RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive212
Going to assault and clean the suggestion page[edit]
Hold on to your panties boys, I'm going to post a list of articles that need articles that don't yet. (Basically anything with 10 or more votes)
- Progressive Era
- Survivorship bias
- Annie Besant
- Edward Snowden
- Cell phone radiation
- Benevolent dictatorship
- Scott Adams
- Simon Wiesenthal/Simon Wiesenthal center
- David Hume
- Cult Awareness Network (real group) / New Cult Awareness Network (Scientology front)
- Western esotericism
- There's No Tomorrow
- Liberal arts
- Daylight saving time
- Light woo
- Fair trade
- Blood types
- Irreligion - Currently redirects to Atheism
- Morris Berman
- Causality
- Operation Fast and Furious
- Ediacaran biota
- Nuclear fusion - Cold fusion is covered, but what about a star's powerplant?
- An Inconvenient Truth - Not to be confused with Inconvenient Truth
- Front National
- Long Island Medium
- Neti pot
- America's War on Sex
- Spanish American War and/or the Philipines War
- Genetics of race
- Andrew Jackson
Anything (barring some of the most recent suggestions) less than ten votes I'm going to dump into archive3. -Zero (talk) 13:26, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
- I call David Hume. Shadow of Lords talk 13:46, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
- Daaamn, there's no article on Hume yet? There should be. (An article on nuclear fusion would also be sweet.) Nullahnung (talk) 14:02, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if nuclear fusion would make for a great topic. While it's exciting, it's not all that mysterious or enlightening. Is there any woo related to it? - GrantC (talk) 14:36, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
- Cold fusion Zero (talk) 14:42, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
- Hey, you know what, let me try to work on Daylight saving time. I know technically a bunch of stuff about time, and I'm aware the topic has the potential for lunacy (and that arguably the status quo is crazy too). Tialaramex (talk) 14:47, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
- (EC) Well yes, but as stated above, cold fusion is already covered. I was more wondering if there was any woo linked to standard stellar fusion. Stellar fusion is simple enough to explain that it could be dropped as a section into that article as opposed to getting an article of its own. I'm just not sure how one would fill an article on the subject while remaining on mission. - GrantC (talk) 14:48, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
- (EC2)@GrantC: Not in particular afaik. It's just that I've read through the nuclear energy and nuclear waste stuff on RW and I felt that fusion (as in, tokamaks, stellarators, inertial confinement, etc.) was missing, sort of a loose end to tie up, to inform people of the rather significant differences between how energy is produced in fusion and fission and how they differ in waste disposal and danger of meltdown and such. So it's not particularly pressing of an issue, but would be nice. Nullahnung (talk) 15:08, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
- (EC2) I guess I'm just confused at RW's stance on legitimate science. Obviously we try to refute pseudoscience, but is our goal to have articles on scientific concepts like this, or is it enough to build just enough background to refute the woo that exists? If it's the former, great, then I'm all for creating this article (hell, I can help, as I'm no stranger to nuclear physics). If it's the latter, then I stand by my suggestion that it be added as a section in the cold fusion article. - GrantC (talk) 15:10, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
- We are not Wikipedia. We are not trying to compete with them, since that would be impossible and yield lousy articles. Our articles should focus on mission topics, and background articles are useful only inasmuch as they contribute to that.--
talk
23:27, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, that's what I thought. The current body of science articles at the wiki keeps no convention as to how much background is enough (or even when to favour background articles over sections in other articles or links to WP). Should the community approve, I would like to go through and clean those up. For topics where multiple articles reference one scientific concept, I figure a brief background page should be sufficient (enough to separate the woo from the real science), and for concepts that are not drawn on heavily by multiple articles, a link to a respected source at the top of each article should suffice. Thoughts? - GrantC (talk) 00:04, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
- That sounds like a good rubric, and makes sense.--talk 00:21, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
- I started with the quantum computer article, as this article was the only one to really reference the concept. The original article was somewhat stubby anyways, so I don't think this is a very controversial first step. - GrantC (talk) 20:54, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
- That sounds like a good rubric, and makes sense.--
- Yes, that's what I thought. The current body of science articles at the wiki keeps no convention as to how much background is enough (or even when to favour background articles over sections in other articles or links to WP). Should the community approve, I would like to go through and clean those up. For topics where multiple articles reference one scientific concept, I figure a brief background page should be sufficient (enough to separate the woo from the real science), and for concepts that are not drawn on heavily by multiple articles, a link to a respected source at the top of each article should suffice. Thoughts? - GrantC (talk) 00:04, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
- We are not Wikipedia. We are not trying to compete with them, since that would be impossible and yield lousy articles. Our articles should focus on mission topics, and background articles are useful only inasmuch as they contribute to that.--
- My view is that this stuff about nuclear energy all contributes to an accurate view on speculations about the future of our energy needs. Also, various panicky concerns about nuclear energy may be calmed and various naive hopes about magnetic confinement and inertial confinement fusion could be laid to rest as well. I think it's a good topic to write about, personally. Nullahnung (talk) 15:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
- Cold fusion Zero (talk) 14:42, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if nuclear fusion would make for a great topic. While it's exciting, it's not all that mysterious or enlightening. Is there any woo related to it? - GrantC (talk) 14:36, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
- Daaamn, there's no article on Hume yet? There should be. (An article on nuclear fusion would also be sweet.) Nullahnung (talk) 14:02, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
There's Fusion woo, but like most other nuclear-related articles on the wiki, it's mostly Tweenk's shop.
As for "general interest" articles, the general consensus is that RationalWiki is not Wikipedia and should not seek to replicate it. One of the reasons is that the results would be only a piss-poor imitation of the original.--ZooGuard (talk) 15:52, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
- Right, that's kind of what I thought. Also, that fusion woo article has a pretty good section about what stellar fusion actually looks like (that's sort of what I was getting at with my suggestion about adding a section to the cold fusion article). The one thing that bothers me is what then happens if we have multiple articles that need to draw on the same concept. A section regarding what real fusion is would be nice on the cold fusion page (the current non-woo section is lacking in basic details), but that already exists on the other page. I've noticed this as I've been navigating the various quantum woo pages. How do we handle this? Most science depends on some common basis, after all. Is providing a "see also" link to some authoritative source sufficient? - GrantC (talk) 15:58, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
- I have a fair amount of material to work with to kludge something together on Western esotericism. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:56, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
- Verywell, I'll take a stab at Operation Fast and Furious *Giddy*. Zero (talk) 17:03, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
- I have a fair amount of material to work with to kludge something together on Western esotericism. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:56, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Have you ever encountered this persistently terrible argument/fallacy and if so, does it have a name?[edit]
I know I've seen it more than once, the argument that goes something like "Why is congress/parliment passing legislation about (controversial thing)? shouldn't they be worrying about the economy (or other general topic)?"
This assumes that they are not addressing the second topic at all and that somehow congress can solve the problem by throwing more man-hours at it and giving it nonstop attention. What congress and the president do is pass legislation. Once you pass legislation passing legislation harder will not do anything. Laws and policy take a while to implement, then it takes more time for their to be noticeable effect.
"Okay, everyone bill 87-662-A on fiscal policy is passed into law. So... is the economy fixed yet?" (5 minutes later) "Come on I'm sure 87-662-A would have fixed the economy by now. Let's throw something else at it um... 65-264-F "Adjustment on bismuth mining subsidies" Sounds great. What? No! Don't read it, just pass it! We have to fix the economy. For? Against? Ok, passed! What do you mean it didn't fix the economy? Ok, everyone take out a pad and pencil. We're all going to write a piece of legislation to fix the economy and we're just going to pass them rapid fire. If we just keep legislating at the problem something is bound to fix it! We are going to legislate the hell out of it!"
So, have you ever heard/read someone say this junk and do you know if it has a name? --Zipperback (talk) 15:27, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
- Not as bad as - David Gerard (talk) 15:34, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
- This sort of argument was raised when the gay-marriage bill was going through the UK parliament. To me it's almost along the lines of "I'm not a [bigot] but" disclaimer except that it's saying "I'm not against this but there are more immediate issues that need to be tackled" and you know of course that they really can't bring themselves to say that they actually are against it but are dissembling by trying to make it a question of priority rather than the issue itself. Of course a government never concerns itself with just one topic to the exclusion of all others, otherwise they'd only ever be tackling one thing a a time. You could argue that it's really like cooking a reall big family meal and while the roast is in the oven you put a nice cloth and some flowers on the table.
ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 16:28, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
- In a similar vein, you see it often in comments on articles about space exploration. SophieWilder 17:56, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
- And, as we saw on WIGO:World this week, Richard Dawkins defenders. Osaka Sun (talk) 20:41, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
- I've heard it called the Starving Children In Africa fallacy.213.120.211.100 (talk) 10:03, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
- And, as we saw on WIGO:World this week, Richard Dawkins defenders. Osaka Sun (talk) 20:41, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
- In a similar vein, you see it often in comments on articles about space exploration. SophieWilder
- This sort of argument was raised when the gay-marriage bill was going through the UK parliament. To me it's almost along the lines of "I'm not a [bigot] but" disclaimer except that it's saying "I'm not against this but there are more immediate issues that need to be tackled" and you know of course that they really can't bring themselves to say that they actually are against it but are dissembling by trying to make it a question of priority rather than the issue itself. Of course a government never concerns itself with just one topic to the exclusion of all others, otherwise they'd only ever be tackling one thing a a time. You could argue that it's really like cooking a reall big family meal and while the roast is in the oven you put a nice cloth and some flowers on the table.
Attenborough calls for cutting off aid to Africa famine-stricken countries[edit]
Dumb. And hilariously counterintuitive. And now anti-environmentalists are going to use the useless eaters card. Osaka Sun (talk) 21:01, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
- There is an argument to be made that flooding food-insecure countries with tons of cheap/free grain is exactly the worse thing to do if you want to create long-term food security; by undercutting local producers and markets, USAID, etc, make it impossible for them to recover after hard times. Moreover, by feeding people in distant lands, it lets their own governments of the hook for meeting their responsibily to ensure domestic food security, and breaks the links of accountability between the people and their state: OXFAM is not accountable to the people it feeds. Folks like Alex de Waal (Famine Crimes), Arturo Escobar (Encountering Development) and Amartya Sen (Poverty and Famines, Hunger and Public Action, co-written with Jean Dreze) have all written smart critiques of the aid model. What's posted here doesn't look like one of them. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 02:42, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
- Sounds like stock-issue vulgar Malthusianism to me. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:31, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
- If he was saying "We should encourage locally-grown agriculture alongside foreign aid to ensure that famines can finally be prevented," that would be perfectly fine. What he's saying is "More food = more population = less ecological treasures. So let them die." It's incredibly short-sided, especially from him. Osaka Sun (talk) 03:55, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
- Careful about quotes out of context. It becomes more apparent what he was getting at in the original interview and also from what he has said about over-population before. What he is saying is not to simply let them die. He's saying that sending bags of flour is not a solution to ongoing famine problems in places like Ethiopia. It's about too many people living in a place with too few stable resources and that this will become more and more common as the world population continues to increase. He even admits all the sensitivities around the issue. Come on, people. This is RW. Ajkgordon (talk) 09:31, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
- Don't worry, I've already opened the whisky. ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 11:14, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
- Don't worry, I've already opened the whisky.
- Does he advocate an alternative method to the aid model, as said by TOP? It doesn't matter if he admits the sensitivities, you know what that implies when East Africa 2011 occurs again.
- Careful about quotes out of context. It becomes more apparent what he was getting at in the original interview and also from what he has said about over-population before. What he is saying is not to simply let them die. He's saying that sending bags of flour is not a solution to ongoing famine problems in places like Ethiopia. It's about too many people living in a place with too few stable resources and that this will become more and more common as the world population continues to increase. He even admits all the sensitivities around the issue. Come on, people. This is RW. Ajkgordon (talk) 09:31, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
- If he was saying "We should encourage locally-grown agriculture alongside foreign aid to ensure that famines can finally be prevented," that would be perfectly fine. What he's saying is "More food = more population = less ecological treasures. So let them die." It's incredibly short-sided, especially from him. Osaka Sun (talk) 03:55, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
- Sounds like stock-issue vulgar Malthusianism to me. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:31, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
- We know that Earth's carrying capacity, if no equivalent of the Green Revolution occurs, will go red by (at least) 2050. We know that the effects of global warming will due some massive shit to Africa, and that its economic development will have to be much more nuanced (with industrial practices) in the process. But with the reality that poorer countries are the ones that have the most kids, it doesn't make sense to give the finger to the continent. Osaka Sun (talk) 10:13, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
- If you think he is implying that we leave them to starve, then I think you're misinterpreting what he's saying. It seems quite obvious to me that he's simply saying that these sorts of problems need much more attention and long term solutions than food aid. He even mentions some of the roadblocks like the Catholic Church and perceived chauvinism. Sure, he's not offering solutions. Perhaps he doesn't have any. Ajkgordon (talk) 12:18, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
- it may well be misinterpreted, but I think his own phrasing does not clarify his point sufficiently to prevent such misinterpretations. His comments about long term solutions are just that - long term solutions. His earlier comments about ethiopian famine being due to overpopulation in the area followed by sending food to alleviate such famine is 'barmy' is open to misinterpretation even with the comments that followed. I am sure many many will give him the benefit of the doubt because he is the much loved David Attenborough, i'm sure i will, but I wonder if they would if he was someone else? AMassiveGay (talk) 13:16, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm sure that's right. And journos will always look for a story and often try to trick people into giving them controversial quotes. This is the Telegraph, remember. And while he seems to have more than his fair share of faculties for an average aged human being, let alone one of his mature years, the older people get, the less concerned they sometimes appear to be about giving offence or even their reputation! Ajkgordon (talk) 13:24, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
- it may well be misinterpreted, but I think his own phrasing does not clarify his point sufficiently to prevent such misinterpretations. His comments about long term solutions are just that - long term solutions. His earlier comments about ethiopian famine being due to overpopulation in the area followed by sending food to alleviate such famine is 'barmy' is open to misinterpretation even with the comments that followed. I am sure many many will give him the benefit of the doubt because he is the much loved David Attenborough, i'm sure i will, but I wonder if they would if he was someone else? AMassiveGay (talk) 13:16, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
- If you think he is implying that we leave them to starve, then I think you're misinterpreting what he's saying. It seems quite obvious to me that he's simply saying that these sorts of problems need much more attention and long term solutions than food aid. He even mentions some of the roadblocks like the Catholic Church and perceived chauvinism. Sure, he's not offering solutions. Perhaps he doesn't have any. Ajkgordon (talk) 12:18, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
- We know that Earth's carrying capacity, if no equivalent of the Green Revolution occurs, will go red by (at least) 2050. We know that the effects of global warming will due some massive shit to Africa, and that its economic development will have to be much more nuanced (with industrial practices) in the process. But with the reality that poorer countries are the ones that have the most kids, it doesn't make sense to give the finger to the continent. Osaka Sun (talk) 10:13, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
My boss doesn't believe in the "theory" of evolution[edit]
My boss is a very smart guy, and this honestly stunned me a bit. He was talking about something he saw on the Discovery channel about mermaids being found and apparently "it was real". I immediately noticed this was a bunch of crocoduckshit and nonchalantly mentioned that I was fairly sure the most recent common ancestor between modern fish and humans probably lived hundreds of millions of years ago and we probably weren't going to find any fish/human hybrids, which I figured would be fairly noncontroversial. My boss immediately responded with "Well that's how the theory goes."
I asked him if he didn't believe in the Theory of Evolution, and he said he didn't accept "Darwin's Theory," that speciation has never been observed, and even rejected that there are observable changes in the ratios of certain gene sequences within a species over time, because we've only been studying that for "a few decades." He also specifically rejected speciation when I asked if that was his primary concern.
Somebody please hold me close and tell me everything is going to be alright q.p. Shadow of Lords talk 14:20, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
- When's the next redundancy round? Ajkgordon (talk) 14:23, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
- My previous boss was a Seventh Day Adventist and was rather strict about it (he didn't work Saturdays). He was also in the same creationist camp and is a former Atheist. When he found out I was an Atheist my work life died horribly until he just stopped giving me work then I was let go. So, no. I can't hold you close and tell you it's going to be alright since it isn't always the case. If you want to survive, I highly suggest you don't bring it up at work. If he wants to talk about it during lunch or something, go for it, but go into the conversation armed. Explain the mechanics from a genetic standpoint and make sure you explain humans have a hard time with the concept of time in the scale evolution somewhat needs for speciation. Zero (talk) 14:37, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
- (EC)There there, everything is going to be alright. No, seriously. There are a lot of really smart people out there who are unnecessarily sceptical of the most obvious shit. I once met this really smart physicist who does research at Chicago University. We were watching the history channels Ancient Aliens series and I was going on about how all of it was obviously bullshit gap-filling. Then he went: "But how do you know? Aliens might very well have come and built all that stuff! I mean, humans could never in a billion years have constructed the pyramids, even today we don't have the tools to do it!" I mean, being sceptical is good, but sheesh, you should really call bullshit when you see it... Nullahnung (talk) 14:41, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
- Also, I've heard of a biology major from Cornell University who doesn't believe in evolution... Yeah, there's some weird people in the world. Nullahnung (talk) 14:42, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
- I think Nullahnung might have gotten the gist a bit better than everyone else. I should have been clear that I'm not worried about losing my job. The discussion happened outside of work, we enjoy having little debates, my boss's boss is an out and proud atheist who I'm pretty sure accepts evolution (based on a really funny dig on intelligent design she dropped one time at work), I'm kinda indispensable with my expertise in the field of work we've shifted into recently, and most importantly my boss is a great guy who wouldn't fire me over something like this. It's more of a shock at, having known him personally and professionally, suddenly finding out he rejects something like this was a shocker. No work options shattered, just my beliefs in humanity fractured. Shadow of Lords talk 15:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
- Also, I've heard of a biology major from Cornell University who doesn't believe in evolution... Yeah, there's some weird people in the world. Nullahnung (talk) 14:42, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
- (EC)There there, everything is going to be alright. No, seriously. There are a lot of really smart people out there who are unnecessarily sceptical of the most obvious shit. I once met this really smart physicist who does research at Chicago University. We were watching the history channels Ancient Aliens series and I was going on about how all of it was obviously bullshit gap-filling. Then he went: "But how do you know? Aliens might very well have come and built all that stuff! I mean, humans could never in a billion years have constructed the pyramids, even today we don't have the tools to do it!" I mean, being sceptical is good, but sheesh, you should really call bullshit when you see it... Nullahnung (talk) 14:41, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
- My previous boss was a Seventh Day Adventist and was rather strict about it (he didn't work Saturdays). He was also in the same creationist camp and is a former Atheist. When he found out I was an Atheist my work life died horribly until he just stopped giving me work then I was let go. So, no. I can't hold you close and tell you it's going to be alright since it isn't always the case. If you want to survive, I highly suggest you don't bring it up at work. If he wants to talk about it during lunch or something, go for it, but go into the conversation armed. Explain the mechanics from a genetic standpoint and make sure you explain humans have a hard time with the concept of time in the scale evolution somewhat needs for speciation. Zero (talk) 14:37, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
- why are people always so shocked when they discover that people they know hold views that differ from you? AMassiveGay (talk) 15:38, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
- Not surprised just that he has different views. We couldn't differ very much more politically. It's just that he's an otherwise very intelligent person who normally tries to at least take in information that might not perfectly align with him (for instance: one of my ex bosses refuses to listen to NPR because it's "liberal government propaganda"). I knew he was skeptical of global warming, but this just stunned me for some reason. Shadow of Lords talk 15:46, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
- I'm shocked when apparently intelligent people believe stupid things.--Weirdstuff (talk) 15:47, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
- EC. Not believing in scientific fact is not the same thing as "holding a view." "The Rolling Stones suck/"The Rolling Stones are the greatest rock and roll band in the world"," "Obama is a great president"/"Obama has been a huge disappointment and a failure"," and "Guinness is the best beer on Earth"/"Guinness looks and tastes like sewage" are all reasonable views to hold. "The common cold is caused by wearing wet socks," "the Earth is flat," "The Sun revolves around the Earth," and "evolution did not happen" are not. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 15:50, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
- I would disagree. Most people are not scientists and most people don't understand evolution even when they believe it be true. I certainly don't understand too well but I go with it without looking to deeply at it. It has no relevance to my day to day life so I'd rather take it on faith rather than apply scientific method to it ( something else I do not fully understand or care to much about). I think this is postion most non scientists take. It is this position that most people take on most science facts. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:04, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
- Not surprised just that he has different views. We couldn't differ very much more politically. It's just that he's an otherwise very intelligent person who normally tries to at least take in information that might not perfectly align with him (for instance: one of my ex bosses refuses to listen to NPR because it's "liberal government propaganda"). I knew he was skeptical of global warming, but this just stunned me for some reason. Shadow of Lords talk 15:46, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
- why are people always so shocked when they discover that people they know hold views that differ from you? AMassiveGay (talk) 15:38, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
But surely the appropriate thing to say there would be, "I don't know enough about the subject to accept or reject the theory of evolution." This might have some implicit statements involved with it if it is said for any reason other than, "I literally know nothing about evolution," (for instance: implicit distrust of modern science/scientists if they know that most scientists agree on evolution), but it is surely possible to have never heard of the theory and therefore have no opinion on it. However, this isn't merely somebody saying, "Wow, I've never heard of the theory of evolution, so I can't accept it yet, but what is it?" This is somebody who explicitly rejects it and doesn't really even understand the basics of genetics. Let's not pretend the two cases are the same. Shadow of Lords talk 16:15, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
- I am sure the logical thing would be to say 'I don't know enough about this to have an opinion' but people don't. People take all kinds of proven facts on faith rather than look to closely at them before making a decision that effects there in no way at all, the same way people take bullshit on faith that in no way effects their life. Logic does not enter into it. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:25, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
- Perhaps we should work towards more logic in daily life then. A colleague of mine has a saying that I find quite relevant: "It's important to have strong opinions, weakly held". The idea is that you hold strong to your beliefs, but also be quick to change/modify them if the weight of evidence shows them to be wrong. - GrantC (talk) 16:27, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
- we probably should, but we probably won't. It probably doesn't matter. You only need the logic in day to day life in areas that has some effect on it. I usually find myself working in admin. My views and views of others on evolution have no bearing however logically they were formed. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:46, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
- I like the phrase 'strong opinions, weakly held'. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:49, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think it's really a question of faith, AMG, but of evidence. With complex things like evolution, that evidence is by proxy so you have to backstep and look at other evidence. So we know that almost all scientists in the relevant fields accept that evolution gives us the best explanation for the variety of life on earth. Opponents are overwhelmingly youth earth creationists and therefore have a reason to disbelieve it - there is some evidence for you as to why they might hold an opposing view. They also claim there is a conspiracy within science - atheism, funding, and so. Is there any evidence for that and is it reliable? These are simple questions easily researched and judged and require little understanding of the science itself. But even so, it doesn't take much to understand the principles of the theory and some basic research and examples of evolution in action. Ajkgordon (talk) 16:53, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
- I think AMG has a point, though. Average Joe (aka, all my classmates from school) is just going to learn about evolution in biology class in school and then blindly trust that it's true without thinking too much about it. Some things you just take on faith until you feel the drive to double-check, which you may never feel. Nullahnung (talk) 16:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
- True. Ajkgordon (talk) 17:06, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
- Just a quick comment on views on things that don't effect daily life. That's true in an immediate sense, I suppose. But it is important that the public at large support certain things that help us advance our understanding of the world around us. And not support those that don't. Otherwise we'd still be setting fire to each other and eating mud. Ajkgordon (talk) 17:11, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
- So his boss, and by implication all of us, should say: "I don't know enough about mermaids to hold an opinion?" --Weirdstuff (talk) 17:15, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
- Just a quick comment on views on things that don't effect daily life. That's true in an immediate sense, I suppose. But it is important that the public at large support certain things that help us advance our understanding of the world around us. And not support those that don't. Otherwise we'd still be setting fire to each other and eating mud. Ajkgordon (talk) 17:11, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
- True. Ajkgordon (talk) 17:06, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
- I think AMG has a point, though. Average Joe (aka, all my classmates from school) is just going to learn about evolution in biology class in school and then blindly trust that it's true without thinking too much about it. Some things you just take on faith until you feel the drive to double-check, which you may never feel. Nullahnung (talk) 16:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
- I like the phrase 'strong opinions, weakly held'. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:49, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
- we probably should, but we probably won't. It probably doesn't matter. You only need the logic in day to day life in areas that has some effect on it. I usually find myself working in admin. My views and views of others on evolution have no bearing however logically they were formed. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:46, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
- Perhaps we should work towards more logic in daily life then. A colleague of mine has a saying that I find quite relevant: "It's important to have strong opinions, weakly held". The idea is that you hold strong to your beliefs, but also be quick to change/modify them if the weight of evidence shows them to be wrong. - GrantC (talk) 16:27, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
- Show him this video or link him to Lenski. Osaka Sun (talk) 18:13, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
(EC)I had this discussion twenty years ago on a usenet thread. I had mentioned saying something about evolution in the house of an in-law, causing paterfamilias to bring out a Greek Orthodox journal article with footnotes to scholarly-looking references and all, debunking evolution. Contemporary magazine, but none of the cites were from any later than the early 1950s, hence no DNA sequences available. One of the sane threadniks asked if the in-laws' family were wanting for any worldly or emotional comfort, with the explicit question: how does this belief affect their daily lives?
Best answer I could come up with: disbelief in evolution, and teaching the kids that, leads to social separation, fomenting an us versus them mentality. In my opinion then, as now, the world needs a lot less of that. (The corollary, that it needs a whole lot more rock & roll, is not subject to question.) Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 18:14, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
- Interesting answer, SJC. I probably say that disbelief in evolution, or at least disbelief in the greater picture of natural selection and common descent, is a rejection of reality for a presupposition, which is in itself harmful if you care about determining the most likely and best supported truth versus claiming you already know the truth and forcing reality to conform to it.
- On a side note, Osaka, I actually don't know now whether he believes in intelligent design or creationism. I also am not planning on bringing it up again, though I will respond if he breaches the topic. I'll admit the professed disbelief in speciation leaves me hungry for more information and hearty debate, but I'll have to resist. At this point I'd be fascinated, though not as surprised, if I found out he believed in a young earth, especially since he rejected speciation. Shadow of Lords talk 18:28, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
- the us vs them mentality is certainly a factor in fucking things up, but I feel it slightly unfair to lay blame on the creationists. This is surely more of the same thing. I think when both sides passionately believe in the rightness of their argument there is a danger that that one side sees the other as stupid for not seeing things their way or are just wilfully going against it. Certainly there is an us vs them mentality within the skeptic community on certain subjects, feminism being one that springs to mind. I certainly feel that a lot the arguments coming from the sceptic community fail to take into account the heart felt beliefs of creationist and their like and end up hardening their resolve. It is no victory if with your Sherlock holmesian logic pummels their arguments into nothing if the result is a heartfelt 'fuck you, you're wrong' and entrenching of their views. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:43, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
- (Thanks to Nullahnung for fixing the EC hiccup) Most people are perfectly capable of living a completely fulfilling life without any need for abstract truth-seeking regarding common descent versus whatever mythology their community subscribes to. Given the audience in that newsgroup, I couldn't argue otherwise— it was absfg, a saloon-type group inhabited mostly by folks into Tibetan Buddhism, with some of the more vocal members being from the US midwest. Separation, in that context, is a big no-no. They take "we are all one in the here and now" pretty seriously in those circles, and I don't disagree. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 18:46, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
- the us vs them mentality is certainly a factor in fucking things up, but I feel it slightly unfair to lay blame on the creationists. This is surely more of the same thing. I think when both sides passionately believe in the rightness of their argument there is a danger that that one side sees the other as stupid for not seeing things their way or are just wilfully going against it. Certainly there is an us vs them mentality within the skeptic community on certain subjects, feminism being one that springs to mind. I certainly feel that a lot the arguments coming from the sceptic community fail to take into account the heart felt beliefs of creationist and their like and end up hardening their resolve. It is no victory if with your Sherlock holmesian logic pummels their arguments into nothing if the result is a heartfelt 'fuck you, you're wrong' and entrenching of their views. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:43, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
- p.s. I need to make it clear that those usenetters were not denying common descent, but rather giving (IMO) sound advice about which battles are worth putting one's energy into fighting. Feed the hungry promptly and clothe the naked warmly, and save the logical pummeling for adversaries who ask to engage in it, that kind of thing. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 19:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
The climate denialists are coming![edit]
All the usual suspects before the new IPCC report. Seems they're scared. Osaka Sun (talk) 01:14, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Movies coming up[edit]
I've mentioned Gravity a few months ago, but Benedict Cumberbatch as Alan Turing, anyone? Osaka Sun (talk) 04:16, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
- Excellent! Superb casting. Ajkgordon (talk) 12:40, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
- He's Assange, too (The Fifth Estate). The man can act! Wehpudicabok [話] [変] 09:14, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
- He also does radio comedy (Cabin Pressure). ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 09:38, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
- He also does radio comedy (Cabin Pressure).
- He's Assange, too (The Fifth Estate). The man can act! Wehpudicabok [話] [変] 09:14, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
community of mock-pleasurement[edit]
This looks like one another stupid movement that will die along when these people grow older. — Unsigned, by: 109.204.148.107 / talk / contribs
- Has anyone really been far even as decided to use? Wěǎšěǐǒǐď
Methinks it is a Weasel 21:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
- U fubd tiyr udeas fascubatubgm abd U wiykd kuje ti sybscruve ti tiyr bewsketter, Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 21:32, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
- Cool story, Bro. --Revolverman (talk) 22:06, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
- Game am I, albeit older now. ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 22:09, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
- How is babby formed? How girl get pragnent? Wehpudicabok [話] [変] 22:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
- Game am I, albeit older now.
- Cool story, Bro. --Revolverman (talk) 22:06, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
- U fubd tiyr udeas fascubatubgm abd U wiykd kuje ti sybscruve ti tiyr bewsketter, Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 21:32, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
- I like mocking people who receive pleasurement. It makes me feel better about my own non-pleasurement-having. — (talk to) [æn əˈmɛɹɪkən ˈnaiːɪlɪst] 22:49, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
- The question is whether mock-pleasurement is better than no pleasurement at all. (As an aside, the guy apparently is Finnish, so despite having a bit of fun at his expense I'm inclined to give him a break.) Doctor Dark (talk) 02:52, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
- Poor translation is one thing, but their ideas are incomprehensible. — (talk to) [æn əˈmɛɹɪkən ˈnaiːɪlɪst] 07:44, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
- The question is whether mock-pleasurement is better than no pleasurement at all. (As an aside, the guy apparently is Finnish, so despite having a bit of fun at his expense I'm inclined to give him a break.) Doctor Dark (talk) 02:52, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Aliens have been discovered and they look like small paper bags.[edit]
At least according to a scientist and possibly the Telegraph I am somewhat sceptical.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 09:59, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
- Journal of Cosmology, WIGO, etc - David Gerard (talk) 12:10, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm bored[edit]
Tell me a joke. SophieWilder 09:00, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- Compassionate Conservatism - Tygrehart
- Dog goes into a telegraph shop and goes "woof woof woof"
- Man in shop looks at dog an says ironically: "Dog, you said 'woof woof woof'. Today we have a special offer of four words for the price of three. So you could send 'woof woof woof woof' for the same price".
- "Don't be fucking stupid," says the dog, "then it wouldn't make any sense!"--Weirdstuff (talk) 11:47, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- Wenn ist das nunstruck git und slotermeyer? Ja! Beiherhund das oder die flipperwaldt gersput? --PsyGremlinSnakk! 12:18, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- I died laughing Nullahnung (talk) 12:24, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- If I can make just one person laughs at this joke then I have failed. ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 15:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- A priest, a rabbi, and an imam walk into a bar. The bartender says, "What is this, some kind of joke?"
A horse walks into a bar. The bartender says, "Why the long face?"
A priest and an imam walk into a bar. The rabbi ducks under it.
(For escalating insanity, see the other wiki's article on elephant jokes.) Nowhere Man (talk) 16:21, 16 September 2013 (UTC)- A dog is walking down the street in the old west when a gunshot from a nearby bar catches him in the foot. Enraged, he pushes through the saloon doors and demands: "Who shot my paw?" --Weirdstuff (talk) 17:36, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- A priest and a rabbi are sitting beside each other on a flight.
- The priest asks, "Just between us, have you ever eaten ham?"
- The rabbi said, "Yes, once at a wedding, I had a little too much to drink and accidentally picked up a ham sandwich."
- Then the rabbi continues, "Now tell me honestly, have you ever slept with a woman?"
- The priest responds, "Yes, when I was in seminary I had a fling with one of the local girls."
- The rabbi says "Beats the hell out of ham, eh?" Doctor Dark (talk) 00:18, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
- What's black and blue and hates sex? The hitchhiker in my cellar. PsyGremlinParlez! 09:53, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
- The special tonight at the Taj ML is function curry with NaN bread. Hydrogen and Time (talk) 10:09, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
- A dog is walking down the street in the old west when a gunshot from a nearby bar catches him in the foot. Enraged, he pushes through the saloon doors and demands: "Who shot my paw?" --Weirdstuff (talk) 17:36, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- Comic Sans walks into a bar, and says "I'll have a beer"
- Barman says "I'm sorry, we don't serve your type here" 193.195.181.230 (talk) 08:04, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
- Argon walks into a bar, and says "I'll have a beer"
- Barman says "I'm sorry, we don't serve Noble Gases here"
- Argon doesn't react193.195.181.230 (talk) 08:04, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
- A woman walks into a bar, and says "I'll have a double entendre"
- So the barman gives her one 193.195.181.230 (talk) 08:04, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
- A neutron walks into a bar and orders a beer. He ask the barman how much. The barman says, "For you, no charge." WeaseloidMethinks it is a Weasel 08:13, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
- A man walks into a bar with a lump of tarmac under his arm. Says to the barkeep "I'll have a beer...and one for the road too."--Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 00:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
- A neutron walks into a bar and orders a beer. He ask the barman how much. The barman says, "For you, no charge." Weaseloid
- A priest, a rabbi, and an imam walk into a bar. The bartender says, "What is this, some kind of joke?"
- If I can make just one person laughs at this joke then I have failed.
- I died laughing Nullahnung (talk) 12:24, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- Wenn ist das nunstruck git und slotermeyer? Ja! Beiherhund das oder die flipperwaldt gersput? --PsyGremlinSnakk! 12:18, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Davis M.J. Aurini[edit]
We should have an article on this man, what do you think about him? http://www.youtube.com/aurini — Unsigned, by: 174.88.34.133 / talk / contribs
- I don't think anything about him. I've never heard of him. Should I have? ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐMethinks it is a Weasel 11:28, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
- He's a brilliant political commentator, brilliant futurist, his ideas are great, it's a surprise you haven't heard of him. Check him out, might change your life.— Unsigned, by: some fanboy / talk / contribs
- "Brilliant futurist?" Seems like something of an oxymoron.--"Shut up, Brx." 16:15, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
- Can you tell me something he has successfully and brilliantly predicted?--Weirdstuff (talk) 18:03, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
- He's a Canadian neo-nazi video gamer reviewer, novelist, and Pickup Artist. I will admit, I do enjoy his videos for the sole reason that he looks like Anton Lavey and kinda sounds like Dr. Krieger from Archer, making me chuckle at how appropriate it is in contrast to his ridiculous viewpoints. The dudes at 4chan's /pol/ are practically gay for him.
- His viewpoints aren't "ridiculous", you just don't like them, but I understand, it's hard for you to give up your PC position and hurt ur libruhl feelings.
- Well, considering the fact that I'm black, I think by default I'm not going to be too welcome into any corner of the alt-right circlejerk, so all bets are off. I do wish you well on your dreams of a Caucasoid utopian paradise though, bro. (PS - I have to say, I really like the plugging tactics used here. Being vague about M.J. other than listing a few reasons that you're a fan of his. Creates a lot of intrigue, very clever. The thing is, you're going to have to find people who are more gullible, less familiar with the guy, and not to mention more white, for them to advocate and subscribe to Aurini's ideologies).
- His viewpoints aren't "ridiculous", you just don't like them, but I understand, it's hard for you to give up your PC position and hurt ur libruhl feelings.
- He's a Canadian neo-nazi video gamer reviewer, novelist, and Pickup Artist. I will admit, I do enjoy his videos for the sole reason that he looks like Anton Lavey and kinda sounds like Dr. Krieger from Archer, making me chuckle at how appropriate it is in contrast to his ridiculous viewpoints. The dudes at 4chan's /pol/ are practically gay for him.
- Can you tell me something he has successfully and brilliantly predicted?--Weirdstuff (talk) 18:03, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
- "Brilliant futurist?" Seems like something of an oxymoron.--"Shut up, Brx." 16:15, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
- He's a brilliant political commentator, brilliant futurist, his ideas are great, it's a surprise you haven't heard of him. Check him out, might change your life.— Unsigned, by: some fanboy / talk / contribs
FSTDT Forums-Related Rant[edit]
You know, I've have to get this out for a long while now. You see, The renaming and move of the forums came smack out of nowhere for me. But I do think Distind was in the wrong here. A few points:
- He announced the move after he posted threads relating to in-forum arguments.
- He refused to hand adminship to Sigmaleph.
- He stripped us of the name, as if to spite us.
--The Madman (talk) 13:42, 22 September 2013 (UTC)The Madman
- Seems to me that bitching about this, whatever it is, would be way more productive if you did it at the relevant web site. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 13:45, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
- One thing that I've always disliked about the OLKKMH forms is that Edward Rastalput is always such a jerk. I'm sure that everybody is following the drama there and agrees with me.--Weirdstuff (talk) 18:00, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
- I find the situation is similar over at the WGYUDEVGTD forums, but maybe it's just me. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 18:01, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with you. The people at WGYUDEVGTD are wankers.--Weirdstuff (talk) 18:05, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
- The what forums? Google doesn't offer help with those acronyms. SophieWilder 18:24, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
- Fundies Say the Darndest Things--"Shut up, Brx." 18:29, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
- The other two, moron. SophieWilder 18:31, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
- The other two are nowhere near as problematic as the DFHG^%56#$BBmHH1!!z forums. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 18:36, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
- I think that TDP is the worst.--Weirdstuff (talk) 18:38, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
- The other two are nowhere near as problematic as the DFHG^%56#$BBmHH1!!z forums. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.
- The other two, moron. SophieWilder
- Fundies Say the Darndest Things--"Shut up, Brx." 18:29, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
- The what forums? Google doesn't offer help with those acronyms. SophieWilder
- I agree with you. The people at WGYUDEVGTD are wankers.--Weirdstuff (talk) 18:05, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
- I find the situation is similar over at the WGYUDEVGTD forums, but maybe it's just me. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.
- One thing that I've always disliked about the OLKKMH forms is that Edward Rastalput is always such a jerk. I'm sure that everybody is following the drama there and agrees with me.--Weirdstuff (talk) 18:00, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
- Glibbetts. EVDebs (talk) 04:21, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
A Star Wars Lolcow...Of Epic Proportions[edit]
Say hello to Mr. Mickey Suttle, or as he likes to be called-Supershadow. He's close to the CWC level of lolcowish fanboy but not as gross... http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/SuperShadow --The Madman (talk) 14:07, 22 September 2013 (UTC)The Madman
- So...someone who takes Star Wars way too seriously trolling other people who take Star Wars way too seriously? Cool story, bro. --Kels (talk) 14:27, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Cosmophobia.org[edit]
There is this site called Cosmophobia.org (formerly 2012Hoax.org) that is about debunking various astronomical doomsday (put lots of emphasis on the quotation marks) "theories", and before 12-21-2012, also focused on the "Mayan Apocalypse Prophecy". It is much like RationalWiki, though it has no: Goat, Ram, Pygmy Goat, Fainting Goat, Leg Of Goat, Leg Of Goat Roast, or any other small, horned, mammal-related merchandise. What do you guys think about giving it a page of its own? — Unsigned, by: 173.72.172.199 / talk / contribs
- We link to it on the 2012 apocalypse; I think it's a little too small to give it a page right now. Osaka Sun (talk) 18:46, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
- There are a few more links to it here and there, dating back to the time when it was called 2012hoax.org.
- As for the content, a lot of it is hidden - while it's not apparent at first sight, it's a wiki, though due to the peculiarities of the platform (wikidot) I can't find an easy way to list all pages.--ZooGuard (talk) 19:08, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Transphobic blog[edit]
Just came across A Room of Our Own. Charming place. I especially enjoyed the posts tagged "Tyrannies Are Male Tyrants (Most with Dicks Intact) Who Parade as Patriarchal Stereotypical Fuck Toys".
Yes, someone really wrote that (and repeatedly so; the tag is used about a dozen times). I'm assuming "tyranny" is intended as "tyrant + tranny". Because, you know, it's perfectly acceptable to hate a large group of people as long as you can find articles in the news about how they all suck. And when you do, other people will thank you for clarifying their misanthropy.
Sometimes I hate the internet. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] 09:20, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
- Also, I wonder whether they're aware that their namesake wrote a love story about a trans person. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] 09:39, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
- Oh man, dat wordplay. We better look the fuck out with titans of wit in the Transaphobic camp. --Revolverman (talk) 10:20, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
- I'm moved to weep at all the time and mental effort spent on hating your neighbors that could have been spent on something more wholesome like masturbation. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:46, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
--ZooGuard (talk) 16:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)- Are you criticizing me, or them? Wehpudicabok [話] [変] 20:09, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
- I suspect he's aiming for me. I guess stirring up hate for people you never met is one of the things that leads to a better world. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 03:07, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
- I was talking to you, Smerdis. I don't know whether you were accusing me or the blog of stirring up hate. I believe ZooGuard interpreted your post as the latter. In that case: I wasn't stirring up hate, I was venting. And I hardly think you can fault me for needing to vent after finding a blog directed almost entirely at hating people like me. If you were talking about the blog stirring up hate, then yeah, you're right, albeit still shamelessly plugging your bizarre essay. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] 03:47, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
- In that case, I have been seriously misunderstood. The author of that blog seems... obsessed. She actually believes that transgender men who feel they should be women are just dicks invading Womanspace. This is important to her. You don't think there's something not quite right about someone collecting that kind of scrapbook? Needs to get a better hobby is what I think. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 04:46, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
- I certainly do think she needs a better hobby. Perhaps if she actually knew a trans person she would see we aren't all evil. Also, I think ZooGuard may owe you an apology. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] 04:52, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
- She is still interesting, in a sort of Baudelairean way. Mademoiselle Bistouri, je t'aime. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 04:57, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
- I added the troll template because, like you, I was unsure what was the intended target of SmoT's smarmy remark. I had (and still have) the nagging feeling that this wouldn't be the last time SmoT pushed his essay in this way and that he enjoys a little bit too much being contrarian. There was already a lively discussion on the essay's talk page, there was no need to start another one here.
- I also found it quite ironic. Smerdis, do you realise that you engage in the same type of behaviour as the author of the blog? You have designated a class of Bad People and you are harvesting examples of those Bad People Behaving Badly to bolster the case that these are Bad People. But of course, that's activism only if other people do it. :)--ZooGuard (talk) 08:45, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
- If you read the essay's talk page, you'll discover that some have complained that this has indeed led me into confirmation bias. Which, of course, is more proof that it's true! (I do think that for the reasons stated, the essay is at least somewhat relevant.) - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:19, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
- I certainly do think she needs a better hobby. Perhaps if she actually knew a trans person she would see we aren't all evil. Also, I think ZooGuard may owe you an apology. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] 04:52, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
- In that case, I have been seriously misunderstood. The author of that blog seems... obsessed. She actually believes that transgender men who feel they should be women are just dicks invading Womanspace. This is important to her. You don't think there's something not quite right about someone collecting that kind of scrapbook? Needs to get a better hobby is what I think. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 04:46, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
- I was talking to you, Smerdis. I don't know whether you were accusing me or the blog of stirring up hate. I believe ZooGuard interpreted your post as the latter. In that case: I wasn't stirring up hate, I was venting. And I hardly think you can fault me for needing to vent after finding a blog directed almost entirely at hating people like me. If you were talking about the blog stirring up hate, then yeah, you're right, albeit still shamelessly plugging your bizarre essay. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] 03:47, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
- I suspect he's aiming for me. I guess stirring up hate for people you never met is one of the things that leads to a better world. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 03:07, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
- I'm moved to weep at all the time and mental effort spent on hating your neighbors that could have been spent on something more wholesome like masturbation. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:46, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
- Oh man, dat wordplay. We better look the fuck out with titans of wit in the Transaphobic camp. --Revolverman (talk) 10:20, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Seems like a blatant case of cherry picking for a transphobic agenda. It reminds me of cotwa.info, which selectively reports rare crimes to advance a bigoted agenda by making them seem common. –Aleksandr(a) Ehrenstein, Jewish Bolshevik 17:24, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
- You are absolutely right. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] 19:37, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
How do people find theses blogs? AMassiveGay (talk) 11:03, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
- Happens. One day you're just spelunking through the web, and you might be reading a blog you follow and they link, or come across it when googling a term or keywords of a news story and BAM, your day is almost ruined. Here, have this. Polite Timesplitter Cultural loneliness is a right pain 08:12, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Neodarwinism proven false by a leading scientist[edit]
What do you rationalwiki neo-Darwinists have to say about this? [1] OC68 (talk) 17:12, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
- Denis Noble --Inquisitor (talk) 19:23, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
- Opposing genetic determinism means you're a creationist, apparently. Osaka Sun (talk) 19:36, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
- As I lack the patience to sit through a 40 minute youtube epic can somebody who is more patient than I say if there is anything more than is included in the RW article on Denis Noble? Perhaps the original poster could tell us?--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 20:03, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
- As a geologist I am not wedded to a pure neo-Darwinist approach to evolution. Quite frankly, it's not my specialty. However, whatever the details, none of this challenges the validity of a 4.6bn year old Earth, nor the validity of evolution in general - whatever the actual mechanisms. Geology itself had tussles over Plutonism and Neptunism and the end result was a synthesis of the two. ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 20:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
- As a geologist I am not wedded to a pure neo-Darwinist approach to evolution. Quite frankly, it's not my specialty. However, whatever the details, none of this challenges the validity of a 4.6bn year old Earth, nor the validity of evolution in general - whatever the actual mechanisms. Geology itself had tussles over Plutonism and Neptunism and the end result was a synthesis of the two.
- As I lack the patience to sit through a 40 minute youtube epic can somebody who is more patient than I say if there is anything more than is included in the RW article on Denis Noble? Perhaps the original poster could tell us?--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 20:03, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
- Opposing genetic determinism means you're a creationist, apparently. Osaka Sun (talk) 19:36, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
- In short, see his website [2], see the chart. All the assumptions of neo-Darwinism have been disproven, genetic change is far from random and often not gradual, mutation and selection is inadequate to explain most cases of evolution, acquired characteristics can be inherited etc etc. OC68 (talk) 23:03, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
- Just out of curiosity, how does he propose that the inheritance of acquired characteristics works? - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 03:08, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
- Interesting then that this scientist takes a different stance on the mechanisms of evolution. Perhaps he's right and these mechanisms need to be reviewed - but science is like that. All ideas are constantly up for challenge, review and improvement and sometimes individuals are able to overturn long-standing consensuses. Usually they don't though. In other startling news bears have been found using wooded areas as toilets and the Pope's religion has been confirmed. — Unsigned, by: Bob M / talk / contribs 2013-09-21T00:23:22
- Inheritance of acquired characteristics was never Darwinist. That was Lamarckism, which has been dead for over 150 years. SophieWilder 10:06, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
- So Noble is arguing for an extended evolutionary synthesis. And this proves...what? That creationism is true? Classic inflation of conflict.
- @Smerdis & Sophie: I don't know about Noble -- I haven't watched the video, but epigenetic mechanisms are usually implicated in the inheritance of acquired characteristics. Jablonka and Lamb's Evolution in Four Dimensions explains this at length. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:09, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
- But epigenetics is only going to get you changes in gene expression isn't it? It's not going to get you new species? (or even new genes)--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 06:16, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
- It looks like that both Denis Noble and Eugene Koonin need to be looked over by someone familiar with the matter - both articles are mostly the work of a single user (though a different one), both don't make clear why they are included here and how mainstream are the views of the individual in question.--ZooGuard (talk) 08:29, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
- But epigenetics is only going to get you changes in gene expression isn't it? It's not going to get you new species? (or even new genes)--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 06:16, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
- Inheritance of acquired characteristics was never Darwinist. That was Lamarckism, which has been dead for over 150 years. SophieWilder
- Interesting then that this scientist takes a different stance on the mechanisms of evolution. Perhaps he's right and these mechanisms need to be reviewed - but science is like that. All ideas are constantly up for challenge, review and improvement and sometimes individuals are able to overturn long-standing consensuses. Usually they don't though. In other startling news bears have been found using wooded areas as toilets and the Pope's religion has been confirmed. — Unsigned, by: Bob M / talk / contribs 2013-09-21T00:23:22
- Just out of curiosity, how does he propose that the inheritance of acquired characteristics works? - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 03:08, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
- Am I the only one who paid attention to the channel on which this was uploaded? It has, among other things, videos that advocate geocentrism.--ZooGuard (talk) 08:29, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
- Doesn't everybody? - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 03:43, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
- Pfft. Why put the Earth in the middle when it's an inanimate ball of rock? I should be in the centre of everything. Also, putting the Earth's centre at the centre of the universe misses a tourist opportunity, if you put the centre somewhere people can actually visit you can charge for tickets. Some of my friends spent hours at the weekend queueing to look inside a long abandoned power station even though there's a very similar ex-power station just a pleasant stroll along the river that is also a major world art gallery and is open for free every day. Tourists. Tialaramex (talk) 10:29, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
- Doesn't everybody? - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 03:43, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Should I be doing things?[edit]
Am I still a moderator? I haven't been here in a while. I still believe in the revolution though. Marcus Cicero SPQR
20:39, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
- You are not capable of doing anything. So it's really irrelevant if you should.--talk 20:42, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
- I, too, believe in the revolution. At least until I fall in love, at which point the Revolution will be dropped like a hot potato so I can go write romantic poetry. subnamuħ 20:49, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
- I'm supposed ot be doing something besides giving myself ninja rights?--Mikal | lakiM 22:23, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
- Marcus? Perhaps he should call himself Marius (Pontmercy). ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 22:26, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
- Marcus? Perhaps he should call himself Marius (Pontmercy).
- I'm supposed ot be doing something besides giving myself ninja rights?--Mikal | lakiM 22:23, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
You can start by making me a sandwich. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 00:05, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
The usefulness of hippie-punching[edit]
What do you think of this? It feels like appeal to moderation. (And he thinks corporate persoonhood is a natural by-product of democracy.) Osaka Sun (talk) 02:09, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
- I feel like it might hold some water if it weren't about American politics. Here, socialized health care is considered "radical," so the clusterfuck that is Obamacare is the "sensible" moderate position. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:36, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
- I feel like I rarely hear the term used except when a firebagger is throwing a temper tantrum. Some people just refuse to deal in the realm of the realistically possible. EVDebs (talk) 04:13, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
- It perfectly describes the rhetorical tactics of those attempting to appear as the "sensible centrist" (e.g. Bjorn Lomborg) or VSPs in general (e.g., Bobo). Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:27, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
- I feel like I rarely hear the term used except when a firebagger is throwing a temper tantrum. Some people just refuse to deal in the realm of the realistically possible. EVDebs (talk) 04:13, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
When you stare into the abyss it stares back[edit]
I remembered this recently. It really does happen. It makes you have much more heavy handed reactions to things. After the dark shit, anything related to Ghandi or Martin Luther King causes epic levels of feels. Have you ever had any personal experience with this? –Aleksandr(a) Ehrenstein, Jewish Bolshevik 03:04, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
- I have no idea what you're going on about but any mention of the noun 'feels' causes epic levels of wall-punching in me. Vulpius (talk) 03:32, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
- [3] — (talk to) [æn əˈmɛɹɪkən ˈnaiːɪlɪst] 03:50, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
- Meh, it's just something you should keep in mind any time you study dark subjects, especially with current events. I try to stay out of dark current events. At least when you read about massacres of Indians, it's something that's completely over with. –Aleksandr Ehrenstein, Jewish Bolshevik 03:41, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
- If you're concerned about the dark shit, you should see your doctor right away. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 03:42, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
- I got a kind hearted woman, but she studies evil all the time. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 03:47, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
- "At least when you read about massacres of Indians, it's something that's completely over with." Shut up.You should really shut up. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 03:49, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
- You're interpreting dark shit a bit literally. –Aleksandr Ehrenstein, Jewish Bolshevik 03:56, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
- There's no way you can go around talking like this IRL. "... causes epic levels of feels..." Come on. After spending years as a parodist, I know it's easy to pretend to profess views you don't actually hold. So from here on out, why don't you pretend to be human before you post? --Inquisitor (talk) 05:15, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
- Meh. Language changes. Feel as a noun is now fairly widespread. Language has always changed, even when there's supposedly a mechanism to prevent it, the result is just a foolish discrepancy between the official situation and reality, like a poor Chinese child being told that a word they want to use "can't be written" because in fact the word exists in their language, but not in Mandarin, and they are being taught to write Modern Standard Mandarin under the doctrine that there is only one Chinese language (instead of perhaps dozens)... Tialaramex (talk) 10:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
- Please tell me I missed something substantial in that, because I just read it as "Linguistics, so don't bother with effort". I've seen apostrophes used incorrectly on shirts lately. Polite Timesplitter Cultural loneliness is a right pain 10:28, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
- Close. Linguistics so don't bother with peeving. Tialaramex (talk) 10:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
- But t-shirts emblazoned with "Hello Boy's" are totally worse than genocide! Polite Timesplitter Cultural loneliness is a right pain 12:13, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
- Feel as a noun is pretty well established - for example, in the phrase 'to cop a feel'. However, given the context, I think we have to assume (and sincerely hope) that these aren't the kind of "epic feels" being alluded to here. Feels as a synonym for feelings is a fairly recent development, somewhat widespread in internet forums & teen slang, but not very prevalent beyond that, and really rather a kitsch way of talking. Does "epic levels of feels" really evoke "staring into the abyss"? But then again, since "staring into the abyss" here seems to mean 'reading a few history books', maybe it's better that way. WeaseloidMethinks it is a Weasel 12:57, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
- It sounds silly to me, but, as someone who has a tendency to punch walls, it does not in fact make me want to punch a wall. — (talk to) [æn əˈmɛɹɪkən ˈnaiːɪlɪst] 14:08, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
- I always took "Feels" as a humorous expression, and infer it to mean, "I am so overcome with emotion, I cannot properly articulate it". --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 14:33, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
–Aleksandr Ehrenstein, Jewish Bolshevik 14:48, 23 September 2013 (UTC)- http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/feels It's a humorous development of a shortening of 'feeling'. Nullahnung (talk) 14:45, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
- I assume that's a new use for the word 'humorous' too. Vulpius (talk) 17:28, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
- ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 19:30, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
- I assume that's a new use for the word 'humorous' too. Vulpius (talk) 17:28, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
- I always took "Feels" as a humorous expression, and infer it to mean, "I am so overcome with emotion, I cannot properly articulate it". --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 14:33, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
- It sounds silly to me, but, as someone who has a tendency to punch walls, it does not in fact make me want to punch a wall. — (talk to) [æn əˈmɛɹɪkən ˈnaiːɪlɪst] 14:08, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
- Feel as a noun is pretty well established - for example, in the phrase 'to cop a feel'. However, given the context, I think we have to assume (and sincerely hope) that these aren't the kind of "epic feels" being alluded to here. Feels as a synonym for feelings is a fairly recent development, somewhat widespread in internet forums & teen slang, but not very prevalent beyond that, and really rather a kitsch way of talking. Does "epic levels of feels" really evoke "staring into the abyss"? But then again, since "staring into the abyss" here seems to mean 'reading a few history books', maybe it's better that way. Weaseloid
- But t-shirts emblazoned with "Hello Boy's" are totally worse than genocide! Polite Timesplitter Cultural loneliness is a right pain 12:13, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
- Close. Linguistics so don't bother with peeving. Tialaramex (talk) 10:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
- Please tell me I missed something substantial in that, because I just read it as "Linguistics, so don't bother with effort". I've seen apostrophes used incorrectly on shirts lately. Polite Timesplitter Cultural loneliness is a right pain 10:28, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
- Meh. Language changes. Feel as a noun is now fairly widespread. Language has always changed, even when there's supposedly a mechanism to prevent it, the result is just a foolish discrepancy between the official situation and reality, like a poor Chinese child being told that a word they want to use "can't be written" because in fact the word exists in their language, but not in Mandarin, and they are being taught to write Modern Standard Mandarin under the doctrine that there is only one Chinese language (instead of perhaps dozens)... Tialaramex (talk) 10:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
- There's no way you can go around talking like this IRL. "... causes epic levels of feels..." Come on. After spending years as a parodist, I know it's easy to pretend to profess views you don't actually hold. So from here on out, why don't you pretend to be human before you post? --Inquisitor (talk) 05:15, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
- You're interpreting dark shit a bit literally. –Aleksandr Ehrenstein, Jewish Bolshevik 03:56, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
- "At least when you read about massacres of Indians, it's something that's completely over with." Shut up.You should really shut up. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.
- I got a kind hearted woman, but she studies evil all the time. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 03:47, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
- If you're concerned about the dark shit, you should see your doctor right away. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.
Possibility of content inclusion[edit]
I've just finished writing a conclusion to my Alternative medicine essay. Is it good enough that a modified (cut) version of it could be added to the mainspace article on alternative medicine?--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 13:23, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
- Never mind. On further reflection, I realize it's more about anti-science than alternative medicine itself.--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 10:55, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Tumbleweed graphic[edit]
Does anyone know how to download or where to find a downloadable version of the tumbleweed graphic/gif/whatever?? I have SOOOoooooooo many places I could use this! Ta in advance. --Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 04:05, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- You could just download our one, couldn't you? SophieWilder 06:59, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- Right click, save image in Windows. ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 07:47, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- That did it thanks. Sophie you'd think so but I couldn't actually find a nice monochrome file like this - there were a few colour pictures.--Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 02:03, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
- Right click, save image in Windows.
- The original is by Mhaille at Uncyclopedia, which defaulted to CC by-nc-sa (not our claimed CC-by-sa, btw - I've just corrected this) - if you can track him down eight years later, you could ask him where he got it - David Gerard (talk) 08:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Wrong again[edit]
The accident report for the Beech Hill Crossing accident in which a young child was fatally injured late last year has been released. I was wrong again. My guess was that it would be a simple abuse scenario, people frequently abuse half barrier crossings by zig-zagging through them, after all if you can't see the train it's safe enough right? And nobody wants to admit that their risk-taking killed a child. But it seems that this driver may legitimately not have seen the red flashing lights and barrier until it was too late. Although the driver behind (a witness to the accident) reports seeing the crossing "wig-wag" warning lights illuminated from hundreds of metres away the accident driver's eyesight may have been more marginal due to age, and investigators found the existing lights fell short of the required standard. All the remaining lights of this type will now be retired and replaced by brighter LED lamps. Tialaramex (talk) 13:39, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for sharing that with us. Innocent Bystander (talk) 13:43, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- If the barrier down signal was lost doesn't that indicate that the driver drove through the barrier, rather than around it?
- But imho she is still at fault. If you are blinded by the sun you slow down to a safe speed, especially on a road where you know there is a level crossing. Imagine if it had been a pedestrian she had hit instead of a train. 121.216.58.91 (talk) 14:09, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- The driver went through the barrier, yes, and it supports the hypothesis that the driver didn't intend to abuse the crossing. but it was hard to guess from news reports that she'd hit the barrier before the accident. My speculation as to abuse was because the vast majority of near misses (which are reportable in theory but unlike an actual accident may slip through the net) for this type of crossing are abuse.
- The accident investigators don't care whose fault it is. Their brief is to figure out how best to prevent this (or something similar) happening again. Blaming somebody is at best orthogonal to that purpose and usually counter-productive. The accident investigators assigned to the serious marine casualty Costa Concordia for example (to the extent that I can understand their not-so-great English) had plenty of bad things to say about the leadership and decision making of Schettino, but they don't waste time saying it's his fault and he should go to jail, that's a job for the prosecutors. Indeed many pages of their report aren't concerned with Schettino at all, but with other aspects of the accident which might be prevented from happening again by technical means. Tialaramex (talk) 12:15, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Romney InTrade Bump[edit]
I'm not sure anyone here but me remembers this, but there was a weird thing on InTrade during the 2012 US elections. I made money from the process, but I also noticed a blip right near the end of the general election. I couldn't make sense of it at the time... even though it seemed really obvious Mitt would lose, somehow his stock was rising sharply during a small period. The only thing that made sense was that someone was trying to pump and dump the stock, since the alternative was that some idiot was sacrificing millions just to try to put some wind in the Romney campaign sails.
As it turns out, it really was that last thing. new paper is out analyzing that time on InTrade, and it reveals that one guy spent something approaching $7 million in order to artificially inflate Romney's price (and hence, estimated chance of winning) over almost three days. The paper's analysis examines the possibility it might have been an attempt at arbitrage with BetFair (a similar site) or a hedge against a different S&P bet or something, but neither makes much sense.
Never underestimate the power of fervent politics to make people stupid with their money.--talk 23:46, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- re: external link: "The abstract you requested was not found.". Scream!! (talk) 23:51, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks - fixed!--talk 23:56, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks - fixed!--
- Not so different from people trying to track Apple's future by stock price. EVDebs (talk) 00:36, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
- I guess there is some similarity. If you're going to invest in the market directly (which you probably shouldn't) then one of the best opportunities to make money is to take advantage of the fact that people often buy a company because they think it has a bright future or because they like the products, rather than the only fact that actually matters: whether or not the stock is priced appropriately for its value. In the same way, it looks like numerous people were buying Romney because they liked him and wanted him to win, and one person in particular invested a huge amount along those lines, rather than because they thought he actually would win.--talk 12:24, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
- I guess there is some similarity. If you're going to invest in the market directly (which you probably shouldn't) then one of the best opportunities to make money is to take advantage of the fact that people often buy a company because they think it has a bright future or because they like the products, rather than the only fact that actually matters: whether or not the stock is priced appropriately for its value. In the same way, it looks like numerous people were buying Romney because they liked him and wanted him to win, and one person in particular invested a huge amount along those lines, rather than because they thought he actually would win.--
Why the US conflates "liberal" and "left-wing"[edit]
I was looking for footage Adlai Stevenson's famous remarks in in the Cuban Missile Crisis (one clip) and if you manage to survive the comments, there are people arguing that the left-wing has overtaken centrist discourse in the Democratic Party post-JFK (when the exact opposite has actually happened). Who's in the belief that the average Americans are so fearful of socialism that they're too scared (yes, scared) to even research it?
I think we really need to differentiate between communism, socialism, and social democracy and cut down the wall of text that are the first two. Osaka Sun (talk) 06:00, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
- I think the word "socialism" has become the new "unconstitutional". Whenever either word gets tossed around, it's usually just serving as a convenient placeholder for "I don't like/want it!" --Inquisitor (talk) 06:09, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
- By and large we don't have this problem in Europe. We're a lot more nuanced with our left of centre-right politics. ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 07:56, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
- By and large we don't have this problem in Europe. We're a lot more nuanced with our left of centre-right politics.
- I lay this at the foot of liberal laziness.
- Just before Reagan came into office, the Heritage Foundation published a thousand-page top-to-bottom assessment of the government and its policies. Actually I think there was even a bigger version, but they condensed it. And for decades, they kept on releasing serious and well-researched policy papers, all based around that first coherent vision. It was practical and passionate and some huge percentage of those policies have been put into law. It was probably the most well-done and successful policy book since Common Sense.
- Such a thing has not ever been done on the liberal side by a liberal think tank, to my knowledge. That means that liberalism in America has lacked cohesion in terms of policy, even if it has never lacked vision. And in the absence of an ideological center to the movement, it becomes a thousand small battles on a thousand individual fronts, allowing labels to be used much more loosely by both proponents and opponents of American liberalism.--talk 12:31, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
- Because one of the most effective campaign tactics is to shout REDSREDSREDSREDSREDSREDS!!!!!! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 13:46, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
- US Elections necessitate two parties, and a third party can't succeed, unless it is about to become one of the two parties. For the Greens, this means constant failure and ridicule. For the Libertarians, this means making a lot of noise, then giving up and voting Republican. As for why the US has shifted to be so conservative... I don't know -perhaps people crave the familiar. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 13:53, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
- If the US ever saw a left of centre politician they wouldn't be able to differentiate it from the bolsheviks. All the politicians would be right of centre in Europe. As to the "conservative" v "liberal" thing, isn't that just "small or zero government versus big or some government"? It just so happens that the 'not so right wing' party is in favour of government actually governing. hence Liberal = Left[sic] Wing. Scream!! (talk) 15:05, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
- That depends, are we talking about small government conservatives, big government, social, religious? --Mikal | lakiM 15:10, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
- What is this "small government conservative" you speak of? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 15:13, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
- That depends, are we talking about small government conservatives, big government, social, religious? --Mikal | lakiM 15:10, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
- If the US ever saw a left of centre politician they wouldn't be able to differentiate it from the bolsheviks. All the politicians would be right of centre in Europe. As to the "conservative" v "liberal" thing, isn't that just "small or zero government versus big or some government"? It just so happens that the 'not so right wing' party is in favour of government actually governing. hence Liberal = Left[sic] Wing. Scream!! (talk) 15:05, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
- US Elections necessitate two parties, and a third party can't succeed, unless it is about to become one of the two parties. For the Greens, this means constant failure and ridicule. For the Libertarians, this means making a lot of noise, then giving up and voting Republican. As for why the US has shifted to be so conservative... I don't know -perhaps people crave the familiar. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 13:53, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
- "It was practical and passionate and some huge percentage of those policies have been put into law." Including, ironically, one a Senator just tried to destroy with a 21-hour filibuster and Green Eggs and Ham. Osaka Sun (talk) 17:55, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
- The Limbaughist Reactionarism of the modern Republican Party is easy to adopt because it requires no thought and a lot of fear, which is probably the most basic of emotions. Also, does anyone have a link to the tome AD mentioned, or at least the name?-- Token Conservative Feminist Thought Police 15:25, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
- Mandate for Leadership. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 15:32, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
- When I am leading a violent take over of the Republican Party and restoring glory and honor to our beloved Grand Old Party, you may know that you helped. That, is your bounty.-- Token Conservative Feminist Thought Police 15:35, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
- But is it quilted? --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 16:07, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
- When I am leading a violent take over of the Republican Party and restoring glory and honor to our beloved Grand Old Party, you may know that you helped. That, is your bounty.-- Token Conservative Feminist Thought Police 15:35, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
- Mandate for Leadership. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 15:32, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
- The Limbaughist Reactionarism of the modern Republican Party is easy to adopt because it requires no thought and a lot of fear, which is probably the most basic of emotions. Also, does anyone have a link to the tome AD mentioned, or at least the name?-- Token Conservative Feminist Thought Police 15:25, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
- Because one of the most effective campaign tactics is to shout REDSREDSREDSREDSREDSREDS!!!!!! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 13:46, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Does this have a name?[edit]
I’ve been thinking a lot about conservative economics, and I noticed that there is a fallacy that’s basically the opposite of the Broken Window Fallacy, and I was wondering if there’s a name for it specifically. Basically, it’s the assumption that there’s economic value in any private investment or spending, but zero economic value in any government spending. I know that the most obvious example of this is people raving about welfare, even though the money still ends up going back into the private economy when its used to pay for food and other necessities, however I’m referring to a step beyond that. For instance, take two identical roads, one built privately (either to collect tolls, or because the company needed to transport things), one built publicly. Both have economic value for transportation, and in both cases the money at some point went into wages (either the wages of the people who did the work, or the wages of the people who produced the material). So, fundamentally, what’s the difference? (this seems particularly ironic for wingnuts who try to claim that the government is just a big corporation)--Mustex (talk) 22:16, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
- It's simple confirmation bias. Of course they don't think public spending benefits the economy, that's what their ideology tells them is true. Osaka Sun (talk) 22:18, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure it's a logical fallacy per se, it's just a falsehood. A refusal to look at the facts. Apokalyps2547 (talk) 22:39, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
- We don't get quite that black & white image here in foreign. UK Tories are more likely to say that private investment gives more value than public - efficiencies, competition, less waste, etc. Ajkgordon (talk) 08:11, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
- It's called the crowding out effect. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 15:04, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
- We don't get quite that black & white image here in foreign. UK Tories are more likely to say that private investment gives more value than public - efficiencies, competition, less waste, etc. Ajkgordon (talk) 08:11, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure it's a logical fallacy per se, it's just a falsehood. A refusal to look at the facts. Apokalyps2547 (talk) 22:39, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Bill Nye on Dancing with the Stars[edit]
See Bill dance on monday night. He may be a good science educator but not a great dancer. Hamster (talk) 01:54, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
- If this gif is all we get from it, then I'll be happy. Osaka Sun (talk) 02:01, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I saw a clip of him. Is it just me, or did he come off as a bit creepy interacting with his dance partner? I'm saying this as a fan of Science Guy and more so of Eye of Nye--"Shut up, Brx." 02:03, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
- If the major complain you can level against someone is "not a good dancer" then I think that automatically makes that person awesome. DickTurpis (talk) 03:10, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
- I'm shithoused and I still can't believe I agree with Brxbrx instead of blocking him and removing his rights because he dishonorably taxed his poor mother's snizz at least once and has been like a slow and painful colon cancer to RW. But Bill Nye is a really creepy guy. Love him. But he's creepy.
03:25, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Best.... RW post.... EVER! Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 09:12, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
- Bill Nye has been through Minnow's Wasteland, it seems... (paraphrasing) when television is good, nothing is better, and when television is bad, nothing is worse. Bill Nye has found that out for himself. SCIENCE! --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 16:00, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
- I'm shithoused and I still can't believe I agree with Brxbrx instead of blocking him and removing his rights because he dishonorably taxed his poor mother's snizz at least once and has been like a slow and painful colon cancer to RW. But Bill Nye is a really creepy guy. Love him. But he's creepy.
- If the major complain you can level against someone is "not a good dancer" then I think that automatically makes that person awesome. DickTurpis (talk) 03:10, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Are the Cons heading for another 1993?[edit]
What I mean by that is with all the scandals (To the point where on MP IS now criminally charged with breaking the Elections act) will break the back of the party in the next election and cause it to fall to complete irreverence? If so, what happens? Do we go back to Eastern and Western Conservative parties in the mold of the PCs, and the Reformers respectfully? Will the Party limp back into becoming a force?
Or does it end up the divided left-wing vote makes it so that the Cons can never lose power again, riding that FPTP to permanent governance until there is a Unite the Left party, ala what happened in the early 2000s for Conservative parties? --Revolverman (talk) 11:40, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
- I think it will depend on whether Trudeau manages to whip up enough support to bring the Liberals back to second party status before the next election. I don't think Mulcair's NDP has enough traction outside of Quebec to accomplish much (and frankly, I would be surprised if the NDP managed to keep all of their seats in Quebec as well). Harper is a shrewd politician, and unless an all-out revolt breaks out in caucus and the Conservative party splits up, I imagine the Conservatives will still remain a credible threat. - GrantC (talk) 14:20, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
- I had no idea what you were talking about until GrantC elaborated on the Canuckiness. ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 16:45, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
- I had no idea what you were talking about until GrantC elaborated on the Canuckiness.
- If Harper can't shake off the scandals (Elections Canada really gave a gift with this Del Mastro thing under prorogation), pass Keystone XL or balance the budget by 2015, I'd say there's the potential of another Kim Campbell.
- I don't think we'll need a Unite the Left party. Much like Texas' demographic shift now has the potential for it to turn purple, the (provincial) Tories are having to consistently shift to the centre to appeal to the economic/immigrant boom in Alberta. The NDP is probably regretting they didn't go for Nathan Cullen/a Manitoba mainstay, and we've already seen the backfiring of smears against Trudeau (compared to Dion or Ignatieff). All the Liberals really need to do is release a consensus-based platform that appeals to former PCs and get Trudeau not to say anything stupid (while breaking the mold on social policy ie. the Summer Weed Debate); they're on track on the latter. Osaka Sun (talk) 18:23, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Alternative Right?[edit]
What is it? Some neologism? 174.88.34.133 (talk) 05:37, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- Wikipedia's your friend. It's a white supremacist site. Osaka Sun (talk) 08:52, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Goat Petting Simulator[edit]
I just came across this: http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-09/06/goat-petting-simulator
Download: http://gamejolt.com/games/strategy-sim/goat-petting-simulator/16698/
Video demonstration: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayA2Yo6eBt4
I was told RW has a thing with goats, soooo, just going to leave this here :P Nullahnung (talk) 14:20, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- "a thing with goats"? My god! Is the pope religious? ... do bears defecate in forests? ... Scream!! (talk) 15:02, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- I happen to be a bear defecation agnostic. I've never actually seen one defecate. [/straight face] Nullahnung (talk) 15:04, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- Not downloaded (blasphemy?) but the vid is excellent. Scream!! (talk) 15:09, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- From personal observation, bears defecate in zoos. ГенгисGum disease 18:16, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- I can testify, from personal observation, that gorillas swat their tummies in zoos, with a startling volume of sound produced. Bears? Enh, who gives a shit? Last time I was at an outdoor venue with goats, they showed a fondness for my companion, and only tolerated your bucolic reporter, Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 19:50, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- From personal observation, bears defecate in zoos.
- Not downloaded (blasphemy?) but the vid is excellent. Scream!! (talk) 15:09, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- I happen to be a bear defecation agnostic. I've never actually seen one defecate. [/straight face] Nullahnung (talk) 15:04, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
For those of us in the US...[edit]
I'd suggest staying calm on Tuesday. Then on the next day, You CAN panic. --The Madman (talk) 20:13, 28 September 2013 (UTC)The Madman
- Somebody help me out here-- Token Conservative Feminist Thought Police 20:30, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- The gubmint shutdown. I'm not panicking myself, and won't after Tuesday no matter which way things go. Doctor Dark (talk) 20:55, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- Iron law of institutions. The GOP only wanting a one-year postponement of Obamacare says something. Osaka Sun (talk) 21:04, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- Ah, that explains why I haven't been paid. Anyone else for enacting a Constitutional Amendment saying that every day the US experiences something like this happens, Senate, Congress, the President, and the VP get fined their annual salary. Maybe after a year of this shit we just say they're all guilty of treason and execute them. Because seriously, this shit is pissing me off. I worked 62 goddamn hours in 4 fucking days, I want my goddamn paycheck.-- Token Conservative Feminist Thought Police 21:15, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- The shutdown hasn't happened yet, if indeed it will (about 70/30 odds in favor now, though). And depending on your job, you may still keep working (depends on if your job relates to national defense or protection of property).--talk 01:12, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
- One way or another, the DOD is a week late in paying me. -- Token Conservative Feminist Thought Police 01:26, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
- You can't make an omelet without breaking a few skulls. Doctor Dark (talk) 01:48, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
- Last time I complained about my admin section being unable to do their jobs, I was yelled at by three people.-- Token Conservative Feminist Thought Police 01:52, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
- You can't make an omelet without breaking a few skulls. Doctor Dark (talk) 01:48, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
- One way or another, the DOD is a week late in paying me. -- Token Conservative Feminist Thought Police 01:26, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
- The shutdown hasn't happened yet, if indeed it will (about 70/30 odds in favor now, though). And depending on your job, you may still keep working (depends on if your job relates to national defense or protection of property).--
- The gubmint shutdown. I'm not panicking myself, and won't after Tuesday no matter which way things go. Doctor Dark (talk) 20:55, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
At least it'll keep our dear friends busy.--The Madman (talk) 22:48, 28 September 2013 (UTC)The Madman
Last I checked, the "modern" GOP would be against the Interstate Highway system, because it was a massive Federal project proposed by a flaming Liberal. Eisenhower. ħuman
03:44, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
top of the pops[edit]
Been watching top of the pops 1978, because my Saturday night sucks, and I was wondering if the beeb was having trouble finding shows where the presenter wasn't a known rapist and/or child molester AMassiveGay (talk) 00:39, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Chiropractor breaks baby's neck.. and is then allowed to continue[edit]
A chiropractor in a hospital breaks a baby's neck but instead of being banned is allowed to continue practising after completing a course in paediatric chiropractic. That's analogous to a homeopath almost killing someone and then being allowed to continue to practice after completing a homeopathy course. Pathetic. MeMyselfI (talk) 02:29, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, that is how analogies work. Shadow of Lords talk 04:19, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
- I think technically it is an analogy since chiropractic isn't homeopathy, but it's a poor one. — (talk to) [æn əˈmɛɹɪkən ˈnaiːɪlɪst] 04:21, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Conservapedia[edit]
Can anyone go there as of right now? Or is the site down? In my computer, at least, neither Explorer or Chrome can go there...--Seonookim (talk) 06:20, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
- Maybe ask in WIGOCP? — Unsigned, by: 195.187.72.229 / talk / contribs 2013-09-25T23:46:10
- If you'd been following the lack of events at TWIGO:CP you would realise that you have probably been server blocked from viewing it. ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 15:05, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
- My life is better without the IQ poisoning cretinism. Honestly. I'm a happier guy now that I don't engage fundies and wingers. I read more. I do better work. I spend more and better time with my friends when I never want to say "hey have you heard of the creepy son of Phyllis Schlafly, that hypocritical alarmist right wing stooge who had a law degree and traveled the country opposing the ERA saying a woman's place was at home?" Andy's idiocy in so restricting access to his blog is the best thing he could have done for all of us. 16:02, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
- My life is better without the IQ poisoning cretinism. Honestly. I'm a happier guy now that I don't engage fundies and wingers. I read more. I do better work. I spend more and better time with my friends when I never want to say "hey have you heard of the creepy son of Phyllis Schlafly, that hypocritical alarmist right wing stooge who had a law degree and traveled the country opposing the ERA saying a woman's place was at home?" Andy's idiocy in so restricting access to his blog is the best thing he could have done for all of us.
- If you'd been following the lack of events at TWIGO:CP you would realise that you have probably been server blocked from viewing it.
A mildly amusing page (group?) on Facebook[edit]
"Teens against NWO". Links to Project Blue Beam.--ZooGuard (talk) 10:29, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleting (or Rewriting) the Article Love-shy.com[edit]
- This discussion was moved to talk:Love-shy.com. WèàšèìòìďMethinks it is a Weasel 23:14, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
I gotta say it[edit]
I can't believe the Broncos let Tebow go. How do they ever expect to win any games at all without him? The team is doomed for the foreseeable future. DickTurpis (talk) 01:36, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
My foray into Fanfiction A.K.A Shameless Pluggery[edit]
My newest plot is to write hopefully decent fanfiction about Bionicle at my tumblr. Comments and criticism(Which I want a lot of.) are appreciated. — Unsigned, by: MadmanJohnson / talk / contribs 11:22, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
- Bionicle fanfiction? Remind me, weren't you the one calling people "lolcows" a little while ago?--ZooGuard (talk) 14:08, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Moo.--The Madman (talk) 20:52, 30 September 2013 (UTC)The Madman
Autism template[edit]
We seem to have a growing number of articles that deal with autism/Ass-burgers, etc. Seeing as "the spectrum" is a bit of a ground-zero for woo, might a fancy template with an icon and a bunch of links bringing them all together be an idea? PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 14:37, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
In which people debate the appropriateness of a pun based on a medical condition's name[edit]
- That's a short S. It comes out as as-per-ger's with a thick Austrian accent. [4] Zero (talk) 14:46, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
- It's spelled with a P, not a B. Asperger Syndrome. Nowhere Man (talk) 16:39, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
- No shit. That was what people call a "joke." PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 17:01, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
- I'm always amused when someone on reddit makes a horribly racist comment, gets called out on it by SRS and their response is to whine about "oh, it was a joke, you just don't understand what's funny because you're all uptight", no, you made a horribly racist comment.-- Token Conservative Feminist Thought Police 17:17, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
- And I'm always amused when somebody gets on their high-horse when they see a lame pun and mistakes it for " a horribly racist comment." "Asperger's" sounds like "ass-burgers." Asses are funny. Burgers are funny. Ass-burgers would be twice as funny. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 17:20, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
- Agree with PSL. However, as an avowed ableist, I don't care if you call me one. Hipocrite 17:23, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
- Not a very classy type of joke... reminds me a bit of that one scene in Team America, where most of a ridiculously upbeat song consists of repeating the word 'AIDS', although that was pretty funny I have to admit. Nullahnung (talk) 17:37, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
- No, it's not a classy joke. Thankfully, we do not live in a universe where there is a strict dichotomy between "classy jokes" and "horribly racist comments." PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.
- No, it's not a classy joke. Thankfully, we do not live in a universe where there is a strict dichotomy between "classy jokes" and "horribly racist comments." PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.
- Not a very classy type of joke... reminds me a bit of that one scene in Team America, where most of a ridiculously upbeat song consists of repeating the word 'AIDS', although that was pretty funny I have to admit. Nullahnung (talk) 17:37, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
- Agree with PSL. However, as an avowed ableist, I don't care if you call me one. Hipocrite 17:23, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
- And I'm always amused when somebody gets on their high-horse when they see a lame pun and mistakes it for " a horribly racist comment." "Asperger's" sounds like "ass-burgers." Asses are funny. Burgers are funny. Ass-burgers would be twice as funny. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.
- I'm always amused when someone on reddit makes a horribly racist comment, gets called out on it by SRS and their response is to whine about "oh, it was a joke, you just don't understand what's funny because you're all uptight", no, you made a horribly racist comment.-- Token Conservative Feminist Thought Police 17:17, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
- No shit. That was what people call a "joke." PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.
- and I was thinkinkinking that the universe is actually run by strict dichotomies... is that cat Dirk Steele alive or banned? (enter the following... Cream or Sugar?) 24.253.64.178 (talk) 18:36, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
In which somebody makes a comment about Scientology, comic book references are made, and a banned user pokes at the community with a stick[edit]
- The below comment is by Dirk Steele Powder. It is directed at you. I don't know why you keep making it a seperate section, but he is saying something to you. Jesus fuck. -- Token Conservative Feminist Thought Police 17:43, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
http://www.madinamerica.com/2013/09/adhd-france-america/ Bloody scientologists are everywhere... --24.253.64.178 (talk) 16:11, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
- I don't give a shit 'token tosser'... my comics have just arrived in the post. Jack Kirby's The Demon and Forever People! "I'm unleashing every terrible thing your mind can think of! Can you take it? 24.253.64.178 (talk) 17:48, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
- " He's back! He's ANGRY! He's DEADLY.... Dirk Steele!! Witchboy!! I command you--- DISAPPEAR! (from The Demon # 14)http://sequart.org/images/Etrigan-by-Jack-Kirby.jpg --24.253.64.178 (talk) 17:54, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
- "They believe! They Judge! They kill! Beware of the justifiers! Their next victim maybe you! ... Live by my rules or DIE! It's the brainchild of glorious Godfrey.... if you fear life..Godfrey will save you with.. ANTI-LIFE!" Bought it off ebay.. http://www.ebay.com/ctg/Forever-People-3-Jun-Jul-1971-DC-/85445865 24.253.64.178 (talk) 18:01, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
- Anyways - as you can tell from my new IP address, I have moved from sunny gay Brighton to the warmer climate of Las Vegas on a three month tour of the old USA. My first gig is on wednesday at the Cellar bar. Dirk Steele and the Proud Autistics! If you live near.. drop in! 24.253.64.178 (talk) 18:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
- Read this quick before I get another ban!!! 3 months is the usual! Last time it was that old janner Sophie... beware of her powers! (enter the following... 'respect me') Synchronicity city?... 24.253.64.178 (talk) 18:17, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
A stick? A stick!... No. I have my magick wand! http://www.psychiatryland.com/a-message-from-phillip-sinaikin-md.html (enter the following 'science fair?' Not half mate... http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:Dirk_Steele 24.253.64.178 (talk) 18:25, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Radio 4 plug #62[edit]
Just listening to The Life Scientific on BBC Radio 4 - Jim al-Khalili talking to Australian biologist Jenny Graves. She talks about someone telling her that her work had been featured on the front page of the Discovery Institute and she thought "how wonderful" until they told her that it was an 'intelligent design' organisation; so she started her own website on dumb design. 
ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 09:31, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
An interesting problem with YouTube.[edit]
For the past week or so -- ever since switching to Comcast as my ISP, most times when I try to open a YouTube video in Chrome, I get a spinning wheel in the little screen; when I refresh the page, I get the "this video is currently unavailable" notice. But when I open the same video in Firefox? No problem. Any idea what's up? PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 13:19, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- Switch off HTML5 playback - http://www.youtube.com/html5 . Hipocrite 13:22, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- Don't think so: "You are not currently in the HTML5 trial." PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 13:25, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- They're not using the HTML5 canvas, though it's perfectly well supported in either browser. Reinstall flash? Check your proxy settings in each. There should usually be no proxy. 14:10, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- They're not using the HTML5 canvas, though it's perfectly well supported in either browser. Reinstall flash? Check your proxy settings in each. There should usually be no proxy.
- Don't think so: "You are not currently in the HTML5 trial." PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.
Issue with 9/11[edit]
Because the "/" character denotes a directory, all the 9/11 stuff is on a subpage, as can be seen in the breadcrumbs left on the relevant talk page. I've solved the double-redirects for now by using 9-11 for the "conspiracy theories" page, but the original is still on a subpage (no, it can't be commented out). This is pretty untidy, of course. For reference, Wikipedia avoids it by naming everything "September 11 attacks" rather than "9/11", although it does have redirects from "9/11" that are subpages, there's nothing special overriding it. 
d hominem 15:29, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Number of page views[edit]
Why were they particularly removed from the bottom of articles? Osaka Sun (talk) 17:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- That was about a year or so ago. something about the widget that does that really hogging resources and slowing the site down. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 17:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- It's because the load balancers are serving cached versions of pages where possible, which means that whatever MW thinks it sees is virtually meaningless. Getting actual numbers requires some scripting - for anything more than giving you numbers for specific pages it's not trivial. 18:07, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- It's because the load balancers are serving cached versions of pages where possible, which means that whatever MW thinks it sees is virtually meaningless. Getting actual numbers requires some scripting - for anything more than giving you numbers for specific pages it's not trivial.
Free Gun handout in Florida[edit]
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/free-shotguns-offer-attracts-hundreds-in-florida-1.1871173
I'm speechless. I really am. This blows my mind. Free guns, to make "Gun-Rich" areas in high crime zones? WOW. --Revolverman (talk) 23:37, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- would you risk annoying people ready to try out their new shotgun ? Hamster (talk) 00:54, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
- Something is seriously wrong in the USA when people would say yes to free shotguns and no to affordable healthcare. MeMyselfI (talk) 02:37, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
- The only problem is making sure the gun wounds are lethal, so healthcare isn't required afterwards. — (talk to) [æn əˈmɛɹɪkən ˈnaiːɪlɪst] 02:56, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
- Something is seriously wrong in the USA when people would say yes to free shotguns and no to affordable healthcare. MeMyselfI (talk) 02:37, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Could Obama have to violate the Constitution to prevent default?[edit]
A Brookings fellow is putting it out there.
In all honesty, I do think that there is some sanity left in the Orange Overlord's head, but the fact that he can't stand up to the most economically-illiterate politicians we might ever see in our lifetimes... Osaka Sun (talk) 04:26, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- There's talk that Boehner could lose his position as Speaker. This thing has him looking very weak and ineffectual. Doctor Dark (talk) 04:51, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- Replaced by who, though? Here are the scenarios:
- 1) The Democrats finally grow some balls and force an overreaching GOP to concede. This could be either by a early revolt on the shutdown (ie. this week) or at the last minute before default. The wingnuts embarrass themselves to the point that significant damage is done to the party, emblematic of the Dems in the 90s or even the downfall of the New Left in the late 60s. (The more optimistic, the one desired internationally, and as shown in polling, very possible.)
- 2) The GOP allow the government to re-open without gutting Obamacare, but a compromise is made on the cliff in two weeks (a la Clinton-Gingrich) with other spending issues. The Dems make some electoral gains in 2014, and the country drags on to the 2016 elections.
- 3) Obama goes back into "non-partisan solutions" mode, and stuff like the tax on medical devices get removed from the ACA. The Dems are used as a plaything again in the future, but some conservatives get a bad taste in the fact that they tried to nuke the economy for a bill they didn't like.
- 4) Washington/public ignores the SCOTUS ruling, 50+ attempts to gut the ACA, and Republican grandstanding that created the mess and blame Obama. The Dems cave to a one-year postponement of ACA implementation or worse. The crazies win. (Unlikely at this point.)
- 5) The Brookings option. Who knows what happens.
- 6) Nothing happens by mid-October. The US doesn't make its mortgage payments. The Austrian school gets raptured. (Here for comedy.)
- The President just ignoring the debt ceiling is one of the most sensible things that could happen if the ceiling isn't raised by Congress. The "debt ceiling" is one of those idiotic ideas like an automatic death sentence that once it gets passed no elected representative is ever going to vote to repeal for fear of how their opponents will portray that. Repeated extensions just mean endless opportunities for grandstanding. Having the President just order the executive to ignore it gets around that, although it's a more familiar idea to someone from the Westminster system where people aren't so beholden to nonsensical written rules. It puts Congress under the squeeze again, do they vote to impeach the President for... not destroying the economy? They probably can't find the votes to make that happen, and they know it, so they'll just sit tight, the usual suspects will make angry speeches and claim Obama wants to murder them all in their sleep but that's nothing new. Blimey it could set precedent for a system of government in America that is more focused on its present reality than on interpreting a bunch of stuff rich white men said centuries ago. Tialaramex (talk) 08:41, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
How ODD?[edit]
According to some here I suffer from the medical disease known as Oppositional Defiance Disorder. Psychiatric science has shown this to be a brain disease. According to the DSM... if I have 4 or more of these symptoms..
The person must exhibit 4 out of the 8 signs and symptoms listed below in order to meet the DSM-IV-TR diagnostic threshold for oppositional defiant disorder[8]
- Actively refuses to comply with majority's requests or consensus-supported rules - Yes!
- Performs actions deliberately to annoy others - yes especially when they annoy me!
- Angry and resentful of others - No.
- Argues often - Yes!
- Blames others for his or her own mistakes - No not really.
- Often loses temper - No.
- Spiteful or seeks revenge - No.
- Touchy or easily annoyed.. Yes very touchy at times..
There is no known cause.
Prognosis
ODD has an estimated lifetime prevalence of 10.2% (11.2% for males, 9.2% for females).[5] According to a 1992 article, if left untreated, about 52% of persons with ODD will continue to meet the DSM-IV criteria up to three years later, and about half of those 52% will progress into conduct disorder. (Yikes!) In many cases, CD progresses into antisocial personality disorder. This strong correlation between strong defiance in childhood and adulthood may suggest similar mechanisms for hostility towards established authority by children and by adults.
So... I cannot help having this scientifically proven brain disease. Stop the banning please... It is not my fault! --24.253.64.178 (talk) 09:33, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- Of course it is well established that those born in the month of May are obstinate fuckers. It is a well known fact that over 100 genes have been implicated with Taurusism. Although these studies have yet to be replicated or have any clinical significance in one's diagnosis. But I am still hoping. 24.253.64.178 (talk) 11:03, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- Is it time for a version of "Playing the race card" to be raised? "Playing the mentally handicapped card" seems to be what's going on here. BTW, I'm May born & am not particularly obstinate (except in my disbelief in astrology!). Scream!! (talk) 12:44, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- You do realise the above titillating tirade is tinged with a tautological touch of irony? --24.253.64.178 (talk) 15:57, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
I never realised there was a proper medical term for 'arsehole' AMassiveGay (talk) 13:17, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- No. In the DSM that is called http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Asshole_Personality_Disorder. You of all people should realise that Szasz was intrumental in getting psychiatry to give up the idea that being gay was a mental disease, (In his book 'The Manufacture of Madness' published in 1970). It still took the doctors of madness 13 years to give up the idea. And yet you have on this site such ludicrous pages as this. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Thomas_Szasz Shame on you. Maybe you spent too long in Essex. 24.253.64.178 (talk) 17:18, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- I had thought that the purpose of RationalWiki was
Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement. Documenting the full range of crank ideas. Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism. Analysis and criticism of how these subjects are handled in the media.
I am exposing psychiatry as a massive pseudoscience. A sCAM. It was not so long ago Massive that homosexuals were diagnosed as having a 'mental illness'. I would have thought you would be one of the first to criticise the psychiatric paradigm. 24.253.64.178 (talk) 15:11, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- I'm glad you're finally admitting to having a mental disorder. Will you now seek treatment and leave us alone?-- Token Conservative Feminist Thought Police 16:18, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- 'Us'? You think you belong to an 'us'? Which makes me one of 'them'? I thought that RationalWiki was more heterogeneous than homogeneous. I believed that the RW purpose was to 'encourage those who disagree with us to register and engage'. Presumably, you adhere more to the ingroup/outgroup hegemony. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingroups_and_outgroups. How sad. (Of course I have now been censored by the Us group)24.253.64.178 (talk) 16:38, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- 'I suggest that a society is egalitarian when every single member feels instinctively unhesitatingly and unreservedly that his or her essential worth is recognised.' Guess I am not a member of RW society then... 24.253.64.178 (talk) 17:18, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Gish tract[edit]
1974 Chick-tract-style anti-evolution comic book by our old fiend Duane Gish. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 17:45, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- Ugh, so painful. Apokalyps2547 (talk) 20:46, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- Heh. It's interesting to see just the same stuff presented in the Gish derived tract as in the later Kent Hovind Chick Tract. I'd call it plagiarism, except all the PRATT arguments are common to the entire creationism scam. Creationism, the same today as it was yesterday, to the ends of the time. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 21:53, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- Wow ... I immediately thought of Dan Clowes' Like a Velvet Glove Cast in Iron when I saw that. At the end of the day, the story of creationism is as absurd and horrifying. 22:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- I remember that one. One of several tract writers copying Chick's style. Secret Squirrel (talk) 22:41, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- Wow ... I immediately thought of Dan Clowes' Like a Velvet Glove Cast in Iron when I saw that. At the end of the day, the story of creationism is as absurd and horrifying.
- Heh. It's interesting to see just the same stuff presented in the Gish derived tract as in the later Kent Hovind Chick Tract. I'd call it plagiarism, except all the PRATT arguments are common to the entire creationism scam. Creationism, the same today as it was yesterday, to the ends of the time. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 21:53, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Latest Newspeak from Fox News....[edit]
It's not a "government shutdown," it's a government slimdown." PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 16:21, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- That's no surprise... The GOP wished to portray this as the fault of the Democrats. Most people saw through that, and understood, the GOP was the cause, so now they need to put a smiley face on it, and recast themselves as the heroes. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 16:33, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- Why does the term "GOP" stick in my craw? ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 17:22, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- Does it stick in your craw in general, or my use of it? I see very daylight between the GOP and Fox News, and assume Fox is doing this at the behest of the Republicans. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 17:39, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- Why does the term "GOP" stick in my craw?
- Meet the GOP: When losing $300 million a day in economic growth means small government is good.Osaka Sun (talk) 17:50, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- GOP: Gutless/Greedy Old Pricks 123.211.145.205 (talk) 04:17, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Fiscal cliff article[edit]
We need a full rewrite. It's amazing how everything's changed in a matter of months. Osaka Sun (talk) 21:33, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
aSK - methodological naturalism[edit]
PJR has just posted his article on methodological naturalism. Have a read, its funny. HERE Hamster (talk) 18:34, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
- He's right about the comets, at least. They are indeed omens from God that portend wars, plagues, and the deaths of kings. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:41, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
- He's a little sweetie, isn't he. Should be an exhibit in a museum. Scream!! (talk) 21:49, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
- It always annoys me when theists (and others with a general bent towards foolishness) cry about how science rejects supernatural causes a priori. It's annoying because they themselves do the exact same thing in every other facet of their daily lives. They wouldn't accept a supernatural cause from their mechanic to explain why their car keeps overheating. Wouldn't accept a supernatural explanation of why their roommate doesn't have his half of the rent or why the bank says your paycheck bounced. Damn sure wouldn't take any supernatural guff from a waiter after finding pubes in your entree. Yet the second you starting looking for the origin of life, instead of a set of car keys, you're supposed to allow the whole circus train of nonsense to come rolling into the station. --Inquisitor (talk) 19:06, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
- Woah, steady there. Surely it's only creationists among the theists who do that, right? Surely theists who accept the scientific evidence of an old universe, evolution, common ancestor and so on wouldn't try to include supernatural explanations for any of that stuff. They might go as far as "guided evolution" and the Big Bang being God's creation, but they don't come up with pseudo scientific supernatural (oxymoron, I know) evidence for it like creationists do. At least not in contradiction with mainstream science. Do they? Ajkgordon (talk) 19:20, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
- Funny that you mentioned "lost keys". Catholics will pray to Saint Anthony to find lost objects -a problem might not have a supernatural explanation (No one in my family had ever suggested ghosts or demons had stolen a lost object!), but it can have a supernatural solution.
- I'd say theistic evolution is just grasping at straws. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 21:04, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
- Steady there. I didn't say all theists. I was referring to the self-selected group that wants to shoehorn supernaturalism into science. I was just trying to make the point that people are completely content with naturalistic explanations for mundane events, but are willing to entertain all manner of ideas when it comes to the "Big Questions". Some people need Big Answers to Big Questions. Whether it be something supernatural or some conspiracy theory. --Inquisitor (talk) 22:33, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
- Ah, gotcha. I find the shoehorning the supernatural into science a fascinating thing to see. I can't make up my mind whether it's a genuine attempt to argue the case for looking at supposed evidence for the supernatural or if it's simply denying the power of God. I'm sure there are some creationists who genuinely believe the former but I think the latter is more common. It goes back to what I often see in creationists - a complete lack of imagination. For both the grandeur of nature and what omnipotence would actually mean to fit into their minds, they have to drag it down to human scale. While the rest of us are content to know that things can happen even if sometimes it's nigh on impossible to visualise them, creationists seem incapable of accepting anything that they can't relate to directly. So they have to reduce the universe to 6,000 years old, life to "kinds", T-Rex to a herbivore, God to no more than a petty vindictive deceitful conjuring magician who is mostly constrained by the laws of physics with a few lightning-coming-out-fingers special powers and a zombie son. A sort of Zeus Plus who can flood the earth, zap some dust to make Adam, manipulate the flow of time, and literally plant overwhelming evidence in the rocks and the sky that makes us doubt His storybook. If you're going to have a God worthy of the name, make Him awesome, not trivial. Ajkgordon (talk) 08:38, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- But surely "all theists" have God at the very least magically creating the universe and many would have Him magically creating life. A lot of them would have Him using His magical manipulating fingers to tinker with evolution at discrete moments to produce specific end results. In fact, from a theistic point of view, if He didn't do at least some of this stuff - then what does He do?--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 09:55, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- Well, yes. But creation of the universe with all its exquisitely constructed physical laws resulting in life leading to Man is (or would be) awesome. A theist who thinks like that only needs to gaze at the night sky or look at Hubble's photographs or read about the latest report from the LHC or palaeontology or geology or Curiosity. He can see the majesty of His Creation without the need to objectify it as some elaborate magic trick. It's the universe, for God's sake! This is what the creationist misses entirely. They bury themselves in their own limited perspective and jealously guard their lack of wonder. After all, they know, right? And so they try to explain it all on a human scale. Even the actual stuff that their religion leads them towards - God, everlasting life, infinite love and all that - is viewed as nothing more than some Disneyfied paradise, an anthropomorphic fantasy land where they get what they want and God is an old fit dude living in the clouds. Literally. There's no theology there, no nuance, no intellectual pursuit. It's grindingly depressingly weak, small, pessimistic. Welcome to the world of PJR. He's welcome to it. Ajkgordon (talk) 11:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- I always thought that creationism was exemplified by the crabs' rockpool in The Perishers comic strip. ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 12:48, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- Inquisitor, YECs have a ready answer to your claim that they're inconsistent about reaching for supernatural explanations. It's facile, but it exists. They claim that there's a substantial difference between "historical science" and "operational science" as ways of knowing. They claim that "historical science" among creationists and "evolutionists" starts with the same evidence, but looks at it with difference presumptions. This is true for "operational science" as well, but the degree to which YECs truly are as uncreative as Ajkgordon suggests is staggering when it comes to "historical science." The presupposition that the bible presents reliable historical evidence because it is allegedly the recorded testimony of their god informs every step of the "science" they do. In the case of "historical science," it is literally a science stopper, as they're obviously perfectly happy completely ending the inquiry with because god. What gets hinky and inconsistently done among YECs is applying supernatural explanations to "operational science." It's strange that they dispute "secular uniformitarian" conclusions when they necessarily accept nearly all the methodologies of modern science; however they employ what usually amounts to a completely negative apologetics (I believe) derived from reformed epistemology starting in the 19th century. Their usual goal is merely to poke holes in "evolutionary" explanations, not devise they own descriptive and explanatory theories about the world as we know it. When they do, that's where things get whacky and unbiblical, and where you'll see the only real points of disagreement among YEC cultists. Prime examples are various YEC cosmologies and the hokum horseshit that Walt Brown spews. Thankfully for creationists, these theories are rare and rarely distract from their usual negative apologetics. So this is all to explain that you're not going to see supernatural explanations for everyday occurrences. They don't deny the same ways of knowing that "evolutionists" use. Indeed, on short time scales, you know they accept processes that could not possibly be accelerated as they require to explain the flood, like natural selection and uniformitarian geology (Genghis can testify to how absurdly inconsistent they are about uniformitarianism). Anyway. No supernatural explanations for everyday stuff, which is consistent with their biblical hermeneutics of basically only accepting clearly identified miracles outside of Genesis and taking Genesis 1 and 2 as purely historical records down to the kings lists, which they deceitfully or ignorantly call geneologies. 14:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- Nutty, I'm fairly well-versed in YEC lore, and I am having none of their historical vs. operational science dumbassedness. The universe is a jigsaw puzzle we've all been given. The problem is that YECs claim to know what the picture on the box looks like. Every time scientists lay down a piece, creationists go "it doesn't go there". --Inquisitor (talk) 17:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- Inquisitor, YECs have a ready answer to your claim that they're inconsistent about reaching for supernatural explanations. It's facile, but it exists. They claim that there's a substantial difference between "historical science" and "operational science" as ways of knowing. They claim that "historical science" among creationists and "evolutionists" starts with the same evidence, but looks at it with difference presumptions. This is true for "operational science" as well, but the degree to which YECs truly are as uncreative as Ajkgordon suggests is staggering when it comes to "historical science." The presupposition that the bible presents reliable historical evidence because it is allegedly the recorded testimony of their god informs every step of the "science" they do. In the case of "historical science," it is literally a science stopper, as they're obviously perfectly happy completely ending the inquiry with because god. What gets hinky and inconsistently done among YECs is applying supernatural explanations to "operational science." It's strange that they dispute "secular uniformitarian" conclusions when they necessarily accept nearly all the methodologies of modern science; however they employ what usually amounts to a completely negative apologetics (I believe) derived from reformed epistemology starting in the 19th century. Their usual goal is merely to poke holes in "evolutionary" explanations, not devise they own descriptive and explanatory theories about the world as we know it. When they do, that's where things get whacky and unbiblical, and where you'll see the only real points of disagreement among YEC cultists. Prime examples are various YEC cosmologies and the hokum horseshit that Walt Brown spews. Thankfully for creationists, these theories are rare and rarely distract from their usual negative apologetics. So this is all to explain that you're not going to see supernatural explanations for everyday occurrences. They don't deny the same ways of knowing that "evolutionists" use. Indeed, on short time scales, you know they accept processes that could not possibly be accelerated as they require to explain the flood, like natural selection and uniformitarian geology (Genghis can testify to how absurdly inconsistent they are about uniformitarianism). Anyway. No supernatural explanations for everyday stuff, which is consistent with their biblical hermeneutics of basically only accepting clearly identified miracles outside of Genesis and taking Genesis 1 and 2 as purely historical records down to the kings lists, which they deceitfully or ignorantly call geneologies.
- I always thought that creationism was exemplified by the crabs' rockpool in The Perishers comic strip.
- Well, yes. But creation of the universe with all its exquisitely constructed physical laws resulting in life leading to Man is (or would be) awesome. A theist who thinks like that only needs to gaze at the night sky or look at Hubble's photographs or read about the latest report from the LHC or palaeontology or geology or Curiosity. He can see the majesty of His Creation without the need to objectify it as some elaborate magic trick. It's the universe, for God's sake! This is what the creationist misses entirely. They bury themselves in their own limited perspective and jealously guard their lack of wonder. After all, they know, right? And so they try to explain it all on a human scale. Even the actual stuff that their religion leads them towards - God, everlasting life, infinite love and all that - is viewed as nothing more than some Disneyfied paradise, an anthropomorphic fantasy land where they get what they want and God is an old fit dude living in the clouds. Literally. There's no theology there, no nuance, no intellectual pursuit. It's grindingly depressingly weak, small, pessimistic. Welcome to the world of PJR. He's welcome to it. Ajkgordon (talk) 11:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- But surely "all theists" have God at the very least magically creating the universe and many would have Him magically creating life. A lot of them would have Him using His magical manipulating fingers to tinker with evolution at discrete moments to produce specific end results. In fact, from a theistic point of view, if He didn't do at least some of this stuff - then what does He do?--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 09:55, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- Ah, gotcha. I find the shoehorning the supernatural into science a fascinating thing to see. I can't make up my mind whether it's a genuine attempt to argue the case for looking at supposed evidence for the supernatural or if it's simply denying the power of God. I'm sure there are some creationists who genuinely believe the former but I think the latter is more common. It goes back to what I often see in creationists - a complete lack of imagination. For both the grandeur of nature and what omnipotence would actually mean to fit into their minds, they have to drag it down to human scale. While the rest of us are content to know that things can happen even if sometimes it's nigh on impossible to visualise them, creationists seem incapable of accepting anything that they can't relate to directly. So they have to reduce the universe to 6,000 years old, life to "kinds", T-Rex to a herbivore, God to no more than a petty vindictive deceitful conjuring magician who is mostly constrained by the laws of physics with a few lightning-coming-out-fingers special powers and a zombie son. A sort of Zeus Plus who can flood the earth, zap some dust to make Adam, manipulate the flow of time, and literally plant overwhelming evidence in the rocks and the sky that makes us doubt His storybook. If you're going to have a God worthy of the name, make Him awesome, not trivial. Ajkgordon (talk) 08:38, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- Steady there. I didn't say all theists. I was referring to the self-selected group that wants to shoehorn supernaturalism into science. I was just trying to make the point that people are completely content with naturalistic explanations for mundane events, but are willing to entertain all manner of ideas when it comes to the "Big Questions". Some people need Big Answers to Big Questions. Whether it be something supernatural or some conspiracy theory. --Inquisitor (talk) 22:33, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
- Woah, steady there. Surely it's only creationists among the theists who do that, right? Surely theists who accept the scientific evidence of an old universe, evolution, common ancestor and so on wouldn't try to include supernatural explanations for any of that stuff. They might go as far as "guided evolution" and the Big Bang being God's creation, but they don't come up with pseudo scientific supernatural (oxymoron, I know) evidence for it like creationists do. At least not in contradiction with mainstream science. Do they? Ajkgordon (talk) 19:20, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
- It always annoys me when theists (and others with a general bent towards foolishness) cry about how science rejects supernatural causes a priori. It's annoying because they themselves do the exact same thing in every other facet of their daily lives. They wouldn't accept a supernatural cause from their mechanic to explain why their car keeps overheating. Wouldn't accept a supernatural explanation of why their roommate doesn't have his half of the rent or why the bank says your paycheck bounced. Damn sure wouldn't take any supernatural guff from a waiter after finding pubes in your entree. Yet the second you starting looking for the origin of life, instead of a set of car keys, you're supposed to allow the whole circus train of nonsense to come rolling into the station. --Inquisitor (talk) 19:06, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
- He's a little sweetie, isn't he. Should be an exhibit in a museum. Scream!! (talk) 21:49, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
The thing that always bugged me about creationism is its failure to follow up on the obvious research program. You mean to tell me that an intelligent designer brought life out of nothing? Well, I'm a clever enough fellow. I want to mess around with that too. You told me it was possible. Get to work. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 02:16, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- I once engaged with Terry Hurlbut when he was banging on in support of Walt Brown's ludicrous Hydroplate 'Theory'. I asked him why he needed to try and provide a scientific explanation for the flood but then joined it all up with YHWH sky-magic; why didn't he, as a creationist, just accept that God did all of it using his superpowers. The gist of his reply was "economy of miracles". ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 08:22, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- God gets excellent miracle mileage. Ajkgordon (talk) 14:02, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- Indeed. The "economy of miracles" has always been a pathetic argument to me. By definition, an omnipotent-being, can summon and harness an infinite amount of power. As such, the difference between swatting a fly, and changing the whole of the universe, is entirely insignificant. Economics don't apply when you can do whatever you want... whenever you want... with zero expenditure of energy. --Inquisitor (talk) 10:17, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- God gets excellent miracle mileage. Ajkgordon (talk) 14:02, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
How Much Are You Hated by the Daily Mail?[edit]
Have a giggle for a minute or two. I maxed out six questions in. Polite Timesplitter Cultural loneliness is a right pain 17:58, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- The feeling is reciprocal. And yes, my white, middle-class, married, heterosexual, UK-born, retired parents read the Daily Mail. (Sorry, mum.) ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 18:07, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- I got hated after the last question. By the way, who is Michel Gove?--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 23:11, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- You can use Google, but Gove is a cabinet minister responsible for education. He has some... radical ideas about how to educate kids. Like most modern Tories he's strongly in favour of the "pull the ladder up after you" approach in which you are publicly thankful for the state's contribution to your own education but don't feel generous enough to provide the same to those currently in the same situation. Tialaramex (talk) 23:20, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- I just barely made it to Hated because I think wind farms look nice. Now that I've tried the thing I understand why BMcP asked about the Gove question although, again, Google.
- For the most part of the over-simplification works, but I think the gender question maybe misses the point in an important way that is illustrative. The Mail has no problem with women, so long as they stay in their place. That's where it gets nasty. The Daily Mail doesn't hate my mother, she's bright enough to notice if they did. But it doesn't hate her because she has conformed. She quit her job when she got pregnant, stayed at home and looked after the kids (e.g. me) until they "flew the nest". She reads Mills and Boon novels, she watches period drama and admires the costumes, she knits and bakes. Now, if you look carefully the conformity frays at the edges, for the last decade of their careers she was in a more senior role than my father, earning more and working longer hours. She's a lousy cook and would rather watch University Challenge than a soap opera. She knows video games aren't all about murderous rampages because she spends hours every week playing on her DS or her laptop. But those frayed edges aren't enough to trigger a response, when the Mail criticises a woman in the public eye for choosing a career over a baby my mother doesn't throw the paper across the room in disgust. Because after all, she stayed at home. Tialaramex (talk) 23:47, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- There is an old joke about who reads UK newspapers - which I will abridge here - and that's "The Times is read by the people who run the country, The Daily Mail is read by the wives of those who run the country". Judging by the size of their Femail section I would suspect that women actually make up a substantial part of the Fail's readership. Генгисpillaging 07:30, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- As I recall, the Fail is the only British newspaper to be read by more women than men.--Star trooper man (talk) 09:54, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- the daily mail was originally and still is set up to be targeted at women. AMassiveGay (talk) 09:57, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- I thought the Express had that role. Ajkgordon (talk) 14:16, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- Just as long as they have pinup girls. (They do have pinup girls, don't they?) - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:36, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- Neither of them do "pin-up girls" or "Page 3s" but they do celebs in racy attire and young "honourables" in pretty frocks. The sort of pics that a healthy young blood could look at and think "By Jove, I wouldn't mind getting my hands on her inheritance". Генгисevolving 15:59, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- Remember, there is
. postate 13:41, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
- Remember, there is
- Neither of them do "pin-up girls" or "Page 3s" but they do celebs in racy attire and young "honourables" in pretty frocks. The sort of pics that a healthy young blood could look at and think "By Jove, I wouldn't mind getting my hands on her inheritance".
- Just as long as they have pinup girls. (They do have pinup girls, don't they?) - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:36, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- I thought the Express had that role. Ajkgordon (talk) 14:16, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- the daily mail was originally and still is set up to be targeted at women. AMassiveGay (talk) 09:57, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- As I recall, the Fail is the only British newspaper to be read by more women than men.--Star trooper man (talk) 09:54, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- There is an old joke about who reads UK newspapers - which I will abridge here - and that's "The Times is read by the people who run the country, The Daily Mail is read by the wives of those who run the country". Judging by the size of their Femail section I would suspect that women actually make up a substantial part of the Fail's readership.
- You can use Google, but Gove is a cabinet minister responsible for education. He has some... radical ideas about how to educate kids. Like most modern Tories he's strongly in favour of the "pull the ladder up after you" approach in which you are publicly thankful for the state's contribution to your own education but don't feel generous enough to provide the same to those currently in the same situation. Tialaramex (talk) 23:20, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- I got hated after the last question. By the way, who is Michel Gove?--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 23:11, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Ageism[edit]
Are you telling me that RationalWiki, of all people, doesn't have an article on it yet? The "older vote conservative because they're wiser" might be the oldest political meme in the book. 85.17.183.151 (talk) 07:12, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
- RationalWiki isn't a person. Damn humanists.--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 07:38, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
- I am over sixty and now regard myself as less conservative than I was when I was 20, because I'm wiser. Генгисunbelieving 07:46, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
- Dude, if it isn't making fun of conservatives or advancing the cause of New Atheism, no one on this site gives a shit.-- Token Conservative Feminist Thought Police 16:21, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
- I am over sixty and now regard myself as less conservative than I was when I was 20, because I'm wiser.
Old alien spiritualism book[edit]
I just found a book supposedly written by a dead Christian Martian who dictated the book to a psychic earthling. It's pretty wacky.--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 07:38, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
- The Martians are only Christians because of the conquest. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:09, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Jean Claude Perez[edit]
Anyone want to help me flesh out the article on Jean Claude Perez? It is making the creationist rounds so I figure we'd better have something comprehensive up before the flood of misinformation starts. His big claim to fame is that he actually managed to get a paper into a peer-reviewed journal, but there are extenuating circumstances. JWGU (talk) 08:53, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Bigfoot[edit]
Somebody posted this on the RW Facebook page (and then yanked it). I found a rebuttal at SciGuy blog with an interesting link to DeNovo an allegedly "peer-review scientific journal" with precisely one article. I'd write some of this up but am a bit busy at the moment. Генгисmutating 10:51, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Civilization and other 4X titles[edit]
Quick informal survey. Do you play 4X (Expand, Explore, Exploit, Exterminate) strategy games like Civilization? If so, what's your playstyle? --TechCheeseAmazingTechnicolorCheeseWedge 07:31, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- No. Just Civ Rev. Генгисmarauding 07:43, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- I would if I could get the old Civ III copy I have to run on linux—freeciv just isn't the same. My playstyle is best described as "bad." Peter mqzp 08:39, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- I've played all the Numbered Civs (Starting with Civ 1, on the SNES believe it or not), and my style is Fortress Europe, for lack of a better term. Small to medium sized highly advanced cities with iron borders. Isolationist for the most part. Sadly, with the way the AI works in Civ (IE, Fuck the humans) I always end up in massive wars for becoming too strong for the AI's liking. --Revolverman (talk) 10:32, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- V. I usually wield a huge science advantage and slap people with military power while I work on my spaceship. Zero (talk) 12:01, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- II, III, IV, for the most part. Early on, I go for the Library or whatever else gives me free technologies. But then I work towards Fundamentalism and try to overrun enough enemies to win by population and world domination. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:30, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- I on the snes (a rom i had), civ 2 (god knows how many hours), civ 3, 4 and 5. these days i tend to mostly play EU3 though--Mikal | lakiM 13:54, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- I pick a theme and run with it (for example, I might decide to play as a fascist Buddhist theocracy in Civ IV)--"Shut up, Brx." 14:32, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- My Civ 5 strategy tends to be to build a small, 4 or 5 city nation focused on religion and technology and extinguish all other religions so that my happiness-focused religion keeps my empire blissfully happy. Once I'm to the point of having golden ages every 5 turns, I build a grand fleet of about 7 aircraft carriers, 4 destroyers and 6-8 battleships plus some miscellaneous nuclear subs and missile cruisers and roam around the map betraying my former friends. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 20:04, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- I haven't tried Civ games yet, but I think I should. The closest things I've played are Europa Universalis and Medieval 2 : Total War. My playstyle is pretty much to take what I can get without causing too much uproar, but I can't avoid getting into the odd war, of course! Nullahnung (talk) 20:07, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- I've never actually played Civ either. I'm too addicted to Hearts of Iron. - GrantC (talk) 14:50, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
- I own a copy of Hearts of iron 1 somewhere around here. never figured out what to do in that besides use cheatcodes to turn the entire world into the comitern and mass invade germany from all sides. As for Med 2 TW.. nothing funner than egyptian england and scottish egypt. --Mikal | lakiM 15:33, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
- I used to play Hearts of Iron 2, and then switched to 3 when it was released. Mostly I just embark on massive campaigns of world domination. Sometimes it's fun to pick a small country and see how much conquering you can get away with before the major players try to murder you. - GrantC (talk) 15:37, 4 October 2013 (UTC)\
- I'll stick with Steppe wolf, what better than a game strwetching from 11 AD to 2099 AD! With Bulgaria having 5 different country cores that deal with Bulgaria. Oh, and the french revolution starting in the 1100's because of ow they didnt change those tech levels--Mikal | lakiM 15:44, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
- I used to play Hearts of Iron 2, and then switched to 3 when it was released. Mostly I just embark on massive campaigns of world domination. Sometimes it's fun to pick a small country and see how much conquering you can get away with before the major players try to murder you. - GrantC (talk) 15:37, 4 October 2013 (UTC)\
- I own a copy of Hearts of iron 1 somewhere around here. never figured out what to do in that besides use cheatcodes to turn the entire world into the comitern and mass invade germany from all sides. As for Med 2 TW.. nothing funner than egyptian england and scottish egypt. --Mikal | lakiM 15:33, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
- I've never actually played Civ either. I'm too addicted to Hearts of Iron. - GrantC (talk) 14:50, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
- I haven't tried Civ games yet, but I think I should. The closest things I've played are Europa Universalis and Medieval 2 : Total War. My playstyle is pretty much to take what I can get without causing too much uproar, but I can't avoid getting into the odd war, of course! Nullahnung (talk) 20:07, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- My Civ 5 strategy tends to be to build a small, 4 or 5 city nation focused on religion and technology and extinguish all other religions so that my happiness-focused religion keeps my empire blissfully happy. Once I'm to the point of having golden ages every 5 turns, I build a grand fleet of about 7 aircraft carriers, 4 destroyers and 6-8 battleships plus some miscellaneous nuclear subs and missile cruisers and roam around the map betraying my former friends. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 20:04, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- I pick a theme and run with it (for example, I might decide to play as a fascist Buddhist theocracy in Civ IV)--"Shut up, Brx." 14:32, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- I on the snes (a rom i had), civ 2 (god knows how many hours), civ 3, 4 and 5. these days i tend to mostly play EU3 though--Mikal | lakiM 13:54, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- II, III, IV, for the most part. Early on, I go for the Library or whatever else gives me free technologies. But then I work towards Fundamentalism and try to overrun enough enemies to win by population and world domination. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:30, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- V. I usually wield a huge science advantage and slap people with military power while I work on my spaceship. Zero (talk) 12:01, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- I've played all the Numbered Civs (Starting with Civ 1, on the SNES believe it or not), and my style is Fortress Europe, for lack of a better term. Small to medium sized highly advanced cities with iron borders. Isolationist for the most part. Sadly, with the way the AI works in Civ (IE, Fuck the humans) I always end up in massive wars for becoming too strong for the AI's liking. --Revolverman (talk) 10:32, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- I would if I could get the old Civ III copy I have to run on linux—freeciv just isn't the same. My playstyle is best described as "bad." Peter mqzp 08:39, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- Has anybody here played Victoria II? That game is hardcore complex. I've just started playing, and I haven't wrapped my head around all of it. Also, can I import saves from EUIII?--"Shut up, Brx." 20:28, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
I like Civ V (and the Brave New World expansion) but I wouldn't say I'm great at it or anything. Heck, most times I've played I'm not even focused on any particular victory, just having fun getting my civilization ahead without getting killed off. However, I'm focused on playing the Avernum series at this point, it's quite good. --Kels (talk) 22:41, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Your top 5 youtube videos for the incalcitrant mindset[edit]
I'm bored. Being on tour is mostly waiting around in infested hotel rooms and dive venues. So, given the success of my recent top 5 non fiction books to blow the mind I have created this little thread... My starters for ten are
- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9K8fzRvytCM - Alan Watts...
- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72us6pnbEvE - Feynman on the quantum mechanical view of reality
- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ramBFRt1Uzk - Steven Pinker on violence. Hopeful!
- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvpkLvxsspg - Szasz on Religion and Psychiatry - genius!
- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbp6umQT58A - Liberty!
- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDZFcDGpL4U - Education for the clone wars...
Please ignore the deliberate mistake... what are your favourites? Give me something to watch else I may have to resort to a little ol' self abuse to pass the time away... ;-) --24.253.64.178 (talk) 22:24, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- I never watch YouTube. AMassiveGay (talk) 09:59, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- Why then even bother to say this? Just shut up if you can? --24.253.64.178 (talk) 10:30, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- because its as valid a response as any. Minor correction: I do watch YouTube on occasion, but only music videos. I gather that isn't what you are interested to hear about though, intellectual powerhouse that you are. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:48, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- No no. Music videos are fine with me... go ahead! And if I were an intellectual powerhouse I would not be posting here! I am just an ordinary chappy...
- because its as valid a response as any. Minor correction: I do watch YouTube on occasion, but only music videos. I gather that isn't what you are interested to hear about though, intellectual powerhouse that you are. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:48, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- Why then even bother to say this? Just shut up if you can? --24.253.64.178 (talk) 10:30, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- I only have one good one: Urban Explorers: Into the Darkness. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 10:04, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- Hey... this looks neat. Watching now.. Thanks Reckless.. --24.253.64.178 (talk) 10:30, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- No problem, buddy. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 10:59, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- Hey... this looks neat. Watching now.. Thanks Reckless.. --24.253.64.178 (talk) 10:30, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- Steven Pinker? The Flinstones EP Steven Pinker? Osaka Sun (talk) 17:53, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Fundamental hyposculation[edit]
Fundamental hyposculation is the condition of not having one's ass kissed enough. It comes from "fundament," the Victorian euphemism for the human hind end, and a bastard of my own coinage from some Greek root meaning "not enough" in this case, and the Latin word for "kiss." In a previous work life, I occasionally faced customers. Some of them suffered from this complaint. I still do not consider it my calling to remedy it, nor should anyone else. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 01:20, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
- In case that wasn't clear, it was prompted by “We’re not going to be disrespected”. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 22:07, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
- It seems like a certain class of U.S. politician seems far more likely to develop this condition than the general populace... - GrantC (talk) 00:58, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
- Hmm, I've seen it in folks of no particular distinction nor celebrity. Anyone in a customer-facing position may find themselves interacting daily with sufferers from this affliction. It seems to go along with narcissism and a sense of entitlement or inflated self-worth. I have my own ideas about what personality characteristics or cognitive styles lead someone into politics, but nothing ready to publish, not beyond a few anecdotes. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 13:26, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
- I used to work in retail (part time throughout high school and university), and I found that the folks without actual power who had fundamental hyposculation were some of the most petty and vindictive individuals I had ever met. - GrantC (talk) 16:08, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, it seems there is a component of insecurity to it as well. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 16:29, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
- I used to work in retail (part time throughout high school and university), and I found that the folks without actual power who had fundamental hyposculation were some of the most petty and vindictive individuals I had ever met. - GrantC (talk) 16:08, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
- Hmm, I've seen it in folks of no particular distinction nor celebrity. Anyone in a customer-facing position may find themselves interacting daily with sufferers from this affliction. It seems to go along with narcissism and a sense of entitlement or inflated self-worth. I have my own ideas about what personality characteristics or cognitive styles lead someone into politics, but nothing ready to publish, not beyond a few anecdotes. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 13:26, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
- It seems like a certain class of U.S. politician seems far more likely to develop this condition than the general populace... - GrantC (talk) 00:58, 5 October 2013 (UTC)