|
Nominations and Campaigning for the 2024 RationalWiki Moderator Election are now open |
RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive202
Winning demographics, according to Phyllis the elder[edit]
Not sure if this is WIGO-worthy (blogs?) but Phyllis Schlafly says the US right wing needs to get more white people to vote. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 17:01, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- Already in the Clogs. --Seth Peck (talk) 17:04, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- Oops. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 17:05, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Cue CMI jerk-off session in 5..4..3..[edit]
..2...1..The frozen remains of a mammoth have been discovered on an island north of Siberia -- with blood that is still liquid.!!! Young Earth Creation FTW! Acei9 21:21, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- They really don't have any ground to stand on, since this is still "blood that should be frozen for 4,000 years" rather than since whenever the iceage was.--Token Conservative (talk) 22:33, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Suckers[edit]
You really have to wonder at the gullibility of some people. But I guess that's one of the reasons people need RationalWiki. ;) 
ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.
17:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- What the holy fuck! We get these calls several times a week, and I always wondered what happens if you were dumb enough to fall for it. But how the hell do you get taken for 64K to fix your fucking computer? Even if you don't realise it's a scam, surely after 500, you'd think "well, shit, I could buy a new computer. This shit isn't worth it." Some people really deserve everything they get. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 18:12, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- I've managed to string one of those calls along for long enough that the guy on the other end of the phone accused me of wasting his time, told me to fuck off, and then slammed the phone down. Best part was that I was in the bath at the time and didn't try to hide the splashing sounds.--
Jabba de Chops 21:23, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- I never quite appreciated how thoroughly the phone monkeys must be in on the scam before now. I always thought they were just peons who were doing what they thought was a slightly dodgy job for relatively decent cash, kind of like double glazing salesmen. That would kind of justifies how adamant they are that they're not filthy scammers when you accuse them. I always thought they'd just direct you to download dodgy.exe from mstechsupportnoreallythatswhoweare.com and the real crims would then use your handily trojaned PC for crime, plus steal your CC details next time you went shopping. It never occurred to me that they'd be extorting money from you then and there on the phone. How on earth do they find so many people with so few scruples about stealing people's cash? --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 21:37, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, a bunch of MBAs decided to cut scruples from the budget. They just drag a business down anyways.
Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 23:07, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- I got this call once. With hindsight, I should have got my voice recorder out and trolled the fuck out of them.
moral 12:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- I got this call once. With hindsight, I should have got my voice recorder out and trolled the fuck out of them.
- Sorry, a bunch of MBAs decided to cut scruples from the budget. They just drag a business down anyways.
- I never quite appreciated how thoroughly the phone monkeys must be in on the scam before now. I always thought they were just peons who were doing what they thought was a slightly dodgy job for relatively decent cash, kind of like double glazing salesmen. That would kind of justifies how adamant they are that they're not filthy scammers when you accuse them. I always thought they'd just direct you to download dodgy.exe from mstechsupportnoreallythatswhoweare.com and the real crims would then use your handily trojaned PC for crime, plus steal your CC details next time you went shopping. It never occurred to me that they'd be extorting money from you then and there on the phone. How on earth do they find so many people with so few scruples about stealing people's cash? --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 21:37, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- I've managed to string one of those calls along for long enough that the guy on the other end of the phone accused me of wasting his time, told me to fuck off, and then slammed the phone down. Best part was that I was in the bath at the time and didn't try to hide the splashing sounds.--
Going Galt now a reality[edit]
Galt's Gulch is appropriately located in Chile. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:14, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- Ah, a modern take on an age-old real estate scam. I wonder if he'll manage to con anyone out of half a mil. Maybe we can tell TerryH? --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 22:34, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- Almost forgot -- obligatory. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:37, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- Maybe this will kick Reddit Island into high gear. narchist 12:50, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- He neglected to mention the real reason he picked Chile... they murdered their communists. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 13:25, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- Maybe this will kick Reddit Island into high gear.
- Almost forgot -- obligatory. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:37, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
young earth creationism, old or recent cultural idea?[edit]
I've always wondered if people in say 200 or 300 AD took Genesis as a literal account. I suppose that most people couldn't even read it made things interesting, but I've heard it said sometimes that young earth creationism ala a straightforward "literal" reading of the bible is a recent cultural idea, and beforehand it wasn't taken to mean what it says it says. Does anyone have any good links on this one? Our young earth creationism page doesn't cover it. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 01:24, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- The earth is only 6017 years old according to the Ussher chronology
, which is based on earlier biblical chronologies. The pseudoscientific trappings of YEC (e.g., baraminology) are recent inventions, but the idea of a young earth is...old. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:49, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- Augustine of Hippo (354–430) wrote of the need for reason in interpreting Jewish and Christian scripture, and of much of the Book of Genesis being an extended metaphor. Other parts, it says there, he took literally. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 01:56, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- We can easily fall into the trap of looking at early ideas through the lens of modern knowledge. Before systematic studies of stratigraphy, paleontology, etc. there really wasn't any reason for people to suspect that the Earth was older than a few thousand years. My recollection is that the first scientific estimates of the age of the earth were based on the time it would take for the planet to cool from a molten state, but even these estimates were very much shorter than present accepted values. Doctor Dark (talk) 03:10, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- Wrong. For a long time, geologists knew the Earth was a lot older than a few thousand years. Later, Lord Kelvin used the new the calculus and his heat equations to put a maximum age of a non-molten Earth, which was still quite a bit longer than thousands of years, was also quite a bit younger than what the geologists were saying it was. (And then we discovered radioactive decay, and all of science was happy and concordant.) EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 03:13, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- Were there such geologists in 200-300 AD, per the original question above? I'm not a geologist (or even a physical scientist) so I'm not aware of the historical development of geology. Doctor Dark (talk) 03:42, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- Wrong. For a long time, geologists knew the Earth was a lot older than a few thousand years. Later, Lord Kelvin used the new the calculus and his heat equations to put a maximum age of a non-molten Earth, which was still quite a bit longer than thousands of years, was also quite a bit younger than what the geologists were saying it was. (And then we discovered radioactive decay, and all of science was happy and concordant.) EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 03:13, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- We can easily fall into the trap of looking at early ideas through the lens of modern knowledge. Before systematic studies of stratigraphy, paleontology, etc. there really wasn't any reason for people to suspect that the Earth was older than a few thousand years. My recollection is that the first scientific estimates of the age of the earth were based on the time it would take for the planet to cool from a molten state, but even these estimates were very much shorter than present accepted values. Doctor Dark (talk) 03:10, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- Augustine of Hippo (354–430) wrote of the need for reason in interpreting Jewish and Christian scripture, and of much of the Book of Genesis being an extended metaphor. Other parts, it says there, he took literally. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 01:56, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
There was no real concept of geology as a science until Comte de Buffon in the 1700s. He suggested suggested the Earth might have formed about 70,000 years ago with material ejected from the Sun caused by a passing comet. In the 1790s Scottish farmer James Hutton after observing erosion of his fields came up with the idea of deep time, i.e. that the Earth must be many millions of years old and that inexorable geological processes progressed at a very slow rate. His ideas were formalised by Charles Lyell into the first real geology treatise. Kelvin's calculations for the age of the Earth cooling from a molten state put an upper age of the Earth at about 100my but that was before the discovery of heat from radioactive decay. Until the early 1800s all you needed to know about geology at university was covered by the Book of Genesis. Historically, interpretation of the Bible was controlled by the Catholic Church and access to even the educated laity was restricted to those with a knowledge of Latin. Martin Luther thought that the Bible should be accessible to all and the rot set in when it was printed in English. From then on people were free to make their own interpretations; that's the start of all those new religious movements like Puritanism and it snowballed into modern YEC from there. ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 06:16, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- Nothing quite like modern Christianity exists in 200 AD. The canonical "Bible" texts are still being assembled, probably some of the ink is still drying on the later additions to major New Testament material. The text of the Genesis story exists of course, because that's required for the somewhat older Judaism, but well, do you see Jewish fundamentalists going on about how the world is only a few thousand years old because God says so? I'd guess that if you went to temple in 200 AD and asked how old the world is you'd get a poetic answer, not even a pretence at a literal truth. Some nonsense like "Older than the wisdom of Man". Tialaramex (talk) 08:21, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'm curious if anyone actually followed all those laws in Leviticus. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 15:00, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- Martin Luther thought that the Bible should be accessible to all and the rot set in when it was printed in English. From then on people were free to make their own interpretations... I'm not sure the residents of 17th century Geneva, Amsterdam, Massachusetts, ... would agree. It's important to remember that the Calvinists and Lutherans were as nasty to each other as the Catholic Church was to them, and absolutely everybody persecuted the Anabaptists. Also, although English may have been good enough for Jesus, Martin Luther translated the Bible into German. Godspeed (talk) 15:47, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- Well, yes. I could have dealt with the various early non-Latin versions of Bible but I was trying to keep my answer brief rather than creating an article, and I also had a funeral to attend 200 miles away. (And a wedding tomorrow, that's a rare run-out for my suit and tie and two days in churches.) My point was that once people were free to read the Bible in their own tongue then they were free to make heir own interpretations and all sorts of religious sects sprang up in Europe. Most of them seem to have buggered off to America thanks to persecution at home and is probably why the US has the YEC problems it does.
ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 20:23, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- I think I came off snarkier than I intended, but your point is still mistaken. Most educated people at the time could read Latin, non-Latin versions of the Bible existed well before the Reformation (albeit the development of the printing press at roughly the same time as the Reformation did result in the wider dissemination of the Bible, allowing more people to read it), and there had been other groups that had adopted ideas at odds with the Catholic Church before (various early heresies and the Lollards, Catharists, and other groups in the Middle Ages). These were suppressed, but the Reformation succeeded. Why? A combination of reasons. One is that the Church had become corrupt, and the German princes were tired of paying taxes to support an Italian monarchy. However, the various Reformers became mini-Popes and dissent from Calvinism or Lutheranism was not tolerated by princes following those faiths anymore than opposition to Catholic dogma was tolerated by the Church. The Peace of Augsburg, and particularly the cuius regio, eius religio principle, reflected the contemporary assumption that people of differing Christian sects could not live peacefully in the same state. Religious pluralism in Europe really begins with the Enlightenment, not the Protestant Reformation. The numerous sects we see today came about during a period of revivalism in the later eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, not during the Reformation.
- tl;dr version: The printing press, not the Reformation, was responsible for wider Bible reading (black holes had no discernible effects, in case you were wondering), and the numerous little evangelical sects we are familiar with today were a later development. Godspeed (talk) 22:07, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- Well, yes. I could have dealt with the various early non-Latin versions of Bible but I was trying to keep my answer brief rather than creating an article, and I also had a funeral to attend 200 miles away. (And a wedding tomorrow, that's a rare run-out for my suit and tie and two days in churches.) My point was that once people were free to read the Bible in their own tongue then they were free to make heir own interpretations and all sorts of religious sects sprang up in Europe. Most of them seem to have buggered off to America thanks to persecution at home and is probably why the US has the YEC problems it does.
- Wikipedia has a decent history on YEC. I think you have to separate the idea with the movement.
talk 15:49, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- My take on this is that the history of YEC is a history of denialism which developed in parallel to scientific progress. So Christians & Jews in say 200 or 300 CE would indeed have taken Genesis as a literal account, partly because it was believed to be the Word of God & partly because there was very little evidence to contradict it. Much later, in medieval & early modern periods, some discoveries may have put some aspects of the creation account into question, like the geological stuff mentioned above, but this was fairly specialised academic stuff & pretty irrelevant to the average churchgoer. The real turning point was Darwin's theory of evolution, something which was very widely publicised, very controversial, & subverted not only the literal account of the biblical creation but many of the core theological principles about God's omnipotence & humanity's divine purpose. This is the beginning of when people really had to choose between what science was saying & what religion was saying, & this is where YEC (or what developed into YEC) really took off as a movement actively opposing evolutionism & any other aspect of science which contradicts the literal creation story. And the more evidence which has emerged contradicting Genesis, the more YEC has had to adapt to fit around it. Hence the convoluted explanations pumped out by creation scientists trying to reconcile the events of Genesis with ice ages, dinosaurs & starlight from billions of miles away - things which really have nothing to do with what the Bible says or what early Christians believed. Wėąṣėḷőįď
Methinks it is a Weasel 20:38, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- I think it was evolution which irked the literalists - because mankind was no longer 'special' not created 'in the image of god'. That's why they use 'evolution' as a snarl word and talk about 'evolutionist geology' or 'evolutionist cosmology', even though neither science relies on evolution. The Earth would still be 4.6bn and the universe 13.9bn years old, even if evolution was found to be false. Генгисunbelieving 20:55, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- By most accounts, 'deep time' and evolution were met mostly with "meh" as a response - as in, yes, this is probably true, interesting but hardly mind-blowing because we've suspected it for so long. It's only in the last 50 years or so that it's turned the way it has. I will have to double-check my sources for it, but even as late as the 1970s the most hardcore of the Religious Right fundamentalists didn't demand Biblical literalism and Ussher chronology and called it a load of crocking shit. Indeed, I can't think of many creationist heroes that date to that era, they're all fairly recent by contrast - they adopt the likes of Newton only because Biblical scholarship was considered part of 'natural philosophy' back in the day and there wasn't much to go on in the 17th century. The idea that YEC has been dominant for centuries is likely to be as much of an invention as the concept itself. bomination 21:09, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- Late 19th century Christians, even non-literalists, had a hard time with the idea that there was no special creation of human beings, but Catholic, Orthodox, and mainline Protestant churches have more or less reconciled themselves to the idea. The Catholic Church resolved this conflict by limiting the dogma of special creation to the soul rather than the human body. Contrary to popular opinion, it does not formally "endorse" (meaning nothing in the Catechism) theistic evolution (other than to note modern biology does not conflict with Catholic teaching), but various popes have made sympathetic noises, and I have never heard of "creation science" being treated with anything other than derision in Catholic schools. The Church does consider literalism to be a source of error in interpreting the Bible, though, and unless you think Genesis has to be a true historical record, you're unlikely to seriously entertain the notion that there were T-Rexes on Noah's Ark. Godspeed (talk) 22:25, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- By most accounts, 'deep time' and evolution were met mostly with "meh" as a response - as in, yes, this is probably true, interesting but hardly mind-blowing because we've suspected it for so long. It's only in the last 50 years or so that it's turned the way it has. I will have to double-check my sources for it, but even as late as the 1970s the most hardcore of the Religious Right fundamentalists didn't demand Biblical literalism and Ussher chronology and called it a load of crocking shit. Indeed, I can't think of many creationist heroes that date to that era, they're all fairly recent by contrast - they adopt the likes of Newton only because Biblical scholarship was considered part of 'natural philosophy' back in the day and there wasn't much to go on in the 17th century. The idea that YEC has been dominant for centuries is likely to be as much of an invention as the concept itself.
- I think it was evolution which irked the literalists - because mankind was no longer 'special' not created 'in the image of god'. That's why they use 'evolution' as a snarl word and talk about 'evolutionist geology' or 'evolutionist cosmology', even though neither science relies on evolution. The Earth would still be 4.6bn and the universe 13.9bn years old, even if evolution was found to be false.
- My take on this is that the history of YEC is a history of denialism which developed in parallel to scientific progress. So Christians & Jews in say 200 or 300 CE would indeed have taken Genesis as a literal account, partly because it was believed to be the Word of God & partly because there was very little evidence to contradict it. Much later, in medieval & early modern periods, some discoveries may have put some aspects of the creation account into question, like the geological stuff mentioned above, but this was fairly specialised academic stuff & pretty irrelevant to the average churchgoer. The real turning point was Darwin's theory of evolution, something which was very widely publicised, very controversial, & subverted not only the literal account of the biblical creation but many of the core theological principles about God's omnipotence & humanity's divine purpose. This is the beginning of when people really had to choose between what science was saying & what religion was saying, & this is where YEC (or what developed into YEC) really took off as a movement actively opposing evolutionism & any other aspect of science which contradicts the literal creation story. And the more evidence which has emerged contradicting Genesis, the more YEC has had to adapt to fit around it. Hence the convoluted explanations pumped out by creation scientists trying to reconcile the events of Genesis with ice ages, dinosaurs & starlight from billions of miles away - things which really have nothing to do with what the Bible says or what early Christians believed. Wėąṣėḷőįď
A request[edit]
Ok, I shall begin this post (which will inevitably be quite long) with a quick summary of what I’m asking: I request that someone do an article on Raymond Buckland. Now I shall proceed to explain why 1) I couldn’t just put this on the to-do list, and 2) I’m not writing it myself. As for the former, it’s because I have a great deal of commentary, both on Buckland, and on…well…why I’m not writing it myself. Most of you know me as a Christian who hate creationists, and who does not think that my religion has any place in a science classroom. However, since I was last a particularly active poster, I’ve converted to paganism…otherwise, I’m fairly unchanged, I still don’t think my religion has any place in science, and I get very annoyed when people try to pass it off as science. That said, I’m currently reading Raymond Buckland’s Complete Book of Witchcraft, and I think it could make for an interesting article, both dealing with the book and person himself, and also comparing him to other occultists, religious figures, and pseudoscientists on this website. Now, the reason why I would not want to write the article myself is simply that I would feel uncomfortable referring to many of his unscientific teachings, which I believe, as “woo,” even though there would be no way around that (ie, yes, I personally have done tarot readings, yes I believe in them, yes I’m aware that they’re almost always too vague to be scientifically testable). However, I think one chapter that would be VERY interesting for analysis would be his chapter on herbs. Specifically: he opens with a note that he is not a doctor (although he admits that he’s saying that for legal reasons), but then moves onto say that 1) you should not stop using modern medicine, 2) herbs can have side- effects, 3) herbs often have very mild effects so you shouldn’t expect miracles from them (he specifically mentions scientists being able to isolate active ingredients from them), and most importantly 4) some types of herbs should be used ONLY by a physician (the specific type he gives is herbs intended to treat worms).--Mustex (talk) 01:48, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- Put it on the to-do list.--
talk 20:46, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Susan B Anthony .... anti-abortion?[edit]
I didn't know this was a controversy or even a thing until today...apparently there is a right-wingnut group called the Susan B. Anthony List which stands by anti-abortion candidates (such as Todd Akin). Wikipedia has a whole article about whether SBA was pro-choice or pro-life; two concepts that were nearly non-existent during her lifetime with an issues that was largely non-controversial (not that it was great; infant mortality/stillborn rates were high, women dying during childbirth were also common, and surgical abortion would have been extremely risky). I still find it interesting that an obviously conservative religious group would use the name of an atheist and suffragist in its name. --Seth Peck (talk) 16:35, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- Anti Womanists try to claim that all sorts of people were against abortion. They also try it with existing groups by claiming that they "know anti abortion atheists." They don't exist in any meaningful numbers, and if they did, they probably wouldn't understand they issue. Such anti womanists have no understanding of false light, which doesn't have to be intentional and doesn't have to be defamatory. –Александр(а) Ehrenstein (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 16:45, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- There are plenty of anti-abortion atheists. We had one at this site for a long time. See Essay:Why I oppose abortion by User:Earthland; it's got links to a few atheist/feminist pro-life groups. WėąṣėḷőįďMethinks it is a Weasel 17:18, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- Aside from the fact that there is such a thing as "pro-life feminism" and my quibbles about the pro life/pro choice debate as a whole, Mrs. Anthony was a first wave feminist. She may very well have been opposed to abortion.--Token Conservative (talk) 18:06, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- It was probably a Christian infiltrator. The idea of pro life feminism is funny. It's a complete contradiction; once you support sexism, you can't be a feminist, no matter how much you try to pretend otherwise. It's like "anti women's suffrage feminists." –Александр(а) Ehrenstein (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 18:47, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- Not really. ŴêâŝêîôîďMethinks it is a Weasel 18:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- What's it like living in that world of yours, Ehr?--MikallakiM 18:57, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- "I still find it interesting that an obviously conservative religious group would use the name of an atheist and suffragist in its name." As more overt bigotry becomes unacceptable, the tactic has shifted to appropriating figures from civil rights movements rather than outright denouncing them. (Unless it's Malcolm X, of course.) Cf. all the claims that Sarah Palin or Michele Bachmann are the "real" feminists, or that MLK was a loyal Republican. Or the accusation that if you talk about race/sex/whatever, then you're the real racist/sexist/whatever-ist. (I know you are but what am I?!) Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:12, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- SBA is a mythic character in the history of the USA so it it doesn't really matter what her views were; if you can park her in your camp then it obviously gives you extra credence, authority and gravitas. ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 19:52, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's their tactic. They take people like MLK and claim that he was anti womanist on abortion, so that they can try to seem legitimate. The gun extremists also try to claim that because MLK supported gun ownership among Blacks for self defense from the KKK, that he supported ownership of automatic weapons. I don't really care about ownership of automatic weapons, as long as the liscencing isn't to easy to obtain. As if some kid from the hood is going to rob a 7-11 with an antique multi thousand dollar PPSH. –Александр(а) Ehrenstein (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 20:42, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- SBA is a mythic character in the history of the USA so it it doesn't really matter what her views were; if you can park her in your camp then it obviously gives you extra credence, authority and gravitas.
- "I still find it interesting that an obviously conservative religious group would use the name of an atheist and suffragist in its name." As more overt bigotry becomes unacceptable, the tactic has shifted to appropriating figures from civil rights movements rather than outright denouncing them. (Unless it's Malcolm X, of course.) Cf. all the claims that Sarah Palin or Michele Bachmann are the "real" feminists, or that MLK was a loyal Republican. Or the accusation that if you talk about race/sex/whatever, then you're the real racist/sexist/whatever-ist. (I know you are but what am I?!) Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:12, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- What's it like living in that world of yours, Ehr?--MikallakiM 18:57, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- Not really. Ŵêâŝêîôîď
- It was probably a Christian infiltrator. The idea of pro life feminism is funny. It's a complete contradiction; once you support sexism, you can't be a feminist, no matter how much you try to pretend otherwise. It's like "anti women's suffrage feminists." –Александр(а) Ehrenstein (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 18:47, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- Aside from the fact that there is such a thing as "pro-life feminism" and my quibbles about the pro life/pro choice debate as a whole, Mrs. Anthony was a first wave feminist. She may very well have been opposed to abortion.--Token Conservative (talk) 18:06, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- There are plenty of anti-abortion atheists. We had one at this site for a long time. See Essay:Why I oppose abortion by User:Earthland; it's got links to a few atheist/feminist pro-life groups. Wėąṣėḷőįď
I'm not sure if I see any reason for your claim that pro life = anti-woman.--Token Conservative (talk) 20:47, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- Appears to be similar to Andrew Schlafly's "all things I like are conservative"/reverse-NTS mentality. --Seth Peck (talk) 21:20, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think anyone else uses this phrase "anti womanist" quite the same way anyway. Please check what terms like womanism actually mean before tossing them around; it's more specific than you think, & not particularly closely associated with the abortion debate. WēāŝēīōīďMethinks it is a Weasel 21:34, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think anyone else uses this phrase "anti womanist" quite the same way anyway. Please check what terms like womanism actually mean before tossing them around; it's more specific than you think, & not particularly closely associated with the abortion debate. Wēāŝēīōīď
Is there any possibility that an heir can sue for false light? It's not defamation, and doesn't require any sort of injury, intent, or potential for defamation. –Александр(а) Ehrenstein (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 00:38, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- I hope not. Civil "false light" litigation is IMHO completely intellectually bankrupt. It should not be allowed in a legal culture of guaranteed free speech. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 00:45, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- You'd kind of have to prove that she was infact pro-abortion. --Token Conservative (talk) 00:48, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- In such a world, I could call you a Christian, and there wouldn't be **** you could do. I don't just mean call you a Christian, I mean actually try to make people think it. If free speech is the argument, than we might as well also get rid of defamation laws also. –Александр(а) Ehrenstein (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 13:45, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, "calling you a Christian" is a really good example of why you're being an idiot: you have no idea what my religious beliefs are, and are just making wild unfounded assumptions and using that to come up with further ideas about me (in this case, I'm an atheist, so calling me a Christian is an insult). You have no real reason to think that I'm an atheist, or the kind of atheist who gets insulted by being called a Christian, and you have no real reason to think that Susan B Anthony even had a position on abortion; you're just making loud shots in the dark and hoping no one calls you on your bullshit.--Token Conservative (talk) 13:55, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- I don't know what her position was. I'm talking in general terms, related to the concept. I've seen plenty of examples of idiots making up political views of various people for their own agendas. If heirs could sue for false light, it would reduce the amount of this nonsense.
- You have no real reason to think that I'm an atheist
- Where are we? –Александр(а) Ehrenstein (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 17:07, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- You continue to assume that she wasn't anti-abortion.--Token Conservative (talk) 18:39, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'm assuming this is another example of the far right engaging in pseudohistory to support their political views. –Александр(а) Ehrenstein (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 00:05, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- Because of course, I'm far right and never accused on an almost daily basis of being a RINO and demanding evidence for a position is totally pseudohistory.--Token Conservative (talk) 00:38, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'm assuming this is another example of the far right engaging in pseudohistory to support their political views. –Александр(а) Ehrenstein (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 00:05, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- You continue to assume that she wasn't anti-abortion.--Token Conservative (talk) 18:39, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, "calling you a Christian" is a really good example of why you're being an idiot: you have no idea what my religious beliefs are, and are just making wild unfounded assumptions and using that to come up with further ideas about me (in this case, I'm an atheist, so calling me a Christian is an insult). You have no real reason to think that I'm an atheist, or the kind of atheist who gets insulted by being called a Christian, and you have no real reason to think that Susan B Anthony even had a position on abortion; you're just making loud shots in the dark and hoping no one calls you on your bullshit.--Token Conservative (talk) 13:55, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- In such a world, I could call you a Christian, and there wouldn't be **** you could do. I don't just mean call you a Christian, I mean actually try to make people think it. If free speech is the argument, than we might as well also get rid of defamation laws also. –Александр(а) Ehrenstein (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 13:45, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- You'd kind of have to prove that she was infact pro-abortion. --Token Conservative (talk) 00:48, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
false light and free speech[edit]
In such a world, I could call you a Christian, and there wouldn't be **** you could do. I don't just mean call you a Christian, I mean actually try to make people think it. If free speech is the argument, than we might as well also get rid of defamation laws also. –Александр(а) Ehrenstein (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 13:45, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- Free speech, as championed by the writers of the European Enlightenment, was a bunch of things. Let me use Hitchens' summary (roughly): "Free speech is about the right of the speaker to speak as much as it is of the listener to hear. Every time you silence someone else, you deny yourself the right to hear them, and make yourself a prisoner to your own current opinions." That's the conventional utilitarian approach of free speech. I think there's another important aspect, captured by Mill, but I think better phrased by Jefferson: "The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." In other words, mere offense and mere outrage is (ought to be) insufficient to make speech illegal. Calling me a christian does as much injury as saying there is no god, e.g. none. Finally, this is probably more of my own opinion, as informed by reading all of these sources and doing synthesis, but the only legitimate kinds of defamation, libel, and slander, are the ones which significantly affect your economic well-being or significantly affect your ability to integrate into society, and the speaker must know it is false, and the speaker must have malicious intent, and the "reasonable person" definition of whether a reasonable person would likely consider the claim to be not mere farce. That is, you have no protection from a comedian, and you have no protection from me saying you're a child molester, but you may have protection if I went on a concerted ad campaign which said that you were a child molester, because that would harm your ability to be a participant in society to an extreme degree. Even then, I'm very iffy on that, and this is all off the cuff. ... In other words, I do not suggest we protect someone maliciously spreading lies which do actual damage beyond mere offense, but that's about as far as I'm willing to go. ... One important takeaway is that the truth is always a defense, and belief that it is the truth is always a defense. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 21:54, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- Why did you copy my signature as Aleksanov(a)? –Александр(а) Ehrenstein (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 04:24, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Doing a page on the German Resistance[edit]
I'm planning to do one in my userspace, to be moved later. What I think we should focus on is the real motives behind most of the people who were a part of it, and work to remove the undue credit given to them. To give an example, the people who tried to blow up Hitler at the end of the war are often given credit for working against the Nazis and in some cases for trying to stop the Holocaust, when really all they did was try to kill Hitler in order to gain favor with the Allies. I'm also going to work on bringing out the fact that many of the people who wanted to kill Hitler were just as nationalistic as the Nazis, and in many cases, just wanted to do things differently, or prevent Hitler from causing the Nazis to lose. –Александр(а) Ehrenstein (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 17:27, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'd rather you not be the one to write about this. Osaka Sun (talk) 17:37, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- Explain? –Александр(а) Ehrenstein (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 17:47, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- You just did. Doctor Dark (talk) 18:11, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- Explain? –Александр(а) Ehrenstein (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 17:47, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not much of a mission-hound, but this mild error of perception - the failure to sufficiently credit the German resistance - anything to do with pseudoscience, anti-science, crankery, or the like? I mean, it really bothers me that everyone misidentifies the Confederate flag, but we don't have an article on it because not every widespread historical misapprehension has something to do with woo. But maybe there's a more mission-centric purpose to your idea that I didn't understand?--talk 20:26, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
@Inquisitor: Uhm, are the thigs you want to write about not common knowledge where yu live? They mostly are in Europe. And just a proposal: Why don't you make an article explaining that pretty much everybody who had any political pull at that time was not a good person by today's standard.Th. BernhardDas Leben ist ein Prozeß, den man verliert, was man auch tut und wer man auch ist. 18:35, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- In the US there seems to be fairly little mention of Nazi resistance in school. There was the movie Valkyrie, but I don't remember the motives given. Otherwise I think about the closest generally know in the US is the movie Schindler's List. God, this says something about the state of America's educational system.--Token Conservative (talk) 18:42, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- And Schindler's
LiftList should be more properly known as Schindler's Ark. Did the US publishers deliberately try to make a pun out of the title? ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 20:41, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- And Schindler's
We're not a WWII wiki & this doesn't seem very close to the missions. ωεαşεζøίɗ
Methinks it is a Weasel 21:06, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- I thought this was going to be about the actual German resistance to occupation codenamed Werwolf, which was not actually very effective and thus remains relatively little known (probably about as well known as England's resistance plans which were never activated because Sealion never happened). Regardless I agree with the above comments that it seems to be off-mission. Tialaramex (talk) 21:13, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Could be relevant as a broader article on WWII pseudohistory. And while we can happily remain a wiki dedicated to New Atheists screaming about how evil religion is, we do actually have an article on pseudohistory and several about different pseudohistories.--Token Conservative (talk) 00:05, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
- Hyperbole does not serve you well here. Category:Bullshit is at least as full of articles as Category:Religion, probably a lot bulkier; I don't feel like accounting for all the subcategories just now. At any rate, that hardly indicates much of a dedication to "New Atheists screaming about how evil religion is."
- The proposed topic may be faintly related to the mission, but I believe RW has far more interesting fish to fry than a rehash of the circumstances surrounding the failed thousand-year Reich. The History channel tried that, and look where they are with it now. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 14:42, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
- You didn't actually look at your own source considering the large overlap between those categories. But thank you for basically proving me right!--Token Conservative (talk) 23:25, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
- My first inclination was to go with Category:Science, another extensive one, not so much related to, nor overlapping with religion. I went with bullshit instead for stylistic reasons. In any case, I'm still calling hyperbole. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 00:50, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- Which actually says something about adherence to the mission guideline, since most of that category is only tangentially related to our "mission". Today is an unusual day, but the majority of mainspace activity is always about religion, or one of the various internet stalking projects, and we both know it.
- My first inclination was to go with Category:Science, another extensive one, not so much related to, nor overlapping with religion. I went with bullshit instead for stylistic reasons. In any case, I'm still calling hyperbole. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 00:50, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- You didn't actually look at your own source considering the large overlap between those categories. But thank you for basically proving me right!--Token Conservative (talk) 23:25, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
- Nazis, rape, mediawiki hijinks; if you are sincere you wouldn't spend any time presenting your plans to the community. Do it, then present it for review. Then at least you'll be a troll with a work ethic--"Shut up, Brx." 15:32, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
- Shut up, Brx. ЩєазєюіδMethinks it is a Weasel 15:57, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
- Shut up, Brx. Щєазєюіδ
Agreed with Weaseloid on his last topic. You come across as a troll for saying that...
On what I was going to write We have articles on Holocaust denial and similar forms of pseudohistory, which I think is more important to document. Most people aren't going to start believing Creationists, and the people who do are so dogmatic that they probably won't listen to our arguments against it. At the same time, people are more likely to believe some Nazi sympathetic blogger who claims that the Poles killed Germans before the war, inflates German civilian casualties, says that it was only the SS that committed war crimes and not the Wehrmacht, or separates supposed Allied war crimes from their historical context. –Александр(а) Ehrenstein (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 23:18, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
I also can start the article and then suggest it, though I would also want to know whether to make it a priority. –Александр(а) Ehrenstein (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 23:20, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Cold Fusion[edit]
I've been lazily browsing Wired and happened upon this: http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-05/24/cold-fusion-research Discuss. Sen (talk) 20:49, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
- Been there, done that, got the ... Scream!! (talk) 21:21, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
We was put up on Snopes[edit]
We was! The Invisible ManI spoke to Him 06:39, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- Oh yes. Osaka Sun (talk) 06:43, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- You mean "We IS on Snopes". That article will be there for as long as the site remains up. I find it interesting that the quote includes the word "clogosphere", which the snopesters don't think needs any explanation. Spud (talk) 14:32, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- That's pretty cool. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 14:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- Have any of our web gurus noticed an associated spike in traffic? Innocent Bystander (talk) 15:27, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- So that's why there have been so many 503 errors. ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 17:37, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- Perhaps indirectly. The squids serve cached copies of articles so that when it comes to traffic spikes, the main servers doesn't get shafted with a load of expensive MediaWiki requests. This basically makes us immune from the usual shutdown we used to experience from incoming links. BUT, David tells me that the hard drive on one of the squids (there's two) was full, this, perhaps could have been caused by a traffic spike, but I'm not sure. This borked the system and meant that the server couldn't decide which of the two squids to use, and hence everyone got those blank 503 messages from it in response. Again, I'm not sure if this could have been caused by incoming links as in principle the squids are supposed to deal with that. It's harder to tell without going into the server logs since pageviews were wiped from the MediaWiki front-end in order to gain a massive efficiency boost. sshole 14:10, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- It filled 'cos we'd left all the logs on there since November (compressed, but still rather large). And the disk didn't fill until the 29th of the month, so we'd basically kept all the logs we could. Trent appears to have deleted most of them, I hope he did save copies (but continued operation is in fact more important) - David Gerard (talk) 15:52, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- Perhaps indirectly. The squids serve cached copies of articles so that when it comes to traffic spikes, the main servers doesn't get shafted with a load of expensive MediaWiki requests. This basically makes us immune from the usual shutdown we used to experience from incoming links. BUT, David tells me that the hard drive on one of the squids (there's two) was full, this, perhaps could have been caused by a traffic spike, but I'm not sure. This borked the system and meant that the server couldn't decide which of the two squids to use, and hence everyone got those blank 503 messages from it in response. Again, I'm not sure if this could have been caused by incoming links as in principle the squids are supposed to deal with that. It's harder to tell without going into the server logs since pageviews were wiped from the MediaWiki front-end in order to gain a massive efficiency boost.
- So that's why there have been so many 503 errors.
- Have any of our web gurus noticed an associated spike in traffic? Innocent Bystander (talk) 15:27, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- That's pretty cool. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 14:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- You mean "We IS on Snopes". That article will be there for as long as the site remains up. I find it interesting that the quote includes the word "clogosphere", which the snopesters don't think needs any explanation. Spud (talk) 14:32, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Guantanamo - unilateral solution[edit]
Just had an amazing thought. I've always said that if I was president, I would use whatever powers I could to release those held indefinitely without charge, including via "presidential order", and fuck the congress. (Sarcasm: I wonder why I'm not a politician.) I just realized a much better approach now. The president can unilaterally pardon people. "I hereby pardon all of the people currently in detention in Guantanamo for any and all crimes they may have committed against the United States and all crimes in the jurisdiction of the United States." Voila. Problem solved. This is what Obama would do if he actually cared. Or, more likely, would force a confrontation with the congress with an explicit threat of pardon unless shit started happening. Of course, I sadly know that Obama has less "radical" options he could pursue if he cared enough, which he does not. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 03:08, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- That would work for the ones who are not terrorists. But um, what about the terrorists?--Token Conservative (talk) 03:22, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- It would be an act of political suicide is what it'd be. --Inquisitor (talk) 03:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- What about them? Do we have evidence to charge them? Great. If we don't have evidence, then we let them go. Yes, my plan carries a minor annoyance that we would no longer be able to charge people there for past crimes if new evidence came to light. If my only option to prevent indefinite detention without charge for a few hundred people was that, I'd pay it easy. I'd sleep soundly at night, and I would definitely not if I did otherwise. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 03:33, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- @Inquisitor, and that is why I feel ashamed about my country. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 03:37, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- "Past crimes" like killing possibly thousands of people.--Token Conservative (talk) 03:39, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- Are you going to come to a point eventually? Or are you just going to imply it? The only point I can see you eventually arriving at is "Well, better to use indefinite detention without charge than risk letting someone away with a heinous crime". (If you want a more nuanced option that recognizes real third-options, I covered that above already.) EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 03:43, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- The actual terrorists in Gitmo are specialists and middle management types, basically bomb makers and the guys who gives orders to bomb makers and bomb layers. The fun thing about dealing with a terrorist organization is that you are pretty never going to be able to prove that someone is a terrorist if they're a specialist or middle management, short of walking into a meeting for "Arabs for Chaos" and seeing him there drinking coffee and listening intently to last meetings minutes. The people in Gitmo are the ones that are smart and important enough to hide their tracks and not be caught making a bomb, but not so important that they'll make a video confessing to blowing up a bridge. They're also usually indoctrinated enough that you won't get a confession or information from them. That's why the default when dealing them is actually just to kill them, rather than capture them: they're guilty, but its impossible to prove and they won't give any information anyways, might as well just eliminate them from the T/O. So, your plan basically amounts to freeing the innocent and letting loose people who were probably responsible for murdering thousands of people, and will turn into recruiters to help murders thousands more people.--Token Conservative (talk) 03:53, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- I have no need of a rebuttal. You do my work for me. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 04:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- You may have no need, a such... but I'm curious about what your rebuttal is. After all, Hamilton is putting forward a fairly common line of reasoning (no matter how flawed you may find it). So what say you? --Inquisitor (talk) 05:21, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- All you need to do is look at who is in there and who got released. You'll find a weird pattern. Politically powerful countries with a standing interest in protecting their citizens got those citizens sent home. The Americans whined and bitched, and made all the above comments about how they're definitely evil terrorists then when asked for proof they also provided all the same whining and bitching about how it's hard to find proof and those countries said, "We'll be the judge of that, send them home". Some were released on return, some were convicted of terrorism and a few are even still in jail. Virtually all the people being held permanently without trial on the US's usual basis of "If we can do it, then it's legal" or in some cases "Who cares if it's legal, we can do it anyway" are from countries that are too powerless to do anything about it, or from US client states that are obliged to let the US do whatever it pleases, even if it imprisons or murders their citizens for purposes of rabble rousing at home. And don't think for a moment that those countries don't know it. The US is doing an even worse job as a colonial power than Britain or France. Tialaramex (talk) 07:25, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- You may have no need, a such... but I'm curious about what your rebuttal is. After all, Hamilton is putting forward a fairly common line of reasoning (no matter how flawed you may find it). So what say you? --Inquisitor (talk) 05:21, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- I have no need of a rebuttal. You do my work for me. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 04:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- The actual terrorists in Gitmo are specialists and middle management types, basically bomb makers and the guys who gives orders to bomb makers and bomb layers. The fun thing about dealing with a terrorist organization is that you are pretty never going to be able to prove that someone is a terrorist if they're a specialist or middle management, short of walking into a meeting for "Arabs for Chaos" and seeing him there drinking coffee and listening intently to last meetings minutes. The people in Gitmo are the ones that are smart and important enough to hide their tracks and not be caught making a bomb, but not so important that they'll make a video confessing to blowing up a bridge. They're also usually indoctrinated enough that you won't get a confession or information from them. That's why the default when dealing them is actually just to kill them, rather than capture them: they're guilty, but its impossible to prove and they won't give any information anyways, might as well just eliminate them from the T/O. So, your plan basically amounts to freeing the innocent and letting loose people who were probably responsible for murdering thousands of people, and will turn into recruiters to help murders thousands more people.--Token Conservative (talk) 03:53, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- Are you going to come to a point eventually? Or are you just going to imply it? The only point I can see you eventually arriving at is "Well, better to use indefinite detention without charge than risk letting someone away with a heinous crime". (If you want a more nuanced option that recognizes real third-options, I covered that above already.) EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 03:43, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- "Past crimes" like killing possibly thousands of people.--Token Conservative (talk) 03:39, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- @Inquisitor, and that is why I feel ashamed about my country. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 03:37, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- What about them? Do we have evidence to charge them? Great. If we don't have evidence, then we let them go. Yes, my plan carries a minor annoyance that we would no longer be able to charge people there for past crimes if new evidence came to light. If my only option to prevent indefinite detention without charge for a few hundred people was that, I'd pay it easy. I'd sleep soundly at night, and I would definitely not if I did otherwise. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 03:33, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- It would be an act of political suicide is what it'd be. --Inquisitor (talk) 03:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Aside from everything else that's idiotic about this suggestion, surely the President's ability to grant pardons only applies to stuff people have actually been convicted of, so is irrelevant when considering people detained without charge. Granting a blanket pardon to somebody who has not been charged (or to hundreds of potential terrorists) for "any and all crimes they may have committed" would be extremely controversial - legally as well as politically - & would almost certainly be deemed unconstitutional. WéáśéĺóíďMethinks it is a Weasel 12:39, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- In fact the President can grant pardons to people who have not been convicted or formally charged. The best known example is Ford's pardon of Nixon, when Nixon had not yet been indicted. Doctor Dark (talk) 14:09, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I retract that particular objection. ŴêâŝêîôîďMethinks it is a Weasel 20:50, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I retract that particular objection. Ŵêâŝêîôîď
So you're going to release terrorists who are going to kill people. Good to see you value human life. I always knew that the left never really valued human life, only their own fucking agendas. This also shows that you spend too much time thinking about things you'll never do. While normal and reasonable, it's not good, especially not a lot. Like the anti death penalty fucker who said it would be better to let everyone off death row than execute one innocent person. So then 100 people can go kill 1,000. Motherfucker didn't value human life at all. Or he needed to go back to kindergarden math. –Александр(а) Ehrenstein (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 13:56, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- If they are terrorists, charge them and try them. If not release them. I guess innocent till proven guilty doesn't apply to foreigners. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:19, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- If an American were held in Afghanistan, indefinitely and without any form of trial or due process, then you can imagine the howls of outrage that would result. When it's the other way around then it's all "we have to do this for our security". When you're the only remaining superpower you can behave how you like but that doesn't make it right. Innocent Bystander (talk) 14:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- But, but, but...9/11! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:47, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- We need to have trials for the people who are there. The problem is the number of people who are being held there. Declaring things like "I would release everyone being held there" is completely batshit insane, especially if one understand that there are actually terrorists being held there. –Александр(а) Ehrenstein (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 17:00, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- OK, Ehrenstein says it's OK to execute innocent people because it might somehow reduce the incidence of murder. This is a testable hypothesis, but it's also an opportunity to demonstrate hypocrisy. This works the same way as for the Slaver senators, if you believe you're right then we'll try it on you. The slaver senators, after all their fine words about how great it was to be a slave in the plantations, declined to be made plantation slaves, preferring to remain senators instead. How say you now, Ehrenstein? Will you have pictures of your lifeless corpse uploaded to demonstrate your commitment to your beliefs, or should we recognise that you spoke rashly, a fool who'd pay any price, so long as it's not out of his own pocket. Tialaramex (talk) 17:03, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- I never actually said it was ok to execute innocent people. Given the to evils of many innocent people killed or one, it should be obvious which is better. I'm pretty sure there's some sort of fallacy with your logic. –Александр(а) Ehrenstein (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 17:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- This is kind of introductory ethics material, but allow me to briefly present a thought experiment before I return to insisting "You first" when it comes to executing innocent people. You are an skilful surgeon. Guy Johnson is a perfectly normal person who happens to be asleep nearby, perhaps a fellow surgeon getting a few hours sleep in the on call room. Nic Green and Alex Strong are otherwise healthy individuals who will shortly die because of organ failure. If you kill Guy, you could transplant the organs from Guy into Nic and Alex and virtually certainly save both of them. This course of action will result in one person certainly dying (Guy) instead of two people (Nic and Alex). Is it ethically OK to do this? Are you in fact mandated, ethically, to do this? Or is there some reason why it's not OK and you should refrain from murdering Guy? Tialaramex (talk) 20:48, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- While "interesting", that example is inapplicable. I am making the argument that if you have a time horizon longer than half a day, it's obvious that subverting the rule of law and allowing arbitrary indefinite detention is worse for everyone, far worse than whatever harm those couple hundred people might do. Again, this is borderline insane. I don't even know why I have to actually defend this position, especially on a website whose stated purpose includes explorations of totalitarianism. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 21:40, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- This is kind of introductory ethics material, but allow me to briefly present a thought experiment before I return to insisting "You first" when it comes to executing innocent people. You are an skilful surgeon. Guy Johnson is a perfectly normal person who happens to be asleep nearby, perhaps a fellow surgeon getting a few hours sleep in the on call room. Nic Green and Alex Strong are otherwise healthy individuals who will shortly die because of organ failure. If you kill Guy, you could transplant the organs from Guy into Nic and Alex and virtually certainly save both of them. This course of action will result in one person certainly dying (Guy) instead of two people (Nic and Alex). Is it ethically OK to do this? Are you in fact mandated, ethically, to do this? Or is there some reason why it's not OK and you should refrain from murdering Guy? Tialaramex (talk) 20:48, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- I never actually said it was ok to execute innocent people. Given the to evils of many innocent people killed or one, it should be obvious which is better. I'm pretty sure there's some sort of fallacy with your logic. –Александр(а) Ehrenstein (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 17:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- OK, Ehrenstein says it's OK to execute innocent people because it might somehow reduce the incidence of murder. This is a testable hypothesis, but it's also an opportunity to demonstrate hypocrisy. This works the same way as for the Slaver senators, if you believe you're right then we'll try it on you. The slaver senators, after all their fine words about how great it was to be a slave in the plantations, declined to be made plantation slaves, preferring to remain senators instead. How say you now, Ehrenstein? Will you have pictures of your lifeless corpse uploaded to demonstrate your commitment to your beliefs, or should we recognise that you spoke rashly, a fool who'd pay any price, so long as it's not out of his own pocket. Tialaramex (talk) 17:03, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- We need to have trials for the people who are there. The problem is the number of people who are being held there. Declaring things like "I would release everyone being held there" is completely batshit insane, especially if one understand that there are actually terrorists being held there. –Александр(а) Ehrenstein (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 17:00, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- But, but, but...9/11! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:47, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- If an American were held in Afghanistan, indefinitely and without any form of trial or due process, then you can imagine the howls of outrage that would result. When it's the other way around then it's all "we have to do this for our security". When you're the only remaining superpower you can behave how you like but that doesn't make it right. Innocent Bystander (talk) 14:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
This is, of course, asinine. There are countless issues on which the President could act unilaterally and recklessly to enact some version of these sorts of ideals. He could help control global warming by directing the EPA to clamp down crazily on carbon dioxide as a pollutant, independent of legislation. He could direct that illegal immigrants will no longer be deported, at all. In fact, the issues on which he could not take some big action like that are probably in the minority. But you can't honestly think this is an amazing insight. It's like saying that Obama could just put all GOP congresspeople in Gitmo and pass his whole agenda through the remaining rump House - both ideas are technically true and possible, but they would both backfire in the most grotesque way imaginable and probably end up crushing their purported cause.
If Obama blanket-pardons more than a hundred individuals of wide-ranging backgrounds and who present varied degrees of danger, the GOP would not only sweep the midterms, but probably also the the next election and possibly the one after that, too, effortlessly. The gross of folks in Gitmo have been held and steadily radicalized by their unjust detention, and their numbers include multiple Willie Hortons. Every single bombing or terrorist incident would become another opportunity to rehash such a reckless move.
The incoming GOP President, House, and Senate would be obligated to not only restore Gitmo and fill it, but probably make it larger and cram it with more people who'd been handed over via insane bounty methods. And of course every other possible policy that has been hard-won, such as healthcare reform, would be swept away.
The use of this as a "threat" is similarly beyond contempt as a tactic, because everyone involved would know that Obama would have to be an absolute fucking moron to do it.
It doesn't count as a solution if it not only redoubles the problem but creates a thousand new problems. Embarrassing.--talk 20:44, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, what the smarter dude than me ^^ said. sshole 21:24, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, what the smarter dude than me ^^ said.
- This "solution" isn't even wrong. Pardoning everyone in Gitmo wouldn't accomplish anything. About half of the roughly 160 remaining detainees have been cleared for release. The U.S. Congress has used it's funding powers to make it difficult to actually release any of them, and there is no back door exception for someone who's been pardoned. And they would have to go somewhere, and one of the main hurdles in releasing those cleared is few countries are willing to accept former Gitmo detainees, even ones that have been cleared. About 30 Yemenis are being held despite being cleared for release years ago because Yemen is too unstable to repatriate them there (the Yemeni government is a great balance of being too weak to monitor their activities or protect them in a violent country, but arbitrary and dictatorial enough to quite possibly "disappear" them itself), and no other country wants 30 possible jihadis. A presidential pardon would have absolutely no effect on any of this. If President Obama pardoned them, he'd just be left with 160 people in legal limbo that can't be released in the U.S. and which no other country will accept - the exact situation we have right now.
- And then I would take a few vacations to Cuba, and offer them a lift to the US. What are they going to do, arrest them for being an illegal immigrant? Pardon time! ... Again, you don't hold people without charge, and even worse you don't hold people you know to be innocent in jail. This is utterly unacceptable, and that any other American here is not similarly outraged does make me feel ashamed to be an American. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 21:22, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- Also, apparently everyone missed the part where in the first "post" I mentioned that I know this is a radical solution, and if he cared enough there are less extreme ways to accomplish the same thing. I also recognize and recognized that this is a problem of politics that apparently Americans are now fine with holding people without charge, aka a complete reversal of every single value of the American way of government. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 21:25, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- It's not any kind of "solution," because it would actually make the problem much worse and create a bunch of others. It's just something that is theoretically possible to do, just like it would be possible to stop at a red light by crashing full-speed into a fire hydrant.--talk 21:28, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- Again, everyone missed the memo. Let me explicitly restate it. I am not proposing in seriousness that Obama do this. This is more of a commentary at how pathetic the American people are, and how pathetic the government is, given that the solution could be resolved in a half second as I have shown, but because of people who think it is a good idea to keep people detained indefinitely without charge, it may not help. (I'm not convinced on that point yet.) Regardless, this was primarily intended as a commentary at how fucked up as a country we are that this, or less extreme measures, did not happen 30 minutes ago, or 10 years ago. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 21:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- You haven't "shown" anything. You've taken a complex problem & floated a facile hypothetical solution which couldn't possibly work. This doesn't prove anything about the American people or government. If you want to think about this issue seriously, consider what the government should in fact be doing about it, in real terms not in crazy cloud cuckoo land fantasies. ŴêâŝêîôîďMethinks it is a Weasel 21:46, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- You haven't "shown" anything. You've taken a complex problem & floated a facile hypothetical solution which couldn't possibly work. This doesn't prove anything about the American people or government. If you want to think about this issue seriously, consider what the government should in fact be doing about it, in real terms not in crazy cloud cuckoo land fantasies. Ŵêâŝêîôîď
- Again, everyone missed the memo. Let me explicitly restate it. I am not proposing in seriousness that Obama do this. This is more of a commentary at how pathetic the American people are, and how pathetic the government is, given that the solution could be resolved in a half second as I have shown, but because of people who think it is a good idea to keep people detained indefinitely without charge, it may not help. (I'm not convinced on that point yet.) Regardless, this was primarily intended as a commentary at how fucked up as a country we are that this, or less extreme measures, did not happen 30 minutes ago, or 10 years ago. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 21:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- It's not any kind of "solution," because it would actually make the problem much worse and create a bunch of others. It's just something that is theoretically possible to do, just like it would be possible to stop at a red light by crashing full-speed into a fire hydrant.--
- Well. You said that your "amazing thought" was a "much better approach" to lead to "problem solved" that Obama would "do if he actually cared." It's not until people start laughing at you that I see this puppetmaster nonsense about how you're just trying to make a point about how little the people care, but rather it seems as though you suggested that Obama obviously doesn't care because he isn't enacting your "problem solved" or at least "more likely" making his "explicit threat." My point is that your solution does not demonstrate either thing, in fact, because the practical obstacles and consequences make it about as useful as Granny's Old-Fashioned "Reel Tasty" Trout-Flavored Toothpaste.
- Hell, it doesn't even say much about the American people that they wouldn't endorse a wholesale disregard/contempt for the legislative process or the power of the corresponding co-equal branch of government. I would be pissed at Obama if he just pardoned everyone in Gitmo and freed them unilaterally and immediately, and I'm extremely anti-Gitmo.--talk 21:49, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- He is defending the constitution against a flagrantly unlawful and illegal and unconstitutional act of congress. I believe any reasonable reading of his oath of office requires him to do this. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 21:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- Even if it would result in a redoubling of Gitmo, the destruction of any chance of any progressive policy for at least four and more likely ten years, the repeal of any progressive policy from the past few years, the passage of hideously damaging policy like austerity budgets and slashed taxes for the wealthy?
- SCOTUS has hit Gitmo and ruled they have some tiny minimum of rights only under Geneva, so Obama'd be over-ruling them if he disagreed, basically saying "fuck you" to both co-equal branches (thanks for pointing that out).
- Stop digging, maybe.--talk 22:06, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- Again, at no point did I suggest this is the best course of action, or even a good course of action. I think it's mandated by the oath of office, and anyone with a conscience. I could not sleep at night knowing that hundreds of people were being kept in jail, without charge, under my authority, and I could do something about it. And again, the memo: This is about the lack of outrage, the fundamental disintegration of the freedom of the American public, than it is about separation of powers. I mean, talk about continuing to miss the point, even after I've spelled it out several times now. And fuck the supreme court if they rule contrary to the only plausible reading. The government exists to serve the people, not the other way around. We are beholden to the government only insofaras it does a good job. We are free to change it whenever we want, and of course only when we deem it a better option than the alternatives. If the supreme court has declared that we can hold people without charge indefinitely, then fuck the supreme court. ... Again, I probably wouldn't make a good politician. I actually have morals. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 22:11, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, you explicitly said it would be a good course of action... "much better approach," "problem solved," remember? But I understand your need to revise, even though you are simultaneously arguing that this is an immediately necessary and moral action. So which is it? Is this something you would not seriously suggest, or is it something that is absolutely imperative?
- Plus, about your sleeping habits: ten years after you'd done this action, which very predictably led to the redoubling of Gitmo, big cuts to the EPA and public broadcasting, repeal of healthcare reform, increased tax breaks for major corporations and the wealthy, and so on... you'd be able to sleep then? Are you some strange kind of sociopath that you don't feel like the foreseeable consequences of your actions don't matter as long as you make immediately dramatic moves to soothe your own conscience?
- You're like a guy who sees the proverbial damsel in front of the train, and so he diverts the train towards the hospital instead. I agree that you wouldn't make a good politician, at least. Thank goodness, for the hospitals' sake.--talk 22:27, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- Again, at no point did I suggest this is the best course of action, or even a good course of action. I think it's mandated by the oath of office, and anyone with a conscience. I could not sleep at night knowing that hundreds of people were being kept in jail, without charge, under my authority, and I could do something about it. And again, the memo: This is about the lack of outrage, the fundamental disintegration of the freedom of the American public, than it is about separation of powers. I mean, talk about continuing to miss the point, even after I've spelled it out several times now. And fuck the supreme court if they rule contrary to the only plausible reading. The government exists to serve the people, not the other way around. We are beholden to the government only insofaras it does a good job. We are free to change it whenever we want, and of course only when we deem it a better option than the alternatives. If the supreme court has declared that we can hold people without charge indefinitely, then fuck the supreme court. ... Again, I probably wouldn't make a good politician. I actually have morals. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 22:11, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- I mean, seriously, we've held people without charge for 10 years. This is as offensive to me as the contemporary Syrian state sponsored rape campaign. I don't understand how you can not be completely outraged at the complete destruction of all of our civil liberties. This is not hyperbole. We are holding people, without charge, without trial. This was supposed to have been settled in 1215 with the Magna Carta. (Note: IIRC, I understand it only applied to acts of the king, and not acts of parliament. Please don't be a pedant and miss the point.) EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 22:03, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- Of course I'm outraged. But I'm also not a fucking moron, and I want to actually achieve my goals and want politicians I support to achieve my goals. I would be really pissed if one such politician flouted the Constitution in order to actually crush all of my goals all at once, by means of a flashy and laughably naive bit of idiocy.--talk 22:07, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- "I was only following orders." EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 22:12, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- ...I don't even understand what that means. How am I employing the Nuremberg defense?--talk 22:19, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- As I've seen, you've been adopting two arguments. 1- It would be bad policy because it would not achieve my desired ends. That's a fine argument. I have no complaints about the form, though I might argue over the details. 2- It is bad policy because doing so goes over my authority as granted to me by the constitution. This is my problem. You are putting the constitution above basic human decency. You are putting the illegal acts of congress and the flagrantly stupid decisions of the supreme court over the values of the constitution, and more importantly over basic human rights and decency. Fuck the constitution if it can't even protect my right against being held without charge. If it can't do that, then it's just worth the paper it's printed on. This is not hyperbole. I mean this. This is right up there with voting and free speech. Rather, you argue that we owe more deference to the inarguably illegal and unconstitutional acts of congress and decisions of SCOTUS than we do to upholding the basic idea that the government cannot imprison someone without cause, e.g. you would rather "follow orders" than fix shit, you would rather "follow orders" and obey in my mind gross atrocities of rule of law. I can't think of much worse than imprisonment for life without cause. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 22:36, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- tl;dr You would rather follow obscene orders and participate in gross violations of basic human rights than violate orders, when it's within your power to do something about it. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 22:38, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- The first argument is the important one, because it's the reason why your suggested plan is stupid. But I guess we can take that up when you're less embarrassed by that.
- As to the second argument, you must think yourself very, very wise. After all, you're declaring that if you were President, you would ignore the document whose precepts you were moments ago declaring you'd be honor-bound to follow - remember that "I believe any reasonable reading of his oath of office requires him to do this" from twenty minutes ago? It would only be a very, very wise person who seized on respect for the Constitution as justification, or mocked it as being worthless, depending on their momentary need. Only a very, very wise person could see their way to sacrificing so many people and so much tradition and so much hope for a stable future for an almost impossibly slender chance of making themselves feel dramatic and cool and better.
- I wish I was so wise.--talk 22:46, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- ...I don't even understand what that means. How am I employing the Nuremberg defense?--
- "I was only following orders." EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 22:12, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- Of course I'm outraged. But I'm also not a fucking moron, and I want to actually achieve my goals and want politicians I support to achieve my goals. I would be really pissed if one such politician flouted the Constitution in order to actually crush all of my goals all at once, by means of a flashy and laughably naive bit of idiocy.--
- He is defending the constitution against a flagrantly unlawful and illegal and unconstitutional act of congress. I believe any reasonable reading of his oath of office requires him to do this. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 21:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree completely with AD's comment about how horrible an idea this is, and how it would give massive support to the Republicans. This idea is very poorly thought out and short sighted. This is one of the reasons why we should not assume ourselves to be smarted or better informed than politicians and career activists. <sarcasm>Let all the teenagers run the country because they claim to know more than the people in the government now!</sarcasm> Also this apparently everyone missed the part where in the first "post" I mentioned that I know this is a radical solution sounds a lot like the kinds of things I usually say... This is as offensive to me as the contemporary Syrian state sponsored rape campaign. This shows a lack of proportionality, and is extremely trivializing of rape. You have also shown that you reject the feminist definition of coerced rape because you want to be able to say "I'll break up if you don't have sex with me" since your a virgin. You are a man, and cannot conceive of what it is like to be raped. I therefore suggest that you not attempt to make judgement on what it is like. –Александр(а) Ehrenstein (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 23:05, 1 June 2013 (UTC) I think it would be accurate that the suggestion of pardoning everyone in Guantanamo was poorly thought out, and EnlightenmentLiberal did an Inquisitor Ehrenstein. –Александр(а) Ehrenstein (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 23:08, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
- "You are a man, and cannot conceive of what it is like to be raped." Just leave--MikallakiM 05:21, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- MRA claim. The fact is that he is eight times less likely to be raped than a woman. He has also never been raped, so the point is valid. Because men are not likely to be raped, they cannot imagine the fear of it. Please refrain from promoting MRA propaganda on Rational Wiki. –Александр(а) Ehrenstein (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 16:39, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- "You are a man, and cannot conceive of what it is like to be raped." Just leave--MikallakiM 05:21, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- Your claim was over-broad, but maybe just ill-phrased. As some men in federal penitentiaries or abusive homes can attest, men can be raped. But you're also right that it's enormously less likely to happen. More to the point would be indicating that women are staggeringly more likely to be put in situations where they feel threatened, and do not enjoy the privilege of being generally unafraid of rape. But it's not necessary to minimize anyone's horror.--talk 16:47, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- @Ehr, Im a man, have been for 20 years; and i can very easily imagine what being raped would be like and the accompanying fear of it. That it's less likely to happen to me is entirely irrelevant. Or can i not fear being robbed and murdered because i live in a middle class suburb with a mostly non-existnt crime rate ? --MikallakiM 01:52, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- You really can't imagine something like that if it's never happened to you. Besides, you don't have to fear it on a daily basis. You don't have to constantly question whether or not you could be raped. –Александр(а) Ehrenstein (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 03:44, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- I mention several things, and now people stick with rape. Not my fucking problem. –Александр(а) Ehrenstein (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 03:45, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- @Ehr, Im a man, have been for 20 years; and i can very easily imagine what being raped would be like and the accompanying fear of it. That it's less likely to happen to me is entirely irrelevant. Or can i not fear being robbed and murdered because i live in a middle class suburb with a mostly non-existnt crime rate ? --MikallakiM 01:52, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- Your claim was over-broad, but maybe just ill-phrased. As some men in federal penitentiaries or abusive homes can attest, men can be raped. But you're also right that it's enormously less likely to happen. More to the point would be indicating that women are staggeringly more likely to be put in situations where they feel threatened, and do not enjoy the privilege of being generally unafraid of rape. But it's not necessary to minimize anyone's horror.--
Strong Female (video game) Characters![edit]
There's an interesting edit comment on the Anita Sarkeesian article to the effect of, can you name a significant number of strong female characters in video games. And thinking about it, I figure games are something we know a bit about as a group, so how about it? How many female characters in games can you folks think of that (1) have agency, (2) don't spend a lot of time as damsels-in-distress, (3) aren't needlessly sexualized, and (4) aren't just an alternate to a male character (which is why I'm iffy about femShep, since in the first two games she's just that, and I haven't played the third).
Only ones that come to mind for me right off are:
- Kya from the old PS2 game (which was loads of fun)
- Tifa Lockheart from Final Fantasy VII (not really sexualized that much in the game, physical fighter, runs her own business, takes matters into her own hands when Cloud flakes out, etc.)
- The Scythian from Superbrothers: Sword and Sworcery (just plain badass)
- Jade from Beyond Good and Evil (reporter, action hero)
- I suppose Celes from Final Fantasy III/VI counts, what with being career military, is the main playable for a while in World of Ruin, etc.
Any others come to mind? --Kels (talk) 00:13, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- The Boss (MGS3) and Chell (Portal) also come to mind. I pity what the fanboys did to Tifa. Osaka Sun (talk) 00:23, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- In my experience there are tons in JRPGs (especially Fire Emblem), but everyone in the US seems to have forgotten they exist. I can't think of any from American games, which is part of why I don't play them. Wehpudicabok (talk) 00:25, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Tanya Pavelovna, Eva from MGS3, and the Sisters of Battle. While they SoB wear sexy armor, it is full armor, often including a full helmet, which is unprecedented for girls in nerd games. –Александр(а) Ehrenstein (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 00:28, 2 June 2013 (UTC) There's also Lilya, who's probably a fictional version of Lilya Litvak. –Александр(а) Ehrenstein (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 00:30, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- MGS4 Eva (as Mig Mama) yes, but in MGS3 her primary mission was to seduce Snake for the Legacy. Osaka Sun (talk) 00:38, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- She also pwnned ass, and therefore an example of strong female characters. –Александр(а) Ehrenstein (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 01:36, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
The point of the DiD videos is about the huge number of games that are based on an (exclusively) male character seeking revenge for the murder of a female relative, and/or trying to rescue a female relative, while the opposite basically never happens.--Token Conservative (talk) 00:36, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- That's all well and good, but this section is springboarding off the edit comment, not the DiD vids. --Kels (talk) 01:27, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Some more here - and how at least half of them were progressively ruined for "Tits! Tits! Tits!" Osaka Sun (talk) 00:52, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- Can't believe I missed Portal, of all games. Especially given I was watching Day [9]'s playthrough just a few days ago. Also, the upcoming Transistor looks hopeful. --Kels (talk) 01:25, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- Meh. Visually, they all still look they're designed with hetero male sexuality in mind. WěǎšěǐǒǐďMethinks it is a Weasel 11:02, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- Meh. Visually, they all still look they're designed with hetero male sexuality in mind. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď
I could probably ramble on for hours about these. Old adventure games had more than a few. Grace Nakimura from Gabriel Knight, Laura Bow from Colonel's Bequest and Dagger of Amon Ra (Hell, in the latter game she had to save her love interest.) and Elaine Marley from Monkey Island to name a few. I remember the females in King's Quest games were also pretty badass, at least compared to the insufferably wussy males that series had. I might even go as far as to nominate some of the girls from Leisure Suit Larry games. After all, the whole point was that they always got the upper hand over the protagonist. I guess this depends on what your idea of needless sexualization is though. Furthermore, Sarah Kerrigan from Starcraft? Although Blizzard seems to be doing their hardest at ruining her. BioShock games have had a whole lot of strong females too, so many in fact that they'd deserve their own post. Vulpius (talk) 01:30, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'm assuming we're only talking about known video games? Let's not forget Alyx Vance from Half-Life 2. Nothing vulnerable about her, and she's a tech wizard. As for Starcraft, let's remember that Kerrigan, when not a genocidal alien, was very much a damsel in distress. Then she was cured and was rescued by Raynor again. So for much of the games she's been either an infested monstrosity or in need of rescue. A better example would be Nova. Too bad they never made Starcraft: Ghost.--"Shut up, Brx." 02:43, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Hmm. Does Shodan count? :P Sen (talk) 05:23, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- There are some problems here. Even in the original FF7, Tifa was pretty sexualised. Breasts that were big on overworld and battle models, enormous in FMVs (watch the bit where, IIRC, she falls off the airship. Tell me that's not ridiculous), and some of the games that are often listed are A: relatively unheard of and / or B: don't sell very well compared to games with sexualised female characters (Beyond Good and Evil). Secondly, yes, I'm iffy over EVA. One could argue that her sexualisation until the ending was to contrast her with Snake and The Boss (and being unable to comprehend their relationship) but at the same time you've got it displayed in such a way that it's meant to gratify the player without subverting anything. The Boss certainly works particularly because the game makes a few mentions of her talking as a mother rather than soldier. Add Sniper Wolf and Olga to that list, I'd say. I find it kind of odd to reconcile the stronger female characters in Metal Gear with "look at these posters of models, R1 for boobcam, shake controller to wiggle breasts, your reward for this mission is viewing your employees in bikinis!"
- Also, uh...Alyx. No. Just no. Alyx suffers from the same problem as many other Half-Life characters in that she severely lacks agency, as most interactions with NPCs consist of them jizzing their pants over Gordon Freeman being Gordon Freeman and massaging the player's ego. Yes, she fights, but a ton of her time is spent making the player just feel good, and in her case it's partly by virtue of the player being congratulated by a woman - it's all just veiled under her looking like a strong female lead with her clothes, hair and mannerisms. Same act, different outfit. /rant.
- I suppose you could slap Yuna (FF10 version, not 10-2 just because of those shorts) onto an 'honorable mentions' list. She's not a great example owing to the way her relationship with Tidus plays out, but she gets props for being the "real" main character, her lack of agency is, well, part of the story until the end, and giving the wedding a big fuck-you once it's crashed was handy. And then XII happened where there are legs and rear ends on display everywhere, eugh. Polite Timesplitter Let's move on to some other area of sodomy! 10:57, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- Tifa was a bit of a weird case, really. I agree they went overboard with the tits, both in model and FMV formats. And the fandom ran with that in some...pretty unhealthy directions. However, there was absolutely no reference to it in any of the dialogue, nobody treats her any differently, and she definitely acts against type, especially for the games of the day. At that point, it was rare (Celes notwithstanding) for female playable RPG characters to be anything but support and magic, basically the role Aerith played. But instead, they gave her the physical asskicker role, fighting the monsters with her bare fists. She was also often one of the mentally toughest members of the team, which was again unusual. So I dunno. Model definitely sexualized but the rest...not so much really. --Kels (talk) 15:28, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Bikeshedding is what explains the popularity of this. I hope people find this worth the 150k they donated xD --81.175.227.88 (talk) 11:38, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- Considering the dearth of examples we're coming up with here, as well as the established and growing popularity of videogames, I'd say you're wrong. Enjoy your privilege--"Shut up, Brx." 13:50, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- (EC)I think that for FFX I'd put forward Lulu and Rikku, and for FFXIII Lightning and Fang, with the interesting side note of Fang and Vanille's relationship. And I suppose, technically, you could include the Amazon and Sorceress from Diablo II, as both are female-only characters that couldn't be replaced in-story with a male equivalent. There is still a massive paucity of playable female leads in video games though.-- Jabba de Chops 13:55, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- Since I don't play games very often these days or follow what the industry is putting out, I can't comment on the roles of these characters within the game or story. However, from Google-imaging most the names that have been mentioned in the thread, I don't any of them passing the "not needlessly sexualized" test. They virtually all have near-identical supermodel physiques, wear clothing that shows a certain amount of unnecessary flesh, & appear in pouty seductive poses (at least in the promo artwork). ЩєазєюіδMethinks it is a Weasel 14:14, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- To a certain extent, this is genre conventions transferring from one medium to another - look at the cinematic equivalent of these game genres (sword & sorcery fantasy, action sci-fi, urban thrillers, post-apocalyptic, etc.) & female characters generally tend to have secondary roles &/or be overtly sexualised. There's also the fact that the core markets for these game & film genres tend to be male, horny & sexist. WẽãšẽĩõĩďMethinks it is a Weasel 14:45, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- Since I don't play games very often these days or follow what the industry is putting out, I can't comment on the roles of these characters within the game or story. However, from Google-imaging most the names that have been mentioned in the thread, I don't any of them passing the "not needlessly sexualized" test. They virtually all have near-identical supermodel physiques, wear clothing that shows a certain amount of unnecessary flesh, & appear in pouty seductive poses (at least in the promo artwork). Щєазєюіδ
- (EC)I think that for FFX I'd put forward Lulu and Rikku, and for FFXIII Lightning and Fang, with the interesting side note of Fang and Vanille's relationship. And I suppose, technically, you could include the Amazon and Sorceress from Diablo II, as both are female-only characters that couldn't be replaced in-story with a male equivalent. There is still a massive paucity of playable female leads in video games though.--
- What I mean is people going that "if you do XYZ then it's totally ZYX" even though it's of no consequence of the real world. I can guarantee that no matter what the video game industry does people will always be whining like they are here. --81.175.227.88 (talk) 15:42, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- People are whining because there are legitimate concerns. What is it about the video game industry that puts it outside "the real world"? WëäŝëïöïďMethinks it is a Weasel 23:24, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- Right :D totally --81.175.227.88 (talk) 15:03, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- People are whining because there are legitimate concerns. What is it about the video game industry that puts it outside "the real world"? Wëäŝëïöïď
Something similar, but nobody else seems to have noticed or care about: the black race, Red Guard, in Elder Scrolls (the only source of black people, unlike all of the white races) are physically strong but not bright and speak in stereotypical African American accents. (talk to) /æn əˈmɛɹɪkən ˈnaiːɪlɪst/ 16:49, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- I brought that up on the Bethesda forums once, but the thread was flamed down. [1] It seems a lot of gamers are very much against changing the status quo--"Shut up, Brx." 18:33, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- I never noticed the redguard thing much at all (save for having to frown at 'incidental' afros. It kind of went over my head as TES races are meant to be transplants of different societal stereotypes (Khajiit being Arabs, for example). In Bethesda's defence Redguards are very proud and disciplined, rather than, say, Orcs. However, quote from UESP: " In addition to their cultural affinities for many weapon and armor styles, Redguards are also physically blessed with hardy constitutions, resistance to poison, and quickness of foot. Redguards do not share the same blood as the other human races, and they have no connection with the ancestral Nordic homeland of Atmora." Oh dear...Polite Timesplitter Let's move on to some other area of sodomy! 19:14, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- From brxbrx's thread:
you are the racist for seeing racism where none was probably intended.
- Wow, that's quite a good application of logic there. Yeah, you're right; i doubt it's that most gamers don't see it, they just don't want to see it, nor blatant sexism. I enjoy gaming — and The Elder Scrolls series — but there are significant cultural issues that we should fight to change. (talk to) /æn əˈmɛɹɪkən ˈnaiːɪlɪst/ 19:32, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- By the way, is there a fallacy for the 'if i/we don't do it, you shouldn't either' type of argument?:
(talk to) /æn əˈmɛɹɪkən ˈnaiːɪlɪst/ 19:38, 2 June 2013 (UTC)True. And you don't see us norwegians complain that the nords(seemingly based on the old northeren culture from 800-1200) have too low personallity. There were more traders and farmers than warriors in those cultures, and we had trade connections all over europe. We don't complain about that, so why everyone complain about the redguard is beyond me.
- Heather Mason from Silent Hill 3. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:12, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- It's probably worth noting that: a) You were talking about Oblivion, brx, so that post was in the wrong section (Skyrim doesn't even have attributes), b) Of the four humans races, the Redguards and Nords share the same base intelligence, the Imperials are a frail but diplomatic race (disadvantages are combat based) and the Bretons are half-elves, who are the intelligent races in TES. c) The Redguards are otherwise characterised as knowledgeable, possessing "advanced seafaring, agricultural, military and even astronomical knowledge". I'm not claiming there aren't any racist connotations to the portrayal of Redguards in the game, but they certain aren't the dumb race. BoN 07:42, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- Heather Mason from Silent Hill 3. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:12, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that just because a character is hot or somewhat sexualized while at the same time being strong does not mean that they are objectified or sexist. Claiming a female character is being objectified just because she is hot is pedistalizing, and a sign of strong closeted sexism. Plenty of women would choose SoB armor for their own characters. The fact that it's feminine and yet full body armor goes a long way. I think it's also the only sexy full body armor of any female characters.
The Lone Wanderer, when female, would be worth adding. Because of the Black Widow perk giving a damage bonus against male NPCs, you're an idiot if you don't use it. –Александр(а) Ehrenstein (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 22:13, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- There's also the Zelda CD-I games where Zelda is the playable character. Of course, those games are also god-awful abominations. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:19, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- "I'd like to point out that just because a character is hot or somewhat sexualized while at the same time being strong does not mean that they are objectified or sexist." That would make sense if there were substantial counterexamples, but when every strong female character also has to be sexy, you have to wonder about what their role really is. Or just put your head in the sand & waffle about armour technicalities, whatever. ЩєазєюіδMethinks it is a Weasel 23:02, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- Weaseloid hit the nail on the head. When was the last time you saw an unattractive, yet supposed-to-be-likable female protagonist character in a game? (talk to) /æn əˈmɛɹɪkən ˈnaiːɪlɪst/ 23:44, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- When was the last time you saw an unattractive male character in a video game? Pretty much all male characters are attractive. The reason for that is because they're fictional. Fictional characters are attractive because they're made to look like what we think people should look like, and that is what is attractive. It doesn't have anything to do with sexism. I'm sure plenty of girls could argue that the Gears are sexualized versions of men.
Add Anya to the list. She was one of the Gears and before that, wore pants. Under a skirt. Someone please explain this. –Александр(а) Ehrenstein (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 01:05, 3 June 2013 (UTC) - Isabelle was an unattractive female main character from Call of Duty. –Александр(а) Ehrenstein (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 01:09, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- What, you mean her? That's what counts as unattractive? (talk to) /æn əˈmɛɹɪkən ˈnaiːɪlɪst/ 06:46, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- Pants under a skirt really isn't that uncommon IRL. Depends a lot on the type of skirt. As to unatractive heroes, well I suppose everyone in Oblivion was pretty fugly... --Kels (talk) 01:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- Maybe short tight black pants, but not often. Anya was wearing gray pants and boots, with a skirt over it. Weird. I also remember Dondrekhan mentioning that there was an Oblivion mod that made the women more attractive... I mentioned that I was sure it needed it and the creator had plenty of women IRL. Dondrekhan also came to the brilliant philosophical conclusion that you aren't not a virgin if you have sex in a video game. –Александр(а) Ehrenstein (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 03:32, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- Short black pants nuttin', I'm talking denim under skits. It happens. Also, who the heck is Dondrekhan? --Kels (talk) 03:51, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- I guess. It still seems a bit odd. Though I see it. Dondrekhan is a Sturmkrieg admin. –Александр(а) Ehrenstein (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 04:55, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- Short black pants nuttin', I'm talking denim under skits. It happens. Also, who the heck is Dondrekhan? --Kels (talk) 03:51, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- Maybe short tight black pants, but not often. Anya was wearing gray pants and boots, with a skirt over it. Weird. I also remember Dondrekhan mentioning that there was an Oblivion mod that made the women more attractive... I mentioned that I was sure it needed it and the creator had plenty of women IRL. Dondrekhan also came to the brilliant philosophical conclusion that you aren't not a virgin if you have sex in a video game. –Александр(а) Ehrenstein (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 03:32, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- "When was the last time you saw an unattractive male character in a video game?" I'd argue there's more unattractive male characters in gaming than there are female characters overall. Osaka Sun (talk) 07:01, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- a) Skirts over trousers or shorts is definitely a thing. Obviously it's possible to make gross aesthetic errors as with any clothing, but it seems like the opposite end of the continuum from going commando under a short skirt, in terms of practicality and risk of embarrassment. As a person who has rarely worn a skirt but would like to more often I approve. b) Osaka is sort-of right. I think the key difference is not about video games here, society (which is made up of people like us) has decided that the range of what counts as attractive in a human male is far broader, so that Snake Plissken who is short, and missing an eye; and Yul Brinner who doesn't even have any hair = both get to count as "attractive" while women are told to worry that maybe their freckles rule them permanently unattractive or they're "too tall" or other bizarre rules. Tialaramex (talk) 08:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- This may not be what you had in mind but the only game I tend to play has Catherine the Great, Elizabeth I, Cleopatra and Queen Isabella of Spain as character choices. While not being overtly sexual or beautiful they do appear to be on the "busty" side. ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 10:11, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- Oh god, are you a Civ V addict like I am? I swear if they made that game for Android I'd never get out of bed. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 11:20, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- If we're talking about Civ 5, then Catherine the great is portrayed as overtly sexual. But that's owing more to her personal folklore than anything (i.e, the rumor that she died as a result of copulating with a horse- totally untrue, she died of a stroke, but that's just an indication of how she was historically maligned).--"Shut up, Brx." 13:10, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- No, that would be Civ IV. V has an achievement that references the horse-myth though. Vulpius (talk) 14:00, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- I now confine myself to Civ Rev on my iPad (and previously on DS) When I used to have Civ II/Alpha Centauri on my PC I never got anything done and had to remove it. ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 14:50, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- I now confine myself to Civ Rev on my iPad (and previously on DS) When I used to have Civ II/Alpha Centauri on my PC I never got anything done and had to remove it.
- No, that would be Civ IV. V has an achievement that references the horse-myth though. Vulpius (talk) 14:00, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- If we're talking about Civ 5, then Catherine the great is portrayed as overtly sexual. But that's owing more to her personal folklore than anything (i.e, the rumor that she died as a result of copulating with a horse- totally untrue, she died of a stroke, but that's just an indication of how she was historically maligned).--"Shut up, Brx." 13:10, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- Oh god, are you a Civ V addict like I am? I swear if they made that game for Android I'd never get out of bed. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 11:20, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- This may not be what you had in mind but the only game I tend to play has Catherine the Great, Elizabeth I, Cleopatra and Queen Isabella of Spain as character choices. While not being overtly sexual or beautiful they do appear to be on the "busty" side.
- a) Skirts over trousers or shorts is definitely a thing. Obviously it's possible to make gross aesthetic errors as with any clothing, but it seems like the opposite end of the continuum from going commando under a short skirt, in terms of practicality and risk of embarrassment. As a person who has rarely worn a skirt but would like to more often I approve. b) Osaka is sort-of right. I think the key difference is not about video games here, society (which is made up of people like us) has decided that the range of what counts as attractive in a human male is far broader, so that Snake Plissken who is short, and missing an eye; and Yul Brinner who doesn't even have any hair = both get to count as "attractive" while women are told to worry that maybe their freckles rule them permanently unattractive or they're "too tall" or other bizarre rules. Tialaramex (talk) 08:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- When was the last time you saw an unattractive male character in a video game? Pretty much all male characters are attractive. The reason for that is because they're fictional. Fictional characters are attractive because they're made to look like what we think people should look like, and that is what is attractive. It doesn't have anything to do with sexism. I'm sure plenty of girls could argue that the Gears are sexualized versions of men.
- Weaseloid hit the nail on the head. When was the last time you saw an unattractive, yet supposed-to-be-likable female protagonist character in a game? (talk to) /æn əˈmɛɹɪkən ˈnaiːɪlɪst/ 23:44, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- "I'd like to point out that just because a character is hot or somewhat sexualized while at the same time being strong does not mean that they are objectified or sexist." That would make sense if there were substantial counterexamples, but when every strong female character also has to be sexy, you have to wonder about what their role really is. Or just put your head in the sand & waffle about armour technicalities, whatever. Щєазєюіδ
Just remembered which game had the fugliest player characters I've ever seen, and it was Mortal Online. Unless your boss is a fan of digital wangs or breasts that believe that gravity is just a theory don't go looking for images of the game at work.-- Jabba de Chops 15:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- My gaming experience is limited to Space Quest and Leisure Suit Larry (in the Land of the Lounge Lizards) followed by Tetris, but I do follow a few webcomics. Here is a relevant Oglaf for your amusement. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 15:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- Fuck... Oglaf link... but at work... such a dilemma. postate 16:34, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- It's marked "Safe" by Oglaf's standards. So, if you know Oglaf then you can probably judge whether it would be inappropriate. It's a link to this week's comic if you're a fan and thus would have already seen that. Tialaramex (talk) 19:45, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- Fuck... Oglaf link... but at work... such a dilemma.
The MGS women have been mentioned, except without Meryl who after lusting over Snake for MGS1 got her act together for 4. Have we all forgotten about Samus Aran? Then there's Cortana, Miranda Kynes and Catherine Halsey from Halo. Briar Rose from Fable 1. Tanya from C&C:RA2. -- Iscariot Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012! 20:41, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- Specify Red Alert 2. Although everyone in Red Alert 3 had completely ridiculous clothing. She did still pwn ass anyway.
- It's worth noting that a lot of the women in Warhammer 40,000 that wear ridiculous outfits also pwn ass.
- –Александр(а) Ehrenstein (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 22:43, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Kate Walker from Syberia is probably the best example I can think of. Sen (talk) 22:38, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Turmoil in Turkey[edit]
So my Turkish wife tells me that the essence of all the current turmoil in Turkey is that the secular-minded young people are protesting against actions of the (Tea-Party-like) ruling AKP party.
The Government has been trying to implement those "oh-so-successful" measures like alcohol prohibition, bans on public displays of affection, repression of non-religion-friendly science education, and the repression of "unapproved" religions.
I can't help but think that this is how things will be if the Tea Party ever gets any real power in America. But my support goes out to the secularist Turks regardless. VOXHUMANA 05:37, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- I don't know, the AKP sounds marginally more restrained than the Tea Party. I mean, last I heard Erdogan is blaming "foreign links" and "extremists," rather than something nearer "commie muslim feminist marxist atheist socialist satanist pinko liberals (who hate the constitution and the baby Jesus and are coming for your guns)." Peter mqzp 09:51, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- Where is the Turkish military? In the past, whenever the Islamists came to power, the military organized a coup and after some time relinquished the power to a more secular government. --Tweenk (talk) 15:47, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- I was living in Ankara (across the street from the Kavaklidere winery) during the 1960 coup. Only eleven, I had scant clue, but found the sound of remote machine-gun fire interesting. That said, I know squat about the present situation. Somewhere recently I've read that there may be more fundamentalists in the military these days, particularly in eastern units. If they come into the cities, things could get even uglier. Some of the online commenteriat claims foreign provocateurs have stirred this up. Who knows? Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 16:04, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- Where is the Turkish military? In the past, whenever the Islamists came to power, the military organized a coup and after some time relinquished the power to a more secular government. --Tweenk (talk) 15:47, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- The worst thing here is to perpetuate the idea that secularism = military dictatorship. Where is the Constitutional Court? If Erdoğan is truly the theocrat that the protesters say he is (and by all accounts, he seems to be gradually heading that way), the judiciary needs to step in fast. Osaka Sun (talk) 16:27, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- Regarding the Turkish judiciary, see this article giving the perspective of a Turkish former judge. Doctor Dark (talk) 17:52, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- The military is much weaker (at least in terms of officers that might start a coup) than it used to be, they say. --81.175.227.88 (talk) 01:07, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- The worst thing here is to perpetuate the idea that secularism = military dictatorship. Where is the Constitutional Court? If Erdoğan is truly the theocrat that the protesters say he is (and by all accounts, he seems to be gradually heading that way), the judiciary needs to step in fast. Osaka Sun (talk) 16:27, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Speculation of an affair at No. 10[edit]
Although it seems to be the Daily Fail doing most of the speculating. Still, if true, my money is on Cameron, D. and Hand, Right. Before the libel lawyers come sniffing around, my money is on Call Me Dave being a wanker-- Jabba de Chops 17:09, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- I don't see Cameron as the sleeping-around kinda guy. (But then again, John Major.) Osaka Sun (talk) 17:18, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- The report has Camoron "stunned" by the news, so probably not him. But apparently it's still some close to No. 10 and it could bring the government down (according to some tabloid). Clegg? SophieWilder 19:53, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- Clegg's "[I've slept with] no more than 30 women" comment a few years ago sounds particularly amusing. Osaka Sun (talk) 20:59, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- Well, judging by the silhouettes in the picture now
disgracing the front of the Mail's website (UK edition) they seem to suspect that the two participants in the affair are Eddie Munster and Tinkerbell.-- Jabba de Chops 20:31, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- Comedy horror and fairytale characters would be suitable members of the coalition. SophieWilder 21:43, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- I took a look at the Mail's homepage but couldn't find the picture you were alluding to. All I saw were Czech quintuplets, cancer scares & what dresses celebrities are wearing, with any actual serious news buried in the small print. Fuck, I hate the Mail. WéáśéĺóíďMethinks it is a Weasel 23:16, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, they seem to have pulled the picture fairly quickly. I've had a look through my cache, but couldn't find it.-- Jabba de Chops 00:43, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- Now I'm wondering if regular wife-swapping (or a four-way S&M orgy with Sam, Miriam, Nick and Dave) has been what's kept the coalition intact for the last few years. Makes about as much sense as any other theory. d hominem 11:11, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- Isn't it something of a tradition for Conservative PMs to have a front bench mistress now after John and Edwina? I think the only thing that would make it shocking is if it was Cameron and Clegg hooking up. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 13:32, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- Well it would explain why their first joint press conference was in the rose garden. Oh god, we're on the slippery slop to Cameron/Clegg slash... *heave* SophieWilder 13:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- Google tentatively suggests it already exists. I'm only going on auto-suggest and a few search results, I'm not going to read it. theist 15:20, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- Google tentatively suggests it already exists. I'm only going on auto-suggest and a few search results, I'm not going to read it.
- Well it would explain why their first joint press conference was in the rose garden. Oh god, we're on the slippery slop to Cameron/Clegg slash... *heave* SophieWilder 13:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- Isn't it something of a tradition for Conservative PMs to have a front bench mistress now after John and Edwina? I think the only thing that would make it shocking is if it was Cameron and Clegg hooking up. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 13:32, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- Now I'm wondering if regular wife-swapping (or a four-way S&M orgy with Sam, Miriam, Nick and Dave) has been what's kept the coalition intact for the last few years. Makes about as much sense as any other theory.
- Yeah, they seem to have pulled the picture fairly quickly. I've had a look through my cache, but couldn't find it.--
- I took a look at the Mail's homepage but couldn't find the picture you were alluding to. All I saw were Czech quintuplets, cancer scares & what dresses celebrities are wearing, with any actual serious news buried in the small print. Fuck, I hate the Mail. Wéáśéĺóíď
- Comedy horror and fairytale characters would be suitable members of the coalition. SophieWilder 21:43, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- The report has Camoron "stunned" by the news, so probably not him. But apparently it's still some close to No. 10 and it could bring the government down (according to some tabloid). Clegg? SophieWilder 19:53, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
(reset) What would be the selection of terms on 'Political scandals bingo' (a variant on the 'political buzzwords bingo'): S#x, 'weird s#s' - various flavours; inappropriate comment - various sorts; bizarre photograph; overblatent/inappropriate lobbying; hands in the till; peculiar friends; inapproriate financial claims; peculiar viewpoint etc. 171.33.222.26 (talk) 17:01, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
A bit of personal bragging[edit]
It has been over a year since I smoked a cigarette. (Though since I used the patch to quit, I've only been nicotine-free about ten months.)
In other news, my partner and I signed our first lease together Friday afternoon. In July, we move in together, to an apartment in Arlington, VA. MDB (the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear) 11:07, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- I think I can live with that. Congrats! ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 14:51, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- Well done, and congrats.-- Jabba de Chops 15:07, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- My heartfelt congratulations. I'm now coming up six years clean (1st July) and, with each passing year, I breath easier and feel richer. Innocent Bystander (talk) 10:34, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- Well done, and congrats.--
GOP & possible extinction[edit]
Of course the GOP would likely claim that it isn't that they have the wrong policies, it's that they have the wrong kind of voter.-- Jabba de Chops 09:33, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- The GOPs problem is not that they have the program policies, the GOPs problem is that they have the wrong backers.--Token Conservative (talk) 15:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- "The solution? Promote “diversity of thought” and welcome a “healthy debate” on the issue. And: “We should also strongly oppose the use of anti-gay rhetoric.”" Very original strategy -- pander to bigots, just don't say "Nigger, nigger, nigger." Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:39, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- The creationist movement used similar tactics, but with limited results though.
- "The solution? Promote “diversity of thought” and welcome a “healthy debate” on the issue. And: “We should also strongly oppose the use of anti-gay rhetoric.”" Very original strategy -- pander to bigots, just don't say "Nigger, nigger, nigger." Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:39, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- There was another voter report in the Times a few days ago (not sure if it's the same one) saying that the first three people that youths recognize to be Democrats are politicians (ie. Clinton, Obama), while they couldn't do the same for Republicans (they could only remember certain wingnut media hosts). Osaka Sun (talk) 19:10, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Is there a psychotherapist in the house?[edit]
Some religious detoxification is needed on Talk:Global warming, of all places.--ZooGuard (talk) 09:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Defining "derp" with Bayesian statistics[edit]
*Sighs* Osaka Sun (talk) 04:24, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- Nobody who doesn't already read rage comics would know what derp meant from reading that "article." RachelW (talk) 15:55, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
theobromine[edit]
Does it work? And wny does all the chocolate here have to have milk in it? What's a vegan supposed to do?--"Shut up, Brx." 12:48, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- What do you mean by "work"? Theobromine is a mild stimulant, similar to caffeine. "Regular" chocolate contains milk solids to make it less bitter and softer. Dark chocolates often do not contain any milk-derived ingredients and are vegan. --Tweenk (talk) 02:20, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- Use soya milk or other fats to adulterate it with? Anyway milk chocolate is an abomination unto Nuggan. CS Miller (talk) 08:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
BBC In Our Time on Relativity[edit]
The BBC's long running Science & Philosophy discussion program In Our Time (hosted by Melvin Bragg) is discussing Relativity with Martin Rees, Roger Penrose and Ruth Gregory. For little-known patent-clerk in Berne, he was truly the best of the public! iPlayer listen again is here. ---- CS Miller (talk) 08:52, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- Bugger, you beat me to a Radio 4 plug. And rather than using iPayer why not subscribe to the podcast? The great thing about IoT is that all previous episodes are available to download indefinitely. Генгисmutating 11:15, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Anecdote help[edit]
I know this person who said he gave his dog some kind of essential oil for deworming, and it had the same effect as deworming drugs he had used before. Might this have something to do with conditioning or the natural course of the infection?--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 16:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- Worms are a parasite and it is plausible that certain chemicals cause irritation making them release their grip and then pass through the bowel. I remember using mineral oil to remove a tick from my groin; the oil prevented it breathing and it was obliged to release it's bite. ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 17:30, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- A lot of things will kill worms in sufficient dose. Are we talking about making the poor dog drink/ eat the oil, or just smearing it on the dog's skin? Either way it doesn't immediately sound more pleasant for the dog than using an actual deworming medicine recommended by vets for the purpose. The "natural course" of worms is that the host is repeatedly re-infected, that's why the parasitic worms are still here millions of years later. Tialaramex (talk) 19:08, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Kerbal Space program and docking[edit]
Try as I might, I have utterly failed. Is there anyone who can give some pointers? Brenden (talk) 03:37, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- The game looks interesting, but when is a complete release? Osaka Sun (talk) 06:16, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- Forever from now. As for tips, Kurts likely done it by now if you wanna find the video, should watch the entire series anyways, kurts great. --MikallakiM 06:22, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- Scott Manley also has two docking tutorials (and an awesome name). Polite Timesplitter Let's move on to some other area of sodomy! 07:50, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- In my wanderings, I haven't heard of this. It's fascinating to see what I do for a living reduced to a game. --Inquisitor (talk) 09:29, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- I just want to know the most efficient way to get my rockets into orbit...--Transitional FormStill Durbinating 08:34, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- well if you just aim straight up with enough fuel and thrust you can get a fun orbit around the sun, oneday accidentally making a landing on a planet by chance. --MikallakiM 20:20, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- The Asparagus Staging technique is useful for getting a launch vehicle into orbit. Ochotona princepsnot a pokémon 13:58, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- well if you just aim straight up with enough fuel and thrust you can get a fun orbit around the sun, oneday accidentally making a landing on a planet by chance. --MikallakiM 20:20, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- I just want to know the most efficient way to get my rockets into orbit...--Transitional FormStill Durbinating 08:34, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- In my wanderings, I haven't heard of this. It's fascinating to see what I do for a living reduced to a game. --Inquisitor (talk) 09:29, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- Scott Manley also has two docking tutorials (and an awesome name). Polite Timesplitter Let's move on to some other area of sodomy! 07:50, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- Forever from now. As for tips, Kurts likely done it by now if you wanna find the video, should watch the entire series anyways, kurts great. --MikallakiM 06:22, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Chris Christie's special election: why the outrage?[edit]
Help me understand this.
A Democratic Senator is dead, and Christie has the power to replace him with anybody (presumably a Republican) until 2014. Christie is instead opting for a special election, which will probably favor a Democrat in fairly-blue New Jersey. And Democrats are outraged. Outraged! Why?! Do they really think this is a selfish move on Christie's part? Would they honestly prefer that he unilaterally appoint a Republican to the Senate? What gives?! It seems to me he's doing them a favor, and in doing so he's representing the interests of the people of New Jersey. Apokalyps2547 (talk) 17:29, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- It's about the timing. The special election is likely to have an enthusiastic Democratic turnout, which Christie would prefer not to have in the general election three weeks later. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 17:56, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- It's about the timing, and also the ability to score points on a possible 2016 presidential candidate. If Christie went the way the far right wanted him to (appoint a tea party nutter to the senate seat until a 2014 election), he might have reminded the lackadaisical massive democratic majority in NJ that he's, in fact, totally reactionary, and lost his current election. If he went the way the Democrats wanted him to - let Booker on the ballot with him in November, he would have hurt a bunch of down-ticket races where the republicans are hopeful to win seats. Hipocrite (talk) 18:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- How is this better for Christie than just appointing a Republican and doing away with the special election -and avoiding the strong Democratic turnout- altogether? Apokalyps2547 (talk) 18:10, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- Whoops, my comment was meant for Sprocket. But what's stopping Christie from appointing a moderate Republican like himself? Apokalyps2547 (talk) 18:12, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- I don't know who the available moderate R's are. The right is already annoyed with what he did, for what they see as handing the seat to a Democrat. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 18:24, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- He could have appointed Tom Keene Sr. That wouldn't have satisfied republicans, as he'd be a pretty reliable Democratic vote on everything likely to come before the senate in the next two years, and as such, would have depressed Christie's base. Also, it might have outraged NJ dems, who then might have shown up to vote in the gubernatorial (and more importantly, down ticket) elections. Christie is not playing the short game of worthless senate seat to reactionary. He either wants to rule NJ for decades, or he wants to be president. Neither of those will happen if he reminds NJ liberal voters that he's a conservative. Hipocrite (talk) 18:55, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- Meeting with Prince Harry and starting a bi-partisan friendship with the Commander-in-Chief? He's running in 2016. Osaka Sun (talk) 20:13, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- Meeting with Prince Harry and starting a bi-partisan friendship with the Commander-in-Chief? Thankfully he's running in 2016
- I corrected that for you Osaka. Seriously, if the GOP doesn't nominate Christie (or fucking anyone who isn't a Tea Party jackass) the GOP will basically resign themselves to being a glorified third party until the DNC decides to nuke New Orleans, or something.--Token Conservative (talk) 23:54, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- A glorified third party with permanent control of the legislative branch. I'd take that. Faced with mysteries dark and vast/statements just seem vain at last. 00:13, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- Meeting with Prince Harry and starting a bi-partisan friendship with the Commander-in-Chief? He's running in 2016. Osaka Sun (talk) 20:13, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- He could have appointed Tom Keene Sr. That wouldn't have satisfied republicans, as he'd be a pretty reliable Democratic vote on everything likely to come before the senate in the next two years, and as such, would have depressed Christie's base. Also, it might have outraged NJ dems, who then might have shown up to vote in the gubernatorial (and more importantly, down ticket) elections. Christie is not playing the short game of worthless senate seat to reactionary. He either wants to rule NJ for decades, or he wants to be president. Neither of those will happen if he reminds NJ liberal voters that he's a conservative. Hipocrite (talk) 18:55, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- I don't know who the available moderate R's are. The right is already annoyed with what he did, for what they see as handing the seat to a Democrat. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 18:24, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- Whoops, my comment was meant for Sprocket. But what's stopping Christie from appointing a moderate Republican like himself? Apokalyps2547 (talk) 18:12, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- How is this better for Christie than just appointing a Republican and doing away with the special election -and avoiding the strong Democratic turnout- altogether? Apokalyps2547 (talk) 18:10, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- It's about the timing, and also the ability to score points on a possible 2016 presidential candidate. If Christie went the way the far right wanted him to (appoint a tea party nutter to the senate seat until a 2014 election), he might have reminded the lackadaisical massive democratic majority in NJ that he's, in fact, totally reactionary, and lost his current election. If he went the way the Democrats wanted him to - let Booker on the ballot with him in November, he would have hurt a bunch of down-ticket races where the republicans are hopeful to win seats. Hipocrite (talk) 18:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- In addition to what Hipocrite said, it seems to me you missed a fairly critical part of the story:
“”In a move that will cost New Jersey an extra $24 million to hold the primary in August and then the special election on Oct. 16th, only a few weeks before Christie's own November re-election bid.
|
- So rather than move the special election to November as part of the general ballot, he's going to have a special election a month early and at great expense. --Seth Peck (talk) 20:34, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Hate sites[edit]
I've wondered how exactly they manage to exist. Presumably no webhost would be willing to publish them, and even if they have their own server, wouldn't the domain registar cancel their registration and their ISP disconnect them? I'm in favor of free speech, and I think it's good when services that allow people to distribute information allow conflicting or unpopular information to be shared, but I still support private groups limiting what people can say on their services under extreme situations. –Александр(а) Ehrenstein (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 05:18, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- ok? b--MikallakiM 05:20, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- Cool story, Bro. --Revolverman (talk) 07:22, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
–Александр(а) Ehrenstein (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 07:32, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
ŴêâŝêîôîďMethinks it is a Weasel 07:58, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Jabba de Chops 09:34, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- Cool story, Bro. --Revolverman (talk) 07:22, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- "Presumably no webhost would be willing to publish them" - why presume that? The majority of hosting providers don't really give a toss what their users do, so long as a) it doesn't break their network, b) it doesn't lose them money and c) it doesn't get them into legal problems. Most "hate sites" are probably hosted in places where they're either not illegal, or where the authorities don't actively take action (which from a business point of view is much the same thing). So long as they're not doing things that break the network and they pay their bills, they're a good customer. There's also no doubt a not-insignificant number of people in the position to take the site down who strongly believe in freedom of speech, even if they happen to strongly disagree with that speech, and who will actively fight attempts to have it taken down.
- Especially for large providers or registrars, they deal with so many different sites/domains and would receive so many complaints etc. that they just don't want to have to deal with them -- they're in the hosting business, not the content policing business -- and so only respond to ones which they're legally obligated to respond to. --Editor374 (talk) 04:55, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- I wouldn't want it any other way. — (talk to) /æn əˈmɛɹɪkən ˈnaiːɪlɪst/ 05:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- Many people who get involved in the internet hosting business would have a free speech, anti-establishment mindset and will happily defend the rights of people to have their own forum to air their views, even if those views are abhorrent. I'd say it would go with the territory, just like librarians refuse to censor books or release info on individuals borrowing habits except by law. As a slightly related example, the ACLU never did a finer days work in its history when it stood up for the rights of neo-nazis to march through a town with a high number of holocaust survivors [3] [4]. At their core, I'll bet a lot of web hosting servers feel the same way. DamoHi 05:17, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- I wouldn't want it any other way. — (talk to) /æn əˈmɛɹɪkən ˈnaiːɪlɪst/ 05:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- I hate "hate sites". Angela Pleasant (talk) 22:56, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
George W. Obama[edit]
Is trending on Twitter. Just saying. Osaka Sun (talk) 23:18, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- I don't see why people are being so bitter. If you're not a terrorist, you have nothing to fear from the government collecting your phone records on a daily basis. Faced with mysteries dark and vast/statements just seem vain at last. 23:41, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- And if you don't like it, you can move to France with the rest of the brie-munching surrender monkeys. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 00:49, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- Settle down, people, this data collection is for your safety and convenience. Cops have been able to get local usage details without a warrant for a while now, according to the cop shows on TV. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 01:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, cops have been able to ask a telephone company for basically the records that the phone company would need in order to bill people (who you called and who called you, and when), to figure out who you're talking to. In espionage this is called "traffic analysis" and is usually an unavoidable exposure, the cops can see who you meet, find out who you're calling, who you send postcards to, and these days often who you email or make Skype calls to. If these people are your grandmother, your friend who plays snooker with you and the local priest that's not very interesting... unless your grandmother is a known drug-dealer, the snooker friend is a bankrupt with a Chemistry degree, and the priest operates a small plane near the border then it's suddenly a lot more suspicious.
- I'm a big believer in openness. I'm OK with "snooping" so long as it's part of a quid pro quo where we're getting the same visibility on the Powers That Be. That's our insurance. They're watching us, but we're watching them. One of the biggest fears people have about "snooping" is that it will reveal their hypocrisy, mostly their small hypocrisies, but we should actually embrace that. The small hypocrisies have done us no good, and sometimes they've quietly done terrible harm (society's modern openness about masturbation for example has probably avoided screwing up a good number of kids who'd previously have been told various implausible and yet still scary things about their basic instincts). So, I'm not so big on demanding that Obama stop these practices, but I want to see the White House's phone bills, I want to see a lot less black marker "redacted" documents coming back from FOIA requests (or rather, more documents, less redactions), and so on. The "if you have nothing to hide" argument is also sauce for the gander. Tialaramex (talk) 08:45, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- Hear, hear! Wehpudicabok (talk) 08:55, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- You do know that this was an exercise in Poe, right? Though it's unbelievable that Smith v. Maryland actually gives precedent for the legality of this. Osaka Sun (talk) 09:18, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- First off, in my opinion, Smith v Maryland was decided totally incorrectly. However, it was my understanding that it determined that who-dialed-who info was not private. The defining law is not constitutional, it's legislative - specifically, USA PATRIOT Section 215 - [5], asking for all of Verizon's business records. This would seemingly be in conflict with the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, [6]. Irregardless, the legality is certainly not open and shut. Hipocrite (talk) 13:26, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with the sentiment regarding openness. I would also extend it to cover the private sector. For instance, you should be able to submit FOIA requests to private corporations. This would be a fair price in exchange for limited liability. Monbiot's argument is pretty convincing.
- Also, "irregardless" is not a word. --Tweenk (talk) 21:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- First off, in my opinion, Smith v Maryland was decided totally incorrectly. However, it was my understanding that it determined that who-dialed-who info was not private. The defining law is not constitutional, it's legislative - specifically, USA PATRIOT Section 215 - [5], asking for all of Verizon's business records. This would seemingly be in conflict with the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, [6]. Irregardless, the legality is certainly not open and shut. Hipocrite (talk) 13:26, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- Settle down, people, this data collection is for your safety and convenience. Cops have been able to get local usage details
- And if you don't like it, you can move to France with the rest of the brie-munching surrender monkeys. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 00:49, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- I love how the American left act all surprised that Obama has been doing all of this. Whomever occupies the White House will resort to tyrannical measures because that is the basis of the American political system. Obama may be a nice guy, but like any politician in the corporate Republic he will ultimately serve the interests of the state above the interests of the people. The fact that the American left have been acting as a cheerleader for this man for the past five years is indicative of how deep the cancer has spread. America needs a bold, radical campaign of reform. America has not had a leader like this since JFK. And the 'deep state' executed him because of his intentions to unravel the military industrial complex and because he wasn't going to be bullied by the generals. There is no way around it. Vote libertarian or Green if you want to see real change, otherwise shut the fuck up and stop participating in your sham democracy. Wankers. MarcusCicero (talk) 21:55, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- Because what i want in my america is the governors and state legislators of the bible belt deciding education policy. --MikallakiM 21:58, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- The libertarian idiocy may be worse than what we currently have. The American Green party also has some pretty stupid policies. So, who wants to start a grassroots effort to pass a constitutional amendment to completely overhaul the American election system? As a first step, I say change the election of senators or house reps to be like the Israeli Knesset: a single national pool of votes, and registered parties get a number of seats proportional to the number of votes. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 23:26, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- Because representing lobster fishermen in Maine, wheat farmers in Nebraska, and auto workers in Detroit is all the same thing. Faced with mysteries dark and vast/statements just seem vain at last. 23:30, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- You actually buy that rubbish that most EDIT: reps give a damn or know a damn beyond the bare minimum to get elected? You think that a senator from a large state could even do that job adequately? EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 23:32, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- Here's a short description of the system. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 23:33, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- Because representing lobster fishermen in Maine, wheat farmers in Nebraska, and auto workers in Detroit is all the same thing. Faced with mysteries dark and vast/statements just seem vain at last. 23:30, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- The libertarian idiocy may be worse than what we currently have. The American Green party also has some pretty stupid policies. So, who wants to start a grassroots effort to pass a constitutional amendment to completely overhaul the American election system? As a first step, I say change the election of senators or house reps to be like the Israeli Knesset: a single national pool of votes, and registered parties get a number of seats proportional to the number of votes. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 23:26, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- Because what i want in my america is the governors and state legislators of the bible belt deciding education policy. --MikallakiM 21:58, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
The Democrats want to create a government monopoly. The Republicans want to create a big business monopoly. The Greens want people to treat trees as some sort of diety. The Libertarians want anarchy. No one cares about us chickens. Mortimer Goth (talk) 23:39, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- You guys are fucked. The US political system is broken and fraught with corruption. Please stop trying to export it. Acei9 23:50, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- @Ace. What the hell are you talking about. I just re-read this whole section, and I didn't see anyone suggesting we export the US system, and no one seriously praising it either. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 23:57, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- I think Ace is referring to the Iraq war. Or something like that. Mortimer Goth (talk) 00:03, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- @Ace. What the hell are you talking about. I just re-read this whole section, and I didn't see anyone suggesting we export the US system, and no one seriously praising it either. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 23:57, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- You guys are fucked. The US political system is broken and fraught with corruption. Please stop trying to export it. Acei9 23:50, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Another school shooting[edit]
Several wounded at Santa Monica College. Story developing. --PsyGremlinSpeak! 20:19, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- Haven't you heard? Guns don't kill. Angela Pleasant (talk) 22:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Block wars and other old school stuff[edit]
Out of curiousity, what happened to things like block wars, memes, jokes, etc? This wiki doesn't look like Rational-Wiki anymore, it looks like something entirely different. Just saying. Mortimer Goth (talk) 00:24, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- Because people get bored of doing the same thing all the time? Humans tend to like variety after all. --Kels (talk) 00:49, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- True. Though I see MarcusCicero never gets tired of being obnoxious, and it looks like he's up to his same old antics. 184.7.157.90 (talk) 01:13, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- Like Ken, MC seems to have reached his final form and is now fundamentally static, doing the same thing over slightly different each time. Ochotona princepsnot a pokémon 01:32, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- So basically we figure out his attack pattern and spam Knights Of The Round? --Kels (talk) 01:41, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- Marcus was blocked for 2 years and he's a busy professional. Circumstances.
01:43, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- Hi folks. Couldn't but notice you were talking about me. My feelings are genuinely hurt. I've brought Swiftian surrealism to this website, pricking the pomposity of busy body wannabe internet tyrants, nerds, and dicks for some time now. I understand my method of communication is bombastic and rich with violent imagery. To some minds, particular American minds (Which are vulgar and poor at detecting the subtlety and coded statements that Irish writers conceal throughout their work), I just come across as an obnoxious ass. Well this, I cannot help. It is the price you all must pay for living in a free world. If you cannot handle my artistic zeal and penchant for wordplay maybe you should just fuck the fuck off and fucking fuck right off you fucking cunts? MarcusCicero (talk) 21:57, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- Wow, has it really been two years? ħuman
04:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- Wow, has it really been two years? ħuman
- It seems like an oxymoron to call us both dicks and cunts. — (talk to) /æn əˈmɛɹɪkən ˈnaiːɪlɪst/ 22:08, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- Hi folks. Couldn't but notice you were talking about me. My feelings are genuinely hurt. I've brought Swiftian surrealism to this website, pricking the pomposity of busy body wannabe internet tyrants, nerds, and dicks for some time now. I understand my method of communication is bombastic and rich with violent imagery. To some minds, particular American minds (Which are vulgar and poor at detecting the subtlety and coded statements that Irish writers conceal throughout their work), I just come across as an obnoxious ass. Well this, I cannot help. It is the price you all must pay for living in a free world. If you cannot handle my artistic zeal and penchant for wordplay maybe you should just fuck the fuck off and fucking fuck right off you fucking cunts? MarcusCicero (talk) 21:57, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- Marcus was blocked for 2 years and he's a busy professional. Circumstances.
- So basically we figure out his attack pattern and spam Knights Of The Round? --Kels (talk) 01:41, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- Like Ken, MC seems to have reached his final form and is now fundamentally static, doing the same thing over slightly different each time. Ochotona princepsnot a pokémon 01:32, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- True. Though I see MarcusCicero never gets tired of being obnoxious, and it looks like he's up to his same old antics. 184.7.157.90 (talk) 01:13, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Adverse[edit]
- I hope you're beginning to appreciate the true scale and depth of my genius. P.S- please remove me from the vandal bin, its really annoying. And stop making me to answer that stupid fucking question (HINT, ITS 4) every time I make an edit, you tyrannical wankers. MarcusCicero (talk) 22:36, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- You don't seem adverse to wasting your time on this site, so i don't know why a little more time wasted bothers you. — (talk to) /æn əˈmɛɹɪkən ˈnaiːɪlɪst/ 22:39, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- Averse. WëäŝëïöïďMethinks it is a Weasel 22:50, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- They seem to be almost completely interchangeable. — (talk to) /æn əˈmɛɹɪkən ˈnaiːɪlɪst/ 22:58, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- Not really. You mostly don't use averse in modern English, but it survives in "averse to" (and of course related words like "aversion" are common). In contrast adverse has thrived, and is found in many places, but "adverse to" is usually an error for "averse to". Arguably an eggcorn, although it's not clear what if any false analysis is taking place (compared to say, "tow the line" or "chuck it up to ..."). Tialaramex (talk) 23:46, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'm going to go for the descriptive approach and say that i used it that way, therefore it's correct. — (talk to) [æn əˈmɛɹɪkən ˈnaiːɪlɪst] 00:04, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- I can't tell if you're joking. Just in case, that's a popular misunderstanding of how descriptive linguistics works, in the same way that most versions of the "ascent of man" illustrate a popular misunderstanding of how evolution works. Tialaramex (talk) 01:38, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- Half-joking. The words are similar enough that saying that interchanging constructions is wrong, even if it was done unintentionally, is pointlessly prescriptivist. — (talk to) [æn əˈmɛɹɪkən ˈnaiːɪlɪst] 01:58, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- They're not interchangeable when used properly. "You don't seem averse to" something means you don't have an aversion to it; you don't object to it. "You don't seem adverse" would mean something like "you don't seem harmful", although it would be rather odd to say this as it's not a word usually applied to people but to events and circumstances, as with the noun adversity. Whereas "you don't seem adverse to" something doesn't really mean anything (other than it being obvious that you used the wrong word): it would be like saying "you don't seem unpleasant to wasting your time at this site". ωεαşεζøίɗMethinks it is a Weasel 09:04, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- Well, the words aren't interchangeable, but in spoken English the sounds are going to be essentially interchangeable in some accents because the 'd' doesn't make it. In my normal accent and register the words "awe", "oar" and "ore" are all pronounced identically. In some other English dialects these words sound quite different. It would be a mistake to write "I was filled with ore" unless I had strange eating habits but spoken aloud this sentence is fine. And of course the opposite can happen, if somehow I had never heard the phrase "like a lead balloon" but had read and written it many times believing the metaphorical balloon has been mistakenly given a leadership position, I would embarrass myself upon uttering it and discovering everybody else thinks the metaphor is about a balloon made of an unlikely material because that word's pronounced differently in my dialect though it's written the same. Tialaramex (talk) 10:57, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- It appeared in a written context so that's kindof irrelevant. Plus, I think adverse and averse would be pronounced differently in most accents of standard English. An accent where they're pronounced the same would presumably also be one where advice is pronounced as "avice" and advertisement as "avertisement". I can think of maybe a few accents where that might be the case, but it's unusual. ЩєазєюіδMethinks it is a Weasel 11:30, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- It appeared in a written context so that's kindof irrelevant. Plus, I think adverse and averse would be pronounced differently in most accents of standard English. An accent where they're pronounced the same would presumably also be one where advice is pronounced as "avice" and advertisement as "avertisement". I can think of maybe a few accents where that might be the case, but it's unusual. Щєазєюіδ
- Well, the words aren't interchangeable, but in spoken English the sounds are going to be essentially interchangeable in some accents because the 'd' doesn't make it. In my normal accent and register the words "awe", "oar" and "ore" are all pronounced identically. In some other English dialects these words sound quite different. It would be a mistake to write "I was filled with ore" unless I had strange eating habits but spoken aloud this sentence is fine. And of course the opposite can happen, if somehow I had never heard the phrase "like a lead balloon" but had read and written it many times believing the metaphorical balloon has been mistakenly given a leadership position, I would embarrass myself upon uttering it and discovering everybody else thinks the metaphor is about a balloon made of an unlikely material because that word's pronounced differently in my dialect though it's written the same. Tialaramex (talk) 10:57, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- They're not interchangeable when used properly. "You don't seem averse to" something means you don't have an aversion to it; you don't object to it. "You don't seem adverse" would mean something like "you don't seem harmful", although it would be rather odd to say this as it's not a word usually applied to people but to events and circumstances, as with the noun adversity. Whereas "you don't seem adverse to" something doesn't really mean anything (other than it being obvious that you used the wrong word): it would be like saying "you don't seem unpleasant to wasting your time at this site". ωεαşεζøίɗ
- Half-joking. The words are similar enough that saying that interchanging constructions is wrong, even if it was done unintentionally, is pointlessly prescriptivist. — (talk to) [æn əˈmɛɹɪkən ˈnaiːɪlɪst] 01:58, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- I can't tell if you're joking. Just in case, that's a popular misunderstanding of how descriptive linguistics works, in the same way that most versions of the "ascent of man" illustrate a popular misunderstanding of how evolution works. Tialaramex (talk) 01:38, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'm going to go for the descriptive approach and say that i used it that way, therefore it's correct. — (talk to) [æn əˈmɛɹɪkən ˈnaiːɪlɪst] 00:04, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- Not really. You mostly don't use averse in modern English, but it survives in "averse to" (and of course related words like "aversion" are common). In contrast adverse has thrived, and is found in many places, but "adverse to" is usually an error for "averse to". Arguably an eggcorn, although it's not clear what if any false analysis is taking place (compared to say, "tow the line" or "chuck it up to ..."). Tialaramex (talk) 23:46, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- They seem to be almost completely interchangeable. — (talk to) /æn əˈmɛɹɪkən ˈnaiːɪlɪst/ 22:58, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- Averse. Wëäŝëïöïď
- You don't seem adverse to wasting your time on this site, so i don't know why a little more time wasted bothers you. — (talk to) /æn əˈmɛɹɪkən ˈnaiːɪlɪst/ 22:39, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Marcus Cicero: better at making RatWikians waste their time than he might expect. --Transitional FormStill Durbinating 05:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- Yes Marcus, reading you call Rational-Wiki dicks and cunts gave me a good laugh. Classic MarcusCiceroism. The rest of Rational-Wiki just looks like another booooring atheist site.— Unsigned, by: 50.194.212.25 / talk / contribs
Sockpuppetry, edit-warring and other nice stuff[edit]
The Mind-Energy forum has become the subject of an edit war by a number of sock- and meat-puppets, with a lot of impersonation. Someone with more free time than me may want to clean up a bit. I was going to revert to the last "good" version and semi-protect the article, but I'm at a loss finding out which is the last good version. The target has a thread about this - [7]. --ZooGuard (talk) 09:11, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- From what I've seen of this kerfuffle, it doesn't look like something I'd much want to wade into. Forests was the only (sort of) regular RW editor with a stake in this & now seems to have LANCB. Having glanced through the recent contributions to the article without having read the whole thing in detail, I'd say that the recent edits adding content seem to be reasonable good faith contributions, & the edits taking out content not so much. So the current version, after the last deletion of content was reverted, is maybe OK? WeaseloidMethinks it is a Weasel 09:32, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- Someone needs to wade into the quagmire and start checking references and finding out whether the text is accurate - you know, basic wiki QA. "Good faith" doesn't necessarily mean good contributions. We do already have Proxima.
- And the number of sockpuppets makes me wonder whether Forrests had actually LANCB.--ZooGuard (talk) 09:38, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- I assume those accounts are people who drifted over from the MEF, & don't much care about whether or not they're sockpuppets. ЩєазєюіδMethinks it is a Weasel 10:34, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- Forests is always about. He just keeps wiping his talk page.--Weirdstuff (talk) 13:06, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- I assume those accounts are people who drifted over from the MEF, & don't much care about whether or not they're sockpuppets. Щєазєюіδ
- Forests is not behind the sockpuppeting, you have probably already read all this, but the guy behind it is a guy called MU, you can read about it here [8] he had a long history of making fake accounts of people on the internet. In short this "MU" person had caused a lot of trouble for forests, i.e. created countless accounts of him across internet blogs and forums and blacklisted his name by posting abuse... especially on the Mind-Energy forum where some of the users over there have even been duped into believing it was Forests. Recently MU has come onto rationalwiki himself and created about 6 or 7 accounts (mostly of people from the Mind-Energy forum), the most notable one being this one [9]. The real Eveshi (a member from the Mind-Energy forum) is this person here [10]. So for MUs fake accounts he should be perm banned for impersonating people. He's also created a fake account of forests called "forest" but that one was obvious and blocked. The guy who keeps posting about rationalwiki on the Mind-Energy forum known as "open mind" is probably MU himself and it is him stirring all this up. And yes I know forests in real life, he invited me to rationalwiki to debunk a few spiritualist crackpots, IP checks could easily confirm that mostly I have not been posting from his IP address in university. Apparition (talk) 16:20, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- I don't have anymore time for this. I won't be posting on this site anymore, but I'm still going be watching the pages over the next few days if anymore of MUs sockpuppets turn up. There's no point in making a big deal about such a stupid issue. It's just one guy making some stupid sockpuppets of people, but if you want it to stop I recommend perm banning some of his sockpuppets such as this one [11] TY. Apparition (talk) 16:28, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- Jesus fuck can't you people keep your promises not to post here anymore? The same insane nonsense you weirdos keep spewing. Is there something wrong with you? Can you not tell from there literally being not one single response to any of y'all's highly personal back and forth that nobody gives a shit or wants to get involved? People are trying to figure out what to do with claims made in an article, not get into your creepy personal battles. You're your own kind of cranks. Can you please keep this shit to yourselves? It belongs in private or somewhere else. 16:29, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- I treat the Mind Energy Forum in the same way as I treat WIGO Citizendium. Sometimes, because of our policies, we act as a place for little collections of internet nutcases to fight out their little feuds. As long as it stays there it doesn't really hurt anyone. In fact, I find it all quite amusing in a rather pathetic way. A little like watching five year olds fight over ownership of the Wendy house. Innocent Bystander (talk) 16:47, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- Jesus fuck can't you people keep your promises not to post here anymore? The same insane nonsense you weirdos keep spewing. Is there something wrong with you? Can you not tell from there literally being not one single response to any of y'all's highly personal back and forth that nobody gives a shit or wants to get involved? People are trying to figure out what to do with claims made in an article, not get into your creepy personal battles. You're your own kind of cranks. Can you please keep this shit to yourselves? It belongs in private or somewhere else.
- I don't have anymore time for this. I won't be posting on this site anymore, but I'm still going be watching the pages over the next few days if anymore of MUs sockpuppets turn up. There's no point in making a big deal about such a stupid issue. It's just one guy making some stupid sockpuppets of people, but if you want it to stop I recommend perm banning some of his sockpuppets such as this one [11] TY. Apparition (talk) 16:28, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- "Nutty Roux" considering that forests has print outs and has already spoken to his local police about the sexual abuse/stalking/impersonation that was left on rationalwiki and elsewhere against him, I think very much some of this will involve rationalwiki at some point in the near future, all you guys are bothered about is trying to cover your arse and reputation on your website, you couldn't care less about anything else. Take care :) Apparition (talk) 17:19, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- Oh noes, I'm shaking in my boots! Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 22:41, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- We have a reputation? SophieWilder 19:28, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- Take care. Don't let the door hit you on the way out. Just to be clear, we've had threats by far bigger and more determined cranks than any of these clowns. If homebread here could articulate himself more clearly, perhaps he'd be able to put his finger on how RW is involved in any of his nonsense other than accomodating him and what need anyone here has to cover his ass. But he can't. 21:28, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- Take care. Don't let the door hit you on the way out. Just to be clear, we've had threats by far bigger and more determined cranks than any of these clowns. If homebread here could articulate himself more clearly, perhaps he'd be able to put his finger on how RW is involved in any of his nonsense other than accomodating him and what need anyone here has to cover his ass. But he can't.
- "Nutty Roux" considering that forests has print outs and has already spoken to his local police about the sexual abuse/stalking/impersonation that was left on rationalwiki and elsewhere against him, I think very much some of this will involve rationalwiki at some point in the near future, all you guys are bothered about is trying to cover your arse and reputation on your website, you couldn't care less about anything else. Take care :) Apparition (talk) 17:19, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Iain Banks[edit]
Has died. Scream!! (talk) 14:54, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- 59 used to seem so old -- almost 60!! Now it scares the shit out of me to see somebody die so young. Don't really know his stuff, but condolences to his fans here. –Faced with mysteries dark and vast/statements just seem vain at last. 15:00, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- Sad to see him go. Haven't read any of his mainstream stuff yet, but his sci-fi was pretty damn decent, even if some of the endings were a bit meh. PsyGremlinTala! 15:26, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- The literary fiction varies a lot more than the SF, almost all of which (three exceptions I think, plus the short stories?) consists of Culture Novels which follow a fairly predictable structure. If you've read lots of the Culture stuff, I'd suggest if you liked Inversions particularly then try The Bridge (which was supposedly also Banks' favourite), and perhaps Whit if you enjoyed Hydrogen Sonata or you think the idea of how religions get started is a fun topic. The Wasp Factory is fairly unpleasant, if you don't mind some nastiness in your fiction that's a good place to begin, if you rarely read non-genre fiction then Transition is what passes for Sci Fi within literary fiction (so much so that the US publisher used the 'M' name) like Ishiguro's Never Let Me Go, blurring the lines a little bit. Tialaramex (talk) 16:59, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- Sad to see him go. Haven't read any of his mainstream stuff yet, but his sci-fi was pretty damn decent, even if some of the endings were a bit meh. PsyGremlinTala! 15:26, 9 June 2013 (UTC)