RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive215

This is an archive page, last updated 30 November 2013. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>, <41>, <42>, <43>, <44>, <45>, <46>, <47>, <48>, <49>, <50>, <51>, <52>, <53>, <54>, <55>, <56>, <57>, <58>, <59>, <60>, <61>, <62>, <63>, <64>, <65>, <66>, <67>, <68>, <69>, <70>, <71>, <72>, <73>, <74>, <75>, <76>, <77>, <78>, <79>, <80>, <81>, <82>, <83>, <84>, <85>, <86>, <87>, <88>, <89>, <90>, <91>, <92>, <93>, <94>, <95>, <96>, <97>, <98>, <99>, <100>, <101>, <102>, <103>, <104>, <105>, <106>, <107>, <108>, <109>, <110>, <111>, <112>, <113>, <114>, <115>, <116>, <117>, <118>, <119>, <120>, <121>, <122>, <123>, <124>, <125>, <126>, <127>, <128>, <129>, <130>, <131>, <132>, <133>, <134>, <135>, <136>, <137>, <138>, <139>, <140>, <141>, <142>, <143>, <144>, <145>, <146>, <147>, <148>, <149>, <150>, <151>, <152>, <153>, <154>, <155>, <156>, <157>, <158>, <159>, <160>, <161>, <162>, <163>, <164>, <165>, <166>, <167>, <168>, <169>, <170>, <171>, <172>, <173>, <174>, <175>, <176>, <177>, <178>, <179>, <180>, <181>, <182>, <183>, <184>, <185>, <186>, <187>, <188>, <189>, <190>, <191>, <192>, <193>, <194>, <195>, <196>, <197>, <198>, <199>, <200>, <201>, <202>, <203>, <204>, <205>, <206>, <207>, <208>, <209>, <210>, <211>, <212>, <213>, <214>, <216>, <217>, <218>, <219>, <220>, <221>, <222>, <223>, <224>, <224½>, <225>, <226>, <227>, <228>, <229>, <230>, <231>, <232>, <233>, <234>, <235>, <236>, <237>, <238>, <239>, <240>, <241>, <242>, <243>, <244>, <245>, <246>, <247>, <248>, <249>, <250>, <251>, <252>, <253>, <254>, <255>, <256>, <257>, <258>, <259>, <260>, <261>, <262>, <263>, <264>, <265>, <266>, <267>, <268>, <269>, <270>, <271>, <272>, <273>, <274>, <275>, <276>, <277>, <278>, <279>, <280>, <281>, <282>, <283>, <284>, <285>, <286>, <287>, <288>, <289>, <290>, <291>, <292>, <293>, <294>, <295>, <296>, <297>, <298>, <299>, <300>, <301>, <302>, <303>, <304>, <305>, <306>, <307>, <308>, <309>, <310>, <311>, <312>, <313>, <314>, <315>, <316>, <317>, <318>, <319>, <320>, <321>, <322>, <323>, <324>, <325>, <326>, <327>, <328>, <329>, <330>, <331>, <332>, <333>, <334>, <335>, <336>, <337>, <338>, <339>, <340>, <341>, <342>, <343>, <344>, <345>, <346>, <347>, <348>, <349>, <350>, <351>, <352>, <353>, <354>, <355>, <356>, <357>, <358>, <359>, <360>, <361>, <362>, <363>, <364>, <365>, <366>, <367>, <368>, <369>, <370>, <371>, <372>, <373>, <374>, <375>, <376>, <377>, <378>, <379>, <380>, <381>, <382>, <383>, <384>, <385>, <386>, <387>, <388>, <389>, <390>, <391>, <392>, <393>, <394>, <395>, <396>, <397>, <398>, <399>, <400>, <401>, <402>, <403>, <404>, <405>, <406>, <407>, <408>, <409>, <410>, <411>, <412>, <413>, <414>, <415>, <416>, <417>, <418>, <419>, <420>, <421>, <422>, <423>, <424>, <425>, <426>, <427>, <428>, <429>, <430>, <431>, <432>, <433>, <434>, <435>, <436>, <437>, <438>, <439>, <440>, <441>, <442>, <443>, <444>, <445>, <446>, <447>, <448>, <449>, <450>, <451>, <452>, <453>, <454>, <455>, <456>, <457>, <458>, <459>, <460>, <461>, <462>, <463>, <464>, <465>, <466>, <467>, <468>

, (new)(back)

Adobe breach

How many of you are registered Adobe software users? Maybe running a recent version of Creative Suite, or the for-pay versions of tools like Acrobat? Adobe suffered a breach (naughty people "broke" into their computers and made copies) of about 150 million customer records comprising email address, poorly encrypted password and a password hint if they'd set one. Supposedly Adobe gave their "active" customers free credit surveillance as some sort of compensation for the inconvenience as well as advising them to change their passwords (everywhere, on everything) but I get the impression many people on that list weren't considered "active" by Adobe. Quick straw poll: If you are an Adobe user did you get notified of the breach (not counting reading about it online or in a newspaper)? Tialaramex (talk) 21:36, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I got an e-mail several months ago and changed my password.--Cms13ca (talk) 22:03, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I bought a copy of flash many many moons ago (like 2006) and they still emailed me. I didn't get any offers of compensation though, so I guess I'm not an active customer. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:07, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Just going to leave this here. Yes, I read comic books......

Question: As a Christian, does reading comics and following superheroes a form of Idolatry?

My answer: Idolatry? No; I am a Christian, but I don't worship the superheroes.

That said, I do think you should exercise some care with the images and fantasies you fill your head with. Dark or violent images or worse, paranoid clichés, are things I prefer to avoid, mostly because I don't want to decorate my mind with such things. The omnipresence of paranoid and conspiratorial clichés in popular culture --

--all our government institutions are corrupt, faceless bureaucracies scheming to oppress us, all our business institutions are corrupt and recklessly greedy, and Our Hero is a violent loner who knows too much and who either remarkably walks away unscathed from his killing spree, or dies in a blaze of glory, for this is the only way to live free or do good in such a world --

-- these tropes are medical symptoms of a sin-sick nation. I am weary beyond the power of words to tell of seeing them endlessly repeated in American popular culture. I think you choose wisely to avoid them.

And this is why I still like the classic superheroes. They were created at a time when American popular culture was not so dominated by this narrative. If presented authentically they are symbols of hope, not a part of a bleak or dark world. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 04:22, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

What is this? Tielec01 (talk) 04:46, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

A copy of a question that was asked, and my answer, in a locked thread on a message board. They apparently didn't want a theological argument over there. I liked my answer anyways, and thought it might be marginally topical here. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 05:06, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Are you shitting me? --Inquisitor (talk) 05:11, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

No. Pinkie swear. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 05:13, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

(E/C)Or you could stick to Chick Tracts which have much better story arcs, more believable/relate-able character and accurately portray atheists as the stinky, low-breed, criminals that they are. Also, how do you restrain the urge to make fun of these ridiculous questions - do you earnestly explain to girls why they can't get pregnant from sitting on the toilet seat too, and quietly counsel the person that asks "if evolution is true why are there still monkeys?" You're a better person than me, no doubt... Tielec01 (talk) 05:14, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

@above: Good grace, why throw around all these stereotypes, you cynical person! Not every Christian is a hardcore Christian like that, you know. I have a friend who doesn't really care for any of these stereotypical attitudes, yet goes to the church every Sunday.

@Smerdis: Also, apparently we're on the topic of super heroes, so I'll say this. I like an edgy super hero living in a dark world. Frankly, idealisations in the comic book world are a bit old fashioned. Besides, we have a broad spread of super hero types. We all like a bit of variety in our comics. Nullahnung (talk) 09:30, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Even 3edgy5you supers are also now rather old-fashioned. Sim's "The Cockroach" character is parodying these types from around the 1980s onwards. The Dark Knight Returns with its ageing heroes and villains was almost thirty years ago. I think most of the innovation in comics today is happening off the printed page and outside of superhero stories. Watchmen said "this is sort of washed up" and everybody kept doing it anyway, which is fine, if you enjoy that sort of thing. Today the sort of people who might once have subverted mainstream comics are writing Subnormality and Oglaf free from the constraints of a major publisher and its lawyers. Instead of fighting to get a oneshot published in 2000 AD and being paid a pittance you can knock something up and shove it online and get paid an even smaller pittance. How far we have come. 81.2.89.122 (talk) 12:16, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I've been an amateur art hobbyist for more than twenty years, and used to read comics fairly extensively until last year. Watchmen is probably the second worst story (The Killing Joke takes the prize here, and they're both by the same guy) and the worst influence ever, essentially an attack on the medium itself. As a genre, comic books have been pretty much spoiled by nihilistic, mostly British writers from the 1980s and the influence of the Vertigo label. Now all it seems they're interested in is in presenting endless clones of Punisher, Batman, or Wolverine. I enjoy some webcomics, but most seem to be cartooned rather than drawn in something approaching a classical style. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:21, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Do you know how much you sound like a grumpy old man. "These comic books nowadays, they aren't a patch on how they were when I was young." Innocent Bystander (talk) 15:59, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Probably because I am a grumpy old man. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:04, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Personally superheroes don't do much for me. I thought Watchmen skewered them pretty well, both its heroes and villains. The superhero comics have been doing the same things over and over for decades now, which works out OK for a young audience. For anybody who has seen the Earth go around the Sun a few times before, the best thing to do with superheroes is tear them up and begin over. My favourite "superhero" comic book of all time (which I don't own a legitimate copy of for reasons that will be apparent if you know your comics history) is probably Winter's Tale which is notionally an issue of Miracleman. Even Watchmen's near-omniscient Doctor Manhattan still has issues left over from being merely human but Winter was always superhuman, Winter has never experienced our weaknesses, even in the womb she knew her enemies were powerless against her, and so setting her story against the backdrop of an ordinary failing marriage makes the contrast between the human and superhuman all the more powerful. Also the art (Mark Buckingham among others) is pretty cool. Tialaramex (talk) 20:40, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Is that from when Alan Moore and Neil Gaiman were writing a Miracleman series? Not my favorite British writers from the 1980s by any means, but I think I have at least heard of it. I follow artists, while writers are mostly a to-avoid list, because I'm mainly interested in pop-surrealism and pinup style fantasy. I started drawing as a hobby in the 1990s, during the age of Image, when the mainstream art styles got so manneristic and anatomically inhuman that I figured it wouldn't be hard to do better. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 01:12, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I've pretty much given up on comics-as-fiction (with the exception of Hellblazer/Constantine, and I've been poking away at DMZ), but I read a whole bunch of graphic journalism, comics history, and graphic memoir stuff. Always on the lookout for recommendations for solid non-fiction comics. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 01:27, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Ever read any Action Philosophers? About ten years ago there was a whole large-format trade book series from "Paradox Press", which I think was a DC imprint, called, "The Big Book of...." that dealt with a whole series of weird-history bits; there was one for Vice, one for Losers, one for Weird Wild West, and several more; those are just the ones I'm remembering. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 02:16, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Winter's Tale is from the unfinished Gaiman arc of Miracleman. There was some interesting stuff going on, at this point I think the (announced, again) continuation of the arc is futile, it's too late to say what would have been said at the time. But I've been wrong before. 81.2.89.122 (talk) 12:08, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I've not read any Action Philosophers, but I do have the action figures. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:21, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Is Conservapedia Mandatory?

OK, so I understand that this Wiki started as a response (fork seems like a stretch) to conservapedia. And Civic Cat mentioned the need to "supplement your Conservapedia diet with WP & RW" in a topic above. I don't think I've ever really browsed CP and I don't think I want to start. Are we expected to supplement our WP/RW reading with CP monitoring? Or can I safely ignore it?--Barryjon (talk) 19:25, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Are you just playing dense? --Inquisitor (talk) 19:32, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

[ec]I hardly ever go there. It isn't all that interesting, except as an egregious example of doctrinaire knuckle-fucking, written by some folks who seem really hard of thinking. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 19:33, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

It's not mandatory at all. Please do ignore it. The more of us who do, the better off RationalWiki as a whole will be. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 19:34, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Inquisitor, be nice! It was semi-addressed to ay CP lurkers. RW'ians need not supplement their diets with CP, but CP'ers should definitely supplement their died with RW & WP. We ain't interested in CP, that's why we have a CP namespace. huh, guys?Talk to Civic Cat 19:40, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I am not playing dense :-S I am pleased to know it's not only not mandatory but discouraged. I quite like the tone of this place; article and comments here make me literally LOL. Even if I am called dense now and then ;-0 I am sometimes a bit literal, and can initially come across as a bit stiff. I will try to be less dense on a go forward basis. --Barryjon (talk) 19:44, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

There is no need to have anything to do with Conservapedia. RW was started (was it 7 years ago?) by people who had been banned there, but it's evolved into something much more. Just find articles here that you want to contribute to, no need to concern yourself with another site. Refugee^{talk page} 19:46, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

By the way, this would have been a comment way up there... but I've never seen so many edit conflicts in such a short time. Almost said nevermind... it's all been said already. Refugee^{talk page} 19:49, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

It's prime drinking time in London, which might account for the edit conflicts in the Saloon bar ;-) Mine's a lager. --Barryjon (talk) 19:51, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Hah, 12 noon here, still coffee drinking time for me. :p Refugee^{talk page} 20:03, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

It's 22:49 in Belgium, and the beer is this weird stuff that tastes like a cross between a strong ale and cough syrup, but I don't want to be the ugly American so pour another one... Doctor Dark (talk) 21:51, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

CP is important to the current state and direction of RationalWiki as King George III is to the modern USA. You need to know your history to appreciate the cultural ethos and put it in context but today's Americans don't go around thinking about him all the time. You might like to review our CP-related articles and the RationalWiki timeline but CP itself is dead. Генгис^evolving 03:48, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

CP basically only exists anymore because of RW, so yes, it is mandatory that you visit every page, every day. Failure to comply will result in termination.-- Token Conservative ^{Feminist Thought Police} 04:28, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

How the mighty have fallen...

Blockbuster Video to close up shop. Please be kind and rewind all your tapes before returning them, or you will be reported to the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services! Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 09:11, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I thought they closed up shop sometime ago. Guess that was just in Canada. What used to be the local Blockbuster became an Original Joe's earlier this year I think. What used to be the Rogers Video (who also sold Rogers cellphones) is now entirely a cellphone shop, for a different carrier. Compro01 (talk) 17:46, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I signed up for a blockbuster account the day before the announcement was made in the UK that blockbuster was going under. I felt so guilty. X Stickman (talk) 20:23, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

They still had some 300 stores open. Which is 300 more than I thought they had, honestly, but they were still in business. They had a channel on Roku or such for a while, too.--199.189.231.196 (talk) 22:24, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

"Blockbuster generates twenty percent of it's revenues through late fees. My lifestyle does make a difference. By strategically failing, I am pro-actively participating in the conservative effort to expand this nation's GNP. This is my contract with America." Damn liberal Netflix. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 13:31, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

ENDA passes, anyone know who voted for it?

I was looking for the names of the Republicans (er, RINOS) who voted for it. As far as I can tell, from reports and guesswork, they include McCain, Flake, Portman, Kirk, Collins, Murkowski, Hatch, and maybe Ayotte. I think there were 9 total. Anyone know who I'm missing and if I got any wrong? DickTurpis (talk) 20:12, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

wooohoooo--Barryjon (talk) 20:40, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Here you go --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 21:14, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, looks like I was missing Heller and Toomey. I'm a little surprised about Toomey, as I thought he was more conservative, though from a pretty blue state. I guess he was one of those guys who was supposed to shake up the Senate, but you never heard about him after his election, as the Rubios, Rands, and Cruzes took the spotlight. DickTurpis (talk) 00:00, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Sadly, one of the results on the first page is a website that claims "It's giving der geys extra rights! OMGEE!". If they said it was evil because it gave the disabled extra rights, there would be bipartisan hatred.--The Madman (talk) 00:13, 8 November 2013 (UTC)The Madman

I think you attribute entirely too much in the way of ethics to the Republicans. The Senate Republicans (38/47 of them anyway) shot down ratification of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities last year. ^{— Unsigned, by: Compro01 / talk / contribs 2013-11-08T00:54:52‎}

If the law doesn't pass (and it probably won't this time around) the silver lining for me would be that, as someone opening their own business in the future, I could fire anyone I wanted for being heterosexual, no questions asked. Though it probably wouldn't work because I believe my state doesn't allow one to fire someone because of sexual preference. DickTurpis (talk) 01:34, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

On this note, I legitimately wouldn't be surprised if the house of representatives passed a revenge bill saying, "You can't fire somebody for being straight". Shadow of Lords ^talk 15:50, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

The ENDA covers that. It says people can't be fired on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, which covers hetero-/homo-/bi-/trans-/a-/pan-/omni-/pomo-/inter-/etcetera-sexual persons. Then again, I'm sure sure how many of the the Republican house members can actually read or who would bother to read anything that originated with the Democrats. Compro01 (talk) 16:46, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I get that. A clarification: I wouldn't be surprised if the House passed a bill that only outlawed firing people for being straight and didn't touch all other sexual orientations. Shadow of Lords ^talk 18:00, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Benghazi

Is anybody else here following the CBS Benghazi controversy? Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 14:19, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Only the basics, that CBS did a "Newsroom" and ran with a story that was basically bullshit. And that Fox, who were All Benghazi All The Time, have fallen strangely silent, without issuing a retraction of their own. PsyGremlin^{話しなさい} 15:05, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

"We have always been at war with Eurasia". --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 15:47, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

/r/goats

Just thought you guys may like this subreddit. ^{— Unsigned, by: Raysenn / talk / contribs 2013-11-10T01:03:18‎}

Ferrets! Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 11:26, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Russians and Polonium-210

What is with them and Polonium poisoning?--The Madman (talk) 20:23, 9 November 2013 (UTC)The Madman

Fast, basically impossible to reverse, and you need just a tiny, tiny amount to poison someone. Fairly ideal for a poison and run. --Revolverman (talk) 00:18, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

What would be the Russians' motive for offing Arafat? Doctor Dark (talk) 00:53, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

The Russians, I don't know. But the Mossad?--"Shut up, Brx." 00:57, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

That would be an intriguing idea if Arafat was killed after Litvinenko -- use the same method, so as to throw suspicion on the Russkies. But Litvinenko was killed two years later. The Israelis had him under control, and his political influence was waning with the rise of Hamas. The more I think about the whole episode, the less sense it makes. Doctor Dark (talk) 01:07, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

They've killed people for worse reasons.--"Shut up, Brx." 01:14, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Is anyone running with the idea that he was done in by someone within the Palestinian system? Makes as much sense as anyone, and you don't be leader of a group like the PLO for a few decades without making some enemies on your own side. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 02:02, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

It's only a great tool for assassinations if you're a nation-state, since it's so easily traceable. I mean, it is pretty effective, since (a) it emits alpha particles that can't penetrate the skin of the assassin and so harm him accidentally, and (b) those same alpha particles will kill anyone effectively and irreversibly if that odorless, tasteless polonium isotope is added to their food or drink. But the assassins of that journalist were easily discovered and tracked because they were trailing unique radiation all over the place, and the aftermath of the poisoning leaves behind more isotopes that eventually decay into easy-to-identify lead. Unless you're the strong man of a corrupt nation-state that can refuse to allow suspects to be interviewed or arrested, it's a lousy poison. For the Israelis, it'd be a stupid idea, since it's a tool that literally sprays evidence everywhere, all the time.--^talk 23:06, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

How'd they get the polonium?--"Shut up, Brx." 15:44, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Right. If it was Palestinians, the use of polonium would indicate either a foreign supplier or something nuclear they've been hiding from us. However, this is sounding a bit like conspiracy theories.--The Madman (talk) 16:27, 10 November 2013 (UTC)The Madman

I dunno. The idea of a well-established (former) terrorist group having the means by which to get lethally nasty substances doesn't seem like a reach. To be clear, I'm not arguing for anything, I don't really care about the issue. But if someone murdered Arafat, the idea of an inside job seems as reasonable as anything else. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.

Vetrans day - contemn

I applaud the verse but isn't the word contemn and not condemn , or is that an different version ? Hamster (talk) 22:45, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Something Leuders (talk) 22:55, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

European "far-right"

Why are nationalist parties of Europe considered "racist"? They have many minorities as members.^{— Unsigned, by: 74.14.29.128 / talk / contribs} 04:47, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, if you mean being ordered by the courts to allow minorities as members, yes, not racist. 173.32.30.79 (talk) 05:01, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

like saying GOP ain't bigoted because they have GOProud amongst their ranks. Search for token minority on this site.62.159.14.62 (talk) 10:10, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

A more technical answer: These parties are considered racist due to a combination of popular racist sentiment among their members (see also: football supporters, police officers, Daily Mail readers), policies which are overtly racist (e.g. practically any "send them home" policies, profiling), and policies which are implicitly racist (e.g. policies that disenfranchise people who are poor, because race remains a significant factor in poverty). 81.2.89.122 (talk) 11:13, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Friend argument  Talk to Civic Cat 16:13, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

On a more fundamental level aren't the concepts "nationalism" and "racism" quite similar anyway? One says "I was born in this nation so it's best" the other says "I was born of this race so it's best". Would it be surprising if people who were convinced by one argument were also convinced by the other? --Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 21:06, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

There's a thing called 'liberal nationalism' you should familiarize yourself with.-- Token Conservative ^{Feminist Thought Police} 04:24, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think the common perception of nationalism especially in Europe is of the far right parties like the BNP in the UK, the FN in France and Golden Dawn in Greece. These are typically ethnically exclusive, jingoistic and aggressive. But lots of other people are nationalist in the more traditional sense of being supportive of or involved in civil processes and bodies. This is quite common in nations where the structure of the state has been largely built by representative or democratic processes, such as France, the US, Switzerland and so on. This type of nationalism, while it might be exceptionalism, isn't the same as far right nationalism and isn't similar to racism at all. Ajkgordon (talk) 11:13, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Also, nationalism/patriotism has very different connotations across the pond, or so I'd heard. It doesn't has the same connotations it has in America, that's for sure. The same flag-waving antics that get you kudos in the US tends to provoke the opposite in Europe. --Ray´s Super Fun Hellhole! ^{g͘͡r̸̀a̸̶̡n̶̶͜ţ̡ ̀҉̴̨͡m̀͘͜͢e͡ ̸͟҉̷̢ỳ̸̡̀͞ơ̡̢̡ų̧r̴̀͡͝ ̡҉҉̧̛s̵̕͏̡ǫ̀́͢ų́l̵̕҉} 13:49, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm....not sure you can generalise like that. Certainly France's politicians flag wave quite a lot and talk about "French glory" and so on. The Germans much less so, understandably. The Irish go in for a lot of patriotism too but of a gentler sort. All European countries have a lot of very patriotic citizens as can be seen at any international football match and many of them have their fair share of right-wing nationalist hooligans too. Some politicians feed off that, most don't. Many countries have very successful right-wing nationalist political parties including France, Austria and Holland and more recently Greece. Basically it's a very mixed bag. Every country is unique and each has a wide variety political traditions. I could go as far as to say that each European country probably has more political diversity than the US but that might be pushing it. Ajkgordon (talk) 19:02, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

But surely nationalism and racism have the same root? It's all about identifying a group to which you belong and then defending it against others. In one the group is defined by the country in which you were born, and in the other it's defined by your perceived race. One could easily add tribalism to the same pot.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 08:46, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, no. Probably the first articulation of the idea of Nationalism was from the people who were writing about Social Contract ideas: everything you are is a result of your country, so you owe your country and should act in the better interest of your country. Nationalism meaning superiority is an outgrowth of racism, but from about 200 years after the idea of Nationalism had already been around.-- Token Conservative ^{Feminist Thought Police} 17:22, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, you can take it much further if you really wanted to draw these sorts of parallels. How about Republicans vs Democrats, Manchester United vs Manchester City, McLaren vs Ferrari, Mac vs Windows, snowboarders vs skiers? They all identify with a group and then defend it against their rivals - a form of tribalism as you say. Would you suggest that they have the same root as racism? And if so, does it really tell us anything about racism or nationalism and what to do about the problems it causes? Ajkgordon (talk) 10:40, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I would certainly say that the all share the same tribal roots, yes. As for what it tells us I would say that it means that we should be careful, as individuals, about believing things simply because other members of our group believe them. In terms of the question which generated this thread it means that it is not surprising that racism and nationalism are considered to be linked.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 11:11, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

"The Irish go in for a lot of patriotism too but of a gentler sort." First time I've heard this. Not meaning to stir up old wounds, but the days of car bombs and knee-capping aren't all that long ago. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:16, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

All the Irish are in the IRA? Besides, I was talking about patriotism. It's not normally the sort of jingoistic boasting patriotism displayed by some other nations nor is it particularly overt. Sure, lots of green and Guinness and shamrock and harps but it's pretty subdued. Northern Ireland is a different matter with tribal, religious and cultural divides still very much in evidence. Ajkgordon (talk) 18:03, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Everybody can play this game, the English can pretend their "patriotism" is exemplified by nice old ladies making cakes just as you've chosen to illustrate the Republic by shamrocks and Guinness, but that's not what we're talking about. And yes tribalism is tribalism. It is a more serious problem when your membership of a tribe is more obvious and less easily changed, but it's always a problem. MorphOS users vs AROS users probably won't even degenerate into a bar brawl, whereas skin colour has started several civil wars. But divisiveness is always' bad news, and something you should always be watching for from politicians. As a rule of thumb, any time the politician is telling you about how some group of people are the problem, you are being played. Train crashes are a problem, Cholera is a problem, Homelessness is a problem, but crazy people, bankers, lawyers, the poor, those are all groups of people, and anyone telling you they're the problem is being disingenuous at best. 84.246.168.11 (talk) 12:09, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, of course. Statement of the obvious. But belonging to a particular group isn't necessarily exclusive and insisting that it is is divisiveness itself. There are advantages to belonging to groups. Common interests, efficiencies, competition, protection, taste and so on. It is not always a problem as you assert. It depends entirely on how you objectify differences between rival groups. You could argue that forming into these various groups or tribes enables the framework to support more aggressive and violent competitive behaviours. Maybe so. But that's true of almost any social structure or advance we care to imagine. Industrialisation enabled mechanised warfare, science enabled the atom bomb, the discovery of evolution enabled eugenics, the internet helps paedophiles and so on. Humans, as a social species, will always create social structures and identify with them depending on our interests and judgement. Blaming those structures rather than tackling the root causes, i.e. human behaviour, is short-sighted at best, incompetent social engineering at worst. And we have a very bad record at the latter. Ajkgordon (talk) 13:56, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Found this convo really quite interesting. Some of the concepts might be worthy of being mentioned on the Nationalism page ? --Barryjon (talk) 21:29, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Think

link ^{— Unsigned, by: 70.29.26.112 / talk / contribs}

I see what you did there...? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:22, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I see not-so-subtle racism, and bullshit propaganda. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 06:03, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

1) I don't get it, but I'm not American, what's the deal? 2) You guys pay $1 per apple?! Tielec01 (talk) 06:11, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

why is a black guy buying an apple ? Hamster (talk) 06:38, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

A whole dollar for an apple!? A whole dollar for a shitty piece of shit!? --Ray´s Super Fun Hellhole! ^{g͘͡r̸̀a̸̶̡n̶̶͜ţ̡ ̀҉̴̨͡m̀͘͜͢e͡ ̸͟҉̷̢ỳ̸̡̀͞ơ̡̢̡ų̧r̴̀͡͝ ̡҉҉̧̛s̵̕͏̡ǫ̀́͢ų́l̵̕҉} 14:12, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Americans pay $1 per apple at the moment but once the Affordable Apple Act (AAA) is passed then apples will be available at a realistic market price - but everyone will have to buy them. Innocent Bystander (talk) 14:15, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Obamapple. Ajkgordon (talk) 14:27, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

If that was made by a Twue Conservative, they'd be buying watermelons... --PsyGremlin^Tal! 14:31, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm at work and can't see the picture. What is it? Zero (talk) 15:16, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

It is this:

File:Obamacare is apples.png

Government interference in a free market sends us down a slippery slope.

Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 15:59, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

The usual childlike right-wing vast over simplification. Reminds me of a Glenn Beck teaching tool in which one group of the young class are given candy as a reward for doing jumping jacks and then aksed to share it with the other children who sat around, "see kids, sharing is unfair." If you reduce these complex issues down far enough you can say anything you want. --Marlow (talk) 16:36, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Not only is this nonsense racist, but the person who put it together didn't pay for the images by the obvious as hell watermarks. Seriously. Who in the world thinks this is an allegory for anything? Zero (talk) 16:57, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I don't get it either.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 21:04, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

"Harassibition" — think it will fly?

I saw a new word today, so new it didn't show up on google when I went looking. "Harassibition" is a portmanteau of "harass" and "prohibition." For example, some TRAP laws may fit this description, in that their aim is making access to a legal procedure onerous enough to diminish its occurrence, where promptly outlawing the procedure is unachievable. Will this word find a spot in the list of Best Liberal Words, or will it be trampled into the mud of forgotten notions? Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 17:38, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

hurrah, another inelegant portmanteau that makes me want to stab my eyes out when I read it and rip out my tongue when I say it out loud. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:56, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

That's my sense of it as well, hence the question of its longevity. My vote would be for "forgettable damp squib." Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 18:00, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

It's not very self-explanatory, which tends to be what makes portmanteau words work. It's obvious what two words have been merged, but without context it doesn't really mean anything. & If you have to explain it, it's probably not going to catch on. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:37, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

"It's obvious what two words have been merged" No, it isn't! When I first saw the word I thought it was harassment+exhibition (some sort of documentary collection of different harassments...).

In other words, no it will not fly. Nullahnung (talk) 19:43, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

"Prohibition de facto.", perhaps? --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 19:45, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Heretic. Right-thinking people know it's de facto prohibition. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 23:54, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

References glitch

When I add this, the reflist disappears. Can't seem to fix. What gives? Leuders (talk) 02:59, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

You tried to close the last </ref> with a ] rather than a >. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 03:04, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

<slaps self] Leuders (talk) 03:05, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Coming soon, to a theatre near you...

An adventure movie about Noah's Ark. Wonder if the creationists will line up in costume like LOTR/Star Wars geeks for the first showing? (...for an actually interesting work of fiction based on the Ark myth, check out Timothy Findley, one of Canada's greatest writers. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 17:41, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Is it just me or has the creation of this biblical fanfiction picked up lately? Compro01 (talk) 18:51, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

its not just you. There were stories of conflict between the director and producer about Biblical accuracy vs telling a good story. There is definately a market in the USA. Hamster (talk) 19:34, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I was wondering whether there would be any unexpected plot twists - Noah woke up and found it was all a dream - but I imagine that the bulk of the target audience for this are biblical literalist Christians which rather limits what you can do with the story. I'd also be interested in how they tackle the dinosaur issue. Pongo^{Orangutans are sceptical} 20:08, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Wait...didn't they do a Noah's Arc movie already? Evan Almighy or something like that? - Tygrehart

I'd like to think that trailer is actually just satirising all movie trailers from the last decade. ^bomination 12:04, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

"Is it just me or has the creation of this biblical fanfiction picked up lately?" Perhaps, but there was a lot of it back in the 50s, 60s and 70s. Like the Cecil B DeMille epics with the likes of Charlton Heston and Yul Brenner, Robert Powell's signature Jesus of Nazareth, Huston's The Bible and even more recently Mel Gibson's the Passion. It's a grand Hollywood tradition. Ajkgordon (talk) 14:06, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

New trailer. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 17:49, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

RamZPaul

in you opinion is this guy of the racis?70.29.26.112 (talk) 02:16, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm worried this BoN might've had a stroke in the middle of typing that. Vulpius (talk) 02:22, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Is that Ron Paul's rapping name? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:23, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

He's totally of the racis PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 02:31, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

ha-ha! thats the poltical coretcness!only the libereal say this to demonies the speech they does not likes, censorship is called 70.29.26.112 (talk) 02:39, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

coretcness is called. yes. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 02:51, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Long live the poltics and their corectness, all that breathes shall worship the poltics --Ray´s Super Fun Hellhole! ^{g͘͡r̸̀a̸̶̡n̶̶͜ţ̡ ̀҉̴̨͡m̀͘͜͢e͡ ̸͟҉̷̢ỳ̸̡̀͞ơ̡̢̡ų̧r̴̀͡͝ ̡҉҉̧̛s̵̕͏̡ǫ̀́͢ų́l̵̕҉} 03:22, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

This is the same BoN that gave us that brilliant skewering of left wing ideology in the form of a racially tinged over priced apple analogy. I've never heard of RamZPaul, but he has an article at metapedia so you know he's good, I couldn't be bothered to read it. --Marlow (talk) 04:25, 14 November 2013 (UTC)\

RamZPaul seems to be some random crank magnet called Paul R. Ramsey (no relation to Gordon [hopefully]) who rants in YouTube about "the establishment of cultural Marxism". His videos are painful to watch, not helped by his failed attempt at snark. --Ray´s Super Fun Hellhole! ^{g͘͡r̸̀a̸̶̡n̶̶͜ţ̡ ̀҉̴̨͡m̀͘͜͢e͡ ̸͟҉̷̢ỳ̸̡̀͞ơ̡̢̡ų̧r̴̀͡͝ ̡҉҉̧̛s̵̕͏̡ǫ̀́͢ų́l̵̕҉} 12:32, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

You mean its NOT Ron Paul's debut rap album name? Damn it! --Revolverman (talk) 12:47, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd pirate buy the shit outta that album. --Ray´s Super Fun Hellhole! ^{g͘͡r̸̀a̸̶̡n̶̶͜ţ̡ ̀҉̴̨͡m̀͘͜͢e͡ ̸͟҉̷̢ỳ̸̡̀͞ơ̡̢̡ų̧r̴̀͡͝ ̡҉҉̧̛s̵̕͏̡ǫ̀́͢ų́l̵̕҉} 12:55, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Also, I blocked him for 5 minutes because, hey, why not. --Ray´s Super Fun Hellhole! ^{g͘͡r̸̀a̸̶̡n̶̶͜ţ̡ ̀҉̴̨͡m̀͘͜͢e͡ ̸͟҉̷̢ỳ̸̡̀͞ơ̡̢̡ų̧r̴̀͡͝ ̡҉҉̧̛s̵̕͏̡ǫ̀́͢ų́l̵̕҉} 12:38, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

People like RamZPaul give me hope. As a leftist, people like this RamZPaul make me happy. It reminds me of the old Jewish joke: A Jew is sitting in a cafe reading Der Stürmer when his friend approaches him, "why do you read that horrible rag, it's nothing but antisemitic propaganda?" "Are you kidding me?" replies the man reading the paper, "this is the only publication with the good news. When I look around I see pogroms, the confiscation of Jewish property and the loss of our cultural identity, but when I read this wonderful newspaper I learn we are actually in control of the media and the banks, our influence extends to every facet of society and it turns out we are on the verge of total world domination.

I love those old Frankfurt School kooks (cultural Marxists, in right-wing parlance), they often provide wonderfully subversive ways of unpacking contemporary cultural and ideology, but they were never influential in the mainstream discourse; that is until you listen to these right-wing windbags, then they're responsible for the downfall of Western civilization. I think they'd be proud. --Marlow (talk) 16:24, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

please to explaine how he is the racisr?70.29.26.112 (talk) 20:31, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

No one here said he was a racist. Some people made fun of you for your continuous misspelling of the word and inability to type coherent sentences. I don't think anyone is interested in talking about this guy. Seems like some youtube ranter to me, I don't care whether he's racist. --Marlow (talk) 21:40, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

No one here cares enough. We have enough articles on run-of-the-mill racists. --Ray´s Super Fun Hellhole! ^{g͘͡r̸̀a̸̶̡n̶̶͜ţ̡ ̀҉̴̨͡m̀͘͜͢e͡ ̸͟҉̷̢ỳ̸̡̀͞ơ̡̢̡ų̧r̴̀͡͝ ̡҉҉̧̛s̵̕͏̡ǫ̀́͢ų́l̵̕҉} 22:52, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

But hardly any on racisr or of-the-racis. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:11, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Curious

Can anybody find a link to any of the evangelical pastors, or megachurches, calling for donations, or AID, for the Philippines? AFAICS Ray Comfort certainly hasn't, nor Pat Robertson. I'm a bit lacking in names of preachers/churches to look up, so can anybody help? PsyGremlin^Tal! 05:14, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Rick Warren. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 05:17, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

IMB.org, the humanitarian branch of the Southern Baptist Convention. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 05:21, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Any Neo-Hobbesian / 'government is for imposing rationality' reading suggestions?

I'm prepping for a moral & political philosophy assignment, and my general thesis is a defense of virtue ethics, and cultivating moral, rational citizens rather than it being entirely imposed by government. My base references from my classes are Plato and Hobbes (for the latter side) vs Aristotle and John Stuart Mill (FIGHT!). The essay started as being 'evaluating' the two but leaning towards virtue politics, but as I've been going about my reading I'm honestly just wanting to lean more and more to virtues.

However, in my Virtue Ethics reading I've absorbed some more modern writers, chiefly Alistair - sp? - MacIntyre and Martha Nussbaum. I feel I really should give the 'downers' (rationality brought down from above) a fairer trial, i.e. doing more than shitting on Hobbes' book on human nature and Plato's noble lie. However, I'd hesitate to ask just for neo-Hobbesian as Nussbaum's approach in particular goes to some degree to distance itself from Neo-Aristotelianism. Any suggestions? Polite Timesplitter ^{Cultural loneliness is a right pain} 18:16, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Not really sure if this is what you're going for, but you can check out the tradition of "enlightened absolutism." This was advocated by some philosophes (e.g., Voltaire) and some of the absolutist rulers themselves put out some philosophical work (e.g., Frederick II). Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:13, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

white vs. black cirime, is a great problem of today?

whats cirime ? maybe BoN should spellcheck . Hamster (talk) 18:23, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

A cirime [JEE rih meh] is the brass dish used for sloshing rinse water on sweaty skin in a Turkish bath. 68.116.195.252 (talk) 19:31, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

The Blaze and WND usually have a couple articles a month about the ubiquitous "black mob violence epidemic". Might be fun to pick apart. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:42, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

The TPC is full of stories about "White man/woman beaten/killed by blacks. Wai you no no cover this like Trayvon, lamestream media?!" PsyGremlin^Parlez! 08:41, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

5 Responses to Sexism That Just Make Everything Worse

http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-responses-to-sexism-that-just-make-everything-worse/

Read this article yet? Pretty hypocritical76.68.6.224 (talk) 22:04, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I was going to WIGO it except we're all getting bored of Cracked WIGOs. I thought it was pretty much on the money. Innocent Bystander (talk) 22:10, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

No it wasn't, look at the comments to see how shitty the article really was ^{— Unsigned, by: 76.68.6.224 / talk / contribs 22:31, 15 November 2013}

Money (presumably this was a paid gig) for the talented Winston "Subnormality" Rowntree can't be a bad thing. Yes, the general thrust is on the money. As always it's a bit more complicated than that™ e.g. investment bankers aren't actually leeches that serve no purpose, any more than lawyers are, or soccer referees. But it did make me take another look and wonder again about choices I make, whether I should do more or do things differently. Tialaramex (talk) 22:41, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

look at the comments to see how shitty the article really was - ah, ye, internet comment sections, the home of rational discourse! Innocent Bystander (talk) 23:09, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I skimmed through the first set of comments, and to be honest, they weren't as much a cesspool as articles like this usually get (maybe further down?). Mostly a few half-hearted idiots tossing up straw-feminist stuff, or calling the writer untalented. Nothing very convincing unless you've already got a pretty heavy axe to grind against uppity wimmins. The rest were all on-board with what it said. Not a pleasant surprise so much as a less unpleasant one. --23:24, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

The comments section is actually one of the most sensible and level headed I've ever seen. Where are the cries of misandry, cultural marxism and feminist conspiracies? I don't have the interest or time to hunt through it to find some asshole trying to "debunk" the whole thing using the same tired MRA arguments we've heard a million times. I'm the tiniest bit curious though as to what the OP meant by hypocritical... --01:45, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

"[L]eeches that serve no purpose, any more than lawyers are" Holy shit bro, Nutty Roux (I pronounce it nuddy roo) is going to strangle you! --Ray´s Super Fun Hellhole! ^{g͘͡r̸̀a̸̶̡n̶̶͜ţ̡ ̀҉̴̨͡m̀͘͜͢e͡ ̸͟҉̷̢ỳ̸̡̀͞ơ̡̢̡ų̧r̴̀͡͝ ̡҉҉̧̛s̵̕͏̡ǫ̀́͢ų́l̵̕҉} 03:03, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't get why they're compared to leeches. The poor annelids aren't harmful at all — sometimes they even suck the bad blood out while draining you. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 09:40, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I've worked in a number of law offices, and with one exception none of them came anything close to the stereotypes. It's interesting to note that the one exception, who was a bit of an asshole generally, was the only one who did criminal law of the bunch which seems to be the group the whole lawyer = greedy meme comes from. The rest were mostly family, property and labour law and were just fine. --Kels (talk) 15:09, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Arch Neo Nazi finds out he's part black.

Just thought this might be worth a few giggles. Long story short Craig Cobb, one of the most unpleasant and revolting neo nazis imaginable whose activities range from getting a judge's mother and husband killed (and gloating about it) because she sentenced his cult's leader to life in jail, getting kicked out of pretty much every country he enters due to extreme nazi douchebaggery, and "masterminding" the plan to create a neo nazi haven in a North Dakota town by mass importing neo nazis and scaring everyone else out was revealed to be 14% sub saharan african on the Trisha Goddard show. Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 22:49, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

There was a Polish (IIRC) neo-nazi a couple of years ago who discovered that he was of Jewish descent. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 08:57, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

This is one of the things that makes the whole idea of "racial purity" so stupid. Look Hitler was an African Jew. Maybe - but everybody is a mixture of something.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 10:04, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Whilst making nazis squirm is doubtless a worthwhile pursuit in some sense, these DNA tests are basically worthless when (ab)used this way. All humans are ultimately "from" Africa, since nazis are human (not actually a type of fungus) they're all from Africa too. This type of DNA test is taking statistics that are useful to know about populations and trying to apply them to individuals in a way we know doesn't really work. It's as if these shows started measuring people's height as a proxy for gender. 180cm tall? You're male. Don't waste your time showing us you have tits, the tape measure doesn't lie. Except an audience would laugh immediately at the "tape measure gender test" but they treat these DNA tests seriously. Tialaramex (talk) 11:12, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh im well aware of how useless dna tests are with regular people to determine the "true race"...but regular people are not psychotically obsessed with blood purity and despising non-whites for existing. In the case of Cobb he is a neo-nazi of especially extremist ideology due to his affiliation with the "Church of Creativity" (seriously just read their wiki article to see how bugfuck insane they are even compared to other neo-nazis) and other activities, and thus seeing him reminded of the basic reality of human genetic lineage and how even he is not exempt from it is hilarious due entirely to how he and his ilk value the idea of being pure white. Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 12:47, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

When I saw this, I was mostly interested, and somewhat skeptical, of the science underlying it. None of the stories I read went into any detail about how the tests worked. I assume since we're speaking of percentages, what's being tested is his genome and not his mtDNA. I frankly doubt that many Americans are particularly purebred, not that we'd want to be, and that the older your roots are in NAm the likelier you'll have bits of African and Native in your bloodline. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:26, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Its the same anywhere really, God knows its been true of Britain for a good few thousand years. The idea of being "pure white/european" (or any race for that matter) is fundamentally absurd, but some people still cling to it for dear life because they think it gives them to act like dicks to others for being different. Personally i want to know how his Neo-nazi comrades will react to this news given hes apparantly fairly high in the Neo-nazi hierachy. Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 15:43, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I would support the inclusion of Pudd'nhead Wilson in high school curricula all across this great land of ours, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Abraham Lincoln said that, shortly after the recent unpleasantness. You may look it up for yourselves. Alec Sanderson (talk) 17:57, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

A group of bonobos on a mountainside in Angola have more genetic diversity then the whole human race. Seriously, you're either mixed race or your family tree is a straight line.-- Token Conservative ^{Feminist Thought Police} 19:37, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

There have been films made about such things. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:39, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Somewhere, I remember reading that Genghis Khan^wp was the most reproductively successful person in recorded history. One sixth of the world is related to him. Mitochondrial Eve has him beat all to hell, of course. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 05:39, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Is Cobb actually a neo-nazi? I mean I get he's freakishly racist but that's the first I've heard of him described as such. I mean, I'm hardly kind to him myself in saying "white supremacist" rather than "white separatist" but isn't that bad enough? Polite Timesplitter ^{Cultural loneliness is a right pain} 18:03, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Reminds me of closet gay homophobes. And this:

–Aleksandr Ehrenstein ЯR 04:38, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Irish music recommendations

I'm really into The Pogues at the moment, but I can't really get into the imitators (e.g., Flogging Molly). Any suggestions? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:25, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

If you like the Pogues, you may like... PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 05:30, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Don't look for the bands inspired by the Pogues, look for the bands that inspired them. Try the Dubliners, Planxty, and even the Clancy Brothers. Plenty of others too. Or check out Gogol Bordello, who are for Eastern European music what the Pogues are for Irish. DickTurpis (talk) 05:31, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Will try those. BTW, I'm already a big GB fan -- have all the albums, seen 'em live three times. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Enya, Clannad, Boyzone, Westlife... --PsyGremlin^Tal! 05:49, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

The early albums by Clannad. Dulaman, especially. Kevin Burke, Suite. Chieftains, Long Black Veil. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 05:59, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Anything by Van Morrison. --PsyGremlin^Praat! 06:09, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

.. or - if you want to stay more in tune with the punky attitude - try these folks. - 194.246.46.15 (talk) 10:44, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I saw the pogues a few years back on St Patrick's day, but they have already been mentioned. I would recommend the Dubliners - a whole lot less twee than the chieftains. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:57, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

For something a bit different, and not at all twee, I am fond of the fiddling of Patricia Clark. Her CD, "the Lark's March," is full of worthy tunes, IMO. Oddly enough, it was she who mentioned, on a fiddling forum some years ago, reading Lakoff's Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things as part of her university course. (Uni of Limerick, where she studied Irish trad music with Siobhan Peoples) That's what sparked my interest in cognitive science. (She described the book as swimming through treacle.) Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 15:09, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

This guy is, IMHO, the best Celtic instrumentalist in the business today. Does stuff that isn't Irish, too, but his Irish stuff is great. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 16:24, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Dropkick Murphy's? Also, THE CHIEFTAINS!!--"Shut up, Brx." 16:51, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Something a bit different - The Afro Celt Sound System Innocent Bystander (talk) 17:03, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Nobody's mentioned Mumford & Sons yet. Here they are, singing Little Lion Man in Irish. Mrs. Cogswell plays in an "Irish fusion" band, and they need to check the room for children before singing that one in English. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 17:29, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Schoolkids and red Solo cups

500 scoláire - 4 Thaifead - Aon Ghuth Amháin

Under UV light

It would appear that music is alive. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 21:27, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

The Rubberbandits. Ajkgordon (talk) 22:19, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Might as well toss some Capercaillie onto the Big Pile O' Celts. And going in a totally different direction, here's a piece from Carolina Chocolate Drops. --Kels (talk) 23:36, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm fond of saying that whoever decided how to write Gaelic languages in the Roman alphabet, I want some of what they were on. For example, where are the letters for the "sh" sound in Puirt à beul? The first line of the first song in the Carolina Chocolate Drops clip means something like "There are many things I must buy, before I can get married." There's also something about Black Donald and Angus the piper's son chasing Morag on her wedding day, I think. Fun stuff. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 23:58, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I can't believe that nobody here has mentioned this classic. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 08:51, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Or this. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:41, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Never mind searching YouTube for the song about the Seven Old Ladies. You'll be wasting your time. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 14:28, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Can't believe I forgot Christy Moore and Luka Bloom. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 15:37, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Enya? (I'll get my coat!) Scream!! (talk) 15:58, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

If you like Enya, you'll love the prancing grinning violin stylings of Lindsey Stirling. Better you than me.

Lately I've been playing "Cailín Óg a Stór" ("Dearest Young Girl") on the slide trombone. It's an old tune, from at least as far back as the sixteenth century. Like many such traditional melodies, it has a simple harmonic structure, sitting mostly in two harmonic series, one on G, the other on A (the way I hear it and play it) with only a small handful of other notes needed, and in the compass of a single octave, no more. You may be familiar with the sound of it, as the melody to "The Croppy Boy", "Lady Franklin's Lament". or "Bob Dylan's Dream". Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 00:45, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, if we're doing spoof recommendations, then Mulligan and O'Hare. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Spoofs? Well! I never... these two are the real deal from a while ago. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 02:09, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

We're using Monopoly money

https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/1426458_10152187596841055_167153410_n.jpg

Mind = Blown

Does anyone know if this was actually intentional?

–Aleksandr Ehrenstein ЯR 04:25, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I think whoever posted that had some fun with the tint feature. I looked at the bills in my wallet and there is very little color differentiation among them, at least in this light. DickTurpis (talk) 04:41, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Your money all looks the same to me, but I have to agree with Dick. Even if they were the same, however, wouldn't it be that Monopoly copied the colour of existing banknotes and not the other way around? Peter ^mqzp 05:07, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

All the money has been redone within the past decade. Also, it has all been redone twice. 2000 they made the portraits bigger, and in 2005 they added the colors and got rid of the portrait borders. –Aleksandr Ehrenstein ЯR So you think opposing Nazis is tilting at windmills? 05:24, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Even with the redesign, they're all so similar that it makes it difficult for us furriners to instantly tell them apart. The colours have made a bit of a difference but they're very subtle. Pound and euro notes are different sizes - larger = higher denomination - and the colour differences between them are more marked.

As an aside, I was in a London hotel recently and an American tourist got really quite irate when she paid for her coffee and noticed Charles Darwin on the back of her £10 note. Made me chuckle. Ajkgordon (talk) 09:28, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately the downside of putting Jane Austen on a banknote is that we end up losing Chuck. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 09:45, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Petition. Only 23 signatures! Ajkgordon (talk) 09:59, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

It's not just furriners. The reasoning behind the different sizes and colours in bank notes is to aid the partially sighted. I fail to understand why the US of A doesn't take this into account. Innocent Bystander (talk) 10:39, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

you hear this bollocks all the time. Every time a bank note is altered, no matter how slightly, its 'its like monopoly money'. Or when you go abroad its the same. It all boils down to ' its not what I'm used to, I don't like it' AMassiveGay (talk) 12:18, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

True, many people just don't like change of any sort. I remember working in Jordan back in the 70s and they introduced some new notes which used traditional Arabic geometric designs; because one of them was a six-pointed star a lot of people objected because it was felt to be Zionist even though the design did not comprise overlapping triangles. And while we are on the topic of Monopoly, I recall working in Pakistan and we had a local produced rip-off version of Monopoly. It was brand-new but when we attempted to play the game there wasn't enough money in the box for three players to be given their starting pot. I thought that this made an ironic statement about the Pakistani economy. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 12:56, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Your coins are all round too, like that chocolate money we give kids at Christmas. Don't see the chocolate companies making non-round coins like the British 50 pence or 20 pence do you? Can't think like a libertarian so I don't know how this proves they are coming to take your guns. Maybe one of the BoNs can take a break from posting racist nonsense to tell us? Tialaramex (talk) 12:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

50 pence piece > heptagon > seven > deadly sins > devil > hates God > God loves guns > QED. Ajkgordon (talk) 13:25, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I believe most chocolate loonies are proper hendecagons. Compro01 (talk) 21:18, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I didn't realize the Fed was responsible for designing and printing our money. When did the Treasury Department stop doing that? RachelW (talk) 21:00, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Pretty sure the Bilderberg Group does that now. DickTurpis (talk) 01:40, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Lenski back in the news

More news from MSU. Bonus points: we get a shout-out in the comments. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 00:59, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Speak of the Devil.

I listen to quite a few skeptical podcasts including monstertalk. This week's episode is Speak of the devil. It's about the history of the concept of the devil. Absolutely fascinating if you're into that sort of thing. --Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 10:44, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I've not listened to it but you may also be interested in the IOT podcast from 2003 and there was this documentary last year on BBC4. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 12:09, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm. Bob M, links to an podcast containing an interview with Robert M. Price. Bit of shameless self promotion there eh Bob?? ;)--Damo^Hi 04:02, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

OH no! Busted! And I thought that my nick hid my name so cleverly!--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 08:23, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

It was a very interesting discussion. The evolution of the concept of the devil from early Judaism into Christianity and Islam is fascinating stuff alright. --Damo^Hi 13:19, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, I thought I know a little about the subject but he put a completely different light on things. Not sure about his politics though.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 08:29, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I was only dimly aware of Robert Price before you linked that podcast, but after listening to a few of his lectures, speeches and debates that are floating around, he has become my new favourite religious speaker. He is refreshingly blunt. Damo^Hi 05:43, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

My local vocational school is doing a course on Astrology

Wait, what? This is apparently a course my tax dollars are subsidizing. Gee! From the booklet:

Modern Astrology and Self Discovery Modern Transpersonal Astrology can serve as a tool for self and spiritual knowledge. It can help us to better understand and accept self and “others”; thus, to attract and create more enjoyable relationships. Our natal planets symbolize psychological driving forces. In this interactive program you will be empowered to more consciously create Well-being, Love and Joy. Please bring your birth data to the first class so Dennis can prepare your personal chart for the next class. Knowledge of Astrology and birth time is not essential. This course is based upon the book “Sun Sign Potentials - A Guide to Understanding Self and Others.” [...] $59

Zero (talk) 18:14, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

how is it subsidised?--Barryjon (talk) 18:38, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

OCM BOCES is funded in part through tax dollars to school districts and our State Department of Education. Zero (talk) 19:45, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I am waaaay more interested in "Finding your Psychic Self". I want to learn about "the mysterious world of the psychic sciences". Shadow of Lords ^talk 18:43, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

To be fair, astrology is a vocation, and possibly a good one depending on where you are. I predict that you live in the Pacific Northwest or at least where there's a big enough population of hippies to support this. Maybe Sedona. 18:47, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Not even close. Zero (talk) 19:45, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Ew, Bing. Nullahnung (talk) 20:51, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

you can get from $20 up for a good chart. You do need the birth time though or its not as accurate ;-) Hamster (talk) 21:21, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh, heavens forfend that there might be an error in one's birth chart. That I'm a Pisces and Wednesday is a good day for buying patio furniture is all I need to know. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 22:20, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Eh. Finger Lakes. Same thing. Hippy. 23:05, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

"I am waaaay more interested in "Finding your Psychic Self"." Did you miss belly-dancing on the same page? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:09, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

On the next page you can learn "Pocket Billiards" including - "grip, proper stance and posture, aiming, stroke and follow through." All you've ever wanted to know really!--Coffee (talk) 07:55, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm, Extreme Couponing. Sounds like something that Ken Demyer might sign up for. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 08:55, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

On an only tangentially related note, I've been doing a lot of reading lately on astrology, the zodiac, and horoscopes. Turns out, the same load of shit was created independently by Babylonians and Mayans. I await the end of the Babylonian calender.-- Token Conservative ^{Feminist Thought Police} 05:49, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I quite enjoy reading about astrology, its almost as interesting as reading about mythologies. Its only shit if you want it to be true. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:51, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Let us all join in

Today is World Toilet Day. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 08:59, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Note

Can someone develop an article on the Branton Files - the topic is RW-worthy, but I don't have the time at the moment to do so. 171.33.222.26 (talk) 17:20, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Stick it on the To do list. If there is any interest in it, somebody will develop an article, or a stub. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:30, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

ask and you shall receive ;-) another stub by Hamster (talk) 19:58, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Coming soon: the greatest creationist circlejerk in the interwebs!

/r/ChristianCreationists, a YEC subreddit, has decided that having to put up with dissent is too much for them and want it gone they are going to "take a sabbatical from debate and grow some roots" and thus are now moving to another subreddit, /r/Creation, which is private and non-believers (or non-Cdesign proponentsists and non-YECs) are not allowed. And they talk about how much non-believers are close-minded. --Ray´s Super Fun Hellhole! ^{g͘͡r̸̀a̸̶̡n̶̶͜ţ̡ ̀҉̴̨͡m̀͘͜͢e͡ ̸͟҉̷̢ỳ̸̡̀͞ơ̡̢̡ų̧r̴̀͡͝ ̡҉҉̧̛s̵̕͏̡ǫ̀́͢ų́l̵̕҉} 14:52, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

As if one could have a "discussion" with them. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 17:59, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Can anyone access this?

Some MRA is claiming this debunks the pay gap, but when I try to load it I get "Oops! Google Chrome could not connect to www.consad.com / Access a cached copy of www.­consad.­com/­content/­reports/­Gender Wage Gap ­Final Report.­pdf"

Any help?-- Token Conservative ^{Feminist Thought Police} 16:13, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

site seems down http://www.downforeveryoneorjustme.com/www.consad.com Hamster (talk) 18:02, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

c2.com?

In the search box I typed Wiki:CP instead of Wigo:CP and it went to this page which appears to be a subpage of Cunningham & Cunningham, Inc. Seems a bit odd to have or search box go to an offsite resource. Any ideas? Aceⁱ⁹ 19:08, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Because of the "wiki:" prefix, the searchbox interprets it as an interwiki link, in the same way "wp:" can be used for linking to Wikipedia. RW seems to have a ridiculously large list of defined interwiki prefixes, though it may be MediaWiki's default.--ZooGuard (talk) 19:33, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Ahhh, of course. Makes sense. Aceⁱ⁹ 19:46, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Links for donations to the Philippines.

They don’t need your blankets or your old clothes. They need your money. Give it to them. Feel free to add other links. Give them your money.

• Oxfam. Those of you in America may not know that they're one of the most successful and accountable aid organisations ever.
• Phillipine Red Cross
• UNICEF
• Catholic Relief Services
• Save the Children
• Medecins Sans Frontieres
• Action Against Hunger
• Pilipines Department of Social Welfare and Development
• Gawad Kalinga (Philippines NGO)
• Give Foundation
• Gift of the Givers

PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 18:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

They can also do without your lousy prayers if you think that is the best and only way to help them. In the UK the umbrella organisation Disasters Emergency Committee is probably the best way to contribute. If you use Gift Aid then you can boost your donation by 25% - although this option didn't seem to appear when I selected PayPal as the method, so I used my the normal donation route instead. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 01:45, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I gave to DEC and used Paypal, including a Gift Aid addition. I was confused by the apparent lack of Gift Aid option at first, but if you stay with it, the option is there. As with all online Paypal transactions, there's two parts: logging into Paypal to approve the use of Paypal funds/billing, then reviewing and confirming the transaction at the vendor's (or charity's) site. There's nothing about Gift Aid in the Paypal part of the process because they're not involved in the Gift Aid process: you're only telling Paypal how much to pay & bill you for. But DEC then presents you with tickboxes for Gift Aid before you complete the donation, which will allow them to reclaim the extra 25% from HM R&C. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:52, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll be an actual taxpayer soon so I can do that legitimately! ^narchist 12:15, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Broke as fuck over here, so I guess I can't. --Ray´s Super Fun Hellhole! ^{g͘͡r̸̀a̸̶̡n̶̶͜ţ̡ ̀҉̴̨͡m̀͘͜͢e͡ ̸͟҉̷̢ỳ̸̡̀͞ơ̡̢̡ų̧r̴̀͡͝ ̡҉҉̧̛s̵̕͏̡ǫ̀́͢ų́l̵̕҉} 03:10, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Prayer

What's wrong with prayer? I mean, it accomplishes nothing and you should really donate, but donation and prayer isn't mutually exclusive. Effectively it's the same as "I wish you well" or "I hope things will get better". There's nothing wrong with that. It becomes questionable when people think their prayer is accomplishing something and neglect to donate as a result, but honestly, who does that? Nullahnung (talk) 09:24, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Andy Schlafly for one. Генгис^evolving 09:42, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Studies suggest the answer is "most or at least many people". Particularly if it's possible for your prayer to be public. A bad things has happened. People are looking for an inner feeling of having "done something about it" and social capital from others who perceive them as having "done something about it". You can score both of these things from public prayer just as easily as from, say, a sponsored race or a public donation that acknowledges your giving. While prayer does not literally prevent donation, and of course (churches have been doing this for years) it can ensure a captive audience for a guy shaking a bucket, it does satisfy one of our emotional needs without actually achieving anything, so it can prevent useful work. Tialaramex (talk) 13:58, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

When you pray, be not like the hypocrites who love to pray standing in the street etc. etc. Beyond that, it's down to individual conscience. For people who believe in prayer, this is obviously the sort of thing they should be praying for. It only seems to be under discussion here because some drifter/parodist/dirk posted this in the thread before it got reverted. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:32, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Given that the Philippines is one of the most devout Christian countries, would it not be reasonable to suggest that a lot of bloody praying had already gone one before the storm? And all to remarkably little effect. Is a whole bunch more praying suddenly going to put Humpty back together again? If god is "ineffable" and "moves in mysterious ways", so he allows thousands of very poor people to be killed or at least have their meagre homes destroyed and leave them exposed and hungry while helping some football player win a game or deciding who wins the lottery, then he's a pretty fucked-up type of god in my book. While churches can raise awareness and funds to help, it needs to be substantial physical aid and not using the money to send a bunch of bibles. Pongo^{Orangutans are sceptical} 20:01, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

That's preaching to the choir. Nullahnung (talk) 20:43, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Captcha queries

... should allow humour 'Marry me?' should allow 'Mo' etc 171.33.222.26 (talk) 17:21, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

That would tax the server's poor ickle brain too much. It's ropey enough as it is. Sophie^Wilder 10:24, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

This is why I shop at Costco

They properly labelled the Bible. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 08:57, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

That's freakin' great! How much are the ones with the sticker going for on Ebay? --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?} 15:29, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Clearly they were labelled incorrectly, and I'm upset about this too. Should be fantasy. Shadow of Lords ^talk 16:51, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 10:16, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Holydaze

The current collection looks atrocious. Can't we purge some of them? Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 14:08, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanksgiving is appearing a week early for some reason. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 14:18, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that's weird. And what was that one yesterday that only linked to wikipedia? ħuman 07:13, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I am being told that today is "St Cecilia's Day". Errrrrr. So?--Coffee (talk) 20:45, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I've never seen the point of that one. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:51, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Kirk and Ray have got themselves a boardgame

Did anyone know about this? --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?} 15:18, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

User Suggested # of Players: Not recommended with any number

User Suggested Ages: 2

Ok, I laughed. --PsyGremlin^Snakk! 15:31, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

There's no age range. Age 2 is the minimum and maximum! --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?} 15:37, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I find myself agreeing with the top commenter at BGG, people should rate the actual game (which means at least attempting to play it) and not the perceived agenda of the game's creators or whatever. That being said, "Too random for my tastes" is very clever as both a criticism of gameplay and a snarky comment about "Intelligent Design". It's basically a crappy trivia game in which the trivia is anti-evolutionist claptrap. But there are hundreds of similarly poor games about other topics, some are even firm family favourites.

There are plenty of "fun" games that are just as hollow as this from a gameplay point of view, Cards Against Humanity for example has no substance but attracts high ratings. There are games with more serious design flaws like Talisman or Thunderstone that still have firm fans. And while some games have mechanical elements that are closely tied to the game's story/ setting (like Pandemic 's "intensify") others do just fine by re-theming something people were already familiar with like Tanto Cuore taking Dominion 's gameplay and adding manga-style Japanese maids. So I think the score for this offering is a little lower than it ought rightly to be. But it won't make a drop of difference to sales. Tialaramex (talk) 17:19, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Big deal. The board games market is a crock of shit & has been for a long time. The latest 'edgy' lazy variant on 'truth or dare' will always outsell anything with a proper strategy-based gameplay system. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:01, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Don't forget all the different versions of Monopoly, Trivial Pursuit etc. In no other business have the top-selling products remained the same since the sixties or so. Vulpius (talk) 01:27, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

"The board games market is a crock of shit & has been for a long time." I rarely, if ever, disagree with you, Weasel, but I gotta call you out on this. In the past few years I've been introduced to a number of interesting and enjoyable board games that are miles beyond the Parker Brothers/Hasbro games of my youth: Carcassone, Settlers of Cataan, Roborally, Chez Geek, Bananagrams, Scrabapple, Munchkin, Fluxx, Betrayal at House on the Hill.... PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 02:42, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Gotta agree with Powder here. Board games are experiencing a renaissance. I don't know anything about sales, but there are many great games out there and no shortage of interested people to play them with. I'll agree that the continued existence (and popularity) of atrocious "classic" games like Risk, Monopoly and Clue is surprising, if not telling regarding the market's taste, or lack there of, but there are dozens of excellent and popular games on the market. Even semi-games like Apple to Apples or Cards Against Humanity certainly have their place, while not being very taxing from a strategic point of view. The current favorites in our house are Wits and Wagers and Dixit, both of which are a blast without being overly tilted towards experienced players. On the other hand our new Pathfinder group, while not strictly a board game, has cut into our more casual gaming time. --Marlow (talk) 03:31, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of Pathfinder, I see the same sort of resurgence, if you will, in pen and paper RPGs. In the past year I've been invited to play games with folks who historically had no involvement with these sorts of game systems, but were pushed in that direction after playing strategic and complex board games like Dominion and Catan. Interesting. More's the pity that my D&D gaming group recently went on hiatus. :( - GrantC (talk) 15:35, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm aware of at least some of those alternative games, although I don't think I've played any of them. A friend plays Settlers of Cataan & keeps trying to get me into it, but we've never got round to getting a proper games night together. But anyway, this is still a fairly niche end of the market. I think my (admittedly slightly drunken) comment was more about mass market in board games and the fact that big sellers tend to be either established classics, rehashes/rip-offs of the classics, or lowest common denominators. & Most of the companies that dominate the wargames, RPG & CCG markets are - if anything - worse than those dominating the mainstream family games market, in terms of monopolistic practices and generally making it an expensive hobby. I did design a couple of strategy board games a few years ago, and sent them to a couple of companies & an agency but got nothing but rejections along the lines of "there's no market for this". If I was going to try again now, I'd probably aim more for the alt gaming market, or possibly kickstarter. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:19, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I have to agree with your points there. While the market share in more strategic board games is certainly rising, the "family classics" are still usually the standard fare in most homes. I also emphatically agree with your point about monopolies in the alternative market. Some of the bigger RPG companies (I'm looking at you, Wizards of the Coast/Hasbro) are pretty nasty. - GrantC (talk) 19:31, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

R.M.S. Titanic

I noticed that the Titanic's article was deleted and I think we should reinstate it. I mean, it is the most famous shipwreck ever for crying out loud. We could get some good snark and historical facts and make it a nice, lengthy article. Leoesb1032 (talk) 20:15, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Is there anything mission-able about the boat? PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 20:30, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Possibly. wp:RMS Titanic alternative theories has some nuttery we could snark at. Compro01 (talk) 20:46, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Would we only be snarking at something for the sake of it rather than commenting on anything that has any meaningful resonance? & Why is "the most famous shipwreck ever" suddenly a priority? As far as I know we don't really have much on other great shipwrecks of history; nor should we. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:52, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

You forgot about The Helvetia. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 10:57, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Maybe it could be an article about the Titanic as an overused metaphor [1] for numerous perceived collisions, like for instance this. Leuders (talk) 22:10, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

If you want to do it Leosb create a page in your userspace and go mental. Unfortunately the last article (which you started) was far too short and, to be honest, not written very well. Tielec01 (talk) 01:18, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

The French Wikipedia page on the subject has much more information, though it does appear that the majority of it is gleaned from the same few sources. I'm not interested enough in the topic to bother looking into it, but it does suggest that with enough time and effort, there may be something worth talking about. - GrantC (talk) 01:23, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I know what everyone is saying, but with a subject this lengthy, it makes for some good snark and conspiracies. Like, I said, it is the most famous boat of all time. We should have an article on it. ^{— Unsigned, by: Leoesb1032 / talk / contribs}

It was a ship, not a boat. & This isn't a nautical wiki, so being the most famous ship of all time (if that's even the case) is neither here nor there. What is it you actually want to put in the article? Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:54, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I also think RW is lacking an article on Mount Everest. It is the most famous shipwreck mountain ever for crying out loud. We could get some good snark and historical facts and make it a nice, lengthy article.--Coffee (talk) 20:31, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Isn't Mount Everest supposed to be infested with yeti? 192․168․1․42 (talk) 20:20, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

"Infested" is an interesting choice of word. There is credible evidence that the mountain has been used as an unplanned sky burial site for wealthy adventurous humans who do poorly in the death zone, which closely abuts the hypoxic cognitive impairment zone. Scarcity of scavengers slows the progress of such burials. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 20:48, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Neo-Stalinists and evolution

I know that I read somewhere that the neo-Stalinists in Russia are hostile to Darwinian evolution and climate change but can anyone confirm this for sure? I want the comparisons between the Communist party of the Russian Federation and GOP to be as accurate as possible on the horseshoe theory page. Perhaps some Russian Rationalwiki users know more about this? ClothCoat (talk) 00:28, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

The difference is that the KPRF serves the interest of the masses, whereas the GOP (and the Democrats) serves the interests of Zionism. Thomas Sankara, BETTER THAN BUSH! Thomas Sankara, BETTER THAN BUSH! (talk) 06:32, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Their historical antecessors certainly had issues with Darwinian evolution; we ought to have a page on Lysenkoism, as we do: "The underlying appeal was that it promised a biology based on a plastic view of life that was consistent with the plastic view of human nature insisted upon by Marxist-Leninist dogma." On the hard left, economic communalism and hard social egalitarianism eventually imply human exceptionalism; any ideology that requires humans to treat strangers like kinfolk, or tampers politically with the sexual division of labor, run afoul of bred-in-the-bone human predilections and would require either sustained eugenics or constant surveillance and punishment to enforce. No doubt somebody in Russia is pushing this crap, but I don't know much about the rhetoric of specific political parties there. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 21:36, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Here's an article from National Affairs on "neo-lysenkoism", but it's more focused on Stephen Jay Gould and The Mismeasure of Man than on anything going on in Russia. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 22:00, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure that this is not what you are doing, but I feel compelled to point out that it is not good practice to considerer a theory and then cast around for facts which support it. Confirmation bias will bite you in the ass. You are bound to find some acts which confirm your theory and thus are good conspiracy theories formed.

Perhaps a more revealing line of enquiry would be "what would disconfirm the Horseshoe theory hypothesis?--The soul of the unicorn (talk) 22:28, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh no don't worry I'm not pulling this out of thin air, I actually did remember reading something on this. I think it was some radical right blog that was bragging about how "even commies don't believe in climate change" and other overlap with right and left wing pseudoscience. I removed that comparison, however, because I want to be certain and avoid said confirmation bias. ClothCoat (talk) 00:24, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I've researched the horseshoe theory quite a bit and the only decent criticism of it is that sometimes the radical left will fight for people who are actually oppressed (see radical left wingers and communists supporting civil rights) whereas the radical right is usually fighting for people who they imagine are oppressed (the religious/ethnic majority in their country). In those instances the hard left is actually doing more good than the hard right, but even in those cases they use similar methods to get what they want. ClothCoat (talk) 00:24, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, and I'm not saying the the hypothesis is wrong - but what evidence could even theoretically show it to be false?--The soul of the unicorn (talk) 07:49, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, I suppose you'd have to present a number of far-left governments that differ from far-right governments. There is actually one difference between the two and that's that most far right ideologies (even Fascism in practice) seek to serve the entrenched elite, making it a sort of reactionary philosophy, whereas far-left governments are revolutionary and tend to overthrow the existing order. There are exceptions to this though, such as the Iranian revolution of 1979, where right-wing theocrats overthrew a right-wing autocrat. ClothCoat (talk) 20:44, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

OK. So the hypothesis would be disproved if one could identify clear differences between far right and far left governments? Is that fair?--The soul of the unicorn (talk) 21:16, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's that kind of problem, given that all of these governments and movements are special historical snowflakes; their environments and changing times mean that direct comparisons break down somewhere. I think you'd need to see right-wing governments fairly consistently differing from their left wing counterparts in some particular field of oppression before making that claim. The underlying argument -- that the real "political spectrum" is libertarian vs. authoritarian -- has other issues besides this, as well. = Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 04:19, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I recall reading somewhere that the essential difference between a far-right and a far-left government is who nominally owns property. If it's the state then it's a leftist government if individuals then it's rightist, it's just that the government then tells you what you can and cannot do with that property. So both are authoritarian and the real political system is as more along the lines mentions by Smotty. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 10:35, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

The Orion Energy Project

What the hell is this? Some crack libertarian brought this to my attention while spouting a conspiracy about business and government suppressing alternative energy sources, then for good measure, advocates for ending the fed. Yikes. Zero (talk) 04:26, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Looks like free energy/perpetual motion ideas, but not spelt out in so many words. Peter ^mqzp 04:35, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

So, when somebody comes up with a scam one of the problems is that the scam is often illegal and you might get caught. One way to avoid this unfortunate downside is to conduct a meta-scam, in which you take a hefty percentage but leave the door open to later claiming that you were scammed too. For example, pretending to have a perpetual motion machine and using fake demonstrations to obtain investment would risk a future in jail. But these guys propose instead to take money to investigate such things on the pretence that they'll recommend the best one. When it all starts to fall apart they would say they're shocked to have discovered none of the machines work, but alas the money is spent. They're the victims in this scenario and don't go to jail.

I've seen this done rather neatly with a pyramid selling scheme too. In conventional pyramid schemes the people at the top of the pyramid make all the money, profit from the scam is focused at a handful of people who may be identified as "diamonds" or "regional leaders" or whatever. Most of them will have conducted such scams before and a big problem is preventing their greed from bringing down the pyramid too early by plundering the marks before the pyramid is as big as it's going to get - but there is also a risk that criminal investigators will shut the whole thing down. So eXfuze (just an example, they were the first I noticed doing this but doubtless others have tried it too) use a meta-scam for this "business". Instead of the money being concentrated at the top of the pyramid, the real money is made by the legally independent manufacturing and shipping company. The people at the top of the pyramid do OK, they're mostly hand-picked scammers with experience running such things, but even if the pyramid fails the manufacturing company walks away with its hands clean, able to pretend that it had no idea there was an illegal pyramid selling its products, it was just making a product and selling it at an enormous profit, the American dream made real. Tialaramex (talk) 11:20, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Contains a lot of quantum woo, as evidenced by the "Quantum Vacuum (or Zero Point) Electromagnetic Generators", even though it's impossible to harness Zero-Point Energy, as anyone who knows about it will ever tell you. --Ray´s Super Fun Hellhole! ^{g͘͡r̸̀a̸̶̡n̶̶͜ţ̡ ̀҉̴̨͡m̀͘͜͢e͡ ̸͟҉̷̢ỳ̸̡̀͞ơ̡̢̡ų̧r̴̀͡͝ ̡҉҉̧̛s̵̕͏̡ǫ̀́͢ų́l̵̕҉} 12:51, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I keep misreading this as The Onion energy project. Sophie^Wilder 14:26, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I've never understood this fascination with zero-point energy as woo. I mean by definition it's just the ground state energy level of a quantum system. Granted, it gets a bit more interesting when you realize that for quantum field theory to really work, the vacuum also appears to have a non-zero ground state energy, but still, there's nothing mysterious about it... - GrantC (talk) 16:05, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

You keep using that phrase. I don't think it means what you think it means.

(Or, pet peeve of the day.) I keep finding mystery meat links to "not even wrong." The phrase means a claim is nonsensical, not that it is really wrong or exceptionally untrue. Let's not abuse this phrase until it loses all meaning. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:10, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Let's also impose a moratorium on linking to bullshit, for that matter. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 20:18, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

As someone who spends more time lurking than anything else, I read a lot of RW articles on a daily basis. Every once in a while, I find a mystery meat link that's funny enough to make me laugh. For the most part though, I find them uninteresting, and it annoys me to find a link to something I think might actually be interesting, only to find out it's something like "bullshit". - GrantC (talk) 20:28, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Or "lulz". Also, I've seen a few links to the Streisand Effect article just in the context of something becoming popular/viral (without the context of something becoming viral because of attempts to suppress it, which is what the phrase actually means). Also seriously annoying is when somebody writes a sentence or phrase with every word or couple of words mystery-meat linked to a different article, including normal grammar components like "was when" that really don't convey anything about what the linked article might be (example here, in the last paragraph). I know this technique is used a lot in wigos when posting multiple links, but it looks terrible in an article. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 14:03, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

So glad you all are talking about this. It's such a part of RW that I've never complained, but i hate links (mystery meat, you say?) that are supposed to somehow be funny, and just end up being some 12 year old's version of "he say butt, hahah". the religion articles in particular are ripe with it.Godot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 00:11, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I've noticed it in a number of science articles as well, which seems a bit odd, given that it's usually pretty important for links in science articles to be topical. - GrantC (talk) 02:36, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

The 5 Most Bizarre Arguments for Dualism Rizuken Made While Drunk, High and Off His Meds

This guy made a thread on Reddit's /r/debatereligion arguing for dualism. To say that they are bizarre and nonsensical would be a huge understatement. As far as it can be seen, they make extensive use of non-falsifiability, suffer from fractal wrongness and contains high levels of reasoning that is not even wrong. If you dare gaze into madness, check out the Index (bottom of the post). --Ray´s Super Fun Hellhole! ^{g͘͡r̸̀a̸̶̡n̶̶͜ţ̡ ̀҉̴̨͡m̀͘͜͢e͡ ̸͟҉̷̢ỳ̸̡̀͞ơ̡̢̡ų̧r̴̀͡͝ ̡҉҉̧̛s̵̕͏̡ǫ̀́͢ų́l̵̕҉} 13:49, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

"Reddit".18:09, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Bad arguments on a reddit thread? Color me surprised. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:33, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Is patrolling edits actually useful?

PowderSmokeandLeather notes that BoNs can patrol edits, which is sorta entirely pointless.

Now, there are two ways to fix this:

1. Set up patrolling properly.
2. Switch it off altogether.

I'm inclined to #2 because it's entirely unclear to me that we actually use this. What do people think? - David Gerard (talk) 19:16, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Patrolling is great!

1. I know I'm not perfect, but I do catch shite edits that way from time to time. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 19:44, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
2. OK, perhaps not great but I know how the red bangs upset some folks so I do mark some edits as patrolled if they come from BoN's or new editors. I don't think that they should be removed because there are some BoNs who make valuable contributions but I can't remember them all and like to check that something untoward is not being slipped in. Генгис^evolving 19:46, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
3. As above. Count me with the ones who occasionally mark some edits patrolled, for the convenience of other RC watchers. The parameters of "setting up patrolling properly" deserve serious discussion, IMO. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 19:59, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
4. I mark edits as patrolled as a courtesy, to let others know that a given IP/newcomer edit doesn't slip crankery into an article. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 20:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
5. I sometimes mark sound edits as patrolled.--"Shut up, Brx." 23:07, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
6. Red bangs are very useful -- I mark edits as patrolled quite frequently. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:17, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
7. I, myself, do patrol edits. It's a useful tool for me to know whether or not an edit was checked out. Typically, if I look at my watchlist or recent changes and see an edit that hasn't been patrolled, I will make the effort to double check it. Just fix that patrolling so that BONs and new users can't use it. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 10:22, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
8. Very useful tool, especially when fighting vandals. Peter ^mqzp 04:21, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Kill the red ! marks with a stick

1. David Gerard (talk) 19:16, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
2. ^talk 20:14, 22 November 2013 (UTC) I do occasionally look at them, but it's a different type of wiki usage that's not really coincident with productive editing. And polling an opinion doesn't accomplish umch. ^talk 20:14, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Set up patrolling properly

1. This is listed as one of the options above but it's not clear what it means. Any further info? I think it's useful to be able to see unpatrolled edits easily, as they can often be subversive or vandalous edits which need to be checked, but the patrolling interface is horribly user-unfriendly & I'm sure it could be improved. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:07, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
2. "the red bangs upset some folks" is a bullshit reason to do anything the wrong way. Let them get over it. ħuman 07:18, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
3. It's useful but could be improved. Tielec01 (talk) 07:54, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
4. I had no idea that BoNs could patrol edits. I'd always assumed that only sysops could do that. Well that puts me squarely in the "Set up patrolling properly" camp. The patrolling feature definitely helps keep crankery and all round shite out of articles and should be kept. Spud (talk) 16:22, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
5. How sure are we that BoNs can patrol edits? The little red ! should only show up for sysops. So, yeah, a case can be made for making sure it's set up properly. And those who don't like the !'s are whiny bitches who need to be slapped like red-hired step-children. --PsyGremlin^Tal! 18:39, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
6. When I was a sysop I would go through and patrol every post that hadn't been patrolled. I did this for a few months and stopped. I stopped because I realized most posts that were problems had already been undone, but were never marked patrolled, and the rest were fine. So, people are going through BoN edits already, they just cann't be arsed to hit a fucking button. Just make it so a sysop viewing an edit automatically marks it patrolled, no one else can jack with it-- Token Conservative ^{Feminist Thought Police} 23:15, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

   "viewing an edit automatically marks it patrolled" No. Just no. I don't want any part of that. When a sysop views an unpatrolled edit that is neither obvious wandalism nor clearly good, then it's time to fade back into the bushes and let someone patrol it who knows something about that subject. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 23:42, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

   Yes I was about to write the exact same thing. Not the worst suggestion, but could cause issues. Tielec01 (talk) 23:45, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

   OK, then have a button that marks it as unpatrolled.-- Token Conservative ^{Feminist Thought Police} 18:22, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

   That would mean that any sysop clicking a diff in RC would have to remember to unpatrol it, if there were any doubt about its constructive nature. Peeking at a diff does not imply making a considered judgement of the edit. I favor letting the default continue to be "do nothing," in accordance with the Principle of Least Astonishment. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 19:51, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

   any sysop clicking a diff in RC would have to remember to unpatrol it, if there were any doubt about its constructive nature

   Congratulations for discovering the point of what I said. Look, we can keep a system that no one uses, or we can change it to a system someone might actually use. But hey, this is Rationalwiki, and if we ever changed anything that would be fucking heresy, and then the Christians would win! So, let's just cut the shit, revoke the sysop rights for everyone questioning glorious Rationalwiki, delete the conversation and get on with our fucking lives.-- Token Conservative ^{Feminist Thought Police} 23:06, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

   Was there a point to what you said? You really think that adding complications helps make a process work better? That kind of bullshit would fly only if RW editing was a paid job, one that people were afraid to lose. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 06:16, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

   How is it any more complicated have a button to mark unpatrolled instead of marking patrolled?-- Token Conservative ^{Feminist Thought Police} 06:25, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

   The underlying mechanism of "sysop viewing a diff automatically marks it patrolled" is one complication, and would take some coding. I won't go into how bad of an idea I think that is, but it's right in there with the old record club scheme of "do nothing to receive this month's selection, and owe us the usual fee."

   The biggest complication is the human-factors problem: with such a scheme in place, a typical user (sysop) will need to keep in mind that just looking at something will put a stamp of approval on it, unless the user remembers to remove that stamp. RW sysops are not tested on their ability to perform, and do not need periodic re-certification. The way it stands now, a sysop unfamiliar with the patrolling system will have a harmless result if they look around without taking any special action. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 16:16, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

   Your complaints seems to be "I don't want to do any work to keep this collaborative group going" and "I don't think we have a page that tells sysops how to do their job"-- Token Conservative ^{Feminist Thought Police} 22:04, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

   You really need to work on your thinking and reading comprehension skills. Or else stop setting up straw men. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 22:16, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

   If there's a page that I am interested in/knowledgeable about, I take the time to check edits for quality/correctness regardless of who edited it last, unless it's like, Nebby or <insert name here> or someone else in the "smarter than me" club. If it's a page I know less about, I just make sure it's not obvious vandalism, and trust that a properly-informed editor is looking out for quality-control. I other words, trust that the editors who give a shit about a particular page will keep on top of it. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 22:20, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

   I fucking hate that 'insert name' tag. AMassiveGay (talk) 23:33, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

7. Patrolling is important, but if it's borked, it needs fixed. Godot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 00:08, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

   It's a low-priority fix, IMO. The broken part logs the wrong person as marking an edit patrolled. The main resulting harm seems to have been 2500 words of Saloon bar discussion stirred up by a misunderstanding. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 00:31, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Goat

1. Actually marking the edits as patrolled is a pain and I rarely do it. Having a really-easy-to-notice visual cue on RC that someone we don't really know is poking at the wiki is worthwhile. I would rather keep the red bangs, but am something of a hypocrite because I am too lazy to go that one extra step and mark edits as patrolled after checking them out. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 19:30, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

   We could use a quickie "mark all of the unpatrolled edits to this page as patrolled" button somewhere. Compro01 (talk) 21:28, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

   That would be a handy thing to have, for example at times when a BoN has Kennified a series of edits. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 23:46, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

2. I'm kind of a Wiki novice and I don't even know what "patrolling edits" is or what function it serves. Therefore goat. Apokalyps2547 (talk) 18:23, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

   ^ This. Ajkgordon (talk) 19:59, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

   Why did the numbering break?? Apokalyps2547 (talk) 18:24, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

   Numbering fixed. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 18:47, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

So, BoNs can mark patrolled?

Maybe I'm an enormous idiot, being the local albatros and all, but I just logged out and I couldn't find the button to mark a BoN edit patrolled. Either people have become extremely eager to mark patrols, or BoNs (and non-sysops, for that matter) cannot jack around with patrolling. -- Token Conservative ^{Feminist Thought Police} 23:21, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

See here. It's unclear why that BoN had that ability or whether any others do. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:13, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Again, with me not logged in (and logged in as a non-sysop) I cannot. It's a one off thing, if that-- Token Conservative ^{Feminist Thought Police} 18:23, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

They cannot: I just patrolled an edit via the "Mark an edit as patrolled without reloading the page" gadget and it came up as if the IP did it even though it did not. That may be a problem with the widget, but not with the permissions of BoNs. Peter ^mqzp 22:27, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Somewhat's borken. I just patrolled Hollow Earth and James Randi, but the log shows some IP did the latter, and User:192․168․1․42 did the former. THEY DIDN'T. I did, and I want my rightful internets for it! Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 20:44, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

What's a BoN? Leuders (talk) 14:03, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Bunch o' Numbers i.e an unsigned-in editor. Scream!! (talk) 14:21, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Looks like any logged-in editor might be able to

See here for example. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 22:39, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

No, I patrolled that edit (and without the above mentioned gadget). My bet is that the logs are accidentally listing the name of the user who made the original edit where they mean to say who did the patrolling. Peter ^mqzp 22:44, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

"The opposite of right"

I was thinking we should create a phrase that refers to when a person is the opposite of right. This is not just when someone is wrong. Being wrong would be saying 2 plus 2 equals 5. Being not even wrong is saying that 4 plus unicorn equals celery. Being the opposite of right is saying that 2 plus 2 does not equal four. It is a concept similar, but not quite the same, as fractal wrongness or the "Big Lie". Believe it or not you're are better off being the "opposite of right" than just wrong during a debate, since you will probably catch your opponent off guard, leaving him speechless and overwhelmed by the amount of evidence against your position. I've seen this used in some debates, as well as in the clogosphere. Do we have something on this already? ClothCoat (talk) 23:14, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

if it doesn't grow organically then you are trying to hard. AMassiveGay (talk) 23:23, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Um... right... that doesn't really mean anything. I've seen this tactic used (unintentionally or not) a few times so I just wanted to be sure we already didn't have a page on this or there was a similar term for this. ClothCoat (talk) 23:29, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I am against purposefully inventing words or phrases when existing terms exist already. 'Not even wrong' does fit what you describe, though not a term I would deign to use. AMassiveGay (talk) 23:41, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm with you that if there's a term that already exists than we don't need a new one. But saying 2 plus 2 does not equal 4 or something similar is not "not even wrong", since you can demonstrate it's wrongness. It's just a special kind of wrong. ClothCoat (talk) 23:54, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

What exactly would be the point? "You are wrong, sir. Wrong I say". how is that different than "You are 180 degrees off teh mark, sir, off the mark I say?" "Not even wrong" makes sense in particular contexts, cause idiots like to say "gravity is not really a force, therefore cats are dogs" which as you point out, is more about "what teh ???" than about a provably wrong sentence. But I'm not sure what you gain, talking degrees of wrongness. and if you do really need it, 180 degrees can be used...Godot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 00:14, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

As I said before, being completely 180 degrees off the mark can catch your opponent off guard and can be "useful" if you have no idea what your talking about but still need to win a debate. As we point out, or Isaac Asimov points out in "wronger than wrong", there are varying degrees of wrongness and it can be important to make note of how wrong that wrongness is, good sir. ClothCoat (talk) 00:19, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Don't try to force a meme, as they say. Besides, I don't see how this is different than fractal wrongness or Gish gallop -- where a small paragraph may require an entire book to debunk it. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 00:34, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok then I was just making sure we didn't need it, that's all. Better safe than sorry I always say. ClothCoat (talk) 00:37, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Phew, I can sleep easy now. Генгис^pillaging 10:05, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

The connection was reset error.

Was wondering whether anybody knows what is up with the "Connection was reset" error that I only get on Rationalwiki. I did try to google this first btw. I get "Connection was reset" on Firefox and "No data received" on Chrome. First it started with World months ago then it went to Blogosphere and now it is doing it for Clogosphere. I know I can probably delete my internet history but that is only a temporary fix cause it does it again plus I have two-step authentication on a lot of my stuff so I do not feel like doing those over and over again just to look at the site every time. Thanks for any help. Netharian^{Cubicles are prisons!} 23:51, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like your browser's having troubles talking to our Squid servers. I can say this is the first report I've had of this in a while - David Gerard (talk) 11:44, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

"Connection was reset" refers to the underlying TCP (Internet) connection between your computer and RationalWiki. Either peer can send a packet with the RST ("reset") flag set which is interpreted roughly as "I have no idea why you're talking to me, or what the context is for these messages - please stop!". Imagine you receive a letter one day with your address on the front and an apparently valid return address on the back, the letter reads "That's not even why we called him Gerald, please send the money immediately or we will have to resort to musical theatre. Yours, Barry J Webley". What do you do with that? Well, you could try ignoring it, but maybe more letters will arrive. So you write to Barry at the given address with a note saying that you've received a letter apparently in error and please can they not send any more. That's the TCP reset, and something is sending such resets when you use RationalWiki, it might in practice be anywhere between (and including) RationalWiki's server and your own machine.

There is a small chance that this sort of thing can happen entirely by accident, because of what's called the Two Generals Problem we rely on statistical likelihood to make connections over the Internet, bad luck can mean things just don't work occasionally. But if you see it repeatedly on the same site - and particularly if you see it on one site but not at all elsewhere - it suggests a software problem. Unfortunately for you it can be very hard to diagnose such problems without an expert at both ends so you will quite likely have to put up with it until it mysteriously goes away again or somebody has a stroke of genius. Tialaramex (talk) 14:36, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

David, I have been having this problem for at least 3-4 months, maybe longer, I think I have seen a few others have this awhile ago. I just resigned myself to reading Clogs and Bar. Tialaramex, I have not been able to read world or blogs ever for the last few months. Never have this problem on any other site and it only applies so far to World, Clogs, and Blogs only, not even their talk pages which I can see fine. It is not intermittent, it is persistant so yeah, definitely something is wrong. Thanks Netharian^{Cubicles are prisons!} 19:57, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Dawkins is was answering questions on Reddit

Dawkins is doing did an AMA ("ask me anything") on Reddit: http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1ri1y9/i_am_richard_dawkins_scientist_researcher_author/ --ZooGuard (talk) 18:28, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I may be wrong, but don't you mean "was answering questions"? From his latest comment:

It's after six pm, which is traditionally when the pubs used to open in England. Those days are gone, but I've been doing this for more than two hours and I need a drink. Thanks to everyone for the questions. Sorry I could answer only a small fraction of the total, but I hope I got a good cross section. Richard

--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 18:40, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

You are right, I didn't reach that one before posting the section. :)--ZooGuard (talk) 18:42, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

The Christmas Candle

Oh what a shame. Rick Santorum's Christmas movie is a flop. Sophie^Wilder 12:57, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Susan Boyle is in it? Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 13:09, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

It was also ravaged thoroughly by critics. --Ray´s Super Fun Hellhole! ^{g͘͡r̸̀a̸̶̡n̶̶͜ţ̡ ̀҉̴̨͡m̀͘͜͢e͡ ̸͟҉̷̢ỳ̸̡̀͞ơ̡̢̡ų̧r̴̀͡͝ ̡҉҉̧̛s̵̕͏̡ǫ̀́͢ų́l̵̕҉} 13:30, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I am pleased to say this is the first I've heard of it. Hopefully, this will be the last I've heard of it, as well. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 14:38, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Isn't the moral of that movie that electricity is bad because god sets light for the people every year or something? Good thing it flopped, the less money Santorum has, the better.Nuclearneo577 (talk) 21:05, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Not even WP has a plot sypnosis. How unfortunate. --Ray´s Super Fun Hellhole! ^{g͘͡r̸̀a̸̶̡n̶̶͜ţ̡ ̀҉̴̨͡m̀͘͜͢e͡ ̸͟҉̷̢ỳ̸̡̀͞ơ̡̢̡ų̧r̴̀͡͝ ̡҉҉̧̛s̵̕͏̡ǫ̀́͢ų́l̵̕҉} 15:06, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Do not click this link if twee is not your cup of tea. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 15:20, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, they got a fairly decent cast by the looks of it. I wonder if they knew John Hannah played a gay man utterly devoted to his male partner in Four Weddings? Ajkgordon (talk) 16:12, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I'll take the schmuck-bait... HOLY CROW! The Seventh Doctor and the Commander of the Night's Watch, and the brother from The Mummy ("Ah... ah... IMHOTEP!") are in this?! Combined with the graceless production as a whole, I'm tempted to watch the movie just to MST it. Of course that would mean piracy (unethical) or indirectly supporting Rick Santorum (unacceptable). --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 16:26, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say a star cast, I said a fairly decent one. They are mostly mainstream actors as far as I can see from a quick look. On top of that, Pinewood is involved. Just faintly surprised that a fundie film (if that is what it is) has so much mainstream involvement. Other fundie films, like that Left Behind series, seem to have fundie directors, fundie actors, fundie producers, fundie distributors and so on. I have no idea what my point is but I'm sure there's one somewhere. Ajkgordon (talk) 17:23, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I am sure you can catch it channel 5 in a year amidst the usual made for TV dross. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:27, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think this is a fundie film, at least to the extent that it isn't promoting fundamentalist ideology. It appears to be fairly liberal, speaking from a a Christian ideological perspective; seeking a third way between the schism between salvation through grace or works. Apparently the resolution involves both divine and community intervention. Seems like innocuous (and unpopular) drivel rather than something insidious like Left Behind or even Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. --Marlow (talk) 17:35, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

(EC)No snark... I like those actors and watch many programs/movies they're in -though, yes, they're not automatically recognizable to the average movie-goer.

I suppose Pinewood makes "B" features, it would not surprise me. The other thing is that Rick Santorum isn't exactly a "Fundie". He's a traditionalist Catholic, and although Fundies are allies, he doesn't necessarily have their admiration (and wouldn't automatically be able to count on their Christian Equivalent Hollywood) -(resume snark) after all, he's a papist, and has to be slaughtered or converted. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 17:42, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Senator Buttfoam made an appearance on the TV show of his fellow papist, Stephen Colbert, a week or so ago. I wasn't paying overly close attention, but Colbert kept asking what sounded like the same question, and Frothy kept deflecting in what sounded like similar ways. In my unsophisticated apatheist view, I'm guessing that M. Colbert was trying to provoke Santorum into saying something heretical about the miraculous candles, or angels, or something. Maybe he was just having some fun with him, I don't know. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 17:53, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

So, a little comparison. The Christmas Panhandle Candle, a made-for-cinema film that barely qualifies as daytime TV entertainment, took $1.6 million at the box office over a fortnight. Meanwhile Doctor Who:Day of the Doctor, a made-for-TV extended TV episode but shown at the cinema because, fuckit, what's a little hype when a show is celebrating 50 years, took $10 million in box office takings over three days. It just goes to show – pappy-sappy Christian Christmassy thingy will never be able to beat an insinuated nob joke and a fez.-- ^{Jabba de Chops} 15:09, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Possibly fallacious XKCD comic?

It seems to me that this comic uses a reverse argumentum ad populum. If it is fallacious, what is the name of the fallacy? If it isn't, forget I asked.--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 17:53, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

The logic seems to be like this:

1. If X worked, it would allow massive profits.
2. Companies would use everything that brings massive profits.
3. X is not used.
4. Therefore, X doesn't work.

It's a valid syllogism, but of course, 1 and 2 may be debatable. A crank favorite is to claim that X would be ruinous for the existing order (i.e. 1 is false).--ZooGuard (talk) 18:38, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Oil companies DID use Dowsers back in the day, didn't they? Before James Randi almost single handedly ended dowsing as a "serious" activity, quite a few companies had official dowsers and stuff. X Stickman (talk) 19:02, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Did they though? This isn't Wikipedia but you know, citation needed. Are we talking about a guy hired by some prospector in the 19th century or like, British Petroleum having a whole department of people dowsing for oil? Tialaramex (talk) 02:19, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and returning to ZooGuard's point, a very common form of this complaint is to assert that a technology would be disruptive because it would render some existing industry obsolete and so it would not be profitable (at least for them). e.g. water-powered cars are being suppressed by the powerful oil lobby, or homoeopathy is being suppressed by the pharmaceutical companies. But actually disruptive technologies come along and fuck over somebody's empire all the time. We saw that a little while back with the Japanese employee whose job making magnetic tape no longer exists. Huge factory, world industrial giant, and they couldn't even slow down the juggernaut, solid state wiped them out. The whole idea of buying tapes to store stuff on went away in about a decade. Tialaramex (talk) 02:40, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Now now, magnetic tapes are still produced and used. Like steam engines, they have been restricted to niche applications by other technology that works better for most of what it used to be used for. They continue to hold on behind the scenes though, with power plants widely using steam turbines and magnetic tape qidely used for institutional data archives, for example. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 03:41, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

It's actually a brilliant comic. Its argument is not a fallacious one, but a very simple and very valid "X is not widely used because X is widely known to not work". Basically, it's a counter to the quacks who ramble about Big Pharma/Big Oil/Big Science whose main argument is the "soulless corporation" bit and without addressing the full implications that if they are that greedy, they'd also exploit their snake oil. --Ray´s Super Fun Hellhole! ^{g͘͡r̸̀a̸̶̡n̶̶͜ţ̡ ̀҉̴̨͡m̀͘͜͢e͡ ̸͟҉̷̢ỳ̸̡̀͞ơ̡̢̡ų̧r̴̀͡͝ ̡҉҉̧̛s̵̕͏̡ǫ̀́͢ų́l̵̕҉} 20:58, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Think about the feverish industry that goes into trying to second guess Google's search engine algorithms. Behold my works, ye Mighty, and despair. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 05:25, 27 November 2013 (UTC)