RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive201

This is an archive page, last updated 2 June 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>, <197>, <198>, <199>, <200>, <202>, <203>, <204>, <205>, <206>, <207>, <208>, <209>, <210>, <211>, <212>, <213>, <214>, <215>, <216>, <217>, <218>, <219>, <220>, <221>, <222>, <223>, <224>, <224½>, <225>, <226>, <227>, <228>, <229>, <230>, <231>, <232>, <233>, <234>, <235>, <236>, <237>, <238>, <239>, <240>, <241>, <242>, <243>, <244>, <245>, <246>, <247>, <248>, <249>, <250>, <251>, <252>, <253>, <254>, <255>, <256>, <257>, <258>, <259>, <260>, <261>, <262>, <263>, <264>, <265>, <266>, <267>, <268>, <269>, <270>, <271>, <272>, <273>, <274>, <275>, <276>, <277>, <278>, <279>, <280>, <281>, <282>, <283>, <284>, <285>, <286>, <287>, <288>, <289>, <290>, <291>, <292>, <293>, <294>, <295>, <296>, <297>, <298>, <299>, <300>, <301>, <302>, <303>, <304>, <305>, <306>, <307>, <308>, <309>, <310>, <311>, <312>, <313>, <314>, <315>, <316>, <317>, <318>, <319>, <320>, <321>, <322>, <323>, <324>, <325>, <326>, <327>, <328>, <329>, <330>, <331>, <332>, <333>, <334>, <335>, <336>, <337>, <338>, <339>, <340>, <341>, <342>, <343>, <344>, <345>, <346>, <347>, <348>, <349>, <350>, <351>, <352>, <353>, <354>, <355>, <356>, <357>, <358>, <359>, <360>, <361>, <362>, <363>, <364>, <365>, <366>, <367>, <368>, <369>, <370>, <371>, <372>, <373>, <374>, <375>, <376>, <377>, <378>, <379>, <380>, <381>, <382>, <383>, <384>, <385>, <386>, <387>, <388>, <389>, <390>, <391>, <392>, <393>, <394>, <395>, <396>, <397>, <398>, <399>, <400>, <401>, <402>, <403>, <404>, <405>, <406>, <407>, <408>, <409>, <410>, <411>, <412>, <413>, <414>, <415>, <416>, <417>, <418>, <419>, <420>, <421>, <422>, <423>, <424>, <425>, <426>, <427>, <428>, <429>, <430>, <431>, <432>, <433>, <434>, <435>, <436>, <437>, <438>, <439>, <440>, <441>, <442>, <443>, <444>, <445>, <446>, <447>, <448>, <449>, <450>, <451>, <452>, <453>, <454>, <455>, <456>, <457>, <458>, <459>, <460>, <461>, <462>, <463>, <464>, <465>, <466>, <467>, <468>

, (new)(back)

Minnesota slated to legalize gay marriage

This is what I've been spending all my free time and some of my spare change for the last 2 years helping to work towards. To think, only a year ago, we almost constitutionally banned it. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 05:45, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Go you. It has been really nice to see, not just the inevitable demographic shift but a serious number of people saying on an individual basis "I changed my mind". That doesn't happen because of the legislature, or because of a charismatic politician, it happens because they know all these perfectly reasonable seeming people around them who disagree with them and have a coherent argument for why they should change their minds. It doesn't hurt that in a lot of high profile cases those people were family, but it isn't always. Everybody on the ground who spoke up for what they believed in ought to know that this is happening now because of them. Would it have happened anyway eventually? Probably, but it didn't happen eventually, it's happening now. Tialaramex (talk) 08:52, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

You sir or ma'am Reckless Noise Symphony, are awesome. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 10:15, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

How does it feel to think back on how much has changed in so short a time? Surreal? Polite Timesplitter ^{Let's move on to some other area of sodomy!} 12:05, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Surreal and then some. To an extent, I'd like to look at this as the Pickett's Charge of the anti-gay movement in Minnesota. Just last year, they were gearing up to permanently take away the rights of my fellow GLBT Minnesotans, and had some national heavy hitters on their side. But as the time came for them to attack, the pro-marriage forces had had enough time to assemble in such a fashion that polls when from 75% supporting the anti-gay amendment to the constitution to 50% supporting marriage equality. This wave of support was enough to completely energize the Democratic base and send the Republicans into a complete minority in the state government. But this also allowed the forces rallying for marriage equality to sweep candidates into office who supported marriage equality. Thus, the Republican movement to completely ban marriage equality not only didn't work, but it allowed for the total defeat of their movement. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 06:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Hopefully it will pass. –Inquisitor Ehrenstein (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 20:16, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

what?--^Mikal_lakiM 20:23, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

So, as part of your need to try to troll everything I say, you don't want gay marriage to pass? –Inquisitor Ehrenstein (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 01:20, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

There are many things i will tolerate; Being accused of being a Bigot is not one of them, so fuck off. And did you even -read- the article posted or just assume you know what it said? --^Mikal_lakiM 02:00, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

And I thought my emotional problems were bad enough, boy.-Albannach (talk) 14:56, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Mikal seems to be a bit odd. –Inquisitor Ehrenstein (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 03:25, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

When i want the medical diagnostic of the nazi obsessive, i'll ask for it. --^Mikal_lakiM 04:10, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

That thing when you discover some amazing new musical artist only to find out they're already dead.

Happened to me twice this month: John Martyn, and Morphine. This is why all the "new" music in my collection is several years old, I guess. Let my inspiration flow/In token lines suggesting rhythm. 17:20, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

John Martyn dead? Wow! I missed that one. I saw him back in the early seventies with Danny Thompson and they were mindblowing. Innocent Bystander (talk) 15:11, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Morphine is one of my all time favorites. As soon as I saw Dana Colley play two saxophones at once, they had me, because at the time, I was playing bari sax in high school band. My attempts at repeating the dual-sax were less than pleasant. Mark Sandman went out on stage in Italy from a heart attack, and the day I heard the news, I was devastated. Glad I was able to see them the few times they made it to Pittsburgh. Aboriginal Noise ^Punkrock 15:22, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Vector skin development

Alright, I finally have an alternative Vector based skin completed. I finished VectorBlue, which is available here: https://github.com/Sturmkrieg/mw-VectorBlue

I also setup a project page on MediaWiki.org about the Vector skin development, if anyone wants to see the other Vector I'm working on, or possibly wants to join it. I believe that GitHub lets you edit files online with a web interface, (like wiki pages) so you don't need to understand git to be able contribute; all you really need to be able to do is edit the CSS page and that's about it.

Vector_skin_development_project

–Inquisitor Ehrenstein (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 19:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Screenshots? 86.40.38.133 (talk) 12:41, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Travelling to Boston

I'll be in Boston for an anime convention next week -does anyone have recommendations on good bars in Back Bay? --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 21:25, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

What con are you going to?--^Mikal_lakiM 22:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Anime Boston. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 22:58, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Ahh, i just finished a con; going to another in... november. --^Mikal_lakiM 23:33, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately the one I usually go to is closed, having been the site of the second bomb blast. However, Towne is pretty good if you're into high-class meat markets, and it's right in the Hynes building. Never been to McGreevy's, but it's owned by Ken Casey from the Dropkick Murphys and it's a huge baseball bar. Fire and Ice on Berkeley St. is a make-your-own-stir-fry place. They have a good beer selection, but Saturday night means guaranteed jam-packed with high schoolers playing grownup. Max Brenner has great cocoa, though I hear the food is mezza-mezza at best. Summer Shack is pretty much the best nicest clam shack imaginable (and it's also owned by one of the owners of Towne, Jasper White). Dillon's has a reputation for being kinda douchey, but some people dig that sort of thing. Stephanie's on Newbury is better known as a restaurant than a bar, but it's practically an institution (I hear good things about the mac and cheese). There are a lot of other places in the area that I know a lot less about, too. And after it's all over you have to head down to Quincy Market and pick up fries and/or waffles at Saus next to the Union Oyster House -- probably about a half-hour walk or ten minute cab ride. EVDebs (talk) 05:49, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, EVDebs. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 12:23, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Worth an article?

Or just a chuckle? Let my inspiration flow/In token lines suggesting rhythm. 03:01, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Certainly worth a chuckle. If you or anyone else can make it mission appropriate, then it could become an article. I hear they come with a.. "plastic toy", if you know what I mean. --P3A58NT86 04:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Plenty of points in the food woo category that you can add it to. It ticks plenty of bizarre boxes. Sure, tailoring the food you eat to your body, metabolism, activity, goal weight, exercise level etc. is a great idea. But splitting it by sex? That's about as useful as splitting it by star sign. ^postate 15:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

In other news, attempting to improve RW articles based on a similar theme: idiotic and pointless. Making an article on some random internet bullshit: worth considering. --Token Conservative (talk) 05:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Butthurt level: Mega-giga-super-saiyan. Don't worry Hamilton, your time will comeTielec01 (talk)

I'm laughing at you, Hamilton. Real hard. Let my inspiration flow/In token lines suggesting rhythm. 14:19, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Care to explain what that means? --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 12:32, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Meanwhile - 'pasta in appropriate shapes' and icecube moulds are available in 'tourist and similar shops.' 171.33.222.26 (talk) 15:23, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Elite Daily: My first brush with Poe's Law

An old schoolmate of mine posted a link to this article on FB, along with sincere praise of its contents. I had a quick skim of it, came across the sentence "A bad job is like a bitchy girlfriend that gives bad head." and fired back at my friend for approving of such boorish shit. Then I carried on reading and the article pretty much morphed into one of those barroom conversations from American Psycho and by the end was such a mess of thick-headed misogyny, racism and solipsistic "advice" that I realised that I'd been had because there was no way it could have been serious. Except that forty-or-so seconds of Googling seemed to indicate the site and all its content was legit and to be taken at face-value. Has anyone here heard of Elite Daily? Is it for real? Grumblejaws (talk) 17:34, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Looks like pretty standard lad mag fare to me. tl;dr version for those interested. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I skimmed it and I thought it was legit. "Spending your money on women who aren't escorts." Fucking solid. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:09, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

It's written by a former porn star. As far as I can tell it's legit advice from the POV of a genuine dickhead, not any kind of satire. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

It's true: to get and maintain a hetero relationship, one person must always spend a lot of money, and that person is invariably the man. ^{(talk to a)} Nihilist 19:12, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Are you for real? Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

No, that was sarcasm. ^{(talk to a)} Nihilist 19:22, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, sorry. I've just heard guys say similar things too often for real. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I thought it was such a stupid statement that the sarcasm would be extremely obvious… but now that i think about it, i can imagine people saying it. ^{(talk to a)} Nihilist 19:37, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I can't tell if the above exchange is for real or a parody of the thought process I described in my original post. It goes on and on. Grumblejaws (talk) 19:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Will Andy reevaluate his stance on Facebook?

Mark Zuckerberg may be a Republican.

Okay, yeah, it's Alternet, which is one of the loonier leftie sites. But will Andy declare him a RINO or embrace his new brethren? MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 13:59, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Andy who? ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:06, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I say RINO because Zuckerberg is an atheist and no atheist could be a real conservative.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:06, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

RINO for sure, between Mark's atheism and FB having same-sex marriage icons. Polite Timesplitter ^{Let's move on to some other area of sodomy!} 18:24, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

How exactly is Alternet loony? I find they cover rather a lot of ground, and most of it's pretty reasonable. You want loony, try places like HuffPo that actively promote woo. EVDebs (talk) 22:35, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

He's probably getting a very good deal from them, business wise. ^bomination 16:53, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Or globalresearch.ca. That is truly the "loony left." Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:01, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

There has got to be a technicality by which globalresearch.ca can be considered something other than left. Sort of like Lyndon Larouche -- most of his followers lean to the left, but he's just too weird to categorize. EVDebs (talk) 07:54, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Dan Brown

So, what kind of article additions can we expect thanks to this fine novel?--P3A58NT86 18:56, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, no... should we draw straws to determine who has to read it? --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 18:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I looked at it Briefly when i was killing time in a book store sunday, it was sorta boring--^Mikal_lakiM 19:38, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I can't help but think that Dan Brown believes little of what he puts into his books, but thinks the people that take it seriously are hilarious.--P3A58NT86 21:59, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I "acquired" a copy of this book for my kindle collection today... I'll bite the bullet if no one else is going to. His books are a good mindless read between books for work/school. Pdoke2 (talk) 02:41, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll listen to an audiobook while I play video games. –Inquisitor Ehrenstein (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 03:10, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

@Peasant. Is there any particular reason to think that he believes any of it is true? I haven't read the books, though I've seen the movies and to me they are reasonably crafted thriller stories set in a fictitious world where some conspiracies happen to be true. --Damo^Hi 05:10, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The books are truly insane.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 14:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I finished the first paragraph of the synopsis and am already in full agreement with Bob. ^pathetic 16:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Rationalwiki vs. Metapedia

http://www.googlebattle.com/index.php?domain=rationalwiki&domain2=metapedia&submit=Go%21 112.172.220.43 (talk) 04:09, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

There are more dumbasses on the web than there are smart people. Are we supposed to be shocked?--"Shut up, Brx." 05:10, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

But clearly there aren't so many total dumbasses. 112.172.220.43 (talk) 08:51, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Googlebattle only counts the number of mentions, not whether such mentions are positive or negative. 100 people going "Metapedia is terrible and should be banned" is 100 points for Metapedia. Sophie^Wilder 07:49, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

http://www.googlebattle.com/?domain=TV+Tropes&domain2=Metapedia&submit=Go%21 Well, clearly we should all just become tropers. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 10:39, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

For a start, there will be plenty of cached mentions of Metapedia on RW itself that point to the site and will be counted. But conversely, there are very few mentions of RationalWiki on Metapedia, it's combined to one article and its talk page. That's an immediate asymmetry.

The actual activities of the site are remarkably different because the open-editing policy here means that most meta-discussion about RW actually occurs on the site itself. The criticism (of the non-insane variety) usually comes from within in the site, so probably doesn't get counted in the same way, while the praise is people logging in and contributing, which is still fairly high. This is the sort of reason that Wikipedia has the "argumentum ad googlum" in its rules. Basically... so what? ^pathetic 16:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Feds investigating bitcoin exchange

Here's the warrant for seizure of Mt. Gox's accounts. But why is it the Department of Homeland Security doing the seizing and not, say, the SEC? --209.129.173.140 (talk) 03:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Probably a jurisdictional thing. Mt. Gox is based in Japan. Secret Squirrel (talk) 02:41, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

To elaborate, blocking funds from coming in and out of the U.S. falls under Customs, which was rolled into DHS in 2003. That doesn't preclude of course the U.S. Government in its arrogance pretending its jurisdiction is the entire world, which it has a long history of, and doing something like indicting Mt. Gox in a U.S. court or invading Japan. Secret Squirrel (talk) 11:33, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

IRS targeting Tea Party type groups

Am I the only one that thinks it makes sense to put extra scrutiny on tax protest groups bankrolled by billionaires?--"Shut up, Brx." 05:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

What kind of extra scrutiny do you have in mind? If it's anything observable, it's liable to validate the Tea Party's paranoia about Big Government. Also seems like impinging on their right to protest. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 07:20, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

While I agree it is good to discuss whether overt political groups should have tax-exempt charity status, right now it is totally legal to do so. The issue is that the IRS is targeting such groups based on where they fall on the political spectrum in contrast to the current administration; if true, and it is really starting to look that way, this is an abuse of power, no matter what you may politically think of those groups.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 11:56, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

By extra scrutiny, I mean making sure they're doing their taxes right. For example, isn't it illegal for non-profits to endorse candidates?--"Shut up, Brx." 12:26, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

If non-profits are behaving in a way which conflicts with their tax exempt status, they're fair game for investigation. Your first post seemed to be suggesting that they should be investigated because of what they advocate & who funds them, which is on much shakier ground. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:03, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The issue here is how the non-profits are selected for investigation. Brick's suggestion that one should put extra emphasis on tax protest groups bankrolled by billionaires is all very well but it's how you identify those groups. Choosing those with Tea Party in the name is all very well but it does suggest a level of political bias that a neutral body like the IRS should not have. Innocent Bystander (talk) 13:26, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

It also suggests that people who oppose current laws or regulations are automatically under suspicion of disobeying them, which is a very slippery slope. Imagine, for example, if people who campaigned for marijuana legalisation had their homes raided by police carrying out drug searches. Many of them might well be found guilty of possession, but wouldn't it be rather a disturbing reaction to legal campaigning & protest activities? Same goes for targeting tax protesters as potential tax evaders. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:51, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

You're probably right--"Shut up, Brx." 18:57, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm half expecting this to be to large degree of some folks in the IRS saying "Oh, you guys are against taxes and the IRS and then want us to not tax you? Lets see what I can find." Basically, localized pettiness...Ravenhull (talk) 13:49, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Someone who thinks the Tea Party deserves this scrutiny, but the IRS went about it the wrong way --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 14:25, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The IRS was unexpectedly flooded by dodgy 501c4 applications and was at a loss over how to manage them. ...the crime here had nothing to do with “targeting” conservatives. The targeting was effectively done by the conservative groups themselves, when they filed their gratuitous applications. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 19:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'd rather get a non-partisan analysis instead of The New Republic. Osaka Sun (talk) 21:52, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

There may be some such analysis out there, or it may take a while to emerge. Meanwhile, how do you feel about Crooks and Liars? "not quite as evil as [it seems]" Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 23:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

"Shut up, Brx." Osaka Sun (talk) 15:25, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Am I the only one who expected that the IRS is used as a weapon by the ruling party? Because at the moment, it really seems like I am--Token Conservative (talk) 23:48, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Is that what you think happened? That upon election, Obama went to the IRS and said "you see those fuckers here, on the right? Stick it to 'em"--"Shut up, Brx." 01:41, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I feel it is morally wrong even if they do it as a matter of course; for too many it is only morally wrong when the other party does it.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 16:37, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Farage chased out of Edinburgh

Nigel Farage and UKIP got run out of the Scottish capital Edinburgh today by antiracism campaigners. He's complaining he's never had the same reception elsewhere. After hiding in a bar, two taxis refused to take him and he had to leave in a police van in protective custody.

Funny thing is he's starting an Aberdeen byelection 120 miles from the constituency.

He claimed he was given anti-English abuse but which of these is actually anti English? -

• Scum
• Nigel is a bawbag. (scrotum)
• Shove your Union Jack up yer erse. (A British not an English symbol)

UKIP does well in England but has no representation in Scotland.

Funny thing is Ukip's twitter accounts are full of "tartan turd" "skirts" etc. And he wants to abolish the Scottish Parliament.

-Albannach (talk) 00:06, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

What type of "anti racism campaigner" yells "Shove your Union Jack up yer erse" ? We get it, Scotland has plenty of its own nationalists and doesn't want ours, well, we don't much want them either, how about we both agree we don't like nationalists because the politics of tribal affiliation are basically just racism with a nicer logo? Oh, what's that? The Scots keep voting theirs into power? Well now I wonder what that's all about. Tialaramex (talk) 09:30, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

“”…we don't like nationalists because the politics of tribal affiliation are basically just racism with a nicer logo? Oh, what's that? The Scots keep voting theirs into power? Well now I wonder what that's all about(sic)

So by your argument 49% of the UK, and 56% of Tory voters, are racist because they are nationalists who want to leave the European Union^{ICM/Guardian Poll}? Racism does have a nasty habit of cropping up amongst nationalism, but to conflate the two into the same thing is just engaging in an association fallacy. I think I'll describe your argument as both bull and shit.-- ^{Jabba de Chops} 11:07, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

They're related concepts. They're all boiled down to a fear of difference and Outsiders. ^moral 11:45, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Really? Taking that to its logical conclusion, wouldn't that mean that anyone who doesn't support the advent of a global superstate is an irrationally fearful jingoist? Grumblejaws (talk) 12:35, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

No. Hydrogen and Time (talk) 12:50, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

(EC)@Grumblejaws Reductio ad absurdum. @Armondikov I would have to question that nationalism and racism boil down to a fear of difference and Outsiders. As an example, one of the chants the nationalists were using against Farage yesterday was "Immigrants are welcome here. You're (UKIP) not welcome here." ^{BBC News at 1 13:02, 17 May 2013 (BST)} There was also a sign that read:

Sexist
Racist
Homophobic
Transphobic
Parties are
not welcome
in Scotland

These are hardly people who could be accused of a fear of difference or Outsiders, or racism or, as Farage did, facism.-- ^{Jabba de Chops} 13:00, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I'll qualify my last post as referring to anyone who prefers to retain their respective nation's sovereignty over joining a superstate. Grumblejaws (talk) 12:58, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Most trivially (and selfishly), one might prefer to be President of the Obscure Republic rather than Governor of the Province of Obscuria. Hydrogen and Time (talk) 13:29, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

@Stunteddwarf Reductio ad absurdum? Maybe, but the point I was trying to make was pretty much the same as yours, which was that when Armondikov talks about fear of outsiders and difference, I don't think SNP supporters are the stripe of nationalists he/she has in mind. Grumblejaws (talk) 14:28, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

What is Nige's opinion of the Shetlanders'/Orcadians' occasional desire to be 'reverted' to Norway? (Their opinion probably involves Up Helly Aa). 171.33.222.26 (talk) 14:55, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Everybody grab a chair and a bowl of popcorn!

The idiot who runs my city may have been filmed smoking crack. Marion Barry Part Deux? Osaka Sun (talk) 03:22, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

The Star confirms the existence of the video described in your article... Faced with mysteries dark and vast/statements just seem vain at last. 03:58, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

The Star's anti-Ford, but they know better than to post something libellous. NY Times and Reuters have picked up on it too. I certainly didn't think he would go this far. Osaka Sun (talk) 04:04, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

The hits just keep rolling for Ford. Honestly though, I'm kinda pissed that Crack might take him down. In the end, that's a personal choice, but his massive political corruption? Eh, cost of doing business. Kinda a joke. --Revolverman (talk) 02:58, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

UN Blue Helmets

What is it with these reactionary/nativist/whatever they're called groups and UN blue helmets? I can't be the only one who has noticed that they don't like the UN in general, but I've found some some random militia groups and pages on facebook, and it's almost like they get off to this kind of thing. And when I say that, I mean they post pictures of blue helmets with bullet holes in them, do it yourself UN long range targets. They just discuss it regularly. It's very strange to me.--P3A58NT86 03:53, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The UN is a overarching, supranational body that people think is part of the OWG and other conspiracies, thats why. --^Mikal_lakiM 04:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Because peacekeeping. I would argue that the helmets need a darker shade of blue though. Osaka Sun (talk) 04:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The UN is part of the NWO, duh. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

It's an NWO versus national sovereignty thing, not so much the peacekeeping (although they are rather shitty at peaceekeeping, especially in Africa).--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 11:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, UN peacekeepers are just anybody else's troops except they've got blue hats. If the UN peacekeepers are US, they're US troops, but in blue hats. If they're Nigerian, they are Nigerians but in blue hats. You get what you (as a nation) are willing to pay for. A lot of the time in Africa they're African troops that are under-equipped and under-trained, but why are they African troops? Because nobody else would send enough troops. I don't want to excuse anything that individual soldiers have done, but if you want to see a better quality of peacekeeping done, you're going to have to pay for that and there isn't much willingness especially when it comes to problems like Sudan which aren't a real threat to anyone but Sudan's neighbours. Suppose the UNMISS thing goes completely tits up, South Sudan is a war zone, neighbours are flooded with refugees, aid agencies have to evacuate, big mess. So what? Maybe oil prices wobble a bit, obviously all of Sudan's (and thus most of Africa's) disease eradication or control programmes blow out by another decade, millions of people die and so it's sad but it doesn't lose you many votes in New York or Berlin. 84.246.168.11 (talk) 16:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

cp:Michael New may be of interest here. Andy's World History course unbelievably (or believably, given that we're talking about Andy) mentions him too. Godspeed (talk) 20:53, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Longtime part of the New World Order conspiracy theory. The fear is that the U.N. has plans to militarily occupy the U.S. with blue-helmeted troops from a motley assortment of "global south" countries such as Zimbabwe, Angola, South Africa, Nicaragua, and North-by-God-Korea. Mostly brown people, onoz! And the purpose of this is to (1) confiscate everyone's guns, and (2) impose a one-world government, ultimately so the Antichrist can force everybody to take the Mark of the Beast while blue-helmeted brown people behead anyone who refuses...blah blah blah. Secret Squirrel (talk) 11:48, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

There's no moment in life that can't be improved with beheadings --Tweenk (talk) 14:57, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes I wish I was more comfortable with flying and owned a helicopter. That way I could paint it black and buzz the houses of crazy people. EVDebs (talk) 22:52, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Which is all good clean fun until one of them (crazy, remember) Second-Amendments a Stinger. Hydrogen and Time (talk) 09:39, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Dollars to donuts they'd blow themselves up with a Stinger if they tried to use one. --Revolverman (talk) 09:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Feminists, every time I start gaining respect for your movement...

I agree with 9 out of 10 things, but that other 10% has some of the craziest stuff I've ever seen, and it's completely shooting you in the foot. I don't like the idea of condemning the movement, but this is the kind of stuff that keeps me away from. It would do you a lot of good if you would disown these people as feminists.

Image of the Facebook discussion

–Inquisitor Ehrenstein (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 15:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

So you call that one FB post "10%" of feminism? Quit the hate and embrace the positive before I start to doubt your alleged bona fides. ħuman 02:31, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Uh-huh. You're aware that there is such a thing as sex-positive feminism, which is generally pretty accepting of porn and sex work as long as no one is being exploited against their will? EVDebs (talk) 15:34, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware of that, which is why rational feminists should disown these lunatics. This is also what makes Elise a raving, fanatical lunatic. These people make me feel normal. –Inquisitor Ehrenstein (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 15:43, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

^This. Also, hosting the image on your own site and putting it in as a URL? Polite Timesplitter ^{Let's move on to some other area of sodomy!} 15:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Where should I put it? Should I put in here so I can embed it, or is it not relevant enough? –Inquisitor Ehrenstein (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 15:43, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

You could use imgur, photobucket or tinypic like the average human being and link in text like as is always done on the site. And what would you need as evidence that other feminists don't associate with these types? Their is no 'public disowning ritual' for feminism. There's no concrete record of Cathy Brennan being essentially tossed out of feminism but she sure as shit is not popular. Polite Timesplitter ^{Let's move on to some other area of sodomy!} 15:47, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, I already have my own website to upload images, so I don't know why I would want to use another one. Also, I added the text. I realize there is no "public disowning ritual," but other people in that same group could also not tolerate it, plus normal feminists could also be more open about condemning such craziness. –Inquisitor Ehrenstein (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 15:51, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

What, exactly, in that exchange is so shocking to you? Faced with mysteries dark and vast/statements just seem vain at last. 16:07, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

The fact that it's insane, plus the MRAs are going to use it to claim that "all feminists" want to ban porn, which would inevitably cause more people to gather behind them, who don't already know that the MRA movement is entirely BS. –Inquisitor Ehrenstein (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 16:22, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Exactly what quote is "insane"? And what, exactly, is wrong with opposing pornography? It's not a position I necessarily agree with, but I see a logic at work there. Faced with mysteries dark and vast/statements just seem vain at last. 16:27, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I hasten to add that someone can oppose "torture, abuse, and murder of women in porn" without opposing porn as a whole. In fact, I will go so far as to say that is the opinion of most people. Unfortunately this Elise doesn't seem to be doing a good job of seperating the two ideas. Apokalyps2547 (talk) 21:16, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

It's basically what I'm suggesting. Regulation would remove abuse. Any abusive companies would be shut down. –Inquisitor Ehrenstein (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 05:21, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

People who believe that the commodification of human sexuality is inherently abusive would argue that regulation is irrelevant. Also, BP hasn't been shut down. Faced with mysteries dark and vast/statements just seem vain at last. 19:38, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

"Someone said something stupid on facebook, so I lost respect for everyone related to them." You're fucking retarded, you know that? Hipocrite (talk) 17:21, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Why don't the rational feminists speak up? Oh wait... Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:12, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Don't cloud the discussion with facts. Dendlai (talk) 23:37, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

This is tiresome indeed. You're posting a screenshot of a discussion which starts with "thank you for sharing", having cut off whatever is being shared, then most of the rest is you ranting & being vindictive. & Apparently this screenshot supports your argument that 10% of feminism is insane & feminists should "disown" each other? It's not much to go on, + you come off looking like a dick as usual. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 01:04, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Gloria Steinem opposes "pornography" - but she contrasts it with "eroticism". A lot of porn is the world's worst sex-ed. ħuman 02:38, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh please. If you want to talk about the minority of feminists that make the whole movement look bad, it is not someone who cannot separate regular porn from snuff porn.--Token Conservative (talk) 01:36, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

the Geography of Hate

A group called "Floating Sheep" has created a kind of heat map that basically shows where the most racist and discriminatory tweets are coming from. The density doesn't really suprise me. --TechCheese^accuse 21:24, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Addendum: They also included a FAQ. --TechCheese^refuse 21:25, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Holy shit, Hood River, Oregon, what the hell is wrong with you. The only big red dot in my state. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 00:39, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Yep. The most concentrated source of racist tweets in the eastern U.S. is...Boyd Tavern, Virginia? And for homophobic tweets...Romney, West Virgnia? I'm guessing in all cases the source is but one person. Doesn't exactly reflect well on this here neck o' the woods though. Secret Squirrel (talk) 01:15, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Wyoming and Utah look pretty clean... ħuman 02:39, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah what's up with that? Not buying it. Secret Squirrel (talk) 02:42, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Not a lot of people there to tweet in the first place. Faced with mysteries dark and vast/statements just seem vain at last. 02:47, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

What im curious about is the random hate of cripples on one pinpoint spot in south dakota--^Mikal_lakiM 06:28, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, population density skews the data quite a bit. Osaka Sun (talk) 18:34, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Isn't it calculated as "relevant tweets : total tweets" thus removing population density from the equation. (if I read the FAQ correctly) Scream!! (talk) 19:25, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

They should count "Lamanite" as a racist term, then Utah and Wyoming would represent more accurately Secret Squirrel (talk) 22:35, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

What if they're using cripple as a verb? Also, I imagine that this is more of a population map and a connectivity map than it is an accurate assessor of racism.--"Shut up, Brx." 20:42, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Nevermind. After reading the FAQ and some other of their posts explaining the map, I now know that they hired students to discern the context of words, and that the map is scaled is some sort of magic statistic-y way that is beyond my comprehension (or willingness to comprehend), and is not simply reflective of population density. So turns out New England is really, really, bigoted.--"Shut up, Brx." 22:54, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

The problem I have with this survey is that words such as "fag" and "homo" are taken as being homophobic even when they are very often used in a context that has nothing to do with sexuality. I fully accept that their use in a derogatory sense causes distress to many gay people, but saying that they are used in a hateful sense is akin to saying that people must be referring to sex when they say "f**k". Perhaps the terms "uninformed" or "not caring" would be better than "bigot". RyanC (talk) 05:01, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Please read the post (is that word used in a wiki context?) right above you. ^{(talk to a)} Nihilist 05:29, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Woops..... 07:38, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Unconditional election

So I was reading some youtube comment war about religion, and one of the main was people arguing about Unconditional election, and I just... I don't understand how you can argue for both a Just and loving god and the idea that said god chose some people to be saved, and the rest are never able saved. I just... >.< Gahhh <rant over>--^Mikal_lakiM 01:10, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not formally trained in theology but that view doesn't make sense to me. It contradicts the Great Commission, "go and make disciples of all nations." What would be the point of this if it had already been decided who was saved? Doctor Dark (talk) 01:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not a trained theologist either but: There doesn't have to be a point. Whatever his followers say, the God depicted in the Bible is a capricious bastard, there doesn't have to be a rhyme or reason. The Idirans in Consider Phlebas make everybody join in with their religion, not because they believe non-Idirans can benefit (they think it's ludicrous for something with a mortal body to expect to have an immortal soul) but because it's a show of religiosity for the Idirans to make others join in. Like the Jewish thing about not merely obeying God's rules, but making a big show of it so that everybody knows how important it is to obey them. When you see an elevator with a "Sabbath" mode, that's Judaism scoring a point, even if the people who built the lift don't believe, and the people who bought the lift don't believe, and even the people who ride in the lift don't believe, the existence of the mode, the meetings discussing how it should work, the extra lines of code in the firmware, are all points for Elohim and against other imaginary beings. 84.246.168.11 (talk) 11:12, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The most general rationalisation is that God is, by definition, perfect. Therefore any decision He makes is perfect, by definition. It's therefore above any reproach, by definition. Therefore, no matter what God does, it is Good, by definition. God is, by definition, the source of morality, and by definition His actions are Good. Does that clear anything up? ^gnostic 13:15, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, was what you're reading anything to do with this? ^sshole 13:18, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

They can say that Armondikov, but it doesn't make it less bullshit. Furthermore, I bet that most people don't even believe it personally, but ala Dennett's belief in belief, they think it's important to believe that. I would think/hope that if push came to shove, and it could be demonstrated that the christian god acts against happiness, freedom, and the other values of humanism, (esp. for its own amusement and glorification), then lots of followers would agree it's an evil thing and you have no "duty" to obey such a monster. Unfortunately, ala Battered Wife Syndrome, it's too easy to make excuses for the batterer, I mean the god in question. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 20:12, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

And that's why they had to invent an entire subdiscipline of theology dedicated to rationalizing away the problem of evil. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:36, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Michael Mann has been invited to TAM

Heads up: Michael Mann, a.k.a. the "hockey stick" guy, has been invited to The Amazing Meeting. Heads are already exploding in the expected quarters. :D --ZooGuard (talk) 07:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

JREF shouldn't be expected quarters. Osaka Sun (talk) 08:35, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Users on the JREF forums are not the JREF itself. The forum's userbase is more politically diverse than RW's and attracts people with varying levels of skepticism and scientific knowledge, including cranks that don't self-identify as skeptics.--ZooGuard (talk) 09:22, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

There are some good responses to the nuttier comments. I liked the guy whose only post in seven years was to say that he was leaving because of Michael Mann... Doctor Dark (talk) 01:41, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

"Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out" would be a good response. My only question: if we do successfully force the denialists of all stripes out of the skeptical movement to go to Reddit Island or wherever it is they want to wind up, what happens then? EVDebs (talk) 02:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

We can debunk stuff without getting interrupted by morons?--"Shut up, Brx." 02:24, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

There have been previous talks on global warming, although not from a high-profile name in the field like Mann. I expect some denialist/pseudoskeptic panties will be bunched, but I doubt this will cause any major controversy. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:45, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

What are your thoughts on a RationalWiki survey?

We've been poking around about how unreligious we are (or not), debating the state of the current skeptical movement (and our own site's political and philosophical views), and I was wondering if we could devise some sort of census to quantify the diversity of our userbase. What do you think of hot-button subjects like religious tolerance and extremism, feminism, economics, gun control, the energy crisis, abortion, alternative medicine, etc. There's still the perception that we solely exist to counter Conservapedia. Osaka Sun (talk) 04:35, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I'd like to take part.--Spud (talk) 05:44, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Why not. --^Mikal_lakiM 06:05, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I've suggested something like this before. I think most important would be to gather some basic demographics: location, age, gender, & possibly ethnicity & sexual orientation. Then where people sit politically & in relation to religion. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 06:28, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Singularity nonsense.

Ray Kurzweil talks with Suzanne Sommers ^{— Unsigned, by: TheLateGatsby / talk / contribs} 18:30, 20 May 2013‎

What to feel about the current gay marriage kerfuffle in the UK?

As some may be aware of, the recent gay marriage bill is facing opposition and outrage by (you may want to take a seat for this mindblowing revelation) "grassroots" tory activists, whom David Cameron has been desperately trying to hammer into line over this issue. Since this is a genuinely good thing being pushed by a phenomenally unlikable cockwaffle who is only doing it to help gain the youth vote and take any advantage on gay rights away from labour by "delivering" Gay Marriage, is it possible to both feel supportive of him on this issue while simultaneously hoping the homophobic idiots rebelling about this kick the political shite out of him? Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 20:52, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, they'll end up going to UKIP, die a political death, and leave the Tories with far less MP support. At least in theory. --Revolverman (talk) 20:55, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem with seeing the Tory party destabilising, splintering or losing some grassroots support over this, but ultimately don't want to see the homophobic idiots winning as I'd like to see this bill pass. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:15, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

If it's progress and a good thing, I care that the UK government delivers, regardless of party. Though, I can't see how the nutjobs buggering off, leaving us with a fiscally conservative but socially liberal-to-moderate party is anything but good by all possible metrics. I mean, it leaves a fairly viable economic option without the associated social asshattery, and gives us a fragmented Right that would perform very poorly under a FPTP electoral system so they have no chance of getting power for a good couple of decades. ^{d hominem} 23:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Is it bad that I actually feel pity for Cameron? If the Tories are going to start an exodus and prevent him from becoming re-electable, it shouldn't be because he did the right thing. At least he'll have his name in the history books. Osaka Sun (talk) 00:09, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Harper's Government

I knew that they weren't shiny, happy people, but this is a shitty abuse of power.-- ^{Jabba de Chops} 10:21, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

What get's me about Harper is that he isn't too terribly different then say... Mulroney, except that the man is clearly one of the most petty, vindictive men in Canadian history. Everything is personal with him, and he'll try to stomp on single people in large movements his apposed to, just because he is a hateful man. --Revolverman (talk) 20:44, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Mulroney looks like Jesus compared to Harper right now. (I never thought I'd say that.) Osaka Sun (talk) 23:55, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I would vote for Mulroney tomorrow if the Governor-General woke up and decided to dissolve the government today, if it meant kicking Harper out. Ochotona princeps^{not a pokémon} 11:34, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The revolution has failed

Counter revolutionary forces have routed the armies of reason and justice. A shadowy secretive war has been conducted, my email account hacked, and thousands of incriminating emails destroyed by agents antipathetic to the forces of liberty. There is no end to the secretiveness, callousness and authoritarianism of this regime. The truth will be forever silenced, now that the regime have disposed of the incriminating documents that would have directly led to their downfall.

I must now take some time to consider my position. As an arch dissident, and leader of the liberty movement, I have been out maneuvered by a regime I had grossly underestimated. I had pictured them as being the Romanov's in their last month; alas, they have been more like Lyndon Johnson when he took out Kennedy.

Will freedom ever reign again? Will the world ever know justice?

For now, we must reorganise and create a grass roots movement to challenge autocracy. Say no to authoritarianism. Say no to censorship. Say no to hatred.

They may have won this battle, but my war is an eternal conflict between darkness and light. It may be very late and night right now, but dawn is just around the corner. When the sun pierces the horizon and lightens the sky, look above you to the hillside where my glittering army shall be prepared to smite thee, in a torrent of righteous vengeance. Fear not! Liberty will come again!

MARCUSCICERO

"Will freedome vere reign again? Will the world ever know justice?"

Likely not. Sorry. ^{(talk to a)} Nihilist 20:20, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Dont be cruel Nihilist, this is clearly a response to my tragically failed coup to take over Cornwall the past weekend. I would like to thank the anonymous lover of freedom for his sympathy and optimism. Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 20:43, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Everybody here needs new material. --^Mikal_lakiM 21:29, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Does this mean we can finally ban this idiot? Oh, this is still Rationalwiki, where any jackass can do whatever the fuck they want? Fair enough.--Token Conservative (talk) 16:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

MC, if it makes you feel any better, some jackass keeps trying to perma-ban me every so often. --"Shut up, Brx." 19:26, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Hamilton, once again you betray yourself. Your constant and loud declaration that you are indeed a 'conservative' fool nobody, and instead stimulate further debate and speculation about your true motives. Personally, my theory is that you are an ethnic or religious minority who grew up in privileged suburban conditions, predominately alongside WASP Anglo-Saxons. As a result, you've developed the atypical inferiority complexes such people develop in such environments. Instead of embracing your own uniqueness and identity, you crave the false emotionalism that conservatism offers, and cling desperately to the old wealth accumulating practises that so define that most poisonous demographic - the suburban white protestant ideological conservative. Your motives are in question Hamilton, as is your character. MarcusCicero (talk) 20:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

And your continued presence betray's RWs desire to never be taken seriously. Also, Mikal has met me in person before. At the least, I'm white, not that its any of your business.--Token Conservative (talk) 20:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Uh.... what. --Revolverman (talk) 08:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I hate adblock

Adblock, god awful interface. Blip.TV, inability to let me easily unblock it. how do i allow ads on blip, because i've tried what I know how to allow ads on it, including going through the lists and disabling the blocks and blanket allowing on all sites. What the crap am i doing wrong? >.< --^Mikal_lakiM 03:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Click on the icon and choose 'disable on [site name]'. ^{(talk to a)} Nihilist 05:26, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if you white list Blip, it will do that so long as you have Ad-blocker installed. --Revolverman (talk) 05:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

No, that's false. ^{(talk to a)} Nihilist 18:58, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Never heard of that page before. Went there. Tested. Got message that, sorry, can't watch with adblocking. Did "Disable on this page only". Hit "reload". Worked. No reason to hate AdBlock+, the best thing since Ice Cream. Dendlai (talk) 06:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

For the hardcore among us, firefox + NoScript is where it's at. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 09:27, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I use Chrome for everything and keep FF without adblock for situations like this. Faced with mysteries dark and vast/statements just seem vain at last. 14:31, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Or, you know, you could whitelist the specific sites you want the ads to play. It's not that difficult, people. ^{(talk to a)} Nihilist 18:58, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Would you like me to make you a video where i've done just that to no effect?--^Mikal_lakiM 23:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes. I'm very confident you're doing something wrong… or you're using the shitter Chrome version and it doesn't work properly there. ^{(talk to a)} Nihilist 03:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally, there's a Chrome extension called ScriptSafe that replicates the primary functions of NoScript for Firefox (though it is not a 1:1 equivalent). Like NoScript, it requires training to learn what sites you do and don't trust, and so it's a real bitch to surf around for the first month or so as you keep hitting sites that you visit on occasion that don't work with scripting completely blocked. However, since I started browsing with scripting off by default this way, the one time I've had a malware infection was when I basically expected to get something and just had to poke the fire by unblocking that sketchy, unusually-named site in some dusty corner of the net. Ochotona princeps^{not a pokémon} 11:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't know too much about it, but the creator of NoScript IIRC was once asked by google as to what APIs he needed in chrome to implement NoScript. The creator happily supplied a description, and when chrome was released, they were not there. I don't mean to sound elitist, but it's my firm impression that any solution for chrome is technically vastly inferior to firefox and NoScript because chrome lacks the APIs for an add-on or plugin to do the needed intercepts to prevent execution of anything and everything. Firefox has a really interesting architecture where NoScript can intercept anything and everything before it's loaded, and no such API exists in chrome. Or at least that's how it was a few years ago. Maybe things changed? I doubt it. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 20:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Meh, not clear it was intent vs. laziness. Ref [1]. Hipocrite (talk) 20:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Chrome's addon restrictions are its biggest flaw. They could easily allow more freedom to the people who improve your browser for you for free, but instead they placed some bullshit restrictions. Until Pentadactyl and extensions like it can be used in Chrome, it'll never be my nor many other people's main browser. ^{(talk to a)} /ˈnai:ɪlɪst/ 20:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

This pisses me off

And not even because of the possible homophobia angle. If two people are both in highschool and the sex was clearly consenual, what's the fucking problem? What's the harm? Should she be punished — two years house arrest, one year probation, and permanently being labeled a sex offender is the best current option for her — just because 'it's the law' and you have to blindly follow the law with no exceptions or interpretations based on the intent of it? ^{(talk to a)} Nihilist 03:56, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Quick question: if the alleged perpetrator in this case was male, would you have the same opinion?

To be clear, I'm no MRA, I'm just curious as to how some of the folks here view statutory rape laws. Mr. Anon (talk) 04:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. I remember talking to an 18-year-old (give or take a year) over MSN once who said that he had sex with a 14-year-old, and though i was a little weirded-out back then, looking back on it now i'm fine with it… although past fourteen or thirteen is where i even i would draw a line. ^{(talk to a)} /ˈnai:ɪlɪst/ 04:40, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

My own opinion is that this issue clearly works out on a case-by-case basis. However, if we are going to have it addressed by the law, we need to draw a line somewhere. The line of 18 may not be perfect, but the alternative is either another line (which will also have its problems) or eliminating statuatory rape laws altogether. I would hope that if the alleged perpetrator indeed had consent, then a jury would clear her of charges. Mr. Anon (talk) 05:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Lots of courts frown heavily on jury nullification. Juries are usually instructed heavily in such a way as to make it seem like that they don't even have the option. I think you could redo statutory rape laws to allow leeway of 3 or 4 years. It's not that hard. High school kids having sex with high school kids shouldn't be illegal. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 07:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

This is a real sticky one considering how it boils down to "relationship was started when you were both underage, Romeo laws covered you, one turns eighteen, you are now a registered sex offender...while at the same time, laws must have some arbitrariness to them. I think there should be some kind of loophole for situations like this, but if that were the case, how would one provide proof the relationship had been going on prior? Polite Timesplitter ^{Let's move on to some other area of sodomy!} 07:57, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Being an huge LGBT rights activist, I've thought about this one a lot since I heard about it on the radio the other day. To be honest, I would love nothing more that for there to be a case dismissal or a not guilty verdict by the jury in this case. Barring that, though, I unfortunately have to side with the prosecutor's decision to prosecute this case. Unfortunately, from what Norman Goldman was saying on his show at least, the laws are usually written in such a way that, once law enforcement finds out about a statutory rape case, they are bound by law to prosecute them regardless of the wishes of the victim. If you ask me, if people want to be outraged at this case, they should be outraged at the parents of the alleged victim for turning it over to the cops just because they didn't like Ms. Hunt, and not at the police or prosecutors for doing their job.. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 09:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

From someone outside the US, are there different laws for consent between heterosexual and homosexual couples, or is it that the state is being very selective in its prosecutions? Or is it that most parents don't pursue charges when their daughter sleeps with a guy? RyanC (talk) 09:45, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The laws of consent are gender-neutral; they apply equally regardless of sexual preference. From what I understand off of what I've heard and read, the laws are set up the way they are so that, if I am over 18 years old, I can't use my age, intellect, and influence to to groom or coerce a minor into having sex with me (like what a pedophile would do). Romeo laws, from what I've heard anyways, can be applied to these circumstances provided that 1) the age difference doesn't exceed a certain span (4 years by Florida law) and 2) the parents/guardians of the younger child or the child themselves don't file statutory rape charges. Thus, from what I've been led to understand, what caused this case to be prosecuted as statutory rape is not the relationship itself, but that the parents of the younger girl filed charges. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 09:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

You need a Public Interest rule. Prosecutors work for the People generally, not for some axe-grinding parents. If it's not in the general interests of the public to prosecute somebody then the criminal justice system has no reason to touch them at all. So the question for a prosecutor (for which they should be provided illuminating guidance, informed by relevant experts) is whether there's a public purpose. Should be able to get fiscal conservatives to support this because it's an inappropriate use of public funds to persecute somebody's enemies if doing so doesn't serve a wider purpose. Ha, as if. Tialaramex (talk) 20:14, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

@Polite Timesplitter - why not just have the law phrased something like: "Statutory rape is when someone does sexual acts with a second person X who is 4 or more years younger by comparing birth dates, and where X is also less than 18 years old." Voila, problem solved. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 20:27, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I won't answer for Timesplitter, but Bright Line boundaries (your "4 or more ... by comparing birth dates") are generally bad news. If you ask some teenagers how old their potential sexual partners are they will mostly think in terms of school years. A person who is a few days younger chronologically may be treated as "the same" age, a whole year younger, or occasionally a year "older" due to the vagaries of academic years and educational differences. A court though is interested only in calendar years because the statutes are written with bright lines in those terms. In reality, on the ground, any bright line will end up making an ass of the law, at least sometimes. I wrote above about Public Interest rules which can at least restrain prosecutors from deliberately making an ass of the law in this way, but ideally statutes should be written to prefer balance over bright lines as much as possible. Courts are there to look at individual cases, with their own circumstances, bright lines make that harder not easier. Tialaramex (talk) 21:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Fair. Allow me to apologize for lack of clearness. I understood the comment as not understanding how to solve the problem of two 17 year olds, and one advancing to 18 years old. I presented my solution only as an ass-pull to demonstrate how that particular problem is solvable, and perhaps a starting point for a good law. It's not a stupidly simple solution, but I still bet we could get a reasonable "layman" law that covers all the cases in under a paragraph or two. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 22:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Great, it's here too

I had little respect for the local CCM music station my mom listens to before, but this is just horrible. I was a bit shocked when i heard it, as i sort of assumed that purity balls only happened in the South, but no: apparently even liberal Seattle has these things. ^{(talk to a)} Nihilist 04:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

What on earth is horrible about a purity ball? It's just people working to uphold their personal and religious values. It doesn't affect anyone else in any way. RyanC (talk) 09:41, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

It's creepy, mostly. The whole pledging your virginity to your father thing.--"Shut up, Brx." 11:19, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

You seriously don't see anything wrong with "I'm going to marry who my daddy says I can even though we have no idea if we're sexually compatible"? Polite Timesplitter ^{Let's move on to some other area of sodomy!} 11:37, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

It's also a complete lie that parent foist on children who are too young to know better. Lets face it, they're going to be having sex before marriage. The only thing this does is give them guilt about it. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 13:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

And how many mother/son purity balls are there? Is "purity" a thing that only applies to unmarried women? Is it a thing to be pledged to their father? Seriously, The father's protecting role over the daughter’s virginity is emphasized throughout the night. I mean, how fucking patriarchal can you get. I'm almost surprised the poor girls don't have to display their unbroken hymen. Innocent Bystander (talk) 13:58, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure I've seen stuff about somewhere in Africa where they had a committee (of women, but still) to inspect the brides-to-be and that had been subverted into... I think it was either AIDS prevention or some way of fighting FGM. So basically the old moral guardians are now health monitors. It's the old Christian/ Roman trick where rather than stomp all over the local traditions you just tweak them, and then cultural conformance is on your side rather than against you. Tialaramex (talk) 20:34, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Not to mention, abstinence only sex ed never works, and that is the mentality pushed on these kids.--Token Conservative (talk) 20:41, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Worth it?

My laziness/apathy/mild hatred of this site is keeping from just doing it, but there's a documentary called "Pink Ribbon Inc" about the Susan G Komen group. Basically, the Susan G Komen group is using breast cancer for fun and profit. Most of what they do either rakes in money for the heads (with little going to actual research) or does absolutely nothing (like putting little pink monuments around). Oh, and the dye used in the pink ribbons is carcinogenic. Oops.--Token Conservative (talk) 20:45, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Cold fusion

This might be of interest. Note the author - one "Sebastian Anthony", any connection with Anthony Sebastian on CZ?
Note also: "Stay tuned; we’ll let you know when — or if — the E-Cat passes peer review." (my emphasis) Scream!! (talk) 11:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

That's some serious bullshit right there. Someone call Randi! "We attached wires to a BLACK BOX which defiantly had heat producing resistors in it and it got marginally hotter than we expected based on our terrible experimental setup." You know what you do if someone hands you a magic black box and you're a scientist? YOU CUT IT THE FUCK OPEN. Hipocrite (talk) 11:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm totally quoting your last two sentences later. ^{d hominem} 14:15, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

In the Schrödinger article?-- ^{Jabba de Chops} 19:10, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

This is so fucking stupid. I work in a test lab for a living, and I'll tell you this: If a guy strolled in off the street and said "I got this gadget that produces more power than it consumes and-" Before he could finish the sentence all of the scientists, engineers, and techs in my lab would be like "Cool! Let's plug it into itself then!" --Inquisitor (talk) 02:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

binaural beats

My flatmate is on at me to try binaural beats. My extensive research on the subject (I looked on wikipedia) doesn't really tell me much and the RW page isn't much better. Anyone has any clue as to what they are supposed to do and their effectiveness? AMassiveGay (talk) 23:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I think you're supposed to get high from them or something. I suppose it could be related to ASMR, which is at least a thing, albeit not very well understood. But other than that, you're probably getting bullshat. EVDebs (talk) 01:16, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Claims made about binaural beats tend to be so vague that they can be difficult to debunk, although many of the most popular products (e.g., I-Doser) claim to be able to get you high. There are loads of problems with this, of course. While brainwave entrainment (i.e., a stimulus at a certain frequency causing brainwaves to match that frequency) is possible, it is not as simple as these products claim. For one, entrainment does not always cause the brainwaves to match beats precisely. Two, brainwaves are not uniform over the entire brain. Three, there is no precise correlation between brainwaves and specific brain or mental states. Brainwaves are not like a dial that you can just put on different settings, and changing them definitely does not mimic the effects of specific drugs like Vicodin. See this list of brainwave types -- note that there is no "get high" brainwave. Furthermore, many of these products claim that there is a lasting effect caused by entrainment, which is not true. Any effect is gone once the stimulus is stopped. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:03, 23 May 2013 (UTC) (ETA: Incidentally, the same entrainment effects can be achieved through strobing lights. No doubt products based on this will be hawked soon enough.) Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

That would certainly support the hypothesis that it's somehow ASMR-related. Of course, as I said, ASMR hasn't really been studied yet, so it's not entirely clear what's going on there either. EVDebs (talk) 19:44, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

So what, exactly, is ASMR? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:59, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

It's a tingly feeling that seems to be triggered by certain sounds, particularly soft voices and tapping and scratching noises. The name is short for "Autonomous Sensory Meridian Response", which I suppose is as good a name as any for it. There's a whole genre of programming on YouTube dedicated to it, a lot of it loosely inspired by Bob Ross. The funny thing is, it's very popular. Despite lack of formal research, the producers of such videos have gotten frighteningly good at triggering it, and people will sit there for 25 minutes watching someone fold towels for the experience. If I had to guess, I'd say it's probably something distantly similar to ACHOO syndrome, but that's pretty close to a wild guess. EVDebs (talk) 03:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Except ASMR sounds pleasurable. I have photic sneeze reflex reflex (ACHOO syndrome) -- while it's only mildly annoying, it's not something I would choose to have. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Fulfilling my biological function

Ace is breeding. I am sure this is a sign of the End Times. Aceⁱ⁹ 03:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I view having children a lot like falling down a flight of stairs... hilarious when it happens to someone else. Mazel tov. --Inquisitor (talk) 04:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I am looking forward to teaching my child to hate the things I hate. Aceⁱ⁹ 04:24, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Children sound like work. That and the people i have a reasonable shot at dating and eventually marrying dont want kids anyways. --^Mikal_lakiM 04:38, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Aren't you like 17? Things change. A lot. 05:39, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Nutty knows what he's talking about. When he was 17, he never got laid. Now that he's all grown up and making some money, he can afford the finest adult services that Craigslist has to offer. --Inquisitor (talk) 05:52, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations on the biological functions, Ace. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 07:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Congrats. Get as much sleep while you still can.Th. Bernhard_{Das Leben ist ein Prozeß, den man verliert, was man auch tut und wer man auch ist.} 09:12, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Like cleaning the bathroom somebody's got to do it, but I'm not sure it merits congratulations. Have a half-hearted "Great" from me, Ace. Everybody else, humans have long since transcended their mere biological function of copying genes, we are now host to a higher order of immortal self-replicator, all Glory to the Hypnotoad. Tialaramex (talk) 09:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

No-one asked you for your congratulations. How about you go fuck yourself while I jam a broken wine bottle into the weird protrusion you call a face. Aceⁱ⁹ 09:38, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Well done Ace. Me too. Due in mid September. Yours? Damo^Hi 10:31, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Well done? As you'll know, the process to make a baby doesn't take much effort. I'd wouldn't consider it a chore at any rate. Heh. Anyways, hat-tip to you Damo. December for me. Aceⁱ⁹ 10:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe not a chore for you. The milestone they call "birth" is smelly and tiresome in most cases. Some time soon thereafter you may expect a wave of oxytocin to overwhelm your detached equilibrium. From there it's all downhill. Or up. Seldom level. Still, overall, I'd say it's worth the bother. Keep at it long enough, and there may be grandchildren, which call for less maintenance on your part. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 11:19, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Indeed they didn't, and if it wasn't for the two people congratulating you above me I wouldn't have mentioned it. If you're practising being emotionally unbalanced then I guess you're doing pretty good? I would prefer not to have a broken wine bottle jammed into any part of me, thanks all the same. Please recycle. Tialaramex (talk) 13:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

The actual point of existence appears to be becoming Trolldad and raising a lovely Trollbaby - David Gerard (talk) 11:34, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Firstly congrats. Secondly there will now be a legion of people who are going to tell you how it's going to be - and yes, I've just become one of them - and everyone's an expert. Do this, don't do that. Babies need structure, babies need room to express themselves, etc. etc. I'd tell you just to do what feels right but then I'd be another telling you how. Have fun and don't blink or you'll suddenly find you've got a stroppy teenager (is there any other sort). Innocent Bystander (talk) 11:47, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Generally I'm not a fan of other people's sprogs. However, if we have to beat the opposition at their own game, then so be it. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 17:34, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I bet Ace hires a Darth Vader helmet and says "I am your father" when the offspring pops out. Ajkgordon (talk) 17:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

This is Ace – Donnie Darko mask or nothing.-- ^{Jabba de Chops} 19:15, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

May your DNA serve the species well. ^talk 10:45, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Should we be grateful that it's only half his DNA? Steven Kavanagh (talk) 12:59, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

If I end up deciding to have children, this is pretty much how I imagine it. I suspect a lot of you will try to convince me not to. –Inquisitor Ehrenstein (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 03:53, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Have you guys seen the Wikipedia article for Osteopathic Medicine?

Check this out. It barely mentions that the entire theory behind the practice is completely false. The "research" section is the only part that even hints that mainstream medicine doesn't consider osteopathy a real science. It has gems like this, too:

"Doctors of Osteopathic Medicine and academic researchers have conducted preliminary research to determine the efficacy of OMT techniques to manage and/or co-manage conditions such as asthma[26][27] and acute otitis media in children,[28] and pneumonia.[9] In a 2012 Osteopathic Family Physician review article, the authors gave OMT's ability to reduce the use of pain medications in back pain a grade A recommendation. The use of OMT in reducing pneumonia patients' use of antibiotics and length of stay in the hospital received a grade B recommendation; the use of OMT as an adjunct treatment in acute otitis media also received a grade B recommendation.[29]"

Wow, an osteopathic publication gave you a "grade A" recommendation to treat back pain? And a B for treating fucking pneumonia? I want to do something but I have no idea where to start!RachelW (talk) 00:22, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

It's Wikipedia, what do you expect? Osaka Sun (talk) 00:32, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

That I can do this--Token Conservative (talk) 01:41, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

the entire theory behind the practice is completely false There you're assuming that osteopathy (in the US, at least) stills follows Andrew Taylor Still's quack teaching. The modern osteopathic practitioner receives much the same training as an MD, and is just as qualified as one to deal with back pain or even pneumonia. A DO (doctor of osteopathy) does not believe he can cure all the body's ills by manual manipulation. DO training includes germ theory and they are legally just as qualified to diagnose amd prescribe medicine as MDs. Unfortunately, our own article on osteopathy does not reflect this, as Wfg took a huge dump all over it shortly after I released it from my user space. But such is the way of wikis, I suppose.--"Shut up, Brx." 01:55, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

ISTR there were some rather damning (as in, not discouraging of the view that back cracking will fix everything) materials from DO courses made available by one of the other sceptic sites. But I'm going on holiday shortly so I won't be digging that up. Tialaramex (talk) 10:25, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Talk about not making up your mind

Two-thirds believe that there will be a Eurabia-peddling "clash of civilizations" after the Woolwich attack, yet the same amount believe that Muslims are good people.

Nevertheless, the I can't escape the irony of two reactionary ideologies fighting against each other. Osaka Sun (talk) 06:30, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm taking the "clash of civilisations" statement with a very large pinch of salt until I know exactly how the question was phrased; not easy since the Guardian article doesn't link to a source & I can't find that poll on the YouGov website (which is headlining a different poll, showing that 80% of Britons think the majority of Muslims are peaceful). Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 10:34, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Why can't I find a decent monitor?

What happened to computer displays? I used to have a Dell laptop with 1600x1440 screen resolution but monitors and laptops are all widescreen and only the top of the range seems to max out at 1200 pixels vertically? I don't want to watch movies on my PC I want to work without having my vertical real estate eaten up with menus, toolbars, status bars and task bars. As it is I have the Windows taskbar on the left of my screen (which confuses the Indian scamsters when they go through their set script telling me to click something at he bottom and I say it isn't there). Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 09:08, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Just been using one of these last week. As a budget alternative to the Apple Thunderbolt, it's pretty good. Higher resolution ones are more vertical but are rare and expensive. Ajkgordon (talk) 09:39, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, they do seem to max out at 1200px vertical. 1440 is called "extreme definition." This one is 1920x1440 and less expensive than your ASUS. I have no idea whether common Windows laptops would render 1920x1200 +. Macs do fine. Anyhow, I don't think it's about screen real estate but how you use it. I started using a Humanscale monitor arm to rotate my 1920X1200 monitor 990CCW for certain tasks and never went back. It makes editing long documents like briefs and reading anything so much nicer. The Humanscales are the only ones I've found that support the full weight of a 24in monitor, yet make it effortless to move and rotate. It also helps me to use fullscreen mode and use keyboard shortcuts instead of app menus when I need to hunker down. Why not get a dual monitor arm and use a smaller monitor off to the side to put distractions like browsers and music apps, while using your larger monitor for work? At least on Mac a multiple monitor setup will only put system menus on whichever is set as Monitor 1, so you can effectively use your main work app in fullscreen mode on Monitor 2. 15:06, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

So, if can handle a well-worthwhile approx 1-5% chance of getting nothing in exchange for it, I highly recommend you read the various discussions of Korean IPS monitors. You can get what is basically an apple thunderbolt for $350. [2]. I have one. It was perfect out of the box. It doesn't play blu-ray discs because who cares. Hipocrite (talk) 20:23, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Almost found a word I was looking for

Not too long ago, prompted by some discussion here on RW, I wondered (tacitly to myself, since it would have been off topic) if there is a name for the tendency some actual experts have, of considering themselves expert in realms outside their acknowledged bailiwick. Turns out that ultracrepidarianism comes close. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 15:58, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I finally have a term for Michio Kaku! Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 05:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Yep, Michio Kaku in a nutshell. ^bomination 16:16, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! He is now the first example in a new stub. Other examples will be welcomed. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 20:03, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking Dunning-Kruger effect, although that deals with ignorance in general rather than expert ignorance. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:07, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I see the D-K effect as a form of anosognosia, a deficit of perception regarding one's own deficit(s). There does seem to be some overlap with this thing about experts' willingness to extend their self-perception of expertise to subjects they aren't up to speed in. There may be some spotlight fallacy going on as well. If one spends most of one's time doing things with a high degree of competence, reinforced by peer opinion, then the bulk of one's self-sampled (mental) activity may not faithully represent the total picture. Both the Dunning-Kruger effect and ultracrepidarianism hinge on unreliable self-assessment. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 00:36, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

This is cool

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/in-pictures-22657086 Ajkgordon (talk) 08:09, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I had already shared it on the RW FB page. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 08:23, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, that told me. Ajkgordon (talk) 08:33, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

But not here. So don't feel bad. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 08:52, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Damage is done. I feel awful. Ajkgordon (talk) 09:08, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Definitely a cooler interpretation of the raw data ^pathetic 22:16, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Roundup Ready soybean goes off patent next year

Source

It will be interesting to see the reaction to this among the anti-GMO crowd, since one of their very few non-bogus complaints (restrictive licensing agreements) will go away.

On the other hand, Monsanto will no longer be able to dictate farming practices as they now do (for example, when buying Bt seeds, the farmer is required to plant some conventional crop as a pest refuge), so the evolution of glyphosate resistance among weeds may accelerate. --Tweenk (talk) 23:18, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

feminism divide in skepticism and atheism circles

Seriously, wtf is going on nowadays? Let throw out my surely horribly inaccurate understanding of wtf is going on, and I do hope I'm wrong somewhere. So, Lindsay makes a speech at Women In Secularism 2 conference. Off the bat - if he's the CEO, then it doesn't matter he's a white male talking at the conference. If he doesn't go, it could be interpreted as a snub. Here's the text of the talk. http://www.centerforinquiry.net/blogs/entry/my_talk_at_wis2/ The first glance finds nothing horribly wrong. I did see a few veiled jabs at feminism, but minor. IMHO at the very least, it was impolitic considering the background as far as I know. Except one bit. AFAIK, the particularly controversial bit was where he commented on "shut up, and listen". Again, at face value, I have to agree with his comments. On the other hand, it very well could be a strawman position. I read pharyngula regularly, and I don't think it's obviously a strawman of PZ's position. Regardless, still impolitic. Still, like all good idiotic disputes, I think this is quite salvageable at this point, but then people have to dig their holes.

So, Myers replies. http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/05/18/women-in-secularism-is-going-strong/ I think Myers point is very apt. As I said, at face value, I don't think I object strongly to anything Lindsay said. But, the background is that there is a huge campaign of sexual harassment, rape threats, and so on, an amount of hatred directed at women, which is amazing. It astounds me, and in that context, it seems that Lindsay is bending over backwards to try and defend the assholes. That seems like a plausible interpretation. I'm not sold just quite yet, because I'm an ignorant boob. (I think I get sold on it later.) At the very least, Lindsay could have mentioned the insane campaign of hatred against women, and how that needs to stop. Keep everything else, but throw on how there's one group engaging in activities which are wholly despicable, and which needs to stop.

Watson replies. http://skepchick.org/2013/05/the-silencing-of-men/ Talks about some useless pedantics, but basically what I just talked about. See above. At the very least, she wants a simple acknowledgement of the huge problem in the community as opposed to what may appear to be a whitewash. Probably a reasonable position.

Then, Lindsay doubles down on stupidity. This is what made me "choose sides". http://www.centerforinquiry.net/blogs/entry/watsons_world_and_two_models_of_communication/ Watson upped the ante a little, but Lindsay goes even further. Talks about some useless pedantics. He uses some stupid, over the top, hyberbole "It may be the most intellectually dishonest piece of writing since the last communique issued by North Korea.". But then he displays his true position: "But in her defense, perhaps Watson was too busy tweeting about how “strange” it was to have a “white man” open the conference to pay attention to what I was actually saying. (I’m just glad Watson didn’t notify security: “white man loose on stage, white man loose on stage!”)" If you are are professional leader of a diverse community, there is no excuse for that kind of stupidity. Seriously? I mean seriously? You posted that Lindsay?

Am I missing anything important? Is there anything else I should read to be properly informed of this new fiasco? EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 22:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

It feels like we're talking about this in the Bar once a week, and it's getting insufferable. Seriously, who wants to get on with the proposed Elevatorgate article? Osaka Sun (talk) 22:57, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

In my defense, this is a new incident in the ongoing idiocy of humanity. Just want to make sure I have all my facts right. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 22:59, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it seems like there is an eruption of stupidity once every few weeks these days. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:19, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

No one that engages with this issue looks good in the end. Certainly Dawkins, Watson, Myers & Thunderf00t have all tarnished their reputations considerably. In my experience this can often happen when everyone is wrong (or alternatively when the people who are right are right for the wrong reasons); but this is not necessarily the case. I have tried to read articles on what elevatorgate was all about, as I have previously mentioned I was away travelling when it occurred and missed most of the brouhaha. I'm yet to read a satisfying synopsis. Certainly without a working knowledge of feminist thought, experience with the community and intimate knowledge of the event I would be reluctant to create an article that will, in all likelihood, become a lightning rod for the site. However, a well-written article would be appealing to our target demographic Tielec01 (talk) 20:28, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

That's my problem. I don't know enough to honestly and accurately summarize the position, so when I don't, it's invariably going to buttloads of invite criticism. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 21:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

The summary of elevatorgate on the Richard Dawkins article under the Gender Politics header is pretty good, Tielec. You should read that. There are also some references that might explain it in further detail if you'd like.--"Shut up, Brx." 21:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

It's an OK summary of the aspects of the kerfuffle relating to Dawkins. On the other hand, our Rebecca Watson article (deliberately?) doesn't mention the incident at all, which is rather a glaring omission. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I mean, if I were to write it, it would be something like:

• The biggest problem is the insane and absurd abuse and harassment directed at women who speak out about being abused, assaulted, and harassed. That needs to stop. It is not a violation of the principles of free speech to say someone is acting like an unimaginably huge ass, and they should knock it off. It is not a violation of the principles of free speech to withdraw support from organizations that go out of their way to condone, tolerate, support, or otherwise aid such behavior. The values of free speech include the ability to criticize ideas so that we can disregard the bad ones and keep the good ones. The values of free speech were never intended to shield assholes being assholes, and to prevent any reproach or reprimand. They're free to be assholes, but communities should generally not condone asshole behavior, and should shun it to a reasonable degree. (For a more detailed analysis of how this might go too far, see Mill's On Liberty.)
• PZ Myers, Skepchick, and crew, also have some problems. They are miniscule in comparison to the above problem. The "shut up and listen" mean (EDIT:) meme is badly phrased. Yes we should listen to unprivileged groups. No that does not mean we have to accept their criticism as valid without any input from people outside the unprivileged group. The "shut up" part is slightly inflammatory, IMHO unproductive, and implies this mistaken notion that people outside the unprivileged group never ever know better about the issues of people in the privileged group. However, given we currently do a pretty good job catering to the needs and desires of the privileged group, it's about time we show some concern for other groups.
  • I just recently read a great way to think about it. There is no "neutral" way to meet the needs of everyone. Instead, the purported "neutral" means to meet the needs of everyone instead happens to target the average person, aka target the privileged group. Instead, fair consideration should be given to everyone's needs, which requires listening to everyone, figuring out their needs, and trying to distribute limited resources fairly to address everyone's needs.

So, I think that's my position at the moment, and I think both sides would rip me apart from that. Just meh. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 21:23, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

That's mostly true, but there's less need to pay attention to the needs of the privileged because pretty much everyone knows what they are. They've been heard, and they're covered. Rehashing all that is largely a waste of time. It's somewhat like the "equal time" argument from creationists. EVDebs (talk) 22:30, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I think its because the last person to ever be the face of anything, let alone something as dividing as gender politics is PZ and his crew. You need a diplomatic hand to bring up things that most people aren't even aware of I.E. the concept of privilege in society. If you just go around telling everyone how much you're right, and their wrong, then you're going to get shit like MRAs. Those who attack not because they don't like social justice, but because they hate the kinda people who are the face of it. --Revolverman (talk) 23:19, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm a feminist according to the usual definition, someone who wants sexual discrimination, harassment, etc., to end, and someone who acts for that end. It's included in the values of humanism, and I'll call myself both a secular humanist and a feminist. However, if you disagree with some of the pharyngula-"standard" policy solutions to solve these problems, then they label you a misogynist. My experience with commenters there is horrible. One thread was me against the world on a feminist issue, and another on a energy policy issue. Echo chambers both times, no principle of charity, and an adamant refusal to talk facts and do anything but accept "the conventional wisdom of experts" in the energy policy discussion, where they chose the experts and I did not. (Go nuclear!) It's a giant echo chamber in some regards, which is unfortunate. -- PS: In this incident, I don't actually see much of anything I can call PZ and crew out on yet, which makes me happy. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 01:15, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

My sympathies. A while ago I went into the Pharyngula comments on a different topic, with eyes open and what I thought were skeptical credentials in good order. Not fun being their chew toy. They have their own set of unquestioned memes/talking points, and the groupthink is strong with many of the more vocal ones there. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 11:34, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Lindsay issues a half-hearted apology. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

shut up and listen

I don't understand. Is it really that hard to say the following? "Yo people. I'm sorry that I made it seem as though there's not a serious problem of abuse directed at women in our secular, skeptic, and atheist communities. My bad. I understand it's a serious problem, and I was a fuckwit for playing down how bad it was by spending a good deal of time talking about how women use "privilege" and "shut up and listen" to silence opponents, but not a single sentence about how a bunch of assholes are doing far far worse to women and the supporters of women. Again, my bad." EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 22:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I think we have a perfect example of debate only serving to entrench both sides into increasingly untenable positions (albeit one closer to correct than the other). I too find that Pharyngula is increasingly serving as PZs echo chamber and he is growing intolerant of his mistakes being pointed out to him. At this stage I think that the cracks are only starting to show; strident language, polarisation of issues, certainty on uncertain issues and inability to ignore small differences for big similarities. Tielec01 (talk) 00:03, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Here, let me commit a cardinal "sin" or fallacy. I was talking with my brother, who happens to be gay, and I'm not, (as though this is some kind of justification), and when discussing these issues, he volunteered that he dislikes this one particular idea in the "theory of privilege". Namely, it's the idea that people inside the disadvantaged group are always right about their issues and concerns, and people outside cannot ever make useful contributions. It is a meme in the culture, and a lot of us identify "shut up and listen" as that meme. Moreover, it's not a strawman of PZ's position, because I've seen him adopt that many, many times. There is a lot of truth in there, that the privileged group should listen more than they do (and be quiet while listening). I do not dispute this, and wholeheartedly accept it. I even accept that they know a lot more about their issues and problems than I do as a privileged white male. However, if someone wants to say that this means I can never ever contradict someone when they're wrong, if it happens to be a member of a disadvantaged group on a matter about their disadvantaged status, then they can take a hike. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 00:14, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

"Shut up and listen" is a simplification. It's based on the fact that privileged groups have a tendency to think that they are right about everything - based on a colonialist attitude of "we can help, because we're better". Now, that's not universally true, but remember that you're dealing with an intentionally oversimplified, sound-bite version of the point rather than a full explanation of it in practice. The problem is that sometimes supporters neglect that fact as much as the detractors. ^gnostic 16:32, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

If your goal is to use words that the in-group already knows, then it's a great meme. If your goal is to sound like a condescending prick to the out-group, then it's a great meme. If your goal is effective communication to people who do not understand the issues, then it's a horrible sound bite. I'm not talking about not offending people. I'm not talking about the good cop vs bad cop cliche. I'm not talking about worrying about their feelings. I am talking about how you should try to use words that you think will convey your intended meaning to your target audience, and by that standard, "shut up and listen" is a miserable failure. To your target audience, that sounds like they're always wrong, they can have no input, and a member of the disadvantaged group is always right. As a good start, how about "shut up and listen more"? EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 00:18, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Dawkins

Ugg, great, now Dawkins is being pulled into the fray, or entered it, or something. http://www.shakesville.com/2013/05/richard-dawkins-takes-brave-stance.html I thought that Lindsay's speech wasn't that bad until I started thinking about context and how it would probably be perceived. That's my position now with these Dawkins tweets. They don't seem that bad, and I even agree with their literal, at-face value. But the pharyngula commenters disagree: http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/05/24/thugs-in-cheap-suits-are-not-paragons-of-human-rights/#comments And that's where they lose me. Maybe I don't have the context necessary, but they seem to be reading more from what Dawkins has said than I'm willing to admit. I don't think of Dawkins as a sexist asshole. Ugg, I need to go re-read our elevatorgate article and the linked-to articles. I know Dawkins doubled-down for a while before climbing back out of the hole and scrambling back to the right side of the brink. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 22:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Just ugg. Reading some synopses again made my brain hurt. Idiots on both sides keep ratcheting it up. Perhaps there are some moderating voices in there somewhere trying to bring it down, but god damn. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 22:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, it seems that a lot of people still think Dawkins is a misogynistic prick. Did he ever offer an apology or message of some kind that explains his position in a good way? Let me go see if I can find anything... EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 22:59, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Re Elevatorgate? No, he didn't apologise or back down; his attitude was that Watson's concerns about inappropriate sexual advances were trivial because she didn't suffer physical ramifications of extreme misogyny like women in Muslim cultures do. The relevant quotes covered are here. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:58, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

If you want to start an argument/discussion over this, I'll be more than happy to oblige, but in this case I find myself understanding Dawkins to clearly mean something other than what you say with his gum chewing example. However, I also understand your alternative interpretation, which is also a common interpretation, and perhaps a fair interpretation, but I think it's also clearly not what he intended. Regardless, I do agree that Dawkins handled the whole thing horribly, just like Lindsay here doubled down on stupidity instead of trying to talk it through reasonably. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

What Dawkins said reminds me of the people who make "first world problems" memes. Just because there are worse problems doesn't mean that lesser problems aren't problems. Every time I see someone make one of those, I suspect that they hold the same closeted views about rape victims in western countries. –Inquisitor Ehrenstein (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 04:16, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

There must be a fallacy somewhere in assuming subjective experience can be ranked objectively. It's like saying hitting your thumb with a hammer doesn't hurt because you weren't strapped down and tortured for months on end with paper cuts between your fingers and cocktail sticks rammed under your fingernails while your balls are being... well, you get the picture. That was Dawkins' problem. Watson's problem was to go straight for the "old, white, male privilege" card rather than explaining this. Because, frankly, as a skeptical thinker she's just not that good. ^pathetic 16:40, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

That's a good point, except you get kids crying about getting black iPhones, or 14 year old girls who kill themselves because they get made fun of. I want to lose my shit every time I hear about that. If you understood what I went through, maybe you would realize why it's offensive. –Александр(а) Ehrenstein (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 16:50, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

PZ

Just.. why can't I have nice things? It seems PZ was kind enough to tell me that I'm a failure of a human being. "You have failed if the person you’re interested in calls your behavior creepy. That's where you need to step back and re-evaluate: you did something wrong. Decent Human Beings do not blame the other person, they recognize that they screwed up, accept their responsibility, and decide not to ever do that again." I am the creepy person, and I don't know why. I am a failure of a human being by his standards. Thanks PZ! The annoying part is that PZ would be the first to tell a theist that their feelings of outrage for being told they're wrong are unreasonable, and he would support the speaker. So, in this case, we have an example where an offensive person is justified and good, and the offended person has an unreasonable expectation. But, change this to dating, and PZ says it's always the creepy person's fault, no exceptions. Just uggg. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 23:16, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

PZ is often unnecessarily inflammatory. You can behave and speak inappropriately to other people but the lines are never clear. Misreading the interplay of cultural, psychological and environmental factors and behaving slightly inappropriately is not failing as a human, it's being a human. Having said that, if the object of your affection does find your behaviour creepy you should probably reassess your behaviour or, if it turns out that they are just being neurotic, then you should reconsider your affection. Certainly they wouldn't be the first person to complain about romantic attention whilst secretly enjoying it. Tielec01 (talk) 23:57, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

EL, you seem to be taking this old blog post from nearly two years ago very personally, while, unless you were one of the people who posted in the original conversation, that comment wasn't directed at you. Why does it offend you so much? Do you actually identify as a "creepy person"? & I don't see where you're going with your religion analogy - surely telling somebody whose behaviour you find creepy that you find their behaviour creepy is at least as justified as telling somebody that you don't like their their religious beliefs. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:48, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I see no difference between telling someone that they're being unreasonable being offended by religious talk vs telling someone that they're being unreasonable being "creeped out" by being hit on. How we make determinations of whether this is reasonable or not is by the values of humanism, and by cultural norms. Consequently, there are some cases where someone is unreasonable offended by religious talk, and there are some cases where someone is unreasonably creeped out. PZ says otherwise, and I see rank hypocrisy here. And yes, I identify as a creepy person, or at least completely socially inept, and I have been told that I am creepy sometimes, including by my sister. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 01:30, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I gave up reading most of these blogs because of the groupthink which inevitably develops. There's an analogy with CP where Andy became more deranged by the acolytes sucking up to him all the time; to maintain a degree of level-headedness you need to be challenged and taken down a peg or two, otherwise you end up with a messiah complex. I don't believe Dawkins to be a misogynist, nor a racist or homophobe but if you are a white heterosexual male you are inevitably going to say something that might be misinterpreted by the other side because you have a different POV and the issues have a different weight. Also words and phrases have subtly different meanings for each of us and sometimes these get blown out of proportion. People shouldn't be pilloried nor be obliged to apologise for every slip of the tongue, but there's usually a self-righteous cadre who inevitably turn hysterical. [Is hysterical a misogynistic term? Fuck, now I've got myself worried.] I like to think I'm an easy-going type and it gets up my goat when people deliberately take offence and scream BLASPHEMY! Генгис^unbelieving 08:08, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Hoorah! I was actually just creepy again. Apparently I creeped out one of the girls at DND by saying I want a gf like her. I was rather oblivious. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 02:55, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

That is a bit of an odd comment. Also, why would you not ask her out? Why would you say you "want a girlfriend like her?" I can actually see a bit of a relationship forming problem here, which is progress. You should also not identify as a creepy person. If you identify as one, you'll end up doing more to become creepy. It will also stop you from being confident. Even if you are creepy, you should not act like it, though on some level you should acknowledge it enough to work toward over coming it. There are some people who will think you're creepy when you're not, but in general, if people find you creepy, it means you need to change something. What in particular do people find creepy about you? –Inquisitor Ehrenstein (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 03:39, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

... I think you really need to consider the possibility that you are in fact creepy - David Gerard (talk) 15:27, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

A request for better writers.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/User:Revolverman/F35

I got the rough outline of this page done, but I know I can't write worth shit. I'm asking the more skilled people here to re-edit it into something that can go on mainpage. Thanks! --Revolverman (talk) 10:57, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I did a bit here and there, including a little bit of Wikification. What interested me was the point that helicopters are the way to go. Now I know the Osprey isn't quite a helicopter, but is it actually a good thing in spite of its 'troubled' history? I always had it down as being one of the biggest money-sinks of all time (I don't really know about these things and didn't know about the F-35 until today). Gomer (talk) 17:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Jeez, I forgot about the Osprey. Regardless of its problems, however, it was only $50 billion. With the F-35 we're dealing with +$300 billion, and that's just procurement. Osaka Sun (talk) 21:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Theres far more Helicopter gunships then the Osprey. The Apache is a great example of an aircraft that does what the F-35 does (at least its ground jobs) better, and at a cost of pennies compared to the F-35s. --Revolverman (talk) 23:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Why again do we need this?--Token Conservative (talk) 01:36, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Tax money waste, Military-Industrial complex, incompetent government, the power of lobbyists, worship of military force, the status of the power of the United States, Take your pick my friend. --Revolverman (talk) 03:27, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

The F-35 is the DOD's equivalent of "too big to fail." Osaka Sun (talk) 04:29, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Too big to fail--"Shut up, Brx." 05:24, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

That's nice, but how does it relate to our mission?--Token Conservative (talk) 15:44, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement. Documenting the full range of crank ideas.

The jet was build with outdated, and obsolete ideas that were relics of the cold war. Seems cranky to me.

Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism.

The massive waste of money on a military toy that no one needs? Sounds like military authoritarianism to me.

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

The fact that the media gladhanded this thing up untill a year and a half ago, and some still do, to "preserve American power"

Seems on topic to me --Revolverman (talk) 20:19, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Seems to me like you're trying to justify wasting time. --Token Conservative (talk) 20:38, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, sorry you feel that way Hamilton. --Revolverman (talk) 20:48, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

The mission statement is either a holdover from RW 1.0 or was probably slammed out in a half hour back in 2007. It's not the Holy Bible of RationalWiki. Yes, we have a "core set of articles" focusing on pseudoscience, particularly creationism and alternative medicine, but there's no harm in also allowing explorations of irrationalism (ignoring for the moment the inevitable fight over what "irrational" is) in its many permutations, including in public policy. You can't force editors to write about core material anyways, so it's not like the coverage of bad public policies is going to magically suck time or space away from it. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 21:50, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, what's that, our mission statement isn't some unalterable law of the universe, and anything that isn't 100% completely within the mission statement doesn't need to be purged with fire? What a novel fucking concept!--Token Conservative (talk) 19:55, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, come on. We can't have our two right-wingers fighting each other! --"Shut up, Brx." 20:39, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Just because there's no use for air superiority fighters now means that there won't ever be. Good one on that conclusion there... –Inquisitor Ehrenstein (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 04:00, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

The two of us are probably the only ones who even know what an air superiority fighter is. Why waste your time?--Token Conservative (talk) 05:52, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I know what an air-superiority aircraft is, and I wouldn't quite put that designation on the F35. Lockheed at one point tried to pimp out that idea, but most industry insiders consider it a multirole aircraft. --Inquisitor (talk) 21:06, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Rich liberal kids often tend to talk about things they don't know shit about. –Александр(а) Ehrenstein (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 18:38, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Yup, you are right. I don't know a damn thing about the F-35, or what it means to be an air superiority fighter. Except, of course, that I am and have been intimately involved in the F-35 project!!!! The fallacy in your bullshit is when you call it an air-superiority fighter. The F-35 is not, nor was it ever supposed to be a such a thing. Rather, it was supposed to be the Joint Strike Fighter version of the F-22. What this means is that, while the F-22 is sooooo classified that they can only be made for the USAF, the F-35 JSF was originally supposed to not only be cheaper than the F-22, but it was supposed to be more economical for Lockheed than the F-22 in terms of return on investment and, more importantly, it was supposed to be technology we were supposed to be able to export to other branches of the military and, more importantly, something we could sell to other, allied militaries. The myth of it being an air-superiority fighter is clearly something you pulled out of your ass. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 08:47, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Surprise me if either you or Hamilton have spent more time than I have pulling G's in steep turns. Simulator time doesn't count. Not rich, not a kid, probably not liberal, but I don't consider it an insult, either. Tell me again about this shit you know so much about. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 21:59, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

So, I just missed something. What the hell is going on now?--Token Conservative (talk) 22:31, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Um you realise the two engine thing is leftover propaganda from when the navy wanted to justify the F/A-18 Hornet?Geni (talk) 21:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

You also realize that the two engine controversy was, from the standpoint of the aerospace industry, a real battle between Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin/Boeing because Northrop Grumman wanted in on the pie? Moreover, it is a little know fact (in non-engineering circles, at least) that the F-35 master blueprints are revised almost daily. From an engineering standpoint, at least, having a model that is this old and that constantly needs revision updates is unacceptable. Moreover, the F-35 is the only airplane if its age (from build) that still only allows operation by test pilots. Not even trained fighter pilots are allowed to fly it, and this is after an half-decade of being in "test" phase. Highly irregular for any aircraft, let alone a supposed next-gen fighter jet and totally in contrast to AS-9100 standards. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 09:08, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

"Rich liberal kids often tend to talk about things they don't know shit about." I really hope that comment wasn't directed at me. --Inquisitor (talk) 23:34, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't directed at anyone here. There are some rich White kiddies who act like they're experts on shit because they took a class on it, or they spent a week researching it. That doesn't make them an expert. <sarcasm>We should replace everyone in the government with kids in college since they seem to have all the answers to all the world's problems that none of the people in power have tried!</sarcasm> –Александр(а) Ehrenstein (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 05:25, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. Perhaps next time you could be a little more specific with your generalizations. --Inquisitor (talk) 08:32, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Ads on blog?

I just grabbed some net time and posted to the blog, and saw ads in places I damn well shouldn't have. There should be no advertising whatsoever on the blog. Is anyone else seeing any? (I looked through the WordPress files and couldn't see any new or changed files.) - David Gerard (talk) 20:05, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

You should put a link to the blog on the main page. Then I could see if there are any ads on the blog--"Shut up, Brx." 20:33, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Clue provided for your convenience. No ads seen. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 23:07, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I see no ads from my end, either. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 05:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Neither can I. Spud (talk) 06:07, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

FWIW neither can I. What platform were you using? I presume it was you home PC and not some publicly accessible terminal. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 08:42, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Nope. Seeing nothing either. ^gnostic 16:14, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe you've got adware, Gerard. Also, I'm serious about putting a link on the main page. I was just gonna do it, but the main page is all this wacky html markup I don't understand. Hell, for all I know, it may not even be html. As if I could tell the difference between kinds of markup languages--"Shut up, Brx." 19:11, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Brx, why don't you look at the left of every page on the wiki and see if you can see something that looks like it might be to the blog - David Gerard (talk) 14:38, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

This just did in this political view for me

I just saw on Love-Shy.com that most of their members are apparently "left/libertarian." I realize it's stupid just to give up political beliefs because of who has them, but I was already really close to Marxist tendencies and I generally have an authoritarian first reaction to things. Plus I have concerns about how "left/libertarian" views could influence one's personality. It seems like much more of a loner belief that something that values collectivism. My only aversion to Communism has been that it's constantly failed; I'm sure there's some way that it could work. The argument can be made that Capitalism can't work without abuse and exploitation, yet the US has worked on solutions to that. –Александр(а) Ehrenstein (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 19:12, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

This doesn't read like somebody with a coherent political ethos. Maybe you do, but you're not explaining or justifying it very well. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:45, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

So... what are we meant to take away from this?--^Mikal_lakiM 21:34, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Ennui. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 21:45, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Pro-tip: Don't base your political views on what people say on some random internet forum. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:08, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I realize that. It's still unsettling to see that the those people support your political views closely, even though it's a Godwin-association fallacy.

About not having a coherent political ethos, I have a problem with that. I have the rational "real" beliefs that are based on down to earth facts, and then I have the instant reaction political beliefs, which are generally authoritarian. Plus I don't fit in with any established political system. I favor what would be libertarian for the majority of people, but I also support heavy taxation of the 1% and free heath care, if that's possible. –Александр(а) Ehrenstein (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 03:22, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I can't remember, who was it that said that they can't be a feminist because of what one of their facebook friends said? Oh, right, it was you, you total fucking nitwit. Hipocrite (talk) 17:55, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

The Obama-Christie bromance gets even funnier

If he keeps this up they're going to kick him out of the next RNC. Osaka Sun (talk) 18:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

And why would they kick Obama out of the RNC? Innocent Bystander (talk) 15:28, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh happy day! Oh happy day!

The wicked witch of Minnesota's east is not seeking re-election! Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 09:32, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Bachmann? Running away from something? It's like a pattern of behaviour or something. ^{Jabba de Chops} 14:51, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm just disappointed she's not quitting mid-term like other wingnuts. --Seth Peck (talk) 15:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Bachmann has her pension, and now she can work for FOX News full-time, so she must be happy as a pig in shit. What worries me is her successor. Her district may find another nut-job -I doubt it will go Democrat. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 15:33, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

You forgot about the lipstick. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 16:12, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Bachmann's pension is worth less than $24K/year (1.7% of base salary * 8 years of service). Now, that's about what I make working full time 40+ hours a week, so I wouldn't dismiss it as chump change - but someone in her position probably would. It's a MASSIVE drop-off from her current $174K/yr salary, and insignificant compared to her potential earnings from FOX News, speaking fees, book sales, etc. I seriously doubt that vesting in CFERS entered her calculations at all.209.188.42.183 (talk) 20:54, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I dunno, the last election was pretty close. --Seth Peck (talk) 15:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd say Bachmann is more WND than Fox News--"Shut up, Brx." 21:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I doubt Fox will hire her. They woudn't much care for a show host to bail 2 mins before camera time. --Revolverman (talk) 03:22, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

NWO FEMA IRS jews

Why do people who are part of the militia movement think there is a FEMA/EPA/conspiracy against them anyway? Have any of them developed their theory past "they want to take our freedoms"? It would seem, that if this were true, there would be a motive for doing this. I can't get any of them to spill this motive, other than "because they hate americas values, etc"... How dumb to they think their imaginary enemies are?--P3A58NT86 01:12, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

If you ever noticed, our fiction is often full of stories of unquestionably good characters/groups fighting off unquestionably evil forces. The good characters are good because they're good, and the bad characters are often so laughably evil that there is simply no justification for their actions. Contrast this with the real world, where the majority of the time the bad people still have something resembling a justification, which allows them to acquire followers and stay around for a while. For example, Osama bin Laden. It is my conclusion, therefore, that conspiracy theorists are simply people who cannot distinguish reality (moral ambiguity) from fiction (Hitler and bin Laden are conspiring to kill Jesus because lolynot?)--Token Conservative (talk) 01:30, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Not all of them believe there's an actual conspiracy, it just serves as a placeholder rationalization for their own desire: which is to run around in the woods playing army. Look at the guys who do Civil War reenactment, do you think all of those guys are voracious historians? I'm sure you'll find that a sizable number of them are just looking for an excuse to run around in the woods playing army. Basically it's for guys and gals that take themselves too seriously to go play paintball. --Inquisitor (talk) 01:59, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

What does that say about World War III reenactors like the Fulda Gap crowd down in NC who actually do play paintball while pretending to nuke Europe? EVDebs (talk) 06:53, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Where to put this?

Apparently we don't have an article on the Irish Potato Famine, and there's no chance I'll make one myself. I even had a funny comment!

During the Irish Potato Famine the Ottoman Empire (you may know them as the dirty Muslims that fought against the British and Americans during WWI) tried to provide humanitarian aid to Ireland in the form of food and cash. Let me repeat that: What is now Turkey, Iraq, the Levant, and a large chunk of Saudi Arabia tried to provide humanitarian aid to a Western region, a generation before trying to kill the British, and while the British were actively trying to destroy that country. Oh, and the British tried to prevent the Ottoman food aid because "they weren't expecting it", so the Ottoman's bypassed the British and illegally distributed the aid north of Dublin

--Token Conservative (talk) 02:49, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Where is this funny comment? ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 07:14, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, I thought it was clever.--Token Conservative (talk) 07:29, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

That fits in Charity --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 20:19, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Of all the... why the hell do we have an article on charity?--Token Conservative (talk) 03:53, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

It addresses fundamentalists and their poorly-implemented charities -the article needs work (like most articles) but it's on-mission. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 16:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Unblock the unjustly blocked !

Fellow comrades, what you are doing is wrong. Blocking those of a free voice and mind is something a regime would do not an open and libertarian website such as this would do. Or am I do gather that this is now a totalitarian website ? ATF (talk) 04:55, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

MC... Osaka Sun (talk) 04:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Why must you pontificate about the supposed patronage of I/Us and get on with unblocking the unjustly blocked ? Are you really saying that you support the methods of Syria and North Korea or the actions carried out by Hitler and Stalin ? ATF (talk) 05:12, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

This is not a libertarian website. That would be Love-shy.com. We operate on Headless Chicken Mode. –Александр(а) Ehrenstein (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 05:18, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Please shut up about Love-shy.com. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 07:20, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I shall be reporting these undemocratic actions to the European Union, the United Nations and the Jedi High Council. ATF (talk) 05:21, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Don't forget the FBI & the Florida Department of Agriculture. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 07:20, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm tempted to drop banhammers. Is this guy one of those people we get like Marcus Cicero? –Александр(а) Ehrenstein (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 06:46, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

That's your "authoritarian first reaction to things" coming out. It's not a good thing. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 07:20, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I recommend against oversimplifying it as "I know it's wrong because it's ridiculous and it's just a first reaction." It's more of a strong feeling that at some level I want to be true, or act as though it is true, but being realistic, I also know at some level that it's total crap. I'm also not always consciously aware of this at every moment. –Александр(а) Ehrenstein (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 19:12, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't really see what Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms has to do with anything, unless you intend to arrest Ace. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 07:47, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Just like prisoner exchanges during the Cold War... I'm willing to trade a few unblocks for the unjustly blocked, for the blocking of the unjustly unblocked. --Inquisitor (talk) 08:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

How about you not handle the hostage negotiations. Ochotona princeps^{not a pokémon} 09:21, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Gone

Jack Vance died. Loved his command of words. Scream!! (talk) 22:29, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

A real shame. I also really enjoyed the way he wrote.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 08:10, 30 May 2013 (UTC)