RationalWiki's 2019 Fundraiser

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

If everyone who saw this today donated $5, we would meet our goal for 2019.

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

Donations so far: $5800Goal: $6000
Information icon.svg The 2018 moderator election has started! We are electing 6 moderators and 2 alternatives to serve in 2019. Nominate users here and read their campaign slogans here!

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

What is going on?

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

To do list


Blexit[edit]

I'm hearing about the "Blexit" movement. Apparently, it's a movement, contributed by Kayne West, to convince black voters to be Republican. However, there's stranger things I've gather from the website. The website links to an article about how "white lives matter" and jabs at liberals and democrats being racist. It's all amusing although extremely manipulative. How much do you think this will affect the election?—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3 Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 03:24, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

"Black people have voted for Democrats their whole life, they’re still poor" - Charles Barkley. From an outsiders point, it certainly looks to me like black people are starting to move away from the Democrats. Whether 'Blexit' will be significant enough to have a big impact on this election though I very much doubt. --RWRW (talk) 09:26, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
And black people in Redstates tend to be the poorest. Go figure. Miserly Nubian (talk) 04:03, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
It won't matter much because black people aren't particularly gullible or stupid. Dumb "stay home" propaganda campaigns of this sort have a long and repeated history with conservative movements, be it dixiecrats or 1980s onward republicans. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:42, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
It's not a "stay home" campaign though, it's a "vote Trump" campaign. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 18:10, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Twice as bad? ^_^ This message is approved by Dysklyver Ensign of the Duke of Cornwall.svg (brebmyn) 18:20, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Go back to Africa was an easy way out of oppression. Later African Americans realized that they adopted American culture to go back. For Blexit, it is indeed a unadmitted black pro-Trump movement. At least the Go Back to Africa movment was explicit with it's intentions, even by its name. Blexit on the other hand, is just a pun on Brexit. For no reason other than to be a pun.—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3 Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 01:03, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be "blaxit"?
But in seriousness, the Democrats have indeed taken black people for granted, but the Republicans haven't been able to capitalize on this simply because they'd rather get the racist old guy vote instead. Black people should instead vote Green or Libertarian if they otherwise wouldn't have voted, if for no other reason to let the two parties know that their votes actually are in the millions and they are up for grabs. CoryUsar (talk) 05:24, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Sounds like Frank Luntz is out of a job, now that we're quite capable of garbage marketing bad rhetoric to ourselves. Democrats and republicans think so little of their base that they message memetic and worry about the substance of the message second. And a vote outside of Dem or Rep is wasted, because it works. It's honestly the time for a third party, but the only people pushing for it are pie in the sky or cash-out fakers, and that can't beat the machine. On the bright side, maybe Luntz is actually out of a job. What a time to be alive.Gol Sarnitt (talk) 06:08, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
I hate people who claim they believe in democrasy yet say voting third party is a wasted vote. Look the only wasted vote is when you don't vote(Like a lot of black people did in the 2016 election)TheDarkMaster2 (talk) 14:24, 5 November 2018 (UTC)TheDarkMaster2
I disagree. In the UK lots of centre-left candidates stood down in hotly contested races to form a 'progressive alliance' and it worked - it took a fair few seats from the Conservatives. I don't really like the Conservative Party but I can't see myself ever voting third party (even if we had a Libertarian Party) as it would ultimately help Labour--RWRW (talk) 16:19, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
At least you have third parties, unlike in the USTheDarkMaster2 (talk) 14:08, 6 November 2018 (UTC)TheDarkMaster2
It might not be as good as you think. One of the most common arguments against multi-Party systems is it results in unstable governments, especially in parliamentary democracies. The German coalition government seems to be going through some turbulence for instance.--RWRW (talk) 17:29, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

The Midterms[edit]

Any predictions? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:18, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Every single seat will be filled with an awful sociopath; several of the sociopaths will displace other sociopaths. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:20, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
@Ikanreed HOW DID YOU KNOW THAT!?!?!?! In all seriousness though, the current midterms will likely end a a mixed bag. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:28, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Bingo! — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 23:32, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough. But to speak a bit in defense of politicians, a few of them are kind of alright. Orrin Hatch is a pretty funny guy. Though they're a dying breed I'm afraid. :/ 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:30, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Senate probably stays red, House probably flips. As for my local elections (Kansas-02) I have no idea. Our House race and our gubernatorial race are both toss-ups. The GOP seems pretty scared, because my town got a Trump rally (in the building I graduated highschool in, ugh!) and Pence showed up twice to fundraise. Not to mention all of the outside parties running scummy ads. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 19:45, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Predictions that will always be valid:

The 'pundits, predictors, analysts, journalists and writers of instant books' will use up a few real trees and cyber trees between them, and earn a few bob.
The (re)sellers of so-called collectable objects will try and make a large profit on some cheapo-cheapo items.
Five years hence the significance of the results will be seen quite differently with hindsight. Anna Livia (talk) 20:54, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
I dunno about that third point, the results of 2012 still seems pretty much the same now as it did then. The republicans really wanted a psycho and were sad when they didn't give themselves one, obama had dwindling support because he didn't want to take a left stance or really any stance besides a vague sense of reasonableness, but still had one of the most effective voting coalitions in recent history, and its remnants won it for him. Trump didn't add any color to that analysis, retroactively. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:00, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I feel like these midterms are more important than the mood here would suggest. The USA is generally a morally bankrupt, or even sinister force in their dealings around the world. They are, however, a very free nation internally. We need at least one superpower nominally committed to democracy. The yanks are now on the path to true autocracy and anyone who discounts this outright is fooling themselves. If the repubs retain the house and feel like their anti-human-rights rhetoric was a big part of it ... It doesn't bear thinking about. MunX (talk) 05:13, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I got a prediction, the republicans will win Mississippi and a lot of other states, despite the democrats using a recent shooting to try and look woke, cause we all know censoring Gab will prevent further shooting rightTheDarkMaster2 (talk) 13:30, 3 November 2018 (UTC)TheDarkMaster2
More likely: House flips, Trump spreads conspiracy theory that Dems hacked election, prompting more bombings and shootings by MAGAheads. - Millennium Scallion (talk) 16:38, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
The Republicans have already won many states, your comment hasn't aged well dude Plus the Dems started this conspiracy crud when they blamed russia for costing them the elction and not their terrible candidate nor her terrible policies.TheDarkMaster2 (talk) 14:03, 4 November 2018 (UTC)TheDarkMaster2
So, fake news? Millennium Scallion (talk) 17:11, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Let's imagine for a moment that the Good Lord decided to get off His ass and do something about Nancy Pelosi; who would Satan curse us with as leader of the Democrats? RobSmithMisogynist women made me loose 08:36, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Probably Farrakhan. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 13:03, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Farrakhan, the leader of a black nationalist, conservative, pro-capitalist, pro-patriarchy, anti-Semitic, anti-LGBTQ organization who once praised Trump? Miserly Nubian (talk) 04:16, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
All those things are accurate and yet a considerable number of Democrats have strong ties to him. Remarkable, isn't it? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 04:25, 12 November 42018 AQD (UTC)
Democrats take the House (probably narrowly) and Republicans hold senate (probably increasing majority). I haven't got much of a life so I'm planning on staying up to some disgusting time in the morning watching the results come through, I find it interesting and the BBC will probably provide coverage throughout the night. --RWRW (talk) 16:24, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

RW political parties[edit]

How about we create political parties in RW where every member "registers" for one so everybody knows what everyone represents? I propose at least six factions: liberal, center-left, far-left, conservative, centrist and far-right. Gewgtweg (talk) 18:58, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Some of us don't really fit into that schedule very well. I am an economic nationalist who thinks Trump is basically right on tariffs and trade. I am a cultural libertarian, hostile to Moral Endeavor in whatever form it takes. In other matters of social policy I am a Confucian conservative, which is so out of tune with local 'conservatism' that I may as well be a 'socialist', albeit one without egalitarian tendencies. So which box do I fit in? Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 19:15, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
I created a political party once and it... well... wasn't exactly a roaring success. That said I do still like the idea of political parties here but I don't think the idea of 'registering' for them will be popular. --RWRW (talk) 19:16, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm none of those things. Hardcore anti-conservative but not particularly well aligned with liberal or leftist perspectives outside that. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:21, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
The party system is antithetical to RW's well-established "orderly chaos" system of factions forming over every single issue! Death to the party system! RoninMacbeth (talk) 19:24, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
That's the spirit, rugged individualism (with ideological goons to back you up). RobSmithIvanka 2024! 05:18, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

You'd end up with roughly one unique faction per user, some of them very specific. This is RW. Dendlai (talk) 19:25, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Political parties are the most over-rated idea since warfare. They are idiotic and divisive, enforcing a group mentality at the cost of rational discourse. If I could burn every single political party on the planet to the ground and force candidates to argue their positions based on their own merits I would. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:48, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Some of that is just FPTP effects though, find a large enough group to slam through a majority. In genuinely many-party nations a lot of those problems are less severe. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:53, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
@Ikanreed True, however by your own admission they still suffer from the effects of group mentality, it's just that it has been mitigated somewhat by other factors. My ultimate political goal is to eliminate group mentality, or at the very least minimize it to such an extent as to have as little an impact as possible on decision making. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:02, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Of course they do. Why the fuck wouldn't they? Six person programming teams have group mentalities and conflicts. Don't try to write out human nature with technocracy. It won't work. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:23, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
@Ikanreed Please re-read what I said, because the fact of the matter is no matter how much I hate group mentality, some element of it will always be required for society to actually function. (I actually acknowledged this reality somewhat in my previous post.) I'm realistic enough to understand that my "ideal world" exists in a vacuum, and that ultimately compromise will be required for any solution to existing problems. In short it would be a mistake to simply write me off as a dreamer and/or idealist too lost in fantasy to understand reality, when the fact of the matter is that what I want and what I'll get are in all likelihood two different, though possibly related, things. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:54, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough. Hard to argue that you can't see that kind of benignly true point. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:04, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
@Smerdis Where do you draw the line between personal intellectual and philosophical positions and practical political alignment? Since you support nationalism and given your views on identity politics you are in practice "alt-right" so I would put you into the far-right box.
@RWRW I don't know how many members this site has but there are at least a few people that would join such an alliance.
@ikanreed If you want nothing particularly to do with neither the liberal nor the anti-liberal left maybe you should do some inner searching to re-examine why you are such a hardcore anti-conservative in the first place. Do we have a shrink in RW?
@Ron Divergence on single issues is natural even among people with similar political or philosophical views. I am arguing for trying to find a lowest common denominator.
@Dendai Same answer I gave to Ron.
@GrammarCommie Sorry dude. Since organized civilizations appeared, politics is based on coalitions and alliances, in short, political parties. Gewgtweg (talk) 20:00, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Because the conservatives are fucking scum and the liberal and left sides are disagreeing on actual issues around moral and scientific realities, with only occasional nutball positions tossed in. Everything about modern (american style, but it's spreading) conservatism is fucking vile anti-humanism or conspiracies and pseudoscience(or sometimes authoritarian religion) designed to write around the fucking vile parts. No exceptions. Anyone who looks at that and goes "well it's got good qualities" has some very vile views buried underneath. I don't know why you imagine this is some unthinking position and not a fairly basic truth that can be deduced from decades of "BAN THE GAYS, KILL THE TRANS, SET THE EARTH ON FIRE, SET TAX POLICIES THAT IMPOVERISH THE ALREADY POOR, LOCK CHILDREN IN CAGES" policy ennaction. There's no good conservatives. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:23, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
If you'd actually met some sensible modern conservatives you'd know none of what you just said is true. "But muh collective guilt-shaming." *shrugs* 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:36, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Those "sensible" modern conservatives are doing a very good job hiding, and tacitly endorsing Trump et all. I wonder how they voted? Dendlai (talk) 20:39, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Like the ones who didn't endorse trump weren't 100% in favor of at least half the completely morally indefensible shit I listed in spite of him. Taking one shitty thing about their horrible ideology, claiming the ones who don't back it are the good ones, you still end up with a pile of remorseless, awful people. The claim that one day I'll meet a decent human being conservative, who finds something in the ideology that's not anti-humanism, is a hypothetical I will continue to keep an open mind to, but come the fuck on with this shit. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 22:14, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
I don't find the conservatism worldview as a whole compatible with today's society. Stability and order should, IMO, be what conservatism is about, but conservatism is really about preserving the status quo for nostalgic reasons, based on a warped, rosy, fantasy view of a past that never really happened. Conservatism at its core is about keeping things unfair and unequal, relying on fear of change, because it's an unfortunate component of human civilization, if not nature in its entirety. Conservatism isn't even about preserving things because you see conservatives politicizing one of the few things that should be preserved: our environment and climate change. There is nothing redeeming about social conservatism (I come to see it as nice way for bigots to not call themselves bigots) and there is nothing redeeming about fiscal conservatism being about stripping regulations and cutting taxes that have shown time to time to be destructive to society, especially to less affluent people, especially in the long run, and the very thing regulations are meant to do is to curb destruction and hold those liable to justice. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 00:57, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Nooooo! Avida Dollarsher again 20:31, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

A big page where users outline their political affiliation might be a decent idea, but explicitly dividing users into simplistic tribes sounds horrible. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:52, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, such behavior is ultimately self destructive. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:55, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

@BoN The 5 best regions on the planet (North America, the civilized parts of Europe, Australia, Japan and Korea) all have a tribal-politics system. If it's good enough for them why isn't it good enough for RW? A non-tribal system means oligarchy (most of Latin America), dictatorship (most of Eurasia) or anarchy (most of Africa). Gewgtweg (talk) 21:20, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

What's wrong with Anarchy? Is there anything that makes it inherently worse than any of your other possibilities? The USian "Democratic" system is totally broken, being a flip-flop, one thing or the other, with no chance whatsoever for a reasonable third party. Our UKian system's not much better (see what a total mess we're in now). But how to improve? Scream!! (talk) 21:32, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
But RW isn't run by a political party-system, so your analogy isn't really relevant. If your objective with these RW parties is simply to find out where users stand on political issues, then dividing them according to simplistic labels seems very inefficient. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:34, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

@Scream What's wrong with anarchy? Africa, the worst region on earth, that's what's wrong. Most "states" there are really a small criminal mob that plunders the country's resources and the populace lives in anarchic conditions i.e. divided among a dazzling number of overcrowded clans and tribes the leaders of which are also engaged in criminal parasitism. Where a central authority doesn't exist to impose a monopoly on violence and no functional institutions exist what you basically have is anarchy. That's why nothing works. That this state of affairs is inherently worse than any other should be as self-evident as the light of day. Anarchists in the political and philosophical sense tend to be fine and clever people but it's possible for fine and clever people to believe stupid things.

@BoN I didn't mean for this analogy to be taken seriously of course. It was more of a joke. Sure, the diversity in the stuff a person can believe is mind-boggling. But in practical terms, a few labels are more than enough to identify someone's leanings. Take the example of Smerdis above. Whatever he thinks about Confucian conservatism, by supporting economic nationalism and given his views on identity politics he's basically a far-righter notwithstanding the trivial theoretical differences he might have with other people in the same category. Only apolitical people can legitimately claim to be above such labels. Having investigated the history of conservatism I know very well that traditional political terms age very quickly and can mean different things. But in the practical day-to-day world, they fulfill their pedestrian purpose of identifying what concrete forces we support (and why) just fine. I support a one-world-government and the forced reduction of the human population, seeing it as the only way to prevent a return to the stone age because of resource shortages, eco-degradation and climate chaos. Would eco-totalitarian not be an accurate neutral term for this position or would it just be "simplistic"? Gewgtweg (talk) 22:34, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I would not want further political divisions caused by the idea. I am generally Republican but I don't support everything Trump wants. No to the idea. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 22:47, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Two points I would like to add to this discussion. One, most of the more notoriously corrupt countries in Africa are partly that way due to imperialistic European inference. And two, Russia has a western style democracy, but they're notoriously corrupt and authoritarian as all fuck. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:22, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
A point I will add is that the Nazi party is not exactly easy to classify. Plenty of far right elements but racism does not automatically far right. Racism is a separate concept. The Nazi party has some far left elements. Political parties on RationalWiki would be totally counterproductive. Even in this discussion it is clear we don't exactly fit into a single political spectrum. This message is approved by the RZ94 for moderator committee --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:29, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
@Gewgtweg I certainly don't consider myself far-right or alt-right. I don't believe in riling people with hostility against an 'invasion' of Hispanics. Seems to me to be a lot easier to enforce an import ban on outsourcers, and require that money invested in US financial markets be spent on US territory. Don't even need any walls for that. The Republicans I talk with call all of this 'socialism'. I don't hate black or brown people. In fact, I have more regard for a part of some of their cultures than many typical urban, sheltered leftists do. I don't hate gays or trans people; as noted above, one thing I actively despise is Moral Endeavor, and that's been consistent for all of my life. My dislike of identity politics is not really hostility to all of its ideas: it is that the spirit of Moral Endeavor has possessed some of its partisans, and that always leads to hectoring and bullying. That said, a reliable part of the human race will be suspicious of outsiders and prefer to live among neighbors who share their language, culture, and folkways. A politics that perpetually threatens those people and makes them all enemies is a politics in love with losing. That's a problem. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 03:48, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Face facts: sympathy for white Hispanic migrants is motivated by the fact they will take jobs away from Black youths, whose unemployment is the lowest ever, reduce Black support for Trump, which is the highest ever, and make them dependent on White liberal Democrats again.RobSmithIvanka 2024! 03:58, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
@Smerdis of Tlön What's your opinion on drug cartels and human traffickers who exploit said Hispanics as they travel across mountains and rivers towards a future of crime-ridden districts and subpar-working opportunities? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 04:12, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
It's an interesting subject of which I could say much. Suffice it now to say, most Americans don't understand Mexico. It's federal government is almost non-existent. Mexico is essentially a collection of city-states where drug cartels, gangsters, and corrupt civil servants control most of the countryside and some cities. It's the economics of the cartels that's most interesting. They grew up after NAFTA, and virtually all their revenue comes fron the US. RobSmithIvanka 2024! 04:24, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
It isn't something I really have given a great deal of thought to. My suggestion would be that if we catch any of those human traffickers, we set them up with jobs in the airline industry. We obviously can't accept everyone from Central America who want to get here because the USA is not quite the shithole their native countries are. On the other hand, deliberate cruelties for them are not a reflection of who we ought to be, either. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 19:23, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Keep in mind that this suggestion was made by the person who claimed a few days ago that they '... have no "opponents" because I don't subscribe to any discernible ideology.'. If we need some way to quickly identify someone's basic political positions, maybe encourage people to put their political compass position in their sigs. It's far from perfect, but a much better approximation than a one-phrase party designation. MunX (talk) 05:06, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Polictial spectrum tests are flawedTheDarkMaster2 (talk) 14:14, 6 November 2018 (UTC)TheDarkMaster2
Given that the RW contributor base is multi-national the political spectrums in the various countries do not overlap sufficiently enough for mainstream parties to be established - and how would eg all these parties be accommodated?
And if such parties were established they would rapidly prove fissiparous, given the nature of RW-ians. (No citation needed) Anna Livia (talk) 12:35, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Considering the relative left-leaning nature of RW(Citation not needed) such an idea would rapidly devolve into one party rule.TheDarkMaster2 (talk) 14:16, 6 November 2018 (UTC)TheDarkMaster2

Considering RW was founded in response to arch conservatism the left leaning nature of the wiki is not surprising at all. Millennium Scallion (talk) 15:30, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
I think your missing the point here, what DarkMaster2 obviously meant was that if RW was to create political parties then the majority would most likely be leftwing and "progressive", and thereby drown out non leftwing or "progressive" parties or ideas. Like it's already happening with GreenredMaro calling for a better policy against "Naughtywords" I'm sure that had nothing to do with TheDarkMaster2 debating with her then she loosing her mind and blocking him for three days for calling someone he didn't know the gender of, the female reproductive organ when she was already acting abrasive. Besides Conservapedia is not taken seriously by anyone yet RW is, for some unknown reason. — Unsigned, by: 76.8.245.245 / talk / contribs
I thought the OPs proposal was that some sort of RW political registry be created so every contributor could register their political party affiliation. Which I don't think is needed on RW at all. Anyway, what "non leftwing or progressive parties or ideas" would be/are being drowned out by this commie rabble? Millennium Scallion (talk) 19:33, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
I think your point already does enough to refute what Gewgtweg said, but I think its also worth noting just how silly his argument is. Five countries/regions that I think are good use political system A, therefore political system A is good. Samstr (talk) 00:15, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
76.8.245.245: You speak as if DarkMaster2 is a separate entity, but you're making the same spelling errors ("loose") (compare), littering posts with grammar and capitalization errors (compare), disrespecting my username, talking about ethics in journalism (compare), hand-wringing about political parties being equally bad (compare) and you also can't sign if your life depended on it apparently (compare). --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 01:59, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
@LeftyGreenMario Ah, so you noticed that as well. Both have attacked my username as well, thus falling into my clever trap proving to have the intellectual depth of a very shallow plate. It's also very interesting that both became active almost at the same time, which in and of itself isn't noteworthy, but combine that with similar behavior and ideas and... Well, the result is so obvious that spelling it out would be insulting. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 02:12, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Not that smart either. You think if you want to do a better job at impersonation, you'd actually make the effort to bring up different subjects, improve spelling and grammar, properly sign, and express different opinions. Oh well, if TheDarkMaster2 isn't already dishonest, this just makes him beyond the realm of reasonable doubt. He's a confirmed liar now and should be written off the moment he hits "save page". --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 02:17, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Fuck yourself. One I could cite facts and you wouldn't believe. Second I have no idea who this anonymous douchebaf is. And btw common spelling errors don't prove dick. Fuck you, you stupid CUNT Yeah I said it, get fucked. Maybe if people didn't act like absolute pricks to people right of center you wouldn't get called what you are, a cuntTheDarkMaster2 (talk) 14:11, 7 November 2018 (UTC)TheDarkMaster2
To paraphrase Matt Dillahunty, you wouldn't know the political center if it walked up to you wear a t-shirt saying "political center" and hit you over the head with a political center fish. Both the ideas you endorse and the people you cite are so far from center that you would literally need to redefine the entire spectrum to honestly call them centrists. Further, you have displayed a level of dishonesty and ill intent that violate the assumption of good faith and then some. In summery, you can say that your centrist all you like, but your actions and words tell a different story. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:29, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
What do you consider center? Someone not willing to debate or even acknowledge the right wing?TheDarkMaster2 (talk) 14:34, 7 November 2018 (UTC)TheDarkMaster
Troll --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 17:22, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
If politics was a box of chocolates, what would the political centre be (and what would the UK version be)? Anna Livia (talk) 18:12, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Man this took a pretty awesome turn but the main point stands that there is no need for a political registry, while the active contributor population tends to skew in a center-left direction we have contributors decidedly farther right than most and others that wouldn't even be properly defined by euclidean directions.
I could understand an internal census that collects this information being an idea. However at present time this just seems to be a way to prove the liberal bias of RationalWiki or to make some conservative users feel attacked or victimized? I assume that would make the secure and discourse fluent conservatives feel sort of embarrassed. It is probably the academic and skeptical nature of RationalWiki's contributor base that accounts for it's contents seeming (and in part being) more towards the left. Many pages still come down hard on both sides of woo in the end.
Eponymous (talk) 09:30, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Midterm results[edit]

Anyone else up watching them? Looking tight at the moment but its still very early... --RWRW (talk) 01:13, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

No, I'll check them when they're counted and done. Biting my nails in suspense achieves nothing. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:17, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough. I'm literally sitting watching the BBC coverage on the TV, with the New York Times election map on my laptop. *Sigh* I really need a life... --RWRW (talk) 01:19, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Heh. Not the only one. I needz sleep! ^_^ This message is approved by Dysklyver Ensign of the Duke of Cornwall.svg (brebmyn) 02:00, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Yep, especially the Beto/Cruz race. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 03:02, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

The House is gone Democratic. Ariel31459 (talk) 03:40, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

An interesting 2 years ahead, to be sure. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 05:00, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
My state, Kansas, just elected a Democratic governor, but the House race in my district went GOP. But still, we dodged a massive bullet with Kris Kobach. Holy shit, he would've been a nightmare as governor. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 05:22, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
My state just reelected Ted Cruz. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 05:33, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Though the senate has stayed red, the House has gone to the Democrats. In my own state, a ballot question to turn back trans rights failed. Soon the House investigations will begin and we will see what it looks like under the rocks.Ariel31459 (talk) 14:16, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Rodger Wicker won my home state, sigh...TheDarkMaster2 (talk) 14:28, 7 November 2018 (UTC)TheDarkMaster2
I enjoyed this video of Trump's election day failures.Ariel31459 (talk) 15:34, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

New season of Doctor Who[edit]

It started out fairly typical, but I'm having a hard time finishing the ultra ham-handed rosa parks episode from 2 weeks ago. This is the first time I've had to put a show I normally like on pause overnight because I really can't bear to finish an episode. And I've done it twice with the same episode.

Partially, it's that it's a history episode, and unlike every other history episode, where they're interacting with a crucial historical event(but with aliens) they have to stop the relevant dialog for a side conversation about how important this moment is like 30 times, instead of, you know, once. Dear writers, if you want to tackle an important historic event with your writing, please just take off the gloves made of ham. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 01:34, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Also there's at least two plot holes, maybe three even. ^_^ This message is approved by Dysklyver Ensign of the Duke of Cornwall.svg (brebmyn) 02:02, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Plot holes in Doctor Who? Mind = Blown. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 02:42, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
But this is Rationalwiki not Whowiki. :) Anna Livia (talk) 10:31, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Nope this is Whowiki now, move aside while we discuss time travel in minute mind-bending detail. ^_^ This message is approved by Dysklyver Ensign of the Duke of Cornwall.svg (brebmyn) 13:54, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
The new season is absolute garbage, which is a shame, because the actor is coolTheDarkMaster2 (talk) 14:18, 7 November 2018 (UTC)TheDarkMaster2
Though I kinda like some of the designs of the alies, except that pregnant dude.. That was just lazyTheDarkMaster2 (talk) 15:55, 7 November 2018 (UTC)TheDarkMaster2
I think the current season is mostly a return to form after a long detour into dark and soapy territory. My canonical Doctor will always be Tom Baker, but Whitaker seems to have the character down fairly well. I like the lack of emphasis on long term story arcs. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 21:03, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
I mostly like the new season, although I think "Arachnids in the UK" was the low point so far. Jodie Whitaker is great as the Doctor, and Bradley Walsh's character is fantastic. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 00:54, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
It's mostly okay, though personally I think it would've been better/more interesting if Jodie played 12 and Capaldi played 13. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 01:49, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Well, there would be a problem with that. The BBC hasn't got the time travel tech that the titular character has. Be fair. Kencolt (talk) 05:12, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Actually, editing all the tapes isn't technically complicated. Not that I expect anyone to do it. Just an interesting alternative to consider. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 14:18, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
You know that "editing" isn't the name of a genie who you can just wish for new footage from, right? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:01, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Just a matter of switching heads around. You should see some of the funny vids with Trump's head inserted everywhere. ;) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:08, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
NOT really an argument in support of your proposition. Kencolt (talk) 02:18, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
A great argument for not taking everything too seriously though. ;) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 02:32, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
When will the Dalek reincarnation of the Doctor occur? Anna Livia (talk) 00:32, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
It won't. It's canonically impossible, in fact. Despite a certain fluidity in physiological sex, the Doctor is still a Time Lord, and a Gallifreyan. The Daleks are highly mutated variant of the Kaled species. Regeneration ( not reincarnation, which is an entirely different thing) may allow for certain alterations of appearance, physique, and even physical gender, as well as psychological alterations to some personality traits, but the core genetics, biochemistry, and even arguably aspects of his/her organic chemistry are all Gallifreyan. She's a different species than Kaled, much less the severely altered mutation that is a Dalek.
That's like asking when Deeprak Chopra will reincarnate as a sensible human being. Since neither reincarnation, or Deeprak Chopra have any relations to reality, that ain't happening either. Kencolt (talk) 02:18, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Rusty the Dalek seems to disagree. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 02:32, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Rusty is speaking in a philosophical sense... referring to attitudes, cultural norms, and a perceived similarity in the Doctor's willingness to-- when pushed very very far-- throw a(metaphirical) punch and Rusty's natural innate desire to KILL EVERYTHING WHATSOEVER.
In other words, not exactly the best of sources. Also, Rusty's statements are less literal and more "Oh, yeah, well, so are you! So There!" WHich works fine for Daleks and the Alt Right, but not so good for logical people and Time Lords. Kencolt (talk) 04:17, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Given the diversity of the multiverse, why shouldn't there be Dalek Timelords 'somewhere'? Anna Livia (talk) 12:46, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
If a dalek doesn't kill everything, is it still a dalek? It'd be like saving the bengal tiger by genetically reprogramming them to be herbivores. You've saved something, but it's not a fucking tiger. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:49, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Hmm, I sense a No True Dalek fallacy. Also, save for Rusty (and Dalek Caan), Daleks usually don't massacre their own race, so that's a considerable caveat to add onto that "kill everything" maxim. Sometimes they also use other races as servants. And they're usually pretty friendly with Davros. Though it's interesting to consider what really makes a Dalek a Dalek. We've had regular humans fully injected with Dalek DNA as well as human mutants inside Dalek casings fulfilling the role of Daleks. Which one is more Dalek? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 15:54, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Suggesting it as an interesting thought experiment - how would 'everybody else' react, and what would the Doctor's nature be like? Anna Livia (talk) 16:33, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

the house[edit]

is what we won. Oolon Colluphid. (talk) 13:27, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Pretty narrowly. And the Senate remains Red. The once-promised 'Blue Wave' is more of a ripple than anything else. Still the high voter turnout is a good thing for democracy. --RWRW (talk) 13:36, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
You act like winning the House is a good thing. Because getting nothing done and fucking over trump is more important then helping the american people, Partisanship for the win!TheDarkMaster2 (talk) 14:20, 7 November 2018 (UTC)TheDarkMaster2
You talk like the truth is irrelevant. Everything the House Intelligence Committee reported in the last two years was either a lie or shaded so far from the truth to be useless to the public. I don't want Trump fucked over. I want him to be revealed to posterity as the completely despicable human being that he is. Every serious American historian will be watching. Enjoy the show.Ariel31459 (talk) 16:04, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
I spy damage control by RWRW. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 17:18, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Ariel31459: Guy is a confirmed liar who'd go through the measures of thinly disguising himself through different IPs to try conjure outsider opinions agreeing with him. Just letting you know if you want to proceed. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 17:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Possibly, but it was the outcome I expected. Anyway the GOP lost less seats than the Dems did in the last midterms so it wasn't a disaster. --RWRW (talk) 17:54, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Just to be fair, I take every little win as much as I can because I really don't want one party controlling everything, especially not that party. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 17:57, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Lefty. Just to be accurate the democrats lost 13 seats in the last midterms, while Rs lost 28 this time.Ariel31459 (talk) 19:48, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
The Senate was never really in play. This year's map was just about the ugliest the Dems have ever gotten. Sure, there were things that would've been nice to have, like Beto O'Rourke or Stacey Abrams, but the House was the critical target. Meanwhile, the Dems lost fewer seats in the Senate than they really should have. OH, PA, WI, MI, and MT all voted for Trump, but the Dems successfully held those Senate seats. A net gain of two seats for the GOP really isn't that good, all things considered. The Dems also picked up 7 governorships, including my home state of Kansas and the Trump-voting states of Michigan and Wisconsin. At the end of the night, I think it was about as good of a midterm as the Dems could have hoped for. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 20:39, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
I've seen a bigger Blue Wave on the coast. you guys barely won the house. It's very early to be congratulating yourselfTheDarkMaster2 (talk) 12:20, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
The whole Blue Wave or Red Wave thing is stupid and at best hyped up voter turnout and at worst now has everyone fellating themselves, moving goal posts, and rolling out cognitive dissonance. The truth of the matter is that the seats up for election at the time gave heavy advantage to Republicans in the Senate and Democrats in the House. In terms of the Democratic victories, things got weird since many races that seemed to be slam dunks turned out to be losses and many races thought to be lost causes worked out. Beto O'Rourke beating Cruz, or literally any Texan beating Cruz, would have been cool but he never had that much of a chance - a 2.6% margin is to me at least impressive, but this was always about establishing credentials, image, and reputation for a 2020 run.
Democrats had a fine midterm, it was not utter victory over all foes but in the end things turned out right around the forecast. The House does control the power to impeach, but impeaching a President is very hard and unless that President has abysmal approval ratings it is political suicide (Clinton's impeachment backfired) to do that. This goes double for if there are no proven crimes or charges, unseating a President just because they are shitty and you know he's gone the ill deeds would cause a crisis if half the country still supports him and has issue with impeachment lacking formal issue.
Honestly, it sucks, but people need to remember and figure out what to do. We have the country divided, and unless we start killing people we have to live with the other 50%. We need compromise in some areas, to hold to our non-negotiable stances in others, and to just on top of all that stop treating each other so shitty. We as a country are not going to find that in our leadership, that ship has long since sailed. We need to be decent, understand the opposing view as more than just three sentences. Racist, bigoted, harmful as some stances or views may be, we need to understand why people hold them in order to figure out a solution to this culture clash bullshit.
Eponymous (talk) 10:01, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
@Eponymous So, mixed results? Like I predicted? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:18, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie Yeah, there is no party I would call the winner here because it's not like the pendulum swung the other way. The Democrats are definitely a winner for getting partial control of our checks and balances, and Republicans are a winner for keeping the Senate. Both parties mostly just won along the lines of who had the advantage, so the people in particular that I could call the winners are those who broke barriers being elected because hey nice things for people usually fucked over. It is clear though that the loser is all of us, for having such a broken political atmosphere/mechanism. I honestly just recently started looking at the Saloon Bar and my attention was grabbed most by drama so I missed your prediction, but you seem like a perfectly intelligent fella so reading the writing on the wall (too rare a skill) makes sense. Eponymous (talk) 20:30, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
I mean, if the results reflected the actual popular voting totals, phew boy there'd be a winner. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:57, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

For those not paying attention the Democrats are plus 33 more seats and could finish with as many as 40, when counts are done.Ariel31459 (talk) 14:51, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Against Jesus Mythicists[edit]

Thread moved from here to Talk:Jesus myth theory by Dysklyver

Jeff Sessions is out[edit]

Matthew "I Would Indict Hillary Clinton" Whitaker is in. Let the games begin. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 23:22, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

FUCK!!! At least Sessions gave some semblance of a crap. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:48, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Matthew Whitaker looks like a giant thumb. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 00:45, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Funny how that works. The DC Court of Appeals is hearing a case that appears to be a direct challenge to Mueller's constitutional authority. It appears to be based on Prof. Calebresi's argument that under the Appointments Clause of the Constitution, an official overseeing the probe would have to be a “principal officer,” and thus would have to be appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Too bad. If it goes up to SCOTUS, Kavanaugh tends to side in favor with the Executive (like on waterboarding, etc., unlike the racist states rights scumbags who oppose him). Arguments are set for December 14. Mueller might even have his report written by then. RobSmithIvanka 2024! 05:55, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Rod Rosenstein oversees the probe, was appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate. And the problem would be?Ariel31459 (talk) 14:42, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Rosenstein is out, seeing the AG is unrecused. In fact, rumour is Rosenstein may resign today, seeing he is Sessions hand-picked stooge. And Trump still has the de-classified notes of the coup plot up his sleeve.
What you liberal commies never comprehended was, the Mueller investigation was always about covering up Obama DOJ misconduct. Why do you think Mueller gave Comey immunity after Comey lied to Congress on national television, and then admitted to criminal leaking? RobSmithIvanka 2024! 18:27, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
lol, the Saturday night massacre is supposed to happen on Saturday, Nixon-but-dumber. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:35, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

@Ariel, I misunderstood your question. Rosenstein is not the Special Counsel. Rosenstein appointed the Special Counsel, not the president with Senate confirmation. The argument being made is, a flunky like Mueller doesn't have the broad subpeaona power to harass Roger Stone's friends trying to frame Roger Stone so they can try to frame Trump. Arguments before the Court of Appeals are Dec. 14. If SCOTUS reviews the case, Kavanaugh is likely to come down on the side of the President in overturning the existing Special Counsel regulations. RobSmithIvanka 2024! 18:39, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Currently, there is no Special Counsel or Independent Prosecutor statute - it's an internal DOJ regulation. It's been misused twice now, first when Deputy AG James Comey blackmailed AG John Ashcroft to recuse himself so they could go after Scooter Libby (see Valerie Plame affairWikipedia's W.svg) and second when Comey and Rosenstein blackmailed Sessions so they could go after Trump. The Courts have had enough of this shit, especially after Obama DOJ FISA abuse, and the DOJ's partisan prosecution of Sen. Ted StevensWikipedia's W.svg. RobSmithIvanka 2024! 18:48, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

And another issue: You can't have it both ways - criticize the Patriot Act and its Amendments, and then claim illegal domestic spying on Michael Cohen, Paul Manafort, Carter Page and others was justified. RobSmithIvanka 2024! 19:05, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I would like to respond Rob, but since nothing you said resembles the truth I have to think you are trolling for minnows.Ariel31459 (talk) 00:42, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Why am I not surprised that facts would confuse liberal leftwing communists? RobSmithIvanka 2024! 02:52, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
As opposed to conservative rightwing communists? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 02:52, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
This one is too good: Liberal left-wing communists who have been calling Sessions a racist for 30 years organize protests in 900 cities to protest Sessions firing. RobSmithIvanka 2024! 03:01, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Why am I not surprised that you found comfort in a "lock-her-up" imbecile. Only 900 demonstrations against Trumpet coming up? Why that's nothing to worry about. Trump's list of allies grows thin. Now that he is a lame-duck, I presume many republicans will kiss the dear leader off. Ariel31459 (talk) 03:13, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Democrats protesting on behalf of the racist Attorney General tells you everything you need to know. RobSmithIvanka 2024! 03:20, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
wait...you are a communist?Ariel31459 (talk) 03:22, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Not what "lame duck" is supposed to mean. I mean, I guess the term has morphed as we've gotten more partisan, and it's a valid usage, but I really wish we had another term for "party of presidency doesn't control congress". ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:44, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
"opposition House," "opposition Senate" if it were just the Senate, and "opposition Congress" if it were both houses. RobSmithIvanka 2024! 03:03, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes, yes. Technical minutiea to the point I was trying to make, but accurate. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 03:04, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Please send help[edit]

I don't know how they got here so quickly. They're smashing at my door now, and they've killed my guard dog. They're blowing cocaine powder into my AC unit to try and disorient me, but I've got blankets wrapped around my face. But they're so close to getting in. I smell them cooking delicious Mexican food, trying to lure me out. I never knew tacos and burritos could smell so good. But it won't work. I saw what they did to my neighbors, though I can't bring myself to speak of it. The vile beasts!
Now they've stopped banging at my doors and windows. "Let us in, amigo!" they shout. "We're not gonna hurt you!" I reply that I would sooner die. I see a brown man leer at me through my barred window. "We can make that happen if you want it so bad, amigo," he snarls.
It all started when the migrant caravan headed north. I don't know how they got here so quickly! Inhuman speed! I only know that the GOP could have kept these horrible monsters away from me. Why didn't I vote Republican? My God! Why didn't I vote Republican?
It was good knowing all of you, but I'm afraid I might never again post on this website. We were wrong to oppose Trump, so damn wrong! My God, why didn't I vote Republican?
Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 21:01, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

This lucky one died, the rest of us must suffer 2019. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:16, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
I always get this wry smile when I see people encouraging illegal immigration as if they're not enabling the many inhumanities that happen to these people as they make their way to the US. *shrugs* 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:57, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
I’m very against illegal immigration, but I also find the breathless fearmongering about that stupid caravan kinda hilarious. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 23:05, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Good, then we agree. :) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 23:07, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
While I am in favor of more sensible immigration laws, we still have to have border laws. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:11, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
I also want more sensible immigration laws. U.S. immigration laws are going too far. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 00:50, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
This is obviously fake, If it isn't Then I don't know what to say.TheDarkMaster2 (talk) 01:42, 9 November 2018 (UTC)TheDarkMaster2
This may easily be your best comment ever. xD 141.134.75.236 (talk) 02:08, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
You got me to laugh out loud. Well done. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 02:12, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

But on a more serious note, what is going to happen when large group of illegal immigrants meet large company of Trump's Troops on the border? Can the border guards just shoot people as they cross or is it going to be a mass beat-down followed by an interminate time in an internment camp until they get deported back to Nicaragua? ^_^ This message is approved by Dysklyver Ensign of the Duke of Cornwall.svg (brebmyn) 15:10, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

It probably won't be that violent. I doubt the migrants will be looking for a fight, and Border Patrol will be perfectly happy to shoo them into the trucks without a fuss. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 17:17, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
As for border guards shooting illegals, only if they are violent and or resist arrest. Resisting arrest will get you shot or killed. Same applies if you go to the border even just armed with a hunting knife.

On a tactical note:

It would be insanely stupid to attempt to cross a border not only being unarmed but, facing large forces of police. Why enter a fight you cannot win? From a purely tactical perspective. Emergency Alert System --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:52, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

A YouTube comment I made yesterday[edit]

I looked up videos against creationism and the one I watched was an interview with Richard Dawkins. I commented that I don't like him as a person but I respect him as a scientist. A person actually accused me of being anti-intellectual and anti-science because I don't like Dawkins as a person.

Just because you don't respect someone in one aspect does not mean you don't respect in another aspect. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:18, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Youtube comments are Youtube comments. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 00:51, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Well that's stupid. There is a difference between personal and professional respect. Personal respect is how you view the person in general, their personality, likes, and dislikes. Professional respect tends to deal with their skill set and how knowledgeable they are in their field. I honestly respect Dawkins professionally, but loath his personal views, or at least how he presents them. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 04:35, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
I find Richard Dawkins a bit annoying at times I'm not gonna lie. Mí má kȍhà hńg gǀȕì ō ǁȁhìn-ā ō hȁ ō gǀè gù ǀxūúnnu. (talk) 06:16, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
At That Funny Little Wiki Over Yonder, I was always amused by the longstanding drama over whether his appearance on the South Park cartoon should be mentioned in his article. It got to the point where a big red notice was added to the talk page, warning editors not to add the fact, and saying that the topic had been done to death. The cartoon itself was pretty clueless, about the only thing they got right about him as a character was that he was an evangelical atheist. It struck me as failing to notice the low hanging fruit. The God Delusion is one of the least convincing polemics ever made. By the end, you'll be wondering what believers ever did to deserve that. I still admire him for sticking up for E. O. Wilson, though. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 03:53, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
To be honest, I don't even know that I like him as a scientist. The last actual paper he wrote was in 1980(as an aside, does anyone know how to exclude books and/or pdfs from non-profits from google scholar searches? It's getting pretty cluttered these days). He's become a science communicator/educator, and his very public bad opinions really do detract from that role. You know, because of conflation of actual expertise and ultracrepidarian commenting. It makes sense that people backlashed you for suggesting he's got flaws. Skepticism and atheism as movements have become kinda... damaged? We've got some authoritarian and cultish problems here and there. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:41, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Oldest star ever discovered[edit]

Scientists think it's at least 13 billion years old. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 00:17, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

My understanding is that very massive stars, like this one apparently is/was, have lifespans measured in millions, not billions, of years. So what exactly has been discovered? Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 19:40, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
In simple terms it is a primordial star which died in a low energy supernova, and subsequently reformed as a low mass star with a greatly longer life span than our own. Our own star will only live around half that time so this is old. The star is unusual because when they go supernova they are generally destroyed or turn into black holes, but this one kept shining. (If you want to research it more, it has the really catchy name of SMSS J031300.36-670839.3) ^_^ This message is approved by Dysklyver Ensign of the Duke of Cornwall.svg (brebmyn) 13:52, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Astronomers also believe that super-massive stars such as these were the first population of stars to exist, or the so-called "Population I" stars, considering that the first stars existed over 13.5 Ga, and that this star is only 13 Ga, that being a difference of 500my, I suspect that this star instead is a "Population II" star, the second generation of stars to have been born in the universe, of which a few still exist to this day.--Palaeonictis (talk) 14:12, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Making the Death penalty simpler[edit]

Instead of wasting tax payer money feeding, clothing, bathing and provide medical care for those who are guilty, get a rope and tree. Simpler, less money, and little bureaucracy. What good is death row or even life sentences if we waste tax payer money and give criminals more life than the victims? I know this is dark but criminals got it better than even people in nursing homes. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 03:31, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Firstly, be careful saying "rope and a tree" around people who are familiar with the history of the United States. Secondly, death row takes so long due to the lengthy appeals process, where the government attempts to ensure that they aren't executing an innocent person (and even this has occasional, tragic failures). The appeals process is also much of what makes death row so expensive. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 03:52, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
For most of the cases I think were appropriate for the death penalty, there is very seldom any issue about who the culprit was; in the cases where I'd defend its use that argument is specious. Then again, I'd prefer that it only be applied to mass murderers for a cause, people like Bin Ladin, McVeigh, Breivik. Whatever issues might have been raised in trying them for their lives, that the wrong person was in the dock is not one of them. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 03:59, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
I agree with this. I don't like the death penalty, but I wouldn't abolish it for pretty much the reason/cases you stated. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 04:47, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Alternative: Abolish the death penalty and redesign prisons into (mostly) self-sufficient societies. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 03:55, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

I cannot fathom what imagined problems of justice either this or RZ's idea think they're solving, but they're both really bad ideas. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 03:59, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
What's bad about making prisoners grow their own food? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 04:03, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
A lot. No one else in society is supposed to be this Rousseauian human who individually handles all their own needs with no specialization of labor. Also land use from inefficient use of farmland by amateurs without expensive equipment. Also it's a band aid on the problem of overpunishing petty crimes. Also there's no reason to think it contributes to reform. Also it gives a dangerous amount of freedom to the few prisoners who are a threat to themselves and others. Also some prisoners are mentally incompetent for modern farming. Also, it's not solving any particular problem, which was my original concern, and shifting the burden of proof to me is rude. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 04:41, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Sorry for being rude lol. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 05:08, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
You're welcome, I gave you that out on purpose, because I'm your pal. Only downside is you're not going to incorporate any of my mostly reasonable objections into your nutso worldview. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:09, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Nutso worldview lol. You hardly have a clue what my worldview is. But thanks for partly acknowledging that some of your objections are ridiculous. Allow me to address the ones that're somewhat reasonable. First, obviously prisoners would still be limited in their freedom, and dangerous ones moreso. Second, land use. It's true that turning the current prison population of the US into self-sufficient traditional farmers would require untold amounts of area. But who said the farming needs to use traditional methods? I admit imagining Amish communities managing vertical farms with the latest hydroponics techniques is a strange thought indeed, but the aesthetics of an idea being strange has little to say about its practicability. I'd also remind you that the agricultural yield of the swathes of area currently assigned to prison complexes is approximately zero. So much area wasted on nothing. Now would it help prisoners? Well, I don't claim it would magically solve every problem, but I don't see how teaching people self-suffiency and responsibility would be a worse method of turning prisoners into responsible citizens than any currently available alternative, which usually achieve the opposite. The threat of being forced into a humble life of self-reliance may also be a considerable turn-off to some criminals, particularly the ones who idolize violence and would love nothing more than to martyr themselves in the fight against their perceived enemies. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:10, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
But since the USA has the highest imprisonment rate worldwide, the country would be empty in a matter of weeks! This sounds like an excellent plan to me. 27.32.146.237 (talk) 03:59, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Yah right. Is this the "we can learn from the Chinese gulag" arguement where the recidivism rate is less than 2%? Inane apples to oranges statements like "highest imprisonment rate worldwide" is why nobody takes liberal bullshit seriously. RobSmithIvanka 2024! 07:43, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Sorry to burst in on Planet Nobs with a dose of reality, but at 655 per 100,000, the USA is far and away ahead of anybody (ok, China's figures aren't known, but you can take your whataboutism and shove it up your arse) - particularly civilised, industrial countries, and essentially every body else. I'll expect your denial of rality, and blaming of Hillary in 3... 2... LongLostLegend (talk) 11:23, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Let's examine your liberal bullshit methodology for a moment. The official Chinese incarceration rate is 118 per 100,000. Now if we subtract 1 million Uighers imprisoned for their race, ethnic identity, or religion, the number of Chinese imprisoned for actual crimes is much less, correct?
Still stand by your idiotic bullshit liberal talking points? RobSmithIvanka 2024! 00:34, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes, you dumb fuckwit, because China is an oppressive regime, whereas America is supposed to be a bastion of freedom, and yet imprisons far more of it's citizens than any other developed country. See how that works? Quoting China doesn't magically make America's terrible record go away. LongLostLegend (talk) 15:40, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
So even after I blasted your flawed premise, your flawed methodology, and your flawed source out of the water, you still stand by your flawed statement. Why is no one surprised? RobSmithGrab 'em by the nob! Nobs for Mod! 19:47, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Ah, here we go with Rob'd Idiot Grin Stratagem. You haven't blasted anything out of the water. Your whataboutism doesn't impact on the fact that the US's incarceration rates are off the chart compared to other developed, industrialized countries. If you continue to deny that very simple fact, then you are being deliberately disingenuous. Why is no one surprised? How much simpler can I make it? China bad. USA also bad. Geddit? LongLostLegend (talk) 09:14, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
very simple: "USA [..] bad" = "idiotic bullshit liberal talking point" and automatically wrong. got it? 27.32.146.237 (talk) 10:15, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
You having a hissy fit doesn't negate the point. Or how do you explain the US having a massively higher incarceration rate per capita than any other developed democratic country? Actually try defending your bullshit position for once. I'll wait. LongLostLegend (talk) 10:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
The Death penalty paradox is one of the reasons I don't take many Americans on their world view seriously, at all And yes, Americans since they are the only Western democratic country to still murder its citizens. There is a meaningful relationship between those who support the death penalty and those who are against abortion as well as against big government and government interference. We hear these memes all the time. This resistance to the government becoming a bloated overreaching force. A government taking away people's freedoms. And on the other hand the horrors of terminating early a precious life earlier than necessary and the desperate need to protect them at all costs (in some cases allowing a mother to die if it means protecting the life of someone who is helpless. Add on top of this the set of family values which strongly holds near absolute views on important principles, many related to the categorical covering of not killing, stealing, lying, adultery etc. And yet despite this enormous resistance to the government taking away freedoms and the obsessive need to protect a zygote or barely formed fetus and in extreme cases full out militias banding together to protect their rights...there seems no disconnect whatsoever with the government murdering a citizen. And no, don't pretend it isn't murder. It IS murder. It's killing someone when it could easily not be done. Take away our guns...no way big government. Keep us from religious rights...no way big government. Murder a citizen...that's okay big government...you can do that...I'd flip the switch myself. In this sense, the government has the right to end your life. I cannot think of a more horrific fate someone could face from an "overreaching government" or that someone would destroy a precious life because "all life is precious", except it seems those who have been found guilty in a court of law, their life isn't precious because of excuse 1 2 and 3. And we can see how rotten this narrative is by the way some of you have talked about those on death row as some dehumanised thing that merrits no humanly considering, something people ha,ve done throughout history to make it easier to do awful things to them. If it was wrong that the person killed, its wrong to kill him, that's a no brainer, and it's the utmost wrong to allow a government to murder them. Again. No brainer. The cost...irrelevant. The crime they committed...irrelevant. Their living conditions in jail...irrelevant. How does that in any way mitigate the moral conflict of the government murdering a citizen? ShabiDOO 08:07, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Condemning someone to a life of homosexuality is not cruel and unusual punishment either, I suppose. RobSmithIvanka 2024! 08:31, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
nobs, I'm sincerely disappointed. I expected something far funnier (and more original) than dismissing liberal bullshit. 27.32.146.237 (talk) 10:47, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Avoiding the question if death penalty is moral, what could be made simpler is the way in which prisoners are killed. Because, as far as I understand, the elaborate cocktail of drugs they get is just to make the death looks painless, while in reality it is not. -Lankaster (talk) 09:26, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

For a vast majority of issues my mind is pretty concluded. However, I'm so torn on the whole death penalty issue. On the one hand there are some truly evil people who don't deserve to live. On the other hand the idea that the state can take the life of a prisoner makes me feel uneasy. One of the most popular arguments is it is cheaper than life in prison, that isn't true. Apparently around half of Britain wants the death penalty reintroduced but I can't see it ever happening. There just isn't an appetite for it. --RWRW (talk) 10:50, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Albert Pierrepoint turned against the death penalty.

Logically if the death penalty 'worked' as a deterrent there would be very few executions. Anna Livia (talk) 11:16, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

few compared to what? If not specified your argument doesn't make sense. A correct test of the effectiveness of the death penalty as a deterrent might be comparing the rate of murders in two similar countries, one with the death penalty for murderers, the other without it. The difficulty is finding such countries, because for example US has death penalty but also many other characteristics, like loose gun control, which could screw its murder rate comparison with countries without death penalty. -Lankaster (talk) 13:27, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
well, if you are going to pull the whole american exceptionalism you can just compare death penalty states to non-death penalty states. non-death penalty states consistently lower murder rates. the whole deterrent idea is just bunk. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:31, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
@AMassiveGay this comparison makes sense. An explanation of the fact that murder rates are actually higher in death penalty states could be that once a murderer knows that he would get a death sentence, he has no incentives to stop murdering people, especially while trying to escape from the cops. -Lankaster (talk) 17:32, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
There are many ways of killing people, singly or in groups, so gun control is not necessarily a factor. There will always be a certain number of murders and manslaughters for a whole range of reasons - and if the death penalty did work as a deterrent people would find other ways than murder of 'dealing with' the persons in question. Anna Livia (talk) 22:45, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
The larger question is twofold: Are we collectively as a society going to allow the murderers to run the plant, and what responsibility do we have to murderers?
Then come a host of subsidiary questions; If no crime is deserving of death, what are appropriate punishments for rape or child molestation?
Then come speculative questions, such as, Why are the rights of murderers greater than society as a whole? What right do we have to imprison a tax cheat, they didn't kill anybody? RobSmithGrab 'em by the nob! Nobs for Mod! 04:50, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
What a coincidence. I was recently checking out scheduled executions in USA. 14 November is the closest. In about 4 days, this guy will be executed. He murdered his wife and son by hitting them with a blunt object and hid them in his washroom so he could carry on the lie he had with his mistress. Should I feel sorry for this guy? If it was a robbery gone wrong, maybe... But the punishment should FIT the crime. Why should I pity him? He took a blunt object and killed his wife and child just so he could live with his mistress. And we should let this guy sit in a cell, with medical care library and possibly a computer or a TV? Being fed? The point is that criminal punishment is more important than rehabilitation. I simply don't see any logic behind people who claim he shouldn't be executed. Kingdamian1 (talk) 05:00, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Just thought I'd point out: It's interesting to see people who love to object to theocracies executing people defend the right of secular states to do the same. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 05:12, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Ok, so you have a tax cheat who objects to working to pay taxes to feed and house a murderer in prison. Society collectively feels it has the power and authority to stop him from fulfilling a job in society, make him a ward of the state in a prison, and impose the cost of feeding and housing him on other willing taxpayers. While in prison, the tax cheat is murdered by the killer. Are taxpayers and society as a whole complicit in murder? RobSmithGrab 'em by the nob! Nobs for Mod! 05:29, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
It's mostly just an incompetent prison system that's responsible. Don't let prisoners kill each other. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 05:34, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Society as a whole, which made the collective decision not to execute the murderer, and to imprison the person who objected to society not fulfilling it's responsibility, then has a duty to protect both wards of the state. If it fails, society is negligent. RobSmithGrab 'em by the nob! Nobs for Mod! 05:45, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Sure. So society should probably support prison systems that don't let killers endanger other prisoners. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 06:01, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Coulda woulda shoulda...but it happens all the time, prisoners murdering each other, which is basically Nazi stuff - the state using murderers to murder people.
Unless you are willing to pay more in taxes, to guarantee a prisoner's life is protected after you've restricted his freedom, you become complicit and negligent if he's harmed. You placed him there, and you made him vulnerable, and a target. And you did it because you're a coward who refuses to live up to your responsibility to administer justice.
On a personal note, I was in Wisconsin on the day Jeffrey Dahmer was murdered by a fellow prisoner. I was shocked and horrified when my co-workers on the job were high-fiving each other when we heard the news. I felt a sense of guilt and shame, and was more frightened by people who abrogate their responsibility as citizens to administer justice, and think justice is having murderers do their dirty work. RobSmithGrab 'em by the nob! Nobs for Mod! 06:27, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
You don't need to pay more taxes if you just keep the murderers in their cells/chain them to the wall/etc. Not every change needs to increase costs you know. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 06:36, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
People aren't objecting to theocracies executing citizens. They're objecting to the reason those theocracies are executing people, and occasionally the method. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 06:28, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Nah, I'm pretty sure most people who object to it wouldn't want any theocracy anywhere near the death penalty, regardless of the reason they cite. Let's be honest here. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 06:36, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Of course not. Because theocracies execute people for bad reasons. Notice that the variable here is the type of regime conducting the execution. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 06:42, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
So then answer this: Why does society feel it has the right and power to take away a person's rights who doesn't pay taxes to support society's laws, but feels it's powerless against one individual who violates the most serious law in land? RobSmithGrab 'em by the nob! Nobs for Mod! 06:51, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Not exactly sure what train of thought you're going for, but how is not killing a murderer the same as being powerless? There's an abundance of other options besides killing them and doing nothing. And why is killing them automatically "the right punishment" or even automatically a punishment? Murderers can be pretty suicidal, you know. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 07:08, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
the way rob talks is as if the rest of the world dosnt exist or that every other country has a death penalty. they do not. he taslks as if rape and murder are in endemic in every other prison system in the world. they are not. every 'problem' rob has with not killing prisoners are not particular problems that the western world has within their prison systems because the US is alone in the western world with its fucked up prison system, alone in the western world in the sheer quantity of people it imprisons, and it is alone in the western world when slavery is alive and well within its prison system.. the penalty is barbaric, but the american prison system is barbaric and would still be without the death penalty. and it is costly. the us spends 74 billion on the its prison system each year. do your really think axing the death penalty is going to add to that cost in any real way? the us system is an expensive disgrace. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:03, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • The really simple solution is simply to abolish said death penalty. Simple, efficient, safe. No accidentally killing the wrong people. ^_^ This message is approved by Dysklyver Ensign of the Duke of Cornwall.svg (brebmyn) 13:56, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Your solution is to give murderers a license to run the planet, and make the rest of us powerless to prevent it. RobSmithGrab 'em by the nob! Nobs for Mod! 20:05, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Sir, murderers already have a license to run the planet.
The death penalty is expensive, ineffective, inefficient, racist, sexist, classist, and inhumane. It afflicts a psychological toll on not only families of victims and the perpetrator but also those who have to carry out the executions. Retributive punishment does not work and it shouldn't continue being practiced. We're beyond that. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 20:34, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
On that note, abolishing the death penalty actually stops the most powerful group of potential murderers (they're literally the law of the land) from abusing their power so it's odd nobS doesn't support this. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:41, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
rob, please explain how not killing peoples 'give murderers a license to run the planet'? as it empty assertion its idiotic, in the face of evidence like those countries with no death penalty have substantially lower murder rates its imbecilic. i'm all for those on the right have a voice here, but why we only get right wing voices of the retarded? AMassiveGay (talk) 21:22, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
So, there's no crime worthy of death, even killing people. Murderers are free to kill, with s 50-50 chance they may get away. Alternatively, law abiding taxpayers are restricted by law from killing. RobSmithGrab 'em by the nob! Nobs for Mod! 22:08, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
im not sure what that is answer to, but its not an answer to me, fucking imbecile AMassiveGay (talk) 22:14, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Retributive punishment. It does not work. Human beings are complicated. I do not believe in eye for eye, even in a society where we absolutely know who the murderers are. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 22:29, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@RobSmith To be clear I don't think anyone is advocating to abolish the right to self-defense. Also, since you mention it, I actually think overt crimes of repeated molestation and/or torture are probably more severe ("worthy of death") than single-issue murders. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:27, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think it should be used for murders; I think it should be used for terrorists and mass shooters and the like. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 22:48, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
On that note, one should also consider that some assailants don't see death negatively at all, and would be quite happy with being considered "worthy of death". Not to mention quite willing to put in the effort required. And the media attention is a nice extra as well. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:51, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Can you explain: the US has the death penalty and many mass murders, while Europe does not and has very few such that are not terrorist related.

And the point of 'an eye for an eye' is not retribution but - do not escalate. Anna Livia (talk) 23:05, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

"Eye for an eye" is retaliation. I don't think it's effective in today's context nor do I find it morally acceptable. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 23:07, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Murder is not an accident. It's not like rain that falls from the sky that organized society can do nothing about.
Again with the bullshit international comparisons. Europe has free healthcare (that contributes diddly squat to NATO for their own defense). China imprisons fewer people than the US (not counting Muslims imprisoned for their ethnic identity and religion; hell, Russia still imprisons people for homosexuality which throws any statistical comparison and methodology off; or nation's where they cut your fingers off for shoplifting, they have real low detention rates). Now you think your going to make comparisons on murder rates.
First of all, since ancient Eygpt, the vast amount of murder rates are typically spouse-killing-spouse, usually husband killing wife, but it works the other way, too. Intrafamilial. This has been true and incidence fairly comparable of all nation's, all societies, at all times. What's left is a fraction of random, usually stranger-on-stranger acts, which can vary. This is the number that can be used to make statistical comparisons, not the overall rate. RobSmithGrab 'em by the nob! Nobs for Mod! 03:51, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Not all international comparisons are created equal. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 04:58, 12 November 42018 AQD (UTC)
how about that non death penalty US states have consistently lower murder rates than US states with the death penalty? see the the link where i said this earlier AMassiveGay (talk) 11:40, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
The case for 'an eye for an eye' meaning the response should be proportionate to the original offence has been made.
There will always be a certain number of killings (murder, manslaughter and other). Whatever opportunities are provided by society as a whole or the particular context to resolve the situation by other means some people will always commit murder for a variety of reasons. The question then becomes - who is the execution aimed at? Restitution for the dead victims, their living families, to discourage others, signalling the position of the person ordering the execution, what? Anna Livia (talk) 12:58, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Quasi philosophical question I guess[edit]

I've not been on the ol RatWiki for probably four or five years, and it seems like it's a completely different place at this point. Do you think this might be because of personal factors in my life when I was active on the website? Perspective distortion due to nostalgia/faulty memory/whatever? Due to the wider internet culture around the late 00s/early 10s in comparison to now? Just because there's new people here who are, by definition, going to change the kind of community structure of a website like this? Some combination of those factors? No idea to be quite honest. Interesting stuff, to be sure. 49.2.8.185 (talk) 10:38, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

The community is, by definition, areflection of the people contributing to it. It changes as times and people change. I've been here on and off for a long time and I've seen it evolve over the years. Most users only last two or three years so any attempt at trying to keep things the way they were when you joined is a lost cause. I don't see any planned attempt to change the culture. It just happens. Avida Dollarsher again 12:55, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Rob's still a twat, though. That bit of the culture never changes. Avida Dollarsher again 12:56, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
I agree that Rob is way out there most of the time. Doubt that will change in the next 5 years. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 18:40, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Mod elections[edit]

With less than 1 week of nominaytions and campaigning there's 8 candidates vying for 8 positions! It needs to get added to the site notice and people need to run 86.164.161.116 (talk) 13:28, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

We will have a boring election unless there are more candidates. I still can't be asked to apply for tech though, so @FuzzyCatPotato, @Ikanreed, @Kazitor, @Bongolian: Somebody fix the sitenotice! It's the 9th already! ^_^ This message is approved by Dysklyver Ensign of the Duke of Cornwall.svg (brebmyn) 14:02, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
I did my part. Need help setting up in the campaigning section so we can go coast to coast in all 57 states, globally in the EU and the rest of the Third World. RobSmithGrab 'em by the nob! Nobs for Mod! 02:09, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
A few more nominees are running now. Damn, I was hoping for a coronation rather than an election.... --RWRW (talk) 17:21, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
@RWRW I am running against you. In the spirit of friendly competition- Be ready to lose. ;) . RZ94 for moderator --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 20:51, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
@Rationalzombie94 excellent, there’s been a lack of real competition. Bring it on :p —RWRW (talk) 21:14, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

GUYS![edit]

Some time ago, I asked that we should rewrite our article on Jesus' historicity. It seems to be written to piss off the religious, instead of documenting facts. here is what agnostic historians think about our article. I would appreciate if someone went ahead and corrected the whole attitude. I do not think I would be considered neutral on this, so I would appreciate if someone undertook, to either add some summary where we state the consensus etc. Or rewrite the tone of the article. The article straight-up endorses fringe, Mysticist view. Are you fine with me doing it? Kingdamian1 (talk) 03:40, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Your source is a Reddit thread, and the answer is no. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 05:02, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Jesus' historicity is not questioned by any serious scholars. The idea that there was this gospel brain storming room where 4 apostles rewrote Krishna's life and duped Tacitus and Suetonius is bullshit. I checked Britannica on this. NO ONE seems to take Christ Myth Theory any more seriously than Marlovian Theory of Shakespeare's authorship. We have a wealth of evidence that Jesus existed. In comparison, the only evidence of Pilate that proves he existed is a semi-destroyed stone. Imagine, Pilate was a friend of Tiberius, the emperor, and this is all that survives. It is so dishonest to claim that Jesus did not exist. Kingdamian1 (talk) 05:07, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
The sources you provided are dubious. If you would like to be taken seriously, provide something more reputable than a bunch of people chattering on Reddit. If that's the only reference you've got, then your babbling isn't worth considering. Cosmikdebris (talk) 05:29, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Despite what some replies may suggest, you're on a wiki and it's quite alright if you decide to use the edit button. Though if others don't find your edits persuasive, you may end up seeing them mercilessly reverted. But don't presume this will automatically be the response just because everyone responds in a cranky way here. Start small and use good sources, and who knows where you'll end up. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 05:39, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Sir, this is the CAPS LOCK Police. There's been some reports of unwarranted use of Caps Lock. You don't happen to know anything about that, do you? Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 06:26, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
I'll try to ask around the Religious Studies department where I go to college. Maybe they'll have some good sources? RoninMacbeth (talk) 06:58, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
"It seems to be written to piss off the religious"
tfw you realise you're on a childish troll wiki instead of a science site 82.132.246.186 (talk) 18:55, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Says the troll. Honestly, if you have nothing more than insults an empty assertions, you should leave. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:26, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Bye then. 82.132.246.186 (talk) 21:10, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
It should definitely be reviewed at least. It reads less like an article that is trying to document the historicity of Jesus and more like a resource for Mythicism. Kingdamian1 (talk) 01:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I mean if you want sources see:

  1. Funk, Robert. Honest to Jesus. San Francisco, CA: Harper San Francisco, 1996.
  2. Lüdemann, Gerd and Özen, Alf. What Really Happened to Jesus: A Historical Approach to the Resurrection. Trans. John Bowden. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1995.
  3. Sanders, E.P. Jesus and Judaism. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1985.
  4. Wedderburn, A. J. M. Beyond Resurrection. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1999.

Lüdemann, Özen, and Wedderburn are all agnostics, if that matters. L'homme Idéal (je rigole). 02:52, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

"Jesus' historicity is not questioned by any serious scholars" It depends on which Jesus they are talking about. If they refer to a man named Jesus who founded Christian religion..., it's one thing. If they refer to a man named Jesus who walked on water, multiplied bread and fish, raised Lazarus from the dead... then it's a completely different thing. -Lankaster (talk) 17:38, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Oh yes I completely agree. The point of providing those sources isn't to establish Jesus as a miracle worker, just that he existed. Honestly, it's kind of ridiculous that this site stoops to such radical skepticism on Jesus' existence. It's a well attested fact by virtually any scholar. Take up the fight against any miracle of his and there's no problem – in fact, exactly 0 of his miracles can be supported with any evidence of any sort. The only one that scholars on both sides argue about is the resurrection. KoiDevelopment (thanks, Love!) 00:15, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Patrolling edits[edit]

Is it important? I've sometimes seen some weird hijinks like people reverting then reverting their revert as the "quickest way to patrol all those edits." I don't recall ever paying attention to it myself back in the day. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 08:20, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

people doing that are just very lazy. it cant be that hard. its only like 1 person anyway 27.32.146.237 (talk) 09:12, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
I am that one person and I am not very lazy. I thought that, when somebody has made seven or ten changes to a page, doing it like that, just requiring 2 clicks, was a more sensible way of checking the changes. Since, for reasons that I don't understand, that seems to have pissed other people off, I won't do it again. Changes by editors that we don't know or trust yet have to be checked. They might be vandalism, attempts at whitewashing or misguided good-faith attempts to make the articles more neutral. Mind you we were recently told that we had to mark all pages as patrolled before we deleted them. I don't really know what the deal is with that. Some technical stuff that I don't understand. Spud (talk) 10:53, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
@Spud Imagine this page full of five months worth of unpatrolled edits. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:26, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm not upset or anything, just thought it was peculiar and was kinda baffled that people took the red exclamation marks so seriously. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 17:51, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
The red "!" is just very annoying to look at, especially when there's dozens of them. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 22:43, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
I remember when the red ! is so much more prevalent and people cared less about them. Not saying it's a *good* time, but you'll get used to it if people didn't care so much, trust me. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 22:53, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
An unpatrolled edit is an edit that hasn't been reviewed. That means it could be spam, vandalism, doxxing, death threats, or merely an edit by a newer user. Patrolling those edits is the act of reviewing them, determining which category they fit into, and taking appropriate action. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:12, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

My attempt at a Purge EAS scenario: Tell me what you think[edit]

https://youtu.be/fTTOg_9oovE

All done on my tablet computer using the Kine Master video editing program. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 20:07, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Humans better at rapid change then they think[edit]

https://climatenewsnetwork.net/humans-better-rapid-change-think/

Thoughts on this article? It gives me some hope. — Unsigned, by: Spacehillbilly / talk / contribs

'Green' austerity is just as irksome as the other colors or flavors. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 03:54, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

One of the biggest political myths[edit]

ONE OF THE BIGGEST MISCONCEPTIONS in the world is that Patriotism and Nationalism are opposites, or that Nationalism is an extreme form of patriotism. This is BULLSHIT. Nationalism is an IDEOLOGY, patriotism is a feeling. I am a Serbian nationalist, BECAUSE I support the cultural unity, and the sovereignty of Serbs. BUT I AM NOT a Serbian patriot because I have never been there and have not developed this feeling of patriotism. Kingdamian1 (talk) 04:44, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

If you support ethnic cleansing in Bosnia you can fuck right off. Avida Dollarsher again 12:23, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
this isnt a misconception anyone was making, fucknut AMassiveGay (talk) 12:32, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
The real misconception is that Nationalism is the source of all evilsTheDarkMaster2 (talk) 13:28, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
No. Stop, examine the criticisms of your ideology and actually think them over. Stop these bullcrap knee-jerk posts. Someone has criticized your ideology. What do those criticisms consist of? What points do they make? What are the implications of those points? Are you perchance at odds with your own ideology on certain issues? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:07, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
I am not a fan of nationalism in the sense of all other countries are evil. Not that sort of thing. Now Patriotism I support. You can stand for your country but recognize any faults the country may have. I know the United States has it's problems but what country does not have some kind of problem? Now I do support adding term limits on politicians. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 16:15, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

This user's post seems to be a reaction to Emmanuel Macron's Veterans/V-E Day speech: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/to-mark-end-of-world-war-i-frances-macron-denounces-nationalism-as-a-betrayal-of-patriotism/2018/11/11/aab65aa4-e1ec-11e8-ba30-a7ded04d8fac_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.a3c810df79e3 pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 21:47, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

@Kingdamian1 How many times do you have to be told? Knock off the bloody all caps. Spud (talk) 04:47, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I've never understood how other people often view patriotism as unyielding admiration and pride for one's country - to me there is no greater devotion or civic responsibility than to be honest of your country's problems, measure their scope and qualities, and dedicate the effort needed to surpass them. The continued pursuit of excellence in all things, to strive for what is greater, to look for new heights is to me a greater love for one's country akin to a parent wanting their child to have a better life than they have.

Looking upon the past as a golden age instead of looking to the future as a golden age yet to come, one which challenges us and provides new opportunity for achievement is sad. Eponymous (talk) 11:20, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Personality tests[edit]

https://www.idrlabs.com/tests.php

I don't know how much reliable they are, but some of these tests are hilarious to take. For example, one question of the "Moral Foundations Test" is:

Scott is hosting a dinner party. For dessert, he serves chocolate cake, shaped to look like dog poop.
Agree <--> Disagree

-Lankaster (talk) 23:01, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Strong agree. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 23:03, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
I don't understand how that's an "agree" or "disagree" question, that's a more like "like or dislike" thing. БaбyЛuigiOнФire(T|C) 00:38, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Sounds like a Voight-Kampff test. Shakiraquan T.G.I.F. Carter (talk) 01:22, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
I would never serve chocolate cake shaped like shit. And, although I wouldn't take it as a great insult, I wouldn't find it funny if any of my friends offered that to me. But if other people think eating cakes shaped like turds is a bit of a giggle, who am I to stop them? So, I'd see the question as meaning, "Should Scott serve that cake? Yes or no?" And without any further context, like who the people at the dinner party are, what Scott's relationship is to them and what he hopes to accomplish by serving the cake, I can't answer yes or no. I can only answer, "Maybe." Mind you, I'm sure my response says something about my personality.Spud (talk) 05:01, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
The subset of personality tests with any sort of scientific backing is vanishingly small. Just treat it like bullshit and move on. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:27, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

How would you all solve the problem of the one and the many?[edit]

Go. Be free, young thinkers. Koi "dammit Koi stop making such long sigs!" development 01:14, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

By manually fixing the warp core to rescue the Enterprise from the Genesis device, of course. It's only logical. Avida Dollarsher again 10:01, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Doesn't the Borg have a better solution? --Annanoon (talk) 10:04, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Hard to say. They have ONE solution they apply to everything.38.93.170.95 (talk) 12:54, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Love 2 abstract moral delimmas until all context is gone and ur forced to pick between absolutist deontology or absolutist consequentialism. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:42, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
?? Koi "the spelling's on porpose!" development 16:54, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
I was trying to do an irony. Non-ironically, hyper-abstraction is pretty useless in morality. The more abstract you get, the easier it gets to justify any intrusion into the rights to individual. If you can legitimately weigh the life of 10 people against the life of 1 in some trolley problem it's easy to justify. The more realistic the scenario of weighing the lives of 10 against the life of 1, the more likely you are to be wrong about saving the 10, or actually needing the 1 to die. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:00, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
The problem of the one and the many isn't an ethical problem. It's a metaphysical one. It's the problem that the pre-Socratics were primarily concerned with. The question goes something like "how can there be diversity among existing things while still being united in that they're all material?" 锦鲤 () 17:04, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
But yeah I agree hyper-abstracting is fairly useless when talking about ethics. Koi "the spelling's on porpose!" development 17:05, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Time Cube And Truth of Wisest Human[edit]

Bucket and Mop[edit]

Seriously, whose boots does one have to lick around here, to get demoted to the bucket and mop brigade? LongLostLegend (talk) 11:54, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

@LongLostLegend When most of your edits have been to the Conservapedia WIGO tall page, something that most users here don't give a shit about anymore, what can you expect? Start editing main space articles, then things might change. Spud (talk) 12:17, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
i got mine (or did, dont know what i have right now) and i didnt do shit. still dont do shit AMassiveGay (talk) 13:08, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, things have changed since I was last here. Bucket & mop used to be the default. But it's cool. I'll just have to let vandals run amok when everybody else is asleep. LongLostLegend (talk) 14:25, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
@LongLostLegend All right then. Since that's your intention. And since we have just had a vandal running amok with no sysops on duty to stop him. Congratulations, you're now a sysop. Spud (talk) 15:03, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Who are you talking about?173.235.40.25 (talk) 15:06, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm not going to name the vandal, if that's what you mean. (But look at the section above.) And I'm not going to single anyone out for not responding because there were clearly just no sysops around at the time. Spud (talk) 15:12, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
I hereby name the vandal to be "King of the Time Cubes". ^_^ This message is approved by Dysklyver Ensign of the Duke of Cornwall.svg (brebmyn) 17:43, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
I hereby name the vandal to be a brainless pissbucket. Avida Dollarsher again 19:28, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Sarsour: Protests and arrests[edit]

Can other users please join in the discussion on the "Protests and arrests" section on the Linda Sarsour talk page? Thank you.

Note: I wrote this post after suggestions from two moderators. -Lankaster (talk) 15:57, 13 November 2018 (UTC)