RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive142

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 8 February 2012. 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>, <110>, <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>, <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>
, (new)(back)

Out of Africa vs. Multiregional Evolution[edit]

Which explanation for the origins of humans do you subscribe to? If you don't remember the terms:

  • Out of Africa states that humans evolved recently (~200 000 yr BP?) in Africa and expanded over the world. This hypothesis tends to be a "splitter" one. For instance, Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons were seen to be different, albeit closely related species.
  • Multiregional Evolution states that humans evolved in multiple places at once, and their common ancestor is probably earlier, perhaps Homo erectus. H. erectus made a voyage out of Africa ~1 500 000 years ago, and that humans evolved separately from there. It tends to be a "lumper" hypothesis, as humans from China (supposed descendants of Peking Man) and France (descendants of Cro-Magnons) can still interbreed, so they must be the same species.

For the most part, I've went with the Out of Africa hypothesis, although I'm not so sure right now. The fact that Neanderthals died out ~35 000 years ago and Cro-Magnons appeared around the same time sort of hints towards the multiregional hypothesis. Do any of you on RationalWiki have any preference either way? The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 01:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Since the Neanderthal Genome Project, I think it's the case that "multiregional continuity" and "replacement" theories are both correct depending on the location, implying a modified version of Out of Africa. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I guess it depends on what you mean by humans. clearly, we are all from a common ancestor out of africa, but when we branch off... i have to go with the conclusion that waves of ancestors, each further along in time, so carrying different genes, move into regions and adapt / evolve with those specific pressures, till modern human takes over. --Pink mowse.pngGodotGrow a vagina 03:10, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Goodpost.gif Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Careful there, Godot, that's almost something resembling the reality rather than the simplified, cleanly categorised, ultimately linear model we're all used to working with. Scarlet A.pngtheist 03:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
All together now: How come there are still monkeys? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:50, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I've seen some really interesting, but of course terribly theoretical stuff come out that compares African draughts with supposed migration patters, and with the "emergence" of "new" lines of humans. But what many people, especially anti-evos forget or simply don't understand is that just cause one branch broke off and started it's own evo, doesn't mean the original critter doesn't change as well. So when the first migration happens out of africa, to the second, 10,000 years pass, or 40,000, or 100,000 depending on the species we are talking about. And if your group left my group because of a drought, I would still have to survive that drough which would be different pressures on me than you, and we'd go our merry way. But hey, I didn't give birth to a chicken, so we didn't evolve. Pink mowse.pngGodotGrow a vagina 04:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
In one sense all modern interpretations are "Out of Africa" in that every hypothesis has humans originating there in some way. It's just a question of whether you imagine all, or most, more modern forms of human originating there or not. --BobSpring is sprung! 09:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────very relevant NYT article published today Jack Hughes (talk) 12:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I come from the water. TheCheatI run on alcohol 14:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but I still don't really understand exactly which hypothesis you each favor. Also, for our purposes, the word "human" refers to members of Homo sapiens only. So, did Homo sapiens emerge in Africa and spread from there, dominating the world, or did Homo erectus' journey out of Africa ~1 000 000 years earlier gradually evolve to the various modern populations of the Old World? The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 15:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the point is (godots?) it was most likely a chaotic mix of all the above. Energy may never be created or destroyed, but it sure as hell can be convoluted to a point of seemingly random noise. Sometimes the best we can know is only possibilities and then we move on from there. Anyone who tells you 100% either theory is absolutely correct is a fool, unless they got definite proof to back up the claim. TheCheatI run on alcohol 16:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I have this theory about brontosauruses (which is mine) that I'm sure is 100% correct...[citation needed]-- Seth Peck (talk) 16:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I see no reason to think that human evolved in two different places, indepentaly. That's never happened in any species as far as I can tell. The environmental pressures are simply too great to get the same species in two locations. More over, our DNA is amazingly similar from one human to the next, suggesting a bottle neck in our recent history (Noah's arc, perhaps?) that would have limited humans to roughly 10,000 individuals. --Pink mowse.pngGodotGrow a vagina 17:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Noah's arc? Enough of these geometry puns! Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic?Moderator 18:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Would love to claim intention there, but it was just me being unable to spell. --Pink mowse.pngGodotGrow a vagina 18:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Neanderthals evolved independently and mated with humans. TheCheatI run on alcohol 17:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Don't be silly, we came from fish-apes. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
So... I DO COME FROM THE WATER??!!?! I LOVE THE TOADIES AND THEY ARE RIGHTEOUS! [1] TheCheatI run on alcohol 17:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
There is no way that there was multiple independent developments of the "same" species. Tmtoulouse (talk) 18:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Indeed. That's why the "strong" version of multiregionalism is dead. What remains are simply differing interpretations of Out of Africa.--BobSpring is sprung! 21:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Debbie Downer[edit]

A week or so ago we had a nice, long discussion in which I ranted about war, and the reasons for it, and against it, and yadda, yadda, yadda, predicated by the desecration of Taliban corpses by US Marines.

Some people say that they can't ever understand the Soldier's mindset, which is an understandable and admirable trait. The thing is that war changes you in ways that you never really consider beforehand. You can't, because without going through it, you have no idea what to expect. This guy comes really close to doing it, though.

Give the entire essay its due, as distasteful as it may be in parts, because he does a pretty good job describing how war changes the way one thinks from the inside out and the hole it leaves when the Soldier goes home.

I said it on my facebook link and I'll say it here again... I may be an atheist but, boy, I feel damned. The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 05:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The double, double, double beat
Of the thundering drum
Cries, hark! the foes come:
Charge, charge! 'tis too late to retreat.John Dryden. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 05:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Wow. Scarlet A.pngsshole 09:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

US Taxes[edit]

So, I did my taxes last night.

Yep, I pay a larger percentage of my income in Federal taxes than does Mitt Romney. MDB (talk) 13:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I would be shocked, if it weren't for the fact that I'm not. -- Seth Peck (talk) 16:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Atheist Movies[edit]

do with it what you will --PsyGremlin話しなさい 18:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Ron Paul ad at the bottom? -- Seth Peck (talk) 18:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Mine was an ad for Experts-Exchange. Google (or whoever supplies the ads) knows u have a thing for ronny TheCheatI run on alcohol 22:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Google obviously doesn't pay attention to me on Raw Story. -- Seth Peck (talk) 22:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

CWC Video[edit]

I've noticed minor internet celebrity Christian Weston Chandler's name crop up from time to time around here, usually in a comparison with one of the Conservapedia crew. A student just posted a video essay discussing the CWC phenomenon and how it relates to the consumption/regurgitation of media. The focus shifts around quite a bit, but the analysis seems pretty authentic and interesting and does a good job of explaining why people are especially fascinated by this guy. Anyway, it's here if anyone fancies watching it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8e-IEl7cF28 Grumblejaws (talk) 19:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

God found![edit]

[2] That is all. Scream!! (talk) 20:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Fun:The Church of Google Sam Tally-ho! 21:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I will not kneel to google until its smites all my foesAMassiveGay (talk) 21:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Travel question[edit]

So I'm setting up our trip home, and looking for tickets to France, and am blown away by the cost. 1300 there abouts. normally we travel in fall or spring to get teh "off times" but I'm not finding anything. any suggestions of how to find the good deals? Usually we can get tickets between 400-700 bucks round trip. --Pink mowse.pngGodotGrow a vagina 20:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I bet my dad could find you a good deal. He works with the travel industry. I can send you an email if you want. Sam Tally-ho! 21:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Try these guys.--BobSpring is sprung! 21:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Geology help[edit]

What is this bent rock formation and why can't creationists satisfactorily answer its 15 questions? No but seriously what is it? Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 16:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

It reminds me of a newer, less-eroded, less-protruding version of Red Rocks in Morrison CO or Devil's Backbone in Loveland CO. -- Seth Peck (talk) 16:54, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Can you explain exactly what you need to know? Are you referring to the vertically banded formation? On an aesthetic note could adjust the levels in the picture as it's a bit underexposed. Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic?Moderator 18:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I'm referring to the horizontal band that dips near the center. I reckon it's explainable several ways but I wonder if there's a name for this kind of thing so I can go learn more. It may look underexposed but honestly that's what it looks like out there, atheist scum (I'm not ready to admit I'm a crummy photographer). Nutty Rouxnever mind 19:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Without access to the rocks and mapping the area I can only guess that what you can see is a limestone anticline. Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic?Moderator 20:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Maybe this might help, or you could point out where on the map you took the picture. Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic?Moderator 20:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Nutty woz here
It's at 30.415498, -102.980534 looking to the northwest. I'm totally impressed that you found that article. It would have never occurred to me that that specific part of the region had been covered so specifically. Does it look like Caballos Novaculite or something else identified here? Thanks so much for the help! Nutty Rouxnever mind 22:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Don't mess with Texas Nutty, I am watching you O.O TheCheatI run on alcohol 22:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm from Texas. I will mess with you. Nutty Rouxnever mind 22:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I overlaid the Google map on the geology map and it appears that you were looking towards the edge of the Glass Mountains possibly part of the Dimple formation, which Fig 2 in the Hickman & Varga is shown as hard and therefore more resistant to erosion. I also found some reports of dolomitisation in the Dimple; dolomite is harder than calcite so this might just be a layer of dolomitic limestone. BTW because of the petroleum industry the geology of Texas is extremely well mapped. Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic?Moderator 10:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Atheist question[edit]

So I have a friend who's husband is "exploring" religion. Both the husband and my friend are quite done with bible religion (he is morman, she is just generic american xian), where you have mean gods killing people for their own glory. He has invited the Husband and I out to dinner with the two of them, to share what makes us atheist. I have no desire to proselytize, but at the same time - he's clearly at a place where he wants to konw more (he is in his mid 50s) about the world, cause he's questioning. Where would you even start, if this were you? I was thinking of describing diesm and pantheism as sorta "fell good atheism" cause it's a way to have a god, but a god that does nothing, so therefore "not really" have a god. You can still feel worshipful, or spirtual (that's why I'm a pantheist, i like the feeling of praising the universe, cause it's so bloody cool). Where would you all start? --Pink mowse.pngGodotGrow a vagina 18:53, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I always have to emphasise that there's nothing wrong with not believing in any kind of god. Indeed, I think people are more trapped by the idea that you have to have a religion than they are by any specific religion itself. Believing in something else and something more doesn't make you deep, it doesn't make you better, and not believing doesn't make you boring or unfulfilled. If you're coming from religion, that might be hard to grasp, but it's true, Scarlet A.pngnarchist 18:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
A friend and I once had a long, convoluted (and admittedly LSD fueled) discussion about this, and it basically boils down to looking the person in the eye, and saying in a calm, soothing voice, "You've been duped." Then go on to explain how a goat herder from Ur realised that he needed something other than his own voice to exercise some authority over the motley crew that accompanied him as he migrated (or whatever it is goats do) from Ur towards the Sinai and invented a Bronze Age Eye-in-the-Sky. Unfortunately it all got blown out of proportion from that point on. (One day, I'll write down the whole process, but we had it all figured. Except for Shintoism... but that was because they isolated themselves.) --PsyGremlinParla! 19:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Revisit RationalWiki Atheism FAQ for the Newly Deconverted for more ideas. Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic?Moderator 19:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I kinda think we need more questions added to that. It hasn't really expanded to include questions that are actually asked frequently. Scarlet A.pnggnostic 19:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Give them Camus. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I would just talk about how science has evolved from the olden times and fascinate them with knowledge of the universe. We are made of star stuff! I am more science based though, it really gets my motor running. It is interesting how our perception of the universe has changed over time. I view most religions as a personification of nature, so while irrational and superstitious I do not really consider them wrong. Nature is a beautiful and it is possible to marvel at it and have a relationship with it the same as the most devout theists. I think your wise to not to proselytize them (word of the day for me =D), they are probably just wanting to look at things through your eyes to see how rosy the world is and do not want to be lectured to. Keep it personal. TheCheatI run on alcohol 19:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I am Brian Cox, and I will do science to you. Scarlet A.pnggnostic 19:49, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Great now I have to download the horizon series... Never heard of this Cox fellow. Godot you recommended the everything and nothing series to me (thanks, loved it), documentaries IMHO are the best way for the layman to learn about physics. Once someone gets insight on how the universe fundamentally works they realize the supernatural is not needed for the universe to be as it is or for it to do what it does. "In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion." - Carl Sagan I love this quote because it is an eloquent way to say science is never wrong, only corrected. TheCheatI run on alcohol 20:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
If you do decide to watch Brian, you HAVE to get his outtakes on teh "faked moon landing". he flat out says of those who think the moon landings were faked "I will not give creedence to it, period. I don't need to say it's not true. why? cause anyone who thinks that is a twat". :-) I'm planning on giving the wife some of my favorite eps. I think the physics is beyond her, but Wonders of the Universe is one of those things anyone can get, and go "ahhh, ohhh".— Unsigned, by: WaitingforGodot / talk / contribs
lol will do TheCheatI run on alcohol 21:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
It's not even that it's not needed, it's just that even if it was it would cease to be supernatural. But it's not just science that says that, many people actually exclude the possibility of supernatural interference by their own admission but don't realise it. Scarlet A.pngnarchist 14:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Green-baiting template[edit]


That looks like it reads 'Gore is Fatal'. Peter Monomorium antarcticum 22:10, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Yeah. Maybe a macro using the fire-breathing pic? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Ooh, never seen that before. Remind me why he was never president? Peter Monomorium antarcticum 22:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Because Katherine Harris is a fucking bitch. -- Seth Peck (talk) 22:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Totally up for the fire-breathing Gore pic. Osaka Sun (talk) 02:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Because all of the stuff he's now respected for came after 2000. Back then he was "Al Bore". Scarlet A.pngsshole 14:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I got the hots for Elizabeth Warren[edit]

And I lost the little wood I have been foraging for Ron Paul (anyone play catan online?). The social contract is 'dangerous thinking'? The social contract was an inspiration for the founding fathers unless I am mistaken? Dangerous thinking? Ughh... WTF Paul? Elizabeth Warren is a total GILF, I can't wait to plant a pole in my front yard with a big ole' Elizabeth Warren 2016 sign. Don't hate me cause I like Paul a little... Anything to get America out of these damn wars and to legalize certain substances. On a side note it seems Scott Brown (which Warren is battling for a senate seat) is turning out to be a Republican with a sensible head on his shoulders. He should move to Texas, I would gladly vote for him in my republican dominated district after Elizabeth Warren kicks his ass. TheCheatI run on alcohol 22:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Glibertarian denies responsibility for actions, calls businessmen John Galts. News at eleven. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I just never saw the bat shit crazy in Ron Paul till now, I knew I didn't agree with his fiscal policies but I always respected his rhetoric on foreign policy and personal rights. Dangerous thinking... What a dipshit. He is on my shit list now. TheCheatI run on alcohol 22:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
You might want to check out his circus, er, circle of buddies: Read and learn. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
She is smart and pretty and nice and I like her. I even got to meet her when she came to present Maxed Out to consumer lawyers and various other goody goody suckers. Nutty Rouxnever mind 23:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I have no idea why she wasn't appointed as chair of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. And if you want to sleep with her, Cheat, this is your challenger. Osaka Sun (talk) 02:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
His eyebrows beat the shit out a biker. I'd be very careful. Nutty Rouxnever mind 15:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of "reproductive rights"[edit]

Rep. Jeff Fortenberry (R-NE) has said that birth control is not a "mainstream need" and is "unrelated to basic health care" and is moving to remove the birth control aspect from (so called) "obmamcare". oh for fuck's sake. Anti birth control? Seriously? --Pink mowse.pngGodotGrow a vagina 01:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Frothy Mix is already in on the act. Obligatory Mencken gloss: "Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy." PS: Making fun of people's names is not within the bounds of keepin' it classy, but doesn't Fortenberry sound like the newest flavor addition to Count Chocula? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Much better than the berry they already have. um... boo berry i think. Pink mowse.pngGodotGrow a vagina 02:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Not from my perspective... Making fun of names is the epitome of class. This is also coming from a guy who suffered through all of school with the last name "Braman" (pronounced BRAY-men) but you can see how easy a target it was for parody and ridicule. The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 02:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
You could have prefixed it with ""na-na na-na na-na na-na..." Scarlet A.pnggnostic 13:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
It's a recurring theme from men who don't want to think about such things. See also men insisting that feminine hygiene products are luxuries, because as you know menstruation is just an affectation. Hence, butter and canned peas are zero-rated for UK VAT, but tampons were only reluctantly moved to the reduced rate after years of full taxation. (talk) 10:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Immediately associated Fortenberry with dingleberry. Must be because frothy Santorum was mentioned...Yuck--Th. Bernhard (talk) 11:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Precisely. It's this sort of thing that makes me think "sod doing it subtly and with real equality as a driving force, let's actually enforce a 50:50 ratio of men and women in government." I'm pretty much against quotas because the logical conclusion is that a perfectly able candidate might well be rejected on irrational grounds... but then again, we'd be slicing off the bottom chunk (40% or so) of politicians, and replacing them with the top chunk of all female candidates. More than a fair trade when put that way. Scarlet A.pngpostate 13:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Nah, presumably you are still using volunteers? So you have a self-selection problem. Suppose that you've got a population of 10 million people, and you're supposed to elect 100 representatives. 200 women put themselves forward and so do 5000 men. Your quota system takes the best (whatever that means) 25% of the women, and the best 1% of the male candidates. This is probably unfair, not to mention counter-productive, and the quota itself will cause resentment over and above that. Now, if you don't use volunteers it can work, picking 50% of the population at random should meet your quota (more or less) anyway, but now you don't have professional politicians, that's a far larger reform than "just" instituting a quota.
Also keep in mind that major British political parties have sometimes attempted quotas for new candidates with less ambitious ratios (e.g. if they were running 50 previously untested people as candidates in an election, maybe one way or another they wanted at least 10 to be women) with only marginal success. Some of those women got elected, but then found they were treated as "second class" because of the quota system, in other cases a male insider who felt they'd been cheated ran independently and split the vote in protest at the quota, or went to court seeking an injunction and drawing unwanted publicity - and of course as with any candidate plenty of the women just outright lost their election. (talk) 15:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Ha, that e.g. is probably a bit low, female MPs already make up about 20% of the Commons, so a 1-in-5 rate for new candidates isn't much of a quota. Well, the principle stands (and I can't be bothered to look up what the actual goals were when e.g. Labour tried this). (talk) 15:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I've always felt that I'm not represented by my government. Granted, much of what I write about are issues that effect mostly (if only) women, but women's issues are so uniquely ignored in mainstream politics. Or worse, they are controlled by men who want control over women and our freedoms. Most of my male friends, family, and acquaintances are pro-choice, think rape laws should actually reflect the reality of what a woman (granted men get raped, but i'm focusing on political disparity) faces, agree women should have equal opportunities at a job, etc. And that's nice, and I appriciate it - but they don't get what it means to wonder, every single month, even if just for a second "What if...", they don't get what it feels like to be the one making a decision (one way or the other) about bringing a child into the world. They don't have the same experiences, and cannot have them. So while it's nice people like Obama are considering women's needs, it's something they know about only via their communications with the women in their lives. requiring that we have even 35% women would change *everything*. Doesn't mean that abortion would no longer be a political issue, it means teh arguments would actually make SENSE based on actual real experiences of women - from both sides of the issue. It would re frame how we talk about equal opportunity, work place harassment, etc. it would not mean "women's right win", but the tenor of hte conversation would change. Pink mowse.pngGodotGrow a vagina 16:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Sadly I'm not sure you're right. People pushing an ideological agenda can and will say things that directly contradict their own experiences. Nadine Dorries (Tory MP with a safe seat and socially so far right she'd fit in fine as a Republican, not even a RINO) is easily capable of saying the same nasty things, it's just that she'd be lying rather than ignorant, I don't think that's an improvement. (talk) 01:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey sysops[edit]

The place is over run with spammers! CopperheadHisssssss 02:08, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

It's been like that for a little while now. Just have to keep vigilant and take 'em out as soon as they pop up. Sam Tally-ho! 02:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
You could implement a question-answer captcha. Fluckedtalk to me :D|see my shit 02:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
That would be cool. Maybe we could all submit questions. Blue (is useful) 03:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Depends what kind... Peter Monomorium antarcticum 03:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Make it the one question EVILutionists can't answer: How come there are still monkeys? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I reckon that we catch most spam pretty quickly. New accounts have to use Captcha both to sign up and post. Maybe the only thing we might change would be banning external links for non-autopatrolled accounts, but I'm not advocating that at the moment. Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic?Moderator 09:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
You could only make unconfirmed 'users' who add external links to a page fill out a QA captcha. Fuckertalk to me :D|see my shit 16:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Requirement for rectal exams before getting ED meds[edit]

Don't know if this has been WGOIW, and I'm not funny enough to put it up, but this is a riot. State Senator Janet Howell has added a rider to the proposed law requiring a woman to have an ultrasound before having an abortion that would make it a requirement for a man who wants Erectile disfunction drugs to get a rectal exam. :-) Excellent! http://www.themarysue.com/virginia-rectal-exam-amendment/ Pink mowse.pngGodotGrow a vagina 03:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Blatant misandry! Boner pills are men's god-given right and now feminazis want to take them away! /MRA Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
She bitter much? Sam Tally-ho! 03:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Which she, me? Pink mowse.pngGodotGrow a vagina 03:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Pity the amendment didn't pass... Peter Monomorium antarcticum 03:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
It only lost by a vote of 21-19. I think the message was delivered. -- Seth Peck (talk) 15:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
The state senator. Reminds me of a picture of Lamar Smith that said "If my wife won't let me view porn, then no one will." Sam Tally-ho! 03:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Are you fucking kidding me???? you're comparing her to someone who is whining about porn? Pink mowse.pngGodotGrow a vagina 03:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I dunno, I'm tired and listening to music while trying to read and type so I probably don't know what I'm talking about at the moment. Probably shouldn't even post right now. Sam Tally-ho! 03:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
LOL gotcha. sorry. but in case you care, the "required" ultra sound is one that is done vaginally (expensive, invasive, unnecessary) on all women who want an abortion, including *medical* abortions (pills). It's also a requirement for the doctor to talk out loud about what he sees so the patient can hear all about the cute baby that is going to be chopped up. This is not a requirment requested by the AMA or gynocologists, but one LEGISLATED. politicians telling doctors how to do their jobs.Pink mowse.pngGodotGrow a vagina 03:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
It's a double whammy -- red meat for the wingnut base and more money being funneled into the fundy pseudo-psychological abortion "counseling" quack outfits, which can then in turn grease more palms with campaign contributions. Sweet sweet cash moneys!!$$$$$!!!! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Usually an ultrasound scan is included anyway just so they can see how far along the fetus is and what method is appropriate. But at least this creates jobs by giving doctors more work to do! In fact, the rectal exam rider would create even more work. Hell, let's roll it out even further; want hayfever medicine? Get a full eye exam first! Have a broken bone? Make full body x-ray, MRI and CT scans mandatory! Got cancer? Sell your children into slave labour and start making crystal meth to pay for... oh wait, you already have to do that one. Scarlet A.pngtheist 13:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Actually, they usually are NOT included. You can tell how far along a pregnancy is without an ultrasound. They are NEVER EVER vaginal ultrasounds. Generally, ultra sounds are only done if the abortion will be a surgical procedure, or if the woman has any complications or a history of complications that would suggest the need for ultrasounds. It is a ploy. Doctors konw when it's necessary. there is NOTHING to this that is "for" the patient. Pink mowse.pngGodotGrow a vagina 15:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Fear and loathing on the campaign trail[edit]

Since we've been mulling over possible fundamental differences related to political persuasion, I thought folks might find this interesting. Doctor Dark (talk) 06:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

That was pretty interesting. I guess one's upbringing and environment may not be quite as influential as one would think. Hooray for liberals being happy and less fearful! Sam Tally-ho! 20:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Hunter Thompson would be having a field day eviscerating the republican spread. AceModerator 20:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Just imagine Bill Hicks' eyes as they wheeled this bunch of chumps in front of him. --PsyGremlinSermā! 06:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Jay Leno[edit]

Jay Leno angers members of Sikh community with Mitt Romney joke. This is actually being objected to by British MPs; funny, I always thought Leno's stuff was one of those things that never caught on over here, like baseball or Kool-Aid. Balaam (talk) 11:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Some of Leno's other comments seem to be non-PC but objecting to the joke about the Golden Temple I think is taking being offended too far and is certainly none of the business of the House of Commons. As for Leno's stuff catching on in the UK, it's probably more a case of it being an issue in the Sikh community and an Indian MP using it for boosting his own support. Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic?Moderator 12:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
There are lots of little motions in parliament like this. Doesn't means that anything has "caught on". More likely, like Genghis said, the MPs in question have a large Sikh population in their constituencies. Ajkgordon (talk) 13:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
It is, of course, completely ludicrous to smart off at a rich person by cracking a joke about how they live in a (literally) gold-plated building. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 05:51, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Goat giveaway[edit]

Unfortunately, it seems we missed out on the US goat giveaway. DogP (talk) 03:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Vote: Should I, Fallacy, have a bagel?[edit]


  1. Only with cream cheese -- Seth Peck (talk) 19:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)



Hindenburg Kid or something I don't give a fuck[edit]

5th Option[edit]

But it was such ingenious parody! Fuckertalk to me :D|see my shit 19:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The theo-corporate axis explained[edit]

The US right-wing is organized around what I sometimes like to call the "theo-corporate axis" -- i.e., areas where there is a confluence between the religious right and corporate interests. This is evident in projects such as E. Calvin Beisner's Cornwall Alliance group, which quite blatantly serves the needs of the fossil fuel industry by repackaging its denialist propaganda in "Christian" language. I came across this paper which explains the phenomenon on a wider scale. Keynes was only half right when he said: "But, soon or late, it is ideas, not vested interests, which are dangerous for good or evil." It is vested interests combined with vested ideas that are truly dangerous. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

There's also another problem. The opposition to this axis tends to be just anti-corporate rather than pro-science, pro-citizen and secular. Not everything the anti-corporate activists do is good or rational. The campaign against Huntingdon Life Sciences is illustrative. --Tweenk (talk) 00:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
If it were not for the current variant of creationism and global-warming denialism, the anti-science movement would be seen as strongly left-wing. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 03:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
That's akin to saying "If it weren't for that meddling iceberg, the Titanic would be remembered as one of the safest seafaring vessels of all time!" Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
I disagree. Although right-wing creationists and global-warming denialists are making a lot of noise just now, opposition to science has traditionally been much stronger among left-wingers. In the Soviet Union, there was a systematic campaign against several disciplines of science; not to mention Cambodia, where anyone who looked too smart was shot. Postmodernists, New-Agers, and other moonbats pooh-pooh science a good deal using various forms of bullshit. The antecedents of creationism were of a revolutionary character, also: the late-antique clashes of Christianity with the science of the time were fueled at least in part by a desire to overthrow the elite tied into pagan institutions. For a 20th-century example, William Jennings Bryan was not exactly the right-wing type. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 04:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Okay, if you want to expand the scope of this outside of current-day US politics, sure, then you can talk all about the censorship of the "bourgeois pseudosciences." Also, Bryan came from a populist tradition that was left-wing economically but right-wing socially, hence his opposition to evolution. That strain has largely died out in US politics today. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
I consider the anti-science moonbats to be more of a threat than creationists or global-warming denialists, in the long run, because the latter are spewing demonstrable falsehoods while the former are spewing unfalsifiable bullshit. As to Bryan, the social conservatism of the time involved a racial hierarchy, and one of Bryan's reasons for rejecting evolution was that he was opposed to eugenics. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 04:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Seriously? I have no sympathies for much of the pseudo-scholarship that came out of postmodernism, but the pomo fad has been blowing over for quite some time. It's basically a requirement to be a climate denier to retain GOP membership these days. The postmodernists are largely confined to shadowy corners of the Ivory Tower these days -- climate deniers own an entire fucking political party, and that party resides in one of the world's leading nations in GHG emissions. Get a sense of perspective, man -- the dirty fucking hippies were occasionally right. Also, re: Bryan, you misunderstand both him and eugenics. Eugenics was a product of the intellectual elite (both left and right) while Bryan was a product of the populist agrarian movement. You didn't need to support eugenics to be a racist, and Bryan was no great friend to the black man. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:56, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
I said in the long run. The global-warming deniers are the largest immediate threat, but their position is becoming progressively more untenable, just as the original "creationists'" position did. The same cannot be said for the anti-science moonbats, who are not only postmodernists; there are also the New-Agers and other religious whackos to consider, and they are not confined to the shadowy corners. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 05:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
The deniers' scientific or political position? Because the science and public opinion seem to be moving in opposite directions to me. New Age guff is harder to measure because it's a catch-all term, but some of it indeed seems less widespread than climate denial. Plus, they don't have much political power unless you live in California where the altie moonbats freak out over cell phones and McDonald's. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:19, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
I do not concern myself with public opinion when it comes to scientific questions; half the population does not know how to spell "climate," let alone have an informed opinion on whether it is changing. As to the New-Agers' not having any political power, this is the population from which prophets spring, and Christians did not have very much political power in the Roman Empire in A.D. 312, either. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 05:39, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The biggest testament to the strength of the left-wing anti-science movement is that "GM foods are harmful to human health" is considered a legitimate mainstream position, despite the fact that this runs counter to all available scientific evidence and should rather be classified as an unfounded superstition.

I agree with ListenerX's assessment that the left-wing anti-science is more dangerous, but on strategic grounds related to climate change, which I consider the biggest threat humanity is facing right now. If the global warming denialists capitulate, the problem will not be fixed, because we will most likely see a continuation of the left-wing energy policy that involves large subsidies for wind and solar and a demand-side focus (energy efficiency) rather than fixing the issue of supply. This policy has been demonstrated not to work (e.g. in Denmark and Germany): it avoids little emissions, is very expensive and causes problems with grid stability when intermittent renewables achieve meaningful grid penetration. If the anti-nuclear movement capitulates, then nuclear energy will have support from both ends of the spectrum and it will expand based on its non-climate-related merits, such as lower pollution. Another strategic advantage is that global warming denialists generally support nuclear power. Prioritizing nuclear energy has been demonstrated to work in France. Therefore to me the biggest obstacle to fighting climate change is actually the anti-nuclear movement rather than the denialists. --Tweenk (talk) 23:36, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Guess Who's Running Big-budget Commercials Now?[edit]

So, as I was zapping through the commercials in my recording of last night's Glee (yeah, I'm a Gleek, so sue me), one ad caught my eye and I stopped to watch it.

It was from the Church of Scientology.

I can't easily find the specific ad on YouTube, so no link (and why give them the page traffic, anyway?) It seemed pretty snazzily produced, and, if I didn't know that it was, well, a fucking cult designed to separate the gullible from their money, it would have seemed like an ad for any mainstream religion: "we've got lots of churches around the world, we do good work, etc etc etc ad infinitum ad nauseam." Lots of pictures of fresh-faced people, though I didn't spot any of their celebrity members. Certainly nothing about Xenu, of course.

I do note that it aired during the Michael Jackson tribute episode of Glee -- Michael, to my knowledge, never became a clamScientologist, but he was married to Lisa Marie Presley, who was one. Probably a coincidence, but who knows with the CoS?

I know they'e been running commercials for the Dianetics book for years (I remember seeing one in the Eighties, I think), but this one had far higher production values.

I did check to see if Fox was one of the networks that refused to air the United Church of Christ's Still Speaking ads a few years ago. They did not refuse (I can't even see if they were approached about them), so at least there's no hypocrisy on their part.

I liked seeing this ad during Glee a lot more, though. (Okay, I admit, it made me cry.) MDB (talk) 13:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The CoS has a lot of money so it's no surprise they can afford to advertise. The not mentioning Xenu is exactly as suspicious as the fact that billboards advertising my local churches don't say "Cult of Death. We worship some guy who supposedly died thousands of years ago" on them. Nobody recruiting outsiders begins with the inner secret because the inner secret is always ridiculous. It just doesn't seem as ridiculous when you're indoctrinated. This is even so when the secret is true - the idea that absolute time is meaningless is pretty ridiculous, as is the idea that our existence serves no larger purpose and the universe will go on much as before when we're all gone. (talk) 13:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Uh, what? Who doesn't know the Christian story of Jesus and who they worship? Do they try to keep it a secret where you live? Fuckertalk to me :D|see my shit 14:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, my surprise was more that they were running big budget commercials at all. Yeah, I know they've got deep pockets, but it's a little like (and I'm stealing from the late, wonderful Molly Ivins here) opening your refrigerator door and finding Fidel Castro sitting in the butter dish, smoking a cigar. You know it's theoretically possible, you just don't expect it to happen.
I don't buy that not mentioning Zenu is analogous to Christianity "hiding" that they worship a dead guy. For one, they don't worship a dead guy; the entire point is that He got better. And Christianity hardly hides that belief; it's pretty much the most basic thing of the entire faith. MDB (talk) 14:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, Fallacy's right. One of the first thing a Christian proselytiser will say is something like, "Christ the Son of God died for our sins and only through Him can we find eternal life" , or somesuch. It's pretty central and fundamental and isn't hidden away until a new convert has achieved level 9 or whatever. Ajkgordon (talk) 14:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Actually, comparing Scientology with Christianity reminds me of Maratrean's insistence that his religion is just as believable as Christianity (or Islam or whatever) so should be taken just as seriously. Or not. That it should be a level playing field for all the made up shit that sci-fi writers or computer programmers dream up along with the established religions. Ajkgordon (talk) 15:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I think it should be very much a level playing field. The fact that a particular belief has been around longer isn't evidence for it, and without substantiated, non-circular, external evidence, everything should be given a uniform prior. Scarlet A.pngmoral 16:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
OK, yeah a level playing to start. What I meant was religions like Scientology and Maratreanism can be dismissed so easily because they were so obviously made up a few years ago. Christianity or Islam, for example, obviously weren't. They have been built up over centuries and millennia and have a wealth of sophisticated philosophies to support them. While that doesn't necessarily mean they are true, it takes a lot more thoughtful and rational argument to challenge them and there is little evidence to suggest they were invented on a whim. So while the playing field to start with should be even and we should be equally sceptical about all religions, it doesn't take more than five minutes to dismiss Scientology or Maratreanism off the field entirely. Maratrean's insistence that his religion is just as believable as Christianity and should be taken just as seriously is, I maintain, just as spurious as comparing belief in Zenu to worshipping Jesus the dead guy. Ajkgordon (talk) 09:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
No, but a two-thousand year-old religion that's creation is somewhat mysterious just because of how old it is is a bit more credible than something a sci-fi writer pulled out of his ass sixty or so years ago. A bit. Flubbertalk to me :D|see my shit 16:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Fallacy, by that logic, the belief that Egyptian pharoahs became gods after they died and brought their possessions, organs and slaves with them is even MORE credible. -- Seth Peck (talk) 01:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
No, because it can't be extrapolated like that. Fuckertalk to me :D|see my shit 01:54, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Explain. -- Seth Peck (talk) 04:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
It's not 'being older makes it more credible', it's 'being old with no clear author(s) makes it a tiny bit more credible than being made recently by a sci-fi writer'. Fuckertalk to me :D|see my shit 04:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Heard of "special pleading"? Scarlet A.pngmoral 10:39, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Actually, by that logic in 2000 years when (well, if, but this is a thought experiment) Scientology is the mainstream religion of Earth and people are debating whether L Ron Hubbard actually existed because historical records have been unreliable and all that records him is Dianetics, then it will be more plausible. By this you're suggesting that time alone modifies the prior probability of a particular religion being correct, so Scientology now is more believable/credible than it was yesterday. Similarly, Maratrean's religion is more credible now than it was a few months back when people were taking the piss out of it. Now, that's just a change of scale so perhaps it's the scope that's what you mean; i.e., when it has "mysterious origins". Again, the thought experiment of Scientology in 2000 years time stands, but similarly we don't know if J. R. "Bob" Dobbs was real, therefore that religion has mysterious origins, and then cargo cults similarly have mysterious origins as no one knows if John Frum was real or not. Is something made credible by this fact alone? No. It's not.
As for the amount of philosophical writing devoted to it, that's a symptom of age. These religions haven't remained unchanged, with this philosophical thought contributing evidence that they're correct. So this doesn't provide any supporting evidence at all. In fact, the philosophical arguments for God haven't changed much since Aquinas, even William Lane Craig doesn't do much better. The fact that people are discussing them is a side effect of privileging the hypothesis rather than evidence of that hypothesis being genuinely tested. It's not that being old, or mysterious or long-lasting makes then a tiny bit more credible, it simply doesn't make them more credible. You need use evidence that is exclusive to that one religion and cannot be applied to others equally, and no existing philosophical discussion has ever achieved this. As they say "tell me how you've disproved the existence of Zeus and I will use your method to disprove God". Scarlet A.pngmoral 10:51, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Oh, all that is entirely logical and consistent. Yet by dint of longevity and sophistication, Christianity is be taken more seriously than Scientology purely because it has a lot more to deconstruct. Simply dismissing it as a death cult in the same way as you can dismiss Scientology as a sci-fi story about aliens being dropped in volcanoes doesn't persuade many people. While you can quite simply disprove Christianity or even God by use of basic logic, that approach isn't necessarily persuasive. And besides, Christianity is more credible than Scientology by definition - more people believe in it :) Ajkgordon (talk) 11:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

How to statistics for denialists[edit]

Another round of nonsense from the usual suspects (Daily Fail et al) about "no global warming since 1995 1998 2001." Skeptical Science shows how you too can turn an upward 30-year trend into the coming ice age! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh yeah, here's the op-ed that the WSJ turned down in favor of denialist bullshit. Published in that socialist, greenie, eco-fascist rag Science no less! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

But in Figure 3, 2008 was far, far colder than 1998. Global warming disproved! Scarlet A.pngnarchist 09:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Romney "Not concerned about the very poor"[edit]

After all, they have ample social safety nets to take care of them (nevermind Republican efforts to eliminate those safety nets, of course). Naturally, nobody knows more about being poor than Mitt, right? The Noisy Orchestra Oi! Oi! Oi! 19:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

At least he's honest, right? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I'll grant you that. And at least him "telling the truth" like this makes me less concerned about him ever being elected President. The Noisy Orchestra Oi! Oi! Oi! 19:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
There is a lot of truth here, though. If you are totally and completely fucked, the US does ok to help you. What we do not do, is offer any assistance to keep you from BECOMING totally and completely fucked. yeah us. And generally, being poor and getting a welfare check, does nothing to help the crappy ass schools your kids go to, or the 18 hour days you work, or the fact that you can't keep track of your kids cause you are working 18 hours with no assistance like paid day care - and of course your kids are likely in neighborhoods where various gangs, drugs, and general malcontent view of the world is the theme of the day... sighs. I hate these people.Pink mowse.pngGodotGrow a vagina 19:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Something I wanted to put somewhere for a while now:
A single mother working two jobs to keep her family afloat is…
USA: …an American hero.
Europe: …an audacity that should never have to happen.
the basic difference between Europe and the USA. --ʤɱ soviet 19:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I think you mean "travesty." Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 04:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
I have heard "audacity" in such a context before, but then again most people don't know the difference between "your" and "you're". Also I really meant audacity as travesty doesn't make sense as it seems to refer to style or representation. --ʤɱ secularist 21:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
"Audacity" is an uncountable noun, so it does not fit there. The situation is a "travesty" in the sense of being lauded as a personification of the American Dream, yet being a glaring contrast to how most people understand it. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 05:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
You work three jobs? … Uniquely American, isn't it? I mean, that is fantastic that you're doing that. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
MY jaw still drops every time I see that clip. I shudder. Who are we? What are we? Pink mowse.pngGodotGrow a vagina 19:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
"We" are a people so carefully conditioned and manipulated by the America aristocracy to believe that, if we just work a little harder, some day we too can have a piece to the Money Pie. People who've been lied into believing that desperate people on welfare are just leeches, and that giving all our money to the "job creators" will result in some sort of positive benfit. "We" are an American people who elect politicans that think that raising taxes for better schools is a terrible idea, but have no problem raising taxes to build a stadium for the worst team in the NFL. After all, you like the Minnesota Vikings, right? So please help us fight tooth and nail to keep them from their empty threats of moving so that, 5 years from now, they won't be the LA Vikings! And if you want health benefits from your job, you're SOL. The company had to cut those benefits to pay our CEO a bonus. What's that? You're going on strike? That's fine, we'll just move to China. Not striking now, are you? And we're also cutting your wages for threatening to strike. The Noisy Orchestra Oi! Oi! Oi! 20:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Sounds like you just need a little motivation, Punk. Be a producer, not a looter! Now back to work, parasite! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
(EC) It's not only that you have been "carefully conditioned" (very well put), but also that every try to put it somewhere else will be immediately shut down by a machinery of snarl words by the aristocracy through the tool of the media. "Communist!", "Socialist!", "Radical Marxist!", "Maoist!" or the worst of all "unchristian!" — no country on earth is at the same time more free and more paranoid than the US, because if I'm not completely wrong the basis of democracy is not to have to live a life in fear. The only other areas were I have ever seen this extreme use of snarl words are totalitarian ideologies. The worst thing is that at the same time the people are fucked over be the aristocracy they also hate them and their intellectualism, so that they not only do not understand that there is nothing bad about being a socialist, but they don't even want to know about it.
You know what the most ironic thing about this is? Marx told you so. --ʤɱ soviet 21:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
UHM, have you heard of or read the new book Wie Unrecht hatte Marx wirklich? Junggai (talk) 21:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Nope, but it actually sounds quite interesting, maybe I'll get to read it. I already disagree with Marx on a lot of issues, although it seems he got that one right. --ʤɱ structuralist 22:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
You're going on strike? That's fine, we'll just move to China. Not striking now, are you? Strikes worked best when union members had free rein to beat up strikebreakers; now that the other half of the old saw, "the boss needs us, we don't need the boss" has been rendered false by widespread outsourcing, strikes are even more diminished in efficacy.
...by the aristocracy... And you got this from Marx, you said?
The only other areas were I have ever seen this extreme use of snarl words are totalitarian ideologies. Association fallacy; the people who were to become totalitarians pioneered the use of bullshit a long time ago, and it was so successful that everyone else had to copy their example.
...if I'm not completely wrong the basis of democracy is not to have to live a life in fear. You are wrong; the basis of constitutional democracy is rule of law and a government representative of the people. Nothing in there about not being afraid. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 04:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
You guys are missing the point; Romney's remark is part of a strategry to beat back the charge of cp:RINO. nobsModerated 18:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Because Mitt would give a flying fuck about you people… --ʤɱ soviet 21:00, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, Marx was right about the fact that the richest more or less makes the culture. mainly through their influence in the media. Especially through snarl words. On the other hand they may just have read Marx & Co and thought "Gee, that's a great tactic to adapt! Let's keep them unaware of the problem and tell them it's their fault — after all Christianity has done it for almost 2000 years!"
You may think The only other areas were I have ever seen this extreme use of snarl words are totalitarian ideologies. is a run at making an argument that every capitalist is also a fascist but it is not, it is purely a note of the usage of snarl words. That doesn't mean that (a) America's culture is totalitarian not (b) that a moderate conservative is a totalitarian in this sense. There are also a lot of snarl words in Germany concerning Israel and Judaism, not against them but in the manner that if you criticise Israel in any way about anything they do, you are equally as bad as an SS officer throwing people into the gas chambers. And while both of these cases worry me, in America and concerning the economy it is much worse. And such a level of snarl I have only ever seen in Nazism with Volksfeind and Communism with reactionary and I'm sure there are equally high used words in Juche and in Islamic fundamentalism.
A political system is only seldomly actually about what is done within that system, but almost always for the purpose of not having to live as one had to live in the past. In the case democracy we grant each other rights so that these rights won't be broken, because before we lived in the fear that basics of our daily lifes (religiosity, freedom of speech, food) may be taken away by those that rule us (mainly monarchs). It is exactly that fear that is spread — the liberals will take your money (via taxes) and your freedom of speech away (pc), the Islamists will force you to become a Muslim. --ʤɱ soviet 11:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, Marx was right about the fact that the richest more or less makes the culture. That was Gramsci, not Marx. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 01:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Well then, let's pull the quotes out:
The executive of the modern State is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie.
—Communist Manifesto, Chapter 1
...and the much lesser known but very important:
What else does the history of ideas prove, than that intellectual production changes in character in proportion as material production is changed? The ruling ideas of each age have ever been the ideas of its ruling class.
—Communist Manifesto, Chapter 2
So, while Gramsci has certainly refined the concept and given it a name, it was Marx that layed out it's fundamentals. After all, if somebody controls (a) the state, (b) the means of production/the money and (c) the culture the hegemony of a certain social class (as in sociology, not in marxist theory) can be assumed. --ʤɱ structuralist 02:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Sorry; I was a little terse there. What I meant was, Gramsci's idea that culture was used for controlling people was new. Marx was more partial to the view that culture was mere window-dressing on economic relations. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 05:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

women? Fuck them.[edit]

So day three of Tanya being pissed at US politics brings us news of Susan G. Kolman fund pulling it's Breast Screenings from Planned Parenthood, due to "political pressure". Why don't we just fucking let all women die of breast cancer, botched abortions, and poor medical care. That will make it easier on the right to get laid, right? What teh fuck God would want this?? (the link is to the petition, though the article is there as well) http://signon.org/sign/susan-g-komen-for-the.fb1?source=s.fb&r_by=1963530 Pink mowse.pngGodotGrow a vagina 19:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

You're a little tardy to the party, discussing it here. That being said, the title of this topic made this straight guy smile. As in the first thought that came to mind, "What else would I do with them?" -- Seth Peck (talk) 19:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I think it's clear what the eventual goal is. Scarlet A.pnggnostic 19:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I've had other anti-women issues to attend to, Seth. hehe. I miss way too much these days, when there is new news every single day. I do work for a living afterall. hah.Pink mowse.pngGodotGrow a vagina 19:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
We should do an article here on Handmaid's tale. "the HMT is a factual book describing reality in the minds of some right wing conservatives." ;-) Pink mowse.pngGodotGrow a vagina 19:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Damn, I thought it was just the how-to guide. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Really vital things to notice in The Handmaid's Tale: the AP feminists are a vital cog in the machine that brings about the coup. Atwood is writing in the period when people like Dworkin were very active, and for her it was important to show how dangerous they might be as allies of the Religious Right. Also, nobody ends up happy in Gilead. Not just Offred and others like her, the Commanders and their wives aren't happy either. They're all miserable. Atwood isn't very good on (isn't very interested in) the details of how something so obviously stupid comes about, but it rings true anyway. (talk) 02:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
As Christopher Hitchens said, "All bigots and frauds are brothers under the skin." The fanatical wing of American feminism is still showing its WCTU roots. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 04:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

And another - let's boycott Girl scouts, cause they too have ties to Planned Parenthood. God forbid we want our girls safe, educated, and making important sexual decisions with some kind of assistance. no no no. http://www.christianpost.com/news/families-boycott-thin-mints-over-girl-scouts-ties-with-planned-parenthood-68381/ — Unsigned, by: WaitingforGodot / talk / contribs

Wait, I thought we were supposed to boycott them because they're making our children fat? I guess I am behind on my idiotic boycotts of the week. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
There was a similar boycott a few years back with American Girl, which are books, movies and dolls for those of us unfamiliar (they actually have a pretty big store with a restaurant in Chicago), for sponsoring Girls, Inc.. -- Seth Peck (talk) 21:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Why does the right have an issue with Girl's Inc, other than teh fact that it puts out legions of girls willing to say "fuck you" to men, the system, lower wages, being abused, etc. Pink mowse.pngGodotGrow a vagina 22:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Because lesbians. -- Seth Peck (talk) 22:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Right-wingers are already teed off with the Girl Scouts. Recently WorldNetDaily was complaining about some moonbat Girl Scout curricular materials that they had gotten hold of. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 04:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────They've been teed off with the Girl Scouts ever since the debate over gays leaders in the Boy Scouts. Some righties shrieked, "would the Girl Scouts allow lesbians?" And the Girl Scouts basically said, "we sure do! We don't think it's a problem at all." MDB (talk) 20:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Need some math geek help.[edit]

So I've been mystified with this find.

I'd like to start an article on him if possible, as well as his "Code". He believes that all of the megaliths from pre-history (the pyramids, Stonehenge, the great earthworks of the Americas, and the pyramids of Mexico and South America, among others) all point to each other with mathematical coding built directly into their structure. It seems like a combination of wishful thinking and making the numbers fit but at the same time, the coincidences he points out are pretty eerie, if he's right. What makes me throw up the bullshit flag is that he mentions showing this to Richard Hoagland and he accredits the ancients' mastery of mathematics to the extremely long lifespans recorded in Genesis.

I am not keen enough on math to properly research this. Can anyone give me a hand? The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 10:08, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Although you'll need a UK postcode (there are examples to try) this probably helps explain it Scarlet A.pngsshole 10:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Also, numerology. In short, if you know what you're looking for, you can find patterns anywhere you look. Scarlet A.pngbomination 10:37, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Jesus. Almost 2 hours. Can you tell us what time index the main meat of the claim is at so we don't have to watch hours of filler? --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 10:51, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
you might try http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/antigravityworldgrid/ciencia_antigravityworldgrid01.htm and http://www.worldgrid.net/ and see if thats the same sort of thing. Bruce Cathie ccame up with the idea that the world grid provided a source of power and that ancient civilization built at those power points Hamster (talk) 10:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
From the first five minutes it looks like applied numerology. Within that time I've already seen him say "assume ancients did this, that the other...then multiply out... then make a number up... SPOOKY", I don't think you need the full two hours to understand what is going on. Scarlet A.pngmoral 10:56, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
(EC) I'll save you guys the trouble of watching the whole thing, then you can if you're interested. (I'm probably going to be spending a lot of time with Wikipedia this weekend, boning up on my maths.) He starts with a straight North-South line through the Great Pyramid of Giza and labels that as the ancients' Prime Meridian. He states that they use the same equator. Then, using the number 360 (from the degrees in a circle) as a base, he begins dissecting the dimensions of various ancient monuments and building "constants" out of them from Pi and geometrical formulas (area, surface area, and volume of a sphere, area and circumference of a circle, etc.) and then kind of does a "factoring thing" with each result that corresponds to a latitudinal or longitudinal coordinate (down to the decimal point on the seconds of arc) of ANOTHER monument using the adjusted LAT/LONG scheme. The thing is, he uses imperial feet as the measurement when doing his calculations and the "points" he finds would have all been built at different times. I'm not saying that I buy it, but I'm really interested in finding out how he's doing it. There must have been a shitload of time and effort put into it. The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 10:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, 51 x 10 x 42.35 = 21 598.5, not 21,000. WP lists stonehenge as 51° 10′ 43.84″, not 42.35, that's not a big difference but when you're talking apparently miraculous numerology I think it is. If you're allowed to tweak your values within a margin of error it becomes significantly less impressive. Also obligatory example of a maths coincidence Scarlet A.pngbomination 11:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
It was supposed to be equal to 21,600, not 21,000. (360 X 60 stones in Stonehenge's outer circle.) That's a lot closer, but now I'm arguing FOR him! LOL. Meh, I'll figure this out. The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 11:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
That's eerie. Google Earth confirms WP, but also shows that 42.35 seconds is the southernmost boundary of the entire monument. This is going to be a fun weekend. The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 11:21, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Careful fox, I think I seen this before... TheCheatI run on alcohol 20:48, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, I finished watching all of the videos (I think. I have to doublecheck.) and I can say that his method is very fascinating. I have some notes on how I think he's forcing his results and cherrypicking. For more information, should another brave soul choose to tightrope walk this madness with me, I found his website. Another shyster flag, but he seems to have written quite a bit about this and aliens and other "Ancients were so much smarter" crap. The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 22:21, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Obama needs to read the Conservative Bible Project![edit]

Obama quotes Luke 12:48, to argue for higher taxes on the wealthy: "For unto whom much is given, much shall be required." MDB (talk) 19:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

How many Jesus quotes are there for conservatives to use? Osaka Sun (talk) 20:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
I would of just quoted article I, section 8, clause 1 of that dusty old relic of the enlightenment called the constitution. But then again I hear that was influenced by a bunch of dangerous deistic thinkers. TheCheatI run on alcohol 20:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Much like the bible, your contitution has clearly been corrupted by liberals. What you need a conservative constitution project AMassiveGay (talk) 20:19, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Wait, you're still under the impression that what it actually says is important? Scarlet A.pnggnostic 20:34, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Your right. Constitutions are for pussys. What you need is some guy who can divine rights and laws by the way in the intestines spill out of a disembowelled goat AMassiveGay (talk) 20:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
When did the onion start doing real news? TheCheatI run on alcohol 20:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Commercials nowadays[edit]

Only a few can make you WTF. Old Spice... Osaka Sun (talk) 20:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I love those Old Spice commercials. Sam Tally-ho! 20:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
i'm on horse is the funniest AMassiveGay (talk) 20:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
There's a good parody of that one by something or other. Sam Tally-ho! 20:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
I hate commercials. Really can't understand why people enjoy them. WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
It depends on the shit that they are interrupting. Most are just wank though. I have particular bile for the perfume/aftershave ad with the cantona-esque chap. It makes me want to kill. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

One of my favorite employees at the college I attended for undergrad is getting into MLM[edit]

She posted on facebook, I thought she had been hacked. Nope, off the deep end, calling herself an entrepreneur now, but she's not, instead she is paying to be an employee. --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 23:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I guess everyone needs to be burned with this bullshit at least once before they see the light... Fortunately I went through this before I was 18 and it was mostly harmless (pay-per-click email). I recall that friends of my mother tried to recruit her into this kind of thing twice - once for Forever Living Products (aloe cosmetics) and once for Colway (Polish company selling "natural collagen" products). --Tweenk (talk) 00:43, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Frickin' YouTube[edit]

I was watching a nine part series of Life of Brian but the last section is either missing or not able to be viewed on all the channels that seemed to have the movie. Anyone know where I can watch the ending (starting with them sing "For he's a jolly good fellow" while he's on the cross)? Sam Tally-ho! 04:22, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Here. P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 04:27, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
I see what you did there.. joyaBAD KITTY! 05:08, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Jesus, if you're going to pirate at least pirate in style. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 05:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm back![edit]

Guess what, guys? I'm back! --OpalHonors (talk) 01:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh. That's... nice. Flitzertalk to me :D|see my shit 01:21, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Feeling the love... I guess none of the old guys are around to remember my awesomeness... --OpalHonors (talk) 01:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
I am here...awesomeness? AceModerator 01:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm in a good mood... So yes, awesomeness. --OpalHonors (talk) 01:39, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Awesome. We need more awesome people around here. CopperheadHisssssss 01:40, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Opal? WOW!!! I never thought you'd come back. You were always a good time! The Noisy Orchestra Oi! Oi! Oi! 07:20, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Wow, that's a name I haven't seen in a wicked long time. You probably don't remember me though. Blue (pester) 01:56, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
It has been almost two years. I really didn't intend to let time slip past me so quickly.--OpalHonors (talk) 02:08, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
There, there. You're back, and that is what matters. CopperheadHisssssss 02:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
So... what, is this guy some ulta-conservative right-winger? Fuckertalk to me :D|see my shit 02:11, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
No. CopperheadHisssssss 02:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


Which creative genius dreamed up this marketing ploy? They always used to be the realm of penis enlargers but now we get "Telescopic truck cranes"? Let's see, you've just crapped all over my website, I think I'm going to use your product, because you see like fine, upstanding people... --PsyGremlinParla! 05:56, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Spam is practically free. If they spam one million websites and get one customer as a result, they make a profit. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 05:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
I think they do it mainly for the link to their website; it would help boost their Google rank a little bit. Sam Tally-ho! 06:00, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Can't be - wikis tend to have rel="nofollow" on external links. Peter Monomorium antarcticum 06:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Psygremlin, you hateful bigot. Spambots deserve love too. Spambot (talk) 07:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
You expect people who think spam is a good marketing ploy to be aware of this? Scarlet A.pngnarchist 08:54, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Actually I'm surprised that they are not. It should be their business to know such things.--BobSpring is sprung! 20:37, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Same in email spam. Follow the money. Long after any real opportunity for the ordinary unscrupulous businessman exists, there is an opportunity for the even more unscrupulous to sell the no longer working idea to the unscrupulous but not very bright. And again this is even why I was so impressed by eXfuze. Beyond the ordinary poorly disguised pyramid scam that actually sells the stuff, you've got an exclusive contract from the pyramid scheme to a supplier of magic juice. The real scammers make the juice, they're completely insulated even if the pyramid scam falls to pieces, and they get money even from the people running the scam, the ones who'd ordinarily keep the profits. It's brilliant, in a Lex Luthor sort of way. (talk) 22:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Abuse filter[edit]

From what I can tell, the currently-disabled Abuse Filter 11 was capable of blocking spammers of the "This Topic "______" Has Been Moved." variety that we've seen a few of lately. Could a tech please re-enable it? Peter Monomorium antarcticum 06:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Re-enabled, and I modified it to deal with the current spam a bit better. The Noisy Orchestra Oi! Oi! Oi! 07:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you again - that'll help a lot. Peter Monomorium antarcticum 07:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Not a problem. It's what I'm here for. The Noisy Orchestra Oi! Oi! Oi! 07:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Our fourth pillar--A call to action![edit]

So we have for a while now a 4th pillar to our mission statement:

Analysis and criticism of how these subjects are handled in the media.

I want to start addressing this more directly. We have some really exciting ideas down the pipeline but I would like to start by creating something we are good at creating anyway--A new WIGO. I want to create a WIGO specifically to point out examples of poor, fluff, or sympathetic coverage of woo, pseudoscience, quack medicine, etc in the mainstream media. WIGO world and WIGO clogs occasionally posts these but its not really directly in line with those WIGOs.

Having this list opens up a ton of opportunities to start extending our reach a bit. What we need is a good WIGO name, icon, etc. Then replace WIGO CP with it in the nav template (come on you know as well as I do that WIGO CP is no longer front page material!). Tmtoulouse (talk) 18:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

WIGO:BULL or WIGO:SPIN? Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic?Moderator 18:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
I think we have a lot of this stuff here, already, cause it's very much core to how most editors approach topics. I woudln't do "spin" cause it's not always spin and we want to pat-on-the-back good coverage as well. Maybe ""media"? Would it be possible to figure out a way to "code" (with colors, for example, or quick icons) the hot topics that are being spun, like Global Warming. i click on one WGO button and see 20 items, but can tell at a glance which are about evo in our schools, global warming, abortion, etc. (yes, i had to get that last in there. heh)Pink mowse.pngGodotGrow a vagina 19:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
I think you'll find much of this is already WIGOed in World and Clogs especially. Also, as for WIGOCP, CP might be dying, but in terms of votes, it's still clearly the most popular. --PsyGremlinZungumza! 19:08, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Funny, I thought the voting is largely meaningless and irrelevant, anyways good idea. CopperheadHisssssss 19:13, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
The WIGO CP was just an aside and not worth getting side tracked on. Lets focus on the core idea. WIGO:Media is the first idea I had but its a bit bland. I like the idea of colour coding I will think on that. Tmtoulouse (talk) 19:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Agreed on replacing WIGO:CP. As much as I like it, it really doesn't need to be on the front page. How about WIGO:LAME? :P Or, more seriously WIGO:MM for Mass Media, so we can retain WIGO:BLOGS and not have overlap? I don't think we need to specifically highlight in the name that we're looking for woo-related coverage. (ʞlɐʇ) ɹǝɯɯɐHʍoƆ 19:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
BS, for Bad Science? Peter Monomorium antarcticum 19:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

It's fine the way it is, IMO. Osaka Sun (talk) 20:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that the name should be meaningful by itself rather than an two-letter abbreviation - but I can't come up with a good one at the moment.--BobSpring is sprung! 20:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
I wholeheartedly agree with this. AceModerator 22:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
While I have no problem with WIGOCP generally being thrown out of the top four, I still want a link in that little bar. How about the put another line in there in small print:
Acceptable? --ʤɱ pervert 22:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
A first question is, "is the standard WIGO" even appropriate, or is it just a skeleton of what we can do. (see below)Pink mowse.pngGodotGrow a vagina 23:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

What goes in the wigo[edit]

Maybe finding a name would be easier if we understood better Tmtoulouse' ideas of what goes in it. or formulated our own ideas. cause to my ears "how the media is handling (it)" doesn't really say much. It wouldn't be current events, but actually highlighting how Huffpo pushed an issue? Or would we be including how a blog pushes an issue (which is sorta already done on blogs). I guess discussing the POV of the project would help (me at least) understand more. Pink mowse.pngGodotGrow a vagina 20:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Thing is, without an in depth explanation of what is wrong, the WIGO style headlines won't work. It's not immediately obvious or even self explanatory. For instance, just today I've seen a "real news" site publish a story about a "TOXIC FIRE" but... wait, all fires are toxic. Carbony monoxide and dioxide, particulate matter... it's all toxic to quite a degree. And then it was trying to say what the source of the fire was even though I knew they were making a lot up from conjecture. So that headline and story makes no sense, but conveying that in a punchy WIGO? Not easy. Perhaps more like a community blog, perhaps, to cover certain things in depth. Which we could use. Scarlet A.pngd hominem 22:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
I think the gist of it can be done on a WIGO, the WIGO format is popular for a reason let's capitalize on it. As far as what would go in it, my vision is any "main stream" or large scale publication medium (huffington post would certainly count), whether aggregate new website/blog, television, newpaper, anything linkable that presents false information on topic within our mission using a sympathetic or uncritical approach. Tmtoulouse (talk) 22:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
WIGO:M (What Is Going On in the Media) should focus on the treatment of science and woo in large-scale publications, either Internet or print-based, then. I would suggest staying away from blogs as much as possible, except for the really major ones (i.e. Redstate's front page, National Review's The Corner, etc.) because otherwise we'll be drowning.--ADtalkModerator 22:40, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Also, another idea: we should make it a guideline to try to link to a RW article refuting the relevant woo or highlighting the accuracy of each WIGO, to provide the in-depth accompaniment referenced by Armondikov.--ADtalkModerator 22:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
I actually like the blog idea. WIGO don't convey that much information, but a listing of news stories we've challanged would be better, at least I think so. Not necessarily even punchy or humerous, just "hufpo found to misunderstand soandso's argument on Global warming", then the indept analysis. But it's going to take a lot of work, and by a small select few who know science well enough to do the cross analysis.Pink mowse.pngGodotGrow a vagina 23:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC) PS, though that kind of analysis might draw more science types who don't edit RW too often, right now. Pink mowse.pngGodotGrow a vagina 23:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
It just seems like the most efficient use of our resources to try to get the experts to write the actual article sections, and our 'sperging WIGOers can pluck out the woo from the media and direct readers to the intelligent refutation in the relevant article.--ADtalkModerator 23:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
I wasn't going to get into this too much yet because I wanted to move a few steps at a time, but this is part of a larger plan which will include much more in depth coverage of these topics. Just to give you a rough idea of some of what has been tossed around. Taking the top 3 voted stories for a week and doing a pod cast style broadcast which includes contacting the authors of the pieces in question. There are other ideas as well. But the heart of it is collecting and parsing examples to work with, and a WIGO would be great for that. Tmtoulouse (talk) 23:13, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Working example at WIGOM.--ADtalkModerator 23:23, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't have one, but a weekly podcast is an assful of work, we're talking 3-5 hours on one hour of pdocast here. But that is definitly a great idea.
Maybe we are setting outselves up to tight with a WIGO page. The whole pseudo-science stuff needs refutation to be entertaining, if one would limit it to a higher standard of importance but at the same time widen the format (blog entry-style with a voting system) the topic would be done justice too. --ʤɱ anti-communist 23:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
The working idea is not a full blown hour long pod cast, but short ones built around a real specific point, in this case covering a couple news stories that failed hard at critical thinking. They idea being to expand the medium we work in a bit and start pushing a little hard on that 4th point. Let's start with a WIGO because we know how to do those, a design principle I have learned the hard way working here is that if you start out too ambitious its doomed to collapse. Tmtoulouse (talk) 23:37, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Actually, "per one hour" is just a measurement in which podcasters bitch and whine about how much the work for it. So… really no suggestion there. --ʤɱ secularist 00:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Let me know if I need to do another RSS feed. steriletalk 01:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

And, the podcast idea is appealing to me. (And WIGO:ASK is probably totally defunct.) The one challenge will be finding material consistently. steriletalk 04:13, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
The podcast idea is quite attractive but there are a number of points:
  • We will need a group of people who are really committed to producing one and who are prepared to give up some time each week to get it out. Perhaps I could have expressed that better
  • In order to avoid scheduling problems these people would need to be in convenient time-zones.
  • There is already quite a lot of competition in the rationalist podcast world.
  • We might need to tighten up the "Rational wiki POV" in order to give a consistent message. Not everyone here is a "liberal" left-of-center rationalist atheist.
So the WIGO would be a god place to start to see if we could get it of the ground.--BobSpring is sprung! 20:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

"Handling" uncontacted peoples[edit]

this article came out, addressing some attacks by a tribe of uncontacted Peruvians on the local tourists. They are currently living in a reserve, like wild animals, "protected" from the outside. I have no idea what I feel about this. but it's interesting, never the less. Pink mowse.pngGodotGrow a vagina 00:36, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The topic of uncontacted tribes suffers a lot from a form of cultural pessimism I call "white man's burden". The cultural identity of these people and their chosen "way of life" is considered more important than the fact they are dying of trivial ailments and subsist in very primitive conditions. I'm not proposing we forcibly move them into a city, but there should at least be an effort to reach out to them, so they can share the benefits of modern civilization. The only sensible argument I've seen in favor of isolating them is that they might not have any immunity against some communicable diseases; the rest is just myths like the noble savage and a misguided feeling that our civilization could "corrupt" them.
What follows is admittedly an uninformed and non-PC opinion, but I also think that some African countries were better off under colonial rule than they are now. The colonial administrations might have been exploitative, but at least they took care of enforcing the law, a concept which is essential to civilization, yet alien in some parts of Africa. If anyone has more informed takes on this subject, please share links. --Tweenk (talk) 00:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Jesus Christ. read about the massacres perpetrated against the Herero; read about the conditions faced by the people living in the Congo under Leopold. They lived by the rule of law because the alternative was getting their hands cut off. Read about forced labour regimes in British, French, and Portuguese Africa. Read about apartheid. Read about the British response to Mau Mau. read about the Belgians in Rwanada-Urundi Go spend a few weeks in modern-day Tanzania, say. But please, please, please, stop saying incredibly stupid shit like this. Thanks. P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 01:08, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
"A form of cultural pessimism I called 'white man's burden.'"
Haha thank you for coining this term personally!
Anyway, there are very few ways in which Africa was better off under colonial dominance. Foster mostly nailed this one, but it's also worth noting that it is just staggeringly ignorant to allude to parts of Africa where "enforcing the law" is an alien concept.--ADtalkModerator 01:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
AD: I searched this right now and the commonly accepted meaning of this phrase is a direct opposite of what I was trying to say, sorry. The law enforcement thing is something I read somewhere, probably an opinion piece. I'm not sure to what extent it is true, but there does seem to be a few failed states in this region, e.g. Somalia.
P-Foster: I know about apartheid and the atrocities under Leopold, and I don't contest the fact that many colonial regimes were guilty of horrible crimes up to genocide. What I'm not sure about is whether all regimes were guilty of this. I brought this up because apparently some African nations suffer under very incompetent leaders (Zimbabwe and its joke of a monetary policy comes to mind, but there are other examples), and I'm not sure whether the situation will improve without outside influence. I'm just on the fence on the issue of whether it's better to leave those nations alone, or intervene in their internal matters. --Tweenk (talk) 01:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The idea of some sort of liberal interventionism is a completely different argument from saying "they were better under colonialism." The reasons why places like Zimbabwe are so messed up have a lot to do with their colonial histories, after all. Were all colonial regimes brutal all the time? No. And there were some slave masters who treated their slaves very well -- but so what? they were still slaves. Regimes that are premised on unfreedom and a lack of sovereignty and self-determination are wrong, full stop. P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 01:59, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I do agree in one small aspect, with Tweenk. I"m not convinced that "saving the Noble Savage" and "keeping him wild" is a good goal. I kinda doubt (but have no real way of knowing) that this is how they WANT to live, seeing their children die of common, easy to cure illness, or watching a loved one starve to death. I suspect, since very single encounter has led to curiosity and eventually exchange of technology, that they would love a sharper knife, some aspirin, or an ipod. That said, contact (highly evident in the African cases you all are discussing) has usually brought along abrahamic religions which add an entire different set of problems to the world. Pink mowse.pngGodotGrow a vagina 02:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
P-Foster I agree with your conclusion that such regimes should be abolished. The problem is that I have an impression that in some places, when the colonialists left, the natives started killing each other, e.g. in Rwanda. The Belgians which ruled there during the colonial period probably made these atrocities worse by increasing tensions between the natives, but maybe if they stayed a little longer and the transition to independence was more gradual, things could be different.
By the way, my original comment was intended along these lines:
  • Nazi Germany was not completely evil because it was one of the first states to enact meaningful environmental legislation
  • The Communist bloc was not completely evil because it recognized the right to abortion
Of course these statements do not imply I endorse the Nazis or the Soviets. --Tweenk (talk) 02:20, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Jesus Christ. Did you just use the word "natives" in a non-ironic way? So why do you think the "natives" started "killing each other" when the colonialists left? Do you think maybe it had to a tiny bit to do with mass political instability caused by decades of repressive rule and an basically extractive economy? Or do "natives" just like killing each other? P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 02:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
I think it had more to do with stuff like ethnicities and stuff like borders. Specifically putting several ethnicities into one border and parting ethnicities into several countries. If somebody took a ruler out today drew a line through half of Germany and another one through half of France and told us we were now one country, we might not kill each other, but it's certainly going to matter who is of which "tribe" and in which positions. --ʤɱ anti-communist 02:44, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Isn't that one of the biggest problems with modern middle east? You took nomadic tribes who lived side by side, and said "this is your land now, and here is the boarder", and it cause wars over things like "but that is where we go in the summer"...?--Pink mowse.pngGodotGrow a vagina 02:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
EC Right, but you have to understand that the concept of "ethnicity," and many of the "ethnic identities" and "tribes" that we think of as defining African societies and politics were themselves the products of imperial classification systems. Also, the idea that different ethnic groups can't work together to make a country falls apart when you look at places where they have--Tanzania, for example. And while the borders created with colonization and decolonization may have been even more arbitrary than borders already are by nature, they've held up pretty well--much better than Europe's borders since 1945. P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 02:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
US EUROPEANS KNEW BEST, we had the better stuff so WE knew where desert borders should be! I mean look how well it worked in Africa!--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 02:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
I honestly don't know what is the proper word to use instead of "natives". Maybe "locals"?
I said that the Belgian rulers probably did contribute to the genocide. For example they instituted racial identification cards. The reasons you mentioned were also a factor, but let's not take this blame game too far: in the end, it was locals killing other locals. Either they were capable to decide about themselves and then they are in large part responsible for the killings, or they weren't and abolishing the colonial rule was irresponsible. Maybe if repression of locals ended, but some degree of foreign control remained, the genocide could have been averted? That's what I really meant by "better off under colonial rule". --Tweenk (talk) 03:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
How about calling them "people." You can never go wrong with "people." The presence of foreign armies usually leads to more violence, not less--certainly the history of colonial Africa, the American occupation of Haiti, etc.etc. bears this out. The reasons for the Rwandan genocide were complex and beyond any one simple solution. Depriving people of their sovereignty is not the right thing to do. And maybe when the next bit of rioting breaks out in England, or Greece, we can ask the African Union to suspend local sovereignty and send in a peacekeeping force? P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 04:20, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
The colonial rulers were also "people", so it not specific enough as a word for the indigenous population. I'm not a native speaker of English, so it was simply a language question. I never said I ascribe a greater degree of humanity to the colonists than to the Africans. It's just that sometimes the circumstances make you partially responsible for the sovereign actions of another person, for example when you leave someone suffering from clinical depression alone with 5 jars of painkillers in their reach. --Tweenk (talk) 01:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
I think I see what you mean, but it's only true in a narrow sense. Yes, the bloody dictators that frequently have come in the wake of the withdrawal of colonial supervision - Mugabe, etc. - are probably worse for the people than the colonial supervision was, in some strict senses. When the people of the Sudan murder each other in mass genocides, it is worse than the colonial domination that preceded that chaos. But it's important to realize that much of the reason behind that chaos and murder is found in the colonial administration itself. The conglomeration of vast swathes of land into single states, regardless of real political boundaries; the destruction of local customs and governing traditions like chiefs or councils; and the obvious establishment of a principle of might-makes-right were the gifts left by the colonial forces.
It is much as if you chained someone in your basement for years, feeding them and educating them as you please but refusing them freedom. When released, they are uncertain and unhappy with the world, wracked with mental problems, and don't know how to keep themselves safe. Are they better off in your basement? No, of course not.--ADtalkModerator 04:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Your comment cleared up a few things for me, thanks. --Tweenk (talk) 01:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

About them being "Uncontacted"[edit]

At this point, how many uncontacted tribes are honestly "uncontacted" The peruvian tribe's (according to the article I read) akready been met before, and therefor had some influence pushed in. and beyond that, they know others exist beyond their little world; even if its just helicopters. --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 02:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, i had that very same reaction. They had a machette among other things. They spoke to the guy via a 'neighboring' language... oh well.Pink mowse.pngGodotGrow a vagina 02:18, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately the days of romanticized exploration and discovery seem to be pretty much over. Sam Tally-ho! 02:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Ones who have only ever been photographed throwing spears at the helicopters taking the photographs are pretty "uncontacted". There are degrees, some groups are just private, others react with violence towards outsiders, some have just been spotted from a distance only - there's a particular island in the Indian ocean known for a group that are very violent to intruders so no one goes there. As for 100% all-the-way uncontacted, well pretty much we have no idea because there would be no record of them. A few dozen in Papua New Guinea, but that's just an estimate. And who knows how many would have been in forests and just killed by illegal loggers without ever being recorded (which is one of the main threats). Scarlet A.pngd hominem 08:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


Avoiding and protecting uncontacted tribes has nothing to do with "white guilt" or some liberal idea that Europeans know best. That is just wrong. The main issue, and I did a bit of looking into this a few months ago, is that people who have been separated for so long won't have the same immune system. What would give us the sniffles for a few days could outright kill them, and vice versa. Think back to the Spanish settlers in America, they may have done their fair share of butchering natives that they found, but the diseases and viruses transferred did considerably more damage to both sides. And when uncontacted tribes are met with, they can be completely decimated by disease. It's entirely a practical thing for their own safety. Unless you advocate killing 80% of a particular group of people for no reason. Scarlet A.pnggnostic 08:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I knew about the disease immunity argument, and as I said before, it is the only one that makes sense. But as mentioned above, many of these tribes do not appear to be completely isolated, it's just that their contacts are very infrequent. This might be enough for them to acquire some immunity against local diseases. --Tweenk (talk) 01:18, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

There was a video once; (related to above)[edit]

IF i remember i saw it in my senior sociology type class, where these guys went out in Papua and found a tribe; who proceeded to freak out. apparently white skin folk was the sign that the sky would collapse onto the earth. Like Armon said about disease, contact between two cultures-of separate advancement levels tends to result in the weaker being either purposefully or accidentally destroyed by the "superior" culture. for obvious reasons this is a good reason to either wait for them to come out on they're own or try and preserve it as best we can so in future generations specialized historians can learn useless knowledge about some tribe. --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 08:36, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

So i've been playing Europe Universalis III lately[edit]

My parents got it for me years ago and i never played it thanks to the vertical wall the learning curve paradox games have, but now that i am and i actually know how to play it (thanks to a recent SA LP of the game). Do you think I should go and buy the steam copy with all the EP's? I probably will either way, just want some other opinions first. --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 17:24, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Never played the game but was gonna recommend that you import it to your steam account so you do not have to pay $15 for what you already own, but it seems you can't do that. Hit me up if u want to play some other games :) TheCheatI run on alcohol 19:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Get the expansion packs. It's almost a completely different (for the better!) game with them. Proper rebellions; different types of war causes; royal family trees; extra work done on the HRE, China, Japan and nomadic countries; improved graphics and AI; missions and decisions each country can take; improved trade and colonisation system; and the timeline is extended backwards to 1399 and forwards to 1821. There's probably a load of other stuff I've forgotten. (talk) 21:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
If it's just EU III you have, I'd buy EU III complete off of steam, because it has the expansions with it I think and is cheaper then just buying them all separately. Also I would recommend Victoria II (new expansion also came out for it), it's like EP III but set in 19th century, but it also has a few game play changes to it, like economics and politics.Nul (talk)
Saying that Vicky II is like EU III with a few game play changes is the understatement of the month. They use the same engine but, other than that, are completely different beasts. Vulpius (talk) 01:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Only a numbskull (me) thinks he knows things about things he knows nothing about, but I think EUIII Complete only has some expansions, EU III Chronicles seems to have all the expansions. TheCheatI run on alcohol 22:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Sorry about that, I fucked up and got them mix up. Nul (talk)
NP Nul :), welcome to RW! TheCheatI run on alcohol 22:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

something to bitch about[edit]

For instance, the guy in the office next to me types way too fucking fast for his own good. It's very fast and loud, but you can hear that most of the keys pressed are backspaces. That or he's playing some sort of video game. If he would slow down slightly, I estimate his typing efficiency would improve by at least 20%. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

What? You work with Ken? Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic?Moderator 19:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
If it was ken it would require far more shift-c/v's--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 20:27, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
No way Ken knows how to work ctrl-c/v. Ajkgordon (talk) 20:37, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
OU, i didn't know you worked in the same office as me. Fast loud typing is oddly satisfying - fuck efficiency AMassiveGay (talk) 20:43, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Did I just pour coffee on your desk while you went to the bathroom? Occasionaluse (talk) 20:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
no you did that when i shat in your draw AMassiveGay (talk) 20:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Documentary on Nazi propaganda film[edit]

Warsaw Ghetto, the Unfinished Film - have any of you seen this? It's a documentary about some propaganda films by the nazis that were assumed to be real, until just recently. I thought it might be interesting commentary on what we think when we find "facts" from history. But it's also supposedly pretty graphic, so I'm not sure I'm ready to watch it.Pink mowse.pngGodotGrow a vagina 02:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I saw it a while ago. I believe you would survive watching it. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 03:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
It was interesting. --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 05:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Men and menstruation... article worth your time to read[edit]

I found this while reading the Komen stuff tonite. Men, if you have wives or daughters, this is really worth your time to read. It talks about why we protect men from the icky "TMI" of periods - when doing so actually can harm women's self esteem, can make them embarrassed to ask for help, and can leave them feeling isolated. Dr. Yashar Ali, If men had periods...Pink mowse.pngGodotGrow a vagina 03:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

>.< @1minute. I read the entire article, and joking aside I am sort of offended as a man by the line 'Ultimately, it boils down to one thing: Men only want to associate a woman's vagina with sex. Anything else is a disgusting inconvenience.' line. That is sexist stereotypical bullshit. But I do agree 100% that women should be more open about it and I always try to make it a comfortable subject with my partners. TheCheatI run on alcohol 22:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Why is the discussion so gender-specific? Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 06:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
IMO the "If men ..." argument always is. It's based on a conveniently untestable hypothesis, so that the author never need fear more than a few readers tentatively saying "I don't think so, actually". While I agree that it's stupid for a married couple, who've probably been through a lot together, not to be able to talk about menstruation I just don't buy the argument that this is because it's women who have periods. The reality is that humans aesthetics tells us periods are icky. They'd be icky if men had them, if everybody had them, or if only a handful of people got them. Eating snot is icky, right? Men do that, but it's icky anyway. It's largely safe (where did you think all that mucus goes anyway?) but it's still icky. The idea that men don't try to hide weaknesses, don't shy away from bringing up topics that will make the women in their lives uncomfortable and so on, is bullshit, just as clear evidence for a lack of communication between genders/ sexes as any married man who doesn't know what brand of tampons his wife uses. (talk) 12:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
It still suffers a lot from the insinuation that "men" means "all men everywhere regardless". As skeptics and rationalists we complain that horoscopes suggest that 1/12 of the population must be the same, yet people talking about gender are often remarkably careless and suggest that 50% of the population are the same. What people do think this is "icky" and ignore it, and do they do it because they are men or do they do it because they're just poor communicators and a bit squeamish? Scarlet A.pngpostate 13:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
My point was that the reticence being referred to is not unique to women. Men with erectile dysfunction are not exactly accustomed to moan to their wives about it at every opportunity, for example. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 22:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

The left-right IQ thing (again)[edit]

Sorry for dragging it up again, but The Daily Fail has picked up on it. Absolute gold in the comments section, if you enjoy a bit of the bottom half of the internet. If I was cynical I'd say "Daily Mail readers prove the link", but seriously, they seem to get confused over a slight statistical correlation along simplified political and intelligence axes and take it as a personal attack... I can't tell if they're defending their right-wing views or their closet racism (it is the Daily "immigrants cause cancer" Mail, after all) or just any excuse to go off on one about "liberal academics". Scarlet A.pngtheist 08:49, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

This one is my favorite: This is a joke ......right ? Only because anyone wanting there own culture to be saved is deemed "racist" by "inteligent" left wingers ? . Only in this dustbin they call the UK. The whole world is entitled to their own culture ... but not Britain . A country decimated by an experiment gone horribly wrong by idiots and voted for by idiots and a lesson to others . Thats why we are laughed at . It is now a crime to even say this is wrong ! . Thats how far it has got . Wanting to save "your" culture, but not being able to spell is wonderfully ironic. --ʤɱ kant 09:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Technically anecdotal yet wonderfully salient evidence for the hypothesis. Scarlet A.pngpathetic 09:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
The story is designed to generate clicks from the lefty blogosphere, but then again pretty much everything in The Fail is link bait. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Replace "culture" with "race." Osaka Sun (talk) 22:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm presuming the Fail has observed the Grauniad's success in trolling its own base - David Gerard (talk) 11:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


Right about now, if you listen carefully, you can hear birther heads exploding all across America... it's official - Obama is a natural born citizen and can appear on Georgia's ballot.

So the birthers lost a case at which Obama didn't even appear!

Countdown to the squealing in 5... 4... 3... --PsyGremlinPrata! 09:57, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I actually wanted Obama to be there. For the lulz. Osaka Sun (talk) 14:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
I love the fact that they try to argue parental citizenship. ANY CHILD BORN HERE of ANY PARENT is natural born citizen. It doesn't matter if both parents are from timbucktoo, the child is a natural born citizen with papers and everything! fricking idiots. They just make up the law as they go....--Pink mowse.pngGodotGrow a vagina 17:51, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Ron Paul[edit]

His supporters sure are annoying. I get so pissed whenever I see his fanboys say "he's the only candidate who supports the constitution", as if that phrase means anything. Mr. Anon (talk) 05:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Osaka Sun (talk) 06:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to 2008? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 06:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Is there anyone who doesn't want to subsidise a bloodbath Iran so the corporations can increase taxes on our gasoline and plastic products?
Doesn't this prosperity fuelled by endless printing and borrowing money, look a lot like the housing bubble? Which popular candidate will bankrupt US the better way?
See also Forum:Ron Paul is President of Libertarians. ~ Lumenos (talk) 14:22, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks like atheists can be stupid too[edit]

Scroll down. What is with this batshit fascination with guns in your country? The evidence is right in your face, you've tried everything except stronger national regula-SECONDAMENDMENTSECONDAMENDMENTEVERYONENEEDSTOLEARNTOSHOOTAGUNSECONDAMENDMENT

We need a template. Osaka Sun (talk) 06:24, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

We have our own great traditions of stupidity. See communism, Objectivism, transhumanism, scientism, etc. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 06:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Very true. Osaka Sun (talk) 06:36, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Problem with gun control in america is that it's probably too late now. There are already so many there in private hands, combined with a strong sense of gun "culture" or pride or whatever the hell you'd call that "I love my guns" attitude a lot of people have, that banning them (or strongly regulating them) probably wouldn't do a damn thing nowadays. X Stickman (talk) 08:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Indeed, it's settled. Not that you could tell the NRA that. This cartoon is the best summary of the subject, I think.--ADtalkModerator 09:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
It's a great idea, in principle, to keep your population armed to defend it from tyranny - but I think it's mutated to just being "me want guns cos me insecure about penis size". Pretty sure that is where the problem is. Scarlet A.pngbomination 12:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
having guns to defend the populace against tyranny is just plain bollocks. Loads of people had guns in Iraq under Saddam. Having a gun is useless if the oppressor has tanks and helicopters. The second amendment went out of date shortly after the machine gun and armoured car came along a hundred years ago. Rennie McGreet (talk) 12:29, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
And the reason the government has that much in its disposal is because of the election of those same very conservatives. So the revolution thing is bullshit. Osaka Sun (talk) 14:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Hence "in principle". Though the main problem isn't what the government has at its disposal so much as whether the population truly believe that it's their right to rise up or not. Scarlet A.pngtheist 12:36, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
I can just imagine that: "Oh no, Alex Jones was right! The president has just instituted martial law! Now let's see, political uprising or American Idol...?" Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 07:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Can you imagine combining those two concepts? Scarlet A.pngpostate 22:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Secular Fundamentalism and Baal[edit]

Beck and Rabbi Daniel Lapin uncover the dark secret of us unbelievers: we're all Baal worshipers! Yes, apparently Baal lives inside all of us. I guess that makes him roomies with God in that respect?

This isn't behind the typical GBTV paywall, by the way. He decided it was just too important. --CoyoteSans (talk) 23:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh man, I have to see this. I thought Beck reached his zenith with the Soros conspiracy episodes, but this looks like it could top that. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
The Canaanite storm god is making a comeback? WTF. CodeMaster9000 (talk) 04:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
But he's defined Baal so loosely & vaguely as just to mean a personification of the secular &/or worldly. It's just a name swap for Satan, who usually fills this role in fundy demagoguery. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:44, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Poe's Law: *Definitely* not just for religious fundamentalism anymore...[edit]

See this blog expressing how much Twilight rocks and Harry Potter sucks. Total parody, it has to be. Either that or proof that Twi-hards are thick as pig shit, either conclusion suits me fine but I'm definitely leaning towards parody, although the "America is a better country than Britian and therefore logic dictates Twilight must be better" bit could have come right from the keyboards of RobS or Andrew Schlafly. Scarlet A.pngtheist 01:02, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The spelling is simply appalling. I didn't take too close of a look but I'd say it's parody. Hopefully. Sam Tally-ho! 01:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
You know what I fucking hate? That 'this is a parody, I hope' shit. IT'S PARODY. There's practically no ambiguity about it. Stop making these types of statements. Fidgetertalk to me :D|see my shit 02:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. There is no way that the seventh point, in particular, is anything but parody. Also, no one who actually had that level of command of written language would know how to spell "alliteration," let alone what it meant. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 02:34, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
There was also a line about DeNair or somesuch, and i don't think i see ads for nair that often anymore. Pink mowse.pngGodotGrow a vagina 02:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
The Twilight fans I've met weren't exactly the sharpest knives, although seeing it down in writing somehow always makes it look more ridiculous. Scarlet A.pngnarchist 14:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The ethics of prostitutional discrimination[edit]

This is a really interesting comment on an old Greta Christina's Blog post that opens up a quandary about the ethics of discriminating against a group of people based on past experience. I have no real solution -- on one hand, it's been drilled into me all my life that prejudice = bad, but on the other hand, I can't really deny the logic of using probabilities to figure out who you want to have sex with; if you've found that 95% of Asian people who've bought your service smell really bad, why'd you want to do business with them when you have plenty of other potential clients? Fuckertalk to me :D|see my shit 02:39, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

By definition, discrimination based on broad past experience is not "prejudice," i.e., preconceived notions. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 02:45, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, but I didn't want to get repetitive, so I used a word that's normally a synonym without thinking it through. Fluckedtalk to me :D|see my shit 03:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
While I can't say that such things don't make me feel a bit icky, I believe that nobody should be forced to do something with their body they don't want to (except if such actions would involuntarily threaten their bodily well-being). So as everybody is in control of their body except for what nature takes from us and society does from preventing doing harm to ourselves without conscious will to bring harm to ourselves, such bodily control trumps anybodies right to enter a contract (especially since there are other contractors in proximity). So, through the very defintion of their job, prostitutes have a right to discriminate against people on whatever attribute they feel based on their right to bodily self-determination, but their right to do so ends at denying contracts. --ʤɱ secularist 15:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, yeah, obviously. What I was wondering was the ethics of it.
I think that I shouldn't have a problem with probabilistic discrimination, as long as it based on past experience and not prejudice. Flubbertalk to me :D|see my shit 16:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

just for giggles - especially if you have any law background[edit]

This is an open letter from some "attorney" on the whole idea of "natural born citizen". apparently, being born in the US is not enough..... OK..... his "legal reasoning" about how no evidence is offered amuses me since he offers none of his own, other than, you know, whining. Pink mowse.pngGodotGrow a vagina 05:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

This butthurt (I love FlingBooty's claim of "We have uncovered massive corruption in our courts!") just goes to show that it's not about eligibility at all. They just can't accept that a black man is in the White House. --PsyGremlinRunāt! 07:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
So is the argument is that you need two "natural born citizen" parents in order to be a "natural born citizen"? If so, then there must be literally millions of people in the US who are not natural born citizens. Indeed, possibly the majority of the population are not "naturally born citizens" - because if the child of an immigrant is not a "natural born citizen" then the child of the child is also not and so on.
Given that the US is largely a nation of immigrants this would seem to disqualify the majority of the population. --BobSpring is sprung! 08:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
A recursive argument automatically disqualifies everyone not just the majority. If you go back and read the law that people are claiming Obama doesn't qualify under, you'll see it has an exemption for the generation who founded the US and thus weren't natural born citizens because it didn't exist when they were born. The non-recursive argument (but still evidently not what was intended) is that you're "natural born" if your parents are citizens and you were born in the US. So Obama's kids would be "natural born" under this argument, but he would not. But that leaves the question of why, if some status exists which is between "natural born" and "naturalised" it has never been mentioned in the entire history of the country. There are likely hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of such citizens in the US, how can this be the first time a court needed to care if this difference is so important?
As Psygremlin observes, this isn't about interpreting the law, otherwise it would have come up a century ago. It's about disqualifying Obama. Maybe it's because he's black, or because he's a Democrat, or both, but either way even a judge that hates Obama personally with a passionate fire will not be stupid enough to violate the principle that courts shouldn't make an ass of the law. Obama is the president, saying he isn't just makes your court look ridiculous and brings your other decisions into question. (talk) 12:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, perhaps Native Americans could be "citizens" too. But in reality, as your argument suggests, the only birther solution would be to postulate some unnamed, and legally and historically nonexistent, class of citizen between "citizen" and "non-citizen".--BobSpring is sprung! 13:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Already happened - the odd bit of pseudolaw known as "14th Amendment citizen" has been circulating for at least a few decades. The distinction as I can gather from the pseudo-legal mumbo jumbo is a natural citizen would automatically be a citizen regardless of whether or not there was a 14th amendment, while a "14th Amendment citizen" has only been granted citizenship because the federal government condescended to grant it to them. Under this belief residents of the 50 states are natural citizens, while residents of federal jurisdictions like Washington D.C. or a federally-recognized Indian reservation are "14th amendment citizens". I'm surprised it hasn't come up much in birther circles yet. It's mostly found in the sovereign citizenship movement, where it is used as an argument that only "14th amendment citizens" are legally required to pay federal income taxes. Secret Squirrel (talk) 14:08, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Well I think the time has come for us to promote this piece of idiocy. Do they really claim that most (or many) American citizens are not really "American citizens"?--BobSpring is sprung! 14:20, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Yup. Extensively discussed, and debunked, here. Er, promote? Secret Squirrel (talk) 16:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
There are several presidents who would have failed under this strange "UK Common law" (yeah, right) interpretation of the 'natural born". Several have been born to one or both parents as immagrants. If you are born here, you are a "natrural born" vs. "naturalized" citizen. --Pink mowse.pngGodotGrow a vagina 23:25, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Morality debunked[edit]

Dig it. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 09:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Read it! Excellent! Scream!! (talk) 12:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Not exactly news, but well written. --ʤɱ pervert 14:45, 5 February 2012 (UTC)