RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive110

This is an archive page, last updated 15 July 2011. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>, <41>, <42>, <43>, <44>, <45>, <46>, <47>, <48>, <49>, <50>, <51>, <52>, <53>, <54>, <55>, <56>, <57>, <58>, <59>, <60>, <61>, <62>, <63>, <64>, <65>, <66>, <67>, <68>, <69>, <70>, <71>, <72>, <73>, <74>, <75>, <76>, <77>, <78>, <79>, <80>, <81>, <82>, <83>, <84>, <85>, <86>, <87>, <88>, <89>, <90>, <91>, <92>, <93>, <94>, <95>, <96>, <97>, <98>, <99>, <100>, <101>, <102>, <103>, <104>, <105>, <106>, <107>, <108>, <109>, <111>, <112>, <113>, <114>, <115>, <116>, <117>, <118>, <119>, <120>, <121>, <122>, <123>, <124>, <125>, <126>, <127>, <128>, <129>, <130>, <131>, <132>, <133>, <134>, <135>, <136>, <137>, <138>, <139>, <140>, <141>, <142>, <143>, <144>, <145>, <146>, <147>, <148>, <149>, <150>, <151>, <152>, <153>, <154>, <155>, <156>, <157>, <158>, <159>, <160>, <161>, <162>, <163>, <164>, <165>, <166>, <167>, <168>, <169>, <170>, <171>, <172>, <173>, <174>, <175>, <176>, <177>, <178>, <179>, <180>, <181>, <182>, <183>, <184>, <185>, <186>, <187>, <188>, <189>, <190>, <191>, <192>, <193>, <194>, <195>, <196>, <197>, <198>, <199>, <200>, <201>, <202>, <203>, <204>, <205>, <206>, <207>, <208>, <209>, <210>, <211>, <212>, <213>, <214>, <215>, <216>, <217>, <218>, <219>, <220>, <221>, <222>, <223>, <224>, <224½>, <225>, <226>, <227>, <228>, <229>, <230>, <231>, <232>, <233>, <234>, <235>, <236>, <237>, <238>, <239>, <240>, <241>, <242>, <243>, <244>, <245>, <246>, <247>, <248>, <249>, <250>, <251>, <252>, <253>, <254>, <255>, <256>, <257>, <258>, <259>, <260>, <261>, <262>, <263>, <264>, <265>, <266>, <267>, <268>, <269>, <270>, <271>, <272>, <273>, <274>, <275>, <276>, <277>, <278>, <279>, <280>, <281>, <282>, <283>, <284>, <285>, <286>, <287>, <288>, <289>, <290>, <291>, <292>, <293>, <294>, <295>, <296>, <297>, <298>, <299>, <300>, <301>, <302>, <303>, <304>, <305>, <306>, <307>, <308>, <309>, <310>, <311>, <312>, <313>, <314>, <315>, <316>, <317>, <318>, <319>, <320>, <321>, <322>, <323>, <324>, <325>, <326>, <327>, <328>, <329>, <330>, <331>, <332>, <333>, <334>, <335>, <336>, <337>, <338>, <339>, <340>, <341>, <342>, <343>, <344>, <345>, <346>, <347>, <348>, <349>, <350>, <351>, <352>, <353>, <354>, <355>, <356>, <357>, <358>, <359>, <360>, <361>, <362>, <363>, <364>, <365>, <366>, <367>, <368>, <369>, <370>, <371>, <372>, <373>, <374>, <375>, <376>, <377>, <378>, <379>, <380>, <381>, <382>, <383>, <384>, <385>, <386>, <387>, <388>, <389>, <390>, <391>, <392>, <393>, <394>, <395>, <396>, <397>, <398>, <399>, <400>, <401>, <402>, <403>, <404>, <405>, <406>, <407>, <408>, <409>, <410>, <411>, <412>, <413>, <414>, <415>, <416>, <417>, <418>, <419>, <420>, <421>, <422>, <423>, <424>, <425>, <426>, <427>, <428>, <429>, <430>, <431>, <432>, <433>, <434>, <435>, <436>, <437>, <438>, <439>, <440>, <441>, <442>, <443>, <444>, <445>, <446>, <447>, <448>, <449>, <450>, <451>, <452>, <453>, <454>, <455>, <456>, <457>, <458>, <459>, <460>, <461>, <462>, <463>, <464>, <465>, <466>

, (new)(back)

Departmental e-mails

Mostly just fill up my inbox but this amused me:

“”Morning everyone. As most of you have noticed, Mirjana and I leave our custodial carts sitting in the hallways around the building, kind of our office on wheels so to speak. From time to time, things go missing off of them or someone feels the need to use one of the many rags they might find in the bucket of water on the top which is ok if you know what you are taking. As silly as some of you might think, our Department colour codes our rags to use for certain tasks. For example, the red rag is for sinks and fountains, and the blue is used for desks and tables, which brings me to the Green rag. The green rag is used for TOILETS and URINALS only, so, whoever borrowed the GREEN rag yesterday from the cart on first floor, you might want to re clean whatever you used it on as it is probably dirtier now than before you started. If you need something wiped down or you need to borrow something, all you have to do is ask and either Mirjana or I can assist you. Have a great day, and Milica has disinfecting wipes in her office if you need them.

Tmtoulouse (talk) 18:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Fucking brilliant. ADK^{...I'll employ your pen!} 18:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

surely the custodians clean and replace their rags?--User:Brxbrx/sig 18:59, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Can't... stop... laughing… --uhm, t! 19:26, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

That's janitors for you. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 02:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Reminds me of the note I left on our fridge when I was at uni: "To whoever stole my half drunk [500ml] bottle of coke from the fridge: I have a coldsore. Hope you enjoyed your free drink." Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 08:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Reminds me of the good old days. Moar of this funny pleaase!!! ħuman 08:45, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

This was my favorite email that was sent from the head of HR at a place I worked:

“”I'm afraid it 's one of those emails again...... Yesterday the cleaners found that in the ground floor women's toilets there had been 'sh*t smeared on the walls'. I'm sorry to use this language, and I apologise, but I am appalled that this should be the case in our building and don't know quite how else to put it so that it is as clearly understood. Obviously this is not acceptable behaviour. I am at a loss to know what to do about it as it is not the first time that it has happened...

I mean WTF? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 09:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Permanent blocks

Question: Twice i've logged in at work, and started an edit, only to find I'm not logged in. I think when I was around oh 2 years ago, I blocked my IP from posting. Can I still do that? or is that not something an "admin" can do? --En attendant Godot 18:49, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

There is only one 3 current permabloc on an ip for log-in porpoises that I see. Can you make it a 1-year block and remember to re-do it every year on your birthday or something? P-Foster_{Can't we talk about this, baby?} 18:55, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I see several permabans like that in the block log... Тy^Ahoy!

18:55, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I see these: here. P-Foster_{Can't we talk about this, baby?} 18:56, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

As long as it's in the logs as an editor request, I don't really see a problem...unless of course we'd have shared IPs and people who want to edit under that IP. Highly unlikely, and I'm sure WfG would be obliged to let the block be undone, so let's cross that when we get there. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:58, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, one year works just fine, too. I've not blocked anyone, even for three seconds, since i came back. gonna have to see how this all works. ;-) who can i victimize for 3 seconds. (wicked, evil grin)--En attendant Godot 19:06, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Is ceiling cat not sufficient? -- Nx / talk 20:54, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Hum, I didn't get ceiling cat when I posted accidentally (this weekend, found it today). Oh well, it's resolved.--En attendant Godot 21:04, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

It hasn't happened recently but when I used to edit from an office I often found that I'd been logged out of RW, nothing to do will permablocking. Indeed I instigated my own permablock to ensure that I was always logged in. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 03:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem with using the block to ignore ceiling cat's warning (I get logged out of all my wikis once a month, luckily they are in sync), is that most of us and probably you too have dynamic IPs and your block may end up stymieing (?) your neighbor's attempt to revert PC's "work". Hey, "stymieing" is a word! ħuman 08:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Larger business and institutions will be stick with a permanent IP unlike residential lines where you often get assigned the next free one. However, with my internet only deal when I lived in mainland Europe I had the same IP for 5 years. If you have a floating IP then it's probably less of an issue. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 09:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

ID DEBATE

Someone just posted this on my facebook wall. I thought it was quite effective. I want to try it! ‎*Try this experiment if you ever find yourself talking to a proponent of ID. Say, 'OK, for the sake of argument let's say evolution is wrong and let's forget about it. Now tell me how intelligent design works.' Having tried this a few times myself, I am confident that you will be met with nothing but an awkward silence. - Posted by Godot, but quote of a friend.--En attendant Godot 19:32, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I've heard that one but never tried it. I don't think there'd be awkward silence, but a lot of random jabber. ADK^{...I'll bomb your leaking roof!} 21:01, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The Lord works in mysterious ways. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

It might shut the casual cretinist but professionals like Ken

would instantly reel off a load of regurgitated Behe crap. The trick is to know your "opponent".  ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 03:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I've actually used that in several arguments, asking "OK. Suppose there's irrefutable proof that ID is true and all of the evidence for evolution up until now was just lucky guesses. Where do we go with that? Of what use is it?". The typical response is "It would be proof for god! Isn't it great?" To which I reply "OK. Now which one?" THAT'S where the deer in the headlights look comes out. The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 03:35, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The thing is that Behe-style believers in ID don't reject evolution. They just claim that "Somebody" lubes up the DNA and slips in a bit of magic to push things in a certain direction. Theistic evolution can be the similar.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 07:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

By which point you get the gaps thing where they just shunt bits of evolution into the "naturalistic" part. But what happens if/when there isn't a mysterious part of evolution left for God to have interfered with, or it reduces God's all-powerful intervention to something laughable? Arguably we're nearly at that stage as we have a good grasp of evolution that would lead to God just making minute and insignificant adjustments, and we're starting to gather enough knowledge about abiogenesis to kick the almighty out of that, too. ADK^{...I'll pander your thumbtack!} 13:29, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely. God is obviously an unnecessary complication to evolution - which is the real argument against both Behe-type ID and Theistic evolution. But not all IDers accept evolution. For PJR "ID" means that the world was designed and created last Wednesday or whatever.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 14:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The single most surprising instance of "god of the gaps" for me, was listening to a British PhD physicists who converted to an Anglican priest after he retired. This is a man who accepts and understands evolution; who understands that life is "random chance" played out over billions of stars and billions of years to become humans. That the Earth is randomly set, and we evolved in such a way that it "looks perfect" to us (creationists: it's amazing the earth was placed exactly the right distance from the sun), but rather this physicists understands and accepts that WE were perfect for this earth. He accepts that there is other life that could have evolved on it's own "perfect" planet, etc. Yet he said "But the universe is perfect. the force of gravity is just right; the balance between strong and weak forces is so positioned against eachother, and the pull of the heavens with Dark energy is not more or less than the bounds matter can take to *be* matter - the universe is so perfect it must be planned. My own question - how can he see the argument creationists uses "the earth is perfect for us, god must have done it", and not apply that to the universe in general?--En attendant Godot 14:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC) - Googled. John Polkinghorne

This planet is perfect for life much in the same way that a hole is perfectly shaped for the puddle of water that fills it... but once you get beyond Biblical literalism as a belief and go a bit soft, you've really only got evidence for "a vague concept of a god of some such or other", which isn't the same as "Christianity". As Tetronian pointed out elsewhere, the search space for that is huge. So for all those "the universe is perfect" arguments are worth, you may as well pin up every mythical creation story onto a wall and start throwing darts for what to choose. ADK^{...I'll defenestrate your anything!} 15:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Assumptions are bad, mmkay?

So recently I was at a cafe with my friend and we were drinking awesome mochas and talking about how awesome rabbits and hamsters were and how much better the world would be if everyone just had their own fuzzy little companion to hold whenever they got angry.

While trying to not end up with mocha dripping from my nose from laughter, I didn't notice this girl with a bunch of paper walking over to me and my friend. The first thing this girl does is ask my friend if she's wearing her headscarf to cover some scars. My friend looks at her and says no and asked her why she thought that.

So this girl goes on to say that she had read the Quran and how terrible it is that it allows beating of women and children and that she can't ever leave the house without male guidance and that Saudi Arabia is a rly rly bad place (ignoring the fact my friend is Palestinian descent, not Arabian). My friend kind of sat there and listened to the girl's speech. Then she asked the girl if she thinks all Muslims are like that. The girl said yes so my friend asked her where her male chaperone would be and the girl seemed puzzled as though she had not noticed my friend was out in the open with another girl.

Then my friend had to explain that just like Christianity, Islam came in many forms and flavors. There are liberal and moderate Muslims just like with Christians, not all of them take a literal view of the Quran, and not all of them are blindly following their faith. Just because she chose to wear a headscarf did not mean she was oppressed. Her father was not going to sell her to the highest bidder and she was not expected to be a baby factory the moment she got married. My friend explained the reason why extremist Muslims are more well known is because of several things. One, people need an 'enemy', two because it's easier to lump everyone together rather than try to understand them, and three because liberal and moderate muslims are boring and don't make for a good news segment.

As for herself, my friend explained she believes in an old earth, evolution, and continued evolution. She just thinks Allah/God kicked it all off somehow. She takes most of the Quran as stories to help guide people in their lives and expressed hope the revolution going on will help take the Middle East from it's 'dark ages' so it can function again as leader in the world as it did a long long time ago.

So the girl just sort of stood there and just said something along the line of my friend being brainwashed and then handed me one of the papers. Which was a flyer for a Baptist religious revival gathering thing. I wish I kept it because it looked like something someone made with clip art and MSPaint.

So at the end of this long story all I really have to say is that trying to debate outside of Starbucks when you don't have all your facts straight makes hipsters frown more. HollowWorld (talk) 22:30, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

You drink mochas? Ace ^{of Spades} 22:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Specifically I drink cold mochas with added cream and chocolate syrup. It's the only way I like coffee. HollowWorld (talk) 22:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

At Starbucks? Ace ^{of Spades} 22:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

At the one I go to yeah. HollowWorld (talk) 22:49, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

That's sounds weird to me. Starbucks coffee is awful. Ace ^{of Spades} 22:52, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

So if Islam is brainwashing, does that make Baptist revivals detox diets? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:47, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Wow I'm slow that's an excellent pun! HollowWorld (talk) 22:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

It's only brainwashing if it's their belief. You, well, you're different. You got your beliefs through rational and serious though. Also, the cold frappaccino things are nice, but they're not nice enough to justify the price. ADK^{...I'll watch your furry!} 22:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Drinking cold frappacino's at Starbucks is what liberal effeminate panty-waists do. Men with machismo, including Chuck Norris, drink black espresso with whisky chasers and tequila slammers. Ace ^{of Spades} 22:54, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Watch out there Ace or I'll whine and blog angrily about you!

Muslims are told to question their religion and elders, that's what my friend told me. I don't know if it's just what her community believes or of it's a Islam wide thing though. HollowWorld (talk) 22:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

You're only allowed to blog angrily about him if he propositioned you in an elevator. Though I suppose with Ace, it's a possibility. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:59, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Hahahahaa! ADK^{...I'll discalceate your milk!} 23:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm doing so right now and I'm attaching my fanfic too. HollowWorld (talk) 23:04, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Also I just thought, the girl was wearing a skirt so would I have been right to have pointed out that since she's wearing a skirt she obviously supports continued patriarchy and strong restriction of women's rights, symbolized within that article of clothing? It's a strawman but it's not much different to what she did I think. HollowWorld (talk) 23:10, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but she was off her leash and not in the kitchen so she must have been one of those lesbian feminist types. ADK^{...I'll repair your broadsword!} 23:20, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

What is a "Mocha" anyway? (Maybe they have a different name here.)--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 07:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Light brown. ħuman 08:39, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

and with deliciousness to die for. I just finished a home-made one, Eight-O'Clock red label grounds and Swiss Miss instant, lightly laced with Cruzan rum. Sun comes above the yard early here on Wednesdays. If I start typing the way Rob was doing last night with his Bachmann sexism, I will know it is time to stay away from sharp whirling machinery. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 15:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I suppose there's a reason why 'Ass' is in the word Assumptions. 'Cause that's what you end up looking like. --Dumpling (talk) 09:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey Kels... If you're still lurking,

I just wanted you to know that hardly a day goes by that I don't remember this comment of yours about Ken

's first hiatus from wiki-editing over at ASK and just burst out in laughter. "IT TAKES MANY DOLLARZ TO CHARGE HIS LAYZOR!", as simple as it seems, has actually helped make some pretty low points in my life a little more bearable. Thank you. The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 07:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Obama's not a muslim!

This article on the Beeb mentions that the Aryan Nations claim Obama is Jewish. It does appear that his election has inflamed a nasty boil on America's backside. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 09:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Jebus, isn't enough for them to hate him that he's black? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 11:29, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Hating someone for there color is so 1950's and it's racist. these people aren't "racist", they are "patriots".--En attendant Godot 14:21, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I wonder how much is actual racism being a cause, and how much is just general frustrations with everything finding a suitable vent in racism. But I suppose we'll never know because we can't magically run the last 3 years again with a few differences to see what happens, whether things would be fine or whether other groups would spring up in response to a Democratic President (would they find another manufactroversy? Smear them as an atheist? Start up other "patriotic" groups?). I'd argue that at least in the UK most racism seems to be like latter, as if you usual street charvers just shout "Paki!!" because they want to insult someone and feel good about it, and it's on a drop-down list of insults they know will work (no different to them shouting "Fatty!" or "Greebo!" in the appropriate direction - racism for utilitarian reasons). ADK^{...I'll pander your infinity!} 15:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

You make a valid point. The other candidate was a woman. I suspect the same crap (well, minus the BirthCirtificateGAte) woudl be there. "too female to make good decisions", "too wishywashy", "we need a real candidate, a male". or something. again, maybe hidden in rhetoric, but there never the less. --En attendant Godot 15:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Shrub had 9/11 truthers, Clinton had Vince Foster conspiracies. The difference with the birthers is that they're directly attacking Obama's character rather than something he (allegedly) did, and it didn't even take the money machine of a batty old billionaire to pull it off. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:02, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Euler's Identity Question

Something for the more mathematically oriented than me...

Take Euler's Identity: $e^{i\pi }+1=0\,\!$

or: $e^{i\pi }=-1\,\!$

Take the natural log of both sides: $\ln {e^{i\pi }}=\ln {(-1)}\!$

Simplifying: ${i\pi }=\ln {(-1)}\!$

So, the natural log of -1 is $i\pi \!$. Cool.

But let's say you invert the original equation: ${\frac {1}{e^{i\pi }}}={\frac {1}{-1}}\,\!$

High school algebra gives us: $e^{-i\pi }=-1\,\!$

Similar math as before: $\ln {e^{-i\pi }}=\ln {(-1)}\!$

${-i\pi }=\ln {(-1)}\!$

But we know from earlier that $\ln {(-1)}=i\pi \!$

And if you sub that in to the previous equation: ${-i\pi }={i\pi }\!$

And if you divide through by pi... $-i=i\!$

And that's my question: is negative i equal to i? Or did I err? MDB (talk) 10:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

No. Yes. Mountain Blue (talk) 10:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

So, where did I err? MDB (talk) 10:46, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

ln(-1) is undefined; there are no logarithms of negative numbers. This means that the steps in which you take the natural logarithms on both sides are not valid transformations; it's little bit like dividing by zero. Mountain Blue (talk) 10:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, so what I did was like one of the "proofs" that zero is equal to one that include a division by zero. Thanks. MDB (talk) 11:52, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The fact you get the contradiction at the end is evidence that one of your steps was invalid, usually because you've gone through a step that's undefined so could have made the answer anything you like. Also, I think the inversion bit may also have been iffy because 1/-1 = -1. ADK^{...I'll advocate your potato!} 12:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's the problem. You've essentially only inverted one side of the equation because of that. So the fact you get x = -x at the end is unsurprising. ADK^{...I'll kill your okra!} 12:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The issue is that in general e^ai being equal to e^bi does not imply that a = b. That is simply because imaginary exponentiation is not an injection (there are multiple inputs that result in the same output). Just like a² = b² does not mean a = b. --85.78.60.134 (talk) 12:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that's a problematic explanation. a² = b² does not mean a = b, true enough. But your example would be more relevant if you said 2^a = 2^b does not mean a = b... wherein the problem is apparent. ADK^{...I'll shove your lentil soup!} 12:39, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

No, wait, a² = b² would suggest |a| = |b|, as there are both positive and negative roots. Keeping track of +/- values is a pain in the arse. ADK^{...I'll complement your turkey sandwich!} 14:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, the issue is that a number has infinitely many "natural logs" -- since $e^{2\pi i}=1$, $e^{a}=e^{a+2\pi ki}$ for any integer k and so there's no unique choice for the log. Understanding how to deal with issues like this is what first led Riemann to study Riemann surfaces, which have turned out to be very important! The Wiki article shows the Riemann surface that arises from log, but it doesn't look like a very good introductory page.

Here's another funny thing you get out of taking logs in Euler's equation. If $e^{i\pi }=-1$, then $e^{i\pi /2}={\sqrt {-1}}=i$ (well, it could be $-i$ too, but if you think about how $e^{z}$ is defined you'll see it isn't). So $\log i=i\pi /2$ (well, that's one value of log -- the others are $i\pi /2+2\pi ik$ for integers $k$). But then

$i^{i}=e^{i\log i}=e^{i{\frac {i\pi }{2}}}=e^{-\pi /2}\approx 0.208,$

which is a real number a little more than $0.2$! What to make of this? Well, $i^{i}$ should also be thought of as a function that takes multiple values, but in this case they're all real numbers, which is pretty weird. --MarkGall (talk) 13:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

This is indeed a nice (and subtle) problem. For short: for a complex number, there a various ways to define a logarithm, as the exponential function isn't one-to-one on C. Traditionally, one takes the principal value for a number r exp(i φ) as ln(r) + i φ provided that -π < φ ≤ π. Representations outside this strip will lead to a jump by 2πi - exactly what we observed in the example. So, instead of exp(-iπ) we use the representation exp(-iπ + 2iπ) = exp(iπ) and all is well... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 13:07, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

So, essentially I've demonstrated the old rule that "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing." Well, a little knowledge relatively, I suppose: I don't think knowing complex math and Euler's Identity really qualifies as a little knowledge, I just didn't have enough knowledge. MDB (talk) 13:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, sort of. But you found something puzzling, asked a question, got the answer and are now better informed for it. You didn't go disparaging the answers and saying that you've disproved mathematics therefore God exists and AIDS is a government plot as some have a horrible tendency to do. ADK^{...I'll orate your liquid goo!} 13:32, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Wait, what? Our esteemed colleague has indeed proven that GOd exists and furthermore is omnitopint, for by a simple shift of viewpoint E can make the sun go the other way round the immobile Earth. Bear with me yet another moment, and acknowledge that when Sol is at zenith at the divinely ordained Greenwich meridian, it may be seen to proceed clockwise when viewed from the Santa's-eye view above the North Pole, corresponding to the decreasing exponent, yet that same motion of our daily fiery light is unchangeably widdershins when viewed from the doleful depths of space below the Antipodes, in which case the exponent is seen to increase. Whether the exponent is augmented or demented, when it gets to $\pm i\pi$ at the International Date Line, the sun will shine, not out Ace's ass as so many suppose, but somewhere between Tuvalu and the North Island. Whew. I am so happy to have been able to clear all that up for you. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 14:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Creationists trying to prove evolution is true

Kinda [1] Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 15:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

If he's the guy I'm thinking of he's not a creationist. He just takes all the "creation science stuff" as "true" and then extrapolates from there to see what conclusions he can draw. It's sort of a very straight-faced leg-pull.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 15:52, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

That's exactly what he does. and with very good results. it forces the creationists to do one of two things - admit evo, or deny their own "methodologies". Either way, a win-win. "I love it when a plan comes together" (dude from the A-Team). --En attendant Godot 15:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Fair & Balanced

Still nothing at fox news.com about the phone hacking scandals. Meanwhile, the Earth rotates. DogP (talk) 14:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but I thought I saw a Countdown with Keith Olbermann story last night that Murdoch's UK channel (SkyNews?) did actually cover the story, which is to their credit. MDB (talk) 14:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Murdoch only has a minority stake in Sky atm, which may help explain it. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 14:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I must admit, i just heard about the whole phone hacking stuff this am, and was floored. I mean, i get that papers would hack, tap, or other illegal things for a story, but to ERASE something that might be critical to finding the girl? that is not dishonest, that is inhumane. And the BBC World News said this is not the first time this company has done this? how are they in business there? --En attendant Godot 14:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The News Of The ScrewsWorld has a long, long history of sailing very close to the wind in order to get scandals. Every now and then a 'journalist' gets fined but they feel it's worth it to keep the sales up. This one my be bigger than the rest because

• The public will be incensed because a white girl is the effective victim
• They're already in deep clag for hacking the phones of major politicians.

but, we'll have to see if more than a few token scapegoats go to the wall. Jack Hughes (talk) 15:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

And from the Torygraph

“”The BBC’s treatment of the hacking story suggests the Corporation still sees the value of blackening the reputation of Rupert Murdoch’s media empire as thoroughly as possible whenever the opportunity arises.

Taken from here. So it's all the BBC's fault and not those innocent little souls down at NotW. Jack Hughes (talk) 15:45, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The point I heard from a Countdown commentator last night was that until now, the phone hacking had targeted celebrities and politicians -- it was "them". This latest scandal has moved the targets to "us". MDB (talk) 15:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

And the guy on 10 O'Clock Live was defending it by saying it was all in the "public interest" for them to be able to do that. ADK^{...I'll give your rope!} 17:08, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the bigger issue that they erased evidence that could have let cops known the child was dead?--En attendant Godot 17:24, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, as that is one step beyond mere hacking. But it's also revealed that they didn't just target celebrities and politicians "in the public interest". Though I think they probably thought it was acceptable because they'll have done it regularly to celebrities and politicians already, hacking and messing with their phones and voice mail. And the thing is, I think anyone who has ever bought a paper or rag for "juicy" stories about what footballer fucked which Big Brother contestant is guilty of reinforcing that behaviour. All the papers have done is supply what the public demanded, is anyone surprised they over-stepped the bounds of public interest and decency in the process? ADK^{...I'll reiterate your infinity!} 19:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Great Vanity Fair article about this.--^talk 06:24, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

There she blows!

News of the World is no more! DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 16:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

You Brits are lucky. We Yanks still have to suffer through Fox News. MDB (talk) 16:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

We still have to suffer the Daily Mail, which would be a more apt comparison to Fox. ADK^{...I'll burst your mad axe-murderer!} 18:18, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Trial Ranting (short)

It's OJ all over. everyone *knows* she is or is not guilty, cause they can "tell", i guess, with their magic fortune telling. IF you were not in that courtroom for all 6 weeks worth of testimony and exhibits, how the fuck do you think you have any reason for saying the court was right or wrong. Arm chair quarterbacks are bad enough, but at least they watched the entire game. this is a bunch of idiots who turn on the tv one night to see a woman acquitted, and they go ballistic with their legal know how. grrrr..... --En attendant Godot 16:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC) PS, i really need to stop facebooking. it will atrophy my mind worse than anything.--En attendant Godot 16:58, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I know. If people know she's guilty they need to send the police their information pronto! ADK^{...I'll analyse your exit sign!} 17:07, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Who is guilty/innocent of what...? Dendlai (talk) 17:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm very proud to say that I have no fucking clue what's going on in the trial. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:25, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I only know because The Young Turks posted it earlier today and the comment were pretty much self explanatory. ADK^{...I'll sniff your ricer!} 17:26, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

(ec):::Some mother was accused of killing her 2 year old. The mother has serious issues, and she was lambasted in the media. (and by the way, i have no idea if she did or did not kill her child. i'm just annoyed at all the idiots on my facebook page who are saying "she got off" and "the courts aren't doing their jobs" and "How did the cops mess this up" and and and...) Yesterday, a 12 person jury acquitted her of the murder, saying that they found the emotional appeal and the personal history of the mother, and the murder "story" compelling, but there simply was not enough real concrete evidence was provided to place the mother at the scene of the crime. Thankfully - even though it means some guilty get off - we still have juries that understand you must convict only when evidence leads you to a place "beyond reasonable doubt". I actually would rather have one guilty person go free, if it means one innocent person is not put behind bars. Truly guilty people (that are criminal, not accidental) do have a habit of getting in trouble again--En attendant Godot 17:29, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

"there simply was not enough real concrete evidence was provided to place the mother at the scene of the crime" That's all I need to know...sounds like justice was served! Yay!!! Occasionaluse (talk) 17:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Watching this hysteria in all the media go down I remembered something from a (comedy) programme of Dieter Nuhr (I am half-arsed quote-translating out of memory here): "Many people don't understand what democracy is about. They think that you need to have an opinion on everything. But it only means that if you have an opinion on something, you're allowed to say something. If you have no idea: just keep your mouth shut." --uhm, t! 18:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

"They think that you need to have an opinion on everything." Isn't that the job description of a political pundit? Bullshit about things you have no clue about? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:40, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Meh, a pundit makes jokes about everything and has no clue. But seriously, the guy is more of a stand-up comedian then a political pundit. --uhm, t! 19:18, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

And predictions. At which they usually fail just as badly as anyone else. ADK^{...I'll burglarize your monkey!} 19:46, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

A good number of my FB friends were absolutely incensed about the results of this trial, some even stating that they'll "kill the bitch myself". Why this case and not the countless other similar cases that occur daily in the world? These other stories make the news, and not everyone else is found guilty. Aboriginal Noise ^{Oh, what a lovely tea party!} 21:21, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I live less than 5 miles from the Anthony home. Fucking 3 years of this case shit EVERY GODDAMNED DAY. I kept telling my family that she'd get off, because the longer the case takes to finish the better the chance of not guilty (see: OJ Simpson trial). Now the media will keep covering this bullshit for weeks to come at the very least. RAGE. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 22:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

But at least you know it will come to an end shortly, right? But, once again, what is it that set this case apart from all the other cases that happen similar to this? They garner little to no attention. Aboriginal Noise ^{Oh, what a lovely tea party!} 22:45, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The only reason I find why it attracted so much attention was that it was, at the beginning, a missing child alert. News made daily reports on the thousands of volunteers doing search parties, then it shifted to Casey and the rumors of chloroforming, her partying while Caylee was missing, etc. Sure, the daily frenzy over the Casey case will end, but reports of Casey won't. Like OJ, when he did something, they had to report it as if it mattered (which means I hope she moves FAR away). I guess it was a story about a white woman being mean to her babby that the media just stuck to it. Just aggravating that I can't get a weather forecast without her face glaring through my screen. :( Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 23:25, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

AFAIK nothing, this vicious cycle got explained in TV once (oh mutherfucking irony of public German broadcasting!): Somebody picks it up to fill the news → somebody else picks it up → people start paying attention because, well it's on → more media shows it → it has to be important it's on all the time! I have to watch this! → more → more → more → a.s.o. The whole process is completely random. The ability to hype stuff without pissing too many people too much off is really typical for free societies. --uhm, t! 22:58, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

This is not so much a case of people not understanding democracy it is more a case of not understanding legal process - a return to lynch mobs and witch hunts. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 23:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I should have translated "not getting the point" instead of "not understanding", because one might - uhm - not get the point of what he was trying to say. --uhm, t! 23:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Ahhh. I can usually count on RW to be rational with these types of things. I should quit Facebook, really. Blue (is useful) 01:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

For those of us without televisions

What the fuck is going on? Тy^Yarrr 00:03, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

First news article I found, since you've been living under a rock on vacation for three years two weeks. :P Aboriginal Noise ^{Oh, what a lovely tea party!} 00:24, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

So we care because... ? Тy^{Lonely. Ever so lonely.}

00:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Because those of us with televisions are exhausted, yet elated that this goddamn trial is over with. It is being compared to the OJ Simpson trial in media coverage. It isn't that "we care", it is because we don't, and wish it would just go away already. Aboriginal Noise ^{Oh, what a lovely tea party!} 01:13, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Who? Тy^{sic semper}

03:07, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

You best be trollin'. OJ Simpson, google it. I envy your ignorance regarding this whole crap. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 13:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Not trolling, and after google, I want to kill the entire US press corps for wasting everyones time. Тy^rannis

17:06, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

And now you understand our relief that this case is coming to a close. Aboriginal Noise ^{Oh, what a lovely tea party!} 17:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

That's when I turn my brain switch off and turn on some good ol' Saturday Morning Cartoon classics.--Dumpling (talk) 17:21, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I think news networks have a big wheel with legal cases on it that they spin every month or so. Whatever it lands on, that's the new Trial of the Moment^TM. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 00:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

"Because those of us with televisions are exhausted, yet elated that this goddamn trial is over with. It is being compared to the OJ Simpson trial in media coverage." Aboriginal, you should buy one of the newer models of television. I don't have one myself, but I understand that they allow you to choose different channels, allowing you to watch something else if you don't like a particular program. P-Foster_{Can't we talk about this, baby?} 01:46, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to the Dark Age of Technology. Тy^{sic semper}

03:07, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

In Aboriginal Noise's defense, I SWEAR I saw coverage on Nick Jr. (OK, I admit to hyperbole, but it seemed THAT pervasive.) The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, so I get my news from a mixture of the on line version of The New York Times, the BBC news web site and WIGO world. Possibly because I tend to cherry pick my news stories, but probably because of my news sources, this is the first I've heard of this. Jack Hughes (talk) 08:53, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

And a quick straw poll of my work colleagues - they haven't heard of this case either. Jack Hughes (talk) 08:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Dubious academic journals?

It looks like a well-known climate denier has gotten published in a dubious-looking journal published by Scientific Research Publishing (seems about as subtle as "Truthy Facts Inc."). That page links to this one, about a journal called Psychology, which I've never heard of, and apparently, neither has my library. I'm familiar with some of the research they've supposedly published, and it definitely looks like they're just copy-pasting research from actual journals into theirs. According to this article in Nature, they've been randomly slapping people's names on the websites as part of their "editorial board." Anyone know anything about this? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 00:46, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Hadn't heard about these -- interesting find. I've lately been getting solicitations from the "Antarctica Journal of Mathematics", with a website straight out of the 90s. It appears to be a real journal, though.

I've been thinking about writing some kind of page about scholarly publishing insofar as it relates to the RW missions. There could be something to say about bogus journals, vanity journals, fraud, maybe impact factor, and how these relate to crankery-pushing. The peer review page looks quite good already. Not really sure where to go with it. There are a handful of related pages already: peer review, Elsevier, Mohamed El Naschie, probably more. Any thoughts? --MarkGall (talk) 15:19, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

FACEBOOK IS SELF AWARE! SAVE YOURSELVES!

So I noticed that facebook is asking to add my blood type to my basic info profile this morning. The reason is obvious.

Facebook is now self-aware and searching for an appropriate host to begin its robot armageddon and consequent subjugation of the human race.

My proof is that I took a screencap to show my friends, but facebook refuses to upload it to my albums. It is clearly trying to hide its intentions. Be afraid! The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 04:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I, for one, welcome our new zuckerbergnetic overlords, and would like to remind them that a somewhat talented software engineer will be useful in rounding up others to toil in their underground facebook pagesFarmvilles. MDB (talk) 13:21, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

While Andy does go over the top on his FB criticisms, there is a point to be made that FB causes a lot of social problems (mainly because people are interacting online instead of in person). The liberal/conservative angle is bullshit though. ConservapediaEditor (talk) 04:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

We are closer than ever to abandoning social interaction altogether and communicating in binary strings broadcasted at the speed of light like the Geth in Mass Effect. The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 04:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

That's an interesting claim, FA. I'll have to build a consensus for a bit before I respond... --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 05:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Currently, I have 573 processes in agreement and 571 processes in opposition with 39 higher level processes abstaining... The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 06:03, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

While I am very wary of providing TMI on the internet if people can be chivvied into thinking a bit more about how they may easily contribute to society, then it might be a good thing. For instance there is currently a drive to get young men to be stem cell donors; my sister in law donated her stem cells for my wife when she had multiple myeloma and I can confirm that it entails little more than filtering your blood and giving it back to you. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 08:43, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

On a serious note, my blood type is apparently in serious shortage on a constant basis in SE Michigan, where my hometown is located. I could parse a year out into 60 day segments by the phone calls I would get from the Red Cross. The problem is that while I would LIKE to donate, even that regularly, their restrictions on blood donors keep me from doing so, what with overseas assignments and deployments. You have to be back from those for at least a year before you can donate and Uncle Sam seems to REALLY hate leaving me in the US for that long. So a function like that would turn into more of an annoyance for me than anything. The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 09:27, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I imagine FB is providing a bloodtype facility to appeal to the japanese market. Social networks over there always allow users to list bloodtypes, because it's seen as a signifier of your personality (like zodiac signs). ^{ONE / TALK} 10:10, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter. The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 11:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

@Foxy: In my youth I also used to be a blood donor but after working overseas for a couple of years they wouldn't accept me and I haven't been allowed to donate since 1974. So yes, I understand your position. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 11:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I, too, am deferred for life. Which is a shame, because I'm O- (universal donor) and would gladly give blood. MDB (talk) 12:44, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

678 programs reach a consensus to see if this unit can donate blood. I think I'm AB-? HollowWorld (talk) 12:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I've donated regularly since the age of 16 on the understanding that I will become an intravenous drug user in the future and ought to pay my dues before then. SJ ^Debaser 13:57, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

While you all are discussing it, please sign up for bone marrow donations. The new techniques make it as easy as blood donation (well, ok, a 2 hour blood donation), and odds are you will never be called. but it's such a precise DNA match, that the various banks need tons of potential doners.--En attendant Godot 14:02, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Quite so, I'm on the Anthony Nolan register already. How about we set up a RW page for users to list their charitable memberships and other such activity? A hint of competition and one-up-manship, perhaps, but it'll be encouragement in the same of charities. ^{ONE / TALK} 14:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Just make some userboxes, maybe. Like the pipledge for donations to RW userbox.--^talk 21:51, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

CE "(mainly because people are interacting online instead of in person)." That's not a Facebook issue, though they do cash in on it, it's a human issue. It is far easier for a particular set of people to interact online than in person. I have little to nothing in common with the people around me, as i live in Colorado and have a fairly socialist European educated, non-religious mindset. I was programming (if one can call BASIC, programming, when I was 10ish, and was one of the first "kids on my block to own" a modem. I found that there were other people like me out there, but they too wanted to sit inside and talk on a computer... On top of that, it simply is faster and perhaps more clear, to jot a note in e-mail, than write a letter or even phone. (no messy back chat if you just need to say "i'll be home at 7". People in my office e-mail or "chat" instead of getting up and walking 10 feet to the next cubbie farm. It's not facebook. It's not twitter. It's apparently 21st century human.--En attendant Godot 14:02, 7 July 2011 (UTC) (edit con)

So what are doing in Japan? ADK^{...I'll adhere your furry!} 14:05, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Ohoho. Blood types...I'm set up as B+...I think they get into more specific details, but I think the Japanese and Korean versions are a bit different, if I remember correctly. Ah well~--Dumpling (talk) 17:15, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Quality and importance

I have been working on this a little to stick on talk pages of rated articles. Any thoughts? Other formulations can be seen here and here. Though for the importance/priority measure it could be made more prominent. It's based on what WP uses, but less cumbersome, I think. ADK^{...I'll admonish your classified ad!} 14:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I like the silver example a lot, though I don't find the bronze one very aesthetically pleasing. I have no suggestions of my own, but those are my thoughts. --Danfly (talk) 14:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

The brain is just the one you can see on {{bronze}}. ADK^{...I'll legislate your high-powered laser rifle!} 15:59, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I like it. Тy^eh?

17:07, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Though if anyone could figure out any non-lame captions that'd be grand. ADK^{...I'll bake your petroglyph!} 17:32, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

HONK ON

Honk on, my metal brother. HollowWorld (talk) 14:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Those whom we choose to memorialize....

....and those whose deaths barely enter our consciousness. Today our Recent Changes page has a nice little memorial to the 56 people who died in the 2005 London bombings. Two days ago, 35 people died in bombings in Iraq. Couple of weeks before that, 30 more Iraqis died in bomb attacks. Yesterday, the British used a drone to kill four Afghan civilians. This was a little more than a week after 35 Afghans died in one bomb attack, and 2 weeks after 39 people died in bomb attacks in Pakistan. Around the same time, 25 people died in the bombing of a pub in Nigeria. I'm pretty sure that none of these tragedies occurring over the past month or so were discussed anywhere on this website. Six years from now, Recent Changes won't have any memorials of any of these awful events, nor of the hundreds and hundreds of similar events dating back since 9/11 or 7/7 that I would have found if I'd searched any further than the first page of Google News.

Some of us here come from the UK, so that event hit closer to home. That said, many of our users have never been to the UK, but I'm pretty sure they remember the 7/7 bombings in a way that they won't remember the 7/5 bombing in Iraq -- an event we won't even bother to give a name to, because it's nothing really remarkable to us when "those people" die in a bomb attack. It's kind of what we expect them to do.

I'm not saying we should take down the 7/7 thing we have up, and I frankly don't have the time to go back on Lexis Nexis and find every terrorist attack with > X number of victims to make templates for their own dedicated Recent Changes memorial -- which is what I think, in the interest of fairness, we should do. Somewhere out there there's a statistic that tells us how many more civilians have died in armed conflicts since the Second World War than have soldiers. In the US, there are two holidays to commemorate dead soldiers: Memorial Day and Armistice Day (or Remembrance Day for those of us from the Commonwealth). We need a holiday to commemorate the civilians world wide -- and not just the folks in London, Washington and NYC -- who die in military and terrorist acts. </rant>. P-Foster_{Can't we talk about this, baby?} 15:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

. Jack Hughes (talk) 15:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

White people dying is a tragedy. Brown people dying is statistics. Yellow people dying is statistics, unless the yellow people are Japanese ("Honorary whites" to use the relevant old label), in which case it's a tragedy. Yeah, I am cynical. I am also right. Dendlai (talk) 15:32, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm torn cause i both disagree and agree. as i said yesterday, i'm sick at all the discussion of one baby, when millions die of abuse around the world each year. But at the same time, there is a very real truth not born of "oh, he's brown he does not care", to understanding that we identify with people in our own land, in our own language, in our own culture. We are biologically driven to form ties, and yes, we grieve more for our neighbors than strangers. it is not "right", morally, but it's also not wrong as it is very much who we as social, tribal animals are. I read and listen to UK papers/news every day. it's part of my world. I do not speak arabic, and can only read a few words here and there. it's not part of my world. So I do see your point, but i also know why we grieve those we relate to more than those who are strangers--En attendant Godot 15:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Godot, I see your point. I also think there’s something else at play here – since 9/11, if not earlier, we’ve become more commemoration-happy in general. In the State of Michigan, where I live during the academic year, its the law that all public buildings have to drop their flags to half-mast when a Michigander dies in one of the wars. Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but we didn’t do that during the World Wars, or Korea, or Vietnam. I’m not sure what that need to recognize/memorialize says about the country – especially since nobody, in three years of living there, has ever said anything about the fact that twice a month or so, the big flag in the Diag goes down to half-mast for a day. But we’re agonizing more and more (officially at least) about our own war dead when the proportions, as compared both to previous wars’ death tolls (could you imaging if the US had lost 50,000 + in the War on Terror, as it did in Vietnam) and the tolls inflicted in the types of events I mentioned above, should tell us that we’re really not suffering at all. P-Foster_{Can't we talk about this, baby?} 15:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Possibly a form of grief tourism. Everyone wants to "feel something" or "do something" and it becomes a competition over who can lay most flowers and cry most in public. ADK^{...I'll hurt your okra!} 15:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I havn't really noticed it, i guess more from the sense that "i'm here". like how you don't see yourself gain weight, till the pants are too small. but my french hubby is very aware of what you talk aobut P-Foster. the hyper nationalism, the hyper memorialism, the need to make every moment into an "event". I think our media contributes too, as we have the "storm of the decade" every single year, and one guy dying in iraq gets a full page on him. Then there is a LOT of guilt put on people like you and I. I remember when there was this rush of "sadness" about some people dying in the tornado here a few months (?) ago, and it was all over my fb wall, and i'm like "yeah, they died...and? millions die every day from car wrecks and cancer.. why are you so sad over these 100 you didn't know", and my wall was blasted by the do gooders. "how can you say that about such a tragedy". I think Armondikov's comment about the "need to be part" or to "do something", grief tourism is critical here. I guess i'm just heartless. ;-)--En attendant Godot 16:03, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I mostly wrote grief tourism as a rant on the topic. But I'm aware attitudes in the US are different. But certainly something changed with Diana's death that meant "public outpourings of grief", as the media would put it, became not just common but expected. Who we publicly mourn or not usually depends on salience. Young children with nice pretty faces to spread all over the front covers? Yep. Soldiers of our own home towns, counties, states or countries? Yes. Particularly harrowing events involving torture, extortion and general "I wouldn't want to go through that"? Yes. Dead civilians in a mass explosion in a foreign country? Not so much. I wouldn't conflate this with racism (though the bleeding liberal hearts are surely tempted to) because I doubt that is the main factor, and indeed sullies what racism actually is. ADK^{...I'll curate your businessman!} 16:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Thing is, Westerners are so used to hearing about x amount of people dying in the Middle East nowadays it's almost expected that when you turn on the radio you'll hear a newsreader say, "meanwhile, a bomb in Pakistan/Afghanistan/Iraq/Iran has claimed the lives of X amount of people." This is just as horrific on an objective level as a mass murdering in your back garden - a life is a life - but whether one likes it or not, whether you try to help it or not, many people are bound to be biased towards the events happening closer to home. The London bombings haven't affected me unduly, but I still spare a thought for those who died - being a Londoner it was very close to home. It practically was home. I was fourteen when they happened and I remember worrying about some of my immediate family who worked in the city at the time. When a rare attack like that happens on your own soil, you're bound to be shocked about it and it's gonna get a lot of publicity from the press. I don't think racism has anything to do with it, it's nationalism more than anything. London's so multicultural a number of those who died on 7/7 probably weren't born here or were otherwise first/second generation non-white immigrants. Same with the focus on one or two individuals who've suffered a sad fate against thousands who are dying daily thanks to war, poverty, famine, abuse, neglect, etc. Newspapers exist to sell themselves, they're can't repeatedly bleat on about those who are dying constantly, people don't want to read it. It's sad, but true. A quote often misattributed to Stalin - "the death of one man is a tragedy. The death of a thousand is a statistic." SJ ^Debaser 18:15, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Josh is right. Thing is we're numbed, if not utterly trained to ignore those tiny headlines which say "27 lost in bomb in Afghan market", even the loss of soldiers doesn't get more than a six point font anymore. I'm not saying that the deaths are any less tragic, I'm just saying that the simple fact is, at least in the USA, most people just really don't care anymore. We've been there for 10 years and I think people believe they can just shut their eyes and move on with their lives. Or what life they have left since we have problems on our own soil. But its just my two cents. HollowWorld (talk) 22:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Speaking of statistics, there is a huge difference between "first" and third world countries on most common causes of death, which is one cause of this difference in attitude -- probably more so than "brown people don't count" which doesn't stand up to very much analysis (was MLK white? are all the Irish dead who get little more than a footnote in the history books brown?). In the US you are most likely to go as a result of heart failure, cancer or a half dozen other medical consequences of old age and rich living, with the closest to a violent death in the top ten being the chance you'll die in a road traffic accident. But in Sudan murder is right up there. Think of everybody you know who died in hospital, and now imagine they were all murdered, for any reason or no reason at all. If they had newspapers (which mostly they don't) these people wouldn't put a grisly murder on page one, because if they did that nothing else would ever see print. Humans are interested in the extraordinary, not the ordinary. when violent death becomes ordinary that is itself a tragedy, but it's still ordinary. (What else kills poor people you've never heard of, besides other poor people? Curable diseases, mostly. Untreated water, lack of food, tedious stuff like that) 82.69.171.94 (talk) 23:07, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

It's all a matter of perspective. 9/11 and 7/7 will have more relevance to most of the people here. Is the Oklahoma bombing commemorated here? As much as the bombings in Iraq & Afghanistan are tragic, they're hardly isolated events, but rather a part of an ongoing conflict, so they fade against the background noise. Andf, like it or not, this is a Western website, populated (mostly) by Westerners and thus has a Western bias.

But what makes 9/11 or 7/7 better (or worse) that say the Mumbai attacks, or the gassing of the Tokyo subway? Or, for that matter, the '04 tsunami, or the Iranian, Chinese and Japanese earthquakes? People will want to commemorate the things that affected them. To use a personal example, it seems as if we'd rather celebrate reading Joyce, than commemorating the June 16th uprising (which I think has far more historical impact) and yet we also celebrate the Kent Uni shootings, which means very little to the rest of the world. It's all about perspective, and what's important to us. --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 09:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, salience is always going to be a more important factor than physical size or impact. However, it's worth pointing out that should anyone feel an imbalance they are free here to work out how the Holydaze template works (it's still beyond me) and add something of their own. Trouble then is that there's only 365 days in a year, we'd have a constant stream of sadness if we added in everything. In fact, that's probably why we happily ignore (or at least, don't give constant and repeated reverence to) other events. ADK^{...I'll anglicise your exhaust pipe!} 09:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

News of the World

So, BBC is reporting that this sunday will be the last print of News of the World? (on radio, so nothing to confirm with yet).--En attendant Godot 16:39, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Website has Murdoch confirming it. www.thesunonsunday.co.uk was apparently registered 2 days ago... though with a "non-trading" individual so perhaps just a smart cyber-squatter. ADK^{...I'll stride your bread knife!} 16:44, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I hope the News of the World will stop printing, that could happen. The hacking was gut wrenching and scandalous. The way people high up in the organisation first turned a blind eye to irresponsible behaviour, then tried to scapegoat those lower down was also appalling. I don't know how much those high up guessed about that specific scandal but the News of the World and "The Sun" consistently have a reputation for irresponsibility. I'm not Jesus (talk) 16:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

It was mentioned above. I must say that is quite a spectacular way to end a newspaper and the News of the Screws is a part of British culture but I guess it has just got too embarrassing for Murdoch and his bid for full control of SKY. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 16:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I fear the "Sun on Sunday" will be just as bad. Will they employ the same irresponsible staff? I'm not Jesus (talk) 16:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

If it's part of British culture, maybe it's time to change the bloody culture. Dendlai (talk) 17:10, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Aye. ADK^{...I'll bust your broom!} 17:13, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Whether you like it or not nobody gets to decide what British culture is. The NoW had a circulation of 2.8m which makes up a significant proportion of the population when you count multiple readers. Even for non-readers the News of the Screws was a shorthand for a certain type of journalism. It won't disappear just because one particular paper has been closed. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 11:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

If Liberals were involved in anything like this scandal it would be on the front page of Conservapedia even though it's in the UK, and there would be loads about Liberal deceit etc etc. As it is The News of the World but there're not particularly interested. Surprise! Half an hour ago there was an article about the News of the World in Cp but now it's vapourised. I'm not Jesus (talk) 17:51, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

It's under The News Of The World. I'm not Jesus (talk) 03:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Has this story any traction outside of the UK? AMassiveGay (talk) 19:10, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

It does. There was significant coverage tonight on All Things Considered or one of those Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) radio hours that does current-issues commentary. Newsworthy in its own right, but also because there is a significant fraction of the US population who would rejoice to see some of Rupert's (not the bear's) media outlets wither away, particularly Faux News. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 03:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

When should we celebrate 7 of 9 Day?

9th of July, or 7th of September?

Dilbert and his Jeri Ryan Clock
Civic Cat (talk) 20:02, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I propose September 7th, as it's the 7th day OF the 9th month. The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 02:34, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Here, have a love song to the Borg. --PsyGremlinSermā! 10:52, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Kewl. Sounds a bit like Depeche Mode's Route 666-Behind the Wheel.
(Wolfman Jack has his important message 3:15 into the video).
Which kinda leads to:
The Moog Cookbook - Come Out and Play and Air - Kelly Watch The Stars (Moog Cookbook Remix).
  :-D  Civic Cat (talk) 21:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Georgia School Board Bans the "Theory of Math"

A report from America's Finest News Source. The Symphony of Punk ^{Can't sleep, clowns will eat me!} 05:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I saw the other day Kansas bans evolution. - π 00:22, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

An Andy-ism, I admit

But it works here.

Godspeed, Atlantis. MDB (talk) 15:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Sheds a quite tear. I loved that the shuttle was a very real part of my life. I was born just days before or after the first moon walk. I live in a time when space is part of my world, not just science fiction; where we have flown beside the "heavenly bodies" in our solar system, and grasp the very vastness of our universe. And the--En attendant Godot 15:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC) end of the shuttle is the end of one small part of that whole thing. I can't imagine a more exciting time to live. sighs....--En attendant Godot 15:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I find it both sobering and awe-inspiring that in my forty-four years of life, we have gone from the early Apollo missions to a point where space travel is so routine we only even notice it if something tragic happens, or it's the end of a major program.

I just hope I live long enough to see a human being set foot on Mars.

As a side note, I heard the alternate history author Harry Turtledove speak at a science fiction convention once. He was asked, "if you could live in an alternate history world, what would it be?" His response, which got a very appreciative response from the audience, was "one where the United States avoided the Vietnam War and spent the money to go to Mars instead." MDB (talk) 15:42, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Or, to be less Andy and more snarky, "Good luck, Mister Gorsky." MDB (talk) 15:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

we'll have to see what happens next. I doubt we'll see anything as impressive as the shuttle, though. The future looks like all disposable stuff built by the private sector for cheap. ADK^{...I'll endanger your bread knife!} 17:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I know that when it comes to a Mars mission, unmanned probes are probably far more cost efficient, and just about as scientifically useful (if not more so), than manned missions. But dammit, there is something to be said for doing things, as JFK said, "not because they are easy, but because they are hard." I want to see mankind return to the moon, and go on to Mars, for the sheer glory of human achievement. I have no doubt we can do it, technologically; we just need to want to do it. MDB (talk) 17:52, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

But we are so much more safety conscious than we were in the 60s. and i don't think that is just a "cop out" nasa uses. The reality of a 2 year space flight, in protecting the men and women who go... As much as i've heard many astronauts say they would happily take the risk, it seems somewhat useless a risk of life, just "cause". I'd much rather get better at rovers, until or unless there is a reason to go an STAY there. and taht day will come. but it's not today, and it's not our goals right now. Me, i want better ways of seeing what is out there beyond the solar system. telescopes, but other tools that i dont' even know about. I want us to go to the moons of Juipter and Saturn and look for primative life. mars is not that appealing to me. but life? on other moons? wow.--En attendant Godot 18:12, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

There has been a serious study of making the Mars trip "one way only". Though it's unlikely that this would be the premise behind the very first excursion there. ADK^{...I'll cogitate your belt!} 18:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

If Kurzwell is halfway right we can just send lightweight machines to Mars and upload (merge?) our consciousness to them after they land safely. --193.65.27.82 (talk) 19:36, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

With the speed the space program is moving lately, betting that TEH SINGULARITY!(TM) is going to happen before we go to Mars is starting to look like a safe bet. Sen (talk) 21:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

If Ray Kurzweil is halfway right, we can fly to Mars on winged piglets. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:54, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's better than the insult I had lined up. ADK^{...I'll tear your gelato!} 01:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Some fun pop science

James May's Things You Need to Know About the Universe.
Pretty much a simple and brief history of everything combined with some really good Hitchhiker's Guide style graphics. Someone has had a lot of fun with After Effects here. ADK^{...I'll dehydrate your rucksack!} 00:53, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

iPlayer link for those who can get it ADK^{...I'll bake your lens!} 00:54, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Out-group Hate in Sociobiology

I was recently thinking about the tendency among human groups to be more concerned with increasing their relative profit compared to out-groups, rather than maximizing their own. Most people involved in any social science will have come across this before, so I won't bother citing anything. I'm wondering if many non-human animals behave in a similar way. For example, would a troop of chimpanzees ever opt for less food for themselves if it meant they could ensure they had more relative to another troop in the same region? I'm using chimps as my example because I'm specifically interested in primates, but examples from anywhere would interest me. --Danfly (talk) 14:44, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know enough behavioural studies to be able to give examples, but I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest. ADK^{...I'll crystallize your embryo!} 17:02, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I have posed the question to a behavioural ecologist. ADK^{...I'll absolve your reindeer!} 17:05, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch Armondikov. --Danfly (talk) 17:15, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Here's one paper from a guy who wrote a book on the subject. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:21, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

There are certainly some elements in that paper which will be useful to me. Thanks Nebuchadnezzar

“”the frequency with which dyads punished non-contingently (that is, independently of whether the punishment was a retaliatory response to punishment or the withholding of benefits) was associated with lower rates of rewarding

“”the phenomenon of displaced aggression, in which a victim of aggression proceeds later to harm a third party, may not be revenge—even if the third party is a genetic relative or ally of the original aggressor

Unfortunately, it's a bit too focused on reciprocity and revenge when I'm looking for hostility towards an out-group simply because they are an out-group. I'll have to skim through the book and see if he mentions anything. --Danfly (talk) 20:53, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you mean, my mind skipped to the topic of revenge because there are a lot of game theory experiments like the one you describe done with humans. I can't think of anything that specific off the top of my head. Marc Hauser comes to mind, but he was found fabricating data, so yeah... Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I've had a look through the book you linked and it definitely has more about the type of aggression I'm looking for. Most of it in the first chapter no less. Some of the recent reconstructions of Hauser's work seem like they'll be useful for intragroup interaction too, so useful for contrasting purposes at least.--Danfly (talk) 12:59, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Mexican National executed by Texas

Fucking .... dick wagging, "you can't tell me what to do in my state" fucking jackass of a govonor. (yeah, i'm thrilled, can't you tell?) Can we just give texas back? Or let it and AZ try to run themselves as their own damn country?--En attendant Godot 16:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

There'e very little in the world that makes me as sad and angry as the death penalty. It's never, ever, ever right. Ever. Even if they'd caught Hitler alive in 1945. Never. I usually get good and depressed for a day or so every time an execution makes its way into the national news. P-Foster_{Can't we talk about this, baby?} 16:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that i don't like the death penalty, but my issue here is sorta larger. 1) Texas did not allow mexico to represent this man, as is the RIGHTS BY INTERNATIONAL TREATY for foreign nationals. Mexico has been petitioning for 3 years to intervene as is their legal right. 2) the Governor was told by not only obama, but BUSH that what he was doing was illegal, violated about 1000 treaties, and was simply bad policy. he told both of them to shove it. 3) There is very good reason to think that this man was actually not guilty of the crime he was charged with, but DNA evidence has not been allowed by the Governor. I don't like the death penality on principal. i hate this on so many more levels.--En attendant Godot 16:34, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

"DNA evidence has not been allowed by the Governor." Wait, what? You can do that? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Wait, what? You can do that? - of course you can't. you also cannot deny them right to legal representation, nor can you execute a foreign national when that foreign nation demands a retrial. guess what, Texas does not care. But what power does obama (or bush, both have been phoning this idiot for 2 years), have to actually say "you fucked up, texas". we can't dethrone the guy. we can't exactly invade.... AZ is "doing it's own thing" too. which is why my first rant is to fucking kick them out of the country.--En attendant Godot 16:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, Rick Perry is a secessionist... Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Secession, eh? ADK^{...I'll glug your sceptre!} 17:13, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I may support the death penalty, but no DNA evidence allowed? Fuckin' idiots. Strong proof is always needed for me when a man is executed. There is no way in hell that could have happened when the governor edits the evidence.--Thanatos (talk) 01:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

the argument (such as it is) is that the case was tried in 93. anything new is, well, new and therefore not admissible. Mexico has said that they have a right to provide better counsel, which by international treaty has always been allowed if a citizen of one nation is tried and found guilty while in another nation. new evidence, better use of dna has been addressed, but perry boy doesn't care. his will is law. I pretty much think he assumes he's "The new sherrif in town, and my gun is bigger than yours....--En attendant Godot 04:14, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

did he died??? --77.109.139.87 (talk) 10:30, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

A special place in hell is reserved for Rick Perry, and there is naught he can do to escape its gates. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 12:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Peanuts

I know I may be over-analyzing here, but does anyone else think that the infamous football gag in Charlie Brown is a metaphor for the temptation of Eve by the serpent? Just something I wonder given the Christian overtones of the series. On another note, has anyone else checked out Garfield - Garfield? It's actually funnier than Garfield with Garfield.--Thanatos (talk) 02:05, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

G-G is good. 3eanuts, or Peanuts with the last panel removed, is horrifyingly dark. P-Foster_{Can't we talk about this, baby?} 02:10, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I've known about Garfield minus Garfield for some time, but I am quite thankful for 3eanuts, which I'd never seen before. Very nice. That has always been just about my favorite comic strip, and I like the new take on it. DickTurpis (talk) 02:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Marmaduke explained in 500 words or less, here is the archive Тy^{sic semper}

02:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Screw that, I can explain Marmaduke in (almost) 1/100th of those words. "Dog doing people things? Isn't that hilarious?" Thunderkatz^Ho! 04:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC) (PS Pearls Before Swine 4 Life)

I've always thought every Marmaduke cartoon could have the caption "Wow, Marmaduke is a really big dog!" DickTurpis (talk) 12:40, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I always thought it was a metaphor for insanity, "Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results," you know? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Doubt it. schultz, though not an atheist is not really a christian in any typical sense of the word. I think it's far more just about the futility of things, and the fact that all of us have that one thing we go back to, again and again, trusting "this time it will be different".--En attendant Godot 04:11, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

How is that gag infamous? Famous, certainly. But infamous...? Dendlai (talk) 04:33, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I always read it as undying optimism and faith in other people. No matter how many times she pulls the football away, he still thinks he can make it. SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden? 2012} 10:40, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of Garfield Minus Garfield. Fingerpori Minus Garfield was better. http://www.hs.fi/kuvat/iso_webkuva/1135256836989.gif Vulpius (talk) 20:27, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

The end is nigh! Again! ZOMG!!!

ZOMG ZOMG ZOMG Oh ya and donate please. Man a lot of entrepreneurship out there copying the "Camping" model. FailDeadly (talk) 02:49, 9 July 2011 (UTC) Wait wtf? The "articles" are actually signed "Jesus." I didn't know they had internet in heaven... FailDeadly (talk) 02:53, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

The end is ni? We shall say "ni!" again to you if you do not appease us! (sorry, had to do it) Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:05, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking the same. we are the knights who say ni.--En attendant Godot 04:09, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Ni! HollowWorld (talk) 04:15, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

THE KNIGHTS WHO SAY NI...DEMAAAAND...A SACRIFICE!--Dumpling (talk) 05:22, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

A shrubbery! 74.89.192.173 (talk) 18:45, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Dumb fucking stupid

So I went to this bachelors party tonight. it was dumb, fucking stupid waste of money. passed out on the couch at 8pm, wife force feeds me peanut butter toast. She goes to bed, vomit in the sink. Cari Lekebusch.....boring bullshit and I should know better. Ace^{of Spades} 13:02, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Moderation, my friend! Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 13:38, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Bah! Moderation is for the weak. Ace^{of Spades} 13:45, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

So, you are a weakling moderator? Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 14:43, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

If a bachelor's party isn't a dumb fucking stupid waste of money it probably isn't a real bachelor's party. ADK^{...I'll quantify your brisket!} 15:17, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

If a moose doesn't get drunk and fall down the stairs it isn't any kind of a party. Real first name and last initial^{Talk, talk, talk skim my contributions} 19:44, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Betty Ford dies

Former First Lady known for, among other things, the Betty Ford Clinic dies at age 93. The Symphony of Punk ^{Can't sleep, clowns will eat me!} 05:14, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Amazing Woman. RIP.--Dumpling (talk) 05:28, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I thought of two other people when I read the header. 1) Betty Crocker. 2) Betty White. Something is wrong with my brain today. Fuzzy =^_^= 16:22, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Vaccine to destroy religious beliefs?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxQNWw3tK_8

I've never seen something so obviously faked in my life. ADK^{...I'll pander your fruit!} 11:40, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

We don't need no vaccination... we don't need no thought control...

Well, now I feel terrible for associating that song with it. Hahaha. Some of the comments make me sad though. HollowWorld (talk) 11:45, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Heh, VMAT2. Carl Zimmer put it best:" A Gene That Accounts for Less Than One Percent of the Variance Found in Scores on Psychological Questionnaires Designed to Measure a Factor Called Self-Transcendence, Which Can Signify Everything from Belonging to the Green Party to Believing in ESP, According to One Unpublished, Unreplicated Study." [2] Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 08:20, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Doonesbury

singing our song Jack Hughes (talk) 17:56, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Everyone looks bored and lazy in Doonesbury.--Thanatos (talk) 02:40, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Patriotic pyromania.

What else would convince the New York Bomb Squad to destroy over 5000 pounds of fireworks at the same time? Javasca₧ mrh graaaah raaarrrgh mragh hrugh! 01:06, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

FUCK

I woke up today and walked into my kitchen/living room only to find that I'd stepped in water. Confusion ensued. I looked and there's water pretty much everywhere. It seems the water is coming from that heater thing that makes water hot for my long and indulgent showers. I mopped up some of the water, but the process of traipsing around has stained the floor, which wasn't in such good condition anyways, but now it's covered in what looks to be mud stains (I walked out to my supply closet to get my mop, and tracked some dirt inside). IDKWTF to do, but I figure I'll call my landlord. Hopefully, I won't have too much trouble understanding his thick Indian accent. Then, my landlord will call his plumber. The plumber has a thick Mexican accent which I also have trouble understanding. I speak some Spanish, but I have a thick American accent and no knowledge of plumbing terms in Spanish. I'd call my father out of the hope that he'd be able to help, but he's in France for this week and some of the next. My neighbor is a handyman and could probably take a look, but his schedule is more erratic than mine and according to his father (also my neighbor) he's taking medication that makes him sleep for half the day. Fucking fuck fuck fuck. Also, the water is starting to smell a bit. Or maybe it's my imagination. I'm just glad I have tile and not carpet like the guys in the apartment next to mine. I have a vacuum cleaner that sucks water, but I'm pretty sure the water came back. Just ranting--User:Brxbrx/sig 15:42, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

You need to shut off the cold-water supply to the heater. If you can find a way to drain it, you will avoid more water going where you don't want it. Usually there is a drain spigot that fits a normal garden hose; you can run it outdoors or into a bucket for pouring down the toilet or other suitable drain. Probably want to shut off the power or gas to the heater as well. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 15:54, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how to do that... But I'll look, thanks.--User:Brxbrx/sig 15:55, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

seriously, google "how things work" (.com, i think), or check on youtube. It's easy to shut off (not fix, but that's a different story). or just google the type of heater you have and "manual" and see if anything useful pops up.--En attendant Godot 16:13, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

there should be a cold water shutoff on one of the pipes leading into the heater, shut it off , then turn off the gas or electric (gas shutoff on the gas pipe near the heater and electric shutoff in the breaker box). It sounds like the bottom of the tank has rusted out and you are getting water and the mud that collects leaking out. When the heater is fixed install a drain pan under the heater to catch any leaks. Heaters should be flushed anually but no one ever does. If you can get one a wet_vac or rug doctor carpet cleaner will remove water and dirt from carpet if it is still wet and they are not expensive to rent for a day (at least in the USA) Hamster (talk) 16:22, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

yup, yup... (ec) I would just look for a valve on one of the pipes connected to the heater. If the heater is on, and you have used hot water recently, one pipe will be warm, and another cool. The cool one is most likely the cold-water supply. Lever at right angles to the pipe shuts it off, or on an older style gate valve, turning the round handle clockwise (a few turns, until it won't turn any more) closes the valve. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 16:27, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I asked my neighbor, who's a handy man (but not handy enough to fix my problem), and turns out to shut the water from going to my water heater I have to stop the water from the whole apartment. I told my neighbors, and they seemed alright with it, but the plumber is coming in the afternoon, and it's about 9:40 AM here. Hope they can understand that they can't shower because I don't want my apartment flooded.--User:Brxbrx/sig 16:40, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

That would be extremly non-standard and non code building if you are in the US, and if you are renting from anyone who has to file with the state or city every few years. I would double check. try this, or others like this... it's really a standard problem you are discussing - and should not require you turn teh water off to the house. http://homerepair.about.com/od/plumbingrepair/ss/trblsht_hwh.htm--En attendant Godot 16:43, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

My building very likely is non code. It was a suburban house converted into four apartment units, and the whole place is rather jury rigged. But the rent is cheap and the landlord and other tenants mind their own business. There was no handle for the water heater. There was a valve, but it wouldn't budge. My handy man neighbor said his heater was the same.--User:Brxbrx/sig 16:46, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘"There was a valve, but it wouldn't budge." That's why most folks let a plumber handle things. Since water is corrosive, even the pros often end up breaking something else in course of the repair, and they have the skills and materials to fix that. I would take a pair of channel-locks and use them to have a gentle feel of the valve handle, but I'm used to doing that kind of thing. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 17:02, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Plumber's coming. in a few hours. In the mean while, the leak has stopped, and the water's dried up. Hopefully I won't have to 2, cuz I reflexively flushed the toilet for a 1 a bit earlier when I should have been saving the tank's supply. This is one of those times a man can come to regret a high fiber diet.--User:Brxbrx/sig 18:56, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

While it probably won't help you right now, this is just as good a time as any to say that when I lived in a near-eastern city with an unreliable water supply, my mom kept the bathtub full just in case. Some people do not realize that a terlet can be flushed by tossing in water from a bucket.

There was also a red clay crock in the kitchen with 20 gallons or so of potable water, that she bought from the guy who drove his horse and wagon around with big honkin wicker-wrapped jugs of the stuff. The tap water was OK for bathing, but drinking or cooking or brushing teeth with it was risking a case of the trots. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 19:16, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a bucket? Do any of your neighbours have a bucket? Is it easy to buy a bucket on Sunday in the US? Where is the nearest place you can get water? Proxima Centauri (talk) 19:22, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Are you kidding? In the US, the five gallon bucket is nearly as ubiquitous as the wire coat hanger. I've got them for free from building sites (the mud used for taping gypsum wallboard comes in them) and doughnut shops (icing and filling.) Few states now have blue laws forbidding Sunday shop opening any more, unless I'm badly mistaken. For this purpose, though, a good big saucepan will do. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 19:51, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Apparently, almost no part of the US forces Sunday closures anymore. Hours are still shorter and there're some alcohol limitations, but shopping is basically fine (and 24-hour stores generally include Sundays). Water's available from most grocery stores, gas stations, etc...drinking quality, anyway. Dunno about cheaper kinds. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 23:05, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Update

There is a valve. If I close the valve, the valve leaks water. If I open the valve, the tank leaks water. I decided to close it because the water leaked is of a much lesser volume. The plumber, whose English is shit, will have to speak to my landlord, whose English isn't much better, about getting a new water heater. In the meanwhile, at least my neighbors have water, now that I know I can affect my individual supply. Oh, and my showers are cold :( --User:Brxbrx/sig 05:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The Ledge

Any one seen this movie? apparently it's about "an atheist hero and a christian villain". I can't wait to see how this is "taken" by the fundies of the world. [3]--En attendant Godot 17:09, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, so that's what Liv Tyler is doing these days. ADK^{...I'll kill your Etch-a-Sketch!} 18:17, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Since you were wondering (check the comments section) ADK^{...I'll legislate your Hyundai!} 18:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Does suicide excite you? I'm not Jesus (talk) 19:08, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

It's a bit upsetting that they're marketing it as propaganda - if they advertised the movie's merits instead of its message, they wouldn't polarize people and would be able to sell the film to a wider audience. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 19:12, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

If they toned down the guy's duck-speak fanaticism (at least in the trailer) and made it a little more subtle we'd be getting somewhere - because it does look a little cartoonish as it is. The general concept of "if you don't believe in an afterlife/God, will you sacrifice yourself for someone else" is a good one. And the idea of a sympathetic/protagonist non-believing character is as rare in Hollywood are as rare as "strong female characters" who aren't just tits, heels and karate. But as it is, it looks like an attempt to troll the evangelical community. And judging by many of the comments on blogs about it, it's working. ADK^{...I'll execrate your hobgoblin!} 11:56, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Heh

Have you ever noticed the Chinese space agency's logo? Sen (talk) 09:06, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, somebody's a fan... --uhm, t! 10:18, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Eggspane nao pleeze. I don't get it. --PsyGremlinFale! 14:08, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

It looks a little like the Star Trek logo. MDB (talk) 14:14, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

A lot. Sen (talk) 16:08, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Not bothering to WIGO this...

...because at this point, it's almost a "Dog Bites Man" news story.

The Westboro Baptist Church is threatening to protest Betty Ford's funeral, because she was an adulterer (divorced before marrying Gerald Ford) who "loved to sit with tawdry reporters and blather about sex." MDB (talk) 14:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Or, translated, "WE'RE LOSING RELEVANCE, LOOK AT US! LOOK AT US! LOOK AT US!!!!" ADK^{...I'll absolve your ax murderer!} 14:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Said Spock - "Fascinating, Jim".--En attendant Godot 14:17, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Losing relevance? Did they ever have any relevance? Even among the most hard-core Christian conservatives, they're considered an insane fringe group. MDB (talk) 14:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Pro Marriage arguments, to counter those silly gays

Kinda fun article making its rounds on Facebook. crazy people--En attendant Godot 15:32, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

you gotta love dan savage

lawl--User:Brxbrx/sig 01:42, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

One of the commentera got it right - this is an "easy" bullet for anti-evolutionists to bite because of their insistence that microevolution is real but speciation is not. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 03:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Michele Bachmann pledges to ban all forms of pr0n.

I was gonna WIDO-WORLD this, but WIGO-WORLD is broken. No porn under a Bachmann presidency. P-Foster_{Can't we talk about this, baby?} 02:04, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Had the blogger actually read the manifesto in question, he would have discovered that they meant protecting children from being forced into making child pornography. ListenerX^TalkerX 02:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, what do you mean, "WIGO-WORLD is broken"? ListenerX^TalkerX 02:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I mean, it's broken. Something's fucked with the numbering, a bunch are commented out. P-Foster_{Can't we talk about this, baby?} 02:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not "broken". The "click here" thing to do it automatically is a script that searches the section for the highest number and adds one to it. So as there are 5 digit numbers on there, they'll mess with the numbering until we've made enough WIGOs to shift them all to the next section. It's still perfectly fine to enter the numbers manually. The two that are commented out were duplicates of two already in the recent entries section; specifically the NOTW and the windpipe transplant. ADK^{...I'll watch your potato masher!} 09:54, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, the pledge is available here as a PDF. The porn clause reads "Humane protection of women and the innocent fruit of conjugal intimacy – our next generation of American children – from human trafficking, sexual slavery, seduction into promiscuity, and all forms of pornography and prostitution, infanticide, abortion and other types of coercion or stolen innocence." The inclusion of "women" -- not just children -- and the explicit mention of "all forms of pornography" suggests you're wrong. P-Foster_{Can't we talk about this, baby?} 02:36, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, if she does ban porongraphy, we'd just fap to pictures of her.--User:Brxbrx/sig 02:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Geez that's terribly written. Look at the footnote. It seems to be that its only banning kiddie porn, but it does seem to be banning all abortion. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Pledging to ban all abortion is one of its explicit intentions.--^talk 02:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The footnote focuses on children, but the main body of the pledge is pretty clear on "protecting women" from "all forms of pornography." P-Foster_{Can't we talk about this, baby?} 02:43, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

He's right that it is really badly-written. But that actually works for everyone involved. She can essentially do whatever she wants without worrying about violating it, because it is confused where it isn't vague, and they can - no matter what Candidate Bachmann supports or President Bachmann actually ever does - always find a way to read the pledge to make her in the wrong. Win-win.--^talk 02:46, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, in the end it don't mean diddly since her chances of getting elected are close to nil. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

(EC²) The wording is very ambiguous, as is common with these wingnut screeds, but it is possible that these people are among those who ripped off Andrea Dworkin's views on women and smut. But, as it happens, contrary to her pronouncements on the matter, women and children are not the only people who serve as actors in that industry. ListenerX^TalkerX 02:48, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Even if she does get elected, aren't there 1st amendment considerations here? Damo^Hi 02:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

@ Nebby; it means more than diddly, because even if she never wins, she is, for now, a strong candidate and by signing this thing she helps to legitimize a whole bunch of fringe ideas and moves them a little closer to the mainstream. If a few other candidates feel pressured to sign, the effect is increased. P-Foster_{Can't we talk about this, baby?} 02:51, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

That's what I feared when I read it. It disrupts the playing field for the other candidates. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 11:19, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

What a joke. --Dumpling (talk) 03:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I like the "Sharia Islam" point. Apparently there is a fourth denomination of Islam that no one has heard of until now. Or maybe they meant it by analogy with "biblical Christianity." ListenerX^TalkerX 03:16, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I just noticed they pull a nice one single proof in the footnote for homosexuality. @P-Foster: The GOP mainstreamed the crazy long ago, this is just spit in the ocean. Take a look at all the cranks they appointed to chair House committees back in Jan. They packed the energy committee with climate deniers, gave Peter King chairmanship of homeland security, gave Ron Paul oversight of the monetary policy subcommittee, and, get this, Bachmann is on the intelligence committee. Republicans sure have their sense of irony pinned down. @ListenerX: No, they're talking about this. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:34, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Obviously, but I was talking about the choice of words, "Sharia Islam." ListenerX^TalkerX 04:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, heh. My brain translates wingnut effectively enough that sometimes I miss stuff like that. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

When conservatives like David Brooks are saying that "the Republican Party may no longer be a normal party" and that the "members of this movement have no moral decency", you know lots of fun is a comin'. Kettle on, feet up, biccies out, I can't wait to watch them beat seven shades of shit out of each other and grovel around in the mud. Roll on 2016. DogP (talk) 06:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Just what is she promising to ban?

Okay, let's assume the saner option, and that she's only promising to ban all forms of child pornography. That's hardly a controversial position at first glance -- I don't think any of her opponents will be giving stump speeches declaring, "my opponent wants to ban all forms of child pornography! Well, I say she is wrong in that!" I doubt even the most hard-core libertarian would take that position.

However, there is a subtle legal issue here. There have been court cases (and unfortunately, I can't remember how they were decided, and I don't care to google anything related to child pornography, especially since I'm at work now) dealing with child pornography that was completely "simulated" for lack of a better phrasing. In other words, it was all things like written erotica, computer generated imagery of imagined small children, etc. I do remember enough of what I read about one court case that it said people in the courtroom nearly became physically ill just from the descriptions of the material; it was truly disturbing.

And I think this is an intriguing question -- should completely "imaginary" child pornography be banned? On the one hand, it gives pedophiles an "outlet" that keeps pedophiles from anything involving actual children. On the other hand, it could be argued that it will only encourage them, and they'll seek out "the real thing". I realize that's something of a slippery slope argument, but we're dealing with people who are potentially very dangerous to little kids.

Now, if Bachmann really is promising to ban all pornography... good luck with that, hon. It'll never stand up in court, and anyway, that's generally a state matter, not a Federal one. Hell, good luck even defining porn for legal purposes, beyond Potter Stewart's old "I know it when I see it" rule. MDB (talk) 10:36, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

That leads to Itchy & Scratchy & Marge. -- CS Miller (talk) 10:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, they already banned "extreme" pornography in the UK but never really provided a decent definition of it. Also, I remember reading about one porn company that mirrors its entire content in the Netherlands. If it came to it, they'd be legal again after the flick of a switch. ADK^{...I'll sanctify your gymnasium!} 11:02, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Such laws are quite unenforceable as long as there's the internet, so their main purpose is to secure the politicians against a moral outrage against a specific instance. --193.66.64.60 (talk) 11:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I suppose there could be a ban on viewing internet porn, no matter where it originates. And pay per view internet porn could be banned by financial restrictions. That's how the on line gambling bans are enforced -- basically, credit card processors won't have anything to do with on-line casinos. MDB (talk) 11:46, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I imagine that would make bitcoin take off like a rocket, though. ADK^{...I'll stride your poodle!} 12:18, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Under the Child protection Millennium act (roughly 2000), any and ALL forms of child porn, images that DEPICT child porn, or writings that discuss it in other than a clinical sense (including but not limited to anime, true high art, and women breast feeding - yes, women breast feeding) are convict able under the law. no less then 10 women have been tried and found guilty for putting up images of themselves naked or nearly naked while breast feeding. Also, one famous piece of art, about a man or women who was raped as a child, who drew his or her feelings about it, found him in a 5 year sentence that lost appel, but reduced the sentence to the statutory minimum. Another famous piece that showed vaginas of all ages, old women, babies, etc., just the vagina, cropped out of any picture identifying them, and done for something called "women empowerment" was found to be against the new law even though all the images were digital. The trouble with laws that attempt to protect people, is they so often over reach in such unexpected ways. --En attendant Godot 14:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Just what is she promising to ban, again?

The "promise" mentions women and children, but no men. Does this mean that gay porn is OK? Who would expect that Bachmann is an yaoi fangirl...--ZooGuard (talk) 18:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Protecting women and children from "all forms of pr0nography" would include gay porn; but men don't need protection like women and children do. P-Foster_{Can't we talk about this, baby?} 18:42, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

of course not. cause you men are so brave and strong. you are wise and make the best decisions. the bible tells us so. women need protection for we are not wise in our ways. Wait... why does she think she is qualified to LEAD MEN??? as president? i'm very confused since the bible clearly says a woman should not teach a man, nor give him orders, nor challeng his wishes. oh... help.--En attendant Godot 19:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Lutherans (of which Bachmann is one, although she is apparently unable to spell "two kingdoms") believe that 1 Timothy 2:12 only applies to church offices, and have no theological objections to women in civil offices. ListenerX^TalkerX 16:18, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Me thinks she thinks, she has a penis. Eek. ANYHOO. I laughed at the Yaoi Fangirl comment. Ahaha.--Dumpling (talk) 19:34, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Given the context, I read "protect" as "prevent from participating/being forced to participate". So yeah, the wording is terribly ambiguous.--ZooGuard (talk) 19:46, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Reading it closely it seems to refer to protecting women and children from pornography. And by implication American women and children. Presumably, then, American men will remain free to watch imported pornography.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 19:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Zoo makes a point. women who do this for a living are clearly being forced into it. they do not want to do it, so we must make them stop for their own sakes. --En attendant Godot 20:09, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, of course, that old nutter-feminist chestnut of "actually, you can't be doing that of your free will, you've just been brainwashed by evil men". ADK^{...I'll liberate your gelato!} 21:36, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

More like "been forced into it by evil capitalist pornographers." That was what Catharine MacKinnon said, anyway; she thinks that any choice in that area is illusory, at least until the coming of the Messiah. ListenerX^TalkerX 02:12, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

REDSREDSREDSREDSREDSREDS!!!!!! ^{— Unsigned, by: P-Foster / talk / contribs}

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘False consciousness is such a great escape hatch. I've known a number of counterexamples myself, but that's a whole 'nother story. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:49, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

In MacKinnon's case, she was bringing in stuff that was only tangentially related to smut, such as poverty and racism, as evidence that women do not enter the industry voluntarily. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:04, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

The popular UK cultural review show "Newsnight Review" looked at Belle De Jour's book before she'd been publicly unmasked. As far as I remember not a single member of the panel was able to accept that it had been written by (a) an actual woman (b) who'd actually been a prostitute, and a very well paid one and (c) actually enjoyed it, at least as much as anyone can say they enjoy their job. The panel discussion devolved into irrelevant rants about streetwalkers and speculation as to which male author could have written such implausible lies and was hiding behind anonymity. Do you suppose their reputations as critics were damaged? Not a bit of it. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 22:24, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Huh? ListenerX^TalkerX 05:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

A retraction

When we said "all pornography," we didn't mean all pornography.. Thanks for clearing that up. No word yet on their assertion that blacks were better off under slavery. P-Foster_{Can't we talk about this, baby?} 00:12, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

“to imply opposition to women being forced into pornography or prostitution.” - Well, that's good, but will they be achieving this by providing better support for them to prevent them having to take those routes in the first place? Somehow, I think not. ADK^{...I'll execrate your aerodynamics!} 00:59, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Despite the weird placement of commas, it is fairly clear from the context what the wingnuts mean about the smut; the reading that Bachmann's opponents are ascribing to the text is approximately as accurate as a recent egregious misreading on my part. ListenerX^TalkerX 02:21, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Well what it says is that candidates should sign up to (the):

• Humane protection of women and the innocent fruit of conjugal intimacy — our next generation of American children — from human trafficking, sexual slavery, seduction into promiscuity, and all forms of pornography and prostitution, infanticide, abortion and other types of coercion or stolen innocence.

Which literally says that women and children should be protected from pornography. Again, taking it literally, it does not say "involvement in pornography" but only "pornography". The most common thing that most people do with pornography is watch it. But the whole thing is so badly written you can read all sorts of things into it.

The thing talks about gays elsewhere, which presumably (?) is why only pornography involving women and children is mentioned. Also it claims to want to protect "women and children" from all these evils when some of the things clearly only apply to one or the other. --Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 09:42, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

In the context of the rest of the list, it's probably meaning "involvement" rather than just watching. But the ambiguity is extreme. It's like when people pledge to uphold Biblical law, you have to ask, "Really? All of it?" There are already laws against minors watching explicit material, there's no sense in pledging that because it's like pledging that you'll fight for stealing to be illegal. But yeah, whether than means "banning" porn is unclear because it says absolutely nothing about methods. ADK^{...I'll fly your band!} 11:12, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Can Women Say No?

So with the semi-recent Dawkins-Watson controversy, I decided to start a little debate on the subtle sexism that still goes on in the USA. See as far as I know Rebecca Watson basically went "this guy hit on me even though I had previously told him not to and it was sort of creepy and I kind of wish men wouldn't do that." That was all. Women do deal with sexism even here, I personally think Dawkins was just a bit insensitive. We foster a culture where when a woman says 'no' she may be risking getting labeled as a dyke, an ice queen, a bitch, or playing hard to get. If women just go "oh, no, not now, I have a boyfriend, I got to go, my car is here..." then they're labeled as playing hard to get. Not all men are like this, and not all women are victims. Sometimes they are lesbians or a bitch or playing hard to get so they can later harvest your kidneys and liver for delicacies and black market trades. 'Usually they aren't.' It seems like a lot of guys, at least in Arizona, are raised to think they can get women by pursuing them since women just 'don't know what they really want'. It plays into the old belief that women are somehow dumb and don't know what is good for them.

I don't really know. I think both sides are screaming over a simple comment about a creepy encounter although it has revealed to me that some people think women are all naturally hysterics and deserve or shouldn't mind things like suggestive invitations or maybe even groping (I don't know about that, anyone ever been groped and been told down to 'deal with it' yet?). HollowWorld (talk) 04:48, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

The fracas has shown that at least some people are "naturally hysterics." But, in any event, I think it boils down to some people having trouble interpreting non-verbal cues. I should think that a woman who is playing hard-to-get and a woman who is in mortal fear for her chastity would give off massively different auras. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:57, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it's the fact that I've lived either in or near cities for my entire life, but anyone approaching me at 4:00 in the morning is going to put me on guard. From the some of the reactions, I expected way more than what was in Watson's video. Dawkins' comments were ridiculously out of proportion, and then he kept jamming his foot even further down his throat. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 08:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Although after reading the uncut version of the comments his dickishness was definitely in full swing I don't think the comments had much to do with what HollowWorld is talking about. It seems like a different subject. I didn't read much about defending the man involved in the elevator incident in it. It was all about keeping a sense of proportion when it comes to discussing persecution - as PZ Myers said, it's a valid point to raise - and in true Dawkins style it was any excuse to get a dig at religion, specifically Islam. Now, if Watson was making repeated blog posts about how a single guy in an elevator was being the worst thing in the world and she was persecuted and it was awful and kept harping on about it I'd have more sympathy for Dawkins' comments and would wholeheartedly endorse them. However, I think he read the wrong thing into what she was saying; her words on the topic seemed limited to "guys, don't do that!". So foot-in-mouth indeed. In fact, his foot went so far into his mouth it came out of his arsehole and he can use it to walk on. That said, I don't think people calling for Dawkins' head on a pike are justified. And there are people out there saying "oh, he's an old white guy, of course he'll say that!" - so, skeptical feminists, that's skeptics and feminists, the people you'd expect to be the bastions of reason and equality are dismissing what someone said on the grounds of age, race and sex/gender? And it wasn't bigoted, it was twatish, perhaps almost cuntish, but not bigoted. Like the word "troll" in certain places on the internet, "bigot" gets thrown around too much. At the risk of pulling the same stunt as Dawkins, ask Matthew Shepard what bigotry is. ADK^{...I'll google your raid!} 10:55, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Though I find it somewhat interesting that in the pointless poll, out of the two intentionally out of proportion responses more people have chosen the "get back in the kitchen" rather than the "kill him" response. So while we're not happy with calling for someone's death in a mocking casual manner, we are happy with the most sexist behaviour in a mocking casual manner. Make of this what you will. ADK^{...I'll golf your tennis racket!} 11:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Is this a form of entitlement in a way? I wonder? Is it possible maybe Dawkins wasn't just acting on his wish to mock religion and maybe subconsciously felt like he was being insulted or something? I don't know. Maybe another reason why there is so much fire on this is because some guys feel entitled to 'harmlessly flirt' with women in ways that may not be regarded as harmless by the flirted.

Also I was wondering if it is possible that there may actually be men who see women as lesser within the atheist community. Unlike bible thumpers they can claim a scientific reason as to 'why they are better'. Just food for thought. HollowWorld (talk) 11:17, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

The word to describe a sexist atheist is "sexist". The word to describe a racist atheist is "racist". Now, while that may smack of No True Scotsman on the surface, it's just because atheism is a non-prescriptive belief and as such there's no "atheist community", and it certainly doesn't mean that they'd use science to justify their other beliefs, although there are examples of people doing that.

I'm sure there are people who think it's fine to "harmlessly flirt". I'm sure there are people who enjoy being harmlessed flirted with. Put those two groups in the same room and everything is peachy. Put either in a room with the groups that think the opposite and you have a recipe for awkward exchanges and insults, much in the same way as mixing people who think casual racist jokes are okay (right, so this paki walks into a bar...) and those who don't think they're okay. I don't know if Dawkins thinks its fine to flirt, ask Lalla Ward about that one. ADK^{...I'll program your queen!} 11:27, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

See I don't get it. If there is no atheist community then they shouldn't be able to group up and exchange opinions or have meetings. So obviously there is an atheist community, if a digital one. The only common thing amongst these communities would be the non-belief of god, but obviously it is enough to provoke them into coming together. I guess atheism can become a lot like theism if it isn't careful, because both sides will use either their science or their imaginary friend to justify themselves and their actions, and they too can splinter into different groups. HollowWorld (talk) 11:42, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

There is an atheist community, and the vast majority of atheists subscribe to a unifying normative standard - humanism. Despite differences of opinion about the details of this ethical system, there is no serious diagreement about the fact that humanism is absolutely incompatible with either racism or sexism. That's something that sets it apart from many religious morals, and a point that nonbelievers rightfully like to emphasize. But it's all moot if they only adhere to these principles in theory, without a noticeable impact on actual behaviour. This whole discussion started out with a simple offhand remark about the guy in the elevator, Rebecca Watson only grew progressively angrier when people kept telling her that it was no big deal, without bothering to think whether their perception might've been influenced by a gender bias. She can't be blamed for taking the discussion beyond the original incident and pointing out the unpleasant fact that there was no shortage of sexist statements from the commenters - Dawkin's dickish remark was just the tip of the iceberg. Their casual sexism probably wasn't any worse than attitudes in society at large, but it's still a serious issue if they hail from a community that professes adherence to a code that is supposed to be an improvement over the remnants of sexist religious morality. Röstigraben (talk) 12:14, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Going off track slightly, I don't know that most athiests are humanists. On this wiki they certainly are but I doubt that, for example, communist athiests are humanists, I doubt that Rand type athiests are either. Then there are all those people who simply don't care about the issue. Frankly I think we have a bit too much of a desire to conflate atheism and humanism. --Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 14:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Desire is difficult. Desiring another who may well not desire you back is difficult. Being desired by another whom you don't desire back is difficult. I tire of how this always gets put into gendered terms. Potentially unwanted desire can exist in every possible configuration - men pursuing men, women pursuing women, women pursuing men, men pursuing women... What makes one of these configurations inherently any more difficult than the others? They are all difficult, all of them, quite often for both parties involved... The whole way the debate gets framed is just so heteropatriarchial... (((Zack Martin)))^™ 12:24, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that men are in a much better position to simply take what they desire when they're rejected, and it's understandable that women will perceive situations like this one much differently than men. For me, the chance of getting raped is incredibly small, and it doesn't affect my behaviour in the slightest. I try to keep that in mind before telling women what is or is not a big deal, but Dawkins et al. apparently can't be bothered. Röstigraben (talk) 12:30, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Or then there's the gay guy who makes the mistake of hitting on another guy, maybe he misreads the signals, maybe the guy is sending the right signals at one level but is very closeted/repressed at another, anyway, the guy gets beaten to death, and then the poor unfortunate murderer gets a reduced sentence for being the victim of such an unspeakable provocation. My point is, the way this whole debate gets framed is so heterosexist, as if heterosexuals are the only people in the world. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 12:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

But until the gay guy starts hitting on the guy, the other guy is going to probably assume he's similar to him. I think you're missing the point here Maratrean. He has a small chance of getting raped. If a woman is being hit on however subtly, it's like society demands for her to feel grateful to the action and be receptive of it in some way. A gay man doesn't have to worry about that. I think you're just trying to insert something in here which doesn't have anything to do with the subject. This isn't about how gay men are taught to live in fear of imminent rape (or rape and murder for some of the more paranoid women), is it? HollowWorld (talk) 12:57, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think being gay or straight will influence these perceptions much, at least not as much as the fact that men can feel safe in the knowledge of their superior physical strength. If I'm alone in an elevator with another guy, the idea that he could be a homosexual rapist doesn't enter my mind either. Even if he started hitting on me, I don't think I'd interpret that as a serious cause for alarm. Maybe that's a case of bias on my part, I don't know - one of our gay members could surely comment on that. But even so, no matter if you're gay or straight, as long as you're a man, you're much more likely to be able to defend yourself against attackers of either gender than a woman would be. Röstigraben (talk) 13:27, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

The chances of anyone getting raped in any such situation is small. Most women will go through life getting flirted with/hit on hundreds of times, and never raped. While it's obviously something one has to be conscious of (especially women), any woman who reacts to "can I buy you a drink?" with the thought "this guy is trying to rape me" is not well adjusted. Anyway, I didn't read the initial post this thread is responding to, so I'm the proverbial Donnie, a bit out of my element. DickTurpis (talk) 13:38, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

This is what it's all about, and this post covers the reactions of Dawkins and others (his comments were originally made at Pharyngula). She wasn't asked nicely in a public setting, and her immediate reaction wasn't one of hysteria either. Röstigraben (talk) 13:53, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

It is a sexist, and false, assumption, that all men are physically stronger than all women. Although on average men are stronger than women, and the strongest man will be stronger than the strongest woman, there are some quite weak men and quite strong women, and I'm sure there are plenty of women who could beat me in a fight no problem. Coming out on top in a situation of physical violence is a lot more complicated than just "who is stronger", there are elements of strength, dexterity, agility, training, experience, mindset...

Speaking of rape, I get sick of the assupmtion that only men can be perpetrators. I'm sure most (say 95%) of perpetrators are men, but that still leaves a lot of women rapists, yet much of the feminist movement refuses to acknowledge they exist. Female rapists generally don't target adult men (although occasionally they do), they mostly target children and teenagers, sometimes other women. And they get away with it a lot more easily, because a lot of people don't want to accept that such a thing is possible, including a lot of feminists, who have an ideological commitment that such things can't happen. I remember reading a book, where a woman talked about her own experience of sexually abusing her own children. She felt so guilty about it, eventually she decided to turn herself in to the police, she went into the police station and reported herself. The police officer first laughed and thought it was a joke. Then he started talking about sending her to see a psychiatrist. She had to be quite insistent that she had committed a crime and needed to be arrested, and eventually the police took her seriously and she was prosecuted. Can you imagine a man, who walked into a police station to report himself for sexually abusing his own children, receiving that kind of treatment? He'd be taken in for questioning straight away, he'd be arrested and charged, no questions asked. No talk of "this is just a joke, right?" or "maybe we should send you to see a psychiatrist instead?"

Another issue that irks me is male victims of domestic violence. Again, I don't deny that the majority of cases of intimate partner violence are male-on-female, but it can occur in all possible variations (gay, lesbian, heterosexual with male perpetrators and heterosexual with female perpetrators). And much of the feminist movement has an ideological objection to acknowledging other possibilities as possible, especially not the possibility of male victims and female perpetrators. I remember reading about the case of a man who was being physically abused by his girlfriend, on a regular basis. Eventually, he gathered up the courage to reach out for help, and he looked in the phone book for a domestic violence helpline. He called it, only to be told they wouldn't offer him any assistance, because they only help women. Men who are physically abused by their female partners often find themselves in a particularly dreadful situation, because (1) they are raised in a culture where it is said it is wrong for men to hit women, even in self-defence; (2) if they do try to defend themselves physically, they will undoubtedly be painted as the perpetrator rather than the victim, and suffer the legal and social consequences of that; (3) where others intervene, the assumption automatically gets made that they must be in the wrong even when they are the innocent victims (4) support services for male victims of intimate partner violence are near non-existent - many of these services are setup under the assumption that only male-on-female partner violence exists (which assumption they often have a strong feminist ideological commitment to) - to say nothing of broader society's refusal to believe this is possible. Male victims are doubly victimized, first by the violence itself, and secondly by society's reaction - and feminists bear a major chunk of the blame for this double victimization

Another point worth noting is the transphobia prevalent in a large part of the feminist movement. I think a good example of that is Sheila Jeffreys - e.g. see the speech she gave at the Andrea Dwokrin Commemorative Conference at the University of Oxford in 2006 [4] for some really quite abhorrent slurs against transgender people (e.g. comparing the Blair government's Gender Recognition Act to the policies of Iranian mullahs). She is also known for the viewpoint, that gay men are involved in some sort of "conspiracy" against women through their prominence in the fashion industry. (I think her comments about gay men show, that just because she calls herself a lesbian, doesn't mean she can't be homophobic.) Not all feminists are as obviously homophobic or transphobic as Jeffreys (although she has many fellow travellers), but even those who disagree with her often commit homophobia and transphobia in more subtle ways, by ignoring the existence of homosexual and transsexual people in so much of their discourse

Part of Judith Butler's argument in Gender Trouble (if I have understood her correctly), is that every attempt at liberation constitutes a new form of oppression, since to liberate you must define the group you are liberating, but by defining you are oppressing those excluded from your definition. Her point was specifically in regards to feminism, and it is quite true in that regard (whether or not it is true when framed as more a general principle.) (((Zack Martin)))^™ 14:41, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Now where the hell did I say "all men are stronger than all women", or that only men can be rapists? Read my posts again. I consistently talked about how men are much less likely to be the victims of rape, and there's no denying that fact. As for the rest, none of it has any bearing on the case at hand. Rebecca was relating her own experience and her understandable frustration at the way Dawkins and others dismissed her concerns. She only announced her support for feminism at the very end of it, hasn't been covering up domestic violence, and hasn't ripped into gays or the transgendered. You'll find idiots and extremists among the ranks of feminists just like in any other movement, that doesn't delegitimize it or cast doubts on the integrity of anyone who claims adherence to it, especially when it's an incredibly broad umbrella term like "feminism". What you're doing here is the exact same thing as Dawkins - you're dismissing her concerns on the basis of "other people have problems, too, so why should we talk about yours?". Röstigraben (talk) 15:48, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

You did say, as long as you're a man, you're much more likely to be able to defend yourself against attackers of either gender than a woman would be. That is making generalisations. Not all men are big built beefcakes. Why should we assume that, because someone is a man, they are better able to defend themselves against an attack than a woman? Without knowing the specific physical & mental capabilities of the people involved, we can't possibly conclude that. And we should be very careful with arguments based on "members of group X are more likely to do Y". That is the line of thought which produces things like police profiling (members of race X are more likely to be criminals, so it is a good use of our police resources to single them out for extra attention). We should treat people as individuals, not based on their gender, race, or other such categories. And that is the problem with Watson's argument, she is arguing that we should treat men and women differently simply because they are men and women, rather than treating them as individuals. If it was a man hitting on a man, or a woman hitting on a woman, or a woman hitting on a man, would she be saying the same things? Hardly, her argument is specifically worded in terms of men as actors and women as recipients. She is sexist. Arguing that men are more likely to rapists is like arguing people of race/ethnicity X are more likely to be drug dealers. Even if they are both true, as a matter of pure statistics, it is sexist/racist to start arguing we should treat men/people of ethnicity X differently as a result. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 22:08, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Funny story: we were discussing an individual and her experience before someone started derailing this discussion because he wanted to debate heteronormativity and feminism instead. We were talking about Rebecca's individual reaction to a specific creepy proposal from an individual stranger. Now we're supposed to ignore real-world facts like men having superior strength and abstract from the reality of gendered behaviour, because that would make us sexist. While we may not be completely able to ignore the issue that women have to live with a realistic fear of rape and men do not, we're supposed to berate any woman who feels uncomfortable in a closed space with a creepy stranger who just proposed to her, unless she'd feel equally threatened when with a woman. You know, your penchant for theorizing doesnt serve you well when you're trying to discuss real people with real problems - in fact, you're apparently unable to do so, otherwise you would have stuck to the topic at hand. Rebecca's already had to put up with enough bullshit, so please don't take this up at her blog should you feel the urge to chastise her for sexism. I'm sure one of the relevant threads at Pharyngula is still active, if you'd like a challenge. Röstigraben (talk) 06:33, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Rebecca Watson wasn't just recounting a particular instance of behaviour by a particular person which she disapproves of. She was trying to use that particular experience to justify a whole bunch of generalizations about gender. She was the one who chose to make the leap from the particular to the general, not I.

A person did something which she disapproved of. She could have left it as This particular person did this which made me uncomfortable, or People shouldn't do that kind of thing, because it makes many people uncomfortable. But she didn't. Of all the many characteristics which define that person, and which define herself, she chose to pick on gender specifically, and make it about gender. And that is what makes her pronouncements sexist.

Suppose that individual happened to be of African descent, and she decided to turn their particular behaviour into a general point about how black people should treat white people. No one would doubt that would be very racist. So how is it not sexist when black-white is replaced with male-female? It isn't. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 07:42, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Whoa whoa whoa, Maratrean! That is quite a rant there, almost tl;dr. You're derailing the conversation to go on your own tirade and I really don't appreciate you using the topic as your own soap box. In fact your post seems to have nothing to do with the matter at hand. HollowWorld (talk) 14:48, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, if you read Rebecca Watson's blog posts, she seems to think the topic is feminism. And that is the topic I am addressing. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 14:50, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

But it is not the topic we're addressing. HollowWorld (talk) 14:56, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

The topic is Rebecca Watson's recent comments, and Richard Dawkin's response to them. Watson explicitly frames her comments in terms of feminist ideology: But those are unimportant details in comparison to the first quoted sentence, which demonstrates an ignorance of Feminism 101..., None of my critics at any point offered any counterargument concerning my points on objectification or feminism . . ., etc. [5] Watson is clear her entire position is based on feminism; so how can feminism be off-topic when we are discussing Watson's complaint? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 22:15, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I unfortunately have to call tl;dr too. I saw the words "Judith" and "Butler" next to each other and that never ends well. ADK^{...I'll pander your homotopy!} 15:21, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

What is so bad about Judith Butler? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 22:17, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Why do educated and rational people get up in arms about this?

Discuss without derailing the conversation into a rant about how feminism is sexist or how we need to take a stand on female-on-male violence. HollowWorld (talk) 14:56, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

You base a discussion on an ideology, it is fair to include in the discussion a critical analysis of that ideology. That isn't derailing anything. Feminism isn't some horrible bogeywoman, it's done a lot of good for the world, but its not perfect either, and we should be honest about both aspects of it, rather than whitewash things. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 15:12, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh my... are you really... you are. Holy fucking shit dude. Just... no. Maratrean. I'm not against feminism but you are doing it again. I didn't base the topic on feminism! I based it on why this feeling of entitlement still lingers even within rational communities! Oh my... djfdnsjd. I don't even know HOW to respond to you anymore, Maratrean. If you're going to discuss anything, stay on topic. Jesus fucking Darwin Christ. If I had something harder nearby besides my laptop I'd probably smash my head into it. Okay, so you can understand it. This is not about feminism. This is a conversation about why some people feel entitlement even while claiming themselves rational, and why it is so easy to get them riled about it. There. Can you understand that? Nothing about feminism is mentioned. Stop inserting things where they don't exist. At least in this subtopic. Okay? Now take your soap box away and don't bring up a subject that had little to do with this. Just. Wow. Holy fucking... HollowWorld (talk) 15:24, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

What is entitlement? What has entitlement got to do with irrationality? What has this issue got to do with entitlement? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 22:18, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Why are you so thick about this? I'm not going to explain it if you're going to act ignorant. I was sure reading wasn't beyond you but now I doubt that. HollowWorld (talk) 03:03, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

What entitlement? You said because some guys feel entitled to 'harmlessly flirt' with women in ways that may not be regarded as harmless by the flirted? Maybe some women feel entitled to do the same thing? Men flirt, women flirt; sometimes the attention is wanted, other times it is not; what has entitlement got to do with it? I remember one case, a friend of mine, he had this female friend, who acted totally not interested in him most of the time (and honestly probably wasn't), but started flirting with him like crazy whenever his girlfriend was present, because I think she enjoyed the discomfort she caused for both him and for his girlfriend. Literally she would be having totally normal conversation, and then his girlfriend would walk in the room, and suddenly the double entendres and discussions of threesomes would start rolling off her tongue. So it's not like it is just some men who will flirt in ways which others don't welcome, some women do that too. I reckon most human beings, regardless of gender or sexuality, have on occasion misread signals and overplayed their hand a bit, generally with a bit of embarassment for all parties involved. What is your point? State clearly what your point is, don't be vague and leave others to guess, and then act all upset when others don't guess right. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 04:58, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Going way back

...because thanks to Röstigraben I have actually seen that video now. If "Don't take this the wrong way, but I find you very interesting and I would like to talk more, would you like to come to my hotel room for coffee?" is misogyny or "anti-woman", fuck then I'm, who sees himself a third wave feminist, am an awefully sexist person male. So the problem is sexualization (of women), but this goes to women also - and as I mostly am befriended with women see this pretty much every other day - because, women do that too and a lot. I couldn't even tell you how often I see it that a woman does it. I have seen women beeing extremely silent all of a sudden when a hot guy walks by - probably having very sexualizing thoughts about that guy (some even said it out loud). I have seen and been the object of women hitting on somebody while repeatedly being told to stop hitting on that very person. When a male does it is considered sexism, when a female does it she is strong and independent (Ok, strawperson here but still)?

If sexualization is such a problem, the problem might not be feminism or anti-feminism at all, but maybe the openness about sex. Some of us have no problem with getting hit on and simply decline the offer if they don't want it (if that comment was at all rendered that way). Others seem to have a problem with sex coming up uncontrolled.

Dawkins answer was dick-ish, but it's Dawkins. We all know how he is - he's a dick sometimes. But after all he has a point. There are better things to do then beeing angry that somebody hit on you even if you wanted to go to bed. If you haven't even built the basement yet, don't moan about the color of the picture frames. --uhm, t! 16:05, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I was going to write more, but apparently the drama has leaked over into Salon and that article pretty much sums up what I was going to say. Also, read Watson's comments on the original post. The point is not that she was being hit on, but that she was being hit on in an elevator at 4 AM after she explicitly stated her intent to go to bed. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:33, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

That is a problem of human conduct, but it's not sexism. It's like CP calling everything they don't like "liberal", or commies and their "reactionary". It might be a problem, but is the wrong category. She also said in the video "guys don't do that" - either she was calling her other female followers "guys" or she specifically meant males… --uhm, t! 17:46, 9 July 2011 (UTC) PS: I read that article before. --uhm, t! 17:48, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

LMGTFY (ripped off from Greg Laden) Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:44, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

So "inviting a woman back to ones hotel room at 4AM"="sexual assault"? If that's true my days of visiting English speaking countries are over. Btw, what did your post have to do in content with mine? --uhm, t! 22:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

No but it's extremely suspicious. HollowWorld (talk) 03:07, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Er, getting closer to the point, but not quite there yet. It's the possibility of assault. Let me make an analogy. It's 4 in the morning, no one else around, and some guy walks up to you and says, "Hey, my car broke down, can you help me?" Now, if you weren't born yesterday, you know this is a common ploy used by muggers. Of course, it's entirely possible the guy's car did break down, but it's not worth taking a chance on that. Similarly, I'm not making any judgments about "Elevator Guy" as it's impossible to know, but the situation is similar to "Car broke down guy." Capisce? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:48, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

To paraphrase the point, "Men shouldn't do X because some women will be afraid that man will assault them". How about, "Black people shouldn't do X because some whites will be afraid that black person will assault them". "Muslims shouldn't do X because some non-Muslims will be afraid that Muslim will blow them up". How is the first really different from the second or the third? Trying to argue that men should behave a certain way, or suspected of behaving a certain way, on the basis of statistics, is essentially just gender profiling. Gender profiling is as abhorrent as racial or religious profiling.

If you want to say, A person should not proposition another person to come back to their room for coffee at 4AM in a hotel elevator, I have no objection. But if you make it a point specifically about men and women, can't you see how sexist and heteronormative that is? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 05:56, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Dear Maratrean, do you get kicks from hijacking things to crusade about heternormativeness? HollowWorld (talk) 07:00, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

It's called "hijacking" the discussion because the conclusion it is leading towards is different from the one you want. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 07:32, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

It's called hijacking because you're inserting your issue into something that has nothing to do with it. Maratrean, just... no. Seriously man, I made a nice little topic for you to play around in. Like a kiddie pool. It's not a conclusion you're heading to. You don't HAVE a conclusion. You didn't have one to begin with. You basically came in saying "THIS TOPIC IS VERY HETERONORMATIVE AND PATRIARCHAL AND DOESN'T TAKE INTO ACCOUNT HOW TRANSGENDERED PEOPLE FEEL ABOUT FEMINISM SLAPPING THEM IN THE FACE AND HETERONORMATIVEHETERONORMATIVEHETERONORMATIVEHETERONORMATIVE." You throw that word around like how a bible thumper waves their bible like everything is somehow attached to it in this subject. You keep pushing it in when it had nothing to do with it. It's like me going into a talk about Conservapedia and mentioning how liberal Death is and and that she's the best character in The Sandman. HollowWorld (talk) 11:16, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you even understand what the word heteronormative means? I think you don't. If you did, you would see its relevance. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 11:26, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Heteronormative; a word Maratrean uses to make it seem like s/he is just such a bleeding heart against the fascist heterosexual norms of society and we should all feel terrible for not listening to your soapboxing. Also immigrants. What about the immigrants? That is very nationalist of you and I am disappoint, son. HollowWorld (talk) 18:13, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

No, heteronormativity is a real problem in our society - it is the treating of non-heterosexual relationships as second class things, which aren't worthy of the same amount of attention as heterosexual ones. The fact that you belittle it as a real problem suggests to me that you are biased against gay/lesbian/bisexual people. If we are talking about human relationships or attractions, there is no obvious way in which immigrants differ in that area, so failing to mention them specifically is not a form of exclusion. It is obvious that non-heterosexual people differ in this area, so failing to consider them is a form of exclusion. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 06:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

No, people keep reading these sweeping statements into what I'm saying. I'm not saying that men or women shouldn't do x or y. What I mean is that given the context, it was very reasonable that someone would feel uncomfortable in the situation, and Watson responded by saying she didn't like that. That's it. It wasn't about all men, women, etc. She was only speaking for herself. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 08:12, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

But that isn't what she's saying, as I've quoted her, she explicitly sees this as connected to feminism, even if you don't. See e.g. [6], where she says that another woman who disagrees with her is so uneducated about the fundamentals of feminist thought... and later says that what Stef McGraw's had to say demonstrates an ignorance of Feminism 101. Her comments in the original video were explicitly framed in terms of men and women - Um, just a word to wise here, guys, uh, don't do that. (It's pretty clear from the context that by "guys" she means men specifically, not "guys" in some gender-neutral sense. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 08:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Great, now Neb is making the exact point I was making. As I am not the big party kind of guy, I am rarely outside at 4 am, so no, I wouldn't know these things - and it's not like I am that stupid to even get myself in that situation (walking by the street, not the hotel elevator). --uhm, t! 09:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Since she was using first person in the rest of it, I thought she meant it as in "Guys, don't do that (to me)." But I was only working from the video, I didn't catch that other post, so thanks for clarifying that, now I see what you mean. What I'm getting is that she's arguing that it was objectification because the guy had specifically heard her intentions and violated them, which is a matter of common courtesy. Then she framed this in terms of feminism, which is where your objection seems to come in. So maybe the content of the argument is correct but the "wrapper" isn't? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

So, this guy is a bad person because he fails to draw the correct conclusion from the evidence available to him? Human reason is fallible. It was 4AM, maybe he was tired too?

"Objectification" is a concept fraught with difficulty. It's not even clear that it actually means anything. I mean, the idea is clear in theory - treating someone as an object rather than a person - but when does that happen in practice? If someone makes a less than entirely appropriate remark at 4AM, is that because they are treating the other person as an object, or does it mean they are tired and not thinking with perfect rationality? If Rebecca Watson has just given a talk based on some questionable theory like "objectification", and they fail to draw the conclusions which she feels are warranted, is that because they are a bad person, or because her ideas are of questionable coherence? If there were who knows how many talks on that day, and later bump into the speaker, and don't have the content of their talk at the top of one's mind, is one a bad person?

There seems to be this whole irrational double-standard running through this - you are wrong to say something that upset me when I was tired and grumpy at 4AM, but the fact that it was 4AM and you might not be at 100% of your faculties either is irrelevant. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 06:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

a comment

on a topic that is interesting and a bit all over the place. In the US, and i suspect the rest of the European world, rape is a serious issue for most women. one in 10 women will be raped, one in 4 will be molested (not the 'he was hitting on my and i didn't like it, type... but the "he threatened me with my job, he crotched me on the Metro, etc). and you don't want to know the stats for countries outside of the so called "western civilized world". Rape is a reality we deal with, and it frames our way of thinking about relationships, jobs, and job advancements. Personally, with numbers that great, i find it hard to dismiss people who say that human males have a natural tendency deep down in their animistic sides, that tells them to take what they want. I am not saying it is "good" or "normal" or "right" i'm saying it's a reality inside of men. And i think one thing this discussion *could* bring is a recognition that we need to teach our kids about themselves as "animals" if you will so they are better able to understand that "just cause i'm there and we are getting it on, does not mean i'll get any or i should get any". Our girls need to learn not to tease, not to say "oh, well, maybe, um or maybe no", but really really clear "no, and if you don't get it, fuck no". and we need to do it when the kids are just learning about themselves as sexual beings. Our media, our myths, our very "romance stories" have these undertones of men who push and push and push until a women finally says yes. Hiding our animal sides, like a pz myers saying "I don't think of raping anyone" is actually naive. Being a jerk is not better - but clearly this can be a case where we start to talk about the underlying issues, and fix them.--En attendant Godot 17:59, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Our girls need to learn not to tease, not to say "oh, well, maybe, um or maybe no" - Perhaps that's quite close to the recent controversial statements that women shouldn't dress provocatively? I was for a long time concerned for one of my friends who was, to be frank if you'll excuse the term, quite a hefty cock tease (she's since settled down a bit, so I'm less concerned now). Literally, I was thinking "one day she's going to pick the wrong guy and it's going to end very badly". The whole blaming the victim thing has me torn because on the one hand it is bullshit and provides false legitimacy to blatantly wrong acts (always so when applied post hoc) but on the other hand if someone wore Lady Gaga's meat dress and jumped into a lion enclosure, they wouldn't elicit much sympathy. I agree, to a point (because there's still a reinforcement that comes from society and the where it places the acceptable/unacceptable boundary and what it encourages as a second-nature), that we're dealing with animalistic behaviour - get even a perfect gentleman pissed and they'll turn into a letchy, leery cunt (they may regret it afterwards, but f**k me a human on that sort of auto-pilot is a scary prospect). Do we accept this and move forward with unsavoury but practical solutions involving locking up our daughters and stopping them wearing skirts above the knee? Or do we say "this is not acceptable" and fight the uphill battle with human irrationality and effectively try to beat it out of us? Or even better, do we strike the problem from both sides by shooting men with a tendency to be leery arseholes and enforce head-to-toe full veil and burqa for women? ADK^{...I'll fill your pea soup!} 19:21, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

good points. but you have to take *some* personal responisblity. walking around alone at midnight in a bad section of town is probably not the best choice (not for rape, but anything, frankly). I'm not saying girls and women shoudln't be able to dress hot as hell, i'm saying, if you are dressed hot as hell, have some friends with you, don't go into bars you've never been to, etc. use some level of common sense cause "it's not my problme it's the men's" may be legally true, but i've been raped, and you don't want that if you can avoid it.

but my real comment was for all these "he said she said" date rapes. not the date rapes where the guy gets teh girl drunk, but where there was a real break down of communiction. "I thought she wanted it" "i tried to say no, but he kept kissing me". (and yes, this happens quite a lot on colleges and in highschool". to me, A, this is about empowerment of women. and frankly SOME of that empowerment means "I'm smart enough to make intelligent decisions about where i go, how i'm dressed, and what i expect might be the outcome". pepper spray, gals!--En attendant Godot 20:11, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Erm, as I've read the above post(s) I know this is a sensible topic for you but as a male I feel obligated to say this: I never thought of raping a woman (or girl), the sole idea does the exact opposite to me than what you might expect (now being the first time I actually "had" the thought). I,for example like strong women, and all the women I've been interested in either didn't take shit from no one, or could kick most mens asses nine days to Sunday. It also wouldn't make much sense with submissive males, who pretty much want the exact opposite.

As for the repeatadly saying no thing, some women told me that they like to be conquered (that that of course does not involve physical violence is clear). Were that comes from? No idea. But some of them said they liked men with patience, enough patience to try over a long period of time (maybe also because those who only want a quickie will not invest that much time?). So it's not like one time "I have simply no interest in you" is always true (while of course using violence if not requested is wrong). --uhm, t! 22:17, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

(EC):::Well, it's just due diligence to avoid it as best you can. To push even further analogies, it's better to campaign for diplomatic peace between two nations, and we should do that, but that doesn't mean we want to walk into a warzone while it's still hot. So while yeah, try to eliminate the behaviour that leads to rape and assault, but don't expose yourself to the dangers of it in a cavalier manner.

Your second thing on the type of rape, again, this has me torn. A crime is a crime, a rape is a rape. But somehow I think the fact that "I was so drunk I forgot to say no" rape is lumped in with "dark alley at knife point" rape is, frankly, quite appalling. While it's no excuse, you can find that people who commit the first act have no intended malice whatsoever - and yet their ascribed the same motives as the latter. Do people really want to equate what, effectively, amounts to (as you put it) a serious communication break down with an act of extreme violence and malice? I don't want to suggest it's not rape unless there are threats involved, but the fact that those four letters carry such loaded emotional baggage often leads to a complete lack of proportion. And I'm afraid I have to side with the Dawkins style response that the whole "well, there was this boy I liked and we were drunk and we fooled around and we got back to his place..." is not a "living hell" compared to what goes on in the horrendous dark underbelly of society. I suppose my main argument is that using a single term to describe a wide spectrum of events causes people to associate the lesser event with the worst and in doing so effectively belittles the worst. I mean, can you imagine the absurdity of someone talking to a victim of an extremely brutal gang rape saying "oh, I can totally relate because I was raped too!" and their story turning out to be "well, there was this boy I liked and we were drunk and we fooled around and we got back to his place...". ADK^{...I'll rinse your padlock!} 22:22, 9 July 2011 (UTC)