RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive197

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 6 April 2013. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>, <41>, <42>, <43>, <44>, <45>, <46>, <47>, <48>, <49>, <50>, <51>, <52>, <53>, <54>, <55>, <56>, <57>, <58>, <59>, <60>, <61>, <62>, <63>, <64>, <65>, <66>, <67>, <68>, <69>, <70>, <71>, <72>, <73>, <74>, <75>, <76>, <77>, <78>, <79>, <80>, <81>, <82>, <83>, <84>, <85>, <86>, <87>, <88>, <89>, <90>, <91>, <92>, <93>, <94>, <95>, <96>, <97>, <98>, <99>, <100>, <101>, <102>, <103>, <104>, <105>, <106>, <107>, <108>, <109>, <110>, <111>, <112>, <113>, <114>, <115>, <116>, <117>, <118>, <119>, <120>, <121>, <122>, <123>, <124>, <125>, <126>, <127>, <128>, <129>, <130>, <131>, <132>, <133>, <134>, <135>, <136>, <137>, <138>, <139>, <140>, <141>, <142>, <143>, <144>, <145>, <146>, <147>, <148>, <149>, <150>, <151>, <152>, <153>, <154>, <155>, <156>, <157>, <158>, <159>, <160>, <161>, <162>, <163>, <164>, <165>, <166>, <167>, <168>, <169>, <170>, <171>, <172>, <173>, <174>, <175>, <176>, <177>, <178>, <179>, <180>, <181>, <182>, <183>, <184>, <185>, <186>, <187>, <188>, <189>, <190>, <191>, <192>, <193>, <194>, <195>, <196>, <198>, <199>, <200>, <201>, <202>, <203>, <204>, <205>, <206>, <207>, <208>, <209>, <210>, <211>, <212>, <213>, <214>, <215>, <216>, <217>, <218>, <219>, <220>, <221>, <222>, <223>, <224>, <224½>, <225>, <226>, <227>, <228>, <229>, <230>, <231>, <232>, <233>, <234>, <235>, <236>, <237>, <238>, <239>, <240>, <241>, <242>, <243>, <244>, <245>, <246>, <247>, <248>, <249>, <250>, <251>, <252>, <253>, <254>, <255>, <256>, <257>, <258>, <259>, <260>, <261>, <262>, <263>, <264>, <265>, <266>, <267>, <268>, <269>, <270>, <271>, <272>, <273>, <274>, <275>, <276>, <277>, <278>, <279>, <280>, <281>, <282>, <283>, <284>, (new)(back)


Not worth a WIGO[edit]

Tory MP blunders Scream!! (talk) 22:39, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

How much does a WIGO cost these days? WėąṣėḷőįďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:42, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
A goat.--DurbinatorDurbinating 01:23, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Or a buck-o-five. DickTurpis (talk) 01:40, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Christianity and Presidency[edit]

It just hit me: does it actually say anywhere that you have to be Christian to be President? Answers.com says "Theoretically, no; but the politics of the United States de facto has made it important to be Christian." Plus, there's the "first amendment" business.

Therefore, it shouldn't be that big of a deal whether the President is a Muslim or atheist or whatever, and yet...--DoomTay (talk) 22:07, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

US Constitution - Article VI, Paragraph 3: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
(Added) There are several clauses in various state constitutions which require a belief in God, or even to be specifically Christian. However it has long been presumed that these are unconstitutional and therefore unenforceable, and this was confirmed in the 1997 Silverman_v._Campbell case by the South Carolina Supreme Court. VOXHUMANA 22:25, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
There isn't a requirement in law, But it's De Facto that the president (And most other Public Office holders) are going to be Some kind of christian, atleast For the foreseeable next few decades. The best outside this we'd get is maybe a Jewish President. --MikallakiM 22:30, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm a remember the first Roman Catholic presidential candidate causing quite the stir in the media on that account. He managed to get elected anyway, but he was running against Tricky Dicky from Yorba Linda (hip. hip. hip. hooray.) Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 00:17, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Actually, he was running against Herbert Hoover and did not get elected. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 00:34, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Knew I could count on somebody, might as well be you. How about the first successful one? Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 00:38, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Think of it as the papacy. It can, by written rule, be any catholic unmarried man but in reality you have to be a Cardinal. Polite Timesplitter Let's move on to some other area of sodomy! 10:35, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
It shouldn't be that big of a deal, but the electorate make it a big deal, because it's a big deal to them. Like it or not, people vote on what they consider important, not what the electoral system says they should consider important. I think it's idiotic, but then I think a large proportion of politics is idiotic. Worm (talk) 10:41, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
I actually think it's best overall that it works this way. The primary benefit of our indirect democracies is reduced bloodshed (Bush walked out of the White House, nobody had to blow the place up to install Obama) but over the long term it's impossible for people to be governed contrary to their nature under any system. Ask the Romans. If you want an openly atheist US President, I tell you go out and spread the word about how religion is bullshit, a United States with hundreds of millions of openly atheist voters will have an openly atheist President. Tialaramex (talk) 11:36, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Australia has an openly atheist prime minister. We still hate her, but it has nothing to do with her atheism (or her gender for that matter... tt has everything to do with her being a back-stabbing, power-grubbing asswipe). Her atheism is never mentioned. There were a few raised eyebrows when she was asked in a news conference three years back, but nothing since. VOXHUMANA 11:54, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

@PoliteTimesplitter - Irrelevant and OT: I was about to argue with you but then I found out you were right, any unmarried male baptized as a catholic is eligible to be pope. You learn something every day. VOXHUMANA 11:10, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

In the really old days there weren't even any official rules. Fabian supposedly became Pope because a dove landed on him when they were deciding on the next pope and everybody was like "Woah, a dove, God has picked this guy. What's his name?". The Papacy was already somewhat powerful so it's conceivable this was a fix, or indeed that it's a legend created at the time to explain how this random guy Fabian is now pope. Tialaramex (talk) 11:19, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


I live in a suburb of Seoul, and here is an excerpt from an advertisement against an anti-hate speech law;

Anti-discrimination of sexual preferences (homosexuality) and sexuality (transgender)

In the United States state of Massachusetts, where a pro-gay law was passed, schools taught chidren how to perform homosexual intercourse (anal sex) during sexual education classes. If the anti-discrimination law is passed, teachers in Korea from elementary to high school will also teach the performance homosexual behavior in schools. Children will experience homosexuality and become homosexuals themselves. People who object to gay behavior will get a fine of under thirty million won. (about thirty thousand dollars) Homosexuality is not genetics, but comes from experience and education. There is a study that teens in cities, where homosexuality is very common, will have a more chance of becoming homosexuals then teens in the countryside. Homosexuals are saying they will adopt children. Will a child raised by a "male mom" be happy? Average lifespan of gays are 25-30 years shorter than ordinary people. AIDS is a hundred times common, homosexual teens are four more times likely to perform suicide, and cancer is twice more common than ordinary people.

Those idiots. By the way, I didn't add the bold spots-they did it themselves.--Seonookim (talk) 06:53, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd mock the "backwards thinking of your non-western culture", except there are similar things being said in the USA. :) VOXHUMANA 09:12, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Whew. It's a good thing my grandchildren moved to a purple state. I don't want them exposed to the buttsecks lessons here in the People's Democratic Republic of Massachusetts. When my kids were in elementary and high school, I don't think that was in the curriculum. At least, I never noticed them asking for extra pillows to sit on after school. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 17:49, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Keep yer gubbermint bureaucrats off my healthcare!!!![edit]

Well, except when it comes to women's healthcare. Can anybody else spell ultra-hypocrisy? Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 09:04, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

The trick is that they've half-persuaded themselves that this isn't about healthcare. Although they don't act as though abortion means a person's death (if they did spontaneous abortion, ie miscarriage would be seeing hundreds of billions of dollars of research funding because it would be the world's largest cause of death) they talk as if it did. They've learned to self-censor in a sort of personal version of that hilarious search and replace that resulted in headlines about "Tyson Homosexual". Tialaramex (talk) 11:07, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

GOP en Espanol[edit]

The Republican party has a Twitter feed for Spanish language outreach. They have one little problem with it... MDB (the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear) 16:00, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

On a vaguely related subject..... There was a comment a few days back about the election of the new pope where someone said he'd been mostly right about his prediction of the type of person elected (old, male, conservative, catholic, etc.) but got the bit about being white wrong. I presume solely because he comes from Latin America. Is this a common things in the US where people from the southern continent are automatically perceived as being a different colour? I mean, what's with that? The new pope is to all intents and purposes very similar to a European. As are many in south America. If, say, a Spanish or Portuguese tourist visited the US, would most people consider them "not white"? I only ask because I wish to know. Ajkgordon (talk) 17:41, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
"If, say, a Spanish or Portuguese Tourist visited the US, would most people consider them "not white"? Depends on who you ask, "Being White" is much more complex then you'd think and often involved/involves what countries you come from if your "really white". As for the many people who live south of the US, they get lumped into the Hispanic/Latino/what have you category. --MikallakiM 20:57, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Also, what sort of name is Kirchner? Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD memberModerator 21:05, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Lots of Germans in Chile too. Whole villages modelled in Bavarian style and they wear lederhosen and everything. Ajkgordon (talk) 22:29, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Welsh too. Scream!! (talk) 23:06, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, and that was SethPeck. --"Shut up, Brx." 22:32, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

'Generation of Atheist'?[edit]

Took a look at the poll, and, uh, I don't get it. Does it mean generation in the sense of second gen being raised by atheist parents, third gen being atheist grandparents (on at least one side) etc or is this a gen x, gen y, gen z or first wave, second wave, third wave thing? Polite Timesplitter Let's move on to some other area of sodomy! 21:17, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

What are you talking about? WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 21:21, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
The current pointless poll is "What generation of atheist are you?" Polite Timesplitter Let's move on to some other area of sodomy! 21:46, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
"Second-generation atheists are atheists who have at least one atheist parent.".--MikallakiM 21:42, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. Polite Timesplitter Let's move on to some other area of sodomy! 21:46, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Kim de Gelder[edit]

In Belgium, court is currently in session for a murderer who stabber 3 toddlers and a caretaker to death. Kim de Gelder bought a Chef's Knife to commit his attrocious crime. The only beam of light I can glance from this entire farce, is the fact that we have gun control in Belgium, which is the sole reason he only managed a few deaths. In the US, this guy would have stormed in with a rifle, murdering 20-30 infants before being shot. Given the sad fact that such killing sprees are probably a given in any society, I very much prefer a gun-free society. (talk) 13:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Where is the discussion[edit]

Moved to Talk:Race#Where is the discussion SophieWilder 08:32, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Mmm, celebrity endorsement[edit]

Well, not really, but Doc Christian Jessen does point to one of our fun articles on The Twitter. Good man.--Stunteddwarf Jabba de Chops 00:27, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Added to list of mentions.--Krejtalk 17:07, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Even crazier advertisement[edit]

Fundy Korean loons, who sent the anti-gay thing up there, sends a new advertisement, shortened by myself. They attack a strawman called "liberal denominations", because they do not seem to understand that there actually are a lot of denominations within the "liberal denominations".

  1. Liberal denominations tolerate non-Christian religions, and do not think that "only Christianity and Jesus Christ can connect humankind with God". They very blasphemously think that there is "salvation for people who do not believe in Jesus Christ". Tolerance is a Satanic "ideology that is heretical and blasphemous". Because of this, liberal churches "do not think there is any reason to believe in Jesus Christ".
  2. Liberal denominations are Satanists. They are in a conspiracy to destroy Christianity, and are joined by "Jews, Muslims, Catholics, Hindus, Sikhs, and Shintos". They worship a "big wooden idol in place of the Cross", and perform "shamanistic rituals".
  3. Liberal denominations "do not believe the Bible to be the word of God", and instead think that it is just "history and literature". They also do not think it is "absolutely correct in its meaning", "equal with the very words of God", "a result of a special connection with God", and "infallible in its words".
  4. Liberal churches turn modern society into "adulterious Sodom and Gomorrah" by "supporting homosexuality". They have "decided to support different types of intercourse", and hold "adultery as their ideal". They have "adulterious homosexual ministers", who like to "dirty the Creation of God".
  5. Liberal denominations "accept and support polygamy" and believe that "polygamy is not wrong or evil".
  6. Liberal denominations are commies, believing in "Communism as their very theology",and "give enormous amounts of money from tithes of the faithful to Communist guerrilas spreading Communist propaganda". They "despise South Korea and hold North Korea as Heaven". Liberal churches also think that "South Korea is part of a conspiracy to destroy religion, but North Korean Christians are free to express their religion in public". Liberal denominations think that "North Korea is notable in Asia for economic and societal development".

CONCLUSION: "Liberal denominations must not dirty Korean churches with their heresies. You are spreading adultery and chaos in place of the sacred traditional identity of the Republic of Korea. If you dare fool souls while we remain silent, God shall shed blood through our very hands.

Worries me really.--Seonookim (talk) 07:02, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

How popular is the church or organisation or movement which puts these messages out there? WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 08:29, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
When did Christianity becomes the... sacred traditional identity of the Republic of Korea? I'm no history expert, but, um, what the? --VOXHUMANA 08:44, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
"They worship a 'big wooden idol in place of the Cross' ". Would it be quibbling over semantics to ask what the difference is? — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs
Good point. Idols are defined on Wiktionary as "A graven image or representation of anything that is revered, or believed to convey spiritual power." Obviously, there a lot of images of the Cross worldwide, and they can supposedly drive away demons. Crosses are often big and wooden, so it could actually mean "They worship a Cross in place of the Cross".--Seonookim (talk) 06:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Also, Weaseloid, there is creationism in South Korea. From Wikipedia's 'Christianity in Korea';


Main article: Creationism in South Korea

Christian groups have been involved in the promotion of creationism in South Korea, specifically the Korea Association for Creation Research (KACR), which advocates creation following the Book of Genesis, and the Society for Textbook Revise (STR), alternative translation Committee to Revise Evolution In Textbook (CREIT),[32] an independent offshoot of the KACR, which has distanced itself from KACR doctrine.[33]

In early 2008, Seoul Land, a leading amusement park, hosted a Creation Science exhibit, organized by KACR, which was visited by over 116,000 visitors in three months, and as of 2012, the park is in talks to create a year-long exhibition.[33]

In 2012, following pressure from STR, the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (MEST) announced that many high-school textbooks would be revised to remove certain examples of evolution, such as of the horse and the dinosaur Archaeopteryx (important example in the origin of birds).[32][33][34] The changes were limited to removal or revision of certain examples[35] which were either no longer accepted or were subject of some dispute;[32] changes did not involve removal of evolution or inclusion of creationism in textbooks.[35] However, STR plans to submit further petitions to remove evolution of humans and the adaptation of finch beaks, with the end goal of diminishing the role of Darwinian evolution in teaching.[33]

The influence of creationism in South Korea is partly but not entirely due to such Christian groups;[33] see creationism in South Korea for elaboration."

A state4-funded science museum does not have an evolution exhibit for some reason.

In order to head off a possible edit war at Transphobia...[edit]

...someone who understands the matter of intersectionality (red link intentional) better than I really needs to write an article on the issue that manages to avoid the phrase "oppression Olympics". It's a fairly important concept to the discussion (for those not familiar with the term, it's the ways in which different forms of privilege interact), and I think I grasp the fundamentals, but I am unable to put it into words. EVDebs (talk) 08:24, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

How long will it take...[edit]

...until this story from The Onion starts making right-wing rounds as reality? MDB (the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear) 16:56, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Or this one. MDB (the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear) 17:02, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Searching for the first URL on Google returns the Americans for Prosperity Facebook page, meaning someone was dumb enough to put it on there (and then someone took it down, couldn't find it on their current page or in the cached version). The second link is making it into generic forums (not just comedy/political ones), with resounding "it's the Onion, dipshit" responses. --Seth Peck (talk) 17:08, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
I wouldn't be surprised if the forum posts were just parodists. It'll only be funny if Breitbart.com or another right-wing group picks it up.--"Shut up, Brx." 17:13, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Gun crazies are at it again[edit]


The NRA is apparently suing New York claiming that their gun control laws are "unconstitutional." One of their attacks is against magazine size limits. While I find magazine limits ridiculous, (people going on shootings who prepare and learn to reload quickly won't be slowed down much, while people who buy guns for self defense and never use them otherwise would) there is nothing in the constitution about it. Unless the state is tying to make it really hard to buy guns, the NRA doesn't have an argument that there's anything unconstitutional. Plus the NRA always seems to have the worst possible approach to everything they do. ఠ_ఠ Тод Зенос ан форфар фор 22:39, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I think many would prefer if you stick to bringing up just the one news story per day. DamoHi 23:20, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
I figured it would be a good way to discuss different topics. Yes, obviously, don't mention too many though; more than people are going to want to discuss is pointless. ఠ_ఠ Тод Зенос ан форфар фор 23:28, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Well you posted a news article just a few hours ago that has generated discussion (despite the fact you appear not to have read the article in question); why do you feel the need to post another one? Quality is better than quantity surely. DamoHi 23:39, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Second Amendment "... the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Now arguably that's a mistake, but it is in the Constitution. Probably the only way to change it is an amendment, and that requires a 2/3 majority in both houses of congress or many states. Pashley (talk) 23:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
You're forgetting a rather important qualifier: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." (or if you want to be pedantic, it is possible that states are bound by "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state...") That qualifier allows regulation, although lately I've heard right wingers argue that well regulated in this case means well equipped/trained. (talk) 23:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
In the case of "a well regulated militia," that would mean that some organization could have possession of guns, but not individual people. In the case of automatic weapons, that how it should be done. An organization would keep control over the weapons, and only if there were an invasion would they be issued to citizens. The other restriction would be that automatic weapons could only be bought by gun collectors, and the guns would have to have some sort of historical significance. ఠ_ఠ Тод Зенос ан форфар фор 02:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Topic bans[edit]

There's a discussion about topic-banning someone Here. I think the subject deserves wider discussion than on an article talk page. Opinions please. SophieWilder 08:29, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Without making comment, here's a related discussion started by Human. VOXHUMANA 08:46, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Are there multiple candidates for topic bans? If it's just something being floated as a solution to the Proxima Centauri problem, I don't see it as much of a solution, or particularly desirable. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 13:41, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Topic banning seems a bit like Wikipedia. It might be more our style to go ape reverting all of his revisions until he gives up. ఠ_ఠ Тод Зенос ан форфар фор 14:33, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
If you are talking about Proxima, it's "her revisions". On this wiki, it's a generally good idea not to assume gender. Well, actually it's a generally good idea anywhere. :)--ZooGuard (talk) 14:38, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
(EC) We're also more limited in topics than Wikipedia. A POV-Pusher on WP might be able to work on other topics they find interesting for which they don't have an unhealthy fixation. Here, Topic banning might as well be a ban. --TheLateGatsby (talk) 14:39, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
You can't follow her around with a broom because she adds the stuff back in along with more. And won't participate in this discussion, which isn't helping understand how to deal with what is basically a novel problem: she's a tremendously helpful and dedicated editor nobody wants to see alienated but who has this bad habit. I agree with Weas that it's probably not a good idea. I just couldn't think of what else to suggest.TLG, her contentious editing is pretty well limited to christianity. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 15:01, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
What has been done before is telling them to stay in their own userspace article. I haven't been following closely enough to remember if that's already been tried in this case. --Henk (talk) 19:49, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Many times. I think in this case, and it really is the only case, the issue is that Proxi doesn't care to listen or learn. I get that our POV makes "the line" you don't cross, harder to see. That is, as largely secularists and even atheists, most of us have little tolerance of religious nonsense. This site itself was set up in many ways, to facilitate "making fun" of some religious people, and the extreme religion they followed. So pointing out why "one example does not a habit, make" is harder. Why shouldn't we be listing every church where someone once raped a child, but it's hard to articulate *why* we don't do that. I don't think we need to "do" anything, though part of me wants to. Open wikis come with this kind of problem.Green mowse.pngGodot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 20:07, 21 March 2013 (UTC) (EC)
Used to be that there were those of us who would come about and hand-pick through all her nonsense so we could keep what was useful and get rid of the rest. An old friend of mine called these "Proxima bombs," where she'd carpet bomb the Wiki with edits, and we'd have to go through and clean up the mess left behind. Unfortunately, many of those editors who used to follow behind her and cleanup have either stopped editing RationalWiki as much or have gotten so tired of cleaning up after Prox that we just stopped following her for our own sanity's sake. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 08:06, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
It seems like we need to implement a topic ban. ఠ_ఠ Тод Зенос ан форфар фор 20:23, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
I nominate Inquisitor Ehrenstein and the topic of rape. WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 21:05, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Dedicated, yes, but helpful? Are we talking about the same PC?--ZooGuard (talk) 20:01, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

If we haven't already,[edit]

We have to include this in mainspace at least once--"Shut up, Brx." 03:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Epic. ఠ_ఠ Тод Зенос ан форфар фор 04:45, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
I thought that looked familiar, good to see another Cracked.com fan: http://www.cracked.com/article_20318_the-5-most-popular-ways-statistics-are-used-to-lie-to-you_p2.html Captain Swing (bringer of nachos) 04:57, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Here's another one for the Jenny McCarthy fans of a concept (I just recently found out that she lives in my home town, which is entirely unsurprising for reasons I'll go into if pressed). --Seth Peck (talk) 15:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Fair trade[edit]

I've noticed that "Fair trade" appears in the todo list—twice, even, if you go back and look at the archives. I volunteer at a shop of this ideology (more to gain work experience than because of a great deal of passion or even knowledge about the subject) but I've never seen anything that would justify a RW article. Can anybody explain where the issues are that I might have missed? Peter mqzp 07:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I've mentioned before that we have a funspace version, but nothing ever past that. I think it's just everyone here is fucking lazy. Osaka Sun (talk) 15:48, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Well, if RW did have an article on it, it would have to focus on the misconceptions people sometimes have about it — it's not a cure for some economic problems, nor is it inherently better than free trade in all circumstances. Some supporters think it "fixes" some bad aspects of exploitative capitalism, when it doesn't necessarily — it can also be a pretty, feel-good label to cover up what are fundamentally damaging and unjust conceptions of international trade. There are also piss-poor objections to fair trade by some free-traders, such as the idea that the free market must take precidence and fair trade should therefore only be voluntary and never government-enforced. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 16:49, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Should I view it as a badge of honor...[edit]

...that I have not only been banned from posting to World Net Daily, they've deleted all of my previous comments? MDB (the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear) 11:32, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I was under the impression it was not hard to get banned from sites like WND. --TheLateGatsby (talk) 14:24, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Did Andy go down to Georgia...[edit]

...lookin' for a soul to stealto teach high school? MDB (the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear) 12:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Damn, I was looking forward to the backlash from the smart kid in the class writing about how Obama's agenda for the last four years has been anything but socialism, especially Stalinist socialism. --Seth Peck (talk) 15:20, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

The PIGS (Possible RW project)[edit]

I think this has been proposed somewhere before, but pages for the The Politically Incorrect Guides (PIGS) would make for a good RW project. Right now, they're just a list on the Regnery Publishing page. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:04, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Sad to say I own one of those pieces of shite, though not by choice. My uncle (Rush Limbaugh fan), got me the American history one, my bullshit radar started to go wild with statements like "if unions hadn't existed, workers would have been paid more" and the title claiming the founding fathers were "conservative" and it wasn't referring to Edmund Burke conservatism. Captain Swing (bringer of nachos) 02:08, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
I read the science one a while back -- similarly atrocious. One of my favorite parts was its use of Michael Crichton as an "expert" on global warming. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:11, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Personal Anniversary[edit]

One year ago today I had:

  1. a heart attack
  2. my last cigarette
  3. my first chopper ride
(blogged) Scream!! (talk) 13:22, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Congratulations. MDB (the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear) 15:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
My mum used to say that there are two reasons to cease smoking, fear and greed. Heart attack, that'll do it. Congrats by the way. Innocent Bystander (talk) 17:00, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Blog test theme[edit]

I has a new test theme for the blog. Here is the test site. What I want you to do is criticise every niggling little detail of the design, and test it on your various devices. It even looks half-decent on my BlackBerry 8520, which surprises me ... The base theme is Sampression Lite, and I've done this one as a child theme. I'm still annoyed by the transition effects, and setting them to 0 seconds doesn't make them go away ... - David Gerard (talk) 18:29, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Looks nice. You should have a featured post at the center, though. That would tie it all together--"Shut up, Brx." 18:41, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, the two latest articles as bigger block at the top. If I can work out how to do that - David Gerard (talk) 22:02, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
There are no elements with the no-transition css class on the page. -- Nx / talk 18:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
RW blog logo prototype.png
The logo would look better with the four WIGO icons in a square formation overlaid on the brain (two in each hemisphere) rather than all in a row in front of it. WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 21:12, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure what you mean. Here's the GIMP file, feel free to fiddle, or please sketch me a pic of what you mean or something - David Gerard (talk) 23:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't have GIMP, but here's a quick MS Paint mock-up. ----->
I'm also wondering whether it should be squared off further by cutting down to one set of brackets, or losing the brackets altogether? The double-bracket theme isn't really relevant to off-wiki content (i.e. the blog) + the brain & WIGOs are distinctive enough not to need them. €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 04:07, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Quite possibly - RWF has aspirations beyond RW (even if they basically need someone to volunteer to bust arse on them), so the brackets being just for the thing that uses brackets is a reasonable idea. I like my logo better than yours, but putting up a few logos for the mob's consideration would be quite suitable - David Gerard (talk) 09:51, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Lurker here chiming in to say that the horizontal line of icons overlaying the vertical brain is much more pleasing to me than the rigid quadrant design, and may even be emphasized pleasantly by the removal of brackets, I do not know. I shall now fade back into obscurity. Keep up the good work, dudes.

CSS annoyance[edit]

Front page does what I want.
Post page fails to do what I want.

I nearly have the CSS nailed for both desktop (wide) and mobile (narrow). Trouble is images inside articles. What I want is, when the screen is narrow enough, images go from being right-aligned to being centred. But I want to narrow them to the width of the column too.

I know this is possible because it works on the front page.

Here's my amended CSS, which succeeds in making the image a block but doesn't narrow it:

@media only screen and (max-width: 767px) {
.wp-caption.alignleft, .wp-caption.alignright {
        display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align:center;

My CSS knowledge is pretty much "bodge until it works", which is thankfully just about how you make a child theme in WordPress.

Anyone better with it than me can please advise? - David Gerard (talk) 10:04, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

The html structure on the post page is entirely different. For starters, the div containing the image has a style tag with width:310px. If you remove that, it works. To keep the padding around the image, use padding-left:5px and padding-right:5px. And why is that in a style tag in the first place?
The theme you are using is horrible btw. The only color it has is this greenish-grayish thing, which is ugly in itself, but combined with the white background it doesn't have enough contrast and is barely readable.
And no, "bodge until it works" is not a good way to make a theme, especially if you're basing it on an already complex, responsive theme. -- Nx / talk 11:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
I didn't say it was a good way. It does, however, appear to be about the only way it's ever actually going to happen. Suggestions for better base themes that do the "pile of excerpts on the front page" thing but don't fail miserably on a phone are still most welcomed - David Gerard (talk) 12:55, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
I've just grovelled through kilobytes of WordPress PHP and http://codex.wordpress.com - the style tag is put there by WordPress 3.5.1 itself, in wp-includes/media.php . Apparently you can change the img_caption_shortcode filter to generate any HTML you like, and it looks like that's what I'll need to do. Thanks, WordPress! - David Gerard (talk) 23:39, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Or ... not. If you look at the current version of that article, in the Twenty Twelve theme, and narrow the viewport right down ... you'll see that the picture scales despite the style tag. Hmm - David Gerard (talk) 00:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Oh, duh. .wp-caption { max-width:100%; } That's it. That's the whole answer - David Gerard (talk) 00:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Am I being unreasonable?[edit]

Ok, I just had an email exchange with a fellow student, and I need a neutral opinion before I choke him to death. We are doing a research project on the Founding Fathers and he wants to include a book as a source, I have reservations. The book references Parson Weems as a source on George Washington, the same fellow who invented the cherry tree and has had a host of other problems with his "scholarship." The book treats him as a reliable source. I say this is enough of a red flag to at the very least put the book off as a last resort if not stop using it altogether. He says it's fine, we just need to be careful. Thoughts? Captain Swing (bringer of nachos) 03:33, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Use the book as a source. Make sure to include books you feel are more reputable.--"Shut up, Brx." 03:36, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Depends on how heavily Weems is referenced. If it's one, off-hand reference, I wouldn't worry too much. If it uncritically parrots Weems in multiple places, then it's probably time to chuck it. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:43, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
I invented the water melon tree, so are you saying that I'm not a reliable source??? -- (talk) 18:08, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
He's right - use it and be careful. That said, be very careful. It's not worth a fight, but if you are concerned just be sure to double-check the claims.--ADtalkModerator 12:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

User birthday in Template:Holydaze?[edit]

What's the mob's attitude towards putting a user's birthday in Template:Holydaze? (For the noobs, that's the template displaying calendar-specific messages over the Recent Changes and other pages.) I'm asking because of a delete/restore war between Nutty Roux and Brxbrx over Template:Holydaze/0324, with a minor participation by me.--ZooGuard (talk) 17:30, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

At one time my own birthday (which I share with Douglas Adams) was in the list, indeed there were quite a few RWians listed. However, much to my chagrin it got removed during some reorganization of the templates. The problem is that there are already too many crap entries (Melbourne Cup? Really?) and if everyone lodged their own birthday and then moved on we would be overloaded with them. Of course it's nice to see your own highlighted so could someone cobble together an extension so only you see your own? Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD memberModerator 17:41, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
A big no for putting it in the template. That said, I thought we had a macro thingy that you put on your user page? Enter your dob .nf on the day your name appears in the top of the Saloon? Or have the fun killers trashed that too? — Unsigned, by: Psygremlin / talk / contribs 19:24, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't think it would be a good idea because it would only create another venue for people to attack each other and edit war. Sam Tally-ho! 21:32, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Unless a bitter cunt like Brxbrx can resist doing something like that purely out of spite. There are plenty of venues for us to fight. One less will only prevent him from expressing this particular brand of contempt. There are others. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 22:42, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
I would have deleted it even if it had been Nx's birthday template. But Nx isn't so crass and needy that he would make a template to celebrate his birthday to show up on recent changes--"Shut up, Brx." 22:47, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Not in the Holydaze template. When there's more than one Holydaze stacked above each other, it pushes RC down the page; with everyone adding their birthday it will just get ridiculous. We could maybe have a separate template elsewhere on the page displaying users' birthdays. WéáśéĺóíďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:14, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

But why? Do you want your birthday to show up on recent changes?--"Shut up, Brx." 23:45, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Isn't it also Blue's birthday on the same day? We should at least be consistent. Peter mqzp 23:50, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Blue may not want her birthday showed off on the internet, PeterL. You really need to have a good long think about internet privacy--"Shut up, Brx." 23:58, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
-looks at person commenting, looks at brx- Brx dear... look again at the people your talking you are talking to here. --MikallakiM 04:06, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Re the Melbourne Cup reference - if you have a Superbowl reference (and I believe there is) then the Melbourne Cup is fair. It's far more important/international than some one-country sport that takes four hours to play 60 minutes of game time. (In fairness, if I'm wrong and there are no American sporting references, then OK, the Melbourne Cup can go.) VOXHUMANA 07:15, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

The Melbourne Cup thing is tied into a US election joke, if I remember right. Can't find a superbowl entry though. Peter mqzp 07:25, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Oh well, kill it then. I admit I get get annoyed when there are double standards on these sorts of things, but otherwise I can't see any point in having a horse race reference. VOXHUMANA 07:33, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

See Template:Today's birthdays. It used to be on the saloon bar header template. -- Nx / talk 11:15, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

So this would show up various user-name birthdays at the top of RC? I'm not sure how many active users we have but will that really look very professional?--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 20:55, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
No, it would show up birthdays wherever it's inserted, which apparently used to be the top of the Saloon Bar, not Recent Changes. And the Bar is something of a designated social place, so I don't know where professionalism comes in.--ZooGuard (talk) 11:41, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
A lot of non-RW regulars turn up in the SB. I suppose a list of ten people's birthdays at the top would make us look friendly. I guess whether you think having a relatively important wiki page starting off with some people's birthdays looks professional is matter of opinion.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 14:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
I guarantee usage stats will reflect that we're the only people who look at Recent Changes, and even then many only use Watchlists since Recent Changes has become just another forum for chit chat that only a tiny cohort cares about. This discussion is of a kind with all the other pendant obsessive shit RW concerns itself with and then does absolutely nothing about. Congratulations. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 15:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Put it with pointless polls, which are pointless anyway. (Actually, I'd rid of pointless polls and replace it with this, but....) Sterilesig.svgtalk 16:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

CBS Apologizes to the Vietnam Vets[edit]

On The Amazing Race last week, they were in Vietnam and they watched watched a patriotic Vietnamese song performance and the pit stop was at the Downed B-52 at Hữu Tiệp Lak. At the beginning of tonight's broadcast, they apologized with a disclaimer. I do not understand why they need to apologize, as it is their culture and Vietnam War happened.--Cms13ca (talk) 02:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Not entirely unreasonable. Filming something at a site where someone died is reasonably offensive, I would not want to see a reality show filmed in a cemetery for example. I read the text of the apology and that is the thrust of it. They aren't apologizing for showing the Vietnamese attitude to the war. VOXHUMANA 03:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
The Amazing Race still exists? Osaka Sun (talk) 03:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
It's an American TV show reaching an audience with a number of people who fought in and are still emotionally (and in some cases physically) affected by the Vietnam war.
If it has a song which is patriotic then it has the potential that it was used to promote anti-American or anti-US military views, which may cause anger amongst the veteran population. Filming at a destroyed B-52 which likely cost lives could also cause distress amongst this population.
Now if this was a Vietnamese show screening in Vietnam and aimed at Vietnamese citizens then I could understand your frustration at an apology directed at Americans. But this is an American show screening in America which is aimed at Americans and which has the potential to cause distress. An apology is certainly appropriate. If you can't understand why then you're either very sheltered or very clueless. (talk) 10:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

LessWrong Criticism[edit]

I was linked to this criticism of RationalWiki and was wondering what the community thinks of it. It might be old news to you all, but it's firmly within the period that I was away from this site.Transitional FormStill Durbinating 18:16, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

A variant on I I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 21:01, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm curious as to what that "peer-reviewed cargo cult science" is referring to. I'm getting the feeling it's "disagrees with transhumanism." Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
We are still a small wiki so our coverage of topics is going to be patchy. Very few of us are engaged in full-time academic research across a broad spectrum of topics so we are not in a position to overturn the scientific mainstream. Consequently, we are not going to be particularly receptive to things like cold-fusion and cryogenics until they are broadly accepted facts rather than pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking. If any of their editors wanted to help with topics like "charity" then they would probably have few problems here. However, being a bunch of aren't-we-smartypants they would probably not be content with that and (just like we all tend to do) concentrate on their pet hobby-horses. As David Gerard pointed out, we are generally content to aim as being a debunking resource rather than bleeding-edge research and philosophy. Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science.Moderator 10:34, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
That is indeed pretty much what they mean by "peer-reviewed cargo cult science" - remember that any actually successful scientist with a track record (a description matching almost no-one on LW) who criticises transhumanist hobby-horses is "only smart in the lab" - David Gerard (talk) 13:55, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
There was some useful criticism of RW there, to be sure. Of course, we're sometimes pretty silly, so that might be low-hanging fruit.--ADtalkModerator 12:11, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Oh the travesty in speaking plain English and having the audacity to express an idea in one or two sentences.--Brendiggg (talk) 12:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Sure, it's useful. Though it would be more useful on a talk page here than languishing on a site that only a few people here read maybe once or twice a month. Scarlet A.pnggnostic 16:12, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Racist trolls[edit]

What's with all the race trolls lately? Did someone link us on Stormfront? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:37, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

No, someone on some site called "Chimpmania" is apparently unhappy with what's written in Niggermania and Chimpout.com.
And for similar queries in the future: https://www.google.com/search?q=rationalwiki.org+-site%3Arationalwiki.org You can filter the results to the last 24hs/week/month, etc, with the search tools.--ZooGuard (talk) 10:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
I figured it was because our Metapedia article got beefed up recently. Balaam (talk) 09:57, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


Do you give a tip to a massage therapist? I'm getting my first professional massage Friday. (For all the smartasses out there, this is a legitimate massage, not an "Oriental Spa" type massage.) MDB (the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear) 14:24, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Assuming the therapist is legit I'd ask. I was in the same position on a recent trip to New York. I know that tipping is different in the States so, early doors, I asked a bartender what he expected. I got a straight answer to a straight question. So, "excuse me, Ms Therapist, do you normally get tips?" should give you an answer. Innocent Bystander (talk) 14:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes. 10-15%. When Roosevelt came to the land of the hummingbird, shouts of welcome were heard!. 14:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes! Especially if it's at a parlor, because most of the money you pay goes to the management. Of course, if the massage was terrible, then it's up to you.--"Shut up, Brx." 15:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. It's here, and I don't think that qualifies as a parlor. It does seem a somewhat New Agey/wooish, but the price seemed reasonable and the reviews are good. For what it's worth, it's a coupes massage. It's my gift to my partner to celebrate one year since our first date. MDB (the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear) 00:07, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I never realised you could get your car massaged. Still, who I am to judge... ( '...it's a coupes massage.' )--Stunteddwarf Jabba de Chops 00:41, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
You may want to pick another place...--"Shut up, Brx." 02:01, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
You'll note I said "It does seem a somewhat New Agey/wooish". I figure a massage is a massage. MDB (the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear) 10:43, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
+1 Innocent Bystander. I carry my Emily Post around but it rarely has stuff like this in it. Honestly, I just ask the receptionist or provider. Sometimes it's a set amount you'd never know. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 13:41, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Is anything in the Wikivoyage article [1] helpful? Pashley (talk) 13:53, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but it doesn't cover it. I figure I'll offer a cash tip when we're done -- 10-15%. If the therapists refuse, I'll not worry about it. MDB (the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear) 14:12, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

From a recent UK political/historical program about the 1960s: a senior political said that his Permanent Secretary (ie head of a civil service department) had advised him there were three sorts of massages - 'sports and similar', medical and 'dubious massages.' (talk) 17:09, 26 March 2013 (UTC)



Well, this was posted at Conservapedia, and even it concedes that Prop 8 will probably go. I think no one is going to be surprised by this, it's just a shame that the Supreme Court isn't going to actually do anything besides deny or affirm individual state decisions. Captain Swing (bringer of nachos) 20:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm just annoyed Scalia didn't die before this and the DOMA case. Polite Timesplitter Let's move on to some other area of sodomy! 20:18, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes well, I'm sure someone has already hammered in the wooden stake, only to find there's no heart, so we'll just have to let nature take its course. Captain Swing (bringer of nachos) 20:26, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
As you already suggest, CS, nothing will change. Prop 8 and DOMA will both go down, but othen than equality for gay military families who happen to be legally married, nothing will change. DOMA will be reversed on "states rights" issues, and not on anything to do with equality, "suspect class", and prop 8 will be "all about the children" and the State's interest in makign sure children of gay couples are in stable homes, so allow gay marriage **in CA** without addressing a single one of Judge Walker's points about equality and the fact that gays ARE a suspect class. Green mowse.pngGodot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 02:11, 27 March 2013 (UTC) of course, then there is this.Green mowse.pngGodot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 02:12, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Pretty much. Roberts won't want to set a precedent by which GLB laws are subject to strict scrutiny but it's likely he's seen the writing on the walls for DOMA and Prop 8. My guess is that DOMA goes down 7-3 and Prop 8 falls in CA only with a clusterfuck of concurrences and dissents. Seme Blue 02:43, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Yeah... DOMA won't hold up, because there are few federal laws about who is eligible to get married, and the SCOTUS can just kick that back to the states. But hey, the GOPers will love that, they can bully their gays and tell people outside the state to mind their own business. --TheLateGatsby (talk) 02:49, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Conservatives promise 'DEFCON 6' if SCOTUS strikes down Prop.8[edit]

Apparently whoever made the threat never bothered to research defensive readiness conditions. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 09:09, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I presume that the color for DEFCON 6 is pink beige. Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic?Moderator 09:22, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Defcon 6? Is that the level where the US military buries all the ammo they have for all their weapons in a field for safe keeping? --Revolverman (talk) 14:15, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
DEFCON 6 means that the bowl of dinner mints outside the Oval Office is empty. --Seth Peck (talk) 18:29, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

The Bible: The novelisation[edit]

So apparently this exists. Somebody clearly wasn't thinking straight. Peter mqzp 06:27, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Wow, well if nothing else, the Bible's good for earning people a quick buck. --PsyGremlinHable! 13:11, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
That's precisely what my office's accountant said, Psy. I'm going to scream, now. --TheLateGatsby (talk) 14:08, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

The Racist[edit]

A lot of radio comedy leaves me unamused, but Trevor Noah: The Racist ended with tears running down my cheeks. Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic?Moderator 08:41, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

He's good, he is. One of ours too. --PsyGremlinRunāt! 12:34, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Less talking, more creating the hand that will destroy you![edit]

Since we don't have a WIGO Webcomix, I'll just leave this here: Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal vs. the Almighty Singularity... be sure to hover over the red button at the bottom for the bonus panel. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 14:45, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Take that, LessWrong!--Transitional FormStill Durbinating 22:23, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Shermer's descent into irrelevance[edit]

I have recently been alerted to Michael Shermer's next project (The Moral Arc of Science) via this lecture. His latest schtick appears to be recycling Steven Pinker and Matt Ridley, though at least he acknowledges this. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:20, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

According to the MRA blog Cotwa.info, rapists should be allowed to sue their victims[edit]

According to their writer, any time a rapists fails to be convicted, which is most times, he should be allowed to sue his victim for defamation.

In his own words
Ryan Romo, a high school baseball standout, was arrested on his front lawn after a classmate accused him of sexual assault in a "he said/she said" claim. Subsequently, a grand jury failed to find probable cause to indict Ryan, and he was cleared of the charges. – He and his parents are suing the still-unnamed girl and her parents and step-father for defamation.

I already have information on this at Bigotry Wiki, but it might be worth adding to the MRA article.

ఠ_ఠ Тод Зенос ан форфар фор 14:20, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

If we added every bit of nuttery from the MRAs, the article would be gigabytes in size. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:32, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Wow... You guys really jump on that "every claim of rape must be absolutely true" bandwagon around here you? (talk) 18:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
MAny many studies have been done on "false accusations in rape". Most media types, and most men surveyed guess that false reporting happens more than 30% of the time. They work under the assumption that many, if not most women lie about being raped. Studies of women who are raped shows that the number of false reports fall somewhere between less than 1% - 6%, depending on the reports. IT is far more painful, shameful, and physically trying (try having your girly parts swiped for 'evidence'. it's horrible.) to claim you are raped, than to admit you've had sex. and it does NOT help your self esteme to say to yourself, well, i didn't really have sex, he raped me. By the way, the 1%-6% is almost identical to false reporting in any other crime. yet when we hear about someone being mugged, being accosted by a gang, or being shot at, we tend to BELIEVE THEM FIRST, and only look for lies when pieces of the story fall apart. Yeah, "we really jump on the every claim of rape must be true". Green mowse.pngGodot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 20:13, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
"every claim of rape must be absolutely true" It's far close that what you're trying to claim. And, no, we don't automatically assume it's true. As has been stated, there is a serious problem of people not believing rape victims and contributing to victim blaming. ఠ_ఠ Тод Зенос ан форфар фор 21:21, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
The problem is that sex can be consensual and if a woman doesn't have signs of forced rape then the question of post-coital second thoughts remains a possibility, especially if a complaint is only raised sometime after the fact. Muggings or beatings are rarely something that people voluntarily subject themselves and the police tend to be notified very quickly so I don't think that the two are comparable. Because of the stigma attached to sexual crimes the system should have a degree of balance so that if the accuser has anonymity then the accused should expect similar treatment until found guilty. I realize that this can sometimes lead to people not being outed when several women only decide to report rape or other abuse after another complaint has even made, but this applies to many crimes where the guilty may evade justice to ensure that the innocent are not punished without cause. What should be done is to ensure that the process of reporting rape is made as comfortable as possible so that accusations are dealt with speedily and compassionately. Also there should be no automatic presumption of innocence purely because of celebrity or social position. Redchuck.gif ГенгисunbelievingModerator 22:18, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
That's a good idea. I think though that a lot times "claiming rape after sex" is just used as a defense by the rapist, or is the result some sort of coercion. If you think about it, a woman who regrets having sex isn't going to want to draw attention to it. Plus it's a lot more stigmatizing to be a rape victim than to have had sex at a bad time once. ఠ_ఠ Тод Зенос ан форфар фор 23:26, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Considering anyone can so anyone for anything, more or less, this isn't a huge departure from reality. They'll need to do a hell of a lot better than "I was acquitted so the accusations are obviously false" though. DickTurpis (talk) 18:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Who are "you guys"? There's only the initial post by IE and a non-supportive reply by Nebuchadnezzar. Just like you, IE gets really excited about rape, but in another way.--ZooGuard (talk) 20:08, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
I think the problem here is that the names of the accused are freely available. So if somebody is accused of a crime, everybody knows it, and regardless of their guilt, they have to face the court of public opinion. I think the names of the accused should definitely be kept private, and I even think the names of convicts should be kept private. We've got a legal system for a reason. Let the legal system deal with criminals.--"Shut up, Brx." 18:57, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Transparency is preferable, for the sake of due process. The court of Public Opinion is of course, vicious, but that's because people are shit. --TheLateGatsby (talk) 19:26, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
The names of convicts should definitely be made public. I've considered making a self reporting registry of unconvicted sex offenders, considering how few rapists are convicted, but I worry about the legal problems arising from that. If I require some degree of personal information to register on the website to be able to add people to the registry, that would probably weed out trolls maliciously adding people to it, but I don't know about false accusations. Also, victims of rape would probably worry about being personally identified and might be reluctant to give up personal information to register. As for libel, putting the responsibility for submitted content solely on the people submitting it would probably easy, but I'd need to be able to not have a legal obligation to take down the content without a guilty verdict for libel against the person posting it, without violating the law myself. ఠ_ఠ Тод Зенос ан форфар фор 20:01, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
This is a terrible idea, and libellous by definition. Don't do this. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 21:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
It's only libelous if people submit false accusations. In a legal sense, even a true submission could still bring a guilty libel verdict if there was not evidence enough for a civil case that the rape occurred. In that sense you are correct. My main concern with such a thing would be the frequency of false reports. ఠ_ఠ Тод Зенос ан форфар фор 22:13, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Well, what is an "unconvicted sex offender"? Somebody the law does not consider a sex offender but you do? Yes, that is libellous by definition, and is not the sort of accusation to be taken lightly. If you have evidence (or reasonable grounds for suspicion) that somebody has committed a sexual offence, take it to the authorities; don't stick it on a website. ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:21, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
If you get sued for defamation and want to plead truth as a defence it is up to you to prove that the statement is true (or at least that it is more likely to be true than false. Good luck with that. If you do this I hope you don't have any significant assets because you will lose them damn quickly. --DamoHi 22:26, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm familiar with libel. Part of it though is that the plaintiff has to prove actual damages though. Regardless, it would still be incredibly problematic. I wouldn't go through with creating it unless I knew for sure that it would be possible, through a contract if necessary, to place all legal responsibility with the person submitting the information.
Inquisitor, Have you ever had a conversation on this wiki that didn't involve rape or sexual abuse? You seem to be crying out for help. (talk) 20:54, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Now, now. If you're going to be like that at least be funny.--Transitional FormStill Durbinating 21:10, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
(EC) Before answering to the above, a look at Special:Contributions/ is strongly advised. Pot, kettle, etc...--ZooGuard (talk) 21:14, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I have, many times. Personal attacks aside, you seem like an MRA. You're also fairly &%&%*ed up to be suggesting that this topic is the result of sexual abuse. In fact, if suggesting that people were sexually abused is your idea of an insult, than fuck you. ఠ_ఠ Тод Зенос ан форфар фор 21:21, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Zooguard: Have I made an enemy? I'm shocked and hurt. I guess your hatred of Human must be pretty damn strong to lose your shit if anyone agrees with him. @Inquisitor: did you really type "personal attacks aside, you seem like an MRA"? Maybe I'm not the fucked up one. You have a RobS-like problem of seeing certain elements of society (for him it's Communists, for you it appears to be MRAs). Did I ever suggest that you were sexually abused? I'm pretty sure I did nothing of the sort, but maybe the RW mind-readers are revealing new and interesting information about me again.... You never cease to amaze me. EDIT: Inquisitor, I see you handle being upset at another user in a very CP-friendly fashion. You would have a great career over there. (talk) 21:31, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry about saying "fuck you," that was totally uncivil. It is outrageous to suggest that though. Don't try to pretend that you weren't implying sexual abuse; I know what you were implying. If you have concerns that I am focusing too narrowly on things I shouldn't than please point them out on my talk page and I will address them. I will admit that I can get very in depth and focused on various interests or tasks; the goal is to try to make sure that it's something I can be productive with. ఠ_ఠ Тод Зенос ан форфар фор 21:39, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
I apologize if my comment offended you, but I think I know my intent a little better than you do. (talk) 21:48, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. I realize that you may have had a different intent and that I could easily have interpreted it wrong. ఠ_ఠ Тод Зенос ан форфар фор 22:09, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
(EC) A three-day block is totally uncivil. "Fuck you" is just banter. Learn to RationalWiki better, Inquisitor. WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 21:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I realized that after I made the block. Although it wasn't for saying "fuck you." While it's generally ok here, I prefer not to talk that way myself without some sort of exceptional reason. ఠ_ఠ Тод Зенос ан форфар фор 22:07, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

(moving away from the dickwaving). I read that article and can't see anything wrong with it at all. I thought it was a rather fair minded piece actually. It is rightly very difficult to prove an allegation of rape in these he said/she said cases and similarly it is very difficult to prove "not rape". I doubt anyone here would disagree that if someone is falsely accused of rape they should be entitled to sue for damages (anyone??). The guy considers that he has evidence that corroborates his story that the allegation was made up in that the family allegedly attempted to extort money off of them soon after the accusation. I doubt that this piece of evidence (assuming is is true) is sufficient to prove a false allegation but it is part of the picture that a court may use to determine the truth of the situation. I can't see what the fuss is about, other than someone who sees MRA's under the bed, and others who sees feminists conspiring against men under the bed; getting in a tizzy because they like getting in a tizzy. DamoHi 22:12, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. If the accusation was in fact false and there were damages from it, than I could see suing for slander as viable. However, suing just because the rapist was found not guilty would be an unacceptable continued victimization.ఠ_ఠ Тод Зенос ан форфар фор 22:16, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Nowhere in that article is that suggested. DamoHi 22:17, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Okay Ehrenstein, consider this situation:
A man phones the police and alleges his wife hit him over the head with a bottle. He has a large bump consistent with such an injury.
The wife is charged and goes before the court. She is found not guilty, with her defense arguing that the man suffered injuries in a fight with another man and then blamed them on his wife due to marital problems. She is found not guilty. However she loses her job, incurs a large amount of legal fees and her standing in the community is destroyed.
Are you saying that the woman should not be able to sue her husband for defamation?
Note that civil cases have a different burden of proof to criminal cases, so just because someone is found not guilty in a criminal court does not mean they will win in a civil court. If they do, it means it is much more likely that they were seeking to right an injustice rather than "victimising" their accuser. RyanC (talk) 04:01, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
The issue would be two things - was it really a false report, or did the guy/gal just not get convicted. Seems to me the first set of discussions here were simply about someone who didn't get convicted. My rape was one of those violent, duh, she was raped, rapes. but what if the prosecutor felt there was not enough evidence to convict, so didn't follow through with charges? What if the guy i said did it, had a fake alabi? or, what if i said that guy did it, so the cops foudn someone matching the description and tried him, but it turned out not to be him. None of that is my fault, it's the reality of trying to catch any criminal. so why should i be sued, and why should anyone have to know my name? On the other hand, if i did really want to get back at you, and claimed you raped me (and again, most men from my perspective, talk as if this is common) then yes, i should be held accountable. But only roughly 3% of all cases are false reports. yet a woman is doubted, from the moment she walks into the cops.Green mowse.pngGodot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 04:16, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
If you start allowing rapists to sue their victims, it would just result in continued victimization that you cannot imagine, would be morally tantamount to murder for the suicides it would cause, and would just prevent victims from reporting the crime. You just shouldn't allow the perpetrator to continue victimizing the victim. ఠ_ఠ Тод Зенос ан форфар фор 04:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Ok, let's take rape out of the picture for now. The same mechanism that allows acquitted rapists to sue their alleged victims is the same mechanism that allows any accused to sue their alleged victim for any crime.
Are you saying it is wrong for someone to be able to sue someone who they claim has made false accusations about them which has caused them significant financial and social damage?
Keeping in mind that in order to be successful, they have to satisfy a much larger burden in a civil court than a criminal court? RyanC (talk) 05:17, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Errr, generally the other way around. Civil courts are a lot easier to get guilty verdicts. I mean, after all, OJ didn't go to jail, but he at least had to pay the families a shitload of money. Captain Swing (bringer of nachos) 05:26, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Ah but we're talking about someone who is a defendant in a criminal court but a plaintiff in a civil case.
In a criminal court, to be acquitted of a rape charge all they need to do is create a reasonable doubt.
In a civil court, to successfully sue their alleged victim they need to prove they didn't rape them beyond the balance of probabilities, which for them is a bigger burden. RyanC (talk) 05:32, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Inquisitor, you keep talking about "allowing rapists to sue their victims", but surely the subject you raised is people aquitted of rape suing their accusers. Looking through your comments in this thread again ("any time a rapists fails to be convicted", "unconvicted sex offenders"), I see that you don't seem to have much respect for the basic principle of 'innocent until proven guilty'. You mustn't simply assume that every person who has been investigated on rape charges is a rapist. WėąṣėḷőįďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:51, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Not only that, but if you read the article that IE cited, they aren't suggesting that people acquitted of rape can sue their accuser. Instead they are reporting on a specific instance where this has happened and where there is an alleged attempted extortion by the purported victim and her family and perhaps even a few instances of previous allegations by the girl. I have to say that if this is the height of "MRA" activism that everyone here seems to get all wound up about on a daily basis then it's much ado about nothing. DamoHi 23:09, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Way back up above I see the comment: "Studies of women who are raped shows that the number of false reports fall somewhere between less than 1% - 6%, depending on the reports." I'm wondering how you would establish such a figure.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 18:48, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Not guilty verdicts? Not guilty verdicts where the accuser says they fabricated the allegations?--Transitional FormStill Durbinating 04:20, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
As we've seen previously not guilty verdicts are inherently low probability. For a not guilty verdict to occur there first has to be a prosecution and then the accused must plead not guilty. That's straightaway a small fraction of cases. Of those cases, most will still be found guilty, because prosecutors just don't prosecute the "no hope" cases while defence lawyers have to take whatever is on the table. If that's the metric used then I would expect it to enormously underestimate the true rate. Not because I think a lot of innocent people are being imprisoned on the say-so of malicious accusers, but because I expect that the vast majority of false accusations will end up in the pile of cases that are unprosecutable due to the poor quality of evidence against the accused and would thus go undetected by this metric. Tialaramex (talk) 15:38, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm guessing it also wouldn't include those instances where a complaint never makes it past the initial reporting stage due to some probing questions from the first cop. It must also be very hard to distinguish between cases where there was a false accusation and cases where there was insufficient evidence to proceed. DamoHi 21:34, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't assume that everyone is guilty, but we should not assume that they are innocent either, or suspect the victim of lying. As long as that happens, there is victim blaming and Feminism has some purpose. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Ehrenstein 03:45, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I do wish you would take the time to read an article before linking to it. DamoHi 03:55, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
The whole notion of "innocent until proven guilty" assumes that a person making an accusation against another is lying. It's not victim blaming, and it's not unique to rape, it's just the way the courts work.
Likewise, someone accused of assault, fraud etc may sue their accuser which in some cases may be for the purpose of victimising them. It's not a situation unique to rape.
A lot of people, myself included, dont't believe the current system is perfect. But the problems are not restricted to a single crime or a single gender, so stop trying to turn it into a feminist issue.
Right now you seem like a lost activist trying to create problems in order to have a cause... RyanC (talk) 23:48, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
The whole notion of "innocent until proven guilty" assumes that a person making an accusation against another is lying <-- This is bullshit. The notion assumes that you keep an open mind until you have looked into the evidence & considered it carefully rather than jumping to conclusions either way. WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:35, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Weaseloid. I think though that there is often an assumption that rape victims are lying, when compared to other crimes. –Inquisitor Ehrenstein 00:20, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit break for IE's defamation registry[edit]

I don't think so, or at least the prevalence of this assumption is massively overstated by people like yourself. How are your plans to defame anyone ever connected with a sexual assault investigation coming along? Have you moved all your assets into trusts yet? DamoHi 00:35, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
If you read about accounts of victims, it's really appalling what they have been forced through just for a chance at justice. Why are you hostile? If I were to go through with the plans I have for such a registry, for which I have no plans, I would not have any tolerance for people using it for false reports. That said, once I have some small measure to weed out trolls from it, most reports would not be false. I would also only go through with the registry with the assistance of a lawyer who could write a contract for users to agree to during registration that would shift all legal responsibility to them, and require a guilty verdict of libel against them before the information could be removed, without liability to us. It is not "to defame anyone connected with sexual assault." False reports are very rare. Attempting to argue otherwise is to attempt to incite additional trauma upon rape victims, and is highly disturbing. –Inquisitor Sasha 00:49, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
What you are proposing is deeply unethical and frankly disturbing. How on earth could you possibly know what claims were false or not? I doubt you could contract out of the defamation laws in this case, because it is such a flagrant breach of common decency and standards. You would be setting up a registry knowing to a certainty that it would contain defamatory statements. DamoHi 01:01, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
"What you are proposing is deeply unethical and frankly disturbing." I'm aware of that, and you're right to have concern. I have concern too. I don't really think it's such a great idea, legal issues aside, because of it's potential for abuse. If people were incapable of lying about having been raped, it would be a great system, but sadly that is not the case. I have absolutely no plans to create such a registry. If I did, I would most likely put some sort of notice on it where the information is displayed saying that it's all user submitted and could possibly be fabricated. Importantly, I do not have any plans to implement this. –Inquisitor Sasha 02:06, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I think we should stop talking about rape and let this be archived. There are a million issues related to fighting sexism that do not involve rape. –Inquisitor Sasha 02:09, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

And in future only cite an article that you have actually read. The reason people like myself are hostile to you over this is that it is so damn obvious that you never even bothered to read this article, and instead you took some bullshit out of the headline that furthered your dubious preconceived notions. DamoHi 02:47, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

BioShock Infinite[edit]

Oh God, the wingnuts are not going to be happy with this one. Osaka Sun (talk) 19:37, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Yup. We may have to actually create that BioShock article soon. Vulpius (talk) 20:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Now i have to get this game. :( (talk to a) Nihilist 02:41, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Yeah... my interest in this game borders on obsession. I want a copy. --TheLateGatsby (talk) 02:33, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
I assume Infinite is just going to drop all pretense and be a straight up shooter? I find the message of the original Bioshock games more compelling than the actual gameplay, which is failed System Shock 2-esque survival horror. SS2 worked because you had to effectively choose between the guns OR the psychic powers, not rampage around with both. And the guns broke, and the hacking had level up-based barriers, and get off my lawn you damn kids... --CoyoteSans (talk) 02:47, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
My preordered copy arrived yesterday (On the launch day, yay! In a busted-up box, boo!) and I've already played it for six hours according to Steam. I'd say that it's as much a shooter than the originals, which I don't think really attempted to be anything other than first person shooters anyway, just ones with a strong exploratory aspect which does remain in Infinite too. Still, the combat is more frantic, there's a two weapon carrying limit and you can't save whenever you please (at least on hard), so the purists have plenty to grumble about. I personally think it makes the gameplay more compelling though, as it forces you to stay on your toes and make quick decisions, especially since you can't just pop medikits and Eve hypos whenever you please (And no, there's no automatically recharging health either.). Vulpius (talk) 08:28, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Ugg... two weapon limits. I hate that crap. It so often turns into semi-scripted "Use this weapon we just contently placed here to get past this part" --Revolverman (talk) 00:17, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

The so-called "Monsanto Protection Act"[edit]

I'm sure just about everyone's heard about the Monsanto rider in the agriculture bill (at least the merkins have), but it seems hard to get non-partisan information on it. Monsanto seems to be the ACORN of the far left these days, i.e. the bogeyman whose mere mention can drive people into hysterics. Even Snopes doesn't say much about the bill, mostly just quoting others and calling accusations a mixture of true and false. It seems to me it isn't a great piece of legislation, but it's hardly the end of the world scenario some people are making it out to be. I think it can basically be summarized as having the intention of making sure simply bringing a lawsuit against the FDA cannot create an injunction on the crops in question. Furthermore, while it seems a judge cannot halt the cultivating of the crop, it's unclear to me if they can prevent them from being sold to the public through their usual channels. It also seems that if a GMO is found to be dangerous, all bets are off, as these protections are to prevent mere accusations from derailing their cultivation. Also, the bill expires in a year (though it could be renewed). What are other people's takes? Should we have an article on this? DickTurpis (talk) 14:50, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

We could add a mention to the Monsanto article. Unfortunately I'm not familiar with this particular subject. Probably this is something like the Animal Enterprise Terrorism ActWikipedia's W.svg. The idea of preventing injunctions on the cultivation of GM crops doesn't seem too draconian, as it simply recognizes that such an injunction causes great disruptions and can't be based on a mere accusation of harm, which given the current knowledge is very unlikely to be true.
I know that there is a similar rule in the nuclear industry which states that when a nuclear plant applies for a license extension, it can operate beyond the original expiry date until the NRC makes a final ruling on the extension. This is designed to prevent disruption of operations if the license extension faces legal challenges and delaying tactics. --Tweenk (talk) 03:59, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Culture warriors[edit]

Wingnuts' fever dreams. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:06, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Widgets Extension[edit]

I think mw:Extensions:Widgets would be useful. It creates a namespace with full HTML enabled and is restricted to editing by authorized user groups. You can use the templates for things like Youtube videos or comment boxes; you can embed any HTML objects or widgets with it. I've found it to be extremely useful. Obviously everyone wouldn't be able to edit widgets, but the people who edit system messages probably could. –Inquisitor Ehrenstein 20:35, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

How about a gadget that forces you to have a link to your talkpage in your sig? SophieWilder 21:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Or one that asks you "Do you really want to make this post?" before you try to save anything with the word "rape" in it? Inspiration Move me brightly. 21:49, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Did I mention the word rape? No. That was you. You are the only person to mention rape in this discussion. Who's the one with an obsession? The person posting a discussion that does not mention rape, or the one who dragged rape into it? –Inquisitor Ehrenstein 00:22, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
The one who can't fucking stop talking about rape to the point that I added him/her to my monobook.js so I don't to see any of his/her posts. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 00:51, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Our TOW article lives![edit]

Apparently, it was once deleted. No one has restored, however. I imagine it was created and forgotten parallel to RationalWiki without a space--"Shut up, Brx." 15:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Never mind. Rational Wiki now redirects to the RationalWiki section of the Conservapedia article. Nowhere Man (talk) 19:09, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
It seems some troll read this on the Saloon Bar and decided to take a shot at us--"Shut up, Brx." 19:11, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Someone in Finland doesn't like us--"Shut up, Brx." 19:14, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Calm down Brx. WP:RationalWiki has pretty much always redirected to that page. Sporadically somebody recreates a separate article on RW, but it always get deleted again due to lack of coverage in WP-accepted sources. It will go down the same way again this time around. WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Plus there's no evidence that that BoN is a "troll" or "doesn't like us". They're only applying WP policy; it could even be a RW editor doing that. Nice work on the IP-stalking though. WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:22, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Oh, I know it's WP policy. But this article has been around since 2009. I find it odd that a BoN has decided to turn it into a redirect shortly after I posted about it here.
Now, the article sucked, so I'm not too sorry to see it go, but I am offended that someone might be watching the Bar with the sole intention of causing trouble. That's just rude. Also, is "nice work on the IP-stalking" a compliment or you sarcastically pointing out that I was stalking someone on the web? It's hard to tell with you.--"Shut up, Brx." 19:27, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
The article hasn't been around since 2009; look at the history. As I summarised above, it's been a redirect most of that time which gets tampered with occasional. It was last un-redirected ten days ago, which was unhelpful since it wasn't even the correct site name anyway ("Rational Wiki" as a separate page, while "RationalWiki" was still a redirect) and the stub that was put up was less informative than the content following the redirect is. The BoN wasn't causing trouble at all, and trying to identify who/where it is is just rude. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
If we get ourselves mentioned on a news website, we'll probably get an article. Maybe we could get involved in some anti racist action? Inquisitor Ehrenstein (talk) 21:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

RationalWiki as a standalone article was first created June 5, 2007, and deleted June 10. It got created and deleted four more times between then and June 2008. VOXHUMANA 21:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Any ideas for how we can get covered by some news website or something like that? I don't think it has to be a major one, just enough to show "notability." –Inquisitor Sasha 00:53, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, we have lots of good articles which are well-cited and become a go-to resource, and we clean out the puerile rubbish. Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.Moderator 07:42, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Basically, we actually become well-known in an organic fashion. A Wikipedia article is not a press release, and working towards it is fundamentally futile - David Gerard (talk) 09:36, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Why is it called TOW?[edit]

Inquisitor Ehrenstein (talk) 21:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

"The Other Wiki." It's used at least a few wikis that aren't WP, but I don't know who invented it. Peter mqzp 21:11, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
{EC} Please put that pug-fugly hog of a signature out of its misery. ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 21:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
What Weaseloid said. Your signature is an eyesore, and much larger than it needs to be. VOXHUMANA 22:11, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
I think it's from somewhere like Encyclopedia Dramatica. And that is indeed a ghastly signature.--Weirdstuff (talk) 06:57, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
The Other Place is how the House of Commons refers to the House of Lords, and vice-versa. CS Miller (talk) 10:27, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

New blog theme is live[edit]

It is most purty. I think so anyway. Please comment.

Weaseloid suggested a different logo. Anyone else got logo ideas? 200x200. Then we can have a vote, because that will destroy the fabric of RationalWiki - David Gerard (talk) 22:30, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Is there a page on the wiki explaining how the blog works? Who runs it, who updates it etc?
Can blog entries be made to show up on the main page of the wiki? (talk) 00:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
The "about" link, top-right of every page. Me and whoever I can get to also write stuff. The blog and the Twitter are spreading our good name, I think.
Having an RSS feed show up in MediaWiki is possible with an extension. Depends if it's considered a good idea - David Gerard (talk) 00:35, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Good work, David. Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic?Moderator 08:37, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
If I had any artistic talent at all I'd suggest that, rather than combining existing logos, a new "wigo rw" one should be made from scratch perhaps using the existing ones as a stylistic template. However, I don't, so I'll not make demands on someone else's time and ability and just say that it's good enough as it is.
The first time I loaded up the page earlier today I had some display problems with boxes running into each other, but I don't see them any more. Peter mqzp 08:43, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
I get that too occasionally - the theme does some pretty scurvy CSS tricks where it says to the browser "Just work it out so all this looks right" and the browser actually has to think for a bit.
I would quite like there to be a portal-icon-like brain image in that style. Armondikov, you bored yet? - David Gerard (talk) 10:52, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
You mean like this one? Scarlet A.pngpathetic 15:43, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
SVG version Scarlet A.pngd hominem 15:44, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Precisely that sort of thing, thank you! - David Gerard (talk) 15:52, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
I got started on this before I saw that Armondikov was going to jump. The brain vector is a bit simpler than his. MediaWiki and/or ImageMagick are hating on my AI drop shadows so you'll have to look at it here. I can make whatever color scheme you want if you prefer mine over Armondikov's. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 17:22, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
The one A linked is Nx's from 2010, which is used in e.g. the off-mission template - David Gerard (talk) 20:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
BTW, OTHER WRITERS STILL WELCOMED. Repurposed RW articles are actually just the ticket. Every day someone else writes something is a day I don't have to - David Gerard (talk) 10:53, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm still planning on submitting a blog post eventually, i'm just a pathological, crippling procrastinator. (talk to a) Nihilist 15:46, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
It's better than the one I made. I don't like the color ... at all. It's so urpy it would work better in Laura Ashley wallpaper circa 1986. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 21:52, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
David - I'm neck deep in the Dover transcripts, and will be for several more weeks. But I'll be ready to get on board after that. VOXHUMANA 22:05, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
By all means, that takes precedence!- David Gerard (talk) 13:03, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Why was the Twitter feed removed from the main page?--Krejtalk 00:28, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Of the blog? Because the widgets in Sampression Lite are made of arse. Also, with all the front-page widgets being shoved down the bottom, there's not a huge amount of point in filling it with stuff. I may nevertheless fiddle with it to bring more stuff back.
I made sure it's on all the single post pages, though - I'm assuming people will mostly come in via the single post pages, and then stop by the front page where the key attraction is all the snippets. And it appears a few readers are doing just that, so that's nice - David Gerard (talk) 09:36, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Cracked's 5 Mind-Blowing Facts Nobody Told You About Guns[edit]


So how mind blowing is this?Ryantherebel (talk) 17:33, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

One of the single most neutral discussions of the subject, which is quite novel to say the least. Number 2 especially though is something that I think needs to be put in every textbook: people don't care about the reality of guns or the harm they cause. I know that's not the author's intent, but ultimately it just shows that some people are just not going to care about how bad guns are or how little purpose there is for keeping them. /stereotypical liberal rant Captain Swing (bringer of nachos) 20:14, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
As apposed to fast cars, drugs, jewellery, etc, etc, that serve so much purpose in people's lives? --Revolverman (talk) 02:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes well, Revolverman, you show me the homicide rates for those items and we'll stack them side by side with guns and see which is higher. (mind you, manslaughter with vehicles are one thing, but I think we can all agree cars are generally not a bad thing, I mean murder of the first degree). Captain Swing (bringer of nachos) 03:12, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Why do I need to justify it? I don't expect anyone else to justify their hobbies or interests to me. Its all red herrings anyway. I'm alot more worried about the "Violence" part of "Gun Violence". No question firearms make violence easier. Key word, EASIER, not creating. I'd rather see effort done in keeping youth out of gangs, or finding and treating those disturbed enough to perpetrate a mass shooting. Yes, I'm completely fine with background checks, and licensing. All I ask you is think, not just judge because YOU don't like it, it HAS to be "bad" or "how little purpose" guns have. Heh, go up north and tell someone how useless their firearms are. --Revolverman

(talk) 05:02, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Popular hobbies: Stamp collecting, painting, watching tv, learning on various subjects. Number of projected deaths from these hobbies barring freak accidents: almost zero I'd imagine. Number of violent deaths per year from your "hobby:" over 30k. Yeah, really wonderful hobby you got there. Captain Swing (bringer of nachos) 14:10, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Now you assume I'm American. I am Canadian in fact. In Canada, we don't see those kinda deaths even though we have (fairly) free access to guns. Perhaps you should be looking at other reasons for such record high rates of violence. Just a though. --Revolverman (talk) 14:19, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
There ares some restrictions to Canadian gun laws not present in the United States. That could at least (partially) explain why the number of shootings are lower. Our culture might explain some, but not all. Captain Swing (bringer of nachos) 14:26, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, there are more restrictions. For the most part I have no problems with, but in the end, it isn't hard to get the Non-Restricted PAL, or even the Restricted PAL. I've heard that explanation for part of the gun violence in the US, but I really don't think that's true. What is the "culture of violence"? If it was there, woudn't this mean that shooting should always be going up, rather then the fact its been falling in the US since the late 80s? I honestly Don't know. --Revolverman (talk) 14:37, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
I hope this gets more circulation--"Shut up, Brx." 20:21, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
"So how mind blowing is this?" On a scale of 1-10? 1. Maybe a 2. Anyone who reads the news or their freshman sociology lectures should know all this. Inspiration Move me brightly. 03:36, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

People on both sides are going to have a shit-fit over this. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Ehrenstein 04:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

It's my general experience that articles on websites dedicated largely to dick jokes, fart jokes, and fanboy inside humour tend not to cause much of a stir in the broader political/intellectual/cultural world. Any "shit-fit" that is had over this will be limited mostly to "Cracked's" readership and other similar basement-dwellers. Inspiration Move me brightly. 04:20, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Is that what that website usually does? Easy to see in that case then. Even then, I'm sure a lot of people like that would tend to have even more massive shit fits than generally normal people. –Inquisitor Ehrenstein 20:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Not a bad thing[edit]

There's no way you could introduce cars now, like the cigarette they're a leftover of a bygone age when you could get away with doing things that were obviously problematic and pretending it would all be fine. Our society (all of it, though America perhaps more than most) has ended up twisted unrecognisably by this single piece of technology. In the US car manufacturers literally dismantled or sabotaged the existing public transport infrastructure in order to sell more cars. In the UK they lobbied government and the government did it for them. Almost everywhere in the world ends up just letting ordinary citizens (who you'd never dream of letting loose with a plane or any kind of 2 tonne industrial robot) drive cars around at high speed with scant training because it's "convenient", and then they end up shoving special case exemptions through all their planning laws and anti-pollution rules so that there's somewhere to drive all those cars. They're still doing this even though we've known for decades now that it can't help, that the congestion is permanent and can't be fixed by building more roads.

The car thing will eventually, after great cost of life and perhaps permanent damage to the environment we live in, go away. I hope I see that. One of the strangest legacies will be the fact that it's hard to explain to subsequent generations how pervasive they were, like evidence of various things that don't appear in early photographs - we didn't record the cars anywhere near as much as they impinged on our lives. Most stories elide car journeys as unimportant, commercials show cars driven on quiet mountain roads or through bizarrely empty five lane city streets. Britain still has generations of housing stock built without anywhere to keep the (now inevitable) associated cars, when the cars go away again those homes will seem perfectly normal.

I'd usually argue that the gun is a less crazy invention than the car. But I can't argue that to an American because the reason for that argument (you wouldn't just give guns to every unqualified peon who asks for one) doesn't apply to the US. Tialaramex (talk) 11:49, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

So, what's your argument? That public transportation uses less energy? That it is cheaper? That it gets the end user to his destination just as fast? You state your conclusions, but not your reasoning. Frankly, my current hope is for a synthetic hydrocarbon or ammonia or something from atmospheric CO2 to power transportation needs. It seems plausible and within our price range. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 22:52, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
A car culture necessarily has to let almost everybody drive cars. But most people shouldn't be driving them. Even ignoring those that are temporarily too drunk, stoned, tired or distracted to be safely driving the vehicle most of them have inadequate training and just aren't that interested in getting good enough at it. When they grow old they must choose between accepting their incompetence and losing their independence or soldier on, hoping they don't kill anybody with their increasingly blurry eyesight and gradually deteriorating reflexes.
So this is crazy. It only doesn't jump out at us because we're here and we got used to it. Anybody who wasn't immersed in a car culture wouldn't even have asked your question. And like everything, it's temporary. Cars are by no means the final word, for all but a handful of people they're just a means to an end and when something better is available they will give up their cars with no remorse, leaving only a handful of "petrol heads" who will argue that their fundamental freedoms are being taken away because a society where most people don't have cars isn't going to let just any idiot race them about in public spaces with impunity. Tialaramex (talk) 20:18, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Again, I'm asking you to state your reasons, not just claim that you're right. If you don't want to give reasons, hey that's fine. But I am curious as to why you think that's right. So, thus far, you have elderly drivers are sometimes incompetent, and people under the influence of drugs are sometimes incompetent. Forgive me for saying so, but I don't think that's why you really care about this. What are your real primary reasons? Or are you really concerned about just the public safety issues. Really? That seems pretty extreme. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 10:14, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
No, almost everybody is incompetent. Check the accident records for yourself. We've just accepted somehow that it's OK. That's what's so crazy. By modern standards you'd expect the basic competence for driving a motor vehicle (remember this is two tonnes of steel moving at tens of metres per second in a public space) to be a pretty serious thing, maybe a few percent of the adult population would be qualified and you'd take a six month intensive course with periodic week-long refreshers. But instead we've created a society where it is necessary to pass almost everybody as "safe" to drive a car based on a single brief practical test and maybe some laughable "theory" questions that are focused on arbitrary legal standards not actual safety. I don't really care that you think I'm "extreme" for having noticed this colossal blind splot in our culture, it's not as if I'm the only person to ever do so. From a public policy point of view people's hands are tied. You can't take away something this popular, you can't even make it look as though you're planning to eventually take it away. But it doesn't stop us from observing that it's crazy and we shouldn't do it again.
Try the accident investigation side of things. Last year a tram derailed in London. That's all, safety systems functioned as intended and even though many passengers on the tram were standing upright with no real support there were no reported injuries. That resulted in a major investigation, changes to operational procedures and installation of new equipment. The busy road junction I live near has about one fatal car crash per year. The enquiry typically consists of police asking if anybody saw it happen. Nobody comes forward, the death is written up as an accident, people mourn, sad piles of flowers and/or cuddly toys appear on the pedestrian access, life goes on. Changes to procedures? None. Everybody continues to drive as they did before, because doing otherwise would be inconvenient and there isn't even any mechanism to insist on new procedures anyway because it's a "pass once for life" system. Tialaramex (talk) 14:05, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Has anyone noticed...[edit]

Google+ is getting more and more like facebook? I'm finding glurge in my updates, and the contributions on public posts are dumb. Should I just tell kids to get off my lawn? --TheLateGatsby (talk) 16:12, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Is that still running? Can't believe they got rid of Reader and kept that giant pile of failure. Inspiration Move me brightly. 16:14, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
It could have gone the myspace route. --MikallakiM 16:21, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Well, it's dumb as Facebook without as many users, now. --TheLateGatsby (talk) 16:48, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
The point of killing Reader was to try to force people to Plus - David Gerard (talk) 18:12, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Does anyone know the rate of Google+ membership? Because I see firings in the future if Facebook keeps its market share. Osaka Sun (talk) 23:11, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
The point of killing Reader was to try to force people to Plus Bloglines. Fixed that for you. Inspiration Move me brightly. 23:19, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
The point of killing Reader was to make Reader die. Nothing more sophisticated than that. Google management first ensured Reader ceased generating revenue, then discounted employee enthusiasm for Reader (e.g. telling people they couldn't work on Reader with 20% time because "there's nobody to support that" while simultaneously banning people from providing such support) and worked hard to sabotage its infrastructure. Somebody really, really wants Reader dead and they've got their way. If I were a Google shareholder I'd want to know why my money (remember, to make it happen they had to cut revenue because Reader used to generate revenue) was spent on this personal agenda. Tialaramex (talk) 14:16, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

North Korea enters "state of war" with South Korea[edit]

I can't tell if they're bullshitting or serious anymore. Osaka Sun (talk) 00:49, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

They're already at war, as they have been since the Korean War began. Have they started an invasion or violated the armistice? –Inquisitor Sasha 00:50, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
[2] Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 00:52, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Strange. They are already at war. –Inquisitor Sasha 00:54, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm guessing the SK military has all its eyes on what's happening here. Osaka Sun (talk) 00:57, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
It's going to happen someday isn't though? A confrontation I mean. L'homme de la Perspective Discusez? 03:13, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
There seems to be an uncanny sense of desperation this time. Osaka Sun (talk) 03:38, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
They are stepping up their rhetoric, but it's nothing new.--ADtalkModerator 06:23, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I spoke today with a buddy who's an officer in the SK army -- he's not particularly worried, sees this all as little more than rhetorical nonsense. Inspiration Move me brightly. 03:16, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

ROK would love it if the DPRK attacked them. They are pretty much positive that they could easily track and destroy any missiles, and in conventional warfare - well, it would last a few hours at most. There's a U.S. Army base in Seoul and many container ships in the harbors just full of armaments and vehicles.
It's not going to happen, though.--ADtalkModerator 06:23, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
ROK is the South Korean military, I had to look that up. I' love it too if nuclear weapons weren't involved. Proxima Centauri (talk) 16:57, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
They'll be singing a different tune during reunification. Osaka Sun (talk) 06:29, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Too true. Culturally and politically "reunion" would be extremely popular. But apart from that, SK would be dreading the idea - kind of like an entire trailer park worth of relatives moving onto your front lawn. It would cost a few trillions or more to upgrade their infrastructure. VOXHUMANA 10:50, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
AD, really? What's all this I sometimes hear about the shitton of conventional artillery within striking distance of Seoul right now that could quickly level the place? There are no countermeasures or interceptors for conventional artillery of that kind. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 10:17, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
I meant that nuclear missiles are not considered a significant threat. DPRK would be able to bombard Seoul for a bit, before their installments were crushed. More than half of DPRK weapons are like fifty years old and Soviet-grade, though, so the numbers are pretty unreliable. More analysis here, if you're interested.
Admittedly, I have been absent from ROK for a couple of years, so it's possible that now they are suddenly worried. But I doubt it.--ADtalkModerator 11:40, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Vintage artillery pieces can still be perfectly serviceable for area fire missions, such as shelling a large city without trying to target a particular street corner. The US has been known to sell off older ordnance to banana republics and such, when the tubes and carriages were worn and no longer capable of precise delivery.
This being the twenty-first century and all, I'd be very surprised if the ROK did not keep a close account of DPRK battery placement, perhaps with the aid of some US observation platforms. I hope they also keep their counter-battery capability greased and ready to kick ass at a moments notice.
Inviting that kind of action would be mind-bogglingly irresponsible on the part of the DPRK. I'm not worried; should I be? Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 16:30, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
In my opinion, the big concern is that Kim Jong-Un will eventually decide the North has nothing to lose, and go out in a blaze of apocalyptic glory. MDB (the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear) 23:37, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Kaesong shutdown[edit]

I'd say this is the largest threat North Korea has made. The economic zone is so vital to NK trade that they might as well be passing through the DMZ already (if they cut it off). Osaka Sun (talk) 15:03, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Damn, either this is some mighty desperate bluffing or its the real deal. God I hope Seoul and the South Korean border is Ok after this. Also, if lardarse ends up starting the war I hope to cthulhu he gets some severe Karmic payback Judge HoldenThe Judge Smiles 15:37, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Please vote[edit]

Sorry to bother you all with this, but I want this issue solved. Can users here please vote to either keep or delete this article. Talk:Michael_E._Tymn#Consensus_vote Forests (talk) 22:53, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Discounted Creationist debate[edit]

Our old chum Ken asked for $20,000 to engage in a debate over creationism; apparently a Creationist in the US is prepared to do it for only $10,000 (winner takes all). According to the Guardian, the debate would require that science contradicts the literal interpretation of the book of Genesis. It would seem to me that you could nail that with the geology alone without getting involved in evolution, which is what the proponent really wants. Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic?Moderator 19:45, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

No, what he wants is a smooth 10k and a little bit of glory.--"Shut up, Brx." 20:31, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
I would never take the deal because it's arguing with a brick wall. I do agree that for such people, I do not start with evolution. I fully agree with you there. I skip that, and head straight to our very own article on the age of the Universe and the Earth. I start with dendrochronology and the distant starlight problem, and SN 1987A. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 23:00, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
In point of fact he's already hedging his bets. The article says: Mastropaolo said he would present the argument in favor of a literal interpretation of the creation story once he had found a willing scientist to argue that a non-literal interpretation of Genesis is more scientific.
The trick is the "non-literal interpretation of Genesis is more scientific" bit. In point of fact both "literal" and "non-literal" interpretations of Genesis are going to be non-scientific as Genesis simply isn't scientific. --Weirdstuff (talk) 17:01, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
There are so many reasons to not take this offer. I'm suspicious Mastropaolo's intent is to provoke his opponent to saying something foolish or angry, and embarrass them with deceptive editing. --TheLateGatsby (talk) 14:08, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

New here[edit]

Hi, I'm new here. I've been following RW and am extremely impressed by your articles on sexuality (the Friendzone article was hilarious) and politics. I of course may not agree with the consensus of political views (I'm very libertarian, but I do understand the flaws of pure theoretical libertarianism), but I do respect a lot of the dialogue on this wiki. Anyways, thought I'd introduce myself. Peace (talk) 02:00, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Hey, good to see a fellow libertarian who isn't a nuclear powered asshole about it! --Revolverman (talk) 02:04, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm also a libertarian. Except about health care. –Inquisitor Sasha (Talk | contribs | block) 02:22, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Welcome! We are glad to have you.--ADtalkModerator 06:23, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Totally trivial ...[edit]

... but funny Iain Duncan Smith ... Profession Politician & complete bellend (he's a UK politician who is ... aaah ... not loved.) It's lasted a few hours so far, despite being tweeted all over. Scream!! (talk) 22:23, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Fire trick[edit]

Really cool fire trick. Does any one know how this works? –Inquisitor Sasha (Talk | contribs | block) 23:15, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Butane is flammable. WéáśéĺóíďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 02:15, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Shit. I understand that part. I meant how the water and the soap controlled the fire. I'm not a creationist. The fact that I can read the science articles here demonstrates that. –Inquisitor Sasha (Talk | contribs | block) 02:28, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
... what?--MikallakiM 02:29, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
The hand is wet with a mix of soap and water. When the bubbles burst into flame, the flame rises up away from the hand. To burn the hand, the liquid covering the hand would need to be heated to a high temperature (say >150 F), but the butane doesn't produce enough heat right at skin level for long enough to do that. The specific heat of the soapy water and underlying skin is too high, and the amount of butane too low, and most of the heat is being 'wasted' as the plume rises anyway. The soapier the water, the more viscous, so the layer covering the hand will be thicker too.--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 02:59, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I figured it something to do with the layer of water and the fact that the body was difficult to burn, but I wasn't sure what the exact interactions were. –Inquisitor Sasha (Talk | contribs | block) 03:23, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
It's also about thermal contact. You can do similar tricks with melted lead and liquid nitrogen. Scarlet A.pngtheist 10:17, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Fire truck[edit]

Real cool fire trucks. Does anyone know how they work? Inspiration Move me brightly. 23:34, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Das ist nicht lustig. Du bist ein großer Arschhut, dass viel unerfahren ist. –Inquisitor Sasha (Talk | contribs | block) 00:05, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
What you probably wanted to say in German: Du bist ein Riesenarschloch, das keine Ahnung hat. "Arschhut" is as far as I know, not used in the German language.
Btw: I thought that section was hilarious. I actually loled. Th. BernhardDas Leben ist ein Prozeß, den man verliert, was man auch tut und wer man auch ist. 21:50, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
At least it wasn't "Bericht an ihren örtlichen." "Personalvermittler heute." "Aufgabe ist vorgeschrieben." Is this considered funny in Germany? http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Cv2_Clep3CM/R6RY5StCdkI/AAAAAAAAAFc/T3xm8NrKlj0/s1600/Yuengling.bmpInquisitor Sasha (Talk | contribs | block) 23:48, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't understand what you're talking about. Your link was just a picture of some beer bottles with a wrongly written geran word...Th. Bernhard

Das Leben ist ein Prozeß, den man verliert, was man auch tut und wer man auch ist. 19:04, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

It's an American spelling of Jüngling. –Inquisitor Sasha (Talk | contribs | block) 19:56, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Real cool magnets. How do they work?--Transitional FormStill Durbinating 00:38, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Magnets generate a magnetic field, and depending on the orientation of the magnets, they attract or repel each other. {{subst:User:Inquisitor Ehrenstein/Signature}} 14:02, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Here's an old joke. What starts with "f" and ends with "uck"? Fire truck! (Of course, it doesn't really work in my native Britain where we say "fire engine", or at least we used to the last time I was there). Spud (talk) 14:30, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
That caused massive drama in high school. Particularly when someone said it in front of a girl who often exploited long objects for humorous purposes. The reaction of the teacher was also hilarious. –Inquisitor Sasha (Talk | contribs | block) 15:51, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Wenn ist das Nunstück git und Slotermeyer? Ja! Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput! (talk) 03:44, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Flat Earth Society[edit]

Just listened to this podcast. It's an interview with the vice president of the flat earth society. I was ready to call Poe but he really seems to believe it. Makes interesting listening.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 09:22, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

You have weird interests. -- (talk) 10:57, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
I have only listened to part of that, but I have to say I think the vast majority of flat earthers are putting it on. It isn't really a poe, so much as a position to demonstrate the limits of our knowledge. There may be some who are sincere, but I think most are putting it on. There is no real way of verifying this either way. Looking at the Wikipedia page, the Canadian branch appears to be an acknowledged put-on, and I have my suspicions that all other branches simply don't admit it. DamoHi 23:48, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Are you saying that there are actually people who believe the earth is flat? Probably poe; it's been known to be false for thousands of years. –Inquisitor Sasha (Talk | contribs | block) 01:20, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Have you listened to the the episode - or don't you need to?--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 10:33, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I love Obama after I saw this[edit]

You guys are right, liberalism is the way to go, and capitalism just doesn't work. I saw this YouTube video and it changed my life. DMorris, on the EIP Network 1 855 282 2882 18:11, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

cute. did you get my last email?--"Shut up, Brx." 18:38, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
RickRoll'd. ROFL. Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic?Moderator 18:44, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
@Brx, yes I did, but I haven't really done anything with it; I was working two jobs up until late February when Charlotte Regional decided to hand out a bunch of pink slips (thanks Obamacare), and I still haven't caught up with Conservapedia/Rational-Wiki/Mafia Wars/running my anti-spam honeypots/a bunch of other things since then (my oh my, have I seriously not done anything on Conservapedia since CHRISTMAS?). I have done a few things with Wikipedia though, and I've tinkered with a few old video games I hadn't played in a while (mainly some old PS1 games and some stuff on the Wii, some PC here and there). DMorris, on the EIP Network 1 855 282 2882 23:34, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
People are still rickrolling each other? Lame. DamoHi 23:40, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Have you ever seen LOLcats? They are pictures of cats that use bad grammar intentionally. It is so funny. VOXHUMANA 00:17, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Rick Roll is an old meme. Plus it's fairly pointless. Better if you make it a link someone wouldn't want to see. –Inquisitor Sasha (Talk | contribs | block) 01:21, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
RW Logo 1 OptimizedLPTG.gif
Thanks for that brilliant contribution IE. Insightful as always. DamoHi 01:28, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
When I say "something you wouldn't want to see," I'm talking about something mild, not the worst crap available. Aside from the fact that only weirdos would find it, there's far too much competition for that title. I'm thinking something like "Article explaining the creation of the universe" and linking to a Holocaust denial evolution denial Creationist webpage. –Inquisitor Sasha (Talk | contribs | block) 06:37, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Two Girls, One Cup. It's amazing. Just watch it, but have a friend video you!! Scarlet A.pngnarchist 10:14, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
In B4 goatse, tub girl, pain series, etc. WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 12:04, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Is DMorris's Skype phone number meant to be in his sig or is it just another "funny"? Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.Moderator 12:41, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Rush Limbaugh's number is 1-"800"-282-2882; I'm comparing myself to Rush. DMorris, on the EIP Network 1 855 282 2882 12:55, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Rush Limbaugh? Another RINO Cracker. nobsYe shall all perish in flames - Kim Jong-un 00:13, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Forum about phones[edit]

I just came across this. http://www.classicrotaryphones.com/forum/index.php?topic=202.30

I'm not sure why, but I'm getting that odd 1950s feeling. Probably because it's an obscure interest forum for like minded people, and this is what the internet was supposed to be way back in the day before it turned into LOL FGT! GTFO! UR GAY! BUTTSEX! DIS IS RETARD! –Inquisitor Sasha (Talk | contribs | block) 01:03, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Have you been on Everything is Terrible by chance? There is a ton of old-internet nostalgia there.--Transitional FormStill Durbinating 03:35, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
For there to be a bottom of the internet, what do you think makes the rest? Niche forums are aplenty. (talk to a) Nihilist 03:46, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Inquisitor, if you have time to kill, I suggest reading "The Best Thread Ever". And there's more where this came from...--ZooGuard (talk) 14:06, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Jesus. Was that Ken?--Transitional FormStill Durbinating 15:21, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Global Warming revisited[edit]

Several weeks ago, Marcott et. al, released an article about the reality of global temperatures over the last 12,000 years give or take. The science demonstrated that - yes, temperatures have gone up up up. The usual gang of suspects challenged it, and this was Marcott's response to some or all of the challenges. It's pretty good stuff we should add to the global warming page, but I'm not competent in science to really do anything useful with it. So, I put it here in hopes that someone scientifically literate could add it to our page. Green mowse.pngGodot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 16:42, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Our global warming article doesn't get into paleoclimate data. We could make a "hockey stick" article, but it's really hard to beat TOW's article on it, which already includes Marcott et al, incidentally. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:34, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

New style for RationalWiki[edit]

I know someone else has brought this issue up before, but I also think that RationalWiki needs it's own style to differentiate itself from Wikipedia. There have been many times when I have gotten the two sites confused (i.e. thinking that "this is a very informal style of writing for Wikipeda" or vice versa). I'm not proposing any major changes, just changes (good ones) to the color scheme, hopefully with the standard (unchanged) Vector style as an option for logged-in users. The example site I will give of who I think got this right is Minecraft wiki. The site has the feel of the vector style and Wikipedia, but it's unique enough not to get mixed up with Wikipedia. This, I feel should be what Rationalwiki aims for. Not reinventing the wheel, but giving it it's own lick of paint. Discuss :) BunchO'Numbers (talk) 01:37, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikis that feel they have to make themselves different looking tend to go overboard and sacrifice good taste and/or practicality. . Plus, my wikipedia is Modern and my Rationalwiki is Monobook, they already look different.--MikallakiM 01:50, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
I brought this up before and I strongly recommend creating some variation, even if it's just a small change. I get really sick of websites all using the default skin, especially since they all use the same major software, which makes them look the same despite being completely different. –Inquisitor Sasha 01:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
(EC) I'm talking about for non logged-in users. You know. Readers of the site. The default for both sites is Vector, which looks the same. And I am not arguing that RationalWiki should sacrifice good taste or practicality. I'm I only arguing that it needs a different coat of paint! :) BunchO'Numbers (talk)
Ah, Inquisitor Ehrenstein. You used to have the wired eyes in your sig, right? Yes, it was your post here in the bar about changing the default skin I was referring to. :) I should have come to your support during that discussion, but you know. I couldn't be bothered, LOL. But I'm here now! BunchO'Numbers (talk) 02:03, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes I know. And why do we need something besides default Vector? Were here to provide refutation to Pseudo-x and authoritarianism, we dont exactly need fancy paint to do that. --MikallakiM 02:12, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Um, "why do we need something besides default Vector?". Did I not explain adequately? Is the fact that people (i.e. ME, for one) are getting RationalWiki confused with Wikipedia not reason enough for a different coat of paint? The two sites have different POV, missions and management. They should also look different. Company's don't spend lots of money on their brands for shits and giggles you know. :) BunchO'Numbers (talk) 02:40, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
-looks at our logo, URL and pretty much everything else about us- that seems like a personal problem.--MikallakiM 02:41, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
(EC)Just to be clear, I was only trying to lighten the mood with my "shits and giggles" joke, not start some sort of flame war. (or whatever it's called these days) :) BunchO'Numbers (talk) 02:43, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
OK: A reply to Mikal:
  1. If you're reading an article, you are not looking at the URL in the address bar.
  2. If you're reading an article, as long as you have gotten past the introduction, you no longer see the top 200 pixels on the page which is where the logo (the only thing that differentiates RationalWiki from Wikipedia on many articles) is.
  3. I'm not sure what else is different between the sites. The POV is different, but I've been confused by this in the past.
  4. Just because you don't have a problem telling the sites apart, does not mean other people don't have that problem.
In conclusion, I think there is a problem in telling RationalWiki apart from Wikipedia for READERS of the sites, even if the regular editors don't have a problem. And I think I'm more of a reader then an editor. Of course, as a self styled skeptic, I am more then willing to change my mind in the face of cold hard research that proves me wrong :) BunchO'Numbers (talk) 02:59, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
It's 2013. I don't think we should be expending extra resources pandering to people too dim to even be aware of what page they're browsing on the Internet. How this conversation would've gone 30 years ago: "Hey, Jim! What's that book you're reading?" "I don't know!" Ochotona princepsnot a pokémon 17:00, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Goodpost.gif Inspiration Move me brightly. 17:02, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't think this is a problem of people not knowing what website they're on (that's unlikely and extreme) as much as a problem of Rational Wiki looking exactly like every other wiki that hasn't changed its skin. It's bland and boring. It's silly for all MW websites to look alike. It also encourages people to refer to us as "Wikipedia" even when they know that we're completely different. –Inquisitor Sasha (Talk | contribs | block) 17:49, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

How about instead of just arguing back & forth about whether we need to change, actually try giving some positive examples? Mock something up in a sandbox page, suggest a colour scheme, or even just point to a wiki you think has the right sort of look. WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 03:17, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

We can keep the Vector, just have it slightly different so it doesn't look like every single other wiki. I've had a plan to work on alterative Vector skins since no one has published any. The trouble is that the method I have ATM involved setting every CSS element as important, which is not desirable. –Inquisitor Sasha 03:45, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Up level with the logo, there is a "Fossil record" tab where WP has "View History". A bit further down the typical page, I see a link to the Saloon bar on the left. WP article pages tend to have more interlanguage links in that left sidebar. The style of our navboxes, the categories listed at the bottom, the specifics of the disclaimer area, density of citations, and in general the subject matter and writing style, all give plenty of clues to keep me oriented, if grid forbid I should forget how I got here. Not a problem with vector skin on both, not for me. Solution in search of problem, sez I. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 04:14, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Actually I do NOT see "Fossil Record", I see "View History". This is because I have GB-English selected in my language preferences. Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.Moderator 08:20, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
I doubt that getting confused about where people are is a serious problem. The problem is that the skin is identical to every other wiki that hasn't made changes. All I'm talking about is something small, like what Referata has done. They have Vector unchanged except for the colors, which keeps the same layout but gives the wiki its own look. –Inquisitor Sasha 04:26, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
If users don't like the change, they can undo it in their CSS page or select the old Vector skin in their preferences, depending on how the change is made. –Inquisitor Sasha 04:27, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
I think you need to come up with a style for people to see what you're actually suggesting. I doubt you'll get an in-principle agreement to change if the change is not specified - it's very easy to come up with website themes that look like complete dogshit - David Gerard (talk) 09:56, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Would you be able to determine from this http://blog.redwerks.org/2012/02/28/mediawiki-subskin-tutorial/ what the problem is that causes the regular Vector CSS to override the new CSS? I tried some of the solutions suggested by the developer, but they cause the skin to stop working completely. If not, is setting every CSS element as important a severe problem? –Inquisitor Sasha (Talk | contribs | block) 16:02, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Ehrenstein corner[edit]

I'm very familiar with that... What do you think about this one: http://www.sturmkrieg.us/Sturmkrieg_Wiki#.UVhCBavwL2s Not that it's relevant for this specific wiki, but in general. Also, is it a serious problem that the only way I know to create Vector skins is to set all the CSS as important? The problem arises where the regular Vector skin seems to override the derivative skin. –Inquisitor Sasha (Talk) 14:06, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
That's great -- If I ever want to start a website that appeals to the neo-nazi/gaming/Iron Maiden fanboy crowd, that would definitely be my go-to choice. Inspiration Move me brightly. 14:17, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
And yet, Nazis claim that we're trying to indoctrinate people into becoming Jewish Bolsheviks. –Inquisitor Sasha (Talk) 14:42, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Do they? And what does that have to do with the price of fish? ŴêâŝêîôîďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 16:15, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
What about this one? http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Main_Page#.UVhLoqvwL2s I know a lot of people complain about the background and text color, and the staff ignore it every time. For what it does though, the information is good. Far better than the alterative that inserts massive amounts of fanfiction into 40k canon. –Inquisitor Sasha (Talk) 14:45, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
It's a similar aesthetic to yours & completely wrong for RW. + I don't see what point you are making about information & fanfiction. I thought we were discussing site cosmetics rather than content? Are you just click-whoring for Warhammer sites? WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 16:21, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Necessary reference. Inspiration Move me brightly. 16:26, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
"It's a similar aesthetic to yours & completely wrong for RW." I said it's not a layout that would work here. I was saying that it's a small color change that keeps with the same general layout. Obviously, we would use a different layout. And what the hell is "click whoring?" –Inquisitor Sasha (Talk) 17:32, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Return to topic[edit]

Here's something to consider, a much lighter and more appropriate color scheme, though we should obviously come up with out own colors. http://www.referata.com/wiki/Main_PageInquisitor Sasha (Talk) 17:38, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Here's a list of skins on MediaWiki.org: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Gallery_of_user_styles I personally don't like many of them, and most of them are total changes from the standard Vector layout, but there's a few that might be worth using or recoloring. I think Cavendish is one of the best ones. –Inquisitor Sasha (Talk) 17:41, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

So we're really no further forward. People ask you for examples of what you're suggesting RW should look like, you point to some other sites, but apparently you aren't actually suggesting that we should look like them at all. So what is the point? I think everyone is already aware that wikis can come in different colours. What colour(s) or background are you suggesting RW should use? ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:52, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't know. I was wondering if other users had ideas. Maybe light green, possibly blue. Something light. –Inquisitor Sasha (Talk | contribs | block) 18:07, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
why is it necessary to change the existing layout/colour scheme? Its fine as it isAMassiveGay (talk) 19:00, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Change is good.--Inquistor Behrenstein (talk) 19:06, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Never mind colour schemes, we should change the font. How about papyrus? Then even our font would fit the mission! SophieWilder 09:46, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

No. This is a discussion for suggesting improvements. Not complete crap. –Inquisitor Sasha (Talk | contribs | block) 16:04, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't realise they don't have april the first on your planet. SophieWilder 17:01, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
<sarcasm>I am from Earth Where are you from?</sarcasm>Inquisitor Sasha (Talk | contribs | block) 17:10, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Not Germany. Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.Moderator 17:26, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I am not from there. Unlike certain other people who have worked to give that impression. –Inquisitor Sasha (Talk | contribs | block) 17:54, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
I would have thought middle-class Golgafrinchan, given "Not reinventing the wheel, but giving it it's own lick of paint." Watch out for that giant space goat... Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 18:38, 1 April 2013 (UTC)


User:Inquisitor Ehrenstein/sandbox/CSS themes

Here's some of the ideas I'm working on. I'm going for small changes, but still somewhat distinctive. –Inquisitor Sasha (Talk | contribs | block) 18:15, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

as a 99.9 percent "reader" I just want to poke in and say that I have never mistaken RW for any other wiki, regardless of whether I can see the brainy header or not. And that green and purple awfulness is not just awful but eye hurty. I hope (and assume) it was done on purpose to be hideous. To summarise: Leave it alone. joyaBAD KITTY! 19:19, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Inquisitor, could you present your suggestions in a way that isn't just a page of raw code? Thanks. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:10, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
You can't read raw code? Get outta here, n00b! SophieWilder 20:46, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
You can use a Browser extension or add it to your CSS page. –Inquisitor Sasha (Talk | contribs | block) 21:29, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
TMW;DB. (Too Much Work; Didn't Bother) If you want to get eyes on your suggestion, it needs to be visible Right Now as the reader skims by. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 21:33, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
I've also never had a problem with identification. This would be to have our own style. –Inquisitor Sasha (Talk | contribs | block) 21:36, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Different issue. What I meant was, if you wish to offer suggestions to the mob in the context of this discussion, the presentation needs to be immediate. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 21:45, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Ehrenstein, perhaps you could render your suggestions on your own computer, and then post a screenshot. SophieWilder 11:59, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Or just create a couple of textboxes in a sandbox page or something. WéáśéĺóíďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 12:22, 3 April 2013 (UTC)