RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive182

This is an archive page, last updated 17 December 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>, <142>, <143>, <144>, <145>, <146>, <147>, <148>, <149>, <150>, <151>, <152>, <153>, <154>, <155>, <156>, <157>, <158>, <159>, <160>, <161>, <162>, <163>, <164>, <165>, <166>, <167>, <168>, <169>, <170>, <171>, <172>, <173>, <174>, <175>, <176>, <177>, <178>, <179>, <180>, <181>, <183>, <184>, <185>, <186>, <187>, <188>, <189>, <190>, <191>, <192>, <193>, <194>, <195>, <196>, <197>, <198>, <199>, <200>, <201>, <202>, <203>, <204>, <205>, <206>, <207>, <208>, <209>, <210>, <211>, <212>, <213>, <214>, <215>, <216>, <217>, <218>, <219>, <220>, <221>, <222>, <223>, <224>, <224½>, <225>, <226>, <227>, <228>, <229>, <230>, <231>, <232>, <233>, <234>, <235>, <236>, <237>, <238>, <239>, <240>, <241>, <242>, <243>, <244>, <245>, <246>, <247>, <248>, <249>, <250>, <251>, <252>, <253>, <254>, <255>, <256>, <257>, <258>, <259>, <260>, <261>, <262>, <263>, <264>, <265>, <266>, <267>, <268>, <269>, <270>, <271>, <272>, <273>, <274>, <275>, <276>, <277>, <278>, <279>, <280>, <281>, <282>, <283>, <284>, <285>, <286>, <287>, <288>, <289>, <290>, <291>, <292>, <293>, <294>, <295>, <296>, <297>, <298>, <299>, <300>, <301>, <302>, <303>, <304>, <305>, <306>, <307>, <308>, <309>, <310>, <311>, <312>, <313>, <314>, <315>, <316>, <317>, <318>, <319>, <320>, <321>, <322>, <323>, <324>, <325>, <326>, <327>, <328>, <329>, <330>, <331>, <332>, <333>, <334>, <335>, <336>, <337>, <338>, <339>, <340>, <341>, <342>, <343>, <344>, <345>, <346>, <347>, <348>, <349>, <350>, <351>, <352>, <353>, <354>, <355>, <356>, <357>, <358>, <359>, <360>, <361>, <362>, <363>, <364>, <365>, <366>, <367>, <368>, <369>, <370>, <371>, <372>, <373>, <374>, <375>, <376>, <377>, <378>, <379>, <380>, <381>, <382>, <383>, <384>, <385>, <386>, <387>, <388>, <389>, <390>, <391>, <392>, <393>, <394>, <395>, <396>, <397>, <398>, <399>, <400>, <401>, <402>, <403>, <404>, <405>, <406>, <407>, <408>, <409>, <410>, <411>, <412>, <413>, <414>, <415>, <416>, <417>, <418>, <419>, <420>, <421>, <422>, <423>, <424>, <425>, <426>, <427>, <428>, <429>, <430>, <431>, <432>, <433>, <434>, <435>, <436>, <437>, <438>, <439>, <440>, <441>, <442>, <443>, <444>, <445>, <446>, <447>, <448>, <449>, <450>, <451>, <452>, <453>, <454>, <455>, <456>, <457>, <458>, <459>, <460>, <461>, <462>, <463>, <464>, <465>, <466>, <467>, <468>

, (new)(back)

Maturity

I'll just leave this right here... and a few of our recently-resident trolls could learn a thing or two from it. --Seth Peck (talk) 21:33, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

You do that? Pretty good.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 22:53, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Nah, just something I saw. --Seth Peck (talk) 22:57, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with the "Blames self for world" being at the top. That's just narcissistic. Part of being mature is accepting that not everything is a consequence of you.--"Shut up, Brx." 06:30, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree. "Works to fix problems without pointing fingers of blame" might be a better way to put it. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 16:27, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I think Sprocket's interpretation of "blames self for world" is the correct one (that's how I read it...e.g., instead of whining about how I wish people wouldn't be homophobes, what am I doing about it?) --Seth Peck (talk) 16:40, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Further mental illness/psychiatry/neuroscience debates moved to forum

"Anatomical Brain Images Alone Can Accurately Diagnose Chronic Neuropsychiatric Illnesses" / "Suicide is a disease" / "I do not want to think like normals. I want to think original thoughts. Am I delusional?"

This discussion was moved to Forum:Falsifiability. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 16:56, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Non-encyclopedia entries for serious evolution subjects

A user recently reverted one of my edits on an evolution article I created, and said that rationalwiki is not an encyclopedia. I understand this but when it comes to serious science topics such as evolution (especially it's sub-fields such as evo-devo); I fail to see how to have an article which is not atleast written in a format similar to an encyclopedia. Let me explain... as you know many people come to rationalwiki to see creationism getting shot down and how to debunk it. I do not waste time putting humour/jokes etc in the evolution articles I have created, I have tried to kept them well formated, referenced and in a serious tone. I can easily shoot down creationism via decent references in the articles that I create regarding evolution, but it seems you do not want these articles written in a strict encyclopedia fashion. I only want to create one more article on this website before I leave on "niche construction". Please let me know how you want it. Not too many references? Or what? Cheers. Forests (talk) 18:32, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to the edits in question? Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 18:33, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

The major reason that people avoid a "serious tone" is because for many subjects, Wikipedia already provides enough of a series, encyclopedic, and neutral tone. But there is a difference between good "SPOV" and unreferenced, badly written, wasteful crap. Without knowing exactly which edits you mean, it's hard to really tell exactly what the best course of action is. But editors need to quit rolling stuff back only because something isn't "funny". ^moral 18:57, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Could it be this? I removed excess verbiage and overlong quotes for two reasons: a) we're not a general science encyclopedia and don't have to rehash what other sites do; b) stylistic grounds - I found the writing excessivly waffly, and removed stuff that didn't really say much. The long quote went because it's in the citation, you don't need to paste it here, just get the point across. Sophie^Wilder 19:06, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

@OP Listen. I've been down this exact road of "edit article, people say it's off-mission, complain in saloon bar" before. They don't like it here. Edit wars and whining in the talk page also doesn't help. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 01:31, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

We need to get EvoWiki ported

We need to either (a) get the EvoWiki material ported and the site redirected to RW, or (b) reopen it as an active wiki. Because people are still using it as a source.

Is anyone actually doing anything with the thing? Is anyone very interested? Could we bring it back to life with recruiting NCSE fans, etc? What are your thoughts? - David Gerard (talk) 21:22, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Port the whole thing here and put it in reference space (which we still need to have). Sophie^Wilder 21:31, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

What is the problem with the present situation? If people want to reference it they can.--Bob^{"I thought this was supposed to be "Rational" Wiki?."} 21:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Don't port the whole thing here, make it it's own entity. As the Foundation grows, we become more than this one site. some people who might not want to be associated with the site (we do get a bit immature, you know, heh) might really enjoy working on EvoWiki. We should have links from one to the other. my two cents.--Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 21:50, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I like the idea of having the reciprocal links, such as we had previously done with Conservapedia and Funspace. --Seth Peck (talk) 21:53, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that it's a dead wiki, not a polished finished source - David Gerard (talk) 22:28, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I know so little about the technical aspect of wikis. what does/would it take to be "polished finished" enough to make it respectable? --Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 22:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't mean technical, I mean the content. It's a wiki, not a finished product, is what I mean, and people are using it as a source, but it can't be improved because it's a locked wiki. And the plan was (AIUI) to subsume it into RW, but mostly it's this forgotten thing that sits over there somewhere ... and I think we need to either work on subsuming it or start it up again as a separate project (and possibly put or link our best evolution-related content, who knows) - David Gerard (talk) 01:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I was around one of the (many?) times a discussion was had about porting it directly into RW, and the consensus at the time, was that the articles were too different in style to integrate smoothly. by dead, do you mean no one goes there, or literallly it's (and forgive my anti-tech here) "on a server that isn't editable" or some such. If it's only dead in the "no one goes there", then let's do what we can to bring it back to life. Of course link to it from our main page, but also from any page we are talking about evo stuff. let's publicize it, push it on facebook sites like the "Fucking love science". get it alive again and see where it goes. Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 01:30, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

It's not possible to port EvoWiki, because the license it uses is incompatible with RW's. -- Nx / talk 07:36, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

The RWF now controls the license and there are procedures that can be used to convert licenses, but there is a lot of other good reasons that EvoWiki shouldn't be ported whole cloth to RW. Tmtoulouse (talk) 17:23, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Primarily the format of each article, which is different and has its own uses. It's far from a case of copy/pasting. The trouble with getting it started again is this: how many of us are actually qualified evolutionary biologists? ^postate 17:26, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be "us" that edit it. Just make it editable again for people who do know about evolutionary biology. Spud (talk) 17:42, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I think there are people who would be happy to edit it; i think quite a few of them don't want to be associated directly with RW. We have been, and remain, a troll (or troll friendly) site. make it live, let's do what clean up we do know how to do, and then push it out to the world. Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 17:45, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Hear! Hear! Spud (talk) 17:52, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

What godot said. I know of of people who saw the JimJast and Abd episodes and were qualified in those feilds but refused to contribute because of our reputation. Humorless fascist^sociopath 18:22, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

1. I'm not aware of the consensus Godot mentioned. 2. I agree with Gerard. EW is dead. There's no starting it up again as a separate project. The material overlaps so much. I'd object to it if only because some of ours is so poorly written and out of date. Why would the RWF encourage RW editors to start something new that's so similar to RW when our own house isn't in good order. My understanding is that Trent was keeping it up solely so that we could cannibalize what's useable, delete it from EW so it doesn't eat into our traffic, and then take the thing out back and shoot it. There's a lot of material on EW that's core to our mission. It needs to get cataloged and prioritized with an eye toward porting. I was working on some of this last year but got jammed up with work again - Trent mentioned to me that he wanted to see the logic articles beefed up to include a sort of bestiary of creationist/denialist/etc. formal and informal logical fallacies in the wild. Evowiki's got some of that. We need it. People are already coming straight form Google for this stuff - we should present the most valuable resource we can. I also think we need to get back to our roots and update (and jesus christ copyedit these essays written in first person masquerading as articles and side by sides) anti-creationist material. Incorporating EW material necessarily gives us a good chance to do that. They also got some counter-apologetics. We might consider giving Iron Chariots a run for its money. 3. Lol not possible to port EW. The RWF can do whatever it wants with that license. I'm not saying this as the RWF's lawyer: free use licenses are toothless bullshit. The broad strokes (attribution, commercial vs. non-commercial) are more than a court would likely consider if a wiki editor decided to file a copyright suit. 4. I guess it would help to know what Trent intended to happen with Evowiki? 18:28, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

No, the RWF can't do whatever it wants with the license. -- Nx / talk 08:18, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Off to the side

• whistles in, completely naive* So, you want someone working on EvoWiki? I was actually meaning for a long time to ask you for permission to edit there. I really think it would be a nice place for things like my blue-green algae article. I love evolutionary biology, and I honestly think I can do great things to EvoWiki. That is all. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 02:26, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I think that would be right up your street actually. Sophie^Wilder 11:14, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Creationist Vandal Attacks

Hey. I want to spearhead a club here on RW to launch and/or brag about "vandal" attacks (read: taking the piss or actually presenting reasoned arguments against the ideas) on the creationist contingent on websites that allow comments (facebook, YouTube, Comfort's Atheist Central, etc.). Would I create that as a "clearinghouse" page in funspace, or what? My wiki-fu skills are rusty and I know we're kind of under new management and whatnot. I just have a lot of fun getting under Eric Hovind's skin and I want others to share my joy. Peace. The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 14:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

PROTIP: avoid the words "vandalism" or even "trolling." Theory of Practice Still tryin' to figure it all out. 15:02, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

How about no. Humorless fascist^sociopath 15:07, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I also vote no. Hipocrite (talk) 15:39, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Boo. The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 15:42, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

But guys, Petty Internet vandalism is so much fun! :[ --Mikal ^{Harass Follow} 15:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I could be tempted to, but make no promises.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 17:56, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

As PFoster said, it sounds like not a bad idea as long as you definitely don't call it "vandalism" or "trolling". We're still very sensitive that Wikipedia calls us a CP cyber-vandalism site. Blue (pester) 04:04, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

well thre goes five years of saying "We are not a vandal site." Sorry to say this to someone I like and respect, but I think this plan is pointless and childish. Sophie^Wilder 11:15, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I think those that live in glass wikis shouldn't throw rocks, personally. DMorris, on the EIP Network ^{1 855 282 2882} 23:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me?--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 23:06, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

You could vandalize creationist wikis and brag about it, but the creationists could do the same thing to Rat-Wiki. DMorris, on the EIP Network ^{1 855 282 2882} 03:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

People piss me off

I need to vent sometimes. Feel free to ignore the drama queen-ing.

So, I've been in that awkward we're-both-attracted-to-each-other-but-not-quite-dating phase with a girl for a little while. Now, we went to this formal dance/party (I'm a Marine, it was the Marine Corps Ball). We had a small fight about it before, but she showed up, we had fun (well, I had fun, I didn't expect her to even show up, honestly). So, after that we didn't talk much. She works at a Bag-n-Save or some such place and had to deal with Thanksgiving shopping bs at work. OK, no big deal. So, that passed, we talked a few times, but still not much because she was getting ready for finals (my current school has a different schedule). Again, OK, no big deal. Then I was looking through my text message history on my phone because I realized: I don't remember the last time she responded to a text I sent her (mostly just 'good morning'). Three weeks. She has been ignoring me for three weeks. So, I sent her a text this morning: "if our relationship was a puppy, it would be dead of neglect by now". Long story short: We broke up, and she hasn't bothered to tell me.

Now, I could say "wtf is with women doing this?", but I've never been dumped like this before, so that isn't it. I think its us. Why is this kind of behavior acceptable? Why is it that it's somehow OK in our culture to fucking ignore someone for three goddamn weeks as a way of expressing irritation with them? God, fuck people sometimes.

TL;DR: Why is it OK to ignore someone instead of breaking up with them?--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 06:57, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Try and see it from her point of view. She lost interest but was afraid of a confrontation, as well as hurting your feelings. So, she adopted a wait-and-see/procrastinate approach. Yeah, that's the wrong way to do it, but she didn't do it because she's evil.--"Shut up, Brx." 07:28, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

She calls herself evil, that ship has sailed. She's also pretty willing to tell me to screw off. Really, that this happened doesn't bug me that much (I already have a date Wednesday), it's just irritating that this is somehow acceptable behavior.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 07:48, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Ah, well, hopefully people will learn that being passive-aggressive will make things worse, not better, and that it's better to resolve your issues in the open.--"Shut up, Brx." 08:07, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

In my experience, a well-placed and humorous insult on someone's Facebook feed will end the silent treatment fairly quickly. It may not be the response you're hoping for, but showing some backbone is fun and occasionally gets positive results. Junggai (talk) 13:31, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like she made her decision before or at the dance but didn't know how to tell you she wasn't interested in a relationship; because you two weren't "officially" at the dating stage, she took the ignore at arm's length route as an easy out. It isn't the most decent tactic but it isn't uncommon. Sounds like you have mostly moved on, really that is all you can do at this point; simply put it didn't work out.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 15:33, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Wait, you had a "small fight" about social plans before you were even dating? That sounds healthy. Maybe she saw the writing on the wall about the potentially bad chemistry. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 15:45, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

@Junggai: That was half the point of the puppy comment. @TOP, the fight was because we hadn't had sex and I told her I had gotten a room at the hotel the party was at. I was mostly teasing, but she thought I was much more serious then I was. I actually had a room because that was the week before my finals were I was taking too many credit hours at school, and I was planning on getting hammered for the last three months. She figured that out when she showed up, I was working the door and most of the way to legally drunk.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 18:08, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

None of that makes the situation sound any healthier to me. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 18:53, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

No offense, but text messages, no matter how clever, will just come off as desperate and can anyway be easily ignored. Commenting on her new FB profile pic that she looks like Kim Jong Il is more what I had in mind. Funny, mildly insulting (but not enough to get deleted), and smartass. Junggai (talk) 19:35, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

No. There never was "relationship". (The puppy didn't die, it never was born.) Enjoy what memories you can about this woman and move on. And whatever you do, never, no never, bitch about these things on a wiki where someone will eventually tell you to shut the fuck up about it all. 21:15, 8 December 2012 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

You ask something like "why is this even acceptable". hell with acceptable, it's normal. Long before your day, when we didn't text eachother every 10 seconds, or look at facebook, that's how relationships ended. you just started calling less, and not rushing to the phone, and unless one of you was really vested (which in turn would often re-invest the other) it just died. The fact that today you want constant reinforcment (I don't me "good strokes or anything like that, just "are you there?") it's hard to "let something die" naturally. right or wrong, it's much harder to say "john, it's over", than just let it die. Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 01:34, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd agree with Godot, but I'd add to ToP that the Marine Corps Ball is a HUGE drama magnet. I've known couples who were dating for years to get into massive fights over it, for some reason, so I wouldn't necessarily judge getting into a fight over that (depending on the context) too harshly. Still, that's how most of my relationships have ended on both sides, especially if it's in that weird "sort-of-but-not-quite-really-dating" phase when both parties haven't openly placed an "official" title on the relationship. — Unsigned, by: ORavenhurst / talk^{Do You Believe That?} 15:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

The word "cunt"

Serious question: Why does it piss girls/women off so much? 62.75.235.153 (talk) 23:30, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Does it? I think it depends on context. It is very common where I am from to refer to a bunch of guys as "those cunts". Only someone looking to take offence would be offended by that (sadly that applies to a shitload of people these days). On the other hand if I said to a girl "you are a cunt", then that would be offensive. In my neck of the woods context is everything when assessing the word. I understand that other places may have different approaches. As for myself, I hardly ever swear, and when I do it, its a bit of a shock to people around me so they know I am serious. I don't believe I have used the word since my uni days. --Damo^Hi 23:39, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

The perceived gendered focus of it leads some feminists to believe that, in certain contexts, it's sexist. Nihilist 23:47, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

In the midwestern United States, I was in a mall and this girl about my age (I'm 15) walking and texting runs into me (and it wasn't because she was into me) and didn't even say sorry or anything. So I say "cunt!" and then she got mad like she wanted to fight, and her friend had to pull her away from me. Whereas if I'd have called her a "bitch" or even "pussy" I doubt it would have bothered her that much. 62.75.235.153 (talk) 23:48, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

You sound like a dick (are there any other male-gendered swears?). Nihilist 23:52, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Off the top of m head; wanker, dickhead, knob, prick, poof, and the list can go on I am sure. Damo^Hi 23:56, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Huh. Anyways, i think either we should stop using gendered insults (which is very unlikely), or use them equally towards both sexes. Nihilist 00:21, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

The world would probably be a better place if we stopped using insults period, but it would be a duller world. Where's the fun in being nice? 62.75.235.153 (talk) 00:30, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

"Bastard" is almost exclusively male. In fact, I think it's the only one I haven't heard thrown at a woman before - yes, I've heard someone hurl "dick" at a woman. We're an enlightened bunch over here. ^moral 00:50, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

#youknowyoureaustralianwhen cunt - David Gerard (talk) 00:17, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

In US English, "cunt" is a gendered curse word more directly associated with female genitalia, and therefore considered a highly sexist slur. In English English, it's generally not so much gendered, so isn't deemed sexist, exactly, although it is on the top of the list of things you're not allowed to say. In Scotland it's a term of endearment. So before asking why people are or are not offended by it, you have to clarify which idiolect you're talking about. ^{d hominem} 00:31, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm talking about U.S. English, around Chicago to be exact. Never seen it used elsewhere actually, though I've not been but Germany, France, and the U.S. 62.75.235.153 (talk) 00:35, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

The offence mostly derives from reducing someone purely to their genitalia, therefore gender/sex. It's deriding them because they're female. Elsewhere, that meaning isn't taken as the primary motivation. ^narchist 00:53, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Context is the important thing. I think that it generally will be offensive to refer to a woman by that term, but in my experience and where I am from that usage is very rare. It is sometimes used as a term of enearment, but generally its a pretty neutral term to describe a bunch of predominantly men. Some people will declare that they find it offensive in any context, but I don't know that I care all that much about what they think. Some people try to take offence wherever they can, like it is a badge of honour. Damo^Hi 01:35, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

People in the U.S. are strange. You call an American girl a cunt and she'll either get pissed off or she'll cry. Totally hilarious actually, unless she's a nice girl (most of the cryers). 62.75.235.153 (talk) 01:50, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'll rise to the troll bait. So, let's get this clear. You call an American woman a word so offensive that it's one of the few left as banned on TV and they're so upset that they react with either anger or distress. And you find that strange? Innocent Bystander (talk) 10:56, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I guess when you think about it, it's not that unusual. I've heard Russian girls will freak out like that if you call them a "suka" and I'm sure there's things that could be said in German or Spainish that would achieve the same effect, but seriously, why do people care what some random asshole they don't even know says about them? I could see them getting mildly upset over it, maybe flicking somebody off over it, but crying or starting a fight over it? Okay, I kind of feel bad when I make somebody cry though, once I called a girl at my school (which is in Illinois, U.S.A.) a "cunt" and it made her cry so I brought her flowers the next day and it was how I met my first girlfriend. But seriously, people call me names all the time, mostly racist ones, and I just laugh at them or flick them off and carry on with my day, I don't get all emo over it. I find it particularly riles them up if they're teenaged and you attach the word "ugly" to it, i.e. "stupid ugly cunt". 62.75.235.153 (talk) 14:03, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

And before some cock wad tries to speculate why we aren't together anymore, it's because she got shot dead in the streets of Chicago last year at Christmas time for her necklace (which wasn't even real gold) and the lousy $10 USD she had in her pocket. And people wonder why I could give a shit less about other people anymore. 62.75.235.153 (talk) 14:14, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

The linguistic explanation is a lot more simple. every cuss word has an associated level of offense. We jokingly called it the "grandmother test". "crap" is a sware word, but less serious than shit. which is less serious than fuck. there isn't really a "reason" some words are bad, or worse, other than: they are. Cunt is an extremely offensive word to most people, to use or be called (at least in the US). The "why" is rather irrelevant if it's even known. Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 05:31, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. It's a taboo word so it carries extra emotional impact. And different words carry different impacts in different societies. "Joder" in (peninsular) Spanish is "fuck" in English - but "Joder" carries a lot less emotional impact. This gives Spanish students a problem as they tend to overuse "fuck". "Coño" would be translated "cunt" but this also has less impact in Spanish. (For those interested, Spanish swearing is frequently weirdly profane - in a very obvious sense - "I shit on God." for example.--Bob^{"I thought this was supposed to be "Rational" Wiki?."} 08:47, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I should start swearing in Spannish. ^pathetic 10:03, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Ho ho. Those "I shit on (profanity)" sequences can get quite elaborate. For example I have heard "I shit in the milk of the virgin". It sort of leaves "fuck" sounding somewhat understated.--Bob^{"I thought this was supposed to be "Rational" Wiki?."} 10:11, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia even spends some time considering this.--Bob^{"I thought this was supposed to be "Rational" Wiki?."} 10:22, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

What is the context of those "I shit on God" phrase? Are they used as a general exclamation of anger or dismay, like "God damn it"? Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 10:37, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Sure...Hit your thumb with a hammer. Get some bad news. Perhaps even good news. Any sudden emotional reaction.--Bob^{"I thought this was supposed to be "Rational" Wiki?."} 11:54, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Isn't that closer to chaining cusses together? Like when I occasionally exclaim "Titty-McBumfuck-Arsewank" out loud. ^sshole 14:43, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Not really because they are fixed or loosely fixed expressions. For example "Me cago en Dios" - ("I shit on God") is so well known that it is often spoken by the more delicately minded as "Me cago en diez" (I shit in ten). Everybody knows that they really mean the more explicit version though. But my point is that it's not just people randomly making stuff up bur standardised expressions.

Having said that, the more imaginative may make up new ones a well. But they have to sort of make sense so it's not just random taboo words strung together.--Bob^{"I thought this was supposed to be "Rational" Wiki?."} 15:51, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

My Spanish postdoc says his grandfather occasionally "shits on the virgin's guts". I can see why this needs a dedicated WP page. ^{d hominem} 15:54, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Haven't heard that one before - but I must confess that some of the WP ones were new to me as well. It's probably very regional.--Bob^{"I thought this was supposed to be "Rational" Wiki?."} 16:16, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Christ's left nut, reading that Wikipedia page is like some extra-blasphemous version of the Aristocrats joke. ^sshole 14:54, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't know, but what pushes my buttons the most is when some asshole says nasty things about my girlfriend. Not just any idiot, but people that actually knew her, mostly the fools at my school. They shit all over someone that was beautiful just because her parents didn't have millions of dollars like they do. Her mother was a science teacher at my school so her tuition was free, and her family lived in a nice suburb, just not a mansion in California or some ritzy high rise condo in New York or London. Most of her friends go to public school. I wish I went to public school. I know for some people it's their mother or their father that triggers the emotions, to me it's her. I can understand why people fight over "your mom" jokes, I just can't understand why people get emotional over insults hurled by total strangers. When I was new to America, it didn't take me long to realize that the word "cunt" brought out emotion and I used it liberally, then I said it to someone I shouldn't have and it changed me, if only for the two years I knew her. She was the polar opposite of me, I'm obnoxious and trollish while she was sweet and kind. She brought out a side of me that wasn't there before. I guess that's why the word doesn't bother me that much. 62.75.235.153 (talk) 15:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Candaian French sware words are also really religious, but not nearly as fun as your spanish ones. You have "tabernac!" or Babteme. I think i shall add the spanish ones to my vocab. Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 16:43, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

There's a dedicated WP article for those too: Quebec French Profanity. — Unsigned, by: ORavenhurst / talk^{Do You Believe That?} 16:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

One of our crews was playing a friendly football (soccer) match against some Portugese and during the the game the ball went over the end line. All of the English speakers yelled "corner!" which shocked the locals because it sounded like "cona", which is Portugese for cunt. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 19:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Out tooling around in a car one evening with Mme. Cogs and a friend who is a sober-sided Lutheran pastor manqué... Got asked to stop saying "Jesus tap-dancing Christ!" because it offended him. I suppose it's a good thing I didn't say "sweet zombie fucking Jesus H. tap-dancing Christ on a pogo stick!" Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 19:22, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I called a girl a cunt when I was in high school and it didn't upset her at all. Of course, she was sort of a friend of mine and knew I wasn't being serious, so that could have something to with it. DMorris, on the EIP Network ^{1 855 282 2882} 23:11, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

What a charming little Christian boy you are.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 23:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

When I that girl that word, it was a come back to her calling me a bitch, and we weren't being serious. DMorris, on the EIP Network ^{1 855 282 2882} 23:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

North Korea find Unicorn Lair

That most trusted news source , the Huffington Post reports "North Korea 'Secret Unicorn Lair' May Have Belonged To Beast With Dragon Head, Deer Body, Cow Tail". Read it Here Thay have a picture ! Hamster (talk) 03:57, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Already talked about here earlier under the title "World's most handsome man finds unicorn" or something like that. And their source is from North Korea's official English language news site, so, HuffPo isn't completely insane. At least this time.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 04:07, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Didn't you know that North Korea is a magical place? After all, Kim Jong Il's first crack at golf he scored several holes in one, and rainbows shot up in the sky when Kim Jong Il was born. DMorris, on the EIP Network ^{1 855 282 2882} 23:35, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Clog of interest

This site offers a more old-school brand of wingnuttery -- they even like monarchy. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I wonder what kind of readers they who argue against democracy attract. My guess is they aren't primarily American. Nihilist 05:58, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Way to romanticize the past. Cause as far as I've heard, usually there was teh "one percent", and the "99%" but unlike today where us 99ers might actually own some shit and have a pretty decent life - those 99ers were at the literal mercy of the crown. Yeah! --Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 06:26, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

@Nebby: old-school wingnuttery, you say? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 06:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

WTF, there isn't a single Biblical chapter:verse reference in there! What fresh hell is this? Ochotonaprinceps^{not a pokémon} 10:22, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

@Stabby: I see that and raise you one Hans-Hermann Hoppe. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:06, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Article time? Or perhaps this? Radical traditionalism still takes the cake for reactionary bugheadedness. Secret Squirrel (talk) 22:59, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Is that what you meant to do SS? Yes, I'd agree we need an article on atleast one of those topics.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 23:09, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that works. Thanks. There is a Monarchy#Monarchy in the United States section in the monarchy article which right now is just funspace-quality where this stuff could go too. Secret Squirrel (talk) 23:17, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

If/when I make the article I'll probably pull that from there. Or just make it a part of the article.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 23:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

2012 apocalypse nominated for cover

No-one came up with anything seriously missing, so I've put it up for cover. Needs a polish, but also the glare of attention - David Gerard (talk) 12:19, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

This is one of the few times I'd say "make it cover" even if it's not our normal level, just cause you have 10 days! people need to know how to prepare. what if the zombees have guns? do we address that? (but seriously, it's a decent enough article under a tight time constraint).Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 20:55, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Dirk Steele is correct

This discussion was moved to Forum:Falsifiability. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:04, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Censorship on RationalWiki

This discussion was moved to Forum:Falsifiability. 03:53, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

This discussion was moved to Forum:Science and mind. 04:43, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm bored, let's discuss a random topic whilst I study for a STATS final

Any topic. Political, social, economic, sports and athletics, pop culture, relationships, whatever. FlamingModerate (talk) 19:05, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Any topic? Okay then. Michelle Bachmann, Sarah Palin, Ann Coulter; snog, marry, kill? ^{d hominem} 19:07, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

how about gag, bag, shag and then kill ? Hamster (talk) 23:01, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

random topic - "people who edit-conflict someone because they didn't use the "add topic" button to start a new thread should be shot. Discuss." Sophie^Wilder 19:09, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

The style of can-opener known in the US as a church key may be used for lingering summary execution, and still serve to punch the top of a large tin of pineaplle juice. But wait, there's more! Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 19:19, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll discuss Michele Bachmann. She seems to be an interesting personality. FlamingModerate (talk) 19:22, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

First question I'd like to pose for Michele Bachmann ... do you consider her, regardless of political beliefs, to be intelligent? I personally feel that she has a CV which makes her seem to conservatives as intelligent, but in actuality, she graduated from a fundamental Christian law school run by a guy who's claim to fame was to con people out of money as a televangelist (Oral Roberts), and her only real world experience was working for the government for 4 years as a tax collector. Thus, she may be knowledgeable about the specifics on tax laws (as they were in the 1980s and 1990s), but that by no means makes her an expert as to the impact of tax policy on the economy. FlamingModerate (talk) 19:34, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I think Bachmann is more intelligent than she pretends to be. Intelligence is a liability in the modern Republican party and the conservative movement at large. While I'm sure she actually holds the positions she espouses, I'm certain that she's not nearly as vapid as she comes off in interviews. SirChuckB^{A product of Affirmative Action} 21:54, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to discuss Uganda. Sophie^Wilder 19:45, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

No, that's actually important. Doctor Dark (talk) 19:50, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Discussing Uganda is more fun than it is important. Sophie^Wilder 20:03, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd discuss Uganda all night but Mrs Bystander would object. Innocent Bystander (talk) 21:46, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Lets argue about discuss healthcare. What nation has the best healthcare system? I vote for the United States because healthcare providers have to continually improve to compete with other healthcare providers. DMorris, on the EIP Network ^{1 855 282 2882} 23:06, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Nice try, but the part they improve is the "not paying out on claims" part rather than the "covering people's healthcare that they paid for" part. Sophie^Wilder 15:20, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Steamy Humble Bundles

For those not in the know - there's a THQ Humble Bundle available for those willing to chuck donate whatever they are willing into the pot. The Bundle can only be activated through Steam though.-- ^{Jabba de Chops} 20:39, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I must be too old, because I didn't understand any of what you just said. Some kind of game or something? Sophie^Wilder 22:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

If you're too old then I must be too. Must be something for 16 year olds. --Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 22:21, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

The Humble Bundle is a recurring promotion (ordinarily called the Humble Indie Bundle) that offers a pay-what-you-like pricing scheme to receive a bunch of video games (although there has been a bundle for ebooks and a bundle for music). The proceeds to the bundle go to the developers of the games, selected charities, and the HB organizers themselves, but this is where it's interesting: you choose how your donation will be split. You can choose for it to all go to one charity (there are typically two to choose from), or all to the developers, or any other split. There are additional titles available if and only if you donate an amount that beats the average (as a way of trying to bring in more money).

In this particular case, instead of offering game titles from indie developers, the selection of games is from the library of THQ, a long-lived (and struggling) major game publisher. Most humble bundles give you downloads of the games directly, and they're almost always cross-platform (Windows, Mac, Linux). However, THQ's titles are Windows-only, and no direct downloads are offered. Instead, you are given serial keys to redeem on Steam, a digital distribution platform for games (and now other software). It's sort of like the iTunes Store for video games, if that helps you get the basics.

One of the charities that Humble Bundle almost always includes is Child's Play, a charity originally created by the creators of the gaming webcomic Penny Arcade. It exists to raise money to buy video games and video game consoles and entertainment for children in hospitals, because it's terrible to be bored when you're seven and undergoing chemo, and hospitals don't typically have much of a budget for entertainment to distract the kids and make them smile. So far, $2.9 million raised in 2012 for helping distract kids from their illnesses and discomfort. Ochotonaprinceps^{not a pokémon} 22:53, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Wow, the Humble Bumble has really evolved—it's now offering commercial games.

As a fan of FOSS and cheap gaming, this is a really awesome thing. Nihilist 23:31, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Also, thanks for the heads-up Stunteddwarf. Nihilist 23:31, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

No probs. Although it says something about my social life that I found out about this whilst playing SW:TOR.-- ^{Jabba de Chops} 11:12, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Hovinds - Father/Son Relationship Breaking Down?

Since Eric took over his father's "ministry", there seems to be conflicting opposition from Kent and his supporters. Recently, Eric supported the video on John Lennon called "Genius" by Ray Comfort. However, according to Steven L. Anderson, one of Kent's supporters, says the facebook page used by Eric (CSE/God Quest) does not approve some of his material and that he does not approve of the film on John Lennon.

It will interesting to see what happens when Kent gets out in a couple of years, who will be in control. --Cms13ca (talk) 22:20, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Eric recently saw a mockumentary on Animal Planet about dragons and thought they were real. Slight disagreements over what Kent's supporters say is the least of his troubles. ^bomination 12:17, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Michael Prescott

Michael Prescott a known paranormal researcher and supporter of mediums and critic of "materialism" has turned up (on an IP) editing his own article claiming he is a balanced and neutral researcher etc. However anyone who has read the blog of Prescott can see this is not the case, indeed he thinks that everything from levitation to psychokinesis to spirits moving candlesticks in seance rooms has been scientifically proven. He has also criticised rationalwiki on his blog and described it as "irrational". Should we revert his edits on his article? Forests (talk) 00:17, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

His blog criticising rationalwiki link Forests (talk) 00:20, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, revert away but ToP has already done it. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 04:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I love the commenters on that post on his blog that don't understand that RW has SPOV (S for snarky). I doubt any of you guys will see this, but, hi! And try relaxing a bit while you're here. Ochotonaprinceps^{not a pokémon} 23:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

So much for Cracked's glorious comments section

Include Michael Vick, Chris Brown, and El Rushbo in a single article and gaze in horror at the defenses people make of them.

The most facepalm-worthy: "Rush isn't a bad person because you never listened to him!!!" Osaka Sun (talk) 05:46, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

To be fair, that's a pretty awful article which pretty much forces anyone familiar with events to take issue with the Vick story presented. He at least did his time, is apologetic (can't say the same for the others on there), and despite the conjecture he was definitely going to get another chance to play in the NFL even if it weren't for the Eagles. And he's still the most hated athlete in America, whom most people haven't come close to forgiving. Let me put it this way: Chris Brown still treats women like shit, does Michael Vick still treat dogs like shit? Q0 (talk) 08:41, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

So, Rush loud-mouths daily, effectively being a racist cuntbollock to Obama, calling women whores, and generally shitting on every conceivable definition of decency, and dabbling in drugs is the scandal? ^theist 10:05, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Where do I lobby for administrative rights?

I just want to feel part of the club. FlamingModerate (talk) 19:25, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

No admin rights for redlinks! Put something on your userpage, then we'll talk. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:52, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Care to elaborate on why you would call Barack Obama a chickenhawk? Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 21:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Can't speak for the guy, but personally I'd say it depends on where you draw the line. Obama made Afghanistan his own. Then there's the drone strikes in at least 6 different countries, there's Libya, and also the posturing toward Iran and Syria. That's aggressive enough for me, but maybe not for everyone. Q0 (talk) 22:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Becoming a sysop is pretty easy, usually - it essentially just amounts to being a known quantity.--^talk 21:53, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

becoming a sysop means not mucking anything up for a few days and not being too much of a dick. You will get Autopatrolled first though. What Powers did you want ? Hamster (talk) 22:45, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

There are times when X-ray vision could be very nice. Doctor Dark (talk) 22:46, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I still remember when I checked the logs after I was made a sysop. The reason was "does stuff". God, what a great feeling! *starts beaming with an idiotic smile and hugging self*--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 22:58, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Can I have the power to solve the halting problem in constant time? I'm sure I could do well with that...LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 23:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

They're all drunk with power! PURGE! PURGE THEM WITH FIRE! --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:36, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

New to Rational Wiki

Newbie here - first edit. Maybe I'll get flamed for asking this, maybe I won't - but what are the rules for article creation? Notability and so forth. I'm asking because if those rules are lax enough I've got a name for you to look at. Irrational to the max. John Best Junior.

• http://hatingautism.blogspot.com Hating Autism
• http://autismfraud.blogspot.com Autism Fraud

He also has a blog for a Presidential Campaign for 2016 but that's hidden at the moment. He's hidden on Facebook at the moment. He has a Facebook group but it's secret I'm told. BankBox (talk) 08:55, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Click "random article" (up on the left) a few times to get an idea of how we write. Sophie^Wilder 11:09, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

See help for more help. Scream!! (talk) 12:20, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Blank box. You need to read the first part of this and all of RationalWiki:What is a RationalWiki article? and skim RationalWiki:Newcomers.

If your proposed stuff fits then it should be OK. If you've got some more specific questions after reading then please bring them up. At first glance at your links I'd say that there could be an article there.--Bob^{"I thought this was supposed to be "Rational" Wiki?."} 12:27, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I have this feeling you might want to read the Autism omnibus trial and Autism and pseudoscience articles.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 18:20, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

you can always either add it to the TO DO list and see if it gets votes, or just create it and see what happens. If you make a reasonable stub others will comment if its off-mission for the site. Hamster (talk) 19:41, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I"m more Nike in my answer to you. "just do it". if the mob thinks it doesn't belong, we/they will explain why and in a few days, delete it. (so start small). Just remember, whatever you do keep the question "why does anyone who is a rationalist, care about this particular thing". --Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 01:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I think I'm going to have to add that to one of the help files! ^{d hominem} 17:46, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Autism comes from a virus found in cows and it is contagious. This explains why cows are among the dumbest of animals.
Someone just went full retard. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 22:25, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

dont autistic people prefer not to make eye contact ? I have never had a cow avoid my gaze therefore not autistic Hamster (talk) 23:03, 9 December 2012 (UTC) nog brown sorrowful eyes .

I'll have to remember that one, Inquisitor!

Well I decided to bite the bullet and as suggested on my talk page I'll started an article in my user space. I took note of some Wikilinks and used them, and I'm planning on more once I read those Wikilinks for contexts (Yes, Hamilton, I have noted those two Autism article amongst others). But I'd like some thoughts on what I've done thus far; Take a look!. BankBox (talk) 22:44, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

That guy is an idiot. I don't know if it's worth having an article here though. Maybe we could have articles about various crack theories about Autism, which would be beneficial since too much of the garbage that people learn about Autism comes from such cracks. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 01:02, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Well I admit to some bias towards getting this article accepted. I consider it important to link names to these nonsense "crack theories" (as you put it). If only his blog on his run for the President wasn't hidden you'll see even more nonsense that doesn't have anything to do with Autism! Off the top of my head there was "Free homes for all" (drawing on the Gadaffi experience believe it or not!), banning all corporations including the banks, taking control of the media (yup, Soviet policy!) and so on. I have some of the material on an old feed (that refuses to update!). You're right of course. He is an idiot! BankBox (talk) 12:20, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

It's good to have people fighting against this nonsense. There's a lot of insanity in the Autistic "community." I hate to call it that because I don't want to reinforce their racial theories. Not kidding, a lot of Autistic people consider themselves to be part of some sort of higher race because of abilities that some HFA people have, and they try to get people arrested for "genocide" for trying to find a cure. Having it, I'm sure you can imagine how I feel about them promoting this garbage. A lot of these people get some pretty strange ideas about how they think things work and claim that they don't want to fit in, when really it's just rationalizing the fact that they're upset about not having any friends. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 22:19, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Umm, there were parts in that reply that did annoy me a bit. For a start, I happen to be Autistic. I am aware of people who do try to promote this "higher being" rubbish, and they should shut up because when it comes down to brass tacks we're all human. But the genocide thing is actually valid, because Autism is a genetic condition in the same way that skin colour is. We still have idiots putting people down because of their skin colour and we all know it's wrong. It's the same for Autistic, putting us down because our brains are different. And yet everyone's brain is different. That's the core of what's called "neurodiversity". Getting rid of one manner of thinking by way of a "cure" IS in fact genocide. It all boils down to people not wanting to understand the condition, and people like Best contribute in a major way to the real reason why we have trouble getting friends - holding up understanding and perpetuating intolerance for what is nothing more than human difference at the root. The only real problem beyond that is sensory overload - the root cause of regression into low functioning Autism which can only happen in childhood although theoretically it can happen in adulthood as well, but it would have to be a mighty overload. I do know of one instance where this has happened and the gravity of the cause is mind boggling. 37 different drugs in order to treat non existant schizophrenia. And even that was in that person's teens. BankBox (talk) 05:13, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

And just back on my article - aside from the objection to the subject, what about the article's content and layout and so on? What do I need to improve it? BankBox (talk) 05:13, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

A couple tips regarding citations: it would look a lot better if you put your citation notes that are in brackets inside this bit o' wiki markup: <!-- --> Therefore it's hidden from view to the reader, but still there when you go to edit the article. Also, we generally don't like to cite Wikipedia — try if you can to find a good alternate source and resort to WP only when you have to. Other than that, just make sure your citations are good and get them soon! Sam ^Tally-ho! 05:21, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough re Wikipedia. There may well be a citation within the WP article I'm thinking of that I could use anyway. I suspected that anyway but at short notice I had nothing else. I'm probably more concerned about using my own website as a source, especially as (for now anyway) I have a major IP Deny structure on it that takes out everywhere outside of the Asia Pacific (that was needed because of a moron who was using every proxy in existence to access my site after I banned his provider via and IP range block). The citation format I'm using there for now is not only for me, but also for anyone else to note where I'm looking for the cites - especially Best's own words. It's going to take awhile to do the cites from his blogs because Hating Autims in particular is huge (it's been there since early 2006 after all). BankBox (talk) 13:34, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Internet is at war

Anyone else been following this The Oatmeal vs. The World, which has now become The Oatmeal vs. Buzzfeed? I'm actually really enjoying it. Speaking as a comedian who has received his own fair share of negative feedback about my work, I am totally biased towards Oatmeal on this one, but what do you all think? SirChuckB^{Boom Goes the Dynamite} 03:10, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Not meaning to offend, but what the hell are you talking about? Doctor Dark (talk) 03:30, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Linky I check the oatmeal once or twice a week; most of his stuff I like. I wouldn't keep it bookmarked if I felt it was a poor return on time spent. Didn't we have a WIGO about the Carreon lawsuit? I wish Gurewitch would update Perry Bible Fellowship more often. Here is a picture of a dickcissel, not yelling blee bloo brain damage. That's pretty much all I got. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 03:38, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

(EC) Short version: The Oatmeal (web comic, gained notoriety through the ridiculous lawsuit drama with funnyjunk) posted a comic that included the phrase "When the internet doesn't work, I rape the shit out of my F5 key." The internet at large exploded, complaining that a comic would dare to use the rape as a source of humor, etc, etc. Just as it was dying down, Jack Steuf, writing for Buzzfeed (formerly of Wonkette) posted a long, poorly researched piece about the writer behind The Oatmeal, writer responds in humorous fashion. Internet takes sides, the war has begun. SirChuckB^{That is all} 03:42, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Basically people are stupid and easily offended, and drama queens are pushing two of the most popular websites out there to destroy each other.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 03:45, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't know about that. I don't think it's too much to ask that "rape the shit out of" not be used in such a trivial way for humor. People get offended over some stupid stuff, but rape jokes aren't that. Blue (is useful) 03:50, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Rape, murder, and abortion are pretty much defining themes of dark humor.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 03:53, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

That's a bullshit excuse. And I've seen the comic in question. It wasn't "dark humor." It wasn't artistic or any of the defining features of black comedy. Blue (is useful) 03:59, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

What is the definition of black comedy? Carlin made rape jokes a stock of his act, was he artistic enough? SirChuckB^{Boom Goes the Dynamite} 04:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

EC He made a stupid joke with horrible misogynist overtones/dimensions. That warranted being called out, for sure. I'm not sure that warranted the giant reaction/counterreaction we see here. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 04:07, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

[Piling on for no good reason at all] Does RW have an official stance on the (no doubt unauthorized) Rule 34 mashup of PBF's "cave exploring" and "box of hate" strips? Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 04:11, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

CC: it was a joke about rape. That's black comedy if one person thought it was funny. You may think the abortion/retardation jokes in Ted, the whole plot line of Death to Smoochy, How to be a Serial Killer, and Arsenic and Old Lace, or the rape-tree joke in Left for Dead (or whatever movie it was) isn't funny so it isn't black comedy, but it is regardless. You may not like it, you may not think its funny, you may even find it offensive, but the fact that it was written intending to be funny, and that atleast one person finds it funny makes it comedy, whether you like it or not.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 04:31, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Still a bullshit excuse. "Somebody laughed at my horrible joke, therefore it's dark humor and nobody can criticize me!" Blue (is useful) 04:41, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Don't misunderstand, if you're offended, say so. I'm not saying don't bring up that something is offensive, but it being offensive and not funny to you does not automatically mean it isn't a joke.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 04:43, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

That's true. It only gets dangerous when that line of reasoning is used as "Can't you take a joke?" regardless of how offensive and problematic the joke is. (I'm not saying that's what you were arguing.) Blue (is useful) 04:47, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

(unindent) The problem I have is that humor is very subjective and some people have a dark sense of what is or is not funny. By all means, if you're offended by something, don't view it and encourage your friends not to view it. But why do we automatically seem to assume that just because something offends our sensibilities that we are automatically in the right and this item, whatever it may be is evil? SirChuckB^{I have very poor judgement} 05:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Because the joke in question normalizes rape. It tells rapists that what they do/aspire to do is normal. Rape is just a funny way of saying "destroy" or "beat", and we use it to describe all sorts of things, right? I rape the shit out my F5 key. I totally raped Mike at tennis today. I'm going to get Laura wasted and totally rape her tonight. Blue (pester) 05:08, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The same could be said of murder in How to be a Serial Killer, and spousal abuse in The Honeymooners--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 05:52, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

False analogy. This comic didn't actually involve anything that could be construed as rape - it just made use of the word rape in a lighthearted, joking way. Blue (is useful) 06:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

So if I were to say, "I totally kicked Jim's ass in (insert activity here), would you argue that I was "normalizes assault. It tells assaulters that what they do/aspire to do is normal. Assault is just a funny way of saying "destroy" or "beat", and we use it to describe all sorts of things, right?" Or how about if the comic in question said "When the internet doesn't work, I murder my F5?" Same argument.... Or is rape a special, protected crime that deserves special treatment? SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden? 2012} 06:06, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Do we ever see physical abuse in The Honeymooners, or do we just hear it constantly referenced in a joking way?--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 06:07, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Hamilton - I don't know, I've never actually seen The Honeymooners...

SirChuckB - I could try to explain rape culture and its implications here, but you don't seem like the type of person who would be very sympathetic. You can always read our article. Blue (is useful) 06:10, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Blue, I've been here a year longer than you, and I did attend college, so why don't you go ahead and explain rape culture. Funny, America also has a violent culture, a strong gun culture and a huge homicide culture, but you don't seem bothered by any of that (note that you continue to dodge questions about domestic violence and murder). You obviously have a special exception for rape, as you feel it's a worse crime than some others, so why not just come out and say that "I personally find rape jokes awful and I cannot accept that somebody may find them funny" SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden? 2012} 06:54, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Rape is exceptional in that it's a violent crime that is far and away the most saturated in our culture. I am not saying that dark humor can never involve rape. I am saying that the trivialization and normalization of rape that we see every day and all around us is unparalleled by any other violent crime. A lot of men have a hard time grasping this, and that is not a comment on the amount of time you've been on this wiki or the fact that you went to college. Blue (pester) 07:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to weigh into this for fear of getting pounded (not a rape joke). Tragedy is a staple of humour. It's about juxtapositions. In this case, seriousness versus triviality. My 12 year old daughter died from heart failure as a result of a particularly bad epileptic seizure. I still laugh at epilepsy jokes, albeit with a sense of guilt after realising that I was laughing. Trainwrecks never end well, heart attacks and cancer are not much fun, unusual deformities are a cause for suffering. Rape is awful, but a bad rape joke is simply a bad joke. For an example of how rape jokes can be done, just ask Wanda Sykes' detachable vagina.--Brendiggg (talk) 06:59, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

"Rape is exceptional in that it's a violent crime that is far and away the most saturated in our culture.", I'd say it's murder. Honestly, how many times a day do you hear someone say "I'm going to kill you!" compared to really any reference to rape (see, 12 Angry Men). And yet, despite how commonplace it is for people to say something about murder, we still find it a horrible thing. I'm not trying to say that trivializing rape is acceptable, just that saying that any reference to rape is trivializing it, is almost trivializing the idea of trivializing a thing, and that even if it were, it seems like it isn't really impacting our reaction to it.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 07:36, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Far more people are at risk of rape at any given time than are at any genuine risk of being murdered. And yes, The Honeymooners did implicitly normalise wife-beating, & wouldn't be acceptable (at least as family-friendly viewing) if it was made today. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 08:41, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd be far more supportive of the Internet's outrage at his comic if most of those same people weren't so hypocritical about it, raging while happily make rape jokes and misogynistic statements while hiding behind anonymous monikers in various chat boards. Of course this being the Internet, many people hate the Oatmeal only because its popular and known (cynical jealousy seems to be the dominate emotional state of most of the denizens of the Web).--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 15:50, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I have no sympathy for The Oatmeal because its writer is a hack who occasionally hits on something funny. If it weren't for his experience in SEO, The Oatmeal would be just another shitty webcomic no one pays attention to. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 11:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

That's just not how language works. No amount of moral gymnastics gets the people attacking The Oatmeal (which I mostly don't find that funny) past that obstacle. It's a sad situation when everybody is outraged by a keyword but has no anger left for actual problems in the world. Of course it's easier to "boycott" a web comic and write nasty things about its author on Twitter than to, for example, tell your best friend they've had enough and put them in a cab home rather than let them keep drinking and pass out somewhere. But you know what? Getting the Oatmeal to change that comic won't make a damn difference to how many people get raped, whereas less drunk people in strangers beds will make a big difference. I sense the same hypocrisy that leads to people campaigning for an abortion clinic to be shut down while also not telling their kids about safe sex. "If I put my fingers in my ears then I won't be reminded that the problem exists and I can just wish it away". Not in the real world you can't. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 11:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The term is "armchair activism," I think. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 11:29, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I personally take the increase in feminists-versus-various-internet-dipsticks fights (or maybe it's just my increased awareness due to age?) as a good sign, because it means feminist voices have reached a critical mass where other people are actually being forced to address their criticisms. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 11:29, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

[1] xD --Henk (talk) 12:16, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Getting the Oatmeal to change that comic won't make a damn difference to how many people get raped, whereas less drunk people in strangers beds will make a big difference. - See rape culture. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 19:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

"It only gets dangerous when that line of reasoning is used as "Can't you take a joke?" regardless of how offensive and problematic the joke is." - so at one point does a joke become problematic? The only circumstance I can think of where a joke becomes worthy of scrutiny and censure by the world at large is if its being used to simultaneously express and conceal a particular agenda, for example a public official telling racist jokes to deliberately alienate a section of his constituency. I agree with much of what the rape culture article says, however I think if you start targetting the joke-tellers directly then you're in the position of trying to make certain topics off-limits, something comedians have historically treated as a challenge. Grumblejaws (talk) 20:54, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Racist jokes perpetuate racism, whether it's a politician telling them or a couple of guys in the pub. By the same token, jokes that condone or trivialise rape perpetuate rape culture. As for making topics off-limits, it's more of a case of making certain attitudes unacceptable than topics themselves. Not all jokes about rape are pro-rape, just as not all jokes about racism are racist. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree about the power of jokes to perpetuate dangerous attitudes, but if you use that as the basis for censuring some jokes and not others then you're left with the problem of trying to divine the intentions of the joke-teller, if indeed you're prepared to say that the intentions make a difference. I adore South Park and firmly think no fair-minded person would regard Trey Parker and Matt Stone as being racist, but there's no denying that a lot of the anti-semitic abuse I got at school was from idiots aping Cartman. "As for making topics off-limits, it's more of a case of making certain attitudes unacceptable than topics themselves." - totally agree, but if you set out to achieve that by heaping masses of abuse on a comedian who has been deemed as standing on the wrong side of whatever line we use to define acceptable and unacceptable humour (as opposed to just not reading or watching their material) then you end up obscuring the problem - in this case the perpetuation of rape culture - by turning it into an issue about the boundaries of good taste and freedom of expression. Grumblejaws (talk) 21:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Let me clarify my earlier post. I just meant to point out an alternative point of view, "rape culture". Perhaps it's my white male privilege speaking, but I'm rather dismissive of "rape culture" arguments. Perhaps it's also because I'm a free speech absolutist (quote unquote). I do make some gestures and efforts at challenging sexism and racism when I see it online, but I do not challenge any and all racist and sexist and rape jokes. It depends on context, and whether I feel there is a "legitimate" impression that they're trying to make light of the actual act. Personally, I think I've tried to move away from sexist or racist language. The worst I do now is maybe "ass", "dick", or "bitch". Anyone have any better words I could use instead? I don't know of any good functional replacements. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 22:29, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm also a free speech absolutist quote unquote, but I think you're making the classic fallacy of conflating freedom of speech with freedom from criticism. The Westboro Baptist Church has every right to say God Hates Fags but that doesn't mean we can't campaign against them, condemn them in the strongest terms, etc. This isn't a free speech issue. Blue (pester) 11:51, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I might have insinuated that. My apologies. I did not mean to, and I do not believe that. Was just attempting to clarify my earlier 1 line comment. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 22:02, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

The reason to be dismissive of a "rape culture" argument in this specific case isn't any of that, it's just that this wasn't about rape at all. What happened here is essentially the same as if I wrote "I could murder a cheese sandwich right now" and the blogosphere erupted into people insisting that I'm supporting domestic violence and that I am making it seem as though a cheese sandwich and a person are equivalent in value. As Language Log has lamented at great length the general public's ignorance of natural sciences (I watched a grown woman offer "Carbon Dioxide" as a guess for the name of an element on TV the other day) is nothing compared to how little they know about language even though they use language constantly. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 11:24, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Aha, I was looking at the wrong comic. OK, so in that comic the idea of rape is clearly being used, rather than just a mention of the word. I personally don't care, but I get now why other people were offended and I withdraw my defence of The Oatmeal because it was based on a false premise. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 11:45, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

That's it. I give up. They win.

Spent my day freezing my balls off protesting the gutting of organized labor in my adoptive state. Protesting the draconian restrictions on women's health (health care providers and mental health professionals can now refuse to provide services to people they find morally objectionable, and it is illegal for insurance companies to pay for abortions unless the woman purchased special slut insurance an "abortion rider".) Gun-free zones on campuses (my workplace) are now illegal. The revolution is over. They won. I don't want to live here anymore. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 02:20, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

There's always Soviet Canuckistan -- the border isn't that far! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:36, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

That's where I'm from, so at least my "I'm moving to Canada" threats aren't idle bullshit that reveal a profound ignorance of immigration laws. But I'm not sure if there will be much of a difference in 10 years. Watch for this "right to work" stuff to hop the 49th parallel. Watch for the Conservatives to finally do an end-run around their leader and sneak a private members' bill past the House. They've already gutted the long-gun registry. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 02:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

This was a realization I made a year ago. Welcome to the club. We have juice on Tuesdays at Wendels between 6 and 8 PM. Feel free to join us.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 02:44, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

You could always come join us in Europe. We have a whole continent of people who aren't crazy. Well, at least not that kind of crazy anyway. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 02:58, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Your continent has an office holding racist party. I'm not sure if your continent is much less stupid then ours.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 03:02, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Your continent also has immigration laws. Otherwise, I'd live in Amsterdam. Or maybe Dublin. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 03:05, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I prefer Germany. But then I don't have Irish roots or a desire to do pot/hookers.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 03:09, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

My European colleagues often despair of the xenophobia in their respective countries. I guess the moral is that every place has problems of one sort, and the assorted nutjobs that come with the territory. Doctor Dark (talk) 03:11, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I think I could put up with xenophobia as long as the government/companies/populace had some concept of acting in the best interest of their country.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 03:15, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Depends on what's important to you. What with Mrs. Dark being a first-generation immigrant, things like xenophobia hit a little closer to home than they might with other people. Doctor Dark (talk) 03:31, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

If I migrated to Germany I'd be a first generation immigrant there. Still seems preferable then living here on many many days.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 03:43, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

On the assumption that you're a white guy, "immigrant" means something different in that case. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 03:48, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Are white immigrants cool? Even if they're asshole-Americans?--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 03:58, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm a white immigrant here in Spain. It's often quite funny when I get involved in conversations with Spanish people who start complaining about immigrants "cumming over here taking our jobs and steelin our wimmin". After agreeing with them for a while I gently remind them that I'm an immigrant - something which they seen to not notice although anybody can tell that I'm not Spanish. As they don't want to appear racist and also don't want to offend me they are left struggling to explain who they are talking about without reference to race.--Bob^{"I thought this was supposed to be "Rational" Wiki?."} 09:32, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

ToP, I don't expect the Tories to remain in power after 2015. The only reason why Harper remains PM is because he's barely clinging onto whatever of the centre-right voting bloc he still has influence over - he knows very damn well that if he allows any of his backbenchers to pull the party even further from sanity, Canada will see another 1993.

If the Liberals pick Garneau next year everything will get better up here...eventually. Osaka Sun (talk) 03:23, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid the Grits will make the same mistake they made when they took Ignatieff (some of whom's intellectual work is actually decent) over Bob Rae. They will pick the shiny thing and go with Trudeau, and we will be eating our pets for breakfast by 2015. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 03:31, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

A lot can change in three months, especially when Trudeau keeps flip-flopping. But at this point the Spaceman's the best chance we got. Osaka Sun (talk) 04:15, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Outlook uncertain

Isn't it funny how our captains of industry are at one moment entrepreneurs extraordinaire who boldly go where no stuffed suit has gone before, but when it comes to things like, say, their taxes, they just can't handle the uncertainty! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

And in related news, Porsche has its best ever sales while the likes of mid-market Ford and Vauxhall/Opel give way to lower-priced brands such as Hyundai. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 14:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Request permission to die before this happens

Paul McCartney to replace Kurt Cobain for Nirvana reunion gig Sophie^Wilder 14:21, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Why ask for permission to die? Surely permission to weld headphones playing Whitehouse 24/7 to the perpetrators' heads would be more beneficial? Hydrogen and Time (talk) 14:58, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

At last, a reason for Whitehouse to exist. Sophie^Wilder 15:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Whitehouse are fantastic! Just the thing to use in nihilistic audio warfare with Celine Dion-loving neighbours. Hell, even the death-metal fans would balk at Whitehouse. The music is as offensive as the lyrics, and that's definitely art - David Gerard (talk) 20:21, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

If you run out of Whitehouse, there's always their fanboys like Sutcliffe Jugend, who have always struck me as a bit tryhard - David Gerard (talk) 20:22, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

All you folks in favor of teaching children about rationality and belief....

I'm really curious about your take on this. Theory of Practice Still tryin' to figure it all out. 00:58, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Meh. Osaka Sun (talk) 01:06, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

The only subject that should be mandatory in school is critical thinking. Of course, in th UK it is discouraged because we do not want pupils questioning teachers do we? Dirk Steele (talk) 01:16, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Kids have a right to harmless fantasy. You will be slaped with the reality that Santa doesn't exist and even if you love it, all work is still work - soon enough. ;-) --Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 01:19, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I've seen people work so hard to keep the illusion going their son still believes in santa at age 17. Hiring neighbors to ring bells out side, walking about on the roof, etc. Humorless fascist^sociopath 01:27, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

My god, why do interesting conversations always get hijacked by single issue posters these days? Onto the subject of telling kids about Santa, this comes up every year and I don't have any real opinion about whether kids should be told the truth about santa or not, except to say that at 5 it is a decision for the parents. At 8 it might be a different story. --Damo^Hi 01:30, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Santa Claus was real, and lived to the west of Antalya. The Turks have put his face on postage stamps. Deny this, and lose all credibility among philatelists. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 01:38, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

You have an issue whether you should lie to people? You do not have an opinion about whether kids should be told the truth? What would you prefer? To be 'brainwashed' by theories of God? It does work if you examine the map of religious beliefs. Or is it genetic? Dirk Steele (talk) 01:40, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd have to agree that it's a matter for parents, not one for teachers, uncles and aunts or anyone else.

Note to self: Never ask the kids I teach to draw one real and one imaginary thing in December. Spud (talk) 05:28, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I think Osaka Sun got it right. "Meh." LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 06:35, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Just another way we continue to insult the intelligence of children. If you let them work at it on their own, they tend to come up with infinitely more imaginative stories than that of Santa. If kids "have a right to harmless fantasy," as Godot says, they deserve the right for it to be their own spontaneous fantasy, not one that's forced upon them.

Besides, if we're talking about the rights of children (rather than those of their parents' over them), you'd think the right to not be blatantly lied to by authority figures in your formative years would be one of them. Q0 (talk) 07:47, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Here's Why You Shouldn't Lie To Your Kids About Santa. Proxima Centauri (talk) 08:58, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say any of those things. My statement was a non-committal utterance of ennui at the whole situation, at both sides, and at how this is even newsworthy. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 09:00, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

So how come when I state the same as Q and Proxima my comments get hidden and I am called a troll and get blocked? Jeez. Dirk Steele (talk) 09:10, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

It's probably because you got on your brain disease hobbyhorse and somebody went "oh no, not this shit again." Sophie^Wilder 12:21, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Apologie, btw, if in reducing your comments to a couple of words I lost some of the subtlety. Sophie^Wilder 12:23, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I think Father Christmas as well as the concept of God the Father, Jesus the son indoctrinates children into accepting a patriarchal society. I think 'Mother Christmas' should be encouraged since women tend to nurture whilst men tend to fuck off. I support the idea of promoting fantasy (Science begins with myths...) and also critical thinking as maturity develops. Yes I think you may have lost the subtlety of my argument but hey ho!! Most people do on this site. Dirk Steele (talk) 03:38, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

@Liberal: My response wasn't to you, but to the idea in general. The entire indenting is a bit of an unwritten format here that I've never been quite sure of. Most people tend to just follow along from the last post, even if they aren't directly replying to it. Q0 (talk) 11:32, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Tim Minchin's New Statesman post (since archived on NS' website, so under "bonus material" of that blog post) is relevant here. The “Father Christmas is real… in the imaginary world.” line in particular. If you act like some gung-ho hardcore skeptic and atheist saying "NONE OF THIS IS REAL AND YOU'RE STUPID!!!!!" in front of your kids, you're going to raise your kids to be assholes - like you. If you let them figure it out for themselves and challenge you with "how do you know Father Christmas is real?" then you'll have kids that can think critically and be right, without having to shove the correct answer down their throat. I would like a 5 year-old kid of mine to say "I think Santa isn't real because of X, Y and Z", not "Santa isn't real because Mummy and Daddy said so". ^postate 12:57, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Are you really making the assertion that you need to first lie to your child (for years, at that) in order to teach critical thinking skills? Maybe there's something to be said for using the Santa thing as an example when your kid hears about it from others (saying something like "I don't know, what do you think?"), but this argument is so similar to one of the most classic atheist strawmen out there that it hurts. You know the one, where we all indoctrinate our kids to be anti-religious, exactly like the believers we so despise! A fundamental misunderstanding of the difference between 'a belief in the negative', and a 'lack of belief', completely missing the point that the only time one fairy tale or another even enters our minds is when we're forced to account for it. Q0 (talk) 14:29, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Santa IS REAL dammit. — Unsigned, by: ORavenhurst / talk^{Do You Believe That?} 14:44, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

This is begging for a Louvin Brothers album cover parody, isn't it? Secret Squirrel (talk) 12:25, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

When I have kids, and they ask me about Santa Claus, I am going to tell them the truth. It'll be dumbed down for their intellects. Something like:

Santa Claus was a real person named Saint Nicholas, who lived 1700 years ago. He was a very good man, so good that Christians still tell stories about him. People say that he came to poor people's houses at night and threw money in through the windows so that they could eat without being embarrassed about asking for money. He was so popular that people still tell stories about him and try to be as nice and generous as him at Christmas. Nowadays, most people don't know about St. Nicholas, but a lot of parents tell their kids the story of Santa Claus. Even though Santa Claus is not real, we can still learn from and enjoy his story. If one of your friends asks you about Santa Claus,, you don't have to pretend you believe in him, but you also shouldn't make your friend feel bad about believing in him, either. You can say something like, "Santa Claus lived a long time ago, but people can still do his job for him."

I think that's a pretty fair way of going about it. I mean, just because you know Santa isn't real doesn't mean you don't like it when he leaves you a present in your stocking, right? What do you guys think? RachelW (talk) 15:22, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, so it's twenty years since I went through all this but, to my recollection, my son, when four, five and six, could operate quite happily on two levels. Of course he knew that Santa was actually Frank, the local store owner, and that 'Peggy', the tooth fairy, didn't really exist but life was more fun, more colourful if you played along with the myth. I never lied to him but I never crushed his fantasies either. Innocent Bystander (talk) 15:28, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Let me answer Theory of Practice's question, because if it was aimed at anyone, it was aimed at me. I think that one of the biggest ills of religion is the imposed destruction of critical thinking skills. I do not think that fostering a belief in Santa damages critical thinking skills as a matter of facts. I think this because relatively soon everyone will tell you it's just a huge in-joke. This is unlike Christianity, where they tell you that god made you sick, but offered you a way out, by sucking up to him, and never does everyone come out and say it was just a mere in-joke. Moreover, I realized that the Santa thing might actually help critical thinking skills. If you are a child, and you really believed in Santa, later you would learn that you were lied to, by everyone, and hopefully you would see how easy it can be to convince yourself of pure fantasy. I'm not sure how big of an effect that could be, but I think it's at least something better than neutral. Again, overall, I don't see this as a big deal either way. Children eventually learn that it's fiction, and I don't see it as terribly bad if it happens at 5 or 10. It happens. Whatever. Not like the children actually care whether it's a magic fat man giving them presents or their parents giving them presents. Let's be real: they care about the presents. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 22:44, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

You may or may not be interested in this. The Hopi have a very intersting "right of passage" for their boys (now girls, too). The kids are raised hearing about AND SEEING at festivals and what not, kachinas, gods or a kind of spirt (hard to tell which is the best english term). When the kids turn 12, they are kidnapped by kachinas, and taken to an underground kiva, where the kachina "gods" take off their masks, and the kids are told that "the real religion of The People is more personal, more about you and your relationship with nature and your fellow man". they may or may not have an actual god, but it's not a daddy god in teh sky god, if they do. I love that idea. its' like letting religion "grow up" to be something actually useful and mature in an adult's world, rather than "do not sleep with a gay person" and "do not say bad words" that really does not help an adult that much. Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 23:42, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I didn't want to read this whole section, so i don't know if this has been said already—i think the Santa Claus story is a good way to let kids learn about rational thinking, not blindly trusting authority, etc.. The reason why some religionists don't like it is why i do. Nihilist 16:30, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

It's not the teachers' business to outright tell the students that Santa Claus isn't real, it's the parents' business. DMorris, on the EIP Network ^{1 855 282 2882} 22:59, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Teach the controversy! Sophie^Wilder 15:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that the teacher should just ignore it, and not address the Santa issue at all at that age, unless explicitly asked about it. I don't see any harm in a 5 year old drawing santa in the "real" column of a class activity. That said, I don't know how this came up, exactly. If the kid just drew it, the teacher shouldn't say anything. If it came up in discussion, because students are asking questions regarding santa, well, perhaps it could have been handled better, but the teacher shouldn't just ignore students' questions. Anyway, that's my two cents. Mcnamara12 (talk) 19:38, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I dont believe a kindergarten teacher should be telling kids of that age that anything is real or not real (except maybe monsters in the closet) but leave it to the parents. Piagets theories of child development was a guide to what level of abstract thought a child could deal with. Hamster (talk) 20:06, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Windows 8

Please discuss ^Cox 04:14, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

The Metro screen is slightly better than the Windows Start Menu, though pretty much any other UI beats them. Some things are better, some are unnecessary and annoying simplifications. Nihilist 04:29, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

The rest of the world disagrees. Tmtoulouse (talk) 04:38, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

The rest of the world? Doctor Dark (talk) 04:43, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I await windows 9 to come out and it be a return to logical desktop and laptop computer UI--Mikal ^{Harass Follow} 04:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Mostly a comment on metro being an improvement on...anything...its being widely panned. Tmtoulouse (talk) 04:52, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

It's an improvement because of the ease of customization and the loss of folders. I hate those fucking alphabetized folders. Nihilist 04:57, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

How else do you organize several tens of thousands of files? Doctor Dark (talk) 05:20, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Am I the only one who hears about how evil and corrupt and incompetent Windows is for their terrible OS design that always gets viruses and crashes and never works and goes "I never have a problem. The fuck are you on about?"--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 05:28, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, tags would be one method. But i'm talking about the mostly-program-generated folders in the Start Menu.

Most of my friends who even care to talk about computers beyond the normal user are Linux and Linux-variant users, All i EVER hear is why Windows sucks. --Mikal ^{Harass Follow} 05:45, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

My Windows never gets viruses, never crashes and mostly works as i expect it to, but i'm still not a fan; truthfully, it isn't all that bad, but Linux is better, even though it has its own problems. Nihilist 05:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

On a mildly-related note, i'm in the process of learning Colemak, which is better than QWERTY. Nihilist 05:51, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

It's funny. I was thinking the same, but probably for different reasons. I was about to start ranting about IMAO obvious bugs in both the POSIX API and the WIN32 API. Fork in its current incarnation as the only process spawn primitive is broken in design. Too easy to unintentionally leak resources to a child, and damn hard to do anything about it, and impossible portably. (Linux you have to open /proc/self/fd, solaris IIRC has closefrom, other systems have a special flag for fcntl, etc.) win32 suffers the same problem, though they've made some decent motions towards fixing the problem. And no, posix_spawn doesn't solve anything because it still carries the same inheritance semantics of file handles, etc. Does anyone here care about this? More importantly, does anyone here even follow what I'm saying? Oh lol. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 01:46, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I do. I have programmed a few things to the Win32 API, and it is an abomination. I haven't programmed to the POSIX API, but it would be extremely hard to design anything more ugly than Win32. 'Console' and 'windowed' executables; a special and completely unportable way of getting Unicode program arguments; incompatible codepages; Unicode support on the whole being an unmitigated trainwreck; need to use magic 'manifests' if you don't want your controls to look like in Windows 3.1; buggy functions; API design that encourages writing most of the program in a single giant switch statement. UGH. Also, 32-bit longs on a 64-bit system. --Tweenk (talk) 03:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

@Hamilton: It's not just you. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 06:31, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Same here. I think the issue is that 99% of viruses can stopped by users not being stupid, but since Windows is the "default" operating system, it goes disproportionately to the sort of people who post "PRIVACY NOTICE: Warning - any person and/or institution and/or Agent and/or Agency of any governmental structure including but not limited to the United States Federal Government also using or monitoring/using this website or any..." as their Facebook status. ^postate 10:02, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Would anyone mind if I started bitching about Gnome 3? Occasionaluse (talk) 16:37, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

@Armondikov: Very true. The truism that you always need to have an antivirus running on Windows is false—i've been running mine unprotected for at least a year.

@Occasionaluse: No, but i'm going to preemptively rebut by saying it isn't that bad. I rather like it, and Unity is even better.

As you can tell i'm not a very big fan of the classic Windows-style GUI. Nihilist 16:50, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Windows users include old people, teenaged girls, high school drop outs, drunks, little kids, people in developing nations, etc, along with the other people that know what they're doing. There are more Windows-based machines out there than Macs and Linux-based PCs. Linux users include nerds, geeks, geniuses, penises hackers, and IT professionals. Mac users include fanboys, geeks, people that happen to work somewhere that uses Macs, spoiled little rich kids that have net nanny filters keeping them from doing anything risky, and some idiots that are so clueless that they probably never even realize that they've picked up a virus. That is why more Windows PCs get hit with viruses. DMorris, on the EIP Network ^{1 855 282 2882} 23:21, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

It means you get a little bit of herd immunity from being in a minority too. It's telling that the first virus to spread (in an actual viral manner) across smartphone handsets was for the iPhone, because it was the most popular model and system at the time. Prior to that, handsets were far too disparate for efficient propagation. ^sshole 10:25, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Did someone mention Linux and viruses in the same thread? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 10:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you actually read that blog? Nihilist 15:18, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I stopped following Linux Hater's Blog after they stopped updating, but it's still the definitive anti-Linux blog. Just stick with the "greatest hits" in the sidebar and stay away from their more recent work and they're pretty on-point. Penguin Day started out a promising usurper to the anti-Linux crown, yet only ever put out a dozen or so posts — but, oh, what classics those dozen are. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 10:08, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the post about '5 years': the Linux ecosystem is changing fast enough that every 5 years around half of the software is rewritten or substantially improved. I started using Linux around 5 years ago and some things which were added in that timeframe include PulseAudio, X.org input device hotplug (back then, if you had multiple input devices, they were all translated by the kernel to an emulated PS/2 mouse), extremely easy configuration of nearly all types of mobile broadband, Bluetooth audio, integration of SFTP, FTP, WebDAV and CIFS clients into the file manager, desktop effects working practically everywhere including Intel integrated graphics, and many other things I already take for granted. Some things that are trivial in Linux are hard to do in Windows; for example, networking with crossover Ethernet cables (without a router).

The post about viruses and deployment is bogus. The Linux games from Humble Indie Bundle have no problems with deployment, and neither do the commercial Linux applications such as Mathematica, Houdini or Renoise. It's not possible or at least much harder to install invasive shit that is common on Windows, such as shell extensions, quick launch icons, browser bars, quickstarters, auto updaters and the like, but I consider this a good thing. --Tweenk (talk) 03:56, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Sid Meier's Civilization [sic]

I've recently found myself playing Civilization [sic] Revolution on my iPad a lot. Game feels too easy on King. Should I try a higher difficulty level? Does anyone have some interesting CivRev stories they'd wish to share? The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 16:51, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I have Civilization IV and i completely suck at it. Even at the third or fourth level i don't think i've won a game yet. Nihilist 16:55, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I found the gap between King and Emperor to be substantial. I can win handily at King, but Emperor is extremely challenging to me. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 17:25, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I found Civilization took far too many hours out of my life; it was always "just one more turn and then I'll go to bed". I daren't download it for my iPad. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 18:11, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Go back to Civ 5 (or 4), the true Civilization experience. Or take up Civ 2, always a fun game. --Mikal ^{Harass Follow} 18:14, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Populous was best. Sophie^Wilder 20:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Not sure how similar the difficulty settings are to the other Civ games which I'm more familiar with (I generally play at either Immortal or Deity on Civ IV, and I've never played CivRev), but King seems like it would be equivalent to Prince. Based on that, you'll probably have the most fun playing on Emperor. Deity is great for a challenge in most games, but at that point the AI's cheating becomes more than blatant and you have to play nearly perfectly. Q0 (talk) 20:27, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Crank up the complexity: play Dwarf Fortress instead.--^talk 06:03, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I only play big boys' Civ (IV and V). Seriously though, I own Revolution for DS and occasionally play it during train rides. It's alright, even if the AI only seems to have two settings: aggressive and fucking aggressive. Vulpius (talk) 17:36, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I know what you mean. Even in King mode, no sooner do I meet someone than they attempt to extort money and technology from me. Being ahead in the tech race means I can successfully defend myself with riflemen armies while my neighbours still use catapults and archers to guard their cities. (Also, one time I got a tank from Knights Templar, tried to march into a city, and got destroyed by archers. Dafuq happened?) The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 16:54, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Fake geek girls?

Anyone think this load of BS merits an article? Basically, some turbo-nerds think that when a woman shows up at (for example) a comicbook convention dressed up (cosplaying) that she is almost definitely there to... do something... evil. A lot of it borders on sexism and is definitely elitist/authoritarian ('you only know about Pokemon from the American TV series and movies but haven't watched the Japanese original or read the manga, go to hell faker-girl!', while ignoring the men who are in the same boat, or the kids dressed up as Ironman)

I've read a bit on this from different places and probably could do an article on it, but not sure if it merits an article. Thoughts?--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 20:28, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Just go for it and worry about its necessity later.

I think it would be a good article. Nihilist 20:34, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure there was a discussion about this fairly recently, but I'm struggling to find the thread now. It's a pretty common phenomenon; a mixture of subcultural snobbery (self-styled purists who resent the popularisation of their niche) and sexism (intentional or not). The No True Nerd fallacy. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Totally. ^moral 20:47, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Already an article on Geek Feminism Wiki. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm going for a run in 15 minutes, so I'll make something in, like, 2 hours. It'll be short because I have this feeling someone will nominate it for deletion. If it goes a day without anyone suggesting that, I'll expand it. Not sure what category to put it in though.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 20:50, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Here's all that needs to be said about "fake" geek girls: Yeah, it's bollocks.Dendlai (talk) 20:52, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

This is the blog I was thinking of (linked in the Geek Feminiam Wiki page mentioned above). I vividly remember discussing this at RW but now can't find the discussion at all; weird. Anyhoo, the core argument is that women who pretend to be geeks (for attention) are just as bad as men who treat women like shit; plus there's lots of "don't get me wrong, many of my friends are chicks" prevarication. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:03, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

This just got discussed in a Cracked article. I vaguely remember a discussion about it as well, but I found the whole thing a little silly so I didn't put much stock into it. People are always douches about infringements on their perceived interest, no reason to explain too much further than "you're just pretending to care." SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 21:13, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Fuck my run has been delayed. Anyways, as I'm thinking about this I'm thinking about changing the possible article to one more generally about cultural snobbery in the different "geek cultures", not just the "fake geek girls", but also the snobbery in comic culture, and the like so it doesn't seem like so much of a re-hash of other already existent articles. Thoughts?--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 21:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

This was a pretty wicked reply to Peacock's article. [2] From an uber geek. 'king geek" or somesuch. and yeah, we had this discussion. Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 21:40, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Typical sexist boloney, there's almost as many girls that are "geeks" as there are men. In fact, if anybody here's heard of DEF CON, I know of a girl that went to that and she's a phone phreak. I believe probably a good 75% of vandalism at Wikipedia comes from high school girls. And they're not all ugly one's or even outcast ones; I've known freaking cheerleaders of all people that would classify as a "nerd", at least two of them at my own high school anyway (and they weren't/aren't Wikipedia vandals).DMorris, on the EIP Network ^{1 855 282 2882} 23:27, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Let me cite some purely anecdotal evidence in this regard: In my computing classes at the University of Michigan, there were exactly 2 girls in a student body of 100~. In my current employ, a programming company, there are 0 (zero) white women in my department of programming. There are plenty recent immigrant Indian and Chinese women. There are plenty of white men. There are plenty of white women in sales, but not programming. I do not think this is genetic. This is cultural. Please do not read further than what I've stated, as it was not my intention. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 00:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm putting in something basically saying "this is really only because of male geekdoms own stupidity", and a comment about how it really fucks them over anyways.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 00:21, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. For the purpose of argument, even if we grant the premise, we can still argue that attacking so called "newbies" or "non-hardcore people" for not being hardcore seems to be extraordinarily stupid and counterproductive, assuming they want to be with women. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 01:39, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

What does anecdotal evidence about IT programmers have to do with comic con cosplay? Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 01:47, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

It was more in response to comments about how there are more girl geeks than some give credit. For certain definitions of the word, such as "programmer", I think that there are next to no girl geeks. I might make a similar but less extreme argument for gaming. Of course, "geek" is such a nebulous word, so, meh. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 01:52, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Also, minor nit. I'm not IT, nor was I talking about IT. I write code. I do not manage networks and databases for other people. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 01:58, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

<smarm>Yeah, because anyone knows the difference, or gives half a shit if they do</smarm>--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 02:00, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The director of IT at wp:Fawcett Memorial Hospital is a lady. When I was in middle school, I was the office aide in the IT department, and two of three IT people were ladies. I've known lady geeks of all types, computer, video game, science, comic books, etc. DMorris, on the EIP Network ^{1 855 282 2882} 02:33, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

K... I don't see anything controversial about noting that my anecdotal evidence seems to indicate that the population of gamers is more men than women, and same for programmers if you consider the US educated population. I think you're overreacting here. Unless I missed a memo, I don't see anything wrong about identifying what I see to be certain gender caps due to cultural influences. Anyway, meh. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 07:14, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

You're placing undue emphasis on a very vague (as well as anecdotal) correlation. The starting point of this thread was girls at fan conventions, not in computer programming. Assuming they're the same demographic is playing into the same kind of thinking that perpetuates these stereotypes in the first place. There are no girls in my programming department. --> Being a 'geek' is not a girl thing. --> That girl in the 7 of 9 costume at the Star Trek convention DOES NOT BELONG HERE! Hate! Hate! Ostracise! Ostracise! Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:04, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I saw a for example in the OP post. Thus, I assumed we were talking about the larger phenomenon, and there is some truth about there being less female geeks IMHO. Of course, I completely agree that there is elitism and sexism and it's horrible and stupid. I see it all the time online. It makes me sad. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 19:43, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

It's all about the focus. The people who complain about "fake geek girls" just as easily be talking about "fake geek men" and "fake geek television shows" if they really wanted to. Q0 (talk) 07:48, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

All the girls I know would kick your collective asses at Doctor Who trivia. ^theist 10:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

New or classic? Sophie^Wilder 11:55, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Both. ^bomination 12:14, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Don't tell me you were hinting at "you're not a TRUE fan if you only watch the new series". ^{d hominem} 12:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I, er... well... look! A yeti! Sophie^Wilder 15:05, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

A Yeti you say? Humorless fascist^sociopath 15:06, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

<elitist geek>Fuck Nu Who. Old Who rules the school, Nu Who can suck a cow's teet, because its just pandering to uninformed idiots</elitist geek>--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 17:05, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm just going to leave this here: Fat, Ugly or Slutty This is the environment that's out there in the wild, depressingly often. Ochotonaprinceps^{not a pokémon} 23:18, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not entirely convinced it's needed, but given our stance of challenging all woo, I have no objection. EVDebs (talk) 00:52, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion over time FUS just demonstrates the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory. People who can't see you and know nothing about you get angry and say broadly offensive things when they lose at a video game (or more rarely, when they win). I kept expecting that I'd hit this vast vein of misogyny carefully targeted at women but what I saw was the same thing you see in every video game community. When you're sat calmly watching someone's stream it seems crazy that a person losing to Mass Ravens would write "l2p noob, you suck", because if the player who won with Mass Ravens "sucks" then what does that say about the player who lost to it? But there's nothing rational going on here, it's just venting a powerful emotion, slightly healthier than punching a wall. Trying to analyse it beyond that says more about you than about the person yelling at their computer. Ritual politeness helps (in SC2 it's conventional to begin by wishing your opponent luck, and to acknowledge defeat by declaring that it was a good game; many combat sports require opponents to shake hands or bow to each other) but ultimately we're dealing with powerful emotions, if the game didn't evoke some sort of response why would you even play? 84.246.168.11 (talk) 14:13, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Utter lies from skeptiko forum about rationalwiki

They are spouting all kinds of lies See here, that I am an ex user from skeptiko called "Matthew" or "sniffy the atheist", and that I am an intelligent designer, or that I own sock accounts on the skepiko forum called "darryl" or the "exterminator". Obviously out of anger considering I exposed them all on this article skeptiko forum. Forests (talk) 18:56, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with them that the user-by-user takedowns are too much and bordering on the stalkerish. ^bomination 19:05, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Should that section be deleted then? I would point out Weiler is notable, indeed hes spammed over 100 skeptic websites claiming psi has been proven by science and has since 2005 been debating people over the internet, his internet history is huge. He is a well known internet kook. Forests (talk) 19:13, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Umm, any reason for dragging this to the Saloon Bar?

As for the "lies", they look like the standard denouncements, plus some speculations who you may be. Apparently there are some people at least partially aware of how wikis work (i.e. they know how to look up a page history).--ZooGuard (talk) 19:16, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Don't they know it's impossible to know any individual Rationalwikian? All of us are goat, no exceptions.±KnightOfTL;DR^{going galt: the literal crazy train} 19:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

All goats are equal, but some goats are more goats than others.--ZooGuard (talk) 19:53, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

some goats may be Jerboas. We also have the Maratrean demi gods Terrors Taba and Trinca, Lord Baku the bat ruling dog and all the rest. Hamster (talk) 20:53, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I am an atomic penguin, but I approve of goats and goat-like creatures. --Tweenk (talk) 04:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

RationalWiki Censorship is getting out of hand

This discussion was moved to Forum:Dirk Steele is whining again. 01:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Circumcision

This discussion was moved to talk:circumcision. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 01:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Noah's biblical flood actually happened.

Or at least, there was a major local flood around the Black Sea that happened several thousand years prior. --Cms13ca (talk) 14:32, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

This? "... breaching of the Bosporus strait, which resulted in the Black Sea increasing to three times its original size ..." Scream!! (talk) 15:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure that I've heard this one various times before.--Bob^{"I thought this was supposed to be "Rational" Wiki?."} 15:29, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

This has been going around since the 90s. Sophie^Wilder 15:50, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

And in North America there was the emptying of Lake Agassiz, while prior to both there was the formation of the Mediterranean. We know that there have been large cataclysmic floods in the past, but they were all regional and nothing global. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 16:43, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I would imagine that the myth was based on some real event(s), otherwise, Christianity is straight up trolling billions of people. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

There have been many floods in the past. The bible mentions a flood. Could the people writing the bible have been influenced by a big flood (or floods) they had seen? Yes. So far, so obvious.

The problem is that apart from the "there are sometimes floods" part, the rest of the story is pure fairytale. So is Christianity "straight up trolling billions of people" as Occasionaluse suggests?--Bob^{"I thought this was supposed to be "Rational" Wiki?."} 21:50, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The Noachean flood is not a specifically Christian myth; it's from the Old Testament (=Tanakh). Doctor Dark (talk) 21:07, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The episode on Bullshit on the Bible suggests the story derives from some guy who loaded most of his possessions, and some animals, on a boat to escape a flood, riding the waters downstream until he hit somewhere relatively safe. Though attributing it to large floods in the Black Sea and Caspian region is nothing new. Those places have been known to have had epic floods for a long time. ^narchist 13:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

(Reset) There is also the argument that 'various chaps from different localities in the pub talking about their various tribal histories': one refers to 'the flood in my grandfather's time' - to which there are various replies 'must be the same as the one my granddaddy referred to', 'you know about the Egyptian Nile floods', and similar which transmutes over several retellings into 'this flood must have covered the world.' As with Arthur an understandable (for the context - not just lack of written records) conflation of several true events becomes a story that as a whole is not. 212.85.6.26 (talk) 16:47, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

UK census results

Religion seems to be in decline in the UK, although with only 650 people calling themselves New Age (there's three times that just in Totnes) I'm sceptical as to the usefulness of the data. Sophie^Wilder 15:17, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

59% Christian, 25% no religion, 5% Muslim. No mention of jedis this year.--Spud (talk) 15:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Waht? See Census 2011 data on religion reveals Jedi Knights are in decline. --Bob^{"I thought this was supposed to be "Rational" Wiki?."} 15:32, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The British Humanist Association claims the actual decline in religion is even more drastic than the official census suggests, see Religion in England. Proxima Centauri (talk) 15:41, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, they would, wouldn't they? Sophie^Wilder 15:51, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, whatever the case may be, it seems like in a decade Christianity will be an official minority religion in the UK. At that point we can start to get really serious about getting rid of the government patronage the church of England enjoys. Not before time if you ask me. I was hoping Christianity would slip below 50% this census, but we're headed in the right direction. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:14, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

While that sounds like a good idea in principle when I look out at the world's examples I'm not so sure that getting rid of an established church (that's the technical term for the Church of England's status) is any smarter than getting rid of the figurehead monarch in favour of a president. I'm sure there must be excellent examples, but I find myself thinking of countries like the US or even Israel, where the state's pretence to be secular has instead been used as an excuse to authorise religious discrimination under the banner of "freedom".

As to "undercounting" of New Age and Jedis, people are what they write on the form. If you're a Jedi knight but you need an email campaign to remind you then I scoff at your supposed religion. Likewise, if you smoke weed "for religious purposes" and say "Blessed Be" all the damn time but still pick "C of E" from the list then you aren't much of a "New Ager" after all. A friend of mine was recruiting for a psych project, and one of the variables they wanted to limit was ethnic background, so he puts "Caucasian" in his advert and he has no end of stories about people who didn't know what that means "Hi, sorry, I left a message before to say I'm not qualified but it turns out I am Caucasian after all"

For some categories the Office undertakes to check the answers with a follow-up on a statistical basis. So some tiny fraction of the people who picked "2 bedrooms" for how many bedrooms they have in their home will get visited by a survey officer who wants to see what they counted as a bedroom in order to determine whether the instructions are too hard to follow or too unintuitive to be reliable, or indeed whether people just lie a lot about that. There is no point "checking" declarations of ethnic background or religious beliefs, if a guy who looks like George Bush and goes to church every Sunday wants to claim he's Black, Caribbean and is a devout Jew then who are we to judge? 82.69.171.94 (talk) 11:03, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

(Reset) The problems with being a Jedi Knight. 1) You aren't allowed to date; 2) You aren't particularly welcome if of the female/transgender persuasions; 3) You age rapidly (Anakin and Obi Wan Kenobi are young in episodes 1-3 and old, only 20 years later, in eps 4-6).

Jedi Knights versus Daleks versus Sauron's Ring : who wins? 212.85.6.26 (talk) 16:51, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

A little help

I'm trying to find a web comic (someone last posted it over the summer after the Aurora Shootings). I can't remember the whole thing, but the jist of it was a Conservative/Liberal argument over guns and the Liberal voice said something along the lines of "look, you won, you can celebrate. The rest of us just have to accept the occasional massacre is better than you losing your freedoms." Does that sound familiar to anyone? SirChuckB^{One of those deceitful Liberals Schlafly warned you about} 09:23, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Chuck, if this is the cartoon in question it was remarkably fast to find. Osaka Sun (talk) 09:32, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

(Probably unwelcome question:) Can you explain how that quote wouldn't apply to freedom of speech, and especially to no unlawful searches and seizures? If you can explain how the quote doesn't apply to the US's first and fourth amendments but does apply to the second, could we agree that in the future we'll use that good argument instead of this anti-liberty argument? LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 09:29, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Wow.... That is totally it. I had remembered it being an external link and never thought that it was an article..... I feel smart now. Thanks Osaka. LUV - I'm not understanding your point..... Can you please explain. SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden? 2012} 10:06, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

LUV, to avoid any false equivalencies, can you please point to a political group calling for limitations to the First and Fourth Amendments who base their arguments on the fact of people lying dead in an Arizona parking lot or a Colorado movie house? Once we've established that the debate to which you refer is actually happening, we can continue the conversation. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 14:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

This is especially relevant given that a federal court just struck down the concealed weapons ban in my state. Apparently the myth that gun violence in Chicago is due to armed robbers preying on innocent civilians is alive and well, since the justification was "guns are important for self-defense outside the home and this will reduce gun violence because the shooters will know their opponents are armed" — Unsigned, by: ORavenhurst / talk^{Do You Believe That?} 14:35, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

The Legislature here has passed a bill banning gun-free zones like campuses (where I work) and churches (where I go). I now feel way less safe. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 14:38, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

To address ToP's point about equivalency, I'd say you could compare that argument to the argument that we need to keep "terrorists" locked up without trial in order to prevent them from killing Americans. You could argue similarly about warrantless wiretaps, etc. One side argues we have to limit guns rights in order to prevent massacres like we saw in Colorado, and one side argues we have to lock up terror suspects in order to prevent another 9/11. They're not identical arguments, certainly, but they're not all that far apart, and they're both happening now. DickTurpis (talk) 14:59, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm for gun-control (or maybe not—i'm not really sure anymore), but this argument seems incredibly flawed to me: 1), any freedom is going to occasionally allow bad things to happen—that's the downside of freedoms, but Americans seem to favor them anyways, and 2), how would you know the killer wouldn't have been able to get a gun with gun laws in-place? Nihilist 15:08, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

By making guns illegal (and my position is that only hunting rifles should be legal, and that outside of hunting season they should be stored at the cop shop. Total ban on all other firearms with a mandatory 20-year jail sentence for a first offense) you make them harder to get. Legal, accessible guns put more guns in the hands of more people, thus increasing the chance that somebody might get shot. Strict gun laws won't prevent these types of events, but making guns harder to get will make them rarer. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 15:27, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I think you're on the ball with everything except the last half of the last sentence - there's so bloody many guns in the US that a change in law is going to take a long time to take effect unless you go to considerable effort to actually take people's guns away - David Gerard (talk) 15:32, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

What makes guns different from, say, drugs? (That was a non-rhetorical question.) Nihilist 15:40, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I can't hurt you by taking drugs. I don't mind putting the effort in, David. The sale, import and manufacture of ammunition except for the hunting rifles described above would be illegal. There could be a way to buy guns/ammunition online and have it shipped to the police for safekeeping before hunting season, and reasonable limits on how much amm one could "check out" per day/week. A one year, no questions asked amnesty period to turn guns in sounds like a way to get the ball rolling. After that, if you leave the house with a gun in your possession, it's a defacto charge of attempted murder. If a gun gets stolen from your house, it's the same charge. Yeah, there would still be guns out there. Making ammo inaccessible would make that less and less of an issue. And even if we only get rid of half the guns in a 10-year period, it's a good start. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 15:45, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I mean, different in terms of people getting them anyways. Nihilist 15:47, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I do not know how to get heroin from here, because it's illegal and I don't have the contacts. I do know how to get a gun and some ammo, because it's listed in the Yellow Pages. If "heroin dealers" were listed in the Yellow Pages, I might try some this afternoon; because heroin is illegal and therefore comparatively rare, I won't. And while I get your point about how the law can never completely eliminate access to a particular thing, drugs are a public health issue being treated as a legal issue; that's big part of why the drug war has failed. Guns are part of a criminal problem, not a public health problem, and thus call for legalistic interventions. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 16:16, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

How do you then address the "only criminals will have guns" argument? I say, of course, coming from a place where "only criminals have guns" and yet we're not arse-deep in shootings. ^theist 19:18, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

No. The police will have guns. Besides which, it's a dumb-ass argument. As it stands now, "only criminals have snuff films on their hard drive," but I don't see that as an argument for legalizing snuff films. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 19:24, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I like the analogy. I will have to steal it. ^narchist 19:35, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that argument is talking about violent, real criminals, and isn't playing a semantics game.

What do you think of this? Nihilist 20:02, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ That little paper seems like a case study in correlation vs. causation. A lot changed--economically, legally, socially-- in America between 1977 and 1992 (...and in the 20 years between then and now). At no point does the study seem to go beyond conjecturing a relationship between gun availability and crime, and he looks at the issue in an economic and social vacuum. Not a lot of there, there. EDIT: More to the point, what he's basically advocating is downloading the responsibility of preventing crime to the individual, as opposed to addressing the issue through the general means of shared legal and social measures. A truly neoliberal solution to the problem, one that I could never get behind, ideologically speaking. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 20:32, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

@Theory, IIRC, forgive me if I'm wrong please, I think you yourself sometimes call for legal restrictions of free speech because of arguments like rape culture and racist culture. (As an aside, this is why I strongly dislike the justice Kagan.) Or is your position even worse than I thought, and you want to restrict speech just because you find it icky and you might personally be offended? Dittos for warrantless wiretapping, imprisonment without charge and trial at gitmo, etc. If you don't like guns, then say it. -- Say your actual argument: You feel that self defense is not as valuable, practical, and common as some claim. You do not feel that there is a plausible threat that would require armed rebellion. You do not think that an armed rebellion would work vs the US military. You do not feel that the remnants of these purported benefits outweigh the tangible deaths. Etc. Surely you agree that one could make an argument that we'd solve and prevent a lot more rapes if we didn't have a pesky requirement to get warrants before doing searches. I don't think you're for abandoning that restriction on government power, are you? They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. (- Benjamin Franklin). LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 21:16, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

1. I believe that restricting hate speech is a reasonable limit on freedom; I was born and lived most of my life in a country where this has become an accepted legal approach. 2. I do not believe in limiting free speech simply because it is potentially offensive. 3. I do not see the relationship between either of these issues nor the issues of warrantless wiretapping or Gitmo, neither of which I am in favour of, and gun control. 4. I am in favor of not only controlling, but severely curtailing in the most extreme manner possible, civilian access to all firearms with the exclusion of tightly-controlled weapons for the exclusive purposes of hunting for food and necessary wildlife management. My reason for doing so is that I value human life, and guns exist for the sole purpose of killing people. Trying to link that position to a justification of preventing rapes by foregoing rapes for searches is spurious, and, if I may, idiotic reasoning on your part. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 21:29, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

You agree the original quote was something along the lines of "You have your freedom, and we all have to pay a safety cost because of it"? I think this is applicable to restrictions on searches and seizures without warrants. I think this is applicable to restrictions on speech targeted to lessen rape and hate crimes. I'm sorry, I don't see how you cannot see how it's applicable. In both cases we're talking about legal prohibitions against individual action that is calculated to increase the safety of others. Perhaps you refuse to recognize how it applies to gun rights because you don't see a benefit of gun rights, but irrelevant of that, we are talking about restricting the allowed individual liberty in order to increase the safety of others, yes? Can you agree to that? LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 21:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, to continue: Can we agree that arguments of the following form are not always correct? "If we remove this individual liberty and check on government power, then we have calculated that it will increase safety in the short term (ignoring government corruption and overreach, and ignoring moral majority corruption and overreach). Thus, we should curtail this individual liberty." Because that's what I got from the OP quote. I would argue that you need a more nuanced analysis that takes into account the possible corruption and tyranny of both the government and the moral majority. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 21:54, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok, last one I swear. I think this sentiment of yours has led to Britain having one of the silliest libel and slander laws in the world. It's a joke to the rest of us. I've heard many scientists complain about how they cannot publish actual research for fear of litigation. Hell, I bring this up because I just saw a South Park episode where they played on this - (fictional) Tom Cruise was going to sue the boys of South Park for defamation, In Britain, presumably because of how easy it would be compared to any other country with sane libel and slander. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 21:58, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Are you arguing that gun ownership is a check on government power? To stop it from doing what, exactly - taking said guns away? You're certainly not organizing as an armed militia without getting utterly destroyed at the onset. Also, what moral majority are we talking about (the right wing Christian fundamentalists?), and how do they play into this? Q0 (talk) 23:45, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

If you want to start a discussion of the historical justifications of the second amendment, and if there are any modern justifications, we can do that. Otherwise, I'd like to focus on the less controversial idea that free speech rights and rights against unlawful searches and seizures ties the hands of benevolent government in preventing some crime. In this case, it is a tradeoff between these rights and liberties vs the safety if we didn't have them and we had a benevolent government. I would think that this characterization is rather non-controversial, and thus I think it should be straightforward to realize that any un-nuanced argument that says we should sacrifice liberty for safety is a bad (or at least incomplete) argument. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 01:24, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Sacrificing liberty for safety (of yourself and others) is part of the deal if you want to live on a planet that you have to share with other people. It's why you can't drive drunk or do 120 mph on a residential street. It's why you can't fly a plane without a licence. It's why you're not allowed to store plutonium in the garage. It's why people aren't allowed to own Blackhawk helicopters or nuclear warheads. And it's why I believe that access to firearms and ammunition should be seriously curtailed. You don't like it? Go find a planet of your own. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 01:48, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree in pat, and disagree in part. Is there any liberty you wouldn't sacrifice for safety? Do you want the police to be able to search your home without probable cause? LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 04:01, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

You keep trying to make that false equivalence, and it's getting annoying. No. I do not want the police to be able to search my home without a warrant. I also do not want to live in a world where the police are never, ever able to search someone's home. Getting a warrant based on probable cause is a reasonable limitation on the sanctity of my home/person. Keeping a hunting rifle locked up with the cops and only having access to as much ammunition as one needs in a hunting season is a reasonable limitation on the availability of firearms. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 04:05, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

So, you agree that limiting police powers of search and seizure can contribute to the occasional massacre? So, you agree that what you were looking for in the OP, "look, you won, you can celebrate. The rest of us just have to accept the occasional massacre is better than you losing your freedoms" is not an accurate description of the problem, or at last highly misleading and incomplete? LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 04:38, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Wait, what? Where did I say that? When you stop putting words in my mouth and discuss things like an adult, I will come back to this conversation. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 04:41, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought that's what you meant. I consider the opposite far more unreasonable. You think that the police couldn't stop more murderers and rapists if they didn't have to get probable cause for warrants? I think you are the unreasonable person here. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 04:44, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

That's not what I meant. If I meant that I would have said that in a clear and unambiguous way. Here is my position, again: there should be reasonable limitations placed on the freedoms of members of a society and on the ability of the state and its agents to police the members of a given society. A "probable cause" warrant is an example of the latter. Limitations on access to objects which exist for the sole purpose of taking life as I have described above are an example of the former. If you want to respond to the exact ideas I have outlined in this little post, I welcome your response. If you want to engage in unproductive conjecture and silly reductionism, I have nothing more to say on the subject. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 05:02, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm gonna jump in here with my own opinion, which may or may not be similar to TOP's, who can speak for herself (herself right? I can never remember). LUV, here is the big difference. Doing away with probable cause and warrants allows the police to harass/intimidate whomever they choose. It also treats every person as if they are capable of heinous crimes. Guns, on the other hand are made for killing things. That is their only purpose: killing. Ridding the world of guns is certainly not infringing on a person's liberty nor is it treating everyone like a killer, it's merely removing a dangerous weapon (and for the record, despite the paranoid fantasies of many right wingers, if the Army decides to attack you, your dinky little civilian weapons are gonna be like fighting a dragon with a stick and a rock) (also for the record, I own four guns). SirChuckB^{DMorris for new Jinx!} 05:15, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I wasn't clear. Let me be more pedantic. I am not, nor was I in this "thread", arguing for gun rights. At all. I was pointing out that the argument embodied in the quote in the OP is a very bad argument. That's it. I am not arguing that there are other differences that can be shown. If you read what I wrote, I was very clear of what good arguments could be made. My whole point is that "trading liberty for safety is an obvious no brainer" is a bad argument. Please see the "subtly" involved. I have been more than clear on this point, but you and Theory pigeonholed me as a supporter of gun rights. I don't know why. Perhaps you should read the actual points raised instead of assuming you know everything you need to about my position. Yes, that is condescending, because I feel as though I've been given the short stick thus far. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 05:19, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

But you've mischaracterized the argument from the very start. It's not stating that trading liberty for safety is always obvious, just that doing so in this case is. That is, assuming that we're even willing to agree that owning a gun is an individual liberty that should be protected by law - which is pushing it, in my opinion.

You can't just take the argument out of context and apply it as a blanket. While restricting weapons quite obviously makes it much more difficult for the average person to commit massacres (making there a clear tradeoff in this case), it becomes much more ambiguous to apply it to the other concepts you're talking about. For instance, the idea that government surveillance and unlawful searches actually make us safer is not well founded. More than anything, those methods create an aura of suspicion and fear which makes it more likely for us to distrust each other. The same type of atmosphere you get from gun culture, ironically.

For me, this issue is larger than just safety. It's about the deeper nature of our conflicts with each other, and how we can structure society so that it doesn't facilitate division and harm. Gun advocates think they're keying in on this when they say, "guns don't kill, people do", but they are wrong. Guns make it far easier to kill - both purposefully and accidentally - and the culture that surrounds them only exacerbates it. Look at the how the mindset of those who commit these mass murders we're talking about is aided by gun culture: "I need to be safe from them." "They are taking over." "They have ruined my life." "I am a responsible person; they are criminals." We will probably never completely eliminate this kind of mentality, but playing to it instead does us no service. Q0 (talk) 10:53, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think so. I don't think I'm taking it out of context. Even in context it's a bad argument. If it doesn't include "guns provide no tangible benefit", then the argument can easily be repurposed, and that's why take offense as a freedom loving individual to such an insanely bad argument. The essence of our limited government is allowing the occasional massacre (and other negatives) in exchange for rights of free speech, rights against self incrimination, rights against searches and seizures without probable cause, etc. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 21:47, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Question: why is gun ownership considered a civil liberty? Ownership of deadly poisons (e.g. nerve gases) is not considered a liberty, or at the very least a completely unimportant one, even though their purpose is the same. --Tweenk (talk) 02:46, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

The WP article on the Second Amendment does a decent job of laying out the civil-liberties argument and its pre-Constitutional history. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 02:49, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

My main takeaway from this is that gun ownership is considered a civil liberty in the U.S is not because of some coherent philosophical argument, but because of the fetishization of an anachronistic part of the U.S. Constitution. --Tweenk (talk) 04:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

It's actually the second amendment that's the one about religion, which is why American gun advocates so often sound like an upset fundie spewing forth half-remembered cut'n'paste apologetics - David Gerard (talk) 07:42, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Pretty much. I don't have the expertise or budget to do it, but I have a very strong suspicion that right-wing readings of the Constitution are largely based on the flawed logic of chapter-and-verse Biblical literalism. Certainly there's a lot of people out there who hold up the Constitution as something equivalent to holy scripture, which is utterly batshit, but there you go. I think it's also reinforced by the history of race relations in this country; I don't think it's a coincidence that a staggering number of gun nuts are also insane racists. Finally, there's the issue that gun nuts don't care that it doesn't make sense for rural and urban gun laws to be the same for public health reasons; they all think "public health" is a conspiracy anyway. EVDebs (talk) 07:50, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

@Tweenk Question: why is gun ownership considered a civil liberty? -- Do you want to have a conversation with me about gun rights? If so, please make a new section, and I gladly will. Thus far, I have not addressed that topic in this "thread", and I'd rather not give anyone ammunition to that strawman and red herring of this important conversation. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 09:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

In no sense whatsoever is this conversation important - it will make no difference to anyone involved, will not increase any awareness and will change no minds whatsoever. If you mean "I am obsessed" or even "I am upset that someone dares disagree with me on a notion I hold dear", that's not the same as important either - ask Dirk - David Gerard (talk) 10:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it's just an airing of views, doesn't seem like changing minds is even the aim. This is fair enough. ^sshole 11:22, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I was trying to change views, initially, but I'm trying to stop now. I didn't realize how completely wide was the gap between me and others. I value liberty, and I understand the costs involved. Others have a distinctly different viewpoint. I have plenty of further things to say on it, but I'll refrain. I really was interested in changing minds, theirs or my own. Sorry that's not what happened. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 20:37, 14 December 2012 (UTC)