for their original account (at least as far as I know it's their original account, might just be another sock) where they were banned after multiple inappropriate page moves, and after they were told to stop. I can also link many of their subsequent accounts if you so wish. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:32, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm a fan of Stranger Things, GLOW, and the remake of Lost in Space; Parker Posey's character is quite amusing. Gave up on GoT, did not enjoy the violence and randomness. Outlander is much better, and being basically romance, there are lines they do not cross. Britannia is a barrel of laughs, though. Vikings is quite good, though; start with season 2. Favorite cartoons are Adventure Time, just finished its last season, and Bojack Horseman, and, to go way back, the original Masters of the Universe is always fun. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 22:42, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Game of Thrones/Vikings/The Last Kingdom are very good, can recommended. ^_^ This message is approved by Dysklyver Ensign of the Duke of Cornwall.svg (brebmyn) 08:37, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Disenchantment is meh. Better off with Bojack Horseman.
Dark Matter was also meh. Better off with The Expanse.CoryUsar (talk) 14:00, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Meh is an understatement for disenchantment. What the hell happened to any sense of comedic timing, jokes based on any sort of wit or to be honest, jokes in general? Maybe it's just that I watched only one episode, and they were too busy introducing new characters to be "funny", but disenchantment was beyond lackluster. "ha ha the elves have SEX" is not a joke. "The man she was gonna marry bent over and cut his head and died" is not a joke, it's not even really slapstick. The king being a blue collar stereotype could've worked for a few jokes, if they'd bothered to contrast it with anything, like prim and proper courtiers, or maybe the princesstagonist not also being "hilariously" unclassy. They wanted too hard to recreate the dynamics of futurama, I guess. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:53, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
It got better over time. RoninMacbeth (talk) 16:28, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Sci-FI, you have to check out 12 Monkeys does more with time travel than 50 years of Dr Who has been able to on tv.

The Expanse is easily the best sci-fi on tv right now. Babylon Berlin, Berlin Station and Shetland (just google them, three very different but highly rewarding shows, season 4 of Shetland with the neo-nazi subplot is on mission for this site. And considering Little Drummer Girl is starting shortly, give The Night Manager a watch,best adaptation of a Le Carré since Smiley's People. Cardinal Chang (talk) 21:19, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Disenchantment requires that you put up with 7 poorly written episodes before something even halfway solid appears. Compare this to Futurama, which while the first season was still trying to figure out what kind of show it was going to be, gave us in the very second episode the classic Lunar Park episode, with such classic bits as "whalers on the moon" to "I'm going to build my own park, with hookers, and blackjack!". Nothing really noteworthy comes out in any of the episodes of Disenchantment. CoryUsar (talk) 01:21, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
why does picking a tv show seem to much like a long term commitment? many of em go on for fucking years without any end in sight and i just dont have the patience. how long do i stick with one before i know its the right one? if ive a season or two under my belt and its not working, do i stick with it or walk away? can i watch other programs or is that cheating? what if it gets cancelled, can i handle to the pain of the loss? im just not ready for a relationship right now, i will continue to play the field with one night stands of movies, or maybe carry on casual thing with something i can drop in and out of easily. i'll frow up one day and settle down with a nice series about dragons or zombies, like a grown up. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:31, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Books are great because only massive nerds(and communists) care if you read the same ones as them. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:02, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Essential reading is the Communist Manifesto. :D ^_^ This message is approved by Dysklyver Ensign of the Duke of Cornwall.svg (brebmyn) 18:57, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

The short story is my favourite form of fiction. The TV series is fast becoming my least favourite form of fiction. Whatever happened to TV series where you could just watch and enjoy one episode? Each episode would quickly establish the dynamic between the characters and there would be one story that would be completed within thirty to sixty minutes. You can't have that anymore. All series have to have an over-arching storyline that runs through every episode of a season. And then that season's storyline has to be part of an even bigger over-arching storyline. And then it all has to end with a massive twist. Like everyone's been dead all the time or it's really set 10,000 years in the future or the sheriff is really the ancient Babylonian god of fire. Which means that everything, regardless of the genre, turns out to be a science fiction or fantasy story. Mind you, I suppose the ending of St. ElsewhereWikipedia's W.svg back in 1988 is to blame for that massive twist ending bollocks and it will be considered a worn out trope eventually. Spud (talk) 00:19, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

The same has overtaken fiction, especially science fiction and fantasy: every book is an installment of a trilogy that gets stretched to five or six with sequels and prequels. It's the same way with films as well; most blockbuster films made for entertainment are installments in a series, stand-alones don't stay that way, and the only self-contained stories are dull historical biopix and other art-house drudgery. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 02:53, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Very true. Of course, we also get those films that are failed attempts to launch a new franchise and end up being the only film in what was meant to be a long series. But I suppose those are more like unfinished stories than stand-alone stories. Spud (talk) 03:37, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Of course the Hobbit is a good example of how to take the prequel to a trilogy and then turn it into three extremely long and detailed films just because no franchise is complete unless it copies Star Wars. I blame George Lucas for the state of modern entertainment. Though it looks like Disney will finish it off... 100 trillion dollars of Marvel movies later. xD ^_^ This message is approved by Dysklyver Ensign of the Duke of Cornwall.svg (brebmyn) 19:27, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
It is the entertainment industry's fanatical obsession with IP. What we seem to view as an art form is really just another commodity cynically packaged to get your attention and/or money. On a similar note, this recent talk at Womad about music could easily refer to tv/movies and literature. https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0bh5hp8 Cardinal Chang (talk) 22:07, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Would '(Still) Open All Hours' suit - there are series threads but the episodes can be enjoyed in any order.
Alternatively almost all the characters can be killed off (apart from the one smiling enigmatically at the non-existent 5th series) . (talk) 15:22, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Submissions will be Graciously Accepted (*Tom Hardy's Bane Voice*)[edit]

I really need some original pseudo-religious, occult junk to be posted on my talk page. I'll accept proverbs, short parables and/or short poems. They must have Yoruba or Mayan gods and mythology. Metaphors would be nice, the fire rises. BobRoss (talk) 20:38, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

All false gods will bow down before the Super Mecha Death Goat. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 21:36, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Please just put it in my talk page, thank you. BobRoss (talk) 00:52, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Blood for the Sky Goat.jpeg NO. YOU WILL HAVE PROPER RESPECT FOR THE ONE TRUE GOD OF RATIONALWIKI. HE DEMANDS THE BLOOD OF UNBELIEVERS. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 02:00, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
(*puts hand on shoulder*) Does your god feel in charge? BobRoss (talk) 02:09, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
He's paid you a small fortune! Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 02:14, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
And this gives him power over me? BobRoss (talk) 06:51, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Chinese language project[edit]

I propose that we create a new language project for Chinese. The new project would mainly focus on topics relating to Chinese-specific quackery, authoritarianism in China, Chinese cults, and global issues. UPDATE: I've finished the translation of a fairly short article into Chinese as a proof of concept: User:Jslsyl/IslamQA(中文).--Jslsyl (talk) 02:13, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Good luck on that. Sadly I can't help out but I'm going to encourage to try! БaбyЛuigiOнФire(T|C) 04:25, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
I wish I can read up on the skepticism scene in China. Do you know any English resources on this? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 04:41, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Chinese grammar is easy to the point of absurdity, so why the hell not? BobRoss (talk) 06:48, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
You don't have to ask permission before starting to add pages in other languages. Just go ahead and do it. Since you say you have completed the translation, I have gone ahead and moved it to mainspace and created the category Chinese. I don't think there's much chance of finding anyone else here who can help you with this project, though. Even though I've lived in Taiwan for 15 years, I can'y read or write Chinese at all and I can't say much apart from "Hello", "Yes", "Thank you", "I don't want one" and "I haven't got one". Spud (talk) 07:15, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Haha, nope. Chinese grammarWikipedia's W.svg Ⲥⲡⲣⲓⲅⲅⲓⲛⲁ (ⲧⲁⲗⲕ) (ⲕⲟⲛⲧⲣⲓⲃⲩⲧⲓⲟⲛⲥ) @ 17:31, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Even if Chinese grammar was simpler, there's the gigantic crutch of vocabulary, which is easily the most difficult part of the language. БaбyЛuigiOнФire(T|C) 18:02, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
At a glance, that doesn't look very difficult. @BabyLuigiOnFire *ahem* "if Chinese grammar were..." —Kazitor Kazitor sig pic.png 22:44, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
I mean, the article in Wikipedia seems long, but my sister said the grammar is the easier part of the language. It even follows a similar sentence structure to English. Counting words seem annoying though, lol. The challenge in Chinese lies in its vocabulary and pronunciation (several ways to pronounce "Ma" and they're all very different). --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 00:08, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
shows you how stupid english grammar is kazitor lol. also, grammar isn't too bad you generally don't have to worry about complex irregular conjugations or whatever and they're very simple, from what i remember. measure words can be annoying to remember but "ge" can be used for practically anything if you wanna get understood, i guess. oh yeah and tonal pronounication is a bitch too. БaбyЛuigiOнФire(T|C) 00:23, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Update: so far, three articles have been translated. They can be seen here: Category:Chinese. One problem with my translations is that they tend to have a more serious tone than the regular RationalWiki. I can't seem to pull off RationalWiki's snarky tone well in Chinese, so I omitted many of the jokes. I did, however, add one minor joke to the Chinese article about RationalWiki, calling the promotion to sysop "demotion".--Jslsyl (talk) 00:42, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

There's not a lot of wordplay and pop culture references, as much as just snide comments (such as the caption in the acupuncture article reading "Your tax dollars at work doing nothing — or possibly spreading disease." would probably be straightforward to translate), though some acronyms like PIDOOMA, PRATT, WOMBAT, will be lost in translation. Slang might be difficult because I'm not sure how Chinese slang works. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 02:10, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Heaven and Earth will pass away, etc.[edit]

Just to fix one edit I made to the Heaven article that I'm dubious: do you know if it's stated elsewhere in the Bible (Book of Revelation or maybe any of the OT prophets that deal with that issue) that once everything old were destroyed and replaced by new Jerusalem and blah, blah memories of the former would fade away too, or it's something that it's induced of the book?. Panzerfaust (talk) 08:10, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Rev. 21:1, 4: "Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more....And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away." Isaiah 66:22: “For as the new heavens and the new earth that I make shall remain before me, says the LORD, so shall your offspring and your name remain." 2 Peter 3:10: "But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed." (all ESV). Hope this helps. More interested in how a world without a sea would work. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 20:02, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Or Death. Tinribmancer (talk) 22:47, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks!. That part of Revelation is the one I was thinking of. The "wiping away of all tears" look to me like causing everyone to forget both the old world and probably that there're a whole lot of people being tortured for all eternity (what about those members of your family who were not so lucky as you?. Sorrow will not go away them).
Not only lack of sea or death is the problem -I've left some ramblings in the Annotated Bible's Book of Revelation-. No Sun and presumably no stars or Moon means Hell for astronomers and in an eternity, unless that city was like Sigil connected to other planes, you'd have more than enough time to... oh, forget it. Going by the book you'd very likely be worshipping 24/7/365/Forever and ever -and Fundies complain why we think they're full of BS. Panzerfaust (talk) 00:14, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
If it's like Sigil, I'd probably spend all of my time chasing tiefling tails. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 02:07, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
She's the good kind of Lady of Pain. Gabriel Syme (talk) 00:50, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
And what about all the Vikings who want Valhalla not some 'milk and honey and tuneless wailing so-called heaven' (and all the other categories of heaven promised)? And does not God get bored with said singing and praise (and the atheists who have been sent to heaven because they led sufficiently good lives despite not 'being made to by the strictures of a religion' and their continuous sniping etc etc). Anna Livia (talk) 09:20, 25 September 2018 (UTC)


Actually...you get a bachelors degree. ShabiDOO 20:10, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
And... here's another one. (talk) 12:21, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Urgent Request[edit]

I can't reveal names as I myself don't know, though I have ideas, but a certain someone on reddit is accusing me of copying their blog. S/he knows that I'm on rationalwiki and is threatening to expose me for being a copycat. I request that the fossil record of my page be wiped clean of every edit from 21:32, 15 July 2018‎ to 04:40, 9 May 2018‎. I need it to where none of these versions of the page are accessible. If this isn't possible, maybe I'll try and persuade him to stop, if it is, you might as well wipe the whole thing clean. BobRoss (talk) 03:48, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Huh? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:54, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Nevermind, I deleted my page. Didn't actually know I could do that. I really don't feel like getting blackmailed today. BobRoss (talk) 03:55, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
I demoted you. You're welcome. On the other hand, why are they accusing you of plagiarism?--Palaeonictis (talk) 14:38, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Why is he requesting that his fossil record be deleted on specific dates? There will be a record of his request to do so on here? Something is awfully fishy Cardinal Chang (talk) 15:20, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
I think he copied something without permission, and now someone's out for his blood. I could fulfill his request, but I won't for matters of neutrality.--Palaeonictis (talk) 11:39, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
In the future, don't copy and paste things that you didn't create? I mean, I don't understand the situation, but in general, copying=bad. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:24, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
I have a blog, in which I often quote entire sections, a number of paragraphs long, from various other people. Maybe half an article or so will end up being this kind of material. I guess my point is that you can quote people, but it's kinda a requirement to make it clear what content is a quote, and where it's from. It helps if the content is freely licensed. Eg everything on this page is CC-BY-SA 3.0 and you can quote it freely provided you give attribution as required by the license. Fair use laws are more complicated, you can read up on them. ^_^ This message is approved by Dysklyver Ensign of the Duke of Cornwall.svg (brebmyn) 16:57, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't think this user is quite ready for the intracices of copyright law up to things like "limited quotes for the purposes of analysis and education" being a defensible, but not necessarily always okay, invocation of fair use. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:52, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
You guys are right, copying=bad, even though what I copied wasn't copyrighted he could still point me out as a bloody copycat on the web. He apparently knows the names of my profiles on several different sites. This is gonna be fun. Note: me no copy ever again unless the author's been dead for centuries. BobRoss (talk) 22:36, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedians on RW?[edit]

Are there any users who are admins/sysops on Wikipedia and RationalWiki? I'm considering creating an account but I want to make sure there is not any major hate of one site on the other site. (talk) 21:58, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm on Wikipedia, don't remember what rank I am but there doesn't seem to be any hate between the two. Guess what my name is, hint: it can mean battle money or lust for war. BobRoss (talk) 22:41, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
There is no hatred or rivalry whatsoever between RationalWiki and Wikipedia. You'll probably find that more users here have a Wikipedia account than don't. Some are much more active here than there and vice versa. I might be wrong, but I don't think there any users here who have any real positions of power on Wikipedia. For what it's worth, on Wikipedia, I have extended confirmed user rights, rollback and pending changes reviewer rights and I was given the Precious Award in April. Spud (talk) 00:05, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't really like Wikipedia's NPOV (Neutral Point Of View) (I prefer objective reasoning to neutrality). That being said I don't hate them, I just a disagree with how they approach problem solving. However, their results speak for themselves, so... meh. Now if you asked CP, that would be a different story... ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:25, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie What results? Could you elaborate? Nerd (talk) 01:52, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
@Nerd They are a mostly accurate reference and topic database. Never use them as a primary source but they do make a good jumping off point, most of the time. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 02:13, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie I see. It's the same way for me. It is sometimes bizarre compared to my books. (Perhaps I'm too attached to them?) Why would you use the Laplace transform to solve a separable ordinary differential equation?! Nein! Nein! Nein! Nein! Nein! Nein! Nein! Nerd (talk) 03:09, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia is probably most people's entry route into the wikiverse: some people stay there and others decide to explore the wikiatlas - whether to express opinions and points of view, explore a topic in more depth than WP cares for or to go to the bits which say 'here be dragons and other exotic creatures.'
WP should be treated as 'a point of first resort/quick answers to easy questions/here be fingerposts/if it is not (yet) covered there and is reasonable it may be a good research topic' (so you can become the cited authority as nobody else has done anything on the subject). Anna Livia (talk) 09:14, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── David Gerard is an admin on Wikipedia and a Trustee here on RationalWiki. For more info see his Wikipedia userpage and RationalWiki userpage. There are at least two Wikipedians I know well are here also, one is an admin on Wikipedia. However others are fine here but less welcome on Wikipedia, I myself am globally locked on all Wikipedia projects. KD1 is banned from Wikipedia. There is no reason why being on RationalWiki and Wikipedia should be any different to being on say Reddit and Facebook. There's no real interaction between the two except for the fact there is a Wikipedia article about RationalWiki, and some links on RationalWiki go to Wikipedia. And both are Wikis running on the same software. ^_^ This message is approved by Dysklyver Ensign of the Duke of Cornwall.svg (brebmyn) 12:21, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Huh, how did you manage to get globally locked? IIRC that's reserved for the most serious offenses. Count Bezukhov (talk) 14:26, 25 September 2018 (UTC)