RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive195
OT any diabetics ? Need advice on insulin dose[edit]
I am a diabetic and have been on insulin for about a year. O was stable on Metformin, glyburide and 5 units of 70/30 insulin. Now I have stopped the glyburide and was stable on 10 units of insulin. Lately ny blood sugars are fasting 180-260 so I went to 15 units insulin twice a day. The Doctor does not want me to use more but has no other suggestion. What doses are people on and is 30 units a day considered high ? I think I need a new Doctor. I appreciate that I need less if I get lots of exercise but thats hard in the middle of winter. — Unsigned, by: Hamster / talk / contribs 2013-03-01T20:29:55
- I don't know whether you need a new doctor but you certainly need a doctor. Medical advice on a random wiki is no substitute. That said, if you're resigned to remaining on insulin then the most important thing is to control your blood sugars so that you don't go over or under your safe range. Other considerations are secondary to that. Every human is different, not to mention people's ability to obey a diabetic diet varies wildly, so you can't achieve anything useful by trying to copy the dose other people are using. Tialaramex (talk) 23:20, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
- I don't have a choice but to remain on insulin, medications no longer work. I am not trying to "copy" anything, I am just trying to find out from other diabetics what dosages are being used. Hamster (talk) 00:07, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- Try a diabetes forum. Or try a different doctor for a second opinion. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ
Methinks it is a Weasel 22:59, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- Try a diabetes forum. Or try a different doctor for a second opinion. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ
- I don't have a choice but to remain on insulin, medications no longer work. I am not trying to "copy" anything, I am just trying to find out from other diabetics what dosages are being used. Hamster (talk) 00:07, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Silver buggery: Coming to a theater near you[edit]
Apparently this is a real thing, somehow. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 06:53, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- It's really just the same paranoid lunacy as gold buggery. Although a gold standard would be slightly less moronic since there's more silver then gold, so the deflationary spiral to death would take more time. I don't know, I'd call that a selling point. Anyways, I'll probably watch this 4 teh lulz.--Token Conservative (talk) 07:16, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- The animation alone is horrifying.
Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 07:52, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- Website. This is apparently up for release 22 March (per IMDB) but they're still looking for donations. God knows what cinema would want to play this. Atlas Shrugged at least looked professional; this just looks like cheap junk. ЩєазєюіδMethinks it is a Weasel 09:53, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- Website. This is apparently up for release 22 March (per IMDB) but they're still looking for donations. God knows what cinema would want to play this. Atlas Shrugged at least looked professional; this just looks like cheap junk. Щєазєюіδ
- Well, the silver bugs of yore (William Jennings Bryan and his ilk) wanted to add silver to the gold standard precisely because that would create inflation--"Shut up, Brx." 14:07, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think Bryan's position is at all comparable to the position of modern silver bugs. Gold/silver bugs back when are currency was backed in metals made perfect sense, but modern gold/silver buggery is just plain stupid. Also, I eagerly await when this comes out on the various pirate sites. Depending, I might make an article here about the movie after I watch it (probably in April when school gets out).--Token Conservative (talk) 16:13, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, I just felt like saying something and this is the only thing I know even tangentially related to the subject--"Shut up, Brx." 19:57, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- I went to a middle and high school named after the man; despite my ideological hatred of the man, I have this strange need to constantly defend him.--Token Conservative (talk) 04:10, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, I just felt like saying something and this is the only thing I know even tangentially related to the subject--"Shut up, Brx." 19:57, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think Bryan's position is at all comparable to the position of modern silver bugs. Gold/silver bugs back when are currency was backed in metals made perfect sense, but modern gold/silver buggery is just plain stupid. Also, I eagerly await when this comes out on the various pirate sites. Depending, I might make an article here about the movie after I watch it (probably in April when school gets out).--Token Conservative (talk) 16:13, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- The animation alone is horrifying.
One article or two?[edit]
I'm going to try to debunk some of John Ott's anecdotes, and I was wondering if I should create two articles for both him and his book, or just one about either.--Krejtalk 00:06, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- Never heard of him and Google isn't helpful. Start writing and see what you end up with? - David Gerard (talk) 00:31, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
So-close-yet-so-far tolerance / acceptance - how's it make you feel?[edit]
Posted in the right place this time. I honestly don't know how to feel whenever I come across someone who's accepting of something but does it in spite of / at the same time as being misinformed or having misconceptions. One that stands out in recent memory was seeing a comment on Youtube that said "I'm a Republican but if my son or daughter came out as gay to me I would accept them because that is their choice. Makes me wince and say internally "So close...so close but no cigar..." The other, one that started in the last two days, was someone writing a few paragraphs on "Homosexuality, Transsexualism and BDSM in the Bible". This person's a great ally and I appreciate their gesture (some people just have to stay in those roots) for others like them, one thing pissed me off. She (straight, cisgendered, submissive in BDSM) put all three under the heading of "alternative lifestyles". I guess it might be easier to steer these people round to reality, but still, it seems to hurt more that people do the right thing for the wrong reasons, oddly. Polite Timesplitter come shout at me for being thick 13:45, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- I do feel the same way at times because I make a strong distinction about what people believe vs why they believe it. What you're looking at there is likely to be just people resolving cognitive dissonance; they have core beliefs about what is the "normal" way, but don't feel they should be judgemental or arrogant about it. Hence you'd get the idea that "homosexuality is a choice, so I respect it". It's this happy medium they're trying to find.
bomination 13:49, 1 March 2013 (UTC) - Is it just me who's put off by the word "transsexualism"? "-ism" implies either an ideology or a disease. Transsexuality is neither. - LucidFox (talk) 14:16, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think you can go so far as to say Transexuality/transexualis isn't a disease, yet. It very much is, for most people who have to deal with a child that has two genders, no genders, or says at 5 years old "I'm not a boy". We may get to a point where we understand the myriad of issues that lead to transexualism, and if we find medical causes in utero (say, for larks, eating beats makes 1/100 of kids transgender; or takign this pill in utero will fix that) parents will do it, cause it is still a disease. It may become better accepted, and better understood, but even with the best of acceptance, i doubt a chld who has a penis and a vagina, or has neither, or cannot come to terms with the beard SHE is starting to grow will ever see it as not an illness or disease that needs treatment of some kind.
Godot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 16:26, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
- Lucid - I prefer transsexualism because a) it syncs better with other biomedical words like botulism and autism and b) transsexuality implies a sexuality, viz. "a way of being sexual", which in my opinion contributes to the problematic conception advanced by J. Michael Bailey and others as either "extreme" homosexuality or paraphilic self-delusion. Blue (pester) 23:40, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
- Godot - But if we apply your "parental" logic elsewhere we should have no problem saying homosexuality and bisexuality are also diseases. I don't doubt that if we could "cure" gayness in utero, there would be millions of parents who wouldn't hesitate to do it. Blue (pester) 23:40, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
- IMO, the usual rule applies, if it's not a problem, it's not a problem. My grandmother appears to be unconcerned about her beard. The open question is what we should do if it is a problem and particularly under what circumstances we're justified in treating something on the assumption that it is or will become a problem. This is the same issue as for cochlea implants, we are in the position of guessing that the (too young to understand let alone make a decision of its own) child will prefer to join the majority hearing population at a cost of irreversible surgery, rather than potentially joining the Deaf community with zero health risk, but at a risk of finding they don't "belong" and wish they'd had surgery while it could still be effective. We cannot know how things will turn out. Tialaramex (talk) 23:47, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
- Well, this is a huge issue inside the community and out. Most people agree that in the vast majority of cases a child's self-identification should be accepted, but medical intervention is considerably more difficult considering a) we know that trans children often "grow out" of it (and it's generally only if it persists in adolescence and adulthood that we are really sure of a long-term trans identity [and of course, transness, just like gayness and bisexuality etc., is often "latent" and only appears later in life]) and b) there's very little hope right now of developing any kind of reliable, scientific test for "real" trans kids. The current kludge isn't great, but it seems to mostly work - some trans kids take a drug that postpones the onset of puberty in the hope that by the time they are old enough to start the irreversible therapy they'll be able to give informed consent. Nobody is suggesting giving irreversible treatment to young kids. Blue (is useful) 03:44, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- Nobody needs to suggest it because it's already routine practice to do irreversible surgery on newborns. The assumption is that "non-standard" genitalia will be a problem for the person later and should be "corrected" if possible at the first opportunity. That's not exactly the same situation as transexuals (it's all about your body, nobody is trying to guess whether a newborn baby identifies differently) but it co-occurs and is a healthy reminder that we, as a society, are far more enthusiastic about putting people into neatly delineated boxes than nature is on its own. Tialaramex (talk) 11:35, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- Well, this is a huge issue inside the community and out. Most people agree that in the vast majority of cases a child's self-identification should be accepted, but medical intervention is considerably more difficult considering a) we know that trans children often "grow out" of it (and it's generally only if it persists in adolescence and adulthood that we are really sure of a long-term trans identity [and of course, transness, just like gayness and bisexuality etc., is often "latent" and only appears later in life]) and b) there's very little hope right now of developing any kind of reliable, scientific test for "real" trans kids. The current kludge isn't great, but it seems to mostly work - some trans kids take a drug that postpones the onset of puberty in the hope that by the time they are old enough to start the irreversible therapy they'll be able to give informed consent. Nobody is suggesting giving irreversible treatment to young kids. Blue (is useful) 03:44, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- IMO, the usual rule applies, if it's not a problem, it's not a problem. My grandmother appears to be unconcerned about her beard. The open question is what we should do if it is a problem and particularly under what circumstances we're justified in treating something on the assumption that it is or will become a problem. This is the same issue as for cochlea implants, we are in the position of guessing that the (too young to understand let alone make a decision of its own) child will prefer to join the majority hearing population at a cost of irreversible surgery, rather than potentially joining the Deaf community with zero health risk, but at a risk of finding they don't "belong" and wish they'd had surgery while it could still be effective. We cannot know how things will turn out. Tialaramex (talk) 23:47, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think you can go so far as to say Transexuality/transexualis isn't a disease, yet. It very much is, for most people who have to deal with a child that has two genders, no genders, or says at 5 years old "I'm not a boy". We may get to a point where we understand the myriad of issues that lead to transexualism, and if we find medical causes in utero (say, for larks, eating beats makes 1/100 of kids transgender; or takign this pill in utero will fix that) parents will do it, cause it is still a disease. It may become better accepted, and better understood, but even with the best of acceptance, i doubt a chld who has a penis and a vagina, or has neither, or cannot come to terms with the beard SHE is starting to grow will ever see it as not an illness or disease that needs treatment of some kind.
Sorry[edit]
Sorry I acted like a twat today :( SophieWilder 22:49, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
- What happened, I missed it. Sam Tally-ho! 03:14, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- Nothing much happened, we all (including me) should have been more level-headed. Thanks Sophie! --larron (talk) 05:58, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- Damn you for apologising before we can drag you into the coop and then engage in some acrimonious name-calling of people not even involved in the incident. Damn you, I say!
--PsyGremlinSnakk! 06:21, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- let's vote about whether I should have been cooped if I hadn't aopologised, followed by a vote on suitable punishment. Each vote to be held over a week. SophieWilder 10:25, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- You are not out of the woods yet buddy. There is no statute of limitations for the Chicken Coop. As I understand several cabal members are making a decision whether to take this matter further. I would keep kissing ass if I were you. --DamoHi 10:36, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- I blame Anonymous user. What a complete arse - David Gerard (talk) 20:56, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- Oh christ, what did I do this time?--Token Conservative (talk) 04:09, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- Well, you only went to exterminate distastefully with the goddamn artificial irony meter. Blue (pester) 04:20, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- Greatest randomly generated sentence ever: "Well, you only went to exercise mercilessly with the goddamn raging hero". --Token Conservative (talk) 05:28, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- I got "you only went to soak rhythmically with the goddamn bad mannered orc." Reminded me of dates I've been on. PsyGremlinSnakk! 07:14, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- went to google compulsively with the goddamn eerie microcosm. WèàšèìòìďMethinks it is a Weasel 12:09, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- I still don't know what I did. Or what's going on in this thread at all.--Token Conservative (talk) 17:03, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- You left the toilet seat up. And you forgot to wipe down the goat after use. That's a blockable offence around these parts. ЩєазєюіδMethinks it is a Weasel 17:39, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- (Breaks the hazing), Hamilton, look at the accusation accusing you in edit mode. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 22:35, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- I noticed. --Token Conservative (talk) 23:42, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- (Breaks the hazing), Hamilton, look at the accusation accusing you in edit mode. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 22:35, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- You left the toilet seat up. And you forgot to wipe down the goat after use. That's a blockable offence around these parts. Щєазєюіδ
- I still don't know what I did. Or what's going on in this thread at all.--Token Conservative (talk) 17:03, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- went to google compulsively with the goddamn eerie microcosm. Wèàšèìòìď
- I got "you only went to soak rhythmically with the goddamn bad mannered orc." Reminded me of dates I've been on. PsyGremlinSnakk! 07:14, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- Greatest randomly generated sentence ever: "Well, you only went to exercise mercilessly with the goddamn raging hero". --Token Conservative (talk) 05:28, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- Well, you only went to exterminate distastefully with the goddamn artificial irony meter. Blue (pester) 04:20, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- Oh christ, what did I do this time?--Token Conservative (talk) 04:09, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- I blame Anonymous user. What a complete arse - David Gerard (talk) 20:56, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- You are not out of the woods yet buddy. There is no statute of limitations for the Chicken Coop. As I understand several cabal members are making a decision whether to take this matter further. I would keep kissing ass if I were you. --DamoHi 10:36, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- let's vote about whether I should have been cooped if I hadn't aopologised, followed by a vote on suitable punishment. Each vote to be held over a week. SophieWilder 10:25, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- Damn you for apologising before we can drag you into the coop and then engage in some acrimonious name-calling of people not even involved in the incident. Damn you, I say!
- Nothing much happened, we all (including me) should have been more level-headed. Thanks Sophie! --larron (talk) 05:58, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
While were apologizing, I'd like to say that I'm working more productive contributions. ఠ_ఠ Тод Зенос ан форфар фор 06:10, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- Bringing attention to it only makes it look insincere.--MikallakiM 06:22, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- You don't think that I'm showing what I'm changing and that I'm doing it, because failing to do that would seem insincere...— Unsigned, by: Inquisitor Ehrenstein / talk / contribs
- A person who goes around saying "look at all the cool things i did!" is going to be seen as only trying to gain favor.--MikallakiM 20:18, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- What Mikal said. If you actually DO change your behaviour, we'll notice quite quickly. VOXHUMANA 00:50, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah. Obviously I have to actually make the change, especially when I haven't had the greatest start. Rather than talking about Nazi related s***, I can contribute to articles debunking pseudo history in relation to WWII. ఠ_ఠ Тод Зенос ан форфар фор 04:51, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- What Mikal said. If you actually DO change your behaviour, we'll notice quite quickly. VOXHUMANA 00:50, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- A person who goes around saying "look at all the cool things i did!" is going to be seen as only trying to gain favor.--MikallakiM 20:18, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- You don't think that I'm showing what I'm changing and that I'm doing it, because failing to do that would seem insincere...— Unsigned, by: Inquisitor Ehrenstein / talk / contribs
The danger of de-biasing[edit]
How learning about cognitive biases can make you dumber: [1], [2], [3] Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:25, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- http://lesswrong.com/lw/he/knowing_about_biases_can_hurt_people/--P3A58NT86 19:33, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- Nice one. I wonder if LW will now shut itself down as an "information hazard." Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:16, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- The formal name for what the author is talking about is the bias blind spot. It all boils down to the fact that the skill for recognizing where our own thoughts and emotions come from is very, very difficult to develop. Luckily, I'd say I'm better than average at it. Perceptron (talk) 05:39, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- As am I. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect ... ~wink~ EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 05:40, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- "Luckily, I'd say I'm better than average at it." Are you, or is that just the Lake Wobegon effect
speaking? ;) Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:44, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- Part II there is almost right out of The Black Swan. I, too, am better than average at all this reasoning gumph. Just like 90% of the rest of the population. postate 13:14, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- A koan:
- What is the difference between reality and cognitive dissonance?
- A paper in Nature! Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 14:58, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- Part II there is almost right out of The Black Swan. I, too, am better than average at all this reasoning gumph. Just like 90% of the rest of the population.
- "Luckily, I'd say I'm better than average at it." Are you, or is that just the Lake Wobegon effect
- As am I. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect ... ~wink~ EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 05:40, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Atheist fellows?[edit]
I dunno, I'm atheist. I go beyond a lack of belief; I just don't approve of religion altogether for my own reasons. Usually, I'm very chill about all of this, and I keep it to myself. As someone who lives in an admittedly liberal part of the midwest, I don't face a lot of discrimination. We have plenty of agnostics, but self-described atheists are still pretty uncommon, even with college kids my age. More moderate anti-theists like myself are non-existent. My girlfriend is an agnostic, non-practicing Catholic who disagrees with her church on many social issues, as do I, but I still feel a little disconnected every once in a while. /rant
In general, I just feel so isolated from my relationship, peers etc. sometimes. Anyone else feel this way? Rapier (talk) 03:57, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- I'm with Sagan. http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Dragon.htm "[...] wonder what the cause might be that so many apparently sane and sober people share the same strange delusion.". It's just baffling how they can maintain that even when I point out problems. I never was a strong believer. For a time, I just didn't give it much thought. But as soon as I did, I was no longer religious. PS: the more I look into the issue, the more I am convinced that atheism vs agnosticism is bullshit, that they are the same thing, except agnostics want to be branded as more open minded and less confrontational and more "open" to the possibility that modern religious fictions are true. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 04:27, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- "Except agnostics want to be...more 'open' to the possibility that modern religious fictions are true" You should probably talk to more agnostics. Osaka Sun (talk) 04:52, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- Why else would an unbeliever want to label themself as an agnostic instead of an atheist besides that they were ignorant on what agnosticism and atheism are or they thought it made them sound more open-minded? (talk to a) Nihilist 04:55, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- I'd prefer less people described themselves as Atheist personally, but this stems from a desire for a world where not having to start the discussion of my beliefs with "not theism" is the norm instead of the exception.--MikallakiM 05:59, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- Is "agnostic" supposed to be the preferred alternative? I'd say that describing yourself as not-a-theist is better that describing yourself as someone who can't say with certainty whether a supernatural entity exists (which should, ideally, be the obvious, assumed position). (talk to a) Nihilist 06:03, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- I don't have a strong opinion on Agnosticism, because on its own it works for a description, if dancing around the issue that your in all intents a weak atheist. I'd just prefer to say "im a humanist" instead of "an atheist and a humanist" --MikallakiM 06:08, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- "Humanist" doesn't seem to be much more meaningful than "atheist" or "agnostic"; at least with the latter two, you're referencing a specific (non)belief. Humanism is pretty vague and malleable. (talk to a) Nihilist 06:14, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- Like I said, I just don't like that I have to start my discussion off with a statement of Disbelief instead of belief. --MikallakiM 06:18, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- (EC) I don't think agnosticism is actually in the same category as atheism/theism. I think most people accept that it's not mathematically impossible for a deity to exist or to not exist - agnostics as such are also atheists or theists. I'm an agnostic anti-theist. Blue (is useful) 06:22, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- The problem is that it's often presented as a third, separate position, which it isn't. (talk to a) Nihilist 06:28, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- Why not just be both? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 06:39, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- Pretty much everyone who claims to be either (agnostic theists and strong atheists seem to be relatively rare) is already. (talk to a) Nihilist 07:28, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- what is it called when you just don't care if their is a god or not? AMassiveGay (talk) 13:16, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- You are probably looking for Apatheism. But nobody cares.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 13:35, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- Everyone is an agnostic, if you want to be technical. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, and "Faith" is not the same as "knowing", no matter what the theist says. --TheLateGatsby (talk) 13:23, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- Well - you've got to be really technical and possibly oblige people to use your personal definition in that case. If somebody tells me there is an elephant in my garage and when I go to look there no evidence whatsoever of the animal - then this absence of elephant-supporting evidence would tend to make believe that the elephant is not there. While for some theists "Faith" is equivalent to "knowing".--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 13:47, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- what is it called when you just don't care if their is a god or not? AMassiveGay (talk) 13:16, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- Pretty much everyone who claims to be either (agnostic theists and strong atheists seem to be relatively rare) is already. (talk to a) Nihilist 07:28, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- Why not just be both? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 06:39, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- The problem is that it's often presented as a third, separate position, which it isn't. (talk to a) Nihilist 06:28, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- (EC) I don't think agnosticism is actually in the same category as atheism/theism. I think most people accept that it's not mathematically impossible for a deity to exist or to not exist - agnostics as such are also atheists or theists. I'm an agnostic anti-theist. Blue (is useful) 06:22, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- Like I said, I just don't like that I have to start my discussion off with a statement of Disbelief instead of belief. --MikallakiM 06:18, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- "Humanist" doesn't seem to be much more meaningful than "atheist" or "agnostic"; at least with the latter two, you're referencing a specific (non)belief. Humanism is pretty vague and malleable. (talk to a) Nihilist 06:14, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- I don't have a strong opinion on Agnosticism, because on its own it works for a description, if dancing around the issue that your in all intents a weak atheist. I'd just prefer to say "im a humanist" instead of "an atheist and a humanist" --MikallakiM 06:08, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- Is "agnostic" supposed to be the preferred alternative? I'd say that describing yourself as not-a-theist is better that describing yourself as someone who can't say with certainty whether a supernatural entity exists (which should, ideally, be the obvious, assumed position). (talk to a) Nihilist 06:03, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- I'd prefer less people described themselves as Atheist personally, but this stems from a desire for a world where not having to start the discussion of my beliefs with "not theism" is the norm instead of the exception.--MikallakiM 05:59, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- Why else would an unbeliever want to label themself as an agnostic instead of an atheist besides that they were ignorant on what agnosticism and atheism are or they thought it made them sound more open-minded? (talk to a) Nihilist 04:55, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- "Except agnostics want to be...more 'open' to the possibility that modern religious fictions are true" You should probably talk to more agnostics. Osaka Sun (talk) 04:52, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm an agnostic and a secular humanist and I don't care if that does sound vague and woolly. I don't have to justify what I do or don't believe to anybody.--Spud (talk) 13:46, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- I am a strictly orthodox anti-labelist. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 15:38, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- This whole debate about labels doesn't really matter — call yourself what you want. (talk to a) Nihilist 17:08, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- This totally needs... what's that thing called where you can't say the word on the card? And you use it to find out whether two people actually disagree about anything and if so, what that actually is, instead of them just shouting buzzwods at each other? Tialaramex (talk) 18:09, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- Rationalist taboo. (talk to a) Nihilist 18:12, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah that. Tialaramex (talk) 23:16, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- I see what you did, there.... --TheLateGatsby (talk) 12:00, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- The joke wasn't intentional, though I see it in hindsight. I have whatever that thing is which is milder than nominal aphasia. I can't remember the correct word for things some of the time, I frequently forget people's names (even close friends), but it's not bad enough to really interfere with my life (although I'd be in more trouble without Google and auto-completion). It's less noticeable online because usually I will take the extra time to Google, read around and remind myself of the vocabulary I need, but above I had the inspiration to write my comment just seconds before I had to go out, leaving me with a choice between a circumlocution (what's that thing called where...) or cancelling the comment. Tialaramex (talk) 00:54, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- I see what you did, there.... --TheLateGatsby (talk) 12:00, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah that. Tialaramex (talk) 23:16, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- Rationalist taboo. (talk to a) Nihilist 18:12, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- This totally needs... what's that thing called where you can't say the word on the card? And you use it to find out whether two people actually disagree about anything and if so, what that actually is, instead of them just shouting buzzwods at each other? Tialaramex (talk) 18:09, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Crystallize, a counterbalanced view[edit]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLZVD6ARuMQ&feature=youtu.be
Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 15:33, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- +1. --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 07:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
This looks like it has tremendous snark potential...[edit]
...but I doubt anyone'd be willing to shell out, even for the $6 Kindle edition. Balaam (talk) 18:04, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- Are we sure this isn't a satire? At first i thought it was some kind of Mystery Science Theater 3000–like parody (not sure how that would work in written form, but i blame the cover) of racists. In either case, 6$ isn't too terribly expensive. (talk to a) Nihilist 18:24, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Trevor Lynch's White Nationalist Guide to the Movies gathers together some of his best essays and reviews covering 32 movies, including his startling philosophical readings of Pulp Fiction, The Dark Knight Trilogy, and Mishima; his racialist interpretations of The Lord of the Rings and Gangs of New York; his masculinist readings of The Twilight Saga and A History of Violence; his insights into the Jewish nature of the superhero genre occasioned by Guillermo del Toro's Hellboy movies; and his hilarious demolitions of The Matrix Trilogy, The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo series, and the detritus of Quentin Tarantino's long decline.
- "his startling philosophical readings of … The Dark Knight Trilogy", "his masculinist readings of The Twilight Saga" — those no doubt a bunch of bullshit, but i have to say i am interested in reading them. (talk to a) Nihilist 18:28, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- The reviews of the first two LOTR movies are there in the free preview & worth skimming through for morbid curiosity/lulz. "I can't recall a movie with more pairs of luminous blue-eyes." Also the author's preface where he complains about Jewish domination of Hollywood before citing the Coen Brothers' Miller's Crossing as one of his favourite films. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐMethinks it is a Weasel 19:27, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- The reviews of the first two LOTR movies are there in the free preview & worth skimming through for morbid curiosity/lulz. "I can't recall a movie with more pairs of luminous blue-eyes." Also the author's preface where he complains about Jewish domination of Hollywood before citing the Coen Brothers' Miller's Crossing as one of his favourite films. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ
- Ah, I thought this rang a bell: Trevor Lynch's review of Twilight made RSTDT a couple of years back. Balaam (talk) 19:43, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Comedy Hypocrisy[edit]
Ok, I'm diving back in to a round of "is this acceptable." It was in the news today that Taylor Swift was offended by a joke Tina Fey and Amy Poehler made at her expense when they hosted the Golden Globes. If you're interested, you can read about it here. For those not interested, just know that they mocked Swift's many public romances. I've glanced at that item on a couple different sites and the universal consensus has been that Swift is whining and needs to "grow up and learn to shrug off jokes." Ironically, many of these same people telling Swift to grow up were fanning themselves and clutching their pearls over the jokes at the Oscars. Anybody care to explain to a morals-impaired comedian what is different between the two sets of jokes? SirChuckBBATHE THE WHALES!!!! 20:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- Didn't see the Oscars but just watched that joke and if Ms Swift is offended by that then she needs to give herself an uppercut. What a princess. FFS. DamoHi 21:03, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- I also didn't watch the Oscars but have read some of the coverage & watched a few clips. General consensus is that Seth MacFarlane's litany of boob & gay jokes promoted the view that female performers are just there for male titillation rather than talent or ability, and gay people are silly & ridiculous. I don't see any of that here; it just looks like well-meant banter/roasting which Swift has taken umbrage at. WěǎšěǐǒǐďMethinks it is a Weasel 21:14, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- Was McFarlane worse than Gervais at the Golden Globes the last few years. I remember there was a whole lot of outrage about his hosting, but when I saw all the jokes I thought they were pretty tame and (more importantly) hilarious. 21:25, 5 March 2013 (UTC)Damo[[User_Talk:Damo|Hi
- But who's to decide where one crosses from well-meant banter to offensive? Taking the whole "we saw your boobs" song (which I actually found rather funny in the context of the moment) for example, the actresses involved were obviously in on the joke, and if you watch the video, the whole things gets some pretty big laughs (especially when he rattles off a half dozen Kate Winslett movies). His joke about eating disorders (IE, something along the lines of "all your girls who "got the flu" last month, you look great) seemed to me a good natured ribbing at the culture of Hollywood where women HAVE to look fantastic (some show had a whole special on how many ladies were sewn into their dresses). Reducing it to the basic level: People hate Tylor Swift, but love Tina Fey and Amy Poehler, so it's easy to discount her objection to a joke because we deem it was mild enough, but those same people don't care for Seth Mcfarlane, so it's easy to pile on and talk about how offensive he is. SirChuckBI have very poor judgement 22:01, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- Why is that the basic level? Is it impossible that people are honest about the reasons why they found SF's humour distasteful? "They are offended because they don't like him" seems like pretty lame analysis. WẽãšẽĩõĩďMethinks it is a Weasel 22:15, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- If you're going to argue that people have a legitimate reason to be offended by humor, you have to accept that others might be offended by humor you deem acceptable, but that isn't happening. Everybody is saying that Taylor Swift is wrong to be offended and she needs to grow up (no to mention calling her a "princess" for taking a joke personally) So what is the difference? SirChuckBBATHE THE WHALES!!!! 22:21, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- The joke against Taylor Swift wasn't even remotely offensive. That is the point. DamoHi 22:23, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- So you say. I didn't find anything Mcfarlane said offensive (or The Onion for that matter). SirChuckBLeave Death Threats Here 22:30, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- Sure, but you have to accept that others might be offended by humor you deem acceptable. ЩєазєюіδMethinks it is a Weasel 22:34, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- Sure, but you have to accept that others might be offended by humor you deem acceptable. Щєазєюіδ
- (EC) The difference seems to be that one is offence at a joke about one person, whereas the other is offence at jokes which implicitly reinforce entrenched stereotypes or inequalities against large groups of people. You can argue the point of whether Swift should be offended or not either way, but on its own terms. Likewise the Oscar night jokes. Tying them together & insisting "if you find X inoffensive, you must also find Y inoffensive" and "if you find one offensive and not the other, you are hypocrite" is fallacious. ЩєазєюіδMethinks it is a Weasel 22:34, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- I do not think anything said at Oscars did reinforce stereotypes or inequality. Any group that remains 'off limits' for humour will forever be in equal AMassiveGay (talk) 22:42, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- (EC) Weasel, you have an incredible ability to attack statements I never made. I never said "if x is offensive, you must find Y offensive." I said that if you're going to argue that X is offensive, you have to leave open the possibility that Y is offensive to another person, which nobody is willing to do. Everybody seems to instantly dismiss any offense taken by Swift while remaining confident that their own offense is righteous anger. I also suggested that people allow their personal prejudices to alter their view of what is/is not offensive and observed that because Fey/Poehler are rather popular with the left leaning blogosphere and Mcfarlane is not, the former get a pass while the latter is attacked. SirChuckBEl...ipses are Cool... 22:48, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think that has much to do with it. I see these as two kinds of humour + two kinds of offence, and have tried to explain why. But I can't speak on behalf of these unnamed people you keep mentioning when I don't know who they are or what they have said specifically. Certainly I am not dismissing the possibility that different people might be offended by different things. If other people have done so, try contacting them directly to query their take on it. ЩєазєюіδMethinks it is a Weasel 23:57, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think that has much to do with it. I see these as two kinds of humour + two kinds of offence, and have tried to explain why. But I can't speak on behalf of these unnamed people you keep mentioning when I don't know who they are or what they have said specifically. Certainly I am not dismissing the possibility that different people might be offended by different things. If other people have done so, try contacting them directly to query their take on it. Щєазєюіδ
- (EC) Weasel, you have an incredible ability to attack statements I never made. I never said "if x is offensive, you must find Y offensive." I said that if you're going to argue that X is offensive, you have to leave open the possibility that Y is offensive to another person, which nobody is willing to do. Everybody seems to instantly dismiss any offense taken by Swift while remaining confident that their own offense is righteous anger. I also suggested that people allow their personal prejudices to alter their view of what is/is not offensive and observed that because Fey/Poehler are rather popular with the left leaning blogosphere and Mcfarlane is not, the former get a pass while the latter is attacked. SirChuckBEl...ipses are Cool... 22:48, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- So you say. I didn't find anything Mcfarlane said offensive (or The Onion for that matter). SirChuckBLeave Death Threats Here 22:30, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- The joke against Taylor Swift wasn't even remotely offensive. That is the point. DamoHi 22:23, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- If you're going to argue that people have a legitimate reason to be offended by humor, you have to accept that others might be offended by humor you deem acceptable, but that isn't happening. Everybody is saying that Taylor Swift is wrong to be offended and she needs to grow up (no to mention calling her a "princess" for taking a joke personally) So what is the difference? SirChuckBBATHE THE WHALES!!!! 22:21, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- Why is that the basic level? Is it impossible that people are honest about the reasons why they found SF's humour distasteful? "They are offended because they don't like him" seems like pretty lame analysis. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď
- But who's to decide where one crosses from well-meant banter to offensive? Taking the whole "we saw your boobs" song (which I actually found rather funny in the context of the moment) for example, the actresses involved were obviously in on the joke, and if you watch the video, the whole things gets some pretty big laughs (especially when he rattles off a half dozen Kate Winslett movies). His joke about eating disorders (IE, something along the lines of "all your girls who "got the flu" last month, you look great) seemed to me a good natured ribbing at the culture of Hollywood where women HAVE to look fantastic (some show had a whole special on how many ladies were sewn into their dresses). Reducing it to the basic level: People hate Tylor Swift, but love Tina Fey and Amy Poehler, so it's easy to discount her objection to a joke because we deem it was mild enough, but those same people don't care for Seth Mcfarlane, so it's easy to pile on and talk about how offensive he is. SirChuckBI have very poor judgement 22:01, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- Was McFarlane worse than Gervais at the Golden Globes the last few years. I remember there was a whole lot of outrage about his hosting, but when I saw all the jokes I thought they were pretty tame and (more importantly) hilarious. 21:25, 5 March 2013 (UTC)Damo[[User_Talk:Damo|Hi
- I also didn't watch the Oscars but have read some of the coverage & watched a few clips. General consensus is that Seth MacFarlane's litany of boob & gay jokes promoted the view that female performers are just there for male titillation rather than talent or ability, and gay people are silly & ridiculous. I don't see any of that here; it just looks like well-meant banter/roasting which Swift has taken umbrage at. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď
Two differences for two different categories of jokes: the most egregious Oscar joke was the Onion's sexist assault on a child; Ms. Swift is an adult, so the gloves can come off a bit. Second difference; McFarlane's sexist humour targeted, from what I understand, women in general; the joke from the Globes was on one individual and her own conduct. Just like New York City; Just like Jericho. 23:26, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
MRA Wikipedians might want to unplug for a little while....[edit]
Just like New York City; Just like Jericho. 04:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Meetup/Feminists_Engage_Wikipedia. I got no problem with this project (this sort of thing happens all the time), but I believe the word "collective" implies at least two or more people. VOXHUMANA 07:11, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, I was about to note it doesn't have a lot of participants yet - David Gerard (talk) 08:40, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- It might not be just MRA wikipedians that will want to unplug. It sounds like there will be an influx of non-notable entries, single issue accounts, original research and other dramas for the good people at Wikipedia to deal with (that is if anyone actually turns up). DamoHi 08:48, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- Full marks to whichever parodist wrote "around the country" meaning the USA with a straight face in a piece about "correcting" Wikipedia's biases. Because if there's one thing Wikipedia doesn't have enough of it's articles which assume the entire English speaking world consists of the fifty states. Tialaramex (talk) 09:30, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- It's great that they're doing this, but they're all going to get banned for meatpuppetry. For stuff like this, this is one of the reasons why meatpuppetry is one of the stupidest rules ever made. It just smacks of "I object to reality and your attempts to bring in people who can demonstrate that I'm wrong." ఠ_ఠ Тод Зенос ан форфар фор 17:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- If done by experienced or at least knowledgeable Wikipedians this sort of thing is ok, unfortunately what would likely happen is that a whole lot of people will descend on the wiki and start writing all sorts of stuff that is inappropriate for one reason or another - and then get angry and start claiming that the system is biased against them. Fortunately, no-one seems to care so there won't be that problem. DamoHi 20:11, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- What Damo said. There are already things like WP:Wikipedia:WikiProject Feminism, which work within the WP framework. Inviting a bunch of new/occasional editors to jump in & counteract bias, while not pointing them towards basic editing guidelines, is just a recipe for getting most of their contributions reverted. To a certain extent those editing policies do contribute to WP's "straight white male" bias, since the reliance on "reliable sources" means that WP reflects what the published media has concentrated on, but that's basically in the nature of an encyclopedia as a tertiary source. WẽãšẽĩõĩďMethinks it is a Weasel 20:28, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- Maybe they can pull a Schlafly and create their own wiki to counteract bias. I think Femiwiki has a good ring to it. SirChuckBI brake for Schukky 21:26, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- And then a group of "equity feminists" will pull a Toulouse and create Equiki (not to accuse Toulouse of being an MRA). (This message brought to you by His Reasonableness The High Chancellor Eddie Monah, Champion of Rationality. Sing songs of praise to me or simply worship my genius.) 07:26, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- No-one will get banned for this as this isn't meatpuppetry. Meatpuppetry is colluding behind the scenes to gain traction in a debate, or to circumvent policy. This exercise is simply a transparent attempt to bring new editors into the fold. Genuine meatpuppetry is a serious problem when it arises, hence the policy. (And FWIW I hate it when people who are clueless about how Wikipedia works talk utter nonsense like that.) Weaseloid's comments are much more on the money - Wikipedia is a reflection of what "reliable sources" can verify, and hence any biases in those sources are directly reflected in Wikipedia. VOXHUMANA 22:21, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- Every time I see 'cis' / 'white' / 'straight' lumped onto feminism by a rampaging MRA or what-have-you, I cringe. Polite Timesplitter come shout at me for being thick 13:23, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, any collaboration is considered meatpuppetry. It doesn't matter, because any time someone gets a group of people to register to begin making edits to articles, long-time editors abuse policy to keep things they way they want. ఠ_ఠ Тод Зенос ан форфар фор 16:17, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
- "any collaboration is considered meatpuppetry" - absolute horseshit. Read the WP:Meat link you posted above, which explains what meatpuppetry is. As I noted above, there are things like WikiProjects ongoing at WP. WP:WP:WikiProject defines this as "a group of editors that want to work together as a team to improve Wikipedia". The Guide to WikiProjects uses the words "collaborate" and "collaboration" positively quite a lot. Hell, most of the "about Wikipedia" pages use the word "collaborative" to describe the wiki environment. WéáśéĺóíďMethinks it is a Weasel 22:57, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- What Weasoloid said. DamoHi 23:35, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- High-profile disputes on Wikipedia often bring new editors to the site. Some individuals may promote their causes by bringing like-minded editors into the dispute. These editors are sometimes referred to as meatpuppets, following a common Internet usage.
- Sorry. Bringing new users to the wiki for doing the same sort of thing is prohibited. I also don't see a problem with this, but idiots who abuse policy for their own goals likely would. If it works out, that's great. Also, I find the idea of "meatpuppetry" to be really stupid. Except situations where people bring in users to influence votes, and they don't make any other contributions, they can be disregarded. ఠ_ఠ Тод Зенос ан форфар фор 06:07, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- It's not just votes. The meat puppets are also useful for making edits you've been told not to make, and for continuing to revert after 3RR is triggered. They will also harass other editors, vandalise the wiki out of frustration and generally cause trouble. They can do everything that the orchestrator has already done (or badly wants to do) but at a far lower risk since they're not even real Wikipedia users so banning them is largely pointless. Although in principle they're independent entities capable of becoming useful Wikipedia contributors, in practice most of them have no interest in Wikipedia at all, they're just fans who've arrived to do whatever they've been told to do for the fandom. The more mindless the fandom (and a fandom can be mindless regardless of what they're supposedly fans of see the Christians for a hilariously long-lived example) the worse the problem. One of the few redeeming qualities of meat puppets is that unlike the smarter vandals they've no understanding of policy and so they will happily admit that they're meat puppets if the person orchestrating them hasn't remembered to tell them to deny it. You will genuinely get comments where somebody links the forum thread where the meat puppetry is being orchestrated in the apparent expectation that this makes it all OK. Tialaramex (talk) 11:17, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- What Weasoloid said. DamoHi 23:35, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- "any collaboration is considered meatpuppetry" - absolute horseshit. Read the WP:Meat link you posted above, which explains what meatpuppetry is. As I noted above, there are things like WikiProjects ongoing at WP. WP:WP:WikiProject defines this as "a group of editors that want to work together as a team to improve Wikipedia". The Guide to WikiProjects uses the words "collaborate" and "collaboration" positively quite a lot. Hell, most of the "about Wikipedia" pages use the word "collaborative" to describe the wiki environment. Wéáśéĺóíď
- Actually, any collaboration is considered meatpuppetry. It doesn't matter, because any time someone gets a group of people to register to begin making edits to articles, long-time editors abuse policy to keep things they way they want. ఠ_ఠ Тод Зенос ан форфар фор 16:17, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
- Every time I see 'cis' / 'white' / 'straight' lumped onto feminism by a rampaging MRA or what-have-you, I cringe. Polite Timesplitter come shout at me for being thick 13:23, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- Maybe they can pull a Schlafly and create their own wiki to counteract bias. I think Femiwiki has a good ring to it. SirChuckBI brake for Schukky 21:26, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- What Damo said. There are already things like WP:Wikipedia:WikiProject Feminism, which work within the WP framework. Inviting a bunch of new/occasional editors to jump in & counteract bias, while not pointing them towards basic editing guidelines, is just a recipe for getting most of their contributions reverted. To a certain extent those editing policies do contribute to WP's "straight white male" bias, since the reliance on "reliable sources" means that WP reflects what the published media has concentrated on, but that's basically in the nature of an encyclopedia as a tertiary source. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď
- If done by experienced or at least knowledgeable Wikipedians this sort of thing is ok, unfortunately what would likely happen is that a whole lot of people will descend on the wiki and start writing all sorts of stuff that is inappropriate for one reason or another - and then get angry and start claiming that the system is biased against them. Fortunately, no-one seems to care so there won't be that problem. DamoHi 20:11, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- It's great that they're doing this, but they're all going to get banned for meatpuppetry. For stuff like this, this is one of the reasons why meatpuppetry is one of the stupidest rules ever made. It just smacks of "I object to reality and your attempts to bring in people who can demonstrate that I'm wrong." ఠ_ఠ Тод Зенос ан форфар фор 17:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- Full marks to whichever parodist wrote "around the country" meaning the USA with a straight face in a piece about "correcting" Wikipedia's biases. Because if there's one thing Wikipedia doesn't have enough of it's articles which assume the entire English speaking world consists of the fifty states. Tialaramex (talk) 09:30, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- It might not be just MRA wikipedians that will want to unplug. It sounds like there will be an influx of non-notable entries, single issue accounts, original research and other dramas for the good people at Wikipedia to deal with (that is if anyone actually turns up). DamoHi 08:48, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, I was about to note it doesn't have a lot of participants yet - David Gerard (talk) 08:40, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Recruiting new users based on common interests is a recommended activity - it's how the editor base actually grows. "Meatpuppetry" means recruiting outsiders for the subversion of policy or consensus. I don't know why you find this so hard to understand. I invented the Wikiproject, so I've got some idea about how Wikipedia actually works. VOXHUMANA 11:53, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- Because whenever a user gets blocked repeatedly and can't make their great ideas fly, it's obviously that Wikipedia has huge and terminal problems and not that, e.g., they're a dickhead - David Gerard (talk) 13:10, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Youtube inboxes having messages all bold, not changing from unread - anyone else?[edit]
This has been going on for a good while now, screenshot here. When I receive stuff in my YT inbox a lot of the time the entire message will be bold, when the text of the message should be normal like the messages below. After reading them, the headline doesn't change to non-bold and it stays unread until I delete it entirely. So after removing some of the best features (video bar atop screen, pages on channel video lists) they ruin inboxes it seems. Am I alone in this here? Polite Timesplitter come shout at me for being thick 00:26, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- I don't appear to have the same problem. But, know you are never alone in your frustration with Google's dumb UI choices. Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 15:01, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- Same issue here. No idea what could be causing it. Running Chrome with Adblock Plus.--92.156.162.35 (talk) 00:06, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
"American" "Family" "Association"[edit]
Has anybody had any word on what's happening over there. The site's still up, but hasn't been updated in over a week, not even with Bryan Fischbait's latest round of homophobia/racism/misogyny/general all-round hatred. I'm wondering if they are planning to pull the plug?--
Jabba de Chops 18:35, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- Spoke too soon :( Polite Timesplitter come shout at me for being thick 10:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, Fischbait has been turning up at other places but not AFA, which is usually the first place to post his shit. Guess it's a case of waiting a month and seeing if the site gets disappeared quietly. Weird though, normally there would be some kind of announcement, even if it's only of the variety - 'we've merged with ONN'.-- Jabba de Chops 11:15, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- Wow, that's some hardcore projection from Mr. Fischer. --TheLateGatsby (talk) 11:19, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, Fischbait has been turning up at other places but not AFA, which is usually the first place to post his shit. Guess it's a case of waiting a month and seeing if the site gets disappeared quietly. Weird though, normally there would be some kind of announcement, even if it's only of the variety - 'we've merged with ONN'.--
What kind of leukocyte are we?[edit]
I just noticed one of our taglines on recentchangestext that said we are "the leukocyte of internet terrorist cells". But - there are so many types of leukocytes! Which one would we be? I'd imagine we are something like a CD8+ T cell. Blue (is useful) 06:08, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- We kill cancerous and infected cells? Why that rather than a macrophage? Peter mqzp 07:00, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- Can somebody explain what the second half of that meant?--MikallakiM 07:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- Of whose comment? (WP links: Leucocyte; CD8+ T cell; Macrophage.) Peter mqzp 07:14, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- Did someone mix up the Biology term cell, and the sociopolitical mechanization terrorist cell... as an insult? Thats... quite the thing. --Revolverman (talk) 08:10, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- It was my pun after TK had referred to us an Internet terrorist cell.
ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member
08:35, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- It was my pun after TK had referred to us an Internet terrorist cell.
- Did someone mix up the Biology term cell, and the sociopolitical mechanization terrorist cell... as an insult? Thats... quite the thing. --Revolverman (talk) 08:10, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- Of whose comment? (WP links: Leucocyte; CD8+ T cell; Macrophage.) Peter mqzp 07:14, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- Can somebody explain what the second half of that meant?--MikallakiM 07:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Anudder plug for da blog[edit]
So this is a huge hit, about 5300 hits since 21:30 UTC last night. Of course, making fun of homeopaths is like shooting 10^100 fish in a molecule of barrel.
So far I've been working to a rough formula of taking an interesting RW article and rewriting it as a blog post (which also involves finding all the dead links). The fixes need to be returned to the wiki, if I or anyone feels like it.
Cranking out one a day is work. Others who want to write stuff, please do! Send it to me and I'll put it up, and if you want to do it regular there's logins. Moar needed.
BTW, there's a box on the sidebar of the blog to get new posts emailed to you - David Gerard (talk) 13:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- Nice work, David. Not sure what I could do to help, but if there are any articles you specifically want to blogify, let me know and I'll have a crack at them. VOXHUMANA 14:20, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- Well, I had to get Gish Gallop done quickly yesterday, for obvious reasons ... but basically, pick a RW article that strikes you as bloggable and write it up as a blog post. (I've worked on the assumption that such articles would have to be CC by-sa, of course, so I've put the boilerplate at the bottom of those.) - David Gerard (talk) 13:51, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
The joys of Genesis[edit]
Lately I've been working on the RW Annotated Bible. We all know the Bible is full of some ghastly stuff but today I discovered this little gem - Genesis 4:23-24. Lamech comes home and tells his (two) wives he just killed someone, and if anyone tries to punish him for it, God will fuck them up massively. And thus the matter is ended, and is never mentioned again in the entire Bible.
It is so succinct, yet just so ghastly. VOXHUMANA 14:26, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- The amount that people, which included myself, can rationalize the horrible stuff in the Bible is pretty amazing. (talk to a) Nihilist 18:15, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- It is pretty odd. I'm not sure where you are getting "if anyone tries to punish him for it ..." though. The text I have found is:
- "And Lamech said unto his wives, Adah and Zillah, Hear my voice; ye wives of Lamech, hearken unto my speech: for I have slain a man to my wounding, and a young man to my hurt. (24) If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventy and sevenfold."--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 18:44, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- It is a reference back to Genesis 4:14-15 just after Cain has killed Abel. Cain has been banished and is afraid people will try to kill him for being a murderer. God assures Cain that no-one will kill him in retribution, because if they do, God will avenge him "sevenfold". Lamech here states that if any seek retribution on him, God will avenge him seventy and seven times. VOXHUMANA 21:20, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- For the literalists would this retribution be exactly 77 times? Or would it just be an order of magnitude greater? ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 08:04, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- For the literalists would this retribution be exactly 77 times? Or would it just be an order of magnitude greater?
- It is a reference back to Genesis 4:14-15 just after Cain has killed Abel. Cain has been banished and is afraid people will try to kill him for being a murderer. God assures Cain that no-one will kill him in retribution, because if they do, God will avenge him "sevenfold". Lamech here states that if any seek retribution on him, God will avenge him seventy and seven times. VOXHUMANA 21:20, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- As I have no idea what "retribution sevenfold" actually even means in the first place, I can't tell you. How do you avenge a killing "sevenfold"? Do you have to kill seven people, and if so, who? The Bible is pretty vague on this point. As far as "seventy and seven"... maybe you get to kill an entire village. VOXHUMANA 08:43, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- Since it's god we're talking about, he probably kills everybody involved seven times. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 14:02, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- What - like he kills you, ressurrects you, kills you again, that sort of thing? Divine Whack-a-Mole? I suppose it's no less absurd than destroying an entire civilization because someone saw his drunk dad naked. (ie. the Canaanites in the Book of Joshua, in case you were wondering). VOXHUMANA 05:27, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- Since it's god we're talking about, he probably kills everybody involved seven times. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 14:02, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- As I have no idea what "retribution sevenfold" actually even means in the first place, I can't tell you. How do you avenge a killing "sevenfold"? Do you have to kill seven people, and if so, who? The Bible is pretty vague on this point. As far as "seventy and seven"... maybe you get to kill an entire village. VOXHUMANA 08:43, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Possible gaming facility in my area[edit]
Last night, my township council voted 4 to 1 in favour of looking into getting a casino from the Ontario Lottery Gaming Commission. The township has about 23,000 people with about half a million within short drive. The casino is to have slot machines and card tables (blackjack/poker).
Like many people in the area, I'm indifferent to the idea. But there are several vocal groups opposed due to so-called increased crime, the effect on the rural community (Mennonites) and problem gambling.
I just hope that the council did not decide this based on that they are running a deficit and cannot figure out how to get create a balanced budget.--Cms13ca (talk) 14:33, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- It's a real tough one IMO. Casinos can generate money from outside the area, but they also cause problems for locals. Problem gambling and all the issues related to it are significant concerns for a community. I wonder if the increased tax revenue is worth all the aggravation. DamoHi 02:05, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
I realized that views of Africans haven't really changed in the past hundred years[edit]
The perception 100 years ago was that Africans were an undeveloped race that would take hundreds of years in order to advance to the level of evolution that White people had attained. It was believed that White people needed to work to "help" Africans develop to the level of White people. This led to their countries become completely messed up.
Now the perception of Africa is of a place that is completely destroyed by war (again, completely backward and undeveloped) and where there is no technology (as it is often portrayed). Middle class White people say that we have a duty to "help" Africans and improve their country (ignorant people think Africans are one people) by donating money (which in many cases ends up funding wars). These same people also preset pictures of children in Africa when presenting this region, which is extremely de-empowering, as it presents the image that Africans are like children. Would it be appropriate to present Europe with pictures of children? And would we accept this as a valid representation?
I've been part of serious conversations about this IRL; this isn't just nonsense I've thought up.
ఠ_ఠ Тод Зенос ан форфар фор 19:37, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
I really wish that more people were less ignorant, and more aware of this sort of thing. Not viewing Africans as one people would help. ఠ_ఠ Тод Зенос ан форфар фор 19:55, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- I really wish you'd check the heading for mistakes.Th. BernhardDas Leben ist ein Prozeß, den man verliert, was man auch tut und wer man auch ist. 20:07, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- I have realized that views of Africans haven't really changed in the past hundred years ఠ_ఠ Тод Зенос ан форфар фор 20:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- Nevermind. I just realized my English sucks. I leave you to your rant.Th. BernhardDas Leben ist ein Prozeß, den man verliert, was man auch tut und wer man auch ist. 21:46, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- Is it at least a legitimate complaint? ఠ_ఠ Тод Зенос ан форфар фор 21:48, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- Nevermind. I just realized my English sucks. I leave you to your rant.Th. BernhardDas Leben ist ein Prozeß, den man verliert, was man auch tut und wer man auch ist. 21:46, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- I have realized that views of Africans haven't really changed in the past hundred years ఠ_ఠ Тод Зенос ан форфар фор 20:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- I don't know why I'm doing this, but whatever. Your premise that "views of Africans haven't really changed in the past hundred years" is utter bollocks. Eugenics was a widely held point of view in 1913. Africa was still overwhelmingly colonized by Britain, Germany, France, Belgium, Italy and Portugal in 1913 and it was perfectly normal to regard Africa as a resource for more "enlightened" races to exploit. Those two points are enough to dismiss your assertion although there are plenty more I could make. If you are just trying to say that Africa is still disadvantaged in many ways compared to the rest of the world, then fine - thank you for stating the blindingly obvious. VOXHUMANA 22:59, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- Indeed, Africa, like any other vast region has a lot of different problems. The problems of urban South Africans don't resemble the problems of rural farmers in South Sudan at all. And it's wrong to say these are uniquely African problems. Racial tensions? Major "first world" cities have race riots still in this century. Civil wars? The Balkans were a warzone in my lifetime. Whole countries being run for the personal benefit of one person? I give you Italy. There is this tendency to try to contrast the worst of Africa with the best of the industrialised North, but even that's been improving a little in recent years. Tialaramex (talk) 00:18, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- I don't know why I'm doing this, but whatever. Your premise that "views of Africans haven't really changed in the past hundred years" is utter bollocks. Eugenics was a widely held point of view in 1913. Africa was still overwhelmingly colonized by Britain, Germany, France, Belgium, Italy and Portugal in 1913 and it was perfectly normal to regard Africa as a resource for more "enlightened" races to exploit. Those two points are enough to dismiss your assertion although there are plenty more I could make. If you are just trying to say that Africa is still disadvantaged in many ways compared to the rest of the world, then fine - thank you for stating the blindingly obvious. VOXHUMANA 22:59, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- There's a big difference between seeing the need to help a group of people because of their race, and seeing the need to help a group of people because of their economic position. I mean is your point that people shouldn't give to charity, or that white people shouldn't be allowed to donate to charities working on the African continent?
- The reason children are used in advertising is because they invoke an emotional response that leads to someone donating more money. I'd wager that you're more likely to donate to a charity if you saw a picture of a child than if you saw a picture of a middle aged man with scars down his face, or an elderly person on their deathbed. It's because children signify hope.
- Given this and your previous posts, I'm wondering if you're a) trolling, b) enjoy defending the ridiculous or c) have an autistic spectrum personality and genuinely believe what you say... 101.161.75.196 (talk) 00:18, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- I discussed this with my friend who studied the situation in Africa; he said there is no problem with charities that give food and other resources, but people who mindlessly throw money at the problem to feel like they're helping end up funding people who shouldn't be getting the money. And I'm not talking about using children in charity commercials; I'm referring to when people want to represent Africans, and the first picture they display is one of a child, consistently. Do you think someone portraying Europe would primarily show pictures of children? ఠ_ఠ Тод Зенос ан форфар фор 00:41, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- Looking at this data sheet, 42% of Africa's population are 14 or younger, and 66% live on less than US$2 per day (75% in sub Saharan Africa). The image of the poverty-stricken child isn't all that unrepresentative of the population at large. Peter mqzp 01:07, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, but it doesn't represent all of Africa. Not all of the continent has severe problems. And also, averaging it out as "representative of the population at large" is still playing into the belief of Africans as a single group of people. ఠ_ఠ Тод Зенос ан форфар фор 07:45, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- whenever see I news stories about various African countries I am not struck by the people depicted as children or they being one people or Africa being one big country. Perhaps you need to find a better source for your news. the beeb does not seem to support your theory either. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:43, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, but it doesn't represent all of Africa. Not all of the continent has severe problems. And also, averaging it out as "representative of the population at large" is still playing into the belief of Africans as a single group of people. ఠ_ఠ Тод Зенос ан форфар фор 07:45, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- Looking at this data sheet, 42% of Africa's population are 14 or younger, and 66% live on less than US$2 per day (75% in sub Saharan Africa). The image of the poverty-stricken child isn't all that unrepresentative of the population at large. Peter mqzp 01:07, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- I discussed this with my friend who studied the situation in Africa; he said there is no problem with charities that give food and other resources, but people who mindlessly throw money at the problem to feel like they're helping end up funding people who shouldn't be getting the money. And I'm not talking about using children in charity commercials; I'm referring to when people want to represent Africans, and the first picture they display is one of a child, consistently. Do you think someone portraying Europe would primarily show pictures of children? ఠ_ఠ Тод Зенос ан форфар фор 00:41, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
CRE Bacteria[edit]
So, been hearing a bit about the "New super bug that can kill lots of people!". How much of the pandemic talks should I believe this time Rationalwiki? --MikallakiM 23:46, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- from the stuff I have seen its another case of "the longer you are in hospital, the more support you need, the sicker you are , the greater the chance you pick up an infection. My local hospital just changed its policy on reuseable catheters and dialysis tubes. They wont use them because they can not guarentee sterilization. Hamster (talk) 21:29, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Roman Catholic corruption[edit]
Can anyone help with reliable sources about Gay sex rings, 'The Filth' corrupting the Vatican...and why the Pope REALLY quit. Proxima Centauri (talk) 08:58, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- I'm gonna go out on a limb and say no. I doubt anyone will be able to find reliable sources for that. Tielec01 (talk) 09:04, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- I can give you reliable sources for the fact the allegations have been made by the Italian press, but not for the merit of the allegations. Try Sydney Morning Herald, The Guardian. VOXHUMANA 09:12, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- Given the Vatican's history of secrecy and cover-ups I doubt if we'll ever know what's been going on in detail. ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 12:28, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- & It's only a matter of time before this gets linked to Templars, Da Vinci, the Priory of Sion, et al. WeaseloidMethinks it is a Weasel 19:19, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- & It's only a matter of time before this gets linked to Templars, Da Vinci, the Priory of Sion, et al. Weaseloid
- Given the Vatican's history of secrecy and cover-ups I doubt if we'll ever know what's been going on in detail.
- I can give you reliable sources for the fact the allegations have been made by the Italian press, but not for the merit of the allegations. Try Sydney Morning Herald, The Guardian. VOXHUMANA 09:12, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the links, I added them to Gay sex rings, 'The Filth' corrupting the Vatican...and why the Pope REALLY quit. I've now got enough to write a section but I need a rest and time offline. If anyone else has yet more links I'd appreciate that. Proxima Centauri (talk) 13:17, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- Didn't the Pope's Butler write a book detailing the corruption in the Vatican?--Token Conservative (talk) 18:45, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- HuffPo weighs in with an editorial piece. VOXHUMANA 00:07, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Tebow to speak at Liberty University...[edit]
Not if MoveOn.org has anything to say about it. --Seth Peck (talk) 23:01, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- Let him speak. I'd rather hear him say something dumb enough to take a dent on his fanbase. Osaka Sun (talk) 23:24, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- Well, he has to do SOMETHING since he'll never play QB in the NFL again. --Revolverman (talk) 23:37, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- I like that the petition is phrased as an attempt to convince Tebow that he should reconsider the engagement, as opposed to a call to shut the event down. Just like New York City; Just like Jericho. 23:47, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- How would that even work? He is being petitioned not to speak at a university associated with homophobia. Petitioning the university not to allow him to speak because of a problem with the university's reputation rather than the speaker's would be nonsensical, and calling for a boycott would be pretty much pointless since most attendees are likely to be students or supporters of the university anyway. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐMethinks it is a Weasel 23:55, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- Yah, I kind of thought the logistics of that would be weird as I saved the post -- I suppose you could do what happened at a few talks that I remember back in the uber-sensitive days of high political correctness in the 90s and stuff the room with opponents who make noise to drown out the offending speech--but even then, the target here isn't really the speaker but the venue. So nevermind. Just like New York City; Just like Jericho. 00:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- How would that even work? He is being petitioned not to speak at a university associated with homophobia. Petitioning the university not to allow him to speak because of a problem with the university's reputation rather than the speaker's would be nonsensical, and calling for a boycott would be pretty much pointless since most attendees are likely to be students or supporters of the university anyway. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ
- I like that the petition is phrased as an attempt to convince Tebow that he should reconsider the engagement, as opposed to a call to shut the event down. Just like New York City; Just like Jericho. 23:47, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- Well, he has to do SOMETHING since he'll never play QB in the NFL again. --Revolverman (talk) 23:37, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Trent is getting his doctorate today![edit]
I just want to wish him
(This message brought to you by His Reasonableness The High Chancellor Eddie Monah, Champion of Rationality. Sing songs of praise to me or simply worship my genius.) 07:51, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Recovering metals from old computer parts[edit]
Apparently, it's a thing to take old computer parts, whether it be motherboards, processors, or even hard drives, and take them apart and, in some cases, extract lots of gold from them.
I'm wondering how viable such a thing is. Auctions and forums topics all over the place relating to this business, though I saw one YouTube comment saying that he only got $3 from a $250 motherboard.
Somewhere in this house, there is a cluster of old RAM sticks and a "bad" hard drive. Assuming they are tested to be non functional, is there any real use in "scrapping" them or extracting whatever metals may be in them, or is it all just woo?--DoomTay (talk) 20:52, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- I suspect that "lots of gold" may be overambitious. Recovering this stuff on an industrial scale is one thing - getting it off a single hard drive is something else.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 21:00, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
If it is home computer gear the gold is likely plated on copper and it takes a lot of that to get an ounce of gold. You can cut off the connector strip and manually remove the gold (sharp chisel) to make smelting it easier. Commercially I think they use a desolder to remove the chips and then grind the boards up to recover the copper and gold, silver or whatever. Hamster (talk) 21:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- I take old hard drives apart and harvest their magnets. I find them incredibly useful in all sorts of ways around the house. As long as I'm taking them apart should I be harvesting gold? I can't imagine finding more than a few cents worth. DickTurpis (talk) 23:10, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- Magnets and improvised jewelry. there's really not much else 2GB Hard drives are good for. TyJFBAA 23:17, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- As as been mentioned, this is something that only makes sense when done on an industrial scale. You need a lot of electronic scrap to recover a worthwhile amount of metal. The short lifetime of most computing components makes recycling an environmental necessity. I'm quite happy for the recycling companies to make a small profit out of this as any monetary benefit that might arise for me is minuscule. Nowadays most gold mined form the Earth takes a ton of crushed rock to extract just a few ounces and the extraction techniques are often environmentally unfriendly. The amount of gold recovered from electronics is probably commensurate with mining techniques but there is no chance of finding a nugget on an old motherboard. ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 08:00, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- Sure, the raw materials will be valuable, but factor in extraction costs and mark up, and I'm impressed you can even get all of $3 from a $250 motherboard. It's the same reason most downcycling is a terrible idea. pathetic 01:36, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- Sure, the raw materials will be valuable, but factor in extraction costs and mark up, and I'm impressed you can even get all of $3 from a $250 motherboard. It's the same reason most downcycling is a terrible idea.
- As as been mentioned, this is something that only makes sense when done on an industrial scale. You need a lot of electronic scrap to recover a worthwhile amount of metal. The short lifetime of most computing components makes recycling an environmental necessity. I'm quite happy for the recycling companies to make a small profit out of this as any monetary benefit that might arise for me is minuscule. Nowadays most gold mined form the Earth takes a ton of crushed rock to extract just a few ounces and the extraction techniques are often environmentally unfriendly. The amount of gold recovered from electronics is probably commensurate with mining techniques but there is no chance of finding a nugget on an old motherboard.
- Magnets and improvised jewelry. there's really not much else 2GB Hard drives are good for. TyJFBAA 23:17, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
This is what my brother does for a living. [4] ħuman
06:07, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
HCM[edit]
The only thing I really miss about RWW was the meter showing the current HCM level. VOXHUMANA 06:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- We can port it over here if you have a place for it. Peter mqzp 06:04, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- I recommend the front page, right under the intercom.Tielec01 (talk) 06:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- Meh, the front page is too akin to airing dirty laundry for my taste. How about RationalWiki:HCM_level - hidden in the background, but available for those who know/care to find it, and not linked from anywhere except the Coop. VOXHUMANA 06:15, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- I recommend the front page, right under the intercom.Tielec01 (talk) 06:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Ghostface Editah - Please stop doing altering the section heading - it suggests *I* created the heading, when I didn't. I'm not trying to argue any point, just trying to ensure that text I did not create is not wrongly assumed to be by me. VOXHUMANA 06:34, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
"HCM"is the dumbest meme ever to come down the pike. Oh, yes, except for RWW. The two dumbest ideas ever. ħuman 07:17, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- Are you sure you're not exaggerating slightly there; you grumpy old fuck?Tielec01 (talk) 07:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- As an editor who tries to stay out of any conflicts, I found the notion of HCM and the meter to be very useful. It indicated RW was a place to avoid for a few days. VOXHUMANA 07:35, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- Tielec01, no, you lame young fuck. VOX, the meme has long outlasted it's shortlived usefulness. And Tielec01, whoever the fuck you are, shut the fuck up and respect your elders. ħuman 07:40, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- Watch out for all the empty bottles when you get up off the computer mate. Tielec01 (talk) 07:42, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- Watch out for the empty bottles your mommy forgot to refill when you get up, asshole, when you need fresh milk. ħuman 07:56, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- I thought we'd finally got rid of RWW? Reviving even one of its tired memes is a colossally stupid idea. rpeh •T•C•E• 08:11, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- Let's just say that in the name of god, Gooniepunk now knows what it feels like to be god--"Shut up, Brx." 08:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- No one "got rid" of RWW. It continues to be owned by Reckless Noise Symphony, and will continue to exist until he decides to stop paying for its hosting. Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 08:15, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- I see it's publicly viewable again, but most of the articles have been deleted. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐMethinks it is a Weasel 08:17, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- As it sits, it's only viewable so people can take whatever they want from it. Beyond that, I have zero intention of renewing hosting once it expires (IIRC, it expires at end of this month). My taking over that place was one of the worst mistakes I've made, and despite my attempts to justify owning the place, I can still not come up with a reason for its existence that justify all the BS it's otherwise caused me since May, 2011. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 09:09, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- I'm sorry it caused you so much trouble -I found it to be very instructive, and I thank you for it, Reckless Noise Symphony. --TheLateGatsby (talk) 18:47, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- As it sits, it's only viewable so people can take whatever they want from it. Beyond that, I have zero intention of renewing hosting once it expires (IIRC, it expires at end of this month). My taking over that place was one of the worst mistakes I've made, and despite my attempts to justify owning the place, I can still not come up with a reason for its existence that justify all the BS it's otherwise caused me since May, 2011. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 09:09, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- I see it's publicly viewable again, but most of the articles have been deleted. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ
- I thought we'd finally got rid of RWW? Reviving even one of its tired memes is a colossally stupid idea. rpeh •T•C•E• 08:11, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- Watch out for the empty bottles your mommy forgot to refill when you get up, asshole, when you need fresh milk. ħuman
- Watch out for all the empty bottles when you get up off the computer mate. Tielec01 (talk) 07:42, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- Tielec01, no, you lame young fuck. VOX, the meme has long outlasted it's shortlived usefulness. And Tielec01, whoever the fuck you are, shut the fuck up and respect your elders. ħuman
- As an editor who tries to stay out of any conflicts, I found the notion of HCM and the meter to be very useful. It indicated RW was a place to avoid for a few days. VOXHUMANA 07:35, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
History of RW[edit]
We're going to lose a fair amount of chronicling with the demise of RWW, and our own history and timeline pages are rubbish, with nothing post-May 2011. I suggest copying a few relevant pages from RWW to somewhere temporary at RW (e.g. in project space), with a view to building a better history of the site. Weaseloid
Methinks it is a Weasel 19:07, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- May 2011 is an interesting date for the end of the chronicles. There is a reason that happened... ħuman 04:47, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
The Revisionaries[edit]
About to watch this. Anyone seen it? Looks good, I am intrigued. Acei9 08:43, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- I want to - where did you get your copy? --PsyGremlinPrata! 08:51, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- I could only find a shorter version here. Acei9 08:58, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- Schweet, thanks. --PsyGremlinRunāt! 09:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- I could only find a shorter version here. Acei9 08:58, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Goin' thru some stuff[edit]
Who remembered we had this? I didn't know/remember it & I think it's nice. Scream!! (talk) 10:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- Wow, that's great :) VOXHUMANA 12:04, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- You're welcome :) It was awesome getting permission to use it. ħuman 04:43, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- You're welcome :) It was awesome getting permission to use it. ħuman
Turning on themselves[edit]
I love watching the rabid right throw politician after politician under the bus, whenever they do something they disagree with. I see John McCain's the latest. Fresh from being a hero in the Benghazi hearings, he's now being called a RINO and a backstabber for voting for Obama's choice as CIA director. Despite Rand's fillibuster. Oh yeah, I'm placing a bet now on who the GOP candidate in 2016 will be... although the Palin/West banners o the fundie Facebook make me laugh. --PsyGremlinSnakk! 12:41, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- Eh, the right never really liked McCain that much anyway. He was always on the "may not be sufficiently ideologically pure" list. MDB (the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear) 15:26, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- If you look at McCain prior to like 2004, the man was a common sense moderate. He only went right wing lunatic in the build up to 2008. He's starting to return to his old ways. But I generally expect a bad time for conservatives ahead. I think it'll be 20-30 years before the Conservative movement unfucks itself.--Token Conservative (talk) 15:34, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- Jeb Bush is making noises about not refusing to run - David Gerard (talk) 15:47, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- 25-40, then. Ochotonaprincepsnot a pokémon 17:07, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- I think McCain panicked after the 2008 elections, because he feared branding himself as a moderate and a "maverick" would alienate his base. But Arizona voters are too set in their ways and would never admit that they were wrong about him, so McCain easily won in the primaries against JD Hayworth. Still, it was funny to watch him say things like that he never considered himself to be a maverick. Otherwise, before 2008 he and his family would do token things to reach out to liberals and brand himself a moderate (brand, maverick, funny!), like eating lunch at Hamburger Mary's, a well-known LGBT friendly restaurant here in the East Valley--"Shut up, Brx." 18:00, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- 25-40, then. Ochotonaprincepsnot a pokémon 17:07, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- Jeb Bush is making noises about not refusing to run - David Gerard (talk) 15:47, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- If you look at McCain prior to like 2004, the man was a common sense moderate. He only went right wing lunatic in the build up to 2008. He's starting to return to his old ways. But I generally expect a bad time for conservatives ahead. I think it'll be 20-30 years before the Conservative movement unfucks itself.--Token Conservative (talk) 15:34, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Feedback desired[edit]
Meme-style graphic refuting gun nut meme. Looking mostly for content feedback, but I'll take input on graphics as well. --Seth Peck (talk) 22:05, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- Your two biggest problems are: 1, the only people who will read it are those who already agree with you and 2, It isn't pithy enough to go viral, so it'll probably only be seen by a fraction of those who saw the original. That being said, the content is interesting and well done. SirChuckBObama/Biden? 2012 22:20, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- What Sir Chuck forgets though is that I am asshole with many friends who are right wing morons, who are about to get this shit sent to them.--Token Conservative (talk) 22:31, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- Think all the lines should go down the same side. With the line under question repeated before the retort. As it is you're up & down too often. Scream!! (talk) 23:09, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- It's not really a meme style graphic, is it? Works OK as an essay but has no reason to be an image. It's 3840 pixels long, takes a few minutes to read, and has footnotes — which serve only to remind the reader that this at something in the wrong format, since we can only access any of the cited websites by typing the urls manually rather than just clicking on a link as we could if this was saved in a document or web content format. ωεαşεζøίɗMethinks it is a Weasel 00:11, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, no reason to be an image when it's mostly text (really hate those), but mostly you're taking too long to get to the refutation part. You discuss the actual facts presented in that original image for all of 5-10% of the size and the rest going on too much about how it's propaganda. Doesn't need to be that detailed, just go straight for the facts. narchist 01:32, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- I think you should include only the original and "fixed" meme in the image, and put all the text and analysis on a webpage which would be linked in the description. The part about propaganda is interesting, but it should come after the factual errors are explained. --Tweenk (talk) 18:21, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- It's "meme-styled" exactly because it is text in an image. Meme is the wrong word, of course. People on FB, etc., post images that are just text all the time. You can't fix the typos and the "references" are usually shit. Shame really, since it's a pretty good image. Except for the typo that I can't edit... ħuman 06:03, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- Wow, image died while I typed that? ħuman 06:04, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- Is it just me or does there seem to be some seriously fuzzy math in that? DickTurpis (talk) 19:16, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- It's "meme-styled" exactly because it is text in an image. Meme is the wrong word, of course. People on FB, etc., post images that are just text all the time. You can't fix the typos and the "references" are usually shit. Shame really, since it's a pretty good image. Except for the typo that I can't edit... ħuman
- I think you should include only the original and "fixed" meme in the image, and put all the text and analysis on a webpage which would be linked in the description. The part about propaganda is interesting, but it should come after the factual errors are explained. --Tweenk (talk) 18:21, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, no reason to be an image when it's mostly text (really hate those), but mostly you're taking too long to get to the refutation part. You discuss the actual facts presented in that original image for all of 5-10% of the size and the rest going on too much about how it's propaganda. Doesn't need to be that detailed, just go straight for the facts.
- It's not really a meme style graphic, is it? Works OK as an essay but has no reason to be an image. It's 3840 pixels long, takes a few minutes to read, and has footnotes — which serve only to remind the reader that this at something in the wrong format, since we can only access any of the cited websites by typing the urls manually rather than just clicking on a link as we could if this was saved in a document or web content format. ωεαşεζøίɗ
- Think all the lines should go down the same side. With the line under question repeated before the retort. As it is you're up & down too often. Scream!! (talk) 23:09, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Just wondering...[edit]
Do we have any RationalWikians living in Seoul right now? Osaka Sun (talk) 05:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- Seoul is on my list of places I'd love to live for a period of time. And not just for the StarCraft. Blue (pester) 06:06, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- Dumpling has family there. TyJFBAA 06:07, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- I really hope, that if it all goes to hell, that NK doesn't have that rumored stash of chemical weapon shells. If this was any other modern, proper, professional military I would bet that they would say "No, we aren't going shell a major city just to kill millions of civilians." But in NK, they are proibley convinced Seoul is the portal used by the Americans to summon a capitalist demon that will take away their "Worker's Paradise" --Revolverman (talk) 06:35, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- So you've got two trolls and one user so so far. Best of luck with responses! ħuman 07:13, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- And so, with Human's insightful, thought-provoking comment, RationalWiki was propelled into a new era of prosperity, free of aspies, control freaks, and cockgobblers. "Truly," the mob said, "the wiki is better off for him having said that."--"Shut up, Brx." 07:18, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- Fuck off, brx. You are useless. As are many of your friends. I wish it were so. You people are fucking useless. ħuman 07:44, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- So that was nice of everyone.
- Anyways, the Chinese economy is incredibly heavily tied into the US economy and vice versa, so any conflict between the US and China would destroy both economies, and since the US and China are so heavily tied into the global economy, the US and China getting into conflict would be a bad day for pretty much the whole world. I say that because the reason the Chinese originally got involved in the Korean Civil War is because when the US Marines landed at Inchon they fought/scared the North Korean army past the Korean border into Manchurian. The Chinese options were basically limited to "ignore this foreign military in our country" or "join them" because "annihilate them" would have looked bad for that whole 'international communist solidarity' thing, so the Chinese joined the war.
- Some things are different now: the Chinese don't give half a fuck about 'international communist solidaity' and are so heavily tied into the US economy that a war between us would destroy them. So, if the North Koreans continue posturing, I imagine the Chinese are going to have a few words to say to the North Koreans. And if the North Koreans really do attack the South, Japan, or the US, expect a some nuclear ordinance landing in Pyongyang followed by the dissolving of the North Korean state into a territory of China.--Token Conservative (talk) 15:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- I have a Marine in Japan, but my Seoul brother (nice turn of phrase but don't take it to mean that I am a Marine!) is stateside with his wife and children now. ħuman 04:50, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- @Hamilton: Even if North Korea does something as stupid as attack another country, China won't nuke its capital or completely absorb it. First off, using a nuclear weapon on a major (or any city) would severe hurt its international relations — not even China would be able to shrug off nuking a major population center. Further, politically and legally absorbing NK would be nothing but a massive deadweight on China, given how economically behind it is, and it would create the sort of refugee problem, with thousands or even millions of people fleeing from NK into China, that neither side would enjoy.
- What I think will happen is China will reduce their aid to NK to bring them back into line. If that doesn't work, China will force Kim Jong-un out of power and put someone in charge who can keep the country out of (too much) trouble. Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 05:40, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- I should have clarified that when I said "attack" I was referring to a nuclear strike. If North Korea nukes someone, I see China responding by nuking Pyongyang, which I doubt most of the international community would be too upset about.--Token Conservative (talk) 17:55, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- I really don't see that. But also, wtf does any of this have to do with whether any RationalWiki editors like in Seoul? WėąṣėḷőįďMethinks it is a Weasel 18:02, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- Hamilton started a tangent, I followed it, he continued it, and now you are responding to the tangent by complaining about the tangent. For these sins, the three of us shall burn in Thread Hell. Repent now to our Lord and Savior LiquidThreads and be saved! Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 23:05, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, Revolverman started the tangent.--Token Conservative (talk) 23:36, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- Hamilton started a tangent, I followed it, he continued it, and now you are responding to the tangent by complaining about the tangent. For these sins, the three of us shall burn in Thread Hell. Repent now to our Lord and Savior LiquidThreads and be saved!
- I really don't see that. But also, wtf does any of this have to do with whether any RationalWiki editors like in Seoul? Wėąṣėḷőįď
- I should have clarified that when I said "attack" I was referring to a nuclear strike. If North Korea nukes someone, I see China responding by nuking Pyongyang, which I doubt most of the international community would be too upset about.--Token Conservative (talk) 17:55, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- I have a Marine in Japan, but my Seoul brother (nice turn of phrase but don't take it to mean that I am a Marine!) is stateside with his wife and children now. ħuman
- Fuck off, brx. You are useless. As are many of your friends. I wish it were so. You people are fucking useless. ħuman
- And so, with Human's insightful, thought-provoking comment, RationalWiki was propelled into a new era of prosperity, free of aspies, control freaks, and cockgobblers. "Truly," the mob said, "the wiki is better off for him having said that."--"Shut up, Brx." 07:18, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- So you've got two trolls and one user so so far. Best of luck with responses! ħuman
- I really hope, that if it all goes to hell, that NK doesn't have that rumored stash of chemical weapon shells. If this was any other modern, proper, professional military I would bet that they would say "No, we aren't going shell a major city just to kill millions of civilians." But in NK, they are proibley convinced Seoul is the portal used by the Americans to summon a capitalist demon that will take away their "Worker's Paradise" --Revolverman (talk) 06:35, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- Dumpling has family there. TyJFBAA 06:07, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm writing a book[edit]
Hi,
I'm currently writing a novel. Its an alternative history where apartheid was abolished in the 60s and the African majority created their own version of apartheid. The novel is set in the modern day where the Afrikaan minority have been concentrated in a few suburban townships with high crime rates and low educational attainment, while the black majority enjoy all of the economic and political power. The novel's protagonist, 'Earl', lies and cheats his way into the heart of an Afrikaan criminal syndicate whose aim is to elect a single white man to the South African parliament. A sub plot involve Marle, a black character, who unsuccesfully lobbies to prevent further depredations committed against the white minority.
What do you think, does the novel have potential? Its intended to draw attention to the double standards of western people and how they view 'colonialism'. Afrikaan (talk) 11:47, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- Ultimately it will depend on whether you can "write" or not. Генгисevolving 11:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- I'm just wondering what you mean by "Afrikaan?" I'm assuming you mean Afrikaner, as opposed to "Boer?" "Afrikaan" isn't a word, nor a cultural grouping. It could have potential, depending on how you treat the role reversal. You have to remember that apartheid - as a proper named policy of separate development - only really came into force in the 60s under Verwoerd. What would be the motivator for it - revenge? A take on the current affirmative action and BEE policies, squeezing them out of society? Maybe you could even build in a plot around the right-wing myth of coordinated farm attacks to drive the white farmer off his land. That's the nice thing about "what-if" scenarios - you have a framework within which you can play around - think "Fatherland." You also have to take the characters into account - what would a Mandela, who didn't embrace an armed struggle and who wasn't sent to Robben Island be like? Would he be a leader? Would Steve Biko still have risen to prominence without having to fight apartheid? --PsyGremlinParlez! 12:28, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Its usually best for people writing books not to talk about about it until it has been written. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:07, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- Its mostly a reflection on how blacks ultimately create crime ridden wastelands whenever they attain political power. Look at any American city with large black populations, or witness the chaos that is the modern south Africa. Afrikaan (talk) 13:11, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- You're not going to win many fans around here with an opinion like that. Spud (talk) 13:16, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- "the chaos that is the modern south Africa" Can I just jump in here and say fuck off. I thought at first you might have an idea, but now just seems as if you're a nasty little fuckwit, with no idea what he's talking about. PsyGremlinFale! 13:44, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- So the nasty little fuckwit doesn't have to say it, and Psy can take a drink: "But I thought this was RationalWiki!" MDB (the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear) 14:25, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not really sure what I said that so offended you people? Incarceration rates for black people worldwide is sky high, they are more likely to commit crime, and destroy politics with their corruption when they achieve political power. Are they not a sub species when you really boil down to it? Afrikaan (talk) 15:51, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- Listen Afrikaan, we need to have a little chat, you and me. See, here's the thing: you're a racist, or what I like to call a "nazi". As a nazi, you aren't a person. You're a prokaryote, the lowest form of life on the Earth. You don't rate moral consideration. I could chain you up, set your children on fire and rape your wife, and make you die of starvation. This is as morally wrong as blowing my nose. Now, do us all a favor, and fuck right off.--Token Conservative (talk) 15:57, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- Now, now. That's a little unfair to the prokaryotes, don't you think? Mcnamara12 (talk) 16:24, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- Well, a virion* is actually dangerous (virion, that's a virus folded over itself, yeah?)--Token Conservative (talk) 16:53, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- Also, no fair bringing cocknozzle's hypothetical children into it. If they exist, it wasn't their fault that they were fertilized by a troglodyte. Ochotonaprincepsnot a pokémon 17:06, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- I sent them on fire under the assumption they're just as bad as him. nazis reproduce by division, right?--Token Conservative (talk) 17:16, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- Also, no fair bringing cocknozzle's hypothetical children into it. If they exist, it wasn't their fault that they were fertilized by a troglodyte. Ochotonaprincepsnot a pokémon 17:06, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- Well, a virion* is actually dangerous (virion, that's a virus folded over itself, yeah?)--Token Conservative (talk) 16:53, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- Now, now. That's a little unfair to the prokaryotes, don't you think? Mcnamara12 (talk) 16:24, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- Listen Afrikaan, we need to have a little chat, you and me. See, here's the thing: you're a racist, or what I like to call a "nazi". As a nazi, you aren't a person. You're a prokaryote, the lowest form of life on the Earth. You don't rate moral consideration. I could chain you up, set your children on fire and rape your wife, and make you die of starvation. This is as morally wrong as blowing my nose. Now, do us all a favor, and fuck right off.--Token Conservative (talk) 15:57, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not really sure what I said that so offended you people? Incarceration rates for black people worldwide is sky high, they are more likely to commit crime, and destroy politics with their corruption when they achieve political power. Are they not a sub species when you really boil down to it? Afrikaan (talk) 15:51, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- So the nasty little fuckwit doesn't have to say it, and Psy can take a drink: "But I thought this was RationalWiki!" MDB (the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear) 14:25, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- "the chaos that is the modern south Africa" Can I just jump in here and say fuck off. I thought at first you might have an idea, but now just seems as if you're a nasty little fuckwit, with no idea what he's talking about. PsyGremlinFale! 13:44, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- You're not going to win many fans around here with an opinion like that. Spud (talk) 13:16, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- Its mostly a reflection on how blacks ultimately create crime ridden wastelands whenever they attain political power. Look at any American city with large black populations, or witness the chaos that is the modern south Africa. Afrikaan (talk) 13:11, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Hmmm, some guy trolling the wiki about a book he's writing?[edit]
Could it be? When Roosevelt came to the land of the hummingbird, shouts of welcome were heard!. 16:44, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- Makes sense, knowing MC's love of Psy. ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 17:18, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- So, someone mind filling me on MC? I missed all of the fun until the last incarnation that I kept calling a moron (still hoping "I'm a conservative, and you're a moron" catches on)--Token Conservative (talk) 17:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- This, this, and this.--MikallakiM 17:57, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- So, basically, RW has been run this much like shit since 2009, has had the same damn issues since 2009, and hasn't learned any lesson since 2009? Fuck, no wonder everyone I know in the skeptical community thinks we're a joke.--Token Conservative (talk) 21:37, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- Yes. Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 21:39, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- So, does anyone have any skeptical websites with areas generally about science, politics, history, and religion, possibly in a wiki format that learns from its own history? Because I'm suddenly feeling like jumping ship.--Token Conservative (talk) 21:41, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- Any website that gets big enough is bound to attract assholes. Exhibit A: Reddit. --TheLateGatsby (talk) 21:47, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- RW does seem to be collectively obsessed with inclusiveness and not banning anyone, even if the person being included doesn't have anything interesting to say and is only present on the site to stir trouble. Possibly the only case which was handled quickly was when Tisane was blocked for spamming pedophilia advocacy. --Tweenk (talk) 23:17, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- There's a difference between there being assholes, and un-vandal binning someone because they were posting through proxy accounts. --Token Conservative (talk) 00:33, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- RW does seem to be collectively obsessed with inclusiveness and not banning anyone, even if the person being included doesn't have anything interesting to say and is only present on the site to stir trouble. Possibly the only case which was handled quickly was when Tisane was blocked for spamming pedophilia advocacy. --Tweenk (talk) 23:17, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- Any website that gets big enough is bound to attract assholes. Exhibit A: Reddit. --TheLateGatsby (talk) 21:47, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- So, does anyone have any skeptical websites with areas generally about science, politics, history, and religion, possibly in a wiki format that learns from its own history? Because I'm suddenly feeling like jumping ship.--Token Conservative (talk) 21:41, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- Want an honest assessment? The community is functionally dead, and the only reason we're still kicking is because half of us don't know it's dead and the other half doesn't care. I'm not going to pontificate about how it happened, because the time for bickering is long gone. Suffice it to say that we had an Eternal September starting in 2009 and nobody willing (or able, depending on your perspective) to deal with the consequences. And of course, everybody should read this. Blue (pester) 00:35, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- That's an odd thing to say. The community seems to be doing just fine. DamoHi 00:39, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- I find actually doing shit makes it all seem more worthwhile. Hey, we've got some great stuff here - David Gerard (talk) 00:41, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- That's an odd thing to say. The community seems to be doing just fine. DamoHi 00:39, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- Yes.
- So, basically, RW has been run this much like shit since 2009, has had the same damn issues since 2009, and hasn't learned any lesson since 2009? Fuck, no wonder everyone I know in the skeptical community thinks we're a joke.--Token Conservative (talk) 21:37, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- This, this, and this.--MikallakiM 17:57, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- So, someone mind filling me on MC? I missed all of the fun until the last incarnation that I kept calling a moron (still hoping "I'm a conservative, and you're a moron" catches on)--Token Conservative (talk) 17:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Is it bad that I'm on Conservapedia trying to find an alternative to Rationalwiki? I don't know, but I said that and one of my friends starting lolling.--Token Conservative (talk) 01:15, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- All Conservapedia is now is some closet-case screaming "COLD FISH! COLD FISH!" If you want scientific discussions and people that cheerfully ban, go to Free Thought Blogs. --TheLateGatsby (talk) 01:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- PS: they might ban you. --TheLateGatsby (talk) 01:56, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- I was using their cat:websites to try to find a place.--Token Conservative (talk) 01:58, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- Do they have an "Enemies List"? --TheLateGatsby (talk) 02:01, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- Surprisingly no. They do have a shit load of one sentence articles on things like paypal and pennyarcade though.--Token Conservative (talk) 18:03, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- The user who was talking about raping a wife and burning his children? you are a fruitcake mate!!. your 10 times worse than a "nazi", I have never read such an offensive comment. Obviously you said it for a joke, but that is not a nice thing to read. Forests (talk) 15:10, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- Do they have an "Enemies List"? --TheLateGatsby (talk) 02:01, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- I was using their cat:websites to try to find a place.--Token Conservative (talk) 01:58, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- PS: they might ban you. --TheLateGatsby (talk) 01:56, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
A new heading for this, the latest 'What's wrong with RW' discussion[edit]
The way to "fix" RW is to simply do what the stated mission is. Write articles and participate in rational discussion about the topic at hand. Criticizing any individual or purported group for alleged flaws is pointless. Pontificating at length about the (perceived) dysfunction of the "community" is not constructive - the "community" is nothing more than the sum of our individual actions. Personal conflicts are irrelevant - there are people on this site I have a strong dislike for (and they probably have a strong dislike of me edit: possibly also have a strong dislike of me, if they even know who I am). BFD. I just write about the topics I'm interested in, and avoid conversing with the people I dislike. Easy. VOXHUMANA 02:11, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Peter mqzp 02:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- A significant portion of the community would have no reason to edit here if we stopped all of the petty personal conflicts and beefs. (Though I still agree with you.) Sam Tally-ho! 02:18, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- I don't like the implication that petty conflicts and beefs are not a meaningful part of RW's Raison d'être. DamoHi 02:21, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- They're certainly important to the people who quickly lose their shit over the smallest disagreements, but to everyone else they're a pointless nuisance. They're often never settled and only serve to disrupt everything. At least that's how I view most of the inter-user conflicts that go on here. Sam Tally-ho! 02:29, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- I don't like the implication that petty conflicts and beefs are not a meaningful part of RW's Raison d'être. DamoHi 02:21, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- A significant portion of the community would have no reason to edit here if we stopped all of the petty personal conflicts and beefs. (Though I still agree with you.) Sam Tally-ho! 02:18, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
In response to the above idiocy, which masquerades as wisdom[edit]
|
|---|
|
For a start, I resent the fact that you people would think I would or could impersonate a racist. Sure, I hate that Psygremlin prick as much as the next guy and suspect he is a closet racist like the rest of his countrymen. Sure, the man is an idiot, without shame, who cannot help but make an ass of himself at hourly intervals. Ultimately he fails to even resemble a human being. However, all that being said, I cannot abide my good name been taken in vain. I am not the above imposter, I do not share his ideals, and find his methods to be grotesque. Blue, the eternal bloviator, hints once again at the interminable impasse that so defines rationalwiki. Instead of focusing on the mission statement, Blue would rather focus on building a sort of bureaucracy. This is in itself a laughable pursuit. Asperger's is rare in women, but judging by her self reverence and her belief that she is a woman destined for leadership on a fucking internet website, I'd say she is definately somewhere on the spectrum. Her boring hobby horse(s) - writing constitutions, creating more regulations, and perpetuating personality wars, are the real cancer at the heart of this website. Rationalwiki focuses on personality conflicts so much because all you fucking creeps lack even the most basic understanding of essential human traits such as empathy, communication, and an ability to have a fucking laugh. I'm a great prankster, a folk hero, a champion of the downtrodden who goes out of his way to bring mirth and enlightenment to your semen encrusted mother's basements, and yet only ever get hatred in return. I've been here for many years, and despite the best efforts of the fascists, here I remain. You cannot ban me because I personify wisdom, liberty and justice, the trinity that your master's have for so long tried to suppress. I will never leave. I can never be defeated. I am liberty incarnate. These words will likely disappear. Some of you may read them for a brief time before they are reverted, deleted, and hidden from recent changes. The oligarchic elite on this site go out of their way to quell dissent and opposing ideas. But history is on my side. Ultimately, history despises tyrants. And even tyrants ultimately hate their sycophants. Fuck you all. MARCUSCICERO |
Women in South Daktoa - demand your massages![edit]
As was noted in "WIGO" earlier this or last week, SD legislature has passed a 72 hour waiting period for having abortions - weekends and holidays excluded. So I'm thinking, that since women clearly are incapible of thought on the weekends, we cannot work on weekends, or cook or clean. Helping the children woudln't work cause the boy children are smarter than us, and teh girl children shoudln't be thinking on weekends either. Therefore, clearly, all South Dakota women should start simply sleeping in, watching rerun TV, and demanding massages! We aren't really good for very much else, clearly. ;-) 
Godot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 22:52, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- That could have nothing to do with the fact that counselling and advisory services (yes, women use them even without being forced to by the evil government) tend not to be open on weekends? 101.161.75.196 (talk) 23:42, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- Has the legislature specified what (if anything) will happen during this 72 hr wait period, or is it just "you have to wait 72hrs before we'll talk"? Also, it seems like it might be an attempt to effectively reduce the amount of time a woman has to have an abortion (SC had legal until third term, this would cut into the first two terms)--Token Conservative (talk) 00:36, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- The reality is exactly what BON said. SD requires you see "special dissuasion councilors", who are train in trying to get you to not have an abortion. Planned parenthood, there, has applied and been denied the right to act as "counselor", as have several women's groups. only christian run "counseling centers" been approved by the state. The argument is that they should not have ot be opened on teh weekend. Here's the screwy part, though. You only have to see a counsler one time during that 72 hours (as far as i can tell. it's slimly possible the 72 hours starts from the counseling). So reasonably, a patient could see their doctor and counselor on friday, and "think" saturday and sunday. right? so how does saying "not over the weekend" do anything but make it harder to get an abortion? as it is, most women in SD make a 5 hour drive to get to a clinic. so now you have to do that 2 times, over 72 hours, which means you can't just stay over night. Godot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 01:48, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- Token, given that they JUST passed 2 new laws about doc being forced to tell you about fetal pain at 16 weeks, and breast cancer links - I'm guessing you are supposed to ponder that the child is alive or something. cause you know, women are stupid and didn't know the child was alive. Godot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 01:50, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- I recall the breast cancer link has been debunked thoroughly, so I doubt if that law will stay in place too long. --Token Conservative (talk) 02:02, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- I'm a man, so this isn't something that I will directly have to worry about, but I think if I was a woman and was being forced to go to a counsellor, I'd bring an air horn. Every time the doc opened his mouth, PWAAAAP. Repeat until I get the message across or I'm escorted out by security/the police. Ochotonaprincepsnot a pokémon 13:12, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- is being made to speak to counsellor necessarily a bad thing? I understand in the above context its about enforcing a particular view point, but if done properly, explaining your options and rights, and providing support for whatever decision you make without judging - wouldn't that be a good thing? AMassiveGay (talk) 13:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- That's a big 'would' though. In these cases it's always pro-life organisations and doctors that can be set as counsellors, rather than any that actually make out aborting to be a valid option. Otherwise, yes - giving ALL options (and nothing less) is perfectly reasonable. But that's not the reality of the situation. Imagine, say, a student counsellor who always treated resitting a year as a total no-go even if trying to cram a large amount of material in a tiny timespace was very dangerous. Polite Timesplitter come shout at me for being thick 14:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- (EC, wheeee) Okay, I'll temper the scenario slightly. The air horn comes out when my ears detect bullshit. If it was a reasonable, neutral, supportive discussion, I could abide by that (albeit I disagree with it being mandatory in the first place). However, given the war on uteruses that's been going on recently, I'm pretty sure a non-judgemental and supportive atmosphere is intended nor desired by the lawmakers. See also Godot's comment above regarding the laws about fetal pain/etc. Ochotonaprincepsnot a pokémon 14:27, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- My understanding is that the UK had mandatory "counseling" for a while, and might even still have - but it's actually counseling. "is this what you want to do. are you having and particular emotions you want to work through? Have you thought about how you will tell your partner, etc. As Polite Time spliiter says, in the cases in OK, Wy, Kan, and ark where mandatory counseling is in place, the counseling centers have to apply for a license. so far, seriously, only christian centers have been given said license. Godot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 16:19, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- The UK mainland's rules require a dual sign-off, two doctors have to say that the termination is necessary. In theory they are supposed to apply a balance test, risk to the mother's health (including mental health) against that of continuing the pregnancy. In practice since refusals are required to include a referral the effect is that abortion is available on demand since a significant number of UK doctors will sign on a mental health basis without even asking why you're planning to terminate, they regard the legislation as interference by the government in what is a medical decision. So, you might get something resembling counselling (and if that's what you want you can easily find it) but if you're sure you want to terminate you should be able to find two doctors to put their squiggle on the paperwork without making a fuss. What Americans would call "pro choice" charities in the UK offer counselling and help with finding the two signatures if you're not the sort of independent person who can figure it out for themselves.
- On the (Catholic dominated) island of Ireland, including the UK part abortion is effectively banned. In theory there's an exemption for life-saving treatment but in practice it's not very effective. The rich (of course) simply go on a brief "holiday" abroad and come back not pregnant. There are charities that try to help out the poor but it's a divisive issue there and probably many women end up going through with the pregnancy reluctantly. Tialaramex (talk) 17:33, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- My understanding is that the UK had mandatory "counseling" for a while, and might even still have - but it's actually counseling. "is this what you want to do. are you having and particular emotions you want to work through? Have you thought about how you will tell your partner, etc. As Polite Time spliiter says, in the cases in OK, Wy, Kan, and ark where mandatory counseling is in place, the counseling centers have to apply for a license. so far, seriously, only christian centers have been given said license.
- is being made to speak to counsellor necessarily a bad thing? I understand in the above context its about enforcing a particular view point, but if done properly, explaining your options and rights, and providing support for whatever decision you make without judging - wouldn't that be a good thing? AMassiveGay (talk) 13:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- I'm a man, so this isn't something that I will directly have to worry about, but I think if I was a woman and was being forced to go to a counsellor, I'd bring an air horn. Every time the doc opened his mouth, PWAAAAP. Repeat until I get the message across or I'm escorted out by security/the police. Ochotonaprincepsnot a pokémon 13:12, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- I recall the breast cancer link has been debunked thoroughly, so I doubt if that law will stay in place too long. --Token Conservative (talk) 02:02, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- Token, given that they JUST passed 2 new laws about doc being forced to tell you about fetal pain at 16 weeks, and breast cancer links - I'm guessing you are supposed to ponder that the child is alive or something. cause you know, women are stupid and didn't know the child was alive.
- The reality is exactly what BON said. SD requires you see "special dissuasion councilors", who are train in trying to get you to not have an abortion. Planned parenthood, there, has applied and been denied the right to act as "counselor", as have several women's groups. only christian run "counseling centers" been approved by the state. The argument is that they should not have ot be opened on teh weekend. Here's the screwy part, though. You only have to see a counsler one time during that 72 hours (as far as i can tell. it's slimly possible the 72 hours starts from the counseling). So reasonably, a patient could see their doctor and counselor on friday, and "think" saturday and sunday. right? so how does saying "not over the weekend" do anything but make it harder to get an abortion? as it is, most women in SD make a 5 hour drive to get to a clinic. so now you have to do that 2 times, over 72 hours, which means you can't just stay over night.
- Has the legislature specified what (if anything) will happen during this 72 hr wait period, or is it just "you have to wait 72hrs before we'll talk"? Also, it seems like it might be an attempt to effectively reduce the amount of time a woman has to have an abortion (SC had legal until third term, this would cut into the first two terms)--Token Conservative (talk) 00:36, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Bigotry wiki[edit]
I setup a wiki for documenting an making fun of examples of bigotry, preferably with some sort of notability. I think it could be fun for going in depth with particular websites or organizations that would be too in depth here. I plan to focus mostly on organizations or websites rather than individuals, since I don't want it turning into rant space for people who lose arguments with bigots. Plus it's probably not the best thing to document random people just because they were on an MRA board or something like that. If they run an MRA website and say stuff straight out of Love-shy.com, that's a different matter. I think the way we make fun of stuff here is a good model; we make fun of websites that promote insanity, but don't go after people personally.
I'm wondering if there's anyone who would be interested in this.
The wiki is at http://bigotry.sashaweb.net
ఠ_ఠ Тод Зенос ан форфар фор 17:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- You know, successful people tend to ask for support for initiatives BEFORE going ahead with them, not after. --MikallakiM 21:03, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- Either way would work. It was something I was planning to do on my own as a creative outlet for making fun of bigots (as opposed to constantly repeating Nazis Я bad in discussions). The trouble with asking people about whether they're interested in a wiki before creating it is that a lot of people will express interest as a hypothetical possibility, and not take a practical interest or lose interest once it finally comes around. ఠ_ఠ Тод Зенос ан форфар фор 21:36, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- And the problem with starting a wiki and then asking for support is you find out that nobody wants to take part, leaving you with a dead website and possibly some cash loss. --MikallakiM 21:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- And if you wanna make fun of bigots, thats what a Blog, Tumblr, Twitter or ANYTHING ELSE is for, you dont need to go all the way and make a wiki for it. --MikallakiM 21:48, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- MediaWiki is good as an encyclopedic website. It even works well for non wikis as a CMS. I also didn't really anticipate having many editors when I created it. ఠ_ఠ Тод Зенос ан форфар фор 21:53, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- Blogs are good for updates and news type things, but no so much for encyclopedic storage of information. I really don't update things often enough to have a blog like that. ఠ_ఠ Тод Зенос ан форфар фор 21:55, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- " I also didn't really anticipate having many editors when I created it" Then why the fuck did you make a publicly editable wiki for it if you expect almost nobody to use it for what a wiki is for? What you want is a blog. Go make one. --MikallakiM 21:59, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- It's so people who read it can contribute if they want to. I expected to get a few editors eventually. It's also allows people to put up their own stuff that they find. As I said, MediaWiki is better for an encyclopedic style. Does it matter to you for some reason what software I use? ఠ_ఠ Тод Зенос ан форфар фор 01:46, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- " I also didn't really anticipate having many editors when I created it" Then why the fuck did you make a publicly editable wiki for it if you expect almost nobody to use it for what a wiki is for? What you want is a blog. Go make one. --MikallakiM 21:59, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- And if you wanna make fun of bigots, thats what a Blog, Tumblr, Twitter or ANYTHING ELSE is for, you dont need to go all the way and make a wiki for it. --MikallakiM 21:48, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- And the problem with starting a wiki and then asking for support is you find out that nobody wants to take part, leaving you with a dead website and possibly some cash loss. --MikallakiM 21:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- Either way would work. It was something I was planning to do on my own as a creative outlet for making fun of bigots (as opposed to constantly repeating Nazis Я bad in discussions). The trouble with asking people about whether they're interested in a wiki before creating it is that a lot of people will express interest as a hypothetical possibility, and not take a practical interest or lose interest once it finally comes around. ఠ_ఠ Тод Зенос ан форфар фор 21:36, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Borked my Kindle[edit]
So I plugged my Kindle into my laptop to upload a PDF onto it, and when I unplugged the thing, it had a big black bar across the top of the screen. I didn't even drop it or anything. Does anyone know a fix besides hard reset/recharge? Google seems to suggest that the thing is fucked. Thanks. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:42, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- Sounds like a static discharge across the top of the display screen, which suggests deeply borked. The only option is to try a hard reset, just in case it's a temporary problem (my kindle refuses to switch on if it's cold when you plug it in to charge, and needs a hard reset to stop it sulking), but I wouldn't be holding my breath. I think the average life expectancy of a kindle is 2 years, and that's assuming you don't do what I did with my first kindle, which is step on it by mistake.-- Jabba de Chops 11:27, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- Also stood on my kindle: now got Sony tablet (cheap from "Cash Converters") - betterer & MUCH more versatile. Ditch the Kindle! You can read all on "Cloud Reader" anyway. Scream!! (talk) 11:41, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- Do those tablets have E-ink screens, the main advantage of e-readers (besides that they're essentially distraction-free)? (talk to a) Nihilist 02:02, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- Looks like Amazon will be sending me a new one. Kindle was not exactly my choice -- I got it as a gift. Back to real books for now! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:01, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
- Do those tablets have E-ink screens, the main advantage of e-readers (besides that they're essentially distraction-free)? (talk to a) Nihilist 02:02, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- Also stood on my kindle: now got Sony tablet (cheap from "Cash Converters") - betterer & MUCH more versatile. Ditch the Kindle! You can read all on "Cloud Reader" anyway. Scream!! (talk) 11:41, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Who is MarcusCicero?[edit]
Anyone care to fill me in? I have only been here since December, but i hear his name mentioned in hushed tones round here. L'homme de la Perspective Discusez? 23:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- I am MarcusCicero. You are MarcusCicero. There is a bit of MarcusCicero in all of us. When Roosevelt came to the land of the hummingbird, shouts of welcome were heard!. 23:56, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- Some of his earlier history can be seen here
| Why is MarcusCicero unbinned? |
|---|
| Remember:
Hi, This is John's brother. I know he has been using this account for a variety of reasons, none of them productive for his troublesome history of mental health problems. For obvious reasons I don't want to go into details about this but suffice to say my mother and father have decided to withdraw his access from the internet for the duration of his most recent treatment process. I apologise on my brothers behalf for any problems he may have caused this website during his period of instability. As you know, his posts have been of a bizarre quality but that is merely a reflection of his real world mental anguishes. MarcusCicero (talk) 23:09, 11 July 2009 (UTC) |
| And:
|
| And:
My glorious run has ended. This is not a case of 'leaving and never coming back', but more a case of 'burn out'. I created a personality on the internet so radically different from the real life version that I've forgotten even what trolls remorse feels like.. (You can thank Refugee over on RWW for providing the impetus) My highlights on RW:
One regret: Stooping to do the mental illness stunt. That was a terrible miscalculation. Adios RW! I may pop in from time to time, but at least now you'll know for sure than I'm a fully fledged troll! MarcusCicero 19:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC) |
| And:
On the other hand, the temptation to shake the ant farm and watch them scurrying to each others aid is far too great to overcome. MarcusCicero (talk) 10:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC) |
--"Shut up, Brx." 00:09, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- There is no MarcusCicero. (talk to a) Nihilist 00:11, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
They're not "hushed" tones, more "bored and disinterested" tones. He cruises on here periodically, posts lengthy, tedious statements berating us for not realizing how amazingly important he is, then he disappears for a while. The guy clearly has mental health issues, but there's not much anyone can do about that via a web site. So the general practice is to just quietly ignore him. VOXHUMANA 00:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- Ironically, the best place to find info on people like MC (RWW) is now gone. Blue (is useful) 00:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- Marcus Cicero is a leader amongst men, a hero to the oppressed and downtrodden, a genuinely courageous and brilliant man who has been the victim of an intense smear campaign from vicious people determined to put down any attempt at reform. One day this terrible travesty of justice will be avenged. Titus Atticus (talk) 00:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- I still believe in the dream that is Marcus Cicero as the answer to the absolutely fucking heartbreaking condition RW's "community" is in. You people betrayed yourselves when you banned him and let the inmates run the asylum. Ghostface Editah (talk) 03:38, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- I hear Marcus Cicero once fought a bear with his bare hands. --MikallakiM 03:39, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- In the version I heard, he fought a hare with his bear hands. VOXHUMANA 03:48, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- I heard he has as many arms as Vishnu in order to massage his many penises. Acei9 03:56, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, this community has gone downhill ever since it got rid of Thunderf00t. The Thunderdome isolates and punishes the best commenters for daring to speak against the powers that be! BRING BACK GREG LADEN YOU FASCISTS!
- Sorry, which community were we talking about again? Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 04:02, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- I heard he has as many arms as Vishnu in order to massage his many penises. Acei9 03:56, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- In the version I heard, he fought a hare with his bear hands. VOXHUMANA 03:48, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- I hear Marcus Cicero once fought a bear with his bare hands. --MikallakiM 03:39, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- I still believe in the dream that is Marcus Cicero as the answer to the absolutely fucking heartbreaking condition RW's "community" is in. You people betrayed yourselves when you banned him and let the inmates run the asylum. Ghostface Editah (talk) 03:38, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- the glorious communist revolution against the... moderator regime will happen first. --MikallakiM 00:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- I love this (genuine) site's tagline: "Are you bored? Lonely? ... Or just a little bit nuts? Well this guide to making your own sockpuppets is for YOU!" VOXHUMANA 00:45, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- (EC) Parts of RWW are still intact (though reportedly only until the end of this month; see #HCM above). The article on MC has been deleted, as have almost all articles on users, but Great MarcusCicero Blocking Incident covers the gist of the situation at present. That and the sporadic pompous grandstanding such as this, plus any number of uninteresting one-note parodist sockpuppets (see most forum threads of recent months). WéáśéĺóíďMethinks it is a Weasel 00:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- (EC) Parts of RWW are still intact (though reportedly only until the end of this month; see #HCM above). The article on MC has been deleted, as have almost all articles on users, but Great MarcusCicero Blocking Incident covers the gist of the situation at present. That and the sporadic pompous grandstanding such as this, plus any number of uninteresting one-note parodist sockpuppets (see most forum threads of recent months). Wéáśéĺóíď
- I love this (genuine) site's tagline: "Are you bored? Lonely? ... Or just a little bit nuts? Well this guide to making your own sockpuppets is for YOU!" VOXHUMANA 00:45, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- Marcus Cicero is a leader amongst men, a hero to the oppressed and downtrodden, a genuinely courageous and brilliant man who has been the victim of an intense smear campaign from vicious people determined to put down any attempt at reform. One day this terrible travesty of justice will be avenged. Titus Atticus (talk) 00:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Creating a wiki to embed Youtube videos in to circumvent the ads[edit]
I've noticed that Youtube seems to be adding ads to almost all of their videos now, even videos that didn't previously have them. However, embedding the videos stops the ads from showing. So, setting up a wiki that used a page for each video would be a good way to allow people to share their's and other people's videos ad free.
Here's the layout I was thinking of:
- An article would be a video page. It would be similar to the Youtube video page, with video, comments, and information.
- We could possibly use the social profile extension for allowing users to add information about themselves, have avatars, and use the comment boxes for videos. If not, we'd just embed the Disqus comment boxes, as at Sturmkrieg.
- We'd use create boxes and boilerplates to have new articles already setup with the proper templates and such that they would need.
- The name of the page would be the name of the video.
ఠ_ఠ Тод Зенос ан форфар фор 01:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- Is it really that big of a deal? Maybe use adblocker if you feel that strongly about it. --DamoHi 02:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- [EC] Or, you know, Adblock, which works equally well. (talk to a) Nihilist 02:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- I doubt that would work, since the ads are before the video. It would work for ads on the sidebar, but I don't care about them. ఠ_ఠ Тод Зенос ан форфар фор 02:02, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- Uh, i use Adblock Plus in Firefox, and i never see video advertisements in Youtube or almost anywhere else. (talk to a) Nihilist 02:04, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- EC What ads are you talking about? I use Adblock, and have no ads on my internet. When Roosevelt came to the land of the hummingbird, shouts of welcome were heard!. 02:05, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- I haven't gotten a single preroll or in-video ad on YouTube since I installed AdBlock for Chrome. You seem to go for over-complicated solutions to simple problems, Inquisitor. Ochotonaprincepsnot a pokémon 02:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- Imaginary $5 says he actually already made this youtube wiki idea. --MikallakiM 02:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- No. And be a man and actually make a bet if you want to make a bet. Stop trolling. — Unsigned, by: Inquisitor Ehrenstein / talk / contribs
- If he/she was REALLY serious, they would write the entire wiki code from scratch. Adapting existing code is for wussies. VOXHUMANA 02:45, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- What's this "we" talk? You do it if you want to but don't imagine that the cash-strapped RationalWiki Foundation is going to pay for it.--Spud (talk) 03:58, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, the word "we" does not occur anywhere in this entire section. So... I really have absolutely no idea what you are on about.VOXHUMANA 04:22, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
(talk to a) Nihilist 04:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)*We could possibly use the social profile extension for allowing users to add information about themselves, have avatars, and use the comment boxes for videos. If not, we'd just embed the Disqus comment boxes, as at Sturmkrieg.
- We'd use create boxes and boilerplates to have new articles already setup with the proper templates and such that they would need.
- What's this "we" talk? You do it if you want to but don't imagine that the cash-strapped RationalWiki Foundation is going to pay for it.--Spud (talk) 03:58, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- EC What ads are you talking about? I use Adblock, and have no ads on my internet. When Roosevelt came to the land of the hummingbird, shouts of welcome were heard!. 02:05, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- Uh, i use Adblock Plus in Firefox, and i never see video advertisements in Youtube or almost anywhere else. (talk to a) Nihilist 02:04, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- I doubt that would work, since the ads are before the video. It would work for ads on the sidebar, but I don't care about them. ఠ_ఠ Тод Зенос ан форфар фор 02:02, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Just saying, but the youtube adds are how the youtube video uploader makes money. By blocking or otherwise circumventing the adds, you're pointlessly hurting the video uploader. I find this irritating because I've worked with someone who managed to get some supplemental income from a few youtube videos, and it was an absolute ass ache, and I'd hate if you decided you didn't want to do even the smallest thing to help support people like him because you don't want to spend 15 seconds watching a commercial.--Token Conservative (talk) 04:38, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- my reasoning for using adblock is that 15-30 seconds isnt much of a slowdown on its own, but it starts to add up across a hundred lets play videos or music. its why i stopped using spotify, getting harassed every 4 songs to pay them money or buy somebody else better spotify got annoying. --MikallakiM 04:48, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- That's a good point. I should probably whitelist the sites i use often and want to support. (talk to a) Nihilist 05:05, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- Except the fact that they show up suddenly on some very old videos suggests that Youtube is doing this automatically for popular videos. I don't see this as "hurting" people spamming their videos with ads as much as it prevents people from wasting their lives watching ads before internet videos. As Mikal points out, it adds up. My recommendation to these people is that they find a more productive way of making money such as creating programs for iOS and Mac OS and selling them through the Apple software store, or write books and publish them as e-books or through print on demand publishers. Such things are much more useful than spamming ads on one's internet videos. I have a website that gets a lot of views that I could collect a lot of advertising money on, however, I don't post ads because doing so would wreck appearance and feel. Plus I'm sure people don't want giant banner adds over their stuff. ఠ_ఠ Тод Зенос ан форфар фор 07:14, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't get it: I can see why you would do this, but why with a wiki? Peter mqzp 07:18, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- Unless something better presents itself, since MediaWiki allows anyone to edit the pages. ఠ_ఠ Тод Зенос ан форфар фор 08:13, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
I still fail to understand why you are proposing a work-intensive server-side solution for a client-side problem. Ochotonaprincepsnot a pokémon 08:56, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- It's not really that hard to set up. Wordpress could possibly work where everyone can register and they get Author permissions by default so that they can create posts that would contain the video and description. I could possibly use the BuddyPress extension to have user profiles, messages, and other social abilities that Youtube has. ఠ_ఠ Тод Зенос ан форфар фор 15:45, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- Or you could, as many people have pointed out, install Adblock in your browser. When Roosevelt came to the land of the hummingbird, shouts of welcome were heard!. 16:10, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- That would be easier for me, assuming it works on the video ads before the video. Plus circumventing by embedding is better since I'm sure that's guaranteed to not have ads put on it, while Youtube might try to defeat adblocking. I doubt that Youtube will set embedded videos to play ads since that could result in advertisers withdrawing since their ads would end up appearing on websites they don't want association with. Creating a site that circumvents ads would also show Youtube exactly how people feel about what they're doing. ఠ_ఠ Тод Зенос ан форфар фор 18:39, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- "Creating a site that circumvents ads would also show Youtube exactly how people feel about what they're doing" — generating revenue through easily-blockable advertisements?, which are very hard to have be stopped from being blocked without pissing off the userbase. That's such a great evil? (talk to a) Nihilist 18:49, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- By the way, wouldn't it be easier and better to create a site that automatically fetches and embeds a YouTube video on request? (talk to a) Nihilist 18:56, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- Adblock Plus for Chrome seems to work. Though giving the finger to Youtube for spamming ads would be nice. As for people who want extra money, write a book on how to do something and sell it with Amazon and Apple. Don't be self centered and make people sit through stupid ads. Be a contributing member of society. I should downvote all videos that I suspect have user placed ads on them. ఠ_ఠ Тод Зенос ан форфар фор 18:52, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- Be a contributing member of society. I think you mean "Cut off a valid revenue stream for both the host (YouTube) and the content creator (the channel owner)." You've installed the extension, now shut up and enjoy your ad-free YouTube. Hint: YouTube isn't a charity, and the channel owners that monetize ads need food. It's also not even always them. Leo Laporte, of TWiT, has long complained that his videos are being ad-hijacked by completely random people, like a TV station in Brazil, filing copyright claims against his company's original content and, instead of taking the videos down, opting to have ads. Any revenue from those ads that doesn't go to YouTube goes to the TV station in Brazil (or whoever else filed a bogus claim) and not TWiT. Unless you want to pay a monthly subscription to every site you're on, ads are a way the Internet pays for itself. Get over it. Install an ad-blocker if you choose, but just shut up and get over it. Ochotonaprincepsnot a pokémon 22:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- You can put advertisements in sidebars and banners. It will have the same effect for the advertiser. I also highly doubt that anyone is paying for food with Youtube ad money. In fact, no one is. You have a job for stuff like that. If someone doesn't have a job, they aren't going to making Youtube videos. It's total BS to have to watch 30 second ads on videos you don't even know if you're going to watch. Most of the time I watch the first five seconds of many videos to see if it's going to be relevant. Doing that for 20 videos is 10 minutes that I've wasted. Now I'm blocking the ads for the moment, that's great. Not everyone realizes they can do that. ఠ_ఠ Тод Зенос ан форфар фор 23:05, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- Because nobody could possibly have a job creating YouTube content, eh? God, you're fucking dense, Ehrenstein. Ochotonaprincepsnot a pokémon 06:05, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
- People who look into it find they can. They will find AdBlock or one of its equivalents a lot more easily than your proposed wiki of embedded YouTube videos. WèàšèìòìďMethinks it is a Weasel 23:14, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- Ehr, just shut up already. --MikallakiM 23:11, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, that is true. They'd have to find another website the same as an adblocker. The only advantage I can think of is that they might find ways of circumventing the adblockers. They might also start having ads in embedded videos, and just exempt them on websites that they get complaints about. I'm assuming the reason why they exempt embedding from advertising is because companies would end up advertising on websites like Metapedia. ఠ_ఠ Тод Зенос ан форфар фор 00:56, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
- Mikal, please maintain civility. Continued attacks will result in a block. ఠ_ఠ Тод Зенос ан форфар фор 00:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
- Are you trying to enforce wikipedia guidelines again or?--MikallakiM 03:09, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
- Yes. Because Wikipedia is inferior to Rational Wiki and so we should become more like them. I'm just pretending to be a bureaucratic loony. Although some general things like civility are good for any wiki. Although our method of solving problems is headless chicken mode, so civility is irrelevant. But I'll block you for violating it anyway. ఠ_ఠ Тод Зенос ан форфар фор 03:53, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
- Are you trying to enforce wikipedia guidelines again or?--MikallakiM 03:09, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
- Ehr, just shut up already. --MikallakiM 23:11, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- You can put advertisements in sidebars and banners. It will have the same effect for the advertiser. I also highly doubt that anyone is paying for food with Youtube ad money. In fact, no one is. You have a job for stuff like that. If someone doesn't have a job, they aren't going to making Youtube videos. It's total BS to have to watch 30 second ads on videos you don't even know if you're going to watch. Most of the time I watch the first five seconds of many videos to see if it's going to be relevant. Doing that for 20 videos is 10 minutes that I've wasted. Now I'm blocking the ads for the moment, that's great. Not everyone realizes they can do that. ఠ_ఠ Тод Зенос ан форфар фор 23:05, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- Be a contributing member of society. I think you mean "Cut off a valid revenue stream for both the host (YouTube) and the content creator (the channel owner)." You've installed the extension, now shut up and enjoy your ad-free YouTube. Hint: YouTube isn't a charity, and the channel owners that monetize ads need food. It's also not even always them. Leo Laporte, of TWiT, has long complained that his videos are being ad-hijacked by completely random people, like a TV station in Brazil, filing copyright claims against his company's original content and, instead of taking the videos down, opting to have ads. Any revenue from those ads that doesn't go to YouTube goes to the TV station in Brazil (or whoever else filed a bogus claim) and not TWiT. Unless you want to pay a monthly subscription to every site you're on, ads are a way the Internet pays for itself. Get over it. Install an ad-blocker if you choose, but just shut up and get over it. Ochotonaprincepsnot a pokémon 22:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- That would be easier for me, assuming it works on the video ads before the video. Plus circumventing by embedding is better since I'm sure that's guaranteed to not have ads put on it, while Youtube might try to defeat adblocking. I doubt that Youtube will set embedded videos to play ads since that could result in advertisers withdrawing since their ads would end up appearing on websites they don't want association with. Creating a site that circumvents ads would also show Youtube exactly how people feel about what they're doing. ఠ_ఠ Тод Зенос ан форфар фор 18:39, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- Or you could, as many people have pointed out, install Adblock in your browser. When Roosevelt came to the land of the hummingbird, shouts of welcome were heard!. 16:10, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Sean Faircloth[edit]
Anyone heard Sean Faircloth speak before? He is doing a speaking tour around NZ universities and thinking of attending. FYI. Acei9 08:32, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- Sounds interesting. When is he coming? Peter mqzp 08:36, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- dates... Acei9 08:58, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- He is Dawkins man in the US. I feel like I should like him but he always strikes me as a bit shrill and preachy. I would have checked him out if he had come to Hamilton though. --DamoHi 09:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- I saw him when Dawkins came to speak at CU...he headlined for him, pimped a few books and memberships for the RDF, and made a few jokes. His humor is much more American but acknowledges that people came to hear Dawkins speak and not him. Seems a decent guy. --Seth Peck (talk) 16:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- He is Dawkins man in the US. I feel like I should like him but he always strikes me as a bit shrill and preachy. I would have checked him out if he had come to Hamilton though. --DamoHi 09:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- dates... Acei9 08:58, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Table of contents for Annotated Bible section[edit]
Can anyone think of a way to put a table of contents in articles like this - RationalWiki:Annotated_Bible/Genesis, so that only the Chapters and not each individual verse gets a table entry? Currently the articles have the __NOTOC__ statement. But being able to click to the start of each chapter would be a good thing. (I could break each chapter into its own page, I guess, but I'd prefer not to). VOXHUMANA 12:18, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- I don't quite have time to play with it this moment, but this may help: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Table_of_contents#Customizing_the_TOC Have a play with that toclimit class to see if it actually works on RW. theist 12:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- Did just check the page, you'd need to insert chapter and verse headings at different indent levels for that to even apply. bomination 12:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- Did just check the page, you'd need to insert chapter and verse headings at different indent levels for that to even apply.
Brass monkeys[edit]
It's bloody freezing here in the UK. Those two nice days last week? That was summer, that was. SophieWilder 16:55, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- March, in like a lion, out like a lamb. We're still in the lion bit. Ooop North (well Blackpool) it's alternating between beautiful sunshine and blizzard, taking around half an hour between each. I'm having to time my bike ride home rather carefully. Innocent Bystander (talk) 17:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- Maybe not blizzard-like here but the odd flurry with sunny intervals. However, as Sophie remarked it's bloody freezing with a biting wind. ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 17:52, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- Crazy weather here (Birmingham). Snowed so heavy that I couldn't see the other side of the road, built up 2-3cm of snow on the car park, then it just stopped and it went all bright and sunny and melted all the snow. Then did the exact same thing 2 more times. It was weird to watch. X Stickman (talk) 18:38, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- Opposite in NZ - driest/hottest summer in over 70 years. Major drought, fire risk and even the cities are feeling the water pinch. Acei9 20:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- Crazy weather here (Birmingham). Snowed so heavy that I couldn't see the other side of the road, built up 2-3cm of snow on the car park, then it just stopped and it went all bright and sunny and melted all the snow. Then did the exact same thing 2 more times. It was weird to watch. X Stickman (talk) 18:38, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- Maybe not blizzard-like here but the odd flurry with sunny intervals. However, as Sophie remarked it's bloody freezing with a biting wind.
Ahmadinejad shows a bit of humanity...[edit]
...gets villified by his co-religionists. I imagine the right-wingers have no idea what to do with this. Grieving commie mom, demonized crazy dictator wannabe, Islamic fundamentalist criticism. There's no good guy. When Roosevelt came to the land of the hummingbird, shouts of welcome were heard!. 18:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Repeat a lie often enough[edit]
I see Banana-man is repeating lie that his banana fallacy was part of his "stand-up routine" and that "bananas haven't changed their shape in the slightest." --PsyGremlinParlez! 22:14, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Suggestion?[edit]
So, I'm using the Win 7 split screen thing to watch a TV show and do some reading on Rationalwiki, but the compression is irritating. So, is there a way to collapse the left hand bar so I don't get this? Or maybe a way to make that possible?--Token Conservative (talk) 00:04, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
- Make this change and it will disappear. I don't know how to make a button to do that though, which would be nice. Peter mqzp 00:26, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Rationalwiki is not rational on race[edit]
See this article. Forests (talk) 15:52, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- Have a drink? Sure, why not! It's Saturday after all. Vulpius (talk) 16:16, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- Fundraising, I see... "Metapedia is growing"? I shudder at the thought. --TheLateGatsby (talk) 16:29, 9 March 2013 (UTC)--TheLateGatsby (talk) 16:29, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- Did you know that apparently, the word "racist" was invented by Leon Trotsky? You have to wonder where they come up with this stuff.--"Shut up, Brx." 17:37, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- Already dealt with that one. Balaam (talk) 19:09, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- "The site begs for donations." "Please contribute to our ongoing fundraiser." Slick, Metapedia. I like how out-of-date the article is, since RW hasn't functionally had bureaucrats for a while. Not that racists are going to change their mind about us frequently. Ochotonaprincepsnot a pokémon 01:02, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- The fuck do we care what they think about us?--Token Conservative (talk) 02:03, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- I don't care, myself, but those racists amuse me occasionally. Especially when they're hypocritical. Ochotonaprincepsnot a pokémon 02:09, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- Wow, now Metapedia has little yellow stars next to the names of Jews. Sieg heil! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- I don't care, myself, but those racists amuse me occasionally. Especially when they're hypocritical. Ochotonaprincepsnot a pokémon 02:09, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- The fuck do we care what they think about us?--Token Conservative (talk) 02:03, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- "The site begs for donations." "Please contribute to our ongoing fundraiser." Slick, Metapedia. I like how out-of-date the article is, since RW hasn't functionally had bureaucrats for a while. Not that racists are going to change their mind about us frequently. Ochotonaprincepsnot a pokémon 01:02, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- Already dealt with that one. Balaam (talk) 19:09, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- Did you know that apparently, the word "racist" was invented by Leon Trotsky? You have to wonder where they come up with this stuff.--"Shut up, Brx." 17:37, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- Fundraising, I see... "Metapedia is growing"? I shudder at the thought. --TheLateGatsby (talk) 16:29, 9 March 2013 (UTC)--TheLateGatsby (talk) 16:29, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
http://bigotry.sashaweb.net ? ఠ_ఠ Тод Зенос ан форфар фор 03:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- users on this site accept that races exist in all species... LOLWUT? VOXHUMANA 11:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- I'm so pleased hovering over links tells me where it's about to go, otherwise I may have accidentally opened a tab with Metapedia in it and would have to bleach my entire computer to get rid of the smell. d hominem 13:33, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- I'm so pleased hovering over links tells me where it's about to go, otherwise I may have accidentally opened a tab with Metapedia in it and would have to bleach my entire computer to get rid of the smell.
- users on this site accept that races exist in all species... LOLWUT? VOXHUMANA 11:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- Interesting. I like how the power structure diagram is now multiple years out of date. 172.218.49.11 (talk) 05:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Creating a custom Vector skin for RationalWiki[edit]
I think it might be good if we created our own version of the Vector skin with our own style. It doesn't need to be a huge change, but something that would give us our own look and hopefully stop noobs from calling us "Wikipedia." There's a guide here: http://blog.redwerks.org/2012/02/28/mediawiki-subskin-tutorial/ The downside is that it's imperfect and at least in the MW version I used it with, you have to set everything as important to stop the regular Vector CSS from overriding it. ఠ_ఠ Тод Зенос ан форфар фор 17:49, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- What are your next Saloon Bar topics going to be? That we should forcibly implement LQT on every talk page? About how even though you think it was super-horrible, you're grateful for the Holocaust putting a dent into overpopulation? --"Shut up, Brx." 18:16, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- LOLWUT? ఠ_ఠ Тод Зенос ан форфар фор 18:32, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- A custom skin has been a dream of mine for a while. The problem is that Vector is getting all of MW's attention and support right now. We should wait to see if David chimes in here, but I think at most we might get to change the color scheme or something. Blue (is useful) 18:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- You people and your silly Vector. Monobook shall reign supreme!--MikallakiM 19:24, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- I actually like Vector better than MonoBook, as it has a better layout and it can have collapsible sections that can be implemented by even the most unskilled server administrators who can use MediaWiki. All similar attempts that I find involve hacks that require copying massive amounts of code into various places, and that are likely to be destroyed during software upgrades. ఠ_ఠ Тод Зенос ан форфар фор 19:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- Me? Well, I have no plans to maintain the thing ... the trouble with Vector from a forking perspective is that its code is an unholy melange of skin and extension. The next LTS version of MediaWiki (1.23 or so) will have a very different implementation, because they'll have separated it out a bit better by then (hopefully). The upshot is that any fork of Vector will need to be reimplemented all over again.
- But if you really want this to happen, and are prepared to do it twice, put up the prospective skin somewhere and the mob can duly express their admiration or meh - David Gerard (talk) 20:27, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- There's always the possibility of changing the wiki Vector CSS page. That would at least give us a unique look. The advantage of adding a skin is that users can more easily use the original skin, it might look slightly impressive to have your own skin, and it stops people from just copying the CSS off the wiki pages. I find that it really sucks that there isn't a good way of forking Vector. ఠ_ఠ Тод Зенос ан форфар фор 20:52, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- Why do we need a unique look, exactly? One of my biggest problems with many wikis i go to is they feel they gotta be all individual in how they look, at the cost of usability. --MikallakiM 20:57, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- In some respects, yes, as the overall look and layout is identical to Wikipedia, leading to a lot of idiots to confuse the two. gnostic 18:19, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- In some respects, yes, as the overall look and layout is identical to Wikipedia, leading to a lot of idiots to confuse the two.
- Why do we need a unique look, exactly? One of my biggest problems with many wikis i go to is they feel they gotta be all individual in how they look, at the cost of usability. --MikallakiM 20:57, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- There's always the possibility of changing the wiki Vector CSS page. That would at least give us a unique look. The advantage of adding a skin is that users can more easily use the original skin, it might look slightly impressive to have your own skin, and it stops people from just copying the CSS off the wiki pages. I find that it really sucks that there isn't a good way of forking Vector. ఠ_ఠ Тод Зенос ан форфар фор 20:52, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- You people and your silly Vector. Monobook shall reign supreme!--MikallakiM 19:24, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- I'm only suggesting visual changes, such as alterations to the colors, but still not a big departure. As long as the functionality isn't changed, it shouldn't be a problem. It's really tiring and strange to see every MW website have exactly the same appearance. For example, forums mostly use the same software, or at least a very small selection of programs, but they all have different appearances. Part of that could just be the fact that pre written skins are available for them. ఠ_ఠ Тод Зенос ан форфар фор 21:48, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- Go bitch at MediaWiki for not facilitating easier and more versatile skinning, then. Change for change's sake is a good way to break things. Ochotonaprincepsnot a pokémon 06:46, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, I've been doing that. Their manual on how to do it (which involved copying the skin and didn't work) was confusing and vague to the point of unusability, much like most of their other documentation. ఠ_ఠ Тод Зенос ан форфар фор 15:24, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- Go bitch at MediaWiki for not facilitating easier and more versatile skinning, then. Change for change's sake is a good way to break things. Ochotonaprincepsnot a pokémon 06:46, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- I'm only suggesting visual changes, such as alterations to the colors, but still not a big departure. As long as the functionality isn't changed, it shouldn't be a problem. It's really tiring and strange to see every MW website have exactly the same appearance. For example, forums mostly use the same software, or at least a very small selection of programs, but they all have different appearances. Part of that could just be the fact that pre written skins are available for them. ఠ_ఠ Тод Зенос ан форфар фор 21:48, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- I went and asked on wikitech-l. The bug. People are working on this, but they desperately need help - so if you want to make Vector suck less as a modifiable skin, that bug is absolutely the place to be active. Basically, they're carving up the Vector extension and trying to move the bits in use to core and keep the rest in the Vector skin. The "hardcore CSS hackery" to look good in IE6 and FF2 needs to go as well. So it might all be done by 1.23 - David Gerard (talk) 21:43, 12 March 2013 (UTC)