RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive218

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 29 January 2014. 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>, <215>, <216>, <217>, <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>, (new)(back)

Contents

Power and non violence[edit]

I've thought about power and non violence, and I've had somewhat of a conclusion that having the ability to carry out a destructive, harmful, or violent solution but refraining from doing so shows true power. This is especially true given that violent solutions are generally the easiest.

While it would be ideal to not need to have the ability to wage war, there are situations where it is necessary to prevent extreme evil and greater suffering. If forced to wage war in such a situation, it would be important to be victorious. –Inquisitor Sasha (talk) 06:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

You are making me legitimately very worried with your comments. I know I'm powerless to actually do anything but I don't think anyone here endorses this line of thought or you owning a gun. Tielec01 (talk) 08:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
That's basically the philosophy of most liberal democracies' military defence policies. It's not an original thought. Ajkgordon (talk) 08:28, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Violence rarely leads to a "solution" and stop thinking about power, it worries me. Redchuck.gif Генгисpillaging Moderator 08:50, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
But wasn't this the reasoning which led GB to declare war on Germany? While war is obviously a bad thing is anyone suggesting that that was a wrong decision?--Weirdstuff (talk) 10:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
@Tielec: The RationalWiki Rifle Massacre by Inquisitor Ehrenstein: The latest slasher movie by Eli Roth. --Ray´s Super Fun Hellhole! g͘͡r̸̀a̸̶̡n̶̶͜ţ̡ ̀҉̴̨͡m̀͘͜͢e͡ ̸͟҉̷̢ỳ̸̡̀͞ơ̡̢̡ų̧r̴̀͡͝ ̡҉҉̧̛s̵̕͏̡ǫ̀́͢ų́l̵̕҉ 14:14, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
How exactly does one slash with a rifle? Compro01 (talk) 16:21, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I am sure you could attach a boynette for the desired effect. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:28, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, do you mean a bayonet, or is there some alternate spelling/meaning for that word out there? - GrantC (talk) 16:33, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
A Massive Gay was thinking about boys at the time. I'm going to have to report him to Arcane for inclusion in Evil Unveiled.
I'm considering buying a K98 for the historical value. I've heard that the various bayonets for it are generally inexpensive. I might buy one that has an interesting background behind it. –Inquisitor Sasha (talk) 16:44, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
you really are an unpleasant prick. A flaccid one with some unpleasant discharge, but a prick all the same. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:02, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
And unsatisfactory performance. --Ray´s Super Fun Hellhole! g͘͡r̸̀a̸̶̡n̶̶͜ţ̡ ̀҉̴̨͡m̀͘͜͢e͡ ̸͟҉̷̢ỳ̸̡̀͞ơ̡̢̡ų̧r̴̀͡͝ ̡҉҉̧̛s̵̕͏̡ǫ̀́͢ų́l̵̕҉ 20:11, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
A bayonet is a thrusting weapon, not slashing. It allows a musket/rifle to be used as a short pike to defend against infantry and cavalry charges, eliminating the need for the mixed formations of pikemen and musketeers used in the 16th century. </pedantry> And I can't imagine one could slash with what came to my mind when I read "boynette" either. Compro01 (talk) 02:42, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
There have been slashing moves in bayonet drill. Also butt strokes. In a field situation, a bayonet was also a way to punch a couple of holes in the top of a beer can. You kids and your pop tops... Alec Sanderson (talk) 04:35, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Could you do butt strokes with a boynette? --Th. BernhardDas Leben ist ein Prozeß, den man verliert, was man auch tut und wer man auch ist. 10:36, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Probably, with risk of injury or damage depending on the hardware screwed to the butt of your weapon, and how it folds. Alec Sanderson (talk) 15:03, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
While you are generally correct, I am confused as to why you are announcing an item of basic understanding that is generally accepted and is common knowledge. Or in other words, "Yes, and your point is?" --Castaigne (talk) 11:22, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Pregnant and dead[edit]

Just been reading about Marlise Munoz being kept artificially alive for the sake of her unborn child/fetus. Is really possible for the child to develop when the mother has been dead for so long and, bare in mind I'm not a doctor, likely to remain dead? AMassiveGay (talk) 16:54, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

This is one of the problems with the fuzzy nature of death. From what little I've read of the situation, Munoz is brain dead with everything else working. That's enough to declare death for most purposes, but I don't think it would interfere with pregnancy so long as there is life support (however much that would involve in this situation). I suppose it might cause problems with contractions and natural delivery, but I suspect that delivery would be by C-section in any case. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 17:39, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm fairly sure that I've heard about this happening before. --Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 18:43, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Even contractions might not need your brain, they're involuntary, right? Women can't choose not to experience contractions during labour. So given they're probably a long-standing feature of mammals and although I can't find any definitive yes or no there's every reason they might be handled locally, like certain core reflexes, with the brain merely informed later.
Most people's intuitions about whether this OK are upside down to me. The woman is dead, her personality hasn't survived what happened. So unlike the usual scenario with abortion rights in this case there is no "right to control your own body" involved, the body in question no longer has an owner, it's just a dead body and we routinely do various things with those, leaving one pregnant for a while is no big deal. The state has a tremendous interest in dead bodies, and with no personal property to override those interests it gets to make the decisions, e.g. if your friend dies you can't just take it into your head to bury them in a favourite woodland setting, the law obliges you to inform the authorities, let them get a proper look, and then they have to issue paperwork authorising disposal at a suitable place and using suitable means to avoid various negative future outcomes (e.g. "sea burials" are in the news in my area because the bodies keep washing up and causing expensive police investigations to verify their identity). So it really seems fine to me that this is left up to the state. 81.2.89.120 (talk) 21:24, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
That's fine until you realize that the fetus is only halfway to term. And the arguments that Texas is currently using is that she's far from dead. Osaka Sun (talk) 21:34, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Coming into this situation as I usually do,what...the fuck. No,really. Are they really so insane, that they would trade one life for another if only for their political beliefs? I've always wondered about pro-lifers in a situation like this, but I continue to see I'm wrong with my assumptions. I thought they would do the right thing: let her die. --The Madman (talk) 22:22, 10 January 2014 (UTC)The Madman

I would like to think that the mother would agree with attempting to save her baby. There is no trade off, the woman has been declared brain dead. Can they keep her in good enough condition to have a viable infant, and what damage to the fetus has already occured are unanswered. Hamster (talk) 22:41, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
This is one of these incredibly complex human problems that is difficult to find a rational answer to. It seems that there are so many variables - the original intent of the law, the interpretation of the law by the hospital, the next of kins' wishes, the condition and viability of the foetus, not to mention the old abortion arguments about definition of life and so on - that rational answers can only be found by having strong personal moral "gut-feeling" opinions on these variables. Which probably makes any answer irrational! But there is one rational decision that should be taken and that is not to allow these types of things to become political, moral and religious playthings twisted by ideology and ulterior motives, which all too often happens. Oh, and to hope that these sorts of things give lawmakers pause when dreaming up new laws and the complexities of unintended consequences. Ajkgordon (talk) 23:02, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Global Warming Denialism[edit]

This should come as no surprise. Lots of the people on my friends list on facebook and at my college are what you would describe as "easily swayed", the types who share every picture on facebook that tells them too. My college is a lutheran one so there are a lot of conservatives there. Many of these people were skeptical of global warming, and many outright denied it before. Now, it seems very few of the people here at my college and among my friends on facebook subscribe to Climate change/global warming, and the two reasons they always cite are the ship getting stuck in the ice and the fact that it was unusually cold here for a few days. They are so sure of what they believe yet the reasons they give for it are so shaky...P3A58NT86 00:28, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

If the American cold snap is evidence against global warming, then the Australian heat wave is evidence for global warming. Frederick♠♣♥♦ 01:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Read again. Peasant86 is saying that people are starting to believe in global warming because of the American cold snap, as in, the cold snap is being assumed to be evidence FOR global warming. Nullahnung (talk) 01:44, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
That's not how I read it, though admittedly, the change in tense between "... many outright denied it before" and "Now, it seems very few..." makes it a bit difficult to figure out which point is supposed to precede and which is supposed to follow. - GrantC (talk) 01:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
It's tricky, yes, and could be interpreted either way, but there's one thing that makes me sure that I'm right: "my friends on facebook subscribe to Climate change/global warming, and the two reasons they always cite are the ship getting stuck in the ice and the fact that it was unusually cold here". It does say "very few" before that, but if it's these very few that are speaking, then the global warming subscribers are the ones speaking, therefore the cold snap is being used as evidence for global warming in their eyes. Analyze the language in detail, you'll come to the same conclusion as me. Nullahnung (talk) 02:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Right, but I also find it conceivable that a grammar error is present, and that the "they" who cite two reasons could be referencing the very many people who do not subscribe to global warming. The reason I think that this might just be a grammar error is that the article cited (with text saying "This should come as no surprise") posits the increase of disbelief in global warming as a result of the cold snap. - GrantC (talk) 02:15, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
You are right, I did not check the article. My bad. Nullahnung (talk) 02:21, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
No worries; Had I not checked the link, I would have been agreed with you. Mind you, that kind of grammatical structure is very common in spoken English (for quick conversation at least), and it always strikes me as an interesting curiosity that it is well understood in that context (despite being incorrect), and yet the error becomes obvious in text. Funny that. - GrantC (talk) 02:23, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Golden Globes[edit]

Don't know/care if anyone else follows movie awards, but who the fuck thought "Ordinary Love" deserved the Best Song award over "Let It Go"? i just want to punch every member of the Hollywood Foreign Press Association (or whatever they're called) in the face. Repeatedly. End rant. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 10:18, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

No, this rant isn't over yet. I never thought I'd say this, but fuck you, Bono. Fuck you, and fuck the joke book you rode in on. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 10:36, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

whilst I am no fan of bono or u2, you really think 'let it go' is anything other than bland x factor fodder?. I am both shocked and appalled. Music snobbery over. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:36, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Hey, don't badmouth "Let It Go"! Not that I have any clue about the artistic qualities of songs. (I think it may be a matter of how well the person can empathize with Elsa. I totally can and I see parallels between her life and my own past.) That said, I also don't understand people fussing over awards and reviews and getting frustrated when critics don't like something they like. I, for one, don't care. My opinion on any given work of fiction often disagrees with the mainstream opinion anyway. - LucidFox (talk) 19:31, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Normally I'd agree with that opinion LucidFox, but I'm really attached to the song, and also most of the awards predictions I've been reading had listed it as the likely winner, so it was a shock to me. But yeah, ultimately it doesn't really matter. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 23:54, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm imagining both of your reactions if "Atlas" won. Osaka Sun (talk) 00:12, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Whats the deal with this site[edit]

theden.tv 70.49.46.54 (talk) 01:36, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Reactionary racist scaremongering about liberals, muslims, jews, political correctness, etc. What particular 'deal' are you looking for here? WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 01:54, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Neoreactionaries70.49.46.54 (talk) 02:25, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
They compare immigration to the Rwandan genocide, and say eugenics is bad (because it was promoted by liberals), but apartheid is really the only other option. They also link to "human biodiversity" blogs, "human biodiversity" being a euphemism for racial realism. Frederick♠♣♥♦ 02:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
"Racial realism" itself just being a euphemism for regular old racism, but with the added elements of trying to justify why racism itself is okay. Ikanreed (talk) 14:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Higgs Fake[edit]

Anyone know anything about this?--Barryjon (talk) 22:19, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Based on the summary, it's a bunch of crap. The Standard Model is widely used because it works remarkably well. It sounds like some physics crank is just off his rocker. - GrantC (talk) 22:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
"Not even wrong." Osaka Sun (talk) 22:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Osaka :-) bedtime reading for me. Grant - I expected as much, just wanted something more solid about it. Gotta love RW --Barryjon (talk) 22:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
There are some pretty neat things about particle physics. The renormalization problem is a big one, since it is in a sense somewhat arbitrary. The same can be said for many quantum field theories, however, where those pesky infinities show up in many, many unfortunate places... - GrantC (talk) 22:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
I find it puzzling how particle physicists keep telling me that they don't consider the SM to be neat enough, or something like that, and want to find something that breaks it, yet they keep coming up with more support for it. [1], and [2].
Of course, since this field advances so quickly, things may have changed since a few years ago, I don't know. Nullahnung (talk) 23:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
The Standard Model works, but it is commonly thought of as incomplete. It's messy because of things like the renormalization issue. Sections 3 and 4 of this link offer good reading on the subject. As an example, however, it is necessary in quantum electrodynamics to renormalize the charge of the electron, replacing it with an "effective" charge. If this is not done, the electromagnetic force between two electrons would become infinite at non-zero distances. This is a huge problem, since this is obviously not behaviour we see. So the electron charge is renormalized such that there are two major contributing terms: an infinite point charge at the origin, and a "shielding" charge in a shell around said point charge. The physical interpretation of this is that the vacuum is actually polarizable. Charges "polarize" the vacuum around them, creating particle-antiparticle pairs that orient themselves to provide this shielding. In this case, this is a problem that can be solved, since in this case, renormalizing the electron charge and the magnetic moment solves our problem. Unfortunately, there exist theories in which one would need to renormalize an infinite number of variables to make things like this work, and that's not really okay. So renormalizable theories are good! Non-renormalizable theories are bad.
It's also worth noting that some of the symmetries within the Standard Model are not so certain. For example, conservation of charge parity ensures that interactions balance nicely between matter and antimatter (i.e. reactions involving antimatter are just as likely to happen as reactions involving antimatter). Many theories of how to resolve the baryon asymmetry in the universe depend on allowing charge parity to be violated, which would allow reactions involving matter to be more likely than those involving antimatter (so matter could be produced in greater rates than antimatter in the universe). This isn't exactly an elegant solution, however, and it gives many physicists a bad taste in their mouths to be breaking a fundamental symmetry for no good reason. - GrantC (talk) 00:05, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Ah yes, CP violation and renormalization, interesting. I'm not very well-acquainted with the theory (or advanced physics in general), but I think I can understand the gist of your points, thank you for providing details. Nullahnung (talk) 00:29, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
No problem! I enjoy conversing about physics (especially the weird stuff), so I'm happy to oblige. At first, I thought studying physics would replace the weird mysteries with knowledge... Alas, all it did was replace the weird mysteries with different weird mysteries. :) - GrantC (talk) 00:50, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Minnesota GOP moving into a Red district[edit]

We are informed by way of Minnesota Public Radio that the headquarters of the notoriously cash-strapped Republican Party of Minnesota is to be moved into Minneapolis. The party assures us that they are moving, not so that they can save money on their office space, but so that they can be "in the middle of everyday Minnesotans" (in their large intestines, perhaps) and "be focused on regular Minnesotans and immersed in their circumstances."

Their new digs are located in Minneapolis's Ward 2. In the most recent elections there, there were two candidates: a Green Party man and a communist. The communist got about 11% of the votes and the (incumbent) Green got the rest.

Right across the street from their new building is the former location of a cooperative grocery in which workers were once beat up during a raid by communists who were trying to force them to sell Wonder bread and Coke.

Kitty-corner is a worker-owned-and-operated cafe that also serves as an organizing node for local radicals, including supporters of the RNC Welcoming Committee.

The Republican Party has an odd notion of what constitutes a "regular Minnesotan." Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 04:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I would love to see the ratio of private businesses to co-ops in Ward 2. And the Green Party guy doesn't seem that out there. Osaka Sun (talk) 05:06, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Offhand, I can name five co-ops currently existing. There used to be a lot more; the rest collapsed in whooshes of hot air.
By U.S. standards, Mr. Gordon is pretty far "out there," but even the people of Ward 2 are not so disconnected from reality as to elect looney-tunes to office; that task is better left to the 6th district's electorate. However, it is quite an irony that the Republicans are parking themselves in the middle of that particular ward, where the residents' idea of a housewarming gift for them would be not so much a welcome hotdish as a welcome Molotov cocktail. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 05:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Please note that the co-op radicalist fights ListenerX mentions took place over 38 years ago. LX maintains his anti-REDSREDSREDSREDSREDSREDS!!!!!! paranoia by pretending that time doesn't exist. (Stay tuned for next episode, where LX insists San Fransisco is still a hotbed of communism, rather than a poster child for post-industrial capitalism.) Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 06:39, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty... or paranoia. Tielec01 (talk) 06:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, obviously the 11% of voters in the ward who voted for the Red candidate got to the polls by time-machine, as did the radicals who haunt the cafe across the street. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 07:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
You're frightened by a number less than half the crazification factor? Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 07:43, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
(EC) Dude, they're going to be neighbors with Seward Co-op, for crying out loud! Worse, they'll be only a short walk or bike ride from the Hard Times Cafe. I'm sure the hippies and punks at both establishments will have no problem picketing the new HQ and perfuming it with patchouli. The only the part that sucks is that I'm going to be a few blocks from them now. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 07:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Not to mention the revolutionaries of Mayday Books, who will be able to leave off their revolution-plotting, saunter down Cedar Avenue, buy slices of pizza at Pizza Luce, and throw them at the windows.
You're frightened by a number less than half the crazification factor? Being in the minority has never stopped Reds before; it feeds their persecution complexes. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 08:50, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
We're not laughing with you. We're laughing ... near you - David Gerard (talk) 08:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
I can't wait to see Muslim bashers like Michele Bachmann come strutting into a neighborhood with a one of the nation's largest Somali immigrant populations. These are the people, after all, who cannot comprehend why Keith Ellison got elected ("He's a Muslim terrorist," they cry) and yet never stop to think that maybe the expansive Somali population has something to do with it. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 09:15, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
This article from the Strib is a bit better about the topic at hand, IMO. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 09:20, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, though, we Seward neighborhood lot are a peaceful bunch. I seriously doubt that anybody here would pose a physical threat to the new GOP HQ. That's not to say we wouldn't picket them, but I'd argue we're far more likely to hand out flowers to them to promote peace than to torch the place. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 09:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

In case this was unclear, my reference to the Molotov cocktail was hyperbolic in nature. I probably should have said, "The only way the locals would serve the GOP a welcoming cream pie is by throwing it in somebody's face." Oh, well; at least I made David Gerard laugh >ahem< near me. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 05:06, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

A new website claiming superior scientific knowledge on evolution[edit]

Hello, I am sorry if this a wrong place where I should be writing this: but could somebody who understands genetics well, check, please, (and refute if possible) some of the claims that are on this site? (they claim to have "scientific" data) http://www.darwinconspiracy.com/ They seem to attack a particular fact in genetics (the common parts of DNA Homo Sapiens and Ape have) and I, as a non-expert, am unable to tell where they go wrong and what they make up. And if I cannot, this could become a kind of harbour for desperate Christians. So I would be very glad if somebody wrote something/make an article about this website here and check on the facts. Thank you very much and again sorry if this is not the right section to put such a question (if there is a better section, please move it there)

Martin — Unsigned, by: 178.17.80.100 / talk / contribs

"Nothing we write on this website is based on the Bible or any religious beliefs. But we are persons of faith and proud of it. In fact, we have no doubt we are better scientists because we embrace Divine Providence, as did all fifty-six Founding Fathers who signed the Declaration of Independence." This is what we call Poe's Law.
Otherwise, the site is eight years old and at least half of the content is based on misinterpretations of Junk DNA, which points me to Jonathan Wells. Osaka Sun (talk) 04:28, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
I see, thank you very much for the extra information and the links! -Martin
"The only goal of this website is to use scientific methodology to seek the truth and the truth is there have recently been earth shaking scientific discoveries in genetics that now proven Darwin was wrong because:" Writing skills are key to changing the world.
"The Piltdown Man is an example of the power of the Darwin Conspiracy and how insidious the conspiracy has been." End of story. PM was a fraud on scientists, not one perpetuated by them. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:09, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Dave, you broke my sig! ħumanUser talk:Human 02:10, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

The Dark Enlightenment[edit]

I was interested in any opinions on this piece of crap.— Unsigned, by: 70.49.46.54 / talk / contribs

It has to be one of the most uninteresting, dull and awful puedes of writing ever. --Raysenn Get the paddles, he's having a cancer! 03:31, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
This is why I'm certain that Neo-Reactionaries definitely aren't Neo-Nazis, for the sole reason that they're too boring, pseudo-intellectual, and passive-aggressive to be anything similar. Most are nothing but glorified, white-nationalist "classfags", as the Chans would have it. 74.141.89.204 (talk) 07:30, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
See the radishmag and you'd see the extent of their idiocy. http://radishmag.wordpress.com/70.49.46.54 (talk) 15:50, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
I do like the fact that they open the feminism article with a facepalm. Saves us all a bit of time. --15:59, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I am frankly glad we have more neoreactionaries on lesswrong now — Unsigned, by: 70.49.46.54 / talk / contribs 21:35, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Though not inherently so, it seems like a place they'd be interested in. Hell, if I were a wannabe mad scientist that's where I'd hang. 74.141.89.204 (talk) 23:17, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't able to slog through the whole thing, but I gather that the gist is that the world would be a better place if techbros had castles and armies. If these guys actually wanted to live in an absolute monarchy, they have plenty to choose from; I gather you can live quite well in Qatar if you have enough currency...you just don't get to be king, which is the only position these tools are interestee in.— Unsigned, by: Tosei / talk / contribs 20:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

These people write some of the most turgid English I've seen for a long time. I blame reading too much German. It's not as if some of the ideas might not be interesting. Among my many minor heresies, I think a case might be made for a role for hereditary aristocracy in government. But what I want from aristocracy differs almost 180 from them: for me, the perceived benefits of aristocracy revolve around curbing ambition, muting the socially disruptive effects of entrepreneurs, and empowering the effete. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:03, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
I read a fun article savaging these idiots. My own opinion: "It's adorable the way these dorks think they wouldn't be serfs." --Gulik (talk) 22:26, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
"If Barack Obama said the entire country had to convert to Mormonism at gunpoint as part of a complicated plot for him to bone Natalie Portman, we’d just tell him no." --Raysenn Get the paddles, he's having a cancer! 21:40, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Dark Enlightenment map[edit]

See here70.49.46.54 (talk) 07:19, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Reminds me of the map of sexual relationships someone made in my freshman dorm. --Marlow (talk) 07:55, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Can someone explain to me what this is? I can't follow it at all. Seriously, who are most of these people and what is it that they believe? Reflections of Memory (talk) 17:04, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
It's a map of the neoreactionary blogosphere - David Gerard (talk) 17:35, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm surprised Davis M.J. Aurini (probably spelled his name wrong) isn't on there somewhere, especially since a fair bit of Neoreactionaries I know can't shut up about the guy. Then again, a large amount of Aurini's fans are Nazi weaboos and right-wing gamer shut-ins (according to YouTube) so other NRs probably don't wanna associate themselves with someone so unintentionally "Kawaii". 74.141.89.204 (talk) 02:02, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
They forgot about Bitcoin users. --Raysenn Get the paddles, he's having a cancer! 16:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

How RW fixes the world[edit]

In which User:JeevesMkII improves MediaWiki: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=57550 Credit to RW in the release email: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2014-January/073978.html Now I need to go patch RW ... we're on ye olde crustye 1.19.4 and the successive patch files to 1.19.10 are no longer on mediawiki.org, so it's faff time ... - David Gerard (talk) 10:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Upgraded to 1.19.10 by only slightly Satanic methods. Please kick all your favourite weird bits of local functionality - David Gerard (talk) 11:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Nice work. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:05, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
How extensively patched is RationalWiki's local version? Is it mainly the WIGO pages and whatnot with their voting options, or is it more pervasively patched? Obviously it would be a lot easier to administer if you could run stock Mediawiki with as close to the recommended infrastructure as is feasible. --Tony Sidaway (talk) 12:57, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
All our wacky crap is in extensions and messages, nothing in the core code. When 1.23 finally dribbles forth (with usable VE and non-sucky mobile, I hope), we should be able to run pretty much stock, assuming our weirder local extensions (written by Nx for 1.16) keep going - David Gerard (talk) 13:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
"Preferences" seem to have changed. In particular the one for seeing a bit of a page or diff when hovering over it on RC etc. Scream!! (talk) 13:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC) (Copied to Tech Support)
Hotcat's gone too. Wasn't there a gadgets tab that had this kind of stuff? SophieWilderModerator 22:05, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
My sig is half borken now I think? Please tell me how to fix? ħumanUser talk:Human 02:11, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
All better :) Excellent work! In a weird sort of way... ħumanUser talk:Human 02:15, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Where'd mediawiki gadgets go? :( --transResident Transformers fanform! 02:56, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
"Where they belong...in the Depths..." --Kels (talk) 16:40, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Sig not working[edit]

Why is my sig not working???? HELP HELP SOMEBODY HELP Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 08:45, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

See tech support—some kind of upgrade bug. It fixes itself on the next edit. Peter mqzp 08:46, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
That's weird brokenness - David Gerard (talk) 08:51, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Huh. You're right, it is fixed. Should I edit my preferences? Would that cause it not to do that? Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 08:58, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Hard drive question[edit]

I have an old internal hard drive hooked up to a newer laptop and I'm trying to transfer my music library over. However, when I try to copy the entire collection, or even decently sized chunks of it, over to my new computer, it says there is not enough space on the hard drive. Even though my hard drive has >650 GB free and the entire collection is ~100 GB. I know there is sometimes an issue with FAT32 drives copying over large amounts of data, but they are both NTFS format. Copying everything over a few folders at a time is extremely tedious with ~1,000 artist folders to go through. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Try it through command as opposed to explorer. Maybe that will work better. (copy Source/*.* Destination/*.*) Zero (talk) 20:53, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
You might also try unstoppable copier. It's my tool of choice for large copy operations or first-attempt data recovery. Compro01 (talk) 20:57, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Unstoppable copier works great. Thanks. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:06, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Nooooo![edit]

Stood his ground with a goat! Seriously, who just up and shoots someone's goat? 207.191.204.70 (talk) 22:23, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

On related news, miniature goats are adorable. --Raysenn Get the paddles, he's having a cancer! 01:47, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

The "language" navigation template[edit]

SmoTlö has removed Template:Languagenav from a number of pages, presumably because their inclusion in the appropriate category detracts from his pet topic, historical linguistics. In the process he often replaced the template with a less suitable one. I've already reverted a few of the edits and I'm tempted to roll back the lot of them. Any comments?--ZooGuard (talk) 22:43, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Carry on. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 22:59, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
He appears to think that the category should be for "academic" language rather than "political" language. The category is a bit messy but making it about something else isn't the way forward - making a linguistics subcat for his stuff would help. SophieWilderModerator 23:09, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
fight! fight! fight! fight! fight! €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
I have no opinion about the cats, but "SmoTlo" is an adorable nickname. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 00:02, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Chicken coop invocation inminent. --Raysenn Get the paddles, he's having a cancer! 00:20, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
That was "SmoTlö". The umlaut is both pronounced and significant. :D--ZooGuard (talk) 13:16, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I don't speak SVG.
It seemed to me that many of the articles sorted into the "language" category had no other reason to be there because they were definitions or neologisms. There was also that kerfluffle about curating the content (was trying to help!) Allah, Ben Steinery, bicameral, catholic, NIMBY, release the data, elitism, fluffbunny, wake up, warmist: these are some of the articles I removed from the Category:Language. I mentioned that I was considering this at Talk:Language. If I thought it appropriate, and it wasn't already there, I moved many to Category:Political terms. In most cases I tried to swap in more appropriate categories, and add one of the politics navboxes; a couple, like slacktivism, defeated my imagination. Someone may want to jimmy up a 'jargon file' template, so that articles about language can separate out of them. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 01:39, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
I have also taken the liberty of creating Template:Jargon, and furnished it with a handsome new logo. (Colors need tweaking) Using the political terms category as a home base for now, but we may want to make a separate category for all of these definitions. I think we do have enough material already on language and linguistics to have the two sidebars, and that separated, articles of interest to browsers of each will appear in the sidebars, rather than mixing the politics and the language material. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 02:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
I have no stake in this discussion and no real opinion on it... But what is that logo supposed to be? - GrantC (talk) 02:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
The top of the Pointy Haired Boss's head. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 02:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
AH, that's it! I had it on the tip of my tongue, but I couldn't quite land on it. - GrantC (talk) 02:36, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
We should use that for ASoK. SophieWilderModerator 14:39, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Seems to be being done with care rather than spuriously. I'm sure we can work out something workable - David Gerard (talk) 08:45, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
So should I finish migrating articles to the new Jargon template, or should I undo all of this? - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:20, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
In light of this thundering endorsement, I've begun migrating to Template:Jargon some of the articles I recategorized or retemplated earlier. Others, I thought were better served by the templates I changed earlier, like dittohead and Template:uspolitics, or sound science and Template:Denialism. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 06:08, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
The template was moved to Template:Jargonnav.--ZooGuard (talk) 13:16, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Another political quiz.[edit]

Submitted to somewhat expected results: I Side With tells me I what I pretty much already knew, nowhere near a Republican, agree mostly with the Democrats, viva la Green Party. Fun thing, if you complete it, you can see how closely you agree with another person. Javasca₧ I saw a pie beside here... 07:17, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I apparently side with the Democrats, Republicans, Greens, and Libertarians about equally, with the Socialists a distant fifth. With you, it says, I am 91% in agreement. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 07:42, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Splat! Greens and Democrats evenly, Socialist less than I imagined and Libertarian more than I imagined and republicans barely even register. Huh. Zero (talk) 14:57, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
98% Green, 97% Democrat, 89% Socialist, 16% Libertarian, 5% Republican, 84% Javascap, 82% with Zero. And the "matches" for Republican appear to be it not taking into account the more nuanced answers (Answering "Yes" to "Should National Parks continue to be preserved and protected by the federal government?" matches with "Yes, but allow logging, drilling, and mining", which I am not in favour of.) and one seems to be a policy the Republicans don't actually follow ("increase our space exploration efforts and budget"). Compro01 (talk) 15:19, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
90% Green, 89% Democrat, 74% Libertarian, 64% Socialist, 13% Republican here. I side with Libertarians mostly on foreign policy and environmental issues, it seems. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:52, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
95% Green, 94% Democrats, 73% Socialist, 53% Libertarian, 1% Republican (something to do with education apparently). SophieWilderModerator 20:12, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Mine was similar. I picked "teach to each student's individual potential rather than use Common Core," which apparently aligned with the GOP. My experience is that they rather favor "cut education spending so heavily that the schools will fail no matter what we teach, so it doesn't matter." But then, actions do speak louder than words. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 04:53, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
That's a rather odd question... why can't you have both? You could have a Common Core to ensure a decent degree of general knowledge remains in the next generation and you could then cater to every student's strengths. Nullahnung (talk) 09:17, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
98% Democrat, 97% Green, 88% Socialist, 57% Libertarian, and 9% Republican. I blame my Catholic upbringing for that last one. --Raysenn Get the paddles, he's having a cancer! 18:37, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Arguing on Wikipedia[edit]

I dunno. Something about this just strikes me as odd. Zero (talk) 16:42, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm surprised we've never covered Daily Kos yet. But no, it should be called a "progressive blog" or a "blog affiliated (or advancing) progressive or Democratic causes." Nobody says conservative blogs have a "Republican partisan point of view," simply because of the connotations behind the word partisan.
Despite Wikipedia's reputation of being a hivemind, I'm not surprised that chunks of crappy information can stay on articles for months on end. Osaka Sun (talk) 17:32, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I had it in the suggestion list but it wasn't upvoted enough/nobody wanted to write it. As for the guy who is insistent on this naming, Daily Kos is his only edit. Anywhere. He wreaks of suspicious. Zero (talk) 17:36, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Dealt with. You win disputes on wikipedia by adding footnotes. Hipocrite 21:29, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Sourcebomb. I like that word. Thanks. Zero (talk) 22:27, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I always thought covering Daily Kos would be like Conservapedia having an article covering CNAV; department of redundancy department. --Seth Peck (talk) 23:00, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Is Daily Kos a site about pseudoscience and woo? Because if we stuck to our mission, talking about them wouldn't be redundant. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 14:04, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
It's mostly politics. --Seth Peck (talk) 19:10, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
I would say it's entirely politics and has a community vibe to it (See: wp:Netroots Nation). It treads into religious territory almost never, but does have fun pointing out right wing silliness about women's bodies. Zero (talk) 19:14, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

The "Troubled Teen" "Industry"[edit]

Do we have an article on stuff like Kids of Northern Jersey, Straight Inc., WWASPS and other shit like that?

Because fuck me in the ass if we shouldn't have one. And those three links are the one I can tell off the top of my head. --Raysenn Get the paddles, he's having a cancer! 18:13, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I've got some blocks in the way. Can you digest some of this for me? I read the wiki article but damn is that sanitary. Zero (talk) 18:23, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Interesting stuff. Off the top of my head, the incident of the Pennsylvania (?) judge who was caught over-sentencing young offenders so that they would end up in the private prisons whose owners were paying him kickbacks seems related to the idea of an "industry" built around "troubled teens." As does the whole concept of the "school to prison pipeline." Those two things prolly aren't missional, in a narrow sense, but they are important. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 18:27, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
It's on mission, given the gargantuan amounts of pseudopsychology and the cultish behaviour of these groups. --Raysenn Get the paddles, he's having a cancer! 18:33, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
No doubt that aspect is on-mission. The crooked judge and the links between privatization and incarceration less so, IMO. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 18:53, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
That's ... disgusting. I'm not even sure if that's only confined to the US, but yeah, more horror stories from the US. Are there any parallels in other types of forced treatment facilities (like "fat camp for obese children")? Nullahnung (talk) 18:38, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Montana and Utah are the only two states that still allow this kind stuff, as far as I know. They tried to set up shop in the UK but got kicked out, and they'd never try to expand to Canada. --Raysenn Get the paddles, he's having a cancer! 18:49, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Most of these programs are derived from or influenced by Synanon. See here. Definitely missional for pseudopsychology/cult-related content. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:52, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
There's also our article on Wilderness therapy, as described in the Cracked article. Nullahnung (talk) 23:05, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Debunking the Autism culture movement[edit]

Should we have an article debunking all the bullshit spewed out by these "Autism culture" groups who preach bullshit about Autism being a "race" or a "way of being" and who claim that cure research is a form of genocide, among other things? They also have plenty of pseudo scientific biological arguments that are exact repeats of nineteenth century racism against Blacks about how Autistic people are more evolved or some shit because sometimes they're better at math and crap like that. –Aleksandr Ehrenstein ЯR So you think opposing Nazis is tilting at windmills? 17:28, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

No. Zero (talk) 17:57, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Start it and see where it goes. The more references you can get, the better. Otherwise, it'll get vaporized if it's just a stub of silly things. --Seth Peck (talk) 18:02, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, that was concise. --Ray´s Super Fun Hellhole! g͘͡r̸̀a̸̶̡n̶̶͜ţ̡ ̀҉̴̨͡m̀͘͜͢e͡ ̸͟҉̷̢ỳ̸̡̀͞ơ̡̢̡ų̧r̴̀͡͝ ̡҉҉̧̛s̵̕͏̡ǫ̀́͢ų́l̵̕҉ 18:10, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
I'll start it in my user space and when I have something I'll move it. I'll focus on what we do, debunking the bullshit of it and leave out personal objections. –Inquisitor Sasha (talk) 18:40, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
I imagine there's quite a bit of Indigo child stuff involved in the autism culture. --Seth Peck (talk) 19:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
I am unsure about indigo-persons, but the research of Simon Baron-Cohen indicates that "curing autism" (or aborting autistic fetuses) would have a very deleterious effect on mathematics and the hard sciences. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 05:32, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm inclined to think that's BS. It assumes that most Autistic people will be scientists, which already makes a lot of excessive assumptions. Mainly that most Autistic people will be interested in science, that most will be of above average intelligence, that they will have the social skills to get scientific job in the first place, and that all of these exclusionary categories will overlap all in the same person, for a large number of Autistic people. He's saying that a majority of Autistic people will be very high functioning and have sufficiently developed social skills to hold a scientific career. –Inquisitor Sasha (talk) 05:44, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Say, what? Simon Baron-Cohen's research indicates that up to 20% of students in certain fields such as math and computer science are on the autism spectrum. "Cure" the autism and these populations will be significantly reduced. This conclusion does not in the least require the assumption that "most autistic people will be scientists." Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 06:32, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
In that case, there would be a big reduction, but 80% are still non Autistic. There wouldn't really be any shortage. I feel that this gets into the ethics of aborting disabled fetuses. From one perspective, the person hasn't been created yet, and not aborting would be an evil act as it would be forcing someone to be disabled. Then the Autism fundies Godwin things by comparing potential abortions to Aktion T4, which is totally incomparable and wrong, but I see their point that it does present a racial purity mentality, as do the ideas about modifying genetics to remove undesirable traits. That whole field is creepy. –Inquisitor Sasha (talk) 06:56, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I can't wait when you're eventually taken to the coop. Osaka Sun (talk) 18:03, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
The coop is my favourite place of RW. So much drama. --Ray´s Super Fun Hellhole! g͘͡r̸̀a̸̶̡n̶̶͜ţ̡ ̀҉̴̨͡m̀͘͜͢e͡ ̸͟҉̷̢ỳ̸̡̀͞ơ̡̢̡ų̧r̴̀͡͝ ̡҉҉̧̛s̵̕͏̡ǫ̀́͢ų́l̵̕҉ 18:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
As long as you can't actually treat it as a medical condition, those metaphors are somewhat helpful for understanding how to deal with autism in day-to-day life. I mean, words have meaning, and people will start believing it literally, but the rationalistic alternative is kinda to go "Well, that sucks." Ikanreed (talk) 20:06, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Got any examples of current, relatively well-known people or movements actually saying that? Can't say I've ever encountered it ever. Scarlet A.pngpathetic 22:54, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
It's a thing to be sure, relatively obscure, but I think that's where RW is at its best, when it's covering types of nonsense in a rational way that don't get much exposure elsewhere. That being said Ehrenstein should have nothing to do with it, he's one of the least self-aware autistics I've ever encountered. --Marlow (talk) 23:06, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
And yet, I chill with people at parties and my friends hand me loaded assault rifles with light machine gun magazines. Both are legally owned. Those don't sound like things severely Autistic people do. –Inquisitor Sasha (talk) 01:41, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Don't forget 'Roman salutes'. You go to some wild parties man. ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 01:45, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Pretty sure he had Assburgers. –Inquisitor Sasha (talk) 01:50, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
There's some relevant stuff at WP:autism rights movement. I added this subject to our to-do list last time it was discussed. It's on-mission but a lot more complex than the above summary, & for the most part it isn't necessarily pseudoscience. (If anyone does actually claim to be "more evolved" than anyone else, fine, that's bull, but I don't think that's a major claim of anyone significant in this movement). I also don't think comparisons with racism work very well for either side of the debate. WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 01:30, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
The complain that curing Autism is like curing being Black or gay, and parents who buy into the bullshit end up making their kids suffer when they get older because everyone thinks they're fucking weird. –Inquisitor Sasha (talk) 01:48, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
or maybe they don't want their autistic kids growing up thinking they are sick or freaks? Or maybe the parents are just trying to cope with the stress of managing their kids condition best they can? Or maybe they are just happy with their special little guys and don't need anyone telling them kids aren't normal. AMassiveGay (talk) 02:09, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
as an Aspy with an autistic son who has never actually ben part of any autistic movement" or "culture" - IMO the autistic spectrum is no more a "disease" that can be "cured" than is bad temper (not to say that it is "just" a behavioral trait like bad temper tho). I can empathise (rationally) with parents whose kids are not the wonderful bundles of childhood they want them to be - it sucks (rationally)....but the better question to ask is whether the kids are happy? my son is- it's just taken me 15 years to realize it, and I still feel a bit sad (rationally) about it. But that's life with autism.--Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 01:43, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Seconded. I feel as if accountability is the most important thing to me in terms of morals.--The Madman (talk) 21:03, 18 January 2014 (UTC)The Madman

More evidence of America's insane gun laws[edit]

New York or Toronto, I need to know....[edit]

Were any of you at the apparently epic Neil Young shows at Carnegie Hall or Massey Hall? PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 03:04, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

He was supposed to be in Ottawa in September, I even had tickets, but one of his band members got sick so he had to cancel. Pity, I really wanted to see that show. --Kels (talk) 03:13, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't think there's anyone else that can better connect with hoi polloi on the steaming turd that is the oil sands than Neil Young. And it seems the Tories are worried. Osaka Sun (talk) 08:10, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Cracked's 6 Shocking Studies That Prove Science Is Totally Broken[edit]

http://www.cracked.com/article_20789_6-shocking-studies-that-prove-science-totally-broken.html

Is this a case of brutal honesty, or an off day for Cracked?Ryantherebel (talk) 14:50, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Blocked. Can you show me the headlines? Zero (talk) 14:59, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
6. A Shocking Amount of Medical Research Is Complete Bullshit
5. Many Scientists Still Don't Understand Math
4. ... And They Don't Understand Statistics, Either
3. Scientists Have Nearly Unlimited Room to Manipulate Data
2. The Science Community Still Won't Listen to Women
1. It's All About the Money
None of these will be news to anyone who's kept up, the content looks like reasonably presented popular-science-with-dick-jokes to me. #6 is the one that shocks people who haven't seen it before - David Gerard (talk) 15:05, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I also enjoy that points 4 and 5 specifically exclude physicists. There's a standing joke among many physicists that physics is the "real" science, and the rest are just "science for toddlers" if you will. Good times... - GrantC (talk) 15:12, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Well...
Purity.png Zero (talk) 15:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Though if you ask most physicists, they'll say that mathematicians are out of touch and don't know how the world works. ;) - GrantC (talk) 15:19, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
String theory *cough*
3 to 6 is exaggeration to a point. The bullshit is still rooted out relatively quickly. Osaka Sun (talk) 15:36, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Psh, what's your problem with string theory? I'm not a fan myself, but there are some supersymmetry theories out there that seem promising so far! - GrantC (talk) 15:42, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Nothing but admiration for Cracked. Their refutations of woo and pop BS are incomparably funny and well crafted: http://www.cracked.com/article_19679_5-mysterious-disappearances-that-were-elaborate-hoaxes_p2.html Leuders (talk) 15:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Extremely hyperbolic title, but (in)famous studies. There are some things in there I've been banging on about for some time. If you had a decent stats or research methods prof, it should have been drilled into you that statistical significance != scientific significance. The quest for the p-value has led to the cult of significance testing. To be fair to researchers, though, I think this often has more to do with the publish-or-perish system than it does them not understanding statistics. Even if it's a dubious result, it can be used to pad your CV. As Jacques Barzun said, "Everybody shall produce written research in order to live...and it shall be decreed a knowledge explosion." Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 15:48, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I would also wager that it's mostly fine, as the scientific community also largely accepts that most papers are just there for fluff. I know at my lab, there were a few papers in the field treated well, and the rest were largely discounted as CV padding. I think the issue probably comes up when lay-people see all of these articles on the arXiv or when the media starts overblowing a few papers. - GrantC (talk) 15:56, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
And that's even before you get to the university press office effect - David Gerard (talk) 16:17, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
The notable thing about medical research is that instead of "We've wasted a bunch of time/ money on a poorly designed experiment that probably doesn't show anything" you get "We've wasted a bunch of time/ money and fucked with somebody's health due to our poorly designed experiment that probably doesn't show anything".
Neither Open Access nor Trials Registries have been as much of a success as a lay person might expect. I believe we can fix this by insisting (at first for medicine and then hopefully it would spread through life sciences and into all experimental disciplines) that publish / no publish decisions should be made at experimental design time. So you'd design an experiment, the journals would look at your design, send it out to their preferred referees etc. and then say "Yeah, do that and we'll print it" or "Nope, not interested, don't care" or most often "We'll print this if you fix the following problems" Then you run your experiment, write it up, and they publish.
This seems like it ought to fix the bias against negative results (journals will have no way to know if a result will be negative at the design stage and must agree to print anyway), and encourage better design (because reviewers can reject stuff that's poorly designed before they see the "amazeballs" results you supposedly got from it) both serious problems in medicine and most experimental areas. Tialaramex (talk) 17:05, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I can't speak for other disciplines, but I can't see that working well in experimental physics research. Researchers are often relatively isolated in the depths of some very specific field, while reviewers are generally spread across a variety of fields. In that sense, determining whether an experimental setup is viable without either physically building the apparatus and trying to reproduce the results is often not a task that reviewers can take on. Even in most theoretical physics papers, the reviewers tend not to spend much time considering whether every premise is correct; rather, the question becomes: does this sort of make sense, and are there any glaring holes in this that the author has obviously missed? - GrantC (talk) 19:48, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't doubt the overall message of any of the 6 points in Cracked's article. I'm a little sceptical of some of the arguments made, though, and wouldn't be surprised if some things were exaggerated for dramatic effect. I take the most issue with number 1 ("it's all about the money"), though I'm not confident enough to argue about it. You know what, whatever, "it's all about the money" is probably close enough. Nullahnung (talk) 22:52, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, in a capitalist state "it's all about the money" is probably an adequate high level summary of almost everything. Want the best available equipment to do your job? Needs money. Want to compensate everybody working on the project well and protect them from nasty surprises (i.e. US: buy them health insurance) so that they can give their best work without fear? That will need money. Just want to get your ideas out to the world? That will need money too! In a way you can see Capitalism as a Gameification before the idea of Gameification was invented, with money just a way of keeping score. 81.2.89.120 (talk) 11:02, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
No. 5: That people in cultural studies and the humanities suck at math, but still want to be perceived as intellectually rigourous? Well... Stop. The. Fucking. Presses.
And no, I have no respect for the humanities. --Raysenn Get the paddles, he's having a cancer! 17:31, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
How can you have no respect for the humanities? Social science, sure. They need statistics and being good at math ensures they do a good job, thus having lots of people who are bad at maths in such a field is a sad state of affairs. But what about philosophy? They are more rigorous in their logic in some ways than many natural scientists. Nullahnung (talk) 17:48, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Wait, philosophy is a humanity? Mea culpa. In my university, they're not classified as one. I still have zero respect for the continental and postmodern branches of philosophy, however. Go analytical philosophy team! --Raysenn Get the paddles, he's having a cancer! 17:56, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
I have no idea how many colons to use here--I'm not really responding to Raysenn, just commenting on the article--but a lot of the articles they link to (certainly not all), such as the one about marijuana in the opening, are just popular write ups of studies that misrepresent the actual conclusions the researchers draw, which seems to be pretty common.Dowdicus (talk) 20:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Why didn't the link to his page work... how about Raysenn there, I got it, I think...Dowdicus (talk) 20:33, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

What I fond really funny about this article is that it's basic thesis is that you shouldn't trust any one individual scientific study. Makes sense. But doesn't Cracked always have articles about surprising things that contradict what you'd expect, based on one specific study? -DickTurpis (talk) 12:53, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

No no, it's just saying you should be smart about using studies. You can give a measure of trust laced by cautiousness on what the study is actually saying and how you can validly use it. Nullahnung (talk) 13:17, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Sort of, sure. It's basically impossible for someone to evaluate the validity of a study based on an article in USA Today, so in the end you have to be skeptical of all of them, especially when they make claims that seem counterintuitive. Cracked almost never does this, however. DickTurpis (talk) 13:43, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion[edit]

Articles for deletion is a handy way to look at what links to the delete template. Go there to browse for articles to assassinate, if you're so inclined. It is also linked at RationalWiki:To_do_list for your continued amusement. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 02:26, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Just use Category:Articles for deletion, which is already linked in RationalWiki:To do list/Articles requiring attention. If you really think 'what links here' is a more "handy" way to view such a list, then you can link to it directly on that page, but please don't create a redirect for it in mainspace. ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 13:23, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
During that big forum debate thing, ListenerX suggested making one central page on which we can hold all votes for deletion. It would seem to me to save time and encourage the creation and maintenance of a firmer set of rules for deletion if we did so. Thoughts? Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 02:05, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
It would probably stop deletion discssions slipping under the radar. We had one a few years ago but it fizzled out. the thing is, do we have enough editors interested in this aspect of wiki-work? If not it'll just fizzle out again. SophieWilderModerator 12:38, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm not overly keen on this suggestion. As with any discussions about a specific article, I think deletion discussions are best carried out on that article's talk page where anyone who is watching that page or has a particular interest in that subject is likely to notice them. Also not keen on having "a firmer set of rules for deletion". The more rules there are around this sort of thing, the more space for petty bureaucracy & wikilawyering. I don't want to see deadlocks where, for example, we can neither delete an article nor remove the delete tag because a specified number of people haven't voted on it. Plus opening up discussion about rules for deletion is likely to take us back into that massively inconclusive debate about what subject areas are really relevant to our missions. Anyhoo, if anybody wants to see all articles nominated for deletion, they can view the category as linked above, just the same as if they want to view all articles tagged as stubs, or all articles with 'citation needed' tags in them, or anything else in 'articles requiring attention'. My perception is that people don't actually use these very often, & creating newer more prominent pages serving the same purpose is unlikely to change this. People focus on articles that are most of interest to them, & there's nothing wrong with that. WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 13:10, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
And what about those of us whose watchlist was destroyed by accident? ħumanUser talk:Human 03:41, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Woo promotion straight out of CNN[edit]

Fish oil now cures comas!!! Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 07:58, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

The guy who's plugging the fish oil cure, Barry Sears, seems to have an obsession with the word "zone", seeing as he's only published one book out of a dozen without the word "zone" in the title. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Sears Frederick♠♣♥♦ 08:11, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Doesn't Chopra work for CNN? Woo promotion seems to be a big part of their mission. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 15:58, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
You may be thinking of Sanjay Gupta... Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:41, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
No. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 16:43, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Writing an article for != working for. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:46, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Correct, but he does seem to write for them on a quasi-recurring basis, and apparently appears on Gupta's show often enough. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 16:52, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
That's awful. Gupta himself is a good journalist. --Raysenn Get the paddles, he's having a cancer! 01:43, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
I knew Sears' daughter in college, and took a quick look at the Zone at the time. Struck me as more fad-diet than woo, but I can't be sure. As for fish oil and comas, it's always a mistake to read about anything remotely scientific in mainstream press, as they always get everything wrong. As for how wooey this is, I think it partially depends on the claims being made. "Omega-3's have shown some promise in preliminary tests on brain injury recovery" might be a fair statement. "FISH OIL CURES COMAS!" less so. I think the people involved are probably more tending towards the former, the sensationalist media is going for the latter. DickTurpis (talk) 13:07, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
One red flag I do notice is that they talk about repairing brain cell walls. Nerve cells do not have cell walls. Or are they talking about something else? DickTurpis (talk) 13:32, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
I think they may be mistaking the myelin sheath for a cell wall. The myelin is mostly made up of fat, so fish oil, as a fatty acid, could conceivably help to repair it. I have no idea how effective it actually is, though. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:57, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

It's not just those crazy yanks...[edit]

UKIP councillor blames storms and floods on gay marriage. FFS. Ajkgordon (talk) 08:56, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah, yes, the enlightened population of the U.K. should expect all craziness to come from the crazies of the U.S., which as we all know is the country with a major political party led by a creationist and prominent fundamentalist minister who thought seat 666 in the European Parliament was reserved for the Antichrist, s.n. Pope John Paul II. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 09:13, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Hey, lighten up. What makes me laugh is the idea these people have of the wrath of God. Britain dares to challenge His divine law and becomes a filthy seething cauldron of debauchery and perversion tainting all Creation with its evil. So He makes it rain a bit more than it normally does in a British winter, causes a few roads to be flooded and a couple of old sandstone coastal features to collapse into the sea. Oh, and then spitefully causes the deaths of a few innocents. Sounds like a bit of a Dick. Ajkgordon (talk) 10:01, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
The old crank should try reading the New Testament sometime... Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 10:07, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Few in the UK regard the DUP as a "major political party". They may hold some sway in Northern Ireland but we all know how fucked up that is. Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. Moderator 10:11, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
The largest party in that constituent country, to be exact. The party that forms the government, or the unionist part thereof. The party that made some noise about introducing creationism into textbooks and museum exhibits and could not just be laughed off. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 10:29, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Is there a point to this LX? Ajkgordon (talk) 10:31, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, pointing out the irony of any presumption, among the British, that the U.S. has all the cranks. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 10:36, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
The title pointed out that the US does not have all the cranks. It was a light-hearted Sunday morning comment about a story. I think you need to reboot. Ajkgordon (talk) 10:45, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
But whatever. About the DUP.... It has 8 Westminster seats out of 650, Ian Paisley isn't its leader, it has one MEP, it's the 9th largest UK political party by seats held at Westminster, and it won 0.6% of the vote cast in the last UK general election. It's hardly a major UK political party. Ajkgordon (talk) 10:57, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
By rights I should ask you to name the eight parties that hold more seats at Westminster, but this is getting into needless quibbling. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 11:03, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, it's not just the states. Here is a Spanish priest saying that one socialist politician's cancer is a punishment from God.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 11:25, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Correction, 9th largest by votes. 4th largest by seats. The point is it's not a major political party in the UK - or at least it isn't described as one outside NI. Sure, it makes quite a lot of noise due to the tortured history and very particular power-sharing and representation arrangements in NI. And the point about the original post is how unusual it is to see even fairly minor political figures say things like that in Britain - so much so that it's become the 4th most read story on the BBC website this morning. So yes, not all the cranks are in the US but there's nothing ironic in pointing out how unusual the above story is. There, is that OK? Ajkgordon (talk) 11:31, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

If it reduces Farage's* appearances on Question Time** then I'm all in favour of this biblical nutter. Scream!! (talk) 13:47, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

*Farage → UKIP leader & gobshite.
**BBC 'Political' panel program.
If Question Time only had sensible people on then nobody would watch it. Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? Moderator 14:06, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
True. Ajkgordon (talk) 14:30, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Starve...er Dehydrate the Beast?[edit]

I'm a long time lurker here and a big fan of WIGO, but I was a bit disappointed not to see this story (just one of a few sites reporting it). I've never really messed with the content of any wiki, lest not to step on any toes or trip over any standards. This seemed like the most non-intrusive place for me to put this, so apologies if I screwed it up.

Any comments on whether this might work? Or is it just fluff that no one is really taking as serious legislation? I've also heard about Utah might be trying something similar with that behemoth external hard drive they finished back in September.--70.208.192.44 (talk) 05:05, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

In 1979, the Supreme Court ruled in the case Smith v. Maryland that the collection of information pertaining to the numbers a phone called is neither a search requiring a warrant nor a violation of legitimate expectation of privacy, since the information is willingly given to the telephone provider to allow them to place the call and bill you for services provided. If you want to redefine the collection of telephone metadata as a search requiring a warrant, the most effective way to do that would be to overturn that ruling. Frederick♠♣♥♦ 05:19, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
The "cut off the water from a NSA building" proposal is absurd. Considering this is coming from a Tenther group, I'm not surprised.
On Senate Bill 828, wouldn't there be nullification issues? Osaka Sun (talk) 05:28, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Ah, another crazy political group. I heard of this originally on AJ America (which is one of the few TV news sources to still hold my respect) so I thought there might be some seriousness here. My mistake, carry on. I should have known better than to break my lurker status. ^_^ --70.208.192.44 (talk) 05:50, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church child abuse part ∞[edit]

So it seems that the Church has defrocked 400 priests in the last two years as a consequence of their being involved in child abuse. This is obviously good news - well, good news they they've been defrocked.

But shouldn't this also have resulted in 400 criminal prosecutions when the church passed the information on to the local authorities?--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 07:54, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Maybe. It should have resulted in 400 criminal investigations but there are many reasons why police might decide the investigation can't succeed, or why prosecutors might decide not to prosecute. When we're not in witch hunt mode prosecutors usually wouldn't bother trying to prosecute any case where both they and the defence will simply present contrary narratives and let a jury toss a coin.
In my country (this is apparently not true in much of the US) the prosecutors are legally obliged to determine whether a case serves the public interest, and whether the evidence is strong enough that the prosecution should be successful. Thus given a hundred cases all so weak that there's only 10% chance of securing a conviction, in the ordinary scheme of things the prosecutors here would refuse to prosecute any of the cases. This is partly because prosecutions are expensive and partly because of Blackstone's formulation. Weak cases have a disproportionate chance of finding an innocent person guilty and so we cannot prosecute, though guilty men will go free. Tialaramex (talk) 12:33, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
OK, but presumably the church had sufficient evidence that it was confident that it could fire these 400 people without risking without any claims for unfair dismissal. So we could expect that they had some convincing evidence. Furthermore the church has a bit of a shortage of personnel in many parts of the world so they wouldn't be firing people without good reason.
But OK, it might be a bit much to expect 400 prosecutions as a consequence of information handed over by the church. But I'm not aware of even one. That may be because I'm not following the story as I should, or it may be because the church has not, in fact, handed any information to the authorities about the 400 cases.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 13:11, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
One explanation is that they use a stricter definition than the law. --81.175.238.65 (talk) 15:07, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
That's quite a wishful explanation, given the many known cases where the Church has ignored or covered up abuse which was clearly criminal. WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 15:54, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
I suppose that's the same as saying "They use their own definition of the law".--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 16:00, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Or "they are above the law". €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 16:49, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
This is a few steps up from legal pedantry and more an opportunity to touch on the background on an equally troubling problem. Unless the church comes out and reasons for each termination, which is ludicrous to expect, you're doing nothing but guessing why these decisions were made. It's not appropriate to assume that the church defrocked because it made its own determination of liability. I suspect, with what I think is more basis than assuming any implicit admission of liability, that the church was at least making reasonable economic decisions. Indeed, publicly disavowing a rogue employee is standard operating procedure straight out of the box, whether or not the organization may also have some liability for negligent hiring or supervision.
What I find deeply troubling about these incidents is the question of whether mandatory reporting statute exist, to what degree the church has complied, and how the prosecutors are handling that lower hanging fruit. We do have mandatory reporting statutes in the US and clergy are mandatory reporters. I also find deeply troubling that churches rely on common exemptions as to communications made to a minister. Attorney-client is the only other privilege exempted. Absolutely disgusting. At the very very least, it seems probable to me that the church would have cause to believe, based on the facts, that child sexual abuse occurred in at least one single case out of 400, and therefore has a legal obligation to report such abuse. Where are the investigations and prosecutions for this criminal conduct? Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 17:19, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't quite understand your first paragraph. According to the article: "Pope Benedict XVI defrocked nearly 400 priests in just two years, for molesting children, according to a document obtained by the Associated Press."
So the reason for the termination is clear. Additionally, it seems highly likely that each individual would have been responsible for more than one case of abuse. The church must have had pretty good cause to dismiss its employees as it has problems obtaining employees.
So we are left wondering whether or not the church made full (or any) disclosure to the relevant authorities: or whether it continues to be complicit in a cover-up of multiple cases of abuse.
I would also point out that the church - which claims to have a lot of moral authority - should set a higher standard than that which is required by secular authorities if it wants to be taken seriously. --Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 17:35, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
You're probably right. The article leaves some questions open — legal reporting often does. As far as the Vatican appears to go is saying that priests who are "credibly accused " go to Rome and should be tried in the church if there is "overwhelming evidence." The article says the Vatican released the number of trials, but it doesn't say how many there were. Since Ratzinger apparently pushed through church law requiring "credibly accused" priests to be brought to Rome for trial and permitting them to defend themselves, we can probably assume there were 400 trials, so you're probably right, Bob. It's disappointing that the church still handles this in-house and is the gatekeeper of what is "credible." Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 17:48, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Indeed. And I (we) may be over-interpreting but the logical conclusion would seem to be that the church is aware of 400 (a suspiciously round number by the way) people who have been responsible of child abuse and that they have not released this information the appropriate authorities. It is possible that I have misunderstood though and no doubt people will tell me if I am wrong.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 18:35, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Ho Ho. The story continues. First the church says the report is wrong - it confuses investigations and results - then is says no actually the first report was right all along. It really is the sort of thing that one would have expected them to have their story straight on.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 10:12, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I think we should wait for Proxima Centauri to weigh in on this. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:44, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
You know I did kinda feel I was channelling Proxima when I started this.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 09:28, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Rosetta[edit]

Bloody hell, that must have been tense! Ajkgordon (talk) 19:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

In case you thought it couldn't get weirder[edit]

Supertramp predicts 9-11, according to someone on a site about/for/by/whatever David Icke. 207.191.204.70 (talk) 02:38, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

The David Icke forums are always a good source of crazy. The Supertramp "prediction" also got featured on David Dees' conspiracy site, so it's certified crazy.
On that note, it seems nobody has written a David Dees page yet. Someone should get on that if I don't write it first. Frederick♠♣♥♦ 06:41, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm not a fan of pages on fringe fringe figures. In my short time on this wiki, I can already see they're drama magnets, and googling this guy, I'd just as soon leave it to the ADL instead of people like "Madman" (see a couple sections up). --Rakovsky (talk) 07:48, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Goodpost.gif €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 07:52, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Oi! WAKE UP! Major changes ahead![edit]

For those who haven't noticed, there is a discussion about the site's mission statement at Forum:Expanding RW's mission‎‎. Contrary to the title, the current prevailing sentiments are for reducing the mission scope in a way that would result in removing a large amount of content from the site.

So, if you don't want to let a small cabal gut your goat, go there and speak your mind. Given past experience, assuming that this will "blow over" and waiting it out won't do - in discussions like those, silence is interpreted as consent. So, again, go there and speak your mind. Loudly.

P.S. Who has the keys to the Intercom? Trent?--ZooGuard (talk) 10:18, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Goodpost.gif Scream!! (talk) 12:20, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
I believe that major changes, such as the mission statement, should be a board descision, and that no changes begin without a major announcement. I have been reading the discussion and tend to favor trimming back to debunking bad science / scams / woo. Perhaps a list of articles should be prepared to select articles for deleteion and revision before anyone starts a purge. How much of an impact on the wiki is the off-mission stuff ? Hamster (talk) 15:37, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
The board has no power to shape the editorial content of the wiki. That's up to you. And me. and that weird-lookin' guy over in the corner. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 15:45, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Finally, someone notices me. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 15:51, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Plenary standards committee meeting time? Those are no fun, and don't ask how I know. Not telling. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 16:22, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
hmm, ok, I vote we discard most of the wiki and simply add pages of categorized porn. All in favor ? Hamster (talk) 22:45, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Sounds good to me! Impurity is the secret Unite with thy oracle Dolan.png 13:25, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Wikimedia Commons still outdoes us hugely. We need to categorise skeptical porn - David Gerard (talk) 16:49, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Are we talking about porn in which the actors look skeptical, or porn that is skeptical of itself on a meta level? I think this distinction needs to be made. - GrantC (talk) 16:50, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Too many contributors, obviously[edit]

We have far too much activity on RW. We must stop it in its tracks. Fortunately, this thread is quietly coming to a consensus with itself on how to enforce this. How can we disgust people into not wanting to bother any more? Your ideas are welcomed! - David Gerard (talk) 11:16, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Goodpost.gif Scream!! (talk) 12:19, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
I would be prepared to start randomly blocking people and reverting their edits. Would that help ? Hamster (talk) 15:39, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
You need to go to Special:Newpages and see if you can piss off the people who actually write stuff. Be as pedantic as possible. Block them lots too. PS&L has this down to a fine art, emulate his example - David Gerard (talk) 16:03, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Is PS&L really doing that? In which case, it needs to be slowed down. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:36, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

All right, who wants the first crack...[edit]

...at this one? --Seth Peck (talk) 22:35, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Swaab has some interesting opinions beyond that as well. The book is apparently based off of his Dutch newspaper columns—it's not a study in its own right—so the question is what, if anything, his claims are based off of. Obviously all these news articles aren't telling us any of that. Peter mqzp 22:46, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Not to be too childish, but his name reminds me of the way they test for gonorrhea. --Seth Peck (talk) 22:55, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
It sounds like it ought to be a hoax with a name like that, but if it is then he's been going for the long con. Peter mqzp 23:29, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Am I being unreasonable if I say that a correlation like that is totally plausible(but certainly not demonstrated from the news article liked)? Like it or not, the de facto accepted scientific interpretation of congenital homosexuality(and bisexuality) seems primarily centered on hormonal exposure during early development, rather than genetics or straight chance, from what I've read. It doesn't sound implausible that cigarettes could affect that. Ikanreed (talk) 14:54, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Pissed at us, part 5305: Andrew Paquette[edit]

This guy is making noise about the article we have on him. Can folks who are familiar with the topic check it out for accuracy, please? PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 23:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I know nothing about him but he's a real nutter if 1/100th(I upped that from half to 1/10th & finally to 100th on thinking about it) of what we've got is true. Scream!! (talk) 23:54, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
see the talk page of the article for the site links used to identify the guy. Same bio and pic from the forum link and skeptiko so the fairy bit is being reinstated. Hamster (talk) 00:47, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
That whole fucked up User talk:Eveshi, Forests, MU, aspie quagmire is embroiled in this shit. One of them (can't tell the difference) is pretending to be multiple people here. The Panquette account at RW is almost certainly not the Panquette person. Hipocrite 22:12, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
They all have the same dumb signature habit of using ~~~~NAME, as do some other common trolls I've seen around here. I would suspect that many/most of them may be the same individual. Either way, this sort of dull trolling does nothing to entertain anybody, and is more or less just a stupid distraction. - Grant (Talk) 22:17, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Somebody argues with these clods on psychic forums then comes here to create articles about them. Redirected to Alex_Tsakiris#Mind-Energy.net. Leuders (talk) 22:35, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
No need to redirect, just ignore the troll. Peter mqzp 22:36, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Ulman[edit]

I've just WIGOWorlded this: He's using the "I have a dream" speech to promote his bullshit. Absolutely outrageous! Scream!! (talk) 00:02, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

It should be in WIGO:Clogosphere really. WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 08:30, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
"Please restrict entries to news stories from news sites (if you read about it on a blog then find an original report). Commentaries and editorials go in WIGO:Blogs. Crazy commentaries and editorials go in WIGO:Clogs". Bad, bad Scream!! Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member Moderator 11:36, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Your opinion on Nick Land[edit]

You can see his blog here. He is a renowned philosopher and one of the revolutionary thinkers behind the dark enlightenment, an intellectual movement taking the Internet by storm.76.64.67.253 (talk) 04:22, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Angry white racists dislike change and have computers take 10000000. It's not taking shit by storm. Hipocrite 06:37, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
A key neoreactionary - David Gerard (talk) 10:40, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
OK, what's with the BoN(s) hit-and-run posting of links to various "dark enlightenment" crap? An attempt at "viral" recruitment/popularization? Someone archive-binging on DE and then running to RW for reassurance/communal reinforcement? --ZooGuard (talk) 20:23, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Presumably he thought this was RATIONALwiki - David Gerard (talk) 21:22, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
"But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink!Zero (talk) 21:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
We should do an article on neoreactionaries, though. Their arguments are 100% pure bullshit. Such high levels of concentration, I have never seen them before. --Raysenn Get the paddles, he's having a cancer! 03:43, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
I find them interesting as well. There needs to be a name for these self-built labyrinths that clever and lonely people build and then lose their way inside. The ideologies that whisper, 'we understand. You're smarter than them, we know. You know you are destined to rule the world. Let us dream together.....' I think this is a thing. Ayn Rand is obviously another of them. The occult has aspects of this There are surely others. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 04:43, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Yep. There's gotta be one.
For the specific case, it's hard to do better than Yvain's takedown of neoreaction, really. Linking to the original texts is inviting the reader to want to gouge their eyes out after getting a couple of thousand words into a Moldbug article and it still hasn't actually started - David Gerard (talk) 09:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
The Torygraph discovered Charlie Stross's blog, a month late - David Gerard (talk) 22:43, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
I freaking love neoreactionaries. They make me realize how sane the mainstream white Republicans in my town are in comparison.
Also, with a name like "dark" enlightenment, you'd think there'd be less crackers involved. 74.137.99.52 (talk) 01:46, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Why is the Telegraph article swarming with white nationalists in the comments section?

Proton Hell[edit]

Here's an interesting sciencey take on a game. Why settle for physics based, when you can have quantum physics based? Nice to see some new innovative games like this and Device 6 coming to the tablet market. --Kels (talk) 03:50, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Looks like you guys could use some[edit]

*Comes in with a couple armfuls of scotch* I'm seeing all the Rome Viharo stuff go by in recent changes, figured you guys could use some. Zero (talk) 16:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

While the Rome Viharo stuff doesn't really distress me, I am running low on Scotch... - Grant (Talk) 16:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
We should all be running low on booze around here, given the number of times we've had to drink due to the RW Drinking Game. --Seth Peck (talk) 17:02, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Rome is a troll (I'm surprised this was removed from our article as it's quite obvious). Not to be dramatic, but he's ruining this Wiki. I've done my best to ignore his incessant prattling as it's a transparent and shameless attempt to drum up "hype" for some website he plans to launch, but his talk page clogs recent changes to such a degree that it's nearly impossible. He's all over the interwebs with this nonsense, using the same half troll, half victim schtick and shamelessly socking (although his personal definition of socking give him an out in his mind) . I propose a contact boycott. Please don't respond to anything he says, it's like talking to some kind of bot, where what you write is rearranged and words like "empirical" and "rational" are inserted at random. He can whine about his article all he wants, but he's wasting far to much of our energy if we keep feeding him. --Marlow (talk) 17:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
asking folk not to feed trolls is like asking folk not to breath. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:13, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
its a refreshing change from discussing stuff on aSK with PJR. Hamster (talk) 18:24, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
And amusing to the extent that the more he talks the less relevant he becomes, accomplishing his stated goal while threatening to deprive him of the attention he desperately craves. He should take some pointers from CP on "organic growth". --Rakovsky (talk) 20:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
A handy means of de-clogging the recent changes, at least for yourself, is to turn on the "group changes by page in recent changes and watchlist" option in your preferences. Neatly collapses all the incessant nattering on that talk page into a single line and allows you to see everything else going on. Compro01 (talk) 20:11, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit sniffing glue. PowderSmokeAndLeather (talk) 19:42, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

He does provide amusing examples of the crank magnetism effect. It's not enough that woomeisters like Sheldrake and Taskiris made him a poster boy in their battle against pseudoskeptical tyranny. Now, he's being held up as an example of victimization at the hands of man-hating females [3] by some MRA type forum (BTW, they have some interesting requirements [4] for female members). Leuders (talk) 21:09, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Wait until Rome's starving.--The Madman (talk) 22:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)The Madman
Weren't you blocked for impersonating some article subject? --Rakovsky (talk) 23:18, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Silly, I'm not well-liked, but I'm not a idiot. Most of my blocks are from butthurts thinking I know how to use Wiki markup. And people blocking me for the lolz.--The Madman (talk) 03:44, 23 January 2014 (UTC)The Madman
I see. They seem to have a much higher bullshit tolerance around here. You'd have been SPI'd and permabanned if we were still in Kansas. --Rakovsky (talk) 04:15, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Chemtrails[edit]

"Chemtrails Finally Proven By Whistleblower?" I've not watched the vid (I'm on my phone), but can anyone precis it please. My first inclination is, of course, to rubbish it. Scream!! (talk) 22:48, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Ex Air Force environmental specialist says she saw canisters which contained "carcinogenic metals, oxides and powders" being stored at the base where she was assigned. Find your precis here [5]. Leuders (talk) 23:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
"Part of my job was to know everything that was going on in the military." OK, that's a pretty big claim right there. Goes on to say that actually she didn't really know what was going on, but they didn't like her asking questions about it. So she's only a "whistleblower" to the extent that she's yet another conspiracy enthusiast claiming to have discovered something significant or come close to uncovering something big while not actually coming up with anything substantial. Just like pretty much every conspiracy nut ever. WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 00:13, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
I finally watched her video. It all comes down to her fantasy that hazardous chemicals at an aircraft maintenance depot operation are actually being used to spray onto the population rather than for cleaning parts, sanding and refinishing metals, etc. Leuders (talk) 02:11, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
We already have an article on this. --Seth Peck (talk) 21:25, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

John Derbyshire a "racist"?[edit]

I do not understand The Economist[edit]

Take this (a summary):

"Technological progress will mean that we will become more innovative. That's good. But with the resulting automation of industries and current economic situation, more people will lose jobs and the social fabric could be dangerously unravelled. That's bad."
"Ok."
"Because rich people can now travel wherever the hell they want, we won't be able to soak them like we used to anymore. We're going to have to tackle inequality differently. How about we throw around some ideas on education?
"That makes sense, keep going."
"Ergo, raising the minimum wage is dumb and US and UK tax credits work really well."
"..."

Time to get a look under the hood? Osaka Sun (talk) 04:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

"the mobility of highly skilled labour," is almost always massively overstated. Hipocrite 06:45, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
They make a good point about the creation of new markets that no one would even have predicted the existence of a few years ago; but they lost me when they started comparing the current situation to that of the Industrial Revolution. A large number of the jobs created during that time were of the unskilled variety, so the skilled workers and surplus farmers could migrate to those occupations once they had swallowed their pride, but if there are only creative and managerial jobs available, that is a problem, since if a person is not already a font of creativity or an effective manager, training will not help. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 07:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
You think training can't help people manage or be creative? Tielec01 (talk) 08:13, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
In my experience only to a very limited extent. Sometimes it can even be counterproductive, such as management "training" to adopt the latest management fad. Doctor Dark (talk) 14:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Right, labour migration is a fairly weak force. Most people don't want to move. It really is common for large groups of people to remain jobless in one area despite having the legal right and technical ability to migrate to a nearby area with more jobs, they just don't want to. And this is true all the way up. The only thing that changes at the very top is you don't have to move any more. If you become CEO of a major global corporation the headquarters of the major corporation will soon conveniently move to where you are, although it will find a host of excuses for why it is doing that because shareholders don't think "our CEO doesn't want his kids to have to change schools" is good enough.
Now, in some roles we found a clever trick, because people are attached to living in a particular place they're OK with working for a company that's a long distance away so long as they don't have to move there. The first iteration of this trick is the "commuter", the person who routinely travels a considerable distance to work, and then returns each night, and a more modern variant that works over longer distances is the "tele-commuter", a person who works from home or a remote office but for a company located elsewhere on the globe. But in general the true market for even a highly skilled post is tremendously local. Even when I know people who moved a long way it was most often driven by non-job factors, to be closer to a new lover, to care for a dying relative, that sort of thing. 81.2.89.116 (talk) 11:17, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
People might not be all that eager to move between developed countries, but that's only a small part of all migration. --81.175.238.65 (talk) 15:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Actually I disagree with Osaka, IMO it's fine that the Economist is anonymised. It obliges us to judge these articles for what's written in them, and that's good for us and for them. I am reminded of Utopia. It is now impossible for us to ask More what he meant by this book, why his utopia seems to include elements most in his day would have thought repugnant and on the same footing others that he presumably would have approved of, whether this or that particular element is intended as satire or was an exceptional piece of forward-thinking. So we have to take it for what it is. I think it would be the worse if we had hundreds of pages of accompanying authors notes, saying that obviously gold is inherently valuable and the Utopians are fools to think otherwise, or contrariwise that More agrees with them as to the necessity of pursuits in the arts for all people. Likewise then, each Economist article must stand on its own, we can neither say "The author is an imbecile, I pay no further heed to anything from him" or "She's a genius, never wrong, I believe anything she writes" but must make up our minds each time fresh. Tialaramex (talk) 14:27, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
That's a good point, Tialaramex. I hadn't thought of it that way. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 18:36, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
My problem is that The Economist is encouraging the opposite extreme; that is, instead of saying "this author/writer," the piece is acknowledging itself as "this newspaper." Basically, since we didn't back up our policy proposals with any data, you, dear reader, could take it as opinion. In order to restore this trust, we're going to back it up using the collective status of the magazine.
That's all fine and dandy until you make a statement that tarnishes your ability to harness objective truth. But no, that article has a name on it so now you can point fingers. It's bullshit. Osaka Sun (talk) 04:10, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
That article is pure comedy gold. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:20, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Humans have origins in the Devonian, and evolutionists (e.g. talk.origins cranks who banned me but I keep finding my way around the ban) can't refute it.[edit]

HUMANS HAVE ORIGINS IN THE DEVONIAN, and YOU can DISPROVE THE FACT THAT HUMANS HAVE ORIGINS IN THE DEVONIAN. I think the Greek words εξελικτικός συνωμοσία is the right word, which roughly translates as: "Evolutionist Conspiracy". I chose those words because the Richard Leakey Foundation is suppressing my research on DEVONIAN HUMAN ORIGINS. To this day, no one can disprove the fact THAT I FOUND 9,000 HUMAN FOSSILS FROM DEVONIAN STRATA, THEY GOT TESTED AT HARVARD AND PROVED TO BE 100% HUMAN. Try to refute that fact. — Unsigned, by: ‎75.118.62.206 / talk / contribs

I assume you're this dude, back for another kick at the can. --Kels (talk) 02:09, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I am, here's a post explaining my point from alt.atheism:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/alt.atheism/Thrinaxodon$20troll/alt.atheism/FppSVFSNAMs/cPkBoRMYTaYJ It's old, if you want more up to date posts visit sci.bio.paleontology--Thrinaxodon (talk) 02:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Well. Another idjit who never read a geology book in his life. Your arguments on strata read like all the chick tracts on evolution. In addition, does this mean something to you? Ανεβείτε πίσω στην τρύπα σου. Roughly translated...that would be....Go ahead. I'm waiting.--The Madman (talk) 02:43, 24 January 2014 (UTC)The Madman
"Climb back in your hole"

Οι άνθρωποι έχουν τις ρίζες πιο πίσω από τη σκέψη, σκεπτικιστές, όπως μπορείτε να φιλήσει τον κώλο μου. Σας, τρελός άνθρωπος κώλο Γάμα. Είσαι ένας όλεθρος για την πρόοδο της κοινωνίας, βγάλε το σκασμό και να κλαίνε στη μαμά σας.--Thrinaxodon (talk) 03:37, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Troll. --Raysenn Get the paddles, he's having a cancer! 03:39, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

well thats just rude trenger du kysse din mor med at munnen ? Hamster (talk) 04:30, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Ol sonuf vaoresaji, gohu IAD Balata, elanusaha caelazod vonpho. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 05:21, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Enochian ? srsly ? Hamster (talk) 05:54, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
OVER 9000 FOSSILS!!!! --Marlow (talk) 06:39, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Goddamit, if you come to RationalWiki you speak Rationalwikian not your gobbledygook foreign languages. Tielec01 (talk) 06:41, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
I was expecting Smerdis to talk in Ursprache. Oh, well. --Raysenn Get the paddles, he's having a cancer! 16:18, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Horseshoe theory in action[edit]

In which a Tumblr Social Justice Warrior accidentally reblogs a Neo-Nazi blog post because it agreed with her stance on cultural appropiation. Horseshoe theory defenders, rejoice and celebrate, for more evidence towards your position is being held forward.

Now don't get me wrong, ending racism, discrimination and sexism is a very noble goal and something that has to happen. However, I still dislike Tumblr SJWs because they don't have the actual mindset required for it. Tumblr SJWs boil down to a massive victim complex complete with black-and-white thinking (you either agree with me OR YOU ARE A SHITLORD OPPRESSOR OF THE PATRIARCHY!!!). Saying this because when I linked to the C Plus Equality thingy I got some flak. --Raysenn Get the paddles, he's having a cancer! 22:45, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

The "stopped clock" phenomenon doesn't necessarily demonstrate the horseshoe theory. Link to the original comment rather than the retraction, & maybe we can judge for ourselves. WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:51, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
She deleted the post wherein she reblogged the post, so I can't link to it, sadly. Yes, it's the same account. The retraction is evidence she reblogged the neonazi post, though. --Raysenn Get the paddles, he's having a cancer! 00:52, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
I never suggested she didn't, but without knowing what the original post said I can't see this as evidence for the horseshoe theory, nor whatever your point is about "social justice warriors". ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 21:52, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Here, have a look. --Raysenn Get the paddles, he's having a cancer! 23:37, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Aside from the retracted post which was probably the result of not paying attention, does the whole phrase "Social Justice Warrior" really get up anyone else's nose? I mean, aside from the fact that most people who use it seem to want people to shut up about social justice issues and not get after them when they say/do bigoted things, or the fact that it's one more case of people devaluing people because they do something so weak as caring about things? --Kels (talk) 00:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I've only ever seen the term 'Social Justice Warrior' used in the context of referring to all-Caps-using Tumblr users who love the word "SHITLORD" for some reason. (granted, I've only seen it mentioned a grand total of three times) Nullahnung (talk) 00:53, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
You and I must frequent very different websites then, since I extremely rarely see it used in that context. And yes, it does get up my nose. Vulpius (talk) 01:30, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough. As I said, I've only seen it around three times. Nullahnung (talk) 01:52, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
I am not sure about the term "Social Justice Warrior," but this particular Social Justice Warrior looks like a bit of a crank; particularly from our point of view, since science is included on her extensive shit-list.
As to the notion that she was "not paying attention," she might not have been paying attention when she re-blogged a post about racial interbreeding, but she was paying attention when she asserted that said post was actually about "cultural appropriation." Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 06:48, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Not really. It's a post about maintaining racial purity, which isn't considered much of a "social justice" issue for anyone outside of the neo-Nazi/racialist demographic. Frankly anyone agreeing with those sentiments while not considering themselves racist is an idiot. WéáśéĺóíďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:47, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
More specifically, the post was about the effects of racial inbreeding on "racial purity." What do you mean by "not really"? Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 05:34, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Given that the stuff they care about are things like saying that Frozen should have prtrated the Sámi as Asian or Inuit, criticizing Princess and the Frog for portraying New Orleans as it actually was in the 20s (racism et al), yelling at people for "cultural appropriation" (for small things like eating at ethnic restaurants) and other stupid stuff. Yeah, they have good intentions, but in the end, your means are what matter. Fighting bigotry with ignorance is not the way to go. --Raysenn Get the paddles, he's having a cancer! 16:27, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Nope, agree with that. This particular person does come off as shallow and careless. Probably pretty young, but in any cases liable to go off half-cocked. And not disagreeing with ListenerX either, although I think the carelessness was in not reading what she reblogged and tagged to make sure it said what they thought it said. Happens a lot with passionate kids, I get that. But we shouldn't let that define those who do actually care about social justice, or those who get passionate about things, or even users of a specific platform (Tumblr, Twitter, etc.). Which I think is what a term like SJW is intended to do, devalue that passion by identifying it with the most shallow and uninformed members of the group and thus ignoring the valid points of the rest. --Kels (talk) 16:44, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Worth noting they call themselves SJWs, and although used with a small amount of irony it didn't start as a slur (AFAIK). Compare "ideologically sound" and "politically correct" not having started as slurs - David Gerard (talk) 19:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
So basically, they initiated the term and then destroyed its reputation by being rancid on Tumblr. And I'm guessing the best course of action is to take the term away from them and make it mean something good. (easier said than done) Nullahnung (talk) 19:37, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
To worsen it, when they started going under fire for being rancid, the Backfire effect took hold and underwent a small civil war. The most moderate of them left Tumblr and the rest continued being awful people. Eventually, "fat activists" (who indulge in a good bit of pseudoscience), otherkin, and people with made-up sexualities crept into the movement and turned it into an Oppression-Olympiad-meets-Special-Snowflake thing rather than actual social justice. --Raysenn Get the paddles, he's having a cancer! 20:02, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
I still don't understand why I should care about these people. Are any of them relevant outside Tumblr? I wouldn't know about any one of their existence if it wasn't for people quoting them for the purposes of showing that someone is wrong on the internet. Feels the same as picking apart random Reddit-commenters to me. Vulpius (talk) 23:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
You don't have to care about these people, which is more or less the point. FWIW, a SJW (social justice warrior) in actual practice seems to me to mean a person who drags identity politics into everything, especially discussions of popular culture. They're a recognizable subgroup of trolls, in other words. They use identity politics as a grievance generation engine, which I guess is what it's for. Their claims in these discussions are always about representation and social presence in media, which amounts to a threat to politicize aesthetic issues, and guarantees that discussions go nowhere. This, of course, comes off as censorious and threatening, so the people who are actually interested in the subject react accordingly, and discussions go swiftly downhill. And because they can cloak their trolling in the mantle of "social justice" they fancy they're carrying out the mandate of Heaven in bothering people with their parochial issues this way. It's quite easy to doubt their sincerity. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:26, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Wait, did Smerdis just illustrate my original point for me? Thanks, dude! --Kels (talk) 17:34, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
It not surprising. The guys is practically a SIW, tempered somewhat with a few geeky side-interests.--ZooGuard (talk) 17:40, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Just not fond of censors or moralistic bullies of any persuasion. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:21, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Here's the thing -- being an SJW in and of itself is not a bad thing, but it's sort of like how people think TERFish radfems represent all of feminism. The loonies on Tumblr... well, some of them do have legitimate grievances, but they do exactly the sorts of things RW and the greater skeptical movement preach against, foremost among them being cherrypicking data. I honestly prefer to call them (neo-)Jacobins -- they're the social justice equivalent of firebaggers, in which context and personal development don't matter if you've got an incriminating pull quote, and being less devoted to the cause than they are makes you worse than the enemy. There are plenty who aren't like this, but they aren't the ones people pay attention to. EVDebs (talk) 00:30, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
As I said, most of the level-headed ones left Tumblr after a small civil war, so the majority are more-or-less like this. There are some good ones on Tumblr, like the Escher Girls, and some off-Tumblr ones like The Nostalgia Chick, but Sturgeon's Law still stands. Hell, even some people inside Tumblr hate SJWs. --Raysenn Get the paddles, he's having a cancer! 16:07, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
I see some parallels with (some of) the MRAs here: legitimate issues, horrible solutions. Almost like the horseshoe theory applies to the gender spectrum as well as the political. Also I think Raysenn is spot on here. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 09:11, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Smerdis illustrated it better than me, though. --Raysenn Get the paddles, he's having a cancer! 17:36, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Always glad to be useful for something. = Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 07:03, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Dinesh D'Souza up for election fraud[edit]

Apparently he reimbursed 7 people to donate money to a candidate he supported to get around the limits on contributions to the candidate. --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 07:52, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Bound to be an honest mistake. Just like his affair with a married woman, while he was married. Tielec01 (talk) 09:33, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Though it's also pretty fun to think of him as so inept as to be bumbling from giant mistake to giant mistake, especially when these are things he should be at least informed about. Evangelical christian having an affair while married? "Gosh, how was I supposed to know about all these rules?" Politician caught breaking campaign finance rules? "Oh dear, but am I really expected to know all of the campaign rules?" Shadow of Lords talk 14:46, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Specifically, "How was I supposed to know this particularly obvious dodge of the rules was against the rules?" Ikanreed (talk) 15:13, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Conservatives were right all along. Election fraud is rampant! Occasionaluse (talk) 19:05, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Seems to be a trend among conservatives on this continent. At least we seem to be starting to clean house. Compro01 (talk) 17:11, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Their self-serving nonsense, aside, extremist new covenant fundies are the ones with very serious problems even identifying a coherent moral system. Some reject the whole of the Mosaic law, so are this left simply making their arbitrary morals up as they go along and chest thumping because their god has only pronounced on a very few things at all. I think that's why fundies can only agree on a few things like marriage and homosexuality. They worship Paul. It's no surprise that some of these people are so ethically challenged. I find it heartening that some christians recognize that people access their in are morality without reference to a god. Rant off. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 17:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Paulists are annoying, especially when they call themselves Christians. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:31, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Did somebody mention the word PAUL! Shock! Libertarian rage! Eh, egoistical "Libertarian" idiots will be egoistical idiots.--The Madman (talk) 11:41, 25 January 2014 (UTC)The Madman

Dickie Littleprick's (Richard Littlejonf) latest pile of gobshite is out[edit]

I won't link to it, still too angry, but it does include this line

OK, so there is a minuscule number of people suffering from rare medical and genetic conditions which make it difficult to control their weight. Some of them belong in mental hospitals.
Fuck you, you rancid pile of bigoted chicken shite.--Stunteddwarf Spirit of the Cherry Blossom 10:59, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Repulsive but hardly surprising. This is from the same guy whose reaction to the Ipswitch murders was to gloat about the victims being disgusting filthy whores who had it coming for their whorishness and whose deaths were of benefit to all. Judge HoldenThe Judge Smiles 11:59, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
"Cunt. Not a man who works as a cunt. A cunt." Scarlet A.pngpostate 13:22, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Thin privilege, like other privileges, is NEVER earned. --81.175.238.65 (talk) 15:07, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Suuuuure, it's not like weight loss is achievable and shit and being fat creates many a long-term complication. Go back to Tumblr. --Raysenn Get the paddles, he's having a cancer! 16:15, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Keeping in mind that, especially for women, what constitutes "fat" and the lengths you need to go to in order to be "thin" are really messed up. Also note that even people thought of as fat can be very fit and healthy. I have an ex who I'm still friends with who's quite a large lady, but she is also very physically active, eats properly and gets great results in health check-ups. So it's not quite as clear-cut as "fat is bad mmkay". --Kels (talk) 17:22, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
I know that, I used to be fat. However, I'd consider I was healthier back then because I had plenty of muscle under all the grease and flabbyness. I've since lost the weight, but also lost plenty (almost all) of muscle because I was kinda careless in my weight loss.
A similar case occurs with strongmen vs. bodybuilders; the chiseled look of bodybuilders is achieved by developing muscles that have little to do with strength. The lower back and mid back muscles, which are key in weightlifting but a pariah in bodybuilding, actually make you look wider and fatter even if you don't have any fat in there. (I still keep them, so I don't look as lean as I wish I did.)
EDIT: Or just look at this image.
And know you know why Olympic weightlifters look like some kind of computer programmer who never leaves his house and eats only Doritos and Mtn Dew.
The thin privilege stuff is bullshit, though. --Raysenn Get the paddles, he's having a cancer! 17:40, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Mmm, again I wouldn't be so simplistic. The privilege comes in two main forms, the way I see it. First is who do you (and I don't mean you personally here) take more seriously, someone seen as thin, trim, etc. or someone seen as fat, chunky, needs to lose a few pounds, etc. We already know for certain that things like gender and other superficial aspects influence attitudes, it's already well researched. This plays a role in that too. The other is a more casual thing, and it's got to do with attitudes towards food. People seen as thin are able to get away with a much wider variety of choices without social disapproval, while those seen as fat tend to be heavily criticized for "bad" choices, often to their faces. Not that this overrides stuff like colour, class, etc. (although healthy food choices are much more difficult the poorer you are), but it does complicate matters and make simple prescriptions difficult. --Kels (talk) 18:45, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't use that definition of privilege, so that's why I think it's bullshit. --Raysenn Get the paddles, he's having a cancer! 21:30, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Sucks to be you, I guess. --Kels (talk) 23:32, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
American style food moralism makes it to the UK. Trust me on this: you need to shout this down vehemently and immediately. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:32, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
I doubt it's "American". I also doubt that it's ever left the UK.--ZooGuard (talk) 16:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
from what I understand he lives in a gated community in Florida and is rarely in the UK. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:22, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Who, Richard Littlejohn or Smerdis of Tlön? WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:25, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Not me. I live in an eagle's nest on the top of Mt. Shasta. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:30, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
The difference between powerlifters and bodybuilders is belaboured but hardly as big as some people think. You think body builder muscles have little to do with strength? Have a look at some of the weights they push and you will reconsider that notion. When I was powerlifting I noticed the major differences was in the low rep range where I could keep putting on more plates at the one to two rep mark. The other main difference is that in the open division there is no incentive to lose any weight so powerlifters end up fat. I pulled the trigger at 130kg when I could literally no longer wipe my ass except by going from the front and under, and I was considered light weight. Tielec01 (talk) 23:40, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Of course, compared to the average person, bodybuilders are very strong. However, a strongman could crush a bodybuilder. Bodybuilders are at their weakest when they're in a show, since 4% body fat is impossible to maintain for more than a day or two. Fat itself is useful in a fight. I gained muscle solely to fight in clandestine brawls in an abandoned clubhouse, and so it skews my view of fitness a bit, since it always was these thick-waisted, huge-framed guys like the Heavy from TF2 that won. Yes, it was a dark period in my life. --Raysenn Get the paddles, he's having a cancer! 17:58, 25 January 2014 (UTC)